Genetic Engineering - Open Thread
Scott Elliott has provided a new edition of his genetic engineering paper. This incorporates recent events in the field and adjustments based on feedback from the last topic cycle. Use this post as a starting point for discussion.
Thought this was pretty much covered on the Europe topic. Seems like a TON of overlap.
I guess the counterplan ground this time around would be increased & the disads **might** be more interesting.
This one just feels like a backfile discussion + combination of the latest tech + possible country updates.
Reply to this
Nathan,
After watching this conversation take place last year I can offer two comments that were made by others.
1) The amount of from the Europe topic is not insignificant, even if it is more recent than other approaches. Combined with the fact that Europe called for exploring a number of diverse areas, the amount of attention to GE was much less than had it been a stand-alone topic. I would be encouraging greater caution if we had a full GE topic at some point in the recent past. I think we would see a much broader depth of discussion on this type of each.
2) The evolution of scientific developments makes this topic more relevant with each passing year. I am always stunned to see the list of new developments in the paper.
I am not lobbying for or against any topic, but I do want folks to feel comfortable that the desire to explore new research areas (mentioned prominently in the controversy guidelines) is something we take seriously.
Gordon
Reply to this
I guess I just don't remember the possible domestic oversight problems, extensive bioterrorism impacts, cloning, or stem cell medical application discussions from the 1/10th of the EU topic that dealt with GMO's (probably 1/15th given the size of Iraq and Turkey/Greece on that topic). I also don't remember the EU topic allowing for wholesale changes in domestic regulation of the biotech industry - it was a trade based subset. I KNOW that the EU topic didn't really include analysis of the existing domestic regulation legislation or oversight (no FDA da's). Also, given that the WTO rulings and EU implementation have actually occurred since the EU topic, I'm not even sure the internal link or harms evidence is remotely the same as it was then.
Small risk of overlap, bigger potential for argument exploration.
Reply to this
Nathan,
I you really read the entire topic paper and still believe the EU topic covered it, then more power to you. The EU GMOs debate is but a tiny, very tiny, aspect of the larger genetic engineering debate. It will take more than a link and an old backfile to win these debates, especially in light of the critical ground that is openned with a properly worded resolution.
Scott
Reply to this
I would like to point out two problems with this topic: a. it lacks diverse and cogent neg ground and b. it has nothing apparently to do with Russia.
Reply to this
Sadly, it appears that the most boring topic-Russia-is the most active on at least the listserve. I think GE may be too cutting edge for some of the older coaches. Heaven forid they ge tout of thier comfort zone of arguing foriegn policy.
Reply to this
Hey, I'd like to try and offer another perspective to support this topic. I feel that for a while the debate community has suppored foreign policy topics and domestic topics that don't talk about science enough. I (was) a science major and changed my major so that I would be able to debate. I feel that part of the reason that a lot of science majors choose not to debate in college, even if they did in high school, is that what they debate in a debate round is completely irrelevant to what they are doing in school and since they don't have a lot of time, its difficult to attract these science majors. i feel that a genetic engineering topic could easily talk a lot about the science behind genetic engineering, why a certain form of genetic engineering is good or bad. I think this topic would be highly education in that respect, while encouraging everyone to understand something that is new.
Reply to this