Thesis and Annotated bibliography

Running head: Thesis and Annotated Bibliography for Gene Therapy 2

Thesis and Annotated Bibliography for Gene Therapy 2

Thesis and Annotated Bibliography for Gene Therapy

Jimmy Yip

Chamberlain School or Nursing

Phil347N-10459 Critical Thinking

January 2020

Annotation 1

In this Aug 2014 issue of Human Gene Therapy, it talks about how gene therapy is a rapidly growing field of science and medicine and as more is discovered about it the more accepted it is in the general community, with notable exceptions. A survey was done in Canada and the US with a total of 467 participants and showed that more than 90% thing gene therapy is acceptable for severe diseases such as Alzheimer’s but as the severity of diseases went down so did participant acceptance of gene therapy. Any non-disease related applications of gene therapy only received 47% support from the participants.

Source Evaluation 1

1a. While this source is a bit dated considering the explosive growth gene therapy has seen in the last five years in research and discoveries the common misconceptions the general public still harbor about gene therapy still exist.

1b. This is a scholarly source that has been published in a peer reviewed journal called Human Gene Therapy.

1c. Although the sample size is only 467 participants the percentages provided from the survey show much more support than opposition and when compared to data in the 1990’s it shows an increase in acceptability.

Annotation 2

https://www.pnas.org/content/94/24/12744

This research article was published in the National Academy of Sciences on the different types of vectors that can be used in gene therapy. Although there have not been many successes that have been repeatable this paper lists what research has been able to find so far. There are many different viral vectors that can be used in gene therapy and in this article, it breaks down what each vector is best suited for as well as any deficiencies that they may have when compared to other vectors. This article also reviews some non-viral vectors as alternatives to the viral vectors since they have less chance of migrating to the wrong parts of the body and causing cancer.

Source Evaluation 2

2a. This source goes into great scientific detail on how each vector can and cannot work giving great information on understanding how gene therapy works.

2b. Published by the National Academy of Sciences in the US it is a very reputable source that has been referenced in other research papers.

2c. They also focus on specific diseases that are being targeted by gene therapy which gives us an idea in what direction the research is leading towards.

Annotation 3

https://www.nature.com/articles/nm0101_33

This article is published in nature medicine in 2001 and it explains the use of viruses and how they are converted into safe therapeutic vectors for gene therapy. It also describes what researchers look for in viruses that make them appropriate vectors for gene therapy. Each type of gene therapy can require a different kind of gene expression which may change the type of virus used, what is used in diabetes is different than what might be used in cases of anemia. They also note the problems that come with the use of foreign bodies in the human body and provide instances of cellular immune responses to the viral vectors which works against what gene therapy is trying to accomplish.

Source Evaluation 3

3a. While many scholarly articles are very hard to read in subjects as complicated as gene therapy their inclusion of images and explanations of certain words makes it much easier to read.

3b. At the end they also list what is, to them, a perfect success in terms of a viral vector. This allows us to see what their end aim would like to be.

Annotation 4

https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/full/10.1089/hum.2019.197

This exhaustive review of over 1500 records about the opinions and attitudes towards gene therapy and gene editing finished earlier this year on January 21, 2020. The article findings were divided into common themes such as knowledge/education, medical vs nonmedical reasons, somatic vs germline, and many more. Also included were recommendation and future directions research on gene therapy could take to increase public support. This included ideas such as minimally invasive procedures, policy frameworks, standards of consent and better education on the subject to name a few. After reviewing all the records, it is noted that public opinion on gene therapy is consistently trending more positive.

Source Evaluation 4

4a. This systematic review of opinions and attitudes towards gene therapy answers many questions about what kind of demographics support and oppose gene therapy.

4b. To be more transparent they also list the search strategy and selection criteria for the records they obtained for this study.

4c. It was published in Human Gene Therapy peer reviewed journal which supports its credible standing and is reliable and authoritative.

Annotation 5

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/9bc1/dec53860a2cc9a291f3fff7887151cbd77e0.pdf

Professor Santas of the University of California has put forwards a comprehensive debate on the ethics of gene editing and the different ramifications it could have on society. Going through the different uses of each application of gene editing he examines how current society is reacting to each use. He also breaks down how we are to think about gene editing, is it good or bad, into 2 distinctions, a means and ends or editing of somatic cells vs editing of germline cells. Diving into the ethics of human enhancement is a discussion fraught with peril as any misstep can put you over an already thin line into dangerous territory.

Source Evaluation 5

5a. This is one of the few articles I could find that provides such a detailed look into the thoughts of the ethics of using gene editing for the purposes of human enhancement.

5b. Even though this was written by only one person it is published in a peer reviewed journal and should be considered a scholarly source as well as credible.

References

Delhove, J., Osenk, I., Prichard, I., & Donnelley, M. (2020). Public Acceptability of Gene Therapy and Gene Editing for Human Use: A Systematic Review. Human Gene Therapy, 31(1-2), 20–46. doi: 10.1089/hum.2019.197

Kay, M. A., Liu, D., & Hoogerbrugge, P. M. (1997, November 25). Gene therapy. Retrieved February 9, 2020, from https://www.pnas.org/content/94/24/12744

Kay, M. A., Glorioso, J. C., & Naldini, L. (2001, January). Viral vectors for gene therapy: the art of turning infectious agents into vehicles of therapeutics. Retrieved February 9, 2020, from https://www.nature.com/articles/nm0101_33

Robillard, J. M., Roskams-Edris, D., Kuzeljevic, B., & Illes, J. (2014). Prevailing Public Perceptions of the Ethics of Gene Therapy. Human Gene Therapy, 25(8), 740–746. doi: 10.1089/hum.2014.030

Santas, G. (2019). CRISPR and The Ethics of Gene Editing: A Modest Framework for Discussion. International Journal of Clinical Research and Trials, 4(198), 1–7. doi: https://doi. org/10.15344/2456-8007/2019/138