Views of the Swiss public towards gene editing
Ormond, K. E.; Kijewski, S.; Wyler, N.; Ferretti, A.; Petrou, E.; Reichmuth, C.; Vayena, E.
Show abstract
There is little country-specific data about how the general public views gene editing therapies. In Autumn 2023 we randomly surveyed the Swiss public, using the Federal Register and stratifying by language region (German, French, Italian), gender and age. We present a representative sample of 3855 responses, including >4000 open-ended comments. When presented with 7 therapeutic options for somatic gene editing, 7% disagreed with all therapeutic options, and 35% supported them all. Most agreed with using somatic gene editing to cure life-threatening (76%) and debilitating diseases (70%); support declined as severity decreased or with later onset. Few supported somatic gene editing to enhance physical (6%) or cognitive (9%) abilities. In all scenarios, people were less likely to agree with gene editing of embryos. Notably, all therapeutic gene editing attitudes clustered, regardless of somatic vs. germline differentiations. Factor analysis also demonstrated two clusters for "support" and "caution" towards gene editing, and multivariate analysis demonstrated relationships with age, gender, religion and knowledge. When asked what influenced their views, the most endorsed reasons for feeling positively were views towards what it means to have a good life (59.8%) and views about illness and suffering (58.5%). Most selected "neutral" to describe religions influence (68.9%) despite findings that those who endorsed high religiosity were less supportive and more cautious towards gene editing. Conclusions: Uncovering systematic differences in the attitudes towards specific therapies and the values shaping them underscores the importance of including peoples voices in policy decisions in a country-specific manner.
Matching journals
The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- A Qualitative Study Exploring the Consumer Experience of Receiving Self-Initiated Polygenic Risk Scores from a Third-Party Website 91%
- Defining the Critical Educational Components of Informed Consent for Genetic Testing: Views of US-Based Genetic Counselors and Medical Geneticists 91%
- Analysis of large-language model versus human performance for genetics questions 90%
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- Structural variability, expression profile and pharmacogenetics properties of TMPRSS2 gene as a potential target for COVID-19 therapy 89%
- Predictive value of SLCO1B1 c.521T>C polymorphism on observed changes in the treatment of 1136 statin-users 88%
- Risk of recurrent pregnancy loss in the Ukrainian population using a combined effect of genetic variants 88%
Similar papers in this journal
- Defining the Critical Components of Informed Consent for Genetic Testing: A Delphi Study 93%
- Practical barriers and facilitators experienced by patients, pharmacists and physicians to the implementation of pharmacogenomic screening in Dutch outpatient hospital care – an explorative pilot study 90%
- The Contribution of Pharmacogenetic Drug Interactions to 90-Day Hospital Readmissions: Preliminary Results from a Real-World Healthcare System 87%
Similar papers in this journal
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.