Biotechnology Essay Ethics Genetic Policy Prospect Public

In a previously published essay, I performed a rhetorical analysis of these two texts to see if there were significant differences between these two calls for responsible research coming from two different eras (Ceccarelli 2018).

I focused in particular on sentence structure, to see where responsibility was situated in subject-predicate pairings throughout the texts.

In this follow-up study, I take that argument one step further by looking at the metaphors that appear in these two texts and in the conference statements that followed each of them.

Slate begins its article on “the fuzzy regulations surrounding DIY synthetic biology” with a link to a citizen scientist’s “CRISPR kit” available online for 0 (Olmstead 2017).

To make this case about the influence of our language choices on our efforts to engage in responsible research and innovation, I will conduct a metaphor analysis of two similar texts calling for research pauses for regulatory deliberation, each written in a different era.

One was written about CRISPR and the other was written about an earlier genetic engineering technology known as recombinant DNA. Not long before that journal named CRISPR the most significant scientific discovery of 2015, a group of 18 scientists and bioethicists published an editorial there calling for “open discourse on the use of CRISPR-Cas9 technology to manipulate the human genome.” In the editorial, the authors “strongly discourage, even in those countries with lax jurisdictions where it might be permitted, any attempts at germline genome modification for clinical application in humans, while societal, environmental, and ethical implications of such activity are discussed among scientific and governmental organizations. This will enable pathways to responsible uses of this technology, if any, to be identified” (Baltimore et al. The corresponding author of the editorial was Jennifer Doudna, one of the co-inventors of CRISPR-Cas9 technology.

General Editors: David Bourget (Western Ontario) David Chalmers (ANU, NYU) Area Editors: David Bourget Gwen Bradford Berit Brogaard Margaret Cameron David Chalmers James Chase Rafael De Clercq Ezio Di Nucci Barry Hallen Hans Halvorson Jonathan Ichikawa Michelle KoschØystein Linnebo Jee Loo Liu Paul Livingston Brandon Look Manolo Martínez Matthew Mc Grath Michiru Nagatsu Susana Nuccetelli Giuseppe Primiero Jack Alan Reynolds Darrell P.

Rowbottom Aleksandra Samonek Constantine Sandis Howard Sankey Jonathan Schaffer Thomas Senor Robin Smith Daniel Star Jussi Suikkanen Lynne Tirrell Aness Webster Other editors Contact us Learn more about Phil Papers General Editors: David Bourget (Western Ontario) David Chalmers (ANU, NYU) Area Editors: David Bourget Gwen Bradford Berit Brogaard Margaret Cameron David Chalmers James Chase Rafael De Clercq Ezio Di Nucci Barry Hallen Hans Halvorson Jonathan Ichikawa Michelle KoschØystein Linnebo Jee Loo Liu Paul Livingston Brandon Look Manolo Martínez Matthew Mc Grath Michiru Nagatsu Susana Nuccetelli Giuseppe Primiero Jack Alan Reynolds Darrell P.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

One thought on “Biotechnology Essay Ethics Genetic Policy Prospect Public”