Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Mya Verrone
UWRT 1104
Let’s imagine a world where scientists have the ability to eliminate a medical condition
that could alter the course of your life before you are even born. Let’s then imagine a world
where you could be hand designed to be genetically superior: more beautiful, strong, intelligent,
talented. Although this is not yet been tested in human trials nor has it been made legal, we are
soon approaching a world where genetically modified embryos will be very real and accessible
to the public (Here, Malcolm told me that I build tension and then do not mention that this is could
become possible so I lose the attention of the audience. Here, I inserted a piece of information that I think
will fulfill the anticipation for the reader.). The idea of this, yes, sounds amazing. But how far is too
far? Just because we are scientifically able, should we proceed and essentially play God and
decide the fate of one's life before they are born? My topic of inquiry throughout the semester
thus far has led me to analyze the aspects of this concept and discover what scientists and
technology make us capable of in the 21st century. This scientific breakthrough is heavily
debated and extremely controversial when discussed by scientists, medical professionals and the
public. Because of this, With the use of a piece of scientific equipment called the CRISPR, it is
possible to alter the genetic material of DNA in an embryo in the early stages of development.
The CRISPR works by isolating a specific part of genetic material and actually eliminating it
from the embryo, and replace it with a new piece of genetic material. Recent scientific research
and experimentation have shown that with the use of this technology, it is possible to remove
Verrone 2
malfunctioning elements of DNA and replace them with genetic material that works
properly.(Malcolm thought that this part of the introduction seemed out of place. I do not 100% agree
only because I wanted to introduce the reader to how this could be made possible before they read the
body paragraph so they are not confused. However, I am going to take the suggestion and put their part
as the first few sentences in the first body paragraph, which is about how this process is carried out.)
research and trials have been heavily restricted due to fear that this will come with repercussions
and possibly lead to designer babies. My inquiry has lead me to understand the process, research
The process of altering embryonic genetic material seems like a fairly complex process. I
have learned that with aid from a single piece of scientific equipment (Malcom said that the term
scientific technology was too broad. I agree, but in the following sentence I got more specific and
specified what technology was used. Instead of saying scientific technology, I replaced it by say "a single
piece of scientific equipment.") scientific technology, it can be done quickly and efficiently.
Specifically, the technology that makes this possible is called the CRISPR. The CRISPR is a
“gene editing tool comprised of two molecules that can zero in on individual genes and make
very precise changes to the DNA,” according to Rob Stein from NPR. (Here, I simplified the
sentence to flow better for the reader.)With the aid of this tool, it has been proven by scientists that
genetic material can be taken from two mothers and a father and combine the material to
eliminate diseases that might be genetically inherited by the embryo. (This portion of the paragraph
no longer is relevant or fits into my paragraph because following this sentence, I make an example of a
case study involving two mothers and a father, not one mother and one father.)This can also be done
with an embryo from one mother and one father. (I wanted to give a specific example of how this
process works, so I pulled a case study from research that I have found.)Although this has not been
Verrone 3
made legal and available to the public, according to BBC News, Professor Doug Turnbull,
professor at Newcastle University and Dr. Mary Herbert, scientific director at Newcastle fertility
center have been granted permission to work on developing embryos from two mothers and one
father. Something similar was successfully achieved in New Jersey. Taking genetic material
from two mothers and one father can be valuable when trying to prevent a genetic disease being
passed from parent to fetus. In the particular instance of taking genetic material from two
mitochondrial DNA can have severe consequences to the fetus if not treated. Up until now, there
has been no cure for mitochondrial DNA damage. Now, with the aid of the CRISPR, a New
Jersey doctor has successfully discovered how to replace the mitochondrial DNA that is
malfunctioning with DNA from a second mother. When performing experimentation with this
type of technology, precision is key. First, viable embryos must be donated to scientists who
have been granted permission by research funders and the government. The embryo must
carefully thawed and prepared for testing. The CRISPR is then injected into the thawed embryo
and can target a specific area of the DNA and alter it. After the DNA is altered, it is then left to
develop. Research has shown that the embryo will still develop normally, despite the
modifications that were made. (Malcom pointed out that I had stated that miscarriages and eliminating
diseases had been successful so far. He was confused because he thought that I meant it had been
tested in trials. It has only been tested in very specific experience regulated by the government and
research funders. I just wanted to clear this up for the reader.)With this procedure, heavily monitored
research has been successful not only in keeping the embryos viable, but also in eliminating
diseases and preventing miscarriages so far up to a certain stage of embryonic development. Of
