Articles for roundtable discussion

Genetic engineering has been the hottest field most undergraduate students would like to go into in recent years due to its latent potential to be developed widely in near future. However, the opposition this technology has received also snowballs along the way.

There are two articles that I have read regarding this issue, namely “Genetic Engineering Will Harm Human Health” by Eduardo Galeano and “Cloning Research Would Not Benefit Humans” by Kevin T. Fitzgerald.

According to Galeano(2001), by changing the genetic code for the coming generations, superior human beings can be produced in terms of intelligence, beauty and health. This is achievable as long as the parents are willing to pay and nobody will reject the opportunity to have a smarter child. By then, genetically modified people would be just as common as genetically modified (GM) foods today. Many of us do not really know what we eat as there are no specifications of the genetically modified ingredients in the food we consume stated on most of the food labels. Transgenic growth hormones can lead to cancer but on the other hand they can increase production and also profits. In this context, the economy of the country always comes before the health of the people. The Europeans are the only ones who take the initiative to protect themselves from GM products by trying to prohibit the importing of them. Their attitude are shaped under the pressure of public opinion and the recent deadly experience with mad cows.

Fitzgerald(1997) sees that human cloning is too risky and unnecessary. There is no doubt that cloning is beneficial in the sense that scientists are able to prevent extinction by cloning endangered species, study the processes of mammalian development for the purpose of organ regeneration and repair and curb cancer by normalizing the activity of the genes. However, the application of this method into human cloning has gained much discussion because it will risk the health and welfare of the initial clones. Human cloning may help people who require transplant, people who wish to have biological children but face obstacles and those whose child is dying. However, genetic solutions are not the remedies for social and psychological problems. Furthermore, the solutions to these problems have been carried out on animal research.

I find these two articles are particularly useful for my roundtable discussion. They provide excellent and interesting examples indicating the hidden dangers of genetic engineering. Also, they give a good overview on the benefits of genetic engineering, though not too in-depth. They look at the problem from a very different point of view where I find very intriguing and illuminating.

There are five words in these two articles where I find quite relevant to genetic engineering. Firstly, ‘despotism of science’ means the rule of a powerful ruler on science. Secondly, ‘transgenic’ means having genetic material introduced from another type of animal or plant. Then, ‘technocrats’ maneuvers’ means science and engineering experts’ control or influence a situation in a skilful but dishonest way. ‘Moratorium’ means a temporary stopping of an activity. Finally, ‘eugenics’ means the study of methods to improve the mental and physical characteristics of the human race.

References
Galeano, Eduardo(2001). "Genetic Engineering Will Harm Human Health and the Environment." Current Controversies: Genetic Engineering. Ed. Lisa Yount. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2002.

Fitzgerald, Kevin T(1997). "Cloning Research Would Not Benefit Humans." Opposing Viewpoints: Biomedical Ethics. Ed. Tamara L. Roleff. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 1998.

Talks from Three Esteemed Professors

Global warming is real. It has already been happening and is the result of our activities, not a natural occurrence! On 30 January, we was given talks by three reputable professors, namely Professor Palmer, Dr Sovacool and Associate Professor Pala, who respectively specialized in their field of research. We gained a lot of information and knowledge from them who looked at the problem of global warming from very different perspectives in very different presentation styles.

The first speaker was Professor Palmer, who himself specialized in offshore research. He mainly focused on some real surprising statistics and the newest technology proposed to tackle with global warming. From year 1750 to proposed 2050, the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere had increased from 270 ppm to 370 ppm. If this trend went on, not only our atmosphere would be engulfed in high concentration of carbon dioxide, but carbon gas would also diffuse into the ocean, causing it to be more acidic than ever and not sustainable to life. Hence, Professor Palmer proposed a brilliant idea to combat global warming. Due to the fact that carbon dioxide gas is denser than the water at a certain depth under the sea, we could actually contain carbon gas in a membrane called 'sausage' and put it on the sea bed; thus indirectly reduced the carbon gas concentration in the atmosphere. However, the concern about whether the membrane would burst and released the contained carbon gas into the ocean killing aquatic life arouse. Carbon storage was technically feasible because more research could be done to find strong yet flexible material to withstand strong pressure under the sea. However, whether the will to do so was the major problem. We knew well that atmosphere is well-mixed and reducing carbon dioxide contents required collaboration. Thus, political issues kicked in and these were very often the most demanding and complex problem.

Then, we had Dr Sovacool, who gave us detailed information in two areas, those were renewable energy and electric vehicles. He emphasized that technology could succeed technically, but not socially in the sense that advancement of technology was always hindered by social issue. For instance, there were a number of renewable energy explored by scientist and engineers which could be used to replace the burning of fossil fuel, namely solar energy, wind energy, hydroelectric, biomass and geothermal energy. Unfortunately, market failures, political issues and cultural challenges became the blocking stones of the widespread uses of renewable energy. Besides renewable energy, electric vehicles faced the same major problem. In the past, electric vehicles outshone steam- and gasoline-vehicles and gained popularity among people. They were quieter and cleaner to operate, more luxurious and safer to drive. However, economic, political and social challenges stunted the growth of electric vehicles, resulting in petrol-driven vehicles superseded electric car in the years later. As a consequence, the amount of carbon gas was surging up and the condition of global warming went from bad to worse.

Last but not least, we had Associate Professor Pala, who gave us a very broad view about global warming. He stressed on the factors causing global warming, its consequences, the measures taken to combat it and the difficulties faced in dealing with global warming. There were few measures where I found particularly useful. For example, government taxed greenhouse gas emission, subsidized energy efficiency and renewable energy use and cooperated internationally in compliance with global warming regulations. In this context, Building and Construction Association (BCA) in Singapore played a vital role to work closely with the government. Hence, the policy of the government could indeed affect how a country would react when dealing with global warming.

To sum up, global warming is a global problem and has long lasting effects on our Mother Earth but the progress of curbing it is always hindered by political, economic and social issues. I believe that where there is a will, there is a way. If the world works hand in hand to fight global warming, nothing is impossible and we will definitely have a green planet. So, let us take action now!