a crispr new world: attitudes in the public toward innovations in human genetic modification
Clicks: 269
ID: 229516
2017
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This
article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score —
reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
Reader Engagement
Steady Performance
30.0
/100
269 views
33 readers
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
SteadyRanked #195 of 331 articles by views in Nanomaterials
Most read
Least read
Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 331 in total.
Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet mintedCreate a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.
5
SUSD
one-off · no wallet required
Abstract
The potential to genetically modify human germlines has reached a critical tipping point with recent applications of CRISPR-Cas9. Even as researchers, clinicians, and ethicists weigh the scientific and ethical repercussions of these advances, we know virtually nothing about public attitudes on the topic. Understanding such attitudes will be critical to determining the degree of broad support there might be for any public policy or regulation developed for genetic modification research. To fill this gap, we gave an online survey to a large (2,493 subjects) and diverse sample of Americans. Respondents supported genetic modification research, although demographic variables influenced these attitudes—conservatives, women, African-Americans, and older respondents, while supportive, were more cautious than liberals, men, other ethnicities, and younger respondents. Support was also was slightly muted when the risks (unanticipated mutations and possibility of eugenics) were made explicit. The information about genetic modification was also presented as contrasting vignettes, using one of five frames: genetic editing, engineering, hacking, modification, or surgery. Despite the fact that the media and academic use of frames describing the technology varies, these frames did not influence people’s attitudes. These data contribute a current snapshot of public attitudes to inform policy with regard to human genetic modification.
| Reference Key |
weisberg2017frontiersa
Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using
SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
|
|---|---|
| Authors | ;Steven M. Weisberg;Daniel Badgio;Anjan Chatterjee |
| Journal | Nanomaterials |
| Year | 2017 |
| DOI |
10.3389/fpubh.2017.00117
|
| URL | |
| Keywords |
Citations
No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org
Comments
No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.