INTERNATIONAL PERCEPTIONS AND APPROVAL OF GENE-THERAPY

被引:36
作者
MACER, DRJ
AKIYAMA, S
ALORA, AT
ASADA, Y
AZARIAH, J
AZARIAH, H
BOOST, MV
CHATWACHIRAWONG, P
KATO, Y
KAUSHIK, V
LEAVITT, FJ
MACER, NY
ONG, CC
SRINIVES, P
TSUZUKI, M
机构
[1] EUBIOS ETH INST,CHRISTCHURCH 5,NEW ZEALAND
[2] UNIV SANTO TOMAS,SE ASIAN CTR BIOETH,MANILA,PHILIPPINES
[3] UNIV MADRAS,DEPT ZOOL,MADRAS 600025,TAMIL NADU,INDIA
[4] HONG KONG POLYTECH,DEPT HLTH SCI,KOWLOON,HONG KONG
[5] UNIV MADRAS,CTR ADV STUDY BOT,MADRAS 600025,TAMIL NADU,INDIA
[6] RUSSIAN ACAD SCI,INST HUMAN,MOSCOW,RUSSIA
[7] BEN GURION UNIV NEGEV,FAC HLTH SCI,JAKOBOVITZ CTR JEWISH MED ETH,IL-84105 BEER SHEVA,ISRAEL
[8] SINGAPORE POLYTECH,DEPT CHEM PROC & BIOTECHNOL,SINGAPORE 0513,SINGAPORE
关键词
D O I
10.1089/hum.1995.6.6-791
中图分类号
Q81 [生物工程学(生物技术)]; Q93 [微生物学];
学科分类号
071005 ; 0836 ; 090102 ; 100705 ;
摘要
Gene therapy is in clinical trials in a number of countries, raising the question of whether different ethical standards can be justified in different countries. One key issue is how divergent are the perceptions and bioethical reasoning of peoples around the world. An International Bioethics Survey with 150 questions, including 35 open ones, was developed to look at how people think about diseases, life, nature, and selected issues of science and technology, biotechnology, genetic engineering, genetic screening, and gene therapy. The mail response survey was conducted in 1993 among the public in Australia, India, Israel, Japan, New Zealand, Russia, and Thailand, and the same written survey was conducted among university students in Australia, Hong Kong, India, Japan, New Zealand, The Philippines, Russia, Singapore, and Thailand. Similar questions were included in an international high school education bioethics survey among high school teachers in Australia, Japan, and New Zealand. Further international comparisons to the United States and Europe are made. About three-quarters of all samples supported personal use of gene therapy, with higher support for children's use of gene therapy. The diversity of views was generally similar within each country. The major reasons given were to save life and increase the quality of life. About 5-7% rejected gene therapy, considering it to be playing God, or unnatural. There was very little concern about eugenics (0.5-2%), and more respondents gave supportive reasons like ''improving genes,'' especially in Thailand and India. Support for specific applications was significantly less for ''improving physical characters,'' ''improving intelligence,'' or ''making people more ethical'' than for curing diseases like cancer or diabetes, but there was little difference between inheritable or noninheritable gene therapy.
引用
收藏
页码:791 / 803
页数:13
相关论文
共 44 条
[1]   GENE-THERAPY IN HUMAN-BEINGS - WHEN IS IT ETHICAL TO BEGIN [J].
ANDERSON, WF ;
FLETCHER, JC .
NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, 1980, 303 (22) :1293-1297
[2]   GENETIC-ENGINEERING AND OUR HUMANNESS (REPRINTED FROM CATHEDRAL PAPERS, VOL 4, 1992) [J].
ANDERSON, WF .
HUMAN GENE THERAPY, 1994, 5 (06) :755-759
[3]   HUMAN-GENE THERAPY - WHY DRAW A LINE [J].
ANDERSON, WF .
JOURNAL OF MEDICINE AND PHILOSOPHY, 1989, 14 (06) :681-693
[4]  
ANDERSON WF, 1994, HUM GEN THER, V3, P359
[5]   SUMMARY OF GENE-TRANSFER INTO HUMAN SOMATIC-CELLS - STATE OF THE TECHNOLOGY, MEDICAL RISKS, SOCIAL AND ETHICAL PROBLEMS - A REPORT [J].
BAYERTZ, K ;
PASLACK, R ;
SCHMIDT, KW .
HUMAN GENE THERAPY, 1994, 5 (04) :465-468
[6]   NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL APPROACHES TO HUMAN GERM-LINE GENE-THERAPY [J].
BONNICKSEN, AL .
POLITICS AND THE LIFE SCIENCES, 1994, 13 (01) :39-49
[7]  
BUTLER D, 1994, NATURE, V371, P369
[8]   HUMAN GENE-THERAPY - A BIOPOLITICAL OVERVIEW AND ANALYSIS [J].
CARMEN, IH .
HUMAN GENE THERAPY, 1993, 4 (02) :187-193
[9]   HUMAN GENE-THERAPY AND CONGRESS [J].
COOKDEEGAN, RM .
HUMAN GENE THERAPY, 1990, 1 (02) :163-170
[10]  
DANKS DM, 1994, HUM GENE THER, V4, P151