Predicting Public Attitudes Toward Gene Editing of Germlines: The Impact of Moral and Hereditary Concern in Human and Animal Applications

Abstract

Background and Objective: New and more efficient methods of gene editing have intensified the ethical and legal issues associated with editing germlines. Yet no research has separated the impact of hereditary concern on public attitudes from moral concern. This research compares the impact these two concerns have on public attitudes across five applications including, the prevention of human disease, human and animal research, animals for the use of human food and the enhancement of human appearance. Methods: A sample of 1004 Australians responded to either a telephone (n = 501; randomly selected) or online survey (n = 503; sourced by Qualtrics). Both samples were representative in terms of States and Territories as well as gender (51% female), though the online sample was younger (M = 40.64, SD = 16.98; Range = 18-87) than the telephone sample (M = 54.79, SD = 18.13; Range = 18-96). A 5 (application) by 3 (type of cell) within groups design was utilized, where all respondents reported their level of approval with scientists editing genes across the 15 different contexts. Multilevel modeling was used to examine the impact of moral (embryo vs. germ) and hereditary (germ vs. somatic) concern on attitudes across all applications. Results: Australians were comfortable with editing human and animal embryos, but only for research purposes and to enhance human health. The effect of moral concern was stronger than hereditary concern, existing in all applications except for the use of animals for human purposes. Hereditary concern was only found to influence attitudes in two applications: improving human health and human research. Moral concern was found to be accentuated amongst, women, more religious individuals and those identifying as Australian, while hereditary concern was strongest amongst non-Australians, those with stronger trust in scientists, and more religious respondents. Critchley et al. Public Attitudes Toward Editing Germlines Conclusion: Moral and hereditary concerns are distinct, and require different approaches to public education, engagement and possibly regulation. Further research needs to explore hereditary concern in relation to non-human applications, and the reasons underlying cultural and gender differences.

Increased awareness and decreased acceptance of genome-editing technology: The impact of the Chinese twin babies

“…Since these calls, the public's perception and acceptance of human gene editing are starting to be investigated. Discussion focuses mainly on the technology's medical applications, such as therapeutic or function enhancement purposes-and as an extension, the moral concerns of both the scientific and general community [4][5][6][7][8][9].…”

“…Another survey [ 6 ], based on respondents from eleven countries including the US and European nations, suggested medical applications’ functionality enhancement purposes are not more acceptable than therapeutic purposes are. In Australia, respondents were accepting of human gene editing for both research and human health purposes [ 7 ].…”

Attitudes of Indonesian Medical Doctors and Medical Students Toward Genome Editing

“… 20 Our study found that gender, age, economic status, religion, education and place of residence influenced the attitude of the respondents on genome editing technology. Similar to the findings of a study conducted in the US on 1600 adult citizens, 32 a study on 12,000 persons of the general public (mainly the US, UK and China), 26 a study on 1004 Australians 33 and 12,716 persons of the general public of 10 European countries and US citizens, our study found that males were more likely to approve genome editing application, both for disease treatment and human enhancement ability, and its application in Indonesia. This finding differs from that of a study in 13,201 Chinese persons of the general public, with 2165 clinicians, that concluded that females were more likely to accept the application of gene therapy for genetic disease treatments, including genome alterations approach.…”

Understanding opposition to human gene editing

“…As well as being candidate predictors, a number of variables are plausible mediators of the putative link between pathogen disgust sensitivity and gene editing attitudes. In particular, higher levels of religiosity and political conservatism have been reported to be positively associated with pathogen disgust sensitivity (Inbar et al, 2009;Terrizzi et al, 2013) and opposition to gene editing (Critchley et al, 2019;Weisberg et al, 2017). We posit religiosity and political conservatism as mediators in line with work suggesting that ostensibly nonpolitical individual differences constructs, such as pathogen disgust sensitivity, are commonly argued to be antecedent to politics and religion (Lewis, 2018;Roets & Van Hiel, 2011;Wink et al, 2007).…”