IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/jriskr/v25y2022i2p139-155.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Enhanced threat or therapeutic benefit? Risk and benefit perceptions of human gene editing by purpose and heritability of edits

Author

Listed:
  • Emily L. Howell
  • Patrice Kohl
  • Dietram A. Scheufele
  • Sarah Clifford
  • Anqi Shao
  • Michael A. Xenos
  • Dominique Brossard

Abstract

Public discourse and deliberation are key to developing socially responsible and acceptable human gene editing research and applications. Researchers have raised concerns, however, that discourse about heritable gene edits, especially for non-therapeutic (or enhancement) purposes, might negatively bias public opinion of applications, including non-heritable edits to cure or prevent disease. Yet limited research exists examining how information about different gene editing applications elicits different perceptions of the technology. Using a U.S.-representative sample and survey-embedded experiment, we tested how exposure to information about different types of edits affects support and perceptions of benefits, risks, and moral acceptability of human gene editing. We randomly assigned respondents to a control or to an experimental condition in which they read information about one of four broad types of potential applications: (1) heritable edits for enhancement; (2) heritable edits for therapy; (3) non-heritable edits for enhancement; (4) non-heritable edits for therapy. Respondents then answered questions tapping multiple dimensions of support for and risk/benefit perceptions of human gene editing. Our results indicate partial evidence that exposure to information about heritable and/or enhancement edits colors perceptions of human gene editing more broadly but also that support for therapeutic edits is robust. Participants who read information about therapy edits perceived human gene editing in general more favorably in terms of benefits, risks, and moral acceptability than did participants who read about enhancements. Exposure to information about therapy versus enhancement edits, however, did not significantly influence support for therapy edits in particular. Heritability of edits had significant influence only on perceived risk, with heritable edits triggering higher risk perceptions. Interestingly, heritability seems to primarily affect views of risk of gene editing but not views of benefits, moral acceptability, or levels of support. We did not find differing effects depending on whether heritable edits were for therapy or enhancement.

Suggested Citation

  • Emily L. Howell & Patrice Kohl & Dietram A. Scheufele & Sarah Clifford & Anqi Shao & Michael A. Xenos & Dominique Brossard, 2022. "Enhanced threat or therapeutic benefit? Risk and benefit perceptions of human gene editing by purpose and heritability of edits," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 25(2), pages 139-155, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:taf:jriskr:v:25:y:2022:i:2:p:139-155
    DOI: 10.1080/13669877.2020.1806911
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/13669877.2020.1806911
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/13669877.2020.1806911?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:jriskr:v:25:y:2022:i:2:p:139-155. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/RJRR20 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.