Why should changing the genome of human embryos ( human germline gene editing) not be allowed? Please use images provided as help 46MTNSA EveryoneNeeds... VOLTEIll about whethe53 15:29use something that has an unprecedented capability of making changes that havethe potential to be passed on to subsequent generations," said Dana Carroll, aity Utah who is im directetheblocHafner_2020__...omics Inst the Un+lat ofPublic ICalifornia, Berkeley.The debate grew more heated in 2018, after a scientist in China announced thebirth of the world's first gene-edited babies - twin girls using CRISPR to givethem immunity to H.I.V. The announcement generated outrage around the world.In December 2019, a court in China sentenced the scientist to three years in prisonfor carrying out "illegal medical practices."Last year, a group of scientists from seven countries called for a global moratoriumon changing inheritable DNA to make genetically modified children.Professor Halley's middle child, Philip, was born with multiple anomalies of hisgastrointestinal system. In addition, Philip has had a succession of healthcomplications, including a stroke just before age 2, leading his doctors to suspecta still-unidentified genetic disorder.Families like hers, Professor Halley said, offer good examples of "very ripecognitive dissonance" around the topic of inheritable gene editing. As a mother,she said, she would do anything to prevent the pain her son has been through.Yet she is aware of the inconsistency between that desire and her unwillingnessto "do anything that would take away him, take away who he is," she said. "Andhe is who he is partly because of the challenges he has faced."Professor Halley acknowledged the inherent tension between the huge benefitsthat gene-editing technology could bring in preventing serious diseases anddisabilities for which there is no treatment, and what she calls the "potential riskof going down a road that feels uncomfortably close to eugenics."Less ethically freighted are therapies to cure serious diseases in people who arealready living with them. "I think that there are opportunities to use gene-editingtechnologies to treat genetic diseases that don't raise the societal implications ofaltering permanently patterns of human inheritance," said Dr. Alex Marson,director of the Gladstone-UCSF Institute of Genomic Immunology in SanFrancisco."This is an opportunity for patients to consent to these procedures and be involvedin the discussions about the risks and benefits in ways that wouldn't be possibleby intervening in an embryo," Dr. Marson said. "Plus the modification wouldn't bepassed on to the patient's sperm or eggs. So it wouldn't affect future generations."Yet, according to interviews with parents of children with disabilities, asthe children themselves, many are ambivalent about gene editing in genRuthie Weiss, 13, was born with oculocutaneous albinism, a genetic disgreatly impairing her vision that could theoretically be addressed by CRISPR."If there was someone who could have waved a magic wand and made the wholething go away, we would have done that in an instant," said Dr. Ethan Weiss,Ruthie's father. Yet now, Dr. Weiss said, having watched Rune grow up, "We'reblessed to have her as she is " disabilities and perceived deficiencies hovers at the margins of what peopleconsider ethically acceptable."People are understandably very scared of it, of the many different roads it couldtake us down as a society," said Meghan Halley, a bioethics researcher at StanfordUniversity and mother of three children, including a 5-year-old with a disability."Broadly speaking, this is always going to be problematic because of the manythings that disability means."CRISPR is widely seen as holding great promise for treating diseases that untilnow have been intractable.There are two main types of CRISPR-based editing. One is the correction of a genein an individual living with a condition or disease. This is known as somatic cellediting ("somatic" refers to the body). In June, NPR reported that Victoria Gray, awoman with sickle cell disease, experienced a significant decrease in her episodesof painful sickle crises in the first year after gene-editing treatment.In the future, Ms. Gray's children or grandchildren may be able to take advantageof the other type of CRISPR "fix": an edit to the human germ line. This involvesmaking changes to a fertilized egg that not only last through the life of anindividual but also are passed on to future generations.This type of "inheritable" gene editing is inapplicable to conditions like autism ordiabetes, in which the hereditary component is caused by many different genes.But it is suited to disorders caused by variation in a single gene. Sickle cell diseasefits into that category, as do cystic fibrosis and Duchenne muscular dystrophy.Yet bioethicists point out that inheritable gene editing raises large societalquestions, given the dire consequences of an error, as well as the ethical questionsthat arise at the prospect of erasing disability from human existence. There is alsoconcern that gene editing for health reasons will be out of reach for many becauseof its cost."There absolutely must be broad public discussions about whether we're ready touse something that has an unprecedented capability of making changes that havethe potential to be passed on to subsequent generations," said Dana Carroll, abiochemistry professor at the University of Utah who is interim director of thePublic Impact Program at the Innovative Genomics Institute at the University ofCalifornia, Berkeley.The debate grew more heated in 2018, after a scientist in China announced thebirth of the world's first gene-edited babies - twin girls - using CRISPR to givethem immunity to H.I.V. The announcement generated outrage around the world.In December 2019, a court in China sentenced the scientist to three years in prisonfor carrying out "illegal medical practices."Last year, a group of scientists from seven countries called for a global moratoriumon changing inheritable DNA to make genetically modified children.Professor Halley's middle child, Philip, was born with multiple anomalies of hisgastrointestinal system. In addition, Philip has had a succession of healthcomplications, including a stroke just before age 2, leading his doctors to suspecta still-unidentified genetic disorder.Families like hore ProforProforror Halloy caid offer good examples of "very ring

