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.
Holly K. Tabor, PhD and Aaron Goldenberg, PhD, MPH
Rare genetic disease research has something to teach precision medicine about addressing some patients’ limited access to treatment. Health disparities exacerbated by high costs and limited availability of drugs can, perhaps, be mitigated when patient activism accelerates drug development.
AMA J Ethics. 2018;20(9):E834-840. doi:
10.1001/amajethics.2018.834.
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.
Paris B. Adkins-Jackson, PhD, MPH, Rupinder K. Legha, MD, and Kyle A. Jones, RN
Institutional racism mediates structural racism and is embedded in institutional policies, clinical practice, health professional training, and biomedical research.
AMA J Ethics. 2021;23(2):E140-145. doi:
10.1001/amajethics.2021.140.
Michael Farias, MD, MS, MBA and Rahul H. Rathod, MD
A distinguishing feature of a SCAMP is its ability to capture knowledge-based diversions from a recommended pathway and to “learn” from such individualized patient management.