www.themegallery.com an integrated english course book 4 unit 15

www.themegallery.com

An Integrated English Course

An Integrated English Course

Book 4

Unit 15


Learning Objectives Learning Objectives By the end of this unit, you are suppose

d to • grasp the author’s purpose of writing • make clear the structure of the whole passage• get a list of new words and sentence structure

s and use them freely in conversation and writing.


Teaching ProceduresTeaching Procedures

Pre-reading QuestionsText I. Dolly’s False Legacy

● Passage● Structure analysis● Main idea of the passage● Language points

● sentence studies ● vocabulary studies

Text II. Quietly, Animal Cloning Speeds Onward


1) Do you know anything about Dolly, the first sheep ever cloned in history?

2) What do you know about cloning technique?

Pre-reading questions


Text I: Dolly’s False LegacyText I: Dolly’s False Legacy


Dolly’s False Legacy

Overlooked in the arguments about the morality of artificially reproducing life is the fact that, at present, cloning is a very inefficient procedure. The incidence of death among fetuses and offspring produced by cloning is much higher than it is through natural reproduction — roughly ten times as high as normal before birth and three times after birth in our studies at Roslin. Distressing enough for those working with animals, these failure rates surely render unthinkable the notion of applying such treatment to humans.

Even if the technique were perfected, however, we must ask ourselves what practical value whole-being cloning might have. What exactly would be the difference between a “cloned” baby and a child born naturally — and why would we want one?

The cloned child would be a genetically identical twin of the original, and thus physically very similar — far more similar than a natural parent and child. Human personality, however, emerges from both the effects of the genes we inherit (nature) and environmental factors (nurture). The two clones would develop distinct personalities, just as twins develop unique identities. And because the copy would often be born in a different family, cloned twins would be less alike in personality than natural identical twins.


Why “copy” people in the first place? Couples unable to have children might choose to have a copy of one of them rather than accept the intrusion of genes from a donor. My wife and I have two children of our own and an adopted child, but I find it helpful to consider what might have happened in my own marriage if a copy of me had been made to overcome infertility. My wife and I met in high school. How would she react to a physical copy of the young man she fell in love with? How would any of us find living with ourselves? Surely the older clone — I, in this case — would believe that he understood how the copy should behave and so be even more likely than the average father to impose expectations upon his child. Above all, how would a teenager cope with looking at me, a balding, aging man, and seeing the physical future ahead of him? Each of us can imagine hypothetical families created by the introduction of a cloned child — a copy of one partner in a homosexual relationship or of a single parent, for example. What is missing in all this is consideration of what’s in the interests of the cloned child. Because there is no form of infertility that could be overcome only by cloning, I do not find these proposals acceptable.


My concerns are not on religious grounds or on the basis of a perceived intrinsic ethical principle. Rather, my judgment is that it would be difficult for families created in this way to provide an appropriate environment for the child. Cloning is also suggested as a means of bringing back a relative, usually a child, killed tragically. Any parent can understand that wish, but it must first be recognized that the copy would be a new baby and not the lost child. Herein lies the difficulty, for the grieving parents are seeking not a new baby but a return of the dead one. Since the original would be fondly remembered as having particular talents and interests, would not the parent expect the copy to be the same? It is possible, however, that the copy would develop quite differently. Is it fair to the new child to place it in a family with such unusual expectations? What if the lost child was very young? The shorter the life, the fewer the expectations parents might place on the substitute, right? If a baby dies within a few days of birth and there is no reason to think that death was caused by an inherited defect, would it then be acceptable to make


a copy? Is it practical to frame legislation that would prevent copying of adults or older children, but allowing copying of infants? At what age would a child be too old to be copied in the event of death? Copying is also suggested as a means by which parents can have the child of their dreams. Couples might choose to have a copy of a film star, baseball player or scientist, depending on their interests. But because personality is only partly the result of genetic inheritance, conflict would be sure to arise if the cloned child failed to develop the same interests as the original. What if the copy of Einstein shows no interest in science? Or the football player turns to acting? Success also depends upon fortune. What if the child does not live up to the hopes and dreams of the parent simply because of bad luck? Every child should be wanted for itself, as an individual. In making a copy of oneself or some famous person, a parent is deliberately specifying the way he or she wishes that child to develop. In recent years, particularly in the U.S., much importance has been placed on the right of individuals to reproduce in ways that they wish. I suggest that there is a greater need to consider the interests of the child and to reject these proposed uses of cloning.


By contrast, human cloning could, in theory, be used to obtain tissues needed to treat disorders such as Parkinson’s disease and diabetes. These diseases are associated with cell types that do not repair or replace themselves, but suitable cells will one day be grown in culture. These uses cannot be justified now; nor are they likely to be in the near future. Moreover, there is a lot we do not know about the effects of cloning, especially in terms of aging. As we grow older, changes occur in our cells that reduce the number of times they can reproduce. This clock of age is reset by normal reproduction during the production of sperm and eggs; that is why children of each new generation have a full lifespan. It is not yet known whether aging is reversed during cloning or if the clone’s natural life is shortened by the years its parent already lived. Then there is the problem of the genetic errors that accumulate in our cells. There are systems to seek out and correct such errors during normal reproduction; it is not known if that can occur in cloning. Research with animals is urgently required to measure the lifespan and determine the cause of death of animals produced by cloning.


Important questions also remain on the most appropriate means of controlling the development and use of these techniques. It is taken for granted that the production and sale of drugs will be regulated by governments, but this was not always the case. A hundred years ago, the production and sale of drugs in the U.S. was unregulated. Unscrupulous companies took the opportunity to include in their products substances, like cocaine, that were likely to make the patients feel better even if they offered no treatment for the original condition. After public protest, championed by publications such as the Ladies’ Home Journal, a federal act was passed in 1906. An enforcement agency, known now as the FDA, was established in 1927. An independent body similar to the FDA is now required to assess all the research on cloning. There is still much to be learned about the biology associated with cloning. The time required for this research, however, will also provide an opportunity for each society to decide how it wishes the technique to be used. At some point in the future, cloning will have much to contribute to human medicine, but we must use it cautiously.


The passage can be divided into three parts. Part One: (Paragraphs 1)

• serves as the introduction of the topic of cloning and the thesis of the essay. That is to say it is impossible to apply cloning to humans, today at least.

Structure Analysis Structure Analysis


Part Two: (Paragraphs 2-12) • the body of the essay, where the author argues against th

e currently discussed practicality of applying the cloning technique to humans from technical, ethical and legal perspectives.

– Para. 2-9: refute the reasons for wanting cloned children from ethical or humane viewpoint.

– Para. 10-11: argues from the technical angle that cloning is not applicable to humans at present.

– Para. 12: presents the difficulty in and necessity for legal controlling of the use of the technique.


Part Three: (Para. 13)• concludes the essay by restating the thesis that

cloning technique must be used cautiously.


Main Idea of the passage Main Idea of the passage

The thesis of the text is that it is unthinkable to apply cloning to humans nowadays. The author argues against the currently discussed practicality of applying the cloning technique to humans from technical, ethical and legal perspectives. He believes that cloning technique must be used cautiously.


LANGUAGE POINTSLANGUAGE POINTS

• Overlooked in the arguments … is the fact that …

– This is an inverted sentence, and its normal order is: “The fact that at present, cloning is a very inefficient procedure is overlooked in the argument.” The reason for this inversion is that the author wants to highlight the topic of the essay: “the argument about the morality of artificially reproducing life”.

– Overlook: 1) fail to notice; ignore or disregard– 2) forgive; tolerate– 3) provide a view from above

Back to the Text


• distressing – Upsetting

E.g. The television reports about the famine were particularly distressing.

• render – cause (someone or something) to be in a parti

cular state

E.g. His rudeness rendered me speechless.

Back to the Text


• perfect – make (something) completely free from faults or defects, or

as close to such a condition as possible

E.g. He is keen to perfect his golfing technique.

• impose – lay on

E.g. Judges are imposing increasing heavy fines for minor driving offences.

– enforce compliance with

E.g. we need to impose some kind of order on the way we do things in the office.

Back to the Text

Back to the Text


• frame – create or formulate (a concept, plan, or system)

E.g. The peace proposals were framed by the five permanent members of the UN Security Council.

• in the event of – If something should happen

E.g. In the event of a strike, the army will take over reponsibility for firefighting.

Back to the Text


• specify– state or describe clearly and exactly E.g. it is against federal law to specify skin color in a new

spaper ad for roommates.

• reverse – turn (something) the other way round or inside out E.g. I was almost knocked off my bike by a car reversing

out of a garage.

Back to the Text

Back to the Text


• accumulate– gather;build up

• regulate – control or supervise by means of rules and regulati

ons

E.g. You can regulate the temperature in the house by adju

sting the thermostat and the raiators.

Back to the Text

Back to the Text


• champion – defend; support

E.g. He has championed constitutional reform for many years.

• enforcement – the action of compelling observance of or complian

ce with (a law, rule, or obligation)

E.g. She’s looking for a career in law enforcement.

Back to the Text


Comprehension questionsComprehension questionsI. Decide which of the following best states the

author’s purpose of writing.A. To argue against the currently discussed prac

ticality of human cloning on the technical, humane and legal grounds.

B. To argue that cloning technique is not applicable to humans because it is premature at the present stage.

C. To argue that the application of cloning techniques should be regulated by governments in case humans should be cloned.


• Distressing enough for those working with animals, these failure rates surely render unthinkable the notion of applying such treatment to humans. The much greater incidence of death among cloned fetuses and offspring than among their natural counterparts makes it impossible to use the technique to clone humans, and this is rather upsetting for those working with animal cloningl

• … I find it helpful to consider what might have happened in my own marriage if a copy of me had been made to overcome infertility. Imagine what might have happened in our life if my wife or I were sterile and, to settle the problem of infertility, I had myself cloned. This imaginary example helps to support my point.

• Because there is no form of infertility that could be overcome only by cloning, I do not find these proposals acceptable. Because the issue of infertility cannot be solved by cloing only, I find these proposals unacceptable.

