Describe Biotechnology And Its Accomplishments ✓ Solved

Describe the biotechnology and what it accomplishes, includi

Describe the biotechnology and what it accomplishes, including if it involves manipulating DNA/RNA or just using it. Provide a full and complete description of exactly how the technology works. Discuss the key biological principles that underlie the technology. Provide an analysis of the social and ethical benefits of the technology and an analysis of the social and ethical drawbacks. For both benefits and drawbacks, state whether these are based on actual evidence or on speculation. Discuss how research on this topic should be funded (public vs private). Use SWS standards for citation and proper written mechanics.

Paper For Above Instructions

Overview: What the Biotechnology Is and What It Accomplishes

Genome editing with CRISPR-Cas systems is a transformative biotechnology that manipulates DNA sequence in living cells to add, remove, or alter genetic information (Jinek et al., 2012; Doudna & Charpentier, 2014). It directly modifies DNA (and, via related approaches, RNA) rather than merely using nucleic acids as markers or therapeutics. CRISPR-Cas9 and related tools enable targeted correction of disease-causing mutations, functional gene knockout, gene insertion for therapeutic expression, and research applications such as creating cellular or animal models of disease. Applications range from somatic gene therapies for inherited disorders to experimental germline editing and agricultural improvements (Kim et al., 2014; Hendel et al., 2015).

How the Technology Works: A Clear, Stepwise Description

CRISPR-Cas9 functions as a programmable molecular scissors directed by a short RNA guide (gRNA) that base-pairs to a complementary DNA target adjacent to a protospacer adjacent motif (PAM) (Jinek et al., 2012). The typical workflow is: (1) design a gRNA complementary to the target DNA, (2) deliver the gRNA and Cas9 nuclease (as DNA, mRNA, or ribonucleoprotein) into target cells, (3) Cas9-gRNA locates and binds the target site and cleaves both DNA strands, producing a double-strand break (DSB), and (4) the cell repairs the DSB via endogenous pathways—non-homologous end joining (NHEJ), which often yields small insertions/deletions (indels) that disrupt gene function, or homology-directed repair (HDR), which can incorporate an exogenous DNA template to introduce precise sequence changes (Kim et al., 2014; Hendel et al., 2015).

Delivery methods (viral vectors, lipid nanoparticles, electroporation) and improvements (high-fidelity Cas variants, chemically modified gRNAs) enhance specificity and efficiency while reducing off-target activity (Hendel et al., 2015). Alternative editors (base editors, prime editors) can change single bases without creating DSBs, broadening therapeutic options and reducing some risks (Doudna & Charpentier, 2014).

Key Biological Principles Underlying the Technology

Several core biological principles enable CRISPR-based editing: complementary base-pairing governs gRNA-DNA recognition; the enzymology of nucleases (Cas proteins) catalyzes phosphodiester bond cleavage; DNA repair pathways (NHEJ and HDR) determine the cellular outcome after cleavage; and cellular delivery and expression mechanisms determine whether editing components reach target cells and persist long enough for activity (Jinek et al., 2012; Kim et al., 2014). Understanding genetic dominance/recessivity, mosaicism, and developmental timing is essential for predicting phenotypic outcomes of edits, especially in embryos or germline contexts (Liang et al., 2015).

Social and Ethical Benefits

Potential social and ethical benefits of genome editing are substantial and supported by empirical and translational evidence in somatic contexts. Benefits include curing or ameliorating monogenic disorders (e.g., sickle cell disease, β-thalassemia) via ex vivo or in vivo somatic editing, reducing suffering and healthcare burdens (National Academies, 2017). Research applications accelerate basic discovery and drug development, benefitting public health. Germline editing, if ever proven safe and ethically acceptable, could prevent transmission of severe genetic diseases across generations (National Academies, 2017). These benefits are supported by clinical trial data and preclinical studies demonstrating therapeutic gene modification and symptomatic improvement in some conditions (Doudna & Charpentier, 2014; Kim et al., 2014).

