You've watched various videos on genetics. Do you feel optimistic or pessimistic about the personalization of medicine (at the genetic level)? What are some pros? Cons? Try to refer to at least two different videos in your response.
I feel pessimistic about the personalization of medicine at the genetic level. Although my reasoning may not be the most rational my opinion is that it takes so long for these things to happen I feel like they may never come about certainly not in my lifetime. I realize that this type of thing doesn't happen over night but I believe that no matter what you do to a person in this case personalized medicine at the genetic level there is going to be things that backfire and go wrong. Maybe these things that backfire are no big deal and shouldn't hinder our progress but I feel that when those things occur it causes researchers and people of back the research financially to pull back what they are doing only adding years to the process of this being a possibility to the public. Now the prospect of some the personalized medicine is very exciting. An example of pro of personalized medicine would be what they talk about in the TED video they talk about using the crisper technique to remove DNA of HIV from infected cells which if it is able to be successful it would be the greatest discovery in medicine ever. To counter that they have done testing using the crisper technique and they were able to change the color of white mice to be black mice with one slight alteration in the DNA and otherwise the mouse is normal that's great but it is untested on humans and we can never be 100 percent sure that it will ever be safe. Mice don't have all the properties of humans do obviously so it would be difficult to propose to start doing research and trials on humans based on what they were able to do with lab rats.
Doudna, J. (2015). We can now edit our DNA but let’s do so wisely [Video file]. Retrieved from https://www.ted.com/talks/jennifer_doudna_we_can_now_edit_our_dna_but_let_s_do_it_wisely#t-573653
After our studies regarding genetic enhancement and genetic engineering, I feel cautiously optimistic about the positive uses for the scientific/ medical breakthroughs and pessimistic about the ways I know it will be misused. The pros for the personalization is the opportunity to treat once fatal diseases effectively, and to possibly cure those and other debilitating diseases. In the first film, “Cancer- Emperor of all maladies” much focus is upon the technology starting in the 1970s that led to the 1990s invention of Gleevec for CML. Gleevec has been an effective leukemia treatment as has helped to prolong, improve the quality of, and even save many lives of people with CML. This is a positive use of genetic medicine. Another pro would be the use of CRISPER technology, as highlighted by geneticist Jennifer Doudna in “We can edit our DNA. But let’s do it wisely”, to cure diseases like HIV. In trials in Philadelphia, they were able to remove the HIV virus from human DNA cells with the CRISPER technology. Another positive application would be, as mentioned, the cure of Sickle Cell Anemia and Huntington’s. These are all very medically ethical and moral applications of genetic engineering.
On the other hand, as with all positive, must come negatives. The cons of the personalization of medicine occur when that technology is used in a selfish, non-virtuous method where people and medicine are used as a means only to make others rich or famous, and are not performed out of goodwill with ethically moral intentions. I was concerned when Doudna referred to the use of CRISPER technology already on human embryos in China. As she mentioned, the use of this technology to engineer humans to have a specific eye color, be a certain height, or even to have strong bones or to be free of cardiovascular disease is ethically unsound. Like the lab mice that were engineered to be black instead of white, there will be humans with the wrong motivations, using it to create faster, thinner, more attractive, healthier humans, instead of letting nature take its course, and letting the future events happen as they are meant to. An even more disturbing con, is when humans use life-saving technology from these processes to get rich, simply because they know people want the cure enough to pay whatever they demand. Hence, Gleevec, that leukemia drug invented in the 1990s; companies know that it is important enough to some people who want to live, they will pay any cost to get it. It was the focus of many reports in fall of 2015 because of this. Gleevec costs $159 to make for that year supply, but due to the demand that year, the mark-up was as high as 100,000%. This $159 supply of medicine was going to cost $160,000 in the US, $31,867 in the UK and $8,000 in Brazil. It is this kind of unethical medical piracy by people like these drug manufacturers, along with people wanting to unethically alter humans before they are born, that create the cons and make genetic medicine and the personalization of medicine ethically questionable.
Doudna, J. (2015). We can now edit our DNA but let’s do so wisely [Video file]. Retrieved from https://www.ted.com/talks/jennifer_doudna_we_can_now_edit_our_dna_but_let_s_do_it_wisely#t-573653
Brand-Ballard, J., Degrazia, D., Mappes, T. (2011). Biomedical Ethics 7th ed. New York, NY. MCGraw Hill.
Knox, R. (2015, September 25). Cancer drug mark-ups: Year of gleevec costs $159 to make but sells for $106k. Retrieved from http://commonhealth.wbur.org/2015/09/cancer-drug-cost
Burns, K. (2015) Cancer- the emperor of all maladies [Video file]. Retrieved from http://www.pbs.org/kenburns/cancer-emperor-of-all-maladies/about-film/credits/
The mark up on these drugs is what truely boggles my mind after watching these videos. We are trying to save the lives of people that have been affected by these illnesses. Then once we create a drug we dangle it in front of them like a carrot on a stick. Without insane amounts of money these people cannot afford the drugs they need.
