Only one link this week, since it is a longer article, and I think it is important for everyone to read it. CRISPR-Cas9 technology allows researchers to edit DNA sequences in any living organism. This technology is being looked at for applications ranging from curing diseases, to making organisms resistant to parasites, to basic research about gene function. But there are major ethical issues, which the article points out.
What do you all think? Is this something that is worthwhile? Or do the potential risks outweigh the benefits?
50 comments:
This article talks briefly about the history of genetic modification, and the big controversy in recent times that is genetic manipulation. Crispr-Cas9 is a new technique in which one of its proteins is able to locate and cut apart certain sequences in DNA, allowing genes to be cut and pasted, almost like arts and crafts. It has also proven its worth in the medical, agricultural, and financial world. It has the potential to be able to cure cancer, end world hunger, or even stop climate change. It might seem too good to be true, because it could very well could be. While scientists may to able to cure genetic diseases like Huntington’s using Crispr, it could also change or damage something else at the same time. The article also used an example of mosquitoes; Crispr can end malaria, but in the process, could also endanger mosquitoes. Then, the bats that eat those mosquitoes would have less food sources, off-balancing the entire ecosystem. Genetic engineering needs to be tread lightly and have a strict and specific regulation. Changing just one thing could snowball into changing everything. Another issue with Crispr is that it allows humans to “play God”, by making it possible to change your genetics, or even customize your child. Although an experiment conducted to edit human embryos was unsuccessful, it may be possible in the near future. This ignites a lot of ethical controversy that hasn’t been settled yet, since it is so new. Crispr may be very promising, but it is something that I think should be very carefully handled, especially because we do not know the long term effects it will have yet. It is too soon to say whether or not the risks outweigh its promises.
Everybody knows what DNA is, a sequence of thousands of bases, which creates the person that we are. The DNA that we have tells scientists everything they need to know about a person if read correctly, and can genome sequencing has the power to detect any diseases or illnesses a person may have or have the chance of getting. With the use of "recombinant DNA," which can manipulate DNA, has the ability to save millions of lives. However, there has been huge controversy created with this hope, because some people argue that it is not humane or a natural process to occur. This is why scientists wanted to establish prospective guidelines and rules so nothing bad could happen and nothing would slip out of their control. But with the new access to Crispr-Cas9, a gene-editing technique that makes it easy, cheap, and fast to move genes around, everything has changed. With this technique, "researchers have already reversed mutations that cause blindness, stopped cancer cells from multiplying, and made cells impervious to the virus that causes AIDS." There are also great agricultural benefits to this technique. After seeing these results, some would question why wouldn't sceintists use this? However, others are more worried about the power that scientists would hold, because the fantasy of having scientifically-conjured, genetically-modified beings walking on the Earth could someday be very real. I think in this case, there is no clear right or wrong. The right would be that maybe scientists could possibly "cure" AIDS or other diseases and illnesses. The wrong would be that this is highly unethical and scientists would have too much power, and if this were to get in the wrong hands, there would be major consequences. Think of Jurassic World, and the crazy dinosaur that scientists put together. There are a lot of benefits to this, but there are many risks as well. The scientists involved need to be careful in what they are doing and need to have rules and guidelines to make sure that they don't go too far when using Crispr.
This article talks about the history and controversy over recombinant DNA. DNA is sequences of 4 different bases that are stuck to a sugar phosphate backbone. Genes are the basis of heredity and is made up of DNA. Researchers like David Baltimore are able to decrypt and reorder genes. Being able to do this gives us the potential to save millions of lives. Although you may be able to save lives, if not used wisely things can step out of our control. Scientist would have to consider in which situations they would be allowed to use recombinant DNA. A gene-editing technique called Crispr-Cas9 allows you to move genes around in any living thing. Including bacteria to people. Using this technique, researchers have been able to reverse mutations. They have been able to stop cancer cells from multiplying, as well as fixing the mutations that cause blindness. This technique has advanced the medical and agricultural fields. The technique brings all new rules for the practice of research in life sciences. Genome modification has been around since before people knew what a gene was. They were just less severe and took more time then it would now. 2002 is when biologists learned how to “delete or replace certain genes using enzymes called zinc-finger”. Scientists may be able to cure many genetic diseases using Crispr. Crispr can put a stop to malaria, but it could also put mosquitoes into danger. The entire ecosystem could be put at risk because of one change. Which leads to the question on whether or not we should be allowed to modify genes. The positive is that diseases could be cured and millions of lives could be save, but this could also bring a lot of controversy. Should humans be allowed to change genes? Many people think it’s unethical. I believe that if a set of rules and regulations are set in place and that they are followed, then it would be okay for genome modification. With all the benefits, there may be many risks and the scientists that are involved in genome modification should be careful and use Crispr wisely.
The article I read this week was truly astonishing. DNA is always a fascinating topic to discuss about, as there are multiple approaches with its use. Thus, I found it interesting on how people experimented with such a thing to bring changes. Franklin, Watson, and Crick inquisitively and thoroughly discovered DNA, eventually finding out that the double helix was the basis of heredity. Soon, David Baltimore took the risk to decrypt and reorder genes. Wanting to put limits to any consequences, Baltimore and four other molecular biologists decided to put aside any potentially dangerous experiments, including cloning. However, today with 17 other scientists, talks of genome engineering has reappeared. Furthermore, today the stakes have changed, where the sky's the limit. With Crispr-Cas9 (“Crispr” standing for “clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats” and “Cas9” being the name of the protein) there is much more accessible access to this gene-editing technique. Crispr-Cas9 makes it relatively easier, cheaper, and faster to move genes around from genes in any living thing such as, bacteria to people. With this technique, researchers have reversed mutations that cause blindness, stopped cancer cells from multiplying, and made cells impervious to the virus that causes AIDS. This truly seemed amazing to me. It just makes the possibilities for advancements much more possible by the enhancing of DNA gene-editing. Similarly, wheat has been invulnerable to killer fungi like powdery mildew due to the technique. This can be an enormous step towards ending World Hunger. Because of Crispr-Cas9, various pharmaceutical and agricultural companies are currently involved. For instance, many pharmaceutical labs have developed Crispr-related research tools, such as conducting experiments on cancerous mice. Although I usually tend to disagree on such conductivity, I can support this for the better of humanity and others. This, however, can be a potential problem for certain liberation and animal support groups, viewing this as unethical. If such DNA editing involves any harmful animal testing, researchers might have to face this conflict that might or might not inhibit this technique. Additionally, Feng Zhang’s lab used such a technique to learn about the genetic variations to make people resistant to a melanoma drug called Vemurafenib. Again, this can help cease a cancer. Thanks to Crispr-Cas9, many new doors are opening, involving the editing DNA, hindering illnesses, growing and sustaining agriculture, as well driving flourishing pharmaceutical businesses. Not only can these new processes help humankind, but it can encourage growth in the economy, as more jobs and opportunities can develop. However, there can be an opposite result from this new technique. Although results fairly seem optimistic from it, there may be harmful consequences if the protein is in the wrong hands, making it seem unethical to certain people once again. For example, certain mutations can unexpectedly develop from the processing. Thus, there has to be circumspect viewing at the gene-editing. Plus, controversial issues with inserting certain genes to create a baby, or opposing God's view of the natural world are in debate as we speak. But in the long run, I do believe this technique can work with accuracy involved, but there will have to be certain limits in regards to hazardous environments and safety. In the meantime, it would be awesome to see designer babies, bioweapons, invasive mutants, diseases cured, and much, much more come to life, as these scientific inventions are taking place right before our eyes.
This article talks about the Recombinant DNA and its history on genetic modification. Its a good thing that scientists have created these new things to edit DNA, but there are consequences that come with this. For example, scientists have found Crispr that can end mosquitos and malaria that kills million people a day, but bats can have problem with this because they rely on mosquitos for food. Editing these genes may look like its cool, but there are consquences that come with it and may affect our lives. The Recombinant DNA has been able to save millions of lives and there are ways to get rid of our problems that go with diseases with a new access called Crispr-Cas9. This access has made scientists do things like "reversed mutations that cause blindness, stopped cancer cells from multiplying, and made cells impervious to the virus that causes AIDS." Another thing is that this access can make reserchers get rid of problems that people have been worried about that are related to science fiction. We have already genetically modified new traits in dogs with selective breeding a long time ago. Using this kind of technology can be dangerous because anything wrong that happens with Crispr can affect our lives and the scientists too. There should be rules and regulation guidelines to making sure that scientists know what they are doing and so they don't go so far with this technology. Also, another problem we can end is the world hunger when the population increases to 9 billion people. The solution to this is the wheat that has been invulnerable to killer fungi like powdery mildew. Over, editing DNA can come with alot of new opportunities that are science related, but we should be careful of how and when we should it since there are always problems that come with this.
