人们如何看待基因工程?对CRISPR问世前后问卷调查的系统回顾

IF 4.9 Q1 BIOTECHNOLOGY & APPLIED MICROBIOLOGY Frontiers in genome editing Pub Date : 2023-12-19 DOI:10.3389/fgeed.2023.1284547
Pedro Dias Ramos, Maria Strecht Almeida, Ingrid Anna Sofia Olsson
{"title":"人们如何看待基因工程?对CRISPR问世前后问卷调查的系统回顾","authors":"Pedro Dias Ramos, Maria Strecht Almeida, Ingrid Anna Sofia Olsson","doi":"10.3389/fgeed.2023.1284547","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The advent of CRISPR-Cas9 in 2012 started revolutionizing the field of genetics by broadening the access to a method for precise modification of the human genome. It also brought renewed attention to the ethical issues of genetic modification and the societal acceptance of technology for this purpose. So far, many surveys assessing public attitudes toward genetic modification have been conducted worldwide. Here, we present the results of a systematic review of primary publications of surveys addressing public attitudes toward genetic modification as well as the awareness and knowledge about the technology required for genetic modification. A total of 53 primary publications (1987–2020) focusing on applications in humans and non-human animals were identified, covering countries in four continents. Of the 53 studies, 30 studies from until and including 2012 (pre-CRISPR) address gene therapy in humans and genetic modification of animals for food production and biomedical research. The remaining 23 studies from after 2013 (CRISPR) address gene editing in humans and animals. Across countries, respondents see gene therapy for disease treatment or prevention in humans as desirable and highly acceptable, whereas enhancement is generally met with opposition. When the study distinguishes between somatic and germline applications, somatic gene editing is generally accepted, whereas germline applications are met with ambivalence. The purpose of the application is also important for assessing attitudes toward genetically modified animals: modification in food production is much less accepted than for biomedical application in pre-CRISPR studies. A relationship between knowledge/awareness and attitude toward genetic modification is often present. A critical appraisal of methodology quality in the primary publications with regards to sampling and questionnaire design, development, and administration shows that there is considerable scope for improvement in the reporting of methodological detail. Lack of information is more common in earlier studies, which probably reflects the changing practice in the field.","PeriodicalId":73086,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in genome editing","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"What do people think about genetic engineering? A systematic review of questionnaire surveys before and after the introduction of CRISPR\",\"authors\":\"Pedro Dias Ramos, Maria Strecht Almeida, Ingrid Anna Sofia Olsson\",\"doi\":\"10.3389/fgeed.2023.1284547\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The advent of CRISPR-Cas9 in 2012 started revolutionizing the field of genetics by broadening the access to a method for precise modification of the human genome. It also brought renewed attention to the ethical issues of genetic modification and the societal acceptance of technology for this purpose. So far, many surveys assessing public attitudes toward genetic modification have been conducted worldwide. Here, we present the results of a systematic review of primary publications of surveys addressing public attitudes toward genetic modification as well as the awareness and knowledge about the technology required for genetic modification. A total of 53 primary publications (1987–2020) focusing on applications in humans and non-human animals were identified, covering countries in four continents. Of the 53 studies, 30 studies from until and including 2012 (pre-CRISPR) address gene therapy in humans and genetic modification of animals for food production and biomedical research. The remaining 23 studies from after 2013 (CRISPR) address gene editing in humans and animals. Across countries, respondents see gene therapy for disease treatment or prevention in humans as desirable and highly acceptable, whereas enhancement is generally met with opposition. When the study distinguishes between somatic and germline applications, somatic gene editing is generally accepted, whereas germline applications are met with ambivalence. The purpose of the application is also important for assessing attitudes toward genetically modified animals: modification in food production is much less accepted than for biomedical application in pre-CRISPR studies. A relationship between knowledge/awareness and attitude toward genetic modification is often present. A critical appraisal of methodology quality in the primary publications with regards to sampling and questionnaire design, development, and administration shows that there is considerable scope for improvement in the reporting of methodological detail. Lack of information is more common in earlier studies, which probably reflects the changing practice in the field.