4-7's Debate Motion 2 by

4-7's Debate Motion 2 by https://padlet.com/sengkangsec/42i04bf7zdcu Made with magic en-us 2019-02-13 05:45:57 UTC 2026-06-30 02:00:35 UTC hello@padlet.com Motion: 'There should not be any restriction on the use of human beings for scientific research.' rathna_suppiah https://padlet.com/sengkangsec/42i04bf7zdcu/wish/330674716 Odd numbers to disagree with the motion.
Even numbers to agree with the motion.
Do your research and write out one point using PEEL.
Deadline: 18 Feb 2019, Monday]]> 2019-02-13 05:46:36 UTC https://padlet.com/sengkangsec/42i04bf7zdcu/wish/330674716 FangYi (15) (disagree) t_fangyi0623 https://padlet.com/sengkangsec/42i04bf7zdcu/wish/331977323 Point: I disagree that there should not be any restrictions on human experimentation as subjects tested may experience unfavourable conditions.

Evidence: During the holocaust, nazi doctor Josef megele conducted experiments with twins as his subjects. Jona Laks, survivor of the experiment, said that Mengele removed organs from people without anaesthetic and if one twin dies, the other would be murdered. In attempts to fabricate blue eyes, drops or injections of chemicals would be put in the eyes. This often caused severe pain, infections, and temporary or permanent blindness.

Elaboration: This shows that those conducting the experiment treats human subjects as guinea pigs that has no rights to even stop others from harming and torturing them.

Link: Therefore, there should be regulations on human experimentation to ensure that people do not experience unnecessary stress and permanent injuries.]]> 2019-02-16 09:31:13 UTC https://padlet.com/sengkangsec/42i04bf7zdcu/wish/331977323 Rishika (14) Agree : p : i agree that there shouldn’t be any restrictions. https://padlet.com/sengkangsec/42i04bf7zdcu/wish/332047093 e: the medication and health benefits that we are able to afford right now all started with scientific researches. If there are restrictions placed in such instances , researchers cannot explore to the fullest extend . The restrictions limit their capabilities , extend of research.
e: for example , if some children were to play hide and seek , and the parent restricts their playing area , now the children ‘s hide spots are limited . The number of hiding spots they could hv used is now being reduced and they hv nowhere to hide . Restrictions put a limit to things we do , restrictions are like boundaries.
l: thus , i strongly believe that there shouldn’t be any restrictions.

]]> 2019-02-16 22:46:12 UTC https://padlet.com/sengkangsec/42i04bf7zdcu/wish/332047093 Ain (12) Agree ainqurratul967 https://padlet.com/sengkangsec/42i04bf7zdcu/wish/332071642 P: i agree that there should not be any restriction on the use of human being for scientic restrictions.
E: Some people may think that when human beings are used for scientific research, they are being taken advantage of when they are being tested on. However, this is only an assumption that is made wrongly. A scientific research is only conducted after getting the consent of these people.
E: For example, Researchers will get the people to sign a legal contract to show that they have evidence of the peoples consent. The contract will include the benefits, harms that may be caused, the period of time they are needed for the experiment ,the long term effect and the dos and donts during the experiment period. Therefore if the instructions are not followed correctly and the person gets a negative outcome the researchers are not fully responsible for it. Some of the stuffs that they do on a daily basis may affect the experiment also.
L: Therefore, there should not be any restrictions on the use of human beings for the purpose of scientific research.]]> 2019-02-17 05:45:31 UTC https://padlet.com/sengkangsec/42i04bf7zdcu/wish/332071642 Joy (7) Disagree https://padlet.com/sengkangsec/42i04bf7zdcu/wish/332074819 Point: I disagree that there should not be any restrictions on the use of human beings in scientific research as it can result in the loss of lives.

Elaboration: The scientists will not be able to prove that the test will not be harmful to the human body during the test. The family members of the victim will be filled with resentment and definitely be mournful and miserable because they have lost their loved ones.

Evidence: For instance, Nazis carried out medical experiments on thousands of prisoners in concentration camps, without any regard for human life. The prisoners were injected with phenol gasoline and cyanide to see how fast they would die. They were forced to become subjects in very dangerous studies against their will and most of them endured incredible suffering and indescribable pain. The experiments were deliberately designed to terminate in a fatal outcome for the victims and many prisoners died as a result.

