Connor, Steve. “First Human Embryos Edited in U.S.” MIT Technology Review, 26 July 2017, www.technologyreview.com/2017/07/26/68093/first-human-embryos-edited-in-us/.https://www.technologyreview.com/2017/07/26/68093/first-human-embryos-edited-in-us/
The article explores the attempts to develop genetically modified human embryos by researchers from Portland, Oregon. According to the report, a group of researchers under the leadership of Shoukhrat Mitalipov from Oregon Health and Science University attempted the genetic modification process by altering the DNA in several human embryos with a single cell using CRISPR gene-editing technology. The article argues that despite the controversial process, there are many instances of scientists using CRISPR technology to ensure its success.
The article is a timely review of the attempts by scientists to explore the controversial issue of genetic human–embryo modification. The authors cite credible scientific sources investigating the case to support their argument on the possibility of CRISPR gene-editing technology being the solution to the process of genetic modification. It uses concrete examples to support the claims, as seen in the citation of the Mitalipov institution, which has conducted experiments on embryos and claims to correct inherited defects through the process safely.
Wikipedia Contributors. “Genome Editing.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 16 Mar. 2019, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genome_editing.
The article explores the process of genome editing and describes the process as a process that involves the modification of DNA in the genome of any living thing. According to the article, the genome editing process is unique and efficient compared to the traditional techniques, which involve the random insertion of genetic components on host genomes without consideration of specific locations within these genomes.
The article uses recent scientific discoveries to explain the basic mechanisms used in gene manipulation and how specific programs target specific genomic loci.
Kozubek, Jim. “Who Will Pay for CRISPR?” STAT, STAT, 26 June 2017, www.statnews.com/2017/06/26/crispr-insurance-companies-pay
The article’s authors review the CRISPR gene-editing technology, highlighting its positive and negative attributes. According to the report, CRISPR gene-editing technology is costly and may not be adopted by healthcare firms for commercial use. It notes that successful clinical trials are popularizing the technology. Assuming the system will, however, lead to a higher cost of healthcare services as the therapies involving CRISPR are costly. The timely article reviews the possible adverse outcomes of adopting the technology. It cites credible examples from article reviews of the developers of the CRISPR technology as well as the initial customers and the healthcare providers who have experienced the system.
Ma, Hong, et al. “Correction of a Pathogenic Gene Mutation in Human Embryos.” Nature, vol. 548, no. 7668, 2 Aug. 2017, pp. 413–419, i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2017/images/08/02/nature23305_proof4.pdf, https://doi.org/10.1038/nature23305.https://www.nature.com/articles/nature23305
This article examines the impacts of genome editing, asserting that it has a positive effect as it can correct germline mutations. It highlights the common heterozygous MYBPC3 mutation in human preimplantation embryos case and the specific CRISPR–Cas9-based targeting accuracy and high homology-directed repair effectiveness. According to the article, this repair occurs when an endogenous, germline-specific DNA repair response is activated.
The article uses timely and credible scientific articles to explain how the Induced double-strand breaks attached to the mutant allele are repaired by a homologous gene rather than a synthetic DNA template.n The article is essential in understanding the genome editing process, its accuracy, and safety measures. It has a lot of information and is required for the research since designer babies are a genome editing product.
NCI Staff. “How CRISPR Is Changing Cancer Research and Treatment – National Cancer Institute.” Www.cancer.gov, National Cancer Institute, 27 July 2020, www.cancer.gov/news-events/cancer-currents-blog/2020/crispr-cancer-research-treatment.
According to the article, researchers have explored simple techniques to reverse human cancerous growth alterations by altering DNA sequences. The process is evidence-based since mutations in DNA are the root cause of cancer. The author states that several gene editing techniques have been created over decades, but they have yet to match the criteria for a quick, simple, and affordable technology. The article is essential to the research as it uses timely information on CRISPR technology to support its arguments; for instance, the numerous studies that revealed that a technique for editing genes known as CRISPR could modify the DNA of human cells in an extraordinarily accurate and user-friendly manner.
Sandel, Michael J. “The Case against Perfection.” The Atlantic, The Atlantic, Apr. 2004, www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2004/04/the-case-against-perfection/302927/.
The article explores the positive attributes of genetic–editing technology and reviews the responses from a section of the healthcare system stakeholders. According to the report, genetic research advances offer us both a promise and a dilemma. The authors examine the hope of the healthcare system to develop the capability to diagnose, cure, and avert various catastrophic illnesses. It further explores the moral concerns and the need for compromise because of the benefits of this scientific discovery.
The article uses timely and credible information to explore its concerns on the fact that the newly acquired understanding of genetics may enable scientists to modify and improve its capabilities to improve human life. The article is essential as it has detailed information on the faculty of human embryo-editing technology. The ability to edit genes would empower the healthcare system as they can improve human features.
