The field of genetic therapies needs robust investments, transparency and reliable regulatory frameworks to overcome recent challenges and continue to translate new technologies into patients’ benefit.
More than 50 gene therapies have now received approval globally with many more products nearing registration. Notably, the first personalized gene-editing therapy was developed in record time to save the life of a newborn1 with a severe metabolic disorder, and the first clinical report2 of prime editing in two patients with immunodeficiency has been published.
Despite these successes, 2025 was a challenging year for the field of gene therapy. The most recent global landscape analysis3 from the American Society for Gene & Cell Therapies paints a contrasting picture on the health of the field. It reports that although more gene therapies have progressed to advanced late-stage clinical trials, the total number of drugs in active development declined in 2025, marking a reversal from the upward trend observed in previous years. The analysis suggests that this trend is driven by a shift away from preclinical research programs, as well as the restructuring of early phase clinical pipelines, that saw several biotech and pharmaceutical companies terminating research tracks and proceeding with mass layoffs.
These dynamics probably reflect the challenges that the field has recently encountered. Concerns about the safety of genetic therapies have resurfaced in the past year, following the death of patients after receiving gene therapy for Duchenne muscular dystrophy and a CRISPR gene-edited product for amyloidosis. Consequently, several trials were put on temporary clinical hold in 2025. At the same time, the high manufacturing costs and low adoption rates have led to the discontinuation of a gene therapy for hemophilia B, less than a year after it was approved.
Although the field of genetic therapies has weathered cycles of setbacks and hype in the past, the chaotic regulatory landscape of the past year in the USA has not helped. The rates4 of clinical development success and approval have been historically higher for genetic therapies than for any other type of therapy. However, the past 12 months have seen an unusually high number of genetic therapies failing to secure approvals by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). This included gene therapies for Huntington’s disease5 and for Hunter syndrome, despite the companies developing these products previously receiving encouraging feedback by the agency on their clinical trial data.
The global regulatory landscape is also changing quickly. At the end of 2025, the FDA announced new guidance for the approval of cell and gene therapies, and a roadmap6 delineating for the first time a potential approval path for personalized gene-editing therapies. These new guidelines are expected to introduce greater flexibility by generally lowering data requirements for approval. However, some critics caution that this approach could increase potential risks for some patients. These contrast with the more cautious stance of the European Medicines Agency, which relies on conditional approval pathways. China, by contrast, is at the forefront of new technological development, but it has so far lagged in terms of products reaching the market. In addition to nine chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cell products, only one gene therapy, for hemophilia B, is currently approved. This situation is expected to shift with the implementation of new National Medical Products Administration guidelines, set to take effect in spring 2026. These measures are designed to streamline the review and approval process for innovative drugs, accelerate sector growth, and encourage greater investments.
Although the current climate remains uncertain, reducing investments in preclinical programs can have long-lasting negative consequences. The genetic therapy field relies heavily on the development of new technologies, from the generation of new vectors and methods to limit off-target effects, to new delivery approaches. It is also a field that moves new technologies remarkably quickly into the clinic, with prime editing taking only 5 years from preclinical development to clinical trials, and in vivo gene therapies and CAR T cell products reaching the clinic thanks to new delivery methods. As new technologies are often developed in academic settings, new frameworks for academic–industry collaborations are also emerging. A first for the field was the FDA approval of the first gene therapy7 developed by a non-profit organization through collaborations with academic groups.
At the same time, given the efforts and costs involved in conducting clinical studies in genetic therapies, it is essential that all the data generated are shared with the community, including those from trials that are terminated early as part of strategic restructuring or owing to a lack of efficacy. First-in-human trials are centered on the identification of safety signals, and the transparent and timely reporting of these is particularly important in this field, given the continuing concerns about the safety of gene therapies. Many trials that are terminated early, however, are not reported, and detailed data are often not shared beyond regulatory reporting and press releases. This is a lost opportunity to protect patients and to inform gene therapy development, and new approaches for the standardized reporting of safety signals of gene therapies are urgently needed.
Genetic therapies have the potential to provide one-off curative treatments for many patients with severe diseases. To fully realize its promise, the field needs to be supported by continued investments and robust and predictable regulatory pathways, and different contributors need to engage in a transparent and collaborative way, or it risks losing its momentum.
References
Musunuro, K. et al. N. Engl. J. Med. 392, 2235–2243 (2025).
Gori, J. L. et al. N. Engl. J. Med. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa2509807 (2025).
ASGCT. Gene, Cell, & RNA Therapy Landscape Report (2025).
Phares, S., Phillip, K. & Trusheim, M. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 24, 329–330 (2025).
Joseph, A. UniQure’s FDA submission for its Huntington’s disease therapy thrown into question. STAT News (3 November 2025).
Prasad, V. et al. N. Engl. J. Med. 393, 2365–2367 (2025).
Mullard, A. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 25, 88 (2026).
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Keep up the momentum for gene therapies. Nat Med (2026). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-026-04311-y
Published:
Version of record:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-026-04311-y
Facts Only
More than 50 gene therapies have received global approval as of 2025.
The first personalized gene-editing therapy was developed in 2025 to treat a newborn with a severe metabolic disorder.
