Posts
Last month I asked my students to take a pro or con position on the topic of genetic engineering; one student vociferously announced, “I completely disagree with it. We don’t know how it’s going to affect us in the long run!” The boy next to her replied, “Ally, they use genetic engineering to manipulate bacteria to make human insulin. I’m diabetic; that insulin keeps me alive.” Other students thrust their hands into the air anxious to share their point of view, while others simply blurted out their ideas – our classroom was intellectually alive and I was the moderator.Ok, number one: No actual teenaged person ever spoke the words "They use genetic engineering to manipulate bacteria to make human insulin."
When asked why they were so engaged in the lesson one student replied, “It affects our future. We want to help build it.”
The other students clapped in agreement.
What is a good teacher worth?
No adult ever spoke the words "They use genetic engineering to manipulate bacteria to make human insulin." Not unless the adult was giving a lecture from notes.
"They use genetic engineering to manipulate bacteria to make human insulin" is not the way people talk.
Number two: No teenaged person ever said "It affects our future. We want to help build it," either.
Number three: Structurally speaking, the student who has diabetes is given the last word, which means s/he wins the point. I object. If this isn't a class where 'critical thinking' means 'adopt politically liberal positions re: science policy,' then both the discussion and the paragraph need to be handled differently. I.e.: some contrarian points of view need to be raised by the teacher.
Or maybe students could, you know, read something about the precautionary principle before they get so fired up they're thrusting their hands into the air and blurting out their ideas.
Which brings me to Number four: How is a bull session on genetic engineering a "lesson"?
(And, just out of curiosity, how does a bull session on genetic engineering, absent any engagement with the literature on the subject, help build the future?)
update 4:28pm: High school students preparing for a debate.
14 comments:
Whatever happened to debate teams?
I mean, I know debate teams still exist, but whatever happened to the idea that preparation for a debate involves hours and hours of assembling & mastering the FACTS and KNOWLEDGE you will use to support your position?
I just added a photo of high school students preparing for a debate to the post.
I have to say: encouraging students to passionately debate the pros and cons of genetic engineering without (apparently) researching the subject first strikes me as the exact opposite of 'building the future.'
What is the "politically liberal position" on genetic engineering? I think of that topic as either apolitical (e.g., bacterial insulin) or cross-cutting the right/left dichotomy (e.g., agricultural GMOs).
I'm glad you asked, I was wondering what that position was myself!
Living in Santa Cruz (which is about as politically liberal as the US gets), I think I get exposed to the politically liberal position on GMOs. Generally the "precautionary principle" is the default liberal response to any form of technology, and the liberals locally are staunchly opposed to genetic modification. (They are also opposed to SmartMeters, to water desalination, to cell phone towers,to nuclear power, and pretty much anything else invented after 1940.)
As I mentioned on the other thread, where is the "foundational knowledge" for this discussion? And she wants to talk about critical thinking?
At the private K-8 school my son was in for a few years, the headmaster wanted kids to have these sorts of discussions of current topics. I told him that they wouldn't know what they were talking about.
I don't like discussions that skip over fundamental flaws in the argument. In true educational fashion, definitions of things like understanting and critical thinking are not defined. Their arguments are filled with strawmen that never go away. The discussions move towards complex ideas of how the brain works rather than focus on simple definitions and competence. How does one define critical thinking? How do you test for it? Apparently, having an opinion meets the test.
BTW, why are liberals opposed to water desalination?
What is the "politically liberal position" on genetic engineering? I think of that topic as either apolitical (e.g., bacterial insulin) or cross-cutting the right/left dichotomy (e.g., agricultural GMOs).
Nothing is immune from partisan politics as far as I can tell.
I would bet a large sum of money, based on the word choice, structure, and content of this essay, that the teacher is:
a) politically liberal
b) in agreement with the diabetic student
This passage in the 'debate' is a version of the stem cell debate.
The point I was trying to make - ***way*** too subtly - is that the first student's position is frequently taken by people with liberal politics (I think especially so in Europe, where the precautionary principle has some kind of legal status I ***think.***)
If they're going to have a 'debate,' they should research the topic first.
"If they're going to have a 'debate,' they should research the topic first."
Right. This is a science class, and yet there's no evidence that the kids have done any outside reading--the reported responses are all coming from the gut or from personal experience.
Honestly, there's a point with genetic engineering where everybody is going to say--wait a second, let's not do this. Where that is is going to differ from individual to individual. Some people are worried about genetically modified food (even genetically modified rice that could prevent blindness). Others are worried about genetically modified people (for instance, part human/part non-human chimeras created for performing research on). If there were a clinic specializing in genetically mass-producing girls for gymnastics competitions who would never top 5' tall or 90 pounds, a lot of people would be very concerned about that.