Savulescu, Julian. “Procreative Beneficence: Why We Should Select the Best Children.” Bioethics, vol. 15, no. 5-6, Oct. 2001, pp. 413–426, https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8519.00251.https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12058767/
The article explores the Utilization of preimplantation genetic diagnosis and in vitro fertilization (IVF) and the eugenic selection of embryos. According to the report utilizing preimplantation genetic diagnosis and in vitro fertilization (IVF), eugenic selection of embryonic features is now achievable(PGD).PGD may theoretically test any hereditary trait, such as hair shade or eye pigmentation. However, it is only employed for identifying chromosomal problems or inherited abnormalities in genetics.
The article uses timely and extensive scholarly articles to analyze crime analysis and gene editing. According to the report, genetic factors linking an individual to hereditary criminal activities have been discovered, and genetic editing technology could help eliminate such factors. PGD has negligible expenses to spouses once the choice to undergo IVF has been taken. People are more likely to utilize it to choose less important medical features, like a lower risk of getting Alzheimer’s illness or even non-medical subjects traits. It argues that technology should be adopted as it eliminates the non-disease issues that affect the possibilities of people enjoying their lives. The article is essential to the research as it explores the advantages of couples having the ability to select embryo characters that would positively impact their lives.
Savulescu, Julian, and TECNOLOGÍAS DE MEJORA HUMANA: DEBATE ÉTICO E IMPACTO SOCIOCULTURAL. “Genetic Interventions and the Ethics of Enhancement of Human Beings.” Gazeta de Antropología, vol. 32, no. 2, 2016, www.gazeta-antropologia.es/?p=4904.http://www.gazeta-antropologia.es/?p=4904
The ethics surrounding human -gene enhancement have recently become the subject of intense discussion. According to the article, several scholars have expressed concern or criticism regarding the use of modern technology to change or improve human beings, emphasizing risks to dignity and humanity as one justification for their problems. It examines articles criticizing human genetic improvement. In an extensively read article, Michael Sandel argued that the main issue with genetic engineering is the pride of the parents who have developed it.
The article is essential in understanding how embryo editing would deform the relationship between parents and their children and its impacts on the view of humanity.
Tucker, Ian. “Susan Cain: “Society Has a Cultural Bias towards Extroverts.” The Guardian, The Guardian, 22 Mar. 2018, www.theguardian.com/technology/2012/apr/01/susan-cain-extrovert-introvert-interview.
The article is a Susan Cain’s interview examining the cultural views on extroverts and introverts. The interviewee discusses that being an extrovert prefers reaction regarding input, particularly social stimulation. She explains that introverts choose the most vibrant in low-stimulation surroundings while introverts choose less lively and emotional environments. The article uses extensive and timely scholarly articles to explore how extroverts need stimulus to express their attributes.
The article is essential in understanding the social definition of personality and its scientific basis. It uses timely articles to prove that contrary to popular belief, introversion is simply a human preference. Parents may prefer to alter their children’s personalities based on the fears of public views of extroverts.
Works Cited
Connor, Steve. “First Human Embryos Edited in U.S.” MIT Technology Review, 26 July 2017, www.technologyreview.com/2017/07/26/68093/first-human-embryos-edited-in-us/.https://www.technologyreview.com/2017/07/26/68093/first-human-embryos-edited-in-us/
Kozubek, Jim. “Who Will Pay for CRISPR?” STAT, STAT, 26 June 2017, www.statnews.com/2017/06/26/crispr-insurance-companies-pay
Ma, Hong, et al. “Correction of a Pathogenic Gene Mutation in Human Embryos.” Nature, vol. 548, no. 7668, 2 Aug. 2017, pp. 413–419, i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2017/images/08/02/nature23305_proof4.pdf, https://doi.org/10.1038/nature23305.https://www.nature.com/articles/nature23305.
NCI Staff. “How CRISPR Is Changing Cancer Research and Treatment – National Cancer Institute.” Www.cancer.gov, National Cancer Institute, 27 July 2020, www.cancer.gov/news-events/cancer-currents-blog/2020/crispr-cancer-research-treatment.
Sandel, Michael J. “The Case against Perfection.” The Atlantic, The Atlantic, Apr. 2004, www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2004/04/the-case-against-perfection/302927/.
Savulescu, Julian. “Procreative Beneficence: Why We Should Select the Best Children.” Bioethics, vol. 15, no. 5-6, Oct. 2001, pp. 413–426, https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8519.00251.https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12058767/
Tucker, Ian. “Susan Cain: “Society Has a Cultural Bias towards Extroverts.” The Guardian, The Guardian, 22 Mar. 2018, www.theguardian.com/technology/2012/apr/01/susan-cain-extrovert-introvert-interview.
Wikipedia Contributors. “Genome Editing.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 16 Mar. 2019, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genome_editing.
write