Department of Social Medicine, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA; Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA.
H.W. Odum Institute for Research in Social Science, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA; Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA.
CRISPR J. 2021 Aug;4(4):609-615. doi: 10.1089/crispr.2021.0038.
The advent of human gene editing has stimulated international interest in how best to govern this research. However, research on stakeholder views has neglected scientists themselves. We surveyed 212 scientists who use gene editing in their work. Questions captured views on oversight and use of somatic and germline human gene editing for treatment, prevention, and enhancement. More respondents were supportive of somatic than germline editing, and more supported gene editing for treatment compared to prevention. Few supported its use for enhancement. When presented with specific conditions, levels of support for somatic editing differed by type of condition. Almost all respondents said scientists and national government representatives should be involved in oversight, but only 28% said scientists are best positioned to oversee gene-editing research. These results can inform the development of sound approaches to research governance, demonstrating the importance of identifying specific gene-editing uses when considering oversight.
人类基因编辑的出现激发了国际社会对于如何对该研究进行最佳管理的兴趣。然而,利益相关者观点的研究却忽视了科学家本身。我们调查了 212 名在工作中使用基因编辑的科学家。问题包括对监管以及体细胞和生殖细胞人类基因编辑用于治疗、预防和增强的看法。更多的受访者支持体细胞编辑而不是生殖细胞编辑,并且更多的人支持基因编辑用于治疗而不是预防。很少有人支持将其用于增强。当提出具体条件时,对体细胞编辑的支持程度因条件类型而异。几乎所有受访者都说科学家和国家政府代表应该参与监管,但只有 28%的人表示科学家最适合监管基因编辑研究。这些结果可以为制定健全的研究治理方法提供信息,表明在考虑监管时确定具体的基因编辑用途的重要性。