A survey of 38 internet platforms of companies offering genetic testing services direct to consumers was carried out in summer 2008. The internet survey supported the notion held by many experts and discussed by policy advisory bodies that (1) many direct-to-consumer genetic testing (DCGT) offers do not meet a minimum set of quality criteria that can be regarded to be necessary for ensuring adequate information and protection of customers against misleading interpretation of the need for as well as the possible consequences of genetic testing; (2) most DCGT offers fail to provide proper information on the scientific evidence behind genetic testing services offered to customers (clinical validity and utility); (3) many of the companies offering genetic testing services via the internet do not include genetic counseling at all in their services. Only a few urge customers to involve an expert before purchasing a gene test, and "counseling" in most cases only is provided as written information via mail or via web-log.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Genome Editing gilt als Technologiesprung in der Gentechnologie. Die potenzielle Reichweite der Verfahren und die damit verbundenen Chancen und Risiken geben Impulse für eine neue Runde in der Debatte über Gentechnologien, die vor allem im Bereich der Grünen Gentechnik bislang durch Lagerdenken und einen Mangel an Zwischenpositionen gekennzeichnet ist. Um in Zukunft sachgerechter und unter Einbeziehung unterschiedlicher gesellschaftlicher Interessen über Optionen der weiteren Entwicklung der neuen Technologien diskutieren zu kön-nen, werden in diesem Beitrag Anforderungen an eine Neuausrichtung der Wissenschaftskommunikation umrissen. "Green" Genetic Engineering and Genome Editing Towards a Reorientation of Science Communication Genome editing is viewed as a breakthrough in genetic engineering. The potential scope of the procedures and the associated risks and opportunities give impetus to a new round in the public