User:Zhifanfu/He Jiankui/Susususushi Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Zhifanfu


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * He_Jiankui_affair


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * He Jiankui affair

Lead
I check edit history and know that you have not added any new content to the lead, so my following feedback is just a suggestion. Although the current version of lead has mentioned the existence of ethical controversies, the lead still lacks a short sentence summary of all aspects of ethical controversies you added. If you can add a summary sentence in the last paragraph of the lead that captures all main ideas of your additions, I believe it will be easier for readers to know what they should expect from your section.

Content
First of all, I would like to express my personal admiration for your ability to retrieve so many different pieces of knowledge and merge them into a coherent paragraph. Each paragraph of your content discusses something different and It's organization very clear. By discussing the ideas put forward by an association/individual in one paragraph, you subtly avoid the problem of information being too concentrated in one paragraph.

Moreover, the neutrality of the article is very clear. It's hard for me to form an immediate conclusion while reading. Because even if you're mainly talking about why genome manipulation is unethical, you're still discussing the different ideas that several organizations/individuals respectively have about a problem. Even for similar standpoints, your discussion also reveals different reasons (e.g. regulation act,drawbacks,etc)  why people condemn genome manipulation as  immoral behavior.

Organization
There are 2 main organization problem I noticed when reading


 * 1) Your "Ethics of genome manipulation" and "violation of medical-ethic values" section are highly similar. My understanding is that you think that one section will discuss only the ethics of gene editing, and the other section will discuss what ethical principles already exist in medicine get violated. However, in fact, after reading, I think both parts are discussing the moral controversy of gene editing and shouldn’t break into two different parts. The violation of medical ethical values is still a reason for the immorality of gene editing. However, I also cannot recommend that you just simply merge the two projects. My explanation for why these two parts cannot simply merge refer to the second suggestion below problem 2 discussion.
 * 2) The discussion of "Misconstrual of science" does have something to do with the causes of the moral construal, but your content makes it seem to me more like a consequence of experiments than ethical controversies. For example, shortened life span and brain changes are 2 consequences you addressed but you didn’t discuss people’s different understanding on such outcomes. So, I think you should move this part into “Consequences” as a supplement to the original discussion. However, if you move this section, the remaining sections will look extremely unbalanced. There are two sections that talk about something similar. Only “Failure to publish in peer review journals” part discuss a different perspective. So, I think you may want to find a way reorganize your content and don’t underestimate the “peer review journals” part. Let the content be more organized, merge some similar content, but still keep content well balanced can be you next step!

Sources and References
I think you did a really good job of choosing your references. Wikipedia emphasize the need for data to be up to date in science area to minimize bias and information inconsistency. The references you choose should be in 2020 or 2021. There are a few relatively old references, but they are from around 2017. So, considering the age of the references, I think you've made a very careful choice. Also, I have checked the sources you have chosen and none of them have issues of using predatory or untrustworthy sources.

In addition to that, one another good pattern I've noticed about you is that the scholarly articles in the medical field often faced changes of idea. Some research result may get disproved or proven to have limitations after years. You keep containing all changes one source have been made by authors themselves or others in your section. This adds a lot of credibility to your article.