Genome Editing Deontology and Utilitarianism Discussion Solution

Genome Editing Deontology and Utilitarianism Discussion

Table of Contents

Order ID# 45178248544XXTG457	Plagiarism Level: 0-0.5%	Writer Classification: PhD competent
Style: APA/MLA/Harvard/Chicago	Delivery: Minimum 3 Hours	Revision: Permitted
Sources: 4-6	Course Level: Masters/University College	Guarantee Status: 96-99%

Instructions

Genome Editing Deontology and Utilitarianism Discussion

I need help with a Biology question. All explanations and answers will be used to help

me learn.

(1) State whether you are a deontologist or a utilitarian.

(2) Now, you’ve been called upon to make a decision about whether or not genome

editing in the case of disease is ethical. From the perspective of whatever ethical theory,

you’ve chosen, tell us the following:

(a) Do you think that it is ethical to permit somatic genome editing in the case of

disease? Explain why you believe this. Be sure to use the theory you have chosen

(deontology or utilitarianism) as part of your explanation.

(b) If you DO NOT think it is ethical to permit somatic genome editing in the case of

disease, do you think there are any instances in which genome editing in humans is

ethical? If you DO think that it is ethical to permit somatic genome editing in the case of

disease, do you think there should be limits to its use? Explain why.

 Biology and Society Non Maleficence Analysis

In Module 3, Lecture 1, we learned about the four core principles of human subjects

research (autonomy, beneficence, nonmaleficence, and justice) .For this assignment,

consider what you read in Perusall activity by Johnston and Baylis (2004). Johnston and

Baylis describe an older case of genome editing therapy for a disease called X-linked

SCID (Severe Combined Immune Deficiency). Following a novel gene therapy for their

X-linked SCID, two children in the clinical trial developed leukaemia. This article

provides a case study of risks associated with genome editing for biomedical therapies.

Johnston and Baylis article: "Gene Therapy:Two Steps Forward, one Step back"

In at least 250 words (total):

(1) Identify one of the four core principles of human subjects research at stake with this

case. Explain why you think that the core principle you have chosen applies to this

case.

Genome Editing Deontology and Utilitarianism Discussion

(2) Using the case describe in the Johnston and Baylis article, do the following:

(a) Identify an ethical problem in the case. Explain why you believe that this is an ethical

problem.

(b) Identify ONE interested individual or institution (stakeholder) in this case. Explain

why you believe that this individual or institution is a stakeholder in this case.

Genome Editing Deontology and Utilitarianism Discussion

RUBRIC
Excellent Quality 95-100%	Introduction 45-41 points The background and significance of the problem and a clear statement of the research purpose is provided. The search history is mentioned.		Literature Support 91-84  points The background and significance of the problem and a clear statement of the research purpose is provided. The search history is mentioned.			Methodology 58-53 points Content is well-organized with headings for each slide and bulleted lists to group related material as needed. Use of font, color, graphics, effects, etc. to enhance readability and presentation content is excellent. Length requirements of 10 slides/pages or less is met.
Average Score 50-85%	40-38 points More depth/detail for the background and significance is needed, or the research detail is not clear. No search history information is provided.		83-76  points Review of relevant theoretical literature is evident, but there is little integration of studies into concepts related to problem. Review is partially focused and organized. Supporting and opposing research are included. Summary of information presented is included. Conclusion may not contain a biblical integration.			52-49  points Content is somewhat organized, but no structure is apparent. The use of font, color, graphics, effects, etc. is occasionally detracting to the presentation content. Length requirements may not be met.
Poor Quality 0-45%	37-1 points The background and/or significance are missing. No search history information is provided.		75-1 points Review of relevant theoretical literature is evident, but there is no integration of studies into concepts related to problem. Review is partially focused and organized. Supporting and opposing research are not included in the summary of information presented. Conclusion does not contain a biblical integration.			48-1 points There is no clear or logical organizational structure. No logical sequence is apparent. The use of font, color, graphics, effects etc. is often detracting to the presentation content. Length requirements may not be met
You Can Also Place the Order at www.perfectacademic.com/orders/ordernow or www.crucialessay.com/orders/ordernow Genome Editing Deontology and Utilitarianism Discussion

Genome Editing Deontology and Utilitarianism Discussion

PLACE THE ORDER WITH US TODAY AND GET A PERFECT SCORE!!!