The Holocaust and the racial hygiene doctrine that helped rationalize it still overshadow contemporary debates about using gene editing for disease prevention.
AMA J Ethics. 2021;23(1):E49-54. doi:
10.1001/amajethics.2021.49.
Long-acting injectables powerfully augment HIV care, but broad acceptance and uptake could be compromised by what we know about experiences with antipsychotics.
AMA J Ethics. 2021;23(5):E405-409. doi:
10.1001/amajethics.2021.405.
How would gathering preclinical data and improving research infrastructure facilitate clearer definitions of “population vulnerability” and “risk acceptability”?
AMA J Ethics. 2020;22(1):E43-49. doi:
10.1001/amajethics.2020.43.
Gene editing to enhance humans’ adaptability to climate change should consider safety, harm to be averted, succeeding generations, and social consequences.
AMA J Ethics. 2017;19(12):1186-1192. doi:
10.1001/journalofethics.2017.19.12.stas1-1712.
Although effective, opioid agonist therapy is associated with stigma and thus underutilized for treatment of opioid use disorder in incarcerated settings.
AMA J Ethics. 2017;19(9):922-930. doi:
10.1001/journalofethics.2017.19.9.stas1-1709.
Clara C. Hildebrandt, MD and Jonathan M. Marron, MD, MPH
Gene editing with CRISPR/Cas9 raises concerns about equitable access to therapies that could limit research participation by minority group members. These concerns can be addressed through public education, transparency, and stakeholder partnerships.
AMA J Ethics. 2018;20(9):E826-833. doi:
10.1001/amajethics.2018.826.