Purpose of Review Genetic testing for mental illness is likely to become increasingly prevalent as the science behind it is refined. This article identifies anticipated ethical challenges for patients, psychiatrists, and genetic counselors and makes recommendations for addressing them. Recent Findings Many of the ethical challenges of psychiatric genetic testing are likely to stem from failures to comprehend the nature and implications of test results. Recent studies have identified gaps in the knowledge base of psychiatrists and genetic counselors, which limit their abilities to provide patients with appropriate education. A small number of studies have demonstrated the value of counseling in empowering patients to deal with relevant genetic information. Summary Psychiatrists and other health professionals must be able to assist patients and families in making informed decisions about genetic testing and interpreting test results. Filling their knowledge gaps on these issues will be a critical step towards meeting these responsibilities.

Reproductive genetic technologies (RGTs), including gene-editing technology, are being discovered and refined at an exponential pace. One gene-editing innovation that demands our swift attention is CRISPR/Cas9, a system of clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats and a protein called Cas9. As CRISPR and other RGTs continue being developed, we must remain vigilant concerning the potential implications of genetic-engineering technology on our interpersonal and legal relationships. In the face of increasingly numerous and refined RGTs, we must maintain the rights of everyone: potential parents, prospective children, and individuals (both living and prospective) with disabilities. For those who wish to become parents, how should procreation be regulated in light of developing RGTs, especially gene-editing technology? What duties do parents owe their children, and when does such a duty attach? What role should RGTs play in parents’ fulfillment of their duties to their children? This article will contextualize the right to health and what I will term the “right to disability” in the CRISPR/Cas9 landscape. The article will then explore these rights in reference to the “subjunctive-threshold” interpretation of harm. Finally, I will argue that RGTs must be thoughtfully regulated, with such regulations taking into account the opinions of geneticists, bioethicists, and lay people concerning both the right to health and the right to disability.

The ease and applicability of CRISPR/Cas9—a new and precise gene-editing and reproductive technology—have garnered hype and heightened concern about its potential “unprecedented and horrific consequences” and have led many scientific leaders to call for a moratorium on its research and use. CRISPR appears distinctly more controversial than previous technological innovations (genetic or otherwise), with a greater reach and speed of human treatment and enhancement; however, we have seen similarly inflated hopes and fears in response to other medical innovations for well over a century. One intervention that has both historically and recently incited alarm—vaccines—serves as a pertinent example of what could go wrong if a technology’s reach is shortened due to inflated fears. By comparing the vaccine controversy and the CRISPR debate, we can help separate the hype from the realistic potential of these technologies. How our society grapples with such innovations will determine the extent to which their impact on our individual and collective health will be beneficial. We must recognize the need for a tempered approach to CRISPR conversation leading to regulation and ethical application. Although CRISPR’s reach will continue expanding with ongoing research, thus requiring continuous evaluation, the lessons we’ve learned from the vaccine controversy demonstrate that our approach must not be to shut down regulation and application now, but to thoughtfully conjoin productive debate and action so that therapeutic gene-editing can alleviate suffering as soon as possible without precipitating social outcomes we would belatedly deplore.

The field of assisted reproduction is renowned for its remarkable advances and constant pushing forward of research boundaries in an effort to offer innovative and effective methods for enhancing fertility. Accompanying these advances, however, are physiological, psychological, and bioethical consequences that must be considered. These concomitant advances and consequences make assisted reproduction an excellent educational paradigm for inculcating responsible conduct in both research and clinical practice. Ultimately, responsible conduct rests on the ethical researcher and clinician. Here, we present the as-yet unapproved, contentious assisted reproductive technology of mitochondrial replacement transfer (MRT) as an ideal educational platform to foster the responsible conduct of research by advancing dialogue among multi-disciplinary scholars, researchers, and students. Using a likely future case, we present the basic science, legal, and ethical considerations, and the pedagogical principles and strategies for using MRT as an effective educational paradigm. Society will benefit when the ethical issues inherent in creating children with three genetic parents as well as germline interference are discussed across multiple academic levels that include researchers, legal experts, bioethicists, and government-appointed commissions. Furthermore, undergraduate and graduate students should be included because they will likely determine the ethical fates of these biotechnologies. While emerging assisted reproduction technologies such as MRT are highly complex and will take years to be readily available for patients in need, now is the time to consider their scientific, legal, ethical, and cultural/religious implications for ensuring the responsible conduct of research.

No abstract