# data[].attributes.body
Summary of the Article

"In the internet age, young people are retreating into their phones – and the world suffers"
(The Guardian, 31 May 2025)

The article laments how younger generations are increasingly absorbed by their smartphones, retreating into highly individualized, curated digital spaces. This phenomenon contributes to a decline in meaningful civic participation, engagement with others in public spaces, and awareness of broader societal issues. The author argues that while previous generations once found commonality in shared media experiences (e.g., watching the same TV shows, reading the same newspapers), today’s young people are fragmented by algorithm-driven content that isolates rather than connects. This withdrawal from the "real world" makes it harder to build solidarity, shared identity, or even sustain a functioning democracy. The article cautions that this retreat is not simply a matter of lifestyle but a political and social concern with long-term consequences.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Why am I filled with nostalgia for a pre-internet age I never knew? | Isabel Brooks

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Almost half of young people would prefer a world without the internet. We are haunted by the feeling that it has robbed us of something vital, says writer Isabel Brooks

# data[].attributes.body
Ways 'media' can be linked to topics:

1. Technology & Society

"To what extent has technology strengthened or weakened social bonds in contemporary society?"

Link: The article illustrates how technology, especially smartphones, fosters isolation rather than connection.

2. Media & Democracy

"Consider the claim that modern media has undermined democratic participation."

Link: The article argues young people’s retreat into personalised feeds harms civic engagement.

3. Generational Change & Values

"Do younger generations today lack the same sense of collective purpose as those in the past?"

Link: The article contrasts older generations' shared media consumption with today’s fragmented, algorithm-driven realities.

4. Impact of Media on Mental Well-being

"Social media has done more harm than good for the younger generation." How far do you agree?

Link: The article implicitly connects media habits to a retreat from reality and possible mental health repercussions.

5. Individualism vs. Community

"Modern life places too much emphasis on the individual at the expense of the community."

Link: The article discusses how algorithms fuel individualistic consumption, weakening shared experiences.

Example of a GP Argument Derived from the Article

Question: Consider the claim that modern media has undermined democratic participation.

Point (from Article):
Modern media, especially algorithm-driven platforms, has fragmented the public sphere. Young people increasingly retreat into personalized digital spaces, leading to a lack of shared experiences and civic engagement.

Elaboration:
Unlike past generations who consumed the same news and attended the same civic events, young people today are siloed by algorithms that feed them content tailored to their interests. This personalization discourages engagement with differing views or broader social issues, thereby weakening democratic discourse.

Example:
Social media platforms like TikTok curate content to user preferences, which may lead to echo chambers where young people remain disengaged from pressing societal matters such as elections, environmental activism, or public policy debates.

# data[].attributes.headline
Media Analytical Perspective: Dichotomy (Media as a Master or Servant)

# data[].attributes.subject
Media Analytical Perspective: Dichotomy (Media as a Master or Servant)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Evolution of Media and The Impact on Our Lives

# data[].attributes.body
Singapore's Energy Story, to understand Singapore's unique context and the 'energy trilemma' we face as we navigate the need for and the use of energy.  More than that, we are asking ourselves: when faced with the enormity of global energy challenges, do our individual actions truly matter?

# data[].attributes.body
We reflect on our state of preparedness for the threats and challenges that lie ahead. Do we assume we are safe from them? Would we know how to react when faced with them?

# data[].attributes.body
The various geopolitical shifts taking place around us in recent times make us wonder how they would impact us and how we should respond as a nation.

# data[].attributes.body
There's been a lot of talk in recent years about addictive substances like vapes and cannabis, both in Singapore and around the world. Faced with mixed messages and appealing marketing surrounding these substances, some of our youths might be confused or even curious about them.

# data[].attributes.body
Failure – is it a dirty word? To what extent do we avoid or fear it?

# data[].attributes.body
Why might extremist worldviews be appealing to youth, and what could drive them towards extremism?

# data[].attributes.body
Conversations that involve race and religion may not always be the easiest to have. Yet, why can’t we simply avoid them?

# data[].attributes.body
Summary of the CNA Commentary

Context & Breakthrough
In mid‑July 2025, UK researchers from Newcastle University announced the birth of eight healthy babies via a pioneering IVF technique known as mitochondrial replacement therapy—or “three‑parent IVF”. This procedure helps women carrying mitochondrial disorders avoid passing them on to their children CNA+1.

