リケラボ論文検索は、全国の大学リポジトリにある学位論文・教授論文を一括検索できる論文検索サービスです。

リケラボ 全国の大学リポジトリにある学位論文・教授論文を一括検索するならリケラボ論文検索大学・研究所にある論文を検索できる

リケラボ 全国の大学リポジトリにある学位論文・教授論文を一括検索するならリケラボ論文検索大学・研究所にある論文を検索できる

大学・研究所にある論文を検索できる 「Human genome editing in clinical applications: Japanese lay and expert attitudes」の論文概要。リケラボ論文検索は、全国の大学リポジトリにある学位論文・教授論文を一括検索できる論文検索サービスです。
リケラボ

コピーが完了しました

URLをコピーしました

論文の公開元へ論文の公開元へ
書き出し

Human genome editing in clinical applications: Japanese lay and expert attitudes

Sawai, Tsutomu Hatta, Taichi Akatsuka, Kyoko Fujita, Misao 京都大学 DOI:10.3389/fgene.2023.1205092

2023.08.17

概要

Background: The world’s first gene-edited babies, reported by the Chinese scientist He Jiankui, prompted an outcry of criticism and concerns worldwide over the use of genome editing for reproductive purposes. Many countries and academic associations opposed to heritable genome editing (HGE) called for public discussion involving various stakeholders. To hold a discussion of this nature and form a consensus concerning HGE, we must understand under what conditions stakeholders consider HGE acceptable and the reasons for which they deem it unacceptable. Methods: Laypeople and researchers were surveyed in May 2019. They were asked about the degree of their acceptance toward somatic genome editing (SGE) and HGE; those who answered “acceptable depending on the purpose” were queried further regarding their acceptance in the contexts of specific clinical purposes. Results: Responses were obtained from 4, 424 laypeople and 98 researchers. The percentage of respondents choosing each option in attitudes to HGE was, from largest to smallest: “acceptable depending on purpose” (laypeople 49.3%; researchers 56.1%), “not acceptable for any purpose” (laypeople 45.8%; researchers 40.8%), and “acceptable for any purpose” (laypeople 5.0%; researchers 3.1%). In an additional question for those who answered “acceptable depending on the purpose, ” laypeople found the following purposes acceptable: infertility treatment (54.5%), treatment of life-threatening diseases (52.2%), and treatment of debilitating diseases (51.4%). Meanwhile, the degree of acceptance for enhancement purposes was 10.7, 7.9, 6.2, and 5.5% for physical, cognitive, health, and personality enhancements, respectively. In contrast, acceptance among the researchers was 94.5% and 92.7% for the treatment of life-threatening and debilitating diseases, respectively, compared with 69.1% for infertility treatment. Researchers’ acceptance for enhancement purposes was similar to that of the lay participants, with 12.7, 9.1, 10.9, and 5.5% for physical, cognitive, health, and personality enhancement, respectively. Conclusion: In the past, debates regarding the acceptability of human genome editing in clinical applications tend to focus on HGE in many countries. Society will now need to debate the acceptability of both types of human genome editing, HGE and SGE.

論文の公開元へ

この論文で使われている画像

関連論文

関連論文をもっと見る

参考文献

Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications (MIC) (2015). Table 3-1 in

2015 population census. Available at: https://www.e-stat.go.jp/en/stat-search/files?

page=1&layout=datalist&toukei=00200521&[. . .]cle=0&tclass1=000001089055&tclass2=

000001089056&tclass3val=0 (Accessed January 27, 2023).

Akatsuka, K., Hatta, T., Sawai, T., and Fujita, M. (2021). Public attitudes in Japan

toward the reproductive use of gametes derived from human-induced pluripotent stem

cells. Future Sci. OA 7 (10), FSO754. doi:10.2144/fsoa-2021-0065

Baylis, F., Darnovsky, M., Hasson, K., and Krahn, T. (2020). Human germline and

heritable genome editing: the global policy landscape. CRISPR J. 3 (5), 365–377. doi:10.

1089/crispr.2020.0082

Musunuru, K., Lagor, W. R., and Miano, J. M. (2017). What do we really think about

human germline genome editing, and what does it mean for medicine? Circ. Cardiovasc.

Genet. 10 (5), e001910. doi:10.1161/CIRCGENETICS.117.001910

Brokowski, C. (2018). Do CRISPR germline ethics statements cut It? CRISPR J. 1 (2),

115–125. doi:10.1089/crispr.2017.0024

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) (2019).

