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

[Andy Ellis]

Some people would like that...those folks dont ever get to debate what they
like...educational topic switching would seem to suggest that having these
unfamiliar debates is a good thing...and why arent these technical questions
important to the policy decisions....arent ill informed policy decisions 1)
circumventable and 2)bad....

On 4/10/07, David Glass <gacggc at gmail.com> wrote:

>

> a technical counterplan would avoid the policy issues (since those

> would be the same for the plan and cp), and offer a highly technical

> net benefit...    maybe I'm wrong, but I doubt people want to debate

> whether it's good or bad to have a CMV vs an SV40 promoter on a

> cloning vector...  good luck writing an aff that doesn't allow me to

> write such cps...

>

> On 4/10/07, Andy Ellis <andy.edebate at gmail.com> wrote:

> > why would we avoid these problems? We have debaters on our college team

> who

> > would school people on the engineering details but typically get lost on

> the

> > policy specific debates....why is it any different to elevate a

> different

> > catagory of academic expertise....i would love to see or example some

> > biology or sceince focused person school some policy makers on the

> applied

> > theory as opposed to the abstract theory...why is this bad....

> >

> >

> > On 4/10/07, David Glass <gacggc at gmail.com> wrote:

> > > As perhaps one of the few genetic engineers on the listserv, I just

> > > wanted to put my 2 cents in on this paper.

> > >

> > > While one can undoubtedly find particular examples of genetic

> > > manipulation that should arguably be banned (such as recloning the

> > > 1918 flu virus, which has been done -  or  a host of potential

> > > bioweapon approches) someone who is knowledgeable in the field could

> > > offer highly technical and defensible counterplans (and disads) which

> > > would be difficult for someone who is not schooled in the field to

> > > answer...

> > >

> > > ... I had a similar concern about a high school topic paper geared at

> > > discussing regulations of the internet; a perusal of the field quickly

> > > revealed the potential for getting bogged down in engineering details

> > > - and it was not obvious how an aff (or a resolution) could be written

> > > to avoid such a problem.

> > >

> > > for example: say you want to ban cloning of the 1818 flu virus; I

> > > could counterplan to clone it without certain pieces of the virulence

> > > factor... say you catch up to that counterplan, I could counterplan to

> > > just clone the envelope of the virus, and not the rest of it... so

> > > that antibodies could be made vs possible bioweapons....     say you

> > > want to ban genetic manipulation in general - for that there are

> > > literally millions of exclusion counter-plans, since such manipulation

> > > is used in most phases of modern pharmaceutical development, in the

> > > US, Europe, India, Brazil, etc, and in almost all basic biological

> > > research programs...    say you wanted to restrict research on a

> > > particular organism, because you have cards that say this is being

> > > used for bioweapons; the counterplan is to just work on defensive

> > > projects, in case others are working on that organism...  say that you

> > > write an aff to just work on defensive projects, but ban all other

> > > study of that organism...  the counterplan would be to allow research

> > > on genes X or Y that might help people to understand a particular

> > > enzyme (protein that has some catalytic function in the organism), but

> > > don't contribute to weaponization potential...

> > >

> > > then there are even more technical issues; such as what cloning

> > > vectors might be allowed, or what promoters to express particular

> > > genes, so as to minimize problems such as weaponization

> > >

> > > then there are even more technical approaches, such as banning a

> > > particular sequence, since that sequence is part of a particularly

> > > dangeous gene... to which one could counterplan to avoid only a

> > > sub-sequence of the suggested ban, etc etc...

> > >

> > >

> > > a rez that restricts the "research, development or use" of genetic

> > > engineering does not obviously avoid these technical issues

> > >

> > > the same issues are probably true of nanotech, since that is also a

> > > widely used technology; though that isn't my field.

> > >

> > > i'm sorry to add a negative voice against this topic; surely a lot of

> > > work was put into the paper...  and obviously I'd be pleased to coach

> > > this topic, since I know a lot about it... but it's not clear to me

> > > that it can be made debatable for most programs...

> > >

> > > just my opinion

> > >

> > > David J. Glass  (M.D)

> > > Edgemont, Harvard Debate

> > > if you want my technical quals, you can look me up on www.pubmed.gov

> > > (type in "Glass DJ[au]".... just the bit between the quotes)

> > >

> > > On 4/9/07, scottelliott at grandecom.net <scottelliott at grandecom.net>

> wrote:

> > > > 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

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > _______________________________________________

> > > > eDebate mailing list

> > > > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com

> > > > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate

> > > >

> > > _______________________________________________

> > > eDebate mailing list

> > > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com

> > > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate

> > >

> >

> >

>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20070410/af0f66bb/attachment.htm