course, because of all of the controversy surrounding this topic, once the embryos develop to a
Verrone 4
certain stage in development, the embryo is terminated. Only minimal research has been done so
far due to heavy restrictions placed on research by the government, but so far the results have
been positive if executed correctly. When editing genes that cause disease, it is easy to target the
one specific malfunctioning gene. However, altering physical characteristics like height or eye
color, this is much more complex. To go back to the case of having two mothers and one father,
the fetus will still resemble the mother and father of the child. The mitochondrial element that
was donated by the second mother to eliminate mitochondrial disease will not play a role in
phenotypes of the child.(I was told to place a comma splice where it previously said "There is no single
gene that is responsible for these traits; many different genes work together to produce physical
characteristics" instead I changed the sentence to say what it does now and here, I do not need a comma
splice.) This scenario is due to the fact that no single gene that is responsible for these traits,
many different genes work together to produce physical characteristics. It is nearly impossible to
identify all of the specific genes that work together to produce a certain hair color, eye color,
height etc. in an individual. (I wanted to tie this case study in for the reader to give them something to
better understand why phenotype is not affected, since this is not common knowledge to everyone.)This
is why replacing only the mitochondrial DNA will have no affect on how the fetus looks. With
this knowledge, it can be concluded that designing babies would be far more complex and may
not be possible with only the CRISPR.(I wanted to explain to the reader that although technology
gives us accessibility to many cool things regarding genetic manipulation, we are not quite there when it
comes to designer babies, but if research is allowed, shortly this could become a reality.) In order to go
down the path of designer babies, more complex research needs to be conducted on how to
then scientists will be one step closer to developing a procedure capable of designer embryos.
Verrone 5
This leads us into whether or not it is appropriate to do research on gene editing that could
(I added a few sentences to open up the paragraph and set the readers up for what is about to
With proper funding and permission from the government, scientists have the potential to
eliminate diseases that are inherited from the parents of a fetus, or genetically enhance certain
features and phenotypes. (Here, I used a writers move to transition to the topic of the paragraph)This is
where debate regarding the ethical aspects of this argument come in.(This part is unnecessary and
does not fit in right here. I might add it into a different part of the paper or scratch it all together. I haven't
decided yet.) Despite the benefits that this could offer, scientific research is heavily monitored by
the government due to fear of what consequences and repercussions this might lead to. (I am
setting up the argument that pro genetic manipulation populations make on this topic.)Those that argue
genetic manipulation is necessary to offer a better life for those affected by genetically inherited
diseases say that it would be unethical to have access to these types of life saving possibilities
and not take advantage of it. Although this process can be done in many different ways to target
many specific disease, (I set up an example to show how beneficial genetic manipulation could be if
done correctly. This shows a real example of a pro genetic manipulation advocate and evidence backing
up their claim.)A specific example expressed by an article that is pro genetic manipulation from
the NCBI website explains that the CRISPR can give us the ability to alter a genetic sequence in
utero and fix the sequence to eliminate the possibility of death in a fetus. Without this procedure,
fetuses with a malfunctioning element of DNA will die in utero. Scientist who are pro genetic
manipulation continue to plead their case to society and explain why this type of research should
be allowed. Another pro genetic manipulation advocate, (I took this portion of text from another
Verrone 6
paragraph because I thought it fit better here since it is supporting pro genetic manipulation.)scientists
Fredrik Lanner, a developmental biologist who support this movement argues that research on
this type of science will be a “game changer.” In an article done on NPR, Lanner also reveals that
“if they can understand how these early cells are regulate in the actual embryo, this knowledge
will help us in the future treat patients with diabetes, or Parkinsons, of different types of
blindness and other diseases.” Along with Lanner, many other scientists have expressed that not
allowing this research would be counterproductive. Research of this sort would benefit society
and even improve the quality of life for thousands of people.Despite all of the lives that could be
saved and diseases that could be eliminated, this research continues to be restricted and
prohibited until further ethical discussion and debate by the public, government officials, and
members of the scientific community.(Here, I am preparing the reader to transition from pro genetic
manipulation to anti genetic manipulation) On the other hand, many will argue that it is unethical to
alter genetic material and express concerns about the possible dangers that this could cause for
society.(This is not necessary to keep in my paper, it is just extra rambling that I can do without) Recent
discussion shows that it comes down to the pros being enough to outweigh the cons of playing
God and being willing to risk the potential, non reversible consequences.
