Ideology in My Controversy

Fildes, Luke. "The Doctor" 1891
Open Public Domain

In the following blog, I will be answering a series of questions regarding my disciple's current ongoing debate or controversy. The answers under each questions will give the reader a more informed understanding of the issue of Genome Sequencing and the belligerent's medical position.

Who is involved with the controversy or debate?

Currently there are three groups involved with the issue of the implementation of genome sequencing into medicine: the pro-gene mapping physicians, the anti-mapping groups, and the "limited" sequencing groups. The pro-gene mapping supports the use of gene sequencing for diagnostics, the anti-mapping groups oppose any use of gene sequencing in medical decisions, while the "limited" sequencing groups support the technology but aim to limit its use.

Who are some of the major speakers/writers with these groups?

Currently there exist hundreds of doctors and physicians who have either opposed or supported the use of whole genome sequencing within medical practice.One of the more prominent supports of the technology's implementation would be Muin Khoury, Director of the Office of Public Health Genomics. For the opponents, speakers range Conservative Republican politicians- President George Bush- to anti-abortion groups who perceive the tech as another means to justify abortion.  


 What kind of social/economic/cultural/political powers do each group have?

All three groups have vied to out do the other factions in terms of media and political power. Proponents of the technology tend to be politically left, physicians, genealogists, and neurologists. Their  means to promote their cause can be found in Left-wing television outlets to medical journals. As for opponents, the group tends to have right wing support politically and numerous anti-abortion/ religious groups to support the cause. Their appropriate media outlets are either Conservative news groups and religious news journals regarding medicine.

What resources are available for each group?

Both groups use research studies to support their claim or boost support for their cause. Since it is currently impossible to definitively prove the affects of gene mapping on medical treatment, most of these resources are biased.

What counts as evidence for each group?

Proponents usually use research studies and doctoral essays to list the possible uses for the gene technology on patient diagnostics; as well as, physician testimonials regarding their use of mapping for treating genetic illnesses.

Opponents tend to use ethical and religious appeals to support their claim. This ranges from concepts that doctors will abuse the technology and possibly miss the real cause for a certain illness to the idea that such mapping will allow parents to "pick-and-choose" what child to birth or abort.

Is there a power differential between these groups?

Since gene mapping and its affiliated technology are in the same realm of abortion, genetic engineering, and in some cases cloning, the two major groups have been involved in a perpetual tug-of-war. Currently, the United States has limited the use of genome mapping, placing it in the same category as stem cell research, while the populous has altered its opinion on abortion many times in the past decade. Both groups have considerable influence, and it is impossible to differentiate them.

Is there any acknowledged common ground between these groups? 

Generally, the less extreme factions of each group recognize the possible benefits to have this "map" of the whole human genome in regards to medicine and the prevention/treatment of major genetic illness.

Is there any unacknowledged common ground?

Both groups, in my opinion have covered or made a position on all possible outlets of the issue. This is partly due to its involvement in many political debates; as well as, professionals using any possible ground for their advantage. I could not find one unacknowledged position or fact that wasn't used in a journal or major debate.

Do the various groups listen to each other? 

In the less political side of the issue-where doctors, researchers, or geneticists are involved in the discussion- the groups tend to acknowledge new facts or information as a major influence on how extreme their position is. However, on every other scale, each side refuses the idea to cooperate or cede anything to their opponent; partly due to the religious/ cultural aspect of the debate.