Sunday, December 14, 2014
Ethical values debate topic: 'Designer baby' gives hope to his ill brother - Telegraph
Monday, November 24, 2014
Friday, November 21, 2014
Saturday, November 15, 2014
7 Powerful Public Speaking Tips From One of the Most-Watched TED Talks Speakers
You’d never know it, but Simon Sinek is naturally shy and doesn’t like speaking to crowds. At parties, he says he hides alone in the corner or doesn’t even show up in the first place. He prefers the latter. Yet, with some 22 million video views under his belt, the optimistic ethnographer also happens to be the third most-watched TED Talks presenter of all time.
Ironic for an introvert, isn’t it? Sinek’s unlikely success as both an inspirational speaker and a bestselling author isn’t just dumb luck. It’s also not being in the right place at the right time or knowing the right people. It’s the result of fears faced and erased, trial and error and tireless practice, on and off stage.
We caught up with Sinek to pick his brain about how he learned to give such confident, captivating and meaningful presentations and how others can, too.
Here are his top seven secrets for delivering speeches that inspire, inform and entertain. (For more helpful pointers on how to wow an audience, check out his free 30-minute class on Skillshare now. It’s titled How to Present: Share Ideas That Inspire Action.)
1. Don’t talk right away.
Sinek says you should never talk as you walk out on stage. “A lot of people start talking right away, and it’s out of nerves,” Sinek says. “That communicates a little bit of insecurity and fear.”
Instead, quietly walk out on stage. Then take a deep breath, find your place, wait a few seconds and begin. “I know it sounds long and tedious and it feels excruciatingly awkward when you do it,” Sinek says, “but it shows the audience you’re totally confident and in charge of the situation.”
2. Show up to give, not to take.
Often people give presentations to sell products or ideas, to get people to follow them on social media, buy their books or even just to like them. Sinek calls these kinds of speakers “takers,” and he says audiences can see through these people right away. And, when they do, they disengage.
“We are highly social animals," says Sinek. "Even at a distance on stage, we can tell if you’re a giver or a taker, and people are more likely to trust a giver -- a speaker that gives them value, that teaches them something new, that inspires them -- than a taker.”
3. Make eye contact with audience members one by one.
Scanning and panning is your worst enemy, says Sinek. “While it looks like you’re looking at everyone, it actually disconnects you from your audience.”
Related: 5 TED Talks That May Change Your View on Life
It’s much easier and effective, he says, if you directly look at specific audience members throughout your speech. If you can, give each person that you intently look at an entire sentence or thought, without breaking your gaze. When you finish a sentence, move on to another person and keep connecting with individual people until you’re done speaking.
“It’s like you’re having a conversation with your audience," says Sinek. "You’re not speaking atthem, you’re speaking with them."
This tactic not only creates a deeper connection with individuals but the entire audience can feel it.
4. Speak unusually slowly.
When you get nervous, it’s not just your heart beat that quickens. Your words also tend to speed up. Luckily Sinek says audiences are more patient and forgiving than we know.
“They want you to succeed up there, but the more you rush, the more you turn them off," he says. "If you just go quiet for a moment and take a long, deep breath, they’ll wait for you. It’s kind of amazing.”
Sinek believes it’s impossible to speak too slowly on stage. “It’s incredible that you can stand on stage and speak so slowly that there are several seconds between each of your words and people… will… hang… on… your… every… word. It really works.”
5. Ignore the naysayers.
Dismiss the people furrowing their brows, crossing their arms or shaking their heads “no.” Instead, focus only on your supporters -- the people who are visibly engaged, enjoying your presentation and nodding “yes.” If you find the audience members who are positively interacting with you, you’ll be much more confident and relaxed than if you try to convince the naysayers.
6. Turn nervousness into excitement.
Sinek learned this trick from watching the Olympics. A few years ago he noticed that reporters interviewing Olympic athletes before and after competing were all asking the same question. "Were you nervous?” And all of the athletes gave the same answer: "No, I was excited." These competitors were taking the body’s signs of nervousness -- clammy hands, pounding heart and tense nerves -- and reinterpreting them as side effects of excitement and exhilaration.
