Issue 1: Technical problems

l experiments may not be successful due to a lack of understanding of the technology

l new diseases arising from manipulation of human genes

l inadequate knowledge of human genes

 Possible solutions

l enacting laws to ban/monitor research and application

l further development of the technology

Issue 2: Ethical problems

l suffering caused by mistakes

l treatment of cloned human beings as commercial products

l status and value of clones

l ownership of clones

Issue 3: Problems related to human development

l competition ceases

l impact on human development and civilisation (resulting from the situation where everyone can become a super-human)

Issue 4: High costs

l not everyone can afford this technology

l in equality may result (in a situation where the group generated may be superior and the group naturally generated taking up subordinate or low-paid positions)

Introducing the topic and discussing Issue 1

Jenny: In our last seminar, we discussed the different types of personality traits and we concluded with the point that some people might like the idea of choosing the personality and characteristics of their children. This is now theoretically possible with human genetic engineering. Scientists can directly manipulate the genes parents pass on to our children. I may be exaggerating it a bit, but it might be possible that one day, parents could actually assemble their children by choosing from a catalogue of genes. Although the technology is improving, many people still have problems about its challenges and also problems.

So, from what you have read, what do you think are the major problems with human genetic engineering? What problems make it so difficult for people to regard it as medically and ethically acceptable?

Dennis: Well, let me begin by talking about a problem inherent in the technology. In my opinion, our understanding of the technologies for human genetic engineering is still not good enough. Experimentation with genes may fail. Although human genetic engineering may help to stop some diseases from being passed to future generations, the manipulation of human genes may cause new diseases.

Dianne: Could I come in here, since you mentioned experimentation … we are only in an early stage of the technology …

Dennis: I'm afraid I haven't explained my point fully yet. I was saying that experimentation may fail. These experiments may be the sources of new diseases. The creatures produced because of the mistakes will have to live with the mistakes. In animal cloning, for example, animals born blind or crippled would suffer. So developing genetic engineering can cause more suffering. In human genetic engineering, if there are mistakes, the children have to bear the suffering or the side effects their whole life ... just because their parents wanted them to have certain traits.

Jeane: I agree totally. Well, on the one hand we may be able to produce perfect human beings. If you remember Gardner's categorization of human intelligences … well … we may produce human beings with a good balance of all the intelligences. But … on the other hand, the experiments could be dangerous. In his recent article, Wong … uhm … Wong suggests that … he talks about the technological problems of human genetic engineering … that we simply do not have enough knowledge of the relationship between our genes. We may want to produce a child with both high IQ and strong interpersonal intelligence, but are we absolutely sure about which genes control these intelligences? So I think the major problem is with the technology itself.

Dianne: But science and technology will advance. Scientists will continue to study human genes and find out more. Once there are answers to questions on how certain genes control certain traits, the problem can be solved.

Dennis: There's no doubt about that. Science always moves forward. But the fact is that our knowledge of the relationships between the genes, and each of the personality traits, is still not good enough. Even if we gain more knowledge of genes, the problem is not solved. Scientists have found that most genes have multiple effects and they do not have only a single function in the body. So if a gene is manipulated to enhance a particular personality trait, the process may upset another bodily function which is controlled by the gene.

Summarising / Discussing Issues 2 and 3

Jenny: So we are saying that human genetic engineering has not been accepted because of a problem with the technology; the technology might be dangerous because it is still at its early stage. I think the point Dennis raised about suffering because of mistakes in experiments seems to be related to another area, rather than the problem of scientific techniques. It's the area of ethical issues related to human genetic engineering. Do you have any views on this area?

