Sarah Billings
Mr. Ippolito
Core Chemistry D-even
Wade, Nicholas. "Biologists Call for Halt to Gene Editing Technique in Humans." The New York
Times. The New York Times, 19 Mar. 2015. Web. 19 Mar. 2015.
I chose to read the article, "Biologists Call for Halt to Gene Editing Technique in Humans" for my current events issue in science. This article describes the concern that many scientists have for the newly improved technique that can alter or enhance human DNA. In the past, the concern hasn't been major, as the technique was still in its early stages and scientists were just testing on small animals like mice. However, in 2012, a new enhancement to the technique has made it much easier to control and biologists, like David Baltimore, are concerned that physicians might take it too far. “You could exert control over human heredity with this technique, and that is why we are raising the issue,” says Baltimore, a former president of the California Institute of Technology and a member of the group whose paper on the topic was published in the journal Science. This issue is very debatable, though, because there are pros which include clearing any viruses in the DNA, and there are cons which obviously include the consequences of changing heredity.
This current issue is very important to society because, if it’s tested further and more knowledge is gained on the topic, this could be a life changing solution for millions of people with diseases or defects. In addition, a hereditary disease could be eliminated completely. It’s also very important that we know that scientists are waiting and being cautious about this new technique because then, if it’s ever approved for physicians to use, we will know it’s trustworthy. Lastly, knowing more about our DNA and how it works is really important because its still a big mystery in science so the more we know about it, the better.
I thought this article particularly well written because was very thorough in many ways. For example, after describing the issue and why it’s relevant, it gave background to past advances in the subject and then went further to explain the newest technique and how it works. By making sure the reader understands what it is that they are reading about will help make the author’s argument clearer. Also, the article backed up each argument with many quotes from scientists of that subject. Many viewpoints make all the facts stronger and provide different kinds of analysis on the subject. This article was really good and well supported so I couldn’t find any major faults with it. Overall, it was interesting to learn more about DNA and what the future might hold for our perfections of the human genome.
While several other students have impressed me in the past with their knowledgeable thoughts, Sarah’s interpretation of the article, "Biologists Call for Halt to Gene Editing Technique in Humans,"by Wade Davis, was written in a magnificent way showing a clear understanding of her topic. As an intellectual reader, rarely have I come across such studies, however in doing so, Sarah is breaking from the basic boundaries of our current introduction to chemistry and demonstrating an eagerness to learn in a variety of ways. As seen in the opening paragraph of her review, this topic is quite complex, in dealing with the increasing concerns with discovery of a way to alter or enhance DNA. Not only does Sarah explain the concepts and provide facts for us readers, but she also provides quotes, proving her evidence is all authentic. Furthermore, Billings, when speaking of these unapproved possible techniques impact on our society today, acknowledges both the pros and cons of these discoveries. The men and women who might support these recent developments might argue that the inclusion of altering one’s DNA in a hospital setting might prevent future heredity diseases while gaining necessary information about the withstanding questionable DNA of the human body. However, on the other hand, there a several consequences that remain to be seen in further testing. While these developments have been tested, it cannot be considered a 100% successful rate due to the small amounts of people this action has been tested on. While Sarah does do a terrific job in all these areas, there are a few minor areas in her writing in which I believe there needs to be a change. For example, while Sarah does mention the possible effects on our society, she seems to not include reasons why these tests would impact her own life. It would have been nice to see personal stories or experiences that Sarah came across pushing her to write about this interesting story. Additionally, when Sarah summarizes this article, she only includes one man’s view the DNA altering that could become vital in the future. However, from this, I wonder if this is the only opinion out there. From my point of view, it seems a bit vague. Although I do mention a few mishaps that occur in this article, I stand by my point of emphasis that states that this is a very well-written review. Without Sarah’s findings in this area of Science, I would have never noticed the possibility of eliminating heredity diseases that have cause some my families such harsh and utter pain.
ReplyDeleteWade, Nicholas. "Biologists Call for Halt to Gene Editing Technique in Humans." The New York
ReplyDeleteTimes. The New York Times, 19 Mar. 2015. Web. 19 Mar. 2015.
.
I chose to review the article that Sarah critiqued. I thought that Sarah did a good job with the summary which got all the main points through in an easy to understand way. It was a good idea to include the use of quotes to help further prove a point, such as how a new technique has made it easier to control genes. I think the article that Sarah reviewed did a good job incorporating professional opinions and how some people approve while ethicists are completely against this. It was a good idea to talk about the consequences of altering DNA in humans and how even if it has worked when testing on animals, it might not have the same effect on humans. Sarah was on point with how this issue can affect humans in both positive and negative ways. By altering the genes, it could help improve the lives of people born with diseases or defects but it is not safe to do since not much is known yet. I don’t have anything really bad to say about Sarah’s review. She did an excellent job on the summary and talked thoroughly about the pros and cons of this technique. It would have been interesting to know if this technique has been used on anyone before or how successful it has been on the animals (the article only says how this technique has been used on animals but doesn't include much about the results), and it would also be helpful to know the process of how this technique works / how it alters the genes. I liked this article and I am glad that Sarah has brought this topic to our attention. I would not have known about this otherwise, and how it could potentially affect the lives of everybody.