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.
AMA J Ethics. 2019;21(12):E1042-1048. doi:
10.1001/amajethics.2019.1042.
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.
AMA J Ethics. 2019;21(12):E1049-1055. doi:
10.1001/amajethics.2019.1049.
Clinically and ethically relevant questions are related to patient safety, therapeutic efficacy, equitable access, and global governance over humanity’s genetic legacy.
AMA J Ethics. 2019;21(12):E1079-1088. doi:
10.1001/amajethics.2019.1079.
Gene editing reminds professionals and the public that this technology’s reach goes beyond treating somatic disease to germline consequences yet unknown.
AMA J Ethics. 2019;21(12):E1056-1058. doi:
10.1001/amajethics.2019.1056.
International debate about human genome editing governance has undergone a paradigm shift and suggests that inclusive public deliberation is still important.
AMA J Ethics. 2019;21(12):E1065-1070. doi:
10.1001/amajethics.2019.1065.
Haley Moulton, Benjamin Moulton, JD, MPH, Tim Lahey, MD, MMSc, and Glyn Elwyn, MD, PhD, MSc
Shared decision making in research informed consent conversations is complex due to diverse and potentially divergent interests of investigators and patient-subjects.
AMA J Ethics. 2020;22(5):E365-371. doi:
10.1001/amajethics.2020.365.