October 30, 2018 Joanna, Your second submissio.docx

October 30, 2018
Joanna,
Your second submission was mistakenly returned to you with a
grade of zero and without any explanation.
Please accept my apologies for that. That should never happen.
It’s my responsibility to ensure that the
grading is correct and complete. My apologies.
In providing the needed feedback, I’m going to provide some
lengthy comments, as well as a breakdown of
your grade using the rubric. Don’t let the length of the
comments discourage you. I’m just trying to be as
complete and as clear as I can. You will be able to do better on
the next assignments, as well as on the last
assignment, in which you put everything together.
I explain the situation in some general remarks, and then
provide an breakdown of your points in the rubric.
There is some redudancy to this, in that I cover some of the
same issues in both the general remarks and the
rubric breakdown.
General Remarks.

In grading your paper, I see that you’ve treated this as a general
essay about a topic, but that’s not what the
instructions called for. The instructions called for you to
address four specific areas with respect to your target
article: summary of the article; relate article to the course;
relate article to your life; and give your opinion
regarding funding of research in this area. We were expecting a
section on each area.
Your essay is completely missing two of those four areas. First,
you haven’t related the article to the course or
vice versa. We wanted you to say something like “This relates
to the course in that….”, and we wanted you to
then go into some detail about this. Secondly, you haven’t
addressed the funding issue at all. The question is
how should research in this area be funded? Should public
funds be spent on it? What is the role of private
funding?
In regards to the summary, you summarized some general
information about a topic. However, this waasn’t
really a summary of an article. The article that you list as your
target article, entitled “CRISPR/Cas9-mediated
gene editing in human tripronuclear zygotes” is far too technical
for our purposes. You didn’t summarize it.

It’s too technical for SCI115 anyway, but you were supposed to
summarize some article. We had compiled a
list of recommended articles for students to use. It would have
been better to use one of those articles.
Breakdown with the Rubric.
Criterion
Points
possible
Points
earned Letter grade Comments
1. Summarize the article in
one (1) or more paragraphs,
using your own words.
Weight: 25%
20 12.0 D- You summarized some material, but you
didn’t provide the source. The target article
you’ve listed wasn’t summarized – it was
inappropriately technical. A summary of
some article was expected.

2. Identify which biological
concepts from the course
20 0 Zero This section is missing. I don’t see anywhere
that you’ve related the concepts you’ve
and / or text are relevant to
the topic covered in the
article.
Weight: 25%
described to the course.
3. Explain why the article
caught your attention. Relate
the article to your life and to
issues that are important to
you.
Weight: 20%
16 9.6 D- We were looking for a section in which you
spell out why the article caught your

attention. You don’t have a section like this,
but some of the things you summarized
about your topic are inherently interesting, so
I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt here.
4. Discuss your opinion on
how research on this topic
should be funded.
Weight: 20%
16 0 Zero This section is missing.
5. Application of the SWS
standards for citation.
Weight: 5%
4 3.0 C You didn’t follow SWS-style formatting.
Instead, you seem to have followed APA-
style. On the positive side, you deserve
some points for using a citation method. On
the negative side, the article you’ve listed as
your target article is one that you didn’t use.

You must have used some other source, but
that’s not credited.
6. Use of proper written
mechanics.
Weight: 5%
4 3.4 B The writing is generally okay, I think.
TOTAL 80 28.0
SafeAssign
Before closing this letter, I wanted to address your SafeAssign
similarity index of 51%. That means that
SafeAssign flagged 51% of your paper as possibly plagiarized.
If that SafeAssign score had been accurate, we
would have not been able to accept your paper. Fortunately, it
is not accurate. Visual inspection of the report
shows that this is due to material flagged in the reference
section, which does not count against you. So, there
is really no problem with it.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
-- Dr. Jim Cox