I agree, it is ridiculous the amount of money these drugs cost! I understand there is large amounts of money involved for research, testing, and production, etc. but the profit to be made makes me sad for humanity.
I feel optimistic,but at this new level of preventative medicine, at the genetic level, it feels a bit scary. I say that because of the implication that new advances can have on humanity as a whole. For example, discovery of vaccines have all but wiped out diseases, like polio, that were well known to our ancestors. This breakthrough has been championed and led to further investigation of new vaccines, to eradicate more and more diseases that once were seen as common, yet serious, childhood diseases. MMR is now a common vaccine instead of common diseases. The new preventive medicine is at the genetic level. This is definitely exciting to think that advanced science can enable researchers to learn patterns in the complexities of cancer cells. This is what researchers in the cancer world are striving after - to find cancer's Achilles heel, its vulnerability. Scientists have recently learned that cancer cells thought to be highly diversified have worm holes of connection, such that may link, for example, breast cancer to leukemia. These findings are groundbreaking because now more targeted therapies can be used not only for the cancer that is known, but to predict where and how it will show up in another part of the body. Today, through research and advances prevention, early detection and targeted therapies have slowed the rise in cancer tremendously. As for further genetic medicine, the 'crisper' technique shines on the horizon. It is the opinion that within the next ten years, we will see application of clinical trials and possibly some approved therapies using this new form of preventative medicine. It is exciting to think that this gene editing technology could cut out diseases such as HIV, Huntington's, Sickle Cell Anemia. But to further this technology to the 'engineered humans' brings an ethical side that the scientists world is asked to bring pause to. Knowing how this type of technology can fall into the hands of large companies and investors with dollar signs in their eyes, this falls on the cusp of shaky ground. Not likely to slow down, the ever advancing technology will provide for us the ability to live in a world of 'designer humans'.
Doudna, J. (2015). We can now edit our DNA but let’s do so wisely [Video file]. Retrieved from https://www.ted.com/talks/jennifer_doudna_we_can_now_edit_our_dna_but_let_s_do_it_wisely#t-573653
Burns, K. (2015) Cancer- the emperor of all maladies [Video file]. Retrieved from http://www.pbs.org/kenburns/cancer-emperor-of-all-maladies/about-film/credits/
Great optimistic post, Gloria! While vaccinations have been life-saving, there is much speculation often that bio companies release them early (before they can test to see how effective they'll be) to reduce panic from new epidemics like Zika. There is also speculation often that they are big business for the bio/ drug companies. Do you have a take on that?
We live in an amazing time that we are able to see the technological advances such as the crisper technique and all of the vaccinations for diseases that some people still living remember were a death sentence. I have so much hope for the future of disease treatment, but with hesitation. Everyday we hear in the news that someone has used something to their advantages and ruins it for us all. Non medical people don't have the same ethical and moral standards as most healthcare professionals and will do anything to make a buck.
After watching these videos, and doing a little crying, a little soul searching and much reflection, I still feel optimistic on personal treatment at a genetic level. In the beginning of the video, “Cancer: The Emperor of all Maladies”, it showed our most basic understanding of cancer and how we treat it. We did not have the technology to look at it from the cellular level, and the best course was to cut it out. Although the surgeons had the best intentions for the patients, some were cured, but all were severely maimed and mutilated in the process. The cons to aggressive treatment were that women were horribly disfigured and even if they survived, they had to live with themselves. As time progressed and technology also progressed, doctors were able to test and research from the microscopic level and begin to understand cancer. We can now look at a person’s cancer and decide on what the treatment regimen should be and tailor it to fit each individual’s personal need. The pros to the decades of research, trial and errors done by Dr. Sidney Farber and his team, led to a combination of surgery, radiation and chemotherapy that can be used to treat cancer, wherever it hides in the body. Women still may become disfigured with a radical mastectomy, but we have the technology to reconstruct the breast and give the woman some of her confidence back. We have found a cure for childhood leukemia where once it was a sure death sentence. The human genome project has opened the chance to someday perhaps find the gene for some cancers and then find a cure. The biggest con shown in these videos is the cost of these lifesaving drugs. The cost of research has sent the price of the drugs out of the reach of most patients and their families. They pay enormous sums of money and sometimes only gain a few extra months of life. In the United States the pharmaceutical companies may only take a few hundred dollars to manufacture a years’ worth of a drug, but turn around and charge more than the average American’s salary in a year. In the video by TED they speak about all the wonders that we are discovering about DNA. In trials they can alter the DNA to make a white mouse black without any other problem. If we have that kind of technology, we are sure to stumble across a way to fight the harmful DNA of many terminal illnesses. The con that I see in this is that some humans have a tendency to be greedy, immoral, and dishonest. They will use this technology on parents to create the “perfect” baby just to make a profit. Who’s to say that just like in the movies, there is a possibility the government could take this technology to create a “super soldier”, impervious to pain and who’s one mission is obey his commander. I know it sounds silly, but the way our technology is advancing it is not out of the realm of possibility.
