CRISPR Cas9 CRISPR Cas9 is a gene editing tool that can be used to edit, delete, and change parts of the genome. What makes CRISPR Cas9 different from other gene editing techniques such as Zinc Finger Nuclease (ZFN) or Transcription Activator-Like Effector Nucleases (TALEN) is its targeting efficiency ability. For example, ZFNs and TALENs could only reach targeting efficiencies from 1% to 50% in human cells. On the other hand, CRISPR Cas9 had a much higher rate at greater than 70% in Zebrafish and plants. (Reis, 2014). CRISPR Cas9 is still being heavily researched by scientists today, because although many advancements have been made since its discovery in 1987, it is far from ready to be used commonly. Successful studies and experiments with
…show more content…
This is the outlook that actions should be judged solely by themselves, not by their consequences or outcomes. Whether a situation is good or bad is based on if the actions was either right or wrong. The results of an action could be considered good, but if the action that brought those results about is considered bad, then the entire situation would be deemed wrong. In terms of genetics and gene editing, consider this following example. A fetus was cured of Cystic Fibrosis in the womb in an experimental trial with CRISPR Cas9, and was then CF-free. But, the doctor who conducted the experiment edited the genes of the fetus at 21 days after conception, thus breaking the 14 day embryology rule established by his country. Could the outcome of the doctor’s action be considered good? Yes, the fetus was successfully cured of Cystic Fibrosis using CRISPR Cas9. But could the action be considered good, according to deontology? No, because the embryology rule was broken. So overall, the situation with the doctor would be considered wrong by a deontologist. In terms of gene editing with CRISPR Cas9 altogether, the deontological view would be that as long as the actual editing of the genes is “good” (as in, not breaking any rules or codes, for example), then the situation is right; even if the outcome has “bad” …show more content…
The “rightness” of an action is directly linked with the amount of pleasure created. If little or no pleasure is made, then the action would be deemed wrong. In terms of gene editing with CRISPR Cas9, hedonism would allow anything that brought pleasure to people; whether that be using gene editing to cure diseases, or creating “designer” babies. This could also mean things that are detrimental to others or inflict harm onto people, the environment, or other living things; as long as pleasure is brought to some. Teleology is the construct of determining if actions are right or wrong based solely on the result of the action and the goodness it creates. An action could be seen as bad, but if the outcome is good, then that action would be deemed good. This works the opposite way as well. If this construct were to be applied to CRISPR Cas9, this would mean that any action that has a good result would be permissible, even if the actual action itself is not good. This would result in little restriction actually being made because if a rule is broken it doesn’t matter-as long as the result was
This is the outlook that actions should be judged solely by themselves, not by their consequences or outcomes. Whether a situation is good or bad is based on if the actions was either right or wrong. The results of an action could be considered good, but if the action that brought those results about is considered bad, then the entire situation would be deemed wrong. In terms of genetics and gene editing, consider this following example. A fetus was cured of Cystic Fibrosis in the womb in an experimental trial with CRISPR Cas9, and was then CF-free. But, the doctor who conducted the experiment edited the genes of the fetus at 21 days after conception, thus breaking the 14 day embryology rule established by his country. Could the outcome of the doctor’s action be considered good? Yes, the fetus was successfully cured of Cystic Fibrosis using CRISPR Cas9. But could the action be considered good, according to deontology? No, because the embryology rule was broken. So overall, the situation with the doctor would be considered wrong by a deontologist. In terms of gene editing with CRISPR Cas9 altogether, the deontological view would be that as long as the actual editing of the genes is “good” (as in, not breaking any rules or codes, for example), then the situation is right; even if the outcome has “bad” …show more content…
The “rightness” of an action is directly linked with the amount of pleasure created. If little or no pleasure is made, then the action would be deemed wrong. In terms of gene editing with CRISPR Cas9, hedonism would allow anything that brought pleasure to people; whether that be using gene editing to cure diseases, or creating “designer” babies. This could also mean things that are detrimental to others or inflict harm onto people, the environment, or other living things; as long as pleasure is brought to some. Teleology is the construct of determining if actions are right or wrong based solely on the result of the action and the goodness it creates. An action could be seen as bad, but if the outcome is good, then that action would be deemed good. This works the opposite way as well. If this construct were to be applied to CRISPR Cas9, this would mean that any action that has a good result would be permissible, even if the actual action itself is not good. This would result in little restriction actually being made because if a rule is broken it doesn’t matter-as long as the result was