Analyzing Context

Awa. "A Woman Thinking" 2007
Public Domain 

Below, I will provide concise but detailed answers to the listed questions from the "Reading in Context..." box in Writing Public Lives (Pg. 340). 

• What are the key perspectives or schools of thought on the debate that you are studying?

Currently there exists a number of positions on the gene sequencing issue. However, there are two major ideological groups in this debate: The Pro-Sequencing and Anti-Sequencing Healthcare parties. The Pro-Sequencing advocate for the increase in funding for gene sequencing science as well as a greater effort to implement the treatment technology into modern diagnostic healthcare. The Opposition, in contrast, finds the current existing research and data collected by gene sequencing programs are inadequate, or lack a definitive proof that the gene mapping healthcare treatment will aid in the diagnostic process.

• What are the major points of contention or major points of disagreement between these perspectives?  

The major source of the contention between these two perspectives is the science behind gene mapping and its using in diagnosing genetic illnesses. Some doctors and healthcare providers find that the technology could eventually be used as a convenient means to find mutations or errors in a patient's DNA or chromosome structures; which, would winnow down the number of possible genetic illnesses ailing the patient. However, the opposition to this science feel that the data is too inconclusive to be used in a healthcare setting, and far too expensive for the average patient to afford.

• What are some possible points of agreement, or the possible point of common ground between these perspectives?

 Both groups agree that the gene sequencing technology has some sort of impact in finding a possible gene error in a patient. However, it is the concepts of timing, cost, and quality of data collected that incite most of the argument in this debate. It is highly probable that if one of those issues is resolved the debate as a whole would cease to be, where more would unanimously agree with the Pro-sequence groups. 

• What are the ideological differences between the perspectives?  

The main differences between these two groups lies within the concepts of reliable data or conjecture. The Pro-sequencing groups believe that the data that currently exists is evidence enough for major steps towards integrating the technology into diagnostic medicine. In contrast, the Opposition believes that the evidence collected is inconclusive or flawed in some cases. Also, a potion of the Opposition is composed of anti-abortion factions, who find that certain aspects of the treatment can indirectly lead to the "engineering" of future children.

• What specific actions do their  perspectives or texts ask their audiences to take?  

The Pro-sequencing groups advocate for the integration of gene mapping technologies into hospitals, and subsequently into the diagnostic process. Therefore, the ask that their supporters press government and their doctors to use fund future research into this process. The Opposition however asks that their audience to also press their government to create regulations or cut spending funding gene sequencing technology research.

• What perspectives are useful in supporting your own arguments on this issue? Why did you choose these?

In order to support my argument, I will need to use the Pro-sequencing group's argument that references the limitless diagnostic applications of gene maps. Also the perspective that this form of medical treatment will be the future of personalized modern medicine. I chose these perspectives partly due to the amount of content and evidence to support these claims. The Opposition seems only to have opinionated and ethical based argumentation texts. 

• What perspectives do you think will be the greatest threat to your argument? Why so?

The greatest threat to my argument will be the ethical perspectives and its rhetorical appeals. The opposition tends to brand the Pro-sequencing group as unethical or morally corrupted, referencing the corporate aspect of the treatment process as well as the expense of the process as a whole.

Reflection:
After reading the posts made by Jayni and Nick  I found that their topics and plans for the argument revolve more around scientific data and ethical appeals. With this in mind, I should uses this strategy in my project because my topic is also a scientific essay and needs a lot of logical data and statistics tosupport the position. However, I still need to keep in mind that this project deals with controversies that have no conclusive evidence to draw upon an existing conclusion.