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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Jasanoff S, Hurlbut JB, Saha K. Democratic governance of human germline genome editing. CRISPR J. 2019;2:266–71.
Sarewitz D. CRISPR: Science can’t solve it. Nature 2015;522:413–4.
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.
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.
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.
Scheufele DA, Xenos MA, Howell EL, Rose KM, Brossard D, Hardy BW. American attitudes on human genome editing. Science. 2017;357:553–4.
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.
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.
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.
Fishkin JS, Luskin RC. Experimenting with a democratic ideal: deliberative polling and public opinion. Political acts. 2005;40:284–98.
Comments are closed.