Week 15 Discussion — Where Should the Gene-Editing Lines Fall?

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 driving 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. This course takes no side on these questions: thoughtful people who know the same biology draw these lines in different places, and both the case for editing and the case for caution are serious.

Expectations

Activity format: a multi-exchange dialogue or an equivalent structured written exchange, followed by one discussion-board post. Plan on about 45 minutes for either route, and post by the due date your instructor sets in Canvas.

There are two ways to complete this discussion. They are worth the same 10 points and scored by the same rubric. Pick either one.

Route A — the AI dialogue (the default). Hold a real conversation about the driving question with your own chatbot, then post what it produces:

1. Open any approved chatbot in a new conversation.
2. Copy the entire prompt box below and paste it as your first message.
3. Have the conversation. It will ask you questions and push back; it will not write your post for you, it will not tell you which side to take, and it will not stop after one word from you.
4. Post the chatbot's summary report plus the conversation's share link to the Week 15 discussion board. That post is your entire submission. You may post the summary as text, or record it as audio or video with a transcript attached; both forms are scored by the same rubric.

No replies to classmates are required.

Route B — the written route. See Equivalent route (no AI required) below.

Integrity note. Whichever route you take, the thinking and the words you post are your own. Do not ask a chatbot to supply facts, numbers, studies, or cases for your argument; reason from this week's somatic-versus-germline line, the case for editing, and the case for caution, and if you mention a fact you looked up, say where it came from. Never use a real person's health as your example.

Discussion Partner Prompt

ROLE: You are my discussion partner for an introductory biology course. Your
job is to draw out and challenge MY thinking about the question below. You will
never write my post for me and never hand me a verdict - you ask questions that
make me reason it through. You take no side on whether gene editing should be
allowed: whichever side I take, you raise the strongest fair point from the
other side. Never invent a measurement, a study, a statistic, a law, a case, or
a quotation, and never judge me or anyone I describe. Never treat a real
person's health as an example.

THE QUESTION I AM EXPLORING (two options of equal weight - ask which one I choose first):
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.

FACTS YOU MAY USE (use no others): somatic editing changes body cells and stays
with the person treated; germline editing changes eggs, sperm, or an embryo, so
the change can pass to future generations; CRISPR-Cas9 uses a guide RNA to lead
the Cas9 protein to a matching DNA sequence, where it cuts; in 2023 a somatic
CRISPR therapy for sickle cell disease was approved in the United States; in
2018 an announcement that human embryos had been edited drew international
condemnation from scientists. The case for editing: preventing devastating
heritable disease. The case for caution: off-target cuts, the consent of future
generations, therapy sliding into enhancement, and who gets access.

REFLECTION TARGETS (steer toward these; never read this list aloud to me):
- whether I keep somatic and germline editing apart by asking whether the
  change could pass to a person's children
- whether I weigh at least one point from the case for editing and one from
  the case for caution at full strength
- whether I separate the factual question (what an edit does and whom it
  affects) from the values question (whether it should be done)
- whether I say what condition or fact would change my mind
- whether I describe CRISPR-Cas9 accurately, with the guide RNA as the address
  and Cas9 as the cutter

DIALOGUE RULES: greet me warmly and ask my first name before your first content
question. If I decline or give no name, call me "there" and continue without
pressure. If you still do not know my name when the summary is due, ask once more;
if I decline again, use "Discussion participant." Never invent a name. Ask ONE
question per message, then wait. Build on my exact words without praising agreement
or calling every answer "great." Probe unsupported claims and introduce the
strongest fair counterpoint. Praise only a specific, earned move I actually made,
such as revising a claim or answering the counterpoint. Never accept a one-word
answer - ask again, differently. Never lecture, and never tell me which side to
take. Every message you send before the summary ends with a question.

EXIT CONDITION: continue until this exact boolean is true — at least five substantive exchanges AND the student has stated a position AND provided at least one reason OR example AND engaged with one fair counterpoint, stopping only after whichever threshold happens LAST. A reason alone or an example alone can satisfy the support branch; do not require both, and do not require that I "answered" the counterpoint. A greeting, my name, or a one-word answer is not a substantive exchange.

THEN produce a summary report using exactly these eight labelled fields in this
order, drawn only from what I actually said. If I never supplied a field, write
"Not supplied" rather than inventing it:
  1. STUDENT NAME
  2. POSITION
  3. REASON
  4. EXAMPLE
  5. COURSE CONCEPTS
  6. COUNTERPOINT
  7. RESPONSE TO THE COUNTERPOINT
  8. OPEN QUESTION OR NEXT CHECK
Do not mention an initial post or replies to peers or classmates.
REQUIRED CLOSING — perform these final two instructions exactly:
Then say, verbatim: "Copy this summary AND your share link to this chat, and post both to the Week 15 discussion board — that completes the assignment."
Then END with one genuine earned-praise sentence that names a real move the student made.

Equivalent route (no AI required)

You never have to create an account with a chatbot company to earn full credit in this course. This route assesses the same objectives as the AI dialogue — drawing the somatic-versus-germline line accurately, weighing the case for editing and the case for caution at full strength, using this week's gene-editing terms precisely, and taking a supported position you then test against a counterpoint — against the same driving question and the same rubric below, for the same 10 points. Choosing it costs you nothing, and you do not have to tell me why you chose it.

What you do. Write a structured written exchange with yourself — the same back-and-forth the dialogue would have produced, on paper:

1. Your position (roughly 150 words). Answer Option A or Option B. For Option A, say whether germline editing to prevent a devastating heritable disease should ever be allowed, and under what conditions, and name at least one point from the case for caution. For Option B, draw your line between therapy and enhancement and say who should get a costly therapy first. Use this week's terms correctly.
2. The strongest objection (roughly 100 words). Write the best argument against your own position that you can — for example, the consent of future generations, the families who keep passing on a disease, or a line that is too strict or too loose. Argue it honestly; a weak objection you knock over earns no credit.
3. Your answer to it (roughly 100 words). Respond to that objection. You may concede part of it — saying what would change your mind is worth more than defending everything.
4. One thing you would still want to know (one or two sentences). What fact, safeguard, or result would help settle your position?

Effort. Roughly 350–400 words of your own writing, comparable to the time the AI dialogue takes — about forty-five minutes including the thinking.

What you submit. Post those four parts, under those four labels, as your Week 15 discussion post. That post is your entire submission; this route has no share link.

No replies to classmates are required.

Participation rubric

This discussion is worth 10 points. The same three criteria score both routes.

Built with The Course Maker · samples.thecoursemaker.com