Maniar 1

Annotated Bibliography

Should We Edit The Human Genome With Such Little Knowledge?

Faisal Maniar

Professor Malcolm Campbell

UWRT 1104

March 13, 2019

Annotated Bibliography
 Maniar 2

Hasson,Katie.“Are CRISPR Babies Healthy? Enhanced? Speculation Takes a Disturbing Turn.”

Are CRISPR Babies Healthy? Enhanced? Speculation Takes a Disturbing Turn | Center

for Genetics and Society, https://www.geneticsandsociety.org/biopolitical-times/are-

crispr-babies-healthy-enhanced-speculation-takes-disturbing-turn.

Summary: This source starts by talking about He Jiankui CRISPR experiments and how

the chinese government has confirmed the existence of these twins and how there were

explicitly no details on the condition of the two. The article then further goes on to say

speculations that the condition of the twins may not be in good health. According to He

Jiankui, he used CRISPR in order to change the CRR5 gene into its delta-32 variant,

which is a natural occuring mutation of the gene, but biologist Sean Ryder assessed that

the mutations that Jiankui made were not to the delta-32 variant, but rather a new

unknown variant with unknown significance, and while the mutation might have

produced the wanted result there are many unknown risks involved that we know nothing

about. Another scientist by the name of Robin Lovell-Badge claimed that the twins did

not have their CRR5 gene edited but rather other genes that hold unknown repercussions.

Also a neurologist claimed that CRR5 also has some effects on the brain, which had

seemed to enhanced the twins cognitive ability.

Evaluation: This article was written by Katie Hasson who has a PhD specializing in

genetics of social and political aspects, which qualifies her to teach, write, and make

conclusions on human genetic editing. This article does show some bias when she gives

her opinions and you can see the bias but most of the article is based in fact, even pulling

quotes from other biologists and neurologists. The source is from a website that is run by

a organization called Genetics and Society. The article is trying to convey that the genetic
 Maniar 3

editing of humans should not have happened and that there are far too many unknowns

and risks involved in the act, it then also goes and say that we don’t know the health

conditions of the crispr twins. The audience of this article are those interested in genetics

and the conditions of the CRISPR twins.

Usefulness: This source will most likely appear in my EIP as it provides relevant

information and addresses my topic. The article relates to my research as it sides with me

and provides evidence for what it claims. This source is like some of my other sources as

it also involves crispr and genetic engineering and compared to my other sources this is

probably my best and favorite source on the topic.

The Real News Network, The Real News Network, 3 Feb. 2019,

therealnews.com/stories/chinese-scientists-human-genetic-engineering-

experiment-is-crazy.

Summary: The Real New Network Discusses He Jiankui’s experiments and his reasoning

for editing their genes while providing information on how the effects of editing an adult

and embryo is very different and risky. They go on to say that He was unjustified in the

act of editing the twins genes because of the risk. The video then goes on to explain

CRISPR and break it down and then says that what He has done is actually crazy and

based on a poor understanding of science.

Evaluation: This source is by the real news network and is a developed article from a

reliable source as they do not do advertising or accept government funding so there

opinions are genuine.

 Maniar 4

Usefulness: While this source is from a reliable source there is a lot of bias in the

opinions of the video participants strait up calling Jiankui crazy for doing what he has

done, and at the moment I am still deciding if I will use this in my EIP or not. The other

sources that I have are less opinionated while this one is based in opinion excluding the

explanations within the video.

Sorensen, Kelly.”Genetic enhancements and expectations”.BMJ Journals. 30 Jun

2009.https://jme.bmj.com/content/35/7/433. Accessed 12 Mar 2019

Summary: In this source the author talks about how environmental and genetic

enhancements lead to the same result in the end, such as a boost in cognitive ability, but

with genetic enhancement, while u are making the child better off there are many risks

along with changing the genetic identity of the child along the way, which is why there

are many problems with this as opposed to environmental enhancement.

Evaluation: The source was very straightforward with it’s point as after it made its

argument and stated its cause it jumped straight into ethical and logical debate ton

support the author's reasoning.

Usefulness: This source does talk about the concern for human genome editing but it then

shifts into ethical and logical debate and because of this this source will most likely not

appear in my EIP as a source as rather than talking about the risk involved it talks about

should it be done because gene therapy is legal. Compared to my other sources this one

delves into ethics the most being my weakest link of the three sources that I have picked.