Human Genetics

3001780_resource_1_1 3001780_critical_thinking_student_expectations1-1_3 3001780_critical_thinking_student_expectations1-1_3 3001780_student_exmaple_1_2

Please refer to the uploaded document for further instruction. Please refer to the student example attached and follow the same format. Please also keep in mind that i am not a native english speaker, so please try to keep the language easy. Thank you Critical Thinking Analysis Matrix: Title of assignment I. Thesis: II. Problem/ Question: a. Advocates- b. Opponents- c. My Point of View- III. Perspective: a. Advocates- b. Opponents- c. My Point of View- IV. Evidence Identification and Evaluation: a. Advocates- b. Opponents- c. My Point of View- V. Context: a. Advocates- i. Political- ii. Ethical- iii. Social- b. Opponents- i. Political- ii. Ethical- iii. Social- c. My Point of View- i. Political- ii. Ethical- iii. Social- VI. Assumptions: a. Advocates- b. Opponents- c. My Point of View- VII. Conclusions: a. Advocates- b. Opponents- c. My Point of View-

Genetic Enhancement Should Only Be Limited by Regulations for Safety and Efficacy

Human Genetics , 2010 Ronald Bailey is a science correspondent for Reason magazine and Reason.com, where he writes a weekly science and technology column. He is the author of Liberation Biology: The Scientific and Moral Case for the Biotech Revolution.

What is transhumanism? A pretty good definition is offered by bioethicist and transhumanist James Hughes who states that transhumanism is “the idea that humans can use reason to transcend the limitation of the human condition.” Specifically, transhumanists welcome the development of intimate technologies that will enable people to boost their life spans, enhance their intellectual capacities, augment their athletic abilities, and choose their preferred emotional states. What’s particularly noteworthy is that Hughes argues that democratic decision making is central to the task of guiding humanity into the transhuman future….

Restrictions on Reproductive Technologies

The urge for democratically imposed restrictions on the use of reproductive technologies has not abated. Recall that the federal government imposed a moratorium in the 1970s on funding any research on in vitro fertilization [IVF] techniques. In January 1980, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), alarmed by the opening of the first IVF clinic in the United States, sent a letter to Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.), who was then chairman of a health and scientific research subcommittee, urging him to convene hearings on the grounds that “prudence and our commitment to public participation in decision making suggest that the test tube baby laboratory not become fully operational until we have had the opportunity to consider the matter in open congressional hearings.” Nine states including New York currently prohibit gestational surrogacy.

In 1993, President Bill Clinton rejected the recommendations from the NIH’s [National Institutes of Health’s] Human Embryo Research Panel and prohibited federal funding of the creation of human embryos solely for research purposes. This ban did not apply to research on spare embryos or privately funded research. In addition, in the wake of the announcement that Scottish researchers had cloned a sheep in 1997, President Clinton announced an immediate moratorium on any human cloning research. In 1998, Clinton urged Congress to ban human cloning experiments for at least five years. Today [2009] 13 states ban reproductive human cloning, and six outlaw therapeutic cloning. The House of Representatives twice passed a bill that would have criminalized somatic cell nuclear transfer research and which would have criminalized any American who went abroad to take advantage of therapies developed using that technique—the penalty would have been 10 years in prison and $1 million in fines….

Democratically imposed restrictions on using advanced biotechnological techniques are not confined to the United States. For example, Britain established the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) in 1991 to regulate the use of embryos and gametes in infertility treatment and research. The HFEA has told couples that they could not select the sex of embryos to be implanted.

Even now, parents wanting to use PGD [preimplantation genetic diagnosis] to ensure that their children will not be burdened with an inherited genetic disease must apply for permission from the HFEA. And the HFEA has banned paying women for providing eggs to be used in research. Crucially, the HFEA can regulate not just on the grounds of ensuring quality, safety, and efficacy, but also on ethical grounds.

An Example of Government Interference

Consider the case of the Whitaker family from Sheffield, England, to see just how perilous it is to allow a government agency to interfere in a family’s reproductive decisions. In 2002, Michelle and Jayson Whitaker asked the HFEA for permission to use in vitro fertilization and PGD to produce a tissue-matched sibling for their son Charlie, who suffers from a rare anemia. That disease caused him to need a blood transfusion every three weeks. The HFEA refused, calling the procedure “unlawful and unethical,” ruling that tissue matching is not a sufficient reason to attempt embryo selection. Desperate, the Whitakers came to the United States, where PGD is still legal. In June 2003, Michelle Whitaker gave birth to James, whose umbilical cord stem cells are immunologically compatible with Charlie’s. The stem cells were transplanted and, six years later, both boys are reported to be healthy. Please keep in mind that taking stem cells from James’s umbilicus in no way endangered or harmed him.

Again, in this case, the HFEA’s refusal was not based on safety or efficacy, but on the moral opinions of the authority’s governing panel. Such a regulatory authority necessarily turns differences over morality into win/lose propositions, with minority views—and rights—overridden by the majority.

It is hard to see what is ethically wrong with parents taking advantage of such testing, since it is aimed at conferring general benefits that any child would want to have.

Fortunately, Americans are allowed to use PGD to select “savior siblings” like James Whitaker and also to enable their progeny to avoid the risks of genetic diseases. For example, consider the 2002 case of a married 30-year-old geneticist who will almost certainly lose her mind to early-onset Alzheimer’s disease by age 40 and who chose to have her embryos tested in vitro for the disease gene. She then implanted only embryos without the gene into her womb. The result was the birth of a healthy baby girl—one who will not suffer Alzheimer’s in her 40s. The mother in this case certainly knows what would face any child of hers born with the disease gene. Her father, a sister, and a brother have all already succumbed to early Alzheimer’s.

Social Consequences

Bioethicist Jeffrey Kahn objected to using PGD in this case arguing, “It’s a social decision. This really speaks to the need for a larger policy discussion, and regulation or some kind of oversight of assisted reproduction.” Kahn is right that parents will someday use PGD to screen embryos for desirable traits such as tougher immune systems, stronger bodies, and smarter brains. It is hard to see what is ethically wrong with parents taking advantage of such testing, since it is aimed at conferring general benefits that any child would want to have….

Kahn is wrong when he claims that the decision to use PGD by prospective parents is a “social decision” requiring more regulation. First of all, in the capacious sense implied by Kahn, any parent’s decision to have a child, even by conventional means, has “social consequences” for us all. So would Kahn have neighbors, regulators, and bioethicists weigh in on everybody’s reproductive decisions? Kahn would doubtless counter that, unlike conventional reproduction, assisted reproduction involves the use of scarce medical resources that could be used for other purposes (which they prefer).

Not one of you gave your consent to be born, much less to be born with the specific complement of genes that you bear.

Again, Kahn’s notion of “social” could apply to anything—what if Kahn disapproved of someone buying nonunion clothing or vacationing in the Caribbean rather than devoting his resources to building public parks or highways? In this case, the parents using assisted reproduction and PGD are spending their own money for the benefit of their own children to work with doctors who are freely devoting their skills.

The Consent of Children-To-Be

Another often-heard objection is that genetic engineering will be imposed on “children-to-be” without their consent. First, I need to remind everyone reading this article that not one of you gave your consent to be born, much less to be born with the specific complement of genes that you bear. Thus, the children born by means of assisted reproductive therapies and those produced more conventionally stand in exactly the same ethical relationship to their parents. [German philosopher Jürgen] Habermas disagrees, claiming, “Eugenic interventions aiming at enhancement reduce ethical freedom insofar as they tie down the person concerned to rejected, but irreversible intentions of third parties, barring him from the spontaneous self-perception of being the undivided author of his own life.” However, [philosophy professor] Allen Buchanan correctly points out that Habermas does not actually make clear why a person who develops from a genetically enhanced embryo should feel that they are not the “author” of her life or be regarded as being somehow less free by others. Habermas “is assuming that how one’s genome was selected is relevant to one’s moral status as a person. This error is no less fundamental than thinking that a person’s pedigree—for example, whether she is of noble blood or ‘base-born’—determines her moral status,” explains Buchanan.

Another frequently heard assertion from opponents of enhancement technologies is that a genetically engineered child somehow feels less loved and appreciated than one who was born in the conventional way. Similar fears were expressed by many bioethicists when in vitro fertilization began to be used in the 1970s and 1980s. The good news is that recent research finds that IVF children and their parents are as well-adjusted as those born in the conventional way. And this should be the case for enhanced children as well. As Frances Kamm [professor of philosophy and public policy] argues, “Not accepting whatever characteristics nature will bring but altering them ex- ante does not show lack of love…. This is because no conscious being yet exists who has to work hard to achieve new traits or suffer fears of rejection at the idea they should be changed. Importantly, it is rational and acceptable to seek good characteristics in a new person, even though we know when the child comes to be and we love him or her, many of these characteristics may come and go and we will continue to love the particular person.”

The absurdity of a requirement for prenatal consent becomes transparent when you ask proponents of such a requirement if they would forbid fetal surgery to correct spina bifida or fetal heart defects. After all, those fetuses can’t give their consent to those procedures, yet it is certainly the moral thing to do. For that matter, taking this strong position on consent to its logically extreme conclusion would mean that children couldn’t be treated with drugs, or receive vaccinations. So using future biotechnical means to correct genetic diseases like cystic fibrosis or sickle-cell anemia at the embryonic stage will similarly be morally laudatory activity. Surely one can assume that the beneficiary—the not-yet-born, possibly even the not-yet-conceived child—would happily have chosen to have those diseases corrected.

Consent for Enhancement

But what about enhancements, not just therapeutic biotechnical interventions? Let’s say a parent could choose genes that would guarantee her child a 20 point IQ boost. It is reasonable to presume that the child would be happy to consent to this enhancement of her capacities. How about plugging in genes that would boost her immune system and guarantee that she would never get colon cancer, Alzheimer’s, AIDS, or the common cold? Again, it seems reasonable to assume consent. These enhancements are general capacities that any human being would reasonably want to have. In fact, lots of children already do have these capacities naturally, so it’s hard to see that there is any moral justification for outlawing access to them for others.

Fritz Allhoff [assistant professor of philosophy] has grappled nicely with the issue of consent. Allhoff offers a

principle derived from the second formulation of [German philosopher Immanuel] Kant’s categorical imperative that we treat individuals as ends and never merely as means or, more simply, to treat them in ways to which they would rationally consent. Allhoff turns next to philosopher John Rawls’s notion of primary goods. In A Theory of Justice, Rawls defines primary goods as those goods that every rational person should value, regardless of his conception of the good. These goods include rights, liberties, opportunities, health, intelligence, and imagination. As Allhoff argues, “These are the things that, ex hypothesi, everyone should want; it would be irrational to turn them down when offered. Nobody could be better off with less health or with fewer talents, for example, regardless of her life goals…. Since primary goods are those that, by definition, any rational agent would want regardless of his conception of the good, all rational agents would consent to augmentation of their primary goods.”

Allhoff then contends that such enhancements would be permissible if every future generation would consent to them. But the requirement that all future generations must consent adds nothing to the moral force of Allhoff’s arguments since already all rational agents would consent to such enhancements. So again, safe genetic interventions that improve a prospective child’s health, cognition, and so forth would be morally permissible because we can presume consent from the individuals who benefit from the enhancements.

With accumulation of genetic understanding, human freedom will then properly be seen as acting to overcome these predispositions.

Genes and Freedom

Many opponents of human genetic engineering are either conscious or unconscious genetic determinists. They fear that biotechnological knowledge and practice will somehow undermine human freedom. In a sense, these genetic determinists believe that somehow human freedom resides in the gaps of our knowledge of our genetic makeup. If parents are allowed to choose their children’s genes, then they will have damaged their children’s autonomy and freedom. According to environmentalist Bill McKibben, “The person left without any choice at all [emphasis his] is the one you’ve engineered. You’ve decided, for once and for all, certain things about him: He’ll have genes expressing proteins that send extra dopamine to alter his mood; he’ll have genes expressing proteins to boost his memory; to shape his stature.” People like McKibben apparently believe that our freedom and autonomy somehow depend on the unknown and random combinations of genes that a person inherits. But even if they were right—and they are not—genetic ignorance of this type will not last.

Advances in human whole genome testing will likely become available by 2014 so that every person’s entire complement of genes can be scanned and known at his or her physician’s office for as little as $1,000. Once whole genome testing is perfected we will all learn what even our randomly conferred genes may predispose us to do and from what future ills we are likely to suffer. Already, my relatively inexpensive genotype scan from 23andMe tells me that I have alleles that give me a somewhat greater risk of developing celiac disease, a lower risk of rheumatoid arthritis, as well as having a higher sensitivity to warfarin, among other traits. With accumulation of genetic understanding, human freedom will then properly be seen as acting to overcome these predispositions, much like a former alcoholic can overcome his thirst for booze. Fortunately, biotech will help here as well as with the development of neuropharmaceuticals to enhance our cognitive abilities and change our moods….

Respecting Our Pluralistic Society

People should not be forced to use medicines and technologies that they find morally objectionable. Take the case of the Amish. Amish individuals live in an open society—ours—and can opt out of our society or theirs whenever they want. As followers of a reasonable comprehensive doctrine, they have a system for voluntarily deciding among themselves what new technologies they will embrace. The situation of the Amish demonstrates that technological choices don’t have to involve everyone in a given society. (Although Amish practicality has caused

them to embrace modern medicine when it comes to treating genetic maladies that plague their community.)

Eventually, one can imagine that in the future different treatment and enhancement regimens will be available to accommodate the different values and beliefs held by citizens. Christian scientists would perhaps reject most of modern biotechnology outright; Jehovah’s Witnesses might remain leery of treatments that they interpret to being akin to using blood products or blood transfusions; Roman Catholics might refuse to use regenerative treatments derived from human embryonic stem cells; and still others will wish to take the fullest advantage of all biomedical enhancements and treatments. In this way, a pluralistic society respects the reasonable comprehensive doctrines of their fellow citizens and enables social peace among moral strangers.

