BMAT Section 3 Essay Marking 2018 entry

Mapping of the Human Genome has compared with putting a man on the moon

Both the mapping of the human genome and the landing of the first man on the moon have proven to be significant milestones – not only in human achievement but also in opening doors to new possibilities. However, though it can be generally accepted that these milestones were significant, they differ in terms of their ethical debate and their contributions to society. [Opening]

Prior to the mapping of the human genome, conclusions and assumptions could only be made based on the outcomes of surface level observation. For example, a child would be predicted to have cystic fibrosis when born if both her parents had the disease, but the general understanding of the mechanism by which this was determined was lacking. In the same way, much of astronomy was based on theory, and it was difficult to verify conclusions made based on these theories prior to space exploration. [Could somehow tell that you're mentioning the benefits of genetics towards medicine, however, the link isn't really strong here. Could be more specific to how the understanding of genetics would result in the diagnosis of illnesses prior to the birth of the child.]

In the same way that these areas of science have contributed to understanding, they have also been contributed to by the advent of technological advancements – there would be no escaping the atmosphere and similarly, no ‘escaping’ past surface level, and into the deeper workings of our genetics. In this way, both astronomy and genetic biology hold milestones for technological advancement in humans, and thus for many people, come as a source of pride in human achievement. [I like how you link the two together and use one as an analogy for the other. Clever! However, I feel it is quite irrelevant to bring up the contributions by technological advancements towards genetics and astronomy.]

However, there are some discrepancies with the ethical implications of these subjects. Genetic biology raises new questions on ethics, due to the possibility of techniques such as gene editing, genetic screening and cloning, for example. Whilst the verification of genetic biology tends to the good of society and not for malicious purposes is under constant debate, it is generally accepted that space exploration contributes to the increasing knowledge and understanding of humankind. Thus, whilst human genome discussion may be regarded as taboo, many scientists are happy to discuss advancements in space exploration. This reluctance may hinder the advancement of genetics, whilst allowing space exploration to flourish. [You’re not exactly answering the question on how the reliance on genetics may be dangerous. You could bring up the point that reliance on genetics may lead to unforeseeable complications as this field is still relatively immature.]

Although these events are similar, being both milestones of new understandings and markers for technological advancements, there are issues raised when it comes to the futures of their respective fields, where future development and attainment of understanding may be hindered by scientific taboo.

384 Words

One may deduce the statement as suggesting that, unlike a mechanism, the body is adaptive, possessing the capacity to respond to a diverse range of situations. This may be through hormonal changes or conscious thought- the statement deems comparing this to machinery injust. [Clear and concise introduction!]

However, there does exist an innate nature of the body to act as a mechanism. This is evident when considering the interdependence of the various bodily systems, exemplified in the lymphatic and circulatory systems. During tissue fluid diffusion from capillaries to cells, excess fluid- unable to re-enter the capillary- is transported into the blood stream via lymphatic vessels. The mutual necessity of each mirrors that of cogs in a mechanical structure. [Another point that could be raised: Mechanisms are also made up of many singular parts which perform a certain function to aid in the bigger picture. This is clearly evident in how each and every organ in the body performs its own specific function, all working together to help the body to function as a whole.]

In contrast, the body demonstrates qualities such as self-repair, evident in coagulation to form scabs, and regeneration- demonstrated through stem cells. Such properties appear inexplicable through classification as a mechanism, which limits the body to a repetitive and perpetual function. [The body, unlike a mechanism, is also able to react accordingly to different changes, no matter internal or external. This adaptability demonstrated in a human body is something that cannot be emulated by a mechanism which is only designed for a very specific function and nothing else.]

What is clear is that the body may be considered both as a mechanism and not. This predicament may be circumnavigated through ceasing to limit the body to a single term; in its complexity, consideration as an amalgam of organ systems is far more justified. A single term such as mechanism does not address the profound intelligence unique only to humans. [Great conclusion!]

I just realised this is way too short, even though I filled up the answer sheet. How is it for a first attempt? Thanks

I’m assuming that you are writing this essay with reference to this question:

“Mapping the human genome has been compared with putting a man on the moon.” Michael Dexter.
What do you understand by the statement above? Explain why the study of genetics could be helpful in medicine. Discuss the extent to which reliance on genetics may be dangerous?

Therefore, my comments have all been steered towards answering those sub-questions. Although you have tried to touch bases with the sub-questions, the points raised seem quite irrelevant and not answering the question specifically. Maybe it would help if you could post the entire question here so that we know the specific questions that your essay is supposed to answer.

Personally, I feel that your essay, albeit short, has managed to answer all questions with clarity. You also demonstrated your knowledge via the examples provided. Your command of English is also commendable; the many phrases and words you use to vary the sentences make your essay an interesting read! Good attempt! Hoped my comments have helped!

Would anyone mind giving me feedback on my essay? Any thoughts on where I roughly stand in terms of the scoring would be greatly appreciated!
I live in Ireland so have no one who understands the BMAT to ask for help, and assessing myself is fairly difficult...

