DNA strands intertwined with human figures, symbolizing the intersection of genetics and public opinion.

Human Genome Editing: Navigating Public Opinion and Scientific Frontiers

Theo Raines in Science & Nature August 2025 • 4 min read.

"Understanding U.S. attitudes and the call for public engagement in the age of CRISPR."

The advent of CRISPR-Cas9 technology has sparked urgent discussions about human genome editing and its vast applications. Scientists and ethicists alike are advocating for open public dialogue to shape policies and regulations surrounding this groundbreaking technology. A recent consensus report by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and the National Academy of Medicine (NAM) emphasized the importance of incorporating public engagement into the policy-making process.

However, a crucial question remains: What are the current public attitudes toward human genome editing? And how do these sentiments influence the desire for public input as new applications emerge? The NAS/NAM report categorizes genome editing applications based on purpose (therapeutic vs. enhancement) and heritability (somatic vs. germline edits).

While the report provides a framework for permissibility, understanding public attitudes toward these distinctions is crucial. This article explores U.S. public opinions on human genome editing, examining the nuances between therapeutic and enhancement applications, somatic and germline edits, and the overall implications for policy and public engagement.

Decoding Public Acceptance: Therapy vs. Enhancement

DNA strands intertwined with human figures, symbolizing the intersection of genetics and public opinion.

Initial insights from a 2016 STAT-Harvard survey revealed that only 35% of U.S. citizens supported therapeutic treatment of unborn babies using gene editing, and a Pew Research Center poll indicated that only 31% of Americans were comfortable with therapies that altered a baby's genetic makeup. These findings highlight the public's cautious approach to genome editing, particularly when it involves altering the genetic code.

A more systematic examination of public attitudes was conducted using national survey data from 1600 U.S. adults, collected by YouGov in December 2016 and January 2017. This survey delved deeper into the distinctions between somatic and germline edits, as well as therapeutic and enhancement applications.

Somatic Therapy: 64% of respondents found somatic therapy acceptable.
Germline Therapy: 65% of respondents found germline therapy acceptable.
Somatic Enhancement: 39% of respondents found somatic enhancement acceptable, with 35% finding it unacceptable.
Germline Enhancement: Only 26% of respondents found germline enhancement acceptable, while 51% deemed it unacceptable.

These results indicate a clear preference for therapeutic applications over enhancement, regardless of whether the edits are somatic or germline. The public appears more comfortable with gene editing aimed at treating or preventing diseases than with edits designed to enhance physical or cognitive traits.

The Path Forward: Engaging the Public in Genome Editing Decisions

The study also revealed the influence of religiosity and knowledge on attitudes toward genome editing. Those reporting low religious guidance were more supportive of both treatment and enhancement applications. Conversely, individuals with higher factual knowledge about genome editing expressed greater support for treatment applications.

Interestingly, both highly religious and highly knowledgeable respondents showed strong support for public engagement in genome editing decisions. Approximately three-quarters of both groups agreed that the scientific community should consult with the public before applying gene editing technologies.

These findings underscore the importance of fostering open and inclusive dialogues about genome editing. By engaging the public, scientists and policymakers can ensure that ethical, social, and moral considerations are integrated into the development and regulation of this powerful technology. Moving forward, it is crucial to bridge the gap between scientific advancements and public understanding to promote responsible innovation in the field of human genome editing.

About this Article -

This article was crafted using a human-AI hybrid and collaborative approach. AI assisted our team with initial drafting, research insights, identifying key questions, and image generation. Our human editors guided topic selection, defined the angle, structured the content, ensured factual accuracy and relevance, refined the tone, and conducted thorough editing to deliver helpful, high-quality information.See our About page for more information.

This article is based on research published under:

DOI-LINK: 10.1126/science.aan3708, Alternate LINK

Title: U.S. Attitudes On Human Genome Editing

Subject: Multidisciplinary

Journal: Science

Publisher: American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)

Authors: Dietram A. Scheufele, Michael A. Xenos, Emily L. Howell, Kathleen M. Rose, Dominique Brossard, Bruce W. Hardy

Published: 2017-08-10

Everything You Need To Know

What is human genome editing?

Human genome editing involves modifying an organism's genes. This can be done for therapeutic purposes to treat diseases, or for enhancement, to improve traits. There are two main categories: somatic and germline edits. Somatic edits affect non-reproductive cells and are not passed on to future generations, whereas germline edits affect reproductive cells, potentially impacting future offspring. The article highlights public opinion on these different types of edits.

How do people feel about human genome editing?

The U.S. public generally exhibits a cautious approach to human genome editing. Surveys have revealed that support varies significantly based on the type of application. People are more accepting of therapeutic applications that aim to treat diseases compared to enhancement applications. Specifically, there is more support for somatic therapy and germline therapy. Conversely, enhancement applications, especially germline enhancement, receive less public approval. These attitudes are crucial because they influence the development of policies and regulations regarding genome editing.

What is somatic therapy and what are the public's views on it?

Somatic therapy involves editing genes in non-reproductive cells. According to the surveys, this approach enjoys the highest public acceptance, with 64% of respondents finding it acceptable. Since these edits don't affect future generations, the public seems to find them less ethically problematic. The implications are that somatic therapy has a higher likelihood of public and regulatory support, which could accelerate the development of treatments for various diseases.

What is germline editing and what are the public's views on it?

Germline editing affects reproductive cells (sperm and eggs) and can therefore be passed on to future generations. The article highlights that 65% of respondents found germline therapy acceptable, while only 26% found germline enhancement acceptable. This means there's a clear preference for using germline editing for therapeutic purposes, while germline enhancement faces significant public skepticism due to its potential long-term effects on the human gene pool and ethical concerns.

Why is public engagement important when it comes to human genome editing?

Public engagement is critical in genome editing because it helps shape policies and regulations. The article demonstrates how different segments of the population hold varying views. Factors like religiosity and knowledge levels influence these opinions. Incorporating public attitudes into decision-making ensures that the development and application of human genome editing technologies align with societal values and ethical considerations, fostering public trust and promoting responsible innovation. The survey results also showed that those with higher factual knowledge about genome editing expressed greater support for treatment applications.