This article talks about the Recombinant DNA and its history on genetic modification. Its a good thing that scientists have created these new things to edit DNA, but there are consequences that come with this. For example, scientists have found Crispr that can end mosquitos and malaria that kills million people a day, but bats can have problem with this because they rely on mosquitos for food. Editing these genes may look like its cool, but there are consquences that come with it and may affect our lives. The Recombinant DNA has been able to save millions of lives and there are ways to get rid of our problems that go with diseases with a new access called Crispr-Cas9. This access has made scientists do things like "reversed mutations that cause blindness, stopped cancer cells from multiplying, and made cells impervious to the virus that causes AIDS." Another thing is that this access can make reserchers get rid of problems that people have been worried about that are related to science fiction. We have already genetically modified new traits in dogs with selective breeding a long time ago. Using this kind of technology can be dangerous because anything wrong that happens with Crispr can affect our lives and the scientists too. There should be rules and regulation guidelines to making sure that scientists know what they are doing and so they don't go so far with this technology. Also, another problem we can end is the world hunger when the population increases to 9 billion people. The solution to this is the wheat that has been invulnerable to killer fungi like powdery mildew. Over, editing DNA can come with alot of new opportunities that are science related, but we should be careful of how and when we should use this since there can be problems created from this.
This article discusses the aspects of DNA and the controversy behind manipulation of sequences to alter outcomes, cure disease, or eliminate risk factors. I found the article this week very interesting because I consider DNA to be one of my favorite topics to learn/work with in science. Researchers like David Baltimore who work in the study of genetics have found ways to decrypt and reorder genes. The research in genome engineering has created the Crispr-Cas9 which makes it efficient and fast to move genes around to any gene living like bacteria to people. Using this method experiments were conducted that have reversed mutations that cause blindness, stopped cancer cells from multiplying, and made cells impervious to the virus that causes AIDS. Reading this was eye opening to the potential that DNA gene manipulation can have on modern health. Agronomists have made the wheat crop invulnerable to killer fungi like powdery mildew, hinting at engineered staple crops that can feed the world! Even in Martin Jinek's work for the combination of Jinek’s guide RNA and the Cas9 protein proved to be a programmable machine for DNA cutting that is extremely accurate. Also with Feng Zhang's work in the ability to assert, cut, and repair DNA better than any previous method. Hearing this seems to good to be true and I found myself asking how anyone could be against the continuing of DNA-editing research? This is where the controversy comes into effect because in order to further research experiments need to be performed on test-subjects. Many liberal organizations including animal rights associations make claims that this use is unethical however, in this situation the means justify the ends for example Academic and pharmaceutical company labs have begun to develop Crispr-based research tools, such as cancerous mice—perfect for testing new chemotherapies. This research can and will save thousands of afflicted lives by providing a safer method of gene-editing.
The field of genetics has been expanding at a remarkably fast pace; not too long ago, the word “gene” was nonexistent. Today, geneticists and researchers have been able use sophisticated and precise technology, such as the Crispr-Cas9, to isolate and move around genes in a sequence of DNA. The Crispr aspects of the Crispr-Cas9 are clusters of repeating palindromes in DNA sequences. The Crisprs were found to lead to RNA, and their associated protein, Csnl (Cas9), proved to be quite extraordinary in that it was able to change shape and cut DNA with unbelievable precision. It did not take long for the Crispr-Cas9 technology to be successful on human cells, which opens the door for plenty of new research within the genetics field. There are some benefits associated with the use of Crispr-Cas9, for instance, fixing mutations in cells that cause blindness or stopping cancer cells from multiplying. The Crispr-Cas9 could also potentially sustain the population in our ever-changing climate; engineered crops immune to certain types of fungi could feed people for years to come despite rising temperatures. However, with such advanced technology comes great responsibility. Though the Crispr-Cas9 is such a groundbreaking development, it could easily be abused. Therefore, there are countless negative risks associated with this technology. There are no rules set in place to limit the Crispr-Cas9’s uses, since such limits for a technology this advanced never had to be discussed before its development. Not only would this technology be easily abused, but it also poses some serious ethical concerns. The ability to insert a “gene drive” into a species to achieve specific desirable traits could easily be taken advantage of for a variety of purposes, such as for the creation designer babies. The insertion of a gene drive would have to involve an embryo, and many believe that tampering with human embryos is unethical since it is like “playing God.” There are many arguments concerning when life begins, and procedures involving human embryos attract a lot of criticism in society. In addition to the ethical concerns, there is an array of environmental concerns as well. The article gives the example of using the Crispr-Cas9 to rid the world of malaria and mosquitos. Yes, I think that we can all agree that both of these are negative aspects of nature, yet without them, the environment would change drastically. For example, without mosquitos, the bats that use them as their main food source would have nothing to eat. There would be a major shift in the food chain and a drastic change in the ecosystem, since one event always causes a reaction in nature. Also, one researcher, Ethan Bier, suggests that an ecological barrier to contain the organisms tampered with is virtually impossible. He provides the example of a pregnant tropical mosquito that is treated by the Crispr-Cas9 in Boston; it can reproduce and board a ship in the Boston Harbor to Brazil with its affected offspring. Therefore, the mosquito spreads its modified genetic conditions to different colonies all over the globe. In the end, I think that the Crispr-Cas9 is an exciting new technological advancement, but has many risks associated with its use. I believe that it is definitely worthwhile, yet only under strict guidelines. It is unquestionably worthwhile when it comes to its ability to save lives. Also, its possible harmless uses, for instance, to learn about the purpose of the wing gene in spiders, are worthwhile to society. I am torn over whether or not I believe that the risks outweigh the benefits, mainly because there is so much to consider. Yes, the Crispr-Cas9 will do amazing things for the human race, but it can also be a destructive force that alters our world in such a way that we cannot effectively respond to.
After reading the article, I found it very interesting and thought provoking. It is amazing how genetic engineering has evolved from selective breeding to editing DNA sequences with the use of Crispr-Cas9. More importantly, the use of Crispr-Cas9 works accurately and precisely by having RNA guide Cas9 to the specific section of DNA, which then proceeds to slice the desired segment. Furthermore, this process can be programmed to target specific segments of DNA. Already, this breakthrough has brought about many positive outcomes. For instance, it has reversed mutations that cause blindness and prevented the growth of cancer cells. What I found most intriguing was Crispr-Cas9’s ability to reduce an HIV patient’s likelihood of developing AIDS. What was even more incredible was the possibility of Crispr-Cas9 curing HIV, which could provide relief to people throughout the world, especially developing countries.
Despite the positive changes that Crispr-Cas9 could bring about to society, there are flagrant ethical issues that are involved as well. For example, while this technique could reduce the spread of malaria by mosquitoes, it could also greatly reduce the mosquito population, which would disturb the food chain. Moreover, the method appears to be less effective when used on larger masses such as embryos. While Crispr-Cas9 could remove a harmful gene, it could also have negative effects on another. Although I agree with the biology community’s enthusiasm for Crispr-Cas9, I also believe that it needs to be further tested and developed. All possible negative consequences should be taken into consideration before the method is used widely in order to avoid another instance like the human radiation experiments. While the technique could resolve some issues, it also has the ability to bring about more problems. Additionally, I think that when Crispr-Cas9 is put into popular use, it should be greatly restricted to avoid any unethical practices. Overall, I believe that despite its ethical issues, the use of Crispr-Cas9 could largely benefit society and improve the general health of the public. This gene editing technique could offer hope to those who are suffering from medical problems that were previously believed to be nearly impossible to cure, and prevent the spread of illnesses that have taken the lives of many.
Genetic recombination and its many derivatives have been a common topic in the world of biology since the beginning of the 21st century, and in turn, have been a very common topic in the field of studies of many high school students. The quite recently discovered gene editing technique referred to as Crispr-Cas9 is one of the, if not the most significant advancement in the field of genetic engineering. Molecular biologists that have put this technology into use have done remarkable things, things to the tune of reversing mutations, creating cells immune to certain viruses, as well as ceasing malignant cells from multiplying. However, there are also serious negative implications that come with this newfound technology that essentially gives man the power to alter nature. While in the right hands, this technology can cure countless diseases, eliminate genetic disorders, and save lives. However, there are also just as many “wrong” hands waiting to abuse this technology for money or trivial pursuits. People can just as easily use Crispr-Cas9 to create “designer” babies (babies with desirable traits) or create biological weaponry that could easily wipe out an entire race of organisms in the form of a super bacteria or virus. Sure, groups of scientists such as those that met in Napa Valley can set restrictions on what this technology can and cannot be used towards, but who’s to say rogue researchers will abide by these rules? And even beyond this, researchers who intend to make a positive impact on society may inadvertently set off a chain reaction that ends up damaging a group of living things. A perfect example of this would be the scenario mentioned in the article. If Crispr is used to eliminate mosquitoes and malaria (the disease that many mosquitoes carry), bats that feed on mosquitoes will lose their source of food. This is only one of many unforeseen consequences that could be caused by scientists and researchers that have all the correct intentions. However, even with the staggering weight of the cons that arise due to the use of such technology, its pros simply cannot be ignored. Crispr has the potential to save millions of lives. It can be used to combat CANCER for goodness sake. In my opinion, if Crispr has the potential to save lives, it’s a risk that needs to be taken. Others would also continue to argue that genetic engineering alters nature and nature should remain untouched. Yet these critics forget that nature was altered so very long ago through selective breeding. In any case, Crispr-Cas9 could change the world, and quite possibly for the better.
