| Autor: |
Armsby AJ; Department of Genetics, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California.; Department of Cardiology, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, United Kingdom., Bombard Y; Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute of St. Michael's Hospital, University of Toronto, Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, Toronto, Canada., Garrison NA; Treuman Katz Center for Pediatric Bioethics, Seattle Children's Research Institute, Seattle, Washington.; Department of Pediatrics, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington., Halpern-Felsher BL; Division of Adolescent Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California., Ormond KE; Department of Genetics, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California.; Stanford Center for Biomedical Ethics, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California. |
| Abstrakt: |
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. |
