Genetics experience impacts attitudes towards germline gene editing: a survey of over 1500 members of the public

Understanding the Factors Driving Consumers' Willingness to Pay for Gene-Edited Foods in China

Gene editing contributes to enhancing food security through the creation of novel foods. However, public perception of gene-edited (GE) foods is crucial to their acceptance and adoption. This study expanded the knowledge-attitude-practice model and constructed an integrated framework comprising four dimensions: demographic factors, scientific literacy and beliefs, social trust, and perceptions of gene technology, aimed at explaining the public's attitudes toward GE foods. A questionnaire survey was conducted (N = 649), revealing a positive attitude toward GE foods, with over 80% expressing a certain willingness to pay (WTP) for them. Factors such as income level, subjective knowledge, scientific beliefs, trust in scientists, trust in government, and trust in national technological capabilities and perceived benefits positively correlated with WTP. Conversely, objective knowledge, perceived risks, and perceived ethical concerns were negatively correlated with WTP. The impact of objective knowledge on attitudes toward GE foods demonstrated a significant, nonlinear relationship. Additionally, it is noteworthy that the Chinese public currently exhibits relatively low trust in national technological capabilities, necessitating vigilance against the emergence of conspiracy theories akin to those surrounding genetically modified foods. This research contributes theoretical insights into the public communication of GE foods.

U.S. public opinion about the safety of gene editing in the agriculture and medical fields and the amount of evidence needed to improve opinions

Introduction: Implementation of gene editing in agriculture and medicine hinges on public acceptance. The objectives of this study were to explore U.S. public opinion about gene editing in agricultural and medical fields and to provide more insight into the relationship between opinions about the safety of gene editing and the potential impact of evidence to improve opinions about safety. Methods: Data were from two samples of U.S. respondents: 1,442 respondents in 2021 and 3,125 respondents in 2022. Survey respondents provided their opinions about the safety of gene editing in the agricultural and medical fields and answered questions about the number of studies or length of time without a negative outcome to improve opinions about the safety of gene editing in the agricultural and medical fields. Results: Results indicated that respondents in both samples were more familiar, more likely to have an opinion about safety, and more positive about the safety of gene editing in the agricultural field than in the medical field. Also, familiarity was more closely associated with opinions about safety than the strength of opinions. Discussion: These findings add to the literature examining perceptions of gene editing in the agricultural or medical fields separately. Opinions about the safety of gene editing were generally more favorable for respondents who were aware of the use of gene editing. These results support a proactive approach for effective communication strategies to inform the public about the use of gene editing in the agricultural and medical fields.

Heterogeneous attitudinal profiles towards gene editing: Evidence from latent class analysis

Advances in gene-editing technology have important implications for the treatment and prevention of disease. Accordingly, it is important to understand public perceptions towards gene editing, as the public's willingness to endorse gene editing may be as important as technological breakthroughs themselves. Previous research has almost exclusively examined attitudes towards gene editing on specific issues, but has not addressed how attitudes towards gene editing across a range of issues coalesce in individuals: that is, the degree to which discrete, heterogeneous attitudinal profiles exist versus a simple support/oppose continuum. Here, we addressed this issue using latent class analysis on data from The Pew Research Center (N = 4726; US residents) across a wide range of gene-editing topics. We found that attitudes towards gene editing cohere into 10 distinct latent classes that showed some evidence of a support/oppose continuum, but also for clear qualitative differences between each class, even with support or oppose classes, on a number of issues. The most opposed classes significantly differed from the supporter classes in age, sex, political ideology and self-rated knowledge. These findings provide evidence that attitudes towards gene editing are heterogeneous and public discourse, as well as policy making need to consider a range of arguments when evaluating this technology.

A deliberative public engagement study on heritable human genome editing among South Africans: Study results

This paper reports the results of a public engagement study on heritable human genome editing (HHGE) carried out in South Africa, which was conducted in accordance with a study protocol that was published in this journal in 2021. This study is novel as it is the first public engagement study on HHGE in Africa. It used a deliberative public engagement (DPE) methodology, entailing inter alia that measures were put in place to ensure that potential participants became informed about HHGE, and that deliberations between the participants were facilitated with the aim of seeking consensus. A diverse group of 30 persons was selected to participate in the DPE study, which took place via Zoom over three consecutive weekday evenings. The main results are: Provided that HHGE is safe and effective, an overwhelming majority of participants supported allowing the use of HHGE to prevent genetic health conditions and for immunity against TB and HIV/Aids, while significant majorities opposed allowing HHGE for enhancement. The dominant paradigm during the deliberations was balancing health benefits (and associated improvements in quality of life) with unforeseen health risks (such as loss of natural immunity). The seriousness of a health condition emerged as the determining factor for the policy choice of whether to allow an application of HHGE. More generally, equal access to HHGE qua healthcare service featured as an important value, and it was uncontested that the South African government should allocate resources to promote scientific research into HHGE. These results are aligned with the policy principles for regulating HHGE in South Africa suggested by Thaldar et al. They call for urgent revision of South African ethics guidelines that currently prohibit research on HHGE, and for dedicated HHGE legal regulations that provide a clear and comprehensive legal pathway for researchers who intend to conduct HHGE research and clinical trials.

The Public Perception of the #GeneEditedBabies Event Across Multiple Social Media Platforms: Observational Study

Background

In November 2018, a Chinese researcher reported that his team had applied clustered regularly interspaced palindromic repeats or associated protein 9 to delete the gene C-C chemokine receptor type 5 from embryos and claimed that the 2 newborns would have lifetime immunity from HIV infection, an event referred to as #GeneEditedBabies on social media platforms. Although this event stirred a worldwide debate on ethical and legal issues regarding clinical trials with embryonic gene sequences, the focus has mainly been on academics and professionals. However, how the public, especially stratified by geographic region and culture, reacted to these issues is not yet well-understood.

Objective

The aim of this study is to examine web-based posts about the #GeneEditedBabies event and characterize and compare the public’s stance across social media platforms with different user bases.

Methods

We used a set of relevant keywords to search for web-based posts in 4 worldwide or regional mainstream social media platforms: Sina Weibo (China), Twitter, Reddit, and YouTube. We applied structural topic modeling to analyze the main discussed topics and their temporal trends. On the basis of the topics we found, we designed an annotation codebook to label 2000 randomly sampled posts from each platform on whether a supporting, opposing, or neutral stance toward this event was expressed and what the major considerations of those posts were if a stance was described. The annotated data were used to compare stances and the language used across the 4 web-based platforms.

Results

We collected >220,000 posts published by approximately 130,000 users regarding the #GeneEditedBabies event. Our results indicated that users discussed a wide range of topics, some of which had clear temporal trends. Our results further showed that although almost all experts opposed this event, many web-based posts supported this event. In particular, Twitter exhibited the largest number of posts in opposition (701/816, 85.9%), followed by Sina Weibo (968/1140, 84.91%), Reddit (550/898, 61.2%), and YouTube (567/1078, 52.6%). The primary opposing reason was rooted in ethical concerns, whereas the primary supporting reason was based on the expectation that such technology could prevent the occurrence of diseases in the future. Posts from these 4 platforms had different language uses and patterns when they expressed stances on the #GeneEditedBabies event.

Conclusions

This research provides evidence that posts on web-based platforms can offer insights into the public’s stance on gene editing techniques. However, these stances vary across web-based platforms and often differ from those raised by academics and policy makers.

Gene editing isn't just about food: comments from U.S. focus groups

In the United States, adult public perception of genetic modification has been well documented in the domain of agriculture and food; however, recent international news on gene editing in medical applications may present new challenges for science communicators who seek to proactively share benefits of emerging gene editing technology. While research traditionally considers perceptions of agricultural and medical applications separately, gene editing may bridge the gap between the two domains. We find that when asked about thoughts regarding gene editing, adult focus groups discussed medical applications more frequently and extensively than agricultural applications. Although, when examining the length of discussion about specific topics, designer babies, cures for disease, and food were discussed at similar lengths. Understanding audiences’ current perceptions of the technology is the first step in shaping strategic communication efforts to inform public opinion. A proper understanding of the benefits and risks of new technology is central to its application.