To the extent that new biotechnologies need regulation, agencies should be limited to deciding, as they have traditionally done, only questions about safety and efficacy.

[Bioethicist] Julian Savulescu is right when he reminds us, “The Nazis sought to interfere directly in people’s reproductive decisions (by forcing them to be sterilized) to promote social ideals, particularly around racial superiority. Not offering selection for non-disease genes would indirectly interfere (by denying choice) to promote social ideals such as equality or ‘population welfare.’ There is no relevant difference between direct and indirect eugenics. The lesson we learned from eugenics is that society should be loath to interfere (directly and indirectly) in reproductive decision making.”

The Role of Regulation

To the extent that new biotechnologies need regulation, agencies should be limited to deciding, as they have traditionally done, only questions about safety and efficacy. Regulatory agencies also have an important role in protecting research subjects and patients from force and fraud by imposing informed consent requirements on researchers. But when people of good will deeply disagree on moral issues that don’t involve the prevention of force or fraud, it is a fraught exercise to submit their disagreement to a panel of political appointees or a democratic vote. That way leads to intolerance, repression, and social conflict.

The genius of a liberal society is that its citizens have wide scope to pursue their own visions of the good, including transhumanism, without excessive hindrance by their fellow citizens.

Further Readings Books

Carol Isaacson Barash Just Genes: The Ethics of Genetic Technologies. Westport, CT: Praeger, 2008.

Roberta M. Berry The Ethics of Genetic Engineering. New York: Routledge, 2007.

Celia Deane-Drummond Genetics and Christian Ethics. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2006.

Joel Garreau Radical Evolution: The Promise and Peril of Enhancing Our Minds, Our Bodies—And What It Means to Be Human. New York: Doubleday, 2005.

Jonathan Glover Choosing Children: Genes, Disability, and Design. New York: Oxford University Press, 2006. H. Daniel Monsour, ed. Ethics and the New Genetics: An Integrated Approach. Toronto: University of Toronto

Press, 2007.

Ramez Naam More than Human: Embracing the Promise of Biological Enhancement. New York: Broadway Books, 2005.

Erik Parens, Audrey R. Chapman, and Nancy Press, eds. Wrestling with Behavioral Genetics: Science, Ethics, and Public Conversation. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2006.

Michael J. Sandel The Case Against Perfection: Ethics in the Age of Genetic Engineering. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press, 2007.

Julian Savulescu and Nick Bostrom, eds. Human Enhancement. New York: Oxford University Press, 2009. Pete Shanks Human Genetic Engineering: A Guide for Activists, Skeptics, and the Very Perplexed. New York:

Nation Books, 2005.

Thomas A. Shannon, ed. Genetics: Science, Ethics, and Public Policy: A Reader. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2005.

Neil F. Sharpe and Ronald F. Carter Genetic Testing: Care, Consent, and Liability. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Liss, 2006.

Claudio M. Tamburrini and Torbjörn Tännsjö Genetic Technology and Sport: Ethical Questions. New York: Routledge, 2005.

Ronnee K. Yashon and Michael R. Cummings Human Genetics and Society. Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole, 2009. Simon Young Designer Evolution: A Transhumanist Manifesto. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 2006.

Periodicals

Bryan Appleyard “Design Fault,” Spectator, March 4, 2006. Rebecca Atkinson “I Wouldn’t Have Minded If My Baby Had Been Born Deaf, but the Embryology Bill Insists I

Should,” Guardian, October 10, 2008. Ronald Bailey “Human Rights and Human Enhancement: Is Genetic Modification of People Moral?” Reason

Online, May 29, 2006. www.reason.com. Susannah Baruch and Kathy L. Hudson “Civilian and Military Genetics: Nondiscrimination Policy in a Post-

GINA World,” American Journal of Human Genetics, October 2008.

Marcy Darnovsky “Red Flags over Consumer Genetics,” San Diego Union Tribune, May 22, 2008.

Economist “Owning the Body and the Soul,” March 12, 2005.

Masha Gessen “Jewish Guinea Pigs: What if a Gene Patent Is Bad for the Jews,” Slate, July 26, 2005. www.slate.com.

Denise Grady “Girl or Boy? As Fertility Technology Advances, so Does an Ethical Debate,” New York Times, February 6, 2007.

Henry Greely “The Genetics of Fear,” Democracy: A Journal of Ideas, Spring 2008. www.democracyjournal.org.

Amy Harmon “Prenatal Test Puts Down Syndrome in Hard Focus,” New York Times, May 9, 2007. Kathy L. Hudson, M.K. Holohan, and Francis S. Collins “Keeping Pace with the Times—The Genetic

Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008,” New England Journal of Medicine, June 19, 2008. Andrew J. Imparato and Anne C. Sommers “ADA and the New Eugenics,” Washington Examiner, August 10,

2005. Claudia Kalb “Peering into the Future,” Newsweek, December 11, 2006.

Sara Katsanis and Gail H. Javitt “Surreptitious DNA Testing,” Genetics & Public Policy Center, January 2009.

www.dnapolicy.org.

