Bioethics
So, this is a very interesting TedTalk about bioethics. Wow!
And here is a link to the NCBC
What is the crux of the argument presented in the TedTalk? What strategies, find at least 2, does the speaker use to argue his point?
Then, find a topic about bioethics on the NCBC website and tell us what you think about it. No repeat topics please!
This TedTalk was designed to talk about what is happening in our "scientific, biotechnological culture" for the first time in history. This talk was all about how we now have the power to design different things. It starts off by talking about the waves f evolution, and what we think of as Darwin evolution then it goes in to talk about selective breeding, and the different traits that each person likes. The talk talks about how back in the days they use to have to do it the hard way by choosing offspring that looked a particular way and the. Had to breed them. We now do not have to do it this way. The. It goes on to show different pictures of the different hybrids and how they are now in the process of making them. There are so many different real creatures. One of the things they have been doing is using genetic enhancement, or genetic manipulation, of normal selective breeding pushed a little bit through genetics.
ReplyDeleteThe two different strategies that I noticed in this TedTalk was imaginary. I think that the use of the different photos throughout the presentation really helped people understand. I believe that because of the different types of creatures they were talking about, no one really knew what they even were and I'm sure people were wondering what they looked like. By showing the different pictures, that helped people understand so much better.
The second strategy that he uses in his talk was his emotion. He was very calm throughout the whole talk. He didn't seem nervous, and he seemed like he knew exactly what he was talking about and what he was going to say. This definitely helped him get his point across and keep everyone interested, which from what it seemed he was doing a very good job of that.
The topic about bioethics that I found was that each fall the Nations Catholic Bioethics Center presents a series of two-day seminars in various cities across the United States to address current topics in bioethics. I found that this two day seminar would be very helpful, the objectives of the seminar include the training of those engaged in health care ministry and other interested individuals to effectively represent the Church's moral teaching in their various institutions as it is summarized in The Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care
Imagery was a very important strategy used in the talk because without pictures of these animals, the audience may have to imagine their own versions which can cause confusion to the topic at hand. Also, he was very calm throughout his talk which was evident, but it also seemed to show urgency in a calm way because the issues of bio-engineering are occurring now in our day.
DeleteI also said something about his use of images and it helped me better understand the presentation and I'm assuming that it did the same for many of the other veiwers.
DeleteCass, I liked the article you chose. It's good to know that they have these seminars to keep up to date in all the scientific issues. It's also good to know that there are people fighting for the ethics in all these experiments.
DeleteI agree imagery was important and I used the ideas of that in my blog too. I also like how you included the ideas of using biochemistry as a means of personal evolution because that is an idea most left out in their blogs.
DeletePART 1
ReplyDeleteIn the recent years of scientific research, many new ideas have emerged, from the new medicine being created to the altering of DNA. All of these new ideas have developed at an astonishing pace and are not slowing down. In the case of medical breakthroughs, it is often apparent how far is too far in terms of ethics. Whether or not we abide by these morals is a different story, but it is not always as clear when it comes to altering DNA or designing organisms. In his TedTalk, Paul Root Wolpe, an ethicist, explained many different types of this new evolution he refers to as "evolution by design." He then leaves it to the audience to decide how far we can push this technology in a way that remains ethical. He is arguing that something must be done to determine the ethical standards that the scientific community needs to uphold, although he is not specific on which side he stands on. He uses visual rhetoric and rhetorical questions to successfully convey his thoughts.
When talking about making changes to the DNA of an organism there is a innate challenge because many people do not understand how it works. Wolpe uses many images to show exactly what he is talking about. Many people would not be able to picture a cama, or have a difficult time trying to visualize it in terms of being real- not a cartoon character. Therefore, he shows pictures of all the hybrids that he uses as examples. Also, he uses humor to draw back the attention of the listeners. Near the end of the talk he compares a picture of what most people think of what they hear about scientists creating life, Frankenstein's lab, but he then shows a DNA synthesizer and explains that this device is what is used in this process. He mainly uses this strategy in the explanation of what is being done and why there needs to be a consensus of how far it is allowed to go.