Link: Thus, the lives of people must be cherished and there should be restrictions on the use of human beings in scientific research to prevent further loss of lives.

]]> 2019-02-17 06:44:03 UTC https://padlet.com/sengkangsec/42i04bf7zdcu/wish/332074819 Junkit(disagree) junkit1908 https://padlet.com/sengkangsec/42i04bf7zdcu/wish/332075963 I disagree that there should not be any restriction on the use of human beings for scientific research as it is deemed as unacceptable in current society. As no one can expect what will happen during a scientific research,it is too dangerous to let humans be used as test subjects.If something happen during the research,it could potentially harm the people that is being used as test subject such as death.After all,reasearch are carry out to find out more things that have yet to be discovered.Furthermore,there are also case whereby people are forced to be used as test subjects even when they dint want to.For example the Tuskegee syphilis trails chemical experiment in which the government took advantage of the vulnerability of 11000 military personnel to expose them to mustard and nerve gas between 1939 and 1989.This has resulted in many being either killed or suffered irreparable damage.Therefore,human being should not be used scientific research as it is too dangerous.]]> 2019-02-17 07:03:34 UTC https://padlet.com/sengkangsec/42i04bf7zdcu/wish/332075963 brian(18) Agree https://padlet.com/sengkangsec/42i04bf7zdcu/wish/332080374 P- I agree that there should not be any restrictions on the use of human beings in scientific research.
One of the primary ethical justifications for conducting research with human subjects is to benefit society.

E- A “social benefit” of research can be defined as a socially valuable (or good) outcome received by someone other than the research subject, such as other patients with the subject's disease, researchers, sponsors, or society as a whole.
An experiment with a human subject should “be such as to yield fruitful results for the good of society” and "the degree of risk to be taken should never exceed that determined by the humanitarian importance of the problem to be solved by the experiment.”

E- It is common that research produces social benefits by generating knowledge with practical applications. Sometimes the road from research to practical applications is clear, smooth, and immediate. For example, a study of a method for reducing errors related to pharmacotherapy in the hospital could produce life-saving applications soon after it is completed.

L- While few people dispute the idea that research with human subjects should have social benefits, people often disagree about whether particular research projects will produce good results for society. The experiments could have social benefits and whether whom the experiments might benefit.]]> 2019-02-17 08:13:49 UTC https://padlet.com/sengkangsec/42i04bf7zdcu/wish/332080374 Ian Fahmy Agree https://padlet.com/sengkangsec/42i04bf7zdcu/wish/332081871 P - I believe that there should not be any restriction as there is no practicality of the research if there is restriction.

E - Scientist still do carry scientific research with the use of humans to find cures for the world today. It may be be true that scientific research can be morally and ethically wrong, but the purpose of a scientific research is to help humanity find cures for any diseases and harms. It is best for humans to be used as research as the outcome that we want has to bring benefit from a human body to ensure that it will be useful to us.

E - For example, Ebola is a disease whereby it has a cause fatality that the rates increase each year. there is no cure or specific treatment that is currently approved for market, treatment has been primarily supportive in nature.The disease has a high risk of death, killing between 25 and 90 percent of those infected, with an average of about 50 percent.