\",\"PeriodicalId\":73086,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Frontiers in genome editing\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-12-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Frontiers in genome editing\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3389/fgeed.2023.1284547\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"BIOTECHNOLOGY & APPLIED MICROBIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Frontiers in genome editing","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3389/fgeed.2023.1284547","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BIOTECHNOLOGY & APPLIED MICROBIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

2012 年,CRISPR-Cas9 的问世拓宽了人类基因组精确改造方法的途径,开始了遗传学领域的一场革命。同时,它也使人们重新关注基因改造的伦理问题以及社会对基因改造技术的接受程度。迄今为止,世界范围内已经开展了许多调查,评估公众对基因改造的态度。在此,我们对公众对转基因的态度以及对转基因所需技 术的认识和了解的调查的主要出版物进行了系统回顾。我们共鉴定了 53 篇主要出版物(1987-2020 年),重点关注人类和非人类动物的应用,涵盖四大洲的国家。在这 53 项研究中,有 30 项研究是在 2012 年(CRISPR 之前)之前(包括 2012 年)进行的,涉及人类基因疗法以及用于食品生产和生物医学研究的动物基因修饰。其余 23 项研究是在 2013 年(CRISPR)之后进行的,涉及人类和动物的基因编辑。在所有国家中,受访者都认为用于人类疾病治疗或预防的基因疗法是可取的,可接受度很高,而基因增强则普遍遭到反对。当研究对体细胞和种系应用进行区分时,体细胞基因编辑被普遍接受,而种系应用则受到矛盾的对待。应用的目的对于评估人们对转基因动物的态度也很重要:在CRISPR研究之前的研究中,食品生产中的转基因技术比生物医学应用中的转基因技术更难被接受。知识/意识与对转基因的态度之间往往存在关系。对主要出版物中有关抽样和问卷设计、开发和管理的方法质量进行的严格评估表明,在报告方法细节方面还有很大的改进余地。缺乏信息的情况在早期研究中更为常见,这可能反映了该领域实践的变化。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
What do people think about genetic engineering? A systematic review of questionnaire surveys before and after the introduction of CRISPR
The advent of CRISPR-Cas9 in 2012 started revolutionizing the field of genetics by broadening the access to a method for precise modification of the human genome. It also brought renewed attention to the ethical issues of genetic modification and the societal acceptance of technology for this purpose. So far, many surveys assessing public attitudes toward genetic modification have been conducted worldwide. Here, we present the results of a systematic review of primary publications of surveys addressing public attitudes toward genetic modification as well as the awareness and knowledge about the technology required for genetic modification. A total of 53 primary publications (1987–2020) focusing on applications in humans and non-human animals were identified, covering countries in four continents. Of the 53 studies, 30 studies from until and including 2012 (pre-CRISPR) address gene therapy in humans and genetic modification of animals for food production and biomedical research. The remaining 23 studies from after 2013 (CRISPR) address gene editing in humans and animals. Across countries, respondents see gene therapy for disease treatment or prevention in humans as desirable and highly acceptable, whereas enhancement is generally met with opposition. When the study distinguishes between somatic and germline applications, somatic gene editing is generally accepted, whereas germline applications are met with ambivalence. The purpose of the application is also important for assessing attitudes toward genetically modified animals: modification in food production is much less accepted than for biomedical application in pre-CRISPR studies. A relationship between knowledge/awareness and attitude toward genetic modification is often present. A critical appraisal of methodology quality in the primary publications with regards to sampling and questionnaire design, development, and administration shows that there is considerable scope for improvement in the reporting of methodological detail. Lack of information is more common in earlier studies, which probably reflects the changing practice in the field.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
13 weeks
期刊最新文献
Knockout mutation in TaD27 enhances number of productive tillers in hexaploid wheat. Targeting DLBCL by mutation-specific disruption of cancer-driving oncogenes. The potential of HBV cure: an overview of CRISPR-mediated HBV gene disruption. Use of paired Cas9-NG nickase and truncated sgRNAs for single-nucleotide microbial genome editing. Making gene editing accessible in resource limited environments: recommendations to guide a first-time user.
×
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