Despite the potential benefits associated with gene editing, it has to be strictly regulated and approached with much caution due to its ethical implications, unpredictability, and larger environmental impact.
Al-Balas, Q. A. E., Dajani, R., & Al-Delaimy, W. K. (2020). The ethics of gene editing from an Islamic perspective: A focus on the recent gene editing of the Chinese twins. Science and Engineering Ethics, 26, 1851-1860. Web.
Perspective: For the argument.
Analysis: This article is primarily focused on finding the place for gene editing in the religious minds of believers, in this case, Muslims, if there is one. According to the authors, gene editing technologies can be implemented even though it is unclear as to how they might fit into the religious worldview of hundreds of millions of people. The article will serve as an addition to the existing pile of evidence suggesting the devastating impact CRISPR and related technologies can have on the functionality of human societies as they are today. What makes the source credible is its relatively early publishing date and the feature in an academically-reviewed journal.
Arlidge, J. (2021). Why Jennifer Doudna’s DNA discovery is revolutionising the way we tackle disease. Sunday Times. Web.
Perspective: Against the argument.
Analysis: The source underlines the greatest benefits of gene editing, including elimination of diseases and the creation of more adaptable crops, leading to more regular and reliable harvests. This article will be the primary citation in regards to the many advantages of gene editing. This article is the one of least credible out of the ones present in this annotated bibliography. Yet, it was still selected for the assignment due to it being published in a relatively well-respected newspaper and being written by a senior writer at the publication.
Clarke, P. (2020). Debate: Gene editing the pros and cons for farming.Farmers Weekly. Web.
Perspective: Dual perspective (for and against the argument).
Analysis: The article offers readers two opposite perspectives in regards to gene editing supplied by two women, Kierra Box and Tina Barsby, both experts in the field of gene modification and editing as they relate to environmental sustainability. Kierra claims that gene editing remains a largely unexplored subject, which is why there is no efficient statutory framework to oversee its integration into the modern agricultural sector. In opposition to Kierra who supports the implementation of alternative solutions to the problems gene editing is trying to fix, Tina Barsby argues that it is integral not to ignore the pathways scientific innovation provides. The breakthroughs in gene editing allow the humanity to be better equipped to deal with the challenges of food security, biodiversity conservation, and so on. The paper will incorporate passages from Kierra’s statements in order to showcase the downsides of adopting early-day research into practice. Apart from focusing on Kierra’s take on unpredictability, Tina’s point of view will be taken into consideration when constructing the counterargument. It is a highly reliable source published in one of the most prominent agricultural publications rather recently. The viewpoints included in the article are those of industry experts.
Dockser Marcus, A. (2017). The ethics of gene editing.Wall Street Journal. Web.
Perspective: Dual perspective (for and against the argument).
Analysis: This source is a review article of the book written by one of the most prominent biochemists of the 21st century as well as a revolutionary scientist in the field of gene editing. Dockser Marcus (2017) notes that Jennifer Doudna, one of the authors of “A Crack in Creation: Gene Editing and the Unthinkable Power to Control Evolution,” Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats (CRISPR) is the future of gene editing aimed at making genetic changes much easier and faster. In regards to the argument the paper is going to make, this article will be used to reference Doudna’s ethical concerns regarding this new technology, which seems to be the primary focus of modern-day gene editing research. This article has been obtained via ProQuest and should be considered a credible source since it was published recently and in a world-renown newspaper.
Hofmann, B. (2018). The gene-editing of super-ego. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy, 21(3), 295-302. Web.
Perspective: Dual perspective (for and against the argument).
Analysis: The source describes the moral implications of gene editing adoption into modern society in much detail, focusing primarily on the assumptions that are usually associated with bio technological innovations. This article will be utilized throughout the paper to demonstrate that the idea that gene editing is a great option is based upon assumptions, rather than real facts. This source’s credibility stems from it being published in a peer-reviewed academic journal and written by a scientist with years of research experience.
Holm, S. (2019). Let us Assume that gene editing is safe—The role of safety arguments in the gene editing debate. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, 28(1), 100–111. Web.
Perspective: Against the argument.
Analysis: This article discusses the importance of considering the safety of gene editing as a factor in deciding whether or not such technology should be implemented. The source will be integrated into the paper in the counterargument section to demonstrate how some academics might dismiss the ethical implications of gene editing. The article was written by a prominent researcher and published in a peer-reviewed Cambridge journal in 2019, making it more than reliable enough for this assignment.
King, A. (2016). Gene-editing: Where do you draw the line?Irish Times. Web.
Perspective: Dual perspective (for and against the argument).
Analysis: This source discusses the new breakthroughs on the field of gene editing and modification. The author notes that it is now possible to edit DNA quicker than ever, just in a matter of months. This article will be used to demonstrate that the integration of CRISPR and other related technologies is indeed controversial. Firstly, its practical benefits remain unclear. Secondly, there is uncertainty as to how these technologies will even influence DNA since scientists still have no idea about a lot of genes in the body in terms of their functions. This article has been written by Anthony King in 2016 and published in one of Ireland’s most prominent publications, which makes it somewhat credible.
Ormond, K. E., Bombard, Y., Bonham, V. L., Hoffman-Andrews, L., Howard, H., Isasi, R., Musunuru, K., Riggan, K. A., Michie, M., & Allyse, M. (2019). The clinical application of gene editing: ethical and social issues. Personalized Medicine, 16(4), 337–350. Web.
Perspective: Dual perspective (for and against the argument).
Analysis: The source aims at examining the social and ethical implications of gene editing technologies’ integration in depth. The authors make a strong point in regards to the need of regulation and public dialogue when it comes to the subject of gene editing and modification. This article will be used primarily in the background section to the technical terms and introduce some of the social and ethical implications of gene editing. This source is the work of a group of researchers, all experts in the field of genetics and ethics. It was published in a peer-reviewed journal only 2 years ago, making it credible for the purposes of this paper.