Understanding opposition to human gene editing A role for pathogen disgust sensitivity?

Q2 Social Sciences Politics and the Life Sciences Pub Date : 2020-11-18 DOI:10.1017/pls.2020.12
Isaac Halstead, Gary J Lewis
{"title":"Understanding opposition to human gene editing <i>A role for pathogen disgust sensitivity?</i>","authors":"Isaac Halstead,&nbsp;Gary J Lewis","doi":"10.1017/pls.2020.12","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Recent advances in gene editing technology promise much for medical advances and human well-being. However, in parallel domains, there have been objections to the use of such biotechnologies. Moreover, the psychological factors that govern the willingness to use gene editing technology have been underexplored to date. In this registered report, we sought to test whether pathogen disgust sensitivity is linked with opposition to gene editing. U.K.-based adult participants (<i>N</i> = 347) were recruited to this study. Gene editing attitudes reflected two largely distinct latent factors concerning enhancing human traits and treating medical disorders. In contrast to prediction, pathogen disgust sensitivity was related to greater support for gene editing in both of these domains. This result suggests that gene editing, at least in the current study, is not viewed as pathogenic, or that the perceived benefits of gene editing outweigh any perceived pathogen risk.</p>","PeriodicalId":35901,"journal":{"name":"Politics and the Life Sciences","volume":"39 2","pages":"154-166"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-11-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1017/pls.2020.12","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Politics and the Life Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/pls.2020.12","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

Abstract

Recent advances in gene editing technology promise much for medical advances and human well-being. However, in parallel domains, there have been objections to the use of such biotechnologies. Moreover, the psychological factors that govern the willingness to use gene editing technology have been underexplored to date. In this registered report, we sought to test whether pathogen disgust sensitivity is linked with opposition to gene editing. U.K.-based adult participants (N = 347) were recruited to this study. Gene editing attitudes reflected two largely distinct latent factors concerning enhancing human traits and treating medical disorders. In contrast to prediction, pathogen disgust sensitivity was related to greater support for gene editing in both of these domains. This result suggests that gene editing, at least in the current study, is not viewed as pathogenic, or that the perceived benefits of gene editing outweigh any perceived pathogen risk.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
理解对人类基因编辑的反对:病原体厌恶敏感性的作用?
基因编辑技术的最新进展为医学进步和人类福祉带来了巨大希望。然而,在平行领域中,也有人反对使用这种生物技术。此外,迄今为止,影响人们使用基因编辑技术意愿的心理因素尚未得到充分探索。在这篇注册报告中,我们试图测试病原体厌恶敏感性是否与反对基因编辑有关。本研究招募了来自英国的成人参与者(N = 347)。基因编辑态度反映了增强人类特征和治疗医学疾病两种截然不同的潜在因素。与预测相反,病原体厌恶敏感性与这两个领域对基因编辑的更大支持有关。这一结果表明,至少在目前的研究中,基因编辑不被视为致病性,或者基因编辑的感知益处超过了任何感知的病原体风险。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Politics and the Life Sciences
Politics and the Life Sciences Social Sciences-Sociology and Political Science
CiteScore
2.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
14
期刊介绍: POLITICS AND THE LIFE SCIENCES is an interdisciplinary peer-reviewed journal with a global audience. PLS is owned and published by the ASSOCIATION FOR POLITICS AND THE LIFE SCIENCES, the APLS, which is both an American Political Science Association (APSA) Related Group and an American Institute of Biological Sciences (AIBS) Member Society. The PLS topic range is exceptionally broad: evolutionary and laboratory insights into political behavior, including political violence, from group conflict to war, terrorism, and torture; political analysis of life-sciences research, health policy, environmental policy, and biosecurity policy; and philosophical analysis of life-sciences problems, such as bioethical controversies.
期刊最新文献
Strategic policy options to improve quality and productivity of biomedical research. BWC confidence-building measures: Increasing BWC assurance through transparency and information sharing. A leader I can(not) trust: understanding the path from epistemic trust to political leader choices via dogmatism. Evolutionary biology as a frontier for research on misinformation. Moral equality and reprogenetic autonomy in the genomic era.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1