PRELIM 8 – Evolving Annotated Bibliography
Adee, Sally. “Synthetic Humans Are Go.” New Scientist, vol. 230, no. 3077, June 2016, pp.16-17. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1016/S0626-4079(16)31040-5.
[Magazine Article] This article by Sally Adee in New Scientist very briefly discusses the potential for creating synthetic humans by replicating the human genome and editing it, and it somewhat divulges the different concerns that would arise from the creation of a completely synthetic human. This author specifically stems her discussion from a 10-year plan made to chemically synthesize the 3 billion letters or base pairs that make up the human genome. Primarily, her evidence comes from different synthetic biologists operating at universities in the UK and the United States. The only claim the author makes is that “the synthetic human is a long way off.” She makes no mention of the rightness or wrongness of creating a synthetic human. She only presents information. After she has discussed the possibility of the synthetic creation of a human, she very succinctly mentions a few ethical issues with this creation. The primary uses of this source for my essay will stem from the fact that there is a potential for synthetic humans to be created at some point. This will be useful especially if I choose to side against genome editing. I could utilize that there is a plan to chemically synthesize the 3 billion base pairs of the human genome in 10-years to create urgency for my own essay, and I could also mention the “the artificial genome won’t be derived from anyone person, but will be created using computer-aided design” to further warn my audience of the opposing lines of morality at work. The most influential and useful part of this article for my essay will be when the author mentions that “a wholly synthetic cell could be owned outright.” This raises many, many questions concerning human identity and what it would mean for individuals if they people could be created in a lab. Some of these questions are: Would this mean that slavery would once again increase? If you own something such as the components required to make a human being, and said components are used to actually make a human being, then where does this synthetically made child belong? Are you its parent? Does it have parents? Does it have the same legal rights as any other child? Are you going to treat this child like a human being? Are you going to purchase a lot of these components so you can have your own personal slaves? Lastly, this article could be connected to the Super Soldier article, or the one discussing designer babies. – I did not end up using this source in my essay, but the questions it made me ponder definitely helped me to shape my argument! (Consulted)
Belshaw, Christopher. “Identity and Disability.” Journal of Applied Philosophy, vol. 17, no. 3, 2000, pp. 263–276. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/24354020. Accessed 5 November 2020.
[Scholarly Journal Article] Christopher Belshaw is a professor of philosophy, and so he adequately discusses these issues. He takes the reader through a step by step understanding of his thoughts on the issue. He also relies heavily on two theories, one from Parfit and one from Kripke to analyze his own thoughts on the subject. Both of these theorists are highly educated individuals, and so their accounts can be accepted in that sense, although their biases in the subject should be considered. I am inclined to believe the Belshaw because of the way he logically leads the audience through his beliefs. It is easy to understand what he is saying because he leaves no dots unconnected. Christopher Belshaw, in this source, hones in on the affects that gene therapy could have on disabled or diseased individuals’ personalities. It discusses both the affects it would have on those who remain disabled even after gene therapy has been developed, and on those whose genes were edited. He tries to answer whether or not changing someone’s genes, even only to rid one of a disease, irrevocably changes one. He then questions whether a compromised identity from gene therapy matters at all. He displays the Kripkean view, that identity is preserved despite alterations because these alterations simply represent two different forms of the same person. This is contrasted with the Parfit view, that alterations prevent someone who would have existed from existing and alter identity. He says that genome editing must alter a person’s identity because a person who was supposed to be born is not born and person who was not supposed to be born is born. He does not answer the question of whether genome editing is good or bad, he leaves this to the audience to consider because it must be an individual decision. This article will be extremely useful in my discussion of human genome editing because it will allow me to showcase that human genome editing (specifically germline editing) will alter a person’s identity. It provides me with ample evidence of how identity is formed, and leads to the conclusion that identity can be affected by genome editing. I will specifically use some of the analogies given by the author to prove that editing of the human genome leads to a completely different child, and thus should be used very cautiously, if at all. This article could be synthesized with “The Human Genome Project and Human Identity” because they both discuss genome editing in relation to human identity. This will be used as a lens text because it will allow me to show that germline editing does change an individual’s identity. (Cited)
Brock, Dan W. “The Human Genome Project and Human Identity.” Houston Law Review, vol. 29, no. 1, Spring 1992, p. 7-22. HeinOnline, https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.journals/hulr29&i=17. Accessed 5 November 2020.
[Essay] This essay, entitled “The Human Genome Project and Human Identity,” discusses the implications that editing the human genome could have on equality of opportunity, our conceptions of human responsibility, and our understanding of normality. The author, Dan Brock, is a professor of philosophy and biomedical ethics at Brown University, and he wrote this essay in 1992, two years after the United States officially began the Human Genome Project. He wrote this essay to address the concerns that he has relating to the potential outcomes of this project and he cited evidence from an array of sources. The books and articles he cites include but are not limited to discussions on equality, free will, legal responsibility, and justice. He also includes several acts and laws and court cases in the United States to show the current legal standing of the human genome issue. The first point Brock introduces is that of the implications of the Human Genome Project on equality of opportunity. He suggests that, if the human genome could be edited at will to produce any desired effects conceivable, then people born with less talent could claim that they were not receiving equal opportunity because someone else was born with some more desirable genetic character. He then expounds that if all things are viewed as manipulatable then our view of people will change or modify as well because at the moment our sense of identity relies upon “a vaguely defined boundary around the self that distinguishes some properties of a person as internal and essential to the particular individual.” Next, he introduces that humans view themselves as responsible agents, as in they do or should take responsibility for their actions. And he asks, “if a person’s genetic structure is a principal cause of behavior and that genetic structure is completely beyond the individual’s control, can an individual justifiably be held responsible for the resultant behavior?” to place this view within the scope of the Human Genome Project. An overview statement of his claim is that “our fundamental conception of ourselves as persons, and more specifically, our belief in ourselves as beings with sufficient free will to be responsible agents will come into question.” Brock’s main argument is that this project will “have profound effects on our conceptions of persons and of individuals’ psychological senses of identity.” This source will be exceedingly useful in discussing the connection of human genome editing to our sense of identity. It will allow me to assess the potentials of human genome editing as a mix between good and bad, but in the case of its effects on our identity I tend to side with a more negative view of it. This source supports that view in that it showcases that our human nature would make us seek equality of opportunity, but that this equality of opportunity could create a society of indifferentiable human beings. It also supports a more negative view of the human genome project in that it displays that our whole system of legality would be challenged under these new conditions because we could no longer hold someone responsible for their actions if their actions could be understood as genetics. Overall, this source can be used to connect human genome editing to our identities and the way that we view ourselves. This article could be synthesized with “Identity and Disability” because they both discuss genome editing in relation to human identity. (Cited)
Brokowski, C., Ali, Mazhar. “CRISPR Ethics: Moral Considerations for Applications of a Powerful Tool.” Journal of Molecular Biology. vol. 431, issue 1. Elsevier B.V. 4 January 2019. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmb.2018.05.044. Accessed 8 Nov. 2020.
[Scholarly Journal Article] Throughout “CRISPR Ethics: Moral Considerations for Applications of a Powerful Tool” the authors Carolyn Brokowski and Mazhar Adli discuss the different fundamental issues pertaining to the ethics of genome editing. The authors claim that this article “assume[s] no position on any topic” and that the account is “merely descriptive.” This article begins by providing a scientific explanation of CRISPR as it relates to DNA editing. It also lists the benefits and risks/harms associated with CRISPR technology, and then enters into a discussion on the ethics of CRISPR. The evidence cited appears to be very scholarly and the extent of them suggests a well-rounded and researched article. There is a very useful chart summarizing the risk-benefit considerations in CRISPR technology which displays that genome editing has many uses, such as new model organisms and cell lines, but also that it could lead to experimentation involving human embryos and potential privacy breaches. It also lists the risk of misapplication and eugenics and inequality of access which are some of the major points discussed throughout this article on ethics. The article states that CRISPR technology is likely to improve, and that “the potential both for gaining knowledge and for developing treatments in humans seems nearly endless.” The authors note, concerning research, that “banning or significantly limiting research on human embryos stymies progress,” but they also mention that this research could save embryos “from potentially unjust, lethal research-related harms.” One of the dangers mentioned upon the discussion of germline editing stems from the fact that the full effects of this editing could be delayed for generations, and by then the gene edit would already be too far along to stop. Eugenics is also mentioned as a potential negative affect of genome editing. The discussion of who should have access to this editing and how it will be distributed are also pondered. They end with a talk about whether editing should be allowed regulated by law and conclude that having it in law will make it more concrete and increase the punishments associated with it. They also suggest that these issues “should not be dominated by the scientific community but should include a ‘network of scholars and organizations.” The chart of risk-benefit considerations will be useful in succinctly discussing the separate ethical issues raised throughout the genome editing process. Also, this article led me to the conclusion that because genome editing is already occurring, it will be difficult, I think, for society to not eventually embrace it fully, and so I suppose it is best to proceed with caution rather than block it for a time and wait until someone or something seizes the opportunity to use it negatively. This article does, however, provide several great examples of different things that will be extremely useful in my essay. The first is the case of Buck v. Bell is the United States concerning eugenics. This could be used as a hook or as evidence for the prevention of germline editing. An example is also provided of current US movement in this area that could be useful to show that this editing is taking place right under society’s noses. The article provides an example, too, of the different uses of germline editing, such as in crops and livestock, which would need to be addressed in my essay. This source will be useful no matter the thesis that I decide to proceed with because it provides a relatively unbiased view of the issues related to genome editing technologies. Furthermore, this source could be related synthesized with the other sources that discuss eugenics including: “Predicting Public Attitudes Toward Gene Editing of Germlines: The Impact of Moral and Hereditary Concern in Human and Animal Applications,” “The Slippery Slope Argument in the Ethical Debate on Genetic Engineering of Humans,” and “Human Germline Genome Editing.” – I did not end up using this source in my final draft, but the insight this source gave me into what exactly genome editing was, and how it worked were exceedingly beneficial in the early stages of my research. (Consulted)
Critchley C, Nicol D, Bruce G, Walshe J, Treleaven T and Tuch B. “Predicting Public Attitudes Toward Gene Editing of Germlines: The Impact of Moral and Hereditary Concern in Human and Animal Applications,” edited by Go Yoshizawa, Frontiers in Genetics, January 9, 2019. https://doi.org/10.3389/fgene.2018.00704. Accessed 10 November 2020.
[Research Article] This research article by Christine Critchley and various other authors from different universities across Australia provides research on the basis of germline editing and public attitudes towards it while separating hereditary concerns from moral concerns. The study found that Australians were generally comfortable with gene editing if there were stipulations on whose genes were being edited, and as long as the reason for editing genes was known and agreed with. This source provides a survey of 1004 Australians, and while it may not be directly linked to America, because America and Australia are similar in operation, it could be inferred that the results of this survey within Australia would be somewhat representative of what this type of survey would display in the United States. It can be assumed that the writer’s, as Australians, are writing with this influence in mind, and they are most likely writing for an Australian audience. The conclusions made displayed that “Australians were comfortable with editing human and animal embryos, but only for research purposes and to enhance human health.” It was also found that “moral concern was found to be accentuated amongst, women, more religious individuals and those identifying as Australian.” These conclusions are very interesting and display that gene editing, by the public, is viewed differently depending on one’s circumstances and upbringing, but also that most people accept gene editing if it is being used in the correct way. An interesting statement by the authors of this article is that “relative to earlier methods however, the reduced cost, enhanced efficiency and ease of use mean that potentially any molecular biology laboratory can use CRISPR-Cas9 to insert, replace or delete sections of DNA in any living organism.” This is unsettling because it displays the prevalence and ease with which a scientist could use CRISPR and it demonstrates how easy it would be to use this tool negatively.” Also, results from a national survey of 1600 US adults found that “higher approval was reported for therapeutic application than for human enhancement” and that “more religious respondents and women were less supportive of gene editing.” This is interesting and useful because it provides data from the United States concerning the public’s opinion on gene editing. The sample provided showed that “support dropped markedly for applications involving altering human cells to change appearance and altering animals for human purposes.” This is interesting and suggests that the public is not generally comfortable with editing of the human genome in a way that would lead to cloning or designer babies. It is mentioned that “the results of this Australian survey correspond with US and European findings” and so the data found and used here can be directly related to the United States’ public’s opinion on matters of gene editing. Therefore, anything used here can be accurately applied to the United States, even though it was conducted in Australia. The sentence that some concerns are those of “potential dystopian outcomes such as human clones, designer babies, and genetic inequity and eugenics” provides an interesting insight into the worries surrounding genome editing. These insights relate directly to this class through human clones and designer babies. These things have the potential to profoundly affect human identity, and the direct mention of them here will allow me to clearly show the link between genome modification and these potential outcomes. Overall this source will allow me to show the public’s opinions in these areas, and to expound from this on the issue that bother the public and that are potential issues if genome editing continues in the way it has gone. – I only used this source once to explain the dangers of genome editing, but it was still useful in helping me understand how the public currently views genome editing, and I think it gave me more motive to write. (Cited)
Human Germline Editing – Ormond, Kelly E., et al. “Human Germline Genome Editing.” The American Journal of Human Genetics, Cell Press, 3 Aug. 2017, www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002929717302471. Accessed 5 November 2020.
[Scholarly Journal Article] This article describes a statement made by a workgroup from The American Society of Human Genetics on the topic of Human Germline Genome Editing in response to genome-editing technologies becoming available. The introduction of the article ensures that the workgroup from The American Society of Human Genetics was composed of “basic and clinical scientists, bioethicists, health services researchers, lawyers, and genetic counselors.” It was also stated that the group worked with many professional organizations throughout the world to come to the conclusions that they reached. This implies that the research and evidence discussed throughout this paper will be credible. The information could be slightly outdated, as it was written in 2017. The motivation behind the writing of this is unclear, however I can imagine that there will be some bias as it was written by well-educated health professionals. This has the potential to make their statement align more closely with a side that favors the health and science fields. Also, given that this workgroup was developed by the American Society of Human Genetics, it follows that they will find conclusions that allow them to continue their research. Therefore, they will not advocate for the complete stop to genome editing because that would result in a loss of job for the workgroup and the American Society of Human Genetics. This source includes that the workgroup was composed of representative from across the world including from Australia, Asia, Great Britain, the United States, and Southern Africa. This increases the believability of the source because it displays that many differing opinions would have been heard concerning this issue. This source provides real-life examples of the experiments that have taken place concerning genome editing. It divulges the difference between somatic and germline editing and states that “because human germline genome editing has potential effects on both the treated individuals and subsequent generations of persons, it entails ethical considerations beyond those of somatic genome modification.” When discussing the ethical issues, they categorize it into “those arising from its potential failure and those arising from its success.” From its potential failure come less pressing issues, but from its potential success comes several important matters. The first is that of its impact “on future individuals whose genes are modified de facto without their consent.” The next is the impact on society. The article discusses this as it relates to eugenics and social justice. The workgroup concluded that the dangers of germline editing, given the many questions still surrounding it, should override the use of this editing in human pregnancy. However, they support in vitro editing with oversight to further research in this field. Their final statement is that human germline genome editing should not be used unless there is proper need, evidence to support findings, ethical clarity, and public support. This article will be extremely useful because it displays not only how genome-editing works, but it also explains the ethical debate surrounding genome editing. The definition of genome-editing will be useful when writing my research paper to justify to the audience how dangerous human genome editing could become. Specifically this article states that genome-editing tools “’target’ specific DNA sequences for individual genes or non-coding regions by engineering certain proteins or protein-RNA complexes that can then recognize and bind the sequences and generate single-stand or double strand DNA breaks…it is this cleavage even that can be exploited to create a mutation in, or ‘edit,’ the target gene.” This scientific definition will bolster the validity of my argument. This source also details the potential uses of human genome editing, including but not limited to “treatments for diseases such as HIV infection, sickle-cell anemia, and caners.” I will need to show in my argument that, while human genome-editing can produce some very good things, if used incorrectly it will override this good. It will destroy society, maybe not in their physical health, but surely in their mental health. This source also demonstrates that genome editing is not yet ready to be introduced in humans, which will allow me to develop my argument around the fact that something should be done to regulate genome editing before it can be used in humans. This article will be used as a lens text because it provides definitions for genome editing. (Cited)
Huxley, Aldous. Brave New World. Chelsea House, 2019.