cc: Dr. Trinna Johnson
ABSTRACT REVIEW #1: QUANTITATIVE
By
Student Name, B.S, M.S., M.A.
September 2014
University of the Cumberlands
Statistics
Abstract Review #1
Statistics Abstract Review #1
i
3
Introduction and Background
Ethics is the cornerstone of the counseling profession and client
counselor relationship. However the code of ethics does not
always clearly articulate what a counselor should do in many
scenarios. Thereby it often creates uncertainty amongst the
profession. In addition, the code of ethics undergoes changes on
a regular basis. Neukrug and Milliken (2011) identify two

purposes for their study. First, to assess which ethical
situations/behaviors are “most distressing and confusing and
also to help guide the revision of future ethical codes” (Neukrug
& Milliken, 2011, p. 206). Second, to identify changes in ethics
education based upon various demographics. They hope that
this research aids in reducing ethical violations and increasing
relevant ethics education.
Methodology
Neukrug and Milliken (2011) utilized a 77-item survey in which
respondents rated situations as ethical or unethical (Scale 1) and
how strongly they aligned with the response (1 = not very
strongly to 10 very strongly; Scale 2; p. 207). By scoring
ethical on a positive scale (+1 through +10) and unethical on a
negative scale (-1 through -10), they were able to examine Scale
1 with nominal data, and strength of response with Scale 2.
Another instrument was utilized to gather demographic
information of the participants and included: gender, age,
ethnicity, highest degree held, specialty area, current job/role,
American Counseling Association (ACA) membership, and
involvement in ethics education (Neukrug & Milliken, 2011).
ACA approved the study and provided researchers with a
random sample of 2,000 ACA members’ email addresses. The
email to the participants included “an explanation of the survey,
an informed consent, and the surveys’ URL” (p. 207). They
were attempting to answer what areas of the ethical code are
unclear and create the most confusion and whether different
demographics correlated with different perceptions of ethical
and unethical behaviors. They grouped the ethics categories into
six categories and performed chi-square tests on Scale 1 and set
the significance level at p < .001 to control for a Type I error.
Study Findings and Results
Although Neukrug and Milliken (2011) “found significant
differences as a function of demographics on a number of
items” (p. 210), practical significance was not evident. The

most prominent finding of this study were related to the
identified areas of disagreement among respondents related to
what is considered unethical. This information can help to
inform future ethics training and ethical code revisions.
Conclusions
The finding of Neukrug and Milliken’s research provided
insight into main areas of ambiguity regarding what is viewed
as unethical behavior. Considering that ethics is the foundation
of professional practice and integral to the counseling
relationship, insight into areas which are most confusing could
serve to better educate current and future counselors. Although
not significant, it is helpful to know that demographics did not
impact the interpretation of ethical practices on a practical
level. The methods used seemed plausible, but the findings were
not clearly presented and took effort to locate and interpret.
References
Neukrug, E. S., & Milliken, T. (2011). Counselors’ perceptions
of ethical behaviors. Journal of Counseling & Development,
89(2), 206–216.
ABSTRACT REVIEW #2: Qualitative
By
STUDENT, B.S, M.S., M.A.

September 2014
University of the Cumberlands
i
1
Introduction/Background
De Stefano, Atkins, Noble, & Heath, (2012) conducted a
qualitative study to examine the experiences of counselors-in-
training (CIT) who worked with clients that engaged in non-
suicidal self-injury (NSSI) in order to understand how
counseling interns “react to and resolve the challenges
presented” (p. 289) by complex clients. NSSI in clients poses
potential ethical and legal concerns which may be amplified
when the clinician is a CIT. De Stefano et al. highlight that
NSSI may increase unexpected and unwanted reactions in the
CIT which may negatively impact the therapeutic relationship.
Additionally, since CIT are being supervised, understanding
how the CIT’s work is impacted by the supervisory process may
be beneficial.
Methodology
De Stefano et al. (2012) identify that the study was oriented
toward discovery and exploration and intended to gain insight
into: “(1) How do trainees describe and understand their
experiences of working with these challenging clients? and (2)