After he explains what he is talking about and gives an ample amount of examples, the uses rhetorical questions to examine how far all of this should be carried out ethically. He starts out by saying, "we need to ask ourselves some questions... Is everything okay?" He then raises many more thought provoking questions about the lengths we should go to with genetically modified organisms. He expresses that it is only a matter of time before we can design our pets or even our children. Something needs to be done to create standards for this 'industry.' At this point Wolpe realizes that many people in the audience are most likely thinking there is nothing they can do and he finishes he talk by saying " It is the responsibility of everybody because it will determine what kind of planet and what kind of bodies we will have in the future." This is a passive call to action of everyone because someday it will in fact be effecting all of society and relatively soon.
Wolpe successfully educated many people on the severity of the progression of scientific research. It is happening right now; this is not a problem for our grandchildren to solve. He used visual rhetoric and rhetorical questions to engage his audience. He brought up things that people may see in the news, but may not understand the means that were used to achieve the product. The point is clear. Something needs to happen to answer the question, "is everything okay"? Just because we can does not always mean we should.
PART 2
DeleteThe second leading cause of death for 15 to 35 year olds is suicide, killing more than homicides, and is only out done by unintentional accidents. This is incredibly unfortunate because not only are people feeling like there is nothing left to life for, but also, now suicide is being promoted by some of the health field. Now, if a person wants to end their life, they may be assisted by a physician. Now, obviously, there is much more to physician-assisted suicide than that, but does that even matter? When people who are ready to give up see stories on the news of bills being past that make this suicide legal than the only logical conclusion that an emotionally unstable person can make is that if life is that disposable, than theirs is too. On NCBC, I found a workshop on what the Catholic Church says about physician-assisted suicide. It is a great thing to show people what the Church says about it. I think that this is an important thing to be educated on, but why is it not being done everywhere and not only in regards to suicide that is assisted? Young people need to know that help is out there and it is okay to reach out for it, but living in a world where there is no respect for human life, it is hard to think that there is a purpose for being here, and that we need to stay to find out what that is. I personally that that there should be more of these talks for teens and people struggling. Yes, there are ways to reach out, but many people are ashamed to do so and are not always comfortable talking about the subject because of the stigma surrounding it. The fact that there are bills to support the ending of life's is very upsetting, but there is comfort knowing that the Church is trying to educate people are the morality and legality of the issues.
I agree that Wolpe successful educated the people through the many examples he provided the audience throughout his speech. The use of imagery aids his ideas of the many of the mixed animals such as the liger because imaging them would be difficult. I think that was an important topic to be brought up. The article you read is very important to our society today and I think that if many people will find comfort in the Church trying to educate people and help them through their struggles of depression or suicidal thoughts because it is a problem in our world today.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe Ted Talk on bio-engineering by Wolpe presented an interesting topic on its ethical problems. Wolpe argues that some ground rules should be made concerning the use of bio-engineering because will change the future of the human race. It also present many ethical questions such as if it is right to create human clones or the uses or engineering different animals. Through Wolpe's use of tone and the perspective of a American sociologist and bioethicist, he validates the importance of his argument. Wolpe creates an informative, but urgent tone to develop his argument. Wolpe uses a very informative tone by providing many examples of the uses of bio-engineering. He shows multiple ways it has been used throughout his speech, including Dolly the sheep and others such as the liger and zorse, which are mixes of different animals. He appeals to the audience through logic in this way by presenting the facts. He ends the Ted Talk with "It's already happening. It's not science fiction. We are not only already using these things in animals, some of them we're already beginning to use on our own bodies." This creates a feeling of urgency to the audience because the effects of bio- engineering are occuring now. There is not time to waste to create some ground rules because future generations will depend be affected by these methods. Is it ethical to change the future of the human race? As a bioethicist and sociologist, Wolpe uses his perspective to strengthen his argument. As a bioethicist, Wolpe understands what bio-engineering is and the benefits and its drawbacks. He uses facts and experience in his field to present his case. He begins by taking the audience through the "three great waves of evolution" to explain his thoughts and ideas. The entirety of his speech is compiled of examples of bio-engineering that he sees as a problem such as the insects that can be controlled by a remote or the mouse that can grow a human ear.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading an article by the NCBC or National Catholic Bioethics Center, I had a few thoughts on bio-engineering that I did not have before. I read an article on growing human organs in pigs. This would be beneficial for those on in grave need of an organ donation, but with an idea such as this the means must be ethical. There cannot be any use of embryonic stem cells or have anything to do with harming human life or human dignity. We already use them for other medical reasons, food, and clothing so if the process is ethical and does not destroy human dignity, the possibility of helping many people could be at hand. The article stresses the importance of the ethical creation of the organs as it is a topic of great concern.