L - Restriction will cause the case study to be limited as they are not able to carry out certain actions to find the cure. They are not able to do their job much as there is concerns with moral and ethical issues. This won't bring any benefit as there is no purpose of doing research when they are restricted to carry out certain actions to find cures. This shows that there isn't any benefit from having restrictions which then shows there isn't any practicality in it. If there isn't any practicality in the research,humans will continue to suffer from sickness in a long run without a cure or treatment]]> 2019-02-17 08:37:27 UTC https://padlet.com/sengkangsec/42i04bf7zdcu/wish/332081871 Aqil 17 disagree https://padlet.com/sengkangsec/42i04bf7zdcu/wish/332085282 P- there should be restrictions on the use of human beings for scientific research as recklessness of scientists can lead to deaths
Ela- Human bodies are very fragile and prone to being infected with simple diseases or viruses that are common. The only defense mechanism that they have are their immune system and if a scientist modifies the effectiveness of their immune system, they are not expected to live long. In addition, scientists are known to be very curious to wanting to know various results that can be yielded from different possibilities of experimentation performed on humans. This can lead to them being reckless and discard any means for the patient to survive.
Exp- In Ww2, Nazi germany performed many cruel experiments that are based on three topics: survival of military personnal, testing of drugs and treatment and the advancement of the Nazi racial and ideological goals. These experiments were mostly done in concentration camps to prisoners, without their knowledge and permission. One example is the freezing experiments done to further understand the hypothermia and find an effective treatment.
Needless to say, many prisoners died due to their inability to withstand the harshness of the experiment, compounded with the lack of basic necessities provided by the Nazi.
L- thus, there should be some form of restrictions that limit that extent that scientists can perform on a victim, to minimise further losses, and more importantly, to not follow and influenced by the footsteps of of history and the cruel experimentations done by harsh and reckless scientists of the past.]]> 2019-02-17 09:22:44 UTC https://padlet.com/sengkangsec/42i04bf7zdcu/wish/332085282 JiaHui (agree) https://padlet.com/sengkangsec/42i04bf7zdcu/wish/332151869 P -
There shld not be restrictions on the use of human beings for scientific research as the reliability of the outcome is important

E -
If there were restrictions othe use of human beings for scientific research then we would have to resort to using animals.
Humans bonobos chimpanzees share 98.8% of their DNA
Humans and gorillas share 98.4% of their DNA
Humans and orangutans share 96.9% of their DNA
Humans and monkeys share 93% of their DNA
Humans and mice share 90% of their DNA
And the percentage only gets lower

E -
This means whatever research did on those animals that are supposed to help us, might actually cause us harm. Because no animal in this world share 100% of their DNA to humans, we can't be sure that the successful results of animal based research would be successful on us.

And if we humans are going to be fine with sacrificing animals, why can't we sacrifice ourself? What make us so different from them? Don't we all have beating hearts?

L -
Hence I feel that we shouldn't sacrifice so many animals and even humans life on a maybe and we should just use humans so that we are 100% sure that these cures are or research outcomes are reliable.]]> 2019-02-17 19:20:05 UTC https://padlet.com/sengkangsec/42i04bf7zdcu/wish/332151869 Martin (20) Agree https://padlet.com/sengkangsec/42i04bf7zdcu/wish/332172145 P - I feel that there should not be any restriction on the use of human beings on scientific research as results may differ.

E - If scientists were to use animals as test subjects for experiments, the end results will most likely be different as compared to using humans as test subjects. This is due to the difference in DNA in both species which will produce results that are dissimilar.

E- For instance, if scientists were to experiment on products that are meant to be used by humans on animals, the results may differ when sold to the public. This is because the difference in our DNA as to animals will present different results when used on humans and animals. So, if let's say scientists test shampoo products on animals and it turns out well, it may not be the same for humans and can result in injuries or skin issues.

L - Therefore, there should not be restrictions on the use of human beings for scientific research so as to provide accurate results.]]> 2019-02-17 21:51:35 UTC https://padlet.com/sengkangsec/42i04bf7zdcu/wish/332172145 Linus (agree) KMGDQ https://padlet.com/sengkangsec/42i04bf7zdcu/wish/332306308 P-There should not be any restriction on the use of human beings for scientific research
E-Scientists should carry out experiments on human beings as cures will be more reliable and more effective. As the cure was tested on a human being first,it is safe to assume that it will heal another person
E-An example is HIV/AIDS. Although monkeys can catch HIV,it does not develop into AIDS.This is because they have different bodies from us and their immune system is also different from us.Of course this applies to all species of animals. So finding a cure will be very hard if we continue to use other animals for experiments,since the outcome for humans may be different
L-There should be no restriction of using human beings for scientific research as it will be much harder to find a cure.]]> 2019-02-18 11:29:19 UTC https://padlet.com/sengkangsec/42i04bf7zdcu/wish/332306308 Natasha(8) -Agree https://padlet.com/sengkangsec/42i04bf7zdcu/wish/332309098 P- I agree that there should not be any restrictions on the use of humans for human research as it helps gives us a chance to protect our future generation.
E- With such advanced technology and scientific research going on now in our generation, we are able to discover more, and what better way to discover than through the subjects that we are conducting these tests for? if we are able to use humans, we are able to get much more accurate and specific details that will help us battle future diseases that our future generation might come into contact with.

