Suppr超能文献

支持或反对基因改造的原因:一项对荷兰普通民众的调查

Reasons for being in favour of or against genome modification: a survey of the Dutch general public.

作者信息

Hendriks S, Giesbertz N A A, Bredenoord A L, Repping S

机构信息

Department of Bioethics, Clinical Center, National Institutes of Health, USA.

Center for Reproductive Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

出版信息

Hum Reprod Open. 2018 May 16;2018(3):hoy008. doi: 10.1093/hropen/hoy008. eCollection 2018.

Abstract

STUDY QUESTION

What are the general public's reasons for being in favour of or against the use of genome modification for five potential applications?

SUMMARY ANSWER

Overall, 43 reasons for being in favour, 45 reasons for being against as well as 26 conditional reasons for the use of genome modification were identified.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

Various applications of somatic genome modification are progressing towards clinical introduction and several recent studies have reported on germline genome modification. This has incited a debate on ethical and legal implications and acceptability. There is a growing plea to involve the general public earlier on in the developmental process of science and (bio)technology including genome modification.

STUDY DESIGN SIZE DURATION

In April 2016, a cross-sectional survey was launched online among the Dutch general public. A documentary on genome modification on public television and calls in social media invited viewers and non-viewers, respectively, to participate.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS SETTING METHODS: The questionnaire introduced five potential future applications of genome modification: modified wheat for individuals with gluten intolerance; somatic modification for individuals with neuromuscular diseases; germline modification to prevent passing on a neuromuscular disease; germline modification to introduce resistance to HIV; and germline modification to increase intelligence. Participants were asked to indicate whether and why they would make use of genome modification in these scenarios. The reasons mentioned were analysed through content analysis by two researchers independently. The proportion of respondents that was willing to modify was described per scenario and associations with respondent characteristics were analysed.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

The survey was completed by 1013 participants. Forty-three reasons for being in favour, 45 reasons for being against as well as 26 conditional reasons for the use of genome modification were identified. These could be categorized into 14 domains: safety of the individuals concerned; effectiveness; quality of life of the individuals concerned; existence of a clinical need or an alternative; biodiversity and ecosystems; animal homo sapiens (i.e. relating to effects on humans as a species); human life and dignity; trust in regulation; justice; costs; slippery slope; argument of nature; parental rights and duties; and (reproductive) autonomy. Participants' willingness to use genome modification was dependent on the application: most participants would eat modified wheat if gluten intolerant (74%), would use genome modification to cure his/her own neuromuscular disease (85%) and would apply germline modification to prevent passing on this neuromuscular disease (66%). A minority would apply germline modification to introduce resistance to HIV (30%) or increase intelligence (16%). Being young (odds ratio (OR) = 0.98 per year increase), being male (OR = 2.38), and having watched the documentary (OR = 1.82) were associated with being willing to apply genome modification in more scenarios.

LIMITATIONS REASONS FOR CAUTION

Inquiring for reasons through open questions in a survey allowed for a larger sample size and intuitive responses but resulted in less depth than traditional face-to-face interviews. As the survey was disseminated through social media, the sample is not representative of the overall Dutch population, and hence the quantitative results should not be interpreted as such.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

Further public consultation and a more in-depth ethical and societal debate on principles and conditions for responsible use of (germline) genome modification is required prior to future clinical introduction.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: Funded by the University of Amsterdam and University Medical Centre Utrecht. No conflict of interest.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

Not applicable.

摘要

研究问题

对于基因组编辑在五种潜在应用中的使用,公众支持或反对的理由是什么?

总结答案

总体而言,共确定了43条支持理由、45条反对理由以及26条关于使用基因组编辑的有条件理由。

已知信息

体细胞基因组编辑的各种应用正朝着临床应用发展,最近有几项研究报道了生殖系基因组编辑。这引发了关于伦理和法律影响以及可接受性的辩论。越来越多的人呼吁让公众更早地参与到包括基因组编辑在内的科学和(生物)技术的发展过程中。

研究设计、规模、持续时间:2016年4月,在荷兰公众中开展了一项在线横断面调查。公共电视台播放的一部关于基因组编辑的纪录片以及社交媒体上的呼吁分别邀请了观众和非观众参与。

参与者/材料、环境、方法:问卷介绍了基因组编辑的五种潜在未来应用:为麸质不耐受个体培育的改良小麦;为神经肌肉疾病患者进行的体细胞编辑;防止神经肌肉疾病遗传的生殖系编辑;引入对艾滋病毒抗性的生殖系编辑;以及提高智力的生殖系编辑。参与者被要求指出在这些情况下他们是否会以及为何会使用基因组编辑。两位研究人员通过内容分析法独立分析了所提及的理由。按每种情况描述了愿意进行编辑的受访者比例,并分析了与受访者特征的关联。

主要结果及机遇的作用

1013名参与者完成了调查。共确定了43条支持理由、45条反对理由以及26条关于使用基因组编辑的有条件理由。这些理由可分为14个领域:相关个体的安全性;有效性;相关个体的生活质量;临床需求或替代方案的存在;生物多样性和生态系统;人类(即与对人类作为一个物种的影响相关);人类生命和尊严;对监管的信任;公正性;成本;滑坡效应;自然论证;父母的权利和义务;以及(生殖)自主权。参与者使用基因组编辑的意愿取决于应用:大多数麸质不耐受的参与者会食用改良小麦(74%),会使用基因组编辑来治愈自己的神经肌肉疾病(85%),并会采用生殖系编辑来防止这种神经肌肉疾病遗传(66%)。少数人会采用生殖系编辑来引入对艾滋病毒的抗性(30%)或提高智力(16%)。年轻(每年增加的优势比(OR)=0.98)、男性(OR = 2.38)以及观看过纪录片(OR = 1.82)与更愿意在更多情况下应用基因组编辑相关。

局限性、谨慎的理由:通过调查中的开放式问题询问理由,虽然样本量更大且回答直观,但深度不如传统的面对面访谈。由于调查是通过社交媒体传播的,样本不代表荷兰全体人口,因此定量结果不应如此解读。

研究结果的更广泛影响

在未来临床应用之前,需要进一步进行公众咨询,并就负责任地使用(生殖系)基因组编辑的原则和条件展开更深入的伦理和社会辩论。

研究资金/利益冲突:由阿姆斯特丹大学和乌得勒支大学医学中心资助。无利益冲突。

试验注册号

不适用。

相似文献

引用本文的文献

6
Survey of attitude to human genome modification in Nigeria.尼日利亚对人类基因组编辑的态度调查。
J Community Genet. 2024 Feb;15(1):1-11. doi: 10.1007/s12687-023-00689-1. Epub 2023 Nov 23.

本文引用的文献

3
U.S. attitudes on human genome editing.美国对人类基因组编辑的态度。
Science. 2017 Aug 11;357(6351):553-554. doi: 10.1126/science.aan3708.
4
Correction of a pathogenic gene mutation in human embryos.人类胚胎中致病基因突变的纠正。
Nature. 2017 Aug 24;548(7668):413-419. doi: 10.1038/nature23305. Epub 2017 Aug 2.
8
Regulatory uncertainty over genome editing.基因组编辑的监管不确定性。
Nat Plants. 2015 Jan 8;1:14011. doi: 10.1038/nplants.2014.11.
10

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验