Dozens of gene therapies (GTs) have received regulatory approval, and hundreds more are in various research phases. To characterize the ethical, legal, and social implications (ELSI) associated with the clinical development of this relatively new therapeutic class, we conducted a scoping review of the literature. Articles were eligible if they were written in English and discussed ELSI in the context of human somatic GT clinical research. 273 articles published from 2013 to 2024 met the eligibility criteria. To characterize and synthesize the ELSI associated with human somatic GT clinical research, thematic analysis was performed on extracted ELSI-relevant text from 179 articles published between 2019 and early 2024, including reviews, empirical research articles, opinions/commentaries, reports, news articles, and blog posts. Twenty-four themes were identified, leading to the generation of five high-level themes: (1) assessment of the risks and benefits of GTs is scientifically and ethically challenging, (2) communication and engagement with the patient community is crucial, (3) access and justice issues are heightened, (4) ethical GT trial design requires thoughtful consideration, and (5) strategic decision-making about GT research has ethical implications and is impacted by financial considerations and the regulatory context. Potential approaches to the identified ELSI are explored and discussed.
DolanDD, LeeSSJ, ChoMK. Three decades of ethical, legal, and social implications research: Looking back to chart a path forward. Cell Genom, 2022; 2(7):100150; doi: 10.1016/j.xgen.2022.100150
MullardA. Bluebird Bio’s cut-price sale highlights challenges for gene therapy field. Nat Rev Drug Discov, 2025; 24(4):239; doi: 10.1038/d41573-025-00046-6
8.
WardE. The ultramarathon of gene therapy development for rare diseases: How can we cross the finish line together? Clin Ther, 2022; 44(8):1038–1044; doi: 10.1016/j.clinthera.2022.07.003
9.
Bateman-HouseA, ShahLD, EscandonR, et al.Somatic gene therapy research in pediatric populations: Ethical issues and guidance for operationalizing early phase trials. Pharmaceut Med, 2023; 37(1):17–24; doi: 10.1007/s40290-022-00451-x
BeattieS, HubertA, MorrellJ, et al.; Alliance for Regenerative Medicine (ARM), European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA), European Association for Bioindustries (EuropaBio). Call for more effective regulation of clinical trials with advanced therapy medicinal products consisting of or containing genetically modified organisms in the European Union. Hum Gene Ther, 2021; 32(19–20):997–1003; doi: 10.1089/hum.2021.058
12.
ChopraM, ModiME, DiesKA, et al.GENE TARGET: A framework for evaluating Mendelian neurodevelopmental disorders for gene therapy. Mol Ther Methods Clin Dev, 2022; 27:32–46; doi: 10.1016/j.omtm.2022.08.007
13.
AdairJE, AndroskiL, BayiggaL, et al.Towards access for all: 1st working group report for the Global Gene Therapy Initiative (GGTI). Gene Ther, 2023; 30(3–4):216–221; doi: 10.1038/s41434-021-00284-4
14.
LaneEL, IsaacsL, MathurS. More than a participant in trials of cell and gene therapy: Hearing the voices of people living with neurodegenerative diseases. Int Rev Neurobiol, 2022; 166:281–312; doi: 10.1016/bs.irn.2022.09.007
15.
MoshiG, SheehanVA, MakaniJ. Africa must participate in finding a gene therapy cure for sickle-cell disease. Nat Med, 2022; 28(12):2451–2452; doi: 10.1038/s41591-022-02033-5
16.
MunungNS, NnoduOE, MoruPO, et al.Looking ahead: Ethical and social challenges of somatic gene therapy for sickle cell disease in Africa. Gene Ther, 2024; 31(5–6):202–208; doi: 10.1038/s41434-023-00429-7
17.
ChoHL, KimSYH, FitzhughC, et al.Motivations and decision-making of adult sickle cell patients in high-risk clinical research. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant, 2020; 26(6):1225–1232; doi: 10.1016/j.bbmt.2020.03.014
18.
BaasL, van der GraafR, van HoornES, et al.; SYMPHONY consortium. The ethics of gene therapy for hemophilia: A narrative review. J Thromb Haemost, 2023; 21(3):413–420; doi: 10.1016/j.jtha.2022.12.027
19.
BuedoP, BianchiniA, KlasK, et al.Bioethics of somatic gene therapy: What do we know so far? Curr Med Res Opin, 2023; 39(10):1355–1365; doi: 10.1080/03007995.2023.2257600
20.
CargillSS, EidsvikA, LammM. Updating the ethical guidance for gene and cell therapy research participation. Mol Ther, 2021; 29(8):2394–2395; doi: 10.1016/j.ymthe.2021.07.009
21.
DelhoveJ, OsenkI, PrichardI, et al.Public acceptability of gene therapy and gene editing for human use: A systematic review. Hum Gene Ther, 2020; 31(1–2):20–46; doi: 10.1089/hum.2019.197
22.
FletcherS, JennerK, PembrokeL, et al.The experiences of people with haemophilia and their families of gene therapy in a clinical trial setting: Regaining control, the Exigency study. Orphanet J Rare Dis, 2022; 17(1):155; doi: 10.1186/s13023-022-02256-2
23.
KimberlyL, HuntC, BeaversonK, et al.The lived experience of pediatric gene therapy—a scoping review. Hum Gene Ther, 2023; 34(23–24):1180–1189; doi: 10.1089/hum.2023.157
24.
PetersMDJ, MarnieC, TriccoAC, et al.Updated methodological guidance for the conduct of scoping reviews. JBI Evid Synth, 2020; 18(10):2119–2126; doi: 10.11124/JBIES-20-00167
25.
