Ideology in My Controversey

Who is involved?
In the conflict of genetic modification of human embryos, there are both supporters and opponents on board the decades long odyssey into the gray area of progress. Scientists and those with no scientific background alike continue to weigh in on the movement towards greater scientific involvement in human destiny. The issue of genetic engineering divides people very passionately because for both parties involved it is understood that the fate of a human life is at stake. While only a handful of individuals have the scientific knowledge to judge the discipline's potential, the outcome effects all of humanity.

Who are some of the major speakers/writers?
Some of the major writers involved in the conflict are the scientific journals themselves. Nature magazine recently refused to publish a paper written by a scientific team based in China that conducted human embryo modification on rejected fetuses from a nearby clinic. Editors form Nature cited that the topic of embryonic modification was too controversial. Protein & Cell, the journal that published the paper, cited that no viable fetuses were actually harmed, and thus the study conducted was not unethical.

What kind of social/cultural/economic/political power is involved?
For both opponents and proponents of genetic modification, there is a diverse group of individuals involved. Scientists and geneticists are a large majority of both the opponent and proponent sides. The issue of genetic modification also typically divides political parties, with Democrats generally for it, and Republicans generally against (there are of course some exceptions). Finally, another significant portion of those involved are writers, citizens, and largely, families. Families are very much impacted by the argument - for some, genetic modification is the only way to safely have children, but for others, three-parent children are a challenge the traditional familial structure.

What does each group value?All parties value human life and together acknowledge that a human life is at stake and thus the consequences of the issue could be potentially staggering. Those who support genetic modification value the power of science and technology and their role in human health. They support using modification as a way to prevent debilitating illness and increase the longevity and quality of life. Some opponents of genetic modification value their spiritual beliefs that humans should not interfere with what they consider the work of God. Others value traditional familiar structure and a natural birth cycle. Others value science and progress, but fear that faulty or misguided science could wreak more harm than good on humanity.

Is there a power differential?
In the case of genetic engineering, power is generally equally distributed between opponents and proponents, who both comprise of scientists, politicians, and everyday citizens.


Is there any acknowledged common ground?For both parties involved, it is understood that the gravity of the decisions made now will affect future generations to come. For both groups, individuals agree that each experiment and each paper progresses us closer and closer to the inevitable question - where will we draw the line? For both opponents and proponents, it is agreed that a new code of ethics needs to be constructed, and that a new charter must be drawn for science and morality will proceed from here on out.

Is there any unacknowledged common ground?
At times, the two parties forget that another common goal is to prevent and ultimately end human suffering. The proponents of genetic modification believe that engineering and screening is the best way to prevent illness before it even occurs. The opponents of modification  are not against longer lives and healthier children - but some believe the dangers of modification outweigh the potential benefits.

Do the various groups listen to each other?
Due to the uneven ideological ground on which the two parties sometimes operate, it can be difficult to reach an understanding. Those who oppose and those who support on scientific grounds tend to listen to each other better - the fundamental basis for the arguments are more or less the same. Communication between those who are scientific supporters and those who are religious opponents is often very poor - the basis for the arguments are very different and the two groups do not necessarily prioritize the same values.