Analyzing my Text's Cultural Settings

Piperni, Mario. "Stem Cell Research- Science v Life." 7/3/2009 via flickr. CC0 Creative Commons. Attribution-NoDerivs 2.0 Generic.  

This blog will further discuss the culture involved in this controversy and how it appears in the article that I analyzed in the last blog post. I will not only be evaluating the topic, but the author as well.

1) What values, ideas, norms, beliefs, even laws of the culture play an important role in the text?

This is based off of a scientific principle, but the argument becomes more of an ethical controversy. Anything to do with the life of a fetus today comes along with a debate. It is not only a matter of religion and the unborn baby's right to life, it is also a legal issue, if the fetus has a legal right to live. Despite scientific principle, cultures believe that fetus become alive the moment of conception and anything done to jeopardize that life is not ethical.

As a society, not just in America, we believe that life is important, and different kinds of people will go through different lengths to protect it. These kind of beliefs are what are holding back the continuation of stem cell research.

2) Does the text address the cultural values, beliefs, etc. directly or indirectly? 

The article mentions the kind of opinions people have on the stem cell research and particularly which part of the process they do not agree with. What the article does not directly mention is what kinds of religions or cultures have these so called viewpoints against stem cell research.

This is a form of directly addressing the beliefs and values of these people by mentioning how they apply to the issue at hand.

3)What is the relationship of the text to the values, beliefs, etc.? Is it critical to the aspect of the culture? Does it seem to modify the aspects of the culture in any way? 

It does not seem that the author is very emotionally invested into the topic but talks about the controversies surrounding the topic. Although, she really narrows into the argument against the stem cell research rather than the side supporting the stem cell research. This can also be because of her audience she has selected who will read this article. If she believes that those for the stem cell research will be reading this, then their only concern would be who is against the argument.

Not much is really emphasized on the benefits of stem cell research that makes this such a big controversy, which can be another indicator that this article was meant for those who know a bit more about the stem cell research and the many potentials they hold.

It is a very factual article that doesn't as much criticize a culture, but talks about them as more limitations on the future of stem cell research. She does mention how the stem cells can be used for cloning and the benefits of that practice and then, once again, brings up the fact people are against it as well.

She is a doctor and makes sure to bring up the information behind the stem cell research. There are even links on the bottom that lead to more scientific research behind the idea of "stem cells" and what they really are. She seems to mention each of the arguments briefly which is good for the reader who wants to main idea on the topic, but does not leave much room for the varieties of opinions even within a smaller culture.

About the Author:

The author, Dr. Anaya Mandal, MD, is an Associate Professor at West Bengal Medical Education Service in India. She is a doctor, a lecturer, as well as a writer. As a writer, she writes reviews for professionals along with simplifying complex medical ideas for the general public to understand. Stem cell research is not the only thing she writes about as her knowledge is vast. This means that she is not caught up in the stem cell research as highly since her area of expertise is not limited to that one idea.

Living in India also gives her a unique view point on the issue because she not only sees the cultures of those we are familiar with in America, but her own cultures and those around her as well.

She published this text on January 29, 2013. This is pretty recent which means that the issue is relatively current. It would be interesting to find an even more recent article on the same issue and see how they compare. When it comes to laws and science though, change doesn't occur very fast. This was reviewed by a British scientist with a degree in Natural Sciences, so you now get the ideas and culture from two different nations.