Public and private choices about allocation of funds for research raise a social-justice question: are these funding sources making fair decisions about where to invest their resources? The NIH has the clearest obligation to do so because it is taxpayer-supported.
Kyle B. Brothers, MD, PhD and Esther E. Knapp, MD, MBE
Direct-to-consumer genetic testing requires that physicians share decision making with patients, not order unnecessary tests or interventions, and refer to genetic specialists when necessary.
AMA J Ethics. 2018;20(9):E812-818. doi:
10.1001/amajethics.2018.812.
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.
The allocation of scarce resources, such as HLA platelets, involves a conflict between the medical ethics principles of beneficence and social justice.
AMA J Ethics. 2016;18(8):764-770. doi:
10.1001/journalofethics.2016.18.8.ecas1-1608.
Developing technologies for personalized medicine may be misused to popularize the idea that one can infer a person’s genetic makeup from observer-defined or self-reported assignment to a race or ethnic group.
The Moseley study found no significant difference between those in the arthroscopic lavage and debridement arm of the study and those in the sham surgery arm.
Viewing dementia as a distinct disease promotes funding for research but may stigmatize those who have dementia and lead to disinvestment in caregiving.
AMA J Ethics. 2017;19(7):713-719. doi:
10.1001/journalofethics.2017.19.7.mhst1-1707.