PollockD, PetersMDJ, KhalilH, et al.Recommendations for the extraction, analysis, and presentation of results in scoping reviews. JBI Evid Synth, 2023; 21(3):520–532; doi: 10.11124/JBIES-22-00123
26.
van den AkkerOR, PetersGJY, BakkerCJ, et al.Increasing the transparency of systematic reviews: Presenting a generalized registration form. Syst Rev, 2023; 12(1):170; doi: 10.1186/s13643-023-02281-7
27.
PageMJ, McKenzieJE, BossuytPM, et al.The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, 2021; 372:n71; doi: 10.1136/bmj.n71
28.
ChapmanCR, GlazierA, CreamerA, et al.Ethical, Legal, and Social Issues (ELSI) in human gene therapy clinical research: A scoping review. OSF, 2024; doi: 10.17605/OSF.IO/TKYQS
29.
TriccoAC, LillieE, ZarinW, et al.PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and explanation. Ann Intern Med, 2018; 169(7):467–473; doi: 10.7326/M18-0850]
30.
PetersMDJ, GodfreyC, McInerneyP, et al.Scoping reviews (2020). In: JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis. JBI; 2024. https://synthesismanual.jbi.global
31.
BraunV, ClarkeV. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol, 2006; 3(2):77–101; doi: 10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
32.
EmanuelEJ, WendlerD, GradyC. What makes clinical research ethical? JAMA, 2000; 283(20):2701–2711; doi: 10.1001/jama.283.20.2701
33.
EmanuelEJ, WendlerD, KillenJ, et al.What makes clinical research in developing countries ethical? the benchmarks of ethical research. J Infect Dis, 2004; 189(5):930–937; doi: 10.1086/381709
34.
Office of the Secretary, Department of Health, Education and Welfare. The National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. The Belmont Report: Ethical Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of Human Subjects of Research.; 1979. Available from: https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/sites/default/files/the-belmont-report-508c_FINAL.pdf
35.
DubéK, KanazawaJ, PatelH, et al.Ethical and practical considerations for cell and gene therapy toward an HIV cure: Findings from a qualitative in-depth interview study in the United States. BMC Med Ethics, 2022; 23(1):39; doi: 10.1186/s12910-022-00780-1
36.
RivaL, PetriniC. A few ethical issues in translational research for gene and cell therapy. J Transl Med, 2019; 17(1):395; doi: 10.1186/s12967-019-02154-5
37.
BenatarD. Old whines and new throttles: Ethical gene editing for allergies and immunity. Current Allergy Clinical Immunol, 2023; 36(3):184–186.
38.
BukovacPK, HauserM, LottazD, et al.The regulation of cell therapy and gene therapy products in Switzerland. Adv Exp Med Biol, 2023; 1430:41–58; doi: 10.1007/978-3-031-34567-8_3
39.
IyerAA, SaadeD, Bharucha-GoebelD, et al.Ethical challenges for a new generation of early-phase pediatric gene therapy trials. Genet Med, 2021; 23(11):2057–2066; doi: 10.1038/s41436-021-01245-3
40.
AnnemansL, MakadyA. TRUST4RD: Tool for reducing uncertainties in the evidence generation for specialised treatments for rare diseases. Orphanet J Rare Dis, 2020; 15(1):127; doi: 10.1186/s13023-020-01370-3
41.
AstermarkJ, BaghaeiF, StrandbergK, et al.Infrastructural considerations of implementing gene therapy for hemophilia in the Nordic context. Ther Adv Hematol, 2023; 14:20406207231202306; doi: 10.1177/20406207231202306
42.
ArjmandB, LarijaniB, Sheikh HosseiniM, et al.The horizon of gene therapy in modern medicine: Advances and challenges. Adv Exp Med Biol, 2020; 1247:33–64; doi: 10.1007/5584_2019_463
43.
GomesKLG, Silva RED, SilvaD, et al.Post-marketing authorisation safety and efficacy surveillance of advanced therapy medicinal products in Brazil, the European Union, the United States and Japan. Cytotherapy, 2023; 25(10):1113–1123; doi: 10.1016/j.jcyt.2023.06.005
44.
CroteauSE, WangM, WheelerAP. 2021 clinical trials update: Innovations in hemophilia therapy. Am J Hematol, 2021; 96(1):128–144; doi: 10.1002/ajh.26018
45.
HarrisAR, GilbertF. Restoring vision using optogenetics without being blind to the risks. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol, 2022; 260(1):41–45; doi: 10.1007/s00417-021-05477-6
46.
YamadaN, ArugaA. Analysis of off-target effects and risk assessment leading from preclinical to clinical trials of gene-edited therapeutic products. Ther Innov Regul Sci, 2023; 57(3):538–551; doi: 10.1007/s43441-022-00481-2
47.
CathomenT, SchüleS, Schüßler-LenzM, et al.The human genome editing race: Loosening regulatory standards for commercial advantage? Trends Biotechnol, 2019; 37(2):120–123; doi: 10.1016/j.tibtech.2018.06.005
48.
MiccioA, PorteusM. Special issue: CRISPR’s path to the clinic. Crispr J, 2021; 4(2):157; doi: 10.1089/crispr.2021.29127.cfp
49.
RohdeM, HuhS, D’SouzaV, et al.Practical and statistical considerations for the long term follow-up of gene therapy trial participants. Clin Pharmacol Ther, 2024; 115(1):139–146; doi: 10.1002/cpt.3087
50.
ApaydinEA, RichardsonAS, BaxiS, et al.Differences in lymphoma patients between chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy trials and the general population. Clin Exp Med, 2022; 22(1):151–155; doi: 10.1007/s10238-021-00724-w
51.
ApaydinEA, RichardsonAS, BaxiS, et al.An evidence map of randomised controlled trials evaluating genetic therapies. BMJ Evid Based Med, 2020; 26(4):bmjebm; doi: 10.1136/bmjebm-2020-111448
52.
BrockDC, DemarestS, BenkeTA. Clinical trial design for disease-modifying therapies for genetic epilepsies. Neurotherapeutics, 2021; 18(3):1445–1457; doi: 10.1007/s13311-021-01123-5
53.
CollerBS. Ethics of human genome editing. Annu Rev Med, 2019; 70:289–305; doi: 10.1146/annurev-med-112717-094629
54.
Vasquez-LoarteTC, LucasTL, Harris-WaiJ, et al.Beliefs and values about gene therapy and in-utero gene editing in patients with hemophilia and their relatives. Patient, 2020; 13(5):633–642; doi: 10.1007/s40271-020-00442-7
55.
van OverbeekeE, MichelsenS, HauberB, et al.Patient perspectives regarding gene therapy in haemophilia: Interviews from the PAVING study. Haemophilia, 2021; 27(1):129–136; doi: 10.1111/hae.14190
56.
KariyawasamD, AlexanderIE, KurianM, et al.Great expectations: Virus-mediated gene therapy in neurological disorders. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry, 2020; 91(8):849–860; doi: 10.1136/jnnp-2019-322327
57.
CiullaTA, HussainRM, BerrocalAM, et al.Voretigene neparvovec-rzyl for treatment of RPE65-mediated inherited retinal diseases: A model for ocular gene therapy development. Expert Opin Biol Ther, 2020; 20(6):565–578; doi: 10.1080/14712598.2020.1740676
58.
SabatinoDE, BushmanFD, ChandlerRJ, et al.; American Society of Gene and Cell Therapy (ASGCT) Working Group on AAV Integration. Evaluating the state of the science for adeno-associated virus integration: An integrated perspective. Mol Ther, 2022; 30(8):2646–2663; doi: 10.1016/j.ymthe.2022.06.004
59.
GhanemB, Seoane-VazquezE, BrownL, et al.Analysis of the gene therapies authorized by the United States food and drug administration and the European Medicines Agency. Med Care, 2023; 61(7):438–447; doi: 10.1097/MLR.0000000000001840
60.
Ten HamRMT, FrederixGWJ, WuO, et al.Key considerations in the health technology assessment of advanced therapy medicinal products in Scotland, The Netherlands, and England. Value Health, 2022; 25(3):390–399; doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2021.09.012
61.
EisenmanD, DeboldS, RiddleJ. A changing world in gene therapy research: Exciting opportunities for medical advancement and biosafety challenges. Appl Biosaf, 2021; 26(4):179–192; doi: 10.1089/apb.2021.0020
62.
TsitrouliZ, AkritidouMA, GenitsarisS, et al.Treatment of rheumatoid arthritis with gene therapy applications: Biosafety and bioethical considerations. BIOTECH, 2021; 10(3):11; doi: 10.3390/biotech10030011
63.
OrmondKE, BombardY, BonhamVL, et al.The clinical application of gene editing: Ethical and social issues. Per Med, 2019; 16(4):337–350; doi: 10.2217/pme-2018-0155
64.
SubicaAM. CRISPR in public health: The health equity implications and role of community in gene-editing research and applications. Am J Public Health, 2023; 113(8):874–882; doi: 10.2105/ajph.2023.307315
65.
MathurR. Gene editing–ethical pathways to connect science & society. Asian Biotechnol Development REVIEW, 2021; 23(1):39–50.
66.
BaasL, MeijerK, DriessensM, et al.; SYMPHONY consortium. Ethical aspects of hemophilia gene therapy: A qualitative interview study with stakeholders. Res Pract Thromb Haemost, 2023; 7(7):102237; doi: 10.1016/j.rpth.2023.102237
67.
HartsockJA. The white coat cape: An ethical analysis of emerging therapies to treat spinal muscular atrophy. Semin Pediatr Neurol, 2023; 45:101036; doi: 10.1016/j.spen.2023.101036
68.
ZettlerPJ, IkonomouL, LevineAD, et al.An international society for cell & gene therapy working group short report on the future of expanded access to unapproved cell and gene therapies. Cytotherapy, 2023; 25(7):712–717; doi: 10.1016/j.jcyt.2023.02.004
69.
BüningH, FehseB, IvicsZ, et al.Gene therapy “Made in Germany”: A historical perspective, analysis of the status quo, and recommendations for action by the german society for gene therapy. Hum Gene Ther, 2021; 32(19–20):987–996; doi: 10.1089/hum.2021.29178.hbu
70.
PierceGF, CoffinD, Members of the WFH Gene Therapy Round Table Program Committee and Organizing Committee. The 1st WFH gene therapy round table: Understanding the landscape and challenges of gene therapy for haemophilia around the world. Haemophilia, 2019; 25(2):189–194; doi: 10.1111/hae.13673
71.
AhcMedia. New working group to produce guidance for pediatric gene therapy: Mission to advance research policy. IRB Advisor, 2020; 20(4):1–2.
72.
GeorgeLA. Hemophilia gene therapy: Ushering in a new treatment paradigm? Hematology Am Soc Hematol Educ Program, 2021; 2021(1):226–233; doi: 10.1182/hematology.2021000254
73.
GollompKL, DoshiBS, ArrudaVR. Gene therapy for hemophilia: Progress to date and challenges moving forward. Transfus Apher Sci, 2019; 58(5):602–612; doi: 10.1016/j.transci.2019.08.012
74.
O’HaraJ, NeumannPJ, International Haemophilia Access Strategy Council. Health technology assessment for gene therapies in haemophilia. Haemophilia, 2022; 28(Suppl 2):19–26; doi: 10.1111/hae.14413
75.
