Overview of Lecture

Past years A level questions Observable trend of past years questions Analysis of 2 questions
Nov 2000 Q6 Science never provides solutions it only poses more problems. Is this a fair comment? (implications of sc, bioethics) Nov 2002 Q6 Science and religion will always conflict. Discuss.(sc and religion)

Past years A level Questions 1999-2001

Nov 1999 Q6 Can the transplanting of animal organs into human beings ever be justified? (bioethics) Nov 1999 Q7 Is a sound knowledge of science and technology essential for a well-educated person in todays world? (scientific knowledge and education) Nov 2000 Q6 Science never provides solutions it only poses more problems. Is this a fair comment? (implications of sc, bioethics) Nov 2001 Q6 Examine the implications of cloning for the human race.(implications)

Past years A level Questions 2002 -2004

Nov 2002 Q6 Science and religion will always conflict. Discuss.(sc and religion) Nov 2003 Q5 Should medical science always seek to prolong life? (bioethics) Nov 2003 Q11 Does the modern world place too much reliance on technology? (technology pros and cons) Nov 2004 Q4 How inventions and discoveries are used is not the concern of the scientist. Do you agree? (technology, bioethics)

Past years A level questions 2005-2007

Nov 2005 Q1 Is effective farming possible without science? (scientific knowledge and technology) Nov 2005 Q5 Medical science has been so successful that people now expect too much of it. Discuss.(bioethics) Nov 2006 Q3 Does modern technology always improve the quality of peoples lives? (technology benefits/pros and cons) Nov 2007 Q11 Should research into expensive medical treatments be allowed when only a few can afford them? (bioethics)

Past years A level Questions 2008 -2010

Nov 2008 The more science advances the more, religion will decline To what extent do you agree? (sc and religion) 2009 To what extent has technology had an impact on both privacy and security in your country? (technology pros and cons) 2009 Should every country have the right to carry out unlimited scientific research? (implications of science and knowledge of science) 2010 To what extent has technology had a negative impact on the skill levels of people? (technology pros/cons)

Observable trend over the 12 years

There is a question on science and/or technology every year (2009) In some years, 2003, 2005 and 2009, there are 2 questions, one on each. The questions broadly asked for responses on :
Bioethics Implications of Scientific knowledge Science and Religion Technology : pros and cons

Questions on Bioethics
Can the transplanting of animal organs into human beings ever be justified?( Nov 1999, Q8) Nov 2001 Q6 Examine the implications of cloning for the human race.(implications of science and bioethics) Should medical science always seek to prolong life? (Nov 2003 Q5) Medical science has been so successful that people now expect too much of it. Discuss.(Nov 2005 Q5) Should research into expensive medical treatments be allowed when only a few can afford them? (Nov 2007 Q11)

Questions on Implications of Scientific Knowledge

Nov 2000 Q6 Science never provides solutions it only poses more problems. Is this a fair comment? (implications of sc, bioethics) Nov 2001 Q6 Examine the implications of cloning for the human race.(implications) 2009 Should every country have the right to carry out unlimited scientific research? (implications of science and knowledge of science/in some way science and politics)

Questions on Science and Religion

Nov 2002 Q6 Science and religion will always conflict. Discuss.(sc and religion) Nov 2008 The more science advances the more, religion will decline To what extent do you agree? (sc and religion)

Questions on Technology: pros and cons

Nov 2003 Q11 Does the modern world place too much reliance on technology? (technology pros and cons) Nov 2006 Q3 Does modern technology always improve the quality of peoples lives? (technology benefits/pros and cons) 2009 To what extent has technology had an impact on both privacy and security in your country? (technology pros and cons) 2010 To what extent has technology had a negative impact on the skill levels of people? (technology pros/cons)

Nov 2000 Q6 Science never provides solutions it only poses more problems. Is this a fair comment? (implications of sc, bioethics)

First thing to note is the use of the absolute term never in this question. implies there are no cases/instances of science providing solutions to problems Next analyse the Key words: solutions, problemssolutions = answers/ways of dealing with a difficulty problems=difficulties/troubles

Apply thinking skills to tackle the questions: Pauls elements of reasoning

Are there any assumptions hidden in the wording of the question? This question contains an assumptions: there are existing problems that remain unsolved

Possible Approach to the question and using the PAL thinking framework
For such a question with an absolute term, it is best to take the stand to disagree with the claim.i.e. Argue that it is not true that science never provides solutions but just add on more problems . Simply put, argue that science does provide solutions to problems rather than add on problems One way to go about it is to think of the existing problems. You could go about it by applying PAL (Parties, Aspects, Levels). You could look at all the different aspects, e.g. environment, economy, social etc at the different levels: global, national, community For this question, it would be a good idea to look at a more macro level to begin with- Global problems today