His facts do help to prove his point. There is a lot of them and that shows how fast biological engineering is growing. I also like how you used the article about stem cells.
DeleteMandy, the quote you added was great. It's kind of crazy and scary to think that evolution has come this far. You also mentioned the future generations which is important because they definitely need to be thought of when taking on these actions.
DeleteI feel your mention of the embryonic stem cells was crucial to differentiating between right and wrong. In my opinion, you are 100% correct in that regard. No person should be permitted to use those type of stem cells out of regard for human dignity.
DeleteThe Ted Talk is on bioethics which is the study of ethics of medicine and biology. The speaker was highlighting the different ways that biological features and species can be altered using biotechnology. It ranged from cloning, glowing skin, selective breeding, and remotely controlling animals. The speaker does not think all of this is very ethical and he explains that this is a new era of evolution.
ReplyDeleteOne strategy that he uses to prove his point is imagery. He shows many pictures of animals that have been altered by inter-species breeding, robotics, and cloning. The pictures help the viewers realize that these are real problems that are occurring in the world. The pictures also help the speaker by making things easier for the audience to put into their minds.
The second strategy that the speaker uses is critical thinking. He asks many questions that make people wonder how bioethics will turn out. He says that he does not know how things will be handled but lists many procedures that have been executed that don't have regulations because they have just been invented. He asks will there someday be a Pets R Us and people will be able to design the look of their pets prior to them being born. These things help the audience realize that something needs to be done about biological engineering and regulations must be put into action.
The article I read on NCBC was on the ethics of abortion. It explains that it is never okay, not even in the case of sexual assault. There is always a question of what if the mother is raped then is it okay to have an abortion. The answer is no. The article uses the example of an already born child who's father becomes a rapist. Would it be okay for the court to decide that the mans child should be put to death because he raped someone. The answer is clearly no and is the same case for abortions after rape. Then people usually say well that baby would be a constant reminder to the mother that she was raped. That was proved wrong in 2000 because a study was done that showed women who have an abortion are mentally wounded more than ones who have a child as a result of a rape. Also 0.04% of abortions are connected to rape, the rest are all the choices of the mother. This was a very strong article that showed ethics in a different way that was easier to understand.
I think that the article you read seems very powerful. I think in a way it ties into the one I read on assisted suicide. It is never okay to end a life, born or unborn. I think the question about whether or not is okay after rape is very important because the answer remains the same. Also, I think you bring up a good point about the mental state of the mother after rape and after abortion. I think if more mothers knew about this they would think twice before they followed through with it.
DeleteI believe imagery was an extremely powerful tool he used to convey his argument. I also think you had a controversial topic on the NCBC website. The call for arbortion after rape is a very hot topic, and many disagree on the situation. I thought you did an excellent job with it. Well done!
DeleteI like the article that you chose. It compares to mine in many ways because mine was about the human embryo. I think the ideas are very similar and very powerful.
DeleteI agree with the rhetorical strategies you found in Wolpe's speech, you did a fine job of explaining them and providing examples. The NCBC article you read is a very interesting, and much debated topic. Some people believe it is unclear whether it's justified or not, in certain situations, that point I can definitely agree with.
