1
|
Halstead IN, Boehnke JR, Lewis GJ. Heterogeneous attitudinal profiles towards gene editing: Evidence from latent class analysis. PUBLIC UNDERSTANDING OF SCIENCE (BRISTOL, ENGLAND) 2023; 32:159-174. [PMID: 36003037 DOI: 10.1177/09636625221114608] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 06/15/2023]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
|
2
|
Carapeto Raposo VL. The Better I Can Be: In Defence of Human Enhancement for a New Genetic Equality. CANADIAN JOURNAL OF BIOETHICS 2022. [DOI: 10.7202/1089801ar] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/17/2022] Open
|
3
|
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW Continued development of gene editing techniques has raised the real possibility of clinical application of germline gene editing. These results, as well as reports of an unethical experiment which resulted in the birth of at least two children from edited embryos in 2018, have highlighted the urgency and importance of ethical issues about translational pathways for editing of human germline cells. Charting responsible translational pathways for germline gene editing requires tackling some significant and complex ethical issues. RECENT FINDINGS A literature on development of clinical applications of germline gene editing is emerging, and several key ethical issues are coming into focus as major challenges for responsible translational pathways. SUMMARY Potential clinical utility, clinical justification, and human subjects research for germline gene editing raise outstanding ethical questions. Work on these questions will help provide guidance to researchers and clinicians and direct translational projects toward justifiable applications.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Bryan Cwik
- Philosophy and University Studies, Portland State University, Fourth Ave Building Suite 175, 1900 SW 4th Ave, Portland, OR 97201 USA
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Kleiderman E, Stedman INK. Human germline genome editing is illegal in Canada, but could it be desirable for some members of the rare disease community? J Community Genet 2020; 11:129-138. [PMID: 31420817 PMCID: PMC7062950 DOI: 10.1007/s12687-019-00430-x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/06/2018] [Accepted: 07/07/2019] [Indexed: 01/25/2023] Open
Abstract
Human germline genome editing may prove to be especially poignant for members of the rare disease community, many of whom are diagnosed with monogenic diseases. This community lacks broad representation in the literature surrounding genome editing, notably in Canada, yet is likely to be directly affected by eventual clinical applications of this technology. Although not generalizable, the literature does offer some commonalities regarding the experiences of rare disease patients. This manuscript seeks to contribute to the search for broader societal dialogue surrounding human germline genome editing by exploring some of those commonalities that comfort the notion that CRISPR may hold promise or be desirable for some members of this community. We first explore the legal and policy context surrounding germline genome editing, focusing closely on Canada, then provide an overview of the common challenges experienced by members of the rare disease community, and finally assess the opportunities of germline genome editing vis-à-vis rare disease as we advocate for the need to more actively engage with the community in our search for public engagement.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Erika Kleiderman
- Centre of Genomics and Policy, McGill University, 740, Dr. Penfield Avenue, suite 5200, Montreal, Quebec H3A 0G1 Canada
| | | |
Collapse
|
5
|
Mikkelsen RB, Frederiksen HRS, Gjerris M, Holst B, Hyttel P, Luo Y, Freude K, Sandøe P. Genetic Protection Modifications: Moving Beyond the Binary Distinction Between Therapy and Enhancement for Human Genome Editing. CRISPR J 2019; 2:362-369. [PMID: 31860350 DOI: 10.1089/crispr.2019.0024] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/06/2023] Open
Abstract
The current debate and policy surrounding the use of genome editing in humans typically relies on a binary distinction between therapy and human enhancement. Here, we argue that this dichotomy fails to take into account perhaps the most significant potential uses of CRISPR-Cas9 genome editing in humans. We argue that genetic treatment of sporadic Alzheimer's disease, breast and ovarian cancer predisposing BRCA1/2 mutations, and the introduction of human immunodeficiency virus resistance in humans should be considered within a new category of genetic protection treatments. We suggest that if this category is not introduced, life-altering research might be unnecessarily limited by current or future policy. Otherwise ad hoc decisions might be made, which introduce a risk of unforeseen moral costs, and might overlook or fail to address some important opportunities.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | - Mickey Gjerris
- Department of Food and Resource Economics, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark
| | - Bjørn Holst
- Department of Bioneer A/S, Hørsholm, Denmark
| | - Poul Hyttel
- Department of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Frederiksberg, Denmark
| | - Yonglun Luo
- Department of Lars Bolund Institute of Regenerative Medicine, BGI-Shenzhen, Shenzhen, PR China
- Department of Department of Biomedicine, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark
| | - Kristine Freude
- Department of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Frederiksberg, Denmark
| | - Peter Sandøe
- Department of Food and Resource Economics, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark
- Department of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Frederiksberg, Denmark
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Knoppers BM, Kleiderman E. "CRISPR babies": What does this mean for science and Canada? CMAJ 2019; 191:E91-E92. [PMID: 30692104 DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.181657] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/01/2022] Open
|
7
|
Macpherson I, Roqué MV, Segarra I. Ethical Challenges of Germline Genetic Enhancement. Front Genet 2019; 10:767. [PMID: 31552088 PMCID: PMC6733984 DOI: 10.3389/fgene.2019.00767] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/06/2018] [Accepted: 07/19/2019] [Indexed: 11/22/2022] Open
Abstract
