Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Harvard Business School; and Bhaven Sampat, an associate professor at Columbia University’s
Mailman School of Public Health.
Research grants issued by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) contribute to a significant number of private-sector patents in
A 2015 working paper released by Azoulay, Li, Sampat, and Joshua Graff Zivin, a professor at the University of
California at San Diego, estimated that every $1 of public NIH funding yielded
Impact: Patents used in order to exclude others from using innovation – and monopoly
produces more expensive products that public cannot access. Public funds now used to
generate PROFIT for PRIVATE sector.
Case – UK Governance framework in biomedical research
Claim: In the UK, biomedical research does not center around profit, but
around the public good.
https://humgenomics.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40246-017-0116-4
.
Consider an exemplar of this model: the UK Biobank. Its participants are not paid, and they receive few direct benefits
creating a sustainable public resource, and endorsed its intention to provide inclusive
access for the good of all. In the case of UK Biobank, the Ethics and Governance Council acts as a ‘steward’
of participants’ data and samples, and therefore takes a direct responsibility for their interests [ 30]. This role is
https://www.ukbiobank.ac.uk/2017/07/uk-biobank-makes-available-vast-trove-of-genetics-
information/
“We believe that this is the single largest release of a genetic dataset in terms of number of individuals genotyped,” says
Mark Effingham, UK Biobank Chief Information Officer. “The dataset is vast, but we hope it will drive innovative and exciting
studies to transform research.”
Investigating the relationship between genes and diseases – are particular changes in inherited DNA associated
with particular diseases?
More sophisticated analyses of our genes to help identify the causes of disease and the right ways to intervene to
improve health.
Learn about shared biology – the same changes in our DNA may be involved in quite different diseases in interesting
ways.
Research into how genetic & lifestyle measures influence health in thousands of people will be hugely important.
Investigate how genetic risk factors interact with particular diets, lifestyles, environment and other aspects of our
health
A2 - Eugenics
Claim: Public health sector expanding access will better regulate the
industry to prevent eugenics. We agree that there has been a dangerous legacy of oppression
and exploitation in the medical field. The logic of eugenics has existed since its founding by Francis
Galton in 1883. CRISPR is a symptom, not the root, of larger mentalities about race and disability. Those mindsets
should be challenged by public health services while they develop
technologies to reduce suffering and death.According to Dr. Sheila Jasanoff,
professor of Science and Technology Studies at Harvard, developments in gene editing
should take place through more inclusive engagement with “the poor, the marginal, and the socially
excluded.”1 This trust-building could ensure that CRISPR can benefit patients without perpetuating
unequal systems. Dr. Vivek Wadhwa, a professor at Carnegie
Mellon University, said
that there ought to be “ethical and legal guidelines to regulate in vitro genetic
editing” to avoid promoting “modern-day eugenics.”2 These guidelines are
consistent with our position on gene editing.
Impact: In the status quo, private sector abides by no strict guideline entirely profit-
driven.
1
Shiela Jasanoff, J. Benjamin Hurlbut, and Krishanu Saha, “CRISPR Democracy: Gene Editing and the
Need for Inclusive Deliberation, ISSUES In Science and Technology XXXII, no. 1, Fall 2015.
2
Vivek Wadhwa, “If you could ‘design’ your own child, would you?” The Washington Post, July 27,
2017, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/innovations/wp/2017/07/27/human-editing-has-just-
become-possible-are-we-ready-for-the-consequences/?utm_term=.6ce635b5afd7
A2 – Germ-line Editing
Claim: Germ-line Editing Unfeasible in the first place because of
universal consensus against it.
http://time.com/4379503/crispr-scientists-edit-dna/
term, calling such studies "irresponsible" at this point. Such guidelines, while not
binding in any legal or regulatory way, can still provide a crucial framework for shaping the way powerful technologies like
CRISPR are used. That's especially true in the U.S., where studies not funded by the government are not bound by any federal
laws overseeing human-embryo research.
Impact: Expanding access does not mean an immediate slippery slope to “designer babies”
or “playing God”; it creates more ethical and legal guidelines for the kind of research
conducted so that innovations are not merely profit-driven.
A2 – Public Backlash
Sara Reardon, 2015 Reardon is a science journalist; “Global summit reveals divergent views
on human gene editing”Nature 528, 173 (10 December 2015) doi:10.1038/528173a
https://www.nature.com/news/global-summit-reveals-divergent-views-on-human-gene-
editing-1.18971
Held on 1–3 December, the International Summit on Human Gene Editing was
organized by the US national academies of sciences and medicine, the Royal Society in London and the Chinese Academy of
Sciences (CAS).
meeting agreed that efforts to use gene editing after birth to correct
defects in non-reproductive cells should continue.
A2 – Human Testing not Morally Justified
Claim: CRISPR generates better cell & animal models that reduce
the need and danger of human testing.
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-02477-1
Cell and animal models of human disease are crucial elements of drug development. The initial stages of testing candidate drugs
models that are available to researchers are far from perfect. The main problem has
been the complexity — and therefore the time and expense — of building superior
models for the huge variety of human diseases that exist. “In industry, speed and cost are as important as feasibility,” says
Fellmann. If it would take too long and cost too much to make a great model, a less perfect one might be preferred. Yet the
developers of drugs would like to avoid such a compromise.
CRISPR–Cas
Both Moore and Fellmann agree that the simpler and more reliable gene editing made possible by
Impact: Solving climate change and pollution directly improves one’s health,
prolongs one’s life, and improve their well-being.
Case - Social Reform Tradeoff
(“Can We Cure Genetic Diseases Without Slipping Into Eugenics?,” The Nation, July
16, https://www.thenation.com/article/can-we-cure-genetic-diseases-without-slipping-
into-eugenics/)
Sci-fi genetic fantasies, whether hand-waving or hand-wringing, divert our attention from
other, more important determinants of health. Studies
by the World Health
Organization, the federal Office of Disease Prevention and
Health Promotion, the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention, and academic researchers leave no doubt that the biggest
factors in determining health and quality of life are
overwhelmingly social. Genetics plays a role in disease, to be sure, but decent,
affordable housing; access to real food, education, and transportation; and reducing exposure
to crime and violence are far more important. In short, if we really wanted to engineer better,
happier, healthier humans, we would focus much more on nurture than
on nature.