Fishbowl Discussion

------GBS AP Biology

FISHBOWL DISCUSSION

"The only way in which a human being can make some approach to knowing the whole of a subject is by hearing what can be said about it by persons of every variety of opinion and studying all modes in which it can be looked at by every character of mind. No wise man ever acquired his wisdom in any mode but this." --- John Stuart Mill

Possible AP Biology Discussion Articles:

Unit 1: CRITICAL THINKING & SKEPTICISMUnit 2: CLONING & STEM CELL RESEARCHUnit 3: EVOLUTION & CREATIONISMUnit 4: SCIENCE & RELIGION

Unit 5: ENDANGERED SPECIES & MASS EXTINCTION -or- Unit 5: ANIMAL RIGHTSUnit 6: GENETICALLY MODIFIED ORGANISMSUnit 7 : HUMAN GENETIC ENGINEERING

Unit 8: GREENHOUSE EFFECT? -or- Unit 8: OVERPOPULATION? -or- Unit 8: SOCIOBIOLOGY: NATURE VS. NURTURE?

"Fishbowl" Discussion Guidelines:

For their parts, LEADERS will do the following:

1. work individually outside of class to develop specific responses to discussion articles assigned--that is to say, ideas, insights, and additional questions;2. discuss discussion articles "in the fishbowl"--in 6 chairs, in the center of the room, surrounded by spectators in their desks; and3. provide all spectators with information (in handout form) on relevant vocabulary words, scientific concepts and background information important to the discussion topic at hand. In this handout, all articles to be discussed should be listed with a bulleted list of important issues under each article heading. (Be sure to leave space for spectator note-taking.)

For their parts, SPECTATORS will do the following:

1. study the discussion articles assigned, recording questions, comments, and other notes;2. listen actively and attentively to discussion leaders and move to the vacant "fishbowl" seats when appropriate to raise thoughtful questions or offer personal insights, voluntarily and at any time (to let members of the fishbowl know you are ready to participate, just stand at your desk); while seated outside the "fishbowl", spectators should fill out leader-provided handout to be turned in to me at the conclusion of the discussion, and,3. vacate the "fishbowl" seat when finished so that other spectators may have the opportunity to speak.

And for my part, while observing the discussions, I will assess each student's cumulative performance both as discussion leader and as spectator using these criteria:

1. Content: relevance and quality of insights, ideas, and questions, and their substantiation with specific citations from text;2. Engagement: active participation through verbal contributions, intent listening, and encouragement of other leaders and spectators to speak;3. Language: use of appropriate background information, vocabulary, and scientific content; and4. Speech: bodily posture, eye contact, articulation, pronunciation, projection, and expressiveness while discussing or reading aloud from the text (for corroboration of insights, ideas, or questions).

DISCUSSION RUBRIC

'6' Demonstrates a superior understanding and internalization of the articles by use of pertinent vocabulary, accurate referencing, and conceptual knowledge: contributes greater than five salient points and/or referenced items. Turns in completed leader handout.

'5' Demonstrates an excellent understanding and internalization of the articles by use of pertinent vocabulary, accurate referencing, and conceptual knowledge: contributes three salient points and/or referenced items. Turns in completed leader handout.

'4' Demonstrates a good understanding and internalization of the articles by use of pertinent vocabulary, accurate referencing, and conceptual knowledge: contributes two salient points and/or referenced items. Turns in completed leader handout.

'3' Demonstrates an average understanding and internalization of the articles by use of pertinent vocabulary, accurate referencing, and conceptual knowledge: contributes one salient point and/or referenced item. Turns in completed leader handout.

'2' Demonstrates a fair understanding and internalization of the articles by use of pertinent vocabulary, accurate referencing, and conceptual knowledge: contributes zero salient points and/or referenced items; relies on opinion for discussion. Turns in completed leader handout.

'1' Demonstrates no understanding and internalization of the articles by use of pertinent vocabulary, accurate referencing, and conceptual knowledge: contributes zero salient points and/or referenced items and/or fails to turn in completed leader handout.

(Absent? A word processed summary of all articles.)

SAMPLE LEADER HANDOUT I

Science and Religion: The Handout Gennady, Daniel, Chrissy, Jackie, Carolyn

Words of Import

Paranatural - religious claims that are capable of some empirical resolution and are not transcendental or supernatural.