E-with our specific details that we have obtained, we will be able to help the future generation by giving them cures from our research on humans, they will be able to use our research to further develop in their timing and thus create a better opportunity for the curing of things like cancer!

L- Thus, I agree that there should not be any restrictions the use of humans for scientific research as we will be able to get the necessary information needed to help us develop cures that will protect us and our future generation.]]> 2019-02-18 11:42:08 UTC https://padlet.com/sengkangsec/42i04bf7zdcu/wish/332309098 Anqi Agree (26) https://padlet.com/sengkangsec/42i04bf7zdcu/wish/332310614 Point: I agree that there should not be any restrictions on the use of human beings for scientific research.
Elaboration: Scientific research is carried out on human beings so that scientists can find cures for deadly diseases and viruses such as ebola and cancer. This is to help those who are already infected with this virus to be cured or it can help people to avoid getting infected.
Example: Diseases such as ebola and most types of cancer have very high odds of getting cured. Scientists should be allowed to experiment on them so that they can somehow find a cure or a way to treat the disease. This will benefit all human beings as more cures and vaccines can be discovered if there are no restrictions to use human beings for scientific research.
Link: In a nutshell, there should not be any restrictions on the use of human beings for scientific research as scientists can discover cures for diseases.]]> 2019-02-18 11:49:56 UTC https://padlet.com/sengkangsec/42i04bf7zdcu/wish/332310614 bernice 3 disagrees https://padlet.com/sengkangsec/42i04bf7zdcu/wish/332323644 p : there should be restrictions on the use of human beings for scientific research as this may cause human beings harm and experimenting on humans without consent
e : when scientists want to conduct an experiment to test a theory, they try and limit all other variables. thus if researchers want to understand if a medical intervention is having a positive effect, they need to make sure that food, temperature, liquid intake, prior health etc, are as similar as possible. This can be done in animals, where such variables have been controlled and recorded; often since the animals’ birth.
e : humans do not come with lifetime medical histories, their genetics cannot be manipulated, and frankly, there just aren’t enough of them. It would not make scientific sense to use humans as a replacement for animals.

l :therefore we should not treat humans the same as animals . if it were morally acceptable to conduct medical testing on violent criminals, would it also be morally acceptable to eat them?

]]> 2019-02-18 12:49:34 UTC https://padlet.com/sengkangsec/42i04bf7zdcu/wish/332323644 Varsha (3) disagree https://padlet.com/sengkangsec/42i04bf7zdcu/wish/332333721 P- I disagree that there should not be any restrictions on the use of human beings for scientific research as it might harm them.

E- Many scientist conduct research to find new things (eg. cure to some diseases). However, as they are trying something new, they do not always succeed in their research. Sometimes, they might fail in their research. It is very dangerous to use humans as a subject as if the scientist fail, it might harm the human beings or even cause death to them.

E- During World War II, the U.S. conducted medical experiments on people without their consent. In 1932, prior to the start of World War II, 400 African American males with syphilis had been entered into a study at Tuskegee, Alabama with the intended purpose of documenting the natural course of their disease. Although treatments of some presumed efficacy were available, these were withheld while the study participants were led to believe that experimental procedures (such as spinal taps to examine cerebrospinal fluid) were for the purpose of therapy. By the 1950's, penicillin was available and known to be highly effective against syphilis, but it also was withheld. Many participants died.The surviving participants were only given treatment in 1972, after the nature of the study became publicly known, 23 years after publication of the Nuremberg Code.

L- Thus, I disagree that there should not be any restrictions on the use of human beings for scientific research as it might harm them.]]> 2019-02-18 13:27:30 UTC https://padlet.com/sengkangsec/42i04bf7zdcu/wish/332333721 Davina (disagree) https://padlet.com/sengkangsec/42i04bf7zdcu/wish/332341656 point = There should be restrictions on the use of human beings for scientific research as it can extremely dangerous and fatal .

evidence = There are various ethical problems with scientific investigations on humans since someone’s life is at stake.The moral implications don’t permit disrupting a human life. For instance, when it comes to gene editing, if there aren’t any restrictions posed, people will start using the technology for creating designer babies. Designer babies allow the genetic modification in human foetuses which yields offspring with desirable traits

explanation = Since a life is at stake, it becomes imperative that scientists do their work with full concentration and dedication. Restrictions ensure that there is no harm caused to either the subject or the researcher during the course of the study.

