query: Genetically modified food is no different from any other scientific advance, thus should be legal to use.  Genetic modification is entirely natural. The process of crop cultivation by selective breeding, which has been performed by farmers for thousands of years, leads to exactly the same kind of changes in DNA as modern modification techniques do. Current techniques are just faster and more selective. In fact, given two strands of DNA, created from the same original strand, one by selective breeding and one by modern modification techniques it is impossible to tell which is which. The changes caused by selective breeding have been just as radical as current modifications. Wheat, for example, was cultivated, through selective breeding, from an almost no-yield rice-type crop into the super-crop it is today. [1]  [1] Trewas A. and Leaver C., How Nature itself uses genetic modification,Published January 6 2000, Nature,  , accessed 09/05/2011

positive: science general house would ban development genetically modified organisms Genetic modification is unnatural. There is a fundamental difference between modification via selective breeding and genetic engineering techniques. The former occurs over thousands of years and so the genes are changed much more gradually. Genetic modification will supposedly deliver much but we have not had the time to assess the long-term consequences. [1] A recent study by the Soil Association actually proves that many of the promises companies gave were false. GM crops did not increase yield. Another example is a frost-resistant cotton plant that ended up not ripening. [2] GMOs do not reliably produce the benefits desired because we do not know the long term effects of utilizing them. Given the risks, we should seek to ban them.  [1] Pusztai A., Genetically modified foods: Are they a risk to Human/Animal Health ?, published June 2001,  , accessed 09/02/2011  [2] University of Alberta, Genetic Ethics Lecture, published Fall 2008,  , accessed 09/02/2011

negative: science general house would ban development genetically modified organisms This debate should be decided on the basis of hard facts, not woolly assertions and environmental sentiment. Until scientific tests show there to be some real risk of harm from farming and eating GM food there is no case for a ban or a moratorium.  Not only is genetically modification well understood but extensive testing is applied to every new GM foodstuff before it is placed on the market.  The European Food Safety Authority explains that tests of GMOs include a comparative assessment between the GMO and its non-GMO counterpart and there is a case by case evaluation of every single GMO entering the market – however, because products are so different there is no “by the book” procedure for testing. [1]  Researcher Nina Fedoroff from the Penn State University explains: “Genetically modified foods are as safe to eat as foods made from plants modified by more traditional methods of plant breeding. In fact, they are very probably safer, simply because they undergo testing that has never been required for food plants modified either by traditional breeding techniques or by mutagenesis, both of which can alter a plant's chemical composition.” [2]  [1] European Food Safety Agency, FAQ on genetically modified organisms,  , accessed 09/05/2011  [2] Pacchioli D., Are genetically modified foods safe to eat ?,  , accessed 08/28/2011

negative: science general house would ban development genetically modified organisms GM food will do nothing to help solve the problems in developing countries. The problem there is not one of food production but of an inability to distribute the food (due to wars, for example), the growing and selling of cash crops rather than staple crops to pay off the national debt and desertification leading to completely infertile land. Bob Watson, the chief scientist at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), has stated that GM technology is oversold. The problem is not that there is not enough food, but that the food that is available is not being distributed. “Today the amount of food available per capita has never been higher, how costs are still low, and yet still around 900m people go to bed hungry every night” [1] . Instead of money being invested into genetic modification, what should be looked at is which areas allow food to go to waste and which areas need food, and then a redistribution needs to occur. Better transport and roads is where money should be invested. Not with potentially hazardous GM crops.  In addition, the terminator gene prevents the farmer from re-growing the same crop year after year and instead must buy it annually from the producer. Abolishing the terminator gene leads to the other problem of cross-pollination and companies demanding reparations for the “re-use” of their crops.  [1] Sample I, Nearly a billion people go hungry every day – can GM crops help feed them?, published 01/23/2009  , accessed 09/05/2011

