Genome editing – public perceptions studied
Genome editing is fast becoming a norm with more and more research teams working on this arena and coming up with new cutting edge developments. However, attitudes towards genetic modifications vary with several opinions – political, moral and religious, raising concerns.
Image Credit: Lightspring / Shutterstock
Researchers at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and Temple University believe more conversation is necessary to bring all Americans on one page regarding the benefits and uses of this technology. A study published today in the journal Science looked at what people in the United States think about the uses of human genome editing. The study also assessed how the public attitudes might change and drive more discussion leading to a greater acceptance. On their interviews, they noted that public opinion regarding genetic editing is divided at large. However most people interviewed agreed that more discussion, information and conversation could help take this forward.
UW-Madison’s Dietram Scheufele, lead author of the study and member of a National Academy of Sciences committee said that there are several roads that could be taken by use of genetic editing technology and each of these were put in the questionnaires for the participants so that they understand the implications of such research. There have been earlier studies assessing public attitudes towards newer developments in science. But this by far is a more detailed observation. Gene editing of embryos and how it could affect heredity, therapeutics in humans and disease development has never been studied in this manner.
The research team, which included Scheufele and Dominique Brossard, professors of life sciences communication and Michael Xenos, professor of communication arts designed a robust study with around 1600 participants. They looked at the study participants and informed them about the use of editing to treat disease and also spoke about creation of “designer babies” or genetically modified embryos that are genetically enhanced. Nearly two thirds of the participants supported the therapeutic uses of the genetic editing methods while only one-third thought enhanced human race via genetically modified babies was a good idea.
Genetic modifications can be made in somatic or germline cells. The somatic cells changes are for therapy while the germline cells are for enhancement of human race. The edits in the somatic cells are for the individual alone as they are not passed onto the progeny while germline cell changes can be passed on to the next generation via reproduction. Public opinions regarding changes in both were gathered.
As expected most participants supported somatic cell editing for disease. However most respondent also supported therapy edits for both somatic and germline cells for the cure and benefit of the individual with 65% and 64% supporters for therapy in germline and somatic cells respectively. However enhancement editing of the germline cells for designer babies was not widely supported with only 26 percent support. 39 percent on the other hand supported enhancement of the somatic cells that would not be passed onto the next generation.
Scheufele explained that most people did not support germline enhancement where “technology crosses that invisible line”. For therapy there were many takers he said. He explained that public opinion regarding genetic technology comes from two major sources – religious beliefs and also factual knowledge about the technology. Ones with high levels of knowledge were more likely to accept these breakthroughs compared to those with higer levels of religious influence Scheufele noted. Both groups however were open to information and discussion.
Reference
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario