yay or nah

An example from the reading I would choose would be when James used CRISPR technologies to engineer a version of the Anopheles mosquitoes, which in turn makes them unable to spread the malaria disease and parasite. He says, “We added a small package of genes that allows the mosquitoes to function as they always have.” What I gather from this is that it’s a good thing so, that the mosquitoes can live as they usually have been able to the only difference is they cannot spread the malaria parasite. This is exciting because if the population reaches big enough then possibly there would be no malaria in due time and the death rate and sickness rate would go down in countries that impact hugely from this disease. However as James discusses there is a huge risk with releasing anything mutated in the lab into the wild population and that the consequences are unknown. I feel as if though this is almost bette the not being able to combat these different diseases, so I would say this plan had many pros and not many cons associated with that.

Gene editing on humans, this is a huge ethical debate. Because the kids coming from the eggs that have been modified can not give consent and their life is somewhat decided how they are gonna live from there on if it goes smoothly and works. In my opinion I think gene editing on human embryos should only be done if it is a ninety-ninety nine percent chance the kid will get the disease from the parent and will not survive from it, or the cost will be so high that then family couldn’t get medical help. Because I feel as if it is inly right to do that in a life oro death matter at 100 percent certainty.    

Leave a Reply