Difference between revisions of "Team:East Chapel Hill/Collaborations"
Camillelorie (Talk | contribs) |
|||
| Line 99: | Line 99: | ||
We reached out to Duke University iGem and together, we organized a forum using tools from Building With Biology. At the forum, we discussed a rather relevant and hotly-debated subject: <a href="http://www.buildingwithbiology.org/should-we-edit-the-genome-2016"><b><u>Should We Edit the Genome? When, Why, and How Much?</u></b></a>. | We reached out to Duke University iGem and together, we organized a forum using tools from Building With Biology. At the forum, we discussed a rather relevant and hotly-debated subject: <a href="http://www.buildingwithbiology.org/should-we-edit-the-genome-2016"><b><u>Should We Edit the Genome? When, Why, and How Much?</u></b></a>. | ||
<br></br> | <br></br> | ||
| − | Although our project does not specifically utilize CRISPR technologies, we understood the significance of this new technology and its applications. | + | Although our project does not specifically utilize CRISPR technologies, we understood the significance of this new technology and its applications. Through this forum, we were able to gain a more complete understanding of CRISPR technology and the ethical and societal implications of its use. |
<br></br> | <br></br> | ||
The program for this forum was as follows: | The program for this forum was as follows: | ||
| Line 112: | Line 112: | ||
<br> | <br> | ||
<br> | <br> | ||
| − | We were delighted to facilitate this discussion and hear | + | We were delighted to facilitate this discussion and hear the opinions of the public on the societal and ethical impacts of using CRISPR technologies. A common opinion that was voiced throughout the forum was that at this time, gene editing should not be used for clinical reproductive purposes, especially because the risk cannot be justified by the possible benefits. Many countries have passed legislation banning the genetic modification of the hunan genome, but in 2016, the United Kingdom licensed the use of CRISPR on embryos. The general consensus at the forum about this decision was that this decision could push science to uncharted territories, including "designer babies". |
<!-- slides --> | <!-- slides --> | ||
Revision as of 22:29, 17 October 2018
"Should We Edit the Genome?" Forum Collaboration with Duke University
We reached out to Duke University iGem and together, we organized a forum using tools from Building With Biology. At the forum, we discussed a rather relevant and hotly-debated subject: Should We Edit the Genome? When, Why, and How Much?.
Although our project does not specifically utilize CRISPR technologies, we understood the significance of this new technology and its applications. Through this forum, we were able to gain a more complete understanding of CRISPR technology and the ethical and societal implications of its use.
The program for this forum was as follows:
- 10 minutes: Introduction and welcome from Duke University professor about CRISPR technologies.
- 10 minutes: Background Information
- “What is CRISPR”? 90 second video by Carl Zimmerman.
- 50 minutes: Read through and discuss applications of CRISPR technologies, and ultimately decide whether or not to implement the application, and restrictions on the application.
We were delighted to facilitate this discussion and hear the opinions of the public on the societal and ethical impacts of using CRISPR technologies. A common opinion that was voiced throughout the forum was that at this time, gene editing should not be used for clinical reproductive purposes, especially because the risk cannot be justified by the possible benefits. Many countries have passed legislation banning the genetic modification of the hunan genome, but in 2016, the United Kingdom licensed the use of CRISPR on embryos. The general consensus at the forum about this decision was that this decision could push science to uncharted territories, including "designer babies".
