the Developing of Argumentation Skills

Introduction

Given the devastating consequences of a slew of illnesses that have afflicted humanity for millennia, debates abound about whether science should have done more to relieve human misery. This concern is perhaps best summed up by the statement that “humanity would have benefited if early scientists had more actively studied the origin of health and illness, including Fracastoro’s theories on infectious disease, rather than the nature of celestial bodies.” Indeed, the statement is a solid affirmation, but it has certain flaws. In support of the statement, proponents would argue that the allocation of significant financial resources to research on celestial bodies has severely disadvantaged medical research.

Supporting Reasons

Their argument roots on the premise that a considerable host of diseases currently affecting human beings do not yet have a cure because they have not been researched adequately. For instance, it is arguably ironical that governments allocate massive resources for space research at the expense of medical research. If resources were instead diverted towards medical research, it is indeed reasonable to believe that considerable progress in the medical fields would have been made already to develop cures for most diseases.

Warrants to support evidence

To prove their point, proponents of this argument cite a variety of diseases whose cures scientist are yet to discover. For instance, some argue that it is surprising that twenty-first-century medical research institutions are yet to deliver immunization for the killer diseases that are HIV/AIDS and malaria (Dearman, 2016). Of course, malaria can be treated in its earlier stages, and antiretroviral drugs can alleviate the symptoms of HIV/AIDS. However, immunization would have been more beneficial for humanity because it would result in fewer complications that are typical of diseases advancing to dangerous stages.

Proponents of the statement also argue that by investigating celestial bodies rather than the nature of health and disease, scientists disappointed humanity by diverting valuable time to less important concerns.

Supporting Reasons

Among all members of the human race, scientists are the individuals who are best-placed to assist humanity to solve its pressing issues. More than anyone else they have the technical knowledge, experience, and capacity to investigate issues from the scientific perspective the rest of humanity lacks. According to Rosenzweig (2016), all species are primarily concerned with self-preservation through reproduction, a natural process extremely dependent their health. It hence follows that scientists should prioritize applying their intellectual genius to discover better methods of managing human health.

Warrants

Human beings have always been concerned about their physiological well-being. In fact, it is for this reason that the medical fields emerged and developed into what they are today. However, some early scientists were a disappointment to humanity. Allocating too much of their intellectual resources and time to the study of planetary bodies may have potentially hindered medical advancement. If they could discover so much that exists in space, they arguably would have made similar accomplishments in medicine. Perhaps, humanity would already have cures for many more diseases that it already has.

Arguments Against the Statement

Foremost, opponents of the implied assertion that early scientists may have inadvertently worked against the good of humanity may criticize the argument because it is overly simplistic and fails to capture the broader needs of the human race.

Supporting Reasons

Acceptably, scientists should express concern for the health of the human race and work towards its realization through medical research. However, health is just but one aspect of human life and should not consume all scientific interest and research. There are more equally pressing concerns as regards the safety of the human race, which is one of many concerns of celestial research.

Warrants

Space research, for instance, has contributed invaluable information about potential threats existing outside the earth’s atmosphere. Modern science has built on previous research conducted by early scientist to discover previously unknown causes of some medical condition. For example, modern science has revealed that radiation from the sun can cause some skin cancers and suggested ways in which individuals can protect themselves (Kim and He, 2014). Additionally, space research has revealed the presence of celestial objects such as asteroids and meteors that even threaten the existence of the human race.

Secondly, the statement can be contested because space research has actually contributed invaluable knowledge to the field of medicine.

Supporting Reasons

Studying celestial bodies is a much broader concern than the opponents suggest – apart from studying the nature of objects in space, scientists have been trying to discover solutions to humanity’s problems that probably lie in space.

Warrants

According to the National Aviation and Space Agency (NASA), it has been proven that some medical research activities can only be performed in space. To this effect, the International Space Station (ISS) has partnered with the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to collaborate on medical research (Medlineplus.gov, 2017).

Conclusion

Ultimately, proponents of the argument that humanity could have benefited if early scientist focused more on issues of health is not a convincing argument. On the contrary, humanity has benefited from space research which has discovered threats to the human race and has the potential to develop better medical solutions. On this account, therefore, it is reasonable to believe that the work of early scientists on celestial bodies has done humanity more good than harm.

References

Dearman, C. (2016). Mark Dybul, executive director of the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria. Student BMJ, 24.

Kim, I., & He, Y. Y. (2014). Ultraviolet radiation-induced non-melanoma skin cancer: Regulation of DNA damage repair and inflammation. Genes & Diseases, 1(2), 188-198.

Medlineplus.gov. (2017). Space The New Medical Frontier / NASA Spinoffs Milestones in Space Research | NIH MedlinePlus the Magazine. [online] Available at: https://medlineplus.gov/magazine/issues/fall07/articles/fall07pg4-7.html [Accessed 21 Jun. 2017].

Rosenzweig, M. L. (2016). On the evolution of extinction rates. Evolutionary Ecology Research, 17(6), 835-847.