negative: science general house would ban development genetically modified organisms The immoral behavior of some people towards this technology is not a reason to ban it unless it can be shown that more harm than good is caused. This research is important to deal with global climate change which is reducing the landmass of the earth that can grow food, whilst the global population is rising.  Regulation may be better than outright banning, as we do with many aspects of business. For example gene patenting and the discovery of new genes is an area very similar to genetically modified foods. In the US gene patenting is allowed and when the company Myriad Genetics found the gene BRCA1 and BRCA2 (connected with breast cancer) and made too many restrictions on the use of it (so it hurt people in general), the court stepped in and allowed others to use it, gave them more rights over the “patented product”. [1] With this we see, that there can always be regulation of products if a company attempts to profit out of the misery of others. The same can be done with GMOs. If the company is demanding too high prices, preventing farmers from doing their work, the courts and legal system can always step in. Just because one company acts unethically, this does not mean that all must. There is a market for ethical consumerism, so the actions of a few corporations are not a reason to ban GMOs entirely.  [1] Nature.com, Testing time for gene patents, published 04/15/2010,  , accessed 09/02/2011

negative: Evolution is not just a matter of chance. Mutations can add, change or remove genetic information. Natural selection acts as a feedback mechanism to filter those mutations to pass on useful changes in organisms to adapt them to their environment.  Beneficial mutations have been observed. For example, gene duplication is a common mechanism for introducing new information. When a long stretch of DNA is copied, then mutations often occur in one or both of the copies. This is the likely origin of some proteins. [1]  The argument from irreducible complexity is an argument from ignorance: if we cannot currently explain how a complex system arose naturally, it must have been God who created it. But the development of supposedly ‘irreducibly complex’ systems can be explained: different parts in biological systems often have multiple and changing useful functions, and apparently irreducibly complex systems arise when these interlock in new ways. [2]  [1] ‘Mutations Adding Information’, Talk.Origins,  Accessed 3/6/2011  [2] Pete Dunkelberg, ‘Irreducible Complexity Demystified’,  Accessed 3/6/2011

negative: Side proposition are not suggesting that natural selection would not still occur, but that seriously debilitating genetic diseases would no longer lead to the death of many infants, or the poor quality of life. In 1973, we did not have the technology to prevent malaria which we have now. With the technology we have today we can manage and treat many more illnesses than previously thought possible.

negative: Food labeling introduces unfair prejudice against certain products  Requiring companies to label their products a certain way might unfairly influence the sales of this product. Let us observe this point on the example of GMOs in food.  For instance, a study investigated the influence of labeling a cornflakes product with different variations on the theme of containing GMOs. The packaging might say that the product contained "USDA approved genetically modified corn" or "may contain genetically modified corn", basically stating the same thing. Yet the first product was evaluated much more favorably than the second, with a 6% price perception difference. [1]  Considering that GMOs are considered safe by the health authorities, [2] it would be unfair to prejudice against these products by specifically targeting them, when they pose no risk to health.  [1] Onyango, B. M., et al., U.S. Consumers' Willingness to Pay for Food Labeled 'Genetically Modified', published in October 2006,  , accessed 9/15/2011  [2] WHO, 20 questions on genetically modified foods, published 12/10/2010,  , accessed 9/15/2011

negative: aw society family house would allow patenting genes Immoral to own a human life  Patenting genes and DNA fragments is immoral because of their significance for human life and welfare. It is immoral to own building blocks of the human life. Commercialization of human genes degrades value of human life. Once we give people the possibility to put an ownership tag on genes (basics of life), there is people who value human life merely based on monetary value. Bidding for the best gene, highest price and making the basics of life the same as buying a car. Andy Miah in his essay on Ethical Issues in Genetics argues: "Evidence of such disaffection has appeared most recently from the emergence of Ron's Angels, a company set up for the auctioning of female eggs and male sperm to infertile couples seeking 'exceptional' children. Whilst numerous companies of this kind now exist, Ron's Angels is interesting not simply for having arranged a standard and reasonable price for such genes; far from it. Rather, as indicated above, eggs and sperm are awarded to the highest bidder."1 Thus making the perception of human life what people believe is "fair to pay" and creating a race to figure out the cheapest ways of buying parts of the human body. 1 10) Miah, A., Patenting Human DNA. In Almond, B. & Parker, M. (2003) Ethical Issues in the New Genetics: Are Genes Us?

