Posts

Outline for Paper

Thesis: parents should not be able to genetically modify their children since: this could create a further socioeconomic gap, the technology is newly formed and not completely safe, and it is immoral.

Argument 3: This type of augmentation of the human body would create a larger gap between socioeconomic classes leading to a stronger rivalry or even a war. This could also lead to children feeling “outdated”.

Evidence: “For example, taller people tend to be more financially successful in life, with one study showing that over a 30-year career, a six-foot tall person would make $166,000 more than someone five-foot five-inches. Almost all Fortune 500 CEOs are at least six-foot two-inches tall…” (Sherman 2017)

Anticipated Criticism: This would lead to prosperity in the future since children will be smarter and stronger.

Argument 2:  This technology is still new and the long term effects of gene editing are unknown. Many of the traits of a person are more influenced by the environment than by the actual genes of a person.

Evidence: “Despite the advent of CRISPR, safe and effective gene editing for human enhancement remains well beyond our current technological capabilities. For the discussion about enhancing human beings to be worth having, then, we must assume that gene-editing technology will improve rapidly. However, rapid progress in the development and application of any technology comes at a price: obsolescence.” (Sparrow 2019)

Anticipated Criticism: Animal testing has proved our technology to be safe.

Response: We have never tested the long term effects of changing certain genes.

Argument 1: Parents want their children to be their own but they may end up feeling the societal pressure to change the genetics of their kid to help them achieve new accomplishments and not to feel outdated. This would also be morally wrong because the embryo cannot choose what happens but must live with the consequences even if it turns out badly due to genetic linkages.

Evidence: “This yearning to maintain the mysteries will likely temper the development of strategies to alter our genome and affect the genetic identities of our offspring. In my experience as an obstetrician and reproductive endocrinology and infertility subspecialist, people want to have, not the best possible baby, but rather their own baby” (Klipstein 2017).

Anticipated Criticism: The child would want to be the best that they can be and chose to help humanity rather than be normal. A child would also want to be at the same level as his or her classmates and not left behind by the genetic evolution of the others.

Conclusion: These reasons, from the socioeconomics to the ethical reasons, are why parents should not be able to modify their children.

Arguments Outline

Argument 3: This type of augmentation of the human body would create a larger gap between socioeconomic classes leading to a stronger rivalry or even a war. This could also lead to children feeling “outdated”.

Evidence: “For example, taller people tend to be more financially successful in life, with one study showing that over a 30-year career, a six-foot tall person would make $166,000 more than someone five-foot five-inches. Almost all Fortune 500 CEOs are at least six-foot two-inches tall…” (Sherman 2017)

Anticipated Criticism: This would lead to prosperity in the future since children will be smarter and stronger.

Argument 2:  This technology is still new and the long term effects of gene editing are unknown. Many of the traits of a person are more influenced by the environment than by the actual genes of a person.

Evidence: “Despite the advent of CRISPR, safe and effective gene editing for human enhancement remains well beyond our current technological capabilities. For the discussion about enhancing human beings to be worth having, then, we must assume that gene-editing technology will improve rapidly. However, rapid progress in the development and application of any technology comes at a price: obsolescence.” (Sparrow 2019)

Anticipated Criticism: Animal testing has proved our technology to be safe.

Response: We have never tested the long term effects of changing certain genes.

Argument 1: Parents want their children to be their own but they may end up feeling the societal pressure to change the genetics of their kid to help them achieve new accomplishments and not to feel outdated. This would also be morally wrong because the embryo cannot choose what happens but must live with the consequences even if it turns out badly due to genetic linkages.

Evidence: “This yearning to maintain the mysteries will likely temper the development of strategies to alter our genome and affect the genetic identities of our offspring. In my experience as an obstetrician and reproductive endocrinology and infertility subspecialist, people want to have, not the best possible baby, but rather their own baby” (Klipstein 2017).

Anticipated Criticism: The child would want to be the best that they can be and chose to help humanity rather than be normal. A child would also want to be at the same level as his or her classmates and not left behind by the genetic evolution of the others.

Annotated bibliography 2-4

https://proxy.lib.ohio-state.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=137165778&site=ehost-live

Who – American Journal of Bioethics, Robert Sparrow

What – Discusses the ethics of child modification and how it could lea to children becoming ‘outdated’.

