Most Americans oppose using powerful new technology to alter the genes of unborn babies, even to prevent serious inherited diseases, according to a new poll.
They expressed the strongest disapproval for editing genes to create “designer babies’’ with enhanced intelligence or looks.
But the poll, conducted by STAT and the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, found that people have mixed, and apparently not firm, views on emerging genetic techniques. US adults are almost evenly split on whether the federal government should fund research on editing genes before birth to keep children from developing diseases such as cystic fibrosis or Huntington’s disease.
“They’re not against scientists trying to improve [genome-editing] technologies,’’ said Robert Blendon, professor of health policy and political analysis at Harvard’s Chan School, perhaps, he added, because they recognize that one day there might be a compelling reason to use such technologies. An unexpected event, such as scientists “eliminating a terrible disease’’ that a child would have otherwise inherited, “could change people’s views in the years ahead,’’ Blendon said.
But for now, he added, “people are concerned about editing the genes of those who are yet unborn.’’
A majority, however, wants government regulators to approve gene therapy to treat diseases in children and adults.
The poll comes as scientists and policy makers confront the ethical, social, and legal implications of these revolutionary tools for changing DNA. Thanks to a technique called CRISPR-Cas9, scientists can easily, and with increasing precision, modify genes through the genetic analog of a computer’s “find and replace’’ function.
Scientists recently used CRISPR to repair a gene that causes Duchenne muscular dystrophy in mice. CRISPR has also been used in human cells growing in a lab dish to correct a gene that causes inherited blindness. While much research remains to be done, the technique holds promise as a treatment for numerous disorders.
But changes to the genes of eggs, sperm, and early embryos would be inherited by future generations and could alter the human gene pool. No one knows what the consequences of such “germline editing’’ might be, including a society of genetic haves and have-nots, Dr. Francis Collins, director of the National Institutes of Health, has told STAT.
At an international genome-editing summit in Washington, D.C., in December, scientists recommended against human germline editing but left open the door to research that involves such editing as long as any resulting embryos are not used to start a pregnancy.
Ordinary Americans seem to agree: 65 percent think altering “the genes of unborn babies’’ to reduce the risk of certain serious diseases should be illegal. Only 26 percent said it should be legal.
There is even less support for more frivolous germline editing: 83 percent said altering DNA prenatally to improve “intelligence or physical characteristics’’ should be illegal. Just 11 percent said that it should be legal.
“Preventing an illness by repairing DNA, if that’s the motivation, to produce a healthy baby, I’m not opposed to that,’’ said James Giammarino, 65, a grandfather of three who lives in Eastern Massachusetts. “I think it’s a wonderful way to use science. But parents almost trying to have a designer baby, I don’t feel we have a right to change things like’’ mental or physical traits.
Sixty-nine percent of Americans have heard little or nothing about germline editing. “If people don’t know too much, it appears to be a very high-risk thing to do, messing around with the genes of unborn babies,’’ said John Benson of Harvard’s Chan School, who helped analyze the poll results.
But when people are even somewhat familiar with the basic idea of altering genomes, they’re less opposed to germline editing. Of those who have read or heard some or a lot about the idea, 41 percent said it should be legal to change the genes of unborn babies to prevent serious diseases, while 50 percent said it should be illegal.
The telephone poll of 1,000 randomly selected adults was conducted by SSRS from Jan. 13 to 17. Roughly half of those questioned were asked about genetic technologies. The margin of error was plus or minus 5.3 percentage points. The results were weighted to reflect the demographics of the US adult population.
Sharon Begley can be reached at sharon.begley@statnews.com
