Opinion shifts on human germline gene editing as a result of the Dutch DNA Dialogue Project

  • Lander ES, Baylis F, Zhang F, Charpentier E, Berg P, Bourgain C. et al. Adopt a moratorium on hereditary genome editing. Nature. 2019;567:165–8.

    CAS Google Scholar Article

  • Collins F.S. NIH Supports International Moratorium on Clinical Application of Germline Editing: National Institutes of Health; 2019[updated2019-03-13Availableat:https://wwwnihgov/about-nih/who-we-are/nih-director/statements/nih-supports-international-moratorium-clinical-application-germline-editing[updated13-03-2019Availablefrom:https://wwwnihgov/about-nih/who-we-are/nih-director/statements/nih-supports-international-moratorium-clinical-application-germline-editing[misàjourle13-03-2019Disponiblesur:https://wwwnihgov/about-nih/who-we-are/nih-director/statements/nih-supports-international-moratorium-clinical-application-germline-editing[updated13-03-2019Availablefrom:https://wwwnihgov/about-nih/who-we-are/nih-director/statements/nih-supports-international-moratorium-clinical-application-germline-editing

  • ESHRE. Moratorium on gene editing in human embryos: European Society for Human Reproduction and Embryology; 2019. Available at: https://www.eshre.eu/Press-Room/ESHRE-News/2019.

  • ESHG. Response to “Adopt a Moratorium on Inherited Gene Editing”: The European Society for Human Genetics; 2019[misàjourle27-03-2019Disponiblesur:https://wwweshgorg/indexphp?id=910&tx_news_pi1%5Bnews%5D=16&tx_news_pi1%5Bcontroller%5D=News&tx_news_pi1%5Baction%5D=detail&cHash=50d16c4b8e5abef5e2693e7864b7e2e5[updated27-03-2019Availablefrom:https://wwweshgorg/indexphp?id=910&tx_news_pi1%5Bnews%5D=16&tx_news_pi1%5Bcontroller%5D=News&tx_news_pi1%5Baction%5D=detail&cHash=50d16c4b8e5abef5e2693e7864b7e2e5[misàjourle27-03-2019Disponiblesur:https://wwweshgorg/indexphp?id=910&tx_news_pi1%5Bnews%5D=16&tx_news_pi1%5Bcontroller%5D=News&tx_news_pi1%5Baction%5D=detail&cHash=50d16c4b8e5abef5e2693e7864b7e2e5[updated27-03-2019Availablefrom:https://wwweshgorg/indexphp?id=910&tx_news_pi1%5Bnews%5D=16&tx_news_pi1%5Bcontroller%5D=News&tx_news_pi1%5Baction%5D=detail&cHash=50d16c4b8e5abef5e2693e7864b7e2e5

  • van Baalen S, Gouman J, Verhoef P Discuss hereditary DNA modification in the embryo. Rathenau Institute; 2020.

  • van Baalen S, Gouman J, Houtman D, Vijlbrief B, Riedijk S, Verhoef P. The DNA dialogue: a broad societal dialogue on human germline genome editing in the Netherlands. CRISPR J. 2021;4:616–25.

    Google Scholar article

  • Lutkenhaus RO, Jansz J, Bouman MPA. Inspiring conversations about human germline technology. In: Lutkenhaus RO (ed). Entertainment-education in the new media landscape: stimulating creative engagement in online communities for social and behavioral change. Erasmus Research Center for Media, Communication and Culture, Rotterdam, 2020. pp 88–119.

  • Ribeiro B, Bengtsson L, Benneworth P, Bührer S, Castro-Martínez E, Hansen M, et al. Presentation of the dilemma of societal alignment for inclusive and responsible research and innovation. J Innovation Manager. 2018;5:316–31.

    Google Scholar article

  • Andorno R, Baylis F, Darnovsky M, Dickenson D, Haker H, Hasson K, et al. Geneva Declaration on Hereditary Editing of the Human Genome: The Need for a Course Correction. Trends in biotechnology. 2020.

  • Dryzek JS, Nicol D, Niemeyer S, Pemberton S, Curato N, Bächtiger A. et al. Global Citizen Deliberation on Genome Editing. Science. 2020;369:1435–7.

