Explore the vast range of titles available.

Japan has rapidly deregulated certain types of agricultural genome editing, yet the societal integration of these products warrants further investigation. This paper analyzed the sale and people’s perception of genome-edited food crops in Japan after reviewing the regulatory framework. Of four genome-edited crops approved as non-genetically modified organism, only one is sold online to consumers who credit safety information and perceive usefulness. Some consumers express deep safety concern, advocating mandatory labeling. The majority of people are not sufficiently aware of genome editing. To enhance informed consumer choices of genome-edited food crops, it is crucial to share visions in society, hold risk communication for mutual understanding, and maintain clear labels, including organic food standards.

Genome editing, represented by CRISPR/Cas9, facilitates somatic and germline gene modifications in many species, including humans. However, one of key issues, off-target mutation deserves special consideration prior to clinical applications. We herein discuss the importance of risk information on genome editing for obtaining legitimate patient consent and social acceptance.

Background Some persons conceived with donor gametes react negatively when they found their birth via donor conception. They request access to information about and seek to communicate with the donor. However, some countries mandate donor anonymity. Other countries allow donor-conceived persons to access donor information, but they can only use this access if their parents have disclosed donor conception to them. We investigated a thorny issue of donor conception: whether donor conception should be shifted from an anonymous basis to a non-anonymous basis. Methods We review the issues and concerns regarding donor conception. We then consider the impact of direct-to-consumer genetic testing on donor conception, as well as the influence of donor conception on offspring’s identity and the potential of different types of donors. To discuss the future policy of donor conception, the policies on the anonymity of gamete donors were investigated using publicly-available documents in 15 countries. Results The aim of mandating donor anonymity is to protect the privacy of the donor and intended parents. However, the diffusion of direct-to-consumer genetic testing may make it impossible to maintain anonymity. Birth via donor conception shapes the offspring’s identity, and the donor may further influence the development of offspring’s identity through communications. It remains important to disclose donor conception to donor-conceived offspring and to provide them with donor information. However, that information might be insufficient for some donor-conceived persons. Here are benefits to having open-identity donors and known donors. Such donors can make an agreement with the parents regarding future communication with the offspring, although both sides should respect privacy. Subsequent counseling for all parties involved can result in better tripartite communication agreements. Conclusions In sum, ethical and practical issues that complicate donor anonymity are driving a shift to non-anonymous donor conception, in which all parties come to a communication agreement. To pave the way for such a donor conception system, transitional measures can be put into place. For countries that already adopted non-anonymous donor conception, ensuring the communication agreements is important to protect the rights of parents, donor, and offspring.

One of the major problems regarding consumer acceptance of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) is the possibility that their transgenes could have adverse effects on the environment and/or human health. Genome editing, represented by the CRISPR/Cas9 system, can efficiently achieve transgene-free gene modifications and is anticipated to generate a wide spectrum of plants. However, the public attitude against GMOs suggests that people will initially be unlikely to accept these plants. We herein explored the bottlenecks of consumer acceptance of transgene-free food crops developed by genome editing and made some recommendations. People should not pursue a zero-risk bias regarding such crops. Developers are encouraged to produce cultivars with a trait that would satisfy consumer needs. Moreover, they should carefully investigate off-target mutations in resultant plants and initially refrain from agricultural use of multiplex genome editing for better risk–benefit communication. The government must consider their regulatory status and establish appropriate regulations if necessary. The government also should foster communication between the public and developers. If people are informed of the benefits of genome editing-mediated plant breeding and trust in the relevant regulations, and if careful risk–benefit communication and sincere considerations for the right to know approach are guaranteed, then such transgene-free crops could gradually be integrated into society.

Genome editing has facilitated versatile gene modifications in somatic and stem cells. Despite the early stage, therapeutic uses of ZFN and TALEN have already demonstrated promising results in the treatment of HIV and leukemia. Although the medical conditions to which genome editing therapy is applied are being expanded in the clinical trials, it is currently unclear whether regulatory authorities will approve genome editing therapy in the near future. Moreover, the widespread use of CRISPR/Cas9, in particular, is likely to lead to clinically unproven disease treatments. Furthermore, genome editing might be used for gene doping or cosmetic treatments. This article discusses the prospects of somatic genome editing for health purposes, while briefly reviewing the relevant clinical trials. Moreover, some potential ethical issues arising from the widespread use of genome editing are considered to discuss how genome-editing medicine might be appropriately integrated into the global society.

A genome-edited agricultural product that is proven to contain no exogenous DNA is not subject to genetically modified organism (GMO) regulations in some countries. However, whether such proof is definitive is often disputed. We discuss the approaches to substantially proving that a genome-edited organism is not GMO, while considering social aspects.

Genome editing technology, including zinc finger nucleases (ZFNs), transcription activator-like effector nucleases (TALENs), and clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeat (CRISPR)/Cas, has enabled far more efficient genetic engineering even in non-human primates. This biotechnology is more likely to develop into medicine for preventing a genetic disease if corrective genome editing is integrated into assisted reproductive technology, represented by in vitro fertilization. Although rapid advances in genome editing are expected to make germline gene correction feasible in a clinical setting, there are many issues that still need to be addressed before this could occur. We herein examine current status of genome editing in mammalian embryonic stem cells and zygotes and discuss potential issues in the international regulatory landscape regarding human germline gene modification. Moreover, we address some ethical and social issues that would be raised when each country considers whether genome editing-mediated germline gene correction for preventive medicine should be permitted.

Genome-editing technology, although a robust tool for genetic engineering, is creating indistinct regulatory boundaries between naturally occurring and modified organisms. However, researchers must act with caution in research and development to avoid misleading society. Furthermore, appropriate regulations should be proactively discussed and established for handling genome-editing technology.