ANSWER TO QUESTION 1
Introduction
Biotechnology is an innovative field where biological processes are applied for the provision of genetic manipulation for microorganisms for the production and commercialisation of antibiotics and hormones amongst others. Biotechnology is a process whereby scientists use various aspects of technology to modify genes and microorganisms of living things in order to attain specific goals in the organism in which it is done.
The preliminary elements of this course has shown that biotechnology is carried out in both applied and pure research. In applied research, biotechnology is used for the provision of various solutions like medicines, treatment for incurable diseases and the enhancement of genetically challenged organisms. This has been known to be applicable in the area of pharmacy, healthcare and agriculture. On the other hand, pure research is done to speculatively view the possibility of changing and modifying the genetic codes of a living thing. This include the area cloning and others that is used to provide speculative frameworks of application in science and technology.
In the first half of 2016, there has been a major challenge with the possibility of harvesting human organs in animals like pigs and sheep. This took the headlines in the first week of June, 2016 and a lot of parties came up with views on the process. This sparked debates on the BBC and major outlets and is likely to find its way into the parliaments of major countries including the UK.
Research Aims and Objectives
The purpose of this research is to analyse the rhetorical strategies by opponents and proponents of harvesting human organs in pigs and the impact of these rhetorical strategies on the broader public discussions about this approach to biotechnology and genetics. In order to attain this end, the following objectives will be explored:
A critical analysis and review of the dominant themes of debates in the harvesting of human organs in pigs;
An assessment of the conceptual and theoretical framework of debates in biotechnology and genetics in society;
An evaluation of the possible position that will be taken on the issue of harvesting human organs in pigs.
Dominant Debates on the Issue of Harvesting Human Organs in Pigs
Generally, human organs are in a shortage all over the world. There have been situations where people who could have died survived because there was a lack of organs they could have used. This include situations where people badly in need of a heart or kidney transplant had to simply die because they did not get donors who matched up to them.
A field in applied biotechnology provide a direct cure that could help more people survive without issues. This is through the process of gene editing where human stem cells could be injected into pig embryos to produce human-pig embryos that can create organs which can be harvested and grown for use in human transplant situations. The BBC announces that there is a general lack worldwide of these organs and the creation of these human-pig embryos will provide a viable option through which genetically modified organs can be created and applied to humans.
However, the process will include deleting the genes of pigs and then introduce genes of humans. Thus, the pig will be nothing more than a biological incubator who will develop the organs that are going to be harvested and kept for human utilisation. This could lead to the creation of pancreas, hearts, livers, kidneys, lungs and corneas.
The first issue with the process is that there is a risk of human-like foetuses being born by these pigs. This is because there is the creation of a human-pig embryo which has the chance of being born with features of both creatures. This means that there is going to be an identity issue with these embryos. And if they are to be kept only for the organs, there is an issue is what their status is. Are they animals or are they humans? What is their human position? And how should we treat them in relation to normal convention and being humane to such foetuses? This provides the fundamental issue and problem that lays the premises for two opposing views to be formulated. Those who support and those who object to these genetically edited pig embryos kept for the provision of human organs.
The second issue is with the risk of xenotransplantation which is a situation whereby the sicknesses and diseases unique to a particular species can be transmitted to another species. In this case, there is the possibility of pig-like characteristics being transmitted to human beings. And this is something that most religions object to. For instance, in Judeo-Christian nations and Islamic nations, it is forbidden for different creatures and animals to crossbreed. Therefore, this issue of xenotransplantation can be viewed from a biological context as well as a religious context where staunch believers have the idea that harvesting these organs lay the impetus for curses and sicknesses that were known to ancient religious leaders. Therefore, this issue provides a major problem that has debates.
Thirdly, there is the issue of animal suffering. All cultures have some kind of sensitivity towards animals. There is always a quest for cultures and societies to find humane ways of dealing with animals. Thus, animals are kept without having to suffer so much from human desires and expectations. However, the case of transplantation and organ harvesting will mean some pigs will have to be denied the right to conceive and have piglets of their own. Instead, they will be kept for the creation of foetuses that will be used only for the achievement of selfish human needs. Therefore, the animals will only be kept through emotional and physical stress and their foetuses will be made to suffer unrealistically.
In spite of all these issues and prompters, most western societies thrive on the principle of utilitarianism. Utilitarianism teaches that what is good is what brings the highest level of happiness to the highest number of people. And as such, in the 21st Century where people are dying in large numbers for the lack of human organs, it can be accepted that the happiness of pigs, who do not count as human beings can be sacrificed for it. Therefore, to this end, the need to set up rules and regulations to prevent the system from being abused is something that must be done. However, it appears that supporters of science and the creation of a better world with healthier people will argue that this system of gene editing and the harvesting of essential human organs in pigs must be encouraged.
