China学术总监帮你破题~ 20182019区域赛最新最全辩题解析！NSDA-NSDA全美演讲与辩论联盟
2018-2019区域赛辩题：
Resolved: "Public health services should expand access to gene editing technologies."
“公共卫生服务应扩大基因编辑技术的应用范围。”
2018年秋季辩题解析新鲜出炉，由NSDA China学术总监Cale Halley教练倾情奉上。文章首先将辩题的三个核心概念，gene editing technologie, public health service 以及expand acces逐个抽取出来，辅以权威定义，现实案例，通过论证，反问，类比等进行详细剖析，以图加深我们对辩题的理解，开拓我们的思路。随后抛砖引玉，列举了正反方就此辩题可能给出的论点，并表示更期待你们全新的观点。
NSDA China学术总监
Cale Halley
全新类型的辩题，等你来挑战！
As I reflect on the 6thNSDA China debate season It’s hard to imagine how much work went into it. From the league’s staff刁扬 , the coaches and most importantly all the students that participated. During the past season China debaters debated topics about space exploration, economic globalization, capital gains tax, NAFTA and most recently of course, UBI. Many students had talked to me about feeling a little burned out on economic topics, so when UBI beat drones I was a little surprised. For those students who have had their fill of economic focused topics, your prayers have been answered. With 63% of the student vote the winning topic for the Fall 2018 semester is; Resolved: “Public health services should expand access to gene editing technologies.” Congratulations science lovers.
After the topic was revealed at nationals I was speaking with NSDA Global Director, Stefan Bauschard and I asked him what he thought of the topic. I don’t want to misquote him; my memory can sometimes be spotty, but to paraphrase he said his initial reaction was something to the effect of “Glad we’ll get to talk about something new.” I was happy with that response because I think that is one of the things that makes this topic great. Gene editing is cutting edge technology and as a debate topic it has not had a lot of coverage.This may increase the research challenge大汉骑军 , but it will also mean more educational benefits.
Gene Editing Technologies基因工程的历史，比你想象的还要长
According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary gene editing is defined as,“The use of biotechnological techniques to make changes to specific DNA sequences in the genome of a living organism.”Even though gene editing technology may seem like a brand-new field, the science has a longer history than one might think, and genetic engineering has an even longer history.Humans have been engaged in genetic engineering dating as far back as ~12,000 BC.Genetic engineering began when humans domesticated plants and animals. By using artificial selection, and selective breeding humans could shape organisms to suit their needs. Despite humans either knowingly or unknowingly engaging in genetic engineering,proof of genetic inheritance wasn’t discovered until 1865 by Gregor Medel.
In the 20thcentury we saw a rapid growth in our knowledge of how genes and DNA works. It wasn’t until the 1970s when scientists were able to successfully genetically modify organisms using various techniques. The first GMO was a strain of bacteria洪荒之子 , two years later a mouse became the first genetically modified animal. Then in 1983 a tobacco plant became the first fully genetically engineered organism. Almost as soon as GMO testing by scientists began regulation followed. Paul Berg, the same scientist who used restriction enzymes and DNA ligases to create the firstrecombinant DNAmolecules also organized the Asilomar conference.The Asilomar conference was the first conference held to discuss the potentialbiohazardsand regulation ofbiotechnology.
基因工程引发对立情绪：
乌托邦式的兴奋与岌岌可危的恐慌
Since the 1970s most discussion about genetic engineering has been a mixture of either utopian excitement or alarming fear.Movies, books and tv shows have presented two genetic engineering futures. One where all disease and suffering has been eliminated, and another dystopian world where the ecological balance of the earth has been irrevocably damaged or a discriminatory society where class is defined by your genetics.When I was in high school everyone I knew watched “Gattaca” (1997) in science class.Gattacatakes place in a future society defined byeugenics. Eugenics is a set of beliefs and practices that aims at improving thegeneticquality of ahuman population. In the movie parents use gene editing to ensure their children possessthe best hereditary traits of their parents. InGattacasociety is divided into two classes, one comprised of “valids” who have undergone this gene editing process before being born and “in-valids” who still have undesired human traits because they were naturally born. As a result, the main character tries to overcome the genetic discrimination pervasive in society to achieve his dream of traveling into space. A privilege that is only afforded to “valids”. This is the type of dystopian future that some CON teams will try to construct as what life will be like in a PRO world. NASA named Gattaca the most scientifically plausible science fiction movie in 2011.1Of course a science fiction movie is not a credible primary source to use for a debate case, butGattacacould be an entertaining way to start thinking about the topic.