How It Works
The method, called pronuclear transfer, involves fertilising both the mother's and a donor egg with the father's sperm. The nuclear DNA (which defines most traits) from the mother's fertilised egg is transferred into the enucleated donor egg, which contains healthy mitochondria. The resulting embryo thus has nearly all its DNA—about 99.9%—from the parents, with only around 0.1% from the donor CNA+1.

Singapore’s Previous Stance
In 2021, Singapore’s Bioethics Advisory Committee (BAC) recommended against adopting this technique due to uncertainties around safety and long‑term effects, urging a "wait and see" approach CNA+1.

Current Considerations
With the successful UK outcomes and Australia progressing toward clinical trials, the author suggests Singapore reconsider its cautious stance. Still, any decision must weigh ethical concerns, scientific uncertainties, and cost implications, especially given how few families might benefit CNA+1.

Science vs Ethics: A Conflict for General Paper

This topic is ripe for General Paper discussion, as it raises fundamental tensions between scientific progress and ethical concerns—let’s unpack them.

1. Scientific Promise & Humanitarian Gains

Disease Prevention: MRT offers a means to eradicate debilitating and fatal mitochondrial diseases that currently have no cure CNA+1.

Reproductive Choice: It empowers women genetically at risk to have healthy genetically related children—expanding reproductive autonomy and reducing emotional burden CNAPeople.com.

2. Ethical and Social Concerns

Germline Modification: MRT alters the human germline—changes passed to descendants—raising questions about long-term consequences and the morality of altering human heredity Wikipedia The Guardian.

Embryo Use & Donor Rights: The procedure involves creating and manipulating embryos and relies on egg donors, raising concerns over embryonic ethics, potential exploitation, and unstudied long-term effects on donors The Times.

Identity & Sociocultural Impact: The notion of a "third genetic parent" may affect a child’s sense of identity or challenge conventional definitions of parenthood. Cultural, religious, and lineage values might be disrupted Wikipedia CNA.

3. Safety, Uncertainty, and Evidence Base

Limited Data: The UK results—while promising—are based on only eight births. There’s still uncertainty about the technique's safety, long-term outcomes, and possible mitochondrial–nuclear incompatibilities CNA+1.

BAC’s Prudence: The BAC’s 2021 recommendation to wait reflects responsible caution in the face of limited evidence, emphasizing “more certainty regarding the science, techniques, safety and efficacy” before adopting such technology CNA+1.

4. Cost, Equity, and Policy Logistics

Selective Benefit: Only a small subset of families would require MRT, making questions of funding, resource allocation, and policy priority complex CNA+1.

Infrastructure and Oversight Needs: Implementing MRT would require extensive regulatory frameworks, expert accreditation, and public engagement—raising questions about social justice and where funds should go.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Commentary: With UK success, should Singapore reconsider 3-parent IVF?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Eight babies in the UK have been born with DNA from three people. NUS Centre for Biomedical Ethics’ G Owen Schaefer considers whether Singapore should revisit the possible benefits – and pitfalls – of mitochondrial replacement.

# data[].attributes.headline
Sample GP Discussion Structure on the above article: Ethical Dilemma in Science Discovery/Experimentation

# data[].attributes.subject
Sample GP Discussion Structure on the above article: Ethical Dilemma in Science Discovery/Experimentation

# data[].attributes.body
Introduction
Begin with an overview: "The advent of ‘three-parent IVF’ presents a controversial juncture where medical innovation confronts ethical boundaries. Singapore now faces the dilemma of whether to move forward or stay cautious."

Science Argument (For MRT Adoption)

Lives saved and suffering prevented

Advancement of reproductive autonomy

Contribution to global medical leadership and innovation

Ethical Argument (Against Hasty Adoption)

Moral questions of germline editing and human nature

Ethical concerns over embryo use and donor impact

Social and cultural implications of redefining parenthood

Balanced Reflection

Importance of rigorous trials, transparency, and continued public dialogue

Consider phased, tightly regulated pilot studies only after thorough societal consensus

