Literature DB >> 31273322

Attitudes of clinical geneticists and certified genetic counselors to genome editing and its clinical applications: A nation-wide questionnaire survey in Japan.

Iku Taguchi1, Takahiro Yamada2,3, Rina Akaishi4,5, Issei Imoto4,6, Kenji Kurosawa4,7, Kaname Nakatani4,8, Fumio Nomura4,9, Haruka Hamanoue4,10, Maki Hyodo4,11, Hiromi Murakami1,4, Hiroshi Yoshihashi4,12, Junko Yotsumoto4,13, Shinji Kosugi1,4.   

Abstract

Genome editing of the human embryo using CRISPR/Cas9 has the potential to prevent hereditary diseases from being transmitted to the next generation. However, attitudes to this technology have not been examined sufficiently among the genetic professionals who will use it in the near future. We conducted a questionnaire survey of Japanese clinical geneticists and certified genetic counselors. Differences were observed between them in their recognition of this technology and impressions on its difficulty and cost. Both groups worried about misuse of it, with insufficient information and rules. As key elements for such rules, they considered ethics, safety, and purpose. Most disapproved of modifying physical traits as an enhancement, though they hoped for the treatment of severe diseases. At current clinical sites, they tended to adopt a prudent attitude by mentioning only the possibility of genome editing in the future. Academic policies and legislation are required, especially for application in human embryos, through a consensus of professionals and general citizens. Furthermore, professionals should maintain awareness of new developments and regularly reexamine attitudes for the ongoing development of more suitable rules, education systems, and clinical protocols. As preparation for changes, opportunities to address ethical issues and initiate discussions are also required.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 31273322     DOI: 10.1038/s10038-019-0635-z

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Hum Genet        ISSN: 1434-5161            Impact factor:   3.172


  19 in total

1.  Public views on gene editing and its uses.

Authors:  George Gaskell; Imre Bard; Agnes Allansdottir; Rui Vieira da Cunha; Peter Eduard; Juergen Hampel; Elisabeth Hildt; Christian Hofmaier; Nicole Kronberger; Sheena Laursen; Anna Meijknecht; Salvör Nordal; Alexandre Quintanilha; Gema Revuelta; Núria Saladié; Judit Sándor; Júlio Borlido Santos; Simone Seyringer; Ilina Singh; Han Somsen; Winnie Toonders; Helge Torgersen; Vincent Torre; Márton Varju; Hub Zwart
Journal:  Nat Biotechnol       Date:  2017-11-09       Impact factor: 54.908

Review 2.  Germline genome-editing research and its socioethical implications.

Authors:  Tetsuya Ishii
Journal:  Trends Mol Med       Date:  2015-06-12       Impact factor: 11.951

3.  Replacement therapy for inherited enzyme deficiency--macrophage-targeted glucocerebrosidase for Gaucher's disease.

Authors:  N W Barton; R O Brady; J M Dambrosia; A M Di Bisceglie; S H Doppelt; S C Hill; H J Mankin; G J Murray; R I Parker; C E Argoff
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1991-05-23       Impact factor: 91.245

4.  Mitochondrial replacement in human oocytes carrying pathogenic mitochondrial DNA mutations.

Authors:  Eunju Kang; Jun Wu; Nuria Marti Gutierrez; Amy Koski; Rebecca Tippner-Hedges; Karen Agaronyan; Aida Platero-Luengo; Paloma Martinez-Redondo; Hong Ma; Yeonmi Lee; Tomonari Hayama; Crystal Van Dyken; Xinjian Wang; Shiyu Luo; Riffat Ahmed; Ying Li; Dongmei Ji; Refik Kayali; Cengiz Cinnioglu; Susan Olson; Jeffrey Jensen; David Battaglia; David Lee; Diana Wu; Taosheng Huang; Don P Wolf; Dmitry Temiakov; Juan Carlos Izpisua Belmonte; Paula Amato; Shoukhrat Mitalipov
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2016-11-30       Impact factor: 49.962

5.  A programmable dual-RNA-guided DNA endonuclease in adaptive bacterial immunity.

Authors:  Martin Jinek; Krzysztof Chylinski; Ines Fonfara; Michael Hauer; Jennifer A Doudna; Emmanuelle Charpentier
Journal:  Science       Date:  2012-06-28       Impact factor: 47.728

6.  Repair of double-strand breaks induced by CRISPR-Cas9 leads to large deletions and complex rearrangements.

Authors:  Michael Kosicki; Kärt Tomberg; Allan Bradley
Journal:  Nat Biotechnol       Date:  2018-07-16       Impact factor: 54.908

7.  What Do We Really Think About Human Germline Genome Editing, and What Does It Mean for Medicine?

Authors:  Kiran Musunuru; William R Lagor; Joseph M Miano
Journal:  Circ Cardiovasc Genet       Date:  2017-10

Review 8.  Beperminogene perplasmid for the treatment of critical limb ischemia.

Authors:  Hiroyuki Suda; Akihiko Murakami; Toshihiro Kaga; Hideki Tomioka; Ryuichi Morishita
Journal:  Expert Rev Cardiovasc Ther       Date:  2014-09-05

9.  Innovation and competition in advanced therapy medicinal products.

Authors:  Enrique Seoane-Vazquez; Vaishali Shukla; Rosa Rodriguez-Monguio
Journal:  EMBO Mol Med       Date:  2019-03       Impact factor: 12.137

10.  Survey on the perception of germline genome editing among the general public in Japan.

Authors:  Masato Uchiyama; Akiko Nagai; Kaori Muto
Journal:  J Hum Genet       Date:  2018-03-15       Impact factor: 3.172

View more
  2 in total

1.  Increased awareness and decreased acceptance of genome-editing technology: The impact of the Chinese twin babies.

Authors:  Daiki Watanabe; Yoko Saito; Mai Tsuda; Ryo Ohsawa
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2020-09-18       Impact factor: 3.240

2.  Gene Therapy Knowledge and Attitude Among Healthcare Professionals: A Cross-Sectional Study.

Authors:  Maha M AlRasheed; Hatoon AlAli; Abdulrahman F Alsuwaid; Suhail Khalaf; Sondus I Ata; Nasser F BinDhim; Dana Bakheet; Fowad Khurshid; Tariq M Alhawassi
Journal:  Front Public Health       Date:  2021-11-15
  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.