Taken from Wikipedia "Stakeholder Theory." Image is public domain.
1. Can you describe this stakeholder in 200-250 words? If they're an individual, vividly describe how they look, what they wear, how they move. Tell us how they sound, how they talk, what their mannerisms are. Conjure them in our mind's eye, by appealing to at least THREE of our FIVE senses. If the stakeholder is an institution or group, then describe the institution and how it appears in the world. How do people encounter this group or institution, digitally or physically? Describe their website or headquarters or something else that physically represents the group to the world at large.
2. Can you identify THREE specific claims being made by this stakeholder? The claims should be public and about the specific story you're investigating. Provide direct quotes for three different claims or ideas made in public by this stakeholder. Each quote should be clearly hyperlinked to the original source.
1. "Conducting clinical investigations of mitochondrial replacement techniques (MRT) in humans is ethically permissible as long as significant conditions and principles are met" (Line 1-2). SOURCE
2. "Minimizing risk to future children should be of highest priority" (Paragraph 5). SOURCE
3. "The committee recommended that initial MRT clinical investigations should be considered by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration only if and when several conditions are met" (Paragraph 4). SOURCE
3. Can you explain how valid these claims are? Objectively, how much weight do these claims carry? How credible are they? Be specific. Think about how poorly or successfully the stakeholder cites FACTS, plays on our EMOTIONS, or presents themself as a CREDIBLE actor in the debate.
I believe the claims of the National Academies are wholly valid. I don't find myself disagreeing with anything they are saying. The Academies are renown as a source of objective science based decisions, leading me to believe that their decisions are bias-free and acceptable. The Academies do a great job with presenting facts, while also pandering a bit to emotion as seen with the second quote.
4. Can you explain how these claims are similar and/or different to the other stakeholders? Be clear and precise - does this stakeholder have anything in common with others involved in the debate? Who do they have the least in common with? Why?
The National Academies are an interesting stakeholder because they are rather moderate and in the middle with their stance on mitochondrial replacement. While they say that mitochondrial replacement is ethical and should be permitted, they also give numerous conditions that have to be met before the experiments can be considered okay.
The first stakeholder I will be describing is the
institution that is attempting to get permission from the United States’
government to perform mitochondria replacement on humans, the National
Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine. The National Academies are a prestigious nonprofit
organization that help shape social policies and advance the world in the
science, engineering, and medical fields.
Ever since its creation by President Lincoln in 1864, the Academies have received high praise from legislatures, the
media, and figures like President Obama. People
can encounter the work of the National Academies all over the place due to
their influence in the sciences. While
there are too many accomplishments to name, the Academies are known as a source
of unbiased, objective advice on the sciences.
The main way that people can contact the Academies is through their
website, http://www.nationalacademies.org/. The Academy website is clean, compact and
filled with a bunch of information and resources for people who are interested
in the sciences or just want to learn. A
major takeaway from the website is that the National Academies are dedicated to
improving the world through science, and are clearly a premier organization.
2. Can you identify THREE specific claims being made by this stakeholder? The claims should be public and about the specific story you're investigating. Provide direct quotes for three different claims or ideas made in public by this stakeholder. Each quote should be clearly hyperlinked to the original source.
1. "Conducting clinical investigations of mitochondrial replacement techniques (MRT) in humans is ethically permissible as long as significant conditions and principles are met" (Line 1-2). SOURCE
2. "Minimizing risk to future children should be of highest priority" (Paragraph 5). SOURCE
3. "The committee recommended that initial MRT clinical investigations should be considered by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration only if and when several conditions are met" (Paragraph 4). SOURCE
3. Can you explain how valid these claims are? Objectively, how much weight do these claims carry? How credible are they? Be specific. Think about how poorly or successfully the stakeholder cites FACTS, plays on our EMOTIONS, or presents themself as a CREDIBLE actor in the debate.
I believe the claims of the National Academies are wholly valid. I don't find myself disagreeing with anything they are saying. The Academies are renown as a source of objective science based decisions, leading me to believe that their decisions are bias-free and acceptable. The Academies do a great job with presenting facts, while also pandering a bit to emotion as seen with the second quote.
4. Can you explain how these claims are similar and/or different to the other stakeholders? Be clear and precise - does this stakeholder have anything in common with others involved in the debate? Who do they have the least in common with? Why?
The National Academies are an interesting stakeholder because they are rather moderate and in the middle with their stance on mitochondrial replacement. While they say that mitochondrial replacement is ethical and should be permitted, they also give numerous conditions that have to be met before the experiments can be considered okay.
No comments:
Post a Comment