OrmondKE, BlasimmeA, VayenaE. Ethical aspects of pediatric genetic care: Testing and treatment. Pediatr Clin North Am, 2023; 70(5):1029–1046; doi: 10.1016/j.pcl.2023.05.011
76.
McMillanHJ, ProudCM, FarrarMA, et al.Onasemnogene abeparvovec for the treatment of spinal muscular atrophy. Expert Opin Biol Ther, 2022; 22(9):1075–1090; doi: 10.1080/14712598.2022.2066471
77.
RagniMV, GeorgeLA, Members of Working Group 1, the NHLBI State of the Science Workshop on factor VIII inhibitors: Generating a national blueprint for future research. The national blueprint for future factor VIII inhibitor clinical trials: NHLBI State of the Science (SOS) Workshop on factor VIII inhibitors. Haemophilia, 2019; 25(4):581–589; doi: 10.1111/hae.13717
78.
HasbullahHH, MusaM. Gene therapy targeting p53 and KRAS for colorectal cancer treatment: A Myth or the way forward? Int J Mol Sci, 2021; 22(21):11941; doi: 10.3390/ijms222111941
79.
BirchDG, CheethamJK, DaigerSP, et al.Overcoming the challenges to clinical development of X-Linked retinitis pigmentosa therapies: Proceedings of an expert panel. Transl Vis Sci Technol, 2023; 12(6):5; doi: 10.1167/tvst.12.6.5
80.
BennettJ, MaguireAM. Lessons learned from the development of the first FDA-Approved gene therapy drug, Voretigene Neparvovec-rzyl. Cold Spring Harb Perspect Med, 2023; 13(5):a041307; doi: 10.1101/cshperspect.a041307
81.
Korth-BradleyJM. Regulatory framework for drug development in rare diseases. J Clin Pharmacol, 2022; 62(Suppl 2):S15–S26; doi: 10.1002/jcph.2171
82.
RigganKA, SharpRR, AllyseM. Where will we draw the line? public opinions of human gene editing. Qual Health Res, 2019; 29(12):1823–1835; doi: 10.1177/1049732319846867
83.
RigterT, KleinD, WeinreichSS, et al.Moving somatic gene editing to the clinic: Routes to market access and reimbursement in Europe. Eur J Hum Genet, 2021; 29(10):1477–1484; doi: 10.1038/s41431-021-00877-y
84.
De LucaM, CossuG. Cost and availability of novel cell and gene therapies. EMBO Reports, 2023; 24(2); doi: 10.15252/embr.202256661
85.
HamptonT. With first CRISPR trials, gene editing moves toward the clinic. JAMA, 2020; 323(16):1537–1539; doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.3438
86.
ShellhaasRA, deVeberG, BonkowskyJL, Child Neurology Society Research Committee. Gene-Targeted therapies in pediatric neurology: Challenges and opportunities in diagnosis and delivery. Pediatr Neurol, 2021; 125:53–57; doi: 10.1016/j.pediatrneurol.2021.09.011
87.
MolinaSA, DaviesSJ, SethiD, et al.Particulates are everywhere, but are they harmful in cell and gene therapies? Cytotherapy, 2022; 24(12):1195–1200; doi: 10.1016/j.jcyt.2022.07.014
88.
MendicinoM, FanY, GriffinD, et al.Current state of U.S. Food and drug administration regulation for cellular and gene therapy products: Potential cures on the horizon. Cytotherapy, 2019; 21(7):699–724; doi: 10.1016/j.jcyt.2019.04.002
89.
TizzanoEF, Christie-BrownV, BaranelloG, et al.Clinical trial readiness for spinal muscular atrophy: Experience of an international educational-training initiative. J Neuromuscul Dis, 2022; 9(6):809–820; doi: 10.3233/jnd-221538
90.
WhitakerM. The advanced therapies treatment centers and their network: A model for the accelerated adoption of advanced therapies. Hum Gene Ther, 2022; 33(17–18):857–864; doi: 10.1089/hum.2022.150
91.
BittlingerM, HoffmannD, SierawskaAK, et al.Risk assessment in gene therapy and somatic genome-editing: An expert interview study. Gene Genome Ed, 2022; 3–4:100011; doi: 10.1016/j.ggedit.2022.100011
92.
IkonomouL, CuendeN, ForteM, et al.; ISCT Committee on the Ethics of Cell and Gene Therapy (ECGT). International society for cell & gene therapy position paper: Key considerations to support evidence-based cell and gene therapies and oppose marketing of unproven products. Cytotherapy, 2023; 25(9):920–929; doi: 10.1016/j.jcyt.2023.03.002
93.
GomesKLG, da SilvaRE, da Silva JB, et al.Comparison of new Brazilian legislation for the approval of advanced therapy medicinal products with existing systems in the USA, European Union and Japan. Cytotherapy, 2022; 24(5):557–566; doi: 10.1016/j.jcyt.2021.10.008, 35227603
94.
Iglesias-LópezC, AgustíA, ObachM, et al.Regulatory framework for advanced therapy medicinal products in Europe and United States. Front Pharmacol, 2019; 10:921; doi: 10.3389/fphar.2019.00921
95.
MandrioliM. Genome editing among bioethics and regulatory practices. Biomolecules, 2021; 12(1):13; doi: 10.3390/biom12010013
96.
Kazuto Kato: The ethics of editing humanity. Bull World Health Organ, 2021; 99(9):616–617; doi: 10.2471/blt.21.030921
97.
SalvatoreV. Exploring solutions to foster ATMP development and access to patients in Europe. Eur J Health Law, 2020; 27(3):259–273; doi: 10.1163/15718093-BJA10016
98.
AndersonJK, MehtaA. A review of chimeric antigen receptor T-cells in lymphoma. Expert Rev Hematol, 2019; 12(7):551–561; doi: 10.1080/17474086.2019.1629901
99.