Ensure support systems for donors, and robust long-term monitoring for offspring

Conclusion
Emphasize that while science offers transformative healing, ethics must guide responsible adoption. Singapore could reconsider MRT—but only with comprehensive public debate, ethical consensus, and safeguards.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Comfortably seated in the fertility clinic with Vivaldi playing softly in the background, you and your partner are brought coffee and a folder. Inside the folder is an embryo menu. Each embryo has a description, something like this:

Embryo 78 - male
No serious early onset diseases, but a carrier for phenylketonuria (a metabolic malfunction that can cause behavioural and mental disorders. Carriers just have one copy of the gene, so don't get the condition themselves).
Higher than average risk of type 2 diabetes and colon cancer.
Lower than average risk of asthma and autism.
Dark eyes, light brown hair, male pattern baldness.
40% chance of coming in the top half in SAT tests.

There are 200 of these embryos to choose from, all made by in vitro fertilisation (IVF) from you and your partner's eggs and sperm. So, over to you. Which will you choose?

If there's any kind of future for "designer babies", it might look something like this. It's a long way from the image conjured up when artificial conception, and perhaps even artificial gestation, were first mooted as a serious scientific possibility. Inspired by predictions about the future of reproductive technology by the biologists JBS Haldane and Julian Huxley in the 1920s, Huxley's brother Aldous wrote a satirical novel about it.

That book was, of course, Brave New World, published in 1932. Set in the year 2540, it describes a society whose population is grown in vats in an impersonal central hatchery, graded into five tiers of different intelligence by chemical treatment of the embryos. There are no parents as such - families are considered obscene. Instead, the gestating fetuses and babies are tended by workers in white overalls, "their hands gloved with a pale corpse‑coloured rubber", under white, dead lights.

Brave New World has become the inevitable reference point for all media discussion of new advances in reproductive technology. Whether it's Newsweek reporting in 1978 on the birth of Louise Brown, the first "test-tube baby" (the inaccurate phrase speaks volumes) as a "cry round the brave new world", or the New York Times announcing " The brave new world of three-parent IVF " in 2014, the message is that we are heading towards Huxley's hatchery with its racks of tailor-made babies in their "numbered test tubes".

The spectre of a harsh, impersonal and authoritarian dystopia always looms in these discussions of reproductive control and selection. Novelist Kazuo Ishiguro, whose 2005 novel, Never Let Me Go, described children produced and reared as organ donors, last month warned that thanks to advances in gene editing, "we're coming close to the point where we can, objectively in some sense, create people who are superior to others ".

But the prospect of genetic portraits of IVF embryos paints a rather different picture. If it happens at all, the aim will be not to engineer societies but to attract consumers. Should we allow that? Even if we do, would a list of dozens or even hundreds of embryos with diverse yet sketchy genetic endowments be of any use to anyone?

I don't think we are going to see superman or a split in the species any time soon, because we just don't know enough

Henry Greely, bioethicist

The shadow of Frankenstein 's monster haunted the fraught discussion of IVF in the 1970s and 80s, and the misleading term "three-parent baby" to refer to embryos made by the technique of mitochondrial transfer - moving healthy versions of the energy-generating cell compartments called mitochondria from a donor cell to an egg with faulty, potentially fatal versions - insinuates that there must be something "unnatural" about the procedure.

Every new advance puts a fresh spark of life into Huxley's monstrous vision. Ishiguro's dire forecast was spurred by the gene-editing method called Crispr-Cas9, developed in 2012, which uses natural enzymes to target and snip genes with pinpoint accuracy. Thanks to Crispr-Cas9, it seems likely that gene therapies - eliminating mutant genes that cause some severe, mostly very rare diseases - might finally bear fruit, if they can be shown to be safe for human use. Clinical trials are now under way.

But modified babies? Crispr-Cas9 has already been used to genetically modify (nonviable) human embryos in China, to see if it is possible in principle - the results were mixed. And Kathy Niakan of the Francis Crick Institute in the UK has been granted a licence by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) to use Crispr-Cas9 on embryos a few days old to find out more about problems in these early stages of development that can lead to miscarriage and other reproductive problems.

Most countries have not yet legislated on genetic modification in human reproduction, but of those that have, all have banned it. The idea of using Crispr-Cas9 for human reproduction is largely rejected in principle by the medical research community. A team of scientists warned in Nature less than two years ago that genetic manipulation of the germ line (sperm and egg cells) by methods like Crispr-Cas9, even if focused initially on improving health, " could start us down a path towards non-therapeutic genetic enhancement ".

