RCL #6: TED Talk Outline and Visual Aids Draft

TED Talk Outline

Overview
Topic: Designer Babies Purpose: To enlighten the audience on the future of human gene editing and warn them of its social and ethical implications. Thesis Statement: As a result of He Jiankui’s reckless experiment, it is clear that safe and ethical advances in biotechnology rely heavily on clear regulations and frameworks of the scientific procedure.
Oral Content	Visual Content
Introduction
Attention Strategy/Orienting Material: I will begin with a brief overview of key terminology: “CRISPR” and “designer babies.” Then, I will provide a brief synopsis of the CRISPR baby experiment.	Slide 1: CRISPR technology Slide 2: Designer baby
Body
Main Idea 1: It is important to consider how Dr. He pulled off such an irresponsible experiment that disregards all legal, social, and ethical values of biotechnology advancement. Strategically manipulating a family impacted by HIV diagnosis Flawed informed consent procedures Underdeveloped risk analysis of biological, social, and psychological outcomes	Slide 3: He Jiankui speaking at the 2018 International Summit on Human Genome Editing.
Main Idea 2: Furthermore, similar promises of “disease free” futures are conveyed through respected mass media outlets, therefore constructing a hopeful outlook on human gene editing. Popular genetic components Risks of social discrimination Parental Pressures	Slide 4: Front page of MIT Technology: “WE CAN NOW ENGINEER THE HUMAN RACE” Slide 5: Front page of The Economist: “Editing humanity: The prospect of human enhancement” Slide 6: Front page of Time Magazine: “The Future of Babies”
Main Idea 3: Moreover, public attitudes towards human genome editing are generally more excited than concerned about the idea of altering human capabilities. “Two-thirds of U.S. adults say they would be at least somewhat excited about the possibility of changing human capabilities to prevent serious diseases or health conditions” (Rainie, et al.). Additional statistics shown on visual	Slide 7: Pew Research Study graph
Conclusion
Concluding Remark: Dr. He’s experiment blatantly disregarded the dominant scientific consensus at the time.	Slide 8: Editing a child’s phenotype on a tablet
Photos
https://news.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/CasMINI.jpg https://pixelrocketapps.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/crisprtranshuman.png https://media.cnn.com/api/v1/images/stellar/prod/181129095847-he-jiankui-genetic-summit.jpg?q=w_2688,h_1792,x_0,y_0,c_fill https://wp.technologyreview.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/cover.smallx282-7.jpg https://ncreg-multimedia.sourcefabric.org/images/uploads/Economist.jpg https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/41M2eq2Xm7L._AC_SY780_.jpg https://1712507217.rsc.cdn77.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/baby-design.jpg
References
Rainie, Lee, et al. “What Americans Think About Possibilities Ahead for Human Enhancement.” Pew Research Center, 17 Mar. 2022, https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2022/03/17/what-americans-think-about-possibilities-ahead-for-human-enhancement/. Wahlberg, Ayo, et al. “The Platforming of Human Embryo Editing: Prospecting “Disease Free” Futures.” New Genetics and Society, vol. 40, no. 4, 2021, pp. 367-383.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply