Nate Moore April 27, 2015
Chemistry Current events 8
Kolata, Gina. "Chinese Scientists Edit Genes of Human Embryos, Raising Concerns." The New York Times. The New York Times, 23 Apr. 2015. Web. 27 Apr. 2015.
The article I chose to review, “Chinese Scientists Edit Genes of Human Embryos, Raising Concerns” by Gina Kolata discusses recent testing done by Chinese scientists on human embryos, a decision that was highly controversial and raised many questions about the future of human gene editing. The article opens by discussing that prior to China’s experiment, leading researchers had decided to not test embryos until it could be proved to be completely safe as well as ethical. The Chinese scientists inevitably failed in their endeavours and for exactly the the safety reasons American researchers had not wanted to try the experiment. They tested 85 different embryos and altered a certain gene in every cell as a way to test whether gene modification could potentially be a realistic option in the future. The result that they got was not what they were looking for. Some of the embryo cells overcame the editing, rendering the process ineffective and others led to further DNA mutations. Many scientists believe this will lead to unsafe practices in which babies with all their cells modified being born. Dr. George Q. Daly, a researcher at Harvard, discusses the danger of the practice, saying, “This is an unsafe procedure and should not be practiced at this time, and perhaps never.” He argues that this was the Chinese scientists last attempt to modify genes, yet some think that this was just the beginning of their testing. They use a program called Crispr that allows “researchers to cut out selected genes and insert new ones.” However, scientists worry this program is not as developed as it should.
The possible implications for these tests as well as genetic modifying in general on our own lives is significant. Correct gene modification would be extremely helpful in eliminating horrible diseases from the earth and could save millions of lives. However, if a modification goes wrong then the embryo will often die or be even more impaired than before. If the process becomes successful then the inevitable next step is to modify physical appearance. Thoguh appealing, it would remove all individuality from human existence and everyone would look extremely similar.
This article was extremely well written and featured a lot of good opinions from several of the worlds leading scientists on the subject. The author used excellent vocabulary and commanded a wide range of knowledge in regards to the gene modification process. Furthermore, to back up his major points Kolata included quotes from significant papers as well as quotes from scientists from Harvard and Cal Tech. Despite much of the article being very engaging, I felt that the article did not give much background on the topic and people outside of the scientific community might not understand some of his analysis, particularly when she discusses the exact process the Chinese scientists went through. Aside from this, I thoroughly enjoyed the article and I learned a lot.
Jeff Sargent
ReplyDeleteCurrent Event Review
Kolata, Gina. "Chinese Scientists Edit Genes of Human Embryos, Raising Concerns." The New York Times. The New York Times, 23 Apr. 2015. Web. 27 Apr. 2015.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/health/chinese-scientists-edit-genes-of-human-embryos-raising-concerns.html?ref=science
In Nate Moore’s current event review of the article “Chinese Scientists Edit Genes of Human Embryos, Raising Concerns” by Gina Kolata, he does multiple things well to portray his information. First off, I really like how he uses and points out the organization and format of the article to help get his point across at the right time. Secondly, I like how he uses quotes from the article and from scientists such as Dr. George Q. Daly, because this really helps show where the information. It helps the reader believe the facts that you are trying to get across, because it is backed up by someone who is a professional in the field. Lastly, I really like how Nate not only gets the facts and the quotes from professionals in his review, but he also inputs his own ideas. He gives his point of view on the program, and that is something that I really think helps connect to the audience.
This whole review was really good, but I feel like it could have been improved. I think that some of the vocabulary throughout the review was a little too advanced. He could have stopped and explained what some words meant or what some things were. This really could have helped less experienced readers understand the review. Secondly, I think that he could have organized the article a little better. I think that some points overlapped that shouldn’t have. Lastly, I was really impressed with how he broke down the article, and even at the end commented on the structure and the writing of the article so well. He really reviewed every aspect of the article, and I think that he did so really well.