In terms of science and new discoveries that are being made, it is dangerous that decisions about these life changing technologies are being made solely by small groups of researchers. With Chinese scientist He Jainkui’s situation, that was just the case. A writer from The Atlantic by the name of Ed Yong points out He’s wrong doings by saying he “developed his own personal code” (Yong 2) after seeking many educated opinions and ignoring them. He’s lack of consideration of others advice proved to be a fault for him after revealing his work. Many people would say that is final product is irresponsible and rushed. This genetic code that he is altering is in uncharted territory so we have to background on how to regulate rules on this kind of science. However, even though these findings are still fresh, they should spark a global conversation about how we should handle this in the best possible way. In an article named Ethics and the New Genetics written by the Dalai Lama, he touches upon how everyone should have a voice in this debate as well. He states “one partial solution is to ensure that a larger segment of the general public has a working grasp of scientific thinking and an understanding of key scientific discoveries” (Dalai Lama 70). The Dalai Lama would also agree with the concept that we need everybody’s mind power to come to a common consensus. The understanding of knowledge is key in this problem. Even though everybody has different perspectives and outlooks on what should be done, this will only help us as come to a greater compromise with what is the best for everybody.
Since genetic editing technology is so new, it should be handled ethically with consideration to human decency. The Dalai Lama has written a piece named Ethics and the New Genetics where he describes how he views we should handle this whole debate. In his piece he says “we have to check our motivation and ensure that its foundation is compassion” (Dalai Lama 70). This starting point of compassion allows for a much broader definition of the way this should be handled. This situation is neither black or white, there is a lot of gray area since no technology like this has ever been created before. If we start with that foundation of compassion, we can see others perspectives on this matter with an open mind. Sometimes, it might not be that easy though. In the case of He Jiankui, he went against the ethical views he previously stated and the views he received from others. In an article written by Ed Yong at The Atlantic, he says that “He urged scientists to move cautiously before editing the genome of embryos” (Yong 1). Since He went against everything he said before and everything he was advised to do, he was working against that idea of consideration and human decency. It is a shame that he went against what he was advised to do and ignored his own words as well. This controversy is troubling for many people in the scientific community. If he had only taken into account that idea of compassion and human decency, he might have thought again before making the decisions he did.
“However, even though these findings are still fresh, they should spark a global conversation about how we should handle this in the best possible way. In an article named Ethics and the New Genetics written by the Dalai Lama, he touches upon how everyone should have a voice in this debate as well. He states “one partial solution is to ensure that a larger segment of the general public has a working grasp of scientific thinking and an understanding of key scientific discoveries” (Dalai Lama 70)”
This is great: You have a broad view in the first sent/ a claim, basically; then the “answer” that DL offers. Excellent!
“In terms of science and new discoveries that are being made, it is dangerous that decisions about these life changing technologies are being made solely by small groups of researchers.” I agree with you here and is a great point to use to compare the Dalai Lama and Ed Yong. What if you included the quote at the end of the Yong article “Small groups of researchers can make virtually unilateral decisions about experiments that have potentially global consequences, and that everybody else learns about after the fact.” I think this quote strengthens your argument and we are required to use this quote in our draft. I think these paragraphs are great and could go straight into your draft.
Quotes: Since He went against everything he said before and everything he was advised to do, he was working against that idea of consideration and human decency. It is a shame that he went against what he was advised to do and ignored his own words as well. This controversy is troubling for many people in the scientific community. If he had only taken into account that idea of compassion and human decency, he might have thought again before making the decisions he did.
Comment/Question: I would agree that with He’s recent actions with the new genetic technology was rushed and lacked consideration, but the community or society overall won’t ever know if He’s motives were from his compassion or not. I would like to think that He’s motives behind this new controversy did have some compassion. Since we were only offered new articles from a small population of the world, which was from the mindset of American, I tend to think many people’s views are biased. Many people in the western world tend to think that China is this mega-powerful empire that’s ready to take over the world, but in reality, no one really knows, not unless they have lived in China before. Do think if He were to be a white man and were from America that the outlook on the experiment may have been treated differently? Positively or negatively?