Gene editing reminds professionals and the public that this technology’s reach goes beyond treating somatic disease to germline consequences yet unknown.

Dr Sean C. McConnell provides an introduction to gene editing, and Scott J. Schweikart discusses what prudent governance requires.

Genome editing raises old questions, but CRISPR arose in a political landscape that vastly differs from the early aughts.

Little claims data exists upon which to make informed decisions about loss control or to draw upon when developing risk mitigation strategies.

Clinically and ethically relevant questions are related to patient safety, therapeutic efficacy, equitable access, and global governance over humanity’s genetic legacy.

In art, authenticity tends to be perceived in proximity to an artist’s original intention, and it can help guide future research in germline editing.

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.

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.

This image aims to promote reflection about patients’ feelings of sadness, despair, helplessness, and uncertainty upon being diagnosed.

Responding to patients violating US health commerce regulations can be critical when they buy and use unproven interventions.