David King “The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill 2008,” Center for Genetics and Society, April 15, 2009. www.geneticsandsociety.org.

William Saletan “Leave This Child Behind: Sports, Segregation, and Environmental Eugenics,” Slate, December 1, 2008. www.slate.com.

Darshak M. Sanghavi “Wanting Babies Like Themselves, Some Parents Choose Genetic Defects,” New York Times, December 5, 2006.

Scientific American “The Need to Regulate ‘Designer Babies,'” May 2009. Wesley J. Smith “Politically Correct Eugenics: Brownback and Kennedy Do the Right Thing,” Weekly Standard,

March 31, 2008.

Rob Stein “New Safety, New Concerns in Tests for Down Syndrome,” Washington Post, February 24, 2009.

Beth Whitehouse “Experts Fear Potential Abuses of Genetic Screening,” Newsday, July 18, 2008.

George F. Will “Will: The Attack on Kids with Down Syndrome,” Newsweek, January 29, 2007.

Cathy Young “A Guide for the Modern Prometheus: Is There a Right Way to Transcend Biology?” Reason Online, July 11, 2006. www.reason.com.

Andi Zeisler and Emily Galpern “Conceiving the Future: Reproductive-Justice Activists on Technology and Policy,” Bitch, June 6, 2008.

Source Citation

Bailey, Ronald. “Genetic Enhancement Should Only Be Limited by Regulations for Safety and Efficacy.” Human Genetics. Ed. Noël Merino. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2010. Current Controversies. Rpt. from “Transhumanism and the Limits of Democracy: A Paper Presented at the Workshop on Transhumanism and Democracy.” Reason (28 Apr. 2009). Gale Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 30 Oct. 2012.

Document URL http://0-ic.galegroup.com.helin.uri.edu/ic/ovic/ViewpointsDetailsPage/Viewpoints DetailsWindow?failOverType=&query=&prodId=OVIC&windowstate=normal&am p;contentModules=&mode=view&displayGroupName=Viewpoints&limiter=& ;currPage=&disableHighlighting=true&source=&sortBy=&displayGroup s=&search_within_results=&action=e&catId=&activityType=&scan Id=&documentId=GALE%7CEJ3010635216&userGroupName=prov43712&jsid=0562 b8e5f5019829e0036821e0cf8398

Gale Document Number: GALE|EJ3010635216

CriticalThinking Student Expectations

Students are expected to read these guidelines prior to reading the opposing viewpoints essays and filling out the matrix. The goal of this assignment is to perform an
in-depth, unbiased
analysis on the essays provided. As a result, each section of the matrix should contain
clear, accurate, detailed, and developed
writing. The goal of this assignment is
not
for students to provide their opinions on the topic. As a result, when completing the analysis, students are expected to use
evidence
,
logic
and
reason
to support their statements.

I. Thesis: Students are expected to write a thesis statement for each essay. Both thesis statements should clearly and accurately identify the purposed of the author’s essay.

Tip: It is common for student to oversimplify the thesis statement. They leave out key details that change the meaning of the statement. For example:

Incorrect: The author is arguing that antibiotics are safe and necessary.

Correct: The author is arguing that antibiotic use in agriculture is safe and necessary.

II. Problem/Question:

a. Advocate/Opponent: Students are expected to summarize the major issues or problems presented by the advocate and the opponent.

b. Your point of view: Students are expected to agree with the advocate or the opponent, or provided an alternative issue or problem.

Tip: It is common for students to summarize the author’s entire viewpoint, rather than identifying the major problems. This leads to statements that do not describe problems addressed by the author. For example:

Incorrect: The advocate states that subtherapeutic levels of antibiotics in agriculture protect animals from pathogens.

Correct: The advocate states that banning subtherapeutic level of antibiotics in agriculture will lead to higher levels of pathogens in animals.

III. Perspective:

a. Advocate/Opponent: Students are expected to step in the advocate’s and opponent’s shoes and identify how the author’s background influences their position and values. Note that most viewpoints essays provide a short paragraph describing the author. If this is not the case, please research information about the author.

b. Your point of view: Students are expected to reflect on their own background and how that influences their position and values.

Tip: It is common for students to summarize the author’s perspective, rather than describe how the author’s background leads to their perspective. For example,

Incorrect: Rod Smith writes regularly for Feedstuffs, a weekly newspaper for agribusiness and he is for antibiotic use in agriculture.

