Essay On CRISPR Vs The People

Humans have been genetically engineering organisms for nearly 10,000 years using traditional methods of modification—among these methods include selective breeding and crossbreeding. Though effective, these methods were unreliable and were only able to change certain traits. A lack of control over our genetic material proved to be a clear hindrance to our species; when harnessed, advancements in other fields of knowledge would be immeasurable. Once seen as an impossible task, scientists have been able to exploit genes and take control of them. CRISPR-Cas9 is a system that allows scientists to cleave off sections of DNA and artificially modify them by inserting a mutation into the place of the old DNA. This is exceptionally precise, whilst

CRISPR has been garnishing a lot of media attention recently and it is not just popular among the scientific community but also the general public. Several online news outlets and scientific journals have been talking about the significance CRISPR-Cas could have for the field of genetics and science as a whole. I even came across a Youtube video from The Verge, a tech channel that normally does reviews on new smartphones and laptops talking about CRISPR [15]. So why is CRISPR gaining so much attention both from the scientific community and the general public? The answer lies in the potential this technology possesses.

I would informally like to introduce myself as your average concerned American citizen. As an editor, I am sure you receive letters often from citizens about their opinion of the many issues or events that have been reported. Often times, in regards to news or any important information; it is hard to determine which is true and which is false because of the source of information. For example, reading the newspaper versus watching the news on television, which is more believable? The news is the most common source of information in the community in regards to crime and other disturbances. It gives the viewer more insight and detail on the issue because; it is usually being presented at the time of occurrence. However, in contrast, the newspaper seems to have its own version.

Parents want nothing but the best for their children. Would some parents go through a screening of their embryo to detect diseases, deformations, and even go as far as picking the traits they would want their child to have? Advances in recent genetics propose that we are potentially close to parents being able to screen their embryos and make an alteration to genomes. The use of CRISPR/Cas9, gene editing technologies, are stirring up ethical debates. There are many arguments in favor and against this possible development in science and human life. Those against gene editing say, it is unnatural and dangerous and may cause unintentional edits to genomes of unborn fetuses without their consent. Those in favor say that it may lead to a decrease in the occurrence of many serious diseases, decreasing human suffering.

Scientists have projected there to be many benefits to gene therapy in the near future. For starters, gene therapy could cure diseases like cancer, aids, as well as thousands of genetic disorders (Will). Sara Goering, a philosopher concerned with biomedical ethics, argues throughout “Gene Therapies and the Pursuit of a Better Human” that germline therapy could mean disorders would be eliminated for good, leading to the relief of pain for many. It poses the possibility to eliminate human suffering at the root, and in turn, better humanity. Throughout society, people already focus on ‘enhancing’ their kids through vaccines and vitamins. Kids are out through surgeries because they are believed to be what is best. Goering points out that because of people’s willingness for treatments like this, there really are not many moral concerns prevalent (Goering 403-40). For many diseases, treatments that people already feel comfortable with will not work as effectively (“List”). Currently, there are no real cures for genetic disorders besides replacing defective

Genetic diseases and illnesses have been of much concern for many years, leaving many deceased or with a poor quality of life. Due to the implication of modern medicine and other techniques used for treatments, mortality rates have decreased and the average life expectancy has increased. Unfortunately, every individual responds differently to the type of treatment they need, which is why the implication of personalized medicine is forthcoming. A certain technique that has been distinguished and commended by researchers today is known as clustered regulatory interspaced short palindromic repeats, or CRISPR. CRISPR is associated with Cas9, and it is a popular genome editing technique which can be programmed to target specific areas of DNA and

become more relevant with the discovery of CRISPR technology and a rise in interest for what

The CRISPR technology opens the door to more than a few unethical implications. This genetic engineering is not a technology limited to mature human cells, CRISPR can, and mostly likely will, be used to modify the genes of human embryos, effectively allowing the creation of a new class of modified humans, or what the co-inventor of CRISPR refers to as, “Designer Babies”. This class of modified humans will results in a gradual and irreversible evolution of the human species. The changes will start small, select families will have the power to change their child’s genetic makeup to prevent an imminent disease. But as time and the human understanding of genetic code progresses the temptation to use this technology for vanity will inevitably increase.

