ArticleJournal of community genetics2025
Experts' perspectives on human gene editing in Switzerland.
Article in Journal of community genetics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Advances and challenges of precision epigenetic therapy in treating genomic imprinting diseases.Translational pediatrics · 2026Review
- Views of the Swiss public towards gene editing.PloS one · 2026Article
- The stigma of seriousness: views of genome editing scientists and policy professionals on defining serious disease.Journal of community genetics · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Despite many specialized studies on the views of the public or stakeholders who face inherited conditions that may be treatable by HGE, limited studies have focused on experts' views towards Human Gene Editing (HGE). Therefore, in this study we conducted exploratory interviews with 14 experts (scientists, clinicians, social scientists, lawyers) in Switzerland to assess their views towards HGE and how they expect the Swiss public to view HGE. We found general acceptance of Somatic Gene Editing (SGE), but opinions towards Germline Gene Editing (GGE) were more divided. Participants emphasized patient autonomy and informed decision-making in pursuing gene editing treatments, and described a need for regulation, as with any other new therapy. Only a few participants (mostly lawyers and ethicists) described the regulations that currently prohibit GGE in Switzerland. Some expressed concern that restrictive regulations would lead to healthcare outsourcing and medical tourism to other nearby countries, as it has in the past with other restricted technologies. The analysis explored the unique Swiss context that is shaped by cultural diversity, conservative attitudes towards new medical technologies, and a democratic system that engages the public in policy and law making. Given that our findings identify areas of difference from that published in other countries, we emphasize the value in conducting similar research across different countries in order to achieve a global sense of attitudes towards HGE, so that regulations can be tailored to the diverse needs of citizens around the world.
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.