Pro Case – 1st Draft

Resolved: Public health services should expand access to gene-editing technologies

Observation
1. Gene-editing technology has been a controversial because people worry that any use
of this technology will lead to a slippery slope to designer babies and “playing God”,
which tugs at people’s ethical standards. However, ethics are evolutional: take
polygamy, for example. Our standard for ethics change overtime and no one has the
correct answer to this ethical issue. A debate that revolves around hypothetical ethical
cases will reach no end.
2. Scientists and researchers across the globe are already putting huge investments in
gene-editing technologies. Continuous advancement in this field is inevitable. Thus,
instead of debating whether or not gene-editing technology is ethical, this debate
should prioritize how to approach the resolution’s main subject: public health
services. [0]

Definitions
 Public health services are government public health agencies that focus on
prevention from disease through health promotion that is population-based, as
opposed individual-based. [1] [2]
 According to Publichealth.org, access is the extent to which a public health service is
readily available to those in need. [3]
 The word “should” indicates duty. (Oxford Dictionary)

Combining these definitions, pro argues that it is the duty of government health
agencies to ensure that population-based, gene-editing health services are readily
available to the general public.
Two main ways to meet this obligation are:
1. Limiting patents or other IPR controls that give power to private interests.
2. Subsidizing more research with government funds and establishing more
regulations to the kinds of research conducted through direct supervision of the
science community.
These acts of the government will ensure that the future of gene-editing technologies
is not driven by profit and privately controlled, but that contributes to the public good.

Framework: Since the word “public” stresses equality for all, and “health” stresses
mental and physical wellbeing, if pro proves that the fulfillment of government health
agencies’ duty brings equality and saves lives, then we shall win this debate.

Contention 1: Equality.
Claim A: Direct governmental funds and supervision on gene-editing research
ensures greater safety.
 In the 1970s, due to controversial abortion, the US government banned use of
federal funds to review research on embryos, driving infertility research and treatment
into the private sector. Thus, there are currently no U.S. laws governing the type of
research that is done on human embryos with private money. [7]
 And in 2001, a private company called Advanced Cell Technology announced that it
had cloned human embryos from adult cells for research purposes. President Bush
immediately urged Congress to outlaw cloning, in fear that the private research would
go out of control. [6]

Nevertheless, because of this ongoing ban to supervise embryo research, US

authorities are currently unable to control gene-editing trials, whereas in other
countries, some private trials “would be prohibited entirely.”

 Impact: Thus, in order to subject gene-editing research to a regulatory framework

that would establish “safeguards against inappropriate expansion”, it is the
government’s duty to expand access to gene editing by providing more government
funds and supervising the research activities more closely, so as to ensure it to be used
for the public good. [8]

Claim B: Limiting the use of patents allow greater accessibility.

Current patent laws skew biomedical research to yield high profits for private
investors instead of addressing public health needs.
 Currently, 21% of the global disease burden, including diseases like malaria, receives
only 0.31% of all funds devoted to health research.
 More than 1 billion people—the overwhelming majority from the developing world—
suffer from tropical diseases – their treatments inadequate or nonexistent.
 Of the 1,556 new pharmaceutical compounds that appeared on the market between
1975 and 2004, just twenty of these drugs—1.3%—were for tropical diseases and
tuberculosis. [4]
The reason behind? – Inventors cannot make money by providing cheap
treatments to those in need.
Moreover, the Broad Institute has recently won an epic patent battle against UC
Berkeley over rights to Crispr-Cas9 gene editing, and legal experts predict that the
chances for Broad to allow “wide, open access” to this technology are “vanishingly
slim.” [5] If the status quo continues, “Only the wealthiest can be optimistic of
benefiting from CRISPR.” [4]

 Impact: Thus, in order to frame the development of gene editing around global R&D
(Research & Development) and use CRISPR to address the public health needs, as
opposed to making this profit-driven and unaffordable for marginalized populations,
the government must limit patent use by expanding its health services to gene editing.
o The profit-driven development of vaccinations for tropical diseases
must not be repeated.
 Contention 2: Saving lives.

