PET PET
  • My Account
  • Subscribe
Become a Friend Donate
  • About Us
    • People
    • Press Office
    • Our History
  • Get Involved
    • Become a Friend of PET
    • Volunteer
    • Campaigns
    • Writing Scheme
    • Partnership and Sponsorship
    • Advertise with Us
  • Donate
    • Become a Friend of PET
  • BioNews
    • News
    • Comment
    • Reviews
    • Elsewhere
    • Topics
    • Glossary
    • Newsletters
  • Events
    • Upcoming Events
    • Previous Events
  • Engagement
    • Policy and Projects
      • Resources
    • Education
  • Jobs & Opportunities
  • Contact Us
  • About Us
    • People
    • Press Office
    • Our History
  • Get Involved
    • Become a Friend of PET
    • Volunteer
    • Campaigns
    • Writing Scheme
    • Partnership and Sponsorship
    • Advertise with Us
  • Donate
    • Become a Friend of PET
  • BioNews
    • News
    • Comment
    • Reviews
    • Elsewhere
    • Topics
    • Glossary
    • Newsletters
  • Events
    • Upcoming Events
    • Previous Events
  • Engagement
    • Policy and Projects
      • Resources
    • Education
  • Jobs & Opportunities
  • Contact Us
  • My Account
  • Subscribe
  • Privacy Statement
  • Advertising Policy
  • Thanks and Acknowledgements
PETBioNewsNewsMost Americans worried about genome editing, survey finds

BioNews

Most Americans worried about genome editing, survey finds

Published 14 September 2016 posted in News and appears in BioNews 862

Author

Anneesa Amjad

Image by Peter Artymiuk via the Wellcome Collection. Depicts the shadow of a DNA double helix, on a background that shows the fluorescent banding of the output from a DNA sequencing machine.
CC BY 4.0
Image by Peter Artymiuk via the Wellcome Collection. Depicts the shadow of a DNA double helix, on a background that shows the fluorescent banding of the sequencing output from an automated DNA sequencing machine.

A survey has found that a majority of adults in the USA are worried about the potential use of genome-editing technologies to give children a reduced risk of disease...

A survey has found that a majority of adults in the USA are worried about the potential use of genome-editing technologies to give children a reduced risk of disease.

The survey, carried out by Pew Research Centre, gathered the opinions of 4726 adults in the USA on using new technologies to 'enhance' human capabilities. The respondents were asked about three emerging technologies: in utero genome editing to prevent disease, increasing the mental abilities of healthy individuals via the implantation of a brain chip, and synthetic blood transfusions to increase performance.

Almost 70 percent of respondents said that they were 'very' or 'somewhat' worried about the use of genome-editing technologies to reduce a child's risk of serious disease, with around half indicating they were enthusiastic about such a use – three in ten respondents were both enthusiastic and worried.

Respondents who said they were familiar with genome editing were more likely to want it for their own child, and there was more acceptance of genome editing if people were allowed to choose which diseases would be affected. 

Fifty-four percent of adults surveyed felt that genome editing to prevent serious disease in a baby and give it the average level of health would be appropriate. However, the same amount of people felt that genome editing to make someone healthier than any existing human was crossing a line.

The researchers say this differentiation highlights a general theme in which people tend to be more comfortable with efforts to prevent, treat or cure diseases, but not with efforts to enhance 'normal' species functioning.

'It's pretty clear that thinking about these ideas in connection with helping people with medical issues is different than taking people who are otherwise healthy and enhancing their abilities,' Cary Funk, the lead researcher of the survey, said.

The survey also found that religious people are less likely to support such interventions, and that the more committed to religion someone is, the more likely they are to think that enhancement technologies are meddling with nature and 'playing god'.

As well as religion, gender also affected perceptions about these technologies. Men are more likely to be in favour of genome editing and other technologies, with 54 percent saying that they would use genome editing to reduce their child's risk of disease, compared with 43 percent of women.

However, despite the wariness of perceived enhancements highlighted by the survey, a large proportion of respondents believed that these technologies will be widely available in the near future. Forty-seven percent said they foresee a future where almost all birth defects would be avoided by the genetic modification of embryos. Many respondents also said they had mixed views about current enhancements such as cosmetic surgery.

