Holiday Assignment FOR SEPTEMBER – Research & Essay Plans

Instructions

1. Read through the notes on the important keywords for analysis on Page 3 to 5. They contain the major keywords that appear in A-Level Questions and a failure to analyse them would result in instant failure.

2. Look through the sample essay plan attached and the three research articles attached as a model for your assignment during the holidays.

3. Pick two questions from the list below and submit essay plans for the following. Notice that the important keywords are highlighted in bold. They are all A-Level Questions – doing it would serve to prepare you for exams.

4. Your essay plan should contain the identification of the following keywords and what they would require you to do – as shown in the sample essay plan. There should be 3 arguments, 2 counter-arguments and 2 rebuttals.

a. Topicb. Assumptionc. Absolute Wordsd. Contextual wordse. Other keywordsf. Your stand

5. Attach at least three research articles from the Internet that could serve as relevant examples for your essay plans. Please highlight the link in GREEN.

6. I have given you some tips and direction for the question. Please look at them to guide you.7. One additional lesson in the computer lab would be reserved for you to finish up the two essay

plans when school reopens. You should have finished at least one essay plan by the end of the break.

8. Please have your answers in SOFT COPY to present to the class. 9. Deadline: By the end of Wk 1, Term 4.

Questions

Should crimes that were committed many years ago simply be forgotten? (2006) Forgotten should not be taken literally as just erasing it off memory – it should be looked as

‘forgiven’. The issue is about forgiveness and justice. ‘Simply’ – suggests that it is insignificant to rake up the crimes that were committed many

years ago. Why so – is it time to move on and forgive? Why ‘many years ago’ – are they referring to particular genocides/war crimes that may not

yield closure for the victims yet?

To what extent do young people in your society take an interest in politics? (2006) Notice that the question requires balance (ie: counter-arguments and rebuttal) and an

awareness of the trends in the Singapore context that has pushed the young people to be politically aware/apathetic.

Think about possible arguments about how the Internet that has opened up political discussions/the education system/youth activism/the attitude of the government towards dissent or opposition/ social and general economic stability of Singapore.

1

Should advertising be restricted in any way? (2001) The difficult part about the question is to come up with counter-arguments to argue that

advertising should not be RESTRICTED IN ANY WAY. To uphold creativity or freedom of expression? What about the different kinds of advertising – informative/educational/persuasive? Does restriction depend on their purpose?

The obvious restriction is definitely needed on its content, upon evaluation of the possible harm from the products advertised, credibility of the messages, and harm to moral standards.

Entrepreneurship is just another name for personal greed. Do you agree? (2006) Why is there this assumption of insignificance that entrepreneurship is just greed? Does the

risk-taking thrive on greed for profits/survival? Is greed a necessary element to stimulate good entrepreneurship?

Could it be more than just greed when some are social entrepreneurs or that greed is just as important a motivation as other drivers for many entrepreneurs?

‘If people become ill, it is largely their own fault’. How far do you agree? (2002) A straightforward comparison of the internal vs. external factors that determine our health

– the environment, the state and health policies, the access to medical facilities, globalisation worsening health epidemics vs. personal responsibility, genetic factors and lifestyle issues.

How inventions and discoveries are used is not the concern of the scientist. Discuss. (2004) Why is there this assumption that the scientists have no need to be concerned about the

ethical implications of the inventions or their end use? What is their primary duty? Are they the best judge of how inventions and discoveries should be used – or should this be left to other parties? Is there a difference when the scientist is being funded by a private organisation? Why?

Important keywords for Question Analysis

2

Key Words Requirements Example of essay question with the keyword(s)

Never, always, all, elimination, only, every,

Absolute words which you cannot fully agree with because there can be exceptions [This kind of essay requires you to agree or disagree completely]

‘The view of the majority is always right.’ Do you agree? [A Level, 2007]

Ever This changes the assumption of the question to ‘never’. You must address why there is this assumption of ‘NEVER’.

Can the media ever be relied upon to convey the truth? [A Level, 2003]

Will/Would Assessing present trends to predict the future

Will the Internet bring freedom to the oppressed?