Aldous Huxley was an English writer and philosopher, and through his novel Brave New World he presented his view on what he thought the dystopian future would look like. In this novel, individuals are created through an assembly line process, and each one is conditioned according to his or her class designation. In this society, emotions and individuality no longer exist because of the conditioning that occurs in childhood, and everything exists to sustain the current system. Though society is essentially perfect, there is still so much missing, and so it causes the reader to wonder what exactly makes life worthwhile, and what could happen if the world’s problems ever were solved. This novel is related to my own paper because I talk a lot about how the perfection that genome editing technology opens the doorway to could have potentially negative consequences. I also talk about the idea of humans that are mass produced, which is a major topic in this novel as well. I will use this source primarily as a hook, and also to display the loss of empathy that accompanies perfection. For the hook I intend to use the quote “the principle of mass production at last applied to biology” to excite the reader and I will then enter into a discussion on human genome editing and its potential dangers to create a world like this. I also intend to use a quote by Lenina in which she is abhorred by old age because she has never experienced such a thing before. This will demonstrate the loss of empathy that accompanies editing of the genome and will allow me to connect my opinion that human genome editing more clearly will result in a loss of empathy with an actual source. (Cited)
Isasi, R., Knoppers, B. “Oversight of human inheritable genome modification.” Nat Biotechnol 33, 454–455 (May 12, 2015). https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.3231. Accessed 5 November 2020.
[Scholarly Journal Article] This short article was written by Rosario Isasi and Bartha Knoppers of Nature Biotechnology which is a peer reviewed scientific journal published monthly by the Nature Research. The aim of this article is to assess the “socio-ethical and legal implications of intentional modification of the human germ line.” It divulges specific information pertaining to the current legal standing of genome editing, and it briefly mentions ways that this legal standing falls short. The evidence used consists of the authors’ own works, and information from different websites about genome editing and its history in law. These writers are writing in a scientific journal, so one would expect them to have a more positive or lenient view towards allowing research to be conducted on the human genome because it would foster more jobs for their field. Also, this article is written in a scientific journal, so the audience is other scientists who are hoping to learn more about a particular subject. The first sentence, that “progress in genome-editing technology is enabling deletions and additions in human DNA sequences with greater efficiency, precision and control than ever before” is somewhat alarming and raises the question of ethics that this article discusses. It is difficult to make laws for things that have not yet discloses their reality, and so the laws created for these situations are incomplete and confusing. They conclude that when laws are implemented they are “destined to be outpaced by scientific developments” and that “they rest on…ill-defined terminology” due to the uncertainty surrounding the issues which leads to “open legal loopholes.” This source, while very short, could provide me with evidence as to the ineffectiveness of preventive measures in policy, and could allow me to advocate for the stoppage of advancement in this area because of this. For example, I could cite the UN’s Declaration on Human Cloning, and its insignificance in reality as an example of the ineffectiveness of policy that occurs before something is developed. This article, however, advocated primarily for oversight and monitoring rather than all out avoidance of human germline editing. This could also be a useful tool depending on what I choose as my research question. Regardless, I should be able to use this source to clarify the position policy has had thus far in this realm. – This article was used only once in my essay, but it was still a valuable research asset because it introduced me to the topic of genome editing and gave me keyterms to narrow my search with. (Cited)
Kane, Eileen M. “HUMAN GENOME EDITING: AN EVOLVING REGULATORY CLIMATE.” Jurimetrics Journal of Law, Science and Technology, vol. 57, no. 3, Spring 2017, p. 301+. Gale OneFile: LegalTrac, https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A517345659/LT?u=uok_lawlib&sid=LT&xid=012a1553. Accessed 23 Nov. 2020.