When – July of 2019, This is within an acceptable time limit

Where- Using academic search premier to find sources using the Ohio State resources. Under the American Journal of Bioethics.

Why – This source will be good at mentioning reasons why modifying children could make them feel incompetent or outdated.

How – Found by using Ohio State’s academic search complete to find an article and access it.

Sparrow, Robert. “Yesterday’s Child: How Gene Editing for Enhancement Will Produce Obsolescence—and Why It Matters.” American Journal of Bioethics, vol. 19, no. 7, July 2019, pp. 6–15. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1080/15265161.2019.1618943.

 

https://proxy.lib.ohio-state.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=126407500&site=ehost-live

Who – Sigal Klipstein, Hastings Center Report

What – This article says that while people might use this to fix diseases that could happen to their baby in their experience people want to have their own baby not a genetic manipulation of their child.

When – December 2017, this is a relatively new article and that means that this source makes sense to use.

Where- Under publication of Hastings Center Report on EBSCO host.

Why – This article will give reasons why it is unlikely people will want to have genetically modified babies and not their own.

How – Using Ohio State’s Academic search complete and searching for ethics and genetic manipulation and humans.

Klipstein, Sigal. “Parenting in the Age of Preimplantation Gene Editing.” Hastings Center Report, vol. 47, Dec. 2017, pp. S28–S33. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1002/hast.792.

 

https://www.technologyreview.com/2018/11/25/138962/exclusive-chinese-scientists-are-creating-crispr-babies/

Who – Antonio Regalado, MIT technology review

What – This resource discusses Chinese medical documents that talk about how they are trying to make HIV and smallpox resistant babies. This also discusses some of the scientific [art of genetically modifying children. This also talks about how some scientist are upset gene editing is being used where it is completely unnecessary.

When – Published November 25th, 2018. This is within a few years so it is still a credible source.

Where- MIT Technology Review. Found on Google.

Why – This will provide more scientific backing to my paper and actual experiments that have been done so far. This also discusses curing sicknesses which is a major pro of this editing.

How – Found by looking at Google Scholar results.

Regalado, Antonio. “EXCLUSIVE: Chinese Scientists Are Creating CRISPR Babies.” MIT Technology Review, MIT Technology Review, 2 Apr. 2020, www.technologyreview.com/2018/11/25/138962/exclusive-chinese-scientists-are-creating-crispr-babies/.

Trademark Gunderson review

In this session we talked about copyright. He defined copyright, public domain, creative commons, open source, fair use, trademarks, and patents. He explained how fair use applies to us as a student. With this we don’t have to have the authors permission to use an article for educational purposes. This will be useful to know as a student since this way we will not need to worry about whether we are breaking copyright rules.

Expert Interview Answers

1. What are your personal views on humans being able to modify embryos to be resistant to diseases?

Personally, it is complicated. As of now, my answer is no. As great as it sounds to be able to create resistances to diseases that are not vaccines and medications, there could be complications. For example, editing one gene could lead to the turning off or turning on of another gene. How will this impact the embryo? Until we can prove that a certain modification does not affect the organism’s viability, then editing should not be allowed.

2. Do you have any recommendations for journals that would provide a good overview of this process?

There is a journal called, “The CRISPR Journal.” It is a journal of scientific work and research based solely on CRISPR, the leading way of editing genes. The journal dives into the latest research as well as ethical considerations of CRISPR.

3. What are your views on changing the genetics of an embryo for augmentation uses, such as raising IQ?

This question goes along the same reasons I listed for number one. We are not able to prove whether the organism will have long-term ramifications of the editing. For augmentation uses specifically, I stand by my vote for no. At that level, modification would not be leading to a better society, but would be done for more selfish reasons. Along those lines, multiple genes may influence one trait, like IQ. Therefore, more than one section of DNA may have to be edited. That is too large of a risk to take when the embryo may have life-damaging consequences.

4. Do you think it would be morally wrong for parents to not use this method of enhancement if the world around them used it frequently?

Yes, it would be morally wrong. Again, it would be selfish to make modifications that would affect the future of the embryo, especially since the embryo is clearly not able to choose what happens, but still must live with the consequences.

