Gene Editing : Rotary Speech

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

Because of those concerns, the government right now put heavy restriction on experiment with gene editing. It would take away the chance to cure many children and benefit for the society any many different way. Birth defects are “contributing substantially to health care costs and the nation’s burden of disease, illness, and long-term disability” (Centers, 2015). With gene treatments, we can avoid those cost and change the future for many

“While 83 percent of the American public is solidly against editing genes for frivolous purposes such as increasing intelligence, about half of those asked were fine with the idea of doing so to treat diseases (Gebelhoff).” Although at the current point most speculation is merely empty conjecture, it is not unreasonable to assume that a nation or group will seize or develop powerful technology for genetic adaptation; some circles see eventual large-scale human genetic modification as inevitable. At the present time, “the idea of using Crispr-Cas9 for human reproduction is largely rejected in principle by the medical research community” due to fears it could lead down the road to “non-therapeutic genetic enhancement (Ball).” This is code for

In the world of science we face a myriad of controversial studies that confront bad press from the public for various reasons, even if the origins reside in the aspiration of the betterment of mankind. One of these studies is the process of gene editing in an attempt to provide people with better health or longer living by moving around and replacing key strands of DNA in their system. Many people opposed to this style of treatment see it as unnatural to mess with nature, some it is perceived as unholy in the eyes of their religious beliefs, and other just care for the safety of the patients that are willing to undergo this sort of treatment. However, me and many others believe that the pros of gene editing out weight the cons. Gene editing may very well may be the secret to unlock the secret to longer and healthier living and maybe push us to something even better than that.

Genetic editing could save many people’s lives. For example the Chinese modified genes to try to eliminate a fatal blood disease (text 2, paragraph 4). Scientists refer to this type of gene editing as “gene therapy”(text 2, paragraph 3). Some think gene editing is unethical or “strange” (text 2,paragraph 3), although it will save the lives of many. Scientists are working on eliminating malaria and other harmful diseases (text 3, paragraph 1). Banning this practice would not allow scientists to help cure and make the human race more healthier.

John Harris an author writing about gene editing expresses that the procedure can provide more benefit than harm. John illustrates in the article, “yes, their are issues with the process,but the amount of breakthrough that can be achieved s able to have the issues be overlooked”(Harris). Even though there are issues with the experimentation the scientific advancement this can provide will help change the future. When the gene editing is finally complete and mastered by the bio-technicians, it can help save lives. Even with the risks presented the scientific community is leaning in favor for the process, because of the long term benefits it can

Based on gene editing’s current technology, I believe that it should not be a general medical practice; however, as the technology advances, professionals should be allowed to modify human genes but only restrict this to somatic cells. I believe that this distinction should be made due to the technology’s current issues and the ethics pertaining to gene modification.

Although still a very debated subject, genetic enhancement has been around for many years with the genetic modification of crops. Just this year, researchers from Sun Yat-sen University in Guangzhou were the first to modify the genomes of human embryos in order to find a way to eliminate genetic diseases. The researchers used the gene editing technique CRISPR/Cas9, which, in layman’s terms, cuts out the bad genes and replaces the gaps with healthy genes. While this is a major scientific advancement, there are many ethical reasons why people might be weary of this new development.

The way we currently view the newer methods of gene therapy or genetic engineering in humans makes it seem as if these technologies are subpar and unsafe to use. Many experts have called change to the genome in a human unethical and a breach of nature’s course. This is an extremely hypocritical way of looking at health technology. With modern medicine we can keep a human alive, well beyond the years they should live. On a hospital bed, a patient could survive in a coma for years, yet the patient has no say in whether they want to be let off the machines or not. Genetic engineering isn’t some random roll of the dice procedure, there are sophisticated, state of the art technologies, completing the procedure and running the math to see the accuracy. In an article about the promise that genetic engineering to combat genetically inherited diseases, Kyle Peterson explains, “Crispr is much more precise, as Ms. Doudna explains in her new book, ‘A Crack in Creation.’ It works like this: An enzyme called Cas9 can be programmed to latch onto any 20-letter sequence of DNA. Once there, the enzyme cuts the double helix, splitting the DNA strand in two. Scientists supply a snippet of genetic material they want to insert, making sure it ends up matching with the cut strands. When the cell's repair mechanism kicks in to fix the cut, it pastes in the new DNA”(Peterson). This system has been proven through tests as safe and is

There’s really no reason to stop scientists from doing gene editing, but researchers need to be careful and no one is yet ready to do germline editing that could be passed on to future generations. Gene editing is a wonderful thing that could change the world, but I don’t think we are ready for it yet.

Human genome editing has the impact to be life altering. Human Genome editing impacts social, political, as well as ethnical issues (Kane). It can cure diseases such as cancer and save lives by allowing humans to alter genetic defects. Humans will be able to create the “perfect person.” However, human genome editing also has the impact to create fear. Adolf Hitler attempted to create the “perfect person” and all of History knows how that ended.

“This year about 564,800 Americans are expected to die of cancer—more than 1,500 people a day” (“Helping Families Face the Challenges”). Imagine if this detrimental disease, and innumerable life-altering others, were removed from the human biological code (Palus 20)? This may become reality, and human genome editing is responsible. However, due to ethical concerns this practice is prohibited in 15 of the 22 European nations (“Don't Edit the Human Germline”). Animals are currently used for this type of research where humans are taboo, though it is no longer practical. Their DNA, despite showing similarities, is neither identical to a humans nor accurately translatable to human embryonic research (“Failure of the Animal Model”). If an effective

Ethical questions have been raised in regard to the development of the new drug CRISPR-Cas9. CRISPR-Cas9 is a form of genetic engineering that allows for precise modification of DNA. CRISPR-Cas9 works by injecting a modified protein into the body to work on DNA like scissors by snipping the unwanted section of genes. CRISPR-Cas9 creates enormous possibilities for genetic modification, and the advancement of human health. The creation of new technology creates new benefits; however, it also presents significant risk. The use of such drug raises ethical questions such as who will have access to treatment and who will it be developed for. Further ethical questions are raised when considering not only how the modification of genes will affect

Although gene editing tools could cause unintended irreversible mistakes, further studies and regulations could lead these tools to become successful and effective ways of medical treatment. However, these tools should be regulated and further tested before becoming a legalized treatment. The National Academy of Science comments that “Heritable germline genome editing trials must be approached with caution, but caution does not mean that they must be prohibited” (Regalado). Editing the germline and utilizing gene editing tools could be utilized for trials, but should be proceeded with cautions. As gene editing tools evolve to change diseases, scientists are eager to utilize CRISPR without considering pitfalls. Instituting more caution would

Bio-hacking is always under debate as to whether it is ethical to alter DNA and create new opportunities for life, food or on the opposite side, to dangerous and could lead to decimating a vulnerable ecosystem. Many critics of Bio-hacking, such as, Dana Perls of the environmental group Friends on Earth, believes that just because we can, doesn’t mean that we should alter DNA. She challenges Bio-hacking or as it is sometimes called,