# data[].attributes.body
Yes, we should allow because:
1. drugs development
2. treatment for medical conditions (personalised medicine)
3. experimental tools for research
4. industrial applications (e.g. Glutamate synthesis, Aspartame)
5. Food security issues (GM crops are resistant to drought, herbicides, stresses etc)

Possible concerns:
1. creation of new species that will pose environmental threats  (e.g. superbugs) and social discrimination (e.g. designer babies)
- However, can implement containment procedures, and awareness creation

2. biological weapons
-  However, strict control can be implemented, regulations coming in and penalties imposed.

3. ethical considerations that involve interfering with nature's creation
- If benefits outweigh the cons, we think that rDNA research should be allowed for the betterment of the society

# data[].attributes.body
Medical: production of insulin, by inserting the gene from producing the insulin into the plasmid, which allows the production of large quantities of insulin

Forensic: PCR to amplify smaller quantities of DNA in a short amount of time
- DNA fingerprinting

Precaution: Making a bacteria that survives on specific types of medium/conditions that only survives in the lab; thus with an escape, it will not survive

# data[].attributes.body
No,

1. Engineering of crops that secrete toxins to kill the insects (to prevent herbivory) could lead to wipe out of insect species (target or non-target)

2. Uncertainty of safety as long-term effects may not yet be evident

3. Religious resistance to the ability of scientists to "play God"

4. Opens the door to possible development of bioweaponry (can lead to warfare under ill intentions)

5. Can lead to development of new mutations that are beyond control ("superweeds" or "superbugs")

5. Eventual genetic discrimination, "designer babies" with better traits (rich get richer, poor get poorer)

# data[].attributes.body
No, we must not allow research at Harvard.

Why?
1. Tampering research with little knowledge on recombinant DNA gives risk to pathogenic bacteria that can cause illness.

2. "Rogue" bacteria can infect agriculture, vital crops, e.g. rice, may be entirely extinct.

3. Recombinant DNA may have adverse effects over long-term that may not be discovered until it is too late.

4. Ethical issues arise, e.g. designer babies, challenging natural selection. (Slippery Slope) If you can remove genes that cause genetic diseases now, does that mean you can add genes in the future?

# data[].attributes.body
Yes and no
Yes because there is benefits in agriculture (GMO), medication (insulin). but no, the location near the city area which may be a threat when it breach in containment.
a win-win situation will be to place the lab somewhere else where the population is not high.

# data[].attributes.headline
Yes. There is potential for the following.

# data[].attributes.subject
Yes. There is potential for the following.

# data[].attributes.body
1. Agricultural benefits
We hope to create stronger plants that will grow faster and more in numbers to feed the population.

2. Recombinant DNA can lead to the development of other industries. For example, medicine, industrial and environmental.

3. We will take good care of the public.

# data[].attributes.body
-Weird hybrid (chicken without feather = NTUC chicken)
-playing god (social issues)
- Harming the environment (BAD BAD GG)
- Weaponized (Biohazard)(OMG ZOMBIE)
- Mutate to become Superweed, Super bugs
- Monopolising certain industries
- Health reasons GMO (diabetes...)
- Pathogens (don't know la mad scientist)
- Designer Babies
-orange folic (WARRR!!)

# data[].attributes.headline
Tutorial 2 Gracia Goh Xiu Chuan's Magnificent Round Table

# data[].attributes.subject
Tutorial 2 Gracia Goh Xiu Chuan's Magnificent Round Table

# data[].attributes.body
As Scientists, yes.

1. We should allow recombinant DNA research to occur for scientific and technological process. Due care and occupational safety guidelines will naturally be part of the package. Prosophobic attitudes towards recombinant DNA research is myopic and will only serve to set humanity back.

2. Also, during this period, there was rapid military research on nuclear research and weaponry, focusing on Recombinant DNA research would push the scientific community, or at least part of it away from nuclear research. Thus in the long run, with advancement of genetic research and publicity will ease public concerns about Cold War fear & also fuel the nation's science standards forward. A strong command of genetic research will also serve as a form of military deterrence.

# data[].attributes.body
We shall not allow research for unknown outcomes could occur that could harm society.

1. If pathogens were to escape it could lead to extremely negative effects on the nearby populations. Air currents could spell disaster for society at large.

2. We should not play 'god' in the language of life. Once we begin we can become addicted to manipulating ourselves to the point  of no end.

3. Cross contamination of materials that could lead to adverse reactions among the population due to poor labeling.

The potential agricultural benefits to this particular testing bid in this particular location at this time do not outweigh the potential dangers to civilization at large.

How can we ensure that scientists hold to their word?

What systems can be put into place to ensure that scientific malpractice is not possible?