While most countries prohibit the modification of human embryos using technologies like mitochondrial replacement therapy (MRT) and human germline genome editing, scientists and policymakers are increasingly calling for more relaxed restrictions.

These technologies alter one’s germline (the cells that pass on genetic material), providing, proponents say, a way of eliminating deadly or disastrous genetic diseases. Opponents, however, say these techniques raise serious ethical questions and fail to address the fact there is often more to disease formation than genes alone.

Dr. Katherine Drabiak, a USF College of Public Health professor and expert on medical ethics, along with USF Morsani College of Medicine student Shoaib Khan, decided to examine how scientists and policymakers frame the benefits of these human germline modifications in order to sway public opinion and regulatory guidelines. Their paper, “Eight Strategies to Engineer Acceptance of Human Germline Modifications,” was published in the Journal of Bioethical Inquiry in July.

Drabiak has been writing about the scientific, legal and ethical aspects of technologies that modify human embryos to create babies for a while. She says she decided to tackle how rhetoric shapes the discussion surrounding these technologies when she observed stakeholders minimizing their risks.

“I noticed common similar rhetorical strategies relating to MRT and human germline genome editing, such as people promising these technologies are safe and will be highly effective, that they will create healthy babies and reduce risks of genetic disease, and we should embrace them to eliminate suffering. But I also noticed that many stakeholders were downplaying, or even ignoring, very serious risks. Part of the reason for this article was to show how public discussions and regulatory decision-making embraced the potential benefits but downplayed the risks.”

Drabiak says public relations strategies used to sway public opinion about these technologies aren’t so different from the ones corporate America used to sell cigarettes or Big Pharma used to sell addictive drugs.

“Public relations techniques manipulate the body of science that affects public opinion, people’s individual decision-making and regulations,” Drabiak stated. “When proponents use these techniques most effectively, they are invisible. We hear certain claims repeated so often, we believe they are true, and we think we are making our own choices that are in fact based on a skewed information landscape.”

Drabiak said she fears technology used to create synthetic human embryos will be the next victim of skewed marketing.

“Changing the germline (the genetics of future generations) impacts not only future children but raises larger questions for our entire species as humans,” Drabiak said. “Recognizing how these technologies [are sold to the public] can make the public more savvy consumers of information and help them understand how certain stakeholders are intentionally pushing their opinion in a certain direction. Edward Bernays, who began the PR field in the 1920s, said ‘The best PR leaves no fingerprints.’ I want to show those fingerprints and the motivation for pushing acceptance of these technologies.”

Story by Donna Campisano, USF College of Public Health