Prevailing public perceptions of the ethics of gene therapy

Human Gene Therapy

Volumn 25, Issue 8, 2014, Pages 740-746

  Robillard, Julie M ^a   Roskams Edris, Dylan ^a   Kuzeljevic, Boris ^a   Illes, Judy ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ALZHEIMER DISEASE; ARTICLE; ATTENTION DEFICIT DISORDER; FEMALE; GENE THERAPY; HEALTH BELIEF; HUMAN; IDENTITY; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MEDICAL ETHICS; MORALITY; PERCEPTION; RELIGION; RESOURCE ALLOCATION; AGED; CULTURAL ANTHROPOLOGY; ETHICS; MIDDLE AGED; PUBLIC OPINION; QUESTIONNAIRE; YOUNG ADULT;

ADULT; AGED; CULTURE; FEMALE; GENETIC THERAPY; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PUBLIC OPINION; QUESTIONNAIRES; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84906228308     PISSN: 10430342     EISSN: 15577422     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1089/hum.2014.030     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. Bainbridge, J.W.B., Smith, A.J., Barker, S.S., et al. (2008). Effect of gene therapy on visual function in Leber's congenital amaurosis. N. Engl. J. Med. 358, 2231-2239.
2. Bates, B.R., Lynch, J.A., Bevan, J.L., and Condit, C.M. (2005). Warranted concerns, warranted outlooks: A focus group study of public understandings of genetic research. Soc. Sci. Med. 60, 331-344.
3. Bucchi, M. (2007). Science in Society, 1st ed. (Taylor & Francis, London).
4. Calnan, M., Montaner, D., and Horne, R. (2005). How acceptable are innovative health-care technologies? A survey of public beliefs and attitudes in England and Wales. Soc. Sci. Med. 60, 1937-1948.
5. Condit, C.M. (2010). Public attitudes and beliefs about genetics. Annu. Rev. Genomics Hum. Genet. 11, 339-359.
6. Couzin, J., and Kaiser, J. (2005). As Gelsinger case ends, gene therapy suffers another blow. Science 307, 1028-1028.
7. Gregory, J., and Miller, S. (2000). Science in Public: Communication, Culture, and Credibility (Basic Books, New York).
8. Hampel, J., Pfenning, U., and Peters, H.P. (2000). Attitudes towards genetic engineering. New Genet. Soc. 19, 233-249.
9. Hudson, J., and Orviska, M. (2011). European attitudes to gene therapy and pharmacogenetics. Drug Discov. Today 16, 843-847.
10. Hui, E., Chow, K., Wu, D., et al. (2009). Opinion survey of the Hong Kong general public regarding genomic science and technology and their ethical and social implications. New Genet. Soc. 28, 381-400.
11. Hui, E., Chow, K., Leung, D., et al. (2012). Attitudes of university students in Hong Kong about the use of genomic science and technology. New Genet. Soc. 31, 323-341.
12. Ipeirotis, P.G. (2010). Demographics of Mechanical Turk (working paper). Available from: http://hdl.handle.net/2451/29585
13. King, N.M.P., et al. (2008). En route to ethical recommendations for gene transfer clinical trials. Mol. Ther. 16, 432-438.
14. Kittur, A., Chi, E.H., and Suh, B. (2008). Crowdsourcing user studies with Mechanical Turk. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (ACM, New York) pp. 453-456.
15. Macer, D.R.J. (1992). Public acceptance of human gene therapy and perceptions of human genetic manipulation. Hum. Gene Ther. 3, 511-518.
16. Macer, D.R.J., Akiyama, S., Alora, A.T., et al. (1995). International perceptions and approval of gene therapy. Hum. Gene Ther. 6, 791-803.
17. Paolacci, G., Chandler, J., and Ipeirotis, P.G. (2010). Running experiments on Amazon Mechanical Turk. SSRN eLibrary. Available from: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm? abstract-id = 1626226
18. Petersen, A. (2001). Biofantasies: Genetics and medicine in the print news media. Soc. Sci. Med. 52, 1255-1268.
19. Rabino, I. (2003). Gene therapy: Ethical issues. Theor. Med. Bioeth. 24, 31-58.
20. Robillard, J.M., Whiteley, L., Johnson, T.W., et al. (2013). Utilizing social media to study information-seeking and ethical issues in gene therapy. J. Med. Internet Res. 15, e44.
21. Rose, N. (2010). "Screen and intervene": Governing risky brains. Hist. Human Sci. 23, 79-105.
22. Saba, A., Moles, A., and Frewer, L.J. (1998). Public concerns about general and specific applications of genetic engineering: A comparative study between the UK and Italy. Nutr. Food Sci. 98, 19-29.
23. Savadori, L., Savio, S., Nicotra, E., Rumiati, R., Finucane, M., and Slovic, P. (2004). Expert and public perception of risk from biotechnology. Risk Anal. 24, 1289-1299.
24. Savulescu, J. (2001). Harm, ethics committees and the gene therapy death. J. Med. Ethics 27, 148-150.
25. Sheridan, C. (2011). Gene therapy finds its niche. Nat. Biotechnol. 29, 121-128.
26. Siegrist, M. (2000). The influence of trust and perceptions of risks and benefits on the acceptance of gene technology. Risk Anal. 20, 195-204.
27. Singer, E., Corning, A., and Lamias, M. (1998). Trends: Genetic testing, engineering, and therapy: Awareness and attitudes. Public Opin. Q. 62, 633-664.
28. Wilsdon, J., and Willis, R. (2004). See-Through Science: Why Public Engagement Needs to Move Upstream (Demos, London).