DeleteScientists are able to create more and more artificially than ever. This can be seen in the creation of clones, inserted genes in the genomes of an organism, or even growing a cell without the help or need of another cell. Are these things morally okay to do? Some scientists have been able to make monkeys glow in the dark. This means that they are not far from being able to make humans glow. There have been mess ups or mistakes which are gory and unsightly to see. Does this mean that scientists may have to use and mess up children to make their glow in the dark child? One cannot say that no one will try to turn a child blue or glow, because you never know who is out there. The speaker of this TED talk used many strategies to move his point across, one of them being dry humor. This could be seen when he speaks about glow in the dark babies. It seems so ridiculous to us, having glowing children, but what if that becomes a reality?
ReplyDeleteNot all bioethics is awful, gut wrenching fears of the future. Scientists have been able to put genes into a goat that will create milk that has a protein that is easily strained out of the milk that is able to be given to someone who is missing or lacking that protein in their body. This does not hurt the goat, they just milk it like normal and it lives as happy of a life that a goat can live. other instances that bioethics can be used in good ways are that if a couple cannot have children, they can have an egg cell from the mother and sperm cells from the father and manually mix them in a culture dish until they are in their blastula stage, with at least eight cells. Then the embryo is implanted into the uterus of the mother, letting her carry it to term. All the points that the speaker came up with were backed up with hard information and good thoughts. They even had pictures, to get their point across that there really are rats that can be controlled with a remote control. This is a way of using imagery in speaking to keep the audience interested and helping them understand.
DeleteLooking back at these two paragraphs, one would see the stark differences between the use of a method or tool for good or evil. The thing is, different people have different thoughts as to where that line of good and evil lie. This could be using the transgenic goats for their milk supply, as there were most likely a few mess ups that could have killed or mutilated many goats. It could be using embryos in the lab to create a child without the use of a mother’s uterus and materials. All embryos that have scientists have tried to grow out of the mother’s womb have died soon after the blastula stage. How many embryos, which are really human beings, had to die to come to this conclusion? How many more must die before either they give up, which most likely won’t happen, or until they make a child in a lab?
There are many different Catholic institutions that are looking into the processes and morals of the field of bioethics. They have never come out right and said that the idea of bioethics is bad, or that it is good, for that matter. All that these organizations have said was that they need to look deeper into these topics and the morals that are needed to perform. The problem with bioethics is that no one knows what to do with them as they are so new to the table, so able to change and be different than what anyone ever thought possible.
There is a book series by James Patterson called Maximum Ride that includes all of this in it from the eyes of a fourteen year old girl. She had been created in a lab, as the scientists took her egg cell and added two percent of avian DNA into her genome and cultured that cell until it was ready to be put back into her mother. She was born with wings and the ability to fly. She talks about all the other recombinant children she had seen, ones with inner organs outside, one with gills, without fingers and limbs, and all the awful situations that there could be. If we do not define the line between okay and not, this could happen. Scientists will be experimenting on human children, not caring if they kill hundreds before they get what they were looking for. This line must be defined.
You brought up a good point in saying that bioethics are not all wholly awful or wicked acts and studies. I also find it interesting that you picked up on the speaker's dry humor, because I myself didn't quite notice it the first time, though I concur.
DeleteWithin this particular TedTalk, Paul Root Wolpe, the speaker, talks about how we have the ability to design almost anything we can think of. He first describes it as another type of evolution. First stating how we all know about Darwinian Evolution, going from primates to human beings, Wolpe uses this to show us how far we have come. Next we have Civilization which is the process of designing and creating different ideas that can and will effect our bodies. One example that could effect us, or have effected us in the past, would be the inventing of the car because we use this now to cover much, much more land in one day compared to what we used to be able to do long ago. The last type of evolution that Wolpe describes is Design Evolution. Now he doesn't quite say it as such, but knowing how God created everything on this earth, whether he created it to be at an instant or created it so evolution happened, we now are basically reenacting that same process. Not saying we are gods now, but we finally have the technology to do such things, and it is up to us what we do with it. We also need to keep in mind that what we do now will effect the future, it is on us how we shape this world.
