I read an article on the New York Times website in the Business section. This story was by Denise Grady on a new gene altering medicine that has the ability to fight leukemia like nothing people have ever seen. This has already been used on a young girl who was very close to losing her life because of leukemia. That was 5 years ago, now, the girl is cancer free. So obviously this new medicine has the potential to work, but there were side effects listed. Because this treatment is altering genes within blood cells, It can lower blood pressure to dangerous levels.
This is a hard article to really have any sort of bias on, because I don’t know if i’ve ever met someone who wants people to die of leukemia. But there seemed to be some important details in this article that were not elaborated on enough. Gene-Altering treatments have always been frowned upon in the past, and that probably should be expanded on. Why was this such a problem in the past? Also the side effects didn’t seem to be discussed enough. The article just seemed to focus on everything good, while only barely touching base with the bad.
Comments on here, but not for Nathan’s story.
You’re asking good questions. It’s possible it’s too new to know about side effects. You could also consider news values and audience here. Who should know this info? How will it help them?