The Potential of Genetic Research - Essay Example

Stem Cells Research Introduction The potentials of genetic research are broad. Some are touted to ease suffering and extend life. But some may tread on dangerous grounds. Genetic research that yields advanced Eugenics may prove harmful to humans and destabilize accepted social values. The 1997 cloning of the sheep, Dolly received mixed reactions. The federal government immediately passed legislation outlawing human cloning. But Dolly did give birth to other initiatives. Studies on therapeutic cloning made significant progress. The debate on stem cell research has continued to hog the limelight as well as popular topic of discourses in the academic and scientific community. In the attempt to bring some semblance of civility from both opposing camps, many articles have been written both for general readership and for the scientific community. The discourses have been tackled from different angles of argument yet it is still difficult to find middle ground. There are significant differences between a scholarly and popular publication. Academic publication aims to provide the scientific community and academe theoretically based arguments that would capture their attention. Popular publications on the other hand aim to educate the general public on the contentious issues without venturing into technical terminologies that may cloud the issue further. Writers for popular publications should consider the limitations of readers when it comes to explaining relevant facts. The academic and scientific community would not accept simple explanations for the issues. They would consider the validity of the arguments if they were well grounded and anchored on accepted theories. Both mediums aim to inform but they carry different weights. In examining some examples of the two types of publications, it is but appropriate to consider the audience each of the publications was intended for. Ultimately, the intention of the writers is to educate the public. At first glance, without delving into details, academic publications appeared to be longer and with more substantial discussions compared to popular magazines or newspapers. The brevity of articles usually found in magazines or newspapers has a purpose - to reach the widest audience possible without sacrificing content or quality. If one would require fast facts, then it is more practical to turn to popular publications. The strategy of this paper is to pair up two articles from each type with similar issues discussed. This would give the readers two presentations for the same issue. The Regulation Argument Popular Publication Article Title: To create, or not to create Author: Bernadine Healy, M.D. Publication: U.S. News & World Report. Washington Academic Publication Article: Navigating the quagmire: the regulation of human embryonic stem cell research Author/s: D.G.Jones and C.R.Towns Publication: Human Reproduction Dr. Healy, writing on the necessity of having ground rules set before pursuing stem cell research further, attempted to influence her readers through her more emotional contentions about the issue. There was no attempt to elaborate on details. The writer dealt with simple facts that the public can easily relate and understand. She did give a brief background on the progress of legislation but very little detail. Healy presented one position on banning the continuance of stem cell research. She wrote, "A Swiss law that took effect earlier this month is typical of laws in most European countries: It bans embryo creation outright."1 Jones and Towns elaborated on four different positions. Position A advocated complete ban of stem cell research; Position B called for status quo; Position C allowed continued research within the 14-day limit for embryo extraction; and Position D permitted the creation of human embryo for research purposes in addition to the other current research initiatives.2 Comparing the intentions of the two articles, both are informative but the writers of the scholarly publication allowed the readers to form their opinions after having presented a holistic view of the arguments on regulations. The authors also presented their own views and analyses regarding each argument thereby giving the readers a more well-rounded discourse. The readers of the academic journal can form informed opinions because the authors presented all sides of the argument. The readers of the magazine however would most likely be influenced by the writer's appeal. Developments in Stem Cell Research Popular Publication Article Title: The promise of stem cell research Author/s: Michael Bay and Matt Ford Publication: CNN Website Academic Publication Article: Stem cell research: cloning, therapy and scientific fraud Author/s: AJ Rusnak and AE Chudley Publication: Clinical Genetics Bay and Ford gave an account on the developments in stem cell research in a direct and factual manner. The authors used simple or popular terminologies that are familiar to the general public. To make their article more credible, they inserted opinions from known experts to support their presentation. They also gave a testimonial on the efficacy of using the technology to reverse the course of disease. Ian Rosenberg, a recipient of stem cell therapy related the positive effects of the procedure. Rosenberg had suffered a heart attack previously and time has run out. However, when he received treatments using stem cells, he was able to recover