Dianne: I go along with Dennis. There is truly some doubt about genetic engineering and the technology needs much further investigation. But … uhm … as I said before, scientific advancements can help to solve these problems …

Dennis: Excuse me, I see it somewhat differently …

Dianne: But let me just explain the ethical issues. Whether scientific advancements can solve the technological problems is another issue. The crux of the matter is that with the use of genetic engineering to modify human genes … and therefore to create human beings with desirable personality traits … children will become products, and not humans. We know that genetic engineering is already handled on a commercial basis. This report by the USA Trade Council says that there are now hundreds of applications for patents waiting to be approved for new discoveries and new techniques of cloning and genes manipulation. Well, with this way of handling genetic engineering, and patenting, living beings are just treated as products, like computer software and digital cameras.

Jenny: OK … So ethical issues are the major stumbling block that hinders the general acceptance of human genetic engineering. Apart from the problem of suffering resulting from mistakes in experiments, the technology also has an impact on how the people generated are treated.

Jeane: Exactly. On top of what Dianne said, what would be the value of the creatures that are created by cloning? Scientists who discover and produce these creatures can patent their discovery. This means that they do not just own the techniques. They also own the products, that is, the genes that they put together. So the status of a clone will just be - an assembly of information.

Dennis: Excuse me, but what does that mean? … ‘an assembly of information'?

Jeane: Uhm … OK … What I mean is that human beings will just be treated as a set of genetic code that can be arranged and rearranged to produce new creatures. Human clones would be treated as objects created by their inventors, or products of mechanical inventions.

Dianne: I totally agree. I can think of a host of other problems arising from this. Who are the parents of a clone? Is it the donor of the genes or the scientist who makes use of unwanted cells collected from anonymous donors?

Dennis: I think so too. To my mind, it is unnatural to change the human genes just because the technology allows us to enhance human intelligences, personality and abilities and create ‘super-humans'.

And also I want to stress one point is that if every parent wants their children to be intelligent … to be strong … if they just make this engineering then everyone coming out will be just as intelligent as each other. Then there will be no competition in the society. How can the society be growing up?

Dianne: Uhm … Wait … There's some … I want to refer to your point on … first on everybody … that there will be no competition. But I don't think this is possible because there're just too many aspects on where you can compete. I mean there will always be competition … because people think different … even if you're as intelligent as someone there's something called may be luck or chances or many other things that you cannot just grab because you're intelligent. So, …

Discussing solutions

Jenny: Could you think of any ideas about this area?

Dennis: As I said before, it is unnatural to change human nature through scientific means.

So I think we need to enact laws to ban cloning and research in this field.

Dianne: No, I don't think we should have any banning on research because I think research is very important. It's part of the human development. I mean if we do research on genetic engineering on cloning we may find some new things. We may have new discoveries or remedies … may be not just on these aspects and also others.

Dennis: However, I think law is more important. We need laws to stop this unnatural way of changing human nature. Laws can stop this from spreading and from being accepted.

Jeane: I'm sorry but I agree with Dianne's point. We just can't possibly ban the research of human cloning because it is impossible for us to prevent a scientist from doing research. But anyway we should have laws to monitor the research and the applications of human cloning, for example, the patenting of discovery of scientists, and moreover we should also consider all kinds of views from different perspectives.

Jenny: Yes, it's important for us to consider different views on this area. So, … I've read an article which points out that even within one nation there may be different levels of acceptance. For example in Indian philosophy there are three schools of thought.

Discussing Issue 4

Jenny: OK … Let's come back to the problem now. So the ethical problem seems to create as many negative consequences as the technical problem.

Dianne: That's right. And I'm worried that people will be overwhelmed by the possibility of producing ideal personality and intelligences. Genetic engineering can easily be used to dominate and control society. People may disregard ethical concerns.

Jeane: Could I interrupt for a moment. I think there's also the problem of cost.

Dianne: Yes … but let me explain the ethical concerns. Now … if people … eh … if it's possible now for parents to produce children using the technology, many people will do so because they want their children to have the intelligences to succeed in this competitive world.

Jeane: I don't necessarily agree with you … because not everyone can afford those high costs of these technologies … you know … and human genetic engineering will not be widely adopted because of this. This means that eventually there will be a group generated from genetic manipulation. This is the group who can afford the costs and who will eventually control the society because they are better. The natural group … I mean the group generated naturally … will be a totally different species. They will probably be those taking up low-paid positions in society.