This article discusses genetic modification in years past as well as the recent concerns of its dangers. Scientists have recently discovered CRISPR-Cas9, a new method that targets a certain sequence of DNA and splits it. This allows for the genes to be copied and pasted almost exactly. This has been proven to be extremely successful in the past few years. Scientists have already had the ability to do things such as stop the multiplication of cancer cells and reversing other various mutations. This may seem to be a blessing to the world of science, but this can become extremely dangerous as well. What scientists believe might be changing the world for the better might actually be changing it for the worse. For example the gene drives that are supposedly changing a population for the better could turn into a complete failure. They could single handedly endanger an entire population. For example, if they were to do gene editing on mosquitos or fruit flies and something was to go wrong during the process killing all of the insects not only would the population of these insects be endangered, but the other animals and insects that preyed on the insects would have no source of food. CRISPR-Cas9 also becomes a problem regarding the morality of the whole process. One problem being that people could potentially have the ability to manipulate the DNA of their babies and so on. Many people believe this is wrong and will fight to create laws against this new method. These laws will in turn create many problems for the science world. This new method can be extremely beneficial to society, but the extreme consequences don’t make it worthwhile.
Overall, I found this article to be extremely intriguing in many ways. The main point made in the article that caught my eye was the multiple diseases the gene-editing technique Crispr-Cas9 could ultimately cure or treat. The article noted that scientists had already used this to stop blindness causing mutations and stop cancer cells from multiplying. The fact that these two amazing feats had already been accomplished using Crispr-Cas9 is mind blowing. The fight over the patent for using Crispr-Cas9 as a method to edit genomes was also interesting. The scientists who applied for the patent, including Zhang and Doudna, all seemed to play a large part in finding and refining the uses of Crispr-Cas9. Whoever ultimately gets the patent, although Zhang is currently holding it, will most likely gain a lot of power along with currency. From what has been discussed in this article, I believe it is currently too difficult to decide if the benefits outweigh the possible downfalls of Crispr-Cas9. There is a possibility of ridding the world of extremely dangerous diseases and perfecting Ecosystems using this gene editing technique. However, there is a lot of power that comes with the ability to edit such genes. This power could be used for good, as previously discussed, or for bad. This could include creating powerful biological weapons, or even wiping out an entire species. So currently, I don't think it is possible to decide if the pros of Crispr-Cas9 outweigh the cons.
Distinguishing between what’s right and wrong can sometimes be very difficult, especially when it comes to science and genetic engineering; something that can be acceptable to one may be unethically and morally incorrect in the eyes of another, and the potential outcomes due to Crispr-Cas9 can be debated on being right or wrong. Crispr-Cas9 has some major benefits and can give humans the power to solve important problems such as world hunger and being able to potentially cure diseases such as cancer, malaria and AIDS. Crispr-Cas9 makes it possible to move any genes in any living thing cost and time efficiently. Doing so gives an enormous amount of power that can be equally bad as it can good. For example, even though major diseases can be potentially stopped, reversed, or cured such as cancer, blindness, malaria, and AIDS as well as the alteration of the DNA of certain crops such as wheat to be immune to killer fungi stabilizing its production and therefore potentially stabilizing hunger around the world, an excessive amount of power can be misused. Tailored children, and the power to turn any species into bioweapons are equally as groundbreaking and game changing as being able to cure cancer. With the many problems we can solve with Crispr-Cas9 I feel as though that the same amount if not more new problems will arise in the process. The number of lives saved by curing cancer and ending malaria can easily be taken away if biomedical weapons come about in addition to certain species’ lives being taken due to an unbalancing of the ecosystem if new genes that wipe out malaria also wipe out mosquitoes. Of course, the point can be brought up about creating rules that prevent people from misusing this technique and possibly other genetic engineering advancements. However, like I mentioned earlier, the difference between right and wrong isn’t as black and white when it comes to genetic engineering, and even so, rules are inevitably meant to be broken. I believe the potential risks outweigh the benefits at this point in time due to how new Crispr is however as time goes on, science changes and what may seem impossible now may be accepted and used everyday in the future.
DNA is what creates the basis of every organism and the sequence of the bases determine what traits we have. Recombinant DNA has the ability to manipulate DNA and change anything from the basic traits to genetic diseases an organisms may have. This concept can save millions of lives and take science to a whole new level but just like anything that has the power to cause such abrupt change, it has consequences. People may see this technique as inhumane or as going against what is planned for an individual. It can also lead to much bigger problems in society such as segregation based on a persons genes. Countries could possibly make armies of people who have been genetically modified and have inhumane strengths. Thus, in order to prevent this technique from going out of hand, scientists have created a list of guidelines for what is acceptable and what is not. A gene-editing technique known as Crispr-Cas9 makes it a lot easier to recombine genes and it has many potential downfalls. An example in the text is that Crisper had the potential to end malaria but through this, mosquitoes will most likely go extinct and then bats will lose a large part of their food source throwing off the whole food pyramid and endangering the ecosystem. Although a method like this seems very promising and may even have the ability to cure all diseases, its long term effects are still unknown and it is something that must be very closely monitored.
The article entails how DNA editing can change the world. It begins by recalling the history of "recombinant DNA" which is genetic modification; this manipulates the genes and can change lives. There is a huge controversy with this. Many argue this new technique is in humane or unnatural. With this information scientists and researchers decided to create a new gene-editing technique called Crispr-Cas9. It "makes it easy, cheap, and fast to move genes around; any genes, in any living thing, from bacteria to people",claims the scientists. This technique already proved to be efficient, as it has "reversed mutations that caused blindness , stopped cancer cells from multiplying and made cells impervious to the virus that causes AIDS". This is simply amazing. It seems that's Crispr-Cas9 is revolutionary,however there are many risks to gene editing. This a very touchy subject because it can lead to many ethical debates and spark even more controversy. Genetic engineering should have specific guidelines and restrictions. Furthermore, I do believe that this technique can be effectful and change our world for the better. I also believe the scientists should use this product wisely and carefully. Risks and benefits of using this are pretty balanced. Should humans use this genome modification ? I believe so, if it actually does work.
Everyone knows that DNA is what makes everyone around the world unique. Scientists have been doing work for years and years on DNA, making frequent discoveries and advances on how it works and if it can be changed or altered. As it said in the article, “DNA is what genes are made of, and genes are the basis of heredity”. The decrypting and reordering of genes has become an ethical issue which is debated on today. A new gene-editing technique called Crispr-Cas9 was recently created that is a more efficient way to transfer genes. The technique will bring in a lot of money to the scientists that discovered it and the more things they are able to do with the technique, the more money they will get. The technique was created three years ago and already has done some magnificent things. Crispr-Cas9 reversed mutations that cause blindness, stopped cancer cells from multiplying, and made cells impervious to the virus that causes AIDS. It has already done many other things and a war is going on trying to get it patented. As stated before, there is a big controversy over the use of gene manipulation, so that includes the newly discovered technique. Many people believe that it is unethical and goes against views of creation. The article also stated that Crispr could be the end of mosquitoes and therefore malaria. However, that would be bad for the bats that rely on mosquitoes for food. This technique could ruin the food chain in this way. This basic process could wipe out any species. Gene drives comes with risks and the barriers are unknown. However, the technique can be helpful in ending many diseases. For example, using Crispr, researchers can get rid of the gene CCR5, which makes a protein that helps usher HIV into cells. Researchers may also want to edit a human embryo in the future, and that will be sure to cause havoc. I believe that this technique is something worthwhile, however scientist need to know there boundaries. They cannot change how things work in the world like the food chain, but they can do little things that can still help the people in the world in the long run. Therefore, the potential risks do not outweigh the benefits.
The development of Crispr-Cas9 is certainly amazing, ethical considerations aside. The ability to edit DNA in any living organism is remarkable accomplishment which I have only heard of in science fiction novels, and it goes to show how far science has come in the last decade. It is incredible to think that DNA was accurately described by James Watson, Francis Crick, and Rosalind Franklin only 22 years ago, and now scientists are able to alter the very same DNA that took so long to understand. I was quite amazed to find out that the protein, Cas9, was able to so meticulously attach itself to the DNA, act a as a scalpel and carefully cut the DNA. Afterwards, the scientists were able to create a "guide RNA," which could be manipulated in any way according to the situation using the technology of Crispr-Cas9. According to the analogy Doudna makes, "like trading in rusty scissors for a computer-controlled laser cutter," the huge jump in technological capabilities for genome engineering was made possible due to the usage of the Cas9 protein. I hope that, in the future, scientists will be able to use other substances in a unconventional ways to develop technology that could be even more useful than Crispr-Cas9. It is also quite interesting that the researchers of Crispr-Cas9 are facing the same issues that the researchers of DNA faced - fighting for who really made the significant contribution to science first. Legal issues aside, I can safely say that the benefits of Crispr-Cas9 outweigh the potential risks. I just find that the possibilities of this technology are endless and could do so much to help our world today. There are definitely risks involved and a worse problem can be created by the technology, but I feel that the scientists have come too far in their research to back out now. This could quite possibly be the world's only chance to cure diseases like cancer and AIDS before 20 or more years of research pass by and more people die from these diseases. However, I do believe a powerful technology like this should be tightly regulated by the government. There is a great chance that Crispr-Cas9 could produce negative effects and could be very dangerous if placed in the wrong hands. All in all, our world could drastically change with this new technology. The fact that Crispr-Cas9 can edit the DNA of all organisms means that almost all diseases could be prevented and we would be sufficiently prepared for anything that comes our way.
