One reason for neglect of women’s health as patients and subjects has been restrictions on uterine transfer of modified human embryos, a boundary that has now been crossed.

Genome editing raises old questions, but CRISPR arose in a political landscape that vastly differs from the early aughts.

The Asilomar Conference of 1975 and the German Ethics Council offer guidance for a path towards prudent regulation in the face of unknown and significant risks.

Gene editing reminds professionals and the public that this technology’s reach goes beyond treating somatic disease to germline consequences yet unknown.

Genome editing is an inexpensive and efficient tool to introduce changes in DNA, but key ethical worries deserve attention.

Empathic communication skills help motivate understanding of safety, significance of harms, impact on succeeding generations, and social consequences.

Clinically and ethically relevant questions are related to patient safety, therapeutic efficacy, equitable access, and global governance over humanity’s genetic legacy.

Little claims data exists upon which to make informed decisions about loss control or to draw upon when developing risk mitigation strategies.

In art, authenticity tends to be perceived in proximity to an artist’s original intention, and it can help guide future research in germline editing.

Although advisory groups like the World Health Organization question whether certain forms of gene editing should be permitted, the US Patent Office routinely issues patents protecting this technology.