Existing Global problems

Hunger Energy crisis Low birth rage Aging population Pollution Gender imbalance Terrrorism The list goes on the question here is whether Science provides answers to these problems or does Science actually add on to these problems

Make your stand clear from the start after your introduction
Try to hook the reader with a riveting introduction: e.g. a brief recount of a scientific breakthrough that has reaped positive outcomes, maybe a recount of how a pair conjoined twins were successfully separated, testifying to the miracles made possible by Science, then asserting the stand of how Science has proven itself capable of solving problems that were insumountable in the past.

Argument 1: Science provides solutions to problem of hunger Hunger problem has science helped to resolve it? yes-show by evidence (e.g. GM food)- golden rice golden rice can improve the lives of millions of the poorest people in the world. These consumers include at least a million children who die every year because they are weakened by vitamin-A deficiency and an additional 350,000 people who go blind. The rice contains beta-carotene which is the building block for vitamin A.

 counter argument: golden rice does resolve hunger problem but has created more problems because it contains snippets of DNA borrowed from bacteria and daffodils what if there are side-effects? Rebuttal: even if so, the benefit of feeding the starving is sufficient reason to carry on with genetic engineering, unless and until a better and quicker solution to feeding the millions starving can be found.

Argumemt 2: Science helps to ameliorate the problem of low birth rate

Science provides many different technologies that help infertile couples have a child of their own. The technologies include: artificial insemination, IVF, surrogacy, cloning, (refer to all your lecture notes)

 Counter argument : While it is true that science provides assisted reproduction technologies, Science also provides scanning technology that increases abortion rate and exacerbates the problem of Gender Imbalance : in countries that favour sons e.g. India and China scanning technology that enables people to find out the sex of the child led to abortion of female foetuses. Also gene selection technology that helps to determine the sex of babies result in more male babies being born. Possible rebuttal: even without these technologies, the problem already existed as infanticides via other means have been happening even in the remote parts of China and India. e.g. drowning and live burials of female babies. Further reading: http://www.talktalk.co.uk/reference/encyclopaedia/hutchin son/m0012028.html http://www.gendercide.org/case_infanticide.html

Argument 3: Provides us with alternative source of energy: e.g. biofuels and nuclear energy(lecture notes)
counter-argument leads to more production of carbon dioxide create more problems, production of fuels prioritised over production of food, hence exacerbating the problem of global hunger. some biofuels can produce negative net energy gains, releasing more carbon in their production than their feedstocks capture in their growth. also issue of fuel vs food. . As the majority of biofuels are produced directly from food crops the rise in demand for biofuels has lead to an increase in the volumes of crops being diverted away from the global food market. This has been blamed for the global increase in food prices over the last couple of years

 rebuttal: Second Generation biofuels are produced from non-food crops such as wood, organic waste, food crop waste and specific biomass crops, therefore eliminating the main problem of fuel vs food. Life cycle assessments of second-generation biofuels have also indicated that they will increase net energy gains The Third Generation of biofuels are from cultured algae which can be manufactured into a wide range of fuels such as diesel, petrol and jet fuel.

Rebuttal continued
Four Generation Bio-fuels are aimed at not only producing sustainable energy but also a way of capturing and storing co2. This carbon capture makes fourth generation biofuel production carbon negative rather then simply carbon neutral, as it is locks away more carbon than it produces. This system not only captures and stores carbon dioxide from the atmosphere but it also reduces co2 emissions by replacing fossil fuels Hence this biotechnology not only provides an alternative source of energy but reduces the problem of carbon emission.

2008 The more science advances the more, religion will decline To what extent do you agree? (sc and religion)
Analysis of question Key words:, science advances, decline and religion advances- move forward/make progress in which aspects? at which levels? decline-weakens in importance/relevance (to whom? in which aspects, at which level?) science-study of nature and behaviour of natural things religion- a system of beliefs in a God/Gods or a philosophy of life

Approach to to what extent question Note this is a to what extent question, which means to what degree or how much do you agree with the statement you have to show the extent by showing the magnitude/degree of the truth or fallacy of the statement and showing necessitates giving evidence and not merely saying so. If you give ample and convincing enough examples to support your stand, it shows you agree to a large extent, conversely if examples given for the opposing stand are more persuasive, it shows the extent to which you disagree with the statement.

