2

Outline

Introduction

There are numerous sides to the argument concerning the benefits and risks of gene editing. Due to the potential for creating "designer babies," some individuals argue that gene editing must be outlawed completely. Many people think that gene editing ought to be legal since it has the potential to eliminate hereditary disorders.

Hook: CRISPR, a revolutionary gene-editing technique, is controversial due of its most potent use. Therefore, prohibiting gene editing is a poor decision.

a. Reason 1: Gene editing has the promise of eliminating diseases.

i. Evidence 1a: A potential novel immunotherapy for cancer treatment may be developed and evaluated with the use of gene editing. T-cells engineered using CRISPR can seek out and destroy malignant cells.

ii. Evidence 1b: A individual ’s genetic makeup may be used by researchers to develop new medicines. Several pharmaceutical firms are already using CRISPR technology in the research and development of new medicines.

b. Reason 2: Human average lifespan is prolonged via gene editing.

i. Evidence 2a: Genome editing has the potential to lengthen the lifespan of humans. Human life expectancy has risen exponentially over the last several centuries, and this upward trend is predicted to continue.

ii. ii. Evidence 2b: It is feasible that genetic engineering may allow us to live much longer. It is conceivable for some common ailments and diseases to manifest at a later date and kill us far earlier than is expected.

Reason 3: Changing genes in particular tissues or organs, simplifying disease research by focusing on culprit genes, developing disease cell models, as well as deactivating pig viruses such that pig organs might someday be employed to substitute human organs are just a few instances of how this innovation is being applied.

i. Evidence 3a: It might be used to fix defective DNA in human embryos, preventing potentially fatal diseases from being passed down to future generations.

ii. ii. Evidence 3b: Gene editing has already made it possible to alter people's immune cells to fight cancer and HIV.

iii. Opposing View: Changing or altering genes is unethical and might have negative consequences.

i. Refutation 1:

Since the alterations we made to reproductive cells are passed down through generations, it is unwise to alter them. We are liable for the effects of any inherited condition that causes a disability or death. Furthermore, these alterations will be passed down via the generations. Human clinical trials including germline gene editing cannot be undertaken in an ethical way.

Conclusion

References

Cavaliere, G., Devolder, K., & Giubilini, A. (2019). Regulating genome editing: for enlightened democratic governance. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, 28(1), 76-88.

Gyngell, C., Douglas, T., & Savulescu, J. (2017). The ethics of germline gene editing. Journal of Applied Philosophy, 34(4), 498-513.

Khalil, A. M. (2020). The genome editing revolution. Journal of genetic engineering and biotechnology, 18(1), 1-16.

Ma, H., Marti-Gutierrez, N., Park, S. W., Wu, J., Lee, Y., Suzuki, K., & Mitalipov, S. (2017). Correction of a pathogenic gene mutation in human embryos. Nature, 548(7668), 413- 419.

E Memi, F., Ntokou, A., & Papangeli, I. (2018, December). CRISPR/Cas9 gene-editing: Research technologies, clinical applications and ethical considerations. In Seminars in perinatology (Vol. 42, No. 8, pp. 487-500). WB Saunders.

Petersen, B. (2017). Basics of genome editing technology and its application in livestock species. Reproduction in Domestic Animals, 52, 4-13.

Rojas-Vasquez, R., & Gatica-Arias, A. (2020). Use of genome editing technologies for genetic improvement of crops of tropical origin. Plant Cell, Tissue and Organ Culture (PCTOC), 140(1), 215-244.

Wang, X., Niu, Y., Zhou, J., Yu, H., Kou, Q., Lei, A., … & Chen, Y. (2016). Multiplex gene editing via CRISPR/Cas9 exhibits desirable muscle hypertrophy without detectable offtarget effects in sheep. Scientific Reports, 6(1), 1-11.