ORIGINAL RESEARCH article
Front. Genet.
Sec. ELSI in Science and Genetics
Volume 16 - 2025 | doi: 10.3389/fgene.2025.1620962
Moral Judgment of Genetic Technologies: Validation of the Genetic Technologies Questionnaire in the German Speaking Population
Provisionally accepted
- 1Network Aging Research, Heidelberg University, Heidelberg, Germany
- 2Department of Philosophy, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece
Select one of your emails
You have multiple emails registered with Frontiers:
Notify me on publication
Please enter your email address:
If you already have an account, please login
You don't have a Frontiers account ? You can register here
The development of modern life sciences has expanded our biomedical capabilities to an unprecedented degree. For example, genetic testing can be used to predict hereditary predisposition or susceptibility to certain diseases. The development of gene scissors such as CRISPR/Cas makes it possible to repair the disease gene or introduce a protective gene in somatic cells but also in germline cells, leading to permanent change of the genome. But is everything we "can" do morally justifiable? To what extent does the moral status of the living being, autonomy, and privacy influence the decision of whether something is morally "good" or "bad"? There is a lack of valid instruments to study the moral judgment of genetic technologies.Therefore, the aim of this study is to translate and validate the "Genetic Technologies Questionnaire" (GTQ) and the short version of the "Conventional Technologies Questionnaire" (CTQ5) into German.Methods: Convenience sampling (N = 317) was used to conduct a cross-sectional online study. Analyses included internal consistency, structural validity, known group construct validity, tests for floor and ceiling effects, and retest reliability with a subset of n = 72. Correlational analyses were conducted with education, age, prior knowledge of genetics, religiosity, conventional technologies, and prior genetic testing. This study used the STROBE checklist for reporting.The GTQ30 (Cronbach's α = 0.938) and GTQ20 (α = 0.940) are reliable and stable instruments for testing the moral judgment of lay people, while the GTQ5 (α = 0.857) and CTQ5 (α = 0.697) showed some weaknesses. Conventional technologies were judged morally better than genetic technologies, and genetic testing considered better than genome editing. Two additional versions were validated: the GTQ-Human (GTQ-H), using all items relating to humans, and the GTQ-Moral Status (GTQ-MS), including one item per different group of living beings for genetic testing and one for genome editing.The GTQ is a valid instrument that is now available in shorter versions for different areas of research: the GTQ-MS for philosophical questions addressing moral status and the GTQ-H for biomedical and psychological questions related to research, prognosis, diagnosis, and therapy in humans.
Keywords: Genetic technologies, Genome editing, Genetic Testing, Ethics, knowledge, Moral status, autonomy, Religiosity
Received: 01 May 2025; Accepted: 10 Jul 2025.
Copyright: © 2025 Teichmann, Melchior, Beyreuther and Chorianopoulou. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
* Correspondence: Birgit Teichmann, Network Aging Research, Heidelberg University, Heidelberg, Germany
Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.