Annotated Bibliography

Ellen Wood

Professor Malcolm Campbell

Ellen Wood
UWRIT 1104
Annotated Bibliography

Annotated Bibliography

Neergaard, Lauran. “Scientists, ethicists tackle gene editing’s ethics, promise”

infoweb.newsbank.com.librarylink.uncc.edu/resources/doc/nb/news./1597ADCA16A74930?p=A

WNB. Accessed December 2,2015.

In this news article, Neergaard focuses on the rising debate of gene editing and how it has

become a hot topic among scientists all over the world. Researchers in China were the first to

make an attempt at altering the genes in human embryos. Since then, researchers and scientists Commented [ML1]: Cut this down to just “try”

see both the positive and negative outcomes that could occur with gene editing. One of the

positive outcomes that scientists saw from this study done, is the prospect of one day potentially Commented [ML2]: delete

modifying genes that prevent illnesses. Not only that, but they could modify genes for

generations. Neergaard goes on to talk about the technology and tools it would take to

accomplish successfully going about editing the genes of a human embryo. She points out that

while there may be some good outcomes of gene editing, there are scary possibilities that could

occur in doing so. One major affect it would have that Neergaard points out is the lead to

designer babies. This would affect society as a whole because the human population would

potentially start looking, thinking, and acting the same way. Neergaard closes her article with

talking about different areas of the world having different policies, and guidelines about what

germline, or hereditary research is allowed. The issue of inconsistency could lead to a lot of

bigger issues with funding, ethics, and more.

Lauran Neergaard is the author of this news article and a medical writer for The Associated

Press. She covers medical research and public health. She graduated in 1989 from the University

of Georgia where she studied journalism and global policy. This article was published in

2
Ellen Wood
UWRIT 1104
Annotated Bibliography

December of 2105, which means the information is not too outdated, and therefore is still Commented [ML3]: Correct to “2015”

reliable. This article talks about both sides of the debate, but I feel as if it covers more on the con

side. The purpose of this article is to bring attention to the debate of whether or not germline

therapy is ethical because while this is a major topic, it is not as popular around the world and the Commented [ML4]: it

deals mostly with those involved with science and genetics. Neergaard quotes a lot of people

throughout her article which shows that she is using other opinions and getting other points of

view. When she uses a quote from another person she includes their name, and what their

relationship to this topic is. For example, she uses a quote and then writes “Nobel laureate David

Baltimore of the California Institute of Technology”’. This establishes that the individuals she is

including in her article are those who have a connection to this topic and are not random people

off the street. While it is helpful that she uses other people’s point of view, she quotes so many

people it is hard to keep up with who says what. The structure of this article makes it hard to read

because it is broken up into paragraphs that are 2 to 3 sentences. This article doesn’t have a good

flow because it goes from talking about a pro of gene editing, to a con, back to a pro, which

makes it hard to follow.

Despite this article being hard to follow in the structure sense of it, it was a helpful resource. It

talked about some of the advantages and disadvantages of the ethical side of germline therapy

which is what my paper is focusing on. This article did not go into much detail about the arguments,

which will make it hard to use in my paper because I will need to be very specific and detail

oriented. The author does a good job of bringing up different sides, but she doesn’t expand her

knowledge on those points or give much detail. It shapes my understanding of the topic by showing Commented [ML5]: Maybe because she doesn’t have
much experience or credentials on this topic
me different sides of the ethical debate of my topic. I will probably use this source in my article

but just to reference different pros and cons for the debate.

3
Ellen Wood
UWRIT 1104
Annotated Bibliography

Cwik, Bryan. “Designing Ethical Trials of Germline Gene Editing”

http://www.nejm.org.librarylink.uncc.edu/doi/10.1056/NEJMp1711000. Published November

16,2017.

In this scholarly peer reviewed article, Cwik begins talking about the CRISPR gene editing

technique which stands for “clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats”. This

technique is known to correct mutations that leads to hypertrophic cardiomyopathy in human

embryos. He says that gene editing in humans is still far off, but the research behind the ethical

debate is what scientists are focusing on now. Cwik mentions how with the research being done

now, it is mostly the broad questions such as how it should be done, and the technology it will

take that we may or may not have. These questions are dealing with the social issues, but he

mentions how there has been little research done about the use of gene editing in reproductive

medicine and the ethical implications it is going to have. Cwik goes on to mention how if gene

editing in humans is going to occur, there is going to have to be intergenerational monitoring.

The individual would have to go through long processes of consent from multiple generations of

descendants, because generations from all down the line are going to have to be checked on once

this occurs in a human embryo. Another implication that goes along with the multigenerational

testing, is consent. Of course, each person has the right to agree with or object to the testing, but

what is to be done with the information of those who did not wish to participate? Later in the

article Cwik mentions how intergenerational monitoring has the potential to expose future

generations of the original participant’ families to whatever has been done in the past. It could be

drug addiction, substance abuse, or even physiological harms. The issue the researchers are

facing, is how to get the information they need from the family members, while at the same time,

4
Ellen Wood
UWRIT 1104
Annotated Bibliography

protecting what should not be revealed. Lastly, Cwik closes his article by explaining how these

drawbacks are not insurmountable, but they are challenges that are going to require thought and

research to be done on how these issues can be addressed.