Too much/too Should understand that there is an excessive quality that has gone overboard and yields an undesirable impact

Would you agree that the media hold too much power in the world today?

Simply/merely/just When such words are used, it is to indicate insignificance. You should think about why the subject matter is perceived to be insignificant and usually should critique the inherent assumption by arguing that there is real value than meets the eye.

Should crimes that were committed years ago simply be forgotten?

Any This changes the question’s assumption to ‘no’. You must address the assumption why there is ‘no’ value in the first place.

Does awards and prizes serve any useful purpose? [A Level, 2011]

Can Referring to the ability Can the media ever be relied upon to convey the truth? [A Level, 2003]

Should Referring to the ideal situation Should advertising be limited in any way? [A Level, 2001]

Does/Do Referring to the present situation Does modern technology always improve the quality of people’s lives? [A Level, 2006]

Still Usually involves a trend that has ceased in the present because of changing circumstances.

Does the book still have a future? [A Level, 2003]

The* (Please see context of the question – this is the case when ‘the’ substitutes ‘a’)

‘Only’ – You should attack the inherent assumption that it serves as the best solution.

Is violence the solution to conflicts? ‘The mark of civility is how we

3

treat our elderly.’

Too much Excessive to the point that it causes undesirable effects or we are unaware of the inherent flaws

Discuss the view that we place too much reliance on technology.

Most, main, primary, chief, key, best, worst

Comparison/Evaluation of factors (Relative words) – Compare with other internal/external factors.

Discuss the view that attitude is the key to success.

Real Significance – You should prove why the value is significant.

There are no real benefits to reading other than entertainment’. Discuss

Increasingly Must show why and how there is an increase from the past to the present

Many developed countries are paying increasing attention to the needs of the disadvantaged. How far is this true in Singapore?

Really, necessarily, actually Casting doubt on a common belief and explain why there is such a doubt.

Does education necessarily liberate one?

Advertising encourages a desire for products that we actually do not need. Discuss.

your society Restricts discussion to Singapore and essay must reflect certain understanding of Singapore’s context to the question

Many developed countries are paying increasing attention to the needs of the disadvantaged. How far is this true in your society?

Nowadays/today’s world Restricts discussion to today’s context and essay must point out certain trends today to frame the arguments

Is there still a place for books in today’s world?

More than/better than Evaluation of factors than a mere list of factors. Use a criterion to evaluate! (You cannot tell me there are more benefits just by giving me 3 benefits and 2 harm without rebuttal)Some useful criterion (just choose one):

a) long-term, short-termb) severity of harmc) majority vs minority

Sport divides more than it unites. Discuss.

Was life for young people in Singapore better in the past than it is today?

4

Comparison of factors on the same dimension using SPERM (social vs. social) [Listing of factors would fail – there must be rebuttal of counter-argument]

At the expense of When it is at the expense of – it means “at the cost of”. Your arguments must show that the benefit comes at the cost of someone/something.

To what extent are the young in Singapore favoured at the expense of the elderly?

Sample Essay Plan (With AT LEAST 3 Research Articles attached that could serve as examples)

5

1. Ethics has no place in science. Discuss.

Topic: Science and ethics Science: Systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and

experimentation and its application Ethics: Societal rules of moral conduct or standards what is morally accepted

Assumption: Ethics has no value in science because the two may conflict with each other due to their seemingly different nature and emphasis. Absolute words: No (must disagree) Context: NILOther Keywords: place – value (Arguments must address why ethics has no value in science) [*Note – PLACE should not literally be taken as PRESENCE]

Stand: Ethics has a place in science

Ethics has no place in science Ethics has a place in scienceSome may argue that ethics may slow down the progress of science and the pursuit of knowledge by imposing bans/moratoriums on controversial scientific research.

R: Yet, it could be argued that ethics may not permanently restrict the pursuit of knowledge because ethical standards may change with the deliberation of pros and cons of the scientific research. (Eg: How embryonic stem-cell research in the US has its moratorium lifted during Obama’s administration upon deliberating the importance of the research to potential cures for Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s.)

Ethics has a place to prevent moral harm from the controversial research as well as harm to the research participants or unnecessary abuse to animals during scientific research.

