Research a Contemporary Biological Issue
To complete this assessment task successfully you must be able to present,from your research, the differing opinions or viewpoints of specific individuals or groups on your issue.
To check your understanding of what is required:
1. Read through the example of student work
2. Make a decision on whether differing opinions have been presented
3. Indicate on the scripts where and why you made this decision.
STUDENT A
Many scientists are concerned about the possibility of new unknown allergens being introduced in genetically modified foods. It has been proved through studies that allergens can be transferred from one food crop to another through genetic modification. In Canada, supposedly disabled viral genes inserted into a cucumber have recombined with other viral material to produce reactivated viruses capable of infecting other plants. This has prompted new restrictions on genetically modified crops. Many people want genetically modified foods producers legally made to test their food for any allergens that may be present, due to the fear that viral genes inserted in many plants will cause new human illness's. But there is no law requiring safety testing for most genetically modified foods. Dr Geoffrey Savage says he would like to see more tests done on all food not just genetically modified food. He says many of our foods are known to produce toxins and sometimes a new cultivator will turn out to be unpalatable. Dr Geoffrey says he would have no problem eating genetically modified foods, but feels they should be labelled. If genetic modified foods had labels on them it would help people with food tolerances. For an example people that are allergic to brazil nuts are very likely to also be allergic to genetically modified Soya beans, that contains a protein that is found in the brazil nuts.
There have been other feared risks of genetically modified food. A leading GM researcher Dr Arpad Pusztai researched the effect genetically potatoes had on rats. It was found that the rats had suffered serious damage to their immune systems and shown stunned growth. Dr Pusztai was forced into retirement and his research was suspended and the British government blocked efforts to repeat his experiments, which might have proved br Putszai right.
There has been examples of where, genetic modification has come close to mucking things up. Such as the ides~ to replace the post harvest wheat burnoff which causes massive air pollution. This would be done by raking up all the stalks and melting them down with specially modified bacteria that would turn the stalks to sludge and alcohol. The alcohol would then be sold and the sludge used as fertilizer. But the problem was that when the modified bacterium was tested in ordinary soil it was found that it kept producing alcohol and killed plants planted near it. If the bacteria had been 3 allowed into the public there may have been a lot of destroyed crops.
There has been no long term testing of the effects of genetically modified foods on human health. Many scientists point out that novel proteins introduced into food by genetic modification have never been in our diet before, they can produce new allergies, toxin an and illnesses. More over any damaging effects will be irreversible. Unlike chemical and nuclear contamination, genetic pollution con never be recalled from the environment or cleaned up, inevitable mistakes are passed on to all future generations of a species.
Genetic modification is very expensive and requires long term financial input to research. Only a few big firms ore able to provide this amount of money. These firms paten the crops they engineer and there fore own these crops and the rights to these crops. Many people are concerned that the whole market supply is in the hands of only a few foreign firms. Genetically modified plants would be very good for poor developing countries as these crops can protect themselves from pests, diseases and herbicides, but the problem is that these countries will not be able to afford to produce GM crops due to the cost involved.
Student B
An opinion against the use of drugs in sport was sourced from Joe Paterno (1) in the opening pages of the book The Steroids Game. He talks of his disapproval of the use of drugs for performance enhancement coming from the angle that he does not approve of the pressure that will be put on younger sporting students. He believes that winning is an important goal but that 'lo win at the cost of your health, breaking the law, and cheating is wrong and cannot be justified". He believes that competition should build character and strength, not degrade it "victories achieved through drug use are 'hollow victories'." He worries even now for his university students and tries his very best to protect them from steroid abuse and in particular the feeling that they have to take drugs in order to stay on a level playing field with others in the fear that their opponents will have an edge by taking illegal drugs.
An opinion for the decriminalization of anabolic steroids came from Clayton South a writer for bodybuilders.com (4) from his speech on the bodybuilding website. His opinion was from the angle that steroids should not be put in the same bracket as street drugs and that their benefits should be more fully recognized. In his opinion just because street drugs were unable to be decriminalized this should not mean that steroids could not be and he differentiated between the two "small amounts of steroids do not cause addiction, small amounts of street drugs do", "small amounts of steroids cause no damage or permanent injury, small amounts of street drugs do." He made a valid point that thousands of people died annually from smoking yet despite the lack of evidence to prove that anabolic steroids would cause long term damage they were still illegal. He argues that citizens should have the right to choose to use substances that could improve the length and quality of their life. He "preached moderation, not abuse."
