論文の公開元へ

書き出し

Refer/BibIX

RIS

BibTeX

TSV

Genome editing of human embryos for research purposes: Japanese lay and expert attitudes

Akatsuka, Kyoko Hatta, Taichi Sawai, Tsutomu Fujita, Misao 京都大学 DOI:10.3389/fgene.2023.1205067

2023.06.22

概要

Background: Multiple surveys of the general public and experts on human genome editing have been conducted. However, many focused only on editing in clinical applications, with few regarding its use for basic research. Given that genome editing for research purposes is indispensable for the realization of clinical genome editing, understanding lay attitudes toward genome editing in research, particularly using human embryos, which is likely to provoke ethical concerns, is helpful for future societal discussion. Methods: An online survey was conducted with Japanese laypeople and researchers to ascertain their views regarding human genome editing for research purposes. Participants were queried about their acceptance as a function of the target of genome editing (germ cells, surplus IVF embryos, research embryos, somatic cells); then, those who answered “acceptable depending on the purpose” were asked about their acceptance in the context of specific research purposes of genome editing. Participants were also asked about their expectations and concerns regarding human genome editing. Results: Replies were obtained from 4, 424 laypeople and 98 researchers. Approximately 28.2–36.9% of the laypeople exhibited strong resistance to genome editing for research purposes regardless of their applications. In contrast, 25.5% of the researchers demonstrated resistance only to genome editing in research embryos; this percentage was substantially higher than those concerning the other three targets (5.1–9.2%). Approximately 50.4–63.4% of laypeople who answered “acceptable depending on the purpose” approved germline genome editing for disease research; however, only 39.3–42.8% approved genome editing in basic research to obtain biological knowledge. In contrast, the researchers displayed a lower degree of acceptance of germline genome editing for research purposes related to chronic diseases (60.9–66.7%) than for other research purposes (73.6–90.8%). Analysis of responses concerning expectations and concerns indicated that laypeople who would not accept genome editing of human embryos did not necessarily worry about “instrumentalization of the embryo.” They also had substantially low expectations for recognized advantages of genome editing, including “advances in science” and “reduction of intractable diseases, ” compared with other groups of respondents. Conclusion: The assumptions shared among experts in conventional bioethical debates and policy discussions on human genome editing are not self-evident to laypeople.

論文の公開元へ

この論文で使われている画像

参考文献

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

Friedmann, T., Jonlin, E. C., King, N., Torbett, B. E., Wivel, N. A., Kaneda, Y., et al.

(2015). ASGCT and JSGT joint position statement on human genomic editing. Mol.

Ther. J. Am. Soc. Gene Ther. 23 (8), 1282. doi:10.1038/mt.2015.118

Baltimore, D., Berg, P., Botchan, M., Carroll, D., Charo, R. A., Church, G., et al. (2015).

Biotechnology. A prudent path forward for genomic engineering and germline gene

modiﬁcation. Sci. (New York, N.Y.) 348 (6230), 36–38. doi:10.1126/science.aab1028

Harris, J. (2007). Enhancing evolution: The ethical case for making better people.

Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

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 May 16, 2022).

Buchanan, A., Brock, D., Daniels, N., and Wikler, D. (2000). From chance to choice:

Genetics and justice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

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 January 18, 2023).

Lanphier, E., Urnov, F., Haecker, S. E., Werner, M., and Smolenski, J. (2015).

Don’t edit the human germ line. Nature 519 (7544), 410–411. doi:10.1038/

519410a

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

analysis for the behavioral sciences. Editor J. Cohen (New York: Routledge), 407–465.

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

Council for Science and Technology Policy (CSTP) (2004). The fundamental way of

thinking in treating the human embryo [Japanese]. Available at: https://www8.cao.go.

jp/cstp/tyousakai/life/haihu39/siryo5-1-1.pdf (Accessed January 18, 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

De Wert, G., Pennings, G., Clarke, A., Eichenlaub-Ritter, U., van El, C. G., Forzano, F.,

Goddijn, M., Heindryckx, B., Howard, H. C., Radojkovic, D., Rial-Sebbag, E., Tarlatzis,

B. C., Cornel, M. C., et al. European society of human genetics and the European society

of human reproduction and embryology (2018). human germline gene editing:

Recommendations of ESHG and ESHRE. Eur. J. Hum. Genet., 26(4), 445–449.

doi:10.1038/s41431-017-0076-0

Ministry of Internal Affairs Communications (MIC) (2015). Table3-1 in

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

stat_inﬁd=000031473212 (Accessed January 18, 2023).