This is important to help gain the public support and funding for the long-term development of science.

(Eg: How reproductive cloning is still banned in many countries like the US and in the EU, despite its potential to help infertile couples as well as provide savior siblings to provide organs/stem cells for the diseased sibling. In March 2005, a non-binding United Nations Declaration on Human Cloning calling for the ban of all forms of Human Cloning contrary to human dignity, was adopted.)

(Eg: How American public health doctors deliberately infected 700 Guatemalans during the Tuskegee Syphilis Research in the 1940s as an effort to test the effectiveness of penicillin with the subject’s informed consent – ethics is important to help pharmaceutical firms like GlaxoSmithKline and Merck to further medical research on drugs)

Some may argue that there is no room for ethics to complement with science as they are of a different nature.

Ethics is concerned with our moral duty and is prescriptive – telling us what we should do; science is descriptive and has the utilitarian aim of improving the lives of people.

R: Yet, it is precisely that ethics and science can

Ethics has a place to ensure that there is real progress in science by preventing fraudulent research.

Ethics can help to restrict scientists who, for their selfish gains of profits and fame, aim to falsify their research data and delay the progress of science even further.

(Eg: Andrew Wakefield, a medical doctor expressed concerns over the Measles-Mumps-Rubella vaccines

6

complement each other as ethics guides the amoral science to advance progress in beneficial fields.(Eg: How it could be argued that it was ethics that spurred the WHO and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation to look into funding and licensing the malaria vaccine to make a difference to the Sub-Saharan Africa, where 200 million lives are affected by malaria infection every year.)Research Article 1

and alleged that it had a connection with the onset of autism, with his research in 1998. It was proven later that his research had lapses in credibility and was funded by the lawyers mounting a case against the vaccine manufacturers. His research started a public health scare and induced low vaccination rates such that these childhood diseases have re-emerged, endangering young lives.) – Research Article 2

Ethics has a place to prevent the abuse of science for self-interest

(Eg: How rogue states like North Korea and Iran are using nuclear research to develop weaponry and use them as leverage to threaten political stability)

RESEARCH FOR ESSAY PLAN

Research Article 1

Malaria vaccine set to save millions of lives, but who will fund it?

As the malaria vaccine continues to prove sceptics wrong, the next obstacle for the World Health Organisation is cost.

o Sarah Boseley , health editoro guardian.co.uk , Tuesday 18 October 2011 20.32 BST

7

A small boy plays under a insecticide treated mosquito net,in the Kibera slums of Nairobi, Kenya. The success of the malaria vaccine is set to be a game-changer, but who will fund it? Photograph: Stephen Morrison/EPA

Malaria is a mass killer, taking just under 800,000 lives a year. Most of them are babies and children under five. A significant number are pregnant women. It is an entirely preventable disease, caused by a parasite transmitted by mosquito bite, but the millions who live under its curse are too poor and have too few options to be able to avoid it.

The malaria vaccine that now appears to be within reach, following successful large-scale trials in seven African countries, is a potential game changer for the rural villagers whose children are the main victims of this ancient disease, which was named "mal'aria" for the bad air medieval Italians thought caused it.

Early results from 6,000 babies aged 5-17 months show that their risk of malaria was reduced by slightly more than half (56%) and their chance of severe malaria – the kind that affects the brain, kidneys and blood and often kills – by slightly less than half (47%).

8

Malaria is so common in sub-Saharan Africa that families think any fever in a baby must be the killer disease. Too often it is, and the hospitals are full of listless babies with vacant eyes on drips.

Vast numbers of bed nets impregnated with insecticide have been provided by donors and distributed in malaria-endemic regions. Every small child and pregnant woman should sleep under one to keep away the mosquitoes in the night. New drugs – compounds involving artemisinin – have been developed and widely distributed to replace older antimalarials, which have been failing as the parasite develops resistance to them.

Malaria deaths have come down from more than a million to an estimated 780,000 a year, according to the latest report from the Roll Back Malaria partnership of the World Health Organisation. Three countries were certified malaria-free in the past four years, and nine more are preparing to move towards elimination – but that is out of 108 where the disease is endemic.

