Stakeholder #1

Oh hey, that’s Greg! He always wears collared shirts. Not the short sleeved ¼ button polo, but the full long-sleeve button down. They are always so crisp and almost sharp to the eyes because of how smooth and well-ironed they are. They are never more vibrant than a pink rose, but they are never darker than the silence and emptiness that a cave at night brings you. This is the color that never makes you think twice about what you just saw. His slacks are nice and pressed and shoes are always shiny. He looks good, but not too good.

Abesamis, Sonny. "Business Casual" 08/06/14 via Flickr
Attribution 2.0 Generic

            What about Greg’s hair? You see, Greg has nice hair. But it is not too nice. His hair is not smooth and luscious like the L’Oréal commercials, nor is it rough like dog’s hair. Greg has a conservative hairstyle. He smells fresh and clean like Old Spice but does not appear to have doused himself in Aqua Di Gio. He smells good, but not too good.

            Greg walks with a medium pace and has a slight bounce to his step. He has a welcoming expression on his face as he walks. Once you meet him, you will notice how normal his voice sounds. It is not deep and raspy like a smoker’s or high like a child’s; it is just there. He speaks with enthusiasm and intuition like most Christians do. He is very kind but also very opinionated. He stands for what he believes is right and will sometimes forget his manners when arguing for his point.

2. A. "The technology is amazing! the problem i have with it is the Humans that would use it. if you think it would only be used for curing the incurable and not something like Gattaca and the movie Soldier i have a bridge to sell you. Humans is charge or their own evolution...no thanks!"

B. "People have already discovered various CRISPR-Cas9 relatives with improved properties. Another one comes out every month. All that progress means very littler as far as human germline modification is concerned. This is because, as always, you cannot count on animal results translating to people. Someone has to try out every one of those alternatives on an appropriate subject before we know whether any of them will produce a superbaby.

Ergo, either someone does a high-throughput screen with little future people in it or we will never know which of those many alternatives will actually produce designer offspring on demand."

C. "Saying that makes you feel good doesn't it ? That's your eternal master ordering you to do it, You just think you have a choice.

Meanwhile it's scaring some others into being against it to assure our survival in case people like you do it and turn into deformed retarded creatures.

It's very careful that way."

1. Honestly speaking, these claims are not very valid and carry little to no merit. This is because none of them provide any evidence or reasoning behind their assertions. The first states that we will be in charge of our own evolution and will create super bots for the army. This position is based solely on emotion and goes to extreme measurements to try and prove his or her point about the dangers of CRISPR. This author has no credentials whatsoever.

2. The next comment has slightly more validity to it. This is because he/she discusses how just because we can treat diseases in some animals does not mean we can treat them in humans. This can be true, although he or she never backs up their claim with evidence. They attempt to use factual evidence at first but then ruin the entire thing by mentioning the possibility of a super baby. This statement has no factual evidence as to whether this is even possible; it is a mere assumption. Their statements carry little weight and they have no credentials.

3. The last comment is purely emotional and makes no attempt to provide any factual evidence whatsoever. They have no validity or weight in their claim that some people will be careful about not doing it because they don’t want to turn in to mutants. Sure, there is the possibility of the genetic coding going wrong, but there is no factual evidence that this has happened. This individual has no credentials in saying this purely subjective and emotionally-based statement.  

4. The researchers, doctors, farmers, and diseased people would all disagree with the moral-driven Christians. All of these people want science to advance so that it can improve the human condition. They believe that genetic engineering is beneficial because of the possibilities it has for curing diseases and improving our crops. The ones for genetic engineering would argue that curing a disease is a much beneficial than letting nature take its course.

The comments based on moral would be similar to those made by political figures. This is because the political figures want to side with the people and be well liked. They wouldn’t want to be disliked among the general population because that would mean not getting reelected. The people who believe genetic engineering is wrong because you are essentially changing nature and almost deciding the human condition. Again, scientists would agree that improving the health of individuals is much more important than keeping the morals of society.