Nerlich, Brigitte & Clarke, David. Anatomy of a media event: How arguments clashed in the 2001 human cloning debate. New Genetics and Society. Vol. 22, No. 1, pg. 43-59. Aug. 19,2012.
This essay is an excellent way to see how the general public views cloning, and specifically why they do so. In the article, the researchers examine the media’s role in the cloning debate in 2001. By examining the media’s effect in cloning debate, we can analyze the exactly how the opponents of our position have framed their argument and packaged it to the media. After determining this, we can then find the flaws in the argument and refute them. We can also use their findings to frame our argument, and combat the preconceived notions about the process.
Lovell-Badge, Robin. The Future of Stem Cell Research. Nature. Vol. 414. pg. 88-91. November 1, 2001.
In this article, Lovell-Badge describes the current status of stem cell research, and then speculates on the future of the technology, implying that it will grow “evolutionarily”. Interestingly enough, many of the predictions are visible today. This article is useful to our argument because it supports the claim that stem cell research is a viable technology with the ability to drastically alter and save lives. The article also explains the processes involving stem cell research in detail. With this knowledge, we can better understand our position and support our claims.
Strong, Carson. Cloning and Infertility. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, Vol. 7, pg. 279-293.
In this article, Strong presents a view on cloning that we had not considered much up to this point. The essay examines the ethics of cloning when infertile parents want to clone a child. While Strong did not go into the actual logistics of human cloning, he does make some very good arguments assuming that human cloning is totally safe and birth defect free. He also then poses the question to the reader. This essay, while not a concrete solution does provide a perspective not presented in the blog. With it, we have a different way of approaching the argument, and challenging our opponents.