References: Burns, K. (2015) Cancer- the emperor of all maladies [Video file]. Retrieved from http://www.pbs.org/kenburns/cancer-emperor-of-all-maladies/about-film/credits/ Doudna, J. (2015). We can now edit our DNA but let’s do so wisely [Video file]. Retrieved from https://www.ted.com/talks/jennifer_doudna_we_can_now_edit_our_dna_but_let_s_do_it_wisely#t-573653
Well stated, Jocelyn. That was very emotionally taxing at ties, as the whole debate often is. The positives, like with cancer drugs, etc (before they drove the cost up), and the possible cures of HIV, Sickle Cell and Huntington's is so encouraging. If we could stop with the warm, fuzzy stuff, there is no debate. It's just the numerous ideas, opinions and ideals that people have will always surface what is ethical to one, and unethical to another. Like you, I agree about the black mouse and the human issues that will arise. You always have great comments and insight. I enjoy reading your posts.
I agree with you that companies will want to start capitalizing on this by making the "perfect" baby. They would have to keep this limited to only a certain amount of providers and have a lot of oversight to those providers.
That was a very powerful documentary to which I genuinely enjoyed. After watching and learning more about personalization of medicine I would have to say I am optimistic. I do see the pros and cons to this model of medicine however. I learned a great deal in the video, “Cancer: The Emperor of all Maladies”, especially the third episode “Finding Achilles”. I think it is absolutely amazing how far science and technology has come. During an interview in, “Finding Achilles”, a woman states that in her early days the treatment for an abnormal pap smear was a total hysterectomy, to which now a days, we have a vaccine to prevent cervical cancer.
The obvious pro to genetic testing and personalization of medicine is having the potential to eliminate or prevent a disease such as cancer in an individual. That being said, even if a gene does align with a certain disease that does not necessarily guarantee the person will eventually develop the disease. Cons to be considered are financial concerns, privacy, and insurance coverage. If an individual seeking an insurance policy has undergone testing with results that they are predisposed to develop a condition, could an insurance company raise their rates?
Another con in regards to personalizing of medicine has to do with the drugs that are being developed to treat these diseases. Once scientists are capable of pinpointing the gene and treatment needed to alter, these lifesaving drugs, as seen in the video, are skyrocketing in price. Dr. Cole, an oncologist from Charleston, WV hospital states in the video, “this is an extremely large sum of money to pay just to keep on living.”
Burns, K. (2015) Cancer- the emperor of all maladies [Video file]. Retrieved from http://www.pbs.org/kenburns/cancer-emperor-of-all-maladies/about-film/credits/ Doudna, J. (2015). We can now edit our DNA but let’s do so wisely [Video file]. Retrieved from https://www.ted.com/talks/jennifer_doudna_we_can_now_edit_our_dna_but_let_s_do_it_wisely#t-573653
Great post, Erin. That really made me think as well, when she mentioned the hysterectomy as the only option before medical science led to new options. Great mention. It makes me thankful for the positives that have come from research.
I feel like in theory that personilazation of medicince would be a good thing but I just can't get past the fact of all the things that could go terribly wrong.
My thing with personalized medicine is this. Not to be sick, but we have to die of something right? Treating cancer in young parents, young kids ect. would be an amazing thing. however, these elderly people that have multiple comorbidities have so much more going on. Spending thousands and thousands of dollars to say they are cancer free seems a little outrageous. My grandmother developed lung cancer after a lifetime of smoking, however she also had CAD. My mom and her siblings insisted she have chemo and ultimately surgery to get the shrunken tumor removed. Due to her CAD and surgical complications she never came off the vent. Sometimes less is more. She could have lived at least 2 more years with the shrunken cancerous tumor if they had not opted for a full recovery.
Cancer treatment has come very far. As the video states, early times would have treated an abnormal pap smear with a total hysterectomy. Likewise, any early detection of breast cancer used to mean a total radical mastectomy; meaning all lymph nodes and tissues. This left a woman with problems arising like lymph-edema throughout the entire arm, recurring infections, circulation issues, etc. Another thing that has improved in the treatment of women's cancers, is they used to use cobalt treatments of radiation for ovarian/uterine cancer. This causes recurrent cancer within 10=20 years of pelvic, abdominal floor. I am always pleased to hear of the improvements in cancer treatment. I do feel the financial cost is insurmountable at times.
personalization of medicine it really could be and issue of over population. I agree with Jessica, we all have to die at some point. IF we have the cure for everything, no one will die and there will be just way to many people here on earth
I find it amazing the strides we are making in curing diseases like cancer. How much money is being invested. What sticks out to me though, how many Americans live unhealthy lifestyles and rely on medical advancements to keep them alive. Have many would not suffer from cancer if they did not smoke. I hope technology is not the answer for people not to take care of themselves and strive on their own for better health.
I feel optimistic about the research that is happening and the amazing developments being made. With that being said, this can also be a scary process.
As far as the changing the DNA to disrupt the disease process, this is truly amazing. I realize that things like this take time, but it seems as though the developmental process is exceptionally long and may not be readily available in my lifetime. A downside to this is that we could potentially have a society of blond haired blue eyes little kiddos running around because society says they are more cosmetically appealing. (just an example)
In reference to the cancer video series, having medication to treat or cure cancer is much improved from the days of surgery for tumor and surrounding tissue removal. The down side to these medications and treatments in the cost. After years of research and the companies realizing that these are life or death drugs; the medications are quit costly. As Dr. Cole states: "this is a large sum of money to pay just to keep on living."
Personalized medicine is a pretty crazy thing. Amazing yet scary.
Doudna, J. (2015). We can now edit our DNA but let’s do so wisely [Video file]. Retrieved from https://www.ted.com/talks/jennifer_doudna_we_can_now_edit_our_dna_but_let_s_do_it_wisely#t-573653
Brand-Ballard, J., Degrazia, D., Mappes, T. (2011). Biomedical Ethics 7th ed. New York, NY. MCGraw Hill.
Knox, R. (2015, September 25). Cancer drug mark-ups: Year of gleevec costs $159 to make but sells for $106k. Retrieved from http://commonhealth.wbur.org/2015/09/cancer-drug-cost
I am optimistic about the genetic research. I have seen first had how it can fight cancer. My mother's ex-husband was diagnosed with lymphoma in the 1990's and sometime in the early 2000's he was told he couldn't have chemo any longer because it just wouldn't work. They put him in a study and used his genetic information to make a drug specifically for him that would fight his lymphoma. I'm not sure how it all worked, but he is still alive today. This came to my mind while watching the Cancer videos.
I think we have the power at our fingertips to do so much good, however, there is the downside to it being misused for purposes not intended. Example from the TED video, we don't want parents making the perfect blue-eyed blonde haired son.
The finding of genetic markings and finding the correct drug usage is amazing. The has a chance to change the outcome for most of us. It is one I don't understand what markers they are looking for. If they can get it to work how many lives will be saved.
I agree I am very optimistic on the research that I watched develop in the 3 videos. I feel that the cure for cancer is on the works and is close than we think. It might not be in our lifetime but I definitely think that it will be in the lifetime soon enough. Perhaps the next generation will be the ones who see that.
I just feel like our technology with the way it is today we have a lot more at our hands then we know. It really just is all about the things that they are willing to expose. Until things get to bad we are not going to here about anything.
I know that heroine is an epidemic now how nice would it be if we knew the genetics that caused this addictive personality and had something that could treat it?
I an optimistic about the gene therapies that are being researched and introduced. The only issue I would have if the government would not place limits on the research. The eradication of diseases like cancer on the genetic level would save countless lives. Being able to eradicate genetic diseases like Huntington disease or the other countless genetic diseases we have as a population. Its amazing to watch research videos and the increased ways computer technology is able to speed up the research. Most scientific accomplishments can lead to progress in the medical field. It is amazing that we can disrupt a DNA code and have positive results. That we can create a virus that only attacks cancer cells. That is incredible genetic research that is going on right now. There are always cons to every idea. What if we create a super bug that we cannot find a cure for. The virus they are creating to attack only cancer cells. What happens if the virus mutates by itself and attacks healthy cells. We use genetic engineering on all children and lose our individuality. There definitely has to be limits. I enjoyed, “Cancer: The Emperor of all Maladies”, The treatments we used in the past almost seem barbaric. We have come so far in new therapies that surgery is not seen nearly as much. I think of when I first got into nursing they still performed radical neck surgeries on tongue and esophageal cancer. These people were grossly disfigured for life. They were stared at constantly and have to have all nutrition through a peg tube. Genetic technology and understanding diseases have ended this type of therapy.
