The Next Course of Action
WWCD?
If I can imagine a world where I am the CEO of CRISPR Therapeutics, I would suggest the company take more attempts at getting the general public involved. Many scientists and officials have been commenting on the situation but it was hard to find data on average everyday people and what they think about the advances being made in detail. CT has followed many precautions in their own practice to make sure they don’t cause more harm than help, but there is only so much they can do on a national or even global scale as their research gets into more hands than they can control. There are many courses of action that CT can take in order to get the general public more involved and educated on this topic, whether that be through social media influence or more interviews being conducted on patient success stories.
A great example of this is a CNN interview of a 15 year old boy who underwent CRISPR gene editing just 2 years ago named Johnny Lubin. The interview was conducted in December of last year and describes how he underwent gene editing to treat his sickle cell disease. He has been free from having pain crises for over a year. Changing the public perception and showing live examples of those who have benefitted from this technology can prove to be extremely beneficial in improving the the approach people take to the ethics of the situation.
In terms of ethical frameworks, my reasoning falls more under the Teleological Consequentialist framework. There is both ethical egoism and utilitarianism in mind when forming my logic and course of action. The self-interest of the company and public opinion are both my main concerns when making my decision because they are intertwined. If the public opinion of CT and their technology is horrible, the business may not succeed because of how impactful their influence on shareholders and politicians can be. The greater good that is done at CT and the potential good that can be done has just begun, and it cannot continue without acting out of self-interest that can benefit others down the road. A Utilitarian mindset about the CRISPR technology and its potential puts us in a separate perspective that isn’t as cynical as some perspectives we’ve seen. The good that can be created now and for generations to come because of CRISPR is immense. Since there are currently no negative outcomes that I have found and it is all speculation about the potential harm, the cost-benefit analysis of CRISPR Therapeutics and their practices is extremely positive. The actions being done everyday at CT not only moves the world towards a higher overall happiness, but real change that we can see in people’s lives physically occurs as well. I believe this framework provides better insight to my solution than other frameworks because of how new the dilemma is, its unique nature, and its potential scale.
The other frameworks are heavily based on historical examples and expressions of those frameworks in action because the Deontological framework is based on the action and Virtue is based on the actor. This situation I feel needs to be looked at through the concept. There is not too much to go off of except for ideas and plans, so I felt that analyzing the concept behind CRISPR Therapeutics and their moral dilemmas would be best done on a scale of consequences. Another framework that I think may have a possibility of working with my reasoning is the Deontological framework.
Sources:
Advocating for greater public involvement and education through transparent communication can positively influence public opinion. Your suggestion reflects a proactive strategy to engage the public, increasing transparency and generating discussions about the societal consequences of CRISPR. These activities are critical for increasing public trust, addressing concerns, and promoting responsible genetic engineering innovation.
ReplyDeleteBy emphasizing the importance of public involvement and education, particularly through initiatives like social media influence and patient success stories, you highlight the potential benefits of changing public perceptions through real-life examples such as Johnny Lubin's interview on CNN. However, a key question arises regarding how CRISPR Therapeutics can effectively balance self-interest with the greater good, especially within the context of ethical frameworks like Teleological Consequentialism.
ReplyDeleteOne question to consider is how CRISPR Therapeutics can ensure that their actions align with ethical principles and regulatory frameworks while promoting the widespread benefits of their technology. Additionally, how can the company navigate the complexities of differing ethical perspectives, such as those provided by frameworks like Deontology and Utilitarianism, to establish a robust ethical framework for their practices? Engaging in ongoing dialogue with stakeholders and collaborating with regulatory authorities may be essential steps in navigating the moral complexities of CRISPR technology and ensuring responsible innovation for the benefit of society.
I agree that getting the public to support CT and keeping everybody in "the know" would be very beneficial. The public seeing the success story on CNN where a kid was helped with the new technology shows the potential to help a large amount of people. You describe how CT can utilize a teleological framework and possibly a deontological approach. Do you think CT should use a mixed framework solution in order to have a balance in gaining traction or should they focus on one?
ReplyDeleteDefinitely. Rarely in my life have I seen one framework work in every scenario that you try to use it in, so a mixed solution would be the best way to contextualize the problems and find ethical solutions while they are still gaining traction.
Delete