Ideology in My Controversy

Mühlberg, Georg. "German students of a Burschenschaft fighting a sabre duel"
01/29/2011 via Wikimedia. Public Domain License

Mark Twain once said, “I thoroughly disapprove of duels.  If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."  While this may be one way of solving a debate, it is more important to analyze the groups involved and the arguments being made.  And thus, our research on the controversy regarding genetic modification of embryos continues…

Three main groups speak out in this debate over the genetic modification of embryos.  The Chinese scientists who discovered the process, the educated science scholars, and the general public.  Junjiu Huang is the leader of the researchers in China who are experimenting with the embryos.  Many professors have the leading voice among the scholars, such as George Daley, a stem-cell biologist from Harvard.  Among the general public, it seems to be those with religious beliefs that are opposed to the issue and therefor speak out.

While the general public may spark some scientists to reconsider their views, it is truly the scientific community that holds the power to decide if the genetic modification of embryos continues.  The Chinese scientists who discovered the process also hold power as they are the ones who control the knowledge and could potentially proceed with their own plan despite others’ views.

The people involved in opposing the issue are more limited to using an emotional appeal, although some arguments can be made using the scientific research of the harmful effects.  On the other hand, the Chinese scientists are limited to using their factual evidence to show the benefits of their discoveries.

Much of the general population values this idea of not playing God.  Secondly, those with knowledge in the field understand and value the avoiding the consequences (many unforeseen) that could occur with the modifications.  The Chinese scientists and those who approve the research value the benefits it could make to human health and beyond.  They may also value the profit that the research makes.

While pathos plays a large role in the voice of the general public, the main evidence that will actually lead to change will be the scientific proof.  This applies to the Chinese scientists as well.  The scientifically proven pros must outweigh the scientifically proven cons, or vice versa. 

The power truly lies in the hands of the Chinese scientists since they hold the knowledge and the research.  They could continue operations without any consent until a group was able to shut them down based on real dangers.  It is harder to stop progress than to keep it going.

Both sides of the argument acknowledge many of the scientific advantages and disadvantages and agree with them.  However, the decision (if their truly is one) will come by deciding if the benefits outweigh the dangers and risks.  There is little other common ground as the two groups have different ethical beliefs.

The general public most likely only talks to those who agree the genetic modification is unacceptable.  Whether they want to or not, the scientific community is forced to respond to the claims of research made by the opposing parties.