Non-overlapping Magisteria- separate realms, one of the natural world and the other of ethics, that science and religion occupy according to Stephen Jay Gould’s interpretation

Ad absurdum- Originating from an illogical or contradictory condition

Ad inifinitum- Without limit or boundary

Ad nauseum- Provoking disgust or repulsion

Anthropic- a mode of thinking that asserts that the laws of nature are what they are so that we can exist, without further explanation

Cosmological constant- the energy density of empty space that, due to its small value, is favorable to the conditions that led up to the development of intelligent life.

Paul Kurtz: "Are Science and Religion Compatible?"

Kurtz debates the compatibility of religion and science. He believes that they are in fact compatible in terms of the domains of science and ethics. By expressing the limits of religion as hope, the main sphere of the conflict is able to be overcome.

Q: Is it possible to be a moral person without religious foundations? On what basis would you judge actions and beliefs without this background?

 

 Q: Are religion and science compatible? What kind of compromises have to be made by both scientists and religious advocates?

 

 Richard Dawkins: "You Can’t Have It Both Ways: Irreconcilable Differences?"

Dawkins disagrees with the proposition that science and religion occupy "non-overlapping Magisteria" wherein religion keeps itself away from science’s turf and confines itself to morals and values. He cites numerous phenomena proclaimed by religionists to be true not in the realm of morality but in that of supposedly factual occurrences, such as the resurrection of Christ.

Q: Do you agree with Dawkins that a secular judgment of decency and natural justice influences our interpretations of morality to a far greater extent than religion does?

 

 Q: Dawkins claims that religionists are acting hypocritically by presenting claims based on theories of a scientific nature while protecting these theories against scientific scrutiny by claiming them to be outside the domain of science. Do you think it is possible for advocates of a religion to stop doing this and still maintain the popular appeal of their religion?

 

 

Ernst Mayr: "The Concerns of Science"

Mayr points out some of the differences between theology and science. His main points discuss the openness of both groups, their acceptance of "truth", and their domain of study.

Q. With so many differences between science and theology, is it justified for some people to believe in both? Why or why not?

 

 Anton J. Carlson: "Science and Religion are not Compatible."

Carlson emphasizes an unbridgeable gulf between science and religion existing due to a key difference of methodology. Scientific evidence and theories, no matter how prominent its presenter, is always subject to scrutiny and revision, whereas religious ideas are propagated on the basis of blind faith and acceptance. Moreover, argues Carlson, this entanglement in the supernatural has resulted in the retardation of progress and the stifling of free inquiry throughout history.

Q. Carlson argues that revelations are not a legitimate means to knowledge because often their content had to change based on the standards of time. He uses the example of Mormons abandoning polygamy after government pressure and a resulting second "revelation." Do you agree that this invalidates the supernatural? Why or why not?

 

 

Q. What, if anything, differentiates harmless religious activity from the dogmatism and persecution of the men who stifled Galileo?

 

 

Ronald H. Russell: "Science and Religion are Compatible"

Russell identifies the roles of science and religion, stating that science cannot deny the existence of God, and, at the same time, that theologians cannot "scientifically prove God." When Christians seek knowledge, utilizing their God-given minds, they are using science. Science and theology are complementary.

Q. If religion and science work hand-in-hand, why do you think scientists continue to deny the existence of God when they cannot say? Why do theologians continue to attempt to "scientifically prove God"?

 

 

 

Martin Gardner: "The Religious Views of Stephen Gould and Charles Darwin."

Gardner explains the viewpoint of Stephen Jay Gould that science and religion are not necessarily in conflict but rather occupy two distinct and complementary realms. The remainder of the article is a series of writings by Charles Darwin on his viewpoint in regard to the existence of a God.

Q: Is Gould justified in placing morality outside the realm of science? Or does morality itself have a scientific and logically fathomable foundation that can be explained in scientific and secular terms?

 

 

Q: Darwin found ways to explain global trends through natural selection that would have seemed contradictory or inexplicable if attributed to God. Therefore, his belief in the existence of a deity weakened with the passage of time. Do you think that this must necessarily follow from scientific progress that, as we discover more about logical causes and principles, God seems less necessary to account for what we observe?

 

Keith Russell: "Believing in God and Science"

Many scientists are also religious and find that scientific knowledge only deepens their faith. A force behind this change is the John Templeton Foundation which encourages exploration of spiritual progress through scientific methods.

Q: "We don’t derive our sense of God through science, but we realize that science places constraints on what we can plausibly say about God." Is this a biased statement and how will the coming together of religion and science change the way experiments are performed and theorized?

 

Steven Weinberg: "A Designer Universe?"

