Exercise 1

Exercise 1

Decision – a conclusion reached after consideration

Technology – the application of scientific knowledge for practical purposes

Terrorist – a person who uses unlawful violence and intimidation

Pregnant – having a child or young developing in the uterus

Laboratory – a room or building equipped for scientific experiments

Bacteria – a member of a large group of unicellular microorganisms which have cell walls but lack organelles and an organized nucleus

Exercise 2

The decision by NASEM to allow more research into gene drive technology is the wrong decision because the technology is too new, there are too many possibilities for an accidental release, and terrorists could use it. Gene drive technology is incredibly powerful, allowing scientists to almost wholly change a species in a very short time. In the past, new technologies have been introduced before they were fully tried and tested, and the results were disastrous. For example, in the 1950’s the drug thalidomide was safely used to help people sleep. Later, and without testing, it was given to pregnant women to help with pregnancy. However, this use of the drug caused major child defects in over 10,000 babies and was eventually banned. Another reason why research on gene drive should not be allowed is the possibility of a modified organism getting out of the laboratory unintentionally. Even when safeguards are in place, accidents can, and do, happen. For instance, a United States Army laboratory unintentionally sent live specimens of anthrax, a very dangerous bacteria, to several research facilities. As well as an accidental release, there is also the possibility that the technology could into the hands of terrorists. If terrorists can capture scientists, they could force them to create deadly organisms, such as a mosquito engineered to carry a deadly disease, that could then be released in cities or across entire continents. To illustrate the seriousness of this concern, the FBI is actively investigating how gene drive could be misused. New technologies offer so much hope, but without the right kind of safeguards they can cause major problems to society. It is for these reasons that NASEM’s decision to allow more gene drive research was a bad one.

Exercise 3

A

1. What is the writer’s argument in the paragraph cited in exercise 4?
   The experiment of Gene drive should go ahead but strict and great control must be adhered for the safety of every species.

2. How does each example relate to the writer’s argument?

The mosquitos if released I India could have effects in other parts of the world and if the mosquito species becomes extinct it can have a great effect on the food chain. The examples highlight the consequences if the experiments are not controlled.

3. How does each example help make the arguments convincing?

If proper protocols are not followed, great consequences like the current corona virus could result.

B.

Excerpt 1:X

Excerpt 2: SP2

Excerpt 3:X

Excerpt 4: SP1

Excerpt 5:X

Excerpt 6:X

Excerpt 7:X

Excerpt 8: SP3

Argument 1: Gene drive experiments should only take place under strict government supervision with highly trained scientists. The technology is too dangerous to be used by just anyone.

Agree

Supporting Point 1: What concerns me is that a lot of the gene drive developers are not ecologists. My understanding is that they have very little training, or even zero training, when it comes to environmental interactions, environmental science, and ecology,” Kuiken says. “So, you have people developing systems that are being deliberately designed to be introduced to an environment or an ecosystem who don’t have the background to understand what all those ecological interactions might be.” To this end, scientists working on gene drive technologies must be brought into conversations with ecologists.

Example: For example, if scientists release mosquitoes in a town in India that has approved the work, there is no practical way to contain the release to this single location. The mosquitoes will travel to other towns, other countries, and potentially even other continents.

Source: www.futureoflife.org

Disagree

Supporting Point 1: Many of the scientists who are leading the development of gene drives are also pioneering methods of working with the communities where they propose to use those gene drives to ensure that they do not do anything that that community disagrees with

Example: For example, Target Malaria (a not-for-profit research consortium working on gene drives in malaria-transmitting mosquitoes) has a team dedicated to working with the governments and communities where Target Malaria is carrying out research to ensure that those involved understand what Target Malaria is proposing to do and address any concerns that arise

Source: www.royalsociety.org

Argument 2: Gene drive should be used to alter mosquitoes so they cannot reproduce. With a few years there will be no mosquitoes and no malaria.

Agree

Supporting Point 1: The London school is all about reducing the number of malaria-transmitting mosquitoes out there. That means spreading genes

Example: for example, bias sex ratios to create more males, leaving fewer female mosquitoes to bite people and causing a population crash, or genes that lead to female infertility, which have a similar outcome. Gene drives that do this are called suppression drives because they suppress the population.

Source: vox.com

Disagree

Supporting Point 1: It turns out that if scientists did find a way to eradicate mosquitoes, it would create a distinct absence from the environment. Take the Arctic tundra, for example, where several mosquito species are particularly abundant and provide food for migratory birds. If mosquitoes were eliminated, the number of birds in the area could drop by more than half [source: Fang]. Some scientists predict a similar fate awaits many fish species around the globe, which would need to adapt their diet to survive. This scenario would be particularly difficult for specialized predators, such as the mosquitofish. In fact, if mosquitoes were to disappear, the other insects and fish that feed on them would dwindle in number, which could cause a ripple effect throughout the food chain

Example: for example, where several mosquito species are particularly abundant and provide food for migratory birds. If mosquitoes were eliminated, the number of birds in the area could drop by more than half

Source: https://science.howstuffworks.com

Argument 3: International stakeholders must agree on regulations for a future that includes genetically altered organisms. It is important to plan now for the intentional or unintentional release these organisms.

Agree

Supporting Point 1: People have been altering the genomes of plants and animals for many years using traditional breeding techniques. Artificial selection for specific, desired traits has resulted in a variety of different organisms, ranging from sweet corn to hairless cats

Example: Today, we can incorporate new genes from one species into a completely unrelated species through genetic engineering, optimizing agricultural performance or facilitating the production of valuable pharmaceutical substances. Crop plants, farm animals, and soil bacteria are some of the more prominent examples of organisms that have been subject to genetic engineering.

Source: www.nature.com

Disagree

Supporting Point 1: Research studies present conflicting arguments as to whether consuming GM crops is beneficial or harmful to human health. With every alleged GMO health risk, there are counterarguments either opposing health risk claims or suggesting GMOs provide more benefits than harm.

Example: The most notable GMO risks to humans are the potential development of allergens to GM related crops and toxicity from GM crops. However, studies also show GM crops have benefits including the increased nutritional value in foods.

Source: sphweb.bumc.bu.edu

Exercise 4

Argument 1: Gene drive experiments should only take place under strict government supervision with highly trained scientists. The technology is too dangerous to be used by just anyone.

Gene drive is the way forward for the successful advancement of our species. But the experiments in the subject has to be greatly controlled. It’s not only the scientist in one sphere that can decide if genes of a species can be altered.

Other professionals from different branches of science has to be involved in the decision as well. For example, if scientists release mosquitoes in a town in India that has approved the work, there is no practical way to contain the release to this single location. The mosquitoes will travel to other towns, other countries, and potentially even other continents.

If the population of mosquitoes is greatly reduced in one area of the ecosystem, it can have a tremendous effect on the food chain of that specific ecosystem. For example, if mosquitoes become very less in number other insects or birds who feed on them will dwindle in numbers. Also experiments in gene drive could expose humans or other species to great danger if not strictly controlled. Something like the corona virus which has totally shut down the world as we know it could be a result of a lab experiment gone wrong.

All in all, in my opinion I think the gene drive should do it by authorized people whose studying that in deep, because if they do any small mistake that will create big problems for the world and humans. So we have to motivate more people to join this kind of field to support their countries and discover new ways of gene drive.