Besides, there seems to be little need for gene editing in reproduction. It would be a difficult, expensive and uncertain way to achieve what can mostly be achieved already in other ways, particularly by just selecting an embryo that has or lacks the gene in question. "Almost everything you can accomplish by gene editing, you can accomplish by embryo selection," says bioethicist Henry Greely of Stanford University in California.

Because of unknown health risks and widespread public distrust of gene editing, bioethicist Ronald Green of Dartmouth College in New Hampshire says he does not foresee widespread use of Crispr-Cas9 in the next two decades, even for the prevention of genetic disease, let alone for designer babies. However, Green does see gene editing appearing on the menu eventually, and perhaps not just for medical therapies. "It is unavoidably in our future," he says, "and I believe that it will become one of the central foci of our social debates later in this century and in the century beyond." He warns that this might be accompanied by "serious errors and health problems as unknown genetic side effects in 'edited' children and populations begin to manifest themselves".

For now, though, if there's going to be anything even vaguely resembling the popular designer-baby fantasy, Greely says it will come from embryo selection, not genetic manipulation. Embryos produced by IVF will be genetically screened - parts or all of their DNA will be read to deduce which gene variants they carry - and the prospective parents will be able to choose which embryos to implant in the hope of achieving a pregnancy. Greely foresees that new methods of harvesting or producing human eggs, along with advances in preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) of IVF embryos, will make selection much more viable and appealing, and thus more common, in 20 years' time.

PGD is already used by couples who know that they carry genes for specific inherited diseases so that they can identify embryos that do not have those genes. The testing, generally on three- to five-day-old embryos, is conducted in around 5% of IVF cycles in the US. In the UK it is performed under licence from the HFEA, which permits screening for around 250 diseases including thalassemia, early-onset Alzheimer's and cystic fibrosis.

As a way of "designing" your baby, PGD is currently unattractive. "Egg harvesting is unpleasant and risky and doesn't give you that many eggs," says Greely, and the success rate for implanted embryos is still typically about one in three. But that will change, he says, thanks to developments that will make human eggs much more abundant and conveniently available, coupled to the possibility of screening their genomes quickly and cheaply.

Carey Mulligan, Keira Knightley and Andrew Garfield in the 2010 film adaptation of Kazuo Ishiguro's Never Let Me Go, in which clones are produced to provide spare organs for their originals. Photograph: 20th Century Fox/Everett/Rex

Advances in methods for reading the genetic code recorded in our chromosomes are going to make it a routine possibility for every one of us - certainly, every newborn child - to have our genes sequenced. "In the next 10 years or so, the chances are that many people in rich countries will have large chunks of their genetic information in their electronic medical records," says Greely.

But using genetic data to predict what kind of person an embryo would become is far more complicated than is often implied. Seeking to justify unquestionably important research on the genetic basis of human health, researchers haven't done much to dispel simplistic ideas about how genes make us. Talk of "IQ genes", "gay genes" and "musical genes" has led to a widespread perception that there is a straightforward one-to-one relationship between our genes and our traits. In general, it's anything but.

There are thousands of mostly rare and nasty genetic diseases that can be pinpointed to a specific gene mutation. Most more common diseases or medical predispositions - for example, diabetes, heart disease or certain types of cancer - are linked to several or even many genes, can't be predicted with any certainty, and depend also on environmental factors such as diet.

When it comes to more complex things like personality and intelligence, we know very little. Even if they are strongly inheritable - it's estimated that up to 80% of intelligence, as measured by IQ, is inherited - we don't know much at all about which genes are involved, and not for want of looking.

At best, Greely says, PGD might tell a prospective parent things like "there's a 60% chance of this child getting in the top half at school, or a 13% chance of being in the top 10%". That's not much use.

We might do better for "cosmetic" traits such as hair or eye colour. Even these "turn out to be more complicated than a lot of people thought," Greely says, but as the number of people whose genomes have been sequenced increases, the predictive ability will improve substantially.

Ewan Birney, director of the European Bioinformatics Institute near Cambridge, points out that, even if other countries don't choose to constrain and regulate PGD in the way the HFEA does in the UK, it will be very far from a crystal ball.

