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.
Workplace wellness programs contribute to the wellness movement by enlisting nontraditional health partners and influencing social determinants of health.
AMA J Ethics. 2016;18(4):393-398. doi:
10.1001/journalofethics.2016.18.4.nlit1-1604.
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.
Aminu Yakubu, Nchangwi Syntia Munung, and Jantina De Vries, PhD
African cancer research is embedded in underresourced health care infrastructures, illuminating ethical questions about benefit sharing and governance.
AMA J Ethics. 2020;22(2):E156-163. doi:
10.1001/amajethics.2020.156.