Intoduction
Burden of Refutation

Representativeness
Counterwarrants
Value Objections
Value Implications
Negative Position
Organization
Sample Negative Case

Negative Analysis Review

Organization

Since the negative must refute the affirmative case and develop their own position, time will prevent inclusion of every issue developed in the negative analysis. Therefore, issues must be selected based on potential effectiveness, combined with other issues, and organized in an effective manner. The exact method will vary depending on the individual affirmative. An example follows:

1. Introduction.
2. Affirmative Misrepresentations.
3. Negative Value and Criteria.
4. Counterwarrants, Value Objections, and Value Implications.
5. Application of Negative Criteria.
6. Establishing the Superiority of Negative Value.

Return to top of page

Sample Negative Case

I agree with the affirmative that the proposition we debate today is a new form of an old question. I also agree with their claim that history has answered the question - but the answer is "caution." The need to end World War II placed science above moral implications and two Japanese cities were nuked. The Cold War placed science first, and thousands of uninformed soldiers were exposed to deadly radiation. Today, we have reservations whether these actions were altogether necessary. In each case, science reacted without carefully examining the moral implications. Now we face a more powerful scientific technology - biotechnology and genetic research. While one inadvertent atomic accident may destroy a city, an inadvertent biological accident could destroy the world. Therefore, I am firmly resolved that the genetic manipulation of nature is NOT MORE important than the moral implications.

I will begin my analysis by examining a few FLAWS in the affirmative case.

1. The Affirmative Misrepresents the Emphasis of the Resolution. Affirmative defines more important as "of greater value in content, weight, or significance." The term value tends to isolate the debate to the final results ignoring the significant role that moral implications play in regulating genetic research. A more appropriate definition is found in "marked by or possessing greater weight or consequences." My question is, "Has the affirmative demonstrated that society should side with scientific progress whenever science and morality come into conflict?"
2. Affirmative Improperly De-emphasizes the Term "More." Webster's Third International Dictionary defines the adverb form of the term as "to a greater extent or degree, used as a measure of desperation to achieve victory; often used with adjectives and adverbs as a comparison." Affirmative must not only demonstrate that genetic manipulation is important but that it has greater importance than moral implications. Affirmative fails to meet this requirement.
3. The Affirmative Fails To Portray Genetic Manipulation Of Nature Over Its Entire Spectrum. Yes, genetic research advances medicines, agriculture, and environmental concerns. But they fail to mention the more controversial aspects of genetic research. Dr. Donald Kennedy asserts, "But second, each opportunity affords an array of potential problems: unwanted side effects, unanticipated social costs, unforeseen public health and environmental risks. These are compounded by a very special kind of drama - the specter of genetic monsters running amuck and that we have begun to interfere with a process so fundamental in nature that we may be guilty of the sin of hubris." ("Winding Your Way through DNA" symposium, which took place at the University of California San Francisco in 1992.)

I will continue may analysis by offering the concept of BIOETHICS.

1. The Negative Essence in this Debate Is Best Represented by the Concept of Bioethics. In tandem, the investigations of biology, scientific technology, and ethical issues combine to form a new science called "bioethics". In 1971, Van Potter's coined the term "bioethics" saying that it is "Biology combined with diverse humanistic knowledge forging a science that sets a system of medical and environmental priorities for acceptable survival." (Bioethics - An Introduction, Woodrow Wilson Biology Institute, 1992)
2. Bioethics is an Appropriate Value Because it is Contextual and Weighs Progress and Moral Implications. VanPotter continues, "Foremost, the definition is contextual in the here-and-now. It establishes the premise that humankind is in control of its own destiny; that our actions are based in moral principles and ethical thinking." (Bioethics - An Introduction, Woodrow Wilson Biology Institute, 1992)
3. Bioethics Provides Us With A Reasonable Standard. The Woodrow Wilson Biology Institute, comments that Bioethics provides a "system" approach to medical and environmental priorities. Here we are asked to weigh the relative merits of both content and value components of the question asked. The importance of this process cannot be underestimated and both the data of the content and the value nature of the question must be scrutinized using the most rigorous and critical procedures available. (Bioethics - An Introduction, Woodrow Wilson Biology Institute, 1992)
4. Bioethics Further Refines the Affirmative's Criteria of Ultimate Effects. But what is "acceptable" survival? As stated in his 1988 book Global Bioethics, Van Potter points out that survival without qualification is meaningless... Acceptable survival refers to a sustainable society within a healthy ecosystem. (Bioethics - An Introduction, Woodrow Wilson Biology Institute, 1992)

With this in mind, I offer the following OBJECTIONS to the affirmative position.

1. Acceptance of the Resolution Implies Science First - Moral Concerns Second. An example can be found in Dr. Henry Miller, former head of the Biotechnology Policy Office at the Food and Drug Administration, belief in the elimination of the biotechnology offices at the FDA, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the National Institutes of Health, because biotechnology is just a set of tools. ("To Regulate Or Not To Regulate: Forum: To Rationalize U.S. Biotech Regs," "NBIAP News Report." U.S. Department of Agriculture, June 1994.)
2. Progress Frequently Corrupts Society Creating Greater Problems Than It Solves.While
   • Progress May Have Solved Many Problems, Is Has Created Other, Arguably Greater Ills. For example, human application of technology has produced a number of environmental problems that threaten the ecosystem of our planet. Responsibility and moral concerns must take priority over progress - else we may have no where to live.
   • Progress Frequently Leads To Social Discord. Raymond Aron, Professor of Sociology, argues, "Just as nuclear means of destruction create a common danger for mankind but of not create a human community, so the means of production perfected by science and technology ... divide humanity as much as they unite. They are bringing men to live in the same material and even ideological universe, but it is a universe torn by conflicts inscribed in the very dialectic of industrial civilization." (U. of Toulouse, Progress and Disillusion, 1968, p.170)
   • Scientific Progress Has Created A Materialistic Society Characterized By Greed And Envy. Rousseau argues that materialism has taken the place of truly just and moral human values such as sense of community. Marcuses also rejects progress because it exploits and dehumanizes the masses. We must carefully weigh all benefits of progress with the ethical and moral disadvantages.
3. Uncontrolled Genetic Manipulation Will Result In Many Frankensteins.
   • Current Emphasis Even Attempts To Circumvent Public Concerns. According to Richard E. Sclove, director of the Loka Institute, "New technology is seen as the genie that will enable American companies to prevail in the global marketplace. But it overlooks a major factor: democracy. Few citizens, workers, or communities are being consulted about technology decisions that their taxes will help support, decisions that will profoundly affect their lives. (Democratizing Technology, an association of scholars and activists concerned with science, technology, and democracy. "The Chronicle of Higher Education," Vol. 40, No. 19 (12 January 1994), pp. B1-B2.)
   • Currently We May Be At The Mercy Of Genetic Monsters. John Fagan, a professor of molecular biology at Maharishi International University, has announced that he is returning nearly $614,000 in current grant money to the National Institutes of Health. He reportedly sees "rampant and universal genetic tinkering with plants and animals and the release of these novel organisms into the environment." Fagan believes that even with the many layers of review by university biosafety committees and by the government, genetic engineering research is irresponsible given how little is known about the long-term consequences of the release of genetically engineered organisms into the environment. ("Scientist Returns Research Grant To Show Concern About Dangers Of Genetically Engineered Organisms," Jay Blowers, "NBIAP News Report." U.S. Department of Agriculture (December 1994))
   • Yes, a Problem With Frakenstein. If we justify the proposition that scientific progress is more important than the moral implications, then we loose scientists to their own accountability. Most, admittedly will act morally, but what about the small minority who wouldn't? Could we face an engineered viral strain more lethal than the eboli? How about aborting a fetus because it has a minor genetic defect? Could a real Species occur?
4. Finally, the CURRENT EMPHASIS is working and should be maintained.
   • Regulatory Mechanisms Maintain an Equilibrium Between Need & Implications. People of good will can argue all day about the merits of the existing Coordinated Framework as an effective regulatory mechanism for biotechnology products, and most will admit to its shortcomings. However, the mechanism is working, and this administration hasn't yet displayed an inclination to abandon it. ("To Regulate Or Not To Regulate: Forum: To Rationalize U.S. Biotech Regs," "NBIAP News Report." U.S. Department of Agriculture, June 1994.)
   • There are still Too Many Questions to Under Emphasize the Moral Implications. Without question, biotechnology is a powerful new tool for modifying living organisms to benefit humankind. However, all of the questions about the risk to the environment and public health arising from the use of this technology to produce new food, medical, and environmental remediation products are not answered. Until such time that all safety issues are resolved, appropriate government oversight is needed. ("To Regulate Or Not To Regulate: Forum: To Rationalize U.S. Biotech Regs," "NBIAP News Report." U.S. Department of Agriculture, June 1994.)
5. NEGATIVE VALUE IS SUPERIOR. Balance Is Important. Bioethic balances the advantages of scientific progress and the moral implications. If the risk for moral implications, either environmentally or ethically, are unsure or weighty - caution is on the side of safety. Accepting the proposition on a universal level changes that balance in the favor of scientific progress making it riskier, unregulated, more dangerous.
6. In SUMMARY, Should we risk our fragile ecosystem or can we afford to allow a few unethical scientists to play Dr. Jeckel and Mr. Hyde? I think not! We allow scientific progress and other advancements in society, but we should proceed cautiously. The moral implications should remain at the forefront of our thoughts.

Return to top of page

Negative Analysis Review

The best possible review for this unit is for the debater to complete a sample negative analysis. As you proceed with this process, take one step at a time, gather research from both current periodicals and books and ideas from well-established philosophers. A good exercise is to construct a negative that opposes the position that you took when you wrote your affirmative construction. The steps in the negative analysis are outlined below on behalf of simplification:

1. Direct Refutation: finding and manipulating flaws in the affirmative position.
   • Representativeness: Do the components of the affirmative case represent, portray, or typify the proposition?
     1. Definitions?
     2. Value?
     3. Criteria?
     4. Representation?
   • Counterwarrants: In what way are the affirmative arguments, evidence, or statements false or misleading?
     1. Subject of Evaluation?
     2. Terms of Evaluation?
     3. Arguments?
     4. Evidence?
   • Value Objections: In what way is the affirmative value flawed or inferior to other values?
     • General assertion, explanation of flaw, associated problem, and persuasive appeal.
   • Value Implications: What disadvantages are associated with acceptance of the proposition?
     • General assertion, link to value, threshold, and negative consequence.
2. Negative Position: What value and criteria oppose the proposition?
   1. Establish a negative value.
   2. Establish a negative criterion.
   3. Apply the criteria to the negative position.
   4. Establish the superiority of the negative value.

After you have completed your construction, have your coach critique its format, content, and construction - revise - and then test it in several debate rounds.

Return to top of page