{"status":"ok","message-type":"work","message-version":"1.0.0","message":{"indexed":{"date-parts":[[2026,4,27]],"date-time":"2026-04-27T10:48:04Z","timestamp":1777286884251,"version":"3.51.4"},"reference-count":63,"publisher":"Oxford University Press (OUP)","issue":"2","license":[{"start":{"date-parts":[[2020,11,26]],"date-time":"2020-11-26T00:00:00Z","timestamp":1606348800000},"content-version":"vor","delay-in-days":0,"URL":"https:\/\/academic.oup.com\/journals\/pages\/open_access\/funder_policies\/chorus\/standard_publication_model"}],"funder":[{"name":"Amsterdam Reproduction and Development Research Institute"},{"name":"Young Academy of the Royal Dutch Academy of Sciences","award":["UPS\/RB\/745"],"award-info":[{"award-number":["UPS\/RB\/745"]}]},{"name":"Alliance Grant of the Amsterdam Reproduction and Development Research Institute"},{"name":"National Institutes of Health Intramural Research Programme"},{"DOI":"10.13039\/100000002","name":"NIH","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","id":[{"id":"10.13039\/100000002","id-type":"DOI","asserted-by":"publisher"}]}],"content-domain":{"domain":[],"crossmark-restriction":false},"short-container-title":[],"published-print":{"date-parts":[[2021,1,25]]},"abstract":"Abstract<\/jats:title>\n \n STUDY QUESTION<\/jats:title>\n To what extent do characteristics of germline genome editing (GGE) determine whether the general public supports permitting the clinical use of GGE?<\/jats:p>\n <\/jats:sec>\n \n SUMMARY ANSWER<\/jats:title>\n The risk that GGE would cause congenital abnormalities had the largest effect on support for allowing GGE, followed by effectiveness of GGE, while costs, the type of application (disease or enhancement) and the effect on child well-being had moderate effects.<\/jats:p>\n <\/jats:sec>\n \n WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY<\/jats:title>\n Scientific progress on GGE has increased the urgency of resolving whether and when clinical application of GGE may be ethically acceptable. Various expert bodies have suggested that the treatment characteristics will be key in determining whether GGE is acceptable. For example, GGE with substantial risks (e.g. 15% chance of a major congenital abnormality) may be acceptable to prevent a severe disease but not to enhance non-medical characteristics or traits of an otherwise healthy embryo (e.g. eye colour or perhaps in the future more complex traits, such as intelligence). While experts have called for public engagement, it is unclear whether and how much the public acceptability of GGE is affected by the treatment characteristics proposed by experts.<\/jats:p>\n <\/jats:sec>\n \n STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION<\/jats:title>\n The vignette-based survey was disseminated in 2018 among 1857 members of the Dutch general public. An online research panel was used to recruit a sample representing the adult Dutch general public.<\/jats:p>\n <\/jats:sec>\n \n PARTICIPANTS\/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS<\/jats:title>\n A literature review identified the key treatment characteristics of GGE: the effect on the well-being of the future child, use for disease or enhancement, risks for the future child, effectiveness (here defined as the chance of a live birth, assuming that if the GGE was not successful, the embryo would not be transferred), cost and availability of alternative treatments\/procedures to prevent the genetic disease or provide enhancement (i.e. preimplantation genetic testing (PGT)), respectively. For each treatment characteristic, 2\u20133 levels were defined to realistically represent GGE and its current alternatives, donor gametes and ICSI with PGT. Twelve vignettes were created by fractional factorial design. A multinominal logit model assessed how much each treatment characteristic affected participants\u2019 choices.<\/jats:p>\n <\/jats:sec>\n \n MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE<\/jats:title>\n The 1136 respondents (response rate 61%) were representative of the Dutch adult population in several demographics. Respondents were between 18 and 89 years of age. When no alternative treatment\/procedure is available, the risk that GGE would cause (other) congenital abnormalities had the largest effect on whether the Dutch public supported allowing GGE (coefficient = \u22123.07), followed by effectiveness (coefficient\u2009=\u20092.03). Costs (covered by national insurance, coefficient = \u22121.14), the type of application (disease or enhancement; coefficient = \u22121.07), and the effect on child well-being (coefficient\u2009=\u20090.97) had similar effects on whether GGE should be allowed. If an alternative treatment\/procedure (e.g. PGT) was available, participants were not categorically opposed to GGE, however, they were strongly opposed to using GGE for enhancement (coefficient = \u22123.37). The general acceptability of GGE was higher than participants\u2019 willingness to personally use it (P\u2009&lt;\u20090.001). When participants considered whether they would personally use GGE, the type of application (disease or enhancement) was more important, whereas effectiveness and costs (covered by national insurance) were less important than when they considered whether GGE should be allowed. Participants who were male, younger and had lower incomes were more likely to allow GGE when no alternative treatment\/procedure is available.