Maniar 1

Annotated Bibliography

Should We Edit The Human Genome With Such Little Knowledge? Commented [1]: CRAZY! Just talked about this in
Biology, already interested.

Faisal Maniar

Professor Malcolm Campbell

UWRT 1104

March 13, 2019

Annotated Bibliography
 Maniar 2
Hasson,Katie.“Are CRISPR Babies Healthy? Enhanced? Speculation Takes a Disturbing Turn.”
Are CRISPR Babies Healthy? Enhanced? Speculation Takes a Disturbing Turn | Center
for Genetics and Society, https://www.geneticsandsociety.org/biopolitical-times/are-
crispr-babies-healthy-enhanced-speculation-takes-disturbing-turn.
Summary: The website starts by talking about He Jiankui crispr experiments and how the
chinese government has confirmed the existence of these twins and how there were
explicitly no details on the condition of the two. The article then further goes on to say
speculations that the condition of the twins may not be in good health. According to He
Jiankui, he used crispr in order to change the CRR5 gene into its delta-32 variant, which
is a natural occuring mutation of the gene, but biologist Sean Ryder assessed that the
mutations that He made were not to the delta-32 variant, but rather a new unknown
variant with unknown significant, and while the mutation might of produced the wanted
result there are many unknown risks involved that we know nothing about. Another
scientist by the name of Robin Lovell-Badge claimed that the twins did not have their
CRR5 gene edited but rather other genes that hold unknown repercussions. Also a
neurologist claimed that CRR5 also has some effects on the brain, which had seemed to
enhanced the twins cognitive ability.
Evaluation: This article was written by Katie Hasson, teaches, speaks about, and has a
phd in genetics in a social and political aspect, so she is qualified to write and make
conclusions on the topic of human genetic editing. This article does show some bias
when she gives her opinions and you can see the bias but most of the article is based in
fact, even pulling quotes from other biologists and neurologists. The source is from a
website that is run by a organization called Genetics and Society. The article is trying to
Commented [2]: I feel like you are still editing this but
not all this should be in italics, refer to the template on
Canvas for help (:
Commented [3]: Try starting this with the template he
gave us in class. " This reliable source/website/article is
about__"
Commented [4]: I believe this should be capitalized
(CRISPR). I've always seen it this way, check and be
sure.
Commented [5]: learned about this in bio last class,
it's a very interesting topic
Commented [6]: Always address authors by last name
rather than their first name..more professional.
Commented [7]: Maybe see if another word will flow
better since unknown is used twice, foreign,
anonymous, new, or unfamiliar could sound better
Commented [8]: *might have
Commented [9]: What was his name?
Commented [10]: I feel like it looks better if you make
it flow, instead of categorizing the 3 parts
Commented [11]: Try to change this sentence to
something more like " This article was written by Katie
Hasson who has a PhD specializing in genetics of
social and political aspects, which qualifies her to
teach, write, and make conclusions on human genetic
editing.
Commented [12]: This sentence should be rewritten
but keep the idea it's important
 Maniar 3

convey that the genetic editing of humans should not of happened and that there are far Commented [13]: *Have, so far everything looks good,
just a couple little errors
too many unknowns and risks involved in the act, it then also goes and say that we don’t

know the health conditions of the crispr twins. The audience of this article is those Commented [14]: replace "is" with "are"

interested in genetics and the conditions of the crispr twins.

Usefulness: This source will most likely appear in my EIP as it provides relevant

information and addresses my topic. The article relates to my research as it sides with me

and provides evidence for what it claims. This source is like some of my other sources as

it also involves crispr and genetic engineering and compared to my other sources this is Commented [15]: Consider capitalizing this bib looks
good
probably my best and favorite source on the topic.

The Real News Network, The Real News Network, 3 Feb. 2019,

therealnews.com/stories/chinese-scientists-human-genetic-engineering-

experiment-is-crazy.

Summary: The Real New Network Discusses He Jiankui’s experiments and his reasoning Commented [16]: Same as before, start with the
template he gave us, also make it flow
for editing their genes while providing information on how the effects of editing an adult

and embryo is very different and risky. They go on to say that He was unjustified in the Commented [17]: Again change to his last name

act of editing the twins genes so because of the risk. The video then goes on to explain Commented [18]: You can probably cut the 'so' it flows
better without
crispr and break it down and then says that what He has done is actually crazy and based

on a poor understanding of science.

Evaluation: This source is by the real news network and is a developed article from a

reliable source as they do not do advertising or accept government funding so there

opinions are genuine.

 Maniar 4

Usefulness: while this source is from a reliable source there is a lot of bias in the opinions Commented [19]: Capitalize

of the video participants strait up calling He crazy for doing what he has done, and at the

moment I am still deciding if I will use this in my EIP or not. The other sources that I

have are less opinionated while this one is based in opinion excluding the explanations

within the video.

Sorensen, Kelly.”Genetic enhancements and expectations”.BMJ Journals, 30 Jun Commented [20]: space between "," and "kelly"
Commented [21]: Comma should be a period
2009.https://jme.bmj.com/content/35/7/433. Accessed 12 Mar 2019

Summary: In this source the author talks about how environmental and genetic

enhancements lead to the same result in the end, such as a boost in cognitive ability, but

with genetic enhancement, while u are making the child better off there are many risks

along with changing the genetic identity of the child along the way, which is why there

are many problems with this as opposed to environmental enhancement.

Evaluation: The source was very straightforward with it’s point as after it made its

argument and stated its cause it jumped straight into ethical and logical debate ton

support the author's reasoning.

Usefulness: This source does talk about the concern for human genome editing but it then

shifts into ethical and logical debate and because of this this source will most likely not

appear in my EIP as a source as rather than talking about the risk involved it talks about

should it be done because gene therapy is legal. Compared to my other sources this one

delves into ethics the most being my weakest link of the three sources that I have picked.
Commented [22]: Overall I think you have done great,
just a couple things to fix and you'll be set!
Commented [23]: Interesting topic proposal! I think
you have some great sources and with some minor
tweaks this will be a great annotation, leading to a
great paper.