Bay Area Generation Z Opinions on Gene Editing
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.47611/jsrhs.v11i3.2953Keywords:
Gene Editing, Public Opinion, Generation Z, Bay AreaAbstract
Gene editing is known to be powerful, yet controversial. While it has the ability to significantly decrease human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) cases around the world, gene editing can also create an even greater socioeconomic gap. This academic discussion about gene editing has to address when gene editing treatments should be used as well as which type of gene editing treatments should be used. Currently there are two types of gene editing treatments, somatic and germline. Somatic gene editing treatments make modifications to DNA but do not affect reproductive cells. In contrast, germline gene editing practices do affect reproductive cells and modifications can be passed to future generations. The study aims to address San Francisco Bay Area Generation Z’s opinions on gene editing (including which gene editing practices should be used).
To test the hypothesis that Generation Z will want gene editing treatments that are meant to treat diseases and other disorders, the researcher utilized a mixed methodology with an online survey. The results showed that somatic gene editing treatments for diseases and disorders in adults are the most prefered use of these technologies. By these means, legislation as well as other research should be done to promote access to treatments, such as those for sickle cell anemia, for the general public.
Downloads
References or Bibliography
Agar, N. (2019). Why we should defend gene editing as eugenics. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, 28(1), 9-19. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0963180118000336
Bleicher, A. (2020, Winter). Technology will soon give us precise control over our brains and genes. UCSF Magazine. https://magazine.ucsf.edu/technology-will-soon-give-us-precise-control-over-our-brains-and-genes
Bui, B., Miller C.C. (2018, 4 August). The age that women have babies: how a gap divides America. New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/08/04/upshot/up-birth-age-gap.html
Coelho, P. S., & Esteves, S. P. (2007). The choice between a fivepoint and a ten-point scale in the framework of customer satisfaction measurement. International Journal of Market Research, 49(3), 313-339.
Delhove, J., Osenk, I., Prichard, I., & Donnelley, M. (2020). Public Acceptability of Gene Therapy and Gene Editing for Human Use: A Systematic Review. Human Gene Therapy, 31(1–2), 20–46. https://doi.org/10.1089/hum.2019.197
Drabiak, K. (2020). The Nuffield Council’s green light for genome editing human embryos defies fundamental human rights law. Bioethics, 34(3), 223–227. https://doi.org/10.1111/bioe.12713
Doudna, J. A., & Charpentier, E. (2014). The new frontier of genome engineering with CRISPR-Cas9. Science, 346(6213), 1258096. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1258096
Fridovich-Keil, J. L. (2019, June 4). Gene editing. In Encyclopedia Britannica. Retrieved April 24, 2022, from https://www.britannica.com/science/gene-editing
Gaskell, G., Bard, I., Allansdottir, A., da Cunha, R. V., Eduard, P., Hampel, J., Hildt, E., Hofmaier, C., Kronberger, N., Laursen, S., Meijknecht, A., Nordal, S., Quintanilha, A., Revuelta, G., Saladié, N., Sándor, J., Santos, J. B., Seyringer, S., Singh, I., Somsem, H., Torgersen, H., Torre, V., Zwart, H., Saladie, N., Vieira da Cunha, R., Meijknecht, A., Hofmaier, C., Varju, M., Seyringer, S., Eduard, P., Toonders, W., Borlido Santos, J. (2017). Public views on gene editing and its uses. Nature Biotechnology, 35(11), 1021–1023. https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.3958
Gratten, J., & Visscher, P. M. (2016). Genetic pleiotropy in complex traits and diseases: implications for genomic medicine. Genome medicine, 8(1), 1-3. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13073-016-0332-x
Gumer, J. M. (2019). The wisdom of germline editing: An ethical analysis of the use of CRISPR-Cas9 to edit human embryos. The New Bioethics, 25(2), 137–152. https://doi.org/10.1080/20502877.2019.1606151
Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. (2016, January). The public and gene editing, testing and therapy [Report]. Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. https://cdn1.sph.harvard.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/94/2016/01/STAT-Harvard-Poll-Jan-2016-Genetic-Technology.pdf
Hiatt, J., Hultquist, J. F., McGregor, M. J., Bouhaddou, M., Leenay, R. T., Simons, L. M., Young, J. M., Haas, P., Roth, T. L., Tobin, V., Wojcechowskyj, J. A., Woo, J. M., Rathore, U., Cavero, D. A. Shifrut, E., Nguyen, T. T., Haas, K. M., Malik, H. S., Doudna, J. A., May, A. P., Marson, A., Krogan, N. J. (2022). A functional map of HIV-host interactions in primary human T cells. Nature communications, 13(1), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-022-29346-w
Nassaji, H. (2015). Qualitative and descriptive research: Data type versus data analysis. Language teaching research, 19(2), 129-132.Robillard, J. M., Roskams-Edris, D., Kuzeljevic, B., & Illes, J. (2014). Prevailing Public Perceptions of the Ethics of Gene Therapy. Human Gene Therapy, 25(8), 740–746. https://doi.org/10.1089/hum.2014.030
Sharma, A., Bhakta, N., & Johnson, L. M. (2020). Germline gene editing for sickle cell disease. The American Journal of Bioethics, 20(8), 46-49. https://doi.org/10.1080/15265161.2020.1781970
Weisberg, S. M., Badgio, D., & Chatterjee, A. (2017). A CRISPR new world: Attitudes in the public toward Innovations in human genetic modification. Frontiers in Public Health, 5, 117. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2017.00117
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
Copyright (c) 2022 Trinity Chow; Tyler Kochel
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Copyright holder(s) granted JSR a perpetual, non-exclusive license to distriute & display this article.
