Topical essay: 1051SCG Science Revealed
Second Assignment Trimester 2, 2017
Value: 25 marks / Due date: 5pm Monday 18 September
Write a fully referenced, 1000 word essay addressing one of the following topics. Reference at least 4 sources which must be peer reviewed journal articles, government reports, or articles published in “The Conversation” (theconversation.com). Focus on developing a logical argument that orients the reader to the topic and follows the evidence to clearly support your conclusions as they relate to the topic.
1) How does Fritz Haber’s work in WWI relate to chlorine gas attacks in Syria? Since its introduction by Fritz Haber, chlorine gas has remained the simplest chemical weapon (Cotton, 2016), reappearing on the battlefield recently in Syria. Give a brief introduction to chlorine gas as a weapon, and the international treaties in place to control its use. Using examples of how chlorine gas was used in WWI and in modern Syria, explain what is known about the reasons for their use, reported effects, and international responses. This question relates only to use of chlorine gas, not sarin or others.
2) Personhood and medical treatment
An article addressing deontological and utilitarian ethics with patients in a persistent vegetative state (Playford, Roberts, & Playford, 2015) suggests that differing views on personhood and ethics affects treatment choices. Drawing on that article and at least three other sources, explain ethical and practical issues in making decisions affecting patients who are never conscious.
3) How will science be applied differently at work in 2030?
According to a recent report (The Foundation for Young Australians, 2017), by 2030 workers will spend over 70% more time using science and maths skills than today. Drawing on that report and at least three other sources, explain how science is likely to be applied by future workers in 2030 and beyond.
4) Negative emissions and the Paris Agreement
The concept of negative emissions is built into the Paris Agreement which aims to keep greenhouse gases in the atmosphere below dangerous levels. Drawing on an article published in Science (Anderson & Peters, 2016) and at least three other sources, explain how negatives emissions might become a reality and the major obstacles to their widespread implementation. Consider associated social issues such as equity and unintended consequences.
Marking
The assignment will be marked on your demonstrated understanding of the topic, the quality of your written language (keep it simple!), the accuracy and clarity of your
explanations, and the selection and referencing of sources. For this assignment, you need to reference all sources correctly in either APA 6 or AGPS Harvard, linked to an appropriate in-­-text citation. The Griffith Referencing tool will be the marking guide for accuracy in referencing.
The deadline for this assignment is 5pm, 18 September. You must submit through the Turnitin link on the course website under ‘Assessment,’ and you are strongly advised to use the Draft submission link to avoid plagiarism, however unintentional. The briefing paper should be one thousand words excluding references, give or take 10%. The assignment description and rubric remain the marking criteria for the assessment and will be discussed in class. However, an excellent resource to get you started is the book Everything's an Argument. Three short chapters have been digitised for you in the readings list.
Key points.
• It is a very good idea to check for plagiarism before you finally submit the essay.
• Referencing correctly and consistently, both in-­-text and at the end of the assignment, is required for all topics. Use APA 6 or AGPS Harvard style as recommended by the University.
• Pay close attention to what the question actually asks you to do. Writing about a topic that interests you, but is not the one set, will cost you marks.
• A briefing on these topics will be given in class, including important references for each topic.
• As this deadline is late in the session, extensions can only be given in exceptional circumstances. If you have difficulties, please contact the convenor as far in advance as possible.
References (Note that these are correctly formatted in APA6)
Anderson, K., & Peters, G. (2016). The trouble with negative emissions. Science, 354(6309), 182-­-183. doi:10.1126/science.aah4567
Playford, R. C., Roberts, T., & Playford, E. D. (2015). Deontological and utilitarian ethics: a brief introduction in the context of disorders of consciousness. Disability and rehabilitation, 37(21), 2006-­-2011. doi:10.3109/09638288.2014.989337
The Foundation for Young Australians. (2017). The New Work Smarts: Thriving in th New
Work Order. Retrieved from https://www.fya.org.au/report/the-­-new-­-work-­-smarts/
Tuffley, D. (2015). Job survival in the age of robots and intelligent machines. The
Conversation. Retrieved from https://theconversation.com/job-­-survival-­-in-­-the-­-age-­of-­-robots-­-and-­-intelligent-­-machines-­-33906 1051SCG Science Revealed / Trimester 2 2017 / Topical Essay
Due: Monday 5pm 18 September (25% of final mark)
Rubric for Topical Essay
Criteria Very Poor
F-­ 50%
(0-­12/25) Poor
P-­50%
(13-­15/25) Mediocre
C-­65%
(16-­18/25) Good D-­75%
(19-­20/25) Excellent
HD-­85%
(21-­25/25)
Demonstrated understanding
of the source paper No
comprehension
of research topic shown Minimal comprehension
of research and
findings
demonstrated Some grasp of research shown,
full implications
not
demonstrated Understanding of findings and discussion
clearly shown Sophisticated understanding of implications of research
demonstrated
Key
information
included in
summary Key context, results, and implications absent Minimal
inclusion of key context, results, and implications Some key context, results, and implications included, but
not all Key results and implications included, context needed All key results
and implications included and contextualised
Accuracy and
clarity of
explanations A number of inaccurate and unclear statements Some
inaccurate or unclear statements Most statements accurate, generally clearly explained All statements accurate, most
clearly explained All statements accurate and clearly explained for audience
Structure of
summary No perceptible structure of answer Poor structure, not properly addressing the research topic Some
indications of structuring to address the research topic Good general structuring, consistent with the research topic Brief is well
structured to give a logical treatment of the research topic
Quality of written language Unclear writing Writing mostly unclear, some patches of clarity Writing is
comprehensible,
but often
inappropriate Clear writing, with few errors
in grammar and sentence structure Sophisticated
use of language appropriate to the audience
Referencing No referencing used Inadequate, incomplete and/or inappropriate referencing Referencing system used,
either
incompletely or inappropriately Referencing system used completely and appropriately Complete,
sophisticated
use of
referencing system without
errors or
omissions