solved Research notes are a common strategy that help writers keep

Research notes are a common strategy that help writers keep track of the best evidence that they’ve come across in their sources so they don’t have to keep revisiting their sources. There are many different ways you can take research notes. For this essay, we’re going to use the “Quote Bank” strategy. Quote banks are basically word documents that you use to save and organize cited quotes from your readings/sources. You’ll be using a template I’ve created for this assignment, but you can easily create your own templates for future essays as well.
Download the quote bank template on this page.

Copy and paste at least 4 relevant and specific/convincing quotes under each template heading. Make sure to:

“Put quotation marks around” and (cite) each entry, and
Use quotes from all 4 sources (3 assigned, and 1 found on your own).Include a signal phrase with each quote (examples on the quote bank documentInstructions: 1.Review your annotations of the 3 assigned
articles for Essay #2 and the 4th source you found through your own
research. 2.When
you find a quote that you think you could use in the essay, copy
and paste it under the appropriate heading below. a. put
quotation marks around the quote. b.Add
a citation at the end of the quote (that includes the author’s last name
and page numbers if there are any). c.
Finally,
add a signal phrase to introduce that quote. Samples in the box
below. 3. To
earn full credit, repeat this process until you have: a. At
least 4 cited quotes under each heading and b.
Quotes
from all 4 readings.

Sample
Signal Phrases:
Anderson
states, claims, emphasizes, explains, believes… “quote”
Malik concludes,
offers, contends, writes, says, notes… “quote”
The author
counters this idea by explaining, “quote”
The author
supports this idea by showing how “quote”
Note:
If you’d like to add more quotes/evidence you may, and you might be glad you
did when you’re writing the essay.

A Definition
of “CRISPR CAS-9” (what it is; what it’s used for):

1.

2.
3. 4.

Risks of using this technology:
1.2.
3. 4.

Benefits of using this
technology:
1. 2.3.
4.

Article Commentary
“Human beings are to be welcomed as gifts, not manufactured as products.”Ryan T. Anderson is a senior research fellow at the Heritage Foundation. He is the author of several books, including Debating Religious Liberty and Discrimination.
In the following viewpoint, Anderson argues that efforts to manipulate
the genetic material of human embryos pose significant ethical
questions. Responding to claims by Chinese biophysicist He Jiankui that
his research team had implanted gene-edited embryos into human wombs,
Anderson cautions that such research threatens human dignity, creates
obstacles to social justice, and requires the destruction of human
embryos, which the author refers to as “embryonic human beings.” The
author contends that children
should be produced through sexual reproduction rather than technology.
Anderson also expresses concern that governments could misuse the
technology and warns that editing genes can have unforeseen consequences
for future generations.As you read, consider the following questions:
For what reasons does Anderson characterize
gene editing as an “immediate threat to the right to life of the
unborn,” and do you agree with his characterization?According to the author, how might gene-editing technology lead to further social inequality?In
your opinion, should the United States government devote resources to
developing genetically enhanced soldiers? Why or why not?
Two remarkable things took place last month in the world of biotechnology:
A Chinese doctor claimed to have created two genetically modified human
embryos who were successfully nurtured to birth, and the worldwide
scientific community roundly rejected this experiment as a violation of
ethics.In turn, the Chinese government condemned the doctor and called for an immediate investigation.At issue is a developing biotechnology
known as CRISPR-Cas9 that allows scientists to genetically edit cells.
The technique holds potential to treat a variety of genetic disorders such as cystic fibrosis
and sickle cell disease, as well as even more complex conditions such
as cancers and heart disease. Indeed, the doctor says he genetically
modified the two children in question (back in their embryonic stage) to
make them resistant to HIV.As promising as that sounds, the deployment
of gene-editing to human embryos is rife with ethical questions:
concerns about experimentation on minors, human embryo
destruction, the creation of life in a lab, “designer babies,” the
boundary between therapy and “enhancement,” and interventions in the
genome that will be passed on to future generations.In other words, genetically modified human embryos raise new versions of old bioethical problems, as well as some new ones.First, countless embryonic human beings
were killed in the process that led to the live birth of these two
genetically modified children. Like all so-called “assisted reproductive
technologies,” many more embryos are created than are implanted and
subsequently delivered. The remaining embryonic human beings are either
frozen in perpetuity or destroyed. This research poses an immediate
threat to the right to life of the unborn.Regardless on where you stand on the abortion
debate in terms of unplanned pregnancies, the intentional creation—and
destruction—of human beings should worry all of us. Such callous
disregard for human dignity does not bode well for the future of
scientific integrity.We should also care about the dignity of
life in its very origins. There is a great danger in creating children
in the laboratory, a process that treats human subjects as if objects of
technological mastery. That will have profound moral and cultural
implications as the science progresses: Societies can come to view human
life—all life, modified or not—as something that can easily be toyed
with and discarded.We forget the fact that children should be
begotten, not made, at our peril. And we should be wary of practices
that separate the life-giving act from the love-making act. Indeed,
these new technologies are misnamed. They don’t “assist”—they replace
fertility and procreation with reproduction in a sterile lab. Human
beings are to be welcomed as gifts, not manufactured as products.The technologies behind the manufacture of
babies raises new questions, too. The CRISPR-Cas9 procedure, and others
like it, allow scientists to take further steps down the road of
creating designer babies. This would allow parents—or other
authorities—to dictate the characteristics of future people.There’s also the specter of a kind of
“brave new world” genetic arms race. Imagine John Edwards’ “Two
Americas,” but between the genetic haves and the genetic have-nots. An
America where the wealthy (and morally unscrupulous) design
super-babies, while everyone else remains “unenhanced.”As the philosopher Leon Kass has explained,
“As bad as it might be to destroy a creature made in God’s image, it
might be very much worse to be creating them after images of one’s own.”While the children this time were modified
to prevent HIV, no one knows what may be the next genetic modification.
And it isn’t hard to fathom how these new technologies could be deployed
in the hands of racist, eugenicist, or genocidal governments of the
future.Of course, we have no idea what the
consequences—both physical and social—will be to these genetic
interventions. Scientists simply do not know whether knocking out any
particular gene will have other, unintended health consequences down the
road. The genetic code is complicated and interconnected, and even a
small, well-intentioned modification could have large ramifications.Furthermore, genetically modifying human
embryos will modify their germ line (sperm and ova), entailing that
those modifications will transfer to future generations. So, for these
Chinese babies, not only has their genome been modified, but their
entire lineage could be affected. Right now, it all amounts to an
experiment.Technologies such as CRISPR will impact all
of us eventually, not just the scientific community. So even as they
denounce the Chinese experiment, the claims from scientists that they
can “self-regulate” fall flat.Whether and how to use various
biotechnologies needs to be carefully considered with serious ethical
reflection from all of us. And yet the dean of Harvard Medical School
said that “It is time to move forward from [debates about] ethical
permissibility to outline the path to clinical translation … in order to
bring this technology forward.”As the most recent developments
demonstrate, China is especially aggressive in its willingness to ignore
bioethical standards. Despite its face-saving condemnation of the
CRISPR babies, Beijing is already suspected of using CRISPR and other
technologies to explore the possibility of producing so-called “super
soldiers” with increased muscle mass, expanded cardiovascular capacity,
and even improved vision at night. This, in turn, is likely to tempt
some in the West to lower their own bioethical standards in the name of
national security. That would be a mistake.Just because we can do something doesn’t
mean we should. To avoid the trap of falling into a technocracy, humans
must govern technology, not the reverse. At the same time, we must avoid
the trap of becoming Luddites. New biotechnologies hold the potential
to cure and prevent disease, to promote human flourishing—but only if
the deployment of technology is governed by morality.The experiments in China with genetically modified babies is just the beginning of what could go wrong.https://go-gale-com.ezproxy.fcclib.nocccd.edu/ps/r…Article Commentary”There is nothing ethically superior in leaving things be if it is possible to change them for the better.”Kenan Malik is a columnist for the Observer and a contributing op-ed writer for the International New York Times. He is the author of several books, including The Quest for a Moral Compass: A Global History of Ethics.
In the following viewpoint, he responds to public concerns that genetic
editing technologies will lead to the popularization of so-called
“designer babies,” which refers to the practice of genetically modifying
embryos for selected traits. Malik expresses skepticism that such a
practice would be used in the near future to select for complex traits
like intelligence since complex traits result from multiple genetic
factors. The author argues that genetic editing technologies should
continue because in vitro genetic modification could eradicate genetic disorders caused by a single gene mutation like cystic fibrosis.
Ultimately, Malik contends that nations can mitigate the morally
problematic uses of gene editing technologies while investigating uses
that may limit future suffering.As you read, consider the following questions:
According to the author, how does the Nuffield Council on Bioethics determine whether the genetic modification of embryos is morally permissible?How does Malik use the example of Louise Brown to support his overall argument? Do you find it effective?Do
you agree with the author’s suggestion that, in the event it was
possible to eliminate genetic disorders caused by single-gene mutations,
not doing so would be morally or ethically wrong? Why or why not?”Designer babies on horizon”, ran the
headlines. Last week, the Nuffield Council on Bioethics, an independent
body advising on policy, published a report on genome editing and human reproduction (http://nuffieldbioethics.org/wp-content/uploads/Genome-editing-and-human-reproduction-FINAL-website.pdf).New scientific techniques, such as
CRISPR-Cas9—molecular “scissors” that allow scientists to snip the
genome at specific points—have transformed genetics
in recent years and raised questions about what is practically possible
and ethically acceptable. Despite the lurid headlines, they are not
ushering in a new world of designer babies.The genetic modification of embryos is
illegal in Britain except for strictly controlled research purposes, and
the Nuffield Council report did not call for a change in the law. What
it suggested was that there exists no fundamental moral objection to
genome editing.Such editing may be “morally permissible”
so long as it takes into account the “welfare of the future person” and
does not “produce or exacerbate social division or the unmitigated
marginalisation or disadvantage of groups within society”. Even with
these caveats, there is no prospect of gene-edited humans in the near
future. The science is in its infancy and techniques remain untested and
hazardous. A recent study suggested that CRISPR does not cut the genome
cleanly but causes considerable damage, and that as the body repairs
the damaged new mutations may be introduced. It will be a long time
before such issues are resolved sufficiently even to contemplate human
therapies.The debate about human gene editing is less
about what may happen tomorrow than about fundamental fears of
dystopian change. “It is not fanciful to say that … the end of human
beings as a wild breeding race could be in sight,” claimed the Times.
“Any small impoverished country” would be able to “improve its wealth
and influence” by “breeding a race of intellectual giants”. This would
pose an “extremely grave” threat “to accepted human values”.That article was published not last week but in 1969. And in response not to gene editing but to the then new technology of IVF.On Wednesday, the first ever IVF baby,
Louise Brown, will turn 40, an event that will be publicly celebrated
(https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/jul/08/ivf-in-vitro-fertilisation-louise-brown-born).
We have lost most of our anxieties about IVF. Those old fears—about
scientists playing God or about the resurrection of eugenics—have, however, become transferred to a new biotechnology.One issue that seems genuinely new is that
of “germline” editing. “Somatic therapies” alter genes in an individual
but do not affect his or her children.
Germline therapies modify the genome in an egg, sperm or embryo; any
changes are passed on to future generations. For many critics, to burden
future generations with possibly dangerous genomic alterations without
their consent is unconscionable. It is true that any alteration to the
germline should be undertaken only with the greatest of care, and with
far more knowledge than we currently possess. That’s one reason designer
babies are not on the horizon. But refusing to alter the genome when
one could to do so safely is also to affect the future. If it ever
became possible to eliminate, say, the gene that causes cystic fibrosis,
not then to do so would condemn future generations unnecessarily to
suffer from a wretched condition. There is nothing ethically superior in
leaving things be if it is possible to change them for the better.Perhaps the most vexed question is about
genome modification not for therapeutic reasons (to eliminate genes
causing disorders) but for enhancement—attempting to improve a child’s
intelligence or physical appearance.There are a number of disorders—such as
cystic fibrosis—caused by the mutation of a single gene. These would be
ideal candidates for genetic modification. Most complex traits—whether
intelligence or appearance or musical ability—are, however, shaped by a
multitude of genes. “Enhancement” would require altering hundreds of
genes, with myriad untold collateral consequences. It’s an unlikely
scenario. If you want make a child more intelligent, filling the house
with books is far more effective than modifying genes.If, 50 years ago, society had given in to
fears about IVF we might be living in a world without fertility
treatments. In 50 years’ time, we may have lost our current anxieties
about genetic engineering,
just as we have shed concerns about IVF. By then, designer babies might
really be on the horizon. At which point, we could take reasoned
decisions about human germline modification. Until then, we should
encourage the practical research and the ethical debates, without giving
in either to the hype or to the dystopic fears.https://go-gale-com.ezproxy.fcclib.nocccd.edu/ps/i..Like millions of other Americans, Victoria Gray has been sheltering Like millions of other Americans, Victoria Gray has been sheltering
at home with her children as the U.S. struggles through a deadly
pandemic, and as protests over police violence have erupted across the
country. But Gray is not like any other American. She’s the
first person with a genetic disorder to get treated in the United States
with the revolutionary gene-editing technique called CRISPR. And
as the one-year anniversary of her landmark treatment approaches, Gray
has just received good news: The billions of genetically modified cells
doctors infused into her body clearly appear to be alleviating virtually
all the complications of her disorder, sickle cell disease. “It’s wonderful. It’s the change I’ve been waiting on my whole life,” Gray told NPR, which has had exclusive access to chronicle her experience over the past year. Sickle cell disease, a rare blood disorder that disproportionately affects African Americans in the U.S., can be difficult to treat effectively. The last time NPR spoke with Gray — in November — her doctors had
just gotten the first hints the treatment might be working. Now, after
nine months of careful testing, the treatment shows no signs of waning,
making her doctors more confident than ever the experiment has been a
success. “It’s hard to put into words the joy that I feel —
being grateful for a change this big. It’s been amazing,” said Gray, 34,
who lives in Forest, Miss. In many ways, it’s a change that
came just in time, Gray said. In the fall, the National Guard deployed
her husband to Washington. And then, the coronavirus pandemic triggered a
national lockdown. Gray was suddenly home alone with three of her kids.
Her great-aunt as well as the pastor of her childhood church
died of COVID-19. Friends at her current church have been getting sick. And then George Floyd was killed by police in Minnesota. “I feel like everything happened so fast,” she said. “It hasn’t been easy.” If
she hadn’t had the treatment, Gray said she doesn’t know how she’d be
coping. She would have been too weak to care for her children and
probably would have been hospitalized at a time when hospitals feel
especially unsafe.
“Since my treatment I’ve been able to do everything for
myself, everything for my kids. And so it’s been joy not only for me but
for the people around me that’s in my life,” she said. The promise of a cure The
researchers conducting the study Gray started caution that it’s too
soon to reach any firm conclusions about the long-term safety and
effectiveness of the approach. Gray is just one patient who has been
followed for what is still a relatively short period of time, they
noted. But Gray’s experience so far, along with two other
patients who received the same treatment for a similar disorder,
indicate the therapy has been effective for her and may work for other
patients as well, they said. “To have it work in this way is extremely thrilling to see and extremely exciting,” said Dr. Haydar Frangoul of the Sarah Cannon Research Institute in Nashville, Tenn., who is treating Gray. At a meeting of the European Hematology Association on June 12, Frangoul and other researchers presented the latest results of their latest testing of Gray as well as two study subjects with a related condition, beta thalassemia. The latter also appear to be benefiting. “It’s very exciting,” said Dr. David Altshuler, chief scientific officer at Vertex Pharmaceuticals in Boston, which is developing the treatment with CRISPR Therapeutics in Cambridge, Mass. “Patients and families have been waiting a very long time for a highly effective therapy.” The
companies also revealed that a second sickle cell patient had been
treated as part of their research program along with three other beta
thalassemia patients. The promising results
are also encouraging other doctors and researchers, who hope CRISPR may
also lead to new treatments for many diseases. Studies have already tested CRISPR to treat cancer and a rare genetic condition that causes blindness. CRISPR enables scientists to make changes in DNA much more easily than before. “I think this is a huge leap for the medical field,” Frangoul told NPR in an interview.How the treatment works Sickle cell disease
is caused by a genetic mutation that produces a defective form of
hemoglobin, a protein needed by red blood cells to nourish the body with
oxygen. The defective hemoglobin turns red blood cells into deformed,
sickle-shaped cells that get jammed inside blood vessels, causing
excruciating attacks of pain, organ damage and often premature death. “Before the treatment, it would be so bad it would be crippling,” Gray said of her pain crises. For
the experimental treatment, scientists remove cells from patients’ bone
marrow and use CRISPR to edit a gene, which enables the cells to
produce a protein known as fetal hemoglobin. Fetal hemoglobin is made by
fetuses in the womb to get oxygen from their mothers’ blood but usually
stops being produced shortly after birth. The hope was that
restoring production of fetal hemoglobin would compensate for the
defective hemoglobin produced by sickle cell patients. Beta thalassemia
patients don’t have enough hemoglobin. Scientists had hoped
that after the treatment, which Gray received July 2, 2019, at least 20%
of the hemoglobin in her system would be fetal hemoglobin. Blood
tests so far have shown the levels far exceeded that. About 46% of the
hemoglobin in Gray’s system continues to be fetal hemoglobin, the
researchers reported. In addition, fetal hemoglobin has remained present
in 99.7% of her red blood cells, they reported. Another
promising finding is that a biopsy of Gray’s bone marrow cells found
more than 81% of the cells contained the intended genetic change needed
to produce fetal hemoglobin, indicating the edited cells were continuing
to survive and function in her body for a sustained period. The
researchers also reported that the first patient to receive the same
treatment for beta thalassemia in Germany has now been able to live
without blood transfusions for 15 months. Previously, the researchers
had reported data for that patient for nine months. In addition, four
other beta thalassemia patients have been treated, including one who has
been transfusion-free for five months, the researchers reported. While
Gray and the beta thalassemia patients experi