Talk:Embryonic Genomic Engineering
The length of the article is 1500 words, which is 500 words more than the requirement of about 1000 words. I think this is a good thing though, because it shows the student’s commitment to flesh out more ideas and content in their draft.
This article does include the 3 major components of a good article. The author summarizes the issue in the opening paragraph, which gave me both a good idea of the background of the topic as well as a preview of some of the ethical concerns of embryonic genomic engineering. The body of the article was also well organized. It contains four main sections: the history of this field, an explanation of somatic gene editing, an explanation of germline gene editing, and a discussion of ethical implications. The sections on somatic gene editing and germline gene editing were helpful in helping readers understand the differences between the two. One way in which the student could potentially think about finalizing this draft into a final mediawiki is to encompass the sections on somatic gene editing and germline gene editing into one larger section titled something like “Types of Gene Editing” or “Somatic vs Germline Editing”, to clarify to the reader that these sections explain the differences between two very different paradigms in genomic engineering. The author did a great job of backing up their statements with references and reliable sources. The author made sure to include inline citations and even put in quotes what was directly pulled from an external source.
The issue at stake is clear to me. The author addressed many potential ethical consequences and considerations of genomic editing and raised many questions to ponder. Perhaps in the final copy, the author can seek to flesh out some of the major ethical considerations a little bit more. I think that if the author can add some more history revolving around the stated ethical issues, that would make this article even stronger. Another suggestion is that perhaps the author could further divide their section on Ethical Implications into smaller subsections, each discussing a single ethical issue, instead of including all of them in one large section.
The author for the most part does not state personal opinions. And in the one or two times when they do, they are aligned with a popular opinion held by the public, such as “If we are to consider them as a human being, then conducting experiments in which we alter the genome while ignoring the consequences would be considered unethical.” I think the author can try to incorporate more events and public debates into the discussion of ethical issues, such as citing specific situations in which perspectives were argued.