[Scholarly Article] Eileen M. Kane in “Human Genome Editing: An Evolving Regulatory Climate” talks extensively about human genome editing, the categories it can be divided into, the social and political impacts of these subcategories, and the governmental regulations that have been established thus far for this topic. The author divides this article into section like so: The Technology of Human Genetic Modification, Oversight of Genetic Modification in Human Somatic Cells, and Oversight of Genome Editing in the Human Germline. The author does not appear to have any motive other than informing the audience of the current state and possible future of human genome editing. This author, who is a professor of law at Penn State Law uses a myriad of sources, and her evidence should be seen as useful because of this. While I am not disagreeing with the author of this source because the author does not really have an opinion on any of the topics discussed within the source, I will disagree with the topics discussed. For example, in the section on oversight of genome editing in the human germline, I disagree with the United States’ and worlds’ consensus on these issues and will argue that, because human genome editing is inevitable, it should be researched by the government. I think this will allow the research of human germline genome editing to be pursue in the most transparent way and will allow the public to have the most influence on this research. – I did not end up using this source because it did not really fit with my argument, but it was still an interesting take on germline genome editing. (Consulted)
Kass, Leon R. “Preventing a Brave New World.” Human Life Review, vol. 27, no. 3, Summer 2001, p. 14. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=5438301&site=ehost-live. Accessed 9 December 2020.
[Academic Journal] Leon Kass is a physician and bioethicist, and he is widely respected for his view on these subjects. He worked for Stanford University for a time. He starts this article by stating the urgency of human genetic engineering. He does this mostly by comparing our current state with that of Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World, he makes wide comparisons between the two, and then goes on to talk about Brave New World’s conclusions and how those could be our conclusions to. Then he moves to the we give concerning our inability to stop human genome engineering (specifically cloning), or he mentions the barriers that exist to stopping it (technological automatism, freedom, humanitarianism, cultural pluralism and relativism, commerce). What follows is a refutation of these reasons and the ultimate conclusion that individuals can and should stop human cloning by any means necessary. I should mention that I do not agree with Kass’s conclusions that we should work to prevent human genome editing, but the insight he offers concerning possible outcomes of human genome engineering will be useful in my paper. I will use this source to prove that we are entering a Brave New World type climate. This will allow me to use certain quotes from Brave New World and plant them as true within my article. I should mention that I do not agree with Kass’s conclusions that we should work to prevent human genome editing, but he does offer valid insight into the other sides argument, and he also offers general insight concerning genome editing that could be useful. In particular, Kass’s quote that “Indeed, creating and manipulating life in the laboratory is the gateway to a Brave New World, not only in fiction but also in fact” will allow me to state Brave New World’s realization into our world. Another quote that will allow me to use Brave New World is this one: “The so-called science-fiction cases – say Brave New World – make vivid the meaning of what looks to us, mistakenly, to be benign. They reveal that what looks like compassionate humanitarianism is, in the end, crushing dehumanization.” When talking about human cloning, Kass mentions that “the problem is that any child whose being, character, and capacities exist owing to human design does not stand on the same plane as its makers. As with any product of our making, no matter how excellent, the artificer stands above it, not as an equal but as a superior, transcending it by his will and creative prowess. In human cloning, scientists and prospective “parents” adopt a technocratic attitude toward human children: human children become their artifacts. Such an arrangement is profoundly dehumanizing, no matter how good the product.” Furthermore, Kass states that “but whereas most parents normally have hopes for their children, cloning parents will have expectations. In cloning, such overbearing parents will have taken at the start a decisive step that contradicts the entire meaning of the open and forward-looking nature of parent-child relations…A wanted child now means a child who exists precisely to fulfill parental wants…Cloning is thus inherently despotic, for it seeks to make one’s children after one’s own image (or an image of one’s choosing and their future according to one’s will.” Designer babies will happen because “Once it becomes possible, with the aid of human genomics, to produce or to select for what some regard as “better babies” –smarter, prettier, healthier, more athletic– parents will leap at the opportunity to “improve” their offspring. Indeed, not to do so will be socially regarded as a form of child neglect.” Furthermore, his statement that “all contemporary societies are travelling briskly in the same utopian direction” can be used to demonstrate that we are all moving towards the acceptance of human genome editing. Finally, his statement that “We no clearly recognize new uses for biotechnical power that soar beyond the traditional medical goals of healing disease and reliving suffering. Human nature itself lies on the operating table, ready for alteration, fore eugenic and psychic “enhancement,” for wholesale re-design” will be exceedingly useful either in my introduction or my conclusion to connect this issue with our human nature or human identity. (Cited)
Metz, Steven. “How Far Can the U.S. Military Go to Building a Technology-Enhanced ‘Super Soldier’? World Politics Review (Selective Content), Sept. 2016, pp.1-3. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?dorect=true&db=aphAN=118337056&site=ehost-live.