(This does not properly set up my next paragraph)Next when looking at this topic of inquiry,
it is important to understand both sides of the argument. Scientists like Lanner, who support this
movement argue that research on this movement will be a “game changer.” In an article done on
NPR, Lanner also reveals that “if they can understand how these early cells are regulate in the
actual embryo, this knowledge will help us in the future treat patients with diabetes, or
parkinsons, of different types of blindness and other diseases.” Along with Lanner, many other
Verrone 7
scientists have expressed that not allowing this research would be counterproductive. Research
of this sort would benefit society and even improve the quality of life for thousands of people. In
contrast to pro genetic manipulation, many people argue that messing with the genetic material
of an embryo could lead to detrimental consequences and that the concept of it contradicts many
peoples beliefs. On the other hand, Scientists fear that research on this would lead to designer
babies and this this type of genetic manipulation could possibly create new diseases if a mistake
is made during the process. Marcy Darnovsky, who speaks and writes on human biotechnology,
tells NPR that “when you’re editing the genes of human embryos, that means you’re changing
the gene of every cell in the bodies of every offspring, every future generation of that human
being.” She then goes on to express that “these are permanent and probably irreversible changes
that we just don’t know what they would mean.” In addition to the biological concerns of this,
there are concerns on how these new procedures would affect social classes. With the potential
of advanced research leading to altering the genetic material of aesthetic features such as height,
beauty, intelligence, and talents, there is fear that this would widen the social gap even further
creating a resentment between classes. It is possible and predicted that even more resentment
would build between the social classes and could lead to conflict and rebellion against the
genetically superior. In addition to this fear of a widened social gap, it is also possible that this
would cause a new social class all together. This social class would be referred to as the
genetically superior. It is argued that since this procedure will be expensive and in high demand,
that the wealthy will have the most direct access to it. This would push them that much further
up than other classes, essentially creating a superior race. Those that could not afford it would
continue to pass along their genetic diseases to their offspring. Over time, it is predicted that the
Verrone 8
lower classes will be breed out, leaving only genetically superior humans. To counter argue this
concern, a professor from the article “Designer Babies” states that life like many other medical
procedures, this process of genetic manipulation would soon become less expensive, and
affordable for most people. It has also been argued that through natural reproduction, the
superior genes that do not contain genetically inherited diseases will be weeded out, therefore
eliminating certain disease altogether. This would be tremendously beneficial to society and
improve the quality of life for many. However, those who are not for genetic manipulation argue
that weeding out certain diseases could increase the lifespan of the average human to 150-200
years. This would have negative effects on the earth and environment that we live in. We do not
yet know how this type of alteration will affect the resources available to us, and if it would
cause damage to the earth and decrease quality of life. The duration of life now is anywhere from
sixty to ninety years old and is only increasing with advancing medical availability and
many and this inhibits us from progressing with research as of now. Another concern that has
been expressed that closely relates to a widened social gap, is the potential for these genetically
enhanced, the “good” traits will be highly sought after. This would give parents a sort of
dominance and pressure over the child. How the child will be affected for the rest of its life is
hard to gage without experimentation. Many behavioral scientists think that children will turn
into more of a “trophy” or a consumer item for the parent to show off and push to succeed in
certain aspects of their lives that will bring in money and fame for the parent. In contrast to this
argument, some say that a parent with a child that was genetically modified will be incapable of
Verrone 9
loving their child the same way as if it was conceived and born naturally from the two parents.
