Thursday, April 13, 2006
123
Should We Allow Genetic Engineering? A Public Policy Analysis of Germline Enhancement
A paper written as a backgound for discussion
N. Schichor, J. Simonet, C. Canano
In sum, the landscape of international operational policy and United States' domestic policy are currently in a state of flux. The United States has used stopgap measures to prevent one situation from progressing, but it does not have a proactive mechanism in place to stop the private sector from engaging in other research or practices like the New Jersey reproductive healthcare clinic example. That would require an act of Congress, a slow and drawn out legislative process loaded with ethical decisions. Our experiences with eugenics have shown that government should be wary of becoming too involved. On the other hand, leaving germline engineering free to develop in an unregulated market doesn't allow morality or the public interest to affect the trajectory of germline engineering. Ultimately, the United States will have to make a legislative decision in the near future, or risk the private sector dictating the next steps.
Post the conclusions into your blogs and then analyze them based on the Conclusion Worksheet. In particular, determine whether the conclusion restates the claim and whether it discusses the study's findings. -> restates the claim
Other questions to ask include:
· What type of paper is it? : Recommendation for policy
· What's the structure of paper? ( introduction, body, conclusion) Where is the conclusion located?(at the end of the paper) Is it separate from sections of the paper discussing the study's findings or implications? (Yes)
· Does the conclusion summarize the paper's argument? : NO
· Does it discuss the paper's broader significance? : YES
· Does it provide a practical application of findings? : NO
· Does it offer speculative conclusions? If so, what words and phrases tell the reader that the statement is speculative? : NO
· Does it call for further research? : NO
· Does it use an anecdote or image from the introduction? NO
· What other features or patterns did you notice?
Designer Babies: One Step Closer
by Samuel Hensley
These concerns for tomorrow begin with Joshua’s parents today. The proposal is to select purposefully a child solely for his ability to provide a donor source for another child.5 Creating life primarily to serve someone else, especially when the other life may be rejected and destroyed for the simple reason that it did not meet the parents’ needs, is an action that should always be condemned. CBHD
Post the conclusions into your blogs and then analyze them based on the Conclusion Worksheet. In particular, determine whether the conclusion restates the claim and whether it discusses the study's findings. ->restates the claim
Other questions to ask include:
· What type of paper is it? Criticize
· What's the structure of paper? Where is the conclusion located? Is it separate from sections of the paper discussing the study's findings or implications?
· Does the conclusion summarize the paper's argument? : NO
· Does it discuss the paper's broader significance? : YES
· Does it provide a practical application of findings? : NO
· Does it offer speculative conclusions? If so, what words and phrases tell the reader that the statement is speculative? : NO
· Does it call for further research? : NO
· Does it use an anecdote or image from the introduction? NO
· What other features or patterns did you notice?
CONCLUSION
(summarizing the findings) When clinicians are faced with a request to perform predictive genetic testing on a young person, where medical benefit will not be an outcome, there is a default position that has been set. The default position is to refuse testing based on existing guidelines and similar arguments made in the literature. However, there is a small amount of room to move. If the young person can be deemed competent, testing may be considered. (limitations of the current study) Currently empirical evidence is so lacking that we are not capable of either corroborating or refuting such a default position. This position therefore remains a cautionary position and also perhaps a temporary one, given the range of arguments in favour of such testing.
(recommendations for further work) Empirical research must be a priority. Qualitative research is vital as a starting point in understanding the range of impacts that predictive testing may have on young people. Such research must explore both the beneficial and harmful outcomes of testing in order to provide a balanced range of items to research in a more standardized manner in the future. Standardized research into the effects of testing young people must occur prospectively so that measures including anxiety, depression and quality of life can be compared to a base-line score. It would also be beneficial to use the same standardized measures that have already been utilized to study the effects of similar testing in adults. Similar testing is accepted in adults and so the reported effects of predictive genetic testing in adults provide a base-line for comparison. Only in this way can we
Predictive genetic testing in children 595 begin to develop the empirical evidence needed to justify, or refute, current recommendations.
A paper written as a backgound for discussion
N. Schichor, J. Simonet, C. Canano
In sum, the landscape of international operational policy and United States' domestic policy are currently in a state of flux. The United States has used stopgap measures to prevent one situation from progressing, but it does not have a proactive mechanism in place to stop the private sector from engaging in other research or practices like the New Jersey reproductive healthcare clinic example. That would require an act of Congress, a slow and drawn out legislative process loaded with ethical decisions. Our experiences with eugenics have shown that government should be wary of becoming too involved. On the other hand, leaving germline engineering free to develop in an unregulated market doesn't allow morality or the public interest to affect the trajectory of germline engineering. Ultimately, the United States will have to make a legislative decision in the near future, or risk the private sector dictating the next steps.
Post the conclusions into your blogs and then analyze them based on the Conclusion Worksheet. In particular, determine whether the conclusion restates the claim and whether it discusses the study's findings. -> restates the claim
Other questions to ask include:
· What type of paper is it? : Recommendation for policy
· What's the structure of paper? ( introduction, body, conclusion) Where is the conclusion located?(at the end of the paper) Is it separate from sections of the paper discussing the study's findings or implications? (Yes)
· Does the conclusion summarize the paper's argument? : NO
· Does it discuss the paper's broader significance? : YES
· Does it provide a practical application of findings? : NO
· Does it offer speculative conclusions? If so, what words and phrases tell the reader that the statement is speculative? : NO
· Does it call for further research? : NO
· Does it use an anecdote or image from the introduction? NO
· What other features or patterns did you notice?
Designer Babies: One Step Closer
by Samuel Hensley
These concerns for tomorrow begin with Joshua’s parents today. The proposal is to select purposefully a child solely for his ability to provide a donor source for another child.5 Creating life primarily to serve someone else, especially when the other life may be rejected and destroyed for the simple reason that it did not meet the parents’ needs, is an action that should always be condemned. CBHD
Post the conclusions into your blogs and then analyze them based on the Conclusion Worksheet. In particular, determine whether the conclusion restates the claim and whether it discusses the study's findings. ->restates the claim
Other questions to ask include:
· What type of paper is it? Criticize
· What's the structure of paper? Where is the conclusion located? Is it separate from sections of the paper discussing the study's findings or implications?
· Does the conclusion summarize the paper's argument? : NO
· Does it discuss the paper's broader significance? : YES
· Does it provide a practical application of findings? : NO
· Does it offer speculative conclusions? If so, what words and phrases tell the reader that the statement is speculative? : NO
· Does it call for further research? : NO
· Does it use an anecdote or image from the introduction? NO
· What other features or patterns did you notice?
CONCLUSION
(summarizing the findings) When clinicians are faced with a request to perform predictive genetic testing on a young person, where medical benefit will not be an outcome, there is a default position that has been set. The default position is to refuse testing based on existing guidelines and similar arguments made in the literature. However, there is a small amount of room to move. If the young person can be deemed competent, testing may be considered. (limitations of the current study) Currently empirical evidence is so lacking that we are not capable of either corroborating or refuting such a default position. This position therefore remains a cautionary position and also perhaps a temporary one, given the range of arguments in favour of such testing.
(recommendations for further work) Empirical research must be a priority. Qualitative research is vital as a starting point in understanding the range of impacts that predictive testing may have on young people. Such research must explore both the beneficial and harmful outcomes of testing in order to provide a balanced range of items to research in a more standardized manner in the future. Standardized research into the effects of testing young people must occur prospectively so that measures including anxiety, depression and quality of life can be compared to a base-line score. It would also be beneficial to use the same standardized measures that have already been utilized to study the effects of similar testing in adults. Similar testing is accepted in adults and so the reported effects of predictive genetic testing in adults provide a base-line for comparison. Only in this way can we
Predictive genetic testing in children 595 begin to develop the empirical evidence needed to justify, or refute, current recommendations.