Science is not a follower of fashion nor of other social or cultural trends
Explain what you think the statement means. Argue to the contrary. To what extent do you agree with the statement?

The statement suggests that the changing nature of science, the exploration and questioning of the physical, material and living world and the evolution of how we undertake this is mutually exclusive of what is popular in mainstream society. It claims that it is independant of the factors which determine what is deemed as relevant or important in other aspects of our lives, but exists as its own entity. [Clear and concise introduction to answer the first sub question. However, I notice that you are lacking a "for" argument. Although it is not a requirement in any of the sub-questions, I still feel that it's good to touch bases with them. Provide simple examples and explanation to why it might be so. A point you can bring up is that science is ultimately the study of everything in the universe. Despite the changes happening in the world, science will be about the pursuit of truth.]

However, we could view the shift in what are viewed as priorities in scientific endeveurs and attitudes towards these as entirely in line with the movement of societal and cultural normals. In, for example, answering ethical questions, these trends exert a huge impact on the moral angles taken on subjects such as genetic engineering or DNA profiling. What was once seen as over-intrusive or overstepping the limits as to how we should intervene is quickly becoming normalised. This is similar to, for example, debates concerning abortion. As our society becomes one where religion is less influential, science allows us to perform procedures such as these. What science itself as an entity itself entails is changing, as we see trends where our society is becoming more informed and linked in with a former solely academic discipline. As trends in for example, increasing use of technology continue to rise, this goes as far as the branching of science into new sub-levels of study. Evidently, science is in fact hugely interconnected with societal and cultural trends. [I really like the arguments brought up here! Multiple uses of examples to bring up various points. It's very good! ]

To me, thought the above seems apparent, as with the actual developing of said trends, before this shift, there will inevitably be a period of revolution, where science does not mirror that what is culturally accepted or popular in the general public. Thus, it, for a certain time, pushes against fashion. By extension, even this however supports the statement, as this uprising too occurs in societal trends. Thus, I am wholly in agreement with the statement. [Your first sentence sounds a bit awkward, might want to break it up instead.Your conclusion sounds confusing though :/]

Thank you so much for any help!

Hiii,

seems like I posted on the wrong thread,

I'll attach my essay would really appreciate it if anyone could read over it and possibly give me feedback?

Thank You,

1 ‘You can resist an invading army; you cannot resist an idea whose time has come.’ (Victor Hugo)
Explain the reasoning behind this statement. Argue that, on the contrary, any idea can be suppressed with sufficient force. What do you think gives power to an idea?

Would really appreciate if someone could give some comments for my essay below This essay is something that's out of my comfort zone and I forced myself to try it out so as to learn as much as possible! So please do pardon my work.

"Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd." (Voltaire)
Explain what this statement means. Argue to the contrary that to be certain about something is not necessarily absurd. To what extent do you agree with Voltaire?

Voltaire is implying that being doubtful and not having enough knowledge about a certain subject is an undesirable state to be in. However, to say that one is completely sure of something would be a ridiculous claim to make as he believes it is not possible to prove something to be absolute.

Being doubtful is an uncomfortable state to be in as you are not sure of yourself and hence are not confident. This hinders progress and might even lead to deterioration. Simple doubts about one's public speaking ability can lead to one not taking the first step to open up, whereas doubts on a certain drug might lead to a potential cure for a deadly disease to be forgotten. Hence, doubts are not desired as Voltaire suggests. Certainty, on the other hand, is a ridiculous idea in Voltaire's world. How can we be so sure that the red we see is actually red when others might perceive it to be orange or green? Although Voltaire's suggestion might seem to be a good argument at first glance, the converse can also be argued.

It is true that doubts are undesired and uncomfortable. However, if taken with the correct attitude and guidance, it can prove to be a strong motivator and catalyst for success. Doubts are what drive the conventional scientist to do what he does - search for the objective truth in pursuit of the understanding of the universe. On the other hand, absolute truth is also not necessarily absurd because if there is enough proof, we will then be able to know for sure. This forms the basis for the scientific method as scientists are able to prove their hypotheses via trial and error and are able to show their results with confidence as enough proof has been gathered. The laws of nature and physics have been observed and proven to be true via such methods and have remained as infallible claims in the test of time.

In conclusion, although Voltaire’s suggestion that doubts can be undesired is true in certain cases, they may sometimes also be valuable if used properly. Also, whether or not absolute truth can be claimed is dependent on the presence of evidence to prove these truths.

Overall, I feel your essay has brought up valid and reasonable points which answer all the sub-questions. However, you lack an argument (even though it's not explicitly stated in any of the sub-questions, it's still advisable to squeeze in a point or two. The BMAT marking criteria mentions the "balanced consideration of the proposition and counter proposition" to warrant a 4 for content) and there are a few spelling mistakes and your sentence structure seems a bit off in your last paragraph. Personally, I would give it a 3.5A! Hopefully my comments helped and I wasn't being too harsh on you :/

Would really appreciate if someone could give some comments for my essay below This essay is something that's out of my comfort zone and I forced myself to try it out so as to learn as much as possible! So please do pardon my work.

"Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd." (Voltaire)
Explain what this statement means. Argue to the contrary that to be certain about something is not necessarily absurd. To what extent do you agree with Voltaire?

Voltaire is implying that being doubtful and not having enough knowledge about a certain subject is an undesirable state to be in. However, to say that one is completely sure of something would be a ridiculous claim to make as he believes it is not possible to prove something to be absolute. Addressed first question concisely.

Being doubtful is an uncomfortable state to be in as you are not sure of yourself and hence are not confident. This hinders progress and might even lead to deterioration. Simple doubts about one's public speaking ability can lead to one not taking the first step to open up, whereas doubts on a certain drug might lead to a potential cure for a deadly disease to be forgotten. Hence, doubts are not desired as Voltaire suggests. Certainty, on the other hand, is a ridiculous idea in Voltaire's world. How can we be so sure that the red we see is actually red when others might perceive it to be orange or green? Although Voltaire's suggestion might seem to be a good argument at first glance, the converse can also be argued. You're expanding on Voltaire's views and why he may be correct to have them, which goes towards answering the last question. But personally I would've changed the structure of the essay so that this goes at the end, as that may make it easier for the examiner to see exactly what part of the question you're answering. Additionally, could have talked about changing theories that are accepted as the absolute truth but are later invalidated.

It is true that doubts are undesired and uncomfortable. However, if taken with the correct attitude and guidance, it can prove to be a strong motivator and catalyst for success. Doubts are what drive the conventional scientist to do what he does - search for the objective truth in pursuit of the understanding of the universe. On the other hand, absolute truth is also not necessarily absurd because if there is enough proof, we will then be able to know for sure. This forms the basis for the scientific method as scientists are able to prove their hypotheses via trial and error and are able to show their results with confidence as enough proof has been gathered. The laws of nature and physics have been observed and proven to be true via such methods and have remained as infallible claims in the test of time. Could also expand and discuss repeatability etc. You argued as to why doubt can be good, but also made sure to address the question as to why certainty isn't necessarily absurd. Could maybe include examples along with the last point, especially theories which have never been disputed (e.g. ideas about life and death)

In conclusion, although Voltaire’s suggestion that doubts can be undesired is true in certain cases, they may sometimes also be valuable if used properly. Also, whether or not absolute truth can be claimed is dependent on the presence of evidence to prove these truths.

Hi all! This is my first bmat essay and I'd really appreciate it if anyone could critique it since it's a bit hard to know where it went wrong. Thanks!!!

2 “That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.” (Christopher Hitchens) Explain what you think Christopher Hitchens means. Argue to the contrary that some assertions do not require evidence. To what extent do you agree with the statement?

This statement suggests that any assertion requires proof to be accepted as a truth in contrast to being substantiated by intuition or faith.

However, this claim loses relevance in areas of knowledge concerned with subjective perception. Different individuals will react differently to art pieces. They may believe that an art piece is meaningful or artistically crafted while another person may disagree. Yet, both individuals assertions may be equally valid since it is impossible to objectively rate an art piece due to observers having different metrics of judgement or perceiving the same art in a diametrically opposed manner. A prime example of this would be contemporary art pieces. Picasso's cubanistic art which appear alien and distorted to some are revered as magnificent pieces by others, as evidenced by their prices at auctions. Thus, in these circumstances such different assertions are equally valid and do not require evidence nor can they be dismissed as they are intrinsically unique to the individual concerned.

On the other hand, especially in the sciences, this statement appears to be largely self-evident as the sciences are concerned with deriving knowledge from observations of the natural environment or through conclusions from statistically significant data sets from controlled environments. Mendel's experiment in which he grew thousands of peas and observed their characteristics became the foundation for modern genetics. Thomas Morgan's famous experiment using fly's enabled him to assert the existence of linked genes. The structure of the cell membrane was continuously refined as new evidence, such as freeze fractured imaging, became available, allowing previous assertions to be dismissed. Even pharmaceutical drugs are only approved after rigourous testing through numerous phases before their assertion on the drugs efficacy and safety are accepted.

Thus, it is important to recognise that the nature of the area of knowledge is important in determining the relevance of this sentence. In arts, where appreciation of pieces is inherently subjective and personal, assertions of the pieces desirability may be made on feelings rather than objective evidence. Sciences may necessitate objective evidence that can be independently verified before assertions are accepted or rejected. Perhaps an equally pertinent question would be what counts as valid evidence since there appears to be a degree of subjectivity in determining validity.

Thank you! So should I put an argument for and against although it only says against? E.g. when I give my own opinion I could balance it first, then state which side I take?

Not at all, much appreciated! I thought it was a lot worse to be honest! Thank you for the help!!