    CAS Google Scholar Article

  • Gerber A, Jensen E. For science communication to be effective, it must be evidence-based. In: Impact of the Soc Sci blog. The London School of Economics and Political Science. 2020. https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2020/05/27/for-science-communication-to-be-effective-it-should-be-evidence-based/. Accessed May 10, 2022.

  • Delhove J, Osenk I, Prichard I, Donnelley M. Public acceptability of gene therapy and gene editing for human use: a systematic review. Hum Gene Ther. 2020;31:20–46.

    CAS Google Scholar Article

  • Howell EL, Yang S, Beets B, Brossard D, Scheufele DA, Xenos MA. What do we know (don’t we know) about global views of human gene editing? Insights and blind spots in the CRISPR era. CRISPR. J. 2020;3:148–55.

    Google Scholar

  • Zorn TE, Roper J, Weaver CK, Rigby C. Influence in scientific dialogue: Individual attitude changes as a result of dialogue between lay people and scientists. Public understanding Sci. 2012;21:848–64.

    Google Scholar article

  • Escobar O. Public Dialogue and Deliberation: A Communication Perspective for Public Engagement Practitioners. Edinburgh: British beacons for public engagement. 2011.

  • Fishkin JS Deliberative poll. The Oxford Handbook of Deliberative Democracy: Oxford University Press; 2018. 314-28.

  • Hendriks F. Democratic innovation beyond deliberative reflection: the plebiscite rebound and the advent of action democracy. Democratization. 2019;26:444–64.

    Google Scholar article

  • Spangenberg F, Lampert M. De grenzeloze generatie: en de eeuwige jeugd van hun opvoeders: Nieuw Amsterdam; 2013.

  • Standaard Onderwijsindeling (SOI): Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek. Available at: https://www.cbs.nl/nl-nl/onze-diensten/methoden/classificaties/onderwijs-en-beroepen/standaard-onderwijsindeling–soi–.

  • Baylis F. Human germline genome editing and broad societal consensus. Nat Hum Behav. 2017;1:1–3.

    Google Scholar article

  • Jasanoff S, Hurlbut JB, Saha K. Democratic governance of human germline genome editing. CRISPR J. 2019;2:266–71.

    Google Scholar article

  • Sarewitz D. CRISPR: Science can’t solve it. Nature 2015;522:413–4.

    CAS Google Scholar Article

  • Jasanoff S, Hurlbut JB, Saha K. CRISPR democracy: gene editing and the need for inclusive deliberation. Sci Technol Problems. 2015;32:37.

    Google Scholar

  • Vijlbrief B, Riedijk S, Houtman D, Hofstra R Germline genome editing: public dialogue is urgent but not obvious. Eur J Hum Genet. 2020;28:1–2.

  • Burall S. Rethinking public engagement for gene editing. Nature. 2018;555:438–9.

    CAS Google Scholar Article

  • Hendriks S, Giesbertz NAA, Bredenoord AL, Repping S. Reasons to be for or against genome editing: a survey of the general Dutch public. Hum Reprod open. 2018;2018:hoy008.

    CAS Google Scholar Article

  • Allum N, Sturgis P, Tabourazi D, Brunton-Smith I. Scientific knowledge and attitudes across cultures: a meta-analysis. Public understanding Sci. 2008;17:35–54.

    Google Scholar article

  • Scheufele DA, Xenos MA, Howell EL, Rose KM, Brossard D, Hardy BW. American attitudes on human genome editing. Science. 2017;357:553–4.

    CAS Google Scholar Article

  • Van Dael M, Lizin S, Swinnen G, Van Passel S. Youth acceptance of bioenergy and the influence of attitude strength on information provision. Renew energy. 2017;107:417–30.

    Google Scholar article

  • Durant RF, Legge JS Jr. Public opinion, risk perceptions and GM food regulatory policy: re-evaluating the calculus of dissent among European citizens. European Union policy. 2005;6:181–200.

    Google Scholar article

  • Drummond C, Fischhoff B. People with greater scientific literacy and better education have more polarized beliefs about controversial scientific topics. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2017;114:9587–92.

    CAS Google Scholar Article

  • Fishkin JS, Luskin RC. Experimenting with a democratic ideal: deliberative polling and public opinion. Political acts. 2005;40:284–98.

    Google Scholar article

  • Comments are closed.