[eDebate] Genetic Engineering--Clearing up one piece of rhetorical manipulation

scottelliott at grandecom.net scottelliott
Mon Apr 9 21:33:23 CDT 2007


I just want to clear up what I have found to be a misrepresentation of my topic
paper.

I have NEVER advocated for a topic that merely "regulates" genetic engineering
and nanotechnology.

The topic porposal I submitted clearly explains why a resolution should allow
the affirmative to restrict the "research, development or use" of genetic
engineering or nanotechnology through "legislation, regulation, or formal
international agreement."

I beleive some people have gotten the impression via different postings that I
advocated the mere regulation of these areas of technology in my paper. This
is, at best, a misreading of my paper. I clearly explain why mere regulation
would not work.

Why?

Well, regualtions are the EXECUTIVE branch's means of enforcing a legislative
directives. Given that there are few, if any, actual laws restricting genetic
engineering or nanotechnology ( in fact the only legislation regarding NANO
actually mandates an INCREASE in its development)regulations cannot be enacted
in many cases. Also, mere regulation creates the problem of international
solvency. Only by allowing affirmatives to choose one or more solvency
options--legislation, regulation, or treaties, can they actually accomplish the
scope of what solvency authors really advocate. (Wouldn't consistency with one's
solvency advocate be great?)

If the topic area were merely "regulation", I too would not choose to vote for
it.

If the topic area is chosen, but the topic committee mutates the resolutions to
say, "regulation" only, I would not vote for that resolution.

Genetics and nanotechnology is an amazing area of research and the debates among
experts of how to limit, restrict, or regulate are extremely timely and on
point. I find it sad to think that students are going to spend another year
debating the middle-east morass ( Jeez, hasn't been solved in 10,000 years) and
prolif rather than researching cutting edge issues--many of which are so cutting
edge, their coaches don't even realize they are cutting edge.

Scott






More information about the Mailman mailing list