Others argue that the parent will love the child the same either way. Every parent has a different
style in loving and raising their family and having one that is genetically modified will not
change how the parent will raise them or love them. It can easily be seen that without trial and
error, we can not know for sure how this type of technology will affect society or the way a child
is raised. As I continued to ask questions regarding my inquiry topic, another element of research
that I found that supports this movement is various case studies that have been done, legally and
illegally.
In different parts of the world, research to further understand genetic manipulation is not
as heavily restricted. For example, in China, a research group “published an article that described
Bioethics and Medicine at John Hopkins University. This research was done in non viable
embryos that were not far enough developed to form life. Even though the embryos were not
developed into babies, genetic manipulation was still done and published. Despite the fact that
the embryos were terminated and not used in in vitro fertilization, an uproar was expressed by
the public due to the freedom the Chinese scientists were given to conduct such research.
Discussion on whether or not this should be legal will require many public debates, legal
research and ethical expression from the scientific community before this will be made legal.
Another element that makes this a difficult issue to tackle is that it is not a “uniform, global
approach to ensuring the novel clinical approaches using reproductive technologies are
scientifically, medically and ethically sound”(Sugarman). With that being said, some scientists
who do not agree with the restrictions on research regarding this topic are taking their studies
Verrone 10
elsewhere. Places like Mexico and the Ukraine, recently “announced human experiments with
mitochondrial manipulation,” (Darnovsky and Hosman) is not restricted. Word of this reached a
doctor in New York, leading him to Mexico where he continued his research. His research
involved conception of a child using the CRISPR to modify its genetic material. The baby was
“born on April 6,” according to Darnovsky and Hosman. Situations like this cause issues and
discussion regarding consequences and legal actions that must be made to protect a procedure
like this to take over and be integrated into the scientific community and practiced on human
different elements of this debate. It is evident that there is much complex debate around this
topic, and a lot of brilliant research being done. Through the process of inquiry, I have learned
that although this technology that we have access to is brilliant and could be potentially
revolutionary to the field of science and medicine, there are many elements that need to be
considered. Is it fair to restrict research that could save thousands of people affected by
genetically inherited diseases? Many argue that we do not have the right as humans to tamper
with this type of genetic manipulation. It is expressed that playing with this sort of research
should not be taken lightly and the consequences should be largely considered. We do not yet
know how sever the repercussions of this could be and scientists and society must take all angles
of the argument into consideration before laws and be past and regulated. I have found that those
who are pro genetic manipulation say that it would be unethical to have the ability to cure
someone of a fatal disease and not proceed to help them. This technology could save thousands
of lives and offer a cure to many genetic diseases. How can people decide to take that gift of a
Verrone 11
normal life away from others if a cure is reachable. Others say that it is unethical to tamper with
this type of research due to the dangers that it could cause for society. Another interesting aspect
of this topic that is widely discussed is how it will affect social classes, parent-child
relationships, and the biological elements of a humans life. I think it is evident that at this time,
thorough ethical boards need to be assembled that bring together medical professionals and
public opinions to ensure that all aspects of this new technology are analyzed. Only after all
discussion and ethical debates are considered will society be able decide whether research on
Citation Page
Darnovsky, Marcy, and Elliot Hosman. “The Social and Political Dangers of Germline
www.councilforresponsiblegenetics.org/GeneWatch/GeneWatchPage.aspx?pageId=582.
http://library.cqpress.com/cqresearcher/document.php?id=cqresrre2001051800&type=hitl
Stein, Rob. “Breaking Taboo, Swedish Scientist Seeks To Edit DNA Of Healthy Human
www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/09/22/494591738/breaking-taboo-swedish-scien
Sugarman, Jeremy. “Ethics and Germline Gene Editing.” EMBO Reports, 16 August, 2015,