Team:SJTU-BioX-Shanghai/Human Practices/hp-public
Overview
The CRISPR gene editing technology is at the heart of our project. The "He Jiankui Gene Editing Baby Event" that took place in December last year made this technology become the focus of public opinion. There are more and more disputes and concerns. In fact, with the development of modern science and technology, the public and scientific workers are increasingly in an isolated state. At the moment, the public needs to know more about the frontier science and technology, and scientists should listen more to the voice of society. To this end, we have conducted a series of investigations around gene editing technology.
Our research includes both empirical and normative aspects. In the empirical survey, we conducted questionnaires, in-depth interviews, and street video interviews; at the normative level, we conducted philosophical and legal research.
In order to better carry out social surveys, in the preparation stage, we refer to various related bibliographies such as "The Practice of Social Research" by Earl Babble, "Social Statistics" and "Quality Research Methods", and comprehensively adopt questionnaires, interviews and observations to conduct social surveys. We also contacted Associate Professor Zhou Kai for guidance. Associate Professor Zhou Kai is mainly engaged in the study of grassroots governance in Chinese politics, especially China, and has extensive experience in social investigation. Mr. Zhou discussed the research plan with us and helped us improve the design of the questionnaire.
After the survey, we conducted quantitative statistical analysis of the questionnaire data, and conducted text transcription and qualitative analysis on the recordings of in-depth interviews. We also edited and post-produced videos from street interviews.
Questionnaire survey
We refer to a large number of successful questionnaire cases and completed the questionnaire design under the guidance of Associate Professor Zhou Kai of the Marxist College, SJTU. In the questionnaire, we comprehensively adopted various forms of single-choice, multiple-choice, matrix, and sorting, and comprehensively considered the genetic editing, technical security, ethics, and economy of different objects such as microorganisms, animals, plants, food, humans, and embryos. Investigating problems with different levels of factors such as cost, in order to obtain objective and comprehensive data. We fully considered the cultural level of the respondents and the psychological changes when filling out the questionnaire, optimized the topic description, and placed the personal information at the end of the questionnaire.
We conducted online and field questionnaires At the same time as the questionnaires are put on the major online platforms, random questionnaires were distributed on the streets in Shanghai, Jiangsu, Yunnan, Hainan, Hunan, Qinghai, Sichuan as well.
A total of 1,306 valid questionnaires were collected online and offline. The questionnaire data comes from different genders, ages, occupations, income levels, education levels, and religious beliefs in many provinces and cities across the country, with relatively good extensiveness and representativeness.
We scored the options and calculated the scores for cognitive and acceptance levels (although this is not rigorous for some statisticians, we have taken this approach for statistical convenience. The calculated scores are essentially still a ordinal variable).
We used statistical software IBM SPSS 24 to describe the statistical and correlation analysis of acceptance and cognitive level, and examined the effects of different factors such as gender, age, occupation, education level, religious belief, and income on cognitive level and acceptance level. Specifically, the public's attitudes toward genetic editing of different objects such as microbes, non-edible plants, non-edible animals, food, human cell medicine and human embryos were examined. The technical safety, ethics and economic costs of the public were analyzed. The weight relationship in the development of genetic editing technology. The main analytical methods used are description statistics, correlation analysis, regression analysis, and nonparametric tests.
Some statistics are as follows.
More detailed information could be found in our full survey report. You can click the link below.
It can be seen from the survey results:
Most of the public's understanding of gene editing technology is limited to the general understanding of the main concepts, hot events, and limited knowledge of specific technical content, there is a certain misunderstanding. The acceptance of genetic editing by the public is quite different, and the overall distribution is normal. Overall, the public's acceptance of gene editing is positively correlated with its cognitive level, but this correlation is not very strong.
For example, although the level of cognitionis lower in rural inhibitants and blue-collar workers, they don't tend to show a very low level of acceptance. Instead, they usually have an indifferent attitude.
