BioQuakes

AP Biology class blog for discussing current research in Biology

Tag: Bioethics

Forbidden Baby Editing

By

On January 21, 2020

In Student Post

We all at this point in life have come to know what gene editing is. The technology for it is slowly and forever becoming more and more advanced. The scary thing about editing genes is the fact that we have to potentially affect a baby’s life their entire time alive. It has many different problems which is why its going to take a long time for it to fully get approved in the hospital.

Well unfortunately in an article found here there was a fright to figure out that someone had actually edited the genomes of some babies without people knowing. Many scientists condemned scientist He Jianku as it came to light that he had done something that the science was not ready for yet. He used CRISPR Cas9 tech in order to alter some genes of a few babies. The definition of CRISPR is here but basically it is a general tech to edit the genomes of babies that haven’t been born yet. People were up in arms about the process because he had bypassed the ethical laws and needed up editing the genes of a real live human. People in the science community go on to say that the CRISPR technology just isn’t ready to be executed on a human. There needs to be many more trials before it is used on a person for real. There is progress to make sure this doesn’t happen such as fines and bans from research however they are trying to make sure that it doesn’t happen at all. It gives scientists a bad name and he is trying his best to not let that happen. Technology will always advance and the hard part is trying to make sure that tech is ethical. Hopefully this gives insight to how we can prevent things like this happening in this day and age

Ethics of Advertising Cosmetic Surgery

By

On October 20, 2019

In Student Post

Ethics of Advertising Cosmetic Surgery

Cosmetic surgery has transformed over the years from mainly consisting of correctional procedures, to becoming a 16 billion dollar industry as of 2016.

The first true cosmetic surgeon Gaspare Taliagozzi, believed that the purpose of cosmetic surgery was to “restore to wholeness the features which nature gave but chance destroyed, not that they may charm the eye but that they may be an advantage to the living soul….The end for which the physician is working is that the features should fulfill their offices according to nature’s decree.” Especially because of the previously deadly risks of many of the cosmetic procedures we now find commonplace, it was unimaginable that cosmetic surgery would ever become a norm for a society. Now that it cosmetic surgery is so ubiquitous, it leads us to question the many ramifications that come from publicly promoting it.

Ramifications and Roots of Popular Procedures

Many popular cosmetic procedures such as Blepharoplasty (eyelid surgery) and Rhinoplasty (“nose jobs”) are actually deeply rooted in racism and anti-semitism. Blepharoplasty is the most popular cosmetic surgery in Asia, and it consists of adding a crease in the eyelid. This procedure gained popularity during the westernization of Japan, when the first surgeon to implement it, Mikamo, stated that single eyelids were “monotonous and impassive”, while double eyelids were more appealing. On one hand, Blepharoplasty is used to improve problems with vision, but it is also done to “fix” the race-based insecurities caused by the cosmetic surgery industries’ advertisements. 

“Medical gallery of Blausen Medical 2014“.

Rhinoplasty is also a common surgery, which was initially done by most surgeons to “save” the patient from the stigma of resembling Jews, despite the fact that it initially left external scarring. Despite the part of the Hippocratic Oath that states “Do no harm,” many physicians continue to execute purely superficial surgeries despite their many risks that can even include the chance of losing vision as in Blepharoplasty.  

Takeaway

 Oftentimes, advertisers for such surgeries will have to prey on the insecurities of everyone exposed to their very public advertisements to make their procedure seem more desirable, which is why it is no wonder that 80% of American women are dissatisfied with their appearance. Are we really willing to sacrifice the mental wellbeing of millions for the mere sake of capitalism? Do these types of advertisements reinforce eurocentric beauty standards?  

A CRISPR Controversy

By

On March 12, 2019

In Student Post

The Issue:

A recent article published by Grace Tsoi highlights the ongoing controversy regarding CRISPR, a new technology capable of editing DNA sequences, and thus genomes. Among those experimenting with CRISPR is Chinese researcher He Jiankui, notoriously nicknamed “China’s Dr. Frankenstein.” Many are critical of He Jiankui, as they deem his work with CRISPR — such as producing the world’s first gene-edited babies — inhumane and unethical. He Jiankui, however, argues that CRISPR has the potential to help “…millions of families with inherited diseases or exposure to infectious disease.”

Pictured above is He Jiankui, researcher and associate professor of the Southern University of Science and Technology’s Biology Department.

