Month: March 2023

I decided to fix the portion of the sentence highlighted “don’t get out of hand” because it was casual and informal. The new end of the sentence reads, “do not expose the public to the potential risks of CRISPR technology” which I thought was more specific and fit better with the rest of the paragraph as well as my thesis.

Rough Introduction Project #2

If humans had the option to change their genetic makeup, would they? This question may have seemed far-fetched 20 years ago but with these revolutionary advancements in CRISPR technology, somatic cell editing could become much more accessible in the very near future. This kind of gene modification is used to alter disease-causing genes rather than heritable genes which are instead treated with germline editing. With this kind of technology, people would be able to use CRISPR as a form of treatment for their disease, and likely if the technology continues to advance, could even use it to cure their illness. According to the article “The future of CRISPR is now” written by Bridget Balch, Staff Writer for the Association of American Medical Colleges, clinical trials have already begun to test CRISPR technology’s effectiveness in treating these diseases such as sickle cell disease, Leber’s Congenital Amaurosis (which causes vision loss), and even cancer. Balch also discusses the ethics of CRISPR technology and whether it is safe for people to experiment with on their own using kits, like high school and community college students are able to do in Delaware. (I’m not sure how to cite it but) In the essay by the Dalai Lama, the ethics of gene-editing is also discussed. He emphasizes the importance of compassion and ethics in scientific advancements like CRISPR technology, and that it is the responsibility of those with knowledge of the topic to set boundaries on what are acceptable uses of this technology. Both articles stress the importance of ethics in gene-editing and the consequences that could arise if rules are not set into place. Since the articles emphasize the need to set rules up for CRISPR technology, it leaves the impression that this technology will continue to develop and we should be prepared for when it does, rather than try to stop the development of the technology. Since scientists will continue to advance CRISPR technology, it is necessary to regulate the technology’s use with ethical approaches.

Annotations

Questions

1. The staff writer, Bridget Balch, interviews a number of people for her article on CRISPR. The article explores both the “potential for good” as well as some important questions about “where do we draw the line” when it comes to using the powerful, advanced tool of CRISPR technology. Explore and describe one “good thing” and one “bad thing” about CRISPR that the article identifies. Explain what the implications of using CRISPR might be (benefits/ risks) for each thing you selected.

One good thing about the CRISPR technology is that it can be used to treat disorders such as sickle cell disease, blindness, and cancer. The treatment of these can help a lot of people who are struggling with these disorders, and it could also be used to remove the genes that cause these disorders before a person is born. Some could argue that this isn’t an entirely positive “good thing” and that there are risks, but personally for the most part I see this as positive. One bad thing about the CRISPR technology is the misuse of it. The example of the Chinese biophysicist creating genetically altered babies without permission or consent from the government is a particular example that terrifies me because if this technology were to be used by someone with bad intentions, it could be detrimental to human society.

2. Balch interviews a Bioethicist, Christopher Scott, about the ethics of CRISPR. He explains several regulations that are “in the works” and describes how they should be implemented. Describe at least 2 of these ethical considerations he shares that the scientific community needs to implement if the awesome power of CRISPR is to be integrated into our society.

Scott implies that it is important for everyday members of society to be involved in discussions on this technology because it is important to understand what regular people actually want or need with this technology rather than solely focusing on scientific advancements. He also just describes the importance of setting up ethical guidelines and structures for CRISPR scientists because we need to “deliberate this with foresight rather than hindsight” (Scott).

3. Balch reports at the end of the article that there is “little international consensus on what is acceptable when it comes to experimental gene editing in humans” (Balch). Since CRISPR technology affects the genetics structure of the human species, it essentially has a far-reaching impact on the “human family” the Dalai Lama describes in his argument. Write a TRIAC graph using the above quote from Balch (in “I” of your TRIAC). What difference does it make if there is ‘consensus’ or not on a global level? What other considerations or regulations can you bring into the TRIAC from other places in the article, or points that the DL makes in his article?

In order to use CRISPR technology on a wider scale, a global consensus about the technology must be reached. Since genes are something that affect the entire human population, it is important that a vast majority of the globe agrees on how the gene-editing technology should be used. Since there is “little international consensus on what is acceptable when it comes to experimental gene editing in humans” (Balch), we should not be using or experimenting with this technology on a wide scale. Oftentimes it seems that scientists are more concerned with scientific advancement rather than how these advancements will actually affect people, so it is necessary for average people of all ethnicities, cultures, and backgrounds to have a say in how this technology is used since it will affect them. If a vast majority of people don’t want this technology to be used or even advanced, that should be the population’s decision rather than the scientists working on it, especially if there are a lot of risks. The opinions of everyday people are important in the advancement of CRISPR technology.