美聯社調查：70％的美國人支持基因編輯，以治療嬰兒疾病！

AP-NORC Poll: Most support gene editing to protect babies

美聯社全國民意研究中心的民意調查：大多數人支持基因編輯以保護嬰兒

素材來源：美聯社 翻譯：世界播

WASHINGTON (AP) — Most Americans say it would be OK to use gene-editing technology to create babies protected against a variety of diseases — but a new poll shows they』d draw the line at changing DNA so children are born smarter, faster or taller.

華盛頓(美聯社)——大多數美國人認為使用基因編輯技術創造出能抵禦各種疾病的嬰兒是可以接受的，但一項新的民意調查顯示，他們會在改變DNA上劃一條界限，這樣孩子們出生時就會更聰明、更快或更高。

A month after startling claims of the births of the world』s first gene-edited babies in China, the poll by The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research finds people are torn between the medical promise of a technology powerful enough to alter human heredity and concerns over whether it will be used ethically.

在令人震驚地宣布世界上第一個經過基因編輯的嬰兒在中國出生的一個月後，美聯社全國民意研究中心公共事務研究中心的調查發現，人們在醫療承諾一種強大到足以改變人類遺傳的技術和對它是否會在道德上得到使用的擔憂之間，左右為難。

Jaron Keener, a 31-year-old exhibit designer at Pittsburgh』s Carnegie Museum of Natural History, said he』s opposed to 「rich people being able to create designer babies.」

31歲的杰倫?基納是匹茲堡卡內基自然歷史博物館的一名展品設計師，他說他反對「富人能夠創造出設計的嬰兒」。

But like the majority of Americans, Keener would support gene editing in embryos to prevent incurable diseases. His mother has lupus, an inflammatory disease that may have both environmental and genetic triggers.

但和大多數美國人一樣，基納也支持在胚胎中進行基因編輯，以預防不治之症。他的母親患有狼瘡，這是一種炎症性疾病，可能同時具有環境和遺傳誘因。

Lupus has been 「a looming presence my entire life. I』ve been around somebody with a chronic illness and I』ve seen the toll that has taken, not just on her life, but the life of my family,」 he said.

狼瘡一直在我的整個生命中是「一個隱約可見的存在」。他說：「我和一個患有慢性疾病的人在一起，我看到了患這種病所付出的代價，不僅僅是她的生命，還有我家人的生命。」

Gene editing is like a biological cut-and-paste program, letting scientists snip out a section of DNA to delete, replace or repair a gene. Altering adult cells would affect only the patient being treated.

基因編輯就像一個生物剪切粘貼程序，讓科學家剪下一段DNA來刪除、替換或修復一個基因。改變成人細胞只會影響正在接受治療的病人。

But editing genes in eggs, sperm or embryos would alter the resulting child in ways that can be passed to future generations — a step with such profound implications that international science guidelines say it shouldn』t be tested in human pregnancies until more lab-based research determines it』s safe to try.

但是，對卵子、精子或胚胎中的基因進行編輯，將會以一種可以傳遞給子孫後代的方式改變由此產生的孩子——這一步驟具有如此深遠的意義，以至於國際科學準則表示，在更多基於實驗室的研究確定這種嘗試是安全的之前，不應該在人類懷孕過程中對其進行測試。

The AP-NORC poll shows about 7 in 10 Americans favor one day using gene-editing technology to prevent an incurable or fatal disease a child otherwise would inherit, such as cystic fibrosis or Huntington』s disease.

美聯社全國民意研究中心的民意調查顯示，大約70%的美國人希望有一天能使用基因編輯技術來預防兒童會遺傳的不治之症或致命疾病，如囊狀纖維化（屬遺傳性胰腺病）或亨廷頓病性疾病。

Roughly two-thirds of Americans also favor using gene editing to prevent a child from inheriting a non-fatal condition such as blindness, and even to reduce the risk of diseases that might develop later in life, such as cancers.

大約三分之二的美國人還贊成使用基因編輯技術，以防止兒童遺傳失明等非致命性疾病，甚至降低日後罹患癌症等疾病的風險。

Side effects are possible, such as a gene-editing attempt that accidentally alters the wrong DNA spot, and the poll finds 85 percent think that risk is at least somewhat likely.

