ArticleEuropean journal of human genetics : EJHG2023
Changes in opinions about human germline gene editing as a result of the Dutch DNA-dialogue project.
Article in European journal of human genetics : EJHG, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The Ethics of Human Embryo Editing via CRISPR-Cas9 Technology: A Systematic Review of Ethical Arguments, Reasons, and Concerns.HEC forum : an interdisciplinary journal on hospitals' ethical and legal issues · 2025Pooled it
- Public opinion survey on heritable human genome editing in South Africa: a study protocol.Global health action · 2026Article
- Dutch Christian Faith Leaders Deliberating Human Germline Gene Editing: A Qualitative Study.Journal of religion and health · 2026Article
- Understanding the public's intention to adopt CRISPR-Cas9: the effect of beliefs, knowledge, and innovativeness.Human genetics · 2026Article
- Views of the Swiss public towards gene editing.PloS one · 2026Article
- A decade of public engagement regarding human germline gene editing: a systematic scoping review.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2025Article
- Experts' perspectives on human gene editing in Switzerland.Journal of community genetics · 2025Article
- The need to set explicit goals for human germline gene editing public dialogues.Journal of community genetics · 2024Article
- Public Engagement through Inclusive Deliberation: The Human Genome International Commission and Citizens' Juries.The American journal of bioethics : AJOB · 2023Article
- Stakeholder Involvement in the Governance of Human Genome Editing in Japan.Asian bioethics review · 2023Article
- The Promise and Reality of Public Engagement in the Governance of Human Genome Editing Research.The American journal of bioethics : AJOB · 2023Article
- Scientists' Views on Scientific Self-Governance for Human Genome Editing Research.Human gene therapy · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Public engagement for Human Germline Genome Editing (HGGE) has often been called for, for example by the WHO. However, the impact of public engagement remains largely unknown. This study reports on public engagement outcomes in the context of a public dialogue project about HGGE in the Netherlands; the DNA-dialogue. The aim was to inquire opinions and opinion change regarding HGGE. A questionnaire was distributed on a national level (n = 2381) and a dialogue level (n = 414). The results indicate that the majority of the Dutch population agrees with the use of HGGE to prevent severe genetic diseases (68.6%), unlike the use to protect against infectious diseases (39.7%), or for enhancement (8.5%). No indications of change in these acceptance rates as a result of dialogue participation were found. The results did provide a tentative indication that participation in dialogue may lead to less negative opinions about HGGE (χ
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.