Some biology controversial topics?

So I am writing up an essay and was just wondering if someone can help me out.

I need to write an essay on a controversial topic in biology, for example stem cells, in which there is a debate. I dont want to do stem cells, but do you lot have any ideas as to other topics in biology currently, which have a controversial side to them? I would be very grateful if someone could help me out. Thankyou very much, in advance.

Reply 1

Tom H

Cloning?

Reply 2

nikk

GM foods?
"Designer Babies"?
Sex selection?

I forget the name but I remember reading about parents that have achondroplastia and want embryo selection to ensure that their baby also has the condition. I have read about the same for deaf parents. You might want to google one of these if they interest you.

Reply 3

=Keith=

Human Evolution..?

Reply 4

Nefarious

usman_s

Human Evolution..?

The only controversy there is that it contradicts one book of one religion, a book that was never meant to be interpreted literally anyway.

Reply 5

=Keith=

Im not going to argue but that was pretty cold of u to say.

Reply 6

KieranP

Cold? I'd say more dismissive, and justifiably so.

The problem with using Creationism in this topic is that it's primarily a social/political/religious debate, with the main argument of the pro-evolution side being that there *is* no scientific controversy: virtually all biologists accept the ToE. As such, the only way, I think, to write about ID as a controversial issue in science (as opposed to a controversial issue in science education) would be to do so from a pro-ID viewpoint. Which I doubt Matthew wants to do :wink:

Vivisection seems a good one, the issue of animal rights is a lot more thorny than the issue of undifferentiated-clump-of-cells rights, depending much less on our feelings about the subjects and much more on knowledge of their behaviour (and more to the point, intelligence).

Furthermore, it could possibly shift in the opposite direction to the stem cell debate in the distant future as advanced techniques supplant the need for whole animals in both scientific tests in the food industry (you can always reference Asimov here, if that's your thing) leading to a discussion on shifting morality due to practical concerns, which is always interesting.

And there's a lot more variation in non-human test subjects: stem cells just come from increasingly developed embryos, whereas there's a huge gulf between chimpanzees and bacteria and again, the differences are much less abstract.

All in all, I'd say Vivisection is an improvement on stem cells, with no real loss. Plus the opposition are crazy, bark-eating, hippy terrorists rather than Christian/Conservative politicians. Much more fun to talk about :biggrin:

Reply 7

=Keith=

Ok agree with you guys on ur facts but you have no rights to say that this is "from a book which was not meant to be interpreted"
Who are u to say that? god or wat? so how do u know wats right and wrong.
U have no right watsoever to speak "against" something which u dont have any knowledge about. I could speak "against" ur religions, i could say anything.. I would say disgusting things which u wouldnt like.
True the topic i suggested wasnt really meant to be posted for u guys but this again doesnt mean you could "say" anything agaisnt ones religion. I could just bring enough proofs to burn ur ***. But i aint in the mood to waste my energy SO peeps carry on with ur discussion and u 2 mind ya.. tongue.. Nefareossz// or watever

Reply 8

KieranP

No, I would agree with you somewhat on that point. While there is a strong tendency in certain conservative christian circles to equate a "literal" reading of the text to the one which is most fantastical and supportive of their far-right agenda*. It is quite annoying when liberal Christian's claim their interpretation of the Bible (which is neccessarily dependant on contemporary attitudes and scientific developments) is the only way. It may be the most or indeed only sensible reading, all things taken into account, but this is hardly the same thing.

That said Usman, I'd try and avoid writing while angry if I were you. All you really conveyed in that post was that you didn't like what nefarious said. I know you probably didn't want to take the thread off topic, but you come off much worse by ranting without presenting any arguments, than you would if you said "I think a literal interpretation is sensible because X, Y and Z". At least, that's what I think.

*by which I mean, the most "literal" interpretation is not always the most obvoius one.

Back on topic, we been any help Matthew?