Public Perception of Human Genetic Engineering in Nigeria: An Analysis of Youth Approval for Therapeutic and Non-Therapeutic Uses: Evidence from Multivariate Analytics

While genetic engineering (GE) presents transformative potential for medicine, global public perception varies significantly, influenced by cultural, ethical, and educational factors. Extensive research exists in Western contexts, but there is a critical paucity of empirical data on attitudes within African populations, particularly regarding the distinction between therapeutic and non-therapeutic applications. This study investigates the determinants of GE approval among Nigerian youth using a multivariate analytical framework. Data from a sample of Nigerian youths (N=1,517) were analyzed through binary logistic regression to model the likelihood of approval. The model assessed the influence of formal education, domain-specific perceptions (risk reduction, disease prevention, human enhancement), and overarching ethical considerations. The analysis revealed a strong gradient of approval, with highest support for therapeutic applications (e.g., treating fatal diseases: 92.52%) and significantly lower support for enhancement-based uses (e.g., intelligence improvement: 71.31%). Tertiary education was a powerful positive predictor of approval (OR = 3.897, p = 0.003). In the full multivariate model, perceptions of risk reduction for fatal diseases (OR = 3.745, p < 0.001) and approval for preventing non-fatal diseases (OR = 3.836, p < 0.001) were the strongest attitudinal drivers. Conversely, fundamental ethical concerns significantly diminished the likelihood of approval (OR = -1.342, p = 0.037). The full model demonstrated a significantly improved fit over a baseline education-only model (Pseudo R² = 0.3720). Nigerian youth are generally supportive of therapeutic GE but cautious about enhancement applications. Acceptance is driven by a combination of educational attainment, perceived medical utility, and the resolution of core ethical objections. These findings underscore the need for nuanced, context-specific public engagement and science communication strategies in Nigeria that address ethical concerns while highlighting therapeutic benefits to foster informed societal consensus.

Human Genetic Engineering; Public Perception; Youth Approval

1. Akinwale, A. A., et al. (2019). Public perceptions of biotechnology in Nigeria. African Journal of Science, Technology and Society, 4(1), 45–59. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Angrist, J. D., & Pischke, J. S. (2009). Mostly harmless econometrics: An empiricist's companion. Princeton University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Bauer, M. W., & Gaskell, G. (2002). Biotechnology: The making of a global controversy. Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Baylis, F. (2019). Altered inheritance: CRISPR and the ethics of human genome editing. Harvard University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Caulfield, T., Rachul, C., & Ogbogu, U. (2019). Professional norms about genetic testing: Survey of Canadian healthcare organizations. Journal of Medical Ethics, *45*(12), 802–805. https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2019-105526. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Funk, C., Hefferon, M., Kennedy, B., & Johnson, C. (2020). Biotechnology research viewed with caution globally, but most support gene editing for babies to treat disease. Pew Research Center. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Gaskell, G., Stares, S., Allansdottir, A., Allum, N., Castro, P., Esmer, Y., ... & Wagner, W. (2010). Europeans and Biotechnology in 2010: Winds of change? European Commission. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Hosmer, D. W., & Lemeshow, S. (2000). Applied Logistic Regression (2nd ed.). John Wiley & Sons. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Hudson, K. L., Holohan, M. K., & Collins, F. S. (2020). Keeping pace with the times—The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008. New England Journal of Medicine, *382*(15), 1441–1444. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMp1914955. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Jegede, A. S. (2007). What led to the Nigerian boycott of the polio vaccination campaign? PLoS Medicine, *4*(3), e73. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0040073. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Juengst, E. T. (1997). Can enhancement be distinguished from prevention in genetic medicine? The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy, 22(2), 125–142. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Kim, H., & Kim, J-S. (2016). A guide to genome engineering with programmable nucleaus. Nature Reviews Genetics, 15 (5), 321-334. https://doi.org/10.1038/ngr.2016.26 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Kimmelman, J. (2020). The ethics of human gene editing: Religious and secular perspectives. Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Nuffield Council on Bioethics. (2006). Genetic screening: A supplement to the 1993 report. London, UK: Author. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Nuffield Council on Bioethics. (2018). Genome editing and human reproduction: Social and ethical issues. Nuffield Council Publications. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. McPhetres, J., & Zuckerman, M. (2018). Religiosity predicts negative attitudes toward science and lower levels of science literacy. Public Understanding of Science, *27*(7), 829–844. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Miller, J. D. (2004). Public understanding of, and attitudes toward, scientific research: What we know and what we need to know. Public Understanding of Science, 13(3), 273–294. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Munyi, P., De Schutter, O., & Wambugu, P. (2016). Legal and institutional frameworks for GE governance in Africa. GM Crops & Food, *7*(3), 173–184. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Parens, E. (2015). Shaping the self: Genetic testing and the moral landscape. Hastings Center Report, *45*(3), 11–18. https://doi.org/10.1002/hast.439. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Powell, J., & Buchanan, A. (2016). Breaking the stalemate: A prospective empirical study of judicial decision-making in contested child relocation cases. Family Court Review, *54*(1), 24–42. https://doi.org/10.1111/fcre.12201. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Sachedina, A. (2009). Islamic biomedical ethics: Principles and application. Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Scheufele, D. A., Krause, N. M., Freiling, I., & Brossard, D. (2017). Science communication as political communication. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, *114*(36), 9555–9562. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Oyelaran-Oyeyinka, B., & Adebowale, B. O. (2014). Science and technology policy in Nigeria: Issues, challenges and prospects. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, *86*, 313–321. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Migrant Health in Morocco: Between Law and Reality
• CaknaMinda: An Educator-Centred Mobile App for Early Screening of Mental Health and Schizophrenia Risks
• Health System and Nursing Strategies for Enhancing Male Participation in Family Planning: Evidence from Tema General Hospital, Ghana.
• From Īśvara-Praṇidhāna to Parā-Bhakti: Convergent Paths of Aṣṭāṅga Yoga and Bhakti Yoga
• Evidence-Based Psycho-Oncological Interventions: A Multimodal Approach to Supportive Care