Question

Why should changing the genome of human embryos ( human germline gene editing) not be allowed? Please use images provided as help 46MTNSA EveryoneNeeds... VOLTEIll about whethe53 15:29use something that has an unprecedented capability of making changes that havethe potential to be passed on to subsequent generations,&#34; said Dana Carroll, aity Utah who is im directetheblocHafner_2020__...omics Inst the Un+lat ofPublic ICalifornia, Berkeley.The debate grew more heated in 2018, after a scientist in China announced thebirth of the world's first gene-edited babies - twin girls using CRISPR to givethem immunity to H.I.V. The announcement generated outrage around the world.In December 2019, a court in China sentenced the scientist to three years in prisonfor carrying out &#34;illegal medical practices.&#34;Last year, a group of scientists from seven countries called for a global moratoriumon changing inheritable DNA to make genetically modified children.Professor Halley's middle child, Philip, was born with multiple anomalies of hisgastrointestinal system. In addition, Philip has had a succession of healthcomplications, including a stroke just before age 2, leading his doctors to suspecta still-unidentified genetic disorder.Families like hers, Professor Halley said, offer good examples of &#34;very ripecognitive dissonance&#34; around the topic of inheritable gene editing. As a mother,she said, she would do anything to prevent the pain her son has been through.Yet she is aware of the inconsistency between that desire and her unwillingnessto &#34;do anything that would take away him, take away who he is,&#34; she said. &#34;Andhe is who he is partly because of the challenges he has faced.&#34;Professor Halley acknowledged the inherent tension between the huge benefitsthat gene-editing technology could bring in preventing serious diseases anddisabilities for which there is no treatment, and what she calls the &#34;potential riskof going down a road that feels uncomfortably close to eugenics.&#34;Less ethically freighted are therapies to cure serious diseases in people who arealready living with them. &#34;I think that there are opportunities to use gene-editingtechnologies to treat genetic diseases that don't raise the societal implications ofaltering permanently patterns of human inheritance,&#34; said Dr. Alex Marson,director of the Gladstone-UCSF Institute of Genomic Immunology in SanFrancisco.&#34;This is an opportunity for patients to consent to these procedures and be involvedin the discussions about the risks and benefits in ways that wouldn't be possibleby intervening in an embryo,&#34; Dr. Marson said. &#34;Plus the modification wouldn't bepassed on to the patient's sperm or eggs. So it wouldn't affect future generations.&#34;Yet, according to interviews with parents of children with disabilities, asthe children themselves, many are ambivalent about gene editing in genRuthie Weiss, 13, was born with oculocutaneous albinism, a genetic disgreatly impairing her vision that could theoretically be addressed by CRISPR.&#34;If there was someone who could have waved a magic wand and made the wholething go away, we would have done that in an instant,&#34; said Dr. Ethan Weiss,Ruthie's father. Yet now, Dr. Weiss said, having watched Rune grow up, &#34;We'reblessed to have her as she is &#34; disabilities and perceived deficiencies hovers at the margins of what peopleconsider ethically acceptable.&#34;People are understandably very scared of it, of the many different roads it couldtake us down as a society,&#34; said Meghan Halley, a bioethics researcher at StanfordUniversity and mother of three children, including a 5-year-old with a disability.&#34;Broadly speaking, this is always going to be problematic because of the manythings that disability means.&#34;CRISPR is widely seen as holding great promise for treating diseases that untilnow have been intractable.There are two main types of CRISPR-based editing. One is the correction of a genein an individual living with a condition or disease. This is known as somatic cellediting (&#34;somatic&#34; refers to the body). In June, NPR reported that Victoria Gray, awoman with sickle cell disease, experienced a significant decrease in her episodesof painful sickle crises in the first year after gene-editing treatment.In the future, Ms. Gray's children or grandchildren may be able to take advantageof the other type of CRISPR &#34;fix&#34;: an edit to the human germ line. This involvesmaking changes to a fertilized egg that not only last through the life of anindividual but also are passed on to future generations.This type of &#34;inheritable&#34; gene editing is inapplicable to conditions like autism ordiabetes, in which the hereditary component is caused by many different genes.But it is suited to disorders caused by variation in a single gene. Sickle cell diseasefits into that category, as do cystic fibrosis and Duchenne muscular dystrophy.Yet bioethicists point out that inheritable gene editing raises large societalquestions, given the dire consequences of an error, as well as the ethical questionsthat arise at the prospect of erasing disability from human existence. There is alsoconcern that gene editing for health reasons will be out of reach for many becauseof its cost.&#34;There absolutely must be broad public discussions about whether we're ready touse something that has an unprecedented capability of making changes that havethe potential to be passed on to subsequent generations,&#34; said Dana Carroll, abiochemistry professor at the University of Utah who is interim director of thePublic Impact Program at the Innovative Genomics Institute at the University ofCalifornia, Berkeley.The debate grew more heated in 2018, after a scientist in China announced thebirth of the world's first gene-edited babies - twin girls - using CRISPR to givethem immunity to H.I.V. The announcement generated outrage around the world.In December 2019, a court in China sentenced the scientist to three years in prisonfor carrying out &#34;illegal medical practices.&#34;Last year, a group of scientists from seven countries called for a global moratoriumon changing inheritable DNA to make genetically modified children.Professor Halley's middle child, Philip, was born with multiple anomalies of hisgastrointestinal system. In addition, Philip has had a succession of healthcomplications, including a stroke just before age 2, leading his doctors to suspecta still-unidentified genetic disorder.Families like hore ProforProforror Halloy caid offer good examples of &#34;very ring

Accepted Answer

CRISPR is a acronym for clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats. It is  a gene…