The public's level of cognition and acceptance of gene editing is significantly affected by gender, age, occupation, place of residence, level of education, and income status. The level of education is a key factor. These factors have a more pronounced effect on cognitive levels than on acceptance.
In general, the public has a high degree of acceptance of microbial, non-edible animals and plants and medically-oriented human somatic cells, and has low acceptance of human embryonic gene editing and low acceptance of gene editing on edible organism. When gene editing technology does not involve the human body, most people hold a strong pragmatic standpoint and generally support gene editing of other organisms for human's purpose. For gene editing directly affecting people, the public are basically cautious.
From the survey, we realise that the public is generally worried about the safety of gene editing. This also led us to decide to develop a detection and reporting system for gene editing off-target incidents to improve the safety of gene editing technology. In addition, we find that the public is more likely to accept gene editing for non-humans. So we decided to develop a CRISPR-based storage system. This promotes the application of CRISPR technology without major security and ethical risks.
In-depth interviews
We also interviewed several people in Kunming, Mianyang, Yueyang, Lianyungang and other places, from editing microbial or animal and plant genes, gene editing and treatment, human embryonic gene editing and other topics to learn more about their views on gene editing technology. They come from different places, have different professions, and have different opinions.
For the gene editing of other organisms, respondents generally believe that talent should be the purpose of our consideration, and do not believe that it violates the laws of nature, and most of them support this approach. But they also pointed out that it must be carried out under the premise of ensuring ecology safety. For human genetic editing, respondents generally believe that they should be treated with caution and ensure that technical editing can develop genetic editing for therapeutic purposes, but against genetic editing for the purpose of "enhancement", especially the state should also strengthen supervision. Improve the law. In the opinion of "He Jiankui's gene editing baby incident", the public's opinions differed. Some people think that conducting human trials under the condition of immature technology is irresponsible behavior and disrespect for the baby itself. However, some people think that clinical trials in technology development are necessary stages, and the embryo itself has no right of choice. In addition, respondents showed many different perspectives on some safety, ethical and social issues.
Below are some representative excerpts from the point of view.
(We can edit other species' gene for human’s purposes.) I raised a pig and killed it and ate it. What's that called? Disrespect for a pig’s life? To put it bluntly, people are the master of the world. I can't think from a pig's point of view.
I think it (other species' gene) can be modified. But in order to ensure species diversity，other genes can't be completely changed. It is not necessarily that the good genes found now are still good genes thousands of years later. Society is developing. At present, what human beings see is only a very shallow part.
I think it can be studied as a technology in the laboratory. But if you pick one on the way and then let it go, I still don't agree.......This is too human-centered. Man is only a small member of nature, and it seems a little too much for his own development to harm the interests of other species.
Under safe circumstances, I think I am still willing to receive gene therapy.
There may a technically risk. Moreover, there may be some problems in the social impact. If you really want to let go as completely as plastic surgery, there may be ghosts and snakes. This is not easy to say, but sometimes think about it, this can be seen as a genetic plastic surgery. I think if you can accept plastic surgery, you should be able to accept it, which is essentially the same.......However, I think that in the early stage of technological development, it may be similar to the initial acceptance of plastic surgery in society, but slowly we will accept it, and the legal provisions will also be let go. I think this should actually be a similar process.
I think it’s a problem of cost. The current gene editing technology can’t be universal. It's more likely to be an experimental thing. It might work if one day you let me be a volunteer. But if you want me to pay, I may not be able to pay.
But I think this still depends on whether the country has any legal provisions. If this is still not allowed in law, then it should still not be done. This is still based on the law.……Well, I think if there is no legal prohibition, if the parents of his (baby) family agree, ah, and if he is not edited, his risk of developing AIDS is very high, then I think it is no problem for him (He Jiankui) to do so. I think that's acceptable.
When the machinery is developing, the human body should be more and more high-end. To realize modernization, add kinds of external machinery, ah, directly to mechanical limbs, or modify human genes, changing some genes that may not be suitable for modern society.