Related Articles

Image by Peter Artymiuk via the Wellcome Collection. Depicts the shadow of a DNA double helix, on a background that shows the fluorescent banding of the output from a DNA sequencing machine.
CC BY 4.0
Image by Peter Artymiuk via the Wellcome Collection. Depicts the shadow of a DNA double helix, on a background that shows the fluorescent banding of the sequencing output from an automated DNA sequencing machine.
News
30 August 2017 • 2 minutes read

Americans becoming open to human genome editing

by Dr Rachel Huddart

A new survey suggests that Americans are becoming more accepting of the use of genome editing in humans, and there is strong support for more public involvement in discussions on the technology...

Image by Peter Artymiuk via the Wellcome Collection. Depicts the shadow of a DNA double helix, on a background that shows the fluorescent banding of the output from a DNA sequencing machine.
CC BY 4.0
Image by Peter Artymiuk via the Wellcome Collection. Depicts the shadow of a DNA double helix, on a background that shows the fluorescent banding of the sequencing output from an automated DNA sequencing machine.
News
9 May 2017 • 3 minutes read

Major US report supports human genome editing

by Dr Rachel Huddart

An influential advisory group has given cautious support to the idea of making heritable changes to the human genome in order to treat or prevent disease...

Image by Peter Artymiuk via the Wellcome Collection. Depicts the shadow of a DNA double helix, on a background that shows the fluorescent banding of the output from a DNA sequencing machine.
CC BY 4.0
Image by Peter Artymiuk via the Wellcome Collection. Depicts the shadow of a DNA double helix, on a background that shows the fluorescent banding of the sequencing output from an automated DNA sequencing machine.
News
9 January 2017 • 2 minutes read

Nuffield Council publishes preliminary ethical review of genome editing

by Rachel Siden

Use of genome editing in human reproduction requires 'urgent ethical scrutiny', according to a report published by the Nuffield Council on Bioethics...

Image by K Hardy via the Wellcome Collection. Depicts a human embryo at the blastocyst stage (about six days after fertilisation) 'hatching' out of the zona pellucida.
CC BY 4.0
Image by K Hardy via the Wellcome Collection. Depicts a human embryo at the blastocyst stage (about six days after fertilisation) 'hatching' out of the zona pellucida.
News
14 November 2016 • 3 minutes read

Swedish scientist edits genomes of healthy human embryos

by Anneesa Amjad

A scientist in Sweden has become the first to edit genes in healthy human embryos...

Image by Peter Artymiuk via the Wellcome Collection. Depicts the shadow of a DNA double helix, on a background that shows the fluorescent banding of the output from a DNA sequencing machine.
CC BY 4.0
Image by Peter Artymiuk via the Wellcome Collection. Depicts the shadow of a DNA double helix, on a background that shows the fluorescent banding of the sequencing output from an automated DNA sequencing machine.
Reviews
26 September 2016 • 5 minutes read

Event Review: Gene editing — exploring the Canadian context

by Professor Vardit Ravitsky and 5 others

Gene editing, in particular CRISPR/Cas9 technology, is sweeping the scientific world and has been receiving ample attention from policymakers worldwide. Policy statements and academic papers regarding responsible ways of moving forward with gene editing have already been published...

Image by Peter Artymiuk via the Wellcome Collection. Depicts the shadow of a DNA double helix, on a background that shows the fluorescent banding of the output from a DNA sequencing machine.
CC BY 4.0
Image by Peter Artymiuk via the Wellcome Collection. Depicts the shadow of a DNA double helix, on a background that shows the fluorescent banding of the sequencing output from an automated DNA sequencing machine.
Reviews
19 September 2016 • 2 minutes read

TV Review: Panorama — Medicine's Big Breakthrough: Editing Your Genes

by Rhys Baker

Over just 30 minutes Fergus Walsh has a lot of ground to cover here without even touching on the ethical debate. Yet, while gene editing may have 'just been made simple', how we respond to these stunning advances is anything but...

Image by Peter Artymiuk via the Wellcome Collection. Depicts the shadow of a DNA double helix, on a background that shows the fluorescent banding of the output from a DNA sequencing machine.
CC BY 4.0
Image by Peter Artymiuk via the Wellcome Collection. Depicts the shadow of a DNA double helix, on a background that shows the fluorescent banding of the sequencing output from an automated DNA sequencing machine.
Reviews
11 July 2016 • 4 minutes read

Video Review: What If My Neighbour's Kid Was Genetically Modified?

by Simon Hazelwood-Smith

Paul Knoepfler's TEDx talk covers familiar ground — designer babies, segregation between 'natural' and GM children, unintended side effects, playing god, and eugenics all feature in his dystopian vision of a future involving genetically modified humans...