The first clinical report of prime editing was published in 2025 for two patients with immunodeficiency.
The American Society for Gene & Cell Therapies' 2025 report noted a decline in the total number of gene therapies in active development.
Several biotech and pharmaceutical companies terminated research programs and conducted layoffs in 2025.
Patient deaths occurred in 2025 after gene therapy treatments for Duchenne muscular dystrophy and amyloidosis.
Multiple gene therapy trials were placed on temporary clinical hold in 2025.
A gene therapy for hemophilia B was discontinued in 2025 due to high manufacturing costs and low adoption rates.
The FDA introduced new guidance for cell and gene therapy approvals in late 2025, including a roadmap for personalized gene-editing therapies.
The European Medicines Agency relies on conditional approval pathways for gene therapies.
China has approved one gene therapy for hemophilia B and nine CAR T cell products as of 2025.
New National Medical Products Administration guidelines in China are set to take effect in spring 2026.
Prime editing advanced from preclinical development to clinical trials in five years.
The FDA approved the first gene therapy developed by a non-profit organization in collaboration with academic groups.
Many terminated gene therapy trials are not reported, and detailed safety data are often not shared publicly.
Executive Summary
The field of genetic therapies has reached a critical juncture in 2025, marked by both groundbreaking advancements and significant challenges. Over 50 gene therapies have been approved globally, including the first personalized gene-editing therapy for a newborn with a severe metabolic disorder and the first clinical report of prime editing in patients with immunodeficiency. However, the American Society for Gene & Cell Therapies' 2025 landscape analysis reveals a concerning trend: while more therapies are advancing to late-stage trials, the total number of drugs in active development has declined due to reduced preclinical research and restructuring of early-phase pipelines, including layoffs and terminated programs. Safety concerns resurfaced after patient deaths in trials for Duchenne muscular dystrophy and amyloidosis, leading to temporary clinical holds. High manufacturing costs and low adoption rates also contributed to the discontinuation of a recently approved hemophilia B gene therapy.
Regulatory dynamics further complicate the landscape. The FDA introduced new guidelines in late 2025 to streamline approvals for cell and gene therapies, including personalized gene-editing treatments, though critics warn of potential risks from lowered data requirements. The European Medicines Agency maintains a more cautious approach, while China is poised to accelerate approvals with new guidelines in 2026. Despite these hurdles, the field continues to innovate rapidly, with technologies like prime editing moving from preclinical development to clinical trials in just five years. Transparency remains a key issue, as early trial terminations often go unreported, limiting opportunities to improve safety and efficacy. The future of genetic therapies hinges on sustained investment, predictable regulatory frameworks, and collaborative data-sharing to maintain momentum and fulfill its promise of curative treatments.
Full Take
The strongest version of this narrative highlights the duality of progress and peril in genetic therapies. On one hand, the field has achieved remarkable milestones—personalized gene editing saving a newborn’s life, prime editing reaching clinical trials in record time, and over 50 therapies approved globally. These successes underscore the transformative potential of genetic medicine. On the other hand, the decline in active development programs, safety setbacks, and regulatory uncertainties paint a picture of a field under strain. The article rightly credits the rapid translation of scientific innovation into clinical applications while acknowledging the systemic challenges—high costs, safety concerns, and inconsistent regulatory standards—that threaten to stall progress.
Patterns detected: none. The article avoids emotional exploitation or distortion, presenting a balanced account of both achievements and obstacles. However, it subtly frames the regulatory landscape as a central bottleneck, with the FDA’s new guidelines positioned as a double-edged sword—potentially accelerating approvals but risking patient safety. This tension echoes historical debates in medical innovation, where speed and caution often clash. The unstated assumption is that genetic therapies are inherently high-risk, high-reward, requiring a delicate balance between innovation and oversight. The narrative also implies that the field’s future depends on sustained investment and transparency, yet it doesn’t fully explore the economic or ethical trade-offs of lowering approval standards.
The implications for human agency are profound. Patients with severe diseases stand to benefit from curative treatments, but the costs—financial, ethical, and safety-related—are borne disproportionately by early adopters and underrepresented populations. Second-order consequences include the potential for a two-tiered system where only wealthy nations or individuals can access cutting-edge therapies, exacerbating healthcare inequities. The call for transparency and data-sharing is laudable, but it raises questions about who controls that data and how it’s used.
Bridge questions: What safeguards are needed to ensure that lowered regulatory standards don’t compromise patient safety? How can the field balance the urgency of treating life-threatening diseases with the need for long-term efficacy data? What role should non-profit and academic collaborations play in democratizing access to genetic therapies?
Counterstrike scan: If this were part of a coordinated influence campaign, the playbook might emphasize the urgency of deregulation to accelerate cures while downplaying safety risks. However, the article’s balanced tone and explicit acknowledgment of trade-offs suggest it is not aligned with such a pattern. It presents a nuanced view, neither overly optimistic nor unnecessarily alarmist.
Sentinel — Human
The article shows strong signs of human authorship, with natural variability in sentence structure, specific citations, and a clear editorial voice advocating for transparency and investment in gene therapies.