The Past Couple Weeks and The Future

I have not been able to post for sometime now, and I though that I would wrap up the term with a quick entry and talk a little bit about what I have learned, as well as some incredible information that I learned from the recent article we read by Brian Salter called "The Global Politics of Human Embryonic Cell Science". This piece really helped me understand the basic politics that involve HESC, and how social and cultural ideas directly affect the concepts of HESC. The amount of research around the world in regards to HESC has increased drastically in the past couple years, and can be directly correlated to the investment that is put into this growing and promising field of research. I was astonished about the ideas of patenting the different strands of HESC, and that each stem cell has its own unique qualities. Ethics is a big portion to HESC, and many companies have allocated their policies on how to use HESC and were they are located from.
This term has been quite difficult for me in regards to this course. I came into it as a social science major with no background about the human genome and stem cells. I am still a little lost in regards to how the process works, but the articles we have read have really helped me understand the concepts. I believe this piece would have been more helpful at the beginning of the term. The final project has definitely been a challenge because the world-wide-web is full of so much information, that it can become difficult to weed through what information is relevant and accurate, to what is not credible and what is. I have decided to take a look at prenatal testing in regards to pregnancy. I want to see the promises within the techniques that we currently use while women are pregnant, and what affect this will have on genetic screening and the use of genetic counselors.

Biopolitics Week 4

I enjoyed the reading this week by Mark B. Brown. The piece “Three Ways to Politicized Bioethics” takes a look at and creates distinctions between the notions of politicization. I have always struggled with this word and the three terms that follow; liberalism, communitarianism, and republicanism. The piece firsts takes a look at the concept behind public bioethics, which sparked my interest. The article states that there are many participants that are “potential players” (Brown, pg. 43). I saw it as a top-down model, with the general public being the bottom, which I believe are most important. These players are consistent as well. What kinds of politics are being played here? Are they ones that affect the public?

The rest of the piece takes a look at the three concepts I stated above, while going in-depth in contrasting and comparing. These separate groups all take a different look at how they come together to over come some kind of conflicts and new ideas, while power only creates further difference. Our professor created a Venn diagram with the three aspects, and showed the three similarities, while showing the many differences. While this paper took a look at these terms, it was not referring to the political parties and what they represent, but “considering these traditions in terms of the politicization of bioethics emphasizes their perspective modes of responding to emerging dynamics of power and conflict”(45).

Liberalism has many characteristics including a competitive market economy, it draws a sharper boundary between the state and society, while also separating morality and politics. What is really important is that this outlook disperses the power without quite equalizing it. They take away from the government and give to private organizations.

Republicanism insists that social order and rule can only be done through politics itself. Unlike liberalism, power is distributed very widely and as equally as possible. “Republican politicization of public bioethics focuses on expert institutions rather than the individual experts”. They look at the broader scope than the narrow individual ideas.

Communitarianism focuses on positive liberty. The focus on the government promoting public deliberation while focusing on civic virtue; it is a collective self-government and self-control. The Venn diagram also shows that this politicization promotes public deliberation as well.

Biopolitics Week 3

This week in Biopolitics, we took a look at a piece by John Robertson called “Assisting Reproduction, Choosing Genes, and the Scope of Reproduction Freedom”. This piece takes a look at constitutional laws that have been created around the ideas behind assisted reproductive technologies (ART’s). These new technologies have developed over the decades with reproductive rights being a big debate. The article first takes a look at court decisions that have ultimately affected the way ART’s were used and how they are used today. In the past, these technologies were created to limit reproduction, by creating contraception and the right to have an abortion. Constitutional liberty is at hand when talking about reproductive rights and whether a woman has the right to life.

Technologies today have become much more advanced and we are now expanding instead of limiting reproductive technologies, which include in-vitro fertilization, much advancement in ART’s and genetic selection and modification. The future of the human genome and manipulating its genome expands into studying DNA and ways that it can be modified. Genetic selection is possible, but when is too much? Is there a line that needs to be drawn regarding gene choice and embryo selection? While reading this article, I thought about the big story of the past year. The “octo-mom” who decided to have six fertilized embryos placed in her, resulting in eights pre-mature newborns. Many that use IVF usually only use two to three embryos to avoid a risky multiple birth. It is sad that she made the decisions, let alone the fact that she already had six children.

The promise of creating humans that are genetically “perfect” can be very problematic. Something such as reproduction is hard to create limitations. Today, many ideas behind reproductive technologies have materials that are still fluid and loose-ended. Ideas regarding surrogacy have been looked at, in regards to paying these women and if there are any actual ties as the “mother” to the baby. With the expense of IVF, would women want to go through the grueling process to decide the genome of her child? Within genetic modification, many believe it would be used to avoid diseases.

Biopolitics Post 1

These first couple weeks of Biopolitics have introduced me to the concepts behind the human genome, while looking at the political and social role our human DNA has played in our ever-growing world. Technology is constantly changing, improving and trying to find ways to enhance our way of life. Science is very similar in a sense that the more we look into it, the more we see the diversity and fluidity within concepts such as genetic technologies and the research on DNA. This class has taken a look Actor-Network Theory, an approach to social theories and research that shows how networks intertwine and act as one for a single purpose . In the study of genomics and this course, the diagram presents “doing science”. This model gives us ideas on how to approach new problems in the sciences. In particular, we will be looking at the in-between. The article “Understanding the Human Genome Project” by Hub Zwart’s, takes an important look at three specific individuals and biographies that were apart of the Human Genome Project. It looks at the issue of using autobiographical pieces and their journey, as well as the pro’s and con’s to using these empirical pieces. Issues such as reliability and individual experiences can affect scientific ideas behind the HGP, while some believe there is a sense of self-correctiveness within these experiences. It also shows the role these scientists and researchers played in the HGP. I am a social science major with a minor in psychology and took a more sociological perspective on the piece. In regards to using autobiographies in a science context, I believe personal experience can be a viable source because people take their passions seriously. In the science field, to become a creditable name, creating theories and ideas have to be based on facts. I feel there is a sense of pride that is taken in their science research. They want to not only uphold themselves, but the advancement of science.