Rick Collins a bodybuilder and criminal defense attorney (10) believes that the health risks of steroid use have been exaggerated. He believes congress should reconsider its ban on the non-medical use of steroids by athletes. He believes that information to the public has been grossly exaggerated with only the 'big stories' being told as "gospel truth". He states "athletes using anabolic steroids today have a sophisticated pharmacologic knowledge base for using these agents that surpasses that of the vast majority of physicians." He believes the side effects have been exaggerated in order to keep competition 'clean' when in reality steroids are not as dangerous as they are portrayed to be.
Steve Ofiver (11) a teacher at StaffordshireUniversity in Great Britain believes athletes should be prohibited from taking performance-enhancing substances because of the harm they can cause tot their bodies. He says even tough "some would argue that a person has a right to choose whether to risk harm to one's own body, the use of drugs in sport can place athletes in a situation in which they feel co-erced into taking drugs in order to compete". It is this "co-ercion" that is his reasoning for prohibition. If athletes were allowed to use anabolic steroids there would be immense pressure on all athletes to take them if they wanted to make it to the top, it is this fact that Steve Oliver believes is unfair and dangerous and that is why he believes anabolic steroids should remain illegal in sport.
Kefli White (2) an athletic sprinter who received a two year ban and was stripped of four years of results is also against the use of anabolic steroids. She held this opinion from an athlete's perspective. She had been competing as a top level sprinter and had been caught using performance enhancing drugs. Although she did not blame her drug taking on her coach she said she was constantly urged to take them, she said it got to the stage where she believed they were "necessary to be competitive because everyone else was doing so." This is why she wants to see drugs stamped out of sport so that these pressures are not placed upon athletes. She also believes they should not be made legal because of the physical effects she encountered - her blood pressure was elevated, she experienced an acne problem, increased menstrual cycle and slight vocal chord trouble. Three key reasons were stated in her speech as to why drugs need to be stamped out of sport 1 believe athletes who use performance enhancing drugs are hurting themselves, cheating the public and betraying our youth." She believes athletes are role models, and should remain good ones.
Another opinion is that of the spectators of sport. Kass and Cohen (5) doctors who study bioethics and philosophy raised an interesting point saying that we enjoy the spectacle of greater power, speed and bone-crushing tackles. We enjoy seeing faster races and world records getting broken, so maybe the spectator too is an advocate for anabolic steroid use in sport, but then it is a fairly common opinion that it is the hard work that an athlete puts in that makes their performance so thrilling, the way they show what the human body is capable of ... naturally.
Sidney Gendin (3) a philosopher defends the use of anabolic steroids in sport, in his opinion if the athletes want to take them they should not be deprived the right to do so. His opinion is more from a right wing perspective that a citizen should be allowed to do what they want to rather than being based on medical background 'Whether the use of steroids is unhealthful or not, people do not have the right to deprive those who wish to run the risk access to these drugs." He believes that the use of all performance enhancing drugs should be legal.
Student C
The ethical and legal issues behind the embryonic stem cells very wide spread. Opposition from Pro-life Groups include:
The Roman Catholic Church (USA) – “the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops wrote a letter to each of the senate urging them to stop stem cell research. They asked that the Stem Cell Research Act, S .2015, be defeated. This Act would allow federal researchers to extract stem cells from surplus embryos. Referring to the stem cell harvesting procedure, Cardinal William H. Keeler said it "kills the unborn child." He noted that NIH's own Human Embryo Panel and President Clinton's National Bioethics Advisory Commission (NBAC) have both conceded that the early human embryo deserves respect as a 'form of human life'." He wrote that "no government should requisition innocent human beings for deadly experiments on the grounds that they are 'unwanted' and 'unpopular` he concluded by saying that the act would "demean human dignity by promoting the destruction of human life," (http:
Focus on the Family - is a Fundamentalist Christian group located in Colorado Springs, CO. They are also against the research. Founder Dr James Dobson wrote: “In order for scientists to isolate and culture embryonic stem cells, a living, human embryo must be killed. It is never morally or ethically justified to kill one human being in order to help benefit another. By requiring the destruction of embryos , the tiniest human beings, embryonic stem cell research violates the medical ethic of 'Do No Harm.’” (http:
There are also other people such as lawyers and medical ethicists that are for stem cell research.
