Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40229638›Full record

ArticleJournal of community genetics2025

An exploration of the perspectives of Dutch adults experiencing a genetic condition on human germline gene editing.

S Jeanne A N Arnold, Diewertje Houtman, Isabel R A Retel Helmrich, Sander R Hilberink, Sam R Riedijk, ‘The DNA dialogues’ Consortium

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

S Jeanne A N ArnoldErasmus Medical Center, Department of Clinical Genetics, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0000-4093-0366
Diewertje HoutmanErasmus Medical Center, Department of Clinical Genetics, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0661-6466
Isabel R A Retel HelmrichErasmus Medical Center, Department of Clinical Genetics, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5257-395X
Sander R HilberinkResearch Center Innovations in Care, Rotterdam University of Applied Sciences, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9995-2751
Sam R RiedijkErasmus Medical Center, Department of Clinical Genetics, Rotterdam, the Netherlands. s.riedijk@erasmusmc.nl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3400-4969
‘The DNA dialogues’ Consortium

Funding

Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek NWA.1389.20.075
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Views of people with a genetic condition are crucial in deliberations on human germline gene editing (HGGE), but their perspectives are at risk to be devalued due to epistemic injustice and insufficient attention for the possible sensitivities surrounding HGGE. This study set out to explore the perspectives of people dealing with a genetic condition regarding HGGE, and the possible sensitivities surrounding this topic. We conducted a 2-phase qualitative interview (N = 29) and focus group study (N = 9) on the perspectives of people with or carrying a genetic condition and family members regarding HGGE. Insights from the interviews were used in the organization of the focus groups. We included 38 persons who have experiences with 18 different genetic conditions. Three main themes were identified: personal deliberation on HGGE, HGGE in the context of reproductive decision making and the impact of HGGE on society. Participants stated discussing the topic was controversial, complicated and overwhelming. An informal setting with peer support helped them to process their thoughts and feelings. This study found three main conclusions. First, the perspectives on HGGE are highly influenced by the perception of a genetic condition as a burden or as part of an identity. Secondly, in the deliberation on HGGE, many participants experienced a conflict between accepting a genetic condition and taking action to mitigate potential harm. Thirdly, the subject and object of the deliberation on HGGE mattered: for whom and what for? Moreover, this study has yielded pragmatic recommendations to accommodate sensitivities around discussing HGGE.

Indexed as

Epistemic injusticeExperiential knowledgeFocus group studyHuman genome editingHuman germline gene editingSemi-structured interviews

Identifiers

PMID40229638
PMCPMC12401827

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.