Corrigendum: A CRISPR New World: Attitudes in the Public toward Innovations in Human Genetic Modification (Front Public Health, (2017), 5, (117), 10.3389/fpubh.2017.00117);A CRISPR New World: Attitudes in the Public toward Innovations in Human Genetic Modification

Frontiers in Public Health

Volumn 5, Issue , 2017, Pages

  Weisberg, Steven M ^a   Badgio, Daniel ^a   Chatterjee, Anjan ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA   (United States)

Author keywords

CRISPR; genetic modification; Mechanical Turk; metaphor; online survey

Indexed keywords

EID: 85047006969     PISSN: None     EISSN: 22962565     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2017.00161     Document Type: Erratum

References (44)

1. Doudna JA Charpentier E. Genome editing. The new frontier of genome engineering with CRISPR-Cas9. Science (2014) 346(6213):1258096.10.1126/science.125809625430774
2. Osório J. Functional genomics: a novel CRISPR-Cas system for easier genome editing? Nat Rev Genet (2015) 16(12):687–687.10.1038/nrg4033
3. Sander JD Joung JK. CRISPR-Cas systems for editing, regulating and targeting genomes. Nat Biotechnol (2014) 32(4):347–55.10.1038/nbt.2842
4. Sternberg SH Doudna JA. Expanding the biologist’s toolkit with CRISPR-Cas9. Mol Cell (2015) 58(4):568–74.10.1016/j.molcel.2015.02.032
5. Wang B. Next Big Future: Disruptive CRISPR Gene Therapy Is 150 Times Cheaper Than Zinc Fingers and CRISPR Is Faster and More Precise. (2015). Available from: http://nextbigfuture.com/2015/06/disruptive-crispr-gene-therapy-is-150.html
6. Travis J. Making the cut. Science (2015) 350(6267):1456–7.10.1126/science.350.6267.1456
7. Liang P Xu Y Zhang X Ding C Huang R Zhang Z et al. CRISPR/Cas9-mediated gene editing in human tripronuclear zygotes. Protein Cell (2015) 6(5):363–72.10.1007/s13238-015-0153-5
8. Doudna J. Perspective: embryo editing needs scrutiny. Nature (2015) 528(7580):S6.10.1038/528S6a
9. Kaiser J Normile D. Embryo engineering study splits scientific community. Science (2015) 348(6234):486–7.10.1126/science.348.6234.486
10. Baltimore D Berg P Botchan M Carroll D Charo RA Church G et al. A prudent path forward for genomic engineering and germline gene modification. Science (2015) 348(6230):36–8.10.1126/science.aab1028
11. Lander ES. Brave new genome. N Engl J Med (2015) 373(1):5–8.10.1056/NEJMp1506446
12. Lanphier E Urnov F Haecker SE Werner M Smolenski J. Don’t edit the human germ line. Nature (2015) 519(7544):410–1.10.1038/519410a
13. Harris J. Germline manipulation and our future worlds. Am J Bioeth (2015) 15(12):30–4.10.1080/15265161.2015.110416326632358
14. Pinker S. The Moral Imperative for Bioethics—The Boston Globe. (2015). Available from: https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2015/07/31/the-moral-imperative-for-bioethics/JmEkoyzlTAu9oQV76JrK9N/story.html
15. Savulescu J. Bioethics: why philosophy is essential for progress. J Med Ethics (2015) 41(1):28–33.10.1136/medethics-2014-102284
16. Corbyn Z. Crispr: Is It a Good Idea to “Upgrade” Our DNA? The Guardian. (2015). Available from: http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/may/10/crispr-genome-editing-dna-upgrade-technology-genetic-disease
17. Editing Humanity. The Economist. (2015). Available from: http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21661651-new-technique-manipulating-genes-holds-great-promisebut-rules-are-needed-govern-its
18. Kahn J. The Crispr Quandary. The New York Times (2015). Available from: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/15/magazine/the-crispr-quandary.html
19. Maxman A. The Genesis Engine. (2015). Available from: http://www.wired.com/2015/07/crispr-dna-editing-2/
20. Patterson T. If It Works, CRISPR Gene Editing Will Change Our Lives. (2015). Available from: http://CNN.com; http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/30/health/pioneers-crispr-dna-genome-editing/index.html
21. Specter M. The Gene Hackers. The New Yorker (2015). Available from: http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/11/16/the-gene-hackers