Related: 4 Motivating TED Talks to Help You Bounce Back From Failure
When you’re up on stage you will likely go through the same thing. That’s when Sinek says you should say to yourself out loud, “I’m not nervous, I’m excited!”
“When you do, it really has a miraculous impact in helping you change your attitude to what you’re about to do," Sinek says.
7. Say thank you when you’re done.
Applause is a gift, and when you receive a gift, it’s only right to express how grateful you are for it. This is why Sinek always closes out his presentations with these two simple yet powerful words: thank you.
"They gave you their time, and they’re giving you their applause." Says Sinek. "That’s a gift, and you have to be grateful."
Tuesday, November 11, 2014
Saturday, September 6, 2014
The Structure of Debate
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, 2009. |
Student Debates
by: Daniel Krieger, shinyfruit@yahoo.com, Siebold University of Nagasaki (Nagasaki, Japan)
from: The Internet TESL Journal, Vol. XI, No. 2, February 2005
http://iteslj.org/
One: Introduction to Debate
1. Basic Terms
- Debate: a game in which two opposing teams make speeches to support their arguments and disagree with those of the other team.
- Resolution: the opinion about which two teams argue.
- Affirmative team: agrees with the resolution.
- Negative team: disagrees with the resolution.
- Rebuttal: explains why one team disagrees with the other team.
- Judge(s): decide the winner.
2. Opinions and Reasons
- A resolution is an opinion about which there can be valid disagreement. The students either agree or disagree with the resolution regardless of what they personally believe. An opinion can be introduced by an opinion indicator:
- "I think/believe that smoking should be banned in public places..."
- A reason explains why that opinion is held and can be introduced by a reason indicator:
- "...because/since secondhand smoke is harmful for nonsmokers."
3. Strong Reasons Versus Weak Reasons:
- According to LeBeau, Harrington, Lubetsky (2000), a strong reason has the following qualities:
- It logically supports the opinion.
- It is specific and states the idea clearly.
- It is convincing to a majority of people.
- To give examples of strong reasons versus weak reasons, a multiple-choice exercise:
- Smoking should be banned in public places because: a. it is bad, b. it gives people bad breath and makes their teeth yellow, or c. secondhand smoke is harmful for nonsmokers.
- Explain why some of the above reasons are strong and others are weak based on the above criteria.
- In pairs, practice generating reasons for opinions. The resolutions/opinions should be generated by you (as the four resolutions listed below) or taken from the following online debate resource, which offers resolutions, reasons and debating tips:
Part 1: With Your Partner, Think of at Least One Strong Reason for Each Resolution
1. Women should quit their job after they get married.REASON:
2. Love is more important than money.
REASON:
3. It is better to be married than single.
REASON:
4. Writing by hand is better than writing by computer.
REASON:
Part 2: Now Compare Your Reasons with Another Pair and Decide Whose Reasons are Stronger and Why
4. Ways to State Reasons: Review of Language
- Comparison: X is _____ er than Y. OR: X is more _____ than Y.
- Cause-and-effect: X causes Y. OR: If you do X, then Y will happen.
5. Generating Resolutions: Generate Your Own Resolutions
- Issues about which people are likely to disagree work best for debate. They can be controversial: The death penalty should be banned; or less divisive: Love is more important than money.
- Brainstorm a list of resolutions. Get your ideas from topics discussed or read about in class, or topics which interest you personally. Hand in your list of resolutions and the teacher will select the most suitable ones. You can choose from these later.
Two: Supporting Your Opinion
1. Warm-up
Begin with a fun practice activity which generates reasons for opinions. An argumentation exercise called "The Devil's Advocate" (see appendix 1) is useful for this purpose and can be used multiple times simply by changing the resolutions. Another good kind of activity for giving reasons is any prioritization task in which you rank items on a list, giving reasons for their choices.2. Giving Support for Your Reasons
Support consists of evidence. The four kinds of evidence, adapted from LeBeau, Harrington, Lubetsky (2000), are:- Example: from your own experience or from what you heard or read.
- Common Sense: things that you believe everybody knows.
- Expert Opinion: the opinions of experts -- this comes from research.
- Statistics and Facts: numbers and data -- these also come from research.