CRISPR“复制粘贴”原理助力基因编辑技术
Most recently like other technologies, genetic editing advancement had seen exponential growth. The technology likely to come up in many debates on this topic is CRISPR. CRISPR is an abbreviation ofClusteredRegularlyInterspacedShortPalindromicRepeats. But that is not important for our purposes. What may be important to know is that technically the technology used to edit genomes within organisms is a subset of CRISPR technology known asCRISPR/Cas9. Jennifer Doudna, a leading figure for her work and leadership in developing CRISPR’s genome editing capabilities like to use the analogy of cut and paste in word processing to explain how CRISPR works. Essentially CRISPR allows scientists to “cut” out a portion, or section of a piece of DNA’s genome and “paste” in or replace that cut out section with another piece of genome.This technology has made it much easier for scientist to conduct gene editing experiments and trials, push the boundaries of what was previously possible and increase our knowledge in the potential of gene editing.
Public Health Services 公共资产可否用于风险性程序？
It’s hard to have a definitive definition for what a “public health service” is without breaking apart the term.“Public”implies that the service must be one that is offered by a government body. As a result靳诺 , the type of services this topic is asking us to consider are ones that will be funded at least somewhat from the budget of the government with jurisdiction.This means that these gene editing technologies and procedures will be at least partially funded by taxpayers.I anticipate this CON ground has the potential to be a popular strategy.Should tax payer dollars be going to experimental or risky procedures that may not be worth the cost? Will funding gene editing in this way trade off with more valuable and important health services or other parts of the government’s budget?
基因编辑for people or to people？辩论范围大不同
We also must consider what exactly a“health service” is. In a recent discussion I had with some debate coaches one coach said he wished that the word “human” was somewhere in the topic. I understand the concern because the topic is still very big even when narrowing it to just human gene editing. If debaters also had to be prepared for a GMO food debate for example. That would be a lot to be prepared for.I think “health service” provides the basis for debaters to argue that the topic does indeed narrow the debate down to human gene editing.Most dictionaries define health service as a public service providing medical care to people. Some definitions omit people. But all include “medical care” as a necessary part of the definition. Let’s say a debater finds and uses a definition of “health service” that says “for people” as opposed to “to people” or a definition that omits people all together. I do think this debater could make a case for gene editing in animals to stop disease spread. For example, on Nantucket Island scientist are experimenting on introducing gene edited mice that would be resistant to contracting lyme disease from ticks2, or the work the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation’s efforts to eradicate malaria by making female mosquitos carrying the disease sterile3. If a public institution were to do something similar it seems that disease prevention could qualify as medical care “for people” as in, “in the interest of people.” If a debater were to take this route I think it opens up interesting ground for both sides. Disease prevention would be the obvious argument on the PRO, while the CON could speak about the negative ecological consequences genetic engineering can have on an ecosystem or the potential harms to biodiversity. With all that being said I think the path of least resistance, and reasonability in the judge’s mind would dictate focusing arguments toward services provided “to people”.
Expand Accessexpanded access：垂死之人的最后一搏
One thing that might be good to get out of the way from the very beginning is that the topic says “expand access” not “expanded access”. I mention it because “expanded access” is actually a very specific medical term. “Expanded access” is the term used to describe the use of an experimental drug or medical device on patients who have serious or life-threatening conditions but do not meet the enrollment criteria to be involved in the clinical trials of said drug or medical device.In other words, expanded access is given to people who do not mind taking the risks of undergoing a medical procedure where the effects are not yet understood well enough to be sanctioned as safe. I bring this up for two reasons; I think it would be easy for a debater when beginning their research to overlook this and spend a lot of time preparing for a narrower debate that is only about “expanded access”阿拉尼 , that would be unfortunate. “Expanded access” to gene editing is topical, but it is not the only type of access that is topical. Providing expanded access to gene editing technologies is certainly an argument that can be made on this topic. Gene editing technologies today mostly exist in the clinical trial phase. “Expand access” includes giving patients dying from cancer or other terminal diseases, that are currently without a cure人鼠之间 , the opportunity for a new lease on life. Is it right to tell someone who has nothing to lose,“No you can’t have this experimental gene editing technology because we don’t know the side effects”? Do the possible side effects matter to someone who has months, weeks or days left to live?The pathos to this type of try or die argument is very persuasive. Pulling at the heartstrings of your judges in a plea of compassion is likely to be an effective strategy for most PRO teams.
expand access: 给你自由改变基因的权利
Ok so enough about “expanded access” what about what the topic actually says, “expand access” what does that mean exactly? What other types of access could fall into this topic?Merriam Webster’s defines access as the “freedom or ability to obtain or make use of something.”This definition seems clear, and when combined with expand that would mean the pro is defending that people should be provided the opportunity to undergo gene editing procedures and the public should have the availability of the technology to experiment and work with. Whether they be doctors, scientists or “biohackers”. The term biohacker has arisen from a growing biotechnological social movement called Do-it-yourself biology in which individuals experiment with biology outside of the traditional academic or research institution model. Many in the biohacking community envision a future where any average individual could modify their genes at home with the same ease as downloading an app for your phone.The PRO might argue that these biohackers will create innovation, allow for competition against big pharma and lead to diseases cured and enhancing the human body. The CON will point to the fact that to date no diseases or disorders have been cured by biohacking, the risks of these types of unregulated experiments, and the consequences of putting powerful technologies in the hands of people who may have not even graduated high school.Even some of the most well-known and vocal biohackers are beginning to worry about the movement’s risks and believe someone is going to end up hurt eventually.4
中国敢为先，是gain还是pain?
It is not just biohackers who are experimenting with gene editing technology obviously. Another reason I like this topic for NSDA China is because China is one of the countries that has been most open to gene editing technologies. China already has close to a dozen clinical trials for CRISPR based cancer therapies.5But around the world countries vary widely on how gene editing in humans should be treated. There are no internationally agreed upon guidelines. Many assume that genetic editing on humans is illegal. However, only 29 countries have an outright legal ban on human genetic editing, hardly a majority consensus.6In the United States there is even a political organization called the “Transhumanist Party” that supports life extension through science and technology like gene editing.Will the countries without bans gain a scientific, technological or economic edge on countries with laws against genetic editing? Or will the countries without a ban bear the brunt of the consequences of playing fast and loose with scientific experimentation?
PRO Strategies
I’m not going to give an exhaustive list of every possible PRO argument. In part because coming up with arguments is part of the educational process for any students that might be reading this; but also, because I’m just one man, and this is a big topic I have no doubt some of you will come up with interesting arguments I haven’t considered yet. I will also try not to cover arguments I’ve already given some attention to earlier in this article.
改善生命的长度与质量
The first and most obvious PRO strategy will be to talk about the medical advancements gene editing could lead to if public health services expanded access and thelives savedas a result.A New York Times article last year speculated that gene editing could apply to more than ten thousand different inherited genetic mutations.7The impact is obvious,improved length and quality of life for people.The harder part of the argument for the PRO will be proving the link to these impacts in such a young and still largely unknown technology.
赋予自由意志，引领技术创新
Freedomwill be another potential PRO strategy to focus on.The freedom to choose how I decide to treat my body. The freedom of access to technologies. Should a government or regulating body really have the right to tell we what I can or can’t do to my own body? Should public health institutions withhold treatment that could potentially save lives just because it is untested?This leads to another important point for the PRO,Innovation.If the only problem is that there are risks we don’t fully understand yet, shouldn’t we expand access so that we can gain the knowledge and understanding necessary to avoid these risks聂曦 ? Think of all the lives that could have been lost if we had stifled the development of penicillin after its discovery because we scared of this new treatment from plants. Penicillin may not be the perfect analogy, but it makes the point that over regulation can stifle innovation and cost lives.Expanding access to gene technology could alsospur scientific education and enthusiasmto lead to more innovation, funding and benefits.A similar argument was made for the Space topic last year. When President Jack Kennedy set an agenda for the United States to go to the moon it inspired a nation to invest more into science and technology and arguably was a catalyst for some of the greatest technological innovations the world has seen to date.Could a similar ambitious agenda towards gene editing and eradicating cancer be a catalyst for newer scientific and technological innovations?
