Abstract
Gene editing and mitochondrial replacement therapy (MRT) are biotechnologies used to modify the host nuclear and mitochondrial DNA, respectively. Gene editing is the modification of a region of the host genome using site-specific nucleases, in particular the clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats (CRISPR)-Cas system. Heritable and somatic genome editing (HGE and SGE) are used in gene therapy. MRT is a technique used to substitute the defective mitochondria in the recipient embryo with a female donor healthy mitochondrion in order to prevent the inheritance of mothers’ defective mitochondria resulting in the change of mitochondria of the entire generation to come. To evaluate the perception of the Nigerian citizens on human genome modification, two survey forms were created and distributed in-person and majorly online. There was a total of 268 responses, 188 from the public and 80 from health workers and bio-scientists. The results showed poor knowledge about gene editing and MRT by the Nigerian public, but its use to prevent and cure inherited diseases was supported. Morality and religion have great influence on the attitude of Nigerians towards genome modification, but the influence of religion and morality is not unequivocal. Multiple regression analysis of Nigerian public responses shows that gender (females), age (19–30 years), monthly income (NGN 0 to 30,000), and level of education (tertiary) are significantly associated with approval of human genome editing, but the survey of health workers and bio-scientists shows no significant association except for females who approve and Muslims who disapprove of human genome editing.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Data availability
The survey instrument is available in the online supplementary data. The raw survey response data are available from the corresponding author upon request subject to the rules and restrictions of the American University of Nigeria Institutional Review Board.
References
Armsby AJ, Bombard Y, Garrison NA, Halpern-Felsher BL, Ormond KE (2019) Attitudes of members of genetics professional societies toward human gene editing. CRISPR J 2(5):331. https://doi.org/10.1089/CRISPR.2019.0020
Buchholzer M, Frommer WB (2023) An increasing number of countries regulate genome editing in crops. New Phytol 237(1):12–15. https://doi.org/10.1111/NPH.18333
Claiborne A, English R, Kahn J (2016) Mitochondrial replacement techniques: ethical, social, and policy considerations. Washington, DC, The National Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/21871
ClinicalTrials (2023) Search for: Gene Therapy | Card Results | ClinicalTrials.Gov. https://clinicaltrials.gov/search?cond=Gene%20Therapy. Accessed 24 Oct 2023
Coller BS (2019) Ethics of human genome editing. Annual Rev Med 70:289–305. https://doi.org/10.1146/Annurev-Med-112717-094629
Critchley C, Nicol D, Bruce G, Walshe J, Treleaven T, Tuch B (2019) Predicting public attitudes toward gene editing of germlines: the impact of moral and hereditary concern in human and animal applications. Front Genet 10(JAN):704. https://doi.org/10.3389/FGENE.2018.00704/BIBTEX
Delhove J, Osenk I, Prichard I, Donnelley M (2020) Public acceptability of gene therapy and gene editing for human use: a systematic review. Hum Gene Ther 31(1–2):20–46. https://doi.org/10.1089/HUM.2019.197
Dickler HB, Collier E (1994) Gene therapy in the treatment of disease. J Allergy Clin Immunol 94(6):942–951. https://doi.org/10.1016/0091-6749(94)90111-2
Doudna JA, Charpentier E (2014) The new frontier of genome engineering with CRISPR-Cas9. Science 346:1258096. https://doi.org/10.1126/SCIENCE.1258096
Ekechi-Agwu CA, Nwafor AO (2020) Regulating assisted reproductive technologies (ART) in Nigeria: lessons from Australia and the United Kingdom. Afr J Reprod Health 24(4):82–93. https://doi.org/10.29063/AJRH2020/V24I4.9
Funk C, Kennedy B, Sciupac EP (2016) U.S. public wary about use of biomedical technology for human enhancement. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2016/07/26/u-s-public-wary-ofbiomedical-technologies-to-enhance-human-abilities/. Accessed 24 Oct 2023
Geuverink W, van El C, Cornel M, Lietaert Peerbolte BJ, Gitsels J, Martin L (2023) Between desire and fear: a qualitative interview study exploring the perspectives of carriers of a genetic condition on human genome editing. Humanit Soc Sci Commun 10:477. https://doi.org/10.1057/S41599-023-01935-0
Hariharan S, Jonnalagadda R, Walrond E, Moseley H (2006) Knowledge, attitudes and practice of healthcare ethics and law among doctors and nurses in Barbados. BMC Med Ethics 7:7. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6939-7-7
Hendriks S, Giesbertz NAA, Bredenoord AL, Repping S (2018) Reasons for being in favour of or against genome modification: a survey of the Dutch general public. Hum Reprod Open 2018(3):hoy008. https://doi.org/10.1093/HROPEN/HOY008
Holdren JP, Sunstein CR, Siddiqui IA (2011) Principles for regulation and oversight of emerging technologies. Obama White House Archives. https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/omb/inforeg/foragencies/Principles-for-Regulation-and-Oversight-of-Emerging-Technologies-new.pdf. Accessed 24 Oct 2023
Houtman D, Geuverink W, Helmrich IRAR, Vijlbrief B, Cornel M, Riedijk S (2023) “What if” should precede “whether” and “how” in the social conversation around human germline gene editing. J Community Genet 14(4):371–375. https://doi.org/10.1007/S12687-023-00652-0/FIGURES/1
Hudson J, Orviska M (2011) European attitudes to gene therapy and pharmacogenetics. Drug Discov Today 16(19–20):843–847. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.DRUDIS.2011.06.008
Idoko-Akoh A, Goldhill DH, Sheppard CM, Bialy D, Quantrill JL, Sukhova K, Brown JC, Richardson S, Campbell C, Taylor L, Sherman A, Nazki S, Long JS, Skinner MA, Shelton H, Sang HM, Barclay WS, McGrew MJ (2023) Creating resistance to avian influenza infection through genome editing of the ANP32 gene family. Nature Commun 14(1):1–15. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-023-41476-3
Izzah SN, Setyanto D, Hasanatuludhhiyah N, Indiastuti DN, Nasution Z, D’Arqom A (2021) Attitudes of Indonesian medical doctors and medical students toward genome editing. J Multidiscip Healthc 14:1017–1027. https://doi.org/10.2147/JMDH.S303881
Jasanoff S, Hurlbut J, Saha K (2015) Crispr democracy: gene editing and the need for inclusive deliberation. Issues Sci Technol 32(1):25–32
Jinek M, Chylinski K, Fonfara I, Hauer M, Doudna JA, Charpentier E (2012) A programmable dual-RNA-guided DNA endonuclease in adaptive bacterial immunity. Science 337(6096):816–821. https://doi.org/10.1126/SCIENCE.1225829/SUPPL_FILE/JINEK.SM.PDF
Kupferschmidt K (2023) Shadowed by past, gene-editing summit looks to future. Science 379(6637):1073–1074. https://doi.org/10.1126/SCIENCE.ADH7972
McCaughey T, Sanfilippo PG, Gooden GEC, Budden DM, Fan L, Fenwick E, Rees G, MacGregor C, Si L, Chen C, Liang HH, Baldwin T, Pébay A, Hewitt AW (2016) A global social media survey of attitudes to human genome editing. Cell Stem Cell 18(5):569–572. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.STEM.2016.04.011
Miyaoka Y, Berman JR, Cooper SB, Mayerl SJ, Chan AH, Zhang B, Karlin-Neumann GA, Conklin BR (2016) Systematic quantification of HDR and NHEJ reveals effects of locus, nuclease, and cell type on genome-editing. Sci Rep 6(1):1–12. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep23549
Mulvihill JJ, Capps B, Joly Y, Lysaght T, Zwart HAE, Chadwick R (2017) Ethical issues of CRISPR technology and gene editing through the lens of solidarity. Br Med Bull 122(1):17–29. https://doi.org/10.1093/bmb/ldx002
Okonta PI, Ajayi R, Bamgbopa K, Ogbeche R, C.okeke C, Onwuzurigbo K (2018) Ethical issues in the practice of assisted reproductive technologies in Nigeria: empirical data from fertility practitioners. Afr J Reprod Health 22(3):51–58
Ormond KE, Mortlock DP, Scholes DT, Bombard Y, Brody LC, Faucett WA, Garrison NA, Hercher L, Isasi R, Middleton A, Musunuru K, Shriner D, Virani A, Young CE (2017) Human germline genome editing. Am J Hum Genet 101(2):167–176. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.AJHG.2017.06.012
Papathanasiou S, Markoulaki S, Blaine LJ, Leibowitz ML, Zhang CZ, Jaenisch R, Pellman D (2021) Whole chromosome loss and genomic instability in mouse embryos after CRISPR-Cas9 genome editing. Nature Commun 12(1):1–7. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-26097-y
Patra S (2015) Effects of genetic engineering - the ethical and social implications. Ann Clin Lab Res 3(1):1–2. https://doi.org/10.21767/2386-5180.10005
Ranisch R, Trettenbach K, Arnason G (2023) Initial heritable genome editing: mapping a responsible pathway from basic research to the clinic. Med Health Care Philos 26(1):21–35. https://doi.org/10.1007/S11019-022-10115-X/FIGURES/1
Reardon S (2016) Welcome to the CRISPR zoo. Nature 531(7593):160–163. https://doi.org/10.1038/531160a
Redman M, King A, Watson C, King D (2016) What is CRISPR/Cas9? Arch Dis Child Educ Pract Ed 101(4):213–215. https://doi.org/10.1136/archdischild-2016-310459
Report of the House Committee on Environment and Habitat (2019) National Assembly of Nigeria. https://placng.org/i/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/Report-of-the-House-of-Reps-Committee-on-Environment-and-Habitat-on-National-Biosafety-Management-Agency-Act-Amendment-Bill-2018.pdf. Accessed 24 Oct 2023
Rothschild J (2020) Ethical considerations of gene editing and genetic selection. J Gen Fam Med 21(3):37–47. https://doi.org/10.1002/JGF2.321
Scheufele DA, Krause NM, Freiling I, Brossard D (2021) What we know about effective public engagement on CRISPR and beyond. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 118(22):e2004835117. https://doi.org/10.1073/PNAS.2004835117/ASSET/B85631BC-3F6C-4B25-8715-6874BBDD88B4/ASSETS/IMAGES/LARGE/PNAS.2004835117FIG02.JPG
Sharma H, Singh D, Mahant A, Sohal SK, Kesavan AK (2020) Development of mitochondrial replacement therapy: a review. Heliyon 6(9):e04643. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e04643
Tachibana M, Kuno T, Yaegashi N (2018) Mitochondrial replacement therapy and assisted reproductive technology: a paradigm shift toward treatment of genetic diseases in gametes or in early embryos. Reprod Med Biol 17(4):421–433. https://doi.org/10.1002/rmb2.12230
Vajen B, Ronez J, Rathje W, Heinisch L, Ebeling S, Gebhard U, Hößle C, Schlegelberger B (2021) Students’ attitudes towards somatic genome editing versus genome editing of the germline using an example of familial leukemia. J Community Genet 12(3):397–406. https://doi.org/10.1007/S12687-021-00528-1
Wang J-H, Wang R, Lee JH, Iao TWU, Hu X, Wang Y-M, Tu L-L, Mou Y, Zhu W-L, He A-Y, Zhu S-Y, Cao D, Yang L, Tan X-B, Zhang Q, Liang G-L, Tang S-M, Zhou Y-D, Feng L-J, ... Liu G-S (2017) Public attitudes toward gene therapy in China. Mol Ther Methods Clin Dev 6:40–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omtm.2017.05.008
Weisberg SM, Badgio D, Chatterjee A (2017) A CRISPR new world: attitudes in the public toward innovations in human genetic modification. Front Public Health 5:117. https://doi.org/10.3389/FPUBH.2017.00117/BIBTEX
Wise J (2023) First baby born in the UK using mitochondrial donation therapy. BMJ 381:p1091. https://doi.org/10.1136/BMJ.P1091
Zaboikin M, Zaboikina T, Freter C, Srinivasakumar N (2017) Non-homologous end joining and homology directed DNA repair frequency of double-stranded breaks introduced by genome editing reagents. Plos One 12(1):e0169931. https://doi.org/10.1371/JOURNAL.PONE.0169931
Zarghamian P, Klermund J, Cathomen T (2023) Clinical genome editing to treat sickle cell disease-A brief update. Front Med 9:1065377. https://doi.org/10.3389/FMED.2022.1065377
Zhang F, Wen Y, Guo X (2014) CRISPR/Cas9 for genome editing: progress, implications and challenges. Hum Mol Genet 23(R1):R40–R46. https://doi.org/10.1093/HMG/DDU125
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
MJ contributed to data collection, data analysis, and manuscript draft preparation. HR contributed to the revision of the manuscript draft for improved intellectual content. MIO contributed to study conceptualization, design, manuscript draft preparation, and revision for improved intellectual content. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Consent to participate
Informed consent was obtained from all participants included in the study.
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary Information
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Jibrilla, M., Raji, H. & Okeke, M.I. Survey of attitude to human genome modification in Nigeria. J Community Genet 15, 1–11 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12687-023-00689-1
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12687-023-00689-1