Despite their scientific promise, gene editing technologies (GETs) have been subjected to many debates regarding the ethics, politics, and social consequences of genetic modification. This is...Show moreDespite their scientific promise, gene editing technologies (GETs) have been subjected to many debates regarding the ethics, politics, and social consequences of genetic modification. This is largely due to its similarities with old eugenics policies, as well as trends seen in healthcare practice and access for other innovative medical technologies (e.g. geographical practice variations, and socio-economic disparities in access to care and medical innovativeness). Currently taking part in these debates are the scientific community, historians, and ethicists. As such, the public does not yet have a seat at the table, though this is necessary to devise succesful policies and regulations pertinent to the (potential) wider adoption of GETs in the healthcare system. Therefore, this study aims to gauge the public perception on GETs, while accounting for Race and Level of Education. More specifically, this study focusses on the predictiveness of said variables for the degree to which one is accepting of GETs, and to what extent they fear that GETs are discriminatory in nature. This is achieved by means of multiple linear regressions. It was found that Race and Level of Education were insignificantly predictive of acceptance of gene editing technologies (R2 = .002, F(2, 137) = .154, p = .857). Further, they were insignificantly predictive of fear of gene editing technologies being discriminatory (R2 = .036, F(2, 130) = 2.441, p = .091).Show less
