Цель урока: Students can debate the ethics of scientific progress, weigh up risks and benefits, and present hypothetical scenarios with were to, should, but for and inverted conditionals.
Добавьте урок к себе — появятся копии набора слов и упражнений, а урок откроется в конструкторе: там шаги можно поправить и провести урок.
План урока
- 1
Разминка
Вопросы, чтобы разговорить ученика и выйти на тему.
- Which scientific discovery of the last hundred years has changed your life the most?
- Would you want to know which diseases you are genetically likely to develop?
- Should there be limits on what scientists are allowed to research?
- 2
Новые слова
Знакомство со словами и закрепление в играх.
Найди парыНапиши словоgenetic engineering · designer babies · clone · informed consent · play God · a slippery slope · a moral dilemma · peer review · breakthrough · ethically dubious · the sanctity of life · tamper with · unforeseen consequences · falsify · safeguard
Все слова набора - 3
Упражнения
Слова урока в контексте. Ответы видите только вы.
- Пропуск
Before taking part in the trial, every volunteer must give informed ___.
Ответ: consent - Пропуск
He lost his post when it emerged that he had chosen to ___ his results rather than admit the experiment had failed.
Ответ: falsify - Пропуск
But ___ the discovery of antibiotics, millions more people would have died of simple infections.
Ответ: for - Пропуск
___ the treatment prove unsafe, the trial would be stopped immediately.
Ответ: Should - Выбор ответа
Critics argue that letting parents choose their child's eye colour would be the first step on ...
a slippery slopea moral dilemmaa breakthroughpeer review - Выбор ответа
Which sentence is grammatically correct?
Were scientists to clone a human, the public reaction would be enormous.Were scientists clone a human, the public reaction would be enormous.If scientists were to clone a human, the public reaction will be enormous.Should scientists to clone a human, the public reaction would be enormous. - Выбор ответа
Why does peer review matter in science?
Other experts check a study's methods and conclusions before it is published.It lets the public vote on which research gets funded.It guarantees that the results are true.It protects the researchers' identity. - Верно / неверно
Read: "In 2018 a researcher announced that he had edited the genes of twin girls to make them resistant to HIV. Far from being celebrated as a breakthrough, the experiment was condemned around the world: the parents had not been properly informed of the risks, and the long-term consequences for the children remain unknown. He was later sentenced to three years in prison." The scientific community welcomed the experiment as a breakthrough.
Ответ: Неверно - Верно / неверно
Read the text again. One criticism was that the parents had not been given enough information.
Ответ: Верно - Вопрос для разговора
Should gene editing be allowed to prevent serious inherited diseases, even if it could later be used to create designer babies? Argue your case using at least two advanced conditional structures.
Пример ответа: Were we to ban gene editing outright, we would condemn thousands of families to illnesses that could be prevented. Had such a technique existed a generation ago, my uncle might have lived a normal life. That said, should the technology become cheap and unregulated, the line between curing disease and designing babies would quickly blur, so strict safeguards are essential.
- Пропуск
- 4
Разговор
Ученик отвечает, используя новые слова.
- Is 'playing God' a meaningful objection, or simply a way of resisting change?
- Should animals be used in medical research if it saves human lives?
- Who should decide where the ethical limits of science lie: scientists, governments or the public?
- Can a breakthrough ever justify research that was carried out unethically?
- Which current technology do you think will have the most unforeseen consequences?
- 5
Повторение
Квиз по словам урока. С учеником — домашнее задание по его ссылке.
Квиз