Social and Ethical Drawbacks

Drawbacks include safety risks such as off-target edits and mosaicism that could create unintended harm, especially in germline applications where effects are heritable (Liang et al., 2015). Ethical concerns include consent (future generations cannot consent), equity (access to enhancements could exacerbate social inequality), and misuse (non-therapeutic “enhancement” or eugenics-like applications) (Baltimore et al., 2015; Nuffield Council, 2018). There are also cultural and religious objections to manipulating embryos. Many of these concerns are evidence-based (e.g., documented off-target effects and mosaic embryos in early studies) while others are anticipatory or speculative (e.g., broad societal stratification from enhancement), requiring normative debate and policy development (National Academies, 2017; WHO, 2021).

Evidence versus Speculation

Where evidence exists, it primarily supports benefits and risks in somatic editing and laboratory models: clinical trials show therapeutic promise (e.g., ex vivo editing for hematologic diseases), and laboratory reports document off-target activity and mosaicism in embryos (Kim et al., 2014; Liang et al., 2015). Speculative scenarios—widespread designer babies, entrenched genomic inequality, or irreversible changes to the human gene pool—are logically plausible but not yet empirically demonstrated and hinge on social, economic, and regulatory factors (Baltimore et al., 2015; Nuffield Council, 2018).

How Research Should Be Funded

Funding should balance public investment, regulated private funding, and transparent oversight. Public funding supports open, ethically guided basic research and ensures broad societal benefits, independent review, and data sharing (National Academies, 2017). Private funding can accelerate translation but should be conditioned on adherence to rigorous safety, equity, and transparency standards and public-private governance agreements. International coordination and publicly funded oversight bodies reduce risks of poorly regulated “research tourism” and help align investments with public health priorities (WHO, 2021).

Conclusion

CRISPR-based genome editing is a powerful DNA-manipulating biotechnology with clear mechanisms, rooted in base-pairing, nuclease activity, and cellular DNA repair. Its demonstrated benefits in research and early clinical trials are balanced by documented technical risks and significant ethical concerns—especially for germline editing. Funding strategies should prioritize public investment for foundational science and equitable access while permitting private translational work under strong, transparent governance. Evidence should guide incremental clinical use; speculation should inform precautionary policy.

References

  • Jinek, M., Chylinski, K., Fonfara, I., Hauer, M., Doudna, J. A., & Charpentier, E. (2012). A programmable dual-RNA–guided DNA endonuclease in adaptive bacterial immunity. Science, 337(6096), 816–821.
  • Doudna, J. A., & Charpentier, E. (2014). The new frontier of genome engineering with CRISPR-Cas9. Science, 346(6213), 1258096.
  • Kim, S., Kim, D., Cho, S. W., Kim, J., & Kim, J. S. (2014). Highly efficient RNA-guided genome editing in human cells via delivery of purified Cas9 ribonucleoproteins. Genome Research, 24(6), 1012–1019.
  • Hendel, A., Bak, R. O., Clark, J. T., Kennedy, A. B., Ryan, D. E., Roy, S., ... & Bacchetta, R. (2015). Chemically modified guide RNAs enhance CRISPR-Cas genome editing in primary human cells. Nature Biotechnology, 33(9), 985–989.
  • Liang, P., Xu, Y., Zhang, X., Ding, C., Huang, R., Zhang, Z., ... & Huang, J. (2015). CRISPR/Cas9-mediated gene editing in human tripronuclear zygotes. Protein & Cell, 6(5), 363–372.
  • National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2017). Human Genome Editing: Science, Ethics, and Governance. The National Academies Press.
  • Baltimore, D., et al. (2015). A prudent path forward for genomic engineering and germline gene modification. Science, 348(6230), 36–38.
  • Nuffield Council on Bioethics. (2018). Genome editing and human reproduction: social and ethical issues. Nuffield Council Report.
  • World Health Organization. (2021). WHO advisory committee on human genome editing: Recommendations for governance and oversight. World Health Organization report.
  • Baylis, F., & McLeod, C. (2019). Ethical considerations in human germline genome editing. Clinical Ethics, 14(2), 77–82.

Related Assignments