English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Public discourse and deliberation are key to developing socially responsible and acceptable human gene editing research and applications. Researchers have raised concerns, however, that discourse about heritable gene edits, especially for non-therapeutic (or enhancement) purposes, might negatively bias public opinion of applications, including non-heritable edits to cure or prevent disease. Yet limited research exists examining how information about different gene editing applications elicits different perceptions of the technology. Using a U.S.-representative sample and survey-embedded experiment, we tested how exposure to information about different types of edits affects support and perceptions of benefits, risks, and moral acceptability of human gene editing. We randomly assigned respondents to a control or to an experimental condition in which they read information about one of four broad types of potential applications: (1) heritable edits for enhancement; (2) heritable edits for therapy; (3) non-heritable edits for enhancement; (4) non-heritable edits for therapy. Respondents then answered questions tapping multiple dimensions of support for and risk/benefit perceptions of human gene editing. Our results indicate partial evidence that exposure to information about heritable and/or enhancement edits colors perceptions of human gene editing more broadly but also that support for therapeutic edits is robust. Participants who read information about therapy edits perceived human gene editing in general more favorably in terms of benefits, risks, and moral acceptability than did participants who read about enhancements. Exposure to information about therapy versus enhancement edits, however, did not significantly influence support for therapy edits in particular. Heritability of edits had significant influence only on perceived risk, with heritable edits triggering higher risk perceptions. Interestingly, heritability seems to primarily affect views of risk of gene editing but not views of benefits, moral acceptability, or levels of support. We did not find differing effects depending on whether heritable edits were for therapy or enhancement.

Enhanced threat or therapeutic benefit? Risk and benefit perceptions of human gene editing by purpose and heritability of edits