Literature DB >> 31599688

Attitudes of Members of Genetics Professional Societies Toward Human Gene Editing.

Alyssa J Armsby1,2, Yvonne Bombard3, Nanibaa' A Garrison4,5, Bonnie L Halpern-Felsher6, Kelly E Ormond1,7.   

Abstract

Gene-editing technologies have improved in ease, efficiency, and precision. Although discussions are occurring around acceptable uses of human gene editing, limited data exist on the views of genetics-trained individuals. In 2017, we distributed an anonymous online survey to assess the attitudes of members of genetics professional societies toward gene editing (N = 500). Virtually all respondents were supportive of somatic editing in basic-science (99.2%) and clinical (87.4%) research on nonreproductive human cells. Only 57.2% were supportive of germline-editing basic-science research; 31.9% supported the transfer of viable embryos to humans for clinical research. While most favored future therapeutic uses of somatic (96.6%) and germline (77.8%) editing, there was little support for enhancement in somatic (13.0%) or germline (8.6%) cells. This study describes attitudes toward gene editing from genetics professionals worldwide and contributes to ongoing discourse and policy guidance in this domain.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 31599688      PMCID: PMC6791481          DOI: 10.1089/crispr.2019.0020

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  CRISPR J        ISSN: 2573-1599


  31 in total

1.  Genome Editing Technologies and Human Germline Genetic Modification: The Hinxton Group Consensus Statement.

Authors:  Sarah Chan; Peter J Donovan; Thomas Douglas; Christopher Gyngell; John Harris; Robin Lovell-Badge; Debra J H Mathews; Alan Regenberg
Journal:  Am J Bioeth       Date:  2015       Impact factor: 11.229

2.  Mind the gap: policy approaches to embryonic stem cell and cloning research in 50 countries.

Authors:  Rosario M Isasi; Bartha M Knoppers
Journal:  Eur J Health Law       Date:  2006-04

3.  CRISPR gene-editing tested in a person for the first time.

Authors:  David Cyranoski
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2016-11-24       Impact factor: 49.962

4.  Genome-edited baby claim provokes international outcry.

Authors:  David Cyranoski; Heidi Ledford
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2018-11       Impact factor: 49.962

Review 5.  CRISPR/Cas9 for genome editing: progress, implications and challenges.

Authors:  Feng Zhang; Yan Wen; Xiong Guo
Journal:  Hum Mol Genet       Date:  2014-03-20       Impact factor: 6.150

6.  A Need for Better Understanding Is the Major Determinant for Public Perceptions of Human Gene Editing.

Authors:  Tristan McCaughey; David M Budden; Paul G Sanfilippo; George E C Gooden; Li Fan; Eva Fenwick; Gwyneth Rees; Casimir MacGregor; Lei Si; Christine Chen; Helena Hai Liang; Alice Pébay; Timothy Baldwin; Alex W Hewitt
Journal:  Hum Gene Ther       Date:  2018-10-03       Impact factor: 5.695

7.  A Global Social Media Survey of Attitudes to Human Genome Editing.

Authors:  Tristan McCaughey; Paul G Sanfilippo; George E C Gooden; David M Budden; Li Fan; Eva Fenwick; Gwyneth Rees; Casimir MacGregor; Lei Si; Christine Chen; Helena Hai Liang; Timothy Baldwin; Alice Pébay; Alex W Hewitt
Journal:  Cell Stem Cell       Date:  2016-05-05       Impact factor: 24.633

Review 8.  Germline genome-editing research and its socioethical implications.

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

9.  International perceptions and approval of gene therapy.

Authors:  D R Macer; S Akiyama; A T Alora; Y Asada; J Azariah; H Azariah; M V Boost; P Chatwachirawong; Y Kato; V Kaushik
Journal:  Hum Gene Ther       Date:  1995-06       Impact factor: 5.695

10.  Biotechnology. A prudent path forward for genomic engineering and germline gene modification.

Authors:  David Baltimore; Paul Berg; Michael Botchan; Dana Carroll; R Alta Charo; George Church; Jacob E Corn; George Q Daley; Jennifer A Doudna; Marsha Fenner; Henry T Greely; Martin Jinek; G Steven Martin; Edward Penhoet; Jennifer Puck; Samuel H Sternberg; Jonathan S Weissman; Keith R Yamamoto
Journal:  Science       Date:  2015-03-19       Impact factor: 47.728

View more
  4 in total

1.  Perspectives of Sickle Cell Disease Stakeholders on Heritable Genome Editing.

Authors:  Brittany M Hollister; Mariclare C Gatter; Khadijah E Abdallah; Alyssa J Armsby; Ashley J Buscetta; Yen Ji Julia Byeon; Kayla E Cooper; Stacy Desine; Anitra Persaud; Kelly E Ormond; Vence L Bonham
Journal:  CRISPR J       Date:  2019-11-19

2.  The View from the Benches: Scientists' Perspectives on the Uses and Governance of Human Gene-Editing Research.

Authors:  Margaret Waltz; Eric T Juengst; Teresa Edwards; Gail E Henderson; Kristine J Kuczynski; John M Conley; Paige Della-Penna; R Jean Cadigan
Journal:  CRISPR J       Date:  2021-08

3.  Attitudes of Indonesian Medical Doctors and Medical Students Toward Genome Editing.

Authors:  Safira Nur Izzah; Dimas Setyanto; Nurina Hasanatuludhhiyah; Danti Nur Indiastuti; Zamal Nasution; Annette d'Arqom
Journal:  J Multidiscip Healthc       Date:  2021-05-04

4.  Students' attitudes towards somatic genome editing versus genome editing of the germline using an example of familial leukemia.

Authors:  Beate Vajen; Joelle Ronez; Wiebke Rathje; Laura Heinisch; Smilla Ebeling; Ulrich Gebhard; Corinna Hößle; Brigitte Schlegelberger
Journal:  J Community Genet       Date:  2021-05-08
  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.