Posted on 20 March 2011.
Due to the pioneering research of the Human Genome Project, an international collaboration of scientists, as well as, the contribution of private ‘genomics’ corporations, scientists now have the ability to isolate human genes. This has sparked much debate, prompting hopes that this new knowledge could lead to a tangible improvement in treatments of certain conditions. At the same time, genetic screening is becoming more widespread. As research progresses, the legal and moral questions of whether or not genes should be patented, what would constitute gene patents, and whether these patents would be detrimental to research and development inevitably arise. Many say that genes, as parts of nature, should not be subject to patents; some fear that if patents are instituted, the rush to patent human genes and the corporate use of those patents to maximize corporate profits could stifle vital medical research for humanity. Others say that patents are a necessary evil, and there is little evidence that they are directly harmful to research. Do the disadvantages of gene patents outweigh the benefits?
Posted in Domestic Affairs, Economics, Science
Posted on 10 December 2010.
Socialism is defined to be a general term for the political and economic theory that advocates a system of government ownership and management within the means of production and distribution of goods. It is an approach which is often viewed as a counterpart to capitalism, which places an emphasis is placed limiting governmental interference with trade and interaction. Which system is most beneficial to our current American society? Would there be any harmful repercussions if the United States switched to more socialist policies?
Posted in Domestic Affairs, Economics, Philosophical
Posted on 25 November 2010.
Environmentalists frequently accuse profit-driven corporations of engaging in anti-green activities, like pollution and habitat destruction, in order to exploit natural resources. The environment, many believe, belongs to everyone and is humanity’s most important asset. As such, any harm to the environment is unjust, and economic growth ought to be forsaken if it may harm the environment. While some businesses have made efforts to “go green,” other industries have difficulty making themselves environmentally friendly without enduring enormous costs. And the additional costs of going green can cost the average American, who may accord more weight to the impacts on their paycheck than those one the ozone layer. Which green should we value more?
Posted in Domestic Affairs, Economics, Environment