The Study:

In proving CRISPR’s potential, He Jiankui referenced an experiment in which he was able to produce two healthy twin girls by manipulating their genes, specifically making them resistant to HIV. He Jiankui had ultimate success with CRISPR technology, as the twins produced were not HIV positive, unlike their biological father. To learn more about the threat of HIV during contraception, click here. While He Jiankui expressed pride to his audience, stating, “For this specific case, I feel proud actually. I feel proudest because Mark [father of the twins] thought he had lost hope for life,” some audience members did not feel the excitement. Rather, his animated claims were met with intense criticism.

The Risks and Suspicions:

Given CRISPR’s potential, why are people so critical? Is CRISPR’s label “gene scissors” accurate or oversimplified? Regardless of these answers, it is undeniable that utilizing CRISPR for human embryos is a much more complex process. As Kenneth Lee, a biomedical sciences professor at the Chinese University of Hong Kong, explains it, using CRISPR in human embryos is “highly risky,” and could potentially mutate other genes in the process. As a result, the embryo might not survive, or could acquire deformities and/or other genetic disorders. Adding another element to the audience’s suspicion of He Jiankui’s experiment was the secrecy surrounding it, as he failed to answer why he initially hid it from Chinese officials. Failing to consider the opinions of these aforementioned officials has left many questioning the genuine ethics of He Jiankui’s experiment. In defending his work, He Jiankui emphasized that every individual involved consented to his experiment and were well-educated on the study itself. However, the consent form uploaded to his website, explicitly states that He Jiankui would not be held responsible for any unintended gene mutation. Moreover, the University where he conducted his experiment appeared unaware of his lab work, thus rendering an investigation of He Jiankui’s activities. Although China is a more “relaxed” country regarding its gene editing rules (gene editing is banned in the U.S., as well as many other countries), He Jiankui has faced condemnation from many Chinese scientists. Despite this, he plans to expand his studies, focusing next on another gene-edited pregnancy — yet another controversial experiment that will prove to either have potential or deep ramifications. 

CRISPR: The Next Step for Cancer Treatment

By

On March 13, 2018

In Student Post

CRISPR is a gene editing technique that is currently still being researched and expanded upon, however, upon recent discoveries, one can note the great advantages this technology brings to the table to enhance cancer immunotherapy .  More specifically, according to the Washington University School of Medicine, “these T cell immunotherapies can’t be used if the T cells themselves are cancerous.” However, there is more to this discovery. Let’s backtrack.

What exactly is CRISPR? “CRISPR technology is a simple yet powerful tool for editing genomes. It allows researchers to easily alter DNA sequences and modify gene function. Its many potential applications include correcting genetic defects, treating and preventing the spread of diseases and improving crops. However, its promise also raises ethical concerns.” For the sake of this article, we are just focusing on the benefits it has on cancer treatment solely. Also, what exactly are T cells? They are “a type of white blood cell that is of key importance to the immune system and is at the core of adaptive immunity, the system that tailors the body’s immune response to specific pathogens. The T cells are like soldiers who search out and destroy the targeted invaders.” On the other hand, T cells can become cancerous therefore not being able to accomplish their task of destroying invaders.

How does CRISPR enhance cancer immunotherapy? Scientists at the Washington University School of Medicine engineered human T cells that can attack cancerous human T cells. Additionally, they engineered the T cells to eliminate a harmful side effect known as graft-versus-host disease. This was all thanks to CRISPR. But, how exactly did they figure this out? Were there any flaws or bumps in the road?

Well, this type of treatment cannot work if the T cells they use are cancerous. Supercharged T cells can alternatively be used to kill cancerous T cells, but the cells can also kill each other because they resemble each other closely. This is where CRISPR came in, preventing the human T cells and cancerous human T cells from killing each other. Another benefit of this is that the scientists engineered the T cells so any donors T cells can be used without the fear of not matching the person in need of the T cells.

Overall, anything to better the prevention of cancer is a scientific win in most’s book. But, CRISPR is a controversial tool. Some think it should be put to use and some do not. However, will this technology alter other aspects of the human genome besides diseases and deadly occurrences? How will this affect our ethics as a community? Will our genetics continue to increasingly become more altered? Time will only tell.

CRISPR/Cas9, Omnipotent Cure or New Toy for the Rich and Famous?

By

On April 5, 2017

In Student Post

Editing the human genome has been a highly controversial subject matter in the field of bioethics as advancements with techniques like CRISP/Cas9 allow for precise DNA cutting and sequence addition.  As of February 14th, a panel for the National Academies of Sciences and Medicine concluded that altering DNA in gametic cells is ethical as long as it is only utilized to cure genetic diseases that could be passed down to offspring and not to simply enhance health or certain characteristics.  This is novel as former recommendations given by organizers of a global summit on human gene editing proposed that gene manipulation via molecular scissors should not be used in the production of babies.  However, it is important to note that while the Nation Academies reports often impact policy formation in the United States and around the world, they hold no actually legislative weight and authority rests in hands of Congress, regulatory agencies like the FDA, and both state and local governmental bodies.