Correct: Rod Smith writes regularly for Feedstuffs, a weekly newspaper for agribusiness. Because Feedstuffs is run by the agriculture industry and because they employ Rod Smith, he is likely influenced by what benefits the industry rather than society or the animals themselves.

IV. Evidence Identification and Evaluation:

a. Advocate/Opponent: Students are expected to identify the evidence provided by the advocate and opponent and to decide if it is creditable and effective. Students should identify and evaluate at least 3 major pieces of evidence for both the advocate and the opponent.

b. Your point of view: Students are expected to identify what additional evidence could be provided to strengthen the advocate’s and the opponent’s arguments.

Tip: It is common for students just to list pieces of evidence and not evaluate them. Additionally, it is common for students to provide superficial evaluations. For example,

Incorrect: “Researchers at Iowa State University found that pigs not administered antibiotics that got sick had a greater pathogen presence than pigs administered antibiotics that did not get sick.” This information cites a valid source therefore it is creditable and effective.

Correct: “Researchers at Iowa State University found that pigs not administered antibiotics that got sick had a greater pathogen presence than pigs administered antibiotics that did not get sick.” Here the author cites a study conducted by Iowa State University. University studies are considered valid sources, especially if they have been published by a peer reviewed journal. The issue here is that the author is not providing enough information about the study. His statement is underdeveloped and confusing. Obviously pigs that are sick are going to have a greater pathogen presence than pigs that did not get sick, regardless of whether antibiotics were used or not. This evidence might be effective if the author clearly explains the study.

V. Context:

a. Advocate/Opponent: Students are expected to identify how the current political, ethical, and social environments are influencing the arguments of the advocate and opponent.

b. Your point of view: Students are expected to identify if the current political, ethical and social environments favor the advocate or opponent, and why?

Tip: It is common for students to focus on one of the three required environments. All three must be addressed for the advocate and the opponent. Students should make sure they know the difference between political, ethical and social context. This might require further research.

VI. Assumptions:

a. Advocate/Opponent: When writing a viewpoint essay, the author assumes that their readers have some background knowledge on the topic, and as a result, they do not provide that information. Students are expected to identify what the advocate and the opponent assumed (took for granted) about the reader knowledge.

b. Your point of view: Students, as the readers, are expected to determine if the assumptions the advocate and opponent made about the readers held true.

Tip: It is common for students to state that the author assumed the reader was for or against the topic. This is not an assumption made by the author; the authors are taking a position on the topic and expressing their viewpoints. Determining the authors’ viewpoints is not determining what they assume the audience understands about the topics.

VII. Conclusions:

a. Advocate/Opponent: Students are expected to identify the implications of the advocate’s and opponent’s conclusions.

b. Your point of view: After weighing the implications of the advocate’s and opponent’s conclusions, students are expected to identify if they favor the advocate’s or opponent’s conclusion, or provide an alternative solution to the issue. Students are expected to provide reasons for their choice.

Tip: It is very common for students to simply summarize the author’s conclusions, rather than stating the implications of the author’s conclusions. Implications are the consequences that will occur if the author’s conclusion holds true.

CriticalThinking Student Expectations

I. Thesis: Students are expected to write a thesis statement for each essay. Both thesis statements should clearly and accurately identify the purposed of the author’s essay.

Tip: It is common for student to oversimplify the thesis statement. They leave out key details that change the meaning of the statement. For example:

Incorrect: The author is arguing that antibiotics are safe and necessary.

Correct: The author is arguing that antibiotic use in agriculture is safe and necessary.

II. Problem/Question:

a. Advocate/Opponent: Students are expected to summarize the major issues or problems presented by the advocate and the opponent.

b. Your point of view: Students are expected to agree with the advocate or the opponent, or provided an alternative issue or problem.

Incorrect: The advocate states that subtherapeutic levels of antibiotics in agriculture protect animals from pathogens.

Correct: The advocate states that banning subtherapeutic level of antibiotics in agriculture will lead to higher levels of pathogens in animals.

III. Perspective:

b. Your point of view: Students are expected to reflect on their own background and how that influences their position and values.

Tip: It is common for students to summarize the author’s perspective, rather than describe how the author’s background leads to their perspective. For example,

Incorrect: Rod Smith writes regularly for Feedstuffs, a weekly newspaper for agribusiness and he is for antibiotic use in agriculture.

IV. Evidence Identification and Evaluation:

b. Your point of view: Students are expected to identify what additional evidence could be provided to strengthen the advocate’s and the opponent’s arguments.

Tip: It is common for students just to list pieces of evidence and not evaluate them. Additionally, it is common for students to provide superficial evaluations. For example,

V. Context:

a. Advocate/Opponent: Students are expected to identify how the current political, ethical, and social environments are influencing the arguments of the advocate and opponent.

b. Your point of view: Students are expected to identify if the current political, ethical and social environments favor the advocate or opponent, and why?

