ArticleJournal of community genetics2025
An exploration of the perspectives of Dutch adults experiencing a genetic condition on human germline gene editing.
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.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Public opinion survey on heritable human genome editing in South Africa: a study protocol.Global health action · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
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
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.