After editing the child's genes, he/she will have resistance to AIDS. There will be antibodies, he/she will not be infected. It’s good for the human body. But if editing on a large scale or changing genes completely, this is still not very good for humans.
I think there is a big difference between them. Plastic surgery does not involve genes, and it is also non-renewable, that is, non-heritable, so beauty changes influence at best a person. Genes may affect the next generation, the spouse, and a lot of things. Because it can be inherited, it must be different.
I think these technologies, especially for the developing countries like China, it is impossible not to study them. To be honest, if you don't, other countries are doing it. From the point of view of national security, ah, I think it is very necessary to continue to study. Even if I set up the law to specify which are available and which are not available; However, this technology must be mastered first.
In fact, I think that the technology itself is not right or wrong. The criterion of judgment is how to use it. The atomic bomb, used for war, is not right, but it is good to be used in a nuclear power plant.
The divided opinions indicate the huge controversy in society about gene editing. The two cores of focus are security and ethical issues. And therefore we decided to improve the safety by building a off-target report system. Starting from the storage system of off-target signals, we further propose a general real-time signal recording and reading system based on CRISPR. This system only performs gene editing on simple prokaryotes, so it can promote the application and acceptance of CRISPR with less security risks and ethical controversies.
Interview video
We also conducted video interviews on the streets of Shanghai, Kunming, Dongfang, Yueyang and other cities in China to understand their different views on gene editing on Non-human objects, human somatic cells or human embryos. Although most of the people who are willing to express their opinions in front of the camera are highly educated young people, the interview results still show the diversity and complexity of the views. Some people support gene editing of non-human subjects for human needs, while others believe that this is contrary to animal ethics; some people have a positive attitude toward gene editing treatment, while others are more cautious.
There were also some older people who are not willing to show themselves in front of the camera, but they expressed their opinions in words. We recoded some below.
We have heard some different opinions:
"Transgenic, that is said to be harmful on TV. This can't be done," said a retired employee.
"Gene editing seems to be a bit of a violation of the laws of nature, but it cannot be said that it will have no good results. Technology always has advantages and disadvantages. What is important is to look at people who use the technology," said a retired teacher.
"In any case, these things are what scientists do to do all day long, and it doesn't matter to us. We don't have any meaning in support or opposition. Anyway, if they want to do it, they will do it. " A former farmer but who now lives with his children in the city said.
"Now technology is really developing too fast. The face of human beings in the future is really totally unthinkable. Perhaps those rich people can use these methods to live a much longer life." said a mother of a junior high school student.
"After all, I am a person, so I still have to think for human beings. You can't say that genetic editing of animals is unfair to animals and we won't do it. We still eat plants and eat animals every day. We still have to see if this is good for people." A small business executive said.
"Many people around me have got cancer and these serious diseases. If this technique can cure these diseases, I think it is very good. But if you say that if I want a child, based on this technology, I could create a child and selectively make him very tall, very handsome and very smart. I always feel there is something wrong." An ordinary citizen said.
Conclusion & Suggestions
Based on the results of a comprehensive empirical investigation and normative research, we can draw the following conclusions:
- Under the influence of hot news such as the He Jiankui incident, the public has a good understanding of gene editing technology and has a certain understanding, but this understanding is limited to the general understanding of major concepts and hot events, and the recognition of specific technical content. Knowing is limited, there are certain misunderstandings.
- The acceptance of genetic editing by the public is quite different, and the overall distribution is normal. That is, most publics are cautious about genetic editing. They neither fully support nor resist, but the specific context of genetic editing applications. Content depends.
- In general, the public has a high degree of acceptance of microbial, non-edible animals and plants, and human-made somatic cells for medical purposes, and has low acceptance of human embryonic gene editing. In addition, the public's acceptance of edible organisms gene editing is not high, which is more obvious in older people, lower education levels, and residential areas in rural small cities.
