DEBATES CARRIED OUT IN CLASS

1.   DEBATE: Genetic Engineering: "pros and cons" 

2.   DEBATE: Is genetic engineering ethical? 

3.   DEBATE: Should cloning be allowed? 

4.   DEBATE: Is human cloning wrong?  

5.   DEBATE: Is Gene Patenting detrimental to society? 

6.   DEBATE: Ecological vs transgenic food 

7.   DEBATE: Should animal testing be banned? 

8.   DEBATE: Greenpeace attitude towards GMOs 

9.   DEBATE: Farmed Salmon vs Wild Salmon

 

 

1. GENETIC ENGINEERING DEBATE: "PROS AND CONS"
Cristian vs Francesc, presenter Judith.

A TV debate: "BOTH SIDES OF THE DEBATE"

 

 

Judith: Hello everyone! Now we’re going to discuss about (Genetically Modified foods) GMOs with Cristian (a businessman) and Raquel (a member of an ecologist organisation). GMOs are genetically modified foods and they are more resistant to environmental factors or insects. But we don’t know if GMOs are good or bad for our health. So Cristian, what’s your opinion about it?

 

Cristian: Hello! In my opinion GMOs are a good solution to fight famine in the world because with them we can obtain more quantity of food and very fast. We can also eat many different types of food during all year.

 

Judith: Ok Cristian, it sounds great! What about you, Raquel? Do you agree with Cristian?

 

Francesc: Hello everybody! I think it is dangerous to cultivate GMOs because we don’t know the consequences. This type of agriculture can be bad for human’s health and for the environment. We can’t do it because we can start a global problem worse than the actual problem of famine and I think that there are other ways to solve the famine problem.

 

Judith: Ok Raquel. Cristian, what do you think about what Raquel has just said?

 

Cristian: Raquel’s opinion sounds great, but today it  is too difficult to solve famine problem without the help of GMOs. With them we can offer cheaper products and poor families will be able to buy them. And I don’t think there will be a global problem because nowadays there are countries that are producing GMOs and there isn’t any problem.

 

Francesc: There aren’t any problems now, but we don’t know what the situation will be like in twenty years time. We have to study the possible consequences of GMOs before we consume them.

 

Cristian: With these ideas, science won’t go further on. We should start growing GMOs slowly.

 

Judith: Cristian, can you explain it please?

 

Cristian: We should create an international organisation that establishes the rules. For example, one option is to cultivate GMOs apart from normal agriculture to avoid GMOs seeds to expand.

 

Francesc: Like greenhouses?

 

Cristian: Yes, more or less.

 

Francesc: It sounds good, but we also have to study the effects. I’m repetitive, but we can’t start one think if we don’t know the consequences.

 

Cristian: Yes. We can implant it slowly and control the situation very often. Then, if we see that it’s going wrong, we will stop it.

 

Francesc: Ok! I like this idea.

 

Judith: I think we have reached an agreement. Think about it in your homes! And this is all for today! Thank you very much Raquel and Cristian for your opinions. Goodbye!!

 

 

2. DEBATE: Is GE (genetic engineering) ethical? 

Pol vs Andrea, presenter Mayber 

 

 

Mayber: Today we are going to discuss about the ethics of Genetic engineering. Is Genetic Engineering a DREAM or a NIGHTMARE?

 

Andrea: It's easy to say it is a nightmare to something like this.  "Don't play God", but it is obvious that GE has many benefits too. 
 

Pol: Do you mean crop shortages, diseases, the gender of babies before they are born, genetic diseases in the fetus… 
 

Andrea: Genetic engineering is ethical in some cases. Modifying food should be OK, as long as they are proven safe for consumption. Gene altering to cure genetic disorders is ethical considering we are helping a human nature. 
 

Pol: It doesn't seem natural. It only benefits few wealthy companies and ruins the world. Let's talk about food. The Monsanto company, for exemple, is not looking to benefit us. They are only digging in our wallets by patenting their GMO crops. 
 

