Poll finds near equal split on question: would you have a designer baby?

A few weeks back I started a poll focusing on whether people would have a designer baby if they could.Poll Designer Baby

With nearly 200 responses so far, the results are very mixed (see image).

One conclusion from this I think is that we need more information on possible risks versus benefits. Another element here is that the poll, as one commenter pointed out, did not divide between health-related and enhancement motivations behind having the designer baby. I may do a future poll including that divide.

Looking at the votes geographically, interestingly respondents in the UK were shifted more toward “Yes” than other countries such as the US.

A reminder that Internet polls are non-scientific.

Poll: Would you have a genetically modified baby?

CRISPR baby

Please tell us in the comments why you voted the way you did.

Public polling on human genetic modification: mixed, but favor moratorium

Many of us scientists, ethicists, and legal scholars are working on educational outreach to the public on the potential use of gene editing technologies to genetically modify human beings, but clearly there’s a long way to go and much more to do on this front.Hart Poll CRISPR

The future use of CRISPR to edit the human genome in a heritable manner could be imminent or many years away, but clearly there is a move in that direction technologically and there are advocates of human modification such as some transhumanists and ethicists.

How does the public feel about all this?

A new Hart Research poll, “Public Attitudes Regarding New Technology for Editing DNA” provides a fresh look at public opinion. About six months ago, Pew did polling that suggested the public in the US was equally split on the idea of using genetic modification to try to prevent/cure genetic diseases, but there was strong opposition to the use for enhancement (e.g. designer babies). That poll also did not include the context of the concerns that have arisen in the last 4-5 months.

The new Hart poll is notable not only for its freshness (conducted May 14-17, 2015), but also for specifically talking about new technology, heritability, and asking about a potential moratorium.Hart Poll CRISPR Moratorium

Most people who took the poll were of mixed feelings, which I think makes good sense given that there’s not a lot of information out there on this yet for the public and there are both up and downsides to this technology.

Even when the pollsters pushed the “not sure” folks to include leaners, the respondents were still mostly of mixed opinions. Interestingly, this mixed sentiment overall reflects my sense of what many of us scientists are feeling too.

When asked about a moratorium on clinical use in humans, people answering the poll were generally supportive of a moratorium, which I think also is good common sense. There is a kind of “let’s hold off on taking this drastic step of genetically modifying people until we all can learn more and get more clarity” sentiment.

It’s not clear what the public feels about genetic modification of human embryos in the lab only with no clinical component.

This polling reinforces the idea that more engagement is needed and makes a case for more inclusion of the public in the dialogue on the use of CRISPR (or TALENs, etc.) in humans.

Hat tip to Antonio Regalado