Depiction of CRISPR/Cas9 protein complex by Thomas Splettstoesser, source

Some scientists like panel cochair Alta Charo of the University of Wisconsin-Madison Law School are still highly skeptical of heritable gene editing and have not yet pinpointed times when it is just to perform.  “We are not trying to greenlight heritable germline editing,” says Charo, “We’re trying to find that limited set of circumstances where its use is justified by a compelling need and its application is limited to that compelling need.  We’re giving it a yellow light.”  Others hold the notion that any manipulation of the germline will inevitably culminate in the creation of “designer babies”.  In their minds, this could stigmatize disabled people, heighten inequality between the rich and those who can’t afford the treatment, and possibly start a new wave of eugenics like seen in the sci-fi film Gattaca (1997). Marcy Darnovsky, executive director of the Center for Genetics and Society in Berkeley, California, comments, “Once you approve any form of human germline modification you really open the door to all forms.”

On the other end of the spectrum, many are thrilled with the decision and see a bright future for the human race.  Sean Tipton, a spokesman for the American Society for Reproductive Medicine in Washington, D.C., states, “It looks like the possibility of eliminating some genetic diseases is now more than a theoretical option.  That’s what this sets up.” Indeed, debilitating diseases caused by mutations in single genes like cystic fibrosis and Huntington’s could become a thing of the past in the near future.  Unfortunately, genome editing to cure more complex diseases and disorders associated with mutations in multiple genes (autism, schizophrenia, etc.) is still very far in the future.

In reality, there is little to worry about in the area of germline editing for now as panelist Jeffrey Kahn of Johns Hopkins University ensures that the beginning of heritable gene alteration is closed off until requirements can be met at the legislative level.  Additionally, the panel presented numerous obstacles that must be cleared before germline manipulation can become a reality.  Nita Farahany, a bioethicist at Duke Law School claims, “Some people could read into the stringency of the requirements to think that the benefits could never outweigh the risks.”  Also, the requirement to follow up with multiple generations of genetically modified children to study what consequences the therapy holds for future offspring is an invasion of privacy.  Farahany adds that, “You can’t bind your children and grandchildren to agree to be tracked by such studies.”  On top of all this, it is extremely difficult to draw distinctions between therapies and enhancements. George Church, a Harvard University geneticist, remarks that nearly all medical advancements could be considered life-enhancing.  “Vaccines are advancements over our ancestors. If you could tell our ancestors they could walk into a smallpox ward and not even worry about it, that would be a superpower.”

So, where will germline editing take the species Homo sapiens?  Is the cure for cancer on the horizon?  Would the pursuit of creating perfect humans be beneficial or harmful for society?

CRISPR: Is Science Going Too Far?

By

On April 13, 2016

In Student Post

CRISPR is a some-what new genetic tool in the field of science to edit human embryos. Using CRISPR, scientists can edit the genes of organisms more precisely than ever before. It uses RNA and an enzyme that slices up invading virusesF. One use of this new technology is to fix mutations that cause genetic diseases.

Crispr

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CRISPR

Ethical concerns arose in April of 2015 when Chinese research used CRISPR to edit nonviable human embryos. In addition, some fear that the use of CRISPR to give the embryo traits not found in their genetic code can lead to a obsessive gene culture like the one found in Gattaca. This ethical debates caused scientists to meet at an international summit hosted by the United States National Academies of Sciences and Medicines, where the scientists discussed the ethical concerns of CRISPR but agreed to continue researching it cautiously.

In addition, some argue that using CRISPR for gene editing defeats the sacredness of the human genome and is unnatural. To this point, Sarah Chan from the EuroStemCell argues, “There is nothing sacred or sacrosanct about the genome as such. The human genome – the genome of humanity as a whole, and the unique individual genome we each possess – is merely the product of our evolutionary history to date”. From this point of view, the genome is merely a record of one’s history, but to some religious groups it is a symbol of life which should not be tainted with.

So readers, what do you think? Should we use this tool to help cure treatable diseases, or does this new technology cross the line between scientific mechanisms and morality? What type of genes should this new tool be allowed to edit?

 

Other sources

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/year-review-breakthrough-gene-editor-sparks-ethics-debate

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/04/crispr-debate-fueled-publication-second-human-embryo-editing-paper

http://www.wired.com/2015/12/stop-dancing-around-real-ethical-problem-crispr/

http://www.eurostemcell.org/commentanalysis/ethics-changing-genes-embryo

Archives

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén

Skip to toolbar