CON Strategies
纳税人是否应为高风险基因实验买单？
生物多样性遭遇破坏，人类能否抵御新型病毒？
I’ve already covered many of what should be the most popular CON arguments to make on this topic.Cost and taxeswill be a point of contention武林幸运星 , anything coming from public services will be payed with taxes and leaves the position open to the question: Is this the best way to spend this money?Especially when the money could theoretically be wasted because the procedure is flawed or makes the problem worse. This brings up another potential pitfall to expanding access to an experimental technology. Could a very public failing of this technology set back the advancement technology? Could public sentiment turn on the technology or governments crack down on experimenting if we expand access too quickly and have a very public disaster result from the technology because we pushed the tech too quickly?Some risks we could leave ourselves open to include,adaptive genetic mutations in the viruseswe are trying to outsmart leading to asuper bugwe aren’t prepared to confront.Farmers have learned the hard way that having a lack of genetic diversity in their crops can lead to the whole harvest being wiped out. If we eliminate genetic mutations in humans will be leaving humanity open to the same fate.An inability for humanity to survive a plague or outbreak because we don’t have the genetic diversity to allow for herd immunity or natural selection?
优生学是否将加重歧视，亚伦格林 损害人类尊严？
There is no doubt that a popular strategy for the CON will be a criticism of Eugenics.I already covered Eugenics briefly before, but I’d like to give two specific impact scenarios for why Eugenics could potentially be harmful and scary.First is a question ofhuman dignity.There are some “disorders” that many would try to eliminate in human embryos like deafness, dwarfism or other physical “deformities” if gene editing allowed for it. But if we adopt this mindset in society, how will that affect how we treat those with “disorders” like deafness.By adopting this mindset are we not saying that there is something wrong with people who “suffer” from these disorders? Is it even right to use a word like “suffer”? If you ask someone who is deaf wouldn’t they say they do not suffer because of deafness?They suffer from the way society discriminates against them because they are deaf. If this line of argument appeals to you I suggest you researchableism. Ableism is discrimination in favor of able bodied people. This type of discrimination is already prevalent in our society. The current President of the United States is even guilty of using discrimination against the disabled during his run for the presidency in an infamous campaign rally.Is it really that far-fetched to believe that gene editing will only lead to deeper discrimination. Is our society ready to expand this technology? Can we be sure this wont lead to atrocious crimes against humanity?
不重生女重生男，性别偏好引发性别失衡
The other strong Eugenic impact I envision being made is agender preference.It’s no secret than many societies and cultures emphasize a strong preference for male babies. China itself is certainly not immune from this criticism. Patriarchy has engrained the idea that a man is the one that carries on the family line, many of the myths and traditions in cultures all around the world show a preference for men. Sadly, in the modern day there are too many sad stories of families neglecting, abusing, or even abandoning girls in favor of boys. Now imagine people have access to choose the gender of their child before they are born. We could see a massive gender imbalance that could lead to many negative consequences for humanity. Now obviously this attitude towards girls is not universal.I’m not saying there would never be another girl born after we expand access to gene editing technologies. But I do think there are some very interesting arguments and impacts to be made about gender preference.
The Final Focus
I’m sure there are many great arguments I did not give enough time to covering in this article. This topic is very big, there is no doubt about that. However林玮婕 , I don’t think you should let it feel daunting. With this topic you have a lot of options to find the strategy that speaks to you and compliments your strengths as a debater.It will be hard to be fully prepared with your blocks, but the wide selection of approaches and strategies on this topic will teach you to improve your ability to think quickly and critically, as well as force you to engage and improve upon your weaknesses.I’m very excited to see what China NSDA debaters do with this topic. Like Stefan, I’m looking forward to hearing a lot of new arguments.
1https://news.avclub.com/nasa-names-2012-as-the-silliest-sci-fi-film-1798223478
2https://www.media.mit.edu/articles/mit-researchers-propose-release-of-genetically-engineered-mice-on-nantucket/
3https://www.newsweek.com/engineered-mosquitoes-backed-bill-and-melinda-gates-wipe-out-malaria-990338
4https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/02/biohacking-stunts-crispr/553511/
5https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/results?term=CRISPR&map_cntry=CN
6https://www.businessinsider.com/what-countries-allow-researchers-to-edit-human-embryos-2015-10
7https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/02/science/gene-editing-human-embryos.html