Uploaded by NALKADI1971


NUMBER (please complete)
NUMBER (please complete)
AES – Coursework 1
Medicine. Mbchb.
You must complete this with
your overall subject (eg, business
management, civil engineering,
marke ng). Your ques on must
be connected to your
Your work cannot be accepted
without your full research
ques on
Newly developed gene editing techniques which utilise
CRISPR can alter genomes perminently. While this
technology can be used to cure genetic diesease, there are
concerns that it could be used in unethical or inadvisable
ways. Outline the potential uses gene editing technologies.
Evaluate current attempts to avoid possible misuse of
these techniques.
cover sheet and reference list)
TUTOR (please complete)
Miss Shahrzad.
The University of Aberdeen defines plagiarism as follows:
“Plagiarism is the use, without adequate acknowledgement, of the intellectual work of
another person in work submitted for assessment”
I hereby acknowledge that I have read and understand the above definition of plagiarism. I
declare that all material from other sources used in this piece of assessed work, whether directly
quoted or paraphrased, has been clearly identified and attributed to the source from which it
came by means of a footnote or endnote reference, and that the University reserves the right to
perform plagiarism checks on all data and that this will be done randomly on all course
By submitting this document, you confirm that you have understood the university policy on
plagiarism, and that all work submitted is your own.
Name; Nabaa AB Al-qadhi
Preferred rst name/nick name; Nina
Digital photo will be below.
Presently ,the endless possibilities of genetic engineering are being more known to the public, the
most revolutionary of them being Crispr.
However, this type of bio-technology has always been viewed by the scientific community as
extremely risky and controversial, this is due to the high level of concern on the ethical issues
using it could lead to (Tomlinson, T. ,2018). Therefore, these drawbacks need to be
acknowledged, and measures should be taken to reduce the number of unethical experiments
using CRISPR-CAS9 that could result in more harm then good to humanity. This essay will
summarize the possible aims of gene-editing technologies, and assess the recent undertakings to
prevent the probable mishandling of these procedures. This could further ensure a safe usage of
this technology is specifically where the most in need and vulnerable can benefit from.
CRISPR has piqued the interest of scientists since its discovery in 1993, with the promise of
making genome editing more accessible.
Jansen I, E., cited in Singh, V and K. What, P. , (2020) initially observed CRISPR’s marvelous
linked genes and abilities such that Crispr can alter any gene and cut out harmful genetic codons.
This was the outset of a substantial image of a protein code that may be implicated adaptively in
the immunity of embryones , giving rise to a technology that has the potential to save many lives.
Researchers theorised at the time that because CRISPR technologies are simpler to use and less
expensive than traditional gene-editing techniques, they will eventually lead to the
democratisation of human genome research. Nevertheless, it wasn't until January 2013 that
scientists at the Broad Institute reported that they had successfully programmed CRISPR
technology to genome-edit human cells. As a result, Crispr technologies alone enabled
researchers to eliminate HIV from living animals, edit out Huntington's disease in mice, decrease
the formation of malignant cells,and pave the way for mosquito-borne disease elimination.
(Tomlinson, T., 2018). In addition, CRISPR’s abilities were found to help in the the shortage of
liver, kidney, and heart donors for youngsters on the organ transplant waiting list. (Kofler,
Natalie, and Katherine L Kraschel., 2018). Thereby, Crispr has been shown to have many benefits
including a high potential in treating various conditions.
Scientists are now putting efforts into attempts of Crispr’s genetic technology in hope of curing
numerous genetic and non-genetic diseases. Tomlinson, T., (2018) concluded the most
straightforward therapeutic application of CRISPR is in the field of monogenic illnesses including
cystic fibrosis, sickle cell disease (SCD), and Duchenne muscular dystrophy. Initially, genetic
diseases are caused by a single mutation in the human genome, which means that the disease
would not exist if this mutation did not exist. CRISPR's discovery, and its capacity to precisely
find and eliminate genetic abnormalities, brings the scientific community closer than ever to the
eradication of a number of devastating monogenic disorders. Furthermore, this modern
discovered technology has the potential to not only cure many genetic diseases, such as: sickle
cell anemia and cystic fibrosis, but also has the potential to cure non genetic diseases like
cancer(Luthra, R., Kaur, S., & Bhandari, K., 2021). Consequently, because of its high precision
and efficiency (CRISPR) associated protein system has recently emerged as a potent technique
for cancer therapy. Akram, Fatima et al., (2020) inferred the biological sciences have reaped
several gains from genome editing methods. CRISPR-Cas9 can be used to rapidly design
oncolytic viruses and immune cells for cancer therapy. Thus, Crispr has the potential to precisely
alter genes not just in model organisms but also in humans, allowing it to be used in various
therapeutic research.
Crispr has previously been shown by researchers to be capable of permanently removing genetic problems
from the whole human genome, as well as genes connected with life-threatening diseases. However, there
is a risk that in the wrong hands CRISPR might have a negative impact on human evolution or be
exploited to create biological weapons (Tomlinson, T., 2018). The most serious ethical concern is that
wealthy people could use these Crispr to improve their physical abilities and features. As a result,
subsequent generations and evolution will be forever impacted. Brokowski, C., cited in Betül AYANOLU,
F. et al., (2020), stated that when systematically evaluated, some genetically modified nations or
populations may preserve a fraction of benefits in comparison to others in terms of a variety of qualities
and cognitive abilities.To add on that, the use of Crispr to selectively modify humans for military goals
and as a Bio-weapon is becoming a growing issue. The President's Council on Bioethics of former
President George W. Bush stated that when performance is crucial, such as with soldiers on the
battlefield, human enhancement may be more acceptable (President's Council on Bioethics, quoted in
Greene, M., & Master, Z.,2018). With the likelihood of permanent gene improvements in service
members, the argument over where the ethical line in army human dynamic provisioning should be set
demands further consideration. Research has revealed genes from other species that may presumably be
genetically modified to benefit humans.(Gracheva et al., cited in Greene, M., & Master, Z. ,2018). Even a
potential gene for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder has been identified, implying that it may be feasible to
erase the emotional detachment that warfighters occasionally experience in the aftermath of a conflict
(Cornelis et al. ,cited in Greene, M., & Master, Z. ,2018). If such experiments are ever seriously considered
for development, they will very certainly encounter significant regulatory obstacles.
Throughout Crispr’s history there had been various high-risk attempts with lethal consequences, the most
drastic being an embryo editing. Most prominently, in 2017, researchers from Oregon Health & Science
University revealed to have successfully programmed CRISPR to correct a genetic defect associated with
heart failure in human embryos. This statement reawakened anxieties of God-playing, and artificial
babies, which were repeatedly evoked by opponents of stem cell research in the mid-1990s. The news has
heightened the controversy over CRISPR regulation, as the use of foetuses in research is extremely
contentious (Tomlinson, T., 2018). Furthermore, another experimentation occurred in Hong Kong in
2018, when a Chinese doctor (He Jiankui) reported the birth of the world's initial genetically altered
babies as a result of studies conducted at his institution (Regalado, cited in Morrison, M., de Saille, S.,
2019). The revelation was unanticipated and disturbing. Making genetic modifications to the DNA of a
human embryo and transplanting it for the purpose of establishing a pregnancy has long been considered
a moral threshold, and it is illegal in many places (Araki and Ishii, cited in Morrison, M., de Saille, S.,
2019). Morrison, M., and S. de Saille (2019) stated that Crispr infants are both biologically given humans
and manufactured experimental scientific objects, which are both not what they were originally
supposed to be.Thus, synthetic biotechnologies tend to endanger the symbolic understanding, beliefs, and
social rules that enable shared social functioning and organisation. Worry of a community backlash
shapes the field in specific ways; even proponents of human enhancement are encouraged to limit the
scope of their research to what falls within their so-called social licence to operate. As a result, conviction
of immoral scientists such as He Jiankui seemed inevitable in the act of 'detoxifying' a contaminated field.
