Advancements in science and technology, particularly in the field of genome editing, hold significant potential to change how future generations will treat disease and may fundamentally change what it means to be human. There are concerns by scientists and non-scientists about how to explore the values and perceptions of the public regarding the implications of new technologies. Use of participatory Technology Assessment (pTA) has arisen as a type of interactive group discussion to disseminate information about technology and collect non-scientists' perceptions of the value, impact or usefulness of a technology and potential ethical issues or consequences to be considered. There is no one size fits all model of pTA; several are discussed in this paper, but there are similarities between them such as the structure of engagement or recruitment criteria. It is important to note a difference in public understanding of science and public engagement with science as it relates to the structure and execution of pTA. This study was undertaken to evaluate pTA as a tool to explore perceptions, values and opinions regarding a case study of CRISPR-Cas9, a tool for genome editing, among ASU Barrett undergraduate students.