[News Article] The United States has a history of advancing military technology so that it can reign supreme on the battlefield. While the benefits of this technology are, at first, pleasant, they could also become increasingly harmful as time goes on. This article briefly discusses United States Military interests in creating ‘Super Soldiers.’ While it does not display a direct view on this issue, it states that it needs to be considered now, before it is developed, to protect the goods of society. This article appears to be written simply to inform individuals that this could occur, and to provide them with a path for their own research. It also poses several ethical questions that could arise, specifically those concerning veterans’ reinstation into society. Some of these questions are “would a military veteran who has been irreversibly enhanced in some way be able to assimilate back into civilian society, or would the veteran have what was seen as unfair advantages over unenhanced humans, thus creating resentment?” and “would veterans be considered less human than non-enhanced people?” and “’Will genetic engineering, neurobiological augmentation, and specialization prevent demobilizing soldiers at the end of a conflict?’, thus relegating them to life apart from the society they served Could the U.S. military continue to recruit some of America’s best young people under these conditions?” These questions and this article will be very useful in demonstrating the different areas that genetic modification could affect. It will also me to show that genetic modification could reach beyond individuals and into the country as a whole, and, if genetically engineered soldiers are developed and used in combat, the entire world. Primarily, I will use this source to expand the reach that genetic engineering will have on the world, and to give reasons for the urgency of addressing this issue. (Cited)
Regalado, Antonio. “Engineering the Perfect Baby. (Cover Story).” MIT Technology Review, vol 118, no. 3, May 2015, pp.26-33. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=102929707&site=ehost-live.
[Magazine Cover Article] This article written by Antonio Regalado in the magazine MIT Technology Review discussed how current genome editing is occurring throughout the world and in different labs, and it focused in on genome editing of embryos and germline editing. The article delves into the differences between editing embryos and editing eggs, and the potentials of both, and it discusses how this editing could be used to improve humans. The article ends with a discussion of whether or not all of this editing should be stopped. This article provides evidence and statements from an extensive number of biologists, molecular biology specialists, geneticists, etc., therefore, the statements made in this review should be respected because they are coming from people who are directly connected to the subject. This source will be useful for three reasons. The first is that there are an abundance of statements from experts in the field of genome editing, and these will allow me to provide first-hand evidence for what is occurring in laboratories. Some of these statements include “’several people interviewed by MIT Technology Review said that such experiments had already been carried out in China and that results describing edited embryos were pending publication’” and “actual gene-edited humans are ’10 to 20 years away.’” This will help me establish motive as I can discuss the urgency of this issue in relation to experiments that are taking place. Secondly, there are two statements that I think would be useful in the conclusion of my essay. The first is this “his lab, Church like to say, is the center of a new technological genesis—one in which man rebuilds creation to suit himself.” This phrase is very eerie to me because it suggests that man has and should have complete control over his surroundings, and thus over himself. I think this statement is dangerous because it is coming from a scientist who actually participates in genome editing research. The second is this “As scientists we want to know if it’s feasible, but then we get into the bigger questions, and it’s not a science question—it’s a society question.” This statement, I think, will be a great closing sentence for my essay because it displays so clearly what will happen if we allow this editing to continue. It shows that if it does continue, we will have to step outside the boundaries of science for the sake of science and really consider what we are doing and why we are doing it. Thirdly, the discussion about creating perfect babies and about reversing/slowing/stopping the effects of aging will be very useful in my discussion of the effects of human genome editing on human identity because there is absolutely no way these two things could come to fruition without society and individuals’ identities being changed forever. These two discussions will connect nicely with “Synthetic Humans Are Go” and “How Far Can the U.S. Military Go to Building a Technology-Enhanced ‘Super Soldier’?” (Consulted)
Sawin, Christopher E. “Creating Super Soldiers for Warfare: A Look into the Laws of War.” Journal of High Technology Law, vol. 17, no. 1, 2016, p. 105-140. HeinOnline, https://heinonline-org.ezproxy.lib.ou.edu/HOL/P?h=hein.journals/jhtl17&i=117.