Even with the struggle over who gets the patent for the Crispr-Cas9, scientists are testing out its uses with insufficient caution. Plenty of negative possibilities can occur from altering genes. For example, altering mosquitoes to prevent the spread of malaria could potentially make the species go extinct. It is unclear how this would affect insect-eating species such as bats if it occurs. These risks need to be handled with caution. The evolutionary engineer, Kevin Esvelt, wants the patent to stop other companies from acting without taking precautions. He understands how much work scientists will have to go through to carefully study the mosquitoes. Looking past mosquitoes, dealing with embryos leads to many more ethical problems. There has not much time to think about the safety of altering genes especially less medically relevant ones. Researchers at Sun Yat-sen University in Guangzhou, China have already begun to use Crispr to alter human embryos. This research does not have ethical issues since they are using nonviable embryos. The US National Academy of Sciences plans to make a list of recommendations on when it is okay to use embryotic engineering. Many uses of Crispr are not at all controversial. It allows for researchers to learn more about the reasons certain species have genes seen in other species. Crispr makes this process much less expensive. It can also help develop cancerous mice to test out new chemotherapies and help test out how certain drugs work. The potential uses of Crispr increase. Where the main ethical issue remains is in altering a human embryo. For medical reasons, Crispr is a great advancement. I do not believe it is right to use it for things such as preventing wrinkled skin, but it definitely could have many benefits to society. The help that Crispr can provide for scientists is something that should not be outlawed although moderation is necessary. The recommendations made should be followed to prevent misuse of the discovery.
This article talks about one of the big debates in any type of science, the ethics. In this particular article, the author dives into the dilemma found in modern day biology, which is how much should scientists do when I comes to manipulating genes in living things. With Crispr-Cas9, biologists are finding some of the most pressing ethical questions need to be answered immediately. The Crispr-Cas9 is a cheap, easy way to cut out and manipulate genes in any living thing, including humans. Scientists are already making leaps and bounds with technology, from experimenting with mosquitoes to end malaria to even working on human embryos.
These advancements are amazing, especially since this technology was released only three years ago. How far will scientists take it? There is the distinct possibility that scientists can weaponize this technique, setting a hypothetical "kill button" in people. This can lead to a higher form of biological warfare and a means to completely wipe out entire populations. Even if it isn't used on humans, use on animals and plants will have major ecological repercussions.
At the same time, there is so much good that can come from changing or "fixing" DNA that banning this technology would almost be criminal. Blindness, deafness, disorders, diseases that endanger us all, they can all be cured. When given the building blocks of life, science can do just about anything.
I find myself wondering what the best course of action is. Science like this cannot be left unchecked, but I wouldn't hinder something that can save countless lives. I can only hope scientists lay down ground rules that let this branch of biology grow without it endangering people or ecosystems.
The topic of gene therapy has been especially relevant recently; the gene-editing practices that could only be imagined in the past could be reality in just a few years. The most fascinating aspect of this is that modification of DNA (specifically germ-line therapy) has the ability to affect the following generations, which means that some diseases could be completely eliminated. The three year old technique of Crispr-Cas9 has made great progress in the experimentation process because it is easier, less time-consuming, and less expensive. The great results are already shown through prevention of the growth of cancer cells, modification of plants, and many more achievements. The possibilities seem endless with this new method. But with many things that seem too good to be true, there are always downfalls. If there is not enough testing and care taken into gene modification, it could result in the unnecessary changing of traits (such as hair and eye color), new mutations, and other ethical issues. Crispr could have huge damaging effects on the environment, too. The article focused on the example with the mosquitoes - if mosquitoes went extinct from genetic modification, how would it affect bats that depend on them as a food source? This could cause a chain of effects quickly.
What struck me was the amount of time, money, and effort scientists such as Doudna and Zhang put into their work. Because the technique of Crispr-Cas9 may seem simple and effective now, we often forget the minds behind the discoveries. Charpentier even worked with Streptococcus pyogenes, which could cause "flesh-eating disease", in which the protein Cas9 was found. Their hard work allowed us to be able to use the process today.
In order to able to use Crispr-Cas9 effectively ad safely, there should definitely be a set of rules that should be followed. Although there are many risks and possible effects associated with Crispr-Cas9, I believe that it is worth studying further.
This article is so intriguing and interesting. Genetic engineering is a great topic to talk about, especially since so much is still yet to be learned. There are many instances where I believe altering DNA would be so beneficial. But by going against nature, man may possibly disturb many evolutionary cycles and so much can also be negatively impacted. It would be amazing to cure diseases through the use of CRISPR-cas9, but what would be even more amazing would be to do it without further consequences. Unfortunately, just like the article touched base on, if mosquitoes and malaria were gotten rid of through this new science, bats that fed on mosquitoes would have nothing to eat. This risk of disrupting an entire food web is one that definitely should be taken, but with very many precautions. I feel like this one sentence from the article sums up this issue very well "...no one knows what the rules are—or who will be the first to break them." Not every scientist or person who can get hold of using CRISPR-cas9 would have the same intention. There is so much room for something to go terribly wrong, however, if it at all does work, it would definitely be a turning point for mankind. This would mean for a cure to cancer and so many other diseases. In my opinion, scientists should definitely consider using it, but with lots of close monitoring.
Recently while on my computer, I came across another science similar to CRISPR-cas9 in that it also changes DNA to cure diseases, but it claims to be without side effects. I haven't done as much research as I would like to on this topic as of yet, but it is basically just spiritual healing. From what I can tell, not many people know about it yet, so it definitely seems worthwhile to take a look into!
DNA editing is dangerous, even without the discovery of CRISPR-Cas9 technology. Repercussions of having such power over the system to life are bound to cause issues, both intentional and unintentional. Yet at the same time it is fascinating, and gives hope to cure illnesses and prevent diseases that were earlier dangerous and deadly. The consequences of such a powerful and fast-acting gene technology can be fatal and shift everything out of balance. If somehow the scientists were experimenting and created a mutated creature that somehow escaped and thrived in the outside world, it could throw the entire ecosystem out of balance. The food chain would be disturbed, causing an imbalance in the natural predators and preys, thus possibly creating a food shortage. That would have a huge impact on the world economy, and who knows where that’s going to lead. If this technology falls into the wrong hands, it could be manufactured into a weapon, whereas the initial intention was to better human life. Super-soldiers can be formed, creating a massive and powerful army under the rule of a new dictator. If gene editing becomes an option, everyone would vie for desirable traits and condemn the traits not deemed suitable for the time. Millions of variations of traits and DNA would be lost, irrevocably affecting the course of evolution. Simultaneously, CRISPR-Cas9 can also yield promising results. Without the inevitable danger accompanying experimentation, we as a species wouldn’t have gotten so far today. If not for scientists, people may still be dying in their thirties because of a common cold. If this technology is improved, which all evidence indicates it will, and is used with caution then it can be legendary. Now, scientists can use this as a cheaper, faster alternative to rearrange genes. It has the potential to cure AIDS, cancer, malaria, and genetic disorders. CRISPR-Cas9 is a revolutionary discovery that can end a slew of pain and suffering. It is my belief that CRISPR-Cas9 should be used sparingly and handled with care; nothing is without risks. No human can be trusted with that much power, but a group of the most brilliant scientists can handle the responsibility.
Ever since scientists first understood the structure of DNA, they have been pondering over ways to alter genes to the benefit of those carrying it. Recently, scientists have discovered a new means of gene editing, the Crispr-Cas9, which makes gene moving significantly easier, quicker, and cheaper. Using the Crispr has already allowed researchers to reverse the very mutation that cause the worlds biggest diseases and physical conditions such as blindness, cancer, and AIDS. Behind many new discoveries lies controversy, as does this one. Many say that there are too many risks in using the new technique. However, I believe that the benefits outweigh the potential dangers of the Crispr-Cas9. The newly found way to recombine genes has the capability of ridding the world of many genetic diseases by eliminating the mutation that causes these illnesses as well as eliminate world hunger by altering the genes in crops and livestock to be more bountiful for the consumer.
