Should germline genome editing be allowed? The effect of treatment characteristics on public acceptability

Reproductive options and genetic testing for patients with an inherited cardiac disease

In the past decade, genetic testing for cardiac disease has become part of routine clinical care. A genetic diagnosis provides the possibility to clarify risk for relatives. For family planning, a genetic diagnosis provides reproductive options, including prenatal diagnosis and preimplantation genetic testing, that can prevent an affected parent from having a child with the genetic predisposition. Owing to the complex genetic architecture of cardiac diseases, characterized by incomplete disease penetrance and the interplay between monogenic and polygenic variants, the risk reduction that can be achieved using reproductive genetic testing varies among individuals. Globally, disparities, including regulatory and financial barriers, in access to reproductive genetic tests exist. Although reproductive options are gaining a prominent position in the management of patients with inherited cardiac diseases, specific policies and guidance are lacking. Guidelines recommend that prenatal diagnosis and preimplantation genetic testing are options that should be discussed with families. Health-care professionals should, therefore, be aware of the possibilities and feel confident to discuss the benefits and challenges. In this Review, we provide an overview of the reproductive options in the context of inherited cardiac diseases, covering the genetic, technical, psychosocial and equity considerations, to prepare health-care professionals for discussions with their patients.

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.

The DNA-Dialogue: A Broad Societal Dialogue About Human Germline Genome Editing in the Netherlands

For years, calls for public involvement in the debate concerning the acceptability of human germline genome editing (HGGE) have been made. A multidisciplinary consortium of 11 organizations in the Netherlands organized a broad societal dialogue to inquire about the views of Dutch society toward HGGE. The project aimed to reach a wide and diverse audience and to stimulate a collective process of deliberative opinion forming and reflection. To that end, several instruments and formats were developed and employed. We present the results of 27 moderated dialogues organized between October 2019 and October 2020. Overall, participants of the dialogues were capable of assessing and discussing the subject of HGGE in a nuanced way. Analysis of these dialogues shows that in general, participants had no fundamental and absolute objections toward HGGE technology. However, they only deemed HGGE to be acceptable when it is used to prevent serious heritable diseases and under strict conditions, without affecting important (societal) values. There was a small group of participants who found HGGE fundamentally unacceptable because it would cross natural, socio-ethical, or religious boundaries.

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

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.