Why a Debate?

The purpose of this debate is to acknowledge, analyse and discussion the many viewpoints surrounding synthetic biology. We hope viewing this debate will help you clarify your own opinion of synthetic biology, so that you may better contribute to determining the future directions of this emerging field.

Meet the Debaters

The debaters featured are members of the University of Alberta Debate Society, all with multiple years of experience in debate. Several of these debaters will be competing at the World Debate Championships in Turkey this winter, and all have competed at a national level. The debaters we feature are from a variety of backgrounds, to represent more different levels of understanding and viewpoints.

First Propostion - graduate student in Computer Science

First Opposition - in military reserves

Second Proposition - undergraduate student, double major in Mathematics and Linguistics

Second Opposition - undergraduate student in Political Science

Third Proposition - undergraduate student in Microbiology

Third Opposition - student in English, BA in Classics

Fourth Proposition - undergraduate student in Philosophys

Fourth Opposition - undergraduate student in Philosophy and Political Science

Style of Debate

This debate is in British Parliamentary style, the style used at the Debate World Championships. The debate is set in parliament, and debaters take the role of government parties discussing policies. There are four teams of two people, with two proposition teams arguing for the motion, and two opposition teams arguing against the motion, a total of four debaters on each side. The first and second speaker on a side are on the same team, and the third and fourth speaker on a side are on the same team. Only the two debaters within a team plan their arguments together, and the two teams arguing on the same side still compete with each other to argue better. Indeed, the second team is expected to present an 'extension' consisting of new constructive arguments not yet developed in the round. The debaters address the speaker of the house and entertain questions, called Point of Information, from debaters arguing the opposite side of the issue. Debaters can stand up to ask a question at any time except the first and last minute of a speech, and the speaker may either wave them down or take their question. All speeches are seven minutes. The last speaker on each side summarizes the debate.

View the Debate: This House Supports the Development of Artificially Engineered Life

Summary of the Debate

First Proposition Speaker

Model: This house proposes that genetic modifcation of all organisms except people be permitted. We would remove all restrictions on what genetic engineering techniques can be used, but still hold people responsible for the negative consequences of their creations - an 'innocent until proven guilty' plan, as opposed to the current pre-emptive, preventative restrictions.

Arguments:

1. Advantages of new strains of organism: for instance biofuel, nanotechnology components, golden rice. The more we can control life, the more we can use it for.

2. Genetic engineering is better than alternative ways of getting new strains: for instance, seeds used to be irradiated to produce new mutations, which is must less controlled than current genetic engineering.

3. The benefits of knowledge

a) pragmatic: to produce tools for the future, and apply that knowledge to learning about other things, such as fighting disease and living longer. We don't need to experiment on people if we can engineer animal models.

b) philosophical: humans are knowledge seeking, that is what separates us from other forms of life. We should take advantage of our unique abilities to pursue knowledge.

First Opposition Speaker

Arguments

1. Locking stuff up doesn't work: for instance, computer viruses, outbreaks of diseases, illegal transport of weapons. If the floodgates are open, people will experiment with everything. Scientists like to experiment and they won't be careful. Harms of this include ecosystem damage. For instance, CFC's X-rays and DDT are substances we should have examined more in depth before using. We are going to make mistakes, so let not make big ones by doing too much too soon.

2. ecosystems:

Refutation

re: irraditation to produce new strains: just because previous techniques were bad doesn't mean current techniques are any better

re: trying to acquire knowledge is important because we don't know the answer - and that's why its dangerous too. Proposition has agreed experimentation is dangerous

Second Proposition Speaker

Refutation

Second Opposition Speaker

Third Proposition Speaker

Third Opposition Speaker

Fourth Proposition Speaker: A summation of the Proposition case

Fourth Opposition Speaker: A summation of the Opposition case

Bringing Debate to the Community

Listen to the debate performed at a High School