ReplyDeleteWolpe uses several types of strategies to prove his points on these great discoveries. The two main strategies that I have found would be Imagery and undertone. Wolpe uses imagery by showing everyone pictures of what he is describing, and if that's not enough, he explains the picture into great detail, even explaining things we cannot see such as size, shape, and what made it. The reason for explaining what made that particular animal in the pictures gives us an idea of what it should look like. He does it in a way that if we could not see the picture we would have an idea in our heads, making us think. The second major strategy, that not very many of us may have noticed, is undertone. Undertone is the feeling or tone the author has underneath what he is trying to show in his speech. Wolpe talks about Design Evolution as if it is the next best thing, although you can kind of tell that he is not for it. For example, at 11:25, in the video, Wolpe states that the idea gets worse, but he corrects himself for the audience stating that it might get better. He also makes fun of the idea of making people glow in the dark, like why would you want to glow in the dark. Although Wolpe may not be for the idea of developing new beings or bodies by technology, he does state that it is up to us to shape the future, whether we stop this nonsense or use it for the better.
The topic that I have found in the NCBC basically states that anything that happens within the Catholic Church should be of the catholic religion, anything other wise does not really matter, or should only obtain to that religion. We see in Wolpes speech, cloning, evolution, and creating hybrid animals, all things that the catholic religion is against. Catholics should be all over this saying that it is not the right thing to do, that we shouldn't be doing this because it is against our religion, but most people don't do that. Most people say something like "My science is my science and my religion is my religion." This makes it so that they can talk about both, but still believe in what is the right thing to do. Whether one does a specific task to help out the process of cloning, he/she can still say that it is the wrong thing to be doing. That's exactly what is happening in the article I have found. Medicine is a big deal in the catholic religion. It has to be to certain standards to pass in the religion, just like science should as well.
Until I read this blog, I did not think about us playing God just by listening to this TedTalk. I think that it is a huge problem that we have to deal with because on one side we could be saving lives and making lives better, but if we go to far we end up disrespecting the way we were made; in God's image and likeness. But how far can we go before it become to much? How much power is too much power? Can we even control it now that it has started? What if it gets into the hands of the wrong person? Are we acting like Hitler trying to create the perfect race? If we are acting like Hitler, are we going to justify it by saying that it is different, or is Hitler was doing going to magically become okay? When we start designing babies, I think that we are doing EXACTLY what Hitler was doing, just in a more efficient and subtle way.
DeleteThis TED Talk on bioethics by Wolpe discusses the arising concern of bio-engineering and modification. Many of the topics brought up in the presentation were the genetic modification of animals for scientific experimentation and to better suit the needs of humans. This genetic modification can also save endangered species of animals, so it is something that could prove to be be very useful and lifesaving to the animals of the world and the humans of the world. Scientists are initiating projects like cloning to save endangered species of animals. This is a very positive outlook on genetic modification. Scientists can also genetically modify animals to produce types of medication in their bodily fluids so we don't have to produce the medicine in industry, and the same technology is being used to grow human organs on the bodies of animals, readily available for transplant to a human in need. All of this is well and good, but ethics come into play in a situation like this. When do scientists overstep their boundaries? This is the main idea of the TED talk. To ask us what to far looks like. When we have the ability to change our evolution on this planet, and write a different future for our sons and daughters, or when we begin to clone humans or use them as puppets for genetic experiments, this is when too far is to far. It is great that science is making strides in this field, man just needs to be very careful about ethics.
ReplyDeleteSome strategies the speaker, Wolpe, uses are imagery and questioning, as the whole talk is called "It's Time to Question Bio-engineering." Wolpe uses imagery to his advantage by showing many images of the products of bioengineering allowing the audience to take in what he is saying from a new sense with real evidence right in front of them. The images also act as a huge description of details for the speaker because a picture is worth a thousand words. Because of the images, he is able to speak and point out traits the animals have and explain what they are and what is happening in the photo. He also poses many questions, including rhetorical questions. This makes the audience think to themselves about the matter and turn over the topic amongst themselves. It is a very effective way to make people think. It then may get the audience to pass the speaker's ideas on to even more people making the speech even more effective. Wolfe uses these two strategies very well to help support his topic.
I chose an article from NCBC on Embryos and the "14 Day Rule." This fits into bioethics because it involves experimentation on the human embryo. The rule states that embryos under the age of 14 days are legally allowed to be the objects of experimentation. This is an ethical question, especially because it involves religious beliefs about the embryo. There was a similar rule for Germany during WWII. It stated that no children in concentration camps over the age of 14 would be experimented on. Is this really something science today wants a rule of ethics to compare to? The Catholic Church sees an embryo as a human no matter what stage in development it is in. Scientists want to experiment with these embryos, thus killing them. This is unethical according to the Catholic Church but the world is already doing it. This is a serious question of ethics. Should scientists be killing embryos even in this extremely early stage? The answer should be no because killing an embryo is killing a human. They are not giving that human a chance to develop and live. This should definitely be an unethical practice both religiously and practically. Whether people believe it or not this practice is depriving an embryo a chance to grow and live, no matter what stage it is in, therefore killing a human being.
The example you used from WW2 is fantastic. It really brings the situation at hand into the light of the reader and makes it real. The Germans of WW2 were murders of humans who were just beginning to grow. The scientists experimenting with embryos are killing even younger humans who are beginning to grow. Your reference to this event in history makes this issue real to anyone who reads it, it is very relevant. It brings us back to remembering a terrible time in history, and it poses the possibility of this history being repeated soon in the years to come, or possibly even right now. Fantastic blog!
DeletePaul Root Wolpe is an American sociologist and bioethicist who examines the ethics in new science technologies. These technologies are quite interesting and worth the discussion as they bring up many controversial topics mainly concerning ethics. The new science of cloning and altering DNA is actually amazing to think about, but with a religious perspective the actions are clearly not moral. Paul reveals how the science evolution is taking a role in today's world. He creates an argument displaying the thought of how far is going too far in ethics. Wolpe contributes to his argument with the tone of his voice and sense of imagery as he creates a look into where science is taking the world.
ReplyDeletePaul Wolpe creates a use of tone in his presentation by connecting to the audience in a way that provided a sense of engagement. He follows an attitude that displays interest in the scientific background of new technologies as he is informative to his listeners in what has been progressed in the past years. Paul is confident in his talk to explain what has been accomplished, but yet he creates the question of whether or not these actions should be ruled to some point.
Wolpe also expresses his use of imagery in a formal way of presenting the aftermath of scientific years of work. The images revealed how real and effective the altering is becoming. Using the imagery creates a look for the audience to become even more aware of how science is incredibly growing. The many pictures used gave great examples of how far the evolution process has come. It is truly mind blowing to think that this is all happening in today's age as it seems we are achieving the thought to be impossible.
Paul Root Wolpe leads awareness to our world of science and also leads a question on the bioethics of it all. This topic is so crazy minded and controversy will always play apart in its subject. Paul did cross his point with the use of great devices as he used a well fitted tone and detailed imagery to share with his audience.
The article I chose from NCBC was "Gender Identity Mandate Threatens Freedom of Conscience". This article dealt with the fact that gender identity is leading human being to transfer their gender roles in a physical state. In a religion standpoint this does not result in an ethical view. We are all born into our genders by the power of God. We are all born to be male or female and to stick with what gifts God has granted us with. Gender identity is pushing the ethics to new standards by reversing the lives of human beings.
Great analysis of rhetorical strategies In Paul Wolpe's speech. I agree completely with the use of both the rhetorical strategies he used and your descriptions of how he used them. However, I think that you probably could have elaborated more on how the article you read on NCBC related to the bioethics that Wolpe discussed. Great blog!
DeleteI also talked about the ton and the imagery during this TedTalk. I thought that they were the two most important things that stood out, and I'm guessing that you agree with me considering we wrote about the same thing! Great blog!
DeleteLol hey Cass, I didn't even realize till after I wrote my blog that we both picked the two best devices. Good work amigo!