• It is not yet known whether aging is reversed during cloning or if the clone’s natural life is shortened by the years its parent already lived. It is not yet known whether the clock of age is turned in the opposite direction during cloning or whether the years of its parent will be deducted from its life expectancy.


TEXT II: Quietly, Animal Cloning Speeds OnwardTEXT II: Quietly, Animal Cloning Speeds Onward

Kris Axtman

They are Big Bertha and Tiny Tina, a couple of piglets.

They may look and act differently (hence, their names), but these oinkers are identical. They are the newest cloned animals from Texas A&M University, which with their birth leads the academic pack in the number of species cloned. And the fact that animals with exactly the same genes can be different sizes and have different character traits may be just the first of many things that scientists hope can be learned from these little pigs.

This latest cloning project — and the wealth of information scientists hope it will provide — is just one of the many such animal-cloning experiments under way. Even as the human-cloning debate has dominated headlines and congressional hearings, scientists have cloned everything from mice to lambs to bulls.


And it is in the pens of these cloned animals — rather than in the theoretical realm — where both the advances and problems of cloning are being played out. After the 1996 birth of Dolly, the sheep, the first cloned animal, the technology has been galloping along. There are now cows and goats that produce more milk and tastier meat, bulls able to resist disease, and pigs that can act as organ donors. And this is only the beginning, say cloning supporters. For instance, breeding disease-resistant cows could save people’s lives in third-world countries. And by cloning endangered species, animals such as the Atwater prairie chicken and desert bighorn sheep could be saved from extinction. “You could repopulate the world (with endangered species) in a matter of a couple of years,” says scientist H. Richard Adams. “Cloning is not a trivial pursuit ... We’re trying to improve life for people here on earth.” The school has come under criticism for its “Missyplicity” project, in which the owners of a dog are spending $3.7 million to have the pet cloned.


In addition to such moral controversies, opponents say there are still too many physical problems associated with animal cloning, such as deformities and high death rates during gestation. A recent article published in the journal Science, for instance, noted that researchers have found that apparently normal cloned animals develop abnormalities later in life. But so far so good with the health of Second Chance, a 1,000-pound Brahma bull born in Texas in June of 1998.He is being carefully watched because his donor, Chance, at the age of 21, was the oldest animal ever cloned. The owners, Ralph and Sandra Fisher, had a special attachment to Chance, a favorite with kids at rodeos and county fairs and who appeared in several movies. One look at his clone, and the Fishers were convinced their old friend was still alive. “This is the same animal back again. This is not a son or a twin brother,” say the Fishers. “It’s him.”


Second Chance is the spitting image of Chance. And as for personality, say the Fishers, the two are identical. For example, Chance’s favorite spot was in the front yard, just outside the kitchen window. “The day we brought Second Chance home, he laid in the same exact spot. And the first time he saw Ralph, he loped across this pasture toward him, licking his face and his boots,” says Sandra Fisher. “I’m a little hesitant to say he has memory, but he has the same instincts. Let me put it like this: Given the same problem, Chance and Second Chance would figure it out in the same way.” Studying questions such as cognitive ability and behavior of clones is of major importance, but it’s hard to draw conclusions just yet, scientists say. There are simply not enough clones in the world to make valid comparisons. That’s why A&M scientists are so excited about their new piglets. Unlike cloned cattle and sheep, which produce only one offspring at a time, the litter of pigs provide scientists a chance to study several clones at once.


Consider for a moment that Bertha is roughly 40 percent larger and more aggressive than Tina, the nervous runt. Exactly the same genes, totally different animals. “We’re seeing some pretty drastic differences in the body weight and behavior,” says Jorge Piedrahita, who heads the pig-cloning project at A&M. “What that tells us is that small differences in environment can cause large differences in personality.” Several months ago, Dr. Piedrahita and his crew started working with the piglets, testing memory and pattern recognition with the help of treats. The answers they get could offer insight into the nature vs. nurture debate. But with all that scientists are learning from cloning animals, many of those same scientists draw the line at cloning humans. “We still don’t know enough about cloning,” says James Womack, director of the Center for Animal Biotechnology and Genomics at Texas A&M. “It would be foolish to attempt it with our current state of knowledge.”


For instance, there is still a very low success rate for cattle. And of the few cloned calves that even make it to birth, many don’t live long. “There’s a lot of trial and error right now,” says Dr. Womack. “And as a society, we are not prepared for that error in humans.”


• Comprehension questions• Compare Text I and Text II in this unit to see where th

e two authors differ from each other in their attitude towards cloning.

• Compare these two texts to see whether there is any difference between them in terms of language style.


• Notes to text II

• Texas A&M University (Paragraph 2): the first public institution of higher learning of Texas, which was opened in College Station on October 4, 1876

• “Missyplicity” project (Paragraph 8): This cloning project, which was supported by private donations, was first inspired by Missy, a beloved dog who died of illness on July 6, 2002.

• Science (Paragraph 9): an international weekly science journal published in the United States

• Second Chance is the spitting image of Chance. (Paragraph 13): Second Chance and Chance look exactly the same.

• with the help of treats (Paragraph 19): by giving the piglets something to eat

www.themegallery.com an integrated english course book 4 unit 15

Documents