Changes in opinions about 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 heritable genome editing. Nature. 2019; 567: 165–8.

    CAS Article Google Scholar

  • 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.

    Article Google Scholar

  • 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.

    Article Google Scholar

  • 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.

    CAS Article Google Scholar

  • 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.

    CAS Article Google Scholar

  • 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.

    Google Scholar

  • 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.

    Article Google Scholar

  • 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.

    Article Google Scholar

  • 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.

    Article Google Scholar

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

    Article Google Scholar

  • Sarewitz D. CRISPR: science can not solve it. Nature 2015; 522: 413–4.

    CAS Article Google Scholar

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

    Google Scholar

  • 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.

    CAS Article Google Scholar

  • 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.

    CAS Article Google Scholar

  • 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.

    Article Google Scholar

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

    CAS Article Google Scholar

  • 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.

    Article Google Scholar

  • 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.

    Article Google Scholar

  • 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.

    CAS Article Google Scholar

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

    Article Google Scholar