Homework answers / question archive / The purpose of this assignment is to construct a well-researched and organized argument in support of a viewpoint of a controversial topic as a group collaboration

The purpose of this assignment is to construct a well-researched and organized argument in support of a viewpoint of a controversial topic as a group collaboration

Writing

Share With

---

The purpose of this assignment is to construct a well-researched and organized argument in support of a viewpoint of a controversial topic as a group collaboration. Students will learn how to conduct primary literature searches and develop concise scientific arguments to advocate for a specific point of view. They will then discuss their arguments with each other to develop their viewpoints. This will improve student skills in professionalism and communication, while acquiring up-to-date information on the topic will prepare the student to be an active scholar in the field of biochemistry. In addition, these skills will allow for the successful completion of the disease report assigned later in the course.

 

As you learned in your Module 1 Homework assignment, a new technology called CRISPER/Cas9 has revolutionized genome editing, allowing scientists to alter DNA with precision and ease. This technology has great potential to cure hereditary diseases that arise from a defect in a single gene. However, the long-term consequences of genome editing, particularly in germline cells, have yet to be established leaving the question of whether this form of therapy is a viable one.

 

Using the research completed in the Module 1 homework assignment as a starting point, each student will select a position on the use of CRISPR-Cas9. You will then defend your position using at least one scientific and one ethical point to help support the argument.

 

• No modification of the human genome
• Modification of somatic cells (cells that are not part of the germline, and cannot be passed to children)
• Modification of germline cells (or all cells) so these changes can be inherited.

Read the provided link to the editorial in the New York Times as a starting point, but you are also required to use 2-3 primary scientific or ethics articles, or other high-quality sources, like good quality review articles. (See the Library Resource module for help learning how to search and cite sources properly). Discuss the risks and benefits of the selected position. Each student will post in the Module 1 CRISPR-Cas9 discussion forum, where you will discuss with the rest of your Module 1 discussion group. Be sure to provide relevant citations in AMA format.

 

Guiding questions for developing your group discussions:

 

• What are the strengths and weaknesses of the different positions posted by your peers?
• What scientific limitations and ethical arguments against genome editing are strong?
• What scientific advances and ethical arguments for genome editing are strong?
• Are there other points of view that should be considered?

 

 

 

Specifications

Word Count: 400 word maximum, excluding reference

Format: Arial, Calibri or similar font,

Scientific or other high-quality references, cited in American Medical Association (AMA) format (see this website, OWL at Purdue University, https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/research_and_citation/ama_style/index.html)

Use the Rubric for this assignment as a guide to ensure you have included all components that will be assessed (Note: this is different from the other discussion board rubrics).

 

Articles for Reviewing:

Please note that these articles are presented in the correct AMA format.  You should cite these sources in the order used.  You are also welcome (and highly encouraged) to do your own literature searches using Google Scholar or PubMed.  Refer to the Library Resource module to learn more about literature searches and how to properly find and cite high quality source material.

Starting Article:

The New York Times Editorial Board. A Pause to Weigh Risks of Gene Editing - The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/18/opinion/a-pause-to-weigh-risks-of-gene-editing.html?_r=0. Accessed January 5, 2018.

Tertiary Sources:

These sources include newspaper articles, “news and views” style summaries and editorials from scientific journals, summary websites, and other repositories like textbooks or reviews.  In general, these sources should be used sparingly in scientific writing.  You are allowed to use these in your Biotechnology ethical discussion, but not for the Module 1 homework assignment. 

High quality scientific review articles will also technically fall into this category, and are permissible for both the biotechnology assignment and your genetic disease term paper.

Scientific Articles:

Scientific articles from reputable journals are excellent resources to cite for scientific writing.  These are considered primary sources.  High quality and recent review articles are also generally accepted as good sources.

Charlesworth CT, Deshpande PS, Dever DP, et al. Identification of preexisting adaptive immunity to Cas9 proteins in humans. Nat Med. 2019;25(2):249-254. doi:10.1038/s41591-018-0326-x

Cho SW, Kim S, Kim Y, et al. Analysis of off-target effects of CRISPR/Cas-derived RNA-guided endonucleases and nickases. Genome Res. 2014;24(1):132-141. doi:10.1101/gr.162339.113

Chang C-W, Lai Y-S, Westin E, et al. Modeling Human Severe Combined Immunodeficiency and Correction by CRISPR/Cas9-Enhanced Gene Targeting. Cell Reports. 2015;12(10):1668-1677. doi:10.1016/j.celrep.2015.08.013

Ma H, Marti-Gutierrez N, Park S-W, et al. Correction of a pathogenic gene mutation in human embryos. Nature. 2017;548(7668):413-419. doi:10.1038/nature23305