and extended his life.3 The article also mentioned briefly on the fraudulent act of Korean geneticist Hwang Woo-Suk without volunteering any other information. Rusnak and Chudley not only presented facts of stem cell research, they also defined each important terminology to support their article. However, their article may be too cut and dried for ordinary readers. Rusnak and Chudley discussed the scandal in South Korea and going to the extent of giving a detailed account of the incident. The authors also gave a detailed account of the procedures used in stem cells research and their applications in treating diseases. The article read more like an account in a biology textbook and would appeal to the academic community. Comparing the two articles, Bay and Ford used laymen's term to explain the behavior of stem cells. They wrote, "These cells have the potential to develop into any of the 220 cell-types in the human body, and serve as a kind of natural repair mechanism. Theoretically they can keep dividing and re-dividing as long as an organism is alive, producing red blood cells, skin cells, muscle cells or whatever the body needs to keep going".4 In contrast, Rusnak and Chudley tried to explain the same concept in this manner. "Stem cells can also be categorized by their differentiating ability. Multipotent cells such as hematopoeitic stem cells are capable of differentiating into multiple cell types, including red blood cells, white blood cells and platelets".5 When presenting developments on stem cell research, the academic article was too technical for general readership. Anyone who reads the articles should have a decent background in biology to get the big picture. Sometimes when one needs to get the message across, it would be better to simplify things. Value Conflict Argument Popular Publication Article Title: Values conflicts in stem cell research Author: Cynthia Wagner Publication: The Futurist Academic Publication Article: Embryonic stem-cell research and the moral status of embryos Author: C. Chu Publication: Internal Medicine Journal Wagner's article breezed through the prevailing conflicts on values in stem cell research. She enumerated briefly the different arguments of for or against the continuance of stem cell research. She implied that at the root of the arguments lie the interests of each side. But it was clear where the author was coming from when she highlighted more arguments from the supporters of stem cell research. The article lacked depth in the presentation of the arguments on value conflict. Chu's two-page article took the opposing argument. He presented his argument concisely and with concrete references that would support his position. He was not for the utilitarian interpretation of ethical considerations for stem cell research. In contrast to Wagner's article, his arguments are more grounded and presented in a logical progression. His position would be more convincing compared to Wagner's. Unlike the previous academic article where it was quite tortuous to maneuver and digest, his presentation of arguments was more appropriate compared to Wagner's. Although it was implied in her article which side she was on, the lack of credible and theoretical underpinnings made her arguments weak. When value arguments are at stake, the strategy that Chu took to defend his position would be more plausible. The Policy Argument Popular Publication Article Title: Science unstemmed Author: Wesley Smith Publication: The American Spectator Academic Publication Article: Human embryonic stem cells: research, ethics and policy Author: Guido de Wert and Christine Mummery Publication: Human Reproduction Smith's article was written in a highly emotional tone. At times, the reader can feel the anger of the author. At the beginning of his article, the reader is already aware of his belligerent stance against Proposition 71, the law that supported stem cell research in California. The author, at times had made malicious attacks on personalities involved in the passage and promotion of the state bill. Here is an example: "But the death blow came when California's 800-pound political gorilla, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger."6 The article would repulse readers who are looking for a balanced view on the controversy. The author committed an argumentum ad hominem in pursuing his argument against legalizing stem cell research. Wert and Mummery's article was the exact opposite of Smith's. The article used sound strategies in arguing ethical objections to stem cell research. The authors applied the "principle of proportionality, the slippery slope argument, and the principle of subsidiarity"7 in all arguments presented. The authors did no sweeping allegations or statements whether for or against a position. In the end, each side was properly addressed and scrutinized. To the general readership, the strategy of Wert and Mummery in forwarding their arguments may be too complicated. Nevertheless, reading their article would give all moral arguments a fair chance. With such a contentious issue, all avenues must be explored to extract the truth. It is a disservice to readers if the issues were slanted to favor one position. In presenting dissenting views, emotional tirades would likely do more damage than good. Objectivity is the key to successfully convince readers. Ethical Considerations Popular Publication Article Title: The Stem Cell Challenge Author: Robert Lanza and Nadia