The Pros And Cons Of Gene Editing Tools

With modern technology comes the breakthrough of the decade by altering the human genes. This altering gene invention is called CRISPR/Cas9. However, this invention in the beginning stages of altering genes, began with rats until perfection. The process began early with the embryo stages to edit the genes. With the introduction of CRISPR surrounds a lot of controversy. Some people believe editing genes is playing with the hands of God and refuse to believe in CRISPR. With the article, “Let’s Hit Pause Before Altering Humankind”, by David Baltimore believes CRISPR is a tool with no good intentions. With this information the article should not be published with being against CRISPR.

There are other types of gene editing out there but research shows us that CRISPR is fast, precise, and simple. Researchers are developing a way for CRISPR therapy to help with Alzheimer’s all the way to HIV. There are two categories the researchers and people have put CRISPR in: practical and philosophical. The researchers say that the immediate barrier is practical. During the tests, CRISPR has found targets in other parts of the DNA that need fixing other than the intended part of the DNA. Because of this, it may take at least a generation to ensure that it is safe. Some people oppose CRISPR because the oppositionists say it lets people play god but getting medicine every time you get sick with the same thing obscures the natural order of things. The opportunities are getting pushed ahead for treating cancer, childhood diseases that are genetic, and how to understand diabetes better. The one question some people have is whether it’s right to edit genes that are

Human gene editing has long been controversial topic; however, precise techniques that accomplish this feat have only recently been discovered. According to the Welcome Genome Campus in the UK, the most versatile and simplest technique, called CRISPR-Cas9, allows scientists to cut, alter, or add to sections of the DNA sequence of living organisms (“What Is CRISPR-Cas9?”). This astonishing technology has nearly endless applications, including the potential to eradicate genetic diseases in humans that currently have no cure. This could have vast implications for people who suffer with disease and the economy of the region in which they live, but the technology has yet to be commercialized. The

While the benefits of gene editing are immense, there are still multiple risk factors to be considered. Nearly every type of procedure in the medical field has at least some sort of risk element, but the fact that genetic editing alters the baseline for every single intricate part of the human body poses a far greater risk of damage to the patient. Furthermore, it would be extremely difficult to locate damages caused to the patient after the procedure has been completed because of the millions of cells that make up the body. It is of utmost certainty that genetic engineering will not be an ethical solution to genetic disorders until it has been further developed. Ethical concerns, set standards, and viability all need to be tackled first before gene editing can be a usable tool. None of the articles found for this report provided substantial evidence that gene editing or genetic engineering is ready for any type of real-world application. In fact, many of them provided evidence that it is not ready for usage. Regardless, there are certainly many roadblocks that genetic engineering has yet to overcome. Until it has been proved to be viable and safe for general usage, genetic editing does not appear to be ethically justified for usage in humans in its current

John Harris and Marcy Darnovsky’s article, Pro and Con: Should Gene Editing Be Performed on Human Embryos? (2016), explores the potential moral and future repercussions involved with CRISPR-Cas9 gene editing, a rapidly growing science. Harris argues that gene editing could be the resolution to curing detrimental illnesses before the birth of a child, and the science needs more time to experiment. On the other hand, Darnovsky argues that while gene editing may be able to treat illnesses before birth, it opens the door for parents to decide what they want their children to be like and to get rid of any undesirable traits. Both authors appeal to the audience’s logos to argue for or against gene editing and its potential consequences. Harris states

“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

Research at Harvard’s Medical School Laboratory has developed CRISPR, which essentially is working on doing the job of editing out the genes we don’t want and putting in ones we do. At the moment, this is only being done with small animals like pigs, but Chruch and Yang firmly suggest that we aren’t far along from doing this with humans and that we have the technology; they say the wait is just getting the rest of the science community on board with the project. An interview through MIT Technology Review interviews Yang and the studies with Harvard noting,“By editing the DNA of these cells or the embryo itself, it could be possible to correct disease genes and pass those genetic fixes on to future generations. Such a technology could be used to rid families of scourges like cystic fibrosis. It might also be possible to install genes that offer lifelong protection against infection, Alzheimer’s, and, Yang told me, maybe the effects of aging” (MIT Technology Review). The technique of editing the genome mainly exists in the embryo, but of course this technology is still in its early stages and hasn’t had the highest success rates, reportedly only 20-40% of the time according the