- Overall, the public's acceptance of gene editing is positively correlated with its cognitive level. That is, the more familiar with the gene editing technology, the higher the acceptance of gene editing. However, people with low cognitive levels often have the idea of "doing nothing," and people with high levels of cognition often think more about the safety, ethics, and social issues behind gene editing. It is also not high, resulting in a limited intensity of this correlation.
- The public's level of cognition and acceptance of genetic editing is significantly affected by gender, age, occupation, place of residence, level of education, and income status. The level of education is a key factor. The influence of these factors on the level of cognition and acceptance is more complicated, but in general, the longer the age, the lower the income, the lower the level of education, and the lower the level of cognition and acceptance of genetic editing. And the impact of these factors on cognitive levels is more pronounced than on acceptance.
- The public is particularly concerned about the safety and ethical issues of genetic editing techniques, especially when this technology involves the human body. When gene editing technology does not involve the human body, most people hold a strong pragmatic standpoint and generally support genetic editing of other organisms in the case of human-friendly conditions and technical security. "Do not respect other biological rights" violates nature. Law "The influence of one type of concept is very limited. After the gene editing technology is directly applied to people, most people are cautious and pay close attention to the security, legal and ethical issues behind them, and support the development of "treatment" under the premise of technical security and institutional norms. For the purpose of genetic editing, against genetic editing for the purpose of "enhancement".
- Gene editing techniques have led to a series of philosophical, ethical, religious and social debates. Due to the wide range of applications of genetic editing, the application of various objects, involving technical, environmental, ethical, legal, social and other factors, has formed a complex view of various factions. Due to their different backgrounds and values, this debate will continue for a long time.
- China has not yet issued specific laws on genetic editing related technologies. However, from the perspective of some relevant regulations, China has strict control measures on biotechnology such as genetic editing, especially biomedical technologies involving human beings. Be cautious, avoid risks, avoid disputes, and ensure safety while developing.
We believe that in the face of cutting-edge technology such as genetic editing, we must develop steadily and avoid risks. To this end, on the basis of research, the following recommendations are made:
- Strictly supervise the mechanism and issue special laws or administrative regulations on gene editing technology as soon as possible to regulate the development and application of gene editing technology.
- Strengthen the popularization of relevant cutting-edge science and technology, clean up the media's false and exaggerated reports, clarify the public's misunderstanding and understanding of technologies such as genetic editing, and raise the public's cognitive level.
- Actively promote the development of genetic editing technology, focus on solving the hidden dangers of technical safety such as off-target, and promote the maturity of technology. From the results of the survey, when technology is safe, most people support the promotion and application of gene editing technology.
- Under the conditions of ensuring safety, focus on the application of genetic editing technology in areas that are not subject to high public acceptance and ethical issues, such as the human body, to avoid large ethical and social problems.
- Strictly regulate and limit the genetic editing of the human body, actively explore genetically-edited genetic editing without genetic effects, and oppose or suspend the development of embryonic genetic editing with the purpose of "enhancement" or genetic effects and unknown risks.
- Establish a bridge of communication between scientists, humanities and the general public to promote ethical and social issues related to gene editing. While popularizing scientific knowledge to the public, scientists should also listen to the public's views and expectations on scientific research and listen. The suggestions and ideas of humanities scholars enhance two-way communication, promote the connection between scientific research and the public, and the integration of science and humanities.
Based on the result of public survey, we have adjusted the design of our project. Confronted with anxiety and panic in public towards gene editing, we decided to build a system to detect, record and report off-target incidents to enhance the safety of gene editing. Realising the huge controversy about gene editing in society, we continued to carry out deep research on philosophy and law. And we choose to avoid ethical risks and edit genes of simple prokaryotic organism to build a real-time information record and read system. We hope to promote to the application of CRISPR system with few controversies and risks.
SJTU-BioX-Shanghai
Contact us: sjtuigem@gmail.com
Bio-X Institute, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Dongchuan Rd. 800