Name ______Date ______Period ______
My Score
Close Reading Steps
Numbering the paragraphs __/1
Underlining/Highlighting parts & Circling unknown words ___/4
Comments in the margin __/5
Total __/10 points
Written Reflection (Evidence Based Short Response)
2 – (10 pts)
All parts of the question are answered
Evidence is correctly cited
Explanation of the evidence makes sense
Uses domain specific language (subject vocabulary)
Writer stays on topic
1 – (5 pts)
Partially answered the question
Evidence is cited
Included weak or unrelated support from the text
Does not use domain specific language
0 – (0pts)
Is confusing and or off topic
Does not answer the question
Does not use evidence
Does not use domain specific language
Peer Score
Close Reading Steps
Numbering the paragraphs __/1
Underlining/Highlighting parts & Circling unknown words ___/4
Comments in the margin __/5
Total __/10 points
Written Reflection (Evidence Based Short Response)
2 – (10 pts)
All parts of the question are answered
Evidence is correctly cited
Explanation of the evidence makes sense
Uses domain specific language (subject vocabulary)
Writer stays on topic
1 – (5 pts)
Partially answered the question
Evidence is cited
Included weak or unrelated support from the text
Does not use domain specific language
0 – (0pts)
Is confusing and or off topic
Does not answer the question
Does not use evidence
Does not use domain specific language
Actual Score
Close Reading Steps
Numbering the paragraphs __/1
Underlining/Highlighting parts & Circling unknown words ___/4
Comments in the margin __/5
Total __/10 points
Written Reflection (Evidence Based Short Response)
2 – (10 pts)
All parts of the question are answered
Evidence is correctly cited
Explanation of the evidence makes sense
Uses domain specific language (subject vocabulary)
Writer stays on topic
1 – (5 pts)
Partially answered the question
Evidence is cited
Included weak or unrelated support from the text
Does not use domain specific language
0 – (0pts)
Is confusing and or off topic
Does not answer the question
Does not use evidence
Does not use domain specific language
Name ______Date ______Period ______
Guided Question: Gene editing is a hotly debated topic. In a two-point paragraph, discuss both the advantages and pitfalls of genetically engineering better babies.
Opinion: We can – and should – engineer a better baby but set limits
By Project Syndicate, adapted by Newsela staff 01.19.16
NEW YORK, N.Y. – Genes make us who we are. Each is responsible for a particular trait. Made of a substance called DNA, genes are passed down from parent to child. They are responsible for everything from hair color to inherited diseases.
For a long time, our genetic makeup was something beyond our control. Yet, scientists have long wondered: Can harmful genes be altered or eliminated before they are passed down to the next generation? Can they be removed while a baby is still in its mother's womb?
There should no longer be any doubt. One day, perhaps very soon, humans will be genetically modified. A new tool -- called CRISPR -- is already being used to alter the genes of insects and animals. Such alteration is known as gene editing.CRISPR allows scientists to remove and insert genes precisely. It is only a matter of time before it will be used to engineer our descendants. Many dangerous inherited diseases may soon be eliminated as a result.
Human Engineering Is Coming
To be sure, human genetic engineering is being hotly debated. The main arguments against it are that it would be unsafe and unfair and that it would quickly go beyond simply preventing inherited illnesses. However, in the end none of these reasons is likely to stop the technology from being widely used.
Fears about safety are probably unnecessary. The new gene-editing methods appear to be very accurate. All tests and experiments so far seem to prove there is little risk involved.
Fairness is certainly an important concern. The rich will probably have easier access to CRISPR than poorer families. However, that fact is not likely to lead to a ban on gene editing.
After all, the world is full of unjust differences between people. The rich send their children to the best schools, while the poor are often forced to send their children to the worst. And yet, as unfair as this may be, the rich are not waiting for things to change. Instead, they are making wide use of the best private education money can buy. The same process will play out with genetic engineering, whether we like it or not.
Will Gene Editing Lead To Eugenics?
The critics’ most worrisome argument is that CRISPR will open the door for eugenics. The goal of eugenics is to introduce desirable traits into the human population, the same way farmers breed cattle. The problem, of course, is who gets to decide which traits are desirable.
Furthermore, it is not clear whether doctors should use CRISPR simply for enhancement — for making children smarter, stronger or better looking. Perhaps eliminating disease should be the only justification for CRISPR.
Such concerns are understandable. However, those reasons are not compelling enough to give up on the promise of genetic engineering. The world is plagued with inherited diseases that cause very real misery: sickle cell anemia, hemophilia, type 1 diabetes, cystic fibrosis, mitochondrial diseases, polycystic kidney disease, Tay-Sachs disease, Canavan disease, mucopolysaccharidoses, some forms of breast, prostate, and colon cancer, and the list goes on. It is absurd to think genetic engineering will not be used to get rid of such diseases when the ability to do so exists.
Focus On Relieving Suffering
In the end, parents who want to keep their children and grandchildren from suffering will win out. Their needs will outweigh concerns over CRISPR being used to build superkids — and that is how it should be. The sick should not be left untreated due to worries about possible dangers or abuses.
There is no reason to waste time arguing about whether humans should be genetically engineered. As justifiable as some of the concerns may be, there are simply too many benefits to be gained from preventing inherited diseases.
What is more, those who want to limit genetic engineering to disease prevention should not try to delay the use of CRISPR. They should not ask us to wait until all possible problems have been worked out. Instead, they should devote their energies to explaining why eugenics is wrong. They should not attempt to stop the march of progress toward healing the sick and eliminating awful disorders.
Next Step: Setting Up Protections
Rather than arguing about whether CRISPR should be used in humans, we should refocus the public debate on appropriate safeguards. We should begin determining who decides when CRISPR is safe enough to be used and what counseling should be provided for parents considering its use. We should begin figuring out how to make gene editing available to the poor.
There is no doubt that human gene editing is coming. Instead of wasting time arguing over whether or not to allow it, we should begin considering the serious issues it will raise. It will be here sooner or later whether we like it or not.
Soon enough, some doctors will begin focusing on using CRISPR simply for enhancement. It can be done, and it will be. We need to know how to respond to their promise to give us taller, smarter, healthier, cuter, stronger, and more loving children. We need to decide if such changes are worth making at all.