Since bed nets are not always effective, and not always used as they should be – there have been reports of some employed as fishing nets – and drugs can become ineffective, a vaccine could massively improve children's chances.

9

While researchers started work on a potential Aids vaccine with extraordinary and, as it turned out, misplaced optimism, many in the scientific community thought a malaria vaccine was a non-starter. Nobody had ever made a vaccine against a parasite-borne disease.

Twenty-five years on, a clutch of indomitable scientists – veterans such as Joe Cohen, who has been on the case for the past 23 years – has proved the sceptics wrong. According to Andrew Witty, chief executive of GlaxoSmithKline, the British company that has developed and trialled the vaccine, there were tears among the team when the results of the large-scale trial results came out. "It was the emotion of what they had achieved," said Witty. "The first vaccine against a parasite-borne infection. They were overwhelmed."

The results show conclusively that it is possible to prevent many cases of malaria in babies aged 5-17 months. Most of these children still got malaria, but less frequently and less severely. There were 750 cases for every 1,000 vaccinated children over a year, compared with 1,500 cases for 1,000 children among those who were given dummy injections.

That could make a big difference in sub-Saharan Africa. There are 200m cases of malaria every year. Many children are damaged – sometimes brain-damaged – by it. Even stopping half of those cases would save millions of lives over the long term. But there is a way to go yet, with more results from the trial to come, and many uncertainties, including how much this vaccine will cost and who will be persuaded to pay.

The trial is continuing in seven countries: Burkina Faso, Gabon, Ghana, Kenya, Malawi, Mozambique and Tanzania. It is big: there are 15,460 babies and infants involved. The data published so far in the New England Journal of Medicine concerns 6,000 of the older babies, those aged 5 to 17 months. Next year, results are expected for newborns, which are crucial, because the three-dose vaccine, which needs cold storage, must be incorporated into the routine infant vaccination schedule. All the signs are, though, that the response in newborns will be similar.

A bigger question is over the duration of the protection, which appears to have dropped from 47% to 35% for cases of severe malaria after 22 months. Some of the babies will be given a booster, to see whether this helps. While most side-effects were similar in children given the vaccine and given dummy jabs, there were significantly more with meningitis among those given the vaccine. "There seems to be no plausible explanation for this and it may well turn out to be a chance finding, but it cannot be ignored," wrote malaria expert Prof Nick White in a commentary otherwise warmly welcoming the vaccine to the armoury of weapons against the disease.

Most of those involved with malaria will agree with White when he continues: "All the investigators who have laboured long and hard in the development and evaluation of this malaria vaccine deserve congratulations. It is a great achievement and an important advance, but they know that this partially protective vaccine is not the sole solution to the control and elimination of malaria."

In three years' time, when the final results are in and the WHO has recommended its use, the scientists may hit the biggest stumbling block of all: money to roll it out. At a press conference to discuss the results, Dr Regina Rabinovitch, director for infectious diseases at the global health programme of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, was asked whether they would fund it. They would want to look at the

10

data on efficacy, duration and safety in 2014, she said. "Would I prefer to see a 100% vaccine? Certainly," she added.

The arguments over value for money will be starting even now. Donors will want to figure out whether bednets or artimisinin drugs are a better investment than a vaccine that will reduce the number of malaria cases but not stop the disease in its tracks.

Price will be a critical factor in these considerations. Witty says they will do everything they can to get it down. He is looking at the costs involved in manufacturing and supply – even at the price of the vial. He is prepared to offer licences to get the vaccine produced cheaply in India or in Africa itself.

"I have got every confidence that we can get this price to a level that makes it very viable for donors to consider," he said. "I don't want people to think this is an alternative to bed nets. This is about doing all we can to shut the door on malaria."

He recalls the children's hospital wards he has seen in Africa, overwhelmingly full of malaria cases: "If you could take that burden away, imagine what the health capacity would be."