3. Practice
Here, you practice making examples/common sense support. You can develop these from reasons that you came up with in the prior class (third activity).Three: Debate Structure
1. Warm-up
Do argumentation exercise (see Class Two warm up).2. Form Teams
Two or three students form a team.3. Considering Resolutions
Give each team the resolutions chosen by the teacher from the ones generated by the students. Instruct students to mark the resolutions which interest them.4. Selecting Resolutions and Sides
Pair up two teams and have them compare their lists and decide on a resolution for their debate. They then pick sides-affirmative or negative.5. Formal Debate Structure
(See Appendix 2 for an additional format option developed for a less formal, more conversational "impromptu" debate.)
Speech 1: The first affirmative speaker introduces the topic and states the affirmative team's first argument.
Speech 2: The first negative speaker states their first argument.
Speech 3: The second affirmative speaker states their second argument.
Speech 4: The second negative speaker states their second argument.
Give a 5-10 minute break for each team to prepare their rebuttal speech.
Speech 5: The negative team states two rebuttals for the affirmative team's two arguments and summarizes their own two reasons.
Speech 6: The affirmative team states two rebuttals for the negative team's two arguments and summarizes their own two reasons.
6. Brainstorming Arguments
Each argument consists of a stated reason followed by ample support. Debaters brainstorm reasons for their resolution and then select the best two. These will be used for their arguments. Model brainstorming on the board with a simple resolution to demonstrate how the brainstorming process works.7. Homework
Complete two arguments. Note: it is not acceptable to write the arguments in L1 and then translate into English. Arguments should be written in clear and simple English that can be easily understood by all other students.Four: Predicting and Refuting the Other Team's Arguments
1. Warm-up
Do argumentation exercise (see class two warm up).2. Predicting the Other Team's Arguments
Each team brainstorms a list of strong reasons that their opponents could use.3. Four Step Rebuttal
- STEP 1: "They say ..."
- State the argument that you are about to refute so that the judges can follow easily. Take notes during your opponent's speeches so you will be clear about what they argued.
- "The other team said that smoking is harmful for nonsmokers."
- STEP 2: "But I disagree..." Or "That may be true, but..."
- "That may be true, but I think that if nonsmokers want to avoid cigarette smoke, they can walk away from it."
- STEP 3: "Because ..."
- "Because nonsmokers should look out for their own health."
- STEP 4: "Therefore..."
- "Therefore it is not the responsibility of smokers to protect nonsmokers."
4. Writing Rebuttals
Debaters compose short rebuttals for the opposing team's strongest three arguments that the team predicted during preparation.5. Giving Feedback
The teacher meets with each group and reviews their arguments and rebuttals, challenging students to question their reasoning.Five: Judging and Final Practice
1. Warm-up
Do argumentation exercise (see class 2 warm up).2. Judging
Students are the judges. In the judging form below, students must show evidence that they have listened carefully. The teacher then evaluates the judging forms.Speech 1: The Affirmative Team's First Argument
Note: the same format is used for speech 1-4
Summarize the REASON here:
Is this reason clear? ____/1 Is this reason strong? ____/1
Summarize the SUPPORT here:
Is the support clear? ____/1 Good examples/common sense: ____/1
Expert opinion/statistics: ____/1
Speech 5: The Negative Team's Rebuttal
Note: the same format is used for speech 5-6 (four rebuttals)
REBUTTAL for the first argument:
They disagree because...
Therefore...
Is this rebuttal clear? ____/1
Did you use a strong "because" and "therefore"? ____/1
3. Judging Practice
For practice in judging, the teacher performs speeches of a mock debate. Students listen, fill in the form, and then compare results.4. Final Practice
The students practice delivering their argument speeches, and then, doing rebuttals against their own arguments.Six: The Debate
- During the debate: the students fill in the judging form during the debate and can consult with a partner for help with clarification after each debate.
- Following the debate: the students submit judging forms, and the teacher adds up the scores and announces the winners.
- Also, students hand in their argument and rebuttal speeches for which the teacher provides feedback on strong points and things to work on. For an example of a student's debate speech from my class, see Appendix 3.
Appendix 1: The Devil's Advocate
- You have two minutes to argue one side of each resolution. When you hear "SWITCH," you will have two minutes to argue the opposite side of the resolution.
- Then move on to the next one.
- All Chinese writing should be in Roman letters.
- It is better to be single than married.
- Women should stop working when they get married and have babies.
- Women should not change their family name when they get married.
Appendix 2: Format for Interactive Debate
Seating Arrangement: students facing each other. Two or three students per team.- Affirmative team: Argument 1
- Negative team's Rebuttal
- Affirmative team's response to rebuttal and open discussion
- Negative team: Argument 1
- Affirmative team's Rebuttal
- Negative team's Response to rebuttal and open discussion
- Affirmative team: Argument 2
- Negative team's Rebuttal
- Affirmative team's Response to rebuttal and Open Discussion
- Negative team: Argument 2
- Affirmative team's Rebuttal
- Negative team's Response to rebuttal and open discussion
- Affirmative team's Closing comments
- Negative team's Closing comments
Appendix 3: A Sample Student's Debate Speech (edited)
- Resolution: Personality is more important than looks. (Affirmative argument)
- Reason: People never lose interest in looking at a person who has a
good personality and living with them always makes us feel pleasant. - Support:
- Example
- For example, my friendly neighbor in China has twin brothers. The elder brother married a very beautiful girl. But after the first month, he had a quarrel with her because the beautiful wife spent all of her time dressing herself up without doing any housework. And she always went out on dates with many boyfriends. Finally he divorced his beautiful wife last year. But the younger brother who married an ordinary looking girl with a good personality has a very happy married life now and they have a lovely 3 year old baby now.
- Common sense
- In China it is said, "Don't choose beautiful person to be your wife." Because the beautiful wife spends more time dressing herself up without doing housework or child care than the not beautiful wife. And the beautiful wife always spends a lot of money on clothing and cosmetics.
- Expert opinion & Statistics
- Psychologists at Yale University investigated 3,519 married men's life spans. According to the report, the men who married a beautiful wife had a shorter life than the men who married an not beautiful wife. The degree of beauty was in direct proportion to the husbands' life-spans. In the study, there was a scale of 1-20 points: 20 points is the most beautiful wife and 1 point the least beautiful wife. The result was that men who had a wife who scored 1-12 points lived 12 years longer than men whose wife scored 13-20 points.
References
- Davidson, Bruce (1995) Critical thinking education faces the challenge of Japan. Inquiry: Critical Thinking Across the Disciplines. XIV (3)
- Fukuda, Shinji (2003) Attitudes toward argumentation in college EFL classes in Japan. Proceedings of the First Asia TEFL International Conference. Pusan, Korea. pp. 417-418
- LeBeau, Charles & Harrington, David & Lubetsky, Michael (2000) Discover debate: basic skills for supporting and refuting opinions. Language Solutions
- Nesbett, Richard E. (2003) The geography of thought. The Free Press
Friday, September 5, 2014
Exercise: Analyzing Arguments
Read the following paragraphs and decide the kind of argument and the type of evidence used: (A) statistics and facts, (B) reliable authority/sources, or (C) illustrative incidents.
Far from mitigating the earlier threats to birds and other forms of life on the earth, man has further endangered their survival. Of earth’s 9,000 species of birds, about 1,000 are already at risk. And while the old perils – habitat destruction, pesticide poisoning, shooting, oil spills, migrant killing TV towers, and others – continue, we are adding new threats. Especially sinister are the gaseous byproducts of advanced technology – carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, CFCs – the products responsible for acid precipitation, ozone depletion and the greenhouse effect, developments whose long-term impact on birds (and other life) we are beginning, nervously to guess at. … - Alan Pistorius, “Species Lost,” Country Journal
One has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that “an unjust law is no law at all.” ¬ Martin Luther King, Jr., Letter From Birmingham Jail
Watching TV violence can be seriously dangerous for little kids. One 5-year old boy from Boston recently got up from watching a teen-slasher film and stabbed a 2-year-old girl with a butcher knife. He didn’t mean to kill her (and luckily he did not). He was just imitating the man on the video. - Tipper Gore, “Curbing the Sexploitation Industry,” Raising PG Kids in an X-Rated Society
Everyone should drink at least two liters of water everyday. Our sports coach says that becoming dehydrated, especially during exercise, is very dangerous.
Most of the miseries in this world are caused by war, and when the wars are over, they do not know what they were fighting about. Disputes must be settled by peaceful negotiations between countries and between people. Or, failing that, we need “passive resistance,” the method advocated by Gandhi and also by Martin Luther King, Jr.
China has long prided itself on having come up with many of the world’s most important inventions. Now the country that gave us gunpowder, paper money, and the noodle can claim responsibility for another of human civilization’s highest achievements: we have the Chinese, or at least their distant ancestors, to thank for cocktails. According to a report released last week in The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences in the U.S., residents of the Neolithic village of Jiahu in Henan province were raising toasts with fruit wines and rice spirits in 7000 B.C. – usurping Iran’s place in the tipple timeline by at least a thousand years. Susan Jakes, “Chen. Jiahu, With Hawthorn Accents,” Time
After nearly two years of stubborn optimism, Japan’s economic recovery seems to be skidding to a halt. Last week’s government figures showed that the country only narrowly avoided a return to recession – defined as two consecutive quarters of decline in gross domestic product – with 0.1% GDP growth in the third quarter following a 0.1% contraction in the second. “We are entering a slow patch, and there is no obvious exit,” says Peter Morgan, chief economist at HSBC Securities in Tokyo.
Do NOT do these things when you are giving your speech
You will NOT do these during an Oral Presentation: Common Mistakes; Suggestions for Improvement:
- Don't talk too quickly.
- Stop and breathe at the end of sentences.
- The best speakers in the world are not the fastest.
- Don't talk with a monotone voice. You will not sound interested in the film.
- People usually stop listening when speakers have little intonation.
- Stress important words by speaking louder, higher, lower or slower.
- Talk to people, not note cards, in presentations.
- Students who write too many notes usually look less confident.
- Looking down stops you speaking clearly and confidently.
- Learn how to pronounce character names correctly.
- Ask your friends or teachers if you don't know how to say a word.
- Say other words if you still don't know. e.g. the woman, her boyfriend, the hero, the bad guy.
- When giving a presentation, DO NOT copy a film review from the Internet.
- Film reviews often have words that you do not know so you won't sound natural.
- Your teachers are clever. They will know when you copy!
- Think about the topic you are given.
- Your talk should be related to the topic.
- Talk about the characters. Don't become Spiderman, a princess or Seabiscuit!
- An interaction means that you listen to other students.
- You respond to what you say.
- Don't make a speech or ignore what the last speaker said.
- You don't need to take turns one after the other in interactions.
- Natural discussions are less planned. Speak when you have something to say.
- Give reasons for your opinions.
- Everyone is nervous before an oral exam.
- Try to use English before your presentation or interaction. Listen to songs and talk to your friends or family.
- If you talk English to your classmates beforehand, you will understand them more during the interaction.
- Some students could speak all day! You must interrupt them to have a chance to speak.
- Wait until they finish a sentence then speak.
- Be brave! Say, 'Excuse me...' or 'Sorry to interrupt you...' then begin.
- When nervous, some students giggle and can be silly!
- You can laugh and have fun during an interaction.
- However, teachers do not like silly comments like 'You're stupid!'
Argument Examples - Exercises for Understanding and Practice
Essay 1: Pre-reading VOCABULARY
Substitute the words printed in italics in the following sentences. Do not change the basic sense of the sentences.But you don’t have to be a genius to see the true utility of manufacturing headless creatures: for their organs – fully formed, perfectly useful, ripe for plundering.
These human bodies without any semblance of consciousness would not be considered persons …
It won’t be long, however, before these technical barriers are breached.
When prominent scientists are prepared to acquiesce in the deliberate creation of deformed and dying quasi-human life, you know we are facing a bioethical abyss.
There is no grosser corruption of biotechnology than creating a human mutant and disemboweling it at our pleasure for spare parts.
With its own independent consciousness, it is just a facsimile of you.
1. Last year Dolly the cloned sheep was received with wonder, titters and some vague apprehension. Last week the announcement by a Chicago physicist that he is assembling a team to produce the first human clone occasioned yet another wave of Brave New World anxiety. But the scariest news of all – and largely overlooked – come from two obscure labs, at the University of Texas and at the University of Bath. During the past four years, one group created headless mice; the other, the headless tadpoles.
2. For sheer Frankenstein wattage, the purposeful creation of these animal monsters has no equal. Take the mice. Researchers found the gene that tells the embryo to produce the head. They deleted it. They did this in a thousand mice embryos, four of which were born. I use the term loosely. Having no way to breathe, the mice died instantly.
3. Why then create them? The Texas researchers want to learn how genes determine embryo development. But you don’t have to be a genius to see the true utility of manufacturing headless creatures: for their organs – fully formed, perfectly useful, ripe for plundering.
4. Why should you be panicked? Because humans are next. “It would almost certainly be possible to produce human bodies without a forebrain,” Princeton biologist Lee Silver told London Sunday Times. “These human bodies without any semblance of consciousness would not be considered persons, and thus it would be perfectly legal to keep them ‘alive’ as a future source of organs.”
5. “Alive.” Never has a pair of quotation marks loomed so ominously. Take the mouse-frog technology, apply it to humans, combine it with cloning, and you are become a god: with a single cell taken from, say, your finger, you produce a headless replica of yourself, a mutant twin, arguably lifeless, that becomes your own personal, precisely tissue-matched organ farm.
6. There are, of course, technical hurdles along the way. Suppressing the equivalent “head” gene in man. Incubating tiny infant organs to grow into larger ones that adults could use. And creating artificial wombs (as per Adlous Huxley), given that it might be difficult to recruit sane women to carry headless fetuses to their birth/death.
7. It won’t be long, however, before these technical barriers are breached. The ethical barriers are already cracking. Lewis Wolpert, professor of biology at University College, London, finds producing headless humans “personally distasteful” but, given the shortage of organs, does not think distaste is sufficient reason not to go ahead with something that would save lives. And Professor Silver not only sees “nothing wrong, philosophically or rationally,” with producing headless humans for organ harvesting, he wants to convince a skeptical public that it is perfectly O.K.
8. When prominent scientists are prepared to acquiesce in – or indeed encourage – the deliberate creation of deformed and dying quasi-human life, you know we are facing a bioethical abyss. Human beings are ends, not means. There is no grosser corruption of biotechnology than creating a human mutant and disemboweling it at our pleasure for spare parts.
9. The prospect of headless human clones should put the whole debate about “normal” cloning in a new light. Normal cloning is less a treatment for infertility than a treatment for vanity. It is a way to produce an exact genetic replica of yourself that will walk the earth years after you’re gone.
10. But there is a problem with a clone. It is not really you. It is but a twin, a perfect John Doe Jr., but still a junior. With its own independent consciousness, it is, alas, just a facsimile of you.
11. The headless clone solves the facsimile problem. It is a gateway to the ultimate vanity: immortality. If you create a real clone, you cannot transfer your consciousness into it to truly live on. But if you create a headless clone of just your body, you have created a ready source of replacement parts to keep you – your consciousness – going indefinitely.
12. This is why one form of cloning will inevitably lead to the other. Cloning is the technology of narcissim, and nothing satisfies narcissism like immortality. Headlessness will be cloning’s crowning achievement.
13. The time to put a stop to this is now. Dolly moved President Clinton to create a commission that recommended a temporary ban on human cloning. But with physicist Richard Seed threatening to clone humans, and with headless animals already here, we are past the time for toothless commissions and meaningless bans.
14. Clinton banned federal funding of human-cloning research, of which there is none anyway. He then proposed a five-year ban on cloning. This is not enough. Congress should ban human cloning now. Totally. And regarding one particular form, it should be draconian: the deliberate creation of headless humans must be made a crime, indeed a capital crime. If we flinch in the face of this high-tech barbarity, we’ll deserve to live in the hell it heralds.
COMPREHENSION
- What, according to Krauthammer, is “the scariest news of all” (1) in the field of cloning?
- What are the technical hurdles in creating headless human clones at present?
- What does the author imply when he says that the “ethical barriers” to the creation of headless human clones “are already cracking” (7)?
- “the deliberate creation of headless humans must be made a crime, indeed a capital crime.” (14) Why is the writer so opposed to the creation of headless human clones?
- What measures are suggested by the author to put a ban on human cloning? Are they workable?
- What is the thesis of the essay? Is it stated explicitly?
- Which readership, religious or secular (not subscribing to any formal religion), is likely to be more impressed by the writer’s arguments? Why?
- The essay is written in a subjective tone. Cite some instances of subjective tone.
- Paragraph 6 uses a number of fragments. Identify these fragments and comment on their effect.
- What is the method of development used in paragraphs 9 – 12? How does it serve writer’s purpose?
Find substitute words for those printed in italics in the following sentences.
- Dolly has provoked widespread ethical foreboding.
- President Clinton asked a Federal bioethics commission for a speedy review of the implications of mammalian cloning.
- The Greek mythology character, Daedalus, escaped punishment from the gods for his hubris, Haldane noted, but he suffered “the age-long reprobation of a humanity to whom biological inventions are abhorrent.”
- If Daedalus did not offend the gods of his day, many people have indicted biotechnologists for affronting God in ours.
- Yet Haldane, for one, knew that although biological innovations are often initially seen as perversions, over time, they become accepted as “a ritual supported by unquestioned beliefs and prejudices.”
- In this way, artificial insemination of humans, considered tantamount to adultery before World War II, has become widely accepted.
- So have reproductive methods like in vitro fertilization and surrogate motherhood.
- Now impresarios can dream of cloning Kareem Abdul-Jabar and raising their own Dream Team.
- Anyway, no one knows what genes contribute to the qualities we most admire and value, whether virtuosity of the pen, the pitch, or the piccolo.
- Dolly heralds wondrous innovations with huge economic implications.
II. Fill in the blanks choosing a suitable word from the list here.
foreboding bioethics hubris abhorrent indicted affront perversions insemination tantamount in vitro impresarios virtuosity heralds
- His refusal to answer was ____________ to an admission of guilt.
- The uproar led to the establishment of ____________ committees to oversee cloning research.
- There’s a sense of ___________ in the capital, as if fighting might at any minute break out.
- The president’s speech ____________ a new era in foreign policy.
- He was punished for his ____________ .
- Famous mainly for his wonderful voice, Cole’s ___________ on the piano was no less.
- City’s famous theatrical ____________ play quite a role in molding the social tastes of the society.
- Scientists are studying these cells ___________ .
- Racism of any kind is ____________ to me.
- Five people were ____________ for making and selling counterfeit currency.
- He regarded the comments as an ____________ to his dignity
- His testimony was clearly a ____________ of the truth.
- Artificial ____________ is a common practice to improve animal breeding.
Founder and director of the Science, Ethics, and Public Policy Program at the California Institute of Technology, Daniel Kelves is a versatile writer who has published both in the USA and outside. His articles and essays, published both in scholarly and popular publications, primarily deal with the influence of scientific developments on history, society, politics, and morality. Some of his well known books are The Code of Codes: Scientific and Social Issues in the Human Genome Project (1992), In the Name of Eugenics: Genetics and the Uses of Human Heredity (1995), and The Baltimore Case: A Trial of Politics, Science and Character (1998). The following essay was first published in 1997 in The New York Times.
1. In “Songs on Innocence,” William Blake asked, “Little Lamb, who made thee?”[1] The answer for Dolly the sheep is Dr. Ian Wilmut and his colleagues at the Roslin Institute near Edinburgh.[2] Dolly, as the world knows, is a clone, a duplicate of one genetic parent. Her birth marks a milestone in our ability to engineer animals for food and medicine. It also signals that humans can, in principle, be cloned, too. That prospect troubles many people, but they ought not be too concerned about it at the moment.
2. Dolly has provoked widespread ethical foreboding. The Church of Scotland suggested that cloning animals runs contrary to God’s biodiversity. Dr. Wilmut himself said that cloning humans would be “ethically unacceptable.” Carl Feldbaum, president of the Biotechnology Industry Organization, urged that human cloning be prohibited in the United States. (President Clinton asked a Federal bioethics commission for a speedy review of the implications of mammalian cloning.)
3. The outcry over Dolly calls to mind the great biologist J.B.S. Haldane’s [book] “Daedalus,” … published in 1924. Haldane held that Daedalus of Greek mythology was the first biological inventor (the first genetic engineer, we would say) … [who procreated] the Minotaur[3] … . Daedalus escaped punishment from the gods for his hubris, Haldane noted, but he suffered “the age-long reprobation of a humanity to whom biological inventions are abhorrent.”
4. If Daedalus did not offend the gods of his day, many people have indicted biotechnologists for affronting God in ours. Yet Haldane, for one, knew that although biological innovations are often initially seen as perversions, over time, they become accepted as “a ritual supported by unquestioned beliefs and prejudices.” As technologies improve, people recognize them as advantageous. Society, through its legislatures and courts, figures out how to resolve the problems they posed at the outset.
5. In this way, artificial insemination of humans, considered tantamount to adultery before World War II, has become widely accepted. So have reproductive methods like in vitro fertilization and surrogate motherhood. People abort fetuses with genetic disorders, administer growth hormones to smallish children, and use insulin made by bacteria injected with a human gene.
6. Scientists have long speculated about manipulating genes to produce new Einsteins, Heifetzes, and Hemingways. Now impresarios can dream of cloning Kareem Abdul-Jabar and raising their own Dream Team.[4]
7. The fantasies are endless, but they are just fantasies. People are the products not only of their genes but of their environments. Today an Einstein clone might grow up to be Steven Spielberg.[5] Anyway, no one knows what genes contribute to the qualities we most admire and value, whether virtuosity of the pen, the pitch, or the piccolo.
8. Still, Dolly heralds wondrous innovations with huge economic implications (that Dr. Wilmut held back the news of Dolly’s birth until he could register a patent has been reported without comment). Someday an infertile couple might choose to have a child by cloning one or the other partner. A cancer victim might use his DNA to clone spare body parts – liver, pancreas, lungs, kidneys, bone marrow.
9. For now, cloning should rightly be confined to animals. But as the technology evolves to invite human experimentation, it would be better to watch and regulate rather than prohibit. Outlaw the exploration of human cloning and it will surely go offshore, only to turn into bootleg science that will find its way back to our borders simply because people want it.
10. As with so many previous advances in biology, today’s affront to the gods may be tomorrow’s highly regarded – and highly demanded – agent of self-gratification or health.
COMPREHENSION
- By implication, is Kelves rejecting the age-old belief that life is created only by God when he cites William Blake in conjunction with Wilmut’s creation of Dolly?
- Kelves maintains that initially biological inventions are viewed as perversions, but later they are embraced for people recognize them as advantageous. What are the instances cited in support of his argument?
- What does Kelves imply when he says, “no one knows what genes contribute to the qualities we most admire and value”?
- What will happen, according to Kelves, if human cloning is outlawed?
- The writer lays down his thesis quite explicitly. Identify this thesis and paraphrase it in your own words.
What are the qualities of this essay that make it a popular reading among general readers?
- Where does Kelves recognize and refute the opposite view? Do you find his refutation balanced and convincing?
- How would you characterize the tone of the essay? Is the language objective or is it subjective and passionate? Give examples to support your opinion.
- What is the method of development (mode of discourse) used in paragraphs 1, 3-5, and 8-9? How these methods of development advance his central thesis?
- Is Kelves attacking religion and Christianity by citing the myth of Daedalus when he says that Daedalus escaped the wrath gods but he could not escape “the agelong reprobation of a humanity to whom biological inventions are abhorrent”?
[1] The famous romantic poet, William Blake (1757-1827), concludes his poem with an answer to this question, “God made thee.” The implication here is that such an answer is no longer valid today in view of cloning research.
[2] Wilmut and his team produced the first viable genetically cloned creature, a sheep, named, Dolly in 1997.
[3] In Greek mythology, Minotaur was a monster having the figure of half human and half bull.
[4] Albert Einstein (1879 –1955) was a Nobel Prize-winning physicist, Jascha Heifetz (1901 – 87) a renowned violinist, Ernest Hemingway (1899 – 1961) a Nobel Prize-winning writer, and Kareem Abdul-Jabar (1947 – ) a famous basketball player.
[5] A noted filmmaker