What can these experiences tell us about their evolving clinical
development and learning?” (p. 291). They identified and
tracked potential research biases as (1) CIT would experience
emotional reactivity from working with NSSI clients, (2) these
experiences would lead to substantial learning professionally
and personally, and (3) provide insight into the supervisory
process.
The 12 participants were a sample of convenience in the
second-year of their MA program in counseling psychology.
The criterion required for participation was that the CIT had
counseled with one or more clients within the past 9 months
who had engaged in some form of NSSI. The participants were
all female and of Anglo-European background, ranging in age
from 23 to 37 years. They were recruited from the entire MA
cohort during a class session in which the researcher was not
the course instructor. The intent of the study was explained and
those meeting the criterion were invited to participate. Data was
gathered through 45 to 60 minute, semi-structured interviews
utilizing questions about the CIT “reactions, thoughts, and
feelings when working with these clients” (De Stefano et al.,
2013, p. 292). The sessions were recorded and transcribed and
then analyzed using consensual qualitative research (CQR; Hill
et al., 2005; Hill, Thompson, & Nutt-Williams, 1997; as cited in
De Stefano et al., 2013); CQR uses a constant comparison
method with a team of researchers, in order to reach a
consensus on domains, open codes, and cross-case analysis.
Study Findings and Limitations
The study identified three general themes: (1) CIT formulate a
basic model of NSSI even though they lack previous experience
and knowledge; (2) NSSI clients are challenging on many levels
for CIT; and (3) working with NSSI offers new but incomplete
learning. Additionally, the investigation highlighted that the
supervisory process had mixed benefits and was disappointing
for many of the CIT (De Stefano et al., 2013). Limitations of
the study include the reality that the findings are suggestive and

it is not generalizable to all CIT. Furthermore, interviewing
participants several times and with access to client notes may
have enhanced and strengthened recall. Finally, the study did
not address diversity which De Stefano et al., highlight may
have impacted the CIT experiences.
Conclusions
This study is significant in that despite the exploratory aspect
of this investigation, it reveals that when CIT openly
acknowledge feelings of incompetency “it was accompanied by
vigilance and a self-observational quality typical of self-
monitoring and reflexivity that are hallmarks of good practice”
(De Stefano et al., 2013, p. 303). While not part of the intent of
the study, it is worthwhile insight. The article could have been
enhanced by using bar graphs or tables to present the findings
and this would have highlighted the identified themes more
clearly. Considering the ethical dilemma faced by CIT who
work with NSSI clients, this study provides foundational insight
which can inform future research.

References
De Stefano, J., Atkins, S., Noble, R. N., & Heath, N. (2012).
Am I competent enough to be doing this?: A qualitative study of
trainees’ experiences working with clients who self-injure.
Counselling Psychology Quarterly, 25(3), 289–305.
doi:10.1080/09515070.2012.698981
BIOTECHNOLOGY PAPER
This quarter, you will complete a project which will culminate
in a 5–6 page paper on an established or
emerging biotechnology. The project covers both the biological
basis of the technology, as well as its
benefits, drawbacks, and ethical aspects. The project is broken
down into four stages, with deliverables
due at each stage. In the final stage, you will combine your
previous work, edited according to the
feedback you’ve received, into one coherent final paper.
chnology Article – This first assignment,
and the entire project, begins with
your selection of one article about a particular biotechnology.
Subsequent assignments will build
on this first assignment, and thus extend your research on the
same biotechnology. In
Assignment 1, you will summarize the article you’ve chosen
(your “target article”), and address
some additional issues about how your article relates to the
course, to your life, and to the

funding of ongoing research.
al basis – In the second assignment,
you will explain what your chosen
biotechnology accomplishes and how it is implemented, and
describe the body of knowledge that
it is based upon. Your overall goal in this assignment is to show
that you understand the
underlying science behind the technology.
– In
the third assignment, you will look at
your technology in more depth to analyze the pros and cons, and
to also consider any ethical
issues that arise from the technology.
– You will pull this final paper
together using edited pieces from
Assignments 1, 2, and 3, along with an additional section
providing your personal viewpoint and
summation. The result should be a coherent paper on the
biotechnology you’ve chosen.
Assignment 2: Biological Basis
Due in week 5 and worth 80 points
Continuing on the research that you started in Week 3, explain
what your chosen biotechnology
accomplishes and how it is implemented, and describe the body
of knowledge that it is based upon. The
detailed guidelines are as follows:
accomplishes. Then, explain whether it

