CRISPR Gene Editing: A Potential Cure for LIfe-Threatening Diseases
Context: What is CRISPR?
Context: What is the controversy?
2 sides: Supporters and critics
Differing ideologies: Scientific progress vs. Ethical responsibility
Scientists vs. Ethicists
Key Support 1: Further research into editing the human genome is the only way to see if this technology is viable for clinical use.
Huffington Post: “Although it has attracted a lot of attention, the study simply underscores the point that the technology is not ready for clinical application”
Rebuttal 2: More research is necessary in order to fix certain safety concerns with this technology, and ensure that it is safe to use in clinical settings.
MIT Technology Review: “'These authors did a very good job pointing out the challenges,”'says Dieter Egli, a researcher at the New York Stem Cell Foundation in Manhattan. 'They say themselves this type of technology is not ready for any kind of application.'"
Address safety concerns here
Key Support 2: Without this type of experimentation, we will have no way to tell whether this procedure could possibly cure potentially life-threatening diseases.
YouTube Interview:“there is the potential, though, to [...] splice [diseases] out of the sequence before a child is even born” (2:07-2:16)
Add some pathos/logos here through statistics
Rebuttal 1: While many argue that genetically engineering the human genome is ethically wrong, it is worse to allow life-threatening diseases to carry on when there is a potential way to cure them.
The Guardian: "However ignoring the resource is also risky. We may needlessly subject future generations to an endless cycle of suffering and disease."
Conclusion