Dose-effect of maternal serotonin reuptake inhibitor use during pregnancy on birth outcomes: A prospective cohort study

Background: While antidepressant use during pregnancy is increasingly common, there is concern about the possible effects of in-utero antidepressant exposure on the child. Our objective was to examine whether there is a dose-effect of maternal serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SRI) during pregnancy on birth outcomes. Methods: Women between 12 and 16 weeks of gestation, who were using an SRI, were eligible for participation in this nation-wide prospective observational cohort study. Recruitment took place between April 2015 and February 2018 (n = 145). SRI exposure and psychopathology symptoms were assessed throughout pregnancy. Exposure was defined as SRI standardized dose at 36 weeks of gestation and mean SRI standardized dose over total pregnancy. Multivariable linear and logistic regression were used to examine the associations with birth weight, gestational age at birth, and being small for gestational age. Results: Maternal SRI dose at 36 weeks of gestation was significantly associated with birth weight (adjusted ß = -180.7, 95%CI -301.1;-60.2, p-value < 0.01) as was mean SRI standardized dose during total pregnancy (adjusted ß = -187.3, 95%CI -322.0;-52.6, p-value < 0.01). No significant associations between maternal SRI dose and gestational age or being small for gestational age were observed. Limitations: Although prospective, we cannot make full causal inferences given that we did not randomize women to different dosages. Conclusion: These findings suggest that careful dosing of SRI use during pregnancy may prevent a negative impact on birth weight and indicate the need for further investigation of causality

Eight tips for using art and design to start dialogue about science

To share our lessons learned from using art and design to start public dialogue concerning genomics, we co-created a course called ‘Art & Genomics’, together with designers Bertrand Burgers and Mirte de Wit. Here, we aim to share our tips for any scientist who wants to harness creative design to trigger public engagement, illustrated by student experiences as well as our own

In the Era of the Actionable Genome, Everyone is Responsible

Genomics professionals and the general public have a responsibility to bridge the gap between science and society. The general public has a responsibility to deliberate, as their choices not only impact themselves but also shape society. Conversely, genomics professionals have a responsibility to enable the process of opinion formation

Experts in science communication

Even if the predominant model of science communication with the public is now based on dialogue, many experts still adhere to the outdated deficit model of informing the public.[Image: see text

The DNA-Dialogue: A Broad Societal Dialogue about Human Germline Genome Editing in the Netherlands

For years, calls for public involvement in the debate concerning the acceptability of human germline genome editing (HGGE) have been made. A multidisciplinary consortium of 11 organizations in the Netherlands organized a broad societal dialogue to inquire about the views of Dutch society toward HGGE. The project aimed to reach a wide and diverse audience and to stimulate a collective process of deliberative opinion forming and reflection. To that end, several instruments and formats were developed and employed. We present the results of 27 moderated dialogues organized between October 2019 and October 2020. Overall, participants of the dialogues were capable of assessing and discussing the subject of HGGE in a nuanced way. Analysis of these dialogues shows that in general, participants had no fundamental and absolute objections toward HGGE technology. However, they only deemed HGGE to be acceptable when it is used to prevent serious heritable diseases and under strict conditions, without affecting important (societal) values. There was a small group of participants who found HGGE fundamentally unacceptable because it would cross natural, socio-ethical, or religious boundaries

Changes in opinions about human germline gene editing as a result of the Dutch DNA-dialogue project

Public engagement for Human Germline Genome Editing (HGGE) has often been called for, for example by the WHO. However, the impact of public engagement remains largely unknown. This study reports on public engagement outcomes in the context of a public dialogue project about HGGE in the Netherlands; the DNA-dialogue. The aim was to inquire opinions and opinion change regarding HGGE. A questionnaire was distributed on a national level (n = 2381) and a dialogue level (n = 414). The results indicate that the majority of the Dutch population agrees with the use of HGGE to prevent severe genetic diseases (68.6%), unlike the use to protect against infectious diseases (39.7%), or for enhancement (8.5%). No indications of change in these acceptance rates as a result of dialogue participation were found. The results did provide a tentative indication that participation in dialogue may lead to less negative opinions about HGGE (χ2(1) = 5.14, p = 0.023, OR = 0.56, 95% CI [0.34, 0.93]). While it was not a goal of the project to make people more accepting towards HGGE, this might be the effect of exposure to opinions that are less often heard in the global debate. We conclude that dialogue may lead to different outcomes for different people, depending on their characteristics and their entrance attitude, but does not appear to systematically direct people towards a certain opinion. The self-reported, impacts of dialogue participation included no impact, strengthening of opinion, enabling of forming a first opinion, more insight into the potential implications of HGGE, and a better understanding of other people’s perspectives

Correction: Changes in opinions about human germline gene editing as a result of the Dutch DNA-dialogue project: Changes in opinions about human germline gene editing as a result of the Dutch DNA-dialogue project (European Journal of Human Genetics, (2022), 10.1038/s41431-022-01114-w)

Public engagement for Human Germline Genome Editing (HGGE) has often been called for, for example by the WHO. However, the impact of public engagement remains largely unknown. This study reports on public engagement outcomes in the context of a public dialogue project about HGGE in the Netherlands; the DNA-dialogue. The aim was to inquire opinions and opinion change regarding HGGE. A questionnaire was distributed on a national level (n = 2381) and a dialogue level (n = 414). The results indicate that the majority of the Dutch population agrees with the use of HGGE to prevent severe genetic diseases (68.6%), unlike the use to protect against infectious diseases (39.7%), or for enhancement (8.5%). No indications of change in these acceptance rates as a result of dialogue participation were found. The results did provide a tentative indication that participation in dialogue may lead to less negative opinions about HGGE (χ(2)(1) = 5.14, p = 0.023, OR = 0.56, 95% CI [0.34, 0.93]). While it was not a goal of the project to make people more accepting towards HGGE, this might be the effect of exposure to opinions that are less often heard in the global debate. We conclude that dialogue may lead to different outcomes for different people, depending on their characteristics and their entrance attitude, but does not appear to systematically direct people towards a certain opinion. The self-reported, impacts of dialogue participation included no impact, strengthening of opinion, enabling of forming a first opinion, more insight into the potential implications of HGGE, and a better understanding of other people’s perspectives

Changes in opinions about human germline gene editing as a result of the Dutch DNA-dialogue project

Public engagement for Human Germline Genome Editing (HGGE) has often been called for, for example by the WHO. However, the impact of public engagement remains largely unknown. This study reports on public engagement outcomes in the context of a public dialogue project about HGGE in the Netherlands; the DNA-dialogue. The aim was to inquire opinions and opinion change regarding HGGE. A questionnaire was distributed on a national level (n = 2381) and a dialogue level (n = 414). The results indicate that the majority of the Dutch population agrees with the use of HGGE to prevent severe genetic diseases (68.6%), unlike the use to protect against infectious diseases (39.7%), or for enhancement (8.5%). No indications of change in these acceptance rates as a result of dialogue participation were found. The results did provide a tentative indication that participation in dialogue may lead to less negative opinions about HGGE (χ2(1) = 5.14, p = 0.023, OR = 0.56, 95% CI [0.34, 0.93]). While it was not a goal of the project to make people more accepting towards HGGE, this might be the effect of exposure to opinions that are less often heard in the global debate. We conclude that dialogue may lead to different outcomes for different people, depending on their characteristics and their entrance attitude, but does not appear to systematically direct people towards a certain opinion. The self-reported, impacts of dialogue participation included no impact, strengthening of opinion, enabling of forming a first opinion, more insight into the potential implications of HGGE, and a better understanding of other people’s perspectives