There has been a lot of controversy about CRISPR lately. While CRISPR could greatly advance humanity it also has lots of morally grey areas. If it could get rid of genetic diseases like Trisomy 21 that would be good, right? But then are we saying they aren't good enough? Or what about just making humans better in general like stronger and smarter. Is that playing god. The discovery of CRISPR has many scientists questioning where is the line? When have we gone too far? Is editing genes at all too dangerous? There could be so many unknown consequences that would be permanent to the human race. Once you change human genes you can't go back but is that bad? Evolution has been doing this since the beginning of time. Are we just speeding it up or are we messing it up? There are lots of questions and no right answers but we won't have to worry about it for awhile. CRISPR is still a very long way away from being used on humans. It would have to work 100% of the time and while it is close it's not good enough. It is also that before the technology is ready it could be banned just like human cloning. We just have to ask where is the

The first reason why we should not pursue genetic engineering is that there is an inherent risk when tampering with the human genome. This worry is shared among several scientists, with Dr. David King stating that treating certain genetic diseases “Poses a relatively high risk that genes will be 'inadvertently ' altered in the reproductive cells of the foetus.” This could lead to a result similar to what a study cited by Stuart Newman states, that “Germline introduction of an improperly regulated normal gene into mice resulted in progeny with no obvious effects on development, but enhanced tumor incidence during adult life.”(10). This unpredictability is extremely hazardous and pose extreme risk to any humans involved in this process. Some avid advocates of genetic engineering say otherwise, stating that the benefits of genetic engineering far outweigh the risk. However, the majority of identified genetic disorders we are attempting to cure as of this

Today, with the recent discovery of CRISPR for gene-editing, it is very much a possibility. This rapid scientific progress has sparked a fierce debate about the ethics of germline modification. In December 2015, an international group of scientist convened at a three-day forum in Washington, DC and concluded by calling for a moratorium on the clinical use of CRISPR to modify the human germline (McCarthy, 2015). Several of those in attendance wrote “recommend that steps be taken to strongly discourage... any attempts at germline genome modification for clinical application in humans, while societal, environmental, and ethical implications of such activity are discussed among scientific and governmental organizations” []. One consequence of this disagreement is that some religious institutions remain skeptical about taking part in gene-editing research and limit opportunities for their students to get involved in this field. In this essay, I will show that germline modification is ethical, and make the case for why such schools should embrace gene-editing research. Specifically, I will try to convince the faculty and administration at Saint Louis University that they should offer federal work-study internships in partnership with Monsanto labs for students interested in learning about

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.

Our world is in a constant state of flux. Changes are being made every second of the day, and this is only natural to life. So it shouldn’t come to a surprise with how rapidly advance our medical science is becoming. Why does nature spew new innovations? Because in order to survive, all living things have to overcome numerous obstacles in life. Therefore, scientists are constantly developing new technologies to reduce the hurdles of humans. This includes the method of genome-editing that may alter human DNA. However, there are many concern about the consequences of genome alteration as this will affect the individual and their future generation (Wade). We don’t know for certain what lies beyond this. While it makes a highly promising invention for a multiplicity of uses, could we be tampering with nature?

Gene editing has been a big technological topic that has been talked about a lot over the last few years. Is it ethical? Does it promote social justice? Is it good for the environment? I personally do not think it promotes any of these ideas. It signifies the idea that the rich get richer, and gene editing has a huge ethical complication. Not to mention that it is not the most natural thing to be able to edit genes to someone’s liking.

In the past decade, our world has witnessed and produced some of the most unfathomable technological advances that seem utterly unimaginable and futuristic but is now being developed, unfolding right before our very eyes. These advances include: TV screens as thin as a DVD, high-speed internet, smartphones, and even self-driving cars. Today, we have an advancement that could potentially alter the future of our world, indefinitely. “CRISPR-Cas9”, the remarkable technological advancement that is capable of altering a human’s DNA. Scientists must take extreme caution to the ever growing technology in order for ourselves to be the beneficiary of these advancements.

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.