Numbers, Facts and Trends Shaping Your World
Read our research on:
7. Americans are closely divided over editing a baby’s genes to reduce serious health risk
Most U.S. adults say medical scientists should play a major role setting standards for gene editing
Embed
Infographic Gallery
- 7. Americans are closely divided over editing a baby’s genes to reduce serious health risk
- Public divided over societal impact of using gene editing for babies to reduce risk of disease
- Americans divided over whether they would want gene editing to reduce risk of disease for their own baby
- Highly religious adults more likely to see gene editing to reduce a baby’s risk of developing disease as a bad idea than good idea for society
- Public divided over whether gene editing to reduce a baby’s risk of developing serious diseases or conditions would improve people’s quality of life
- Majority of highly religious adults see gene editing to reduce a baby’s risk of developing disease as meddling with nature
- Large majority thinks using gene editing to reduce disease risk in babies would lead to some morally unacceptable uses
- 55% of U.S. adults say widespread use of gene editing to reduce disease risk in babies would lead to more income inequality
- Large majority says gene editing techniques should be tested using higher standards than other treatments
- Most U.S. adults say medical scientists should play a major role setting standards for gene editing
- Public roughly divided over bigger concern regarding government regulation of gene editing techniques
- About half of U.S. adults say gene editing would be more acceptable under certain scenarios
- Majorities favor use of gene editing to treat diseases, oppose its use to enhance a baby’s attractiveness