Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41481170›Full record

ArticleGlobal health action2026

Public opinion survey on heritable human genome editing in South Africa: a study protocol.

Siddharthiya Pillay, Donrich Thaldar

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Global health action, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

2 authors.

Siddharthiya PillaySchool of Law, University of Kwazulu-Natal, Durban, South Africa.ORCID 0000-0003-4152-0128
Donrich ThaldarSchool of Law, University of Kwazulu-Natal, Durban, South Africa.ORCID 0000-0002-7346-3490

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Heritable human genome editing (HHGE) presents new possibilities for the prevention of genetic diseases but also raises ethical and societal questions. While international surveys have explored public attitudes, particularly in high-income countries, there is a lack of large-scale empirical data from the Global South. In South Africa, previous work used deliberative public engagement to examine public perspectives. The present study aims to complement this by capturing public opinion through a cross-sectional survey, enabling direct comparison with deliberative findings. This study will recruit 400 adult participants residing in South Africa using targeted Facebook advertisements. A two-phase sampling process will be employed: initial screening for demographic information, followed by stratified sampling to ensure a representative South African population. The opinion survey consists of 19 HHGE scenarios, each explored through private and public moral lenses. Additionally, participants will indicate their interpretation of 'safe and effective' genome editing. Quantitative data will be analysed using descriptive statistics, chi-square tests, and logistic regression. Qualitative responses will undergo thematic analysis using both manual coding and generative AI tools under human oversight. The study includes two stages of informed consent and ensures data confidentiality through strict data handling protocols. Results will be disseminated in peer-reviewed journals and policy forums. The study will also generate a secondary dataset for evaluating AI-assisted qualitative analysis, to be conducted under separate ethical clearance.

Indexed as

Gene EditingGenome, HumanPublic OpinionAdultCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedSouth AfricaSurveys and QuestionnairesbioethicsHeritable genome editingpandemicpolicy preferencespublic opinion

Identifiers

PMID41481170
PMCPMC12777815

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.