Department of Genetics, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California.
Department of Cardiology, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, United Kingdom.
CRISPR J. 2019 Oct;2(5):331-339. doi: 10.1089/crispr.2019.0020.
Gene-editing technologies have improved in ease, efficiency, and precision. Although discussions are occurring around acceptable uses of human gene editing, limited data exist on the views of genetics-trained individuals. In 2017, we distributed an anonymous online survey to assess the attitudes of members of genetics professional societies toward gene editing ( = 500). Virtually all respondents were supportive of somatic editing in basic-science (99.2%) and clinical (87.4%) research on nonreproductive human cells. Only 57.2% were supportive of germline-editing basic-science research; 31.9% supported the transfer of viable embryos to humans for clinical research. While most favored future therapeutic uses of somatic (96.6%) and germline (77.8%) editing, there was little support for enhancement in somatic (13.0%) or germline (8.6%) cells. This study describes attitudes toward gene editing from genetics professionals worldwide and contributes to ongoing discourse and policy guidance in this domain.
基因编辑技术在易用性、效率和精确性方面都有所提高。尽管人们正在讨论人类基因编辑的可接受用途,但关于受过遗传学训练的个人观点的数据有限。2017 年,我们分发了一份匿名在线调查,以评估遗传学会员对基因编辑的态度( = 500)。几乎所有的受访者都支持对非生殖性人类细胞进行基础科学(99.2%)和临床(87.4%)研究的体细胞编辑。只有 57.2%的人支持生殖系编辑基础科学研究;31.9%的人支持将可存活的胚胎转移到人类进行临床研究。虽然大多数人赞成未来对体细胞(96.6%)和生殖系(77.8%)编辑的治疗应用,但对体细胞(13.0%)或生殖系(8.6%)细胞的增强几乎没有支持。这项研究描述了来自全球遗传学专业人士对基因编辑的态度,并为该领域的持续讨论和政策指导做出了贡献。