Annotated Bibliography Draft 1

BBSRC. (2015, ). Genome-editing position statement. Retrieved from https://www.facebook.com/bbsrcnews?fref=nf

                 BBSRC explains the United Kingdom's point of view on the issue and includes quotes from researchers. This will be useful to help explain the side of the people who support the use of genome engineering. It also includes their beliefs on the ethics that need to be followed and the rules that they believe should be followed while experimenting. 

Hsu, P. D., Lander, E. S., & Zhang, F. (2014). Development and applications of CRISPR-Cas9 for genome engineering. Cell, 157(6), September 4, 2015.

                 Hsu, Lander, and Zhang explain how CRISPR-Cas9 works in their article. This is useful because it gives some background about what scientists are doing. By knowing what they are doing it gives me a better understanding of what the conflict is about. It is easier to understand the ethics that are being disputed if I know what they are being applied to and trying to guide. 

Johns Hopkins Medicine. (2015, ). Recent CRISPR/Cas9 research ignites ethical concerns. Retrieved from https://www.facebook.com/Johns.Hopkins.Medicine?fref=nf

                 Johns Hopkins Medicine's article addresses concerns that people have about the future of CRISPR/Cas9. It offers questions about what will happen and should we be doing things like that. An example is designer babies. If we have the ability to should we genetically engineer babies to be what the parents want. The article also addresses the recently done Chinese study and points out the flaws and the low success rate. With the Chinese study it asks questions about weather that study was ethically acceptable. 

Psgurel. (April 25, 2014). More controversy in the CRISPR/Cas9 debate. editing DNA in human embryos: Good or bad idea? Retrieved from http://causescience.com/2015/04/24/more-controversy-in-the-crisprcas9-debate-editing-dna-in-human-embryos-good-or-bad-idea/

                  Psgurel attempts to host a debate about whether or not there should be a moratorium should be place on clinical practices of genome editing. In it a summary of a piece from a NPR report is used that includes quotes from researchers. Many are not happy with the recent Chinese study done and believe a moratorium should be put up because they believe the technology is not accurate enough to be used on human embryos yet.

Ran, F. A., Hsu, P. D., Lin, C., Gootenberg, J. S., Konermann, S., Trevino, A. E., . . . Zhang, F. (10 October, 2013). Double nicking by RNA-guided CRISPR Cas9 for enhanced genome editing specificity. Cell, 154(6), September 4, 2015.

                   In this article, the authors are reporting their findings for an experiment they did where they were attempting to develop a more accurate technique for CRISPR/Cas9. Currently it can cause unwanted mutations in the process of trying to edit the desired location. In the article they also explain how CRISPR/Cas9 works which is useful for understanding the controversy over gene editing and the ethics.

Tatlow, D. K. (2015, ). A scientific ethical divide between china and west. New York Times

                   Tatlow writes about the recent Chinese study where they attempted to fix genetically defective embryos. The study did not have a very successful rate and also received a lot of criticism because it may or may not have crossed the ethical line. Tatlow also addresses cultural differences that can lead to the West and East's different views on what is ethically acceptable. 

Reflection:

       After reading my classmates annotated bibliography posts I realized that I could have written more for the annotations. I could have gone more in depth and expressed more opinions instead of just summarizing the important ideas from the articles. For my next draft I will try to add more analysis so that I won't have to reread every single article when writing my controversy analysis. The annotated bibliography will remind me what I wanted and I can just go look for the quotes I need instead of rereading the whole entire article. While looking at other citation styles it seemed like they are all fairly similar. Some require URLs and others don't. There is small differences between all of them which just seems silly. It would make so much more sense just to have a universal citation format. That way there is less confusion and less citation errors. 

The links for the blogs I commented on are:

http://lekhasword.blogspot.com/2015/09/9-bibliography-draft.html?showComment=1442006101153#c858203774322125265

http://uamichaels.blogspot.com/2015/09/annotated-bibliography-sophie-brown.html?showComment=1442004922507