#science debate

[silasea]

I would put my pincer in boiling water to see if it softens up. Would it be considered cannibalism if I eat it?

Cannibalism is defined as the practice of eating flesh of one’s own species. I’m sure If you woke up with a pincer as an arm it would be considered as a part of you, you would just be the only kind of your specific species. So…

Yes.

[ghost-with-a-teacup]

Biotech anon

Sorry for taking a while I was like engrossed in the video. It was really interesting to listen to. I'd figured it'd be hella expensive simply because of what it is doing. It'd most likely be mainly used in the medical field for like a certain time before like slowly also going into a cosmetic field. Hell, people dye their hair or use contacts to achieve something that biotechnology could help with (like make it much less of a hassle of buying the same dye every so months). It's understandable why it's being used in context with diseases that can't be cured because some of those diseases can be painful. Like cancer even if someone goes into complete remission, the cancer can still come back. Talking about ethic's, it's like what some of the people in the video said about IVF there were a lot of like fears/ethic issues (like calling the babies test tube babies) with it because of all the possibilities it had.

Oh, I get it completely, don't even worry haha.

Yeah, I'm just looking back through the research I had done, and treatments at the moment are upwards of $300,000 dollars, which is whew, a lot. But with a disease detrimental to someone's quality of life, I'm sure that price is worth it.

But yeah I agree, like any technology with various uses, people will use it. Take plastic surgery, for example, something that was used to reconstruct various parts of the face that had been damaged. That progressed to how we see the plastic surgery industry now, something that while yes, is still used to improve quality of life, is also for cosmetics to appear more beautiful. I suppose it's a matter of...vanity I guess? Like people question whether or not it such a magnificent technology should be used for something as vain as improving looks. But it's going to be done regardless, and besides, people question everything. If people have access to it and have the funds to support procedures then by all means. As long as people who truly need gene therapy aren't hindered or blocked off by people using it for cosmetic purposes, I don't see the issue with it.

Many ethical discussions come from a specific type of gene therapy called germline gene therapy. This is when the genome of germ cells is edited specifically. There are two types of gene therapy that exist, somatic and germline. Somatic cells are normal cells you find in your body, skin cells, muscle cells, etc. Any cell that isn't a germ cell. Germ cells on the other hand are sperm and egg cells. The issue, or rather the reason germline gene therapy is questioned is that this makes any procedures done hereditary as well, meaning it's passed down from offspring to offspring. Essentially it's permanent as long as your genes are passed down. With this comes the more permanent consequences. In the case that something goes wrong that goes unnoticed before it's too late, those edited genes are still passed down, making all offspring suffer the consequences.

Further, there's also the topic of the consent of the offspring. They can't exactly consent to the procedure that will affect them directly for their entire lives, so is it ethical to proceed? ESPECIALLY if the procedure is for something cosmetic, is it really right for parents to pick and choose traits for their children? (Here's where IVF babies are brought into this debate too!!)

There are also debates around the stigma of diseases, what should be considered something that SHOULD undergo gene therapy or not, safety concerns, societal divides, and lots of other topics lol. But I'll stop here because this post is already too long hhhhh.

[kobibrathwaite24]

Science Debate

Today in science class, the teacher decided to do a debate with the classroom about the topic we were learning. At first I didn’t wanted to do it, because I was having a bad hair day and I had to turn on my camera. At least it was in group, so it could be easier. We had to talk about centipedes and millipedes and tell why the were the best Arthropods. Once it was time to debate with my other classmate, I decide that I wanted to be the one who debated, I asked my group and they were ok with it. When it’s time to talk I go full in, I don't hold back any evidence that my Arthropod is better that the others. I thought I had it, that we won, but, as I said I told them every evidence to show why I was correct and they weren’t, and they took advantages of that. One girl even said that centipedes and millipedes looked liked aliens, this girl was defending the arthropod that had 8 eyes and 8 legs, so you tell me which its’s scarier at night a defenseless millipedes or a poisonous spider. At the end, the crustaceans group won, just with the defense that it doesn’t matter if the Arthropod is cute or ugly, what matters is what it does to society. 

Moral of the story: If you have a lot of information that you know is going to make you win. Don't throw it all at once, instead throw it in small parts. So you can win.

[sweat-them-onions]

If you clone yourself and have sex with it, is it incest or masturbation?

[nightshadequeen]

So, this nation does not have a presidential science debate. That is very very dumb. Go sign this petition if you want to change that.

[globehacker]

Make SCIENCE DEBATE happen!

[lifeaftertheib]

Have Questions about the IB Group 4 Sciences?

There has been a lot of debate about the sciences.  A lot of people have differing  opinions. Some of these are based on teachers at schools, others are based on the curriculum.  Hopefully reading both my, and other peoples thoughts on the sciences will help you make any decisions.

If you would like to contribute anything to this page, you can leave your thoughts in either my askbox or as a submission. If after reading everything here, you still have questions on the sciences, feel free to ask!

[savbizcor]

In 1881, English writer Samuel Rowbotham published Zetetic Astronomy: Earth Not a Globe, a 430-page book in which he affirmed that Earth is flat. One-hundred and thirty years later, despite all the silly science that proves to us that the land we step on is actually spherical, his work is still spawning mini movements.