involves manipulating the DNA (or RNA) of an organism, or
simply utilizing the DNA (or RNA) that
is already there naturally.
technology works.
o If your technology involves manipulating the DNA of an
organism, then you should
explain how that is accomplished. Depending on the specific
technology, adding DNA to
cells is often accomplished with a vector, such as a virus or
bacterium, but there are
mechanical means as well, such as microinjection or use of a
“gene gun.”
o If your technology involves interpreting the DNA in an
organism (as one might do for
personalized medicine), explain how that is accomplished. What
are the means of
collecting a sample? How is the sample processed? What
exactly is being analyzed to
generate the interpretation?
technology. Many of them are based on an
understanding of genes and how they are expressed. Other
technologies may be based on the
concept of the genome, transcriptome, or proteome. Others are
based on an understanding of
non-coding DNA (such as the short-tandem repeats used in DNA
fingerprinting). Many are based
on an understanding of DNA replication, as well as basic
heredity.
The expected length is a proxy for how much detail to go into.

Go into enough detail to get at least
one page of double-spaced text (about 300 words), but not much
more than two pages of double-
spaced text (about 600 words). Your overall goal in this
assignment is to show the instructor that
you understand the underlying science behind the technology.
You must have a reference section which contains an SWS
reference to your chosen article and all other
sources. Additionally, you must provide in-text citations (in
SWS format) to your references in the body of
the text. Integrate all sources into your paper using proper
techniques of quoting, paraphrasing and
summarizing, along with your in-text citations. Double-space
your paper. Use standard margins and fonts.
Also, follow any additional formatting instructions provided by
your instructor.
A large portion of the grading of this assignment is based upon
the coherence, depth, and accuracy of
your writing.
Objectives evaluated by this assessment:
1. Categorize a wide range of organisms, from single-celled to
multi-celled organisms.
2. Describe how organisms acquire and utilize both energy and
material.
3. Describe the cell cycle, cell reproduction, and control.
4. Investigate DNA and gene expression as well as technologies
based on our understanding of
them.

5. Discuss interactions between organisms in ecosystems.
Points: 80 Assignment 2: Biological Basis
Criteria Unacceptable
Below 60% F
Meets
Minimum
Expectation
s
60-69% D
Fair
70-79% C
Proficient
80-89% B
Exemplary
90-100% A
1. Describe
the
biotechnolog
y and what it
accomplishes
, including if it
involves
manipulating
DNA/RNA or
just using it.
Weight: 30%

Did not submit or
incompletely/inaccuratel
y described the
biotechnology and what
it accomplishes,
including if it involves
manipulating DNA/RNA
or just using it.
Insufficiently
described the
biotechnolog
y and what it
accomplishes
, including if it
involves
manipulating
DNA/RNA or
just using it.
Partially
described the
biotechnolog
y and what it
accomplishes
, including if it
involves
manipulating
DNA/RNA or
just using it.
Satisfactorily
described the
biotechnolog
y and what it

accomplishes
, including if it
involves
manipulating
DNA/RNA or
just using it.
Thoroughly
described the
biotechnolog
y and what it
accomplishes
, including if it
involves
manipulating
DNA/RNA or
just using it.
2.Provide a
full and
complete
description of
exactly how
the
technology
works.
Weight: 30%
Did not submit or
y provided a full and
complete description of
exactly how the
technology works.

