Britain Set to Approve Technique to Create Babies From 3 People
Ryan Alberghine February 5, 2015
Chem C Odd Mr. Ippolito
Castle, Stephen. "Britain Set to Approve Technique to Create Babies From 3 People."The New York Times. The New York Times, 03 Feb. 2015. Web. 03 Feb. 2015. <http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/04/world/europe/britain-nears-approval-of-fertilization-technique-that-combines-dna-of-three-people.html?ref=science>.
The article, “Britain Set to Approve Technique to Create Babies From 3 People” by Stephen Castle, talks about how Britain is set to approve a technique to create babies from 3 people. On Tuesday, British lawmakers voted to allow the in vitro creation of babies using the DNA of three people, a procedure that could prevent the inheritance of genetic diseases. This would make Britain the first country to have the vitro fertilization technique approved and hopefully many countries will follow their lead. The technique involves altering a human egg or embryo before transferring it to the womb, otherwise know as the uterus. Some people do not like the idea of approving this technique because people argue that, “it would open the way to the creation of so-called designer babies,” (Paragraph 3, Lines 2-3). Lawmakers in the House of Commons have already voted 382 to 128 in favor of the new technique. However, the voting still requires final approval from the House of Lords and the unelected upper chamber of Parliament. If it wins final approval, it will only be used sparingly. If women have faulty mitochondria or other genetic diseases, it will likely be used to improve the new child. As a result, the resulting embryo of the donor(s) and mother would have nucleus DNA from the child’s parents but mitochondrial DNA from a donor. Robert Meadowcroft, chief executive of the Muscular Dystrophy Campaign supports the technique stating, “There are currently no means to treat devastating mitochondrial diseases, which can cause muscle wastage, loss of vision, stroke-like episodes and a premature death,” he also added. “Preventing inheritance, where possible, remains our only option, and that is why we have invested in and wholly support this pioneering technique,” (Paragraph 14, Lines 1-5). Some groups oppose of this idea such as the Human genetics Alert. They believe, “Although food crops, bacteria and animals have been genetically engineered for the last 20 years, there has been a worldwide consensus, embodied in legislation in over 60 countries, that we should not attempt to do the same with human beings,” (Paragraph 15, Lines 2-5). I believe that this process can change the world for the better and should be approved in Britain.
I think that passing this technique can do great things for our world today. Many children are being born with genetic diseases that can not be cured for and many of the children suffer more and more as they grew older. If this technique can possibly stop all of that from happening, it would be fantastic for those children to be able to experience life as a regular human being. Also, genetic diseases have been passed down from generation to generation and there never seemed that there would be an end to it. If this process can stop genetic diseases than we will lose less lives in the future and end genetic diseases. Lastly, as I was scrolling through articles to choose, this one came up and got my attention right away. I was very intrigued by the thought of being able to create a baby from 3 people, so I knew I needed to read the article to find out.
I feel that this article did a good job of explaining what the process of creating a baby from 3 people actually is. Before reading the article, I had no clue of how the process can be possible, but once I finished the process made complete sense and was very understandable. I also I liked how there were many sources. I felt like this allowed the reader to see how other people are reacting to this. One thing I didn’t like was how there were different sides to the argument. It allowed the reader to decide which side they were on which I did not like. That leads it to be more of an opinionated article rather than being more factual. I also didn’t like how it didn’t tell you why this is necessary. Of course it can be useful, but why is it truly needed and why other countries don’t use it if it is so important. Lastly, one thing that I would suggest improving is adding what others country believe of this, besides only people. I felt that this would show how others countries see this argument and whether they think it can help improve their country and the future of the country.
