Attitudes of Indonesian Medical Doctors and Medical Students Toward Genome Editing

Abstract

Purpose This study aimed to measure the attitudes of Indonesian medical doctors and students toward new technology in genome editing. Materials and Methods Online questionnaires regarding attitudes toward genome editing on health and non-health conditions, both in somatic cells and embryo, were distributed through researcher networks, email and social media specific to medical doctors and students. The data of 1055 valid questionnaires were processed; descriptive and association analyses between sociodemographic factors and attitudes toward genome editing were performed. Email in-depth interview was performed to explore the respondents’ answers. Results The results showed that Indonesian medical doctors’ and students’ knowledge of genome editing was limited and correlated with gender, place of residence, religion, education, marital status, childbearing and experience abroad. More than half of respondents supported genome editing for the treatment of fatal and debilitating diseases both in somatic cells and embryos, implying their consent to edited gene inheritance. However, this approval decreased when applied to non-health-related aspects, such as physical appearance, intelligence and strength. Factors affecting their attitudes toward genome editing included their status as medical doctors or students, gender, age, education, religion, economic status and place of residence. Conclusion Increasing knowledge and awareness of Indonesian medical doctors and students regarding genome editing is important. Even though its application in health-related matter was supported by a majority of the respondents, discussion from ethical and religious perspectives is necessary to ensure the acceptance.

Medical Student Acceptance on Gene Therapy to Increase children's well-being With Genetic Diseases: a Study in Indonesia

“…Our study found that Indonesian medical students had limited knowledge on this technology, as only 37.3% of pre-clinical students and 23.4% of clinical students ever heard about approved gene therapy which did not alter the genomic sequence. This result was lower than their knowledge level on genome editing technology, a part of gene therapy that alters the genome sequence, for which 41.1% of 521 medical students ever heard about this technology [ 25 ]. A study among 597 medical and postgraduate students in China showed only 15.54% learned in detail about gene therapy, even though more had heard about this technology [ 45 ].…”

“…Even though the respondents had limited knowledge about approved gene therapy, almost 80% of respondents supported applying this technology to treat genetic diseases both for fatal and limiting daily activity genetic diseases. Their acceptance of the approved gene therapy was higher than medical doctors' and students' acceptance of genome editing technology which could alter the human genome (60–61%) [ 25 ]. Similar to another study, our studies showed declining support for genetic enhancement application (30.57%) which can develop the human appearance and increase ability.…”

“…Moreover, the respondents were most likely to accept the application of genome editing for health purposes. Their acceptance is affected by various demographic factors [ 25 ]. Because the currently approved gene therapies do not involve modifying the genome, it would be interesting to understand the medical students' attitudes, as future users, regarding these approved gene therapies.…”

Healthcare practitioners’ knowledge, attitudes and practices of genetics and genetic testing in low- or middle-income countries - A scoping review

“…There was then an 8-year gap until Alfaqih, Khader (24) investigated attitudes towards genetics and biochemistry in Jordan. The most recent publication from this region was from Indonesia on attitudes towards genome editing (25). The lack of publications from other countries in the region may be due to a high rate of consanguinity and the general lack of physicians and inadequate genetic education of physicians, who are not trained or empowered to identify and diagnose genetic conditions (26).…”

“…Genetics and genomics are rapidly developing elds, and pHCP are at risk of being left behind in a genomics era that is becoming increasingly reliant on this knowledge. Staying abreast of newer developments in genetics includes the application of genome editing in newborns, WGS, whole genome association studies and epigenetics (24,25,30,38). Keeping up to date with these and other emerging technologies and the scope and methodologies of available tests is challenging for pHCP, as they are infrequently exposed to genetic conditions in their practices/clinics.…”