Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 16, 2026
CRISPR/Cas9 Gene Editing of Hematopoietic Stem and Progenitor Cells for Gene Therapy Applications
Published on: August 9, 2022
Development of a novel gene editing lexicon for hemophilia: methodology and results
Craig M Kessler1, Leonard A Valentino2,3, Courtney D Thornburg4,5
1Georgetown University, Washington, DC, USA.
Background:
Clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats (CRISPR)-associated protein 9 (Cas9)-based targeted gene editing platforms are being developed to treat genetic diseases like hemophilia. Such novel therapy involves complex concepts and terminology that require aligned language to engage key stakeholders in the hemophilia community. Thus, a globally aligned gene editing lexicon - a consistent language to communicate the fundamentals of gene editing in hemophilia, designed to be credible and accessible for people with hemophilia and caregivers while avoiding unnecessary complexity - is required to address this need.
Objectives:
To establish an aligned language and communications framework that facilitates informed consent and shared decision-making regarding gene editing and treatment considerations in hemophilia.
Methods:
Through an innovative partnership with global experts in hemophilia, gene editing, and biotechnology, initial insights were gathered via interviews, workshops, and analysis of existing language within the hemophilia community. Qualitative research involving lived experience experts (people with hemophilia and caregivers; n = 43) and hematologists (n = 24) informed the lexicon development, which was further validated by a steering committee of global experts in the hemophilia and gene editing fields. Finally, optimized language recommendations were developed for a clear, consistent gene editing lexicon.
Results:
Key themes included insights into audience mindsets, guiding language principles, and optimized terminology for key topics like gene editing concepts and posttreatment considerations. Audience mindsets revealed cautious optimism around gene therapy, with more skepticism around gene editing. Guiding language principles indicated a preference for plainspoken over technical language, definitions that link to patient benefits, and explanations that highlight the precise nature of gene editing.
Conclusion:
This collaborative approach ensures broad adoption of the lexicon within the hemophilia community and readiness for beta testing.