VI. Assumptions:

b. Your point of view: Students, as the readers, are expected to determine if the assumptions the advocate and opponent made about the readers held true.

VII. Conclusions:

a. Advocate/Opponent: Students are expected to identify the implications of the advocate’s and opponent’s conclusions.

StudentExample 1

Student Example 1

Dr. C. Dimos

SCI4060

January 20th, 2012

Critical Thinking Analysis Matrix: Genetically Modified Foods

I. Thesis:

a. Advocates – The thesis of the article in favor of the use of genetically modified foods supports the utilization of both biotechnological advances in farming techniques, and the genetic engineering of crops; whilst providing evidence against the implied health, environmental and socioeconomic concerns of those who are opposed.

b. Opponents – The thesis of the article against the use of biotechnological farming techniques and genetic engineering of crops, and demonstrates the unpredictable nature and potential health implications upon humans, animals and the environment that these crops can induce.

II. Problem/ Question:

a. Advocates- The advocates for the use of genetically modified foods believe that biotechnology and genetically modified foods should be fully embraced within the farming industry. The use of biotechnology can provide crops with beneficial traits that can withstand pests, allow for less utilization of pesticides and allow crops to be grown in conditions within which, without the use of said techniques, would be otherwise impossible. The problem for the advocates lies within their belief that the general public is being taught to fear genetically modified crops and products, due to propaganda used to link them to health and environmental issues.

b. Opponents- The opponents against the use of genetically modified foods believe that these foods are unsafe for human consumption; can cause health and nutritional deficiencies and can also cause substantial issues within the natural environment if these modified organisms were allowed to interact with naturally occurring species, such as allergies within the human population.

c. My Point of View. – It is my belief that whilst the concerns of the opponents are indeed valid; the testing procedures that genetically modified foods are put through before they are even allowed to go to market should lessen the fear against these products. Science has provided us with many of the necessities of life that we utilize today without thinking twice about, and GMO foods that have underwent the appropriate testing procedures should be embraced the same way if they are proven to not cause any harm to human health or the environment.

III. Perspective:

a. Advocates- The perspective of the advocate being a mother and farmer who has researched the topic on her own due to her family owning a farm, directly influences her position as she is able to directly see the benefits that the use of biotechnology and genetically modified foods are able to provide based on her personal experience, such as lessening the use of pesticides. The lack of justifiable evidence related to the harm of these foods, as well as, the advocate believing that farmers have the right to grow whatever they want using newer techniques, also directly influences the advocates position on the issue.

b. Opponents- The opponents being the founder, of the Organic Consumers Association (OCA) believes that corporations should not disrupt the natural genetic blueprints of living organisms, as well as should not be able to create a plant and sell them for profit. The opponents are obviously in favor of traditional, natural growing processes that would not be linked to any major corporation whose only concern is to make a profit off of products that can not only harm the environment, but also human health. Together, all of these components directly contribute to the opponent’s position on the topic of genetically modified foods.

c. My Point of View- Whilst I personally do know not much at all about genetically modified foods; I believe that science is a logically based practice and has provided us with tools and techniques such as vaccinations and health care based off of research and testing. If these same methods are utilized whilst determined if GMO foods are safe for human consumption and in regards to the environment, then I see no reason as to why the safety of these foods should be questioned.

IV. Evidence Identification and Evaluation:

a. Advocates- The evidence provided by the advocates include facts related to the history and testing procedures that GMO crops must go through, no evidence of nutritional deficiency, reduction in the use of pesticides, and the debunking of other myths regarding the topic such as cross-contamination of species and seed companies making a profit with their modifications being sold to farmers. The use of facts regarding the testing time of six to twelve years, as well as the cost to ensure that these GMO’s are safe; provides a strong argument in support of the advocate. The fact that numerous government agencies are also involved, backs up the strength of the argument and evidence that the advocate is portraying to the reader. However, aside from the mention of the study done by the National Center for Food and Agriculture Policy, and the examples of corn and pesticide poisonings, the advocate having stated that so many studies are being done, could have provided more up-to-date studies regarding human health and GMO’s, as well as more studies to debunk the myths that they mentioned.

b. Opponents- The evidence provided by the opponents relates to direct examples and studies within which GMO foods have been directly linked such as the study relating to the rats and the potatoes, elevated levels of IGF-1 and cancer, the brazil nut gene and allergies, phytoestrogen content in GMO soybeans and mention that no other country has approved the utilization of rBGH all strengthen the argument of the opponents as well as provide sufficient evidence to support their position. The mention of the genetically engineered brand of L-tryptophan however, while seemingly assisting the argument as well could be used as a null point due to the fact that the chemical was intended to be used as a dietary supplement and not as a normal food product. However, this example of evidence still supports the opponent’s claims as it does show exactly how genetically engineered organisms of any kind can indeed pose a health threat, and in this case, cause deaths.

c. My Point of View- In terms of supporting evidence, I personally feel as if the opponents provided more substantial pieces of evidence in order to support their side. The advocates could have provided more examples of testing done in order to debunk the myths instead of just mentioning a few examples. However, both sides of the argument could have tried to utilize more current studies and testing as it would have shown the current circumstances regarding the argument.

