Table 3.
Citizens' attitudes on omics sciences (where investigated).
| References | Perception of benefits in the use of genetics/omics sciences in medicine | Concerns about the use of genetics/omics sciences in medicine |
|---|---|---|
| Henneman et al. (2006) | Two hundred and sixty-four supporters vs. 248 against the availability and use of genetic tests. Forty-three percentage believed that knowing genetic background of diseases would help people live longer. | Among respondents, 40% thought that knowing own genetic makeup would be deterministic for people because it would decrease their self-esteem and/or deprive people of the freedom to live as desired. According to 44% of the interviewees, tests could lead to social exclusion of subjects with positive tests and handicaps. |
| Skirton et al. (2006) | Enhanced medical knowledge could enable preventive measures to be taken. | Ethical issues, psychological consequences of genetic test results. |
| Calsbeek et al. (2007) | – | Some participants considered genetic tests “frightening”; some were concerned about insurance consequences of the tests. |
| Morren et al. (2007) | Most of the interviewees (70–80%) approved genetic tests and considered genetic research important for future treatment of diseases. | Especially consequences in case of positivity to genetic tests for work and medical insurance. |
| Ishiyama et al. (2008) | Genomic literacy related with positive attitude toward genomic studies. | – |
| Makeeva et al. (2009) | Among respondents, 81.3% believed that genetics would help people live longer and 81.4% that would help keep their lifestyle under control. | Among the participants, 48.0% were worried about discrimination based on genetic data. |
| Morin (2009) | Consumers believed that potential benefits of nutrigenomics outweigh risks. For participants, nutrigenomics could also lead to early diagnosis or disease prevention and, in general, could encourage healthy eating habits. | Toward online services and DTC genetic tests.Greater regulatory control is needed to protect consumers (in particular for sale of genetic tests). |
| Stewart-Knox et al. (2009) | Perceived benefits of nutrigenomics to follow a personalized diet. | Concerns about how information would be used. |
| Hahn et al. (2010) | For disease prevention and treatment. | Affordability, unanticipated physical harm, mistrust of the government and researchers, downstream effects like overpopulation, playing God/disturbing the natural order, lack of regulations, loss of privacy, genetic discrimination, and moral dilemmas posed by genetic engineering, cloning, choosing traits, and abortions resulting from genetic information. |
| Lemke et al. (2010) | Among perceived benefits of genomics research there were the possibility to prevent and treat diseases and potential cost savings to society. | Concerns about sharing research results with the public, possibility of discrimination by insurance companies, the government, the health care system, and employers. |
| Nielsen and El-Sohemy (2012) | Nutrigenomics information was considered useful for motivation to change lifestyle (prevention). | – |
| Bombard et al. (2013) | For disease prediction and treatment. | Costs, accessibility, need, and feasibility of introduction into the health system. |
| Haga et al. (2013) | More than half of participants agreed with the possibility that a DNA test will change a person's future (56.3%). | More than half of participants agreed with the possibility that a DNA test will affect a person's ability to obtain health insurance (51.3%), 16% were worried about the consequences of tests on the possibility to find a job. |
| Henneman et al. (2013) | – | Some believed that insurance companies will require genetic testing in the future to determine the premium (36%, <2002). |
| Nicholls et al. (2013) | The application of genomics to screenings could allow early intervention, prevention, and stricter monitoring. | Costs, educational needs regarding the probabilistic nature of the risk, access to personal genomics information. |
| Almeling (2014) | Perception of importance/utility (indirectly: 57% agree that the federal government should spend more on researching the genetic causes of diseases). | Important to avoid discrimination (82% believe GINA–Genetic Information Non-discrimination Act 2008–is important). |
| Vermeulen et al. (2014) | Especially interests for preventive genomics. | – |
| Etchegary et al. (2015) | Omics sciences perceived as beneficial, but not a priority for the health system. | Dangerous use of information, privacy issues. |
| Kaphingst et al. (2015) | Black women perceived fewer health benefits than white women; Hispanics had greater interest in receiving a genomics assessment than non-Hispanic whites. | – |
| Mavroidopoulou et al. (2015) | Most participants expressed interest in undergoing DTC genetic testing for serious diseases, such as cancer (54.9%), or a metabolism or genealogy test (50.2%), but would prefer to consult their doctor first. | Concerns about personal data. |
| Kaphingst et al. (2016) | Fifty four percentage of participants considered genetic information very important. | – |
| Mählmann et al. (2016) | Participants were interested in personal genomics mostly to find out about their own disease risk or to contribute to scientific research. | Concerns and doubts about psychological implications deriving from testing results, validity of tests, privacy issues. |
| McCormack et al. (2016) | Participants understood the importance of sharing data and samples and creating databases for rare diseases. | Concerns about risks to privacy and autonomy in sharing data on an international database. Need to limit access to personal data to health professionals involved in research. All participants were against access to data by private companies. |
| Miyamoto et al. (2016) | Over 80% of participants agreed that the use of genetic information for medical purposes is “useful for disease diagnosis,” “useful for disease treatment” and “useful for disease prevention” | Less than half of respondents showed “concerns” about the use of genomics in medicine (worries regarded the use of genomics information by companies or government agencies, possible discrimination at work and by insurance companies, problems related to cloning of humans, unexpected negative effects). |
| Simonstein and Mashiach-Eizenberg (2016) | Most (81.3%) believed that medicine could improve with the use of genetic engineering. | Almost half of the participants agreed (22.7% partially agreed, 18.7% agreed) with the sentence “genetic engineering could destroy the human race.” |
| Fournier and Poulain (2018) | Nutritional epigenomics was perceived positively compared to nutritional genomics. | Possible conflicts of interest between scientific research and the agri-food industry. |
| Metcalfe et al. (2018) | Only for health purposes. | Concerns about privacy issues, potential discrimination. Cost skepticism (speculation by companies) was expressed too. |
| Horrow et al. (2019) | Genomic optimism was positively associated with higher health literacy. | Genomics pessimism was associated with lower health literacy. |
| Jones et al. (2019) | The majority (67.2%) of questionnaire respondents placed a high or very high value on using genetic data for research. | Almost half of the respondents reported moderate concern about the use of genetic data for research (48%). Most commonly expressed concern was misuse of data tied with concerns about information governance. Participants expressed the importance of informed consent for access to genetic data for research and a preference for a safe use of the data. |
| Middleton et al. (2020) | – | The main potential harm identified was the possibility to use DNA of other individuals to blame them for a crime (45.2%), insurance discriminations (37.2%), use of genetic information by companies for targeted marketing strategies (35%). |