Nearly anything you can measure for humans, he says, can be studied through genetics, and analysing the statistics for huge numbers of people often reveals some genetic component. But that information "is not very predictive on an individual basis," says Birney. "I've had my genome sequenced on the cheap, and it doesn't tell me very much. We've got to get away from the idea that your DNA is your destiny."

If the genetic basis of attributes like intelligence and musicality is too thinly spread and unclear to make selection practical, then tweaking by genetic manipulation certainly seems off the menu too. "I don't think we are going to see superman or a split in the species any time soon," says Greely, "because we just don't know enough and are unlikely to for a long time - or maybe for ever."

If this is all "designer babies" could mean even in principle - freedom from some specific but rare diseases, knowledge of rather trivial aspects of appearance, but only vague, probabilistic information about more general traits like health, attractiveness and intelligence - will people go for it in large enough numbers to sustain an industry?

Greely suspects, even if it is used at first only to avoid serious genetic diseases, we need to start thinking hard about the options we might be faced with. "Choices will be made," he says, "and if informed people do not participate in making those choices, ignorant people will make them."

The Crispr/Cas9 system uses a molecular structure to edit genomes. Photograph: Alamy

Green thinks that technological advances could make "design" increasingly versatile. In the next 40-50 years, he says, "we'll start seeing the use of gene editing and reproductive technologies for enhancement: blond hair and blue eyes, improved athletic abilities, enhanced reading skills or numeracy, and so on."

He's less optimistic about the consequences, saying that we will then see social tensions "as the well-to-do exploit technologies that make them even better off", increasing the relatively worsened health status of the world's poor. As Greely points out, a perfectly feasible 10-20% improvement in health via PGD, added to the comparable advantage that wealth already brings, could lead to a widening of the health gap between rich and poor, both within a society and between nations.

Others doubt that there will be any great demand for embryo selection, especially if genetic forecasts remain sketchy about the most desirable traits. "Where there is a serious problem, such as a deadly condition, or an existing obstacle, such as infertility, I would not be surprised to see people take advantage of technologies such as embryo selection," says law professor and bioethicist R Alta Charo of the University of Wisconsin. "But we already have evidence that people do not flock to technologies when they can conceive without assistance."

The poor take-up of sperm banks offering "superior" sperm, she says, already shows that. For most women, "the emotional significance of reproduction outweighs any notion of 'optimisation'". Charo feels that "our ability to love one another with all our imperfections and foibles outweighs any notion of 'improving' our children through genetics".

All the same, societies are going to face tough choices about how to regulate an industry that offers PGD with an ever-widening scope. "Technologies are very amoral," says Birney. "Societies have to decide how to use them" - and different societies will make different choices.

One of the easiest things to screen for is sex. Gender-specific abortion is formally forbidden in most countries, although it still happens in places such as China and India where there has been a strong cultural preference for boys. But prohibiting selection by gender is another matter. How could it even be implemented and policed? By creating some kind of quota system?

And what would selection against genetic disabilities do to those people who have them? "They have a lot to be worried about here," says Greely. "In terms of whether society thinks I should have been born, but also in terms of how much medical research there is into diseases, how well understood it is for practitioners and how much social support there is."

Once selection beyond avoidance of genetic disease becomes an option - and it does seem likely - the ethical and legal aspects are a minefield. When is it proper for governments to coerce people into, or prohibit them from, particular choices, such as not selecting for a disability? How can one balance individual freedoms and social consequences?

"The most important consideration for me," says Charo, "is to be clear about the distinct roles of personal morality, by which individuals decide whether to seek out technological assistance, versus the role of government, which can prohibit, regulate or promote technology."

She adds: "Too often we discuss these technologies as if personal morality or particular religious views are a sufficient basis for governmental action. But one must ground government action in a stronger set of concerns about promoting the wellbeing of all individuals while permitting the widest range of personal liberty of conscience and choice."

"For better or worse, human beings will not forgo the opportunity to take their evolution into their own hands," says Green. "Will that make our lives happier and better? I'm far from sure."

A scientist at work during an IVF process. Photograph: Ben Birchall/PA

Easy pickings: the future of designer babies

The simplest and surest way to "design" a baby is not to construct its genome by pick'n'mix gene editing but to produce a huge number of embryos and read their genomes to find the one that most closely matches your desires.

Two technological advances are needed for this to happen, says bioethicist Henry Greely of Stanford University in California. The production of embryos for IVF must become easier, more abundant and less unpleasant. And gene sequencing must be fast and cheap enough to reveal the traits an embryo will have. Put them together and you have "Easy PGD" (preimplantation genetic diagnosis): a cheap and painless way of generating large numbers of human embryos and then screening their entire genomes for desired characteristics.

"To get much broader use of PGD, you need a better way to get eggs," Greely says. "The more eggs you can get, the more attractive PGD becomes." One possibility is a one-off medical intervention that extracts a slice of a woman's ovary and freezes it for future ripening and harvesting of eggs. It sounds drastic, but would not be much worse than current egg-extraction and embryo-implantation methods. And it could give access to thousands of eggs for future use.

An even more dramatic approach would be to grow eggs from stem cells - the cells from which all other tissue types can be derived. Some stem cells are present in umbilical blood, which could be harvested at a person's birth and frozen for later use to grow organs - or eggs.

Even mature cells that have advanced beyond the stem-cell stage and become specific tissue types can be returned to a stem-cell-like state by treating them with biological molecules called growth factors. Last October, a team in Japan reported that they had made mouse eggs this way from skin cells, and fertilised them to create apparently healthy and fertile mouse pups.

Thanks to technological advances, the cost of human whole-genome sequencing has plummeted. In 2009 it cost around $50,000; today it is most like $1,500, which is why several private companies can now offer this service. In a few decades it could cost just a few dollars per genome. Then it becomes feasible to think of PGD for hundreds of embryos at a time.

"The science for safe and effective Easy PGD is likely to exist some time in the next 20 to 40 years," says Greely. He thinks it will then become common for children to be conceived through IVF using selected genomes. He forecasts that this will lead to "the coming obsolescence of sex" for procreation.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Designer babies: an ethical horror waiting to happen?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Nearly 40 years since the first 'test-tube baby', how close are we to editing out all of our genetic imperfections - and should we even try to do so?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A required part of this site couldn’t load. This may be due to a browser extension, network issues, or browser settings. Please check your connection, disable any ad blockers, or try using a different browser.

# data[].attributes.body
View 1 – Science as the Master, Ethics as the Servant

(Science leads, ethics follows)

Core Idea:
Ethics should adapt to keep pace with innovation. Restrictive ethical rules risk slowing down discoveries that could save lives, solve crises, or improve human existence.

Arguments:

Urgency of solutions – Problems like pandemics, climate change, and food insecurity require fast breakthroughs; waiting for ethical consensus can cost lives.

Example: Rapid COVID-19 vaccine development under emergency approval; testing began before full long-term safety data was available.

History shows ethics evolves – Practices once seen as unethical (e.g., organ transplants, IVF) are now mainstream because science proved their benefits.

Knowledge is neutral – It’s the application, not the discovery, that can be harmful. Stopping research prevents potential good.

Example: AI systems for early cancer detection — privacy concerns can be managed later, but delaying development risks lives.

Possible Stand in GP Essay:
Science must take the lead; ethics should adapt after the fact to integrate new realities.

View 2 – Ethics as the Master, Science as the Servant

(Ethics leads, science follows)

Core Idea:
Unchecked scientific progress can cause irreversible harm; ethics must set boundaries to protect human dignity, safety, and social cohesion.

Arguments:

Preventing irreversible damage – Some scientific “breakthroughs” may have catastrophic consequences if misused.

Example: He Jiankui’s CRISPR-edited babies — long-term genetic effects unknown, potential for eugenics.

Moral responsibility in uncertain outcomes – The “can” does not justify the “should.” If risks outweigh benefits or are poorly understood, science must wait.

Example: Geoengineering to cool the planet could disrupt ecosystems, with unpredictable global effects.

Trust and legitimacy – Public trust in science depends on adherence to shared moral standards; ignoring ethics erodes credibility.

Possible Stand in GP Essay:
Science must operate within strict ethical frameworks to ensure safety and fairness.

Middle Ground – Partnership of Equals

(Science and ethics in dialogue)

Core Idea:
Science and ethics should co-develop — progress happens, but with built-in safeguards and public engagement from the start.

Arguments:

Anticipatory governance – Ethics committees embedded in research from day one can flag risks early without halting useful projects.