V. Context:

a. Advocates- The current ethical, political and social environments are influencing the advocate’s position majorly based on the socio-economic regards in relation to family owned farms. In order for family based farms to continue to supply their products which make up , biotechnology allows their farming processes to be done easier, improve the nutritional value of food and increase the rate at which food can produced, which is especially needed as the world population continues to grow at an alarming rate. Aside from this, the right of farmers to grow whatever they want to, as well as being able to utilize newer, scientifically proven techniques, also contributes to the influence of their arguments.

b. Opponents- The opponents are vastly being influenced by the current ethical, political and social environment of society. The ethical implications of GMO foods being harmful to human health, as well as the ethics of modifying the genes of organisms on the whole that can produce toxins, are greatly influencing the argument of the opponents. Aside from the ethical health implications, the political nature of companies being able to modify a natural product and sell it for profit, as well as the damage to the environment and the potential to create invasive species than can damage the naturally occurring ecosystem, all contribute to the opponents arguments.

c. My Point of View- It is my belief that the current political, ethical and social environments actually favor both sides equally. In this current age, people are becoming more health conscious and would chose to avoid GMO foods that can potentially lead to deadly health conditions, as well as qualms about scientists “playing God”, greatly supports the opponents. On the other hand, the current rate at which the population is exponentially growing, and a lack of enough food to feed everyone, as well as the potential to produce more nutritionally sound produce supports the advocate. Overall, society in its current organic-health food craze indeed supports the opponent more, but the advocate still has enough support in terms of farmers and the need for greater food production to also be seen as favorable.

VI. Assumptions:

a. Advocates- The advocates assumed that the reader of the article would understand how the process of creating a GMO food or organism is done. The advocate discussed the regulations involving the process, but neglected to make any reference to the process in itself. If the advocate had written even a simple paragraph about the process that is done in a laboratory from a single cell and controlled and monitored, their argument could have been strengthened even more.

b. Opponents- The opponents assumed that the reader of the article would not know about the entire regulation process that is required before a new GMO product can be placed onto the market, as well as the extensive testing that is done in order to ensure the safety of the product. Although the inclusion of this information could have weakened the opponent’s argument, if the reader already knew about these regulations, not including it makes it appear as if the opponent is trying to hide information regarding the testing procedures, making these procedures appear to be safe, and weakening the opponent’s argument.

c. My Point of View- The assumptions of both the advocates and opponents in regards to if the general public would know how GMO foods are created and how they are tested is vastly true. I consider myself to be someone who enjoys reading up on scientific developments, and even I had no idea about the intricacies involving the creation, testing and development of GMO foods until I read both articles and did more additional research on my own.

VII. Conclusions:

a. Advocates-. The implications of the advocate’s conclusions indicate that GMO foods are indeed safe for human consumption and pose no threat to human health or the environment due to the large variety of testing procedures and protocols that are utilized within the development of these products. The advocates also conclude that although biotechnology does indeed have its issues, it is the way of the future and can provide solutions to problems that are currently affecting the world. With proper and continued scientific advancements, GMO foods will be safe for consumption, allow farmers to utilize new techniques and allow for plants and animals to be breed for traits that will only benefit the entire population of earth.

b. Opponents- The implications of the opponents conclusions, indicate that if GMO foods are allowed to be continuously used and not labeled or banned, they will harm not only humans but also the environment, and can damage and harm natural ecosystems as the modified organisms will be able to out-compete natural ones. The opponents also conclude that due to the widespread use of biotechnology process, farming will eventually become a thing of the past and millions of jobs will eventually be lost with the corporations owning the entire world’s food supply. If GMO foods are banned, then farming will continue as it has always been, natural species will thrive, and there will be no harm to the environment, economy or health of the human population.

c. My Point of View- Based on both conclusions, I support the advocate’s conclusion over that of the opponent. Like anything science related, if the proper practices, testing, and maintenance methods are utilized, there will be no way that the health, environmental and economic issue expressed by the opponent can come to pass. Although science is not 100% fool proof and there will be person who experience adverse reactions to GMO foods such as allergies, I believe that GMO foods once properly created, will be beneficial in the long run.

Turn in your highest-quality paper
Get a qualified writer to help you with

“ Human Genetics ”

Get high-quality paper

NEW! AI matching with writer

Still stressed from student homework?

Get quality assistance from academic writers!

Order now