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.
Tom Alsaigh, MD, Laura Nicholson, MD, PhD, and Eric Topol, MD
Clinicians should have a working understanding of gene editing, controversy surrounding its use, and its far-reaching clinical and ethical implications.
AMA J Ethics. 2019;21(12):E1089-1097. doi:
10.1001/amajethics.2019.1089.
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.
Ruth M. Farrell, MD, MA, Marsha Michie, PhD, Christopher T. Scott, PhD, Rebecca Flyckt, MD, and Mary LaPlante, MD
One reason for neglect of women’s health as patients and subjects has been restrictions on uterine transfer of modified human embryos, a boundary that has now been crossed.
AMA J Ethics. 2019;21(12):E1071-1078. doi:
10.1001/amajethics.2019.1071.
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.