Onkar Dogra

Professor Gregory Graham

RHET 1312-06

14 April 2019

Anderson, Ryan. “Just Because We Can Create Genetically Modified Babies Doesn't Mean We

Should.” The Heritage Foundation, 17 Dec. 2018, www.heritage.org/marriage-and-

family/commentary/just-because-we-can-create-genetically-modified-babies-doesnt-

mean.

Ryan Anderson believes that while technology has improved to the point of being able to

create humans in a lab, it should not be a practice that we are committed to. Anderson

believes it is morally wrong to be labeling individuals as a product of a laboratory and as

an object. He believes that the creation of humans should be natural and gene editing

takes away that component, thus making it artificial. The article addresses the scientific

component along with the ethics of gene editing. Anderson believes that ethics should

govern the use of our technology, and not vice versa. He addresses those who fully

support gene editing, and states that we should keep our technology in check.

Harris, John and Marcy Darnovsky. “Pro and Con: Should Gene Editing Be Performed on

Human Embryos?” National Geographic, 26 Nov. 2018,

www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2016/08/human-gene-editing-pro-con-opinions/.

The authors of the article describe the reasons for and against gene editing being

performed on humans. Professor Harris supports gene editing, as it can improve overall
 health of a being. On the other hand, Dr. Darnovsky believes that gene editing is

unethical as it may create a dystopian society. The article is excellent at demonstrating

both sides of the argument of gene editing. It captures a broad view of the dilemma and

intends on educating the audience on the arising issue.

Hendriks, S., N A A Giesbertz, A L Bredenoord, S Repping. “Reasons for being in favour of or

against genome modification: a survey of the Dutch general public.” Human

Reproduction Open, vol. 2018, no.3, 16 May 2018,

https://academic.oup.com/hropen/article/2018/3/hoy008/4996571.

In a research, a group of scientists take a survey from the public regarding their stance on

genome modification. The results showed that the majority of the public supported gene

editing. However, the results also showed that the majority did not support gene editing

in HIV resistance and increasing intelligence. They supported gene modification during

instances where a condition was occurring rather than preventable. The study

demonstrates that gene editing is a process that most are split on, however a greater

amount supports it for present conditions such as neuromuscular disease.

Knoepfler, Paul. “The Ethical Dilemma of Designer Babies.” TED,

www.ted.com/talks/paul_knoepfler_the_ethical_dilemma_of_designer_babies?language=

en.

Paul Knoepfler, a biomedical scientist, speaks to the general population on the dilemma

of producing a society of designer babies. He states the potential benefits of genetically

editing humans include prolonged lifespan or expression of favorable traits. Knoepfler

 continues by describing a world in which the enhanced designer babies live among the

naturally born humans. He states that the existence of superior humans will create a

dilemma of who is the superior and what both parties would truly think of the other.

Knoepfler raises the ethical question of should humans be genetically modified, and the

what quality of life would it give to those who are not? Knoepfler intends to create

awareness of the situation of designer babies, as the advancement in technology will not

simply created improved living.

Malik, Kenan. “Fear of Dystopian Change Should Not Blind Us to the Potential of Gene

Editing.” The Guardian, 22 July 2018,

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jul/21/designer-babies-gene-editing-

curing-disease.

Kenan Malik claims that gene editing should be embraced just as other revolutions in the

biomedical industry were. He states that gene editing is capable of solving many diseases. Malik

also states that unlike genes for intelligence, genes for diseases are simple and easy to work with.

Kenan Malik speaks to those who are skeptical of gene editing as he attempts to persuades them

that it is the future of medicine.

Saplakoglu, Yasemin. “Gene-Edited Babies Reportedly Born in China. What Could Go

Wrong?” LiveScience, 26 Nov. 2018, www.livescience.com/64166-first-genetically-

modified-babies-risks.html.

The author of the article describes the scientific aspects to gene editing and the potential

harm that it may cause. Saplakoglu explains the emergence of the world’s first
 genetically modified baby. She also continues by stating that although it may be a method

to remove contraction of specific diseases, it may lead to other illnesses. The author

intends to educate the audience about gene editing, and how the entire process is capable

of creating other human conditions that will lead to further suffering.

Savulescu, Julian. “Five Reasons We Should Embrace Gene-Editing Research on Human

Embryos.” Phys.org, 3 Dec. 2015, phys.org/news/2015-12-embrace-gene-editing-human-

embryos.html.

Julian Sayilescu believes that gene editing should be embraced as it is capable of solving

many problems. Sayilescu states that gene editing has the potential to prevent diseases,

make treatment cheaper, slow aging, and create the perfect child. Sayilescu uses scientific

theories to appeal to the audience that gene editing is a practice that should be embraced.

Simmons, Danielle. “Genetic Inequality: Human Genetic Engineering.” Nature Education,

www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/genetic-inequality-human-genetic-engineering-768.

The author focuses on the physical and scientific uses of gene editing for the

improvement of human life. Simmons explains the idea of improving humans from

various methods, from hormone manipulation to currently gene editing. She explains that

gene editing will allow for expression of desirable traits and features. Simmons then

explains how such gene editing may result in the expression of unfavorable traits as side

effects in the form of possible diseases. She also brings up the moral question of the

impact of editing genes of babies on the entire society. Simmons intends on making the

audience ask if gene editing is not only scientifically but also ethically permissible.
Sparrow, Robert and Glenn Cohen. “Genetically Engineering Humans: a Step Too

Far?” Pharmaceutical Journal, 24 Sept. 2015, www.pharmaceutical-

journal.com/opinion/comment/genetically-engineering-humans-a-step-too-

far/20069421.article?firstPass=false.

Professor Sparrow claims that while gene editing is an extraordinary marvel, it should not

be practiced. He states that editing genes may ultimately cause problems in other parts of

the gene. Sparrow also firmly believes that evolving humans will create an obsolesce of

those who are not. Glenn Cohen, on the other hand, believes that gene editing has the

capability of improving civilization. The article illustrates the split between people who

believe in both sides.