Recombinant DNA has been a highly debated and hugely controversial topic, with many questions about its ethicality. Genetic engineering is in its infancy and earlier techniques (zinc-finger nucleases and TALENs) were expensive, complicated, and rather rudimentary. With the discovery of CRISPR-Cas9, however, gene-editing technology has been completely revamped. CRISPR-Cas9 consists of CRISPR, short for “clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats,” which are essentially sequences of DNA that are the same back to front, two short strands of RNA, and Cas9, a protein. The RNA corresponds with whatever gene sequence that is to be changed, and it “home(s) in on those segments like a genetic GPS,” and then, the Cas9 protein slices the DNA with remarkable precision. Once the DNA has been sliced, the possibilities are endless. Genes can be manipulated, replaced, or even deleted altogether. Because DNA is the basic code for all life, any part of the organism can be changed, giving a God-like power to the individual that is doing the “cutting and pasting” of the genes. The simplicity and precision in this gene-editing opens countless doors. Cures for cancer, immunity to HIV, elimination of malaria, eradication of Huntington’s, and invulnerability to fungi for crops are just a few of the positive impacts it could have on our world. However, there could be deadly negative consequences as a result of this incredible technology. Designer babies may be immune to the HIV virus, but could suffer from some new, unforeseen side effects that stem from the modified gene. Genetically modifying organisms to suit human needs could very well backfire, throwing carefully balanced ecosystems out of control. Biological weaponry could become fatal, possibly wiping out entire species (including humans). Genetic modification is now more accessible than ever. “’Genome editing started with just a few big labs putting in lots of effort, trying something 1,000 times for one or two successes,’ says Hank Greely, a bioethicist at Stanford. ‘Now it’s something that someone with a BS and a couple thousand dollars’ worth of equipment can do. What was impractical is now almost everyday. That’s a big deal.’” With this increased accessibility, more and more technological and medical advances can be made using CRISPR-Cas9, but it also means that the possibility of it “falling into the wrong hands” and being used for, say, biological weaponry, is much higher. At this point, gene-editing is too young of a concept to be classified as “good” or “bad,” but it is certain that it must be used with precaution, or there may be lethal repercussions.
Seeing this scientific advancement is a very large step in terms of understanding of DNA and DNA modifications, however it raises a plethora of moral issues. Changing DNA to make apples that smell like grapes or watermelons without seeds is one thing, but messing with human DNA is a completely different animal. Personally, I think altering human DNA should have strict limitations. For example, using the Crispr-Cas9 to help with diseases would be an extremely beneficial alteration to go through with. However, creating a "designer baby" is extremely unnecessary and is not worth the risk of changing genetic code. Also, I feel if the Crispr-Cas9 is going to be put to use, it should be thoroughly tested to ensure the safety of this risky process of changing the genes of humans. Also anothet major possible risk would be throwing something out of balance in another area by making a change. For example, if a gene for a relatively simple aspect such as eye color is altered, a mistake could occur or it could change another aspect of the body which could in turn have detremental affects on someone's life. I believe that the Crispr-Cas9 is an extremely useful scientific discovery and it will have many incredible positive effects in the future. I believe the positives do outweigh the risks, however an extreme amount of caution should be placed in using this and changing genes and such, especially those of humans.
The applications of the Crispr-Cas9 technique mentioned in the article make me feel as if sci-fi themes are coming to real life. Before reading this I had never heard of the Crispr process, but after reading I have very mixed feelings. Without a doubt, the promise of breakthroughs in medicine and disease control is amazing. The research on malaria resistant mosquitoes and the possibility of stopping cancerous cells would lead to a healthier society. However, the researchers in the article were worried about the effects of mosquito populations declining which would affect bats by diminishing their food source. I am worried about something similar to this happening if we make humans impervious to diseases. Life expectancy would skyrocket, meaning we would have to provide for more people than ever before. The problem lies in Earth's finite resources and space. If our population kept expanding faster than it was decreasing, we would run out of resources at some point. Already there are shortages in food and water in some areas of the globe. Here in the United States we are not worried about it since we aren't experiencing it. I think that Crispr-Cas9 and any other gene modification techniques should not be allowed on humans so we can prevent this. In an age where science is allowing us to keep living longer lives, we have to be careful with pushing our numbers over the limit.
DNA is something scientists have been trying to modify for a very long time. Until now, some scientists came very close, however only a small group of them aided the discovery of CRISPR -CAS9. CRISPR CAS9 ("clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats") and CAS9 being a protein that allows it to work, has the power to end world hunger, to make people immune to HIV, elimination of Milaria, and can stop pollution by providing clean energy. These things all sound amazing, but if the gene -editing technique gets into the wrong hands it can cause serious/fatal damage. If put into the wrong hands, biological weaponry could be created that could in turn wipe out an entire species, including the human race. The gene editing could lead to Designer babies, which although could be made immune to HIV, could then be born with all of these unknown side effects of altering their Genes. I believe that CRISPR-CAS9 is truly an astonishing discovery. And the pros do outweigh the cons in this situation, but the facts are clearly stated that if put into the wrong hands the gene altering technique can cause extremely negative things. So if this technique does become widely known and maybe one day used it should be carefully watched for what it is being used for.
The topic of Genetics has been heavily researched throughout the ages, but the Crispr-Cas9 has proven itself worthy of being noted as a "breakthrough" in this field. This tool, which is able to modify genetic code to our specifications, has brought up some ethical concerns. For example, the idea of being able to alter that has already occurred naturally, may be against certain religious perspectives. However, when analyzing the positive aspect of the Crispr-Cas9, it is a system that is able to cure terminal maladies such as blindness, deafness, and even put a stop to the multiplication of Cancer cells within the human body. Not only will this be the next step to scientific advancement, but it will be the start of possibly being able to cut down on the costs of those people who deal with certain terminal illnesses that can now be cured. Because this mechanism, is sophisticated in the sense that it can change any existing organism down to the most minuscule detail, it is safe to say that one mistake can possibly mean disaster. In this case, restrictions MUST be put into play regarding to the use of the Crsipr-Cas9. If the Crispr-Cas9 is the answer to the question, "When will we find a cure for Cancer?", has already proven itself to be functioning, and can reduce costs in several aspects of life, it is certainly a worthwhile discovery that should be further researched and applied in hopes of paving the way to even more marvelous advancements.
The Crispr-Cas9 technology allows scientists to "reprogram" DNA for the benefit of society. This can lead to genetically-resistant animals and crops, cells impervious to disease, and even personally-designed babies! And although this technology can help mankind survive against disease and illnesses, it could easily hurt the ecosystem or cause unwanted consequences. For example, scientists look to alter the genome of mosquitoes to prevent malaria, but this could result in the extinction of mosquitoes, hurting the population of bats, whose food source relies heavily on mosquitoes. Due to this, Crispr-Cas9 or other DNA-altering methods should be treated with high precaution. As evolutionary engineer Kevin Esvelt states, "I am responsible for opening a can of worms when it comes to gene drives, and that is why I try to ensure that scientists are taking precautions and showing themselves to be worthy of the public's trust..." He understands the risks involved with this technology and that each move scientists make must be pondered critically on accounts that a single misstep could result in catastrophic consequences. Other arguments of the technology are from ethical standpoints. Scientists, although unsuccessful now, may be able to "design"a baby, or alter the genome to suit the parents'desire, but many people are against such acts due to ethical arguments. My opinion lies in support of this technology, but only if scientists can study every nook and cranny to make sure that no harm or unintended consequences can arise from genome alteration.
This article focuses on the topic of recombinant DNA, or the manipulation of DNA, and how it can and has been used by scientists to benefit the human race. This topic has been rendered into the technique called Crispr-Cas9 which is an effective way to move genes around. I find it remarkable that this revolutionary technique has been used to reverse mutations that cause blindness, stop cancer cells from multiplying, and make cells resistant to the virus that causes AIDS. Despite the benefits of this technique, one must consider and analyze the possible abuse that may stem from recombinant DNA. Scientists have been known to overreach their boundaries as displayed in the human radiation experiments, which started in the 1940s and resulted in severe birth defects and other life threatening conditions to unknowing Americans. However, with further research Crispr-Cas9 can be a widespread technique of the future that will advance the human race in ways we can't even imagine. All in all, I believe that this technique can be the breakthrough the human race as a whole can benefit from since it is not often scientists can find a relatively easy, quick, and fairly cheap procedure to effectively rearrange genes. However, many precautions and restrictions must be placed to make sure this technique will not being used in unethical ways.
This article was about the new Crispr-Cas9 technology that allows researchers to change the DNA sequences in any living organism. Benefits of this new system include eradicating disease, curing cancers, and having the possibility to one day create a breed of almost super humans. Another benefit of Crispr-Cas9 is it gives us the power to map out the entire human genome which is important. Crispr- Cas9 comes equipped with great consequences, such as "playing" God, wiping out entire species, and if falling in the wrong hands mass destruction. Designing children is something many people find unethical and view it as a way of playing God. The article talked about potentially ending malaria; which kills about 1 million people a year. Through the process of ending malaria, Mosquitos, have the chance to go extinct if the Crispr-Cas9 backfires, thus endangering every animal that needs mosquitos. Crispr-Cas9 can make living much longer than expected a real possibility. This poses a problem because our global population has long reached capacity, with our total reaching roughly 7 billion and it continues to grow, and in order to sustain a healthy system people need to die, and Crispr-Cas9 can potentially eliminate that. The article takes the scientists' opinions on Crispr-Cas9 technolgy possibilities and the answer that stood out to me the most was George Church's. His answer said weapons, then he trailed off and got quiet, if this groundbreaking technology got in the wrong hands , the effects could be detrimental, like a world nuclear war or much worse. While Crispr-Cas9 is amazing, futuristic technolgy, the risks are far to great compared to the benefits.
With all modern advancements comes a moral debate. We wonder how far we can take new technologies and where we draw the line at what procedures are for the betterment of humanity, and what procedures are for the benefit of certain individuals who will take advantage of them. It is necessary that the scientific community sets guidelines for these new techniques before someone takes advantage of them, because prevention is more effective than cure. Other than the technique itself turning into something used for personal benefit rather than science, the CRISPR-Cas9 will definitely be used for monetary purposes. Scientists are already at conflict over who should receive the patent for the technology, and numerous companies have already been created to harness the technology for various lucrative purposes—creating research and industrial materials, reducing disease, and more. The fact that the CRISPR-Cas9 is so advanced and effective that an entire species could be wiped out of existence—whether that species be mosquitos that spread malaria or any other—is astonishing and alarming. The technology, when in the wrong hands, could be used for malicious reasons and have harmful, endangering effects on various animals, plants, and humans. Kevin Esvelt, who came up with the idea to use CRISPR technology to wipe out mosquitos, says that he "[tries] to ensure that scientists are taking precautions and showing themselves to be worthy of the public's trust," but not all scientists would have the same integrity. Not all scientists may be ready to take the same precautions that Esvelt and his partner were willing to take, and this is why the scientific community must convene as soon as possible "to discuss the ethics and safety" of the technique, as Jennifer Doudna says. While the technology can be worthwhile because it works on all living creatures, and can eliminate the diseases that are the causes of so many humans' suffering, the risks that come along with the use of the technology make it essential that it be used in control and with set precautions.
I found this article to be very fascinating and intriguing. In the article, the author discusses genetic modifications that were done in the past along with genetic modifications being done in the present. Specifically being talked about is CRISPR-Cas9, a cheap, fast, and easy way to move genes around and also allowing for genes to be copied and pasted almost exactly. This new technique has proven to be very successful in the past few years by going as far as reversing the mutation that causes blindness, stoping cancer cells from multiplying, and making cells impervious to the virus that causes AIDS. Although this new technique may sound perfect, it also has many flaws. If landed in the wrong hands, this technique could be used to create very powerful biological weapons or it can even wipe out an entire species. In addition, it can be used to decide how your child looks, which would cause a lot of ethical issues. Though this technique can get rid of life ending diseases and can change our ecosystem for the better, there are still many down sides to it that must also be considered. That being said, I feel the pros and cons of this technique balance each other out and will make for a very hard and long decision process if deciding this technique should be used or not.
After reading this fascinating article, many thoughts were running wild through my mind. After previously learning about genetic manipulation and technology, I was interested in what Crispr-Cas9 was going to bring. Crispr-Cas9 is a method used to efficiently, cheaply, and quickly move genes around. The method is based on a natural system used by bacteria to protect themselves from infections by viruses. When the virus inserts its DNA into the bacteria, two strands of RNA form a complex with the protein Cas9. This protein forms an enzyme that can cut DNA. One of the RNA strands contains a sequence of the virus DNA and once the DNA matches up with the RNA, Cas9 cuts the DNA, disabling the virus. Researchers realized that this process can be used to cut any DNA sequence by matching the guide RNA to its target. With this new method, scientists could replace genes inside cultured cells, including stem cells, in fertilized eggs, and can also replace many genes at once. This system can be applied to basic research, drug development, agriculture, treating human patients with genetic diseases, and even military advances. Also, parents could have desired traits in their children, and animals could be brought back from extinction! Crispr-Cas9 has many advantages, however there are major risks in using it for certain research and development that causes controversy. For example, scientists want to use the method to insert malaria resistant gene drives into mosquitos. This process could wipe out a whole species! Also their gene drives could be passed on to other species of mosquitos, and maybe affect their predators if the mosquitos go extinct. This would be a major problem and the negative effects can outweigh the positive. To add on, scientists tested Crispr-Cas9 to correct mutations in the gene that causes a disorder that interferes with a person's ability to make healthy red blood cells. Their work wasn’t successful and to dodge ethical problems, they used nonviable embryos. As a result, US National Academy of Sciences announced that it would create a set of recommendations for scientists on when, if ever, embryonic engineering might be permissible. Crispr- Cas9 comes with benefits, but is very risky. One positive side to this is evolutionary research. Spiders contain the same gene that determines the pattern of veins in insects’ wings. By taking out this gene in the embryo, and letting the spider grow, the researchers can see if there would be any changes to its development. Scientists could then determine if this gene had a different purpose before insects branched off from the ancestor they shared with spiders. This can lead to many different evolutionary discoveries. Crispr-Cas9 does cause moral and ethical issues. I believe that the method should not be used for anything that has major risks, such as wiping out a species, or affecting the food chain. Altering the human embryo should be used for medical advances and never for personal desires. Research using gene drives need extreme caution and guidelines, however using the method for evolutionary discoveries
While the use of Crispr-Cas9 technology is a completely innovative way to manipulate DNA, some doubts arise on it's behalf. Anything involving modifying the human genome comes with several potential risks. Harvard geneticist George Church states, "I encourage people to be as creative in thinking about the unintended consequences of their work as the intended." His statement should not be taken lightly. It is a warning to any and all scientists looking to research in the area of human genome modification. A technology that could yield master sets of genes and create genes resistant to diseases as well as all types of mutations sounds magnificent. While this all would be wonderful, in the wrong hands, this technology could be abused to the fullest extent. It is ideal that there is a patent on Crispr-Cas9, therefore restricting those who may engage in unethical experimentation. Gene drives are like wild cards, and the result of putting them to use can be either very useful or devastatingly unexpected. As explained in the article, gene drives can wipe out a population of a species if used incorrectly, therefore giving humans access to throw off the naturally-balanced ecosystem the species being experimented with fit into. While the feats that could be conquered using Crispr are unimaginable, the drawbacks certainly outweigh them. Humans should not have the power to alter what occurs naturally, as that throws off the delicate balance of our world and the ecosystems within. Although some scientists could make something very useful of this technology, others could monumentally throw off the natural order. This is why some limitations need to be put on who can study this and how far they can go with it.
This article brought to my attention the amazing things that science allows us to do in this day and age. A recently discovered technology, CRISPR-Cas9, allows scientists to alter a sequence of DNA by splitting it. It is a way to easily move genes around from one living organism to another. Researchers have already had success using this technology in the past years that will make a positive impact on our world. While CRISPR-Cas9 can help some amazing things to happen it can also be dangerous, and possibly have a negative impact on the world instead of positive. One example of a negative impact this technology could have is the extinction of an insect such as the mosquito. It would be great for our world to be rid of those pesky guys, but it would also cause starvation for the animals that feed off of them. We as people might think this is a great thing, but for helpless animals such as bats this would be this would be a loss in food source. If this powerful technology falls into the wrong hands, it can cause issues that will be out of our hands to fix. Being that CRISPR-Cas9 can change the genetics of every living organism, this can also be immoral in the eyes of many people. It gives people the power to go as far as altering the DNA of an unborn child, and could possibly advance enough for scientists to try designing a baby. This is something that messes with Mother Nature and that may be something a lot people do not agree with. Many who see this technology as something awful and immoral, will fight it and hope to get laws created preventing this from being used. Not only do civilians find this scary, but scientists find it even more so. While some scientist will use this technology with great caution others will not. Science will progress no matter what, and this is just a step along the way. As humans living in this world we need to realize that the bad outcomes outweigh the good.
Crispr-Cas9 is a type of technology which provides humans with a cheap and easy method to move around the genes of any living organism. When the technology is used for good purposes, Crispr-Cas9 can create many miracles. Crispr-Cas9 can reverse the gene that causes blindness and can also stop cancer cells from rapidly multiplying. Since Crispr-Cas9 is available to the public, there is always a chance that someone may not be very careful when using the technology. Crispr-Cas9 can create invasive mutants and can also create bioweapons. The article also mentioned using Crispr-Cas9 on mosquitoes. The technology could make the mosquitoes immune to Plasmodium and could lower the fertility of mosquitoes. Although the number of mosquitoes in the population would decrease, the environmental impact must be considered. If mosquitoes begin to go extinct, the bats that consume them will also begin to die off since their food source is disappearing,
Given that the usage of Crispr-Cas9 can create both good and bad results, I would suggest that the technology be used carefully and with caution. Crispr-Cas9 can be used to help humans agriculturally and medically. Although Crispr-Cas9 comes with many benefits, its disadvantages must also be recognized. It can be used as a weapon and could cause devastating effects to the environment. In order to make sure that Crispr-Cas9 is used for good, people must have limited access to the technology. Limited access to Crispr-Cas9 can lower the chance of the technology being abused.
