Reengineering Life

Men Are Twice as Likely to Support Genetically Engineered Babies Than Women

The public may be ready for gene-edited babies

Reengineering Life is a series from OneZero about the astonishing ways genetic technology is changing humanity and the world around us.

The birth of the world’s first gene-edited babies, revealed in November 2018, prompted international shock and outrage. Working in relative secrecy, Chinese researcher He Jiankui used CRISPR to modify the genomes of two human embryos in hopes of making the resulting babies resistant to HIV.

He’s experiment was almost universally condemned by the scientific community, leading some researchers to call for a temporary ban on creating more gene-edited babies.

The general public, in contrast, seems more supportive, according to a new study.

In a survey of 1,537 members of the public across 67 countries, people said they were generally in favor of germline genetic editing — that is, editing that changes an embryo’s genetic makeup in a way that can be passed on to future generations. The findings were published in the Journal of Human Genetics on July 31.

Participants first watched a short educational video that explained the basic science behind CRISPR gene editing and were then given an information sheet explaining the concept of germline gene editing. (It is different from somatic gene editing, which only alters the DNA of the person being treated and is being explored as a treatment for cancer and a handful of genetic conditions.)

People were then asked the degree to which they agreed with certain hypothetical uses of germline gene editing, from medical applications to “enhancement” purposes. A majority of participants said they “strongly agree” with the use of germline editing to prevent untreatable diseases or fatal diseases that begin in childhood or adulthood. Those polled were least likely to support germline editing as a medical application to prevent mental illness in adults and to impart resistance to infectious diseases.

Around half of the respondents disagreed or strongly disagreed with the use of germline editing to enhance traits like vision, sports performance, intelligence, or self-discipline. A relatively large proportion of people were undecided about these uses. Strikingly, men were twice as likely as women to support its use for enhancement, and more than 50% of the men who responded to the survey supported all uses of germline editing.

Parents were less supportive of germline editing than people without children. Religious participants were the most opposed to germline editing, and those who reported having expertise or work experience in genetics were also more resistant to it.

Hank Greely, a bioethicist and law professor at Stanford University who was not involved in the study, tells OneZero he isn’t surprised that those who know less about genetics or parenthood would be more accepting of germline editing.

“That seems right to me,” he says. “The less you know, I suspect the less you see some of the possible alternatives [to germline gene editing].”

One of those alternatives is known as preimplantation genetic testing. Parents who are worried about passing on genetic diseases to their children can currently opt for this type of testing to screen their embryos for certain conditions before undergoing in vitro fertilization (IVF). They can then choose only to use healthy embryos to try to establish a pregnancy.

Another possible alternative to germline editing is gene therapy, which is being investigated as a one-time, lasting treatment for a number of intractable diseases.

The study had a few limitations. Its authors, at the University of Melbourne and the Murdoch Children’s Research Institute in Australia, used Twitter and Facebook posts to promote the survey, limiting respondents to those who saw the posts. The vast majority of respondents were from the United States, Australia, Canada, and the U.K., and 87% were white with some amount of college education.

The survey question also assumed that germline editing is safe and effective, neither of which has been proven. For one, there’s evidence that He’s editing resulted in “mosaicism” in the twin girls, which means that some of their cells were edited, while others weren’t. As a result, the girls may still be vulnerable to HIV. And while He claimed that the babies were born healthy, the safety of germline editing has been called into question.

In a study first reported by OneZero in June, U.K. researchers found that CRISPR caused accidental DNA damage when used in human embryos. Gene-editing experts not involved in the paper told OneZero at the time that the results were alarming. Such inadvertent mutations could cause genetic disorders or cancer in babies whose genomes had been edited before birth.

Two subsequent papers by U.S. research groups raised similar concerns. All three papers were uploaded to the preprint server bioRxiv in June and have yet to be peer-reviewed.

The findings of the new study echo a 2018 survey conducted by the Pew Research Center, in which 72% of U.S. adults said that changing an unborn baby’s genes to treat a serious disease or condition that the baby would have at birth is an appropriate use of medical technology.

Greely says he doesn’t find the level of support in the new study that surprising given the self-selecting nature of the survey. “I don’t think it reflects the full public’s view,” he says. The support for germline editing would likely shake out differently in a deliberative democratic process, he adds.

That’s unlikely to happen in the United States anytime soon because of a de facto ban on gene-edited babies passed by Congress in December 2015. More than two dozen other countries have laws that directly or indirectly prohibit gene-edited babies, but there are no agreed-upon international rules. Two international committees are now contemplating how germline gene editing might be done safely and ethically and plan to issue recommendations on regulating the technique later this year or in 2021.

While the recent survey isn’t definitive, the authors say the findings indicate that a blanket ban might be “too restrictive.” Instead of being for or against germline editing altogether, people seem to have more nuanced views on the technology depending on its particular use, they say.

“It’s an interesting straw in the wind,” Greely says of the study. But, “it’s not enough to convince me that I know which way the wind blows.”