The new reproductive technologies have opened the door to different processes of germline genetic enhancement by which the characteristics of an individual according to the interests of the agents involved could be selected during its gestation. Although the initiative is apparently oriented towards developing individuals that would excel in society, critical voices raise the concerns about that this approach would generate and need for a reflection on the ethical, social and legal implications of these techniques and their implementation in society. We reviewed the literature about these issues throughout their historical records to date, focusing on the moral arguments and non-clinical aspects that affect the legal and social environment. We have observed various trends of thought with divergent positions (proactive, preventive, and regulatory) as well as a large number of articles that try to reconcile the different approaches. This review illustrates a series of concepts from the ethics and philosophy fields which are frequently used in studies that evaluate the ethical implications of germline genetic enhancement, such as dignity, benefit, autonomy, and identity. In addition, amongst the many unresolved controversies surrounding genetic enhancement, we identify procreative beneficence, genetic disassociation, gender selection, the value of disability, embryo chimerization, and the psychosocial inequality of potentially enhanced individuals as crucial. We also develop possible scenarios for future debate. We consider especially important the definition and specification of three aspects which are essential for the deployment of new reproductive technologies: the moral status of the embryo undergoing enhancement, the legal status of the enhanced individual, and the responsibility of the agents executing the enhancement. Finally, we propose the precautionary principle as a means to navigate ethical uncertainties.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ignacio Macpherson
- Department of Humanities, International University of Catalonia, Barcelona, Spain
- Pharmacokinetics, Patient Care and Translational Bioethics Research Group, Catholic University of Murcia (UCAM), Murcia, Spain
| | - María Victoria Roqué
- Department of Humanities, International University of Catalonia, Barcelona, Spain
- Pharmacokinetics, Patient Care and Translational Bioethics Research Group, Catholic University of Murcia (UCAM), Murcia, Spain
| | - Ignacio Segarra
- Pharmacokinetics, Patient Care and Translational Bioethics Research Group, Catholic University of Murcia (UCAM), Murcia, Spain
- Department of Pharmacy, Faculty of Health Sciences, Catholic University of Murcia (UCAM), Murcia, Spain
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Raposo VL. Gene Editing, the Mystic Threat to Human Dignity. JOURNAL OF BIOETHICAL INQUIRY 2019; 16:249-257. [PMID: 30887186 DOI: 10.1007/s11673-019-09906-4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/27/2018] [Accepted: 03/05/2019] [Indexed: 06/09/2023]
Abstract
Many arguments have been made against gene editing. This paper addresses the commonly invoked argument that gene editing violates human dignity and is ultimately a subversion of human nature. There are several drawbacks to this argument. Above all, the concept of what human dignity means is unclear. It is not possible to condemn a practice that violates human dignity if we do not know exactly what is being violated. The argument's entire reasoning is thus undermined. Analyses of the arguments involved in this discussion have often led to the conclusion that gene editing contravenes the principle of genetic identity (genetic immutability) thereby subverting a requisite of human dignity and ultimately threatening human nature. This paper refutes these arguments and shows that any opposition to gene editing cannot rely on the human dignity argument.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Vera Lúcia Raposo
- Faculty of Law, University of Macao, E32, Avenida da Universidade, Taipa, Macau, China.
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
|
10
|
Juengst ET, Henderson GE, Walker RL, Conley JM, MacKay D, Meagher KM, Saylor K, Waltz M, Kuczynski KJ, Cadigan RJ. Is Enhancement the Price of Prevention in Human Gene Editing? CRISPR J 2018; 1:351-354. [PMID: 31021238 DOI: 10.1089/crispr.2018.0040] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/04/2023] Open
Abstract
New gene-editing tools challenge conventional policy proscriptions of research aimed at either human germline gene editing or human enhancement by potentially lowering technical barriers to both kinds of intervention. Some recent gene-editing reports have begun to take up the prospect of germline editing, but most experts are in broad agreement that research should prioritize medical applications over attempts to enhance human traits. However, there is little consensus about what counts as human enhancement in this context, or how to deal with the issues it flags. Moreover, several influential reports interpret medical applications to include disease prevention as well as treatment as a goal for gene-editing research. This challenges the current policy consensus because using gene editing to prevent disease would incidentally facilitate human enhancement applications in a variety of ways. If such research efforts are penalized by policy concerns about enhancement, then their preventive health benefits could be lost. To avoid being caught off guard by such challenges, science policy makers will need to think more carefully about what "prevention" might mean in the gene-editing context, and develop research governance that can anticipate and address the human enhancement concerns it will raise. To accomplish the latter, the scope of policy making will need to expand from its narrow focus on human clinical trials to engage with basic researchers driving the translational pipeline toward preventive gene editing and the science policy makers who have to address its "off-label" uses.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Eric T Juengst
- 1 Department of Social Medicine, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.,2 Department of Genetics, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.,3 UNC Center for Bioethics, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina
| | - Gail E Henderson
- 1 Department of Social Medicine, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina
| | - Rebecca L Walker
- 1 Department of Social Medicine, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina
| | - John M Conley
- 4 School of Law, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina
| | - Douglas MacKay
- 5 Department of Public Policy, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina
| | - Karen M Meagher
- 6 Department of Biomedical Ethics Research Program, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | - Katherine Saylor
- 5 Department of Public Policy, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina
| | - Margaret Waltz
- 1 Department of Social Medicine, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina
| | - Kristine J Kuczynski
- 1 Department of Social Medicine, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina
| | - R Jean Cadigan
- 1 Department of Social Medicine, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina
| |
Collapse
|