DNA is the basis of life, making us who we are. The sequences of the four base pairs shape us and determine our genes and traits, both good, bad, desired, and undesired. In the recent years, work with recombinant DNA has expanded the field of genetics and allowed scientists to manipulate genes. Crispr-Cas9 is a gene editing system that has opened up a whole new set of possibilities. It’s given scientists a quick and easy way to move genes around in any living thing. With years of work already into technology, advancements have been made and mutations have been reversed. Though the history and science in which this technology works is fascinating, I was most intrigued by the ethical debate and potential future of this breakthrough. With new technology comes the debate of ethics and morality and Crispr-Cas9 is no exception. This technology could have an extremely large impact of food chains, the mosquitoes and malaria being one such example of the possible repercussions. Crispr could completely get rid of malaria which means mosquitoes would become extinct. Doing so would wipe away the food source for bats, and therefore disturbing and damaging a food chain. Taking such a large risk may not be worth it in the long run. With the extinction of mosquitoes, what you happen to the bats? Before trying to stop a deadly disease, the affects it would have on an ecosystem need to be evaluated. Having the ability to manipulate ‘the source code of life’ can give a person the idea of having complete power. Without a rigid set of rules in place, anything (good or bad) is possible. As the article states, “It was a God-like power—to plug genes from one living thing into another. Used wisely, it had the potential to save millions of lives. But the scientists also knew their creations might slip out of their control.” The ability to hold so much power could be potentially dangerous on a much larger scale. Having control over Crispr-Cas9 could lead to innumerable benefits, but the question lies within the other possible affects besides the immediate result. Taking the mosquitoes as an example again – the eradication of malaria would save millions of lives but how will the broken food chain of the bats have an eventual effect on humans and other organisms? Though the mosquito is the one example that I took interest in, there are an endless number of similar cases that have unforeseeable consequences. Years ago it would have been impossible to have any control over an organisms genes. Now we can make designer babies and even design bioweapons to wipe out species. If scientists like Esvelt take the proper measures in insuring that Crispr-Cas9 is used correctly, the possibilities could be endless. This technology should be used with extreme caution but in the end it could be worthwhile.
The crispr- cas9 is very interesting and would solve many problems. This discoery would help save species and diseases. Someone example are malaria and cancer. Though we don't know much about this new solution we must test it. It could have some harmful effects to our society since playing God isn't always a good idea and cause catastrophe.. Years ago we couldn't be able to control the DNa of species and their genes. But now we can because of technology and that we are learning more about life.
CRISPR-Cas9 is a type of DNA technology that can provide multiple solutions to the numerous problems we face today. Scientists use recombinant DNA to change mosquitoes in order to allow them to resist the Plasmodium parasite that causes malaria. The mosquitoes are considered a transgenic organism in that situation. This technology can also reverse mutations that causes blindness and stop cancer cells from multiplying. Gene technology has its drawbacks as well. Altering genes can lead to designer babies, invasive mutants, and species-specific bioweapons. So, just like any other technology, CRISPR-CAS9 has its strengths and weaknesses.
Before reading this article, I had already known a few things about splicing and manipulating DNA. This subject is extremely interesting to me and caught my attention right away. I had no idea how much was possible from just cutting out little parts of DNA. Crispr-Cas9 is a protein that allows a scientist to move and manipulate genes in order to change a living thing’s genetic makeup. It is a three year old method that has already worked miracles, such as curing some forms of blindness and preventing AIDS.It has also benefited agriculture such as wheat which is now invulnerable to fungi. Scientists previously had ways of splicing DNA strands, but when a repeating sequence of palindromes were discovered, scientists like Charpentier and Doudnan were curious to see why this happened. Crispr was found in many types of bacteria and surprisingly made RNA instead of proteins, which made scientists very curious about this area on a DNA strand. It was found that Crispr could in fact, create a sequence of RNA that corresponds to viral DNA and could find certain segments. The segment that is found is then sliced using Crispr-Cas9. Another scientist named Zhang decided he wanted to do some work with Crispr as well. He soon found and published that Crispr-Cas9 could edit human and mouse genes. At the same time there were other scientists such as Doubna whom also discovered this and filed for a patent. Due to the close timing of the applications for the patents and the discoveries, both scientists began to fight over being the owner of Crispr. Zhang spent big bucks to rush his patent though, which brought him to become the owner of Crispr. In my opinion, this was extremely unfair due to the fact that Doubna filed for the patent a while before Zhang. I do not think it is right that Zhang gets to take credit for everything when Doubna first discovered how Crispr worked and filed for a patent first. Any company that now wants to use Crispr will now have to go through Zhang’s patent.
Although there are many benefits to Crispr, it is feared that this way to manipulate genes will begin to be used for more controversial and dangerous affairs.There is also a gene that can be used to alter certain characteristics of a species which will be passed on through generations. This means that scientists could prevent diseases such as malaria and keep the population of healthy species growing. The problem was that there was no way to insert genes into species, until Crispr. There are dangers though; doing this could wipe out the entire species and even mess with evolution in a negative way. There are fears that these types of altered genes could be passed on to other species. The results of this would be caiotc and unknown. If precautions are not taken this could turn out extremely negatively. Church, the person working on this idea, filed for a patent in order to keep others from using Crispr to manipulate DNA without precautions. Crisp is also being used to bring back the woolly mammoth, which in my opinion seems like a bad idea. This is just messing with evolution and I do not see many benefits in doing this. Not only is it dangerous, but it will most likely cause some civil unrest due to controversial opinions. I would personally like to see Crispr used for more important affairs such as curing diseases and mutations in humans as well as animals. As of right now there are many different research teams trying to create and experiment with Crispr. For example, there seems to be a cure for AIDS and HIV in the near future. From genetically modified vegetables to genetically engineered babies, I am very excited as well as apprehensive to see what science can discover in the next couple of years using Crispr-Cas9.
Deoxyribonucleic Acid also known as DNA is sequences of 4 bases that are stuck to sugar phosphate backbone. It is who we are. The article mainly focuses on the Crispr-Cas9 which is a gene-editing technique that makes it "easy, cheap, and fast" to move genes around. This is a huge advance because it has already brought great things such as reversing mutations that causes blindness, stopping cancer cells from multiplying, and many more. This has so many benefits but is a huge responsibility and can get out of hand. There are so many more cures that can be found but it gives scientists a lot of power and I'm not saying all scientists are untrustworthy but there may be some that will go too far with this benefit and make it destructive. I think this advance should definitely be used but handled very carefully.
DNA is what makes up every living thing on this planet. The possibility to change our DNA sequences or alter them in some way sounds unbelievable. Even though it seems too good to be true, changing your DNA to cure certain diseases, illnesses, or disabilities, or even changing physical traits such as eye color or hair color, I believe that this type of technological advancement should not be used. Even though this can be very beneficial at some times, it has never been tested so it isn't guaranteed to work 100%. Even if it does work, there are probably side effects or certain things that may go wrong. It also seems unethical to tamper with nature...some strongly religious people may believe that you shouldn't take away the traits that God gave you, even if it is a disability or a sickness. It also just isn't right. If this is allowed and brought out to the public to use JUST for curing diseases (which I would definitely favor if it was just used for diseases,) there are definitely people out there who want to use this therapy for more unreasonable things such as choosing child traits. If this is introduced even slightly, there are going to be people who will use it for other things if they are bribed. Also, as the years pass, eventually if we know we are capable of doing more than just curing diseases, we are probably going to do it. That's why it is best to just not use Crispr-Cas9 because it is messing with nature. Since this has already been introduced to the public though, I doubt they are going to change their minds and say they aren't going to use it, but if they did it wouldn't corrupt life like it would if they did use it.
Editing DNA sequences may seem like a good idea, but the risks and the overall morality of this idea most definitely outweigh the good it could ever do. Letting one person or scientist edit your DNA is basically you trusting that person with your life. Personally, I would never be able to go through with this experiment because of the fatal risk of something wrong happening to my DNA. In my eyes, it's either getting my DNA improved with a fatal risk hanging over my head or living the way I was born. The risks are definitely worth mentioning and thinking about. What if while trying to fix the original problem, an new one appears? What if the person is old and can not heal from the procedure wounds? These risks may not be worth fixing the problem.
Deoxyribonucleic Acid, well known as DNA, is a self-replication material within every living organism. It is sequenced with four different bases what are stuck to a sugar phosphate backbone. DNA has the ability to see the genetic make up of someone is the way they are. This article discusses how manipulating DNA with recombinant DNA causes the lives of many to be saved from genetic issues. Genetic researchers such as David Baltimore have created a genetic device, which lets scientist move around and reorder genes. This device is called Crispr-Cas9. The Crispr-Cas9 is an easy, cheap, and fast way to move gens around in any living organisms. This device has already helped mutations involving blindness, stopping cancer cells from multiplying, and made cells imperious to the virus, which causes AIDS. It also states how the device has potential to cure cancer, end world hunger, and possibly stop climate change. However, while all these mutations and virus are being cured, it may also be a huge risk on the food change of many organisms. For example, Crispr-Cas9 can possibly end malaria. If malaria is being cured, then mosquitos are being put at risk. With the mosquitos’ being gone, it would limit bats as well since they rely on mosquitos for food. The Crispr-Cas9 should contain strict rules and thought through thoroughly before being put into use. Personally, I believe that everyone should love himself or herself the way they were born and giving the opportunity to change yourself to becoming something you think you want to be is not something I strongly believe. It could easily get out of hand and lead to even more issues. However, if it is used to cure such harsh viruses and diseases, then yes I should be used but very wisely.