Andrea: Yes, I remember the incident where their seeds blew into other farmer's crops and contaminated them? Those innocent people were forced to destroy their hard-earned seeds because they supposedly belonged to Monsanto. 
 

Pol: But so many people who cannot have a baby on their own, people with infertility problems, with GE can have a baby that is their own. 
 

Andrea: I feel that GE can help many people. 
 

Pol: yes, I think you are right in many ways, but not all.


Mayber: Thanks Andrea, thanks Pol. This debate has made us think about it.

 

3. SHOULD CLONING BE ALLOWED?

Cristina vs Paula D.

Paula: Should cloning be allowed? 
 

Cristina: I think when you clone someone you kill the real them to make more of them. 
 

Paula: What if someone needs a kidney transplant? Will they have to suffer for years on a list?. This is not fair when they could clone a kidney and grow it in a lab. Many people could be saved. 
 

Cristina: But, If you cloned a human being it would not have the same brain as you. So even if you made a clone of Einstein there would be a probability that he would not like maths. 
 

Paula: Perhaps. One day we may need more people. If there is a war and we need more people, we could use clones to help us during that war. 
 

Cristina: Even if it were possible to clone a human being, there could be a probability that the clone would come deformed or with a mental illness. In addition the sheep Dolly only lived for seven years. The average healthy sheep lives ten to twenty years. If you were to use Dolly as a human equivalent, Dolly would have only lived thirty five year.  

Paula: in conclusion, we can use clones only for medical functions, and not for daily life, or force them to do hard labor.

4. DEBATE: IS HUMAN CLONING WRONG?

Maria vs Elisabeth and Raimon

Maria: Do you think human cloning is wrong? 

Elisabeth: You're not God so why would you even think about doing something like this. 

Raimon: Dolly took 267 tries before she was made and she still had problems, and lived a much shorter life than all other sheep.  

Maria: But we need to clone humans in order to progress as the human race! Think of all the uses the cloned body would have. If you needed a new set of lungs, Why not have it? 

Elisabeth: Well, if is for organ transplants, then yes cloning organs should be fine. It can save lives cloning organs such as hearts 

Maria: We would not replace our civilization with clones. We would research cures for diseases. 

Elisabeth: But what happens if a terrorist group learns how to clone? It would be dangerous for all of us.  

Together: What should we do? Where are the limits?

5. IS GENE PATENTING DETRIMENTAL TO SOCIETY? 

Albert vs Tiziano

 

 

A: Do you think gene patenting is detrimental to society? 

B: Gene patenting is a controversial topic. It involves the patenting (for commercial, medical, or industrial uses) of a segment of the human genome, an essential part of who we are. 

A: I think it could be extremely beneficial to society and would help further advance the world we live in. 

B: Gene patents could allow corporations to hold a monopolistic reign over a certain gene, driving up prices, and harming the consumers that wanted to buy the product. 

A: If a company has complete ownership of a gene, they are the only company allowed to make a treatment or cure for this gene. 

B: Yes, and this means that people who require this treatment may only buy their medication from Company A. Company B cannot compete with Company A, because they have no substitute product.  

A: Yes, and company A may charge as much as they like for the product, because the people who need it will have to buy it regardless of the price. 

B: This shows the detriments of gene patenting. A consumer who does not have the money to buy the treatment they need is forced to possibly die.

 

 

6. BIO VS GMO FOOD      Jin vs Paula P.
presenter: Cristian

 

 

 

 

Cristian: What do you think about organic food and transgenic food? Which one is the best? 

Jin: The organic food is better than the genetically modified food because they don’t have pesticides that can damage the plants so what we eat is natural and nutritional. 

Paula: Even if that is true, I think that transgenic food has more advantages because it’s resistant to insects and plagues. Therefore, it doesn’t need pesticides and larger fields of crops can be produced. This way, a bigger quantity of food could be provided to human beings around the world. 

Jin: I see your point, but scientists haven’t proved that the GMO food is safe for us. And … the world hunger is not caused by a lack of food but by political and social interests.   