negative: The genetic test does not prevent or cure anything. It merely asserts whether someone is a carrier of a genetic disorder. The testing would be paid for by couples to see if they are both carriers of this disorder. The decision then a couple can make based on the screenings is then to:  a) not have children together  The idea of these tests preventing people from marrying is mental. In our liberal society surely it is love that counts in a relationship, not how well your genes fit together to make the perfect child.  b) choose in vitro fertilization  In order to make them prevent the disease, so that the defected genes (in some cases) can be manipulated.  c) abort the present fetus  We pressurize and take away choices of the parents, by giving them the knowledge, regarding their children.  A professor of Law at Harvard University, Paul Freund also takes up the position that an unborn child has the right to random genes. Freund states, 'The mystery of individual’s personality, resting on the chance combination of ancestral traits, is the basis of our sense of mutual compassion and at the same time, of accountability."  Professor Freund suggests that the ethical approach to advances in genetic technology allows the random assortment of genes to take effect, thereby protecting the sanctity of the human individual (1).  Further on with the advances in medicine genetic conditions and disorders no longer present such a burden on the children and enable them to live a good lifestyle and have high survival rates.  1. Renee C. Esfandiary, The Changing World of Genetics and Abortion: Why the Women's Movement Should Advocate for Limitations on the Right to Choose in the Area of Genetic Technology William and Mary Journal of Women and the Law, published 1998,  , accessed 05/23/2011

negative: In 2006 already Baroness Ruth Deech, the former chairwoman of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority in the UK explained, that it is far more ethical to choose an embryo before implantation, than getting pregnant, deciding there’s something wrong with the baby and then aborting it.  Mainly it is the duty to impose the right restrictions that would enable a distinction on what is necessary for a normal lifestyle and where to draw the line for genetic predispositions (so for example to not abort or not implant babies with genes for obesity).  Also it is in the human nature to abort fetuses from the uterus if they are not healthy, it is a help to the natural process. Because during every cycle of a sexually active female fertilized eggs if not found to be healthy enough to survive get aborted naturally (1).  1. Head to head: Genetic screening, 05/10/2006,  , accessed 05/23/2011

negative: Genetic destabilisation  Natural selection is the process whereby people mate, have children and those children enrich the gene pool – if they survive. Occasionally genetic mistakes are made in that reproduction. As long as the result is not fatal, that mistake can begin to infiltrate the gene pool. More people may come to have this mistake in built into their genome. Whilst we may see it as a mistake in our current living conditions, that mutant gene may be a defense to future conditions.  For instance, the spread of sickle cell anemia in Africa. This disease causes red blood cells to carry less oxygen due to the squashed nature of all the red blood cells. This condition causes people to die younger, in 1973 life expectancy for a sufferer was 17, and it is now 50 and above. However, sickle cell anemia is a natural immunity against malaria. The life expectancy for someone with malaria is far lower.[[Sickle cell disease, QualityHealth, 13th January 2011,  accessed 25/05/11]]  We need different genes in the human gene pool even if we do not see the benefit of them now.

negative: Cloning is unsafe  The technology is unsafe. The nuclear transfer technique that produced Dolly required 277 embryos, from which only one healthy and viable sheep was produced. [1] The other foetuses were hideously deformed and either died or were aborted. Even today, cloning animals through somatic cell nuclear transfer is simply inefficient. The success rate ranges from 0.1 percent to 3 percent, which means that for every 1000 tries, only one to 30 clones are made. Or you can look at it as 970 to 999 failures in 1000 tries. [2]  Moreover, Ian Wilmut and other commentators have noted that we cannot know whether clones will suffer from premature ageing as a result of their elderly genes. Dolly the sheep herself suffered from premature arthritis. [3] There are also fears that the reprogramming of the nucleus of a somatic cell in order to trigger the cell division that leads to the cloning of an individual may result in a significantly increased risk of cancer.  [1] Barnes, Deborah, ‘Research in the News: Creating a Cloned Sheep Named Dolly’, National Institutes of Health Office Science Education,   [2] University of Utah, Learn Genetics: Cloning,  , accessed 08/20/2011  [3] Kilner J., Human Cloning: What's at Stake, published 08/10/2004,  , accessed 08/20/2011

negative: Health experts agree that banning trans fats would save thousands of lives specifically because the substance is dangerous even when consumed in very low quantities. They are simply a dangerous additive, which adds no extra value to food. 'Taste' considerations are simply a red herring, as switching to other fats would produce no meaningful change in taste, as has been demonstrated by several large food corporations who have made the shift without disappointing their customer base. The fact that other foodstuffs may be dangerous is an argument for better education or regulation regarding them, or -if merited -their own bans, but is not a case against banning trans fats. Trans-fats are significantly different to all the other unhealthy foods listed by side opposition, as trans fats are easily replaceable by less unhealthy substitutes, which things like sugar are not.

negative: Cloning will lead to eugenics, or the artificial manipulation and control of the characteristics of people. An American geneticist, Dr. Dan Brock, has already identified a trend towards ‘new and benign eugenics’ that is perpetrated by developments in biotechnology. This can particularly be seen on a small scale with ‘designer babies’. [1] When people are able to clone themselves they will be able to choose which type of person shall be born. This seems uncomfortably close to the Nazi concept of breeding a race of Aryan superhumans, whilst eliminating those individuals whose characteristics they considered unhealthy. The ‘Boys from Brazil’ scenario of clones of Hitler, the baby farms of ‘Brave New World’, or even the cloning or armies of identical and disposable soldiers, might soon be a very real prospect.  [1] BBC News, Designer baby row over US clinic, published 03/02/2009,  , accessed 08/22/2011

negative: Parents have a right to acquire and act upon medical information  This argument comes from the idea, that a body is the property of its owner, as well as a fertilized egg is the property of the couple that created it whom also have parental rights  a) Self-determination  Some proponents of genetic screening might go as far to create the distinction between an embryo and a child: considering an embryo not to be a living being, but rather just a mass of cells, makes it possible to avoid entirely considering the "screening" process as a selection process between living human beings. Rather, it could be interpreted merely as a selection between different organizations of cells that have differing potential to become healthy "life".  b) Parental rights  Currently we allow couples to choose not to have children due to their own genetic deformations. We allow them to tie their tubes, get sterilized due to their own decision not to have children with genetic defects or children at all.  Experts suggest, that due to the sanctity of parental rights, the principle decision making should be in the hands of the parents, also regarding the power over the future of their DNA. With this, the society respects the principal decision making right of the individual to control their family and the destiny of their offspring (1).  Mainly making it a next step in deciding what their course of action regarding children will be.  1 Renee C. Esfandiary, The Changing World of Genetics and Abortion: Why the Women's Movement Should Advocate for Limitations on the Right to Choose in the Area of Genetic Technology William and Mary Journal of Women and the Law, published 1998,  , accessed 05/23/2011