Bryan Cwik received his PhD from Virginia in 2013 and does a lot of research with

biotechnology, global health, history and philosophy of medicine and the life sciences and more. Commented [ML6]: Very credible!

This article he wrote about germline gene editing falls into those categories, so we can assume

that it is a credible source. The source was published in December of 2017, so it is a very recent

article which shows us that the information is going to be relevant and useful. This article does a

good job explaining terms the author uses that may be confusing to the general public. The

audience of this article is for the group of people who are interested in learning about the issue of

ethics in the subject of germline therapy. The purpose of this article is to bring up points that do

not get discussed a lot when talking about the ethics side of gene editing. The arguments that are

brought up are simple and easy for someone who does not have a science background to

understand because they are things that we can relate to.

This particular article is a very useful source and has a lot of information that I probably would Commented [ML7]: delete

not have thought about. It brings a different perspective to the table which I found to be very

helpful. It assures the fact that I think that gene editing is un-ethical, and this article uses a lot of

good evidence for that claim.

“asgct.org” American Society of Gene & Cell Therapy. Commented [ML8]: I would cite an article or journal
entry on this website, so we know where specifically you’re
getting information from. Plus, this citation doesn’t seem
This website is the American Society of Gene and Cell Therapy which is an organization for right, the website url shouldn’t be in quotation marks.

people who are involved in gene therapy. The website says that their mission is “to advance

knowledge, awareness, and education leading to discovery and clinical application of gene and

cell therapies to alleviate disease.” This website has resources available to learn more about what

5
Ellen Wood
UWRIT 1104
Annotated Bibliography

gene and cell therapy are through articles that talk about what these things are, and FAQ’s about

it. It has links for featured news related to articles dealing with gene and cell therapy. They claim

to be unbiased sources for scientific information, news and breakthroughs. This website also

advertises events that include presentations and have professionals come and talk about things

related to gene editing.

This source seems to be reliable because it ends in .org. It is an American Society and has a lot of

different links to resources to learn more about gene and cell therapy. There is an advocacy link

for those interested in advocating their beliefs, and an education link for those who do not know

a lot about what gene therapy is or for those who know a little bit and want to learn more. The

intended audience is for those who have a previous knowledge about gene and cell therapy

because someone who was not interested, would not have a purpose in coming to this website.

This website is more for those who are involved in research for gene/cell therapy and want to

become a member of an organization to advocate for knowledge about the topic. I will more than

likely not use it in my project because while it does have information on what gene therapy is, Commented [ML9]: Disregard my last comment then

my project is focusing on the debate of whether or not it is ethical.

“The Science Behind ‘Genetically Modified Humans’” YouTube, uploaded by SciShow, March

20, 2015. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mAmHoCbhyaw

This video is titled “The Science Behind ‘Genetically Modified Humans’” and starts out by

saying that this sounds like a really good idea, however there are a lot of dangers that come with

this. 40 Countries have either discouraged or banned the practice of germline therapy

completely. Scientist have begun thinking about all the genes that can carry a mutated disease

and have thought what if we replaced that gene with a healthy one for an embryo and not only

would it prevent disease in this new human, but also to its off-spring. In 2013 scientists found a

6
Ellen Wood
UWRIT 1104
Annotated Bibliography

way to do this using a system called CRISPR. Basically, it is where the mutated gene is replaced

by a healthy gene to prevent diseases. It has not been tested on humans because on doing this on

a human is extremely unpredictable. When researchers did this study on monkeys, it only worked

20% to 40% of the time. The video closes by briefly mentioning another way to prevent gene

mutations such as in vitro fertilization where the egg is fertilized outside the womb and can be

tested for mutations before it is fertilized.

This video was published in 2015 so the information is still relevant. It is hosted by Hank Green

which is the same guy who does the crash course videos. He makes a lot of educational videos

based on all sorts of different things. His videos are short and to the point. He explains the

information in his video quickly, but they are a great resource for you to get broad information

on the topic you want. The purpose of this particular video is to talk about germline therapy very Commented [ML10]: delete

briefly and to share some quick knowledge about the topic. It is intended for those who already

know background information because this video does not go into a lot of detail. This is not a

video to watch if you are just learning about the topic and you want more information. You first

need to read and learn about it in detail, and then watching this video will re-assure you of what

you previously read.

This video was a useful source, though I had read a majority of what he talked about in previous

sources. He hit a lot of the main points but did not go into much detail because that would make

for a really long video. I will probably not use this source in my project, because the information

he talked about goes into more detail in the other sources I read, but it is a good video for brief

knowledge.

7
Ellen Wood
UWRIT 1104
Annotated Bibliography

Works Cited Page

“asgct.org” American Society of Gene & Cell Therapy.

Cwik, Bryan. “Designing Ethical Trials of Germline Gene Editing”

http://www.nejm.org.librarylink.uncc.edu/doi/10.1056/NEJMp1711000. Published

November 16,2017.

Neergaard, Lauran. “Scientists, ethicists tackle gene editing’s ethics, promise”

infoweb.newsbank.com.librarylink.uncc.edu/resources/doc/nb/news./1597ADCA16A7493

0?p=AWNB. Accessed December 2,2015.

“The Science Behind ‘Genetically Modified Humans’” YouTube, uploaded by SciShow,

March 20, 2015. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mAmHoCbhyaw