Analyzing Context

In the following post, I will analyze the context of my controversy for Project 3.

Restivo, Davide. "I'm thinking of...". 04/10/2008 via Flickr.
Attribution Sharealike 2.0 Generic License.

What are the key perspectives or schools of thought on the debate that you are studying?

• The key perspectives on the genome editing debate are either in support of continuation of this research, or in opposition of it. The opposition bases their argument on ethics and sometimes religion, while the support wants to advance human development and solve issues that pertain to fighting diseases.

What are the major points of contention or major disagreements on these perspectives?

• The major point of contention is the use of human embryos. The support claims that it is necessary to use human embryos to see the effects that modifying the human DNA will have. The opposition is not willing to compromise on using human genes, because they believe that it is not ethical or right to change the waves of evolution.

What are the possible points of agreement, or the possible common ground between these perspectives?

• I think that a point of agreement is that both parties want human improvement to occur, and this type of research could save many people, with a variety of different diseases if the research ever developed enough. The opposition just cannot stand for the supports use of human embryos.

What are the ideological differences, if any, between the perspectives?

• The support values the continuation and development of this research above the fact that the material they're using is human. The opposition values the research material over the research. The support focuses more on the advancement and what that means for science as a whole, while the opposition is stuck on the fact that part of the research material is human.

What specific actions do their perspectives or texts ask their audience to take?

• The support wants their audience to see the good in what this research can accomplish, and not be stopped by what ethics dictates. The opposition wants to halt this research, have a large worldwide discussion, then edit the way the research is done, and then continue the genome editing research.

What perspectives are useful in supporting your own arguments about the issue? Why did you choose these?

• The support is most in favor of my argument. I agree with them, as well, because I also believe that the advancement of science is more important than what society says we should be ethically concerned about. 

What perspectives do you think will be the greatest threat to your argument? Why so?

• The ethical argument will be the biggest threat to my argument, because they have a variety of arguments to back them up, especially a religious argument. I have no way to refute that because I have no evidence beside my own personal opinion and science. 

Reflection

After looking at Samantha and Chelsea's blogs, I feel better about my own responses,and am excited to read about everybody's different issues and perspectives on topics. I read a few that had similar arguments, and I'm especially looking forward to how those perspectives would compare to mine. Both of the posts I read had really good analysis of their topics and I hope I did an equally good job.