Dennis: I totally agree with you. There will be an unfair situation …

Concluding the discussion

Jeane: … The natural group … I mean the group generated naturally … will be a totally different species. They will be those taking up low-paid positions in society.

Dennis: I totally agree with you. There will be an unfair situation …

Jenny: All right … so … we have discussed the problems arising from technical knowledge and skills, ethical issues and cost. There is a range of problems which makes it difficult for people to accept human genetic engineering, although theoretically the technology enables us to generate people of desirable personality. There may be ways to solve the problems but some of them may lead to other problems as well. It seems that the problems related to human genetic engineering are complex and debates on the use of the technology may be endless. Well, let's hope that there can be compromises to ensure that the application of genetic engineering can be both ethical and beneficial to human beings.

Question 1

(a) What was the purpose of the speaker?

                         P to inform    

(b) How would you describe the speaker's attitude to the use of English worldwide?

                         P neutral                  

Question 2

(a) How would you describe the speaker's attitude to studies of English in Hong Kong?

                P critical            

(b) Which category of English-using territory does the speaker think the SAR falls into?

                P EFL

(c) How does the speaker describe the approach to teaching English in Hong Kong?

                P problematic   

(d) What was the purpose of the speaker?

                P to persuade

Tapescript: Presentation about English as a global language (Part 1)

In the past few decades language experts have put forward a number of models to represent the different ways that English is learned and used around the world … Perhaps the most widely used one is the three-part model proposed in the 1970s … I think many of you are probably familiar with this … English as a native language, or ENL for short … English as a second language, or ESL … and EFL, English as a foreign language.

Now when we consider ENL countries, I think it's helpful to break this down into two subcategories… First, countries like England where the vast majority of people have English as their first language and, second, countries where English co-exists with another important language … A good example here would be Canada where a sizeable percentage of the population speak French.

If we turn to ESL countries … These are countries where English is used in a number of important domains such as government, the legal system, education and business … In ESL territories … Sometimes called ‘outer circle' territories … English is also widely used in social communication … Take Singapore as an example … As you know, people there speak a variety of languages and dialects … Chinese, Indian and Malay … And so English plays an important social role in enabling people from the various ethnic communities to communicate with each other … In ESL countries, then, spoken English functions as a lingua franca.

Finally, when we talk about EFL countries, we mean countries where English has no official or social role … In other words, the language isn't used in government or the courts and there's generally no need to use it in everyday life … In EFL countries … And these are sometimes called ‘expanding circle' countries … English is learned as a school subject and is not the medium of instruction as it is in most ESL contexts … Probably about half the countries in the world could be categorised as EFL countries, although it may be helpful to sub-divide these into countries like Japan and mainland China where English has traditionally been a fairly remote ‘foreign' language and countries like Sweden where many people speak English fluently so that it's virtually a second language.

Tapescript: Presentation about English as a global language (Part 2)

 If you look at studies of English in Hong Kong I think it's very interesting that Hong Kong is usually classified as an ESL or ‘outer circle' territory … Well, yes, I suppose for some of the well-off professional people in Hong Kong English probably could be described as a second language in that they need to use it a lot at work and also socially with non-Chinese friends and acquaintances … But, let's be clear about this … For the vast majority of people in Hong Kong, and especially those who live and work outside the main business districts, English is, and always has been, a foreign language … The language of the home, the street and the media is Cantonese … For a kid growing up in Tuen Mun, say, there's absolutely no need to speak English apart from in English lessons at school … In other words, he's learning it as a foreign language and not as a language that plays an important social or cultural role in his daily life … The problem is of course that students here have traditionally been taught English as if it were a second language, you know, like it is in Singapore where it's been quite successful … Here, though, it's been a huge mistake because there simply isn't, and never has been, much support for English outside the classroom.