These different views, relating to the realities and circumstances bordering around the issue of gene editing define the framework of human-pig organ growth and harvesting. This system gives rise to numerous ethical debates and arguments that have different perspectives and theories.
Concepts and Theories of Rhetorical Communication Strategies in Biotechnology
There are different perspectives and debates that go on when an issue relating to a particular biotechnological process comes up. As in the case of human-pig cells and their commercial application in healthcare, there are bound to be numerous approaches and methodologies for debates and arguments to go on.
Different communication strategies are used in promoting acceptance of biotechnology in society. This include elements relating to various interests and premises of arguments which could cut across scientific knowledge, marketing factors, culture, colonisation and commercialisation of science. Cronin and Hutchings studied the case of New Zealand which is a former British colony. They found that there were interest groups like women’s groups, indigenous groups, religious groups and supporters of the natural world who held divergent views based on their core philosophies. They therefore came together to formulate views and lobby across various methods and approaches on matters relating to genetic engineering, cloning and embryonic stem cell research and application.
A study of Britain in relation to genetically modified foods indicated that there were views on biotechnological plans which spans across expert and non-expert reactions to coverages. In such interactions, there is almost always a degree of division which leads to the creation of pro-biotech and anti-biotech positions on a given subject. In this situation there is a degree of linguistic and social constructivist discourse trend which leads to recurrent wording, themes and content. These processes tend to cause people to take specific positions and present arguments and counter arguments.
A focus group study by Cook et al indicated that words are used and data is acquired to support or condemn different positions. The findings indicate that in situations relating to pro-biotech arguments, there are numerous scientific and constructive positions taken by the proponents. Anti-biotech positions are often supported by a deconstructive argument that rejects science and condemns commercial greed.
There is almost always form of moral panic in which people argue on the basis of some authoritarian positions on matters and positions. The moral panic asks for risks of social engineering and an authoritarian action to ban these elements of biotechnology. The media plays a leading role in presenting information about what the proposed innovation in genetic science will do and this leads to some degree of restrictions on the practice.
However, when an innovation is put out, those who support it identify the fact that the innovation is going to change society and make life better. They focus on the problems of disabilities and how the new innovation will improve the lives of people who are suffering. The civil society leads to the creation of a cultural and media representation which is influenced by external and international players.
British Civil Society and the Harvesting of Human Organs from Pigs
A green paper is either done privately or sponsored. However, with the tensions on the harvesting of human organs, it is apparent that the UK will have to get a public system of presenting the green paper. This will be studied by professionals and the obvious pointers as identified – the suffering of animals, potential creation of human-animal foetuses, xenotransplantation of animal viruses into animals and others will be studied and critiqued by researchers. In the UK, the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC) has the royal charter to study such issues and matters. And when it is done, they will present their views to the House of Commons. As it always happens, there will be debates and arguments in the House of Commons and the views will be presented.
This process of mooting is strongly influenced by the media and interest groups. This is tagged as democratic engagement where different people come up with their worldviews and their arguments. Although Kurath & Gisler argue that there are many simplistic views of these lobbyists, their demonstrations and lobbying powers influence debates and discussions.
In the issue of human organ harvesting of pigs, the main elements of lobbying and arguments will include the definition of where life starts in relation to what an embryo is and when embryos must be terminated in the process. So the arguments will be based on philosophical and legal definitions in Parliaments and this will come up with the presentation of the main argument and what they are and what they mean in British political discourse. This will lead to the presentation of a framework for debates and counter arguments. This will lay the foundations for the creation of a relevant bill that will be further debated in the UK House of Commons.
When the House of Commons come up with a decision on whether they should allow human organ harvesting from pigs on British soil and territories, this will be presented further to the upper house of parliament – The House of Lords. These are made up of appointed nobles and leaders from various constituents of Britain and some elected leaders. These processes come together to seek to strengthen and affirm or limit the claims presented by the House of Commons.
Usually, the House of Lords considers and reviews the arguments of the House of Commons. They will do this in the light of interest group lobbying and opposing worldviews on how we should treat human organ harvesting. This will inevitably lead to the presentation of views and counter views that will lead to the presentation of a synthesis. There will be thesis and anti-thesis which will inevitably be influenced by the media, the sense of moral panic and protests from interest groups, lobby groups and pressure groups.
