REPLY WK 2 NOTES

REPLY 2-1 AlSa (100 words and 1 reference)

There are a number of apparent synonyms for "genetic modification" that can be found in published works, including "genetic engineering," "genetic enhancement," "germline engineering," "germline enhancement," "germline therapy," "germline manipulation," "genome manipulation," and "and so on." Few authors endorse the opinion that there should be no regulations placed on the modification of the human genome because the risks to unborn children as a result of mistakes made in genetic engineering are not currently recognized, and it is likely that these risks are severe. The majority of the discussion that is taking place right now is between those who believe that genetic modification should be carried out in accordance with a particular regulatory framework and those who believe that the greatest approach is to completely outlaw genetic alteration. In order for the benefits of genetic alteration to be maximized and the risks to be minimized, society should govern genetic modification using the appropriate measures.

REPLY 2-1 ReCa (100 words and 1 reference)

This is a tricky question and in my opinion would take more research time than I have been able to give to answer it with 100% accuracy. From what I have read about gene editing so far there is still not enough information for me to say I would agree with this being done. While reading articles about gene editing I came across this; " genetic fatalism also has social and political implications, because it implies that much of social and political realities are beyond our control (Resnik D., & Vorhaus D., 2006)." I found this to very intriguing and it drew my attention. While this does not apply to changing a gene to avoid a certain disease or anything to do with medical conditions, it does seem like it could apply to a person's criminal mentality. By removing the predisposition for criminal activity one would think that would keep someone from making those choices in life that would put them in the criminal realm. What if it doesn't? What if that person had that gene modified or removed but lived their life in a poverty stricken area, high crime are, poor social/support structure, poor family support etc? Would they still be at risk to fall into that criminal behavior because of their environment? From learned behavior? Does not having that gene at all keep them from being at risk? I am not of Christian faith as some who have had classes with me know but I do see all sides of what people believe. Someone of the Christian faith would find it immorally and ethically wrong to edit or remove genes from a person because they believe God made each person specifically and gave them the freedom to choose their life and their actions.

REPLY 2-2 ReCa (100 words and 1 reference)

Individuals with proven neurological and/or genetic disorders should be treated differently in the legal system. If a person claims NGBI as a defense it is up to them to prove they were insane at the time and they did not understand their actions were criminal, hurtful to someone etc. Have a disorder that prevents them from having the mens rea and the actus rea determination could be a defense. According to one of the research studies I looked over, neurological defenses are becoming more and more common as the years go by. an average of 100 judicial opinions per year discussing neurobiological evidence in criminal law in 2005 climbed to around 250–300 opinions in 2012 (Farahany, 2016). There is a case of a young 17 year old boy who murdered his mother and the jury stated he was competent to stand trial after all the evidence was presented by the defense to say he had a neurological disorder, the judge went against the jury and denied he was competent to stand trial based on the evidence he heard (Farahany, 2016). While it isn't common to have it go this way, it shows that the proper test, expert witnesses etc with evidence of numerological disorders can make a difference. I don't think it would impact the justice system in any different way than it already does. They would still have to prove their incompetence to stand trial based on the disorder. If the allegedly got rid of the predisposition to commit crime through gene therapy, why are they in court for being accused of committing a crime? I believe it still has to be proven/disproven the same way it is now.