Ideology in My Controversy

In this blog post, I will address the ideology that shapes the controversy that I chose to write about. As a reminder, the controversy relates to an experiment in which Chinese scientists performed research on human embryos. This ideological analysis will evaluate the ideologies that are present within this conflict.

Häggström, Mikael. "Stem cell treatments." 04/27/2009 via Wikimedia Commons. Public domain license.

1. Who is involved in the controversy?

 Broadly speaking, there are two main groups involved in this controversy. The first is the group that supports the experiment that the Chinese scientists conducted, and they see no reason why experiments like this should not be conducted in the future. This group includes certain scientists who are a part of stem cell research, as well as many people of the general public who support this research.

The second group of people involves those who do not support this experimental practice. This group involves scientists who believe that the Chinese scientists did not adhere to basic ethical guidelines, as well as others who are taking part in the discussion and agree that ethical boundaries were crossed.

2. Who are some of the major speakers/writers within these groups?

The group of people that supports the experiment seems to be led by a group of relatively well-known scientists. These include Junjiu Huang, the leader of the team who performed this experiment. Another outspoken speaker in this matter is Jennifer Doudna, a scientist from University of California, Berkley, who helped develop the technology that the Chinese scientists used. This is not to say these individuals believe this procedure should be widely used at this point; they merely believe that more research is necessary in this direction.

The group of people that does not support this experiment is by and large made up of individuals with bioethical concerns. Some outspoken critics of the procedure include George Daley, a stem cell researcher at Harvard University, who believes that this research should at least be temporarily halted before things get out of hand. Other members of this group include outspoken bioethical organizations, such as bioethics.com, who believe that the Chinese scientists crossed an ethical boundary by performing this experiment.

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

Socially and culturally speaking, scientists have been known to hold a certain amount of power because of their relatively respectable positions in society. Many people assume that scientists are better informed and educated because of this. However, bioethical organizations also hold a certain amount of power because of their platforms in social media. They depend on popular public opinion, so depending on public opinion, these organizations do hole a certain amount of social power.

4. What resources are available to different positions?

Scientists in support of this type of research generally have some financial resources available to them, depending on who is sponsoring their research. However, this is not always the case, as it depends on how much money is available for research at any point in time. Groups with bioethical concerns often have an easier time making use of social media, as this resource is a great way to get word out regarding their stand in this controversy.

5. What does each group value?

The researchers in the stem cell field value innovation and progress within the scientific field. The group against such research values certain ethical standards, such as the right to a natural life and natural processes, unaffected by scientific experiments.

6. What counts as evidence for the different positions? 

The individuals supporting stem cell research cite previous studies in the field and increasing success rates as evidence. The group opposed to this research use certain ethical and historical evidence, such as the fact that these "unnatural" processes were never in use historically.

7. Is there a power differential between the groups?

This argument has certain political connotations, which affect the power differential between the groups. For instance, this subject is closely related to pro-life and pro-choice debates, in which the power differential changes with public opinion. However, it seems to me that scientists with lots of experience in the field generally hold the power, whether those scientists support stem cell research or oppose it.

8. Is there any acknowledged common ground between groups?

Both groups seem to agree that this type of experimental cannot be common practice at this point in time. The group that supports this experimentation may argue that it could be a standardized procedure in the future, while the opposition might say that this procedure can never be used because of bioethical concerns.

9.  Is there any unacknowledged common ground?

I think it goes without saying that both groups want to eventually see a decrease in hereditary life-threatening disorders such as beta-thalassemia, which the Chinese researchers experimented on. However, they both want to go about treatment of these types of disorders in different ways.

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

From what I have read about this controversy, the groups do address one another. Scientists supporting the experimentation have responded to opposition by confirming that stem cell research is not advanced enough to use it to treat/cure certain disorders yet. Similarly, the opposition realizes that procedures using stem cells are not standard procedures currently, but they demand that some ethical boundaries be set for this experiments. Of course, it depends on the viewpoint of each individual within the groups as well, but overall, they do seem to communicate with one another. Even so, the topic remains controversial.