Genes have been examined and researched for decades and the discoveries concerning this field have progressively advanced. A convention was held in Napa where the gene-editing technique called Crispr-Cas9 was discussed. Crispr stands for clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats and Cas9 is the name of a protein that makes it work. In layman’s terms, Crispr-Cas9 allows for genes to be moved around in any living organism from bacteria to people. Genome engineering has been a controversial topic due to its many positive and negative aspects. It is remarkable that scientists have already reversed mutations that cause blindness, stopped cancer cells from multiplying, and made cells impervious to the virus that causes AIDS. Despite the aid it could provide to society it could ultimately lead to its downfall. This discovery is immensely powerful and could result in dangerous outcomes such as the creation of fatal bioweapons and the altering of a baby’s genes in order to create a “perfect baby”. It also does not help that there are no guidelines in place to prevent such occurrences. Charpentier kept a colony of Streptococcus pyogenes in a biohazard chamber, and she purified a sample and sent it to Doudna and her postdoc Jinek. He then combined the two strands of RNA into guide RNA that was capable of being programmed. The combination of the guide RNA and Cas9 was fascinating because it not only could change its shape but also cut DNA. Crispr is also being studied at Harvard university to determine if Crispr can “insert malaria-resistant gene drives into their genomes.” This is still a work in progress nd so far there have not been any advaces in this area but if it could be done then we could wipe out malaria from all parts of the world, thus saving countless lives. The real area of interest though is finding a cure for HIV or creating an elite controller, which is someone who does not develop AIDS despite being HIV positive. This would be possibly one of the most powerful discoveries because it would save the lives of millions of people. Although there are so many useful reasons to use Crispr, not everyone who studies it will be using it for the right reasons. Some people will push boundaries and avoid caution, this is a real cause for alarm because of the numerous negative uses for it. In fact, China had announced they had used Crispr to edit human embryos to correct gene mutations that cause issue in producing healthy red blood cells. Even though this did not work it sparked a lot of attention because many people did not support what they did. The Chinese said they used nonviable embryos but it was clear that rules had to be set. I do not know if the pros outweigh the cons but even though it is intended to help people, there is always a way to use something this powerful in a destructive way. A set of guidelines will definitely help establish limits but that cannot stop someone from breaking these rules.
Crispr-Cas9 has many promises and benefits that are catching peoples interests. Its basically a technique thats been around for only 3 years, and had changed the Biology field. Crispr-Cas9 speeds up the process of locating and cutting apart specific sequences in DNA, allowing genes to switched around to result in something different. It says it might be able to cure some cancers by reversing the cell muliplying process, and even help with blindness. It can even help towards world hunger, and climate changes. This new method may be a good thing to many, but it can also contain some very negative side effects. For example, while it could be helping cure malaria in humans, at the same time it could be killing off the mosquitos themselves. Bats that eat mosquitos would lose their food supply, and as a result, the entire food chain and ecosystem could be disruppted. Some people also have issues with it because with this techinique comes the opputunity to pick out certain genes for a developing embryo. Its basically customizing the traits and characteristics of another human being. This has sparked a reasonable ethical controversy. Crispr-Cas9 could hold many excitng benefits and promises, but it isnt clear yet but devastating effects could also come along with it. Further research is being done currently to see what could come out of this invention.
-Akanksha Kale
What really surprised me about this article was the fact that Crispr-Cas9 has only been introduced recently, and it has already helped helped cure blindness and stop to the growth of cancer cells. with more research and experiments with Crispr-Cas9, mutating and changing DNA sequences can potentially cure deadly diseases and illnesses. Experimenting with DNA of different organisms can be beneficial, yet harmful at the same time. For example, the DNA of a watermelon can be combined with the DNA of an apple to make the apple bigger so more consumers will buy it. In contrast, many foods have been genetically modified so that their shelf life is much longer that the norm. Although Crispr-Cas9 seems to be very promising and have had yielded beneficial effects so far, I think it is very risky to mess with DNA. In the article, it mentioned how Malaria could be eliminated. However, this can cause a detrimental effect on the food chain. If Malaria is eliminated, so are mosquitoes. However, there are many organisms that feed off of mosquitoes such as bats, which puts them at danger also. By messing with DNA and trying to cure one problem, more problems that are unconsidered can stem from altering DNA. Another debate about the use of Crispr-Cas9 is the ethical problem that it poses. Personally, I don't think it is moral to mess with human nature. It is understandable that humans naturally want to be physically beautiful. However, I believe choosing your children's height, eye color, and other physical traits is morally wrong, because that defies what is naturally right. I think that Crispr-Cas9 needs to be closely monitored and worked with carefully. Using it to cure diseases and cancer is beneficial, but more research needs to be done so it doesn't cause a chain effect.
Crisp-Cas9 is THE gateway into the future. We've unleashed a torrent of incredible technology that is no doubt the pinnacle of genetic studies. Crisp-cas9 makes things that were hardly thought of only a few years ago suddenly possible. Cancer becomes curable, blindness becomes reversible, and AIDS becomes virtually stagnant. This basic gene editing program allows for the development of super-species. The first thought one might have could be a man with wings or a super strong animal, but the species could be as simple as a crop that is impervious to nearly every type of disease while being easy to grow. The sheer number of problems that'll vanish is astounding. Famine will become a thing of the past and the problems that result from it (war, poverty, etc.) will too. That's not to say that problems won't happen and jobs won't be lost, there are negatives to every positive. However it is always important to note that there will be critics that reject it because it is morally detrimental. Every technology in the world can either be used for good or evil; it is in the hands of the beholder to decide what is done with it. Obviously when this technology reaches a peak (most likely soon in the future based on the incredible amount of progress we've had in past years), we'll be able to do almost anything. We'll be able to create the "perfect" child and stop diseases and terminal illnesses and just serve goodness to the world. People will abuse this power, there is no doubt, but people abuse all power. I remember doing a project on stem cells in 7th grade, talking about how these kinds of things were far in the future and yet here they are. Dolly the Sheep, a famous experimental clone, was the talk of the day even back in 2010. Now, we've reached new levels. And with these new levels we'll quickly realize that our potential with this technology has unleashed something that brings us closer and closer to a utopia-state.
Many scientists today are taking advantage of the advancements that have taken place in the world of genome engineering, and these experiments taking place have the potential to either have a positive or negative on the society we are living in. Our generation has the knowledge and technology to quickly and easily alter the Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) sequence in any living specimen, including bacteria and viruses. Genetic researchers today are able to use available resources to decrypt and reorder genes, and these genes can be plugged from one living thing into another. While there are many potential positive effects that come along with genome editing, this advanced technology can easily get into the hands of a person who is only looking to benefit themselves rather than the society as a whole. A few decades ago, most scientists believed that making modifications to the human “germ line” was unrealistic, and that attempting to make changes that would pass from one generation to the next would not be successful. Contrary to earlier belief, scientists today have access to an astonishing technique, known as Crispr-Cas9, that gives them the ability to cheaply and easily edit the genes of any living organism. Even though this technique has the potential to have many positive effects, there are many positive and negative outcomes that can ultimately result if scientists begin actively utilizing Crispr-Cas9. The goal of most scientists is simply genome editing, and the majority of what they do is not particularly controversial. For example, many researchers are interested in finding a explanation to simple things, such as why spiders have the same gene in their body as the one that is used to determine the pattern of veins in fly’s wings. With less than one hundred dollars, scientists are able to remove from the spider’s embryo that specific gene and see what happens as it develops. Labs have begun to develop Crispr- based research tools to test different types of chemotherapy on mice that they have intentionally given cancer to. Scientists are also using this to look more into gene variations, and see why a drug can cause a major effect on one person but not effect another. This form of genetic engineering allows advancements to be made in the field of human therapeutics. Scientists can use Crispr to directly target and get rid of the protein CCR5, which directly ushers HIV into cells. In a few decades, this method will allow scientists to discover what makes a human susceptible to HIV and potentially make them immune to this virus. Crispr- Cas9 has been used to reverse mutations that cause blindness, stop cancer cells from multiplying, and even made cells impermeable to the virus that causes aids. Because wheat can now be rendered invulnerable to killer fungi, this allows billions of people to be fed. Several programs have been created to utilize genetic engineering for the benefit of the people, and specifically focus on areas where Crispr-Cas9 could be of great use. Even though Crispr has a wide array of benefits that could come along with it, this technique is full of danger and risk. These genetic advancements can potentially enable scientists to partake in unethical experiments, such as making designer babies and invasive mutants. Crispr can result in a wide variety of unintended consequences. For example, Crispr can put an end to mosquitos and Malaria, but this would have a negative effect on the bats who greatly rely on mosquitos as a food source. How do we know for sure that treating a genetic disease with genome editing will have a greater overall effect than the traditional methods of dealing with it. I personally feel that genome editing is a great technology that is capable of making rewarding advances in our world, but it scares me that this technology can easily be used by a scientist who does not take proper precautions and neglects to consider unintended consequences.
Post a Comment