Survey assessed perceptions of CRISPR gene editing in treating hereditary disorders, indicating awareness and safety are significant factors.
The purpose of the research was to investigate people's perceptions of CRISPR gene editing as a treatment for hereditary illnesses and the factors that shape such perceptions. It also looked at whether age, gender, and education level as well as safety concerns affect their willingness to accept such treatments. The sample used in this study was 250 and they were all patients; moreover, the general population also acted as participants. It was a study conducted between February and June, 2025 in Punjab, Pakistan. The answers were given according to the background, knowledge on CRISPR, and perception of the participants by means of a questionnaire. The SPSS software was used to analyze the data. It was found out that the more a person knew about the CRISPR, the greater the probability to adopt this method. The other factors that made a significant contribution to the willingness of the individuals to use CRISPR were a belief in its safeness and the level of education. Men and younger population were more predisposed to using CRISPR as compared to the older population and the female population. Income did not have much influence on their opinion. It means that raising awareness of people via teaching them about CRISPR is one of the methods that can be used to reduce the lack of acceptance. In the study, it is shown that awareness and trust make a very pivotal role in the uptake of new medical technologies. In the future we will be able to learn even more when additional research is conducted on larger and more diverse samples of people. Meanwhile, the findings of the current investigation can yield beneficial recommendations to physicians, scientists, and policymakers about a discussion with people about CRISPR and develop a safe intervention.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Haq et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: