The Royal Society has commissioned a large 'dialogue' research report on people's attitudes to Genetic Technologies. This is significant, as CRISPR-Cas9 is a potential high-impact intervention: it's cheap, and can produce heredetary changes.
To my knowledge this is one of the deepest pieces of research ever conducted on this issue, and I think it might merit reading large sections of it, for those that are interested in the area.
For those just somewhat interested I recommend downloading the Appendices, and looking, in particular, at Appendix 8, which contains quantitative data. With n=2,061, this is a large survey.
You might jump directly to Q12, on p. 64, where respondents are asked the extent to which various developments would be positive or negative for society, or maybe to Q13, on p. 65, where they are asked "To what extent do you agree that genetic technologies such as genome sequencing and editing should be used in humans **for prolonging life** beyond current life expectancies" (emphasis mine).
54% agree either strongly or to some extent; that was surprising to me.
Q15, p. 66, ask about *enhancing abilities*, e.g. intelligence, and there **only 32% agree** strongly or to some extent; **60%** disagree.
Dear All,
The Royal Society has commissioned a large 'dialogue' research report on people's attitudes to Genetic Technologies. This is significant, as CRISPR-Cas9 is a potential high-impact intervention: it's cheap, and can produce heredetary changes.
To my knowledge this is one of the deepest pieces of research ever conducted on this issue, and I think it might merit reading large sections of it, for those that are interested in the area.
For those just somewhat interested I recommend downloading the Appendices, and looking, in particular, at Appendix 8, which contains quantitative data. With n=2,061, this is a large survey.
You might jump directly to Q12, on p. 64, where respondents are asked the extent to which various developments would be positive or negative for society, or maybe to Q13, on p. 65, where they are asked "To what extent do you agree that genetic technologies such as genome sequencing and editing should be used in humans **for prolonging life** beyond current life expectancies" (emphasis mine).
54% agree either strongly or to some extent; that was surprising to me.
Q15, p. 66, ask about *enhancing abilities*, e.g. intelligence, and there **only 32% agree** strongly or to some extent; **60%** disagree.
And there's many other interesting questions.
A 2015 survey from France is here: https://www.ifop.com/publication/les-francais-et-la-technique-du-crispr-cas9/