1.
UNDERSTANTING THE ISSUE
What is genome editing, and what are the key ethical, social, and scientific concerns raised in the
NHGRI article?
— Being part of the course of communication is quite challenging because you can be anything
you want to be such as an actor, a journalist, or a filmmaker. Change is always present, but
clarity is the main strength for yourself, just like the ongoing debate about genome editing. The
article mentioned that they discovered that CRISPR has the potential to make the editing more
accurate and effective. For example, it can change the DNA of a living organism in terms of
physical traits like the eye color, skin tone and also prevention from inheriting diseases like
cancer and HIV, yet there are still a lot of worries to linger. First and foremost, the primary
ethical concern is safety because there is a possibility that using this will lead to unintended
mutations that can cause long-term effects, which can lead to regret. One of the social concerns
is the high risk of misusing this technology, especially when it comes to parent-child
relationships, as this may lessen the unconditional acceptance of their child for who they are.
Also, there are tons of chances that only the rich can experience gene editing technologies, which
is unfair to society. From a scientific point of view, these powerful technologies can have
advantages for some, but it is still risky to use because they are not yet considered 100% safe and
effective. After all, these changes are not predictable.
Why is this issue considered controversial or revolutionary in today’s society?
— This issue is considered both controversial and revolutionary in today’s society. According to
the article, some countries have already allowed genome editing research because it offers
potential cures to many human diseases and enhances food production. However, heritable
human genetic modifications pose serious risks, and the therapeutic benefits are tenuous
(Lanphier, Urnov, Haecker, Werner, & Smolenski, 2015). Genome editing can be a great tool
for change, but it is still encouraged to have an open discussion about this because it can
seriously endanger the future generation.
2. DISCIPLINARY RELEVANCE
How does genome editing relate to your field of study or future profession?
— As far as we know, genome editing requires change. We, ABCO students, are easily judged
by some as we took the easy path, but they failed to realize that communication is not just all talk
but we deliver the message for a change. Just like taking the field of journalism, the duty is to
carefully gather accurate details and spread the story without any biases. Also, the need to
consider whether that “change” can benefit us or not. Respect and trust can only be earned. So,
be transparent and honest when it comes to an open discussion because at the end of the day, our
primary focus that we all want to achieve is to maintain humanity for our future generations.
That concludes how we relate genome editing to our field of study or future profession.
What specific challenges, responsibilities, or opportunities might professionals in your field face
in relation to genome editing?
— In our case as a communication students we faced the greatest challenges when it comes to
getting factual information and combating misinformation, with the advancement of the internet
for the past decades finding a trustworthy source is getting harder and harder, with posers on the
internet posing as legitimate news sources, mostly to create traffic and attention to their websites
and worst cause confusion and panic to the general public, it is a responsibility of us to ensure
that factual information is the thing that is spread. It's also a challenge for us if we are not
knowledgeable about the topic we are covering just as the biological field as we communication
specialists may not be knowledgeable enough towards these topics, The way genome editing is
discussed is often inconsistent and confusing. Simply defining and explaining the term ‘genome’
can present challenges (Starr, 2018) so the challenge is for us to greatly understand the topic we
are covering to ensure we report the factual information to the public.
3. ETHICAL AND SOCIETAL IMPLICATIONS RELEVANCE
What ethical dilemmas or societal risks are most relevant from your disciplinary perspective?
— The ongoing argument whether genome editing for reproductive purposes should be
attempted at this time sparked complex ethical dilemmas and societal risks. From our
disciplinary perspective, with the article given, the most relevant dilemmas include safety and
efficacy, social equity and accessibility, consensual issues and further research. Although there is
broad agreement among researchers, bioethicists, and even stakeholders that genome therapy of
somatic cells can be ethical approaches for the treatment of disease, there still lies a marginalized
room for doubt with this process. First the safety and efficacy, because genetic diseases are
inherited, clinical use of genome editing would have multigenerational effects when it is
executed. Not only will the benefits pass on but also the risks both the edited individual and the
larger population may not be fully known or appreciated within the lifetime of the treated patient,
and many generations would need to be studied to understand the long-term effects. Second,
there’s a risk that genome editing will only be accessible to the wealthy which aggravates
existing health and social inequalities. Alongside this, some worry that it will result in a new
level of class with the editing of cells. The possibility of using gene editing for making
enhancements to others will result in inequality between different classes in the society. And last
is the consensual issues and further research. It is stated in the article that studies argue gene
therapy should not be attempted at this time and that further research that would make gene
therapy much safer should continue.