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeletePart 1
ReplyDeleteThe main point of this TedTalk is to expose the audience to bioengineering in humans and animals and propose the question of bioethics, "is it right?". The speaker of this talk questions our views on this issue in our society today. Where are our limits? Are there any? Many of the people in this audience, I'm assuming, are not familiar with the in depth details of biotechnology and human-animal hybrids that Paul Root Wolpe is discussing. First, to familiarize the audience with the topic, Paul uses imagery to give direct examples of modern bioengineering. He speaks of animals created genetically to possess bioluminesence, monkeys with three functioning arms, creatures genetically merged to form animals such as ligers and beefalos, mice with human ears, clinging, and probably the most terrifying of the combinations, computer controlled bugs with cameras and other features on them. This use of imagery takes up most of the speech. The examples used and the tone of the speaker really cause the audience to question the ethics of bioengineering, indirectly have a fear of these scientific "breakthroughs", and though it is not directly stated, to form an opinion that somewhat disapproves the uses of bioengineering in these ways. To some, the creation of monkeys who are able to move prosthetic arms in another rooms with only their brains and mice who can produce human ears for implants in people may seem like an idea that is innovative and useful for medical means. However, with the tone of Wolpe and the descriptive diction, or lack there-of at times, these ideas are shown to be very questionable in the subject of ethics, the matter of where we really should draw our boundaries when it comes to biomedical innovations.
Throughout this speech, Wolfe also uses inductive reasoning to have the audience form an opinion on this subject in relation to ethics. He uses examples of specific cases in bioengineering to get the audience to think about the real problem that we are facing here, the application of ethics to biomedical innovation and application. These specific examples that he uses, combined with his tone and imagery, conclude that the matter of this topic is questionable and that somebody, somewhere, needs to draw the line.
Part 2
ReplyDeleteReligiously speaking, there are lines that are drawn for this topic in relation to ethics. According to NCBC, or National Catholic Bioethics Center. Due to the stubbornness of society, however, most scientists and bioengineering innovators are unfamiliar to the bioethics of religion, for they refuse to acknowledge the existence of a god and the rules of religion. The article I chose to read on NCBC was one about Chimera and their place in our society. Chimera are creatures that possess the features of more than one animal. These creatures are often spoken of in fairytales and myths, such as centaurs or creatures with lions bodies and lizard tails who breathe fire. These creatures, to the everyday person, are just myths things that could never happen. But with the examples Wolpe provided, the world is not too far away from possib,y seeing a creature such as a centaur. This article that I investigated in NCBC gives moral and ethical guidelines regarding modern bioengineering in relation to the Church and religious teachings. This article gives several examples of when this bioengineering is unethical, such as when it involves the "the creation, destruction, or use of cellular derivatives from human embryos or directly-aborted human fetuses", when human gametes are used in the embryo of an animal, or when human pluripotent stem cells are used in the creation of an animal. This article states that "cross species pathogen transmission" should be avoided at all costs, and that all procedures should allow a period of time between applications to be analyzed on aN ethical level.
Comparing the article of NCBC and the speech of Wolpe, are any of these guidelines being followed? Are ethics a matter to any of the people who are creating hybrids and animal-human mixtures? It seems to me as though everything is a race to see how far we can take things before we ruin our evolution and natural state of being. At the moment, scientists seem not to have a limit for what they are doing, but rather the drive to keep doing until a physical limit is determined. However, by that point, life as we know it today may already have been altered. There is a definite need for ethical limits in this topic of discussion, and there are limits set by other groups, but at this moment scientists are not forced to follow these ethical rules, creating a problem possibly bigger than we can handle.
Technology is a word described to be new or present scientific advancements used for practical purposes. A useful piece of technology can be as simple as a pencil, a pan made for cooking, or the ability to harness fire. On the contrary, technology can also be extremely complicated. For example, complicated means of technology include cruise ships, massive jetliners, and medicines to fight disease. Often times the world does not see the harm in such little technologies like a pencil and paper. It is often the more complicated and intricate technologies that stir up the ethical dilemmas, and as the capacity of science continues to grow, so does the severity of the ethical issues humans face in the world today. In a TED talk given by Paul Root Wolpe goes into detail the new capabilities science has and the ethical questions that coincide with the advancements.
ReplyDeleteThe focus of the TED talk was on the booming industry of genetically modified organisms. These organisms that Mr. Wolpe shows are all variances of an animal's or two animal's natural form. Throughout the presentation, he shows the increasing dimensions that science can reach. Aspects of life once thought to be impossible are now simple processes manufactured in a laboratory. Although having the ability to pick and choose what an organism can do or what it looks like may seem great and harmless, the essential argument that this TED talk asks is if it is ethical to apply this new technology. Paul Wolpe questions this, and asks his audience to ponder the implications of this new science. He uses two important strategies two persuade his audience to believing it is unethical. He first shows real world examples from different universities of humans taking away the natural autonomy of an organism, and instead, they are controlling the organism and its destiny. He shows the issues that arise from these real world examples. Another strategy he uses is the asking of rhetorical questions in the last two minutes of his presentation. He says that eventually these practices will move onto humans because in reality the testing on animals is so that scientists can find ways to improve the human race. He questions, "What are the ethical guidelines we will use then?" This question and other questions that he poses all seem to have bigger meaning then their words. They all make the audience imagine a world that is much different than it is now. That is a powerful strategy that I think really benefitted his argument.
I looked at an article on the NCBC website about congress passing a law on abortion. The law is know as the Conscience Protection Act. It allows those who would usually be involved with an abortion even if they do not agree with it religiously or morally to escape from having to perform the abortion. It is to protect them from feelings of guilt or remorse. I think this is a step in the right direction for those who oppose the advancements of biochemistry. Peoples opinions must be respected, especially for the future because who knows what that holds.
I find your chosen article interesting because you are right in saying it is a step in the right direction. Abortion is a huge issue and any step we can make against it is worthwhile.
DeleteThe central theme, or rather, the core of the argument of this Tedtalk is that humans are now able to control our own evolution. The subject of manipulative evolution by the means of bio-engineering or DNA tampering is artfully introduced to the audience by Paul Wolpe. The knowledgeable speaker begins by paving out a verbal and visual timeline for the viewers to follow, pertaining to the topic of human evolution over thousands of years. He labels each age appropriately in relation to its changes and time period, all leading up to the main theme of our current evolutionary stage. Self evolution, he brings it out in the open, allowing the audience a moment to digest the reality before going on. Wolpe starts his gradual, explanatory progression by unraveling how lower level organisms are being experimented on and altered by these new techniques. The presenter also provides pictorial evidence to go along with his factual accounts. The manner in which he speaks makes it clear that Wolpe has an exceptional understanding the topic, which helps to keep the viewers attention.
ReplyDeleteThere are three obvious strategies Wolpe uses to develop his argument, two of which are considered rhetorical. He enacts a knowledgeable diction and provides exemplary photographic evidence pertaining to rhetorical strategies, and the more passive strategy he utilized is one of neutrality. Much of Wolpe's diction throughout the presentation is scientific, but not in the overwhelming sense that most experts incur. He explains his vocabulary and topics in a more simplified manner often, allowing the viewers to catch up. The photographs used provide an excellent source of imagery for the seemingly menacing topic, and he seems to have picked just the right pictures. Most of the imagery used is either unnerving objects protruding from creeping insects or cute, cloned animals. Finally, his overarching aura of neutrality helps make his speech effective in the sense that the methods and ideas are not perfect. Wolpe doesn't come right out and say they're imperfect, but he implies it, right at the end.
On the NCBC website I read one article about the National Catholic Certification program in Health care. What stood out the most to me about this text was the ongoing attempts to advance and preserve the church's moral traditions. This got me thinking about the alterations being enacted with insects and mammals in the Tedtalk. Is it morally upstanding to take away the actions or thought processes that make an animal an animal? Is it ok to essentially hollow out another organism for our own technological and evolutionary gain? I thought and thought, taking the possible eradication or curing of chronic diseases and other deadly conditions into consideration before judging these processes too harshly. The church only really seems to be especially concerned when humans are making alterations to themselves. Yet the question remains, are we playing God or simply helping ourselves live longer, richer lives? I couldn't quite decide myself, it's much too deep and complicated of a topic to formulate an opinion on in a mere matter of minutes, at least in my opinion.
I liked the article that you picked to write about. I agree with you when you said that you couldn't quite decided about us playing God, or are we helping ourself live longer. Just seems like so much to think about with this article! Also good blog! Very interesting!
Delete