22. Travis J. Inside the summit on human gene editing: a reporter’s notebook. Science (2015).10.1126/science.aad7532
23. Travis J. Embryo editing to make babies would be “irresponsible,” says DNA summit statement. Science (2015).10.1126/science.aad7522
24. Salloch S Vollmann J Schildmann J. Ethics by opinion poll? The functions of attitudes research for normative deliberations in medical ethics. J Med Ethics (2014) 40(9):597–602.10.1136/medethics-2012-10125323632008
25. Sarewitz D. World view: not by experts alone. Nature (2010) 466(7307):688–688.10.1038/466688a
26. O’Keefe M Perrault S Halpern J Ikemoto L Yarborough M UC North Bioethics Collaboratory for Life & Health Sciences. “Editing” genes: a case study about how language matters in bioethics. Am J Bioeth (2015) 15(12):3–10.10.1080/15265161.2015.1103804
27. Thompson C. CRISPR: move beyond differences. Nature (2015) 522(7557):415–415.10.1038/522415a
28. Maher B. Poll results: look who’s doping. Nature (2008) 452(7188):674–5.10.1038/452674a
29. Gauchat G. The cultural authority of science: public trust and acceptance of organized science. Public Underst Sci (2011) 20(6):751–70.10.1177/096366251036524622397083
30. Plutzer E. The racial gap in confidence in science explanations and implications. Bull Sci Technol Soc (2013) 33(5–6):146–57.10.1177/0270467614528902
31. McCallum JM Arekere DM Green BL Katz RV Rivers BM. Awareness and knowledge of the U.S. Public Health Service Syphilis Study at Tuskegee: implications for biomedical research. J Health Care Poor Underserved (2006) 17(4):716–33.10.1353/hpu.2006.0130
32. Gromet DM Kunreuther H Larrick RP. Political ideology affects energy-efficiency attitudes and choices. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A (2013) 110(23):9314–9.10.1073/pnas.121845311023630266
33. Lewandowsky S Gignac GE Oberauer K. The role of conspiracist ideation and worldviews in predicting rejection of science. PLoS One (2013) 8(10):e75637.10.1371/journal.pone.0075637
34. Caviola L Mannino A Savulescu J Faulmüller N. Cognitive biases can affect moral intuitions about cognitive enhancement. Front Syst Neurosci (2014) 8:195.10.3389/fnsys.2014.0019525360088
35. Pertschuk M. Smoke in Their Eyes: Lessons in Movement Leadership from the Tobacco Wars. 1st ed. Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press (2001).
36. Mathews DJH Chan S Donovan PJ Douglas T Gyngell C Harris J et al. CRISPR: a path through the thicket. Nature (2015) 527(7577):159.10.1038/527159a
37. Steen GJ Reijnierse WG Burgers C. When do natural language metaphors influence reasoning? A follow-up study to thibodeau and boroditsky. PLoS One (2014) 9(12):e113536.10.1371/journal.pone.0113536
38. Burstin K Doughtie EB Raphaeli A. Contrastive Vignette Technique: an indirect methodology designed to address reactive social attitude measurement. J Appl Soc Psychol (1980) 10(2):147–65.10.1111/j.1559-1816.1980.tb00699.x
39. Fitz NS Nadler R Manogaran P Chong EWJ Reiner PB. Public attitudes toward cognitive enhancement. Neuroethics (2013) 7(2):173–88.10.1007/s12152-013-9190-z
40. Simon RM. Gender differences in knowledge and attitude towards biotechnology. Public Underst Sci (2010) 19(6):642–53.10.1177/0963662509335449
41. Gauchat G. Politicization of science in the public sphere a study of public trust in the United States, 1974 to 2010. Am Sociol Rev (2012) 77(2):167–87.10.1177/0003122412438225
42. STAT. The Public and Genetic Editing, Testing, and Therapy (Poll). (2016). Available from: https://cdn1.sph.harvard.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/94/2016/01/STAT-Harvard-Poll-Jan-2016-Genetic-Technology.pdf
43. Ross J Irani L Silberman MS Zaldivar A Tomlinson B. Who are the crowdworkers? Shifting demographics in Mechanical Turk. In: Edwards K Rodden T, editors. CHI ’10 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems. New York, NY: ACM (2010). p. 2863–72.
44. Loettgers A. Communication: metaphors advance scientific research. Nature (2013) 502(7471):303–303.10.1038/502303d