CRISPR-Cas9, a genome editing instrument, moves to change the field of biology forever. CRISPR was first observed as an innate defense mechanism used by bacteria. After years of development, scientists have been able to construct their own RNA that guides the CRISPR-Cas9. This allows them to control the behavior of the CRISPR-Cas9. What this could mean for the future is overwhelming.

Clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats or CRISPR is an efficient and reliable ways to make precise, targeted changes to the genome of living cells. It is a naturally occurring defence mechanism of bacteria. The first part of the defense system is CRISPR and it just remembers parts of viruses DNA so it can recognize and defend against the virus. The second part of the defense mechanism is a set of enzymes called Cas9 or CRISPR associated proteins. Cas9 precisely cuts DNA. The CRISPR/Cas9 system was found in streptococcus pyogenes or better know as the bacteria that causes strep throat. All of this is just shortened to CRISPR. Basicly Cas9 cuts DNA and CRISPR tells it where to cut. All biologists have to do give the Cas9

Scientists and doctors alike have long been looking for cures to diseases like cancer. For years now, there have been countless fundraisers to cure this and cure that. And yet, it seems as if there's never any progress. There may be a brief headline in the news about a new discovery, but they always seem to never go anywhere. Maybe the problem is that they've been looking in the wrong places. Maybe the cure doesn't lie on a medicinal level, but instead the genetic level, in genetic engineering and gene therapy. Direct manipulation of an organism's genome can be used in gene therapy as a means to alter genes, causing both positive and negatives effects as well as discussions about the ethical boundaries of modern

The survey was an indication that public has not been very welcoming towards gene editing. One of the reasons could be the poor public engagement system where there is no two-way process of engagement between scientists and public. Another cause of the weak expansion of gene editing is lack of clear and uniform regulatory regime. With countries following their own regulatory regime there is no uniformity in the policy paradigm of gene editing leaving it in a state of constant conflict and paralysis. A technology such as gene edit when not regulated can lead to unevenness, inequality and deeper consequences for the society. The third reason that is impeding the growth of gene editing applications into mainstream society is ethical debate. The ethical considerations of gene edit highlights how this technology can create inequality in society and promote eugenics. Openness, self-restraint, and an orientation to service from scientists will go a long way to make of CRISPR a true servant of society and an instrument of

French Anderson and some fellow colleagues from the National Institutes of Health’s Clinical Center located in Bethesda, Maryland, took white blood cells from the girl. They inserted ADA producing genes into the white cells. They then transfused the cells back into her. The girl surprisingly was able to continue to produce ADA.

Regaldo continues his arguments on the social acceptance of changing an entire species for the mankind to reap benefits from. on the Regaldo articulates his concern at the simplicity of CRISPR as it has been proven that a two-man team could utilize CRISPR could turn a whole cage of insects, yellow (The). The hazard is if any escaped creature could cause a “genetic spill” and could cause havoc in the ecosystem (The). Accidents like this are more prone as the unsophisticated method has increase the number of scientists involved in CRISPR and addition since this field is fairly new, there is no law to regulate to such activities. About 27 people have written letters to the Science on “the need of ‘stringent confinement strategies’” while others will ensure the modified animals would be “dead before they could spread the genes”

Political News reporting can be described in a similar manner, in certain cases, it is the superficial or scandalous news that is picked up and paraded through the bulletins instead of one that would require an in-depth analysis and research for a substantial problem. (Fallows J. 1996) Which is why this growing trend of tabloidization and sensationalism of news may driver away audiences and reliability of the public in the press. (Hartz J, 1997) In both politics and biomedicine, sensationalising news sacrifices the complexity of the problem for the sake of grabbing the viewer’s attention by the collar.