BackgroundRecently, individualized or personalized medicine (PM) has become a buzz word in the academic as well as public debate surrounding health care. However, PM lacks a clear definition and is open to interpretation. This conceptual vagueness complicates public discourse on chances, risks and limits of PM. Furthermore, stakeholders might use it to further their respective interests and preferences. For these reasons it is important to have a shared understanding of PM. In this paper, we present a sufficiently precise as well as adequate definition of PM with the potential of wide acceptance.MethodsFor this purpose, in a first step a systematic literature review was conducted to understand how PM is actually used in scientific practice. PubMed was searched using the keywords “individualized medicine”, “individualised medicine”, “personalized medicine” and “personalised medicine” connected by the Boolean operator OR. A data extraction tabloid was developed putting forward a means/ends-division. Full-texts of articles containing the search terms in title or abstract were screened for definitions. Definitions were extracted; according to the means/ends distinction their elements were assigned to the corresponding category. To reduce complexity of the resulting list, summary categories were developed inductively from the data using thematic analysis. In a second step, six well-known criteria for adequate definitions were applied to these categories to derive a so-called precising definition.ResultsWe identified 2457 articles containing the terms PM in title or abstract. Of those 683 contained a definition of PM and were thus included in our review. 1459 ends and 1025 means were found in the definitions. From these we derived the precising definition: PM seeks to improve stratification and timing of health care by utilizing biological information and biomarkers on the level of molecular disease pathways, genetics, proteomics as well as metabolomics.ConclusionsOur definition includes the aspects that are specific for developments labeled as PM while, on the other hand, recognizing the limits of these developments. Furthermore, it is supported by the quantitative analysis of PM definitions in the literature, which suggests that it it is widely acceptable and thus has the potential to avoid the above mentioned issues.

BackgroundSystems medicine has become a key word in biomedical research. Although it is often referred to as P4-(predictive, preventive, personalized and participatory)-medicine, it still lacks a clear definition and is open to interpretation. This conceptual lack of clarity complicates the scientific and public discourse on chances, risks and limits of Systems Medicine and may lead to unfounded hopes. Against this background, our goal was to develop a sufficiently precise and widely acceptable definition of Systems Medicine.MethodsIn a first step, PubMed was searched using the keyword “systems medicine”. A data extraction tabloid was developed putting forward a means/ends-division. Full-texts of articles containing Systems Medicine in title or abstract were screened for definitions. Definitions were extracted; their semantic elements were assigned as either means or ends. To reduce complexity of the resulting list, summary categories were developed inductively. In a second step, we applied six criteria for adequate definitions (necessity, non-circularity, non-redundancy, consistency, non-vagueness, and coherence) to these categories to derive a so-called précising definition of Systems Medicine.ResultsWe identified 185 articles containing the term Systems Medicine in title or abstract. 67 contained at least one definition of Systems Medicine. In 98 definitions, we found 114 means and 132 ends. From these we derived the précising definition: Systems Medicine is an approach seeking to improve medical research (i.e. the understanding of complex processes occurring in diseases, pathologies and health states as well as innovative approaches to drug discovery) and health care (i.e. prevention, prediction, diagnosis and treatment) through stratification by means of Systems Biology (i.e. data integration, modeling, experimentation and bioinformatics). Our study also revealed the visionary character of Systems Medicine.ConclusionsOur insights, on the one hand, allow for a realistic identification of actual ethical as well as legal issues arising in the context of Systems Medicine and, in consequence, for a realistic debate of questions concerning its matter and (future) handling. On the other hand, they help avoiding unfounded hopes and unrealistic expectations. This especially holds for goals like improving patient participation which are intensely debated in the context of Systems Medicine, however not implied in the concept.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12913-017-2688-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

BackgroundIn recent years, personalized medicine (PM) has become a highly regarded line of development in medicine. Yet, it is still a relatively new field. As a consequence, the discussion of its future developments, in particular of its ethical implications, in most cases can only be anticipative. Such anticipative discussions, however, pose several challenges. Nevertheless, they play a crucial role for shaping PM’s further developments. Therefore, it is vital to understand how the ethical discourse on PM is conducted, i.e. on what – empirical and normative – assumptions ethical arguments are based regarding PM’s current and future developments.MethodsTo gather this information, we conducted a qualitative interview study with stakeholders in the German health care system. Our purposive sample included 17 representatives of basic research, clinical research, health economics, regulatory authorities, reimbursement institutions, pharmaceutical industry, patient organizations, as well as clinicians and legal experts involved in PM developments or policy making. We used an interview guide with open-ended questions and analyzed transcriptions of the interviews by means of qualitative content analysis.ResultsThe respondents addressed a multitude of concerns in the context of research on as well as application of personalized preventive and therapeutic measures both on the individual and on the societal level. Interestingly, regarding future developments of PM the ethical evaluation seemed to follow the rule: the less likely its application, the more problematic a PM measure is assessed. The more likely its application, on the other hand, the less problematic it is evaluated.ConclusionsThe results of our study suggest re-focusing the ethical discourse on PM in Germany towards a constructive ethical monitoring which ensures to include only, nevertheless all of the actual and/or potential concerns that are ethically relevant in order to allow balancing them against the actual and potential ethically relevant benefits of PM measures. To render this possible, we propose a strategy for evaluating ethical concerns in the context of PM.

Background Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats-associated (CRISPR-Cas) technology may allow for efficient and highly targeted gene editing in single-cell embryos. This possibility brings human germline editing into the focus of ethical and legal debates again. Main body Against this background, we explore essential ethical and legal questions of interventions into the human germline by means of CRISPR-Cas: How should issues of risk and uncertainty be handled? What responsibilities arise regarding future generations? Under which conditions can germline editing measures be therapeutically legitimized? For this purpose, we refer to a scenario anticipating potential further development in CRISPR-Cas technology implying improved accuracy and exclusion of germline transmission to future generations. We show that, if certain concepts regarding germline editing are clarified, under such conditions a categorical prohibition of one-generation germline editing of single-cell embryos appears not to be ethically or legally justifiable. Conclusion These findings are important prerequisites for the international debate on the ethical and legal justification of germline interventions in the human embryo as well as for the harmonization of international legal standards.

No abstract