DRAFT Should the United States Increase Restrictions on The
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
DRAFT Should the United States Increase Restrictions on the Research Development or Use of Genetic Engineering or Nanotechnology? Topic Proposal for the Cross Examination Debate Association 2007-2008 Debate Season. By Scott M. Elliott1 Topic Area: Should the United States significantly restrict research, development or use of genetic engineering or nanotechnology? PROPSOED RESOLUTIONS 1. Resolved: the United States Federal Government should substantially restrict the research, development, or use of genetic engineering or nanotechnology. 2. Resolved: the United States Federal Government, through legislative or regulatory means, should substantially restrict research, development, or use of genetic engineering or nanotechnology. 3. Resolved: the United States Federal Government should ban the research, development, or use of genetic engineering or nanotechnology. 4. Resolved: the United States Federal Government, through legislative or regulatory means, should substantially restrain the research, development, or use of genetic engineering or nanotechnology. 5. Resolved: the United States should substantially restrict its non-military research, development or use of genetic engineering or nanotechnology. 1 Scott M. Elliott received his Ph.D. in Communication Theory and Research (Rhetoric of Science) from Florida State University and his Juris Doctorate from the University of Texas-Austin. While attending FSU, he was the Assistant Director of Forensics and Debate coach of the FSU debate program. Prior to law school, he was a Professor of Communication and Director of Debate at Southeastern Louisiana University. He was a member of the University of Texas National Moot Court Team, National Environmental Law Moot Court Team, editorial staff of the Texas Environmental Law Journal, and adjunct professor at St. Edwards University, Austin. He is currently an insurance coverage litigation attorney in Dallas, Texas. 1 6. Resolved: the United States Federal Government should substantially restrict its non-military research, development or use of genetic engineering or nanotechnology. 7. Resolved: the United States Federal Government should substantially increase regulation of non-military research, development or use of genetic engineering or nanotechnology. 8. Resolved: the United States Federal Government should substantially restrict non-military research, development or use of genetic engineering or nanotechnology. 9. Resolved: the United States Federal Government should ban non-military research, development or use of genetic engineering or nanotechnology. 10. Resolved: the United States Federal Government, through legislative or regulatory means, should restrain non-military research, development or use of genetic engineering or nanotechnology. 11. Resolved: the United States Federal Government should substantially restrict non- military research, development or use of genetic engineering. 12. Resolved: the United States Federal Government should substantially restrict non- military research, development or use of nanotechnology. 13. Resolved: the United States Federal Government should substantially restrict the research, development, or use of human genetic engineering or nanotechnology. 14. Resolved: the United States Federal Government should substantially prohibit the research, development, or use of genetic engineering or nanotechnology. Genetic Engineering/Nanotechnology topic area. Why choose to debate genetic engineering and nanotechnology? Because they are cool and can even outweigh a nuclear war!2 There are better rationales. According to the 2 Teams are cautioned that their standard “nuke war” scenario may, counter-intuitively, increase advantages or create impact turns against an unprepared team. Example given, the affirmative presents a case that the USFG should impose worker safety protocols genetic engineering, or special breathing masks for nano- tube manufacturing, claiming a small affirmative advantage of saving 50 workers lives. The negative argues a standard “Bush disad” with its classic horrible links and pitiful internal links, and then reads an equally horrible “Mead card.” The affirmative could simply grant out the impacts and argue collapse of the global economy and nuclear war is the best way to stop nanotech development and the development of rogue assemblers that could eat the universe. Example from K. Eric Drexler, “Replicators can be more potent than nuclear weapons: to devastate Earth with bombs would require masses of exotic hardware and rare isotopes, but to destroy life with replicators would require only a single speck made of ordinary elements. Replicators give nuclear war some company as a potential cause of extinction, giving a broader context to extinction as a moral concern." Engines of Creation, Anchor Books, 1986, p. 174. 2 U.S. National Science Foundation, nanotechnology is the foundation stone of NBIC--a revolutionary convergence of nanotech, biotech (manipulation of genes), info tech (computers), and cogno tech (brain function). In a report sponsored by the National Science Foundation and the Department of Commerce, the technologists and politicians who are promoting this revolution say it is "essential to the future of humanity" because it holds the promise of "world peace, universal prosperity, and evolution to a higher level of compassion and accomplishment." They say it may be "a watershed in history to rank with the invention of agriculture and the Industrial Revolution" 3 The significance of this area for students/debaters/citizens of the United States cannot be understated. In 1976 George Wald, Nobel Prize winning biologist and Harvard professor, wrote: Recombinant DNA technology [genetic engineering] faces our society with problems unprecedented not only in the history of science, but of life on the Earth. It places in human hands the capacity to redesign living organisms, the products of some three billion years of evolution.... It presents probably the largest ethical problem that science has ever had to face. Our morality up to now has been to go ahead without restriction to learn all that we can about nature. Restructuring nature was not part of the bargain.... For going ahead in this direction may be not only unwise but dangerous. Potentially, it could breed new animal and plant diseases, new sources of cancer, novel epidemics.4 Regarding the current status of nanotechnology, one author has written: Virtually every large corporation now has a nanotechnology operation. The US government is putting in serious investment. Huge promises are held out in the fields of medicine, energy, computing. But there is little public debate, no regulatory framework and little research into the health, environmental or safety implications…the potential consequences for individuals, the environment, and relations between the powers. Nanotechnology could bridge or widen the gap between rich and poor - this is the political decision that civil society must address.5 Nanotechnology and genetic engineering intersect in all three aspects of research, development and use. The relationship is reciprocal--nanotechnology is being used in genetic engineering and genetic engineering is used in nanotechnology research and development. It is virtually inevitable that a topic of genetic engineering will spill over 3 http://www.organicconsumers.org/corp/nano.cfm. The paper does not suggest that the topic area of genetic engineering/nanotechnology is “the most important” topic area to be discussed. Every topic area listed (Latin America, Executive Power, Southeast Asia, Infectious Diseases, etc.) all deserve attention. My goal in this paper is two-fold—to identify some of the problems with college policy debate resolution selection and to offer an example of properly worded debate resolutions under the rubric of an interesting topic area. 4 http://www.greens.org/s-r/20/20-01.html 5 Shelly, Toby. Nanotechnology: New Promises New Dangers 3 into discussions of nanotechnology, and vise versa.6 Similarly, because the two areas are interdependent, a case the addresses a nexus of the two areas should be topical, rather than being non-topical or extra-topical merely because it encompasses part of another technology.7 Areas in which the intersection of genetic engineering and nanotechnology occurs include: biological assembly of nanostructures; using DNA structures to construct nanodevices; artificial genetic systems; modeling and simulation of biological ions channels to cure diseases; and nanoscale filters for molecular material. Additionally, the college policy debate community has not debated a technology topic in almost 20 years. A review of the National Debate Tournament topics from 1946- 2006 reveals that only three resolutions have focused on new technologies.8 The 1958- 1959 topic, “RESOLVED: That the further development of nuclear weapons should be prohibited by international agreement," is similar to the topic area proposed in that the United States was facing the development and use of new technologies (nuclear munitions and hydrogen bombs). The 1984-1985 topic, “RESOLVED: "That the United States federal government should significantly increase exploration and/or development of space beyond the earth's mesosphere" and 1989-1990 topic, “RESOLVED: "That the federal government should adopt an energy policy that substantially reduces nonmilitary consumption of fossil fuels in the United States," were the last policy topics to substantially focus on technology. It is arguable that only the space topic