Link: http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/oct/18/malaria-vaccine-save-millions-lives

Research Article 2

Andrew Wakefield found 'irresponsible' by GMC over MMR vaccine scare

Doctor's research triggered a furore and was direct cause of slump in take-up of MMR, which has led to outbreaks of measles in some parts of the country

Sarah Boseley , health editor guardian.co.uk , Thursday 28 January 2010 20.34 GMT

Dr Andrew Wakefield talks to reporters outside the General Medical Council. Photograph: Peter Macdiarmid/Getty Images

11

Andrew Wakefield, the doctor who claimed to have discovered a link between measles virus, bowel diseases and autism and thereby sparked widespread fear of the combined MMR jab, conducted unnecessary, invasive tests on children, the General Medical Council found today.

Branding him a dishonest, irresponsible doctor, the GMC disciplinary panel, which has sat and heard evidence for 148 days over two and a half years, finally found a long array of charges against him proven. But there were shouts of protest and dismay from the doctor's supporters.

Wakefield and two other doctors at the Royal Free hospital in London were brought before the GMC over the paper they published in February 1998 in the Lancet medical journal.

On the basis of case studies of just eight children, it suggested that measles virus might be linked to inflammatory bowel disease, which in turn might play a role in autistic spectrum disorder.

The paper conceded that the doctors had not found a definite link, but Wakefield, in a press conference, told the world he believed the measles, mumps and rubella vaccines in the MMR jab should not be given in one combined shot, but in single doses, preferably a year apart. It triggered a furore and was the direct cause of the major slump in take-up of MMR which has led to outbreaks of measles in some parts of the country.

The GMC found that Wakefield had flouted the rules in pursuit of his theory – and profit. At the centre of the case against him is the ethical conduct of the trial which resulted in the Lancet paper. The panel found he had subjected 11 children to invasive tests such as lumbar punctures and colonoscopies that they did not need, without ethical approval.

But investigations revealed more. In June 1997, before the paper was published, he filed a patent as one of the inventors of a vaccine for the elimination of measles virus and for the treatment of inflammatory bowel disease.

In February 1998, the same month as the Lancet paper, he applied for ethical permission to run a trial of a new potential measles vaccine and set up a company called Immunospecifics Biotechnologies Ltd which would produce and sell it. The father of one of the children he had seen with developmental problems and bowel disease would be the managing director. Wakefield tried out the new vaccine on the child, without mentioning it in the medical notes or telling the child's GP. He was also found to have unethically arranged for his son's friends to have blood samples taken from them during his birthday party – for which he paid them £5 each.

Wakefield hit on his theory after seeing children with bowel disease who also had developmental problems. The crucial third step in the hypothesis was the timing of the MMR vaccine: the first shot is given at around 18 months, which is also when autistic spectrum disorders start to be noticed.

In front of the GMC with him were two doctors who were at the time colleagues in the department of paediatric gastroenterology at the Royal Free, Prof John Walker-Smith and Dr (now Prof) Simon Murch. The GMC decided they shared responsibility for the ethical conduct of the trial, although neither one was said to have acted dishonestly.

12

The trial that Wakefield proposed troubled the ethics committee of the Royal Free. It is a fundamental principle in paediatrics that no child should be subjected to more than a blood test unless it is necessary for their treatment. But Wakefield proposed a barrage of invasive procedures. Dr Evan Harris, the Liberal Democrat spokesman who complained to the GMC, believes the committee should have sought advice from an independent paediatrician. Instead, it asked a gastroenterologist colleague of Wakefield.

The committee gave its conditional approval. The GMC panel decided that those conditions had been flouted – and that the trial had been unethical.

The GMC looked into the cases of eleven children who were entered into the trial. Many rules had been broken. Wakefield's contract was for "experimental gastroenterology" and he was not allowed to treat children, but he ordered tests and procedures that were not necessary for their health. In the interests of proving Wakefield's theory, children were given lumbar punctures in the spine, colonoscopies and barium meals – all significant procedures. Children were enrolled who did not fit the strict criteria for entry to the trial and they had not come from a GP who was referring them because they needed treatment.

Wakefield, now based in the US, has also been found not to have been open with the Lancet. He did not tell them that £55,000 funding for the study came from the legal aid board. Wakefield was advising Richard Barr, a solicitor who wanted evidence to sue the vaccine manufacturers on behalf of the parents of children with autism. It was a clear conflict of interest and should have been declared.

