Enhanced threat or therapeutic benefit? Risk and benefit perceptions of human gene editing by purpose and heritability of edits

Abstract

Public discourse and deliberation are key to developing socially responsible and acceptable human gene editing research and applications. Researchers have raised concerns, however, that discourse about heritable gene edits, especially for non-therapeutic (or enhancement) purposes, might negatively bias public opinion of applications, including non-heritable edits to cure or prevent disease. Yet limited research exists examining how information about different gene editing applications elicits different perceptions of the technology. Using a U.S.-representative sample and survey-embedded experiment, we tested how exposure to information about different types of edits affects support and perceptions of benefits, risks, and moral acceptability of human gene editing. We randomly assigned respondents to a control or to an experimental condition in which they read information about one of four broad types of potential applications: (1) heritable edits for enhancement; (2) heritable edits for therapy; (3) non-heritable edits for enhancement; (4) non-heritable edits for therapy. Respondents then answered questions tapping multiple dimensions of support for and risk/benefit perceptions of human gene editing. Our results indicate partial evidence that exposure to information about heritable and/or enhancement edits colors perceptions of human gene editing more broadly but also that support for therapeutic edits is robust. Participants who read information about therapy edits perceived human gene editing in general more favorably in terms of benefits, risks, and moral acceptability than did participants who read about enhancements. Exposure to information about therapy versus enhancement edits, however, did not significantly influence support for therapy edits in particular. Heritability of edits had significant influence only on perceived risk, with heritable edits triggering higher risk perceptions. Interestingly, heritability seems to primarily affect views of risk of gene editing but not views of benefits, moral acceptability, or levels of support. We did not find differing effects depending on whether heritable edits were for therapy or enhancement.

Fictional scenarios, real concerns: science fiction and perceptions of human genome editing

“…To obtain results, we conducted a hierarchical ordinary least squares (OLS) regression where the independent variables were entered into blocks according to their assumed causal order [Cohen, Cohen, West & Aiken, 2003]. During data collection, all participants were randomly assigned to five experimental conditions, as part of a separate study [Howell et al, 2022]. Because the experimental manipulations were not of primary interest, they are not reported here but their effects were controlled by including dummy variables within the models.…”

Ethical Perspectives of Therapeutic Human Genome Editing From Multiple and Diverse Viewpoints: A Scoping Review

“…Vasquez-Loarte et al analyzed the perspective of patients with hemophilia and concluded that more research needs to be done for patients to favor such therapy due to the uncertainty surrounding it [ 34 ]. In the US, Howell et al conducted an online survey of 1,600 adults and revealed that people view the therapeutic benefits positively, but do not like the risk of heritable human genomic editing that can be passed down to future generations [ 35 ]. Shozi analyzed the argument centered around human dignity from an African perspective and concluded that the Ubuntu perspective supports therapeutic human genomic editing only if the child’s autonomy is maintained [ 36 ].…”

“…The consensus was that the mainstay treatment is preferred as it is more established from both a safety and efficacious standpoint [ 34 ]. Expanding to more general uses, one study sent a survey to 1,600 United States adults to assess the perspective for therapeutic versus enhancement use and whether it was for heritable versus non-heritable applications [ 35 ]. Irrespective of if genome editing would be used for heritable or non-heritable applications, the majority had endorsed it with favor if it were strictly therapeutic in nature [ 35 ].…”