Literature DB >> 33963968

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

Beate Vajen1, Joelle Ronez2, Wiebke Rathje3, Laura Heinisch3, Smilla Ebeling4, Ulrich Gebhard4, Corinna Hößle3, Brigitte Schlegelberger2.   

Abstract

Although the discussion on possibilities and pitfalls of genome editing is ever present, limited qualitative data on the attitudes of students, who will come into contact with this technology within a social and professional context, is available. The attitude of 97 medical students and 103 students of other subjects from Hannover and Oldenburg, Germany, was analyzed in winter 2017/18. For this purpose, two dilemmas on somatic and germline genome editing concerning familial leukemia were developed. After reading the dilemmas, the students filled out a paper-and-pencil test with five open questions. The qualitative evaluation of the answers was carried by a deductive-inductive procedure of content analysis. There was a high approval for the use of somatic genome editing. When it came to germline genome editing, concerns were raised regarding enhancement, interventions in nature, and loss of uniqueness. The students recognized that somatic genome editing and germline genome editing prove different ethical challenges and need to be judged separately. Many students expressed not feeling fully informed. The results of this project show the importance of educating the public about the possibilities, limitations, and risks of somatic and germline genome editing. We recommend that this should already be addressed in schools in order to optimally prepare students and adults for participation in public discourse. Especially for patients affected by genetic diseases, it is of great importance that the treating physicians and geneticists are sufficiently informed about the method of genome editing to ensure good counseling.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Genome editing of the germline; Medical students; Moral attitudes; Somatic genome editing

Year:  2021        PMID: 33963968     DOI: 10.1007/s12687-021-00528-1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Community Genet        ISSN: 1868-310X


  23 in total

Review 1.  Genome editing. The new frontier of genome engineering with CRISPR-Cas9.

Authors:  Jennifer A Doudna; Emmanuelle Charpentier
Journal:  Science       Date:  2014-11-28       Impact factor: 47.728

2.  Genome-edited baby claim provokes international outcry.

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

3.  What Do We (Not) Know About Global Views of Human Gene Editing? Insights and Blind Spots in the CRISPR Era.

Authors:  Emily L Howell; Shiyu Yang; Becca Beets; Dominique Brossard; Dietram A Scheufele; Michael A Xenos
Journal:  CRISPR J       Date:  2020-06

4.  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

5.  Public Acceptability of Gene Therapy and Gene Editing for Human Use: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Juliette Delhove; Ivana Osenk; Ivanka Prichard; Martin Donnelley
Journal:  Hum Gene Ther       Date:  2020-01       Impact factor: 5.695

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

Authors:  Alyssa J Armsby; Yvonne Bombard; Nanibaa' A Garrison; Bonnie L Halpern-Felsher; Kelly E Ormond
Journal:  CRISPR J       Date:  2019-10

7.  Transcriptome-wide off-target RNA editing induced by CRISPR-guided DNA base editors.

Authors:  Sara P Garcia; Sowmya Iyer; Caleb A Lareau; Julian Grünewald; Ronghao Zhou; Martin J Aryee; J Keith Joung
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2019-04-17       Impact factor: 49.962

8.  Cas9 activates the p53 pathway and selects for p53-inactivating mutations.

Authors:  Oana M Enache; Veronica Rendo; Mai Abdusamad; Daniel Lam; Desiree Davison; Sangita Pal; Naomi Currimjee; Julian Hess; Sasha Pantel; Anwesha Nag; Aaron R Thorner; John G Doench; Francisca Vazquez; Rameen Beroukhim; Todd R Golub; Uri Ben-David
Journal:  Nat Genet       Date:  2020-05-18       Impact factor: 38.330

9.  Predicting Public Attitudes Toward Gene Editing of Germlines: The Impact of Moral and Hereditary Concern in Human and Animal Applications.

Authors:  Christine Critchley; Dianne Nicol; Gordana Bruce; Jarrod Walshe; Tamara Treleaven; Bernard Tuch
Journal:  Front Genet       Date:  2019-01-09       Impact factor: 4.599

10.  Search-and-replace genome editing without double-strand breaks or donor DNA.

Authors:  Andrew V Anzalone; Peyton B Randolph; Jessie R Davis; Alexander A Sousa; Luke W Koblan; Jonathan M Levy; Peter J Chen; Christopher Wilson; Gregory A Newby; Aditya Raguram; David R Liu
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2019-10-21       Impact factor: 69.504

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.