Observational studyJournal of medical Internet research2022
The Public Perception of the #GeneEditedBabies Event Across Multiple Social Media Platforms: Observational Study.
Observational study in Journal of medical Internet research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- AI-Driven Topic Modeling and Sentiment Analysis of Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Discussions on Social Media: Cross-Platform Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- A decade of research on genetic privacy: the findings of the GetPreCiSe Center at Vanderbilt University.Frontiers in genetics · 2025Review
- Analyzing the diffusion of feminist discourses on Chinese social media: A case study of the 2022 Tangshan restaurant attack.PloS one · 2024Article
- Examining Rural and Urban Sentiment Difference in COVID-19-Related Topics on Twitter: Word Embedding-Based Retrospective Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2023Article
- The Gene-Edited Babies Controversy: Reactions in the Scientific Community, Social Media, and the Press.Advances in experimental medicine and biology · 2023Article
- Managers' attitudes toward gene-editing technology and companies' R&D investment in gene-editing: the case of Chinese seed companies.GM crops & food · 2022Article
- Housing safety and health academic and public opinion mining from 1945 to 2021: PRISMA, cluster analysis, and natural language processing approaches.Frontiers in public health · 2022Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIn November 2018, a Chinese researcher reported that his team had applied clustered regularly interspaced palindromic repeats or associated protein 9 to delete the gene C-C chemokine receptor type 5 from embryos and claimed that the 2 newborns would have lifetime immunity from HIV infection, an event referred to as #GeneEditedBabies on social media platforms. Although this event stirred a worldwide debate on ethical and legal issues regarding clinical trials with embryonic gene sequences, the focus has mainly been on academics and professionals. However, how the public, especially stratified by geographic region and culture, reacted to these issues is not yet well-understood.
objectiveThe aim of this study is to examine web-based posts about the #GeneEditedBabies event and characterize and compare the public's stance across social media platforms with different user bases.
methodsWe used a set of relevant keywords to search for web-based posts in 4 worldwide or regional mainstream social media platforms: Sina Weibo (China), Twitter, Reddit, and YouTube. We applied structural topic modeling to analyze the main discussed topics and their temporal trends. On the basis of the topics we found, we designed an annotation codebook to label 2000 randomly sampled posts from each platform on whether a supporting, opposing, or neutral stance toward this event was expressed and what the major considerations of those posts were if a stance was described. The annotated data were used to compare stances and the language used across the 4 web-based platforms.
resultsWe collected >220,000 posts published by approximately 130,000 users regarding the #GeneEditedBabies event. Our results indicated that users discussed a wide range of topics, some of which had clear temporal trends. Our results further showed that although almost all experts opposed this event, many web-based posts supported this event. In particular, Twitter exhibited the largest number of posts in opposition (701/816, 85.9%), followed by Sina Weibo (968/1140, 84.91%), Reddit (550/898, 61.2%), and YouTube (567/1078, 52.6%). The primary opposing reason was rooted in ethical concerns, whereas the primary supporting reason was based on the expectation that such technology could prevent the occurrence of diseases in the future. Posts from these 4 platforms had different language uses and patterns when they expressed stances on the #GeneEditedBabies event.
conclusionsThis research provides evidence that posts on web-based platforms can offer insights into the public's stance on gene editing techniques. However, these stances vary across web-based platforms and often differ from those raised by academics and policy makers.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.