Text 1: Geneticist Cho argues that CRISPR gene editing offers unprecedented promise for treating inherited diseases. By precisely correcting the DNA mutations responsible for sickle-cell anemia or cystic fibrosis, CRISPR could cure conditions that have defied treatment for decades.
Text 2: Bioethicist Walsh agrees that CRISPR's medical promise is real, but warns of the slope from somatic gene therapy to germline editing — changes inherited by all future generations. Without robust governance, she argues, today's life-saving cures could become tomorrow's tools for engineering "designer babies" whose features were chosen by their parents.
Both authors would most likely agree that
- A
germline editing poses no ethical concerns.
- Bcheck_circle
CRISPR has genuine medical potential.
- C
all CRISPR research should be banned immediately.
- D
CRISPR cannot affect human DNA.
Explanation
Both endorse CRISPR's medical promise; they differ on governance concerns. A is shared. B and C contradict at least one author; D contradicts both.