Rather than taking an absolute position on the issue of the existence of the supernatural, Weinberg examines the evidence available from quantum mechanics, human history, and philosophy to explore the question of whether the universe may have been intelligently designed. He finds that scientific theories and religious theories are inherently different in that religious theories are infinitely flexible, while scientific ones must be arranged in precisely the right way to make sense. However, Weinberg is also intrigued as to why the conditions of the universe have been so well-fitted to the existence of life every step of the way.

Q. Weinberg employs historical examples to demonstrate that the moral influence of religion has been generally dreadful. If this is true, it invalidates the claim that science should decide questions of matter, while religion should decide questions of morality. Do you agree? Why or why not?

 

 

 

Q. Our universe may be suitable for life, but it is also a breeding ground of colossal suffering, even for the happiest of men. Does this necessarily imply that an omnipotent, benevolent supreme being does not exist? Explain.

 

 

 

George Sim Johnston: "Designed for Living"

Johnston emphasizes that the universe is complex and purposeful. He argues that although the Darwinian explanation is simple, it cannot answer the "why" questions. Johnston also uses the idea of intelligent design to answer questions that Darwinism cannot.

Q. Johnston ends the article saying that "intelligent design is appealing and a far cry from the crude polemics of the creationists." Why do you think that he says this, although his argument seems similar to the views of a creationist?

 

SAMPLE LEADER HANDOUT II

Cloning and Stem Cell ResearchFishbowl Discussion #2 ~ Hilvert Mods. 7-9

Eunice, Sharanya, John, Luke, Alex, and AlexVocabulary:

• IVF (in-vitro fertilization): a method of assisted reproduction in which the man's sperm and the woman's egg (oocyte) are combined in a laboratory dish, where fertilization occurs. The resulting embryo is then transferred to the uterus to develop naturally. Usually, two to four embryos are transferred with each cycle. 

• Cloning: A DNA sequence, such as a gene, that is transferred from one organism to another and replicated by genetic engineering techniques.

• Adult stem cell: cells extracted from blastocysts that have not developed to their specific functions and can used to cure diseases and other medical ailments.

• Embryo: An organism in its early stages of development, especially before it has reached a distinctively recognizable form.

• Blastocyst: tiny 8-day old cell mass no larger than the period at the end of a sentence.

• Therapeutic cloning: uses genetic material from patients’ own cells to generate cells to treat certain medical conditions and repair damaged cells.

• Reproductive cloning: aims to implant a cloned embryo into a woman’s uterus leading to the birth of a cloned baby.

• Abortion: Termination of pregnancy and expulsion of an embryo or of a fetus that is incapable of survival.

• Parthenogenesis: process in which an unfertilized egg develops into a new individual. It is human conception without fertilization by a man.

• Pluripotentiality: ability of cells to develop into many different types.

Article Categories:

Science: The Fatal Promise of Cloning; The First Human Cloned Embryo; An Immortal CellBrief Summary:

Law: Cloning and the Law; Why Pro-Lifers Are Missing the Point; If You Believe Embryos Are Humans, Patents Are University’s Gold Mine; A Hard Life At The Bench; Bush’s Decision Will Set Course Of US ResearchBrief Summary:

Society: Baby, It’s You; Investors: Show Me The Stem-Cell MoneyBrief Summary:

Morality: Cloning Humans Is Ethical; Cloning Humans Is Not Ethical; Playing Doctor- or Playing God; Stem Cell’ s And History’s Slippery Slopes Not TakenBrief Summary:

Discussion Questions:

1-Should there be a difference between morals and legalities concerning cloning?

2-Do you agree with Pence that there are “superior” babies? Why or why not? (p. 17)

3-Do you think that there is a difference between birth control pills, Viagra, and cloning in regards to affecting natural reproduction processes?

4-If reproductive cloning was allowed, what boundaries should be placed to ensure the safety of the clone?

5-Would therapeutic cloning inevitably lead down a “slippery slope” to reproductive cloning or other controversial issues? (p.13)

6-Would you support your tax dollars to go towards cloning research?

7-After the success of Dolly, many scientists became more hopeful for the possibility of human cloning. Can cloning be paralleled to cancer research in regards with first testing on animals and then moving onto human experimentation?

8-The case of Sarah and Abe Shapiro raises the possibility of cloning a deceased person. Discuss.

9-The article Playing doctor… or playing God? raises the issue whether human life can be bought and sold as a commodity. Is such in the domain of human authority as opposed to that of a higher power?

10-Does cloning devalue the cloned and the resulting child in terms of their status as human?

11-By reading the articles, have your views on the different types of cloning changed in any way?