<\/jats:p>\n <\/jats:sec>\n \n LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION<\/jats:title>\n Some (e.g. ethnic, religious) minorities were not well represented. To limit complexity, not all characteristics of GGE could be included (e.g. out-of-pocket costs), therefore, the views gathered from the vignettes reflect only the choices presented to the respondents. The non-included characteristics could be connected to and alter the importance of the studied characteristics. This would affect how closely the reported coefficients reflect \u2018real-life\u2019 importance.<\/jats:p>\n <\/jats:sec>\n \n WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS<\/jats:title>\n This study is the first to quantify the substantial impact of GGE\u2019s effectiveness, costs (covered by national insurance), and effect on child well-being on whether the public considered GGE acceptable. In general, the participants were strikingly risk-averse, in that they weighed the risks of GGE more heavily than its benefits. Furthermore, although only a single study in one country, the results suggests that\u2014if sufficiently safe and effective\u2014the public may approve of using GGE (presumably combined with PGT) instead of solely PGT to prevent passing on a disease. The reported public views can serve as input for future consideration of the ethics and governance of GGE.<\/jats:p>\n <\/jats:sec>\n \n STUDY FUNDING\/COMPETING INTEREST(S)<\/jats:title>\n Young Academy of the Royal Dutch Academy of Sciences (UPS\/RB\/745), Alliance Grant of the Amsterdam Reproduction and Development Research Institute (2017\u2013170116) and National Institutes of Health Intramural Research Programme. No competing interests.<\/jats:p>\n <\/jats:sec>\n \n TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER<\/jats:title>\n N\/A.<\/jats:p>\n <\/jats:sec>","DOI":"10.1093\/humrep\/deaa212","type":"journal-article","created":{"date-parts":[[2020,8,4]],"date-time":"2020-08-04T19:30:14Z","timestamp":1596569414000},"page":"465-478","source":"Crossref","is-referenced-by-count":16,"title":["Should germline genome editing be allowed? The effect of treatment characteristics on public acceptability"],"prefix":"10.1093","volume":"36","author":[{"given":"I","family":"van Dijke","sequence":"first","affiliation":[{"name":"Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Center for Reproductive Medicine, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam 1105 AZ, The Netherlands"},{"name":"Department of Clinical Genetics, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam 1081 HV, The Netherlands"}],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]},{"given":"M","family":"van Wely","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Center for Reproductive Medicine, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam 1105 AZ, The Netherlands"}],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]},{"given":"B E","family":"Berkman","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"Department of Bioethics, Clinical Center, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD 20814, USA"}],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]},{"given":"A L","family":"Bredenoord","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"Department of Medical Humanities, Julius Center, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht 3584 CG, The Netherlands"}],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]},{"given":"L","family":"Henneman","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"Department of Clinical Genetics, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam 1081 HV, The Netherlands"}],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]},{"given":"R","family":"Vliegenthart","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"Amsterdam School of Communications Research, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam 1018 WV, The Netherlands"}],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]},{"given":"S","family":"Repping","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Center for Reproductive Medicine, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam 1105 AZ, The Netherlands"}],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]},{"given":"S","family":"Hendriks","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"Department of Bioethics, Clinical Center, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD 20814, USA"}],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]}],"member":"286","published-online":{"date-parts":[[2020,11,26]]},"reference":[{"key":"2021092109295102000_deaa212-B1","volume-title":"Clinical Germline gene editing letter to U.S. Department of Health and Human Services","author":"Adelman","year":"2019"},{"key":"2021092109295102000_deaa212-B2","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"351","DOI":"10.1016\/j.tibtech.2019.12.022","article-title":"Geneva statement on heritable human genome editing: the need for course correction","volume":"38","author":"Andorno","year":"2020","journal-title":"Trends Biotechnol"},{"key":"2021092109295102000_deaa212-B3","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"2","DOI":"10.1080\/23294515.2019.1707726","article-title":"Incommensurable processes of reasoning and implications for empirical and normative bioethics","volume":"11","author":"B\u00e6r\u00f8e","year":"2020","journal-title":"AJOB Empir Bioeth"},{"key":"2021092109295102000_deaa212-B4","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"36","DOI":"10.1126\/science.aab1028","article-title":"A prudent path forward for genomic engineering and germline gene modification","volume":"348","author":"Baltimore","year":"2015","journal-title":"Science"},{"key":"2021092109295102000_deaa212-B5","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","DOI":"10.1142\/5602","volume-title":"Markov Chain Monte Carlo Simulations and Their Statistical Analysis","author":"Berg","year":"2004"},{"key":"2021092109295102000_deaa212-B6","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"1406","DOI":"10.1056\/NEJMp1602010","article-title":"The public and the gene-editing revolution","volume":"374","author":"Blendon","year":"2016","journal-title":"N Engl J Med"},{"key":"2021092109295102000_deaa212-B7","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"487","DOI":"10.1038\/s41436-019-0696-6","article-title":"The case for banning heritable genome editing","volume":"22","author":"Botkin","year":"2020","journal-title":"Genet Med"},{"key":"2021092109295102000_deaa212-B8","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"403","DOI":"10.1016\/j.jval.2010.11.013","article-title":"Conjoint analysis applications in health\u2014a checklist: a report of the ISPOR Good Research Practices for Conjoint Analysis Task Force","volume":"14","author":"Bridges","year":"2011","journal-title":"Value Health"},{"key":"2021092109295102000_deaa212-B9","first-page":"1","article-title":"Genome editing and assisted reproduction: curing embryos, society or prospective parents?","volume":"21","author":"Cavaliere","year":"2017","journal-title":"Med Health Care Philos"},{"key":"2021092109295102000_deaa212-B290","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"42","DOI":"10.1080\/15265161.2015.1103814","article-title":"Genome editing technologies and human germline genetic modification: The Hinxton Group Consensus Statement","volume":"15","author":"Chan","year":"2015","journal-title":"Am J Bioeth"},{"key":"2021092109295102000_deaa212-B10","first-page":"148","article-title":"Human germline engineering: a study of attitudes among Canadian university students and the American Public","volume":"3","author":"Criger","year":"2013","journal-title":"Int J Humanit Soc Sci"},{"key":"2021092109295102000_deaa212-B434723","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"704","DOI":"10.3389\/fgene.2018.00704","article-title":"Predicting public attitudes toward gene editing of germlines: the impact of moral and hereditary concern in human and animal applications","volume":"9","author":"Critchley","year":"2019","journal-title":"Frontiers in Genetics"},{"key":"2021092109295102000_deaa212-B9857423","first-page":"747","article-title":"Assessment of Slovene secondary school students' attitudes to biotechnology in terms of usefulness, moral acceptability and risk perception","volume":"18","author":"Crne-Hladnik","year":"2009","journal-title":"Public Understanding of Science"},{"key":"2021092109295102000_deaa212-B11","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"1974","DOI":"10.1093\/humrep\/dex265","article-title":"ESHRE PGD Consortium data collection XIV\u2013XV: cycles from January 2011 to December 2012 with pregnancy follow-up to October 2013\u2020","volume":"32","author":"De Rycke","year":"2017","journal-title":"Hum Reprod"},{"key":"2021092109295102000_deaa212-B12","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"hox024","DOI":"10.1093\/hropen\/hox024","article-title":"Responsible innovation in human germline gene