Image by Peter Artymiuk via the Wellcome Collection. Depicts the shadow of a DNA double helix, on a background that shows the fluorescent banding of the output from a DNA sequencing machine.
CC BY 4.0
Image by Peter Artymiuk via the Wellcome Collection. Depicts the shadow of a DNA double helix, on a background that shows the fluorescent banding of the sequencing output from an automated DNA sequencing machine.
Reviews
1 February 2016 • 4 minutes read

Video Review: Talking Biopolitics — A conversation with Paul Knoepfler and Nathaniel Comfort

by Dr Rebecca Dimond

An author and a science historian host an online discussion on the promise and perils of the 'science of designer babies'...

Image by Peter Artymiuk via the Wellcome Collection. Depicts the shadow of a DNA double helix, on a background that shows the fluorescent banding of the output from a DNA sequencing machine.
CC BY 4.0
Image by Peter Artymiuk via the Wellcome Collection. Depicts the shadow of a DNA double helix, on a background that shows the fluorescent banding of the sequencing output from an automated DNA sequencing machine.
Comment
30 November 2015 • 5 minutes read

Genome editing and CRISPR: what Washington needs to know

by Dr Silvia Camporesi and 1 others

It is important to engage the public in the debate about genome editing as early as possible, and in a way that is as open as possible, to make sure that all possible voices are included...

Image by Peter Artymiuk via the Wellcome Collection. Depicts the shadow of a DNA double helix, on a background that shows the fluorescent banding of the output from a DNA sequencing machine.
CC BY 4.0
Image by Peter Artymiuk via the Wellcome Collection. Depicts the shadow of a DNA double helix, on a background that shows the fluorescent banding of the sequencing output from an automated DNA sequencing machine.
Comment
12 October 2015 • 5 minutes read

UNESCO's statement on CRISPR/Cas9 highlights the need for public engagement

by Dr Silvia Camporesi and 1 others

The UNESCO International Bioethics Committee has released a statement reaffirming an earlier moratorium called by a group of US scientists on the use of CRISPR/Cas9 in human embryos. We argue that the current framing of the debate in terms of dystopic or imagined futures is too narrow and constrains the boundaries of the debate to germline applications...

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

« Study brings sickle-cell gene therapy one step closer

Data-Label The UK's Leading Supplier Of Medical Labels & Asset Labels

RetiringDentist.co.uk The UK's Leading M&A Company.
easyfundraising
amazon

This month in BioNews

  • Popular
  • Recent
13 June 2022 • 2 minutes read

Drop in diversity of blood stem cells leads to old-age health issues

5 July 2022 • 1 minute read

No difference between fresh and frozen sperm for IUI

4 July 2022 • 2 minutes read

Shorter IVF protocol reduces risk of OHSS

4 July 2022 • 2 minutes read

USA scrambles to understand implications of Roe v Wade on fertility industry

4 July 2022 • 2 minutes read

Genetic and epigenetic causes of IVF embryo arrest discovered

4 July 2022 • 2 minutes read

Dutch donor-conceived people seek answers

Subscribe to BioNews and other PET updates for free.

Subscribe
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Instagram
  • LinkedIn
  • YouTube
  • RSS
Wellcome
Website redevelopment supported by Wellcome.

Website by Impact Media Impact Media

  • Privacy Statement
  • Advertising Policy
  • Thanks and Acknowledgements

© 1992 - 2022 Progress Educational Trust. All rights reserved.

Limited company registered in England and Wales no 07405980 • Registered charity no 1139856

Subscribe to BioNews and other PET updates for free.

Subscribe
PET PET

PET is an independent charity that improves choices for people affected by infertility and genetic conditions.

  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Instagram
  • LinkedIn
  • YouTube
  • RSS
Wellcome
Website redevelopment supported by Wellcome.

Navigation

  • About Us
  • Get Involved
  • Donate
  • BioNews
  • Events
  • Engagement
  • Jobs & Opportunities
  • Contact Us

BioNews

  • News
  • Comment
  • Reviews
  • Elsewhere
  • Topics
  • Glossary
  • Newsletters

Other

  • My Account
  • Subscribe

Website by Impact Media Impact Media

  • Privacy Statement
  • Advertising Policy
  • Thanks and Acknowledgements

© 1992 - 2022 Progress Educational Trust. All rights reserved.

Limited company registered in England and Wales no 07405980 • Registered charity no 1139856