To prevent the dangerous misuse of Crsipr, governments have developed biosafety guidelines and
protocols, as well as proposed a regulatory system in gene editing.
Several states have rules restricting human embryo research these strategies range from actively
supporting embryonic research to of cially prohibiting all forms of embryonic research (Rossant, J., et
al., 2020). For example, experimentation on a living embryo, is forbidden in Massachusetts, as is the
development of a fertilised embryo solely for research purposes. Furthermore, the United Nations
developed another guideline known as the "Cartagena Protocol” parties are able to notify one of the
United Nations' International Biosafety Clearing-Houses, of any activity that could result in the transfer of
living modi ed organisms with potentially negative effects. Given the large number of countries that have
signed on to the agreement, this "modernization" approach would be a pretty effective means to manage
CRISPR on a global scale. (T. Tomlinson ,2018) Nonetheless, privately nanced research are not subject
to state regulations, so the government's ability to supervise them is limited. Consequently, new
proposals were developed to conquer this issue. One of them is the Coordinated Framework Under
this agreement, the FDA would continue to share responsibilities for regulating novel
biotechnologies such as CRISPR. For instance, the FDA would continue to have authority over
CRISPR-based therapy regimens, and as a result would have authority over genetically modi ied
organisms associated with livestock and agricultural products. This regulatory structure offers two
key bene its:To begin, a number of existing laws apply to the items that CRISPR may alter. Secondly,
the agencies provide businesses with more quick regulatory protection and predictability than is
possible with the introduction of new law, both at its inception and today. These mandated
restrictions are essential in maintaining a safe environment in genetic technology trials.
To conclude, this essay has proved that Crispr has the potential to save the lives of many individuals
suffering from many type of diseases, yet, there are many ethical issues and life threatening risks
associated with the use of it that need to be considered. Undoubtedly, weighing the benefits and risks of
Crispr, this advancement should be handled with high amount of care and consideration such that only
the sick get to benefit from it, and that Crispr is prohibited for the purposes of enhancement. Bio-safety
protocols are crucial to ensure safe use of Crispr and prevent lethal misuse of such technology.
A safe environment for this technological development could be accomplished by following the rules
mandated by the government and ensuring the researches are expertise in genetic engineering or have
adequate knowledge in the genetic field. Consequently, this would allow for an increase of Crispr benefits
and a decrease in morbidity rate.
Akram F, Ikram Ul Haq, Ahmed Z, Khan H, Ali MS. (2020) CRISPR-Cas9, A
Promising Therapeutic Tool for Cancer Therapy: A Review. Protein Pept Lett.
Betül AYANO LU, F. , Eser ELÇ N, A. and Murat ELÇ N, Y. (2020)
Bioethical issues in genome editing by CRISPR- Cas9 technology. Turk J Biol
44(2),110– 120
Greene, M., & Master, Z. (2018). Ethical Issues of Using CRISPR
Technologies for Research on Military Enhancement. Journal of bioethical
inquiry, 15(3), 327–335.
Kofler, Natalie, and Katherine L Kraschel. (2018) “Treatment of heritable
diseases using CRISPR: Hopes, fears, and reality.” Seminars in perinatology
vol. 42,8 (2018): 515-521.
Luthra, R., Kaur, S., & Bhandari, K. (2021). Applications of CRISPR as a
potential therapeutic. Life sciences, Vol. 284.
Morrison, M., de Saille, S. (2019) CRISPR in context: towards a socially
responsible debate on embryo editing. Palgrave Commun 5(1) , 110 .
Singh, V and K. Dhar, P. (2020) Genome Engineering via CRISPR- CAS9
system London : Academic press (2020)
Tomlinson, T. (2018) ‘A CRISPR Future for Gene-Editing Regulation: A
Proposal for an Updated Biotechnology Regulatory System in an Era of
Human Genomic Editing’ Fordham Law Review (1) , pp. 440- 482