Gene Editing

Does ability to remove defects from embryos signal opportunity or peril?

This week, the journal Nature published a report on a first in medical science.

Researchers at the Oregon Health and Science University along with collaborators in California, China and South Korea were able to edit the genome of early-stage viable human embryos to remove genes linked to a heart defect that could lead to a newborn’s sudden death. This means that if the embryos were allowed to develop into infants, they would be born without the disease and would not possess the potential to transmit the defective gene to future generations.

Research continues and the procedure is a long way from being implemented in embryos that would be implanted for birth. But scientists say Oregon team’s work is the first step in editing a variety of genetic diseases and birth defects before a child is born.

Of course, while some are hailing the procedure as a breakthrough, others are not so enthused. They worry about unforeseen consequences of human gene editing, as well as parents working with doctors to create “designer babies,” with certain mental and physical attributes, even down to hair and eye color. Some also oppose experiments on embryos in general, regarding it as akin to abortion. And there is also the question of just how far man should go into what many see as God’s territory.

We want to know what you think. Do you consider this an important medical breakthrough that could benefit mankind, or are are you opposed to such research and worry where it could lead?

Send your response (50 words maximum) to opinion@texarkanagazette.com by Wednesday, Aug. 9. You can also mail your response to the Texarkana Gazette Friday Poll, at P.O. Box 621, Texarkana, TX 75504 or drop it off at our office, 101 E Broad St., Texarkana, Ark. Be sure to include your name, address and phone number. We will print as many responses as we can in next Friday’s paper.

Last Week: Chip Implants?

Last week’s question was about a Wisconsin company that announced it will offer employees the option of having a computer chip implanted under the skin of the hand. Once implanted, the chip would allow access to workspaces without using ID cards and offer other perks, such as the ability to pay for snacks with the wave of a hand. Would you consider a microchip implant that could make your daily life more convenient, or are you absolutely opposed?

This truth is apparent, good or bad results of all technology depends on the character of those who controls it. (e.g., media, weaponry, drugs, etc.). “Mark of the Beast”? Not until the Beast/Anti-Christ is in control, claiming to be God, only then will this “mark” be implemented, and those deceived will accept it.—D.H.M., Texarkana, Ark. From www.facebook.com/texarkanagazette Mark of the beast? Oh my, haven’t heard that one yet. Where do people come up with these things?

I’m pretty sure it doesn’t say to beware of quick electronic ID systems as they are the mark of Satan. You can bend almost any verse in the Bible to suit your needs

(or your objective) but that doesn’t make it anywhere near right.

Wow. I’m ok with it. An end to identity theft. We chip our dogs and consider that brilliant. What’s up?

I feel that it being an implant is a bit harsh. I’m a Christian, and don’t believe it’s the mark of the beast, because the Bible says the Mark will be on your forehead or palm of your hand. The idea of it being an implant is just too much for people, but yet it’s okay for dogs to be implanted. Are ID tags/badges failing? It definitely needs to be removable for people to feel more comfortable about it. Also, the whole privacy issue shouldn’t be a matter here. We signed privacy away when we decided to get a cellphone or computer. It records every single thing you Google and so much more.

And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads: And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name. (Revelation 13:16-17) Even if you don’t believe in God and the Bible, why would you want something so invasive in your body? It serves no health benefit and no telling what else can be done with it.

I think people will tell you anything to get you to do what they want. As for me make the chip into a ring that one can wear. Then it can be taken off at will.

So, can someone tell me what makes this implant THE mark of the beast while others aren’t? After all, you can’t see it. Or do any implants make you marked? Knees, stents, teeth, eye, microchip? Do you refuse all of these?

It’s all about control. If you get a fine but you want to dispute it … tough, they take it anyway. Wi-Fi is dangerous to your health so why on earth would you want it in your body. Someone could walk past you with a scanner and steal everything. Just a few reasons why these things are very dangerous.

I’m worried that it will become mandatory eventually. Big Brother doesn’t want you to have any privacy whatsoever. However, I don’t believe in any of this “mark of the beast” nonsense people are talking about.

I oppose and just think this could lead to debit chips which line directly up with the buying and selling part of the mark.

They can put one in my body after it is cold and dead.

No way and it is the mark of the beast they are just saying its voluntary.

I’m good with a badge. If it works, why change to something that leaves a scar and is a bit controversial. No need.

Absolutely opposed! Mark of the beast. Not today, Satan.

Absolutely opposed to it!

I’m okay with it!

Mmmm … NO!

Negative.

No not now or ever.