Eventually, if the House of Lords finds issues with the bill passed by the House of Commons, they will send it back to the House of Commons. If they think it is alright, they can just approve it and this will be presented to the Queen for the Royal Assent.
The Royal Assent provides a final seal of approval and this will make the bill passed by the House of Common and approved by the House of Lords a valid law in relation to biotechnology. There are ethical questions and issues that come with the different stages and processes. However, the regulation of this will provide a basis on whether these harvestings of human organs are logical and valid in the UK or not.
In the normal sense though, there are arguments and counter-arguments. There are people in the UK dying from the lack of organs. Therefore, it is likely that these organ-harvesting drives will occur. However, the right approach that is most likely to be taken is to authorise these organ harvesting projects but under very strict and rigid conditions. This includes the presentation of research in areas that are heavily regulated and watched. And as these harvesting projects proceed, they are going to be watched closely and heavily documented. Care will be taken to ensure the best quality of life for the pigs to be involved and there will be a strong quest to destroy foetuses in order to avoid creating pig-human embryos that will grow into complicated and controversial creatures on the face of the earth.
Also, with the pace of controversy in these situations, it is very likely that human rights of recipients of these organs will be respected. Therefore, consent will have to be given in all treatment processes to ensure that those who object to these studies will not be given organs from pig-human transplants that will be against their beliefs and conscience.
Conclusion
The study has examined the concept of human organ harvesting from pigs as an alternative to organ donation which is necessary and essential for some people in the world. This is an aspect of biotechnology that has been attacked and supported with different rhetorical strategies. There are supporters who believe in utilitarianism and the need to help people to get a life. And there are those against this pig-human cells on the basis of animal suffering, unnatural foetuses and the transfer of animal viruses and sicknesses to humans. This leads to competing claims and debates by pro and anti-harvesting groups who argue on the basis of culture, ideology and economic interests. This leads to some kind of moral panic and leads to social engineering and the quest for authoritarian control of them. This is to end in the form of a parliamentary regulation that will most likely draw on a set of rules that ensure the control of these human organ harvesting projects. Also, the human rights and individual autonomy of prospective donors will also be respected in any parliamentary statute on this matter.
References
Cook, G., Robbins, P. T. & Pieri, E., 2006. Words of mass destruction’: British newspaper coverage of the genetically modified food debate, expert and non-expert reactions. Public Understanding of Science, 15(1), pp. 5-29.
Cronin, K. & Hutchings, J., 2011. Supergrans and nanoflowers: reconstituting images of gender and race in the promotion of biotechnology and nanotechnology in Aotearoa New Zealand.. New Genetics and Society, 31(1), pp. 55-85.
Goggin, G. & Newell, C., 2004. Uniting the Nation? Disability, Stem Cells, and the Australian Media. Disability & Society, 19(1), pp. 47-60.
Kim, S.-K., 2015. Springer Handbook of Marine Biotechnology. London: Springer.
Kurath, M. & Gisler, P., 2009. Informing, involving or engaging? Science communication, in the ages of atom-, bio- and nanotechnology. Public Understanding of Science , 18(5), pp. 559-573.
Perry, D., 2016. Ethical Considerations in Organ Transplant. [Online] Available at: http://home.earthlink.net/~davidlperry/organs.htm[Accessed 13 June 2016].
Petersen, A., 2002. Replicating Our Bodies, Losing Our Selves: News Media Portrayals of Human Cloning in the Wake of Dolly. Body and Society, 8(4), pp. 71-90.
Regalado, A., 2016. Human-Animal Chimeras Are Gestating on U.S. Research Farms. [Online] Available at: https://www.technologyreview.com/s/545106/human-animal-chimeras-are-gestating-on-us-research-farms/[Accessed 13 June 2016].
Vila, A., 2016. Mad Science! Scientists Grow Human Organs Inside Pigs To Produce Human-Pig Embryo. [Online] Available at: http://www.natureworldnews.com/articles/23493/20160608/mad-science-scientists-grow-human-organs-inside-pigs-produce-human-pig-embryo.htm[Accessed 13 June 2016].
Walsh, F., 2016. US bid to grow human organs for transplant inside pigs. [Online] Available at: http://www.bbc.com/news/health-36437428[Accessed 13 June 2016].
Williams, C., Kitzinger, J. & Henderson, L., 2003. Envisaging the Embryo in Stem Cell Research: Rhetorical Strategies and Media Reporting of the Ethical Debates. Sociology of Health & Illness, 25(7), pp. 793-814.
