CRISPR technologies are among the most powerful advancements in modern biology because they accurately manipulate the genomes of living cells and have the potential of curing various genetic diseases. This study examined the attitudes of undergraduate health science students towards somatic cell and germline gene editing therapies and whether supportive or critical supplemental literature differently influenced students' stances. Fifty-two (n = 52) students were given a writing assignment where they were presented with two case scenarios involving their own hypothetical child who had been diagnosed with Duchenne muscular dystrophy. The first scenario presented students with the option for somatic cell therapy, while the second provided a cure using germline therapies. The responses were scored to determine the overall support for CRISPR therapies in these situations. A thematic analysis was conducted to determine what themes affected decision-making, and if supplemental readings affected outcomes. Findings showed that students were especially accepting of somatic cell therapies while half accepted germline therapies. The two most common themes from those accepting of CRISPR use were to 'remove/prevent/treat human genetic diseases and cancer', and to 'improve quality of life'. Different types of supplemental literature did not affect the outcomes of this study.