4 topics week 6 discussion Topic 1. Pedigree for Trait 1

Week 6 Discussion

Name

Institution

Tutor

Course

Date

Topic 1. Pedigree for Trait 1.

The genotype for Alan Blue will be Aa, which means that He will have inherited trait 1 characteristics. The parent’s genotype play a key role, which in this case, one has a homozygous dominant, AA and the other has homozygous recessive, aa. Thus this would assume that the children of these parents will have a heterozygous genotype of Aa. Thus it concludes that most of the children will have a heterozygous genotype. I crossed homozygous AA genotype with aa genotype, the genotype I got was Aa which is a heterozygous. The result was 100% heterozygous thus proving that the genotype for Alan Blue is Aa. I would wager that Harlan Brown has a genotype of Aa. Heterozygous. This is because there is a autosomal dominant trait in trait 1.

Topic 2. Pedigrees for Trait 2.

In the pedigree for trait 2, Alan Blue’s genotype will be Bb which is heterozygous. In autosomal recessive trait, a child inherits two traits from the parents, meaning that he or she inherits two separate copies of the gene from the parents. Thus for this case, a child might have a 50% chance that he or she might be able to inherit a normal gene and a changed one. A child also has a 25% possibility of inheriting normal genes from both parents without being affected or being carriers of the trait. However, in cases where one parent is a carrier for the trait and the other is not then the child will not have the condition but might be a carrier. Thus Denise Hawk will have a genotype of Bb.

Topic 3. Esvelt’s Regret.

Kevin Esvelt championed a technology called Crispr. It is a technology that enables genes to be edited for purposes of saving wildlife that are at risk of becoming extinct. The Crispr technology has also enabled scientists to come up with molecules that would replace or take position of the specific sequence of DNA identified in the cell. Kevin Esvelt thought it’s too risky for this technology to be used outside the lab because the gene being introduced would edit itself. (Zimmer, 2017)

However, according to (Neuhaus, 2017) if the wildlife in the lab would be released in the wild the gene drive would spread throughout the habitat which might not be safe. A law and regulation that should be placed in order to control the technology that Kevin Esvelt regrets championing is that the experiment should be done in a controlled environment where the wildlife whose genes have been modified should not mingle with those in the wild.

Topic 4. Societal Aspects of Human Gene Editing.

According to (Ossola, 2015), the procedures, regulations and laws that regard human genome editing should be balanced in a way that agreements should be able to provide guidance to scientists. Thus the bioethicists, researchers, theologies, citizens and everyone should be involved in coming up with procedures, regulations and laws of Crispr. This would ensure that there would be a regulation or law set up when there’s an uncertainty concerning the effect Crispr will have on the upcoming generations as well as what should be done in cases where it affects them. Through such procedures, regulations and laws, I feel that the scientists or researchers will not be susceptible to violate human rights either when they are coming up with the hypothesis or determining the viable participants.

References

Carl Zimmer, November 16, 2017, ‘Gene drives’ are too risky for field trials, scientists say, https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/16/science/gene-drives-crispr.html?_r=0

Carolyn P. Neuhaus, March 16, 2017, Genome editing: bioethics shows the way. http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.2001934

Alexandra Ossola, August 6, 2015, Should bioethicists “get out of the way” of CRISPR research?, https://www.popsci.com/should- bioethicists-get-out-way-crispr-research