Editorials in 2017

The biotech industry needs to do more to recruit people from diverse groups.

This journal supports preprints as a means to rapidly share research, but discourages their use as stand-alone citations disclosing a new method integral to the key results in a paper.

Of the germline engineering approaches, mitochondrial replacement, rather than gene editing, is poised to have the greatest impact on our lives.

Although Kymriah's approval represents a landmark for chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CAR-T) therapy in B-cell malignancies, solid tumors remain a formidable challenge.

Funders need to pay more attention to research aimed at increasing the shelf life of human organs. Doing so could pay dividends for both transplantation and basic research.

Retraction of a study claiming gene editing via an Argonaute enzyme illustrates the importance of post-publication peer review in the age of 24/7 media.

Digital medicine's extraordinary ability to communicate with patients, especially in under-served communities, could help reorient the biotech industry to better address aging and its associated diseases.

Bedside production of protein drugs could help payers by lowering drug prices. It may ultimately lead to individualized treatments.

The hegemony of the CRISPR system as a gene-editing therapy is not as assured as its use as a tool in basic research.

Should a cell therapy for heart disease with scant evidence of efficacy continue to be tested in humans?

RNA-based therapeutics are poised to become successful commercial products, but wide adoption across the biopharmaceutical industry will likely take a few more years.

Personalized immunotherapy is all the rage, but neoantigen discovery and validation remains a daunting problem.

Provisions in the 21st Century Cures Act related to leadership at the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) may spell trouble ahead.

Nature Biotechnology now requires data availability statements to be supplied with research papers.