editing. Background document to the recommendations of ESHG and ESHRE","volume":"2018","author":"de Wert","year":"2018","journal-title":"Hum Reprod Open"},{"key":"2021092109295102000_deaa212-B13","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"20","DOI":"10.1089\/hum.2019.197","article-title":"Public acceptability of gene therapy and gene editing for human use: a systematic review","volume":"31","author":"Delhove","year":"2020","journal-title":"Hum Gene Ther"},{"key":"2021092109295102000_deaa212-B14","article-title":"Developing a core outcome set for future infertility research: an international consensus development study","author":"Duffy","year":"2020","journal-title":"Hum Reprod"},{"key":"2021092109295102000_deaa212-B3211008","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"1282","DOI":"10.1038\/mt.2015.118","article-title":"ASGCT and JSGT Joint Position Statement on Human Genomic Editing","volume":"23","author":"Friedmann","year":"2015","journal-title":"Mol Ther\u00a0"},{"key":"2021092109295102000_deaa212-B15","volume-title":"Public Views of Gene Editing for Babies Depend on How It Would Be Used","author":"Funk","year":"2018"},{"key":"2021092109295102000_deaa212-B16","first-page":"1","article-title":"US public wary of biomedical technologies to \u2018enhance\u2019human abilities","author":"Funk","year":"2016","journal-title":"Pew Research Center"},{"key":"2021092109295102000_deaa212-B17","first-page":"1","article-title":"Europeans and biotechnology in 2005: patterns and trends","volume":"64","author":"Gaskell","year":"2006","journal-title":"Final Rep Eurobarometer"},{"key":"2021092109295102000_deaa212-B18","volume-title":"Europeans and Biotechnology in 2002: Eurobarometer 58.0","author":"Gaskell","year":"2003"},{"key":"2021092109295102000_deaa212-B19","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"1021","DOI":"10.1038\/nbt.3958","article-title":"Public views on gene editing and its uses","volume":"35","author":"Gaskell","year":"2017","journal-title":"Nat Biotechnol"},{"key":"2021092109295102000_deaa212-B20","volume-title":"Babies by Design: The Ethics of Genetic Choice","author":"Green","year":"2008"},{"key":"2021092109295102000_deaa212-B21","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"1","DOI":"10.1371\/journal.pntd.0002427","article-title":"Public acceptance and willingness-to-pay for a future dengue vaccine: a community-based survey in Bandung, Indonesia","volume":"7","author":"Hadisoemarto","year":"2013","journal-title":"PLoS Negl Trop Dis"},{"key":"2021092109295102000_deaa212-B22","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"300","DOI":"10.1016\/j.jval.2016.04.004","article-title":"Statistical methods for the analysis of discrete choice experiments: a report of the ISPOR conjoint analysis good research practices task force","volume":"19","author":"Hauber","year":"2016","journal-title":"Value Health"},{"key":"2021092109295102000_deaa212-B23","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"1995","DOI":"10.1007\/s10815-018-1286-2","article-title":"Perinatal follow-up of children born after preimplantation genetic diagnosis between 1995 and 2014","volume":"35","author":"Heijligers","year":"2018","journal-title":"J Assist Reprod Genet"},{"key":"2021092109295102000_deaa212-B24","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","DOI":"10.1093\/hropen\/hoy008","article-title":"Reasons for being in favour of or against genome modification: a survey of the Dutch general public","volume":"2018","author":"Hendriks","year":"2018","journal-title":"Hum Reprod Open"},{"key":"2021092109295102000_deaa212-B25","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"103","DOI":"10.1016\/j.rbmo.2019.02.008","article-title":"The relative importance of genetic parenthood","volume":"39","author":"Hendriks","year":"2019","journal-title":"Reprod Biomed Online"},{"key":"2021092109295102000_deaa212-B26","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"39","DOI":"10.1093\/humrep\/dex355","article-title":"Broad support for regulating the clinical implementation of future reproductive techniques","volume":"33","author":"Hendriks","year":"2017","journal-title":"Hum Reprod"},{"key":"2021092109295102000_deaa212-B191","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"100","DOI":"10.1017\/S0963180118000439","article-title":"Let us assume that gene editing is safe\u2014the role of safety arguments in the gene editing debate","volume":"28","author":"Holm","year":"2019","journal-title":"Camb Q Healthc Ethics"},{"key":"2021092109295102000_deaa212-B27","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"1","DOI":"10.1038\/s41431-017-0024-z","article-title":"One small edit for humans, one giant edit for humankind? Points and questions to consider for a responsible way forward for gene editing in