Claim A: Gene-editing technology can cure monogenic diseases and malaria.

Firstly, gene editing can help cure inborn monogenic diseases caused by mutations in
a single gene.

An example is sickle cell anemia, which clogs blood vessels and blocks the delivery
of oxygen, causing pain, vision problems, and delayed physical growth. A 2016 report
for the American Society of Hematology concluded that gene editing could
potentially provide a permanent cure.

 Impact: By addressing the initial, unreasonably predestined inequality of those born

with monogenic diseases, ridding them of diseases they do not deserve in the first
place, gene editing provides people with more equal opportunity.

Secondly, gene editing may be the solution to malaria.

CRISPR could potentially eliminate the mosquito species spreading malaria by

sterilizing the female mosquitoes, according to the Wyss Institute at Harvard.
Experiments have shown that this CRISPR-drive sterilization reached “100%
prevalence within 7–11 generations while progressively reducing egg production to
the point of total population collapse.”

 Impact: Malaria kills almost half a million people worldwide each year. By curing
this disease closely associated with poverty, it could help millions to break themselves
out of the poverty cycle.
Claim B: Gene editing would expand upon current GMO innovation and make
further progress.
And rapidly changing environments and new diseases devastate agriculture
unexpectedly all the time. Gene editing is a proven first step towards combating these
effects, especially in a world of rapidly evolving climate change. Ground breaking
new research in agricultural sectors prove that editing could massively improve food
quality and help adapt it to future catastrophes

https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/rural/2018/10/chief-plant-and-food-scientist-
excited-by-gene-editing-prospect.html//k-ng]
Plant and food scientists are excited by the possibility of gene editing for New Zealand's
primary industries. A new discussion paper from the Royal Society Te Apārangi suggests
gene editing could bring a range of benefits for the agriculture, horticulture and forestry
sectors, zoning in on apples, mānuka, ryegrass, wilding pines, and dairy cows. The scientists
calling for genetic modification in New Zealand NZ needs to rethink genetic engineering
stance - experts New Zealand has historically had a conservative approach to gene editing,
but the report says embracing gene editing technology could allow us to create disease-
resistant mānuka honey and remove certain allergens from milk. The report is being
welcomed by Chief Scientist at Plant and Food Research, Professor Richard
Newcomb. "We are excited by gene editing technology because it allows incredibly precise
changes to the genetic makeup of an organism without necessarily introducing any foreign
DNA," he said. "As our climate, environment and population changes, gene editing could
help us to adapt plants through pinpoint changes to key genes which control desirable traits,"
Professor Newcomb said. He said while breeding plants with the right combinations of
genetic characteristics to resist pests, be more productive or to taste better takes
decades today, it could be achieved in much less time with gene editing and with
more predictable outcomes. "While gene editing offers lots of promise, its successful use to
breed better plants needs to be proven by more science not only to understand the benefits but
the potential risks associated with the technology," said Professor Newcomb. "As such we
believe it is timely to consider having a national discussion here on gene editing in New
Zealand for farming, food, pest control and conservation," he said.

[0] https://jme.bmj.com/content/30/4/366
[1] (“The Role of Public Health in Ensuring Healthy Communities,” Policy Statement
Database, January 1, https://www.apha.org/policies-and-advocacy/public-health-
policy-statements/policy-database/2014/07/30/10/48/the-role-of-public-health-in-
ensuring-healthy-communities
[2] (“BASIC DUTIES OF LOCAL HEALTH DEPARTMENTS,”
http://publichealthne.org/phan-sections/public-health-education-
section/marketing/core-functions-of-public-health/)
[3] (“BASIC DUTIES OF LOCAL HEALTH DEPARTMENTS,”
http://publichealthne.org/phan-sections/public-health-education-
section/marketing/core-functions-of-public-health/)
[4] https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1000208
[5] https://www.wired.com/story/crisprs-epic-patent-fight-changed-the-course-of-
biology/
[6] https://www.nature.com/articles/3301744.pdf?origin=ppub
[7] http://time.com/4379503/crispr-scientists-edit-dna/
[8] https://www.nap.edu/read/24623/chapter/2#7