5. What about parents who want to prevent children from being born with serious genetic conditions?

This is a sticky situation. For me, this should be based on the future health of the child. If the child is going to die at an early age, then that would be an option. However, the issue becomes what is considered serious? Plenty of people with Down’s Syndrome live a joyous life, but to another family, this would be considered a serious genetic decision. Therefore, the answer is both yes and no.

6. Do animal studies prove that the technology is safe and works well?

Yes. Animals study have shown it to be safe, but there is not enough research for a definite answer. As of now, the technology seems to be working. For example, they have done alterations to make a rabbit glow in the dark, thanks to fluorescent genes in a jellyfish.

7. What would be the social effects of these new “designer children” would they give the elite even more to compete with?

Technically, it would allow for more competition. This would lead to a domino-effect in society as everyone would be wanting “designer children,” increasing the numbers of altered people. This could lead to rivalry or even war between the unaltered and altered as a feeling of superiority would take over the society as well as an increase in discrimination.

8. Have there been any children born with edited genomes?

There has been a set of twins from China that were edited in a way that made them HIV-resistant by turning off a gene, discouraging the binding of HIV to a cell. However, the researcher did all of this without approval. Therefore, he lost all credibility and faced prison time as well as fines.The children have not been kept up with and we will not know the benefits/consequences of the edit as a result.

9. Could this produce negative genetic consequences in generations to come?

Yes. Given that the research has not shown long-term consequences, it could. This is part of the issue with the technology, but this point has been touched on a multitude of times.

10. Realistically would parents be able to perfectly engineer their child to fit their wants?

In a perfect world, yes. However, we do not know how many gene edits we can do on one organism until the organism is inviable. Also, the ethical concerns would be a big player, as talked about earlier.

11. Have there been regulations set on gene editing in embryos?

There are both state, federal, and international regulations on gene editing, most of which conclude that gene editing is not permitted.

Annotated Bibliography

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6568237/ is the website I am doing the annotated bibliography on today.

Who – US National Library of Medicine, Andrea Lavazza – Centro Universitario Internazionale, Arezzo, Italy

What – Discusses the ethics of genetic enhancements in humans along with a brief overview of how the process is accomplished.

When – Published June 7th, 2019 this is a relatively new article so it is in the appropriate time of use.

Where- Using Google Scholar to search web. Under the publication of the US National Library of Medicine.

Why – This source will be useful for finding out more about the ethics behind genetic improvements it strengthens my argument by using scientific findings to explain the ethics behind genetically modifying children.

How – Found by looking at Google Scholar results.

 

Lavazza A. (2019). Parental Selective Reproduction: Genome-Editing and Maternal Behavior as a Potential Concern. Frontiers in genetics10, 532. https://doi.org/10.3389/fgene.2019.00532

Laura Fathauer Reflection

I learned a lot about Ohio’s history including the flood of 1913 and the original town around Columbus called Franklinton. She also discussed the evolution of the web and copyright, such as when things become part of the public domain. She showed a research project she had completed herself and how she used articles and pictures from the public domain to complete this project. I can use what she showed today to help expand my own research projects during my academic career nd the rest of my life. It is also beneficial to learn about the history of the university so that you know some events that shaped the area into what is has become. She also explained how police can use data and and satellite imagining to help them solve cases and how the  internet has become a vast source of information in not just the articles but also being able to connect to new people with different information. This is all useful for improving research as a student.

Thesis

Parents should not be allowed to genetically engineer their offspring unless not doing so could result in the death or severe struggle to the child.

10 Questions for interview

What are your personal views on humans being able to modify embryos to be resistant to diseases?
Do you have any recommendations for journals that would provide a good overview of this process?
What are your views on changing the genetics of an embryo for augmentation uses, such as raising IQ?
Do you think it would be morally wrong for parents to not use this method of enhancement if the world around them used it frequently?
What about parents who want to prevent children from being born with serious genetic conditions?
Do animal studies prove that the technology is safe and works well?
What would be the social effects of these new “designer children” would they give the elite even more to compete with?
Have there been any children born with edited genomes?
Could this produce negative genetic consequences in generations to come?
Realistically would parents be able to perfectly engineer their child to fit their wants?
Have there been regulations set on gene editing in embryos?

Technology Reflection

During the class today we discussed technology security. This is important because information privacy and security of personal work is very important for students in the modern world. We also have discussed how the web has changed over recent years and how it might continue to evolve. This is also important because students now need to know how to use the web to their advantages.