Name:

Date:

Writing assignment 1
Write an introduction to a paper entitled “Survey on the perception of germline genome editing among the
general public in Japan”.
 Use all the information provided in the table below. If you have any ideas of your own, feel free to include
those as well. However, stick to writing an introduction (rather than an opinion piece on genome
editing/CRISPR).
 Use in-text citations and paraphrasing to integrate all the given citations into the text. You do not need
to provide a reference list.
 Write between 300-500 (max) words.

Deadline: Wednesday 27 October, 23h5. Please name your document WA_1_Group[X]_FirstnameLastname

If you are unsure what genome editing/CRISPR is, you can watch the following video (this is not mandatory, and
the information given does not need to be expressed in your assignment): https://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=I5_2c52OPFw
Name:
Date:

Background
 “Genome editing involves the insertion, deletion or modification of DNA
with increased specificity and efficiency at a specific site in the genome”
(Baltimore D, Baylis F, Berg P, Daley GQ, Doudna JA, Lander ES. et al. On human gene
editing: International summit statement. Washington DC: National Academy of Sciences;
2015: 345)
 Use: research/agriculture/medical care.
 China: “first application of the CRISPR/Cas9 system in abnormally fertilized
embryos” (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: 363–72 )
 United States National Academy of Sciences: “hosted an international
summit” + “issued a statement” = “serious concerns related to germline
genome editing, including risks of inaccurate editing and ethical issues”
(Baltimore D, Baylis F, Berg P, Daley GQ, Doudna JA, Lander ES. et al. On human gene
editing: International summit statement. Washington DC: National Academy of Sciences;
2015: 25)
 Japan: “the Expert Panel on Bioethics of the Council for Science,
Technology, and Innovation issued a tentative statement on the use of
genome editing in human embryos, raising similar concerns”:
o “difficulty of predicting harmful effects”
o “permanent enhancements in genetic subsets of population lead
to”
 social inequities
 population being forced to use this
(The Expert Panel on Bioethics of the Council for Science, Technology and Innovation. On
research using genome editing technology for human embryos. Interim summary. 2016: 45)
 4 Japanese academic societies: “government should prohibit human
germline genome editing” (Japan Society of Gene and Cell Therapy, Japan Society of
Human Genetics, Japan Society of Obstetrics and Gynecology, and Japan Society for
Reproductive Medicine. Recommendation on human genome editing. 2016: 132)

Relevance of  Previous studies:

survey on o “public is generally supportive of genome editing if to cure life-
perception of threatening diseases”
genome editing (McCaughey T, Sanfilippo PG, Gooden GE, Budden DM, Fan L, Fenwick E, et al. A
global social media survey of attitudes to human genome editing. Cell Stem Cell.
2016;18:569–72.)
o “public is generally not supportive if for genetic enhancement”
(Funk C, Kennedy B & Podrebarac Sciupac, E. U.S. public wary of biomedical
technologies to ‘enhance’ human abilities. Pew Res Center. 2016;1–131.)
 United States: “people want to engage in discussions on genome editing”
(Scheufele DA, Xenos MA, Howell EL, Rose KM, Brossard D, Hardy BW. U.S. attitudes on
human genome editing. Science. 2017;357:553–4)
 So far, stakeholders/various perspectives ≠ investigated separately
o Patients
o Patients’ families
o Public
Name:
Date:

Research aim  Opinion patients with genetic conditions?

and design  Goal of research:
o Attitude of the public toward genome editing?
o Attitude of patients diagnosed with/at risk of getting genetic
conditions?
 = important stakeholders
 = “often clinical trial participants and beneficiaries
of germline editing” (National Academy of Sciences,
Engineering, and Medicine. Human genome editing: science,
ethics, and governance. Washington, DC: The National
Academies Press; 2017: 3)
 = “candidate eugenic targets if technology is
misused”
(National Academy of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.
Human genome editing: science, ethics, and governance.
Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2017: 76)
 Quantitative (online questionnaires) and qualitative (interviews) methods
 Participants = internet users Japan

Different Section I: methodology

sections of the Section II: results and discussion
essay Section III: conclusion