All three doctors will now come back before the panel in April, where the GMC will decide if they are guilty of serious professional misconduct, which could end in one or more of them being stripped of their licence to practise medicine.

Harris said Wakefield's reputation and that of his campaign was "in tatters and it is sad that it has taken so long for this to be demonstrated.

"That the GMC has found Wakefield guilty of unapproved and unnecessary invasive tests, including spinal taps, on young children, is the most damning indictment possible. The findings of failure to declare financial interest are a secondary consideration."

Dr Shona Hilton, of the Medical Research Council, said the scare had a huge impact on parents, undermining their trust in MMR vaccination. "Thankfully confidence is returning and the uptake of MMR vaccine is increasing," she said. "We need to continue rebuilding trust with parents that MMR vaccination is safe and ensure that those parents caring for children with autism do not blame themselves."

Wakefield, who was not at the hearing but spoke outside the GMC offices minutes after the ruling, said he was "extremely disappointed" by the outcome. He said: "The allegations against me and against my colleagues are both unfounded and unjust … and I invite anyone to examine the contents of these proceedings and come to their own conclusion."

He went on: "It remains for me to thank the parents whose commitment and loyalty has been extraordinary.

13

Thousands of people, mainly parents of autistic children, have continued to support Wakefield. Panel chairman Dr Surendra Kumar was heckled by parents as he delivered the verdicts in central London this afternoon. One woman shouted: "These doctors have not failed our children. You are outrageous."

Link: http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/jan/28/andrew-wakefield-mmr-vaccine

Research Article 3

US scientists 'knew Guatemala syphilis tests unethical'

BBC UK 30 August 2011

Last updated at 08:20 GMT

Hundreds of people were infected with syphilis bacteria during the experiments

US government scientists who infected Guatemalans with syphilis and gonorrhoea as part of a study knew they were violating ethical rules, a US presidential panel has said.

The researchers infected hundreds of prisoners, psychiatric patients and sex workers during the 1940s to study the effects of penicillin.

None of the Guatemalans was informed.

But many of the same scientists had sought consent from participants in an earlier study in the US.

Dr Amy Gutmann, head of the Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues, called the research a "shameful piece of medical history".

"It is important that we accurately document this clearly unethical historical injustice. We do this to honour the victims," she said in a statement.

Morally wrong

Guatemala's Vice President Rafael Espada told the BBC that his government would make a formal apology to the Guatemalan people as local doctors had also been involved in the US-funded programme.

"We want to share this tragedy with the whole world," he said.

The Commission said some 5,500 Guatemalans were involved in all the research that took place between 1946 and 1948.

Of these, some 1,300 were deliberately infected with syphilis, gonorrhoea or another sexually transmitted disease, chancroid.

14

And of that group only about 700 received some sort of treatment.

According to documents the commission had studied, at least 83 of the 5,500 subjects had died by the end of 1953.

The commission was unable to say whether any of those deaths were caused directly or indirectly by the deliberate infections.

But Dr Gutmann lambasted those responsible for the research.

"Those involved in the study failed to show a minimal respect for human rights and morality in the conduct of research," she said in her concluding remarks to the panel.

She said many of the actions were "grievously wrong" and those individuals behind the study were "morally culpable to various degrees".

"Civilisations can be judged by the way they treat their most vulnerable... we failed to keep that covenant," she said.

Lessons from history

In the 1940s, sexually transmitted diseases were a major health threat.

Many of the same researchers had carried out studies on prisoners in Terre Haute in the US state of Indiana.

But in that case, the panel said, the researchers fully informed patients of what would be happening and gave them informed consent forms to sign.

In Guatemala, patients were told "little to nothing" and there were no consent forms.

US President Barack Obama set up the commission when the research first came to light last year.

He also apologised to his Guatemalan counterpart, Alvaro Colom, saying the acts ran contrary to American values.

The commission is due to publish its first report next month outlining the historical facts.

Its final report, due to be completed in December, will examine the ethical issues involved and will aim to make sure such incidents never happen again.

Earlier this year, a group of Guatemalans who were involved in the study announced they were suing the US government over the affair.

Link: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-14712089

-END OF ASSIGNMENT-

15

16