Insufficiently
provided a
full and
complete
description of
exactly how
the
technology
works.
Partially
provided a
full and
complete
description of
exactly how
the
technology
works.
Satisfactorily
provided a
full and
complete
description of
exactly how
the
technology
works.
Thoroughly
provided a
full and
complete
description of

exactly how
the
technology
works.
3.Discuss the
key biological
principles
that underlie
the
Did not submit or
y discussed the key
biological principles that
underlie the technology.
Insufficiently
discussed the
key biological
principles
that underlie
Partially
discussed the
key biological
principles
that underlie
Satisfactorily
discussed the
key biological
principles
that underlie
Thoroughly

discussed the
key biological
principles
that underlie
technology.
Weight 30%
the
technology.
the
technology.
the
technology.
the
technology.
4. Application
of the SWS
standards for
citation.
Weight: 5%
Lack of in-text citations
and / or lack of
reference section.
In-text

citations and
references
are given, but
not in SWS
format.
In-text
citations and
references
are provided,
but they are
only partially
formatted
correctly in
SWS style.
Most in-text
citations and
references
are provided,
and they are
generally
formatted
correctly in
SWS style.
In-text
citations and
references
are error free
or almost
error free and
consistently
formatted
correctly in
SWS style.

5. Use of
proper written
mechanics
Weight: 5%
Student did not submit
the assignment or there
are so many errors that
work is confusing to
read.
Multiple
errors (7-8) in
grammar and
mechanics.
Several
errors (5-6) in
grammar and
mechanics.
A few errors
(3-4) in
grammar and
mechanics.
Minimal (0-2)
errors in
grammar and
mechanics.

BIOTECHNOLOGY PAPER
This quarter, you will complete a project which will culminate
in a 5–6 page paper on an established or
emerging biotechnology. The project covers both the biological
basis of the technology, as well as its
benefits, drawbacks, and ethical aspects. The project is broken
down into four stages, with deliverables
due at each stage. In the final stage, you will combine your
previous work, edited according to the
feedback you’ve received, into one coherent final paper.
ssignment 1: Biotechnology Article – This first assignment,
and the entire project, begins with
your selection of one article about a particular biotechnology.
Subsequent assignments will build
on this first assignment, and thus extend your research on the
same biotechnology. In
Assignment 1, you will summarize the article you’ve chosen
(your “target article”), and address
some additional issues about how your article relates to the
course, to your life, and to the
funding of ongoing research.
gnment 2: Biological basis – In the second assignment,
you will explain what your chosen
biotechnology accomplishes and how it is implemented, and
describe the body of knowledge that
it is based upon. Your overall goal in this assignment is to show
that you understand the
underlying science behind the technology.

– In
the third assignment, you will look at
your technology in more depth to analyze the pros and cons, and
to also consider any ethical
issues that arise from the technology.
– You will pull this final paper
together using edited pieces from
Assignments 1, 2, and 3, along with an additional section
providing your personal viewpoint and
summation. The result should be a coherent paper on the
biotechnology you’ve chosen.
Assignment 3: Social and Ethical Implications
Due in week 7 and worth 80 points
Continuing on your research from Weeks 3 and 5.
Provide an analysis of the social and ethical implications of
your chosen biotechnology. Strive for an
even-handed honest-broker approach in which you carefully
analyze the possible benefits of the
technology, as well as any possible drawbacks. For now, hold
back on disclosing your point of view (you’ll
get a chance to express your opinion in the final paper in Week
9).
For both benefits and drawbacks, state whether these are based
on actual evidence, or based on
speculation about possibilities. Consider the possible biases of
both proponents and critics, if appropriate.
Finally, address whether there any special ethical considerations
that go beyond simply looking at the

risks and benefits.
This assignment should be at least one page of double-spaced
text (about 300 words) but not much more
than two pages of double-spaced text (about 600 words). As
always, think of the expected length as a
proxy for how much to cover and how much detail to go into. In
addition to your general remarks, you will
need to go into depth on several issues to meet the expected
length. Describe your points in a clear
manner, and support them with explanations, examples, and
discussions.
Hint: Merely providing a list of issues will not be sufficient for
a good grade. You need to describe the
issues fully, and support them. Do not copy any bulleted lists
from your sources.
You must have a reference section which contains an SWS
reference to your chosen article and all other
sources. Additionally, you must provide in-text citations (in
SWS format) to your references in the body of
the text. Integrate all sources into your paper using proper
techniques of quoting, paraphrasing and
summarizing, along with your in-text citations. Double-space
your paper. Use standard margins and
fonts. Also, follow any additional formatting instructions
provided by your instructor.
Objectives evaluated by this assessment:
1. Categorize a wide range of organisms, from single-celled to

