This is due Sunday, Sept. 6 by 11:59 p.m. However, I will provide feedback on your answers, so the sooner you post them, the sooner you will get feedback.
From the CRISPR article:
Many researchers are deeply worried that altering an entire population [of malaria-causing mosquitoes], or eliminating it altogether, could have drastic and unknown consequences for an ecosystem: it might mean that other pests emerge, for example, or it could affect predators higher up the food chain. [...] “It has to have a fairly high pay-off, because it has a risk of irreversibility — and unintended or hard-to-calculate consequences for other species,” says George Church, a bioengineer at Harvard Medical School in Boston.
From the Roberta Millstein essay:
It is a mistake to lump together climate change deniers, evolution deniers, and GMO critics, in part because the reasons for doubt in each case are different and in part because the so-called “precautionary principle” would incline us to accept climate change while rejecting GMOs, but also because (ironically) a proper understanding of evolution forms the basis for some of the concerns about GMOs.
What is the precautionary principle and why, according to Millstein, does it lead us to accept the truth of climate change and reject the truth of the claim that GMOs have been shown to be safe? If there are gaps in her argument fill them in. How does the precautionary principle apply to the issue of using CRISPR to engineer ecosystems? Do you think using CRISPR in this way is more like the climate change issue or the GMO issue? Why?