# data[].attributes.headline
To what extent is the use CRISPR-Cas9 for genetic engineering ethical?

# data[].attributes.subject
To what extent is the use CRISPR-Cas9 for genetic engineering ethical?

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7129066/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How CRISPR Is Changing Cancer Research and Treatment

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
CRISPR is a fairly new and highly precise gene editing tool that is changing cancer research and treatment. Researchers are using CRISPR to study how cancer grows and to find new potential treatments. CRISPR-based therapies are also being tested in trials of people with cancer.

# data[].attributes.headline
Previous history of distrust with genetically modified organisms

# data[].attributes.subject
Previous history of distrust with genetically modified organisms

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The negative halo of G.M.O.s doesn't just affect how we feel toward them; it also impacts how we evaluate their attending risks and benefits. As early as 1979, the psychologist Paul Slovic, who has been studying our perceptions of risk since the nineteen-fifties, pointed out that, when it comes to new, unknown technologies, data always loses out to emotion. For instance, people judge the risks of radiation from nuclear power plants to be much higher than those from medical X-rays-a conclusion that is not backed up by the data and is at odds with the advice of most risk experts-simply because nuclear power plants seem more foreign and inspire greater dread. What's more, when we're in a state of heightened emotion, we don't weigh risks and benefits equally-risks take on an outsized impact and benefits begin to pale in comparison.

Once an initial opinion is formed, Slovic continues, it is very difficult to shift it with new evidence: the exact same piece of information-say, additional data on the effects of G.M.O.s on a natural ecosystem-can be interpreted in opposing ways, depending on your starting point. The public reaction to a study about the effects of genetically modified cotton on the environment bears out Slovic's logic. After comparing environmental effects of non-modified to transgenic cotton, the researchers concluded that, while both types of crops had equally negative effects on arthropod populations, the G.M. cotton in fact had a higher end yield per each use of pesticide. When the results were reported, however, opponents of G.M.O.s tended to focus on the negative impact of the genetically modified crop, while failing to note the relevant comparisons. They concluded that genetic modification hurts the natural environment.

Slovic argues that three things stand in the way of a logical, analytical risk assessment of new technologies: our level of dread, our degree of familiarity (or lack thereof), and the number of people we believe the technology will affect. G.M.O.s are at the extreme of that scale, high in dread and possible impact, while being low in familiarity: though an estimated eighty per cent of packaged food in the U.S. contains G.M.O.s, only thirty-five per cent of the population thinks G.M.O.s are safe, according to one recent estimate, and only a quarter say they understand what genetic engineering of food actually entails.

It doesn't help, either, that people tend to mistrust many of the sources of G.M.O. data. In addition to perceptions of risk, one of the single greatest elements that effects our acceptance of new technologies is trust. If we don't trust a source implicitly, the quality of its information will make no difference in our evaluation; if we lack confidence in the entity doing the presenting our minds will discredit and discount it so quickly, we may as well not have seen it at all. And we tend not to trust the large corporations who tend to produce G.M.O.s.

Does that mean that G.M.O.s will always be subject to emotionally driven instead of data-driven assessments? Not necessarily. Time is on the side of increased rationality: the longer that genetic-modification technologies are in use, the more likely we are to begin to incorporate them into our sense of the familiar. As children are born into a world where genetic modification is more widespread, they may even begin to see it as more natural-and hence, be able to judge its impact with greater objectivity.

While the creep of familiarity might slowly breed acceptance, a more powerful driver is sheer need: in the 2005 Maastricht study, the experimenters discovered that if a product was perceived as more necessary-butter, for instance, as opposed to fish fingers-people were more willing to accept genetically modified alternatives. Necessity, it seems, can trump naturalness. This is true even for the people producing genetically modified food: the orange growers in Harmon's were resistant to the idea of G.M. oranges, until they were confronted by the possibility of having no oranges left to grow. How much do you need that morning glass of orange juice?

Maria Konnikova is the author of the New York Times best-seller "Mastermind: How to Think Like Sherlock Holmes." She has a Ph.D. in Psychology from Columbia University._
Photograph by Mark Elias/Bloomberg/Getty.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
G.M.O.s suffer from a reverse halo effect, whereby one negative-seeming attribute (unnaturalness, in this case) skews over-all perception.

# data[].attributes.headline
Potential Problems with using CRISPR-Cas

# data[].attributes.subject
Potential Problems with using CRISPR-Cas

# data[].attributes.body
Rich people abusing their power to gain some kind of an advantage over others somehow

People abusing the new technology to edit themselves or their progeny

Possible genetic diseases caused by mutations

People consenting to being experimented on without knowing the implications

Environmental Destruction

# data[].attributes.headline
Sub Argument: CRISPR technologies should be used for its potential applications in a wide variety of fields

# data[].attributes.subject
Sub Argument: CRISPR technologies should be used for its potential applications in a wide variety of fields

# data[].attributes.headline
Differences between CRISPR and previous genetic engineering biotechnology

# data[].attributes.subject
Differences between CRISPR and previous genetic engineering biotechnology

# data[].attributes.body
https://innovativegenomics.org/crispr-made-simple/crispr-health/

# data[].attributes.headline
Sub Argument: Biotechnology leads to bioethical issues 

# data[].attributes.subject
Sub Argument: Biotechnology leads to bioethical issues 

# data[].attributes.headline
Sub Argument: How much should biotechnology be used to affect our industries and how would it affect the average citizen?

# data[].attributes.subject
Sub Argument: How much should biotechnology be used to affect our industries and how would it affect the average citizen?

# data[].attributes.body
Genetic Engineering eradicating genetic diseases

GMO could help with food shortages all around the world

Examples: editing cows to produce more meat, editing crops to yield more product, creating more resilient organisms that are easier to take care of

Helping cure cancer

# data[].attributes.body
If editing our crops or animals results in a mutation that wasn't intended, then that could cause a shift in the food chain. Possibly irreversibly changing our ecosystem.

Depending on how widespread the usage of biotechnology is, many jobs could become irrelevant due to increased crop production or efficiency.