One of the most significant breakthroughs that occurred in the scientific world recently is the creation of CRISPR. CRISPR stands for Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats, which are strands of DNA that have the ability to precisely change the genetic code in every species4 (6:30- 6:57). Genes control all of an organism’s traits and characteristics. Characteristics that CRISPR can modify range from significant alterations such as immunity to deadly diseases, to superficial modifications such as skin and eye color. There is no question that CRISPR will create a revolution in genetic engineering around the world and that it will create endless possibilities in the future. However, there are many apprehensions about the feasibility
…show more content…
A regulation movement is supported by abundant number of scientists, such as Jennifer Doudna, Dana Carroll, Steven Martin, Michael Botchan, and Anthony Perry. This movement is the intermediary between both extremes. Regulation still has scientists working with CRISPR in the lab with human subjects, but there are restrictions that limit what they can do, such as bans on experiments that are deemed hazardous, petty or for the purpose of beautifying the subject1 (p.483). There should be regulation regardless of the outcome of this debate since CRISPR, as all other technological advances, can be manipulated and weaponized. But there are still questions with this approach, mainly whether an international or national council should enforce these regulations. I argue for an international approach, that every country must agree to the policies in place, since CRISPR may be used as a biological weapon against the world.This mindset is a possibility in the future, but currently, there should be a moratorium in place for discussions on the policies that contain the regulations that the council will …show more content…
While its safety concerns, social ramifications, and disputed ethical boundaries are prevalent matters, ultimately, the world will go on. The CRISPR debate reflects the struggles that new innovations in other domains of science have due to its similar difficulties with balancing risk and reward. For example, in the medical field, there is always a risk involved with healing a person, the possibility that a new operation or treatment will actually worsen a patient’s condition. CRISPR has the possibility to leap humans forward in the evolutionary cycle, or bring mankind back to primitive years with biological warfare caused by genetically modified individuals. What scientists decide today will effect countless generations in the future so there is an imperative to have a moratorium to achieve more discussions and agreements regarding this technology. As for me and my generation, the future is definitely uncertain. However, I know that with scientists seriously contemplating the repercussions of CRISPR, there is hope for mankind and the
A regulation movement is supported by abundant number of scientists, such as Jennifer Doudna, Dana Carroll, Steven Martin, Michael Botchan, and Anthony Perry. This movement is the intermediary between both extremes. Regulation still has scientists working with CRISPR in the lab with human subjects, but there are restrictions that limit what they can do, such as bans on experiments that are deemed hazardous, petty or for the purpose of beautifying the subject1 (p.483). There should be regulation regardless of the outcome of this debate since CRISPR, as all other technological advances, can be manipulated and weaponized. But there are still questions with this approach, mainly whether an international or national council should enforce these regulations. I argue for an international approach, that every country must agree to the policies in place, since CRISPR may be used as a biological weapon against the world.This mindset is a possibility in the future, but currently, there should be a moratorium in place for discussions on the policies that contain the regulations that the council will …show more content…
While its safety concerns, social ramifications, and disputed ethical boundaries are prevalent matters, ultimately, the world will go on. The CRISPR debate reflects the struggles that new innovations in other domains of science have due to its similar difficulties with balancing risk and reward. For example, in the medical field, there is always a risk involved with healing a person, the possibility that a new operation or treatment will actually worsen a patient’s condition. CRISPR has the possibility to leap humans forward in the evolutionary cycle, or bring mankind back to primitive years with biological warfare caused by genetically modified individuals. What scientists decide today will effect countless generations in the future so there is an imperative to have a moratorium to achieve more discussions and agreements regarding this technology. As for me and my generation, the future is definitely uncertain. However, I know that with scientists seriously contemplating the repercussions of CRISPR, there is hope for mankind and the