Public attitudes in the clinical application of genome editing on human embryos in Japan: a cross-sectional survey across multiple stakeholders
Public attitudes in the clinical application of genome editing on human embryos in Japan: a cross-sectional survey across multiple stakeholders
复制标题
日本人类胚胎基因组编辑临床应用的公众态度：跨多个利益相关者的横断面调查
DOI：
10.1038/s10038-022-01042-z
复制
发表时间：
2022
影响因子：
3.5
通讯作者：
Takehara Kenji
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Kobayashi Shinobu;Miyoshi Takekazu;Kobayashi Tohru;Hayakawa Itaru;Urayama Kevin Y.;Uchiyama Masato;Muto Kaori;Takeuchi Yasuto;Taira Masaki;Sago Haruhiko;Takehara Kenji
基因组编辑技术的最新进展伴随着公众对其潜在临床应用的期望越来越高，但仍然存在需要解决的科学，伦理和社会问题。在日本，有关人类胚胎基因组编辑临床应用的讨论正在进行中。然而，对公众对这项技术的情绪和态度的理解是有限的，这对于帮助指导优先考虑政策和监管必要性的辩论非常重要。因此，我们进行了一项横断面研究，并在三个利益相关者群体中进行了在线问卷调查：公众，患者及其家属和医疗保健提供者。我们共收到3，511名个人的回复，并对利益相关者的态度进行了总结和比较。根据回复的分布情况，医疗保健提供者对基因组编辑的临床使用往往持谨慎态度，而患者和家属则表现出支持和积极态度。大多数参与者反对将基因组编辑用于增强目的。与会者表示，当基因组编辑是基本治疗方法时，临床使用可能是可以接受的，风险可以忽略不计，并且该技术的安全性在人类胚胎中得到证明。我们的研究结果表明，不同利益相关者群体对基因组编辑临床应用的态度存在差异。必须考虑到公众认识的多样性，并纳入民众的意见。需要进一步开展信息传播和教育工作，以支持公众舆论的形成。
Recent advances in genome editing technology are accompanied by increasing public expectations on its potential clinical application, but there are still scientific, ethical, and social considerations that require resolution. In Japan, discussions pertaining to the clinical use of genome editing in human embryos are underway. However, understanding of the public’s sentiment and attitude towards this technology is limited which is important to help guide the debate for prioritizing policies and regulatory necessities. Thus, we conducted a cross-sectional study and administered an online questionnaire across three stakeholder groups: the general public, patients and their families, and health care providers. We received responses from a total of 3,511 individuals, and the attitudes were summarized and compared among the stakeholders. Based on the distribution of responses, health care providers tended to be cautious and reluctant about the clinical use of genome editing, while patients and families appeared supportive and positive. The majority of the participants were against the use of genome editing for enhancement purposes. Participants expressed the view that clinical use may be acceptable when genome editing is the fundamental treatment, the risks are negligible, and the safety of the technology is demonstrated in human embryos. Our findings suggest differences in attitudes toward the clinical use of genome editing across stakeholder groups. Taking into account the diversity of the public’s awareness and incorporating the opinion of the population is important. Further information dissemination and educational efforts are needed to support the formation of the public’s opinion.