Analysing for assumption

Also analyse if there is a hidden assumption in the question. In this question the assumption is that science and religion are polar opposites, thats why when science advances, religion will necessarily decline/weaken. Whether you can accept this assumption, will help you decide whether you agree with this statement. If you find this assumption true, of course your stand will be to agree with the statement. However if you find the assumption only partly true, then you will somewhat agree only while if you find this assumption totally fallacious, you will most likely disagree with the statement.

Applying thinking techniques: PAL

Lets go back to advancement made by Science think of the different aspects in which science has advanced (A of PAL): e.g. life sciences and biotechnology, nuclear technology, media technology. Has progress in these areas of science caused religion to decline? Here again apply PAL- how does it cause decline in religion, if it does? different aspects in which religion can decline: e.g. religious observances and practices, faith, attendance at church/mosques/temples, conversions, renouncement of faith. You can also consider decline from the perspective of which Parties lost their faith or at which level, has decline happened? National, global, community levels? If there is a loss of faith in many people, at many levels and in many aspects of religion, then you can perhaps conclude that religion has declined to a large extent. You dont have to use the word large but by showing the evidence, statistics and research findings and reports, they speak for themselves.

Stand and Argument 1

Now lets try some arguments: Stand: Not entirely true that the more science advances, the more religion will decline. Argument 1: the assumption that science and religion are polar opposites is not valid If it were true that they were polar opposites, then would it be the case that they move in opposite directions, in the statement it states if science advances, religion will decline. However that is not true, in fact religion can even lead science, e.g. Millennia before germ theory was proposed in the late 19th century, Leviticus 15 mandated hygiene laws that included bathing, washing of clothing, destruction of contaminated pottery and washing of hands. (further reading: http://www.conservapedia.com/Biblical_scientific_foreknowl edge#Eighth_Day_Blood_Clotting_Factors)

Another example to support argument 1

Another example is: The Book of Isaiah establishes that the true shape of the earth is a sphere: He sits above the sphere of the earth, and its inhabitants look to him like grasshoppers. He stretches out the galaxies like a curtain, spreading them out like a tent to live under: Isaiah 40:22 Note that Isaiah was written approximately during the 8th century BC, centuries before Greek philosophers, beginning with Pythagoras, theorized the earth was round

Argument 2
Argument 2: human beings have spiritual needs that cannot be satisfied by answers given by science the fact that human still seeks spiritual comfort and guidance show that science cannot fulfil the need in man, showing religion has not lost significance in peoples life despite the advancement of Science.Hence even in the age of rapid advancement in science, there is a resurgence of religious faiths, e.g Islam experiences a resurgence of faith in an era of globalization (further reading: http://globalization.icaap.org/content/v5.2/ahmad.html), there is a revival of Islamic faith in Tatarstan in the 1990s. Churches growing faster than starbucks in UK , While 481 UK Starbucks branches have started since 1998, more than 500 churches have been established during the same time, based on only 18 of the more than 400 denominations in the UK, which indicates that there may actually be more churches that have opened.

Argument 3, 4, 5
Argument 3: the public outcry from religious groups to stem cell research, human cloning, genetic engineering etc, shows that people do not blindly accept science and renounce their faiths. In fact their faiths cause them to question the morality of some scientific researches and advancements Argument 4: Science attempts to understand how the universe works but not whether an intelligent creator is responsible for why it works, hence they answer different questions and one will not negate the other. Argument 5: If one has genuine faith in a God/Gods, there is no reason why understanding how the universe works will undermine his/her faith in the God/Gods he/she trusts absolutely, unless to begin with, his/her faith was already shaky. After all faith is based on experiences

Arguments from the opposing camp: the more science advances, the more religion will decline

Argument 1: scientific theory conflicts with religious beliefs, if science progresses, it must necessarily debunk religious beliefs e.g. Science is founded on logic and evidence while religion is founded on faith, which is the substance of things not seen hence intangible and therefore refuted by science that looks for tangible proof.

Arguments from Opposing camp: the more science advances the more religion will decline
Argument 2: as genetic research advances and genetic determinists explain everything about human behaviour in terms of genetics, it will undermine the Christian idea of free will.

Arguments from the opposing camp: the more science advances, the more religion will decline
Argument 3: as people begin to push moral boundaries in terms of biotechnology, religious principles are compromised, hence religion is

Arguments from the opposing camp: the more science advances, the more religion will decline
Argument 4 : Going along with scientific research necessitates some compromise.e.g. killin go embryos for stem cell research or genetic engineering. To that extent, compromise could weaken a persons faith.