link = Therefore , there should be certain limits when using human beings for scientific research.]]> 2019-02-18 13:59:52 UTC https://padlet.com/sengkangsec/42i04bf7zdcu/wish/332341656 Nayli (9) Disagree https://padlet.com/sengkangsec/42i04bf7zdcu/wish/332342036 P : There should be restrictions on the use of human beings for scientific research
E : Scientists conduct research & studies to produce products , mostly products that helps to cure diseases and also discover new ones. However, many articles have shown that not all research are successful. As the outcome of the experiments are unexpected, human beings should not be used as test subjects.
E : Use animals instead of human beings. It is scientifically proven that animals ( lab produce mice & monkeys etc ) have similar genetics to human beings. Many articles have proved that some research are successful even without the use of human beings. Without the ability to use animals in their research, scientists’ efforts would be massively hampered, not only in the direct development of new treatments, but also in the fundamental research which underpins all biomedical knowledge. For example, it was Alan Lloyd Hodgkin and Andrew Huxley’s work on the nerves of squid that elucidated the basis of nervous transmission; and it was John C Eccles’ work on cats’ spinal cords that first incontrovertibly demonstrated the nature of the synapse, earning him a share of the 1963 Nobel in Physiology, along with Hodgkin and Huxley. Without their work on animals, we would know far less about the workings of our own nervous systems and how to treat them.

L : Thus, i disagree that there should not be any restrictions on the use of human beings for scientific research as it may cause harm to human beings. ]]> 2019-02-18 14:01:19 UTC https://padlet.com/sengkangsec/42i04bf7zdcu/wish/332342036 eimen 19 disagree eimannbss2019 https://padlet.com/sengkangsec/42i04bf7zdcu/wish/332344702 p - i disagree that should not be any restrictions on human research as some experiments may cause some side effects

e - scientist dont usually succed when they are doing their experiments. sometimes they prefer to do their experiments on humans instead of animals as they find the results more accurate . However, whenever they do their experiments, humans may be victims if it fails

e - the nazis carried out experiments on the jews in world war 2. they were trapped in a gas chamber where the nazis released toxic gas to see how long they could survived.

l - as a result, many jews were affected in the experiment/holocaust. thus, humans should not be allowed for the used of human research as it risk their life]]> 2019-02-18 14:11:03 UTC https://padlet.com/sengkangsec/42i04bf7zdcu/wish/332344702 sherlyn (16) agrees https://padlet.com/sengkangsec/42i04bf7zdcu/wish/332345657 P: there should not be any restrictions on the use of human beings for scientific research. using a human being ensures that you get 100% accuracy on whatever you are experimenting, for example, a vaccine.
E: it ensures that whatever results you get, is accurate because humans beings are used, and humans all contain the same dna so that there will not be any risk of the vaccine not working.
E: for example, scientists have successfully edited the DNA of human embryos to erase a heritable heart condition that is known for causing sudden death in young competitive athletes, cracking open the doors to a controversial new era in medicine. this success would not have been possible if not for the use of a human being for the research.
L: thus, there shouldn't be any restrictions on the use of human beings for scientific research as it can ensure that we have 100% accuracy and there won't be any lives lost unnecessarily in the process. ]]> 2019-02-18 14:14:07 UTC https://padlet.com/sengkangsec/42i04bf7zdcu/wish/332345657 Celeste agrees https://padlet.com/sengkangsec/42i04bf7zdcu/wish/332345979 P:I agree that there should not be any restrictions in scientific research on human beings.
E:This is because without the use of human beings for scientific research,rare diseases would not have a cure for them.
E:Scientists would not be able to find a way to control HVI in a human body without any people volunteering to be under an experiment to find a cure. The lack of human beings volunteering to be used for a scientific research is decreasing due to the harms that might be done to them. However,it would be slightly better to just sacrifice a small amount of people in the world as compared to a large amount of people dying due to a disease that is not able to find a way to cure it.
L:Thus,there should not be any restrictions in scientific research on human beings as human beings are needed to find the cure of diseases and save the large population of people in the world that might be suffering from different diseases.]]> 2019-02-18 14:14:50 UTC https://padlet.com/sengkangsec/42i04bf7zdcu/wish/332345979