multi-celled organisms.
2. Describe how organisms acquire and utilize both energy and
material.
3. Describe the cell cycle, cell reproduction, and control.
4. Investigate DNA and gene expression as well as technologies
based on our understanding of
them.
5. Discuss interactions between organisms in ecosystems.
Points: Assignment 3: Social and Ethical Implications
Criteria Unacceptable
Below 60% F
Meets
Minimum
Expectations
60-69% D
Fair
70-79% C
Proficient
80-89% B
Exemplary
90-100% A
1. Provide an
analysis of
the social and
ethical
benefits of
the

technology.
Weight 30%
Did not submit or
incompletely/inaccurately
provided an analysis of
the social and ethical
benefits of the
technology.
Insufficiently
provided an
analysis of
the social and
ethical
benefits of
the
technology.
Partially
provided an
analysis of
the social
and ethical
benefits of
the
technology.
Satisfactorily
provided an
analysis of
the social
and ethical

benefits of
the
technology.
Thoroughly
provided an
analysis of
the social
and ethical
benefits of
the
technology.
2. Provide an
analysis of
the social and
ethical
drawbacks of
the
technology.
Weight 30%
Did not submit or
provided an analysis of
the social and ethical
drawbacks of the
technology.
Insufficiently
provided an
analysis of
the social and
ethical

drawbacks of
the
technology.
Partially
provided an
analysis of
the social
and ethical
drawbacks
of the
technology.
Satisfactorily
provided an
analysis of
the social
and ethical
drawbacks
of the
technology.
Thoroughly
provided an
analysis of
the social
and ethical
drawbacks
of the
technology.
3. For both
benefits and
drawbacks,
state whether
these are

based on
actual
evidence, or
based on
speculation
about
possibilities.
Weight 30%
Did not submit or
stated whether these are
based on actual
evidence, or based on
speculation about
possibilities.
Insufficiently
stated
whether these
are based on
actual
evidence, or
based on
speculation
about
possibilities.
Partially
stated
whether
these are
based on
actual

evidence, or
based on
speculation
about
possibilities.
Satisfactorily
stated
whether
these are
based on
actual
evidence, or
based on
speculation
about
possibilities.
Thoroughly
stated
whether
these are
based on
actual
evidence, or
based on
speculation
about
possibilities.
4. Application
of the SWS
Lack of in-text citations
and / or lack of reference

In-text
citations and
In-text
citations and
Most in-text
citations and
In-text
citations and
standards for
citation.
Weight: 5%
section. references
are given, but
not in SWS
format.
references
are
provided,
but they are
only partially
formatted
correctly in
SWS style.
references
are provided,

and they are
generally
formatted
correctly in
SWS style.
references
are error
free or
almost error
free and
consistently
formatted
correctly in
SWS style.
5. Use of
proper written
mechanics,
Weight: 5%
Student did not submit
the assignment or there
are so many errors that
work is confusing to
read.
Multiple errors
(7-8) in
grammar and
mechanics.
Several
errors (5-6)
in grammar
and

mechanics.
A few errors
(3-4) in
grammar and
mechanics.
Minimal (0-
2) errors in
grammar
and
mechanics.
Running Head: Human Gene Editing 1
Human Gene Editing 2
Human Gene Editing Week 5
Joanna Nasser
Professor James Cox
SCI 115
10/29/2018