Heritable human genome editing. Washington, DC: The National Academies

Press.

Cohen, J. (1988). “Multiple regression and correlation analysis,” in Statistical

power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Editor J. Cohen (New York: Routledge),

407–465.

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) (2017).

Human genome editing: Science, ethics, and governance. Washington, DC: The

National Academies Press.

Delhove, J., Osenk, I., Prichard, I., and Donnelley, M. (2020). Public acceptability of

gene therapy and gene editing for human use: a systematic review. Hum. Gene Ther. 31

(1-2), 20–46. doi:10.1089/hum.2019.197

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) (2015).

International summit on human gene editing: a global discussion. Available at: https://

nap.nationalacademies.org/read/21913/chapter/1 (Accessed January 27, 2023).

Funk, C., and Hefferon, M. (2018). Public views of gene editing for babies depend

on how it would be used. Washington, D.C., U.S.: Retrieved from Pew Research

Center.

O’Brien, R. M. (2007). A caution regarding rules of thumb for variance inflation

factors. Qual. Quantity 41 (5), 673–690. doi:10.1007/s11135-006-9018-6

Funk, C., Kennedy, B., and Sciupac, E. P. (2016). U.S. public opinion on the

future use of gene editing. Washington, D.C., U.S.: Retriedved from Pew Research

Center.

Regalado, A. (2018). Chinese scientists are creating CRISPR babies. MIT Technol. Rev.

Available at: https://www.technologyreview.com/2018/11/25/138962/exclusivechinese-scientists-are-creating-crispr-babies/ (Accessed September 30, 2022).

Gaskell, G., Bard, I., Allansdottir, A., da Cunha, R. V., Eduard, P., Hampel, J., et al.

(2017). Public views on gene editing and its uses. Nat. Biotechnol. 35 (11), 1021–1023.

doi:10.1038/nbt.3958

Sawai, T., Hatta, T., Akatsuka, K., and Fujita, M. (2021). Public attitudes in

Japan toward the creation and use of gametes derived from human-induced

pluripotent stem cells. Future Sci. OA 7 (10), FSO755. doi:10.2144/fsoa-20210066

Greely, H. (2019). CRISPR’d babies: human germline genome editing in the ‘He

Jiankui affair. J. Law Biosci. 6 (1), 111–183. doi:10.1093/jlb/lsz010

Scheufele, D. A., Krause, N. M., Freiling, I., and Brossard, D. (2021). What we know

about effective public engagement on CRISPR and beyond. PNAS 118 (22),

e2004835117. doi:10.1073/pnas.2004835117

Hendriks, S., Giesbertz, N., Bredenoord, A., and Repping, S. (2018). Reasons for being

in favour of or against genome modification: a survey of the Dutch general public. Hum.

Reprod. Open 3, hoy008. doi:10.1093/hropen/hoy008

Scheufele, D. A., Xenos, M. A., Howell, E. L., Rose, K. M., Brossard, D., and Hardy, B.

W. (2017). U.S. attitudes on human genome editing. Sci. (New York, N.Y.) 357 (6351),

553–554. doi:10.1126/science.aan3708

International Society for Stem Cell Research (ISSCR) (2015). The ISSCR statement on

human germline genome modification. Available at: https://www.isscr.org/docs/

default-source/policy-documents/isscr-statement-on-human-germline-genomemodification.pdf?sfvrsn=a34fb5bf_0 (Accessed September 30, 2022).

STAT and Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health (2016). The public and genetic

editing, testing, and therapy. Available at: https://cdn1.sph.harvard.edu/wp-content/

uploads/sites/94/2016/01/STAT-Harvard-Poll-Jan-2016-Genetic-Technology.pdf

(Accessed January 27, 2023).

Japan’s Cabinet Office on Bioethics (COB) (2018). Report on the re-evaluation of “the

basic principles for the handling of human embryos” (Part 1)—the use of the genome

editing technology for research on assisted reproduction technologies. [Japanese]

Available at: https://www8.cao.go.jp/cstp/tyousakai/life/hitohaihoukoku1.pdf

(Accessed September 30, 2022).

Sue, V. M., and Ritter, L. A. (2007b). “Conducting the surveys,” in Conducting online

surveys. Editors V. M. Sue and L. A. Ritter (Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE

Publications, Inc.), 88–98.

Japan’s Cabinet Office on Bioethics (COB) (2019). Report on the re-evaluation of “the

basic principles for the handling of human embryos” (Part 2)—the use of the genome

editing technology for research on assisted reproduction technologies. [Japanese]

Available at: https://www8.cao.go.jp/cstp/tyousakai/life/hitohaihoukoku2.pdf

(Accessed January 27, 2023).

Sue, V. M., and Ritter, L. A. (2007a). “Sampling,” in Conducting online surveys.

Editors V. M. Sue and L. A. Ritter (Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publications,

Inc.), 25–37.

Tachikawa, M., Kato, N., and Maeda, T. (2017). Genome editing consumer

perceptions food and agriculture governance [Japanese]. Food Syst. Kenkyu 24 (3),

251–256. doi:10.5874/jfsr.24.3_161

Liang, P., Xu, Y., Zhang, X., Ding, C., Huang, R., Zhang, Z., et al. (2015). CRISPR/

Cas9-mediated gene editing in human tripronuclear zygotes. Protein & Cell 6 (5),

363–372. doi:10.1007/s13238-015-0153-5

Taguchi, I., Yamada, T., Akaichi, R., Imoto, R., Kurosawa, K., Nakatani, K., et al.

(2019). Attitudes of clinical geneticists and certified genetic counselors to genome

editing and its clinical applications: a nation-wide questionnaire survey in Japan.

J. Hum. Genet. 64 (9), 945–954. doi:10.1038/s10038-019-0635-z

McCaughey, T., Budden, D. M., Sanfilippo, P. G., Gooden, G. E. C., Fan, L., Fenwick,

E., et al. (2019). A need for better understanding is the major determinant for public

perceptions of human gene editing. Hum. Gene Ther. 30 (1), 36–43. doi:10.1089/hum.

2018.033

The Japanese Society for Genome Editing (JSGE) (2018). Concerns over the

announcement of the birth of girls from human fertilized eggs that has undergone

genome editing. [Japanese] Available at: http://jsgedit.jp/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/

statement_181130_1.pdf (Accessed January 27, 2023).

McCaughey, T., Sanfilippo, P. G., Gooden, G. E., Budden, D. M., Fan, L., Fenwick, E.,

et al. (2016). A global social media survey of attitudes to human genome editing. Cell

stem Cell 18 (5), 569–572. doi:10.1016/j.stem.2016.04.011

Frontiers in Genetics

14

frontiersin.org

Sawai et al.

10.3389/fgene.2023.1205092

The Nuffield Council on Bioethics (NCB) (2018). Genome editing and human

reproduction: social and ethical issues. Available at: https://www.nuffieldbioethics.org/

publications/genome-editing-and-human-reproduction (Accessed January 27, 2023).

Uchiyama, M., Nagai, A., and Muto, K. (2018). Survey on the perception of germline

genome editing among the general public in Japan. J. Hum. Genet. 63 (6), 745–748.

doi:10.1038/s10038-018-0430-2

The Nuffield Council on Bioethics (NCB) (2016). Genome editing: sn ethical review.

Available at: https://www.nuffieldbioethics.org/assets/pdfs/Genome-editing-an-ethicalreview.pdf (Accessed January 27, 2023).

van Dijke, I., Bosch, L., Bredenoord, A. L., Cornel, M., Repping, S., and Hendriks, S.

(2018). The ethics of clinical applications of germline genome modification: a systematic

review of reasons. Hum. Reprod. 33 (9), 1777–1796. doi:10.1093/humrep/dey257

The Science Council of Japan (SCJ) (2020). Ethical justification for the use of genome

editing technology for human reproduction. [Japanese]. Available at: https://www.scj.

go.jp/ja/info/kohyo/pdf/kohyo-24-t292-5.pdf (Accessed January 27, 2023).

Wang, J. H., Wang, R., Lee, J. H., Hu, X., Wang, Y. M., Tu, L. L., et al. (2017). Public

attitudes toward gene therapy in China. Mol. Ther. - Methods Clin. Dev. 6, 40–42. doi:10.

1016/j.omtm.2017.05.008

Treleaven, T., and Tuch, B. E. (2018). Australian public attitudes on gene editing of

the human embryo. J. Law Med. 26 (1), 204–207.

Whitman, D., Love, J., Rainville, G., and Skufca, L. (2018). U.S. Public opinion &

interest on human enhancements technology. Washington, DC: AARP Research.

Frontiers in Genetics

15

frontiersin.org

...

参考文献をもっと見る

全国の大学の
卒論・修論・学位論文
を
一発検索！

この論文の関連論文を見る