{"id":6733,"date":"2020-05-18T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2020-05-18T00:00:00","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"2025-03-29T14:58:25","modified_gmt":"2025-03-29T14:58:25","slug":"crispr-applications-and-the-ethical-and-moral-obligations-of-the-government-and-society","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.ukessays.com\/essays\/sciences\/crispr-applications-and-the-ethical-and-moral-obligations-of-the-government-and-society.php","title":{"rendered":"CRISPR Applications and the Ethical and Moral Obligations of the Government and Society"},"content":{"rendered":"

Introduction: The CRISPR controversy<\/h2>\n

Over the last 50 years, the world has seen a continuous uptrend in the various amounts of molecular technology. One of the most interesting technologies is genome editing. Although genome editing itself is not new, the CRISPR system for gene editing has excitement and fear over medical, ethical, and social implications of this technology. CRISPR offers promise in a wide variety of disease context. This article will primarily focus on the bioethics of CRISPR. Discussions of the ethics of CRISPR have been going on for a long time but with clinical trials getting closer and closer to human embryos trial it is more crucial then ever to see where the government and society stands on this topic.<\/p>\n

In particular, in early 2015, the application of CRISPR on nonviable human embryos sparked heated public debates regarding the appropriate uses of gene editing (Baltimore, 2015). Discussions about CRISPR in recent months indicate an underlying disagreement among researchers about the ethical and social implications of this technology. Some researchers worry that CRISPR will lead to designer babies and eugenics, proliferate social injustice, and risk disastrous changes to society and the environment (Ledford, 2015). These critics appeal to the long history of failed human interventions as evidence that a tool with the breadth and power of CRISPR should be subject to intense scrutiny and regulation. Others seem to characterize CRISPR as ‘just another biotechnology’ (Harris, 2016)<\/p>\n

There are advantages and disadvantages to adopting either of these ethical framings for CRISPR gene editing. For example, the possible dangers of CRISPR gene editing may help slow or eliminate dangerous practices, but it might also hinder beneficial applications. Alternatively, the ‘just another biotechnology’ approach may open the door for beneficial CRISPR research but ignore potential bad consequences of the technology as well as the ways in which older biotechnologies remain ethically controversial. Each approach foregrounds distinctive issues and serves to shift the burden of proof to its deniers.<\/p>\n

Method<\/h2>\n

The process to find this information was very difficult. Using google scholar I was able to search for certain articles that were related to my topic. My topic is CRISPR ethics. Which talks about the problem with the emerging possibilities of gene editing and if is it morally ethically for people to use this technology for their advantage. The first search I made is Applications of CRISPR and ethic morals. This technique helps me find specific articles that have only both topics. Keyword: CRISPR ethics. Next I read the titles to find more specific reading that do in depth on the topic. I came upon a title which was ” Science and Bioethics of CRISPR-Cas9 Gene Editing: An Analysis Towards Separating Facts and Fiction” this article took me to a website which was an archive for journal articles. Using my new search engine, I once again searched for “CRISPR bioethics”. This gave around 30 articles to read and finalize around 10. I found most of my information from this archive.<\/p>\n

RESULTS<\/h2>\n

Table 1. Risk-benefit considerations in CRISPR technology <\/u><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Benefit(s)<\/td>\nRisk(s)\/ Harm(s)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n

Basic and pre-clinical research<\/h2>\n<\/td>\n

\n
    \n
  • New model organisms and cell lines<\/li>\n
  • Increased gene-editing efficiency<\/li>\n
  • High-throughput screens<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
      \n
    • Novel drug targets<\/li>\n
    • Access to totipotent cells<\/li>\n
    • Identification of novel signaling, regulatory, and developmental pathways<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
        \n
      • Development of novel gene-editing approaches (base editing and RNA targeting)<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/td>\n
\n
    \n
  • Experimentation involving human embryos is controversial and illegal in some countries<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
      \n
    • Potential for privacy and confidentiality breaches<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Translational and clinical medicine<\/td>\n\n
    \n
  • Immunotherapy<\/li>\n
  • Organoids<\/li>\n
  • Novel drug targets<\/li>\n
  • Artificial intelligence<\/li>\n
  • Modification of pathological genes<\/li>\n
  • Novel therapeutics and fertility applications<\/li>\n
  • Procreative libert<\/li>\n
  • Ability to “fix” single base changes<\/li>\n
  • Knowledge advancement<\/li>\n
  • Potential for equitable access<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/td>\n
\n
    \n
  • Serious injury, disability, and\/or death to research participant(s) and\/or offspring<\/li>\n
  • Blurry distinction between therapeutic and enhancement applications, leading to potential subtle or obvious exacerbation of inequalities<\/li>\n
  • Misapplications<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
National and international regulations, law and policy<\/td>\n\n
    \n
  • Prevention against misuses of technology<\/li>\n
  • Safeguard against risky potentially harmful conditions<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/td>\n
\n