Paula: Anyway, there is no proof of its toxicity. There have been many experiments with humans and no one has had secondary effects. These days, what we do is adapt the environment to our needs so our quality of life improves. GMO are part of this process of adaptation.  

Jin: Well, I think that it is very important to consider the consequences that nature will suffer if we continue doing this. For example, genetically modified crops mean a decrease in plant diversity. If we started growing up this type of food in the future we wouldn’t have different kinds of plants as we do now.  

Paula: With regard to this, it wouldn’t matter if transgenic were dominant plants because they would look more appealing, be healthier and have all the nutrients that we need. As they would have better qualities we wouldn’t need any other plants.   

Cristian: Okay, thit is enough for today. Thank you so much.

7. DEBATE: SHOULD ANIMAL TESTING BE BANNED? 
Antoni vs Daniel

 

 

A: Do you think animal testing should be banned?  

B: Well, animals have emotions, thoughts, feelings. They also suffer. It is very cruel to animals. 

 A: if we want to protect the animal's life we should ban animal testing. 

B: anyway, animal testing has also given us huge medical advances that we would have never come upon without animal testing. 

 

A: Yes, and I don't know if anyone would volunteer their baby for the new rounds of testing and someone has to be tested before the public.

B: Yes, If not animals, then who? 

 A and B: Yes, this is the question

8. GREENPEACE ATTITUDE TOWARDS GMOs        

Nizar (Greenpeace) vs Laia

 

Five Myths about Genetically Modified food. 

1^st myth: It is a solution to famines, and eases the lives of farmers.  

Greenpeace: NO, It is not true! Famine originates from the uneven distribution of world resources. And GM crops will only promote the commercialization of cultivation, leading to a rise in seed prices and farmer’s productions costs. All the while unable to ensure increases output. 

2^nd myth: GM food is harmless to our health. 

Greenpeace: NO, It is not true! GM food does not undergo any long-term safety assessments before being introduced to the market. And there’s concern that eating GM food over a long period of time may lead to antibiotic resistance. 

3^rd myth: Even if released, I can personally avoid eating it. 

Greenpeace: NO, It is not true! Greenpeace has time and time again exposed the illegal cultivation of GM rice cultivation in China. This means GM food has been put on the dining tables of consumers without their knowledge. 

4^th myth: Genetic engineering can complement organic farming.  

Greenpeace: NO, It is not true! GE may accelerate pest insects ability to resist insecticides, while GM crops may also contaminate organic farms through the spread of pollen. 

5^th myth: We can reserve GE if it’s found to be dangerous. 

Greenpeace: NO, It is not true! Genetic modified organisms may, through self-reproduction and hybridizing with close breeds, lead to the proliferation of alien genes in the wild. This is extremely difficult to recover.

GREENPEACE:

"Supporting organic, sustainable farming is the only way forward for agricultural future".

 

9. DEBATE: Farmed Salmon vs Wild Salmon
Inés vs Cristina

 

 

A: Which do you think is best for our health and the environment, farmed salmon or wild salmon?

B: Is there anything wrong with fish farming? Fish farms are aquatic factory farms. Salmon farming is the industrial production of salmon from egg to market in a net-cage, pond or contained system.  

A: Yes, most of the industry still uses open net-cages in the ocean, but, what does it involve? 

B: Salmon farming involves raising salmon in containers placed under water near the shore.  

A: Yes, and it began in Norway about 50 years ago and has since caught on in the United States, Ireland, Canada, Chile, The United Kingdom and I don't know how many other places, but why? 

 

B: because of the large decline in wild fish from overfishing. Many experts see the farming of salmon and other fish as the future of the industry. 

A: but…what are the differences? 

B: (on the board showing the statistics) Read some of them and finish saying: Well it is clear that wild salmon wins 8 to 3. 

A: should we buy wild salmon then? 

B: Yes, I think so. David Carpenter, MD, director of the Institute for Health and the Environment at the University at Albany and publisher of a major study in the journal Science on the contamination in fish. Said that salmon is excellent for our health, but the farmed stuff is higher in contaminants and even flame-retardants.