Rosenthal Publication: Scientific American Academic Publication Article: Bioethics, Religion, And Democratic Deliberation: Policy Formation And Embryonic Stem Cell Research Author: Miriam Brouillet and Leigh Turner Publication: HEC Forum. Lanza and Rosenthal explored the emerging questions regarding the safety and potentials for errors in stem cell research. The authors not only wrote in a concise manner, their article would appeal to general readership. Also included in the article are illustrations showing the how embryonic cells looked like. Graphical presentation is particularly effective especially if it is difficult for the author to explain processes. Moreover, the illustrations (in full color) supported the topic. For individuals wanting to know more about stem cell research without having to give up their existing positions, the readers can actually see illustrated explanations of the stem cell process. This article can inform readers without being too technical. For general readership, Lanza and Rosenthal was successful in providing relevant information that will support or debunk issues in the ongoing debate. Brouillet and Turner gave a balanced view on different aspects of the stem cell debate. The authors also sought middle grounds in the ongoing debate hoping to resolve the issue. The authors dealt less with the technical aspect and more on the ethical, philosophical aspects of the arguments. The authors gave a broad picture on the ongoing debate and examined them against the framework of democratic deliberation. The two articles in this case are complementary to each other. The popular publication presenting the case in layman's term while the academic journal gave the arguments a good foundation. The treatment of Brouillet and Turner on the debates was non-partisan. They allowed the readers to form their own conclusions. Synthesis The articles selected were only some of the many literatures available to the public on stem cell research. It only shows that there are immense interests over the outcome of stem cell research. The continuing debate also implied a polarized community. Whether stem cell research would be beneficial or detrimental to the human race is a question waiting for some answers. In presenting arguments whether on moral or logical issues, the arguments should be anchored on fundamental, theoretical and pragmatic grounds. Presenting arguments without objectivity will not win any support. A balanced view is preferable. On the other hand, highly technical presentations are difficult to understand. Hence, the general readership would prefer popular media when getting information. The responsibility of the media in providing factual and truthful information is great. The ordinary citizen has no access to information except through the popular press. In the foregoing discussion on the ten different articles, there were some articles that were able to bridge the gap between intellectual discourse and light reading. However, majority of the academic journals are often produced for the consumption of the academe. Popular press to a certain degree is not a reliable source of information if the articles are emotionally charged and lacks objectivity. Some writers had the mistaken notion that they can sway public opinion through fiery statements and conclusions. That is not the case. The public has other ways in dealing with issues and some articles would just sow confusion than understanding. Conclusion The purpose of the articles was to elucidate and not obfuscate the issues. In some instance, there were articles that would confuse the readers with all the scientific jargon. The principle of directness and simplicity should apply when contentious issues are discussed. Whatever the intentions of the authors who wrote the selected articles, many would agree that they were written to inform. It would be unfair to say that academic journals were solely written for the readership of the academe and the intellectuals. However, the diversity of the articles shows the contrary. There is always that element of inadequacy or even fear from ordinary readers that made scholarly texts intimidating. Contrary to that assumption, academic texts yielded a myriad of reliable information that popular media would sometimes overlook. As the debate on the ethical and moral implications of stem cell research evolves, so would the written articles. The written texts and opinions of the writers play a major role in swaying public opinion. However, presenting an imbalanced view would not help the readers draw their own conclusions. The failure of some writers to take advantage of the opportunity to present their side clearly and succinctly muddles the issues further. Cited Works Bay, Michael and Matt Ford, "The Promise of Stem Cell Research," CNN, April 20, 2006, 28 Jan. 2007 de Wert, Guido and Christine Mummery, "Human Embryonic Stem Cells: Research, Ethics and Policy" Human Reproduction.18.4 (2003): 672-682. Jones, D.G. and C.R.Towns, "Navigating The Quagmire: The Regulation Of Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research" Human Reproduction.21.5 (2006):1113-1116. Healy, Bernadine, "To create, or not to create" U.S. News & World Report. [Washington] 138.10 (2005): 59 Rusnak, A.J. and A.E. Chudley, "Stem Cell Research: Cloning, Therapy and Scientific Fraud" Clinical Genetics. 70 (2006):302-305. Smith, Wesley, "Science Unstemmed" The American Spectator 38.1 (Feb 2005):23-26. Read More