Analyzing Context

In this post, I will analyze the context of my chosen controversy for Project 4. I will do this by answering the questions on Writing Public Lives page 340.

geralt, "Problem Analysis Solution Magnifying Glass Text." Oct. 2015 via Pixabay. Public Domain License.

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

This debate regarding stem cell research on human embryos has two broad perspectives, one of which does approve of this research, and another that does not. The perspective that supports this research is a relatively scientific perspective. People with this perspective argue that this type of research is necessary in order to advance the scientific field, and stem cell research in particular. People with the opposing perspective mostly come from an ethical viewpoint, and argue that it is unethical to experiment on human embryos.

2. What are the major points of contention or major disagreements among these perspectives?

The major disagreement between these perspectives has to do with the use of human embryos in this type of gene-editing technology. While people who support this experimentation believe that human embryos' genetic codes should be edited for research, the opposition sees major problems with this. In particular, this perspective cites ethical and safety concerns regarding this procedure.

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

These perspectives both probably agree that scientific advancement is important for curing diseases such as beta thalssemia, the blood disorder at the focus of this controversy. However, they believe in different ways to cure these diseases. The supporters want to continue with this stem cell research, while the opponents do not want to continue with this type of research.

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

The supporters of this experimentation hold a strong belief in scientific advancement for the sake of the greater good. The opponents probably hold a similar belief, but have a stronger belief in the value of human life. This perspective would not sacrifice what they see as a human life for the "greater good" of scientific progress.

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

The supporters are asking their audience to take a stand in favor of this experimentation. The more scientific texts are encouraging scientists to further pursue this research, while the texts aimed at a slightly less scientific audiences encourage readers to simply take a stand for the experiments through platforms such as social media. For instance, this article demonstrates a perspective that supports this science.

The opponents are asking their scientific audiences to temporarily (or permanently) halt such scientific procedures until better safety/ethical standards are conceived. They are asking their less scientific audiences to again take a stand against this through platforms such as social media as well. For example, in this blog post an ethicist encourages the audience to be critical of studies like this due to ethical oversights they might stem from.

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

The perspective in favor of this type of scientific experimentation is most useful in supporting my argument. Because I plan to also argue in favor of this, it will be useful to see what previous arguments have used as evidence. While I am not arguing against this procedure, it will also be useful to see what the other perspective is using as evidence, possibly to refute their arguments.

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

The ethical perspective against this scientific testing will probably be the greatest threat to my argument. This is because not a lot can be said against ethical arguments, and there isn't any evidence I can call forth to refute their arguments. Ethics is mostly an issue of beliefs, and there is not much I could say to disprove their arguments.

Reflection

For this reflection, I read Andrea and Mira's blog posts. Both of them had really well-developed blog posts that clearly answered the questions about context. I found it interesting that they were both able to identify some ideological common ground between them. Although each perspective in their debates seemed very different, they clearly showed that they have significant ideological overlaps. This helped me realize how important these points of agreement could prove to be in my own debate, as drawing on these could really strengthen my own argument as well.