999 people out of 1000 will have concerns about some genetic modifications.
999 people out of 1000 will have concerns about some genetic modifications.
Definitely true.
Also, you might find the particular lines people draw being influenced by political orientation.
This is a very complex issue that you need to know a great deal about before you even get to policy and politics.
And when you get to politics and opinion, you've more or less entered the realm of values which really aren't the same thing as knowledge.
Eduwonk made that point for years re: education.
You can have all the data and research in the world; ultimately you're going to have to make a values call.
That's why I always say that my preference for "Core Knowledge" type education is a value. It's what I value, it's what I want.
I **do** think there is evidence from cognitive science that if your goal is 'critical thinking,' then teaching knowledge to students is the way to attain the goal. BUT that doesn't change the fact that some people want the kind of classroom this teacher describes. I don't begrudge them that!
I just don't want my own kids to have to have it.
oops - just read gasstation's comment -- my ***impression*** (just an impression) is that liberals are more likely to embrace the precautionary principle than conservatives.
On the other hand, I don't really know where conservatives are on this issue as a group.
Business conservatives (op ed page of WSJ, for instance) are going to be staunchly opposed to precautionary principle, I believe.
But social conservatives may be different.
SteveH wondered why the liberals here are opposed to desalination. Well, they aren't all opposed—the positions among liberals are more varied than among conservatives (not that I'm claiming conservatives are monolithic).
The anti-desalination position seems to have three major points:
1) desalination is energy intensive, with all the environmental problems that high energy use has.
2) water restriction is the primary restriction on urban sprawl locally, so a desalination plant would be sprawl-inducing.
3) water is still being wasted, and water conservation ought to be enough.
There are some other minor points that have simple solutions (like disposal of the brine, which can be mixed with the output of the sewage treatment plant to make both less polluting when dumped a couple miles out at sea, as the sewage plant effluent currently is).
The other points come down to whether more fresh water is a good thing or not, and whether there are other, less damaging ways to get it.
The big problem locally is with depletion of a major aquifer and saltwater intrusion, due to decades of overpumping by agribusiness. Those strawberries you eat are obtained by destruction of the local aquafers.
For those on the East Coast or in the Midewest, you may not be aware that water is key to a lot of politics in the West, because it is the limiting factor in almost all development, whether urban, suburban, industrial, or rural.
the liberals locally are staunchly opposed to genetic modification. (They are also opposed to SmartMeters, to water desalination, to cell phone towers,to nuclear power, and pretty much anything else invented after 1940.)
Yes, and in a tip of the hat to Orwell, this is to be referred to henceforth as "progressive." And if you disagree, you are, naturally, "anti-progressive."
My progressive neighbors will insist on a restaurant where all the food is organically grown (because "chemicals are bad"), by local artisans (Mexican child laborers), on small, collective farms (ah, the Middle Ages, those were the days...).
They tell me about the juice fast and ancient taichi exercises their "progressive doctor" is using to treat their pancreatic tumor. ("Not like those corporate doctors with their radiation and chemicals....") They tell me about their kid's progressive school where, instead of regurgitating so-called facts about, say, modern science, they spend the time working in the school's organic garden.
And they routinely excoriate conservatives for "standing in the way of progress," "being on the wrong side of history," "wanting to turn back the clock," and for being "anti-science."
Conservatives generally are more accepting of GMOs, with some exceptions. In a conservative discussion, you are more likely to see a discussion of pros and cons, bringing up things like golden rice. And generally conservatives see the precautionary principle as a bad idea, since you can't ever predict all long term impacts.
See for example:
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/276395/moral-high-ground-jim-lacey
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/191405/precaution/john-j-miller
Some of this is because conservatives perceive (rightly or wrongly) the precautionary principle as a cudgel that liberals pull out when they oppose something. For example, I don't hear anyone talking about banning birth control pills to reduce the amount of estrogen in the environment. I'm not in favor, but it would be very consistent with the precautionary principle.
The point I was trying to make - ***way*** too subtly
OK, this is STILL not remotely clear (what is my problem?)
(btw, I haven't read the more recent comments yet, so if I'm repeating something someone else said, I apologize)
What I was **thinking** while I was writing was that the tone & feel of the essay mark the author's politics as liberal --- and yet the class debate is so ill-informed that the teacher does not appear to be aware of how the politics of such debates actually fall out.
Certainly in Europe, and I **suspect** here in the US (though I don't know), liberals tend to embrace the precautionary principle, and the precautionary principle is not friendly to genetic engineering (imo).
Post a Comment