Player Comments on Your Life as a Genetic Engineer!

I admire the intention behind this story: to shed some light on what a genetic engineer does on a day-to-day basis. It is a good topic to make a story game about. However, there are many issues with the execution of this project. The story game is also really short, so that doesn't give you a lot of room to expand upon what a genetic engineer does.

I'll go page by page. Since this is an edutainment game, I'm going to look at both writing and story, as well as the factual information presented.

First page: A typical day in the office

Problem 1: Genetic engineers don't usually work in a clinic. They work in a research laboratory setting.

Problem 2: Genetic engineers don't counsel parents, you're thinking of a genetic counselor. Genetic engineering isn't a patient-facing job, genetic counselors on the other hand are trained in both medical genetics and presenting that information to ordinary people. They are also trained to offer counseling and support for emotionally distraught patients.

Problem 3: Diller's disease and Ruhet's disease don't exist. If you're going to make an edutainment game, use some real-life diseases as cases.

Problem 4: The couple asking you to delete the gene. Yes, this game is already making really far-fetched assumptions on the capability of genetic engineers to modify embryos willy-nilly. As of the time of me writing this comment, genetically modifying human germ-line cells with CRISPR-CAS 9 is still very much illegal in most countries. It is a hot-button medical ethics and human rights issue. But maybe the author wanted to tell the story in a reality where this is commonplace, so I'll let that concern go for now. The major issue is that many genes are pleiotropic(they influence many phenotypical traits). It's already weird that the couple(Robin and Blake) are asking you to delete a gene; The genetic counselor is supposed to present treatment modalities, explain how each works as well as the pros and cons, and then present the variety of options for them to ultimately choose. They don't just go up to you and ask you to do something like that. On top of that, this gene might code for proteins that are important for healthy functioning, so if you delete the gene, you can cause several problems. The reason why gene editing is so dangerous and people talk about CRISPR as "trying to play God", is precisely because of how complex of a field genetics is. There are so many different factors at play here. You do attempt to highlight this problem by saying that if you delete the gene, a subsidiary disease is activated. The problem with that is deleting a gene isn't even a viable approach to even consider. You might delete specific gene segments, but not an entire gene.

Problem 5: Nonrealistic consequences.
In a genetic engineer's work, there is a potential for unintended consequences. However, the choice of Ruet's disease coming up after deleting the gene responsible for Diller's disease is not a viable or realistic consequence to consider. I understand you're trying to highlight that sometimes, unexpected things happen in genetics, and we don't know all the effects of an action might be, which is an important theme in genetics because of how complex it is. However, you could do something like talk about a compensatory mechanism: With the loss of the gene that causes diller's disease, the protein coded by that gene is no longer produced. To compensate for the loss in metabolic function, the body up regulates a gene involved in a similar metabolic pathway that results in a similar effect, however the increased activity of this second gene results in Ruett's disease"

Problem 6: lack of detail on the modes of inheritance or how the disease works.

Problem 7: More explanation/more examples on the ethical gray areas of this procedure.

Problem 8: The term "subsidiary disease" isn't a term that exists in genetics and medicine. Do you mean "comorbidity" or "compensatory disease mechanism"? I'm a little confused, I get the intent, but the word choice is incorrect.
Good things:


There are some good things. You do a decent job illustrating the general public's fears about genetic modification. You do a path where our main character withholds information from the couple, and you explain why that's bad. You talk about the effect on future generations, which is a really big thing that many geneticists and medical ethicists discuss. You also demonstrate the danger of playing god and trying to make the couple's choices for them. That is important: the genetic counselor should not exceed their boundaries, and ultimately should allow the couple to make a reasonable and informed decision for themselves. Another thing you could have touched upon is that many times, the genetic counselor can also mediate conflict between both partners in their discussion about this decision, and also ensure that the decision is made equitably with equal input from both partners. The counselor is responsible for understanding both perspectives when offering guidance. I would also recommend you talk about the legalities of this issue.

Writing Critique(Non-science):
Give more backstory and context to these characters. Also, maybe add some more cases with differences in the disease to highlight the variety in the genetic counselor's work.

I think you could remake this game and make it even better. It is an important and complex subject to think about. You said in the description that this game could be paired with college courses in bioethics or scientific communication. Given the myriad of issues and problems affecting this game, it needs a lot more work on it and research before it could be used in genetics/medical ethics curriculum.

As a simple exercise on how to discuss ethical issues and potential risks with clients, this works on a surface level. It could effectively be about any medical or ethical subject, though, not genetic engineering, as all the choices are based on communication and listening skills. It's very 'easy' - none of the choices presented are surprising or hard to figure out. This makes it feel like an educational piece geared towards freshman and sophomore high school students.

There are some minor grammar errors, such as commas in the wrong place, but overall it is written well. The first page used "conflicted" once instead of "afflicted" - but that might just be some sort of medical jargon.

While this is an interesting idea for a quiz/edutainment, the problem here is that the choices are so obvious, so starkly clear what's right, that there is no actual education going on here.

I don't know anything about genetic engineering, so I should not be able to breeze through this. But the choices are as blunt as "do the thing without due thought" or "consider the options"--hm, which should I do? Should I "proceed regardless of consequences"? Or be "careful about the ramifications"? My wording may be slightly different from the game's, but that is the level of obviousness here.

So I think it is rather a stretch to call is a "simulator" or something that teaches "ethics and communication." It's hardly a teaching aid, as the choices are far too uninteresting to teach.

kinda hard

It was okay :)

we should atleast try in help

good

I guess its because it's about 3am where I'm at right now, but I clicked on this thinking it was "Your life as a Generic Engineer" and let me tell you, I was profoundly confused when I was immediately faced with the dilemmas of gene therapy ethics.

"Is this what your run-of-the-mill structural engineer is doing these days? I had no idea," I said to myself.

Then I checked myself and realized my mistake. There really isn't much to say about this story and I probably rated it too high. When I got the end with the mole covered baby I was stricken with a deep loathing dread. What have I done? Has science gone too far? A mole covered baby? Damn. I might have just as well injected the child with decades of self-doubt and irreparable body image issues.

It's a very simple game on ethics. The decisions are very black and white; if you don't do what's expected of you, you'll get a game over.

Ultimately, it's probably best if people want a simple, quick, and concise understanding of human ethics and how their actions might affect others. Also, it gives a bit of information on genetic engineering.

It serves its purpose. If you want to create an actual storygame, however, you may want to add more to it? Maybe this is in a place where there are no ethical laws - that's a little more interesting (not that this one isn't interesting!) and can also be a teaching experience on why we need ethics.
I hope to see more from you in the future! :)

It was boringly short

This story should be taken at face value. It's a teaching aid with a simple story attached. Not much more to it.

For its intended purpose, I think this does a pretty good job. And it certainly fits the edutainment category.

Its also a nice refresher see someone use the site for a school project and not spit out a steaming pile of sloppy cow dung.