Changing hopes and concerns about gene therapy in Japan

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

Gene therapy and gene editing technologies are complex and it can be difficult for the public to understand their possible benefits or side effects. However, patient and public support is critical for the successful adoption of any new technology. Given the recent advances in gene therapy and gene editing, their potential clinical benefits, and the significant attention that has been given to the first-known successful attempt at permanent and heritable changes to the human genome, a systematic review was performed to assess beliefs and attitudes toward gene therapy and gene editing for human use, and to highlight the factors that influence acceptability. A systematic search following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines was undertaken in April 2018 to identify articles examining opinions and attitudes regarding the acceptability of gene therapy and gene editing. Overall, 1,561 records were retrieved from 4 databases (Ovid Medline, PsycINFO, Scopus, and Web of Science). Duplicates were removed, and titles and abstracts independently screened, leaving 86 full-text articles assessed for eligibility. Following full-text review, 33 were included, with 5 articles added after forward/backward searching. An additional three articles were added following an updated search in March 2019 (total n = 41). Findings from the studies were integrated according to common themes: the impact of demographics; risks versus benefits of success; treatment specifics (e.g., medical vs. other reasons; disease severity and status; somatic vs. germ line; and mode of delivery); moral or ethical issues; and changes with time. In general, perceptions were positive, particularly for medical reasons and fatal diseases, but were also influenced by perceived risk. Somatic therapies had higher levels of acceptability than germ line therapies. While available in various forms, limitations exist in the measurement of perceptions of gene therapy and gene editing. Treatment acceptability is essential for future clinical trials, so it is important for scientists and clinicians to be clear about the risks and benefits of these technologies, and how these are communicated to the public, while encouraging education about genetic therapies to a broad range of individuals.

Tampering with Nature: A Systematic Review

Tampering with nature has been shown to be a strong, and sometimes even the strongest, predictor of the risk perception and acceptance of various technologies and behaviors, including environmental technologies, such as geoengineering. It is therefore helpful to understand what tampering with nature is as a construct, to which factors it relates, and when a technology or behavior is perceived as such. By means of a systematic review, we show that very little systematic research has been conducted on tampering with nature. Because tampering with nature has not yet been clearly defined, no systematic operationalization of tampering with nature has been used in the current literature. We show that tampering with nature is often used interchangeably with other constructs, such as naturalness. Based on the literature, we suggest that tampering with nature is related to and possibly influenced by three other constructs, which are naturalness, morality, and controllability. We discuss the influence of tampering with nature on the acceptance and risk perception of various technologies and behaviors and make suggestions for future research needs in order to better understand this construct.

Public opinions about human enhancement can enhance the expert-only debate: A review study

Human enhancement, the non-medical use of biomedical technologies to improve the human body or performance beyond their 'natural' limitations, is a growing trend. At the same time, the use of these technologies has societal consequences. In societal debates about human enhancement, however, it is mainly the voices of experts that are being heard, and little is known about the public's understanding of human enhancement. The views of the public can give valuable insights, and can, in turn, supplement experts' voices in political decision-making as has been argued before for other emerging technologies. This study presents a systematic literature review of current public perceptions and attitudes towards technologies for human enhancement. Results show that the public's view has not been assessed often. Studies originate mainly from western-oriented countries and cover a broad range of enhancement technologies. In the studies, the majority of respondents hold moderate to strong negative attitudes towards enhancement technologies for non-medical applications, although the type of technology influences these opinions. The study provides an overview of what is known about citizens' attitudes towards technologies for human enhancement.