Lander ES, Baylis F, Zhang F, Charpentier E, Berg P, Bourgain C. et al. Adopt a moratorium on heritable genome editing. Nature. 2019; 567: 165–8.
Collins FS. NIH supports international moratorium on clinical application of germline editing: National Institutes of Health; 2019[updated13-03-2019Availablefrom: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 of Human Reproductioin and Embryology; 2019. Available from: https://www.eshre.eu/Press-Room/ESHRE-News/2019.
ESHG. Response to ‘Adopt a moratorium on heritable gene editing’: The European Society of Human Genetics; 2019[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=50dabc5b8e[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 Discussing the modification of heritable DNA in embryos. Rathenau Institute; 2020.
van Baalen S, Gouman J, Houtman D, Vijlbrief B, Riedijk S, Verhoef P. The DNA-dialogue: a broad societal dialogue about human germline genome editing in the Netherlands. The CRISPR J. 2021; 4: 616–25.
Lutkenhaus RO, Jansz J, Bouman MPA. Stimulating 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. Introducing the dilemma of societal alignment for inclusive and responsible research and innovation. J Responsible Innov. 2018; 5: 316–31.
Andorno R, Baylis F, Darnovsky M, Dickenson D, Haker H, Hasson K, et al. Geneva statement on heritable human genome editing: the need for course correction. Trends in Biotechnol. 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 should be evidence based. In: Impact of 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 10 May 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 (Not) Know About Global Views of Human Gene Editing? Insights and Blind Spots in the CRISPR Era. CRISPR. J. 2020; 3: 148–55.
Zorn TE, Roper J, Weaver CK, Rigby C. Influence in science dialogue: Individual attitude changes as a result of dialogue between laypersons and scientists. Public Underst Sci. 2012; 21: 848–64.
Escobar O. Public dialogue and deliberation: a communication perspective for public engagement practitioners. Edinburgh: UK Beacons for Public Engagement. 2011.
Fishkin JS Deliberative polling. The Oxford handbook of deliberative democracy: Oxford University Press; 2018. 314-28.
Hendriks F. Democratic innovation beyond deliberative reflection: the plebiscitary rebound and the advent of action-oriented democracy. Democratization. 2019; 26: 444–64.
Spangenberg F, Lampert M. Generations: in one of the youngest of the founders: Nieuw Amsterdam; 2013.
Standard Undertaking (SOI): Central Bureau of Statistics. Available from: 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 not solve it. Nature 2015; 522: 413–4.
Jasanoff S, Hurlbut JB, Saha K. CRISPR democracy: gene editing and the need for inclusive deliberation. Issues Sci Technol. 2015; 32:37.
Vijlbrief B, Riedijk S, Houtman D, Hofstra R Germline genome editing: public dialogue is urgent but not self-evident. Eur J Hum Genet. 2020; 28: 1–2.
Burall S. Rethink public engagement for gene editing. Nature. 2018; 555: 438–9.
Hendriks S, Giesbertz NAA, Bredenoord AL, Repping S. Reasons for being in favor of or against genome modification: a survey of the Dutch general public. Hum Reprod Open. 2018; 2018: hoy008.
Allum N, Sturgis P, Tabourazi D, Brunton-Smith I. Science knowledge and attitudes across cultures: a meta-analysis. Public Underst Sci. 2008; 17: 35–54.
Scheufele DA, Xenos MA, Howell EL, Rose KM, Brossard D, Hardy BW. US attitudes on human genome editing. Science. 2017; 357: 553–4.
Van Dael M, Lizin S, Swinnen G, Van Passel S. Young people’s 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 genetically modified food regulatory policy: reassessing the calculus of dissent among European citizens. Eur Union Politics. 2005; 6: 181–200.
Drummond C, Fischhoff B. Individuals with greater science literacy and education have more polarized beliefs on controversial science topics. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2017; 114: 9587–92.
Fishkin JS, Luskin RC. Experimenting with a democratic ideal: deliberative polling and public opinion. Acta politica. 2005; 40: 284–98.