Discussing Discussions(RoundTable)

1) Brain Scan Technology
The group supports the development brain scan technology and no restrictions should be imposed on research as it serves to understand the nature of humans. They claimed that benefits far outweigh the risks involved and the government should not place limitations and restrictions on the research as it may hamper the development and limit the possibilities that this technology can bring. They mentioned other benefits such as increased funding from biotech companies which boosts the economy. In addition, regulations cannot take effect outside the country and hence impractical. Arguments presented against their stand include the invasion of privacy, and also inaccuracy of this technology as it is still undergoing research and development.

I feel that the arguments presented are weak and do not address the more serious potential problems which brain scanning technology can lead to. They claim that implementing restrictions will only limit the possibilities of this technology. However, certain restrictions are vital as they protect the moral and ethical values that we hold dear. Imagine what ethical and moral catastrophes can happen if scientists are given the freedom to explore the prospects of human cloning. A question which I have is the possible use of this technology to promote discrimination. Will people be denied job opportunities or barred from insurance just because their brain scan profiles show possible criminal intent?

2) Understanding resistance to stem-cell research

Stem cell research, in particular cloning, has been a highly controversial issue for years. The group supports this technology and put forth several arguments which aided their stand. They briefly mentioned economic benefits, extracting embryonic cells to replace damaged organs, and allowing infertile couples to have their own child. They presented a case study of the UK, where cloning research is allowed but strictly monitored by the government. In addition, a license is required for research and all embryos are to be accounted for at the end of the project. Besides, the embryo is not considered a human as it does not have the capacity to think or feel, and the brain is only developed 6 weeks after fertilisation. Also, 50 to 60 percent of fertilised embryos are ejected naturally from the body; therefore wasting embryos in research is equivalent to these naturally aborted embryos.
However, there is no moral guidance involved, and lives are created to be destroyed to save another life, which is akin to murder. Also, embryos have the potential to become human beings; hence the notion that embryos are ‘not human enough’ is just preposterous. Furthermore, there is a high failure rate of extracting embryos, which supporters akin to in-vitro fertilisation.

The counter-arguments against the group’s stand in supporting stem cell research were not developed enough as almost all their counter-arguments were based on ethical points of views. They could have explored the social and medical consequences related to stem cell research, then rebutted them to strengthen their stand.
(Just something I will like to share: The UK’s stand on human stem cell research is extremely surprising, as they had strongly opposed genetically modified food where it was introduced)