Ideology in my Controversy

Below, I will talk about the perspectives of the controversy I chose. As a reminder, the controversy I chose is about the ethics of research of editing human genetic material.

IRRI Photos, "Gamma Lab". 4/11/06 via Flickr.
Attribution Non-Commercial Sharealike 2.0 Generic License.

Who is involved in the controversy?

• There are two opposing sides on this issue. One side believes that this type of research should not be conducted at all because it is not ethical. It is too invasive and unethical for their taste. This side also fears that once the research is conducted, it could be taken too far and lead to 'designer babies' and other unhealthy obsessions within the genome modification spectrum. 
• The other side believes that further research in this area could be beneficial to preventing the continuation of diseases through generations. This includes scientists who are interested in stem cell research and want to continue to develop solutions to many different biological problems. 

Who are some major speakers/writers within the group?

• Many scientists either support or protest the type of research. The article that called an urgent debate was written by a group of Chinese scientists and published in the Protein and Cell science journal. The scientists who authored the paper are affiliated with many prestigious organizations.

What kind of social/cultural/economic/political power does each group hold?

• I feel that both sides have compelling arguments and can argue that their belief is true because the debate could easily go either way. On one hand, it is concerning because there can be scary implications of the science that can go awry and can be manipulated to scare the public, but on the other hand, the benefits from this type of research could benefit tons of people and prevent future generations from harm. So both sides have the same amount of power in every aspect.

What resources are available to different groups?

• There is almost always ways to get funding for different research, but it may not happen for the scientists that want to pursue this type of research due to the large ethical issues that many people are concerned about. People who oppose the research don't get money for not wanting it to happen. 

What does each group value?

• The people who oppose the innovative research value science to a point where it doesn't interfere with natural human evolution, and they are frightened of where the research could lead us, in terms of human development. What if the research led to even worse incurable diseases?
• The scientists who want to pursue the research value innovation and knowledge because they want to help people and find how the human genome responds to different manipulations. They are interested in knowing how things will pan out and are open to discovering more about the different paths this research could lead us on. 

What counts as evidence for different positions?

• The pro-genome engineering side of the debate has a number of different articles as evidence currently, and can use the other types of living things we have genetically modified, like plants.
• The no-to-genome engineering group has tons of years of evidence of natural evolution as evidence. 

Is there a power differential between the groups?

• I don't think there is necessarily a power differential between the groups, as both sides seem to hold an equal amount of power on the subject- one group can argue that this is dangerous to humanity and the other can argue that this would only help people. 

Is there any acknowledged common ground between the groups?

• I don't think there is any acknowledged common ground right now between groups. They both want to pursue two different things when it comes to this type of research.

Is there any unacknowledged common ground between the groups?

• I think there is a universal want to improve lives, but one group is willing to take necessary scientific risks, while the other group is held back by fear of the possible consequences. 

Do the various groups listen to each other? That is, do they respond to the claims made by each other? Or do they only talk to people who hold the same position?

• I feel that the groups are willing to talk to each other and reach a compromise, but the research has currently been halted as they try to find an even compromise. Both groups seem open to talking to each other about all that the research could entail.