Project 3 Outline

In this blog post, I will provide an outline for the blog post that I will be writing for Project 3.

B., Kristina, "Blogging Research Wordle." 09/07/08 via Flickr. Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License.

Introduction

For my introduction, I will be using the first item from "Introducing your Public Argument," as given in Writing Public Lives page 415. This item, which advises connecting the issue to my audience's worldview, might be especially effective for this position argument for this particular audience. This audience holds a common belief in the value of science, so it is something that could be used as a hook for any reader. In addition, it can serve as an introduction for my position argument, since the audience will likely be able to tell what I am arguing right away. This way, I am both introducing the subject and expressing my main opinion in the introduction.

Developing Strong Supporting Paragraphs

Major Supporting Arguments

• This type of experimentation is necessary for the continuation of genomic research. Without this research, it will become difficult and nearly impossible to judge the effectiveness of current findings on human beings.
• This experimentation brings us one step closer to not only treating, but curing certain diseases that have caused much suffering. This research holds the possibility of curing these diseases before they become a problem.
• Without research, it is impossible to overcome the issues with this technology that we have already found. Research is the only way to ensure that this technology can be used on human beings.

Major Criticisms

•  Experimentation on human beings is ethically/morally wrong. Altering the genomic code goes against all ethical values.
• Sufficient permission is not attained to perform these tests. Human embryos cannot give permission for these experiments. 
• The current technology is too unsafe to use on human beings. 
• Designer babies could result from this research.

Select Your Key Support and Rebuttal Points

Key Support:

• This type of experimentation is necessary for the continuation of genomic research. Without this research, it will become difficult and nearly impossible to judge the effectiveness of current findings on human beings.
• This experimentation brings us one step closer to not only treating, but curing certain diseases that have caused much suffering. This research holds the possibility of curing these diseases before they become a problem.

Rebuttal Points:

•  Experimentation on human beings is ethically/morally wrong. Altering the genomic code goes against all ethical values. This also ties into the point about designer babies, and this is a popular concern that must be addressed.
• The current technology is too unsafe to use on human beings. This is a common point that often results in many misconceptions, so it should also be addressed.

Tentative Topic Sentences for Each Support/Rebuttal Point and Evidence

• Key Support 1: Further research into editing the human genome is the only way to see if this technology is viable for clinical use.
• Huffington Post: “Although it has attracted a lot of attention, the study simply underscores the point that the technology is not ready for clinical application”
• Key Support 2: Without this type of experimentation, we will have no way to tell whether this procedure could possibly cure potentially life-threatening diseases.
• YouTube Interview:“there is the potential, though, to [...] splice [diseases] out of the sequence before a child is even born” (2:07-2:16)
• Rebuttal 1: While many argue that genetically engineering the human genome is ethically wrong, it is worse to allow life-threatening diseases to carry on when there is a potential way to cure them.
• The Guardian: "However ignoring the resource is also risky. We may needlessly subject future generations to an endless cycle of suffering and disease."
• Rebuttal 2: More research is necessary in order to fix certain safety concerns with this technology, and ensure that it is safe to use in clinical settings.
• MIT Technology Review: “'These authors did a very good job pointing out the challenges,”'says Dieter Egli, a researcher at the New York Stem Cell Foundation in Manhattan. 'They say themselves this type of technology is not ready for any kind of application.'"

Map of My Argument

A Coggle of my argument can be found here.

Conclusion

For my conclusion, I will use the first item listed in "Concluding Strategies" in Writing Public Lives page 421. This item advises that I use a call to action to motivate my audience to act. This would be most effective here because of the particular audience I am addressing. Generally, this audience might feel that, while the controversy is interesting, they cannot act on it because they are not formally part of the scientific community. However, I want to use this strategy to show this specific audience how they might themselves contribute to the movement.

Reflection

For this reflection, I read Hallye and Chelsea's posts on Considering Visual Elements. Both of their posts helped me realize how important it is for the visual elements to align with the genre, audience, and purpose of each public argument. For instance, Hallye's genre is more formal so it's important not to use too many images, and to make sure each image is important to the argument. Similarly, Chelsea specifically talked about choosing images that align with her topic and genre. This will be important for me to keep in mind as I start writing my draft for this project.