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

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

Devolder, K. (2015). The ethics of embryonic stem cell research. Oxford: Oxford University

Press.

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 18,

2023).

European Group on Ethics in Science and New Technologies (EGE) (2016). Statement

on gene editing. Available at: https://research-and-innovation.ec.europa.eu/system/ﬁles/

2018-10/gene_editing_ege_statement.pdf (Accessed January 18, 2023).

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

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

National Academies Press.

Frontiers in Genetics

frontiersin.org

Akatsuka et al.

10.3389/fgene.2023.1205067

STAT and Harvard, T. H. (2016). The public and genetic editing, testing, and therapy.

Available at: https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/94/2016/01/STATHarvard-Poll-Jan-2016-Genetic-Technology.pdf (Accessed January 18, 2023).

Pew Research Center (2018). Public views of gene editing for babies depend on how it

would be used: Americans are more likely to anticipate negative than positive effects

from widespread use of gene-editing technology. Available at: https://www.

pewresearch.org/science/2018/07/26/public-views-of-gene-editing-for-babies-dependon-how-it-would-be-used/ (Accessed January 18, 2023).

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

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

Inc.), 25–37.

Pew Research Center (2016). U. S. public opinion on the future use of gene editing. Available

at: https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/wp-content/uploads/sites/9/2016/07/PS_2016.07.

26_Human-Enhancement-Survey_FINAL.pdf (Accessed January 18, 2023).

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) (2015). Statement on NIH funding of research

using gene-editing technologies in human embryos. Available at: https://www.nih.gov/aboutnih/who-we-are/nih-director/statements/statement-nih-funding-research-using-geneediting-technologies-human-embryos (Accessed January 18, 2023).

Public Notice of the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology

(MEXT) and Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare (MHLW) (2019). Guidelines for

research using gene-altering technologies on human fertilized embryos are established

as follows, and shall come into force as from the date of promulgation. Available at:

https://www.lifescience.mext.go.jp/ﬁles/pdf/Overview_Human_embryo_geneomeediting_guideline2019En.pdf (Accessed January 18, 2023).

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

Available at: https://www.nufﬁeldbioethics.org/assets/pdfs/Genome-editing-anethical-review.pdf (Accessed January 18, 2023).

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

editing technology for human reproduction. Available at: https://www.scj.go.jp/ja/info/

kohyo/pdf/kohyo-24-t292-5e.pdf (Accessed January 18, 2023).

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-2021-0066

World Health Organization (WHO) (2019). Expert advisory committee on

developing global standards for governance and oversight of human genome

editing. Background paper the ethics of human genome editing.

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

Frontiers in Genetics

frontiersin.org

...

参考文献をもっと見る

分野

大学

学位論文種類・取得年

言語

Genome editing of human embryos for research purposes: Japanese lay and expert attitudes

概要

この論文で使われている画像

関連論文

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

Looking back: three key lessons from 20 years of shaping Japanese genome research regulations

The status of central ethical reviewing and challenges regarding its introduction to non-interventional studies in Japan

Current status of genome‐wide epigenetic profiling of mammalian preimplantation embryos

Public attitudes in Japan toward the creation and use of gametes derived from human-induced pluripotent stem cells

参考文献

分野

大学

学位論文種類・取得年

言語

コピーが完了しました

URLをコピーしました

Genome editing of human embryos for research purposes: Japanese lay and expert attitudes

概要

この論文で使われている画像

関連論文

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

Looking back: three key lessons from 20 years of shaping Japanese genome research regulations

The status of central ethical reviewing and challenges regarding its introduction to non-interventional studies in Japan

Current status of genome‐wide epigenetic profiling of mammalian preimplantation embryos

Public attitudes in Japan toward the creation and use of gametes derived from human-induced pluripotent stem cells

参考文献