Overall, working with this group on the deliberation was a very pleasant experience.

For the most part, everyone researched the topic and specific frames thoroughly,
were willing to do any work asked of them, and offered to complete any tasks that
they could. 10/10 would work with everyone in this group again.

My role was Team Leader and the Introduction. As Team Leader, I was responsible
for being a liaison between Cynthia and the rest of the group, making sure that the
group overall and each frame was staying on track. Each time things were due for
the group, I collected materials from each mini group, compiled items, and submitted
them. I also compiled facts from the collective research for the fact sheet, which was
later formatted (beautifully) by Kelsey. For my role for the Introduction, I was
responsible for researching the topic of designer babies, specifically the key
definitions that were included in the intro and factsheet. I was responsible for writing
the intro and presenting it, as well as facilitating the opening discussion during the
deliberation.

My team partners were Ben and Anthony, and their work was concentrated on the
conclusion and marketing (Anthony). We all did a fair amount of research, writing,
and discussion.

During our deliberation, I noticed that a majority of the attendees were willing to
actively participate. Those who were not comfortable sharing in the large group were
given several opportunities to participate in smaller groups or in pairs, so each
attendee was able to share his/her opinion in some way. One deliberation that I
attended was set up in one large group the entire time. While most attendees were
still willing to participate, some attendees seemed to find one large group too
intimidating. Our deliberation had more active participation. At the other deliberation I
attended, there was much more participation because there were opportunities for
small group discussion. Our deliberation had about equal participation. I believe that
we had almost 100% participation because of the many opportunities given for
pair/small group/large group discussion. Furthermore, groups were not static.
Groups shifted, were re-divided, and were able to move around the room to hear
new opinions. In order to ensure 100% participation, we could have directly asked
each participant to share, but we did not want to make anyone feel uncomfortable or
“put on the spot.”

We were looking to find out where people stood on the issue of designer babies,
specifically, whether or not research should continue. According to debate.org, 59%
think we should not have designer babies at all. We wanted to hear from people to
see where they stood. In the case that research will in fact continue, we wanted to
discuss what steps should be taken to ensure ethical application of germline editing
technology. Should the technology only apply to disease prevention? What
constitutes disease? Should the technology be allowed for enhancement? We found
that many people supported the idea that research should continue with caution. As
long as research is ethical and regulated, it should continue. People agreed that
there should be collaboration between the government and the medical community
to decide what is best. A majority of attendees agreed that enhancement would be
going too far with the technology, but the technology has great potential for curing
disease. They defined “good use” of the technology as an edit made to “reduce
fatality or improve quality of life.”

An important point by Dr. Cavener was that, although he does not believe that we
should make edits for designer babies, germline genetic modification will continue to
be researched and developed throughout the world. As a major scientific influencer
in the world, the US may need to have a role in the continuation of research to
ensure that it is ethical and humane. A counterpoint to this was that the US may be
overstepping their role by insisting that certain regulations be followed, and the other
countries may not even abide by those regulations. A major point was that it is a
“moral responsibility” to have this discussion with other countries.

I believe that my introduction was dynamic, as it alternated between my own

narrative, discussion among the attendees (in pairs), and sharing opinions aloud. I
believe that my presentation added to the overall energy and enthusiasm of the
night. Below is my script:

Hello everyone. Thank you so much for joining us tonight for our deliberation. Before
we begin, we’d like to gauge our audience. By a show of hands, how many of you
are RCL students? Undergraduate students? Graduate students? Researchers?
Parents? Thank you. Before we continue, we’d like to introduce Dr. Douglas
Cavener, who is currently researching genetic engineering through CRISPR
technology. Dr. Cavener, is there any information you’d like to share before we get
started?

By a show of hands: how many of you, if given the opportunity, would make your
children immune to disease?

Reflect and do not raise your hands: How many of you have considered, if given the
opportunity, would select certain traits for your child, such as a certain eye color or
hair color?

With technology that is currently being researched and developed, these

hypotheticals may become a reality. Throughout this discussion, we will be
discussing the research and possible applications of CRISPR and germline genetic
modification. In other words, we will be discussing the possibility of having designer
babies, a rather controversial issue.

First, in a large group, we will consider whether continuing research is worthwhile. As

of now, research for this topic is permitted and sometimes encouraged. The
National Academy of Sciences and Medicine​ believes that biomedical research
on both somatic and germline cells is necessary for scientific advancement. The
Food and Drug Administration​, which has a key role in the regulation of drugs and
therapeutic technology, does allow research although they will not allocate funds.
Furthermore, any application of the technology must be screened and approved like
any regular drug. However, we already have vaccines, antibiotics, and other
measures like somatic gene editing, which can prevent and treat a wide variety of
diseases. So we’ll be discussing whether it is necessary to continue developing such
controversial technology.

Second, in two smaller groups, we will consider the case that research does
continue. We will consider what will be ethical in the research and application of this
technology. Many factors, like religious or political affiliations will most certainly affect
people’s views on the issue, as is shown on your fact sheet. One group will discuss
whether we should allow genetic engineering for therapy or disease prevention. The
other group will discuss allowing gene modifications for enhancement, such as
cosmetic changes. And then the two groups will switch after about 20 minutes.

This technology has the potential to save lives, but it many have unforeseen
implications, which we will attempt to address today.

Let’s take a minute to brainstorm- talk to the person next to you.

Do any of you have concerns regarding the research and application of germline
genetic engineering?

In 2018, researcher He Jiankui was able to successfully modified two embryos and
produced genetically engineered twins, Lulu and Nana. How do you feel knowing
that this technology has begun being successfully applied? - any hope or concerns
for expansion

Guidelines:

1. This is a deliberation, not an argument, so no side should try to “win.”

Remember to be respectful of others’ views.

2. Do not worry about raising your hands to speak. Feel free to speak as you
wish, just allow people to finish their thoughts.

3. Don’t be afraid to share your opinion.

This was dynamic because it engaged the audience, shared relevant but relatively
concise information, and allowed the attendees to talk among themselves and share
aloud. Next time, I could share relevant statistics as part of my intro, but they were
provided on the factsheet. I would give my presentation an A.

I was a decent facilitator. I asked probing questions, allowed attendees to discuss

amongst themselves and then share. When people shared their views, I was able to
be objective/unbiased in my response. I was able to paraphrase what attendees
shared so that everyone was on the same page and the conversation could keep
going. I was also able to keep the conversation moving by explaining that certain
points would be discussed further later on in the deliberation in one of our frames. I
could improve by asking more follow-up questions after people answer. I would give
my facilitation an A-.