Week 15 Discussion — Where Should the Gene-Editing Lines Fall? — Traditional alternative (no AI)

Instructors: publish this instead of the adaptive version if you prefer, and unpublish or delete the adaptive one.

Hook

A tool now exists that can find one spelling mistake in a gene and cut there. In 2023 a somatic CRISPR therapy for sickle cell disease was approved in the United States, and in 2018 an announcement that human embryos had been edited drew international condemnation from scientists. Same tool, two very different reactions. Where should the lines fall, and who should decide?

Your discussion question — choose Option A or Option B; they carry the same weight and the same rubric, and you say which you picked.

Option A: Germline editing changes eggs, sperm, or an embryo, so the change can pass to future generations. Argue whether germline editing to prevent a devastating heritable disease should ever be allowed, and if so, under what conditions; use the somatic-versus-germline line and at least one point from the case for caution. Then face the objection from the other side: if you said yes, that future generations cannot consent to a change made before they exist; if you said no, that refusing means families keep passing on a disease that could have been prevented.

Option B: A tool built to treat disease could also be used to change traits that are not diseases. Argue where you would draw the line between therapy and enhancement for somatic editing, which changes only the person treated, and say who should get a costly therapy first when there is not enough for everyone; use at least two of this week's terms. Then face the strongest objection to your line: either that it is too strict and blocks people who could benefit, or that it is too loose and opens the door to editing for advantage.

There is no single right answer here, and this course takes no side. Thoughtful people who know the same biology draw these lines in different places. Pick the position you actually hold, and walk us through your thinking.

Expectations

Activity format: one initial post followed by two substantive peer replies. Plan on about 45 minutes across the two deadlines; your instructor sets both due dates in Canvas.

Your initial post — by the first due date (early in the module week):

• Say which option you chose.
• For Option A, say whether germline editing to prevent a devastating heritable disease should ever be allowed, and under what conditions; for Option B, draw your line between therapy and enhancement and say who should get a costly therapy first.
• Use at least two of this week's terms (somatic editing, germline editing, CRISPR-Cas9, guide RNA, mutation, gene regulation) correctly.
• Say what objection would be hardest for your position, and how you would answer it.
• Length: roughly 150–250 words if written. You may instead record your post as audio or video (about two minutes) and attach a transcript; both forms are scored by the same rubric.

Your replies — by the second due date (the end of the module week):

• Reply substantively to at least two classmates.
• A substantive reply does more than agree: raise the strongest point from the side the poster did not take, test whether their line between somatic and germline editing holds, or ask what fact would change their mind. "Nice point!" on its own does not count, and a reply never mocks a position or the person holding it.

What a strong post looks like:

I chose Option A. Editing a body cell changes only the person treated, but an edit to an embryo can pass to every generation after it, so I think the bar for germline editing has to be higher. I would allow it only for a devastating heritable disease with no other way to prevent it, and only after off-target cuts can be ruled out. The hardest objection is consent: the future people affected cannot agree. My answer is that they also cannot agree to inheriting the disease, but I admit that a mistake would be inherited too, and that is what would change my mind.

Notice how it draws the somatic-versus-germline line accurately, uses a point from the case for caution, says what would change its mind, and tests the position against a real objection. That is the bar, and a post on the other side of the question can meet it equally well.

Participation rubric

This discussion is worth 10 points. The three criteria below look at your initial post and your peer replies.

Post early if you can — the best threads happen when people have time to reply before the second due date.

Built with The Course Maker · samples.thecoursemaker.com