humans","volume":"26","author":"Howard","year":"2018","journal-title":"Eur J Hum Genet"},{"key":"2021092109295102000_deaa212-B28","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"381","DOI":"10.1080\/14636770903314517","article-title":"Opinion survey of the Hong Kong general public regarding genomic science and technology and their ethical and social implications","volume":"28","author":"Hui","year":"2009","journal-title":"New Genet Soc"},{"key":"2021092109295102000_deaa212-B29","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"1023","DOI":"10.1038\/nbt.4000","article-title":"Query the merits of embryo editing for reproductive research now","volume":"35","author":"Hyun","year":"2017","journal-title":"Nat Biotechnol"},{"key":"2021092109295102000_deaa212-B30","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"473","DOI":"10.1016\/j.molmed.2015.05.006","article-title":"Germline genome-editing research and its socioethical implications","volume":"21","author":"Ishii","year":"2015","journal-title":"Trends Mol Med"},{"key":"2021092109295102000_deaa212-B31","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"1612","DOI":"10.1016\/j.fertnstert.2005.01.090","article-title":"Opinions about new reproductive genetic technologies: hopes and fears for our genetic future","volume":"83","author":"Kalfoglou","year":"2005","journal-title":"Fertil Steril"},{"key":"2021092109295102000_deaa212-B32","volume-title":"Human Genome Editing, Ethical and Policy Considerations","author":"Knoppers","year":"2018"},{"key":"2021092109295102000_deaa212-B33","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"165","DOI":"10.1038\/d41586-019-00726-5","article-title":"Adopt a moratorium on heritable genome editing","volume":"567","author":"Lander","year":"2019","journal-title":"Nature"},{"key":"2021092109295102000_deaa212-B34","author":"Lewis","year":"1997"},{"key":"2021092109295102000_deaa212-B35","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"363","DOI":"10.1007\/s13238-015-0153-5","article-title":"CRISPR\/Cas9-mediated gene editing in human tripronuclear zygotes","volume":"6","author":"Liang","year":"2015","journal-title":"Protein Cell"},{"key":"2021092109295102000_deaa212-B36","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"36","DOI":"10.1089\/hum.2018.033","article-title":"A need for better understanding is the major determinant for public perceptions of human gene editing","volume":"30","author":"","year":"2019","journal-title":"Hum Gene Ther"},{"key":"2021092109295102000_deaa212-B37","volume-title":"Human Genome Editing: Science, Ethics, and Governance","author":"NASEM","year":"2017"},{"key":"2021092109295102000_deaa212-B38","volume-title":"Genome Editing and Human Reproduction: Social and Ethical Issues","author":"NCOB","year":"2018"},{"key":"2021092109295102000_deaa212-B39","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"167","DOI":"10.1016\/j.ajhg.2017.06.012","article-title":"Human germline genome editing","volume":"101","author":"Ormond","year":"2017","journal-title":"Am J Hum Genet"},{"key":"2021092109295102000_deaa212-B40","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"9","DOI":"10.1016\/S0168-1656(02)00082-2","article-title":"Attitudes toward biotechnology in the European Union","volume":"98","author":"Pardo","year":"2002","journal-title":"J Biotechnol"},{"key":"2021092109295102000_deaa212-B41","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"325","DOI":"10.1080\/14636770601032957","article-title":"Research scientists surveyed on ethical issues in genetic medicine: a comparison of attitudes of US and European researchers","volume":"25","author":"Rabino","year":"2006","journal-title":"New Genet Soc"},{"key":"2021092109295102000_deaa212-B42","author":"Regalado","year":"2019"},{"key":"2021092109295102000_deaa212-B43","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"1823","DOI":"10.1177\/1049732319846867","article-title":"Where will we draw the line? Public opinions of human gene editing","volume":"29","author":"Riggan","year":"2019","journal-title":"Qual Health Res"},{"key":"2021092109295102000_deaa212-B44","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"740","DOI":"10.1089\/hum.2014.030","article-title":"Prevailing public perceptions of the ethics of gene therapy","volume":"25","author":"Robillard","year":"2014","journal-title":"Hum Gene Ther"},{"key":"2021092109295102000_deaa212-B45","first-page":"55","article-title":"Using discrete choice experiments to value health care programmes: current practice and future research reflections","volume":"2","author":"Ryan","year":"2003","journal-title":"Appl Health Econ Health Policy"},{"key":"2021092109295102000_deaa212-B46","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"553","DOI":"10.1126\/science.aan3708","article-title":"US attitudes on human genome