Ryan's review of the article “Britain Set to Approve Technique to Create Babies From 3 People,” was well thought out and provided a lot of detail. In his first paragraph I thought it was a good idea to bring quotes from the article in to further describe the process of this new technique for creating babies without genetic diseases. Other than the quotes he put in, Ryan was also able to well illustrate the information in a way that was more understandable, while still having a lot of detail about what Britain decided to do. He also brought up some interesting topics of things to consider in his third paragraph that should explored further. Such as, how other countries are reacting to the news of Britain approving this procedure and how they are reacting in general to the vitro fertilization. One suggestion I would have for his response is to try to summarize the article more, but still provide enough detail to help the reader understand what the procedure would entail. I would also say that he should try not to repeat his ideas too much like in his first sentence. I've seen this article many times in the news, but I never really knew the specifics of the process and the decision Britain was making and it was interesting to find out that science has evolved this much. It's amazing that we have gotten to the point where we are able to alter one's genes.
ReplyDeleteRyan’s review on the in vitro creation of babies using the DNA of three people was informative. Including different stances allowed readers to engage in the topic and develop their own opinion. He also quoted a scientist, Robert Meadowcroft. With a professional opinion, Ryan presented the expert’s argument to critique. Also, Ryan puts a political aspect in the review, explaining the case that the Lawmakers in the House of Commons reviewed, as well as their final decision. He included the steps that would be required for this technique to be approved.
ReplyDeleteI would suggest for Ryan to define key terms, such as in vitro fertilization. Also, it would be helpful if he elaborated further on the controversy of this new technique and the ethical implications.
I think it is exciting that scientists can now reduce genetic diseases. Hopefully there will be future medical breakthroughs to lessen birth defects.
I find Ryan’s review very compelling, as well as the article he posted. First of all, I like how Ryan gets information directly from the article and puts it into his interview, which gives Ryan more quotes to make his review more credible and more respected. Secondly, I also like how Ryan explains how this could affect human life as we know. What the article is saying is that British scientist are creating a better, disease-free, human being by taking DNA from three human beings that are tested to have superior genes. The third reason is that his review also includes facts, For example, I thought that a human could only be born from two people, a man’s sperm and a woman’s egg. After reading this article, I found out that it is possible through the vitro fertilization technique, when altering an egg/embryo before putting it back into the womb. I feel like Ryan should have stated the fact that in the article it says that Church of England was against this unethical technique. I also feel that Ryan should expand on his paragraph which addressed the significance of the article to humanity/personal life and add a statement regarding the downside/flaw in his review. Overall, I thought Ryan’s Review was very good considering this is the very first Current Events. One thing that surprises me about the article is that some diseases can reside in the mitochondrial DNA, which can be altered by the IVF (in vitro fertilization) technique.
ReplyDeleteJack Kiefer Current Event Comment
ReplyDeleteCastle, Stephen. "Britain Set to Approve Technique to Create Babies From 3 People."The
New York Times. The New York Times, 03 Feb. 2015. Web. 03 Feb. 2015. .
I am writing a comment on Ryan Alberghine’s current event article. He wrote a response to a piece that was about how Great Britain is pushing to pass a bill that will allow a method of creating babies in a lab with the genes of three people. His review of the article had a very complete summary. He thoroughly explained everything having to do with the process. For example, he gives specific details, “Lawmakers in the House of Commons have already voted 382 to 128 in favor of the new technique”(Alberghine). I also liked how he rationalized how this article affects humanity today. Ryan talks about how this new technique can be used to help cure children born with diseases, an extremely valid argument and a very noble and just cause for humanity. Yet another thing that is very good about Ryan’s current event is that it clearly shows his opinion of the article. He says things that he liked and didn’t like, such as, “I didn’t like how there were different sides to the argument”(Alberghine).
While Ryan’s review was solid work, it did have some flaws. I thought that he could have done a better job explaining the actual science of the three person birth process. He could have explained what terms like, “in-vitro fertilization”, and “mitochondria”, or avoided them altogether. Another thing that Ryan could have worked on was doing a little less summary, and more of his own thoughts by lengthening the paragraphs that were about his critique and why it is important to the world.
Ryan’s review was packed with new information that I didn’t know. One new thing that I learned was that there was even an idea of something like three parent birth. It is such a revolutionary idea, that two parents could have a baby and take some DNA from a donor and implant it into their child. I would never have thought that such a thing could be possible.