JönssonB, HampsonG, MichaelsJ, et al.Advanced therapy medicinal products and health technology assessment principles and practices for value-based and sustainable healthcare. Eur J Health Econ, 2019; 20(3):427–438; doi: 10.1007/s10198-018-1007-x
100.
Lekstrom-HimesJ, AugustineEF, BrowerA, et al.Data sharing to advance gene-targeted therapies in rare diseases. Am J Med Genet C Semin Med Genet, 2023; 193(1):87–98; doi: 10.1002/ajmg.c.32028
101.
CohenIG, SherkowJS, AdashiEY. Handle with care: The WHO report on human genome editing. Hastings Cent Rep, 2022; 52(2):10–14; doi: 10.1002/hast.1350
102.
Ethical considerations when using gene-editing treatment for sickle cell disease. Medical Ethics Advisor, 2023; 39(6):1–16.
103.
RomerK, MarquardtO, UngerleiderS. Family driven development of treatments for rare pediatric neurological diseases. Clin Pharmacol Ther, 2022; 111(4):736–739; doi: 10.1002/cpt.2507
104.
LivingstoneA, ServaisL, WilkinsonDJC. The ethics of crowdfunding in paediatric neurology. Dev Med Child Neurol, 2023; 65(4):450–455; doi: 10.1111/dmcn.15442
105.
KewK. What is CAR T-cell therapy? Drug Ther Bull, 2021; 59(5):73–76; doi: 10.1136/dtb.2020.000040
106.
KratzerK, GetzLJ, PeterliniT, et al.Addressing the dark matter of gene therapy: Technical and ethical barriers to clinical application. Hum Genet, 2022; 141(6):1175–1193; doi: 10.1007/s00439-021-02272-5
107.
DoudnaJA. The promise and challenge of therapeutic genome editing. Nature, 2020; 578(7794):229–236; doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-1978-5
108.
AdashiEY, CohenIG. CRISPR immunity: A case study for justified somatic genetic modification? J Med Ethics, 2022; 48(2):83–85; doi: 10.1136/medethics-2020-106838
109.
AlexK, WinklerEC. Comparative ethical evaluation of epigenome editing and genome editing in medicine: First steps and future directions. J Med Ethics, 2024; 50(6):398–406; doi: 10.1136/jme-2022-108888
110.
Baffoe-BonnieMS. A justice-based argument for including sickle cell disease in CRISPR/Cas9 clinical research. Bioethics, 2019; 33(6):661–668; doi: 10.1111/bioe.12589
111.
BakaevaT, MalleryR, PrasadS. Emerging treatments for leber’s hereditary optic neuropathy and other genetic causes of visual loss. Semin Neurol, 2019; 39(6):732–738; doi: 10.1055/s-0039-3399504
112.
BeckmanES, DeuitchN, MichieM, et al.Attitudes toward hypothetical uses of gene-editing technologies in parents of people with autosomal aneuploidies. Crispr J, 2019; 2(5):324–330; doi: 10.1089/crispr.2019.0021
113.
GermaniF, WäscherS, Biller-AndornoN. A CRISPR response to pandemics?: Exploring the ethics of genetically engineering the human immune system. EMBO Rep, 2021; 22(3):e52319; doi: 10.15252/embr.202052319
114.
HillsA, Awigena-CookJ, GenenzK, et al.An assessment of the hospital exemption landscape across European Member States: Regulatory frameworks, use and impact. Cytotherapy, 2020; 22(12):772–779.e1; doi: 10.1016/j.jcyt.2020.08.011
115.
HildebrandtM. Horses for courses: An approach to the qualification of clinical trial sites and investigators in ATMPs. Drug Discov Today, 2020; 25(2):265–268; doi: 10.1016/j.drudis.2019.10.003
116.
GerhardtMJ, MichalakisS, RudolphG, et al.Will experience support use of first-ever retinal gene therapy? Recent reports of retinal atrophy have raised concerns about potential long-term safety. Ophthalmology Times, 2022; 47(9):34–36.
117.
GhalyM. Islamic ethical perspectives on human genome editing. Issues Sci Technol, 2019; 35(3):45–48.
118.
BrokowskiC, AdliM. CRISPR ethics: Moral considerations for applications of a powerful tool. J Mol Biol, 2019; 431(1):88–101; doi: 10.1016/j.jmb.2018.05.044
119.
EskesECB, BeishuizenCRL, CorazollaEM, et al.Patients’ view on gene therapy development for lysosomal storage disorders: A qualitative study. Orphanet J Rare Dis, 2022; 17(1):383; doi: 10.1186/s13023-022-02543-y
120.
EcksteinL, ND. gene editing clinical trials could slip through Australian regulatory cracks. J Law Med, 2019; 27(2):274–283.
121.
ChenYC. CRISPR based genome editing and removal of human viruses. Prog Mol Biol Transl Sci, 2021; 179:93–116; doi: 10.1016/bs.pmbts.2020.12.014
122.
DolginE. Gene therapy successes point to better therapies. Proce National Acade Sci United States of AMERICA, 2019; 116(48):23866–23870; doi: 10.1073/pnas.1918306116
123.
CuendeN, VilarrodonaA, VueltaE, et al.Addressing risks derived from the commodification of substances of human origin: A European proposal applicable worldwide. Transplantation, 2023; 107(4):867–877; doi: 10.1097/tp.0000000000004527
124.
de Melo-MartinI, CrystalRG. Primum Non Nocere: Should gene therapy be used to prevent potentially fatal disease but enable potentially destructive behavior? Hum Gene Ther, 2021; 32(11–12):529–534; doi: 10.1089/hum.2021.039
125.
