ArticleFrontiers in genetics2025
Moral judgment of genetic technologies: validation of the genetic technologies questionnaire in the German-speaking population.
Article in Frontiers in 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.
- The genetic technologies questionnaire in the Greek-speaking population: the moral judgement of the lay public.Frontiers in 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
Introduction: The development of modern life sciences has expanded our biomedical capabilities to an unprecedented degree. For example, genetic testing can be used to predict hereditary predisposition or susceptibility to certain diseases. The development of gene scissors such as CRISPR/Cas makes it possible to repair the disease gene or introduce a protective gene in somatic cells but also in germline cells, leading to permanent changes of the genome. But is everything we "can" do morally justifiable? To what extent does the moral status of the living being, autonomy, and privacy influence the decision of whether something is morally "good" or "bad"? There is a lack of valid instruments to study the moral judgment of genetic technologies. Therefore, the aim of this study is to translate and validate the "Genetic Technologies Questionnaire" (GTQ) and the short version of the "Conventional Technologies Questionnaire" (CTQ5) into German. Methods: Convenience sampling (N = 317) was used to conduct a cross-sectional online study. Analyses included internal consistency, structural validity, known group construct validity, tests for floor and ceiling effects, and retest reliability with a subset of n = 69. Correlational analyses were conducted with education, age, prior knowledge of genetics, religiosity, conventional technologies, and prior genetic testing. This study used the STROBE checklist for reporting. Results: The GTQ30 (Cronbach's α = 0.938) and GTQ20 (α = 0.940) are reliable and stable instruments for testing the moral judgment of lay people, while the GTQ5 (α = 0.857) and CTQ5 (α = 0.697) showed some weaknesses. Conventional technologies were judged morally better than genetic technologies, and genetic testing considered better than genome editing. Two additional versions were validated: the GTQ-Human (GTQ-H), using all items relating to humans, and the GTQ-Moral Status (GTQ-MS), including one item per different group of living beings for genetic testing and one for genome editing. Conclusion: The GTQ is a valid instrument that is now available in shorter versions for different areas of research: the GTQ-MS for philosophical questions addressing moral status and the GTQ-H for biomedical and psychological questions related to research, prognosis, diagnosis, and therapy in humans.
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.