Zhang Y, Long C, Li H, et al. CRISPR-Cpf1 correction of muscular dystrophy mutations in human cardiomyocytes and mice. Science Advances. 2017;3(4):e1602814. doi:10.1126/sciadv.1602814

Cradick TJ, Fine EJ, Antico CJ, Bao G. CRISPR/Cas9 systems targeting β-globin and CCR5 genes have substantial off-target activity. Nucleic Acids Res. 2013;41(20):9584-9592. doi:10.1093/nar/gkt714

Dever DP, Bak RO, Reinisch A, et al. CRISPR/Cas9 β-globin gene targeting in human haematopoietic stem cells. Nature. 2016;539(7629):384-389. doi:10.1038/nature20134

Kaminski R, Chen Y, Fischer T, et al. Elimination of HIV-1 Genomes from Human T-lymphoid Cells by CRISPR/Cas9 Gene Editing. Scientific Reports. 2016;6(1). doi:10.1038/srep22555

Schwank G, Koo B-K, Sasselli V, et al. Functional Repair of CFTR by CRISPR/Cas9 in Intestinal Stem Cell Organoids of Cystic Fibrosis Patients. Cell Stem Cell. 2013;13(6):653-658. doi:10.1016/j.stem.2013.11.002

Long C, McAnally JR, Shelton JM, Mireault AA, Bassel-Duby R, Olson EN. Prevention of muscular dystrophy in mice by CRISPR/Cas9-mediated editing of germline DNA. Science. 2014;345(6201):1184-1188. doi:10.1126/science.1254445

Ma H, Marti-Gutierrez N, Park S-W, et al. Correction of a pathogenic gene mutation in human embryos. Nature. 2017;548(7668):413-419. doi:10.1038/nature23305

Jarrett KE, Lee CM, Yeh Y-H, et al. Somatic genome editing with CRISPR/Cas9 generates and corrects a metabolic disease. Scientific Reports. 2017;7:44624. doi:10.1038/srep44624

Chavez A, Pruitt BW, Tuttle M, et al. Precise Cas9 targeting enables genomic mutation prevention. PNAS. 2018;115(14):3669-3673. doi:10.1073/pnas.1718148115

 

Chadwick AC, Musunuru K. CRISPR-Cas9 Genome Editing for Treatment of Atherogenic Dyslipidemia. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol. 2018;38(1):12-18. doi:10.1161/ATVBAHA.117.309326

 

Kosicki M, Tomberg K, Bradley A. Repair of double-strand breaks induced by CRISPR–Cas9 leads to large deletions and complex rearrangements. Nature Biotechnology. 2018;36(8):765-771. doi:10.1038/nbt.4192

 

Ethical Articles:

These articles are from ethics experts, scientific panels, as well as editorials printed in scientific journals.  Many will combine scientific limitations with ethical arguments.  Be sure to differentiate between the two in your position.

Rodriguez E. Ethical Issues in Genome Editing using Crispr/Cas9 System. Journal of Clinical Research & Bioethics. 2016;07(02). doi:10.4172/2155-9627.1000266

Mulvihill JJ, Capps B, Joly Y, Lysaght T, Zwart HAE, Chadwick R. Ethical issues of CRISPR technology and gene editing through the lens of solidarity. Br Med Bull. 2017;122(1):17-29. doi:10.1093/bmb/ldx002

Ranisch R. Germline Genome Editing and the Functions of Consent. The American Journal of Bioethics. 2017;17(12):27-29. doi:10.1080/15265161.2017.1388875

Ormond KE, Mortlock DP, Scholes DT, et al. Human Germline Genome Editing. The American Journal of Human Genetics. 2017;101(2):167-176. doi:10.1016/j.ajhg.2017.06.012

The Lancet. Safeguarding the future of human gene editing. The Lancet. 2017;389(10070):671. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(17)30389-6

Ishii T. Somatic Genome Editing for Health: Disease Treatments and Beyond. Curr Stem Cell Rep. 2016;2(4):313-320. doi:10.1007/s40778-016-0061-5

Gyngell C, Douglas T, Savulescu J. The Ethics of Germline Gene Editing. Journal of Applied Philosophy. 2017;34(4):498-513. doi:10.1111/japp.12249

 

 

 

Finally, I would like to defend my position on this article ->

Chang C-W, Lai Y-S, Westin E, et al. Modeling Human Severe Combined Immunodeficiency and Correction by CRISPR/Cas9-Enhanced Gene Targeting. Cell Reports. 2015;12(10):1668-1677. doi:10.1016/j.celrep.2015.08.013