DobnerJ, RamachandranH, RossiA. Genome editing in translational medicine: An inventory. Front Biosci (Landmark Ed), 2022; 27(8):241; doi: 10.31083/j.fbl2708241
126.
JurićD, ZlatinM, MarušićA. Inadequate reporting quality of registered genome editing trials: An observational study. BMC Med Res Methodol, 2022; 22(1):131; doi: 10.1186/s12874-022-01574-0
127.
KaiserJ. Gene therapy milestone looms, but field seeks better options. Science, 2023; 380(6647):778–779; doi: 10.1126/science.adi8792
128.
KanMJ, DoudnaJA. Treatment of genetic diseases with CRISPR genome editing. JAMA, 2022; 328(10):980–981; doi: 10.1001/JAMA.2022.13468
129.
LindnerM. The thin line between seeing risks and venturing scientific progress. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol, 2022; 260(8):2773–2774; doi: 10.1007/s00417-022-05557-1
130.
KidpunP, RuanglertboonW, ChalongsukR. State-of-the-art knowledge on the regulation of advanced therapy medicinal products. Per Med, 2022; 19(3):251–261; doi: 10.2217/pme-2021-0111
131.
KiselevaA. Somatic genome editing with the use of AI: Big promises but doubled legal issues. Eur J Health Law, 2022; 29(3–5):381–408; doi: 10.1163/15718093-bja10079
132.
LandhuisE. The Gene Fix. Nature, 2021; doi: 10.1038/d41586-021-02736-8
133.
LauPL. Addressing cognitive vulnerabilities through genome and epigenome editing: Techno-legal adaptations for persons with intellectual disabilities. Eur J Health Law, 2022; 29(3–5):409–434; doi: 10.1163/15718093-bja10085
134.
LorenzoD, EsquerdaM, PalauF, et al.Ethics and genomic editing using the Crispr-Cas9 technique: Challenges and conflicts. Nanoethics, 2022; 16(3):313–321; doi: 10.1007/s11569-022-00425-y
135.
NagaiH, NakazawaE, AkabayashiA. The creation of the Belmont report and its effect on ethical principles: A historical study. Monash Bioeth Rev, 2022; 40(2):157–170; doi: 10.1007/s40592-022-00165-5
136.
NagaiS, SugiyamaD. Current trends in clinical development of gene and cellular therapeutic products for cancer in Japan. Clin Ther, 2019; 41(1):174–184.e3; doi: 10.1016/j.clinthera.2018.11.003
137.
ServaisL, KirschnerJ, MuntoniF. Randomisation versus prioritisation in a managed access programme: Lessons from spinal muscular atrophy. Neuromuscul Disord, 2020; 30(4):267–269; doi: 10.1016/j.nmd.2020.03.006
138.
NegoroT, OkuraH, HayashiS, et al.Poor result reporting rate in cell therapy trials registered at ClinicalTrials.gov. Tissue Eng Part B Rev, 2023; 29(6):623–633; doi: 10.1089/ten.TEB.2023.0053
139.
ZakurdaevaKA. Game of genomes: To be continued. Cell Ther Transplant, 2019; 8(4):91–93; doi: 10.18620/ctt-1866-8836-2019-8-4-91-93
140.
VosEN, DemirbasD, MangelM, et al.The treatment of biochemical genetic diseases: From substrate reduction to nucleic acid therapies. Mol Genet Metab, 2023; 140(3):107693; doi: 10.1016/j.ymgme.2023.107693
141.
ZhouY. Why Gene Therapy is perfect for Treating Ocular Diseases. (ZhouY., zhou_yongdong@wuxiapptec.com) WuXi AppTec Co Ltd, 1318 Wuzhong Avenue, Wuzhong District, Suzhou, China; 2022. 34–36.
142.
VaggelasA, SeimetzD. Expediting drug development: FDA’s new regenerative medicine advanced therapy designation. Ther Innov Regul Sci, 2019; 53(3):364–373; doi: 10.1177/2168479018779373
143.
NegoroT, OkuraH, HayashiS, et al.A pilot study on result reporting rates from clinical trials of regenerative medicine. Tissue Eng Part B Rev, 2023; 29(4):358–368; doi: 10.1089/ten.TEB.2022.0126
144.
NelsonJP, TomblinDC, BarberaA, et al.The divide so wide: Public perspectives on the role of human genome editing in the US healthcare system. Public Underst Sci, 2024; 33(2):189–209; doi: 10.1177/09636625231189955
145.
RzepińskiT. In defense of expert knowledge in bioethical discussions on human genome editing. Am J Bioeth, 2023; 23(12):93–95; doi: 10.1080/15265161.2023.2272919
146.
SinghAN. Ethical controversies and challenges in human genome editing. International Medical Journal, 2021; 28(2):134–137.
147.
TonkensR. Vulnerable groups and the hollow promise of benefit from human gene editing. Bioethics, 2021; 35(6):574–580; doi: 10.1111/bioe.12882
148.
SheikhO, YokotaT. Developing DMD therapeutics: A review of the effectiveness of small molecules, stop-codon readthrough, dystrophin gene replacement, and exon-skipping therapies. Expert Opin Investig Drugs, 2021; 30(2):167–176; doi: 10.1080/13543784.2021.1868434
149.
TsagkarisC, PapakostaV, MirandaAV, et al.Gene therapy for Angelman syndrome: Contemporary approaches and future endeavors. Curr Gene Ther, 2020; 19(6):359–366; doi: 10.2174/1566523220666200107151025
150.
PhilippidisA. Food and drug administration sets stage for approval of first duchenne muscular dystrophy gene therapy. Hum Gene Ther, 2023; 34(11–12):477–480; doi: 10.1089/hum.2023.29243.bfs
151.
