For my current academic reading and writing class (called ARW), I've assigned an argumentative essay of about 800 words on the issue of human cloning. We have a reading by molecular biologist Lee Silver of Princeton that argues for allowing cloning as a reproductive choice, and so my students' task is to answer the still hypothetical but most likely inevitable ethical question of:
"If the biotechnology for human cloning is 100% safe, should the government of Japan allow cloning as a reproductive choice?"
I find the essay is a good exercise of critical thinking in terms of requiring the learners to sort through their assumptions about cloning and clones and identify the most persuasive arguments for pro and con sides.
Most students instinctively choose "not allow" based on vague concepts such as "unnatural" and then struggle to defend the position with persuasive ethical arguments.
How would you answer something like that?
0 件のコメント:
コメントを投稿