U.S. attitudes on human genome editing

  title={U.S. attitudes on human genome editing},
  author={Dietram A. Scheufele and Michael A. Xenos and Emily L. Howell and Kathleen M. Rose and Dominique Brossard and Bruce W. Hardy},
  pages={553 - 554}
Although views on human genome editing differ, all want public engagement The emergence of CRISPR-Cas9 gene editing has given new urgency to calls from social scientists, bench scientists, and scientific associations for broad public dialogue about human genome editing and its applications. Most recently, these calls were formalized in a consensus report on the science, ethics, and governance of human genome editing released by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and the National… 

Scientists' Views on Scientific Self-Governance for Human Genome Editing Research.

As research on human gene editing has grown, a variety of prominent international organizations are considering how best to govern such research. But what role do scientists engaged in genome editing

Societal and Ethical Impacts of Germline Genome Editing: How Can We Secure Human Rights?

An approach that relies not only on agreed-upon principles and a democratic process but requires a Human Rights Impact Assessment to evaluate the potential burdens that such biomedical interventions may place on human rights is proposed.

Heritable Human Genome Editing: The Public Engagement Imperative.

In this communication, the authors lay out the foundational principles undergirding the formation, modification, and evaluation of public opinion that will determine the societal decision to warrant or enjoin the clinical conduct of HHGE.

Ethics of Human Genome Editing.

  • B. Coller
  • Biology, Medicine
    Annual review of medicine
  • 2019
A review highlights some of the major ethical considerations in human genome editing in light of the committee's recommendations, and recommends allowing experimental germline genome editing to proceed if it is restricted to preventing transmission of a serious disease or condition.

The View from the Benches: Scientists' Perspectives on the Uses and Governance of Human Gene-Editing Research.

Almost all respondents said scientists and national government representatives should be involved in oversight, but only 28% said scientists are best positioned to oversee gene-editing research.

Where Will We Draw the Line? Public Opinions of Human Gene Editing

The application of gene editing technologies to prevent or mitigate genetic disease in humans is considered one of its most promising applications. However, as the technology advances, it is

Survey on the perception of germline genome editing among the general public in Japan

It is indicated that the Japanese people generally accepted the use of genome editing for disease-related genes, but many were concerned about the risks and many Japanese people did not understand the technology well.

What we know about effective public engagement on CRISPR and beyond

This work systematize common goals, principles, and modalities of public engagement on CRISPR and other emerging technologies, and evaluates empirically the likely successes of various modalities.

Reflections about the Molecular Tool That Could Change the Course of Human History: Genome Editing

Some bold arguments in favor of deleting deleterious genes from the human genome and the risks liberal eugenism poses are shown.



Genetically Engineered Crops: Experiences and Prospects

This report indicates where there are uncertainties about the economic, agronomic, health, safety, or other impacts of GE crops and food, and makes recommendations to fill gaps in safety assessments, increase regulatory clarity, and improve innovations in and access to GE technology.

Effects of Value Predispositions, Mass Media Use, and Knowledge on Public Attitudes Toward Embryonic Stem Cell Research

Research on public attitudes toward controversial science seem to be divided between a camp that relies on a ‘scientific literacy model’, which states that increase in public knowledge of science is

Sciupac, “U.S. public wary of biomedical technologies to ‘enhance’ human abilities

  • (Pew Research
  • 2016

U.S. public wary of biomedical technologies to 'enhance' human abilities

  • 2016

The public and genetic editing, testing, and therapy

  • 2016