How might genome editing affect vulnerable populations, future generations, or social equity?
— As it was previously stated, there are countless arguments against the execution of genome
editing for reproductive purposes because of the potential risks it may bring. The technologies
that will be used, such as the CRISPR, will never be omnipotent as it may potentially affect the
future generations negatively. While they have the potential to make such editing more accurate
and even easier in comparison to older technologies, they also raise serious concerns about the
existing social inequalities and harming vulnerable populations. If genome editing is used to
eliminate genetic traits, it could reduce the overall genetic diversity of the human population,
potentially making us more vulnerable to future diseases. It could also be unfair because it
benefits those who are already privileged which goes against the moral ethics of the society. This
unjust situation may arise and will result in economic disparities.
4. Personal and Professional Position
Do you believe genome editing should be pursued, restricted or regulated? why?
— As i read the article, genome editing technologies, including CRISPR, were powerful tools
with the potential for both significant benefits and serious tasks. Theres a strong consensus that
they should be regulated and overseen by appropriate authorities. For me as part of AB
Communication, giving the right information with no biases and great research study. Gene
editing should be restricted, because these powerful technologies can have advantages for some,
but it is still risky to use because they are not yet considered 100% safe and effective, especially
in human embrayos. These risk are mainly due to off-target effects, thats occur when DNA
double strand breaks are made at the wrong target site (Rubies G.& Steger F. 2018). Additionaly,
gene editing in human embryos is the possibility of altering human traits for non-medical
purposes, leading to potential inequality and societal discrimination.
What role should your discipline play in shaping the future of genome editing - through policy,
communications, design, education, or advocacy
— My contribution in influencing the future of genome editing should be realized as an AB
Communication student communicating competently, accurately, and impartially to people. This
is by means of a proper education in all of the scientific and ethical nuances of genome editing,
possible advantages ( curing diseases, producing higher crop yields), ethical aspects (genetic
discrimination, unintended consequences etc). We can reduce the harm to the public by
generating public knowledge and confidence through a responsible communication policy and
thereby inform policymakers and entangle ethical considerations upon use and production of the
potent technology. Such initiative is instrumental in addressing the thorny socio-ethical
ramifications of genome editing as well as the responsible development of its growth.
5. Interdisciplinary Reflection
What other fields or sectors should be involved in the conversation about genome editing?
— With its underdeveloped nature the genome editing would require a lot of backing from other
sectors if and when anything get out of field, namely the Bioethicists issue, illuminating ethical
concerns of these procedures to ensure the safety of the patient, The second would be the
Backing of a Legal Expert and policy makers also ensuring the patient are able to access legal
help when things doesn't go to plan, it will also help develop appropriate policies from the
medical department, ensuring the safe method of research are being practiced. Practitioners or
medical professionals are also kept in mind as they are the ones who will adapt these procedures
if it is proven effective and Lastly the general public, we owe it to them to be informed about the
development of these technological advancement to help them make informed decisions.
How can collaboration across disciplines help ensure that genome editing is used responsibly and
ethically?
— These different fields are necessary to have to ensure the safety of the individual who might
undergo these procedures, with these sectors we are able to avoid or eliminate health risking
procedures and it ensure that no life is taken away by a misstep, all of the sectors have to have
knowledge about these procedures and know what the laws and regulations to ensure that not
only we are safe but also protected and secured, and to relate it to our course of communication it
is crucial for us to prevent the spread of misinformation as our word holds weight to our
audience or demographic, It is also a practice that normal people or the public should exercise to
prevent more harm to the people who are vulnerable. — Genome Editing could be one of man's
greatest inventions in the future but we are responsible for ensuring that it won't be destructive to
the people who are involved in it.
REFERENCES:
Rubeis, G., & Steger, F. (2018). Risks and benefits of human germline genome editing: An
ethical analysis. Asian Bioethics Review, 10(2), 133–141. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41649-018-
0056-x
Starr, S. (2018). How to talk about genome editing. British Medical Bulletin, 126(1), 5–12.
https://doi.org/10.1093/bmb/ldy015
[number 1] Lanphier, E., Urnov, F., Haecker, S. E., Werner, M., & Smolenski, J. (2015). Don't
edit the human germ line. Nature, 519(7544), 410–411. https://doi.org/10.1038/519410a.