Burns, K. (2015) Cancer- the emperor of all maladies [Video file]. Retrieved from http://www.pbs.org/kenburns/cancer-emperor-of-all-maladies/about-film/credits/
Doudna, J. (2015). We can now edit our DNA but let’s do so wisely [Video file]. Retrieved from https://www.ted.com/talks/jennifer_doudna_we_can_now_edit_our_dna_but_let_s_do_it_wisely#t-573653
I feel pessimistic about the personalization of medicine at the genetic level. Although my reasoning may not be the most rational my opinion is that it takes so long for these things to happen I feel like they may never come about certainly not in my lifetime. I realize that this type of thing doesn't happen over night but I believe that no matter what you do to a person in this case personalized medicine at the genetic level there is going to be things that backfire and go wrong. Maybe these things that backfire are no big deal and shouldn't hinder our progress but I feel that when those things occur it causes researchers and people of back the research financially to pull back what they are doing only adding years to the process of this being a possibility to the public. Now the prospect of some the personalized medicine is very exciting. An example of pro of personalized medicine would be what they talk about in the TED video they talk about using the crisper technique to remove DNA of HIV from infected cells which if it is able to be successful it would be the greatest discovery in medicine ever. To counter that they have done testing using the crisper technique and they were able to change the color of white mice to be black mice with one slight alteration in the DNA and otherwise the mouse is normal that's great but it is untested on humans and we can never be 100 percent sure that it will ever be safe. Mice don't have all the properties of humans do obviously so it would be difficult to propose to start doing research and trials on humans based on what they were able to do with lab rats.
ReplyDeleteDoudna, J. (2015). We can now edit our DNA but let’s do so wisely [Video file]. Retrieved from https://www.ted.com/talks/jennifer_doudna_we_can_now_edit_our_dna_but_let_s_do_it_wisely#t-573653
I found the crisper technique in the TED video very interesting and agree that would be and amazing discovery in medicine.
DeleteAfter our studies regarding genetic enhancement and genetic engineering, I feel cautiously optimistic about the positive uses for the scientific/ medical breakthroughs and pessimistic about the ways I know it will be misused. The pros for the personalization is the opportunity to treat once fatal diseases effectively, and to possibly cure those and other debilitating diseases. In the first film, “Cancer- Emperor of all maladies” much focus is upon the technology starting in the 1970s that led to the 1990s invention of Gleevec for CML. Gleevec has been an effective leukemia treatment as has helped to prolong, improve the quality of, and even save many lives of people with CML. This is a positive use of genetic medicine. Another pro would be the use of CRISPER technology, as highlighted by geneticist Jennifer Doudna in “We can edit our DNA. But let’s do it wisely”, to cure diseases like HIV. In trials in Philadelphia, they were able to remove the HIV virus from human DNA cells with the CRISPER technology. Another positive application would be, as mentioned, the cure of Sickle Cell Anemia and Huntington’s. These are all very medically ethical and moral applications of genetic engineering.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, as with all positive, must come negatives. The cons of the personalization of medicine occur when that technology is used in a selfish, non-virtuous method where people and medicine are used as a means only to make others rich or famous, and are not performed out of goodwill with ethically moral intentions. I was concerned when Doudna referred to the use of CRISPER technology already on human embryos in China. As she mentioned, the use of this technology to engineer humans to have a specific eye color, be a certain height, or even to have strong bones or to be free of cardiovascular disease is ethically unsound. Like the lab mice that were engineered to be black instead of white, there will be humans with the wrong motivations, using it to create faster, thinner, more attractive, healthier humans, instead of letting nature take its course, and letting the future events happen as they are meant to. An even more disturbing con, is when humans use life-saving technology from these processes to get rich, simply because they know people want the cure enough to pay whatever they demand. Hence, Gleevec, that leukemia drug invented in the 1990s; companies know that it is important enough to some people who want to live, they will pay any cost to get it. It was the focus of many reports in fall of 2015 because of this. Gleevec costs $159 to make for that year supply, but due to the demand that year, the mark-up was as high as 100,000%. This $159 supply of medicine was going to cost $160,000 in the US, $31,867 in the UK and $8,000 in Brazil. It is this kind of unethical medical piracy by people like these drug manufacturers, along with people wanting to unethically alter humans before they are born, that create the cons and make genetic medicine and the personalization of medicine ethically questionable.
Doudna, J. (2015). We can now edit our DNA but let’s do so wisely [Video file]. Retrieved from https://www.ted.com/talks/jennifer_doudna_we_can_now_edit_our_dna_but_let_s_do_it_wisely#t-573653
Brand-Ballard, J., Degrazia, D., Mappes, T. (2011). Biomedical Ethics 7th ed. New York, NY. MCGraw Hill.
Knox, R. (2015, September 25). Cancer drug mark-ups: Year of gleevec costs $159 to make but sells for $106k. Retrieved from http://commonhealth.wbur.org/2015/09/cancer-drug-cost
Burns, K. (2015) Cancer- the emperor of all maladies [Video file]. Retrieved from http://www.pbs.org/kenburns/cancer-emperor-of-all-maladies/about-film/credits/
The mark up on these drugs is what truely boggles my mind after watching these videos. We are trying to save the lives of people that have been affected by these illnesses. Then once we create a drug we dangle it in front of them like a carrot on a stick. Without insane amounts of money these people cannot afford the drugs they need.
DeleteI agree, it is ridiculous the amount of money these drugs cost! I understand there is large amounts of money involved for research, testing, and production, etc. but the profit to be made makes me sad for humanity.
DeleteI feel optimistic,but at this new level of preventative medicine, at the genetic level, it feels a bit scary. I say that because of the implication that new advances can have on humanity as a whole. For example, discovery of vaccines have all but wiped out diseases, like polio, that were well known to our ancestors. This breakthrough has been championed and led to further investigation of new vaccines, to eradicate more and more diseases that once were seen as common, yet serious, childhood diseases. MMR is now a common vaccine instead of common diseases.
ReplyDeleteThe new preventive medicine is at the genetic level. This is definitely exciting to think that advanced science can enable researchers to learn patterns in the complexities of cancer cells. This is what researchers in the cancer world are striving after - to find cancer's Achilles heel, its vulnerability. Scientists have recently learned that cancer cells thought to be highly diversified have worm holes of connection, such that may link, for example, breast cancer to leukemia. These findings are groundbreaking because now more targeted therapies can be used not only for the cancer that is known, but to predict where and how it will show up in another part of the body. Today, through research and advances prevention, early detection and targeted therapies have slowed the rise in cancer tremendously.
As for further genetic medicine, the 'crisper' technique shines on the horizon. It is the opinion that within the next ten years, we will see application of clinical trials and possibly some approved therapies using this new form of preventative medicine.
It is exciting to think that this gene editing technology could cut out diseases such as HIV, Huntington's, Sickle Cell Anemia. But to further this technology to the 'engineered humans' brings an ethical side that the scientists world is asked to bring pause to. Knowing how this type of technology can fall into the hands of large companies and investors with dollar signs in their eyes, this falls on the cusp of shaky ground. Not likely to slow down, the ever advancing technology will provide for us the ability to live in a world of 'designer humans'.
Doudna, J. (2015). We can now edit our DNA but let’s do so wisely [Video file]. Retrieved from https://www.ted.com/talks/jennifer_doudna_we_can_now_edit_our_dna_but_let_s_do_it_wisely#t-573653
Burns, K. (2015) Cancer- the emperor of all maladies [Video file]. Retrieved from http://www.pbs.org/kenburns/cancer-emperor-of-all-maladies/about-film/credits/
Great optimistic post, Gloria! While vaccinations have been life-saving, there is much speculation often that bio companies release them early (before they can test to see how effective they'll be) to reduce panic from new epidemics like Zika. There is also speculation often that they are big business for the bio/ drug companies. Do you have a take on that?
DeleteWe live in an amazing time that we are able to see the technological advances such as the crisper technique and all of the vaccinations for diseases that some people still living remember were a death sentence. I have so much hope for the future of disease treatment, but with hesitation. Everyday we hear in the news that someone has used something to their advantages and ruins it for us all. Non medical people don't have the same ethical and moral standards as most healthcare professionals and will do anything to make a buck.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAfter watching these videos, and doing a little crying, a little soul searching and much reflection, I still feel optimistic on personal treatment at a genetic level. In the beginning of the video, “Cancer: The Emperor of all Maladies”, it showed our most basic understanding of cancer and how we treat it. We did not have the technology to look at it from the cellular level, and the best course was to cut it out. Although the surgeons had the best intentions for the patients, some were cured, but all were severely maimed and mutilated in the process. The cons to aggressive treatment were that women were horribly disfigured and even if they survived, they had to live with themselves. As time progressed and technology also progressed, doctors were able to test and research from the microscopic level and begin to understand cancer. We can now look at a person’s cancer and decide on what the treatment regimen should be and tailor it to fit each individual’s personal need. The pros to the decades of research, trial and errors done by Dr. Sidney Farber and his team, led to a combination of surgery, radiation and chemotherapy that can be used to treat cancer, wherever it hides in the body. Women still may become disfigured with a radical mastectomy, but we have the technology to reconstruct the breast and give the woman some of her confidence back. We have found a cure for childhood leukemia where once it was a sure death sentence. The human genome project has opened the chance to someday perhaps find the gene for some cancers and then find a cure. The biggest con shown in these videos is the cost of these lifesaving drugs. The cost of research has sent the price of the drugs out of the reach of most patients and their families. They pay enormous sums of money and sometimes only gain a few extra months of life. In the United States the pharmaceutical companies may only take a few hundred dollars to manufacture a years’ worth of a drug, but turn around and charge more than the average American’s salary in a year.
ReplyDeleteIn the video by TED they speak about all the wonders that we are discovering about DNA. In trials they can alter the DNA to make a white mouse black without any other problem. If we have that kind of technology, we are sure to stumble across a way to fight the harmful DNA of many terminal illnesses. The con that I see in this is that some humans have a tendency to be greedy, immoral, and dishonest. They will use this technology on parents to create the “perfect” baby just to make a profit. Who’s to say that just like in the movies, there is a possibility the government could take this technology to create a “super soldier”, impervious to pain and who’s one mission is obey his commander. I know it sounds silly, but the way our technology is advancing it is not out of the realm of possibility.
References:
Burns, K. (2015) Cancer- the emperor of all maladies [Video file]. Retrieved from http://www.pbs.org/kenburns/cancer-emperor-of-all-maladies/about-film/credits/
Doudna, J. (2015). We can now edit our DNA but let’s do so wisely [Video file]. Retrieved from https://www.ted.com/talks/jennifer_doudna_we_can_now_edit_our_dna_but_let_s_do_it_wisely#t-573653
Well stated, Jocelyn. That was very emotionally taxing at ties, as the whole debate often is. The positives, like with cancer drugs, etc (before they drove the cost up), and the possible cures of HIV, Sickle Cell and Huntington's is so encouraging. If we could stop with the warm, fuzzy stuff, there is no debate. It's just the numerous ideas, opinions and ideals that people have will always surface what is ethical to one, and unethical to another. Like you, I agree about the black mouse and the human issues that will arise. You always have great comments and insight. I enjoy reading your posts.
DeleteI agree with you that companies will want to start capitalizing on this by making the "perfect" baby. They would have to keep this limited to only a certain amount of providers and have a lot of oversight to those providers.
Deleteits unfortunate that we have to consider how people will abuse the system and genetic engineer what they would consider perfection.
DeleteThat was a very powerful documentary to which I genuinely enjoyed. After watching and learning more about personalization of medicine I would have to say I am optimistic. I do see the pros and cons to this model of medicine however. I learned a great deal in the video, “Cancer: The Emperor of all Maladies”, especially the third episode “Finding Achilles”. I think it is absolutely amazing how far science and technology has come. During an interview in, “Finding Achilles”, a woman states that in her early days the treatment for an abnormal pap smear was a total hysterectomy, to which now a days, we have a vaccine to prevent cervical cancer.
ReplyDeleteThe obvious pro to genetic testing and personalization of medicine is having the potential to eliminate or prevent a disease such as cancer in an individual. That being said, even if a gene does align with a certain disease that does not necessarily guarantee the person will eventually develop the disease. Cons to be considered are financial concerns, privacy, and insurance coverage. If an individual seeking an insurance policy has undergone testing with results that they are predisposed to develop a condition, could an insurance company raise their rates?
Another con in regards to personalizing of medicine has to do with the drugs that are being developed to treat these diseases. Once scientists are capable of pinpointing the gene and treatment needed to alter, these lifesaving drugs, as seen in the video, are skyrocketing in price. Dr. Cole, an oncologist from Charleston, WV hospital states in the video, “this is an extremely large sum of money to pay just to keep on living.”
Burns, K. (2015) Cancer- the emperor of all maladies [Video file]. Retrieved from http://www.pbs.org/kenburns/cancer-emperor-of-all-maladies/about-film/credits/
Doudna, J. (2015). We can now edit our DNA but let’s do so wisely [Video file]. Retrieved from https://www.ted.com/talks/jennifer_doudna_we_can_now_edit_our_dna_but_let_s_do_it_wisely#t-573653
Great post, Erin. That really made me think as well, when she mentioned the hysterectomy as the only option before medical science led to new options. Great mention. It makes me thankful for the positives that have come from research.
DeleteI feel like in theory that personilazation of medicince would be a good thing but I just can't get past the fact of all the things that could go terribly wrong.
DeleteMy thing with personalized medicine is this. Not to be sick, but we have to die of something right? Treating cancer in young parents, young kids ect. would be an amazing thing. however, these elderly people that have multiple comorbidities have so much more going on. Spending thousands and thousands of dollars to say they are cancer free seems a little outrageous. My grandmother developed lung cancer after a lifetime of smoking, however she also had CAD. My mom and her siblings insisted she have chemo and ultimately surgery to get the shrunken tumor removed. Due to her CAD and surgical complications she never came off the vent. Sometimes less is more. She could have lived at least 2 more years with the shrunken cancerous tumor if they had not opted for a full recovery.
DeleteCancer treatment has come very far. As the video states, early times would have treated an abnormal pap smear with a total hysterectomy. Likewise, any early detection of breast cancer used to mean a total radical mastectomy; meaning all lymph nodes and tissues. This left a woman with problems arising like lymph-edema throughout the entire arm, recurring infections, circulation issues, etc. Another thing that has improved in the treatment of women's cancers, is they used to use cobalt treatments of radiation for ovarian/uterine cancer. This causes recurrent cancer within 10=20 years of pelvic, abdominal floor. I am always pleased to hear of the improvements in cancer treatment. I do feel the financial cost is insurmountable at times.