"Lawyers from the NIH, and others, argue that stem cells are incapable of growing into a complete person. They may be coaxed to develop into nerve cells or heart cells. But, at most, they can become an organ, not a complete living person. They cannot be considered a form of a human life, even within the definition of pro-lifer supporters. This exempts stem cell research from the Congressional ban on embryo research. Those regulations were created to prevent experiments with embryos that had the potential to develop to the fetal and newborn stages. The rules simply do not apply with stem cells." ( “Almost all spare embryos in fertility clinics will eventually die, due to operator error or equipment malfunction. Spare embryos are also routinely destroyed by flushing them down the drain, by incinerating them, or thawing them out or just allowing them to die. They might as well have their stem cells extracted so that they can be of some use to humanity." (
To complete this assessment task successfully you should evaluate the specific sources of information used, including their validity or bias and weighing up how science ideas are used by different groups,.
To check your understanding of what is required:
1. Read through the example of student work
2. Make a decision on whether the sources of information have been evaluated as required.
3. Indicate on the scripts where and why you made this decision.
Student A
One of my sources was the OutLookLincolnUniversity September magazine, this is where I found most of my opinions and feel that all of them a valid and reliable due to who they are and where they work. This magazine article called GM Food and you HOW DO YOU DECIDE? was written by people who study something involved with genetic modification and are obviously qualified and valid sources. So I feel that this magazine article is very reliable in the statements found I found in it. The opinions I used in this article were backed up by research so I feel these are reliable and valid.
Another source used was a new scientist web article called Crops widely contaminated by genetic modified DNA I feel this source is up to date and reliable due to the new scientist magazine being widely known. The opinion I used in this article was Jane Rissfer who help write the article and is a plant pathologist, but she may not be very reliable due to not knowing where she works or who for and she might have had a lot of input into the article and it may have mode it biased.
Another source was by the natural food commission called Farmers Facing problems with Genetically Altered Crops and Products, This source is not very up-to-date being last updated in 1997 but did have some very good points on GM foods. I feel this source is valid and reliable due to it being written by people in the Natural food commission who are a big company in New Zealand and I feel that the information is reliable due to pointing out where each problem with GM crops occurred.
Student B
From what I have mainly found on the Internet, there are a lot of biased sources about In Vitro Fertilisation. As many clinics around the world are competing against each other for possible customers, their information on IVF show mainly the positive things about IVF and have very little information about the issues involved. Also, the only statistics they have on their websites are positive ones relating to mainly success rates.
The two clinical websites that I used were Guy's and St Thomas' Assisted Conception Unit in London and Georgia Reproductive Specialists. I believe the material on these two sites is reliable because it is written by medical professionals and is consistent with other sources in relation to the medical techniques used. Another source I used was a book called 'Conception, pregnancy and birth.' This book is written by Dr Miriam Stoppard. Miriam Stoppard is a Doctor, dermatologist and part of the Royal College of Physicians. She is the UK's best-known expert on pregnancy and birth and has been at the forefront of the revolution in health information since she began her writing and broadcasting career in the early 1970s. The information in this book as been well researched and is not biased as it focuses on both the positive and negative aspects of In Vitro Fertilisation.
Another source was an article from the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act website. This organisation was formed in 1990 and is a very reliable source. The HFEA's main tasks are to monitor and license clinics that carry out IVF and human embryo research. The article was about IVF and follow-up studies. This included information from Suzi Leather, the HFEA Chairperson and Professor Catherine Peckham, a senior epidemiologist at the Institute of Child Health. Suzi's statement was not biased towards the studies and was valuable in providing a neutral opinion.
Student C
Because I had a wide range of sources I was able to easily compare information given on anabolic steroids. I was surprised to find that all the information on their side effects co-incided but I was still abit dubious about some of the sites I used due to the lack of scientific backing they had and the bias they contained. For example the speech by Clayton South (4) contained a lot of bias in favour of decriminalizing anabolic steroids although he never actually stated that this opinion was because of his bodybuilding he did state at the end that “if someone asks you about anabolic steroids, be a strong advocate for our sport". Therefore I had to be careful when using this source, although it did contain a couple of valid points that I could use.