Human gene editing involves changing of the genes by adding,
removing or replacing pairs of DNA. It offers a significant
potential to advice on therapeutic and fundamental science
application. The gene editing is applied to gremlin cells, tissues
embryo and human cells. This helps in improvement of normal
biology-human thinking which involves more knowledge of
human fertility, development, and reproduction. It also gives an
understanding of various diseases and how to treat them.
Genome editing is used in clinics to test and treat genetic
disease. Genome editing involves the use of enzyme known as
engineered nuclease which is used to cut the genome in a
particular place. The engineered nuclease comprises of two
parts that are the put which cuts the DNA and the part of the
DNA that guides the nuclease (Kim, Kim, Cho, Kim, & Kim,
2014).
Human gene editing is done by cutting and pasting specialized
proteins of DNA. The proteins are in three categories, TALENs,
Zones, and CRISPRs. CRISPRs refer to Cas9 which consist of
enzymes and genetic that is used to edit the DNA, for the virus
to work, the machine is used to take over the cells until those
cells burst. In cases where the genetic bacteria evolve, DNA
waves are cut then the proteins are chopped. Many times the
bacteria may survive the cutting; in this case, tiny snippets of
DNA are incorporated. For the memory of genetic be kept on its
palace, RNA is used. In the nucleus, the Crips-Cas9 is used to
bump the genome. It also needs to grab itself into DNA. This
makes the RNA to see it is matched with the DNA.
In human gene editing, only one gene is used when carrying out
gene by gene basis. Technology such as mass spectrometry,
expression, and gene microarrays are used .those innovative
technology address and unravel disease. Technological
improvement makes the expression of the genome to be easier.
Microarrays are different microscopic of DNA spots which are
attached on a solid surface. Microarrays also provide different

genotypes and allocated chromosomal which are associated with
a certain disease. The biological principles associated with the
human gene-editing are respect for the person, transparency,
science responsibility, well-being and due care (Hendel, Bak,
Clark, Kennedy, Ryan, Roy, & Bacchetta, 2015).
Reference
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 human
primary cells. Nature biotechnology, 33(9), nbt-3290.
No Author. April 11, 2016, Should Heritable Gene Editing Be
Used on Humans? Wall Street Journal viaStrayer Library, US
Newsstream Database, https://search-proquest-
Running Head: Human Gene Editing 1

Human Gene Editing 3
Human Gene Editing
Joanna Nasser
Professor James F. Cox, PhD
SCI115
10/18/2018
Gene human editing technology can be used to help in disease
eradication. Recently scientist has come up with new ways of
hindering mosquitoes from spreading malaria. The use of
technology is improving in gene editing that is associated with
the causes of human diseases like cancer. Human editing genes
have also caused ethical issues in the recent world. Most human
diseases have components of genetic. In this case, the
contribution and effects of environment usually have variable
influence (Liang, Xu, Zhang, Ding, Huang, Zhang, & Sun,
2015).
The human gene editing can be applied in the science laboratory
research, to increases biomedical science of human tissue and
cells editing human genes become suitable for use. The
technology which is used in human gene editing has implication
which alters the human gene permanent. The most used tools for
gene editing is known as Doudna; this tool is used to carry out

DNA inside living cell. Also, many scientists are unraveling
human-like animals to see the gene which is associated with
them. They have come up with ways of treating cell disease and
cancer. They have done experiences of these gene-editing
therapies with people. They also use the CRISPR tool to edit
human genes. The most pressing ethical difficulty of using these
tools is the gene editing can be transmitted to the future
generation.
Some principles govern the human gene editing. Those
principles include transparency, well-being promotion, science
responsibility, due care, fairness, respect for persons and
transnational cooperation. The ethical concern about the human
gene editing is equity and justice, safety, and informed consent
(Gori, Hsu, Maeder, Shen, Welstead, & Bumcrot, 2015).
Reference
Liang, P., Xu, Y., Zhang, X., Ding, C., Huang, R., Zhang, Z., ...
& Sun, Y. (2015). CRISPR/Cas9-mediated gene editing in
human tripronuclear zygotes. Protein & cell, 6(5), 363-372.
Gori, J. L., Hsu, P. D., Maeder, M. L., Shen, S., Welstead, G.
G., & Bumcrot, D. (2015). Delivery and specificity of
CRISPR/Cas9 genome editing technologies for human gene
therapy. Human gene therapy, 26(7), 443-451.

October 30, 2018 Joanna, Your second submissio.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to October 30, 2018 Joanna, Your second submissio.docx

Similar to October 30, 2018 Joanna, Your second submissio.docx (14)

More from tarifarmarie

More from tarifarmarie (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

October 30, 2018 Joanna, Your second submissio.docx