negative: Stunning is only unreliable when done badly. All of the objections listed represent cases where best practice was not being followed. It is important to implement stunning properly, but there are plenty of stunning methods which, when carried out properly and carefully, have been shown to be fully effective.  Religious slaughterhouses are not immune to failures either, with the most common reported problem being an insufficiently sharp knife. The same report cited by opposition condemns the religious slaughter of animals and says “when shechita is performed on chickens in Britain, only about half the birds have both their carotid arteries completely severed by the cut” allowing brain activity to continue for up to 349 seconds. [1] Requiring stunning will improve the base line of welfare we are working towards, and we can then start to worry about ensuring compliance  [1] Stevenson, Peter, ‘Animal Welfare Problems in UK Slaughterhouses’, Compassion in World Farming Trust, July 2001,  , p.19, 21

negative: Sex-specific, generic diseases are only avoided a majority of the time, the process is not near 100% accurate and therefore the medical benefits cannot be used without considering of the medical costs. Pre-implantation genetic diagnosis involves the development of embryos outside the womb, which are then tested for gender. One or two of the desired gender are then implanted in the womb. Those that are not of the desired gender, or are surplus to requirements are destroyed (typically, over a dozen embryos are used to select a single one to be implanted). A human life has been created with the express purpose of being destroyed. This is another form of abortion – only the conception is deliberate. Ultimately, it will be these technologies and not MicroSort that is used, since whilst the latter has a 93% accuracy rate if a girl is desired (itself a lower result than genetic diagnosis), its accuracy falls to 82% for boys, and the vast majority of selections will inevitably be for males 1 . Thus, given that they are so keen to have a child of a particular gender and so unwilling to risk having one of the other gender, parents will not risk using MicroSort. Even if they do choose it, whilst there have not been overt problems thus far, scientific experts like Lord Winston express the fear that the process damages sperm, making genetic mutation much more likely. Both techniques are therefore to be condemned.  1. Genetics and IVF Institute. (2008, January 1). Microsort. Retrieved May 20, 2011, from Genetics and IVF Institute:

negative: Both tidal and geo-thermal are untried technologies and have significant environmental implications in their own right.  It also seems highly unlikely that deploying nuclear as a ‘bridge’ technology would be anything like that, certainly the history of energy production does not suggest that industries are likely to plan for their own extinction in favour of more environmentally sensitive technologies.  This is especially true of nuclear power; it simply is not a short-term technology as the reprocessing and containment schedules are enormous. A decision to use nuclear even for a matter of decades would have implications that would run for longer than the history of human civilization to date.  Wind, by contrast, is a developed technology that has no implications for future generations.

negative: Cloning should be allowed for those who can’t otherwise have a child  The desire to have one’s own child and to nurture it is wholly natural. The longing for a child genetically related to oneself existed long before biotechnology, but it is only recently that medicine has been able to satisfy it. In vitro fertilisation remains an imperfect technology. Couples typically submit to four cycles of costly treatment before producing a child as the chances of having a child can be as low as 10%. [1] Evidently, the technique does not assist homosexual couples, couples where both partners lack gametes, or where the female partner suffers from a mitochondrial disease. Cloning would allow a child to be born to all these couples.  [1] Wildsen S., Human Cloning – role of the scientist, West Virginia University,  , accessed 08/20/2011

negative: This is clearly not the same as buying a gene as the timescales are quite different. These are not words sold off in perpetuity, neither were they previously in use by someone else as was the case with land grabs by colonizing settlers. This is a description of an event that would not have taken place without the sponsorship for the duration of that event. Both of the other examples are of the permanent acquisition of something that was previously communal property.

negative: There are two things we need to respond with in this case. One regarding the current state of labels and the other the strategy of fighting obesity.  It is a fact that the current label designs leave something to be desired. If currently only a certain (but not at all negligible) percentage go ahead and actually read the labels that does not mean that labels are inherently ineffective. It might just as well, if not more likely, mean that the current design of labels is simply not attractive and useful enough for people to pay attention to. Therefore efforts are being made to revamp the food label to improve its effectiveness. [1]  As to the second, food labels are but a weapon in our arsenal against fighting obesity. It might be that on their own they will not defeat the epidemic, but they certainly play a key part of the overall strategy. [2]  [1] Associated Press, New food nutrition labels from FDA coming, published 9/3/2011,  , accessed 9/17/2011  [2] Benassi, M., The launch of a dynamic process, published in May 2006,  , accessed 9/17/2011

negative: aw society family house would allow patenting genes Patenting inhibits research and therapeutics  The prevailing belief is that this is an area of such great importance and potential benefit to mankind, as such there should be no, self-interested impediment to genome research. The only barriers should be those of conscience.  The Human Genome Project is one of the government funded projects that makes all its research freely and publicly available. They are not driven by profit and offer information on their discoveries for free enabling others to build upon their findings.  The problem with patents is that companies claim ownership without regard towards moral issues. It is purely in the pursuit of their profits that they decide not to allow others to build on their findings and make the process of discovering treatments far more difficult. An example of this is the Myriad company which, whilst holding patents on BRCA 1 & 2, genes connected with breast cancer, prevented the University of Pennsylvania from using a test for these genes which was substantially cheaper than the company’s own screening procedure. 1  Instead of protecting their research investment, companies should have a moral duty to facilitate in any way they can to the development of cheap, available treatments and screenings for diseases which are so dangerous to so many people.  1. Spektor, Michelle, "Genes Are Still Patentable, Federal Appeals Court Rules", Science Progress, 17 August 2011,

negative: primary secondary teaching religion god science evolution house would teach Creationism is as valid a scientific theory as those of evolution and abiogenesis, and should therefore be given equal time in the classroom.  Creationism can be drawn as an entirely reasonable scientific hypothesis, and it forms a coherent theory of the origin and development of life that opposes the naturalist theories of abiogenesis and evolution. Abiogenesis describes the development of life from nonliving materials and evolution seeks to explain the development and diversity of life through a gradual process of mutation and natural selection, yet no one has ever demonstrated either process sufficiently in the laboratory. In the case of abiogenesis, all experiments to create an environment similar to the supposed prebiotic soup whence life first sprang have resulted in no new life forming. In the case of evolution, evolutionists consistently fail to show the development of new kinds of organisms [1] . While there is no doubt that some change occurs within species, such as the breeding of wolves into dogs, it appears to happen only within certain limited bounds. Certainly no experiment or study has shown evolution to be capable of explaining such huge diversity in the world of living things. Creationism, on the other hand, offers the explanation that abiogenesis and evolution cannot. The diversity of life and its origin are rationally explicable as the product of intelligent agency. This is not a statement of religious belief, but of scientific observation. Describing the nature of the designer, however, is another question all together, one that need not be answered in order to accept that there is such a designer.  [1] Wells, Jonathan. 2009. “Why Darwinism is False”. Discovery Institute.

negative: Sex-specific, generic diseases can be avoided  Some parents are carriers of known sex-specific diseases. It is obviously in the child's interests that they don't have such a condition. Determining its gender can ensure that. Many families have predispositions towards certain common conditions that are more likely in one gender in another, and these can be avoided too. Nearly all neurodevelopmental diseases are either more common in one gender or more severe among one gender. Arthritis, heart disease and even lung cancer also seem to be influenced by a person's gender. Males disproportionately suffer from X chromosome problems because their body has no copy to fall back on 1 These range in nature from baldness and colour blindness to muscular dystrophy and haemophilia. Women are disproportionately affected by diseases of the immune system 2. Genetic modification is not the only technology available. The MicroSort technique uses a 'sperm-sifting' machine to detect the minute difference between y and double x chromosome-carrying sperm: no genetic harm results from its use. Over 1200 babies have been born using the technology 3.  1. Macnair, D. T. (2010, August). Fragile X Syndrome. Retrieved May 20, 2011, from BBC Health:  2. Doe, J. (2000, December 18). Immune System Disorders. Retrieved May 20, 2011, from Time:  3. Genetics and IVF Institute. (2008, January 1). Microsort. Retrieved May 20, 2011, from Genetics and IVF Institute:

negative: There is a difference between the general public and the government. It is the government that bought the rights to the work not the people even if the people are the ones that originally provided the money to develop the work by paying their taxes. It can be considered to be analogous to a business. Consumers pay for the products they buy and the profits from this enable the business to make the next generation of products. But that the consumers provided the profit that enabled that development does not enable the consumers to either get an upgrade or for the product to be released with a creative commons license

negative: It is true that it is difficult to decide where to draw the line between legitimate and illegitimate performance enhancement. However we should continue to draw a line nonetheless. This line should be drawn at protecting athletes from harmful drugs and preserving the spirit of fair play and unaided competition between human beings in their peak of natural fitness.  The special diet and sport training equipment, which may seem very hard and exeptional, have been designed based on serious scientific research proved and tested to fit with long-term training of athletes. Hard practice to achieve the best performance with help of these professional methods is completely a different from taking steroids and growth hormones for immediate result.

negative: Most genetic screening tests can also be performed at home, with results sent only to the user and so kept secretly – away from insurance companies and health institutions. It is then the domain of the individual itself if he or she wants to disclose this information. Discrimination based on the genetic pool currently seems to be rare but since thousands of Americans are accustomed to a health insurance system in which known risks carry financial penalties, they do not disclose this information (1).  Regarding genetic screening in the UK, there is a voluntary ban among members of the Association of British Insurers from being able to access the results of genetic tests (apart from Huntington’s disease). This ban will be again reviewed in the year 2014 (2).  1. Amy Harmon, Insurance Fears Lead Many to Shun DNA Tests, 02/24/2008,  , accessed 22/05/2011  2. Impact,  , accessed 22/05/2011

negative: When done properly, religious slaughter is as good as any other  Much of the research which suggests that religious slaughter causes pain is flawed. To show that the method is necessarily painful, you would have to watch a trained person with perfect equipment. However, many studies into slaughter have observed religious slaughter done in a way which doesn’t meet the religious requirements, and so doesn’t tell us anything about the real world. For example, one study of shechita done in New Zealand used a knife which was half the length required by Jewish law, making it more likely to tear the wound and cause pain. [1] These are not trivial details – they materially affect the humaneness of the process.  As well as this, campaigners often conflate different types of slaughter in ways that are not scientifically accurate. Different animals – horses, cattle, sheep, poultry, rabbits etc. – and even different breeds of animals react differently to both the slaughter and the stunning. Before we can assess the applicability of a study we need to know what kind of animal was being used, the length and sharpness of the knife, the precise location of the cut and other details.  The available evidence only shows the unsurprising result that religious slaughter causes pain if done badly, just like any other kind of slaughter. It is sensible to argue for better regulation, but a ban is not supportable.  [1] Regenstein, Joe M., ‘Expert Opinion on Considerations When Evaluating All Types of Slaughter:  Mechanical, Electrical, Gas and Religious Slaughter’, Cornell University, 23 May 2011,

negative: Encouraging the further adoption of nuclear power is against our security interests. The scientific understanding and technology needed to generate nuclear power is the same as that needed to create nuclear weapons, and it is all too easy for rogue states to pretend they are only interested in peaceful uses while secretly pursuing military applications. This is the route India and Israel have followed, and that Iran may well be following at present. The process of enriching uranium to make it into fuel for nuclear power stations can be a step towards further enriching it to make nuclear weapons. Used fuel from nuclear power stations can be separated out to recover any usable elements such as uranium and plutonium through a method called reprocessing. Plutonium is a by-product of the nuclear fuel cycle and can also be used to make nuclear weapons1.  Even if the intentions of foreign governments are good, widespread nuclear power plants are at risk of terrorism, in both the developed and developing world. If a 9/11-style bomb was flown into a nuclear power plant, the potential disaster would be catastrophic. And the more nuclear material is transported around the world, the easier it will be for terrorists to get hold of some in order to make their own nuclear weapons. An atomic bomb might one day be within the reach of some international terrorist groups, but even today a simple "dirty bomb" (in which highly-radioactive materials is blasted over an urban area using conventional explosives) could be deadly to many thousands of people. Encouraging the spread of nuclear technology enables the spread of nuclear weapons.  1 'Reactor-grade and Weapons-grade plutonium in nuclear explosives', US Department of Energy Publication, January 1997,