副作用是可能的，比如基因編輯的嘗試會意外地改變錯誤的DNA位點，調查發現85%的人認為這種風險至少在某種程度上是可能的。

But about 7 in 10 Americans oppose using gene editing to alter capabilities such as intelligence or athletic talent, and to alter physical features such as eye color or height.

但大約70%的美國人反對使用基因編輯來改變智力或運動天賦等能力，以及眼睛顏色或身高等身體特徵。

The poll highlights that if gene editing of embryos ever moves into fertility clinics, there will be some hard choices about what non-fatal disorders should qualify, said Columbia University bioethicist Dr. Robert Klitzman. What if scientists could pinpoint genes involved with depression or autism or obesity — would they be OK to edit?

哥倫比亞大學生物倫理學家羅伯特?克利茨曼博士表示，這項調查突顯出，如果胚胎的基因編輯技術進入生育診所，那麼對於哪些非致命疾病應該符合條件，將會有一些艱難的選擇。如果科學家們能夠查明與抑鬱症、自閉症或肥胖症有關的基因，他們是否可以進行編輯?

That reported gene editing in China was an attempt to create babies resistant to HIV infection, a target that many scientists in the U.S. and elsewhere decried because there are effective ways to prevent the AIDS virus.

據報道，在中國進行 基因編輯是為了培育出能抵抗艾滋病病毒感染的嬰兒。美國和其他國家的許多科學家都對這一目標表示了譴責，因為現在已經有有效的方法來預防艾滋病病毒。

The poll shows most people think it is at least somewhat likely that gene editing could wipe out certain inherited diseases and lead to other medical advances.

調查顯示，大多數人認為，基因編輯至少在一定程度上有可能消除某些遺傳性疾病，並帶來其他醫學的進步。

Yet despite the medical enthusiasm, more Americans oppose than favor government funding for testing on human embryos to develop gene-editing technology — 48 percent to 26 percent. About another quarter of the population takes no stand.

然而，儘管醫學熱情高漲，更多的美國人反對而不是支持政府資助對人類胚胎進行測試以開發基因編輯技術——48%對26%。大約有四分之一的人持反對意見。

Without that research, how could gene editing ever become a choice for families hoping to avoid a disease?

沒有這項研究，基因編輯怎麼可能成為希望避免疾病的家庭的選擇呢?

「That』s a good question,」 said Keener, the Pittsburgh museum worker, who opposes such funding for fear that research would lead to designer babies rather than fighting disease.

匹茲堡博物館的工作人員基納表示：「這是個好問題」，他反對這樣的資助，因為他擔心研究會導致設計出新的嬰兒，而不是與疾病作鬥爭。

「If there would be a way to narrow the scope of research, I would be OK with government funding,」 he said. 「I just don』t have a lot of confidence people wouldn』t use it for their own gain.」

他說:「如果有一種辦法縮小研究範圍，我不會介意政府資助。」「我只是沒有太多信心，人們不會為了自己的利益而使用它。」

Indeed, the poll uncovers a lack of trust in science: About a third think this kind of gene editing will be used before it』s adequately tested. Nearly 9 in 10 people think the technology will be used for unethical reasons, including 52 percent who say this is very likely to happen.

事實上，這項調查揭示了人們對科學缺乏信任：大約三分之一的人認為，這種基因編輯技術在經過充分測試之前就會被使用。近90%的人認為這項技術將被用於不道德的目的，其中52%的人認為這種情況很有可能發生。

And roughly three-quarters of Americans say gene editing probably wouldn』t be affordable for the average person — raising the specter of certain genetic diseases becoming a problem only for the poor.

大約四分之三的美國人說，基因編輯對普通人來說可能負擔不起，這增加了某些遺傳病的陰影，成為將來只發生在窮人身上的可能性。

「People appear to realize there』s a major question of how we should oversee and monitor use of this technology if and when it becomes available,」 said Columbia』s Klitzman. 「What is safe enough? And who will determine that? The government? Or clinicians who say, 『Look, we did it in Country X a few times and it seems to be effective.』」

「人們似乎意識到，如果這項技術可行，我們應該如何監督和監控它的使用，這是一個重大問題。」哥倫比亞大學的克利茨曼表示:「到底什麼才是足夠安全的？到底由誰來決定呢？政府？又或者如臨床醫生所說的那樣：『看，我們在X國做過幾次，似乎很有效。』」

喜歡這篇文章嗎？立刻分享出去讓更多人知道吧！