{"title":"Crispr-Cas 9 时代的多样性、公平性和包容性(Dei)商数:推测性论证谱系","authors":"S. Mainaly","doi":"10.56734/ijahss.v5n4a4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The advent of CRISPR-Cas9 gene-editing technology has sparked a complex discourse on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI). While it could potentially eradicate genetic disorders affecting marginalized groups, concerns arise regarding ethical implications, eugenics, exacerbating biases, and socioeconomic divides. One salient aspect of this discourse pertains to the ethical considerations surrounding using CRISPR-Cas9 for germline editing, which could theoretically eradicate genetic disorders disproportionately affecting specific populations. Proponents argue it could foster inclusivity through personalized therapies for underrepresented populations, though met with skepticism. This revolutionary tool necessitates critically examining its ethical, socioeconomic, and governance ramifications.","PeriodicalId":339909,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Arts, Humanities & Social Science","volume":"99 S4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Diversity, Equity, And Inclusion (Dei) Quotient in The Age of Crispr-Cas 9: A Speculative Spectrum of Argumentation\",\"authors\":\"S. Mainaly\",\"doi\":\"10.56734/ijahss.v5n4a4\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The advent of CRISPR-Cas9 gene-editing technology has sparked a complex discourse on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI). While it could potentially eradicate genetic disorders affecting marginalized groups, concerns arise regarding ethical implications, eugenics, exacerbating biases, and socioeconomic divides. One salient aspect of this discourse pertains to the ethical considerations surrounding using CRISPR-Cas9 for germline editing, which could theoretically eradicate genetic disorders disproportionately affecting specific populations. Proponents argue it could foster inclusivity through personalized therapies for underrepresented populations, though met with skepticism. This revolutionary tool necessitates critically examining its ethical, socioeconomic, and governance ramifications.\",\"PeriodicalId\":339909,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Arts, Humanities & Social Science\",\"volume\":\"99 S4\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Arts, Humanities & Social Science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.56734/ijahss.v5n4a4\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Arts, Humanities & Social Science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.56734/ijahss.v5n4a4","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
Diversity, Equity, And Inclusion (Dei) Quotient in The Age of Crispr-Cas 9: A Speculative Spectrum of Argumentation
The advent of CRISPR-Cas9 gene-editing technology has sparked a complex discourse on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI). While it could potentially eradicate genetic disorders affecting marginalized groups, concerns arise regarding ethical implications, eugenics, exacerbating biases, and socioeconomic divides. One salient aspect of this discourse pertains to the ethical considerations surrounding using CRISPR-Cas9 for germline editing, which could theoretically eradicate genetic disorders disproportionately affecting specific populations. Proponents argue it could foster inclusivity through personalized therapies for underrepresented populations, though met with skepticism. This revolutionary tool necessitates critically examining its ethical, socioeconomic, and governance ramifications.