Iqra Khan, Abigail Rosario, Jessica Umanzor, Jenny Wu

Aisha Sidibe

English 210

10/19/18

Audience – Parents

Genetic Engineering: The Hazards of Germline Editing

Abstract: With the introduction of modern medicine, people no longer suffer from diseases such as smallpox or tuberculosis, things that can be prevented with vaccinations. As the years past, scientists made vast discoveries in the field of medicine to protect children at a young age from diseases through vaccinations. However, there are some diseases that have not been successfully fought off, diseases such most cancers, AIDS, leukemia, and more. The introduction of germline editing provides hope that we can rid humans of diseases for generations to come. But at what cost? The purpose for our study is to determine if human experimentation is worth progressing in germline editing. We will do this by gathering information from past experiments done in human embryos as well as the different techniques that could be used to edit the human genome. By looking at the information we would decide if the results of more germline experimentation would outway the process to get there. The editing technologies that have been introduced propose potential cures and a possibility of freeing the future of cancers and other dangerous heritable diseases. Germline editing is currently prohibited in more than 40 countries and experiments so far, mostly in mice, are largely unsuccessful. It is too risky to start editing the genes of human embryos as it could cause irreversible harm to future children and generations. It is important for parents as well as scientists to think about the consequences of their actions, as it will affect more than just one individual.

Introduction: Germline editing is essentially editing the genome of an individual in such a way that the change made can be heritable. By directly changing the genes, we are affecting future generations, which would lead to whole generations of genetically modified people. The editing technologies that have been introduced propose potential cures and a possibility of freeing the future of cancers and other dangerous heritable diseases. However, germline editing is dangerous as there are many chances of off-target mutations occurring. In order to reduce the chances of off-target mutations, we would need to do more experimentations and possible begin experimenting in human subjects. With this suggestion comes many ethical issues regarding the consent of the unborn children that are being changed and it is considered dangerous human experimentation.

Research Question: Is germline editing technology worth advancing? If we allow human experimentation to further research germline editing, would the outcome overweigh the harmful side effects and ethic issues? We would like to know how scientists plan to advance in their research and if they know how much is at risk of they continue experimentation.

Thesis: Some believe that germline editing can cure us from diseases and help future generations, but there is a large chance of it causing mutations in the person receiving the procedure as well as opening the door to the idea of  “designer babies”which are genetically modified infants.

Research Methodology: We plan to research our topic by using new articles from The New York Times and National Geographic, as well as science journals found in the CCNY library database. As well as take reference to the US national library of medicine database to see scholarly journals on germline editing through previous laboratory work.

Bibliography:

Begley, Sharon. “CRISPR-Edited Cells Linked to Cancer Risk in 2 Studies.”

Scientific American, 12 June 2018, www.scientificamerican.com/article/crispr-edited-cells-linked-to-cancer-risk-in-2-studies/

This article is able to explain and go into detail about how CRISPR patients who have had their genes edited had a greater potential of getting cancer as a result of the procedure. Scientific American focuses on how CRISPR can be very concerning as a result of the research methods where the DNA is altered. In order for these experiments to continue there must be more prominent effects than a vigilant eye in case cancer production.

 

Belluck, Pam. “In Breakthrough, Scientists Edit a Dangerous Mutation From Genes in

Human   Embryos.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 7 Aug. 2018, www.nytimes.com/2017/08/02/science/gene-editing-human-embryos.html.

This source is useful to our research because it provides background information of our topic as well as explain how germline editing could occur. The article talks about the first time human genetic engineering produced results but also renewed the ethical concerns like the creation of designer babies. This article shows both sides of gene editing.

 

Harris, John, and Marcy Darnovsky. “Pro and Con: Should Gene Editing Be Performed

on Human Embryos?” National Geographic, 15 July 2016, www.nationalgeographic.com.au/science/pro-and-con-should-gene-editing-be-performed-on-human-embryos.aspx.

This source is useful to our research because it shows both sides of gene editing performed on human embryos. It also provides examples of experiments done in the past and how it should affect the way we think about germline editing. It gives us more ideas to research about when defending our position that germline editing should not happen.

 

Ormond, Kelly E., et al. American Journal of Human Genetics, Elsevier,

3 Aug. 2017,   www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5544380/.

The American Journal of Human Genetics is able to mention the benefits as well as the risks that come along with genome editing. By giving scientific background on how the genetic reconstruction takes place we are able to see how it is a delicate situation. This gives insight on the formation of mutations in germline editing.

 

Wei-Haas, Maya. “Same-Sex Mouse Parents Give Birth via Gene Editing.” Mouse Pups Born

from Same-Sex Parents: Get the Facts, 11 Oct. 2018, www.nationalgeographic.com/science/2018/10/news-gene-editing-crispr-mice-stem-cells/#/baby_mice_182387.jpg.

National Geographic provides articles based off of evidence and is a credible scientific source. In this article, it talks about the gene editing technology known as CRISPR, used to make mouse pups from same sex parents. This article also shows that the experiment was only semi successful and that more experimentation would be needed to create pups that live longer.