"CRISPR for Disabilities: How to Self-Regulate" or Something?

"The aim of the decision tree is that it be used by not only researchers but by funding agencies, institutional review boards, and ethics committees to determine the best use of resources. The gene editing technology CRISPR may be inexpensive but the tools used in conjunction with it, like next-generation sequencing, are still very costly. Therefore, in the space of disabilities where the genetics are still complex, putting resources into basic research that uses gene editing may not lead to a scientific impact and the money may be better used elsewhere. Approaches to SLDs, like APD and dyslexia, are still more based in educational rather than medicalized spaces. At the same time, education for people with disabilities remains an underfunded area in many Western countries. For example, the underfunding of the U.S. Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) means States are expected to cover the missing resources and public schools are facing a funding crisis (Moor ). During 2018 alone, there were six state-wide walkouts by teachers demanding more funding in schools, many of which shut down schools and whole districts for extended lengths of times (Turner, Lombardo, and Logan ). This lack of funding limits the resources a school has to test for SLDs. An untold number of individuals go undiagnosed, leaving them to struggle in the classroom and not receive the tools that would put a value on their strengths. This is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the social considerations for SLDs and indicates that using a decision tree to look beyond genetics is necessary. That said, each disability will be different and looking outside genetics may not always be the result of the decision tree."