PimpaneauV, VoisinE. Innovative medicine development. Technol Health Care, 2022; 30(2):499–503; doi: 10.3233/THC-213578
152.
SchnarrA, MertzM. States of uncertainty, risk-benefit assessment and early clinical research: A conceptual investigation. Sci Eng Ethics, 2022; 28(6):68; doi: 10.1007/s11948-022-00418-w
153.
SansoneVA, WalterMC, AttarianS, et al.Measuring outcomes in adults with spinal muscular atrophy—challenges and future directions - meeting report. J Neuromuscul Dis, 2020; 7(4):523–534; doi: 10.3233/JND-200534
154.
PizevskaM, KaedaJ, FritscheE, et al.Advanced therapy medicinal products’ translation in Europe: A developers’ perspective. Front Med, 2022; 9; doi: 10.3389/fmed.2022.757647
155.
PuthumanaJ, EgilmanAC, RamachandranR, et al.Early experience with the FDA’s regulatory review of novel gene therapies. BMJ Evid Based Med, 2022; 27(4):195–198; doi: 10.1136/bmjebm-2021-111720
156.
RaposoVL. A room with a view (and with a Gene Therapy Drug): Gene therapy medicinal products and genetic Tourism in Europe. Eur J Health Law, 2022; 29(3–5):504–520; doi: 10.1163/15718093-bja10083
157.
RaposoVL. CRISPR-Cas9 and the promise of a better future. Eur J Health Law, 2019; 26(4):308–329; doi: 10.1163/15718093-12264438
158.
CuendeN, CiccocioppoR, ForteM, et al.Patient access to and ethical considerations of the application of the European Union hospital exemption rule for advanced therapy medicinal products. Cytotherapy, 2022; 24(7):686–690; doi: 10.1016/j.jcyt.2022.03.007
KrumbE, LambertC, HermansC. Patient selection for hemophilia gene therapy: Real‐life data from a single center. Res Pract Thromb Haemost, 2021; 5(3):390–394; doi: 10.1002/rth2.12494
163.
BenvenutiS, WangCM, BorroniS. Perspectives, expectations, and concerns of european patient advocates on advanced therapy medicinal products. Front Med (Lausanne), 2021; 8:728529; doi: 10.3389/fmed.2021.728529
164.
ElsallabM, BraveryCA, KurtzA, et al.Mitigating deficiencies in evidence during regulatory assessments of advanced therapies: A comparative study with other biologicals. Mol Ther Methods Clin Dev, 2020; 18:269–279; doi: 10.1016/j.omtm.2020.05.035
165.
WechslerJ. Cell and Gene Therapies Gain Streamlined Fda Oversight, 2019:8–9. (WechslerJ.): Biopharm International.
166.
AhcMedia. The RAC is disappearing — what will IRBs be missing?: Change eliminates a layer of review. IRB Advisor. 2019; 19(7).
167.
FleischmannT. Assessing the environmental fate of rAAV in activated sludge and water: Implications for environmental risk assessments and GMO regulatory frameworks. J Environ Manage, 2023; 345:118754; doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2023.118754
168.
Poswar Fde O, da SilvaLP, ZambranoMB, et al.Clinical trials for genetic diseases in Latin America. Am J Med Genet C Semin Med Genet, 2021; 187(3):381–387; doi: 10.1002/ajmg.c.31934
169.
AiyegbusiOL, MacphersonK, ElstonL, et al.Patient and public perspectives on cell and gene therapies: A systematic review. Nat Commun, 2020; 11(1):6265; doi: 10.1038/s41467-020-20096-1
170.
KmiecEB. CRISPR-Directed gene editing in a community cancer center. Oncol Issues, 2019; 34(1):30–37; doi: 10.1080/10463356.2018.1553424
171.
BrooksSP, BenjaminyS, BubelaT. Participant perspectives on a phase I/II ocular gene therapy trial (NCT02077361). Ophthalmic Genet, 2019; 40(3):276–281; doi: 10.1080/13816810.2019.1630843
172.
LeeSSJ, CarunchoM, ChungWK, et al.Individualized interventions for rare genetic conditions and the research-treatment spectrum: Stakeholder perspectives. Genet Med, 2023; 25(6):100832; doi: 10.1016/j.gim.2023.100832
173.
AhcMedia. How IRBs can fill in the RAC Gap. IRB Advisor. 2019; 19(7).
174.
PiemontiL, ScholzH, de JonghD, et al.The relevance of advanced therapy medicinal products in the field of transplantation and the need for academic research access: Overcoming bottlenecks and claiming a new time. Transpl Int, 2023; 36:11633; doi: 10.3389/ti.2023.11633
175.
Bateman-HouseA, KearnsL. Individualized therapeutics development for rare diseases: The current ethical landscape and policy responses. Nucleic Acid Ther, 2022; 32(2):111–117; doi: 10.1089/nat.2021.0035
176.
MebarkiM, MadelaineI, LargheroJ, et al.Advanced therapy medicinal products: Regulatory framework, hospital and pharmaceutical circuits in Europe and France. Therapie s2022; 77(2):185–190; doi: 10.1016/j.therap.2021.11.005
177.
CadiganRJ, WaltzM, HendersonGE, et al.Scientists’ views on scientific self-governance for human genome editing research. Hum Gene Ther, 2022; 33(21–22):1157–1163; doi: 10.1089/hum.2022.087
178.
CaplanA, RakićV. Introduction: The ethical frontiers of gene editing. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, 2019; 28(1):4–7; doi: 10.1017/S0963180118000324
179.
NormileD. China sets new ethics rules for human studies. Science, 2023; 379(6636):970; doi: 10.1126/science.adh4963
180.
UdwadiaF, SinghS. Starting the conversation: CRISPR’s role in India. Indian J Med Ethics, 2019; 4 (ns(4):300–303; doi: 10.20529/ijme.2019.016
181.
BelikovaKM. Some general remarks and legal restrictions in reproductive and therapeutic gene modification in Russia. Syst Rev Pharm, 2020; 11(4):431–439; doi: 10.31838/srp.2020.4.65
182.
DudaH, HesseJ, HaschbergerB, et al.The German hemophilia registry: Growing with its tasks. J Clin Med, 2020; 9(11):3408; doi: 10.3390/jcm9113408
183.
El-KenawyA, BenarbaB, NevesAF, et al.Gene surgery: Potential applications for human diseases. Excli J, 2019; 18:908–930; doi: 10.17179/excli2019-1833
184.
HsiangNC, HuangWF, GauCS, et al.The impact of the rare disease and Orphan Drug Act in Taiwan. J Food Drug Anal, 2021; 29(4):717–725; doi: 10.38212/2224-6614.3383
185.
Iglesias-LopezC, ObachM, VallanoA, et al.Comparison of regulatory pathways for the approval of advanced therapies in the European Union and the United States. Cytotherapy, 2021; 23(3):261–274; doi: 10.1016/j.jcyt.2020.11.008
186.
KassirZ, SarpatwariA, KocakB, et al.Sponsorship and funding for gene therapy trials in the United States. JAMA, 2020; 323(9):890–891; doi: 10.1001/jama.2019.22214
187.
Kolaj-RobinO, DuffourMT. European pharmacopoeia’s approach to cell and gene therapy: Focus on how gene therapy texts are evolving. Adv Exp Med Biol, 2023; 1430:59–70; doi: 10.1007/978-3-031-34567-8_4
188.
NagaiS. Regulatory hurdles for CAR T-cell therapy in Japan. Lancet Haematol, 2021; 8(10):e686–e687; doi: 10.1016/S2352-3026(21)00279-9
189.
YanlinC, XueqianZ, FeiJ. Strengthening the legal framework to regulate human genetic engineering in China. Lancet, 2019; 393(10176):1097; doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(19)30294-6
190.
TheLancet. The better edge of the CRISPR blade. Lancet, 2020; 395(10218):90; doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(20)30004-0
191.
KearnsL, ChapmanCR, MochKI, et al.Gene therapy companies have an ethical obligation to develop expanded access policies. Mol Ther, 2021; 29(4):1367–1369; doi: 10.1016/j.ymthe.2021.03.008
192.
DesineS, HollisterBM, AbdallahKE, et al.The meaning of informed consent: Genome editing clinical trials for sickle cell disease. AJOB Empir Bioeth, 2020; 11(4):195–207; doi: 10.1080/23294515.2020.1818876
193.
HalpernJ, O’HaraSE, OwenAL, et al.How scientists perceive CRISPR’s translational promise and the implications for individuals with genetic conditions. Ethics Hum Res, 2021; 43(6):28–41; doi: 10.1002/eahr.500108
194.
AdamsD, RocheL, HeusslerH. Parent perceptions, beliefs, and fears around genetic treatments and cures for children with Angelman syndrome. Am J Med Genet A, 2020; 182(7):1716–1724; doi: 10.1002/ajmg.a.61631
195.
GaviglioAM, SkinnerMW, LouLJ, et al.Gene-targeted therapies: Towards equitable development, diagnosis, and access. Am J Med Genet C Semin Med Genet, 2023; 193(1):56–63; doi: 10.1002/ajmg.c.32032
196.
KonkleB, PierceG, CoffinD, et al.; ISTH subcommittee on Factor VIII, Factor IX, rare bleeding disorders. Core data set on safety, efficacy, and durability of hemophilia gene therapy for a global registry: Communication from the SSC of the ISTH. J Thromb Haemost, 2020; 18(11):3074–3077; doi: 10.1111/jth.15023
197.
BelserJW. Beyond the quest for the cure forging disability-sensitive Jewish Bioethics. Journal of Jewish ETHICS, 2019; 5(2):161–179; doi: 10.5325/jjewiethi.5.2.0161
198.
AbuhammadS, KhabourOF, AlzoubiKH. Researchers views about perceived harms and benefits of gene editing: A study from the MENA region. Heliyon, 2021; 7(4):e06860; doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e06860
199.
KupferschmidtK. Shadowed by past, gene-editing summit looks to future. Science, 2023; 379(6637):1073–1074; doi: 10.1126/science.adh7972
200.
ZhengR, ZhangL, ParvinR, et al.Progress and perspective of CRISPR-Cas9 technology in translational medicine. Adv Sci (Weinh), 2023; 10(25):e2300195; doi: 10.1002/advs.202300195
201.
Kerpel-FroniusS, BaroutsouV, BeckerS, et al.Development and use of gene therapy orphan drugs-ethical needs for a broader cooperation between the pharmaceutical industry and society. Front Med (Lausanne), 2020; 7:608249; doi: 10.3389/fmed.2020.608249
202.
PerniS, JimenezR, JagsiR. Optimizing informed consent in cancer clinical trials. Semin Radiat Oncol, 2023; 33(4):349–357; doi: 10.1016/j.semradonc.2023.06.001
203.
EissenbergJC. The brave new world of gene editing and molecular medicine. Mo Med, 2019; 116(6):497–502.
ChanB. Improving the justice-based argument for conducting human gene editing research to cure sickle cell disease. Bioethics, 2020; 34(2):200–202; doi: 10.1111/bioe.12690
206.
WheeldonJ, FaubertJ. Framing experience: Concept maps, mind maps, and data collection in qualitative research. Int J Qual Methods, 2009; 8(3):68–83; doi: 10.1177/160940690900800307
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
