ArticleJournal of community genetics2026
Public knowledge, attitudes, and ethical views on CRISPR-Cas9 gene editing for genetic diseases in Taif, Saudi Arabia.
Article in Journal of community genetics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Public support for gene editing, particularly for therapeutic purposes, remains strong. Recently, the Ministry of Health in Saudi Arabia approved CRISPR-Cas9 for treating Sickle Cell Disease and beta thalassemia. This study aims to assess the Taif population's opinion on gene editing and their knowledge of genetic modification. In this cross-sectional study, a questionnaire was distributed online from March 2, 2024, to June 15, 2024, to 747 residents of Taif City aged 18 and older. Among the respondents, 14.7% reported that they or their family members suffer from a hereditary disease, and 65.7% either work or study in the healthcare field or have a family member involved in healthcare. Additionally, 50.7% had previously heard of genetic modification. Marital status, number of children, and education level did not significantly influence opinions on genetic editing, whereas affiliation with the healthcare field was significantly associated with greater acceptance (p = 0.023), while a family history of hereditary disease showed a trend toward significance (p = 0.055). Public opinion strongly supports using genetic editing to treat life-threatening diseases in adults and embryos (63.2% and 73.6%, respectively). However, opinions are more divided on non-disease traits. Many respondents expressed interest in enhancing intelligence (73.8%) and strength (75.8%), as well as altering height (67.8%) and hair color (60.7%). While support was strong for therapeutic use, opinions were divided on enhancement, reflecting ethical tension despite high interest in modifying non-disease traits. Notably, 50.7% believed that using genetic editing for non-medical purposes crosses ethical boundaries and exceeds nature's limits. Awareness of gene-editing techniques was not significantly associated with acceptance (p = 0.108). In conclusion, public acceptance of gene editing in Taif is high, particularly among healthcare-affiliated individuals. Increasing public awareness remains essential to bridge ethical concerns and support informed engagement.
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.