Example: AI development with ethics boards that assess bias, transparency, and societal impact alongside coding progress.

Pilot before full rollout – Trial innovations in controlled settings to gather evidence before scaling.

Example: Limited mitochondrial replacement therapy trials in the UK before nationwide approval.

Cultural adaptability – Ethical standards may vary across societies, but baseline global safeguards should exist for shared technologies (e.g., nuclear safety protocols).

Possible Stand in GP Essay:
Neither dominates; science and ethics must be partners in shaping the future.

# data[].attributes.body
Discussion Prompts

1. Can ethical caution cause more harm than rapid scientific action?

2. Is it realistic to expect universal ethical standards for global scientific projects?

3. Should private companies have the same ethical obligations as public research institutions?

4. How can we avoid ethics being used as a political or economic weapon to slow competitors’ scientific growth?

# data[].attributes.headline
This section can be a continuation of Ethics in Science.

# data[].attributes.subject
This section can be a continuation of Ethics in Science.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
BBC Radio 4 - Sideways, A New Frontier - Six Moral Dilemmas Facing Space Exploration

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Sideways: A New Frontier looks at the moral debates surrounding space exploration.

# data[].attributes.body
The issue here is how space technology can worsen climate crisis.

Summary: Guardian Article – Hawaii’s Pristine Waters at Risk from SpaceX Rocket Debris

The article reports that the FAA granted SpaceX permission to expand its Starship rocket launch program to up to 25 times a year, along with approving a 75-fold expansion of the ocean debris zone. This expanded zone would include ecologically sensitive waters near Hawaii—specifically around Mokumanamana and the Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument, a UNESCO World Heritage site.

Environmentalists, scientists, and Native Hawaiian communities have voiced serious concerns. They warn that SpaceX’s “fail fast” testing strategy could deposit debris, fuel residue, and create sonic disturbances that harm marine life, endangered species, and culturally significant ecosystems . They also criticize the FAA’s environmental review as insufficient—highlighting that the assessment was completed by SpaceX contractors, lacked proper local consultation, and downplayed the risks to fragile ecosystems.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Inside Elon Musk’s plan to rain SpaceX’s rocket debris over Hawaii’s pristine waters

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Texas has long been under threat from the launches and explosions of SpaceX rockets. Now Hawaii is emerging as another possible victim

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Trump orders relaxed rules for rocket launches, appearing to benefit Musk and Bezos

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Companies such as SpaceX and Blue Origin may be able to forgo reviews required under National Environmental Policy Act

# data[].attributes.body
How Space Tech Can Worsen the Climate Crisis

1. Dangers to Remote Ecosystems

Expanding debris zones over protected marine environments like Papahānaumokuākea can pose immediate ecological threats—ranging from physical destruction to chemical pollution—all consequences of aggressive space testing protocols.

2. Atmospheric Pollution and Ozone Damage

Rockets emit pollutants including black carbon (soot), chlorine, aluminum oxide, and nitrogen oxides, which can degrade the ozone layer and intensify global warming. Black carbon is particularly potent—it’s hundreds of times more effective at trapping heat when released in the upper atmosphere compared to ground-level CO₂.

3. Risk of Space Debris and Long-Term Orbital Damage

Increased launches also mean more risk of debris—both large and micro-sized—in orbit, which can trigger collisions (Kessler Syndrome), disrupting satellite operations and potentially harming Earth’s climate indirectly through data loss or service disruptions.

4. Discontinuation of Research and Oversight

Recent policy moves—such as the Trump administration ending government-funded research into space-related atmospheric pollution—remove critical oversight at a time when the industry is rapidly expanding. This threatens our ability to understand and mitigate space-related environmental impacts.

# data[].attributes.body
“Environmental risks vs scientific ambition: Are rocket launches endangering Earth's ecosystems without sufficient regulation?”

“Is economic and visionary drive (e.g., Mars colonization) overshadowing environmental and cultural protection?”

“What role should public consultation and indigenous rights play when planning high-risk space activities?”

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Trump administration to stop US research on space pollution, in boon to Elon Musk

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
SpaceX and Starlink owner may benefit from Trump cuts to projects that could have led to regulations and costs

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Billionaires Are Racing to Space and the Climate is Paying the Price

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Rocket exhaust is no friend of the atmosphere

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Lecture 1 basics of the UN founding and charter