Deletepersonalization of medicine it really could be and issue of over population. I agree with Jessica, we all have to die at some point. IF we have the cure for everything, no one will die and there will be just way to many people here on earth
DeleteI find it amazing the strides we are making in curing diseases like cancer. How much money is being invested. What sticks out to me though, how many Americans live unhealthy lifestyles and rely on medical advancements to keep them alive.
DeleteHave many would not suffer from cancer if they did not smoke. I hope technology is not the answer for people not to take care of themselves and strive on their own for better health.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI feel optimistic about the research that is happening and the amazing developments being made. With that being said, this can also be a scary process.
ReplyDeleteAs far as the changing the DNA to disrupt the disease process, this is truly amazing. I realize that things like this take time, but it seems as though the developmental process is exceptionally long and may not be readily available in my lifetime. A downside to this is that we could potentially have a society of blond haired blue eyes little kiddos running around because society says they are more cosmetically appealing. (just an example)
In reference to the cancer video series, having medication to treat or cure cancer is much improved from the days of surgery for tumor and surrounding tissue removal. The down side to these medications and treatments in the cost. After years of research and the companies realizing that these are life or death drugs; the medications are quit costly. As Dr. Cole states: "this is a large sum of money to pay just to keep on living."
Personalized medicine is a pretty crazy thing. Amazing yet scary.
Doudna, J. (2015). We can now edit our DNA but let’s do so wisely [Video file]. Retrieved from https://www.ted.com/talks/jennifer_doudna_we_can_now_edit_our_dna_but_let_s_do_it_wisely#t-573653
Brand-Ballard, J., Degrazia, D., Mappes, T. (2011). Biomedical Ethics 7th ed. New York, NY. MCGraw Hill.
Knox, R. (2015, September 25). Cancer drug mark-ups: Year of gleevec costs $159 to make but sells for $106k. Retrieved from http://commonhealth.wbur.org/2015/09/cancer-drug-cost
I am optimistic about the genetic research. I have seen first had how it can fight cancer. My mother's ex-husband was diagnosed with lymphoma in the 1990's and sometime in the early 2000's he was told he couldn't have chemo any longer because it just wouldn't work. They put him in a study and used his genetic information to make a drug specifically for him that would fight his lymphoma. I'm not sure how it all worked, but he is still alive today. This came to my mind while watching the Cancer videos.
ReplyDeleteI think we have the power at our fingertips to do so much good, however, there is the downside to it being misused for purposes not intended. Example from the TED video, we don't want parents making the perfect blue-eyed blonde haired son.
The finding of genetic markings and finding the correct drug usage is amazing. The has a chance to change the outcome for most of us. It is one I don't understand what markers they are looking for. If they can get it to work how many lives will be saved.
DeleteI agree I am very optimistic on the research that I watched develop in the 3 videos. I feel that the cure for cancer is on the works and is close than we think. It might not be in our lifetime but I definitely think that it will be in the lifetime soon enough. Perhaps the next generation will be the ones who see that.
ReplyDeleteI just feel like our technology with the way it is today we have a lot more at our hands then we know. It really just is all about the things that they are willing to expose. Until things get to bad we are not going to here about anything.
I know that heroine is an epidemic now how nice would it be if we knew the genetics that caused this addictive personality and had something that could treat it?
I an optimistic about the gene therapies that are being researched and introduced. The only issue I would have if the government would not place limits on the research. The eradication of diseases like cancer on the genetic level would save countless lives. Being able to eradicate genetic diseases like Huntington disease or the other countless genetic diseases we have as a population. Its amazing to watch research videos and the increased ways computer technology is able to speed up the research. Most scientific accomplishments can lead to progress in the medical field.
ReplyDeleteIt is amazing that we can disrupt a DNA code and have positive results. That we can create a virus that only attacks cancer cells. That is incredible genetic research that is going on right now.
There are always cons to every idea. What if we create a super bug that we cannot find a cure for. The virus they are creating to attack only cancer cells. What happens if the virus mutates by itself and attacks healthy cells. We use genetic engineering on all children and lose our individuality. There definitely has to be limits.
I enjoyed, “Cancer: The Emperor of all Maladies”, The treatments we used in the past almost seem barbaric. We have come so far in new therapies that surgery is not seen nearly as much. I think of when I first got into nursing they still performed radical neck surgeries on tongue and esophageal cancer. These people were grossly disfigured for life. They were stared at constantly and have to have all nutrition through a peg tube. Genetic technology and understanding diseases have ended this type of therapy.
Burns, K. (2015) Cancer- the emperor of all maladies [Video file]. Retrieved from http://www.pbs.org/kenburns/cancer-emperor-of-all-maladies/about-film/credits/
Doudna, J. (2015). We can now edit our DNA but let’s do so wisely [Video file]. Retrieved from https://www.ted.com/talks/jennifer_doudna_we_can_now_edit_our_dna_but_let_s_do_it_wisely#t-573653