Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42166430›Full record

ArticlePloS one2026

Views of the Swiss public towards gene editing.

Kelly E Ormond, Sara Kijewski, Naomi Wyler, Agata Ferretti, Eirini Petrou, Claudia Reichmuth, Effy Vayena

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 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

7 authors.

Kelly E OrmondDepartment of Health Sciences and Technology, Health Ethics and Policy Lab. ETH Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1033-0818
Sara KijewskiDepartment of Health Sciences and Technology, Health Ethics and Policy Lab. ETH Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland.
Naomi WylerDepartment of Health Sciences and Technology, Health Ethics and Policy Lab. ETH Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0007-8999-0360
Agata FerrettiDepartment of Health Sciences and Technology, Health Ethics and Policy Lab. ETH Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland.
Eirini PetrouDepartment of Health Sciences and Technology, Health Ethics and Policy Lab. ETH Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland.
Claudia ReichmuthDepartment of Health Sciences and Technology, Health Ethics and Policy Lab. ETH Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0009-1674-6839
Effy VayenaDepartment of Health Sciences and Technology, Health Ethics and Policy Lab. ETH Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

There is little country-specific data about how the general public views gene editing therapies. In Autumn 2023 we randomly surveyed the Swiss public, using the Federal Register and stratifying by language region (German, French, Italian), gender and age. We present a representative sample of 3855 responses, including >4000 open-ended comments. When presented with 7 therapeutic options for somatic gene editing, 7% disagreed with all therapeutic options, and 35% supported them all. Most agreed with using somatic gene editing to cure life-threatening (76%) and debilitating diseases (70%); support declined as severity decreased or with later onset. Few supported somatic gene editing to enhance physical (6%) or cognitive (9%) abilities. In all scenarios, people were less likely to agree with gene editing of embryos. Notably, all therapeutic gene editing attitudes clustered, regardless of somatic vs. germline differentiations. Factor analysis also demonstrated two clusters for "support" and "caution" towards gene editing, and multivariate analysis demonstrated relationships with age, gender, religion and knowledge. When asked what influenced their views, the most endorsed reasons for feeling positively were 'views towards what it means to have a good life' (59.8%) and 'views about illness and suffering' (58.5%). Most selected "neutral" to describe religion's influence (68.9%) despite findings that those who endorsed high religiosity were less supportive and more cautious towards gene editing. Conclusions: Uncovering systematic differences in the attitudes towards specific therapies and the values shaping them underscores the importance of including peoples' voices in policy decisions in a country-specific manner.

Indexed as

Gene EditingPublic OpinionAdolescentAdultAgedFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedSurveys and QuestionnairesSwitzerlandYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID42166430
PMCPMC13193455

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.