Abstract

The purpose of this study was to examine the attitudes of undergraduate health science students toward somatic cell and germline genetic therapies. To do this, students were presented a choice between using or not using CRISPR gene editing techniques in a hypothetical situation involving a child with Duchenne muscular dystrophy. Additionally, this study investigated whether the choice of supportive or critical supplemental literature would influence a student’s final decision and identify any differences in the themes that led to this ultimate decision. After a semester of education and supplemental reading, thirty-three (n=33) students were given a short writing assignment where they were presented with two case scenarios involving their own hypothetical child, who had been diagnosed with Duchenne muscular dystrophy. The scenarios differed in that the first presented students with the option for somatic cell therapy, while the second provided a cure using IVF and germline therapies. The responses were scored to determine the overall support for the use of CRISPR in these situations. A thematic analysis was also conducted to determine what themes were relevant to decision making, and how they may have been influenced by the supplemental readings. The findings show that students were especially accepting of somatic cell therapies, and on average, were also willing to accept the use of germline therapy in this scenario. The two most common themes from students accepting of CRISPR use were to “remove/prevent/treat human genetic diseases and cancer”, and to “improve quality of life”. The two different types of supplemental literature had no statistically significant bearing on the outcomes of this study.

How to Cite