editing","volume":"357","author":"Scheufele","year":"2017","journal-title":"Science"},{"key":"2021092109295102000_deaa212-B47","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"195","DOI":"10.1111\/0272-4332.202020","article-title":"The influence of trust and perceptions of risks and benefits on the acceptance of gene technology","volume":"20","author":"Siegrist","year":"2000","journal-title":"Risk Anal"},{"key":"2021092109295102000_deaa212-B48","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"633","DOI":"10.1086\/297864","article-title":"Trends: genetic testing, engineering, and therapy: awareness and attitudes","volume":"62","author":"Singer","year":"1998","journal-title":"Public Opin Q"},{"key":"2021092109295102000_deaa212-B49","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"491","DOI":"10.1016\/j.arcmed.2012.09.003","article-title":"Human germline genetic modification: scientific and bioethical perspectives","volume":"43","author":"Smith","year":"2012","journal-title":"Arch Med Res"},{"key":"2021092109295102000_deaa212-B50","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"281","DOI":"10.1016\/j.tibtech.2017.02.004","article-title":"Why public engagement matters in science","volume":"35","author":"Srinivas","year":"2017","journal-title":"Trends Biotechnol"},{"key":"2021092109295102000_deaa212-B51","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"453","DOI":"10.1126\/science.7455683","article-title":"The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice","volume":"211","author":"Tversky","year":"1981","journal-title":"Science"},{"key":"2021092109295102000_deaa212-B52","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"1777","DOI":"10.1093\/humrep\/dey257","article-title":"The ethics of clinical applications of germline genome modification: a systematic review of reasons","volume":"33","author":"van Dijke","year":"2018","journal-title":"Hum Reprod"},{"key":"2021092109295102000_deaa212-B9153315","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"411","DOI":"10.1093\/humupd\/dmw005","article-title":"Genome engineering through CRISPR\/Cas9 technology in the human germline and pluripotent stem cells","volume":"22","author":"Vassena","year":"2016","journal-title":"Hum Reprod Update"},{"key":"2021092109295102000_deaa212-B53","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"304","DOI":"10.1089\/crispr.2019.0044","article-title":"Estimating demand for germline genome editing: an in vitro fertilization clinic perspective","volume":"2","author":"Viotti","year":"2019","journal-title":"CRISPR J"},{"key":"2021092109295102000_deaa212-B54","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"40","DOI":"10.1016\/j.omtm.2017.05.008","article-title":"Public attitudes toward gene therapy in China","volume":"6","author":"Wang","year":"2017","journal-title":"Mol Ther Methods Clin Dev"},{"key":"2021092109295102000_deaa212-B55","first-page":"1","article-title":"a crisPr new World: attitudes in the Public toward innovations in human genetic Modification","volume":"5","author":"Weisberg","year":"2017","journal-title":"Front Public Health"},{"key":"2021092109295102000_deaa212-B56","volume-title":"What Do People Think about Gene Therapy","author":"Wellcome Trust","year":"2005"},{"key":"2021092109295102000_deaa212-B57","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"841","DOI":"10.1089\/hum.2015.113","article-title":"Survey of attitudes and ethical concerns related to gene therapy among medical students and postgraduates in China","volume":"26","author":"Xiang","year":"2015","journal-title":"Hum Gene Ther"}],"container-title":["Human Reproduction"],"original-title":[],"language":"en","link":[{"URL":"http:\/\/academic.oup.com\/humrep\/article-pdf\/36\/2\/465\/40419645\/deaa212.pdf","content-type":"application\/pdf","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"syndication"},{"URL":"http:\/\/academic.oup.com\/humrep\/article-pdf\/36\/2\/465\/40419645\/deaa212.pdf","content-type":"unspecified","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"similarity-checking"}],"deposited":{"date-parts":[[2021,9,21]],"date-time":"2021-09-21T09:32:41Z","timestamp":1632216761000},"score":1,"resource":{"primary":{"URL":"https:\/\/academic.oup.com\/humrep\/article\/36\/2\/465\/6006963"}},"subtitle":[],"short-title":[],"issued":{"date-parts":[[2020,11,26]]},"references-count":63,"journal-issue":{"issue":"2","published-online":{"date-parts":[[2020,11,26]]},"published-print":{"date-parts":[[2021,1,25]]}},"URL":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1093\/humrep\/deaa212","relation":{},"ISSN":["0268-1161","1460-2350"],"issn-type":[{"value":"0268-1161","type":"print"},{"value":"1460-2350","type":"electronic"}],"subject":[],"published-other":{"date-parts":[[2021,2,1]]},"published":{"date-parts":[[2020,11,26]]}}}