[Scholarly Journal Article] The author of this source is Christopher Sawin and he is highly educated on things relating to the U.S. military. The focus of this journal article was to examine the potentials of super soldiers in warfare, and to address whether or not the laws currently prohibiting these creations should be changed. He ultimately decides that “with technology rapidly evolving and the need for the United States to remain the elite fighting force in the world, the use of human enhancement technology to create super soldiers should not be overlooked. Because wars of the future are projected to be harsher, producing military soldiers capable of handling the demands of those harsh conditions would only make sense. Ultimately, the use of human enhancement technology to create an army of super soldiers should not be prohibited under Article 35(2) of the Geneva Conventions. This author uses a ton of evidence from a variety of very reputable sources. This source relates specifically to my article by Metz and I will use this article to display the potential effects of the creation of a super soldier that is introduced by Metz.I plan to use this source to provide examples of the potential dangers of creating super soldiers. The quote “it is also possible that these enhanced super soldiers would no longer resemble human beings. The risk of super soldiers separating from human intuitions is that it could lead to indiscriminate killings through the inability to distinguish between a civilian and an enemy combatant during times of war or armed conflict” will help me to explain the dangers of super soldiers and to establish motive. (Cited)
Walton, D. “The Slippery Slope Argument in the Ethical Debate on Genetic Engineering of Humans.” Sci Eng Ethics 23, 1507–1528 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-016-9861-3
[Scholarly Journal Article] This article entitled “The Slippery Slope Argument in the Ethical Debate on Genetic Engineering of Humans” analyzes the ethical issues of genetic modification in the scope of the slippery slope argument. It lays this out by stating that somatic gene modification will first occur to cure diseases, and then its prevalence will lead it be used as a way to enhance the genetics of individuals rather than cure pre-existing issues. The author of this piece is Douglas Walton, and he is affiliated with the Philosophy Department of the University of Windsor in Canada. Dr. Walton uses a variety of evidence including books written about medicine, logic, freedom, and bioethics. These sources all appear to be reputable, and most of them come from University Presses. Walton’s argument shows the probable progression of somatic gene therapy, and analyzes the dangers associated with this progression. The evolvement provided shows that society will slowly accept gene therapy, and thus I will be able to argue that our silence on this issue is dangerous because it will allow this issue to silently permeate our society so much so that we will not be able to stop it from occurring. It also expresses that once genetic enhancements are possible, “politically it will be very hard to restrict access to them.” If nothing is done about gene therapy now, very soon nothing will be able to be done to terminate gene therapy. Walton also mentions a catastrophic event that could occur if gene therapy were accepted. This is that “the adoption of genetic enhancement technology by nations amounts to the acceptance of eugenics policies comparable to those adopted during the period of Nazi Germany.” I will be able to use this article to directly relate genome modification to Eugenics. This could be useful as a hook because Eugenics is quite a jarring concept for most people. I can also use this source to demonstrate the possible outcomes of human genome modification and to demonstrate that it should be dealt with very cautiously if it is dealt with at all. The progression that is provided, too, could be very useful in showing how gradually genome therapy will permeate society, and this will allow me to discuss the dangers of not addressing this issue now. It will allow me to develop a motive that is urgent. This source could be used as a lens text to establish the inevitability of genome editing. Also, this source could be used as part of my counterargument because of its discussion on Nazis and how that relates to human beings following orders and implementing others’ ideals of perfection into their own lives. (Cited)
Waters, Mark, director. Mean Girls. Paramount Home Entertainment, 2005.
[Movie] This movie describes a teenaged individual who struggles against the regime of popular girls within her high school. At the beginning of the movie, the main character, Cady, resists the draw of the popular individuals, but, at first as a way to get back at them, and then slowly for real, she transforms into one of these popular individuals. She gains popularity through her transformation. This is related to my own argument because it displays that humans are often conform to the ideals of perfection set for them rather than stick to their own ideals of perfection. I will use this source in my counterargument to display, though perfection is subjective, if one individual or nation decides on the definition of perfection for its people, then perfection will be implemented by all and will thus the standard will eventually become perfection through human genome editing. (Cited)
