Stem Cell Research and My Thinking Domain

The relation between Stem Cell Research and the Social, Ethical, and Historical Thinking Domain is not hard to find. In fact, they are practically intertwined with each other. “Social, ethical, and historical thinking studies patterns of individual behaviors and human interactions; distinguishes between acts that harm other living beings and those which promote the welfare of others; and discerns and justifies reasoned ethical and moral judgments.” Stem Cell Research is a very controversial scientific procedure where scientists use stem cells to try to find cures for diseases such as cancer, Alzheimer’s, Autism, etc. This is controversial because the most useful stem cells are found by terminating embryos very early. Adult stem cells are helpful, but because they have already matured and been specified for a particular task in the human body, scientists cannot manipulate them into as many things as they could an embryonic stem cell. There are two main arguments about stem cell research. People who are Pro-life believe that even at the earliest stages, a fertilized embryo is a human being. To these people, terminating the embryos for research would be considered first degree murder. The opposition to the argument believes that the bundle of cells in an embryo has the potential to become a human being, but as it does not have a brain, organs, consciousness, arms, a body, etc. it is not really a person yet. There is a major debate about whether embryonic stem cell research is ethical. No one seems to have any problem with adult stem cell research, but it does not have the desired effects. The debate has been practically continuous since the discovery of stem cells in the 60’s. (historical) A person usually decides whether they are pro-life or pro-choice based on family beliefs or their religion. (social) So does Stem cell research harm living beings, or promote welfare of others. It all depends on what you believe.

Personally, I am pro-choice. I don’t find that the teeny tiny little cells are a human life. A lot of people would probably disagree, but I think that we should be more worried about the human beings that are already alive and breathing before we worry about the cells that don’t even have a brain yet. So many children are abused, neglected, abandoned, and even murdered on this planet. If we used our energy, time, and resources to fight for them we would save a lot more lives than if we stopped embryonic stem cell research. Plus, it’s even possible that we might find cures for diseases that are killing even more of our children (and adults as well). I believe that the majority of the embryo’s that scientists used are ones that are getting thrown away anyway. If the pro-life argument is that all of these embryos should be given a chance to go full term and be born into this world, I am curious as to who will be taking care of all of the overflow babies. The social service system is already overworked and overcrowded. I don’t have the right or wrong answers; I just know what I believe. Everyone believes something a little differently, and that is why the ethical debate continues.

Gender Divided Classrooms: The Way of the Future

   It's pretty clear from the title of this blog how I feel about gender divided classrooms. I believe that the American education system is not working and this is one possible solution to a growing academic gap between male and females that is caused by gender bias. Gender divided classrooms are just what they sound like. I think that in core classes (Mathematics, Science, English, and Literature) boys and girls should be taught by teachers of their own gender in seperate classrooms. I believe that this would eliminate teacher and student bias that could be detrimental to the student's education.
   In my opinion, these are the two main arguments in support of gender divided classrooms. Boys and girls learn in different ways. Some girls also learn differently than other girls and the same can be said about boys. It makes it very difficult for teachers to attempt to cater to so many different learning styles. Having gender divided classrooms would split this problem in half. The teacher would still have to teach to the different individual learning styles, but they would not be fighting against gender related differences. For example, let's look at a classroom with six students, three females and three males. (that class size is unheard of I know, but it's just an example) Rachel learns by reading text, Tina learns by listening to lectures, Noah learns by looking at diagrams, and Mike learns by building models. A single science teacher might have trouble keeping all four very different students interested and engaged in the assignment. If the classrooms were divided by gender, two science teachers would find the task much less challenging. Rachel and Tina can be taught by reading journal articles about science and by having the lectures about subjects in the book so that they could follow along. Noah and Mike would be much better taught by doing experiments themselves and by participating in class projects and demonstrations. These four students would be interested twice as long and therefore learn twice as much. Wait! What about the other two students? Of course, there is always the possibility that Brittany likes to do experiments and Kurt likes to read text. So do they just fall through the cracks? Of course not! The teacher would be able to notice that they were uninterested and add curiculum to the class to get them involved. If they were still struggling, Brittany and Kurt's teachers could pull them aside individually and tutor them using their learning methods of choice. Gender divided classrooms also eliminate gender bias. If you are a young girl in a class full of other young girls being taught by a female teacher, there are no boys to impress or prove yourself for. The same goes for a young boy in a class full of other young boys being taught by a male teacher.
   The main counter arguments that I have heard are that a) this would affect a child socially, and b) stereotypical gender "issues" will create problems in the classroom. The first argument actually upsets me. When did the classroom become a social situation? Social interactions between kids are for lunch, gym class, and the playground. The classroom is for learning and individual academic enhancement. I'm not saying that it should be a prison, but boys and girls shouldn't be learning how to talk to each other properly during math class. They still can talk to each other during the school day. This is not an argument for gender divided schools. The second argument seems to be a little silly since it itself seems to be based entirely on bias. The belief is that "boys will be boys" and "girls will be girls". If they were in seperate classrooms, girls would spend the entire class texting and gossiping and boys would get into fights with each other. They would argue with the teacher about discipline "because the boys get to do it", or vice versa. I honestly don't think that this would be a problem. Dividing the classrooms by gender should start very early in the education system. The studies that I and my class group have read show that 1st through 4th grade is the critical period for the academic gender gap. All of these stereotypical behaviors are learned. If they are swept off the board early on, they won't be a problem.
   I want to defend this topic against one last objection. The opposing group in our class debate brought up that they believe that gender divided classrooms would be unconstitutional. They cited Title IX and Plessy vs. Ferguson to prove their point. I disagree with this idea completely. I don't think that unequal classrooms would be an issue. The coursework would be specifically designed with the students in mind so no one would have anything over another. Also, if gender divided classrooms are unconstitutional, then so are classrooms divided by intelligence, such as Honors vs. Regular courses. I can't really see a difference between the two division types.
    This is everything that I can think of to say about Gender Divided classrooms. There are some other concerns, such as financial worries, but I truly believe that the positive outcomes outweigh the negative in the long run. Sure it will be difficult to make the change, but does that mean we should just give up? We have a responsiblilty to provide our children, the future of this nation and the world, the best education that we can possibly give them. The educational system as it is right now is not doing that. I think that implementing gender divided classrooms, combined with an overhaul of coursework and textbooks, can fix this dilemna. This blog title was taken from our classes group project, but I believe it works perfectly for my personal opinions as well. I believe that gender divided classrooms really are the way of the future.