negative: Genetic screening may lead to the pooling and centralised storage of genetic information  Most diseases people will not have heard of. Such tests can be used also to store DNA in a database. The hotly debated idea of a DNA database has received much criticism. By framing the question of the ethics of a DNA database in this light is much more positively received by the public, and this is a way governments and insurance companies will change the public perception of a DNA database.  Health insurance companies in America and life insurance companies in Britain will be very keen in the use of this data in order to give higher premiums to those who show positive for certain diseases.  Such genetic screening then may lead to companies demanding information about clients before ensuring them.  This fear of insurance in the US being denied due to genetic predispositions is not groundless. A study conducted by Georgetown University Health Policy Institute in 2008 proves a similar point. In 7 of 92 underwriting decisions, insurance providers (hypothetical cases) decided, they would deny coverage, charge more or exclude certain conditions from coverage based on genetic test results (1).  1. Amy Harmon, Insurance Fears Lead Many to Shun DNA Tests, 02/24/2008,  , accessed 22/05/2011

negative: DNA testing is fallible, and therefore should not be used as the basis of convictions  Although DNA detection might have advantages over fingerprint dusting, the test is nevertheless fallible. Environmental factors at the crime scene such as heat, sunlight, or bacteria can corrupt any genetic data. Any DNA evidence must be stored in sterile and temperature controlled conditions. Criminals have been suspected of contaminating samples by swapping saliva. There is room for human error or fraud in comparing samples taken from suspects with those removed from a crime scene. The accuracy of any genetic profile is dependent upon the number of genes examined. Where less than four or five genes can be investigated, the PCR technique serves only to exaggerate any defects or omissions in the sample. In 1995 an 18 month investigation was launched into allegations that the FBI Crime Lab was 'dry-labbing' or faking results of DNA comparisons1. Furthermore, in the United Kingdom, the company used by police to analyse its DNA samples was shown to have secretly kept the genetic samples and personal details of 'hundreds of thousands' of arrested people, stoking fears that, if lost, they could be planted as evidence2. The mere creation of a database cannot be the panacea for crime detection. 1 Johnston, D. (1997, April 16). Report criticizes scientific testing at F.B.I Crime Lab. Retrieved May 19, 2011, from New York Times: 2 Barnett, A. (2006, July 16). Police DNA database 'is spiralling out of control'. Retrieved May 18, 2011, from Guardian:

negative: The government should not be interested in the profit motive but what is best for its citizens which will usually mean creative commons licenses rather than the state making a profit. This is even more likely when developments are a joint project with a for profit operation; taxpayers will rightly ask why they should be paying the research costs only for a private business to reap the profit from that investment. The government already provides a leg up to businesses in the form of providing infrastructure, a stable business environment, education etc., it should not be paying for their R&D too.

negative: It is for the individuals to decide whether this treatment is worth the expense. The anecdotal evidence from parents who have gone through the process suggests that pre-selecting the sex of their children was not a ‘frivolous purpose’. Asked whether her three boys had not been enough, Sharla Allen replied ‘They are. They’re totally everything I could ever want…but why not have two daughters that will be just as wonderful as they are?’ 1. No-one is harmed in this process, the parents know the risks beforehand and it should be their prerogative to have the treatment.  1. Gajilan, C. (2005, November 17). Gender selection a reality, but is it ethical? Retrieved May 20, 2011, from CNN Health: