I’ll provide the Performance task, slide show relating to essay, example essay, the rubric, and the paragraphs I have a already started. This is a AP seminar class with the assignment of finding research with listed sources.
AP Seminar Performance Task 2:
Individual Research-Based Essay and Presentation Weight: 35% of theAP Seminar score
Task Overview
This packet includes a set of stimulus materials for the AP Seminar Performance Task 2: Individual Research-Based Essay and Presentation.
You must identify a research question prompted by analysis of the provided stimulus materials, gather information from a range of additional sources, develop and refine an argument, write and revise your argument, and create a presentation that you will be expected to defend. Your teacher will give you a deadline for when you need to submit your written argument and presentation media. Your teacher will also give you a date on which you will give your presentation.
In all written work, you must:
Acknowledge, attribute, and/or cite sources using in-text citations, endnotes or footnotes, and/or through bibliographic entry. You must avoid plagiarizing (see the attached AP Capstone Policy on Plagiarism and Falsification or Fabrication of Information).
Adhere to established conventions of grammar, usage, style, and mechanics.
Task Directions–Individual Written Argument (2000 words)
❯ Read and analyze the provided stimulus materials to identify thematic connections among the sources and possible areas for inquiry.
❯ Compose a research question of your own prompted by analysis of the stimulus materials.
Task Components Length
Individual Written Argument 2000 words
Individual Multimedia Presentation 6–8 minutes Oral Defense Respond to
2 questions
❯ Gather information from a range of additional sources representing a variety of perspectives, including scholarly work.
❯ Analyze, evaluate, and select evidence. Interpret the evidence to develop a well-reasoned argument that answers the research question and conveys your perspective.
❯ Throughout your research, continually revisit and refine your original research question to ensure that the evidence you gather addresses your purpose and focus.
❯ Identify opposing or alternate views and consider their implications and/or limitations as you develop resolutions, conclusions, or solutions to your research question.
❯ Compose a coherent, convincing and well-written argument in which you:
1. Identify and explain the relationship of your inquiry to a theme or connection among at least two of the stimulus materials prompted by your reading.
2. Incorporate at least one of the stimulus materials.
3. Place your research question in context. w Include a variety of
perspectives. w Include evidence from a range of sources.
4. Establish an argument that links claims and evidence.
5. Provide specific resolutions, conclusions and/or solutions.
6. Evaluate objections, limitations or competing perspectives and
arguments.
7. Cite all sources that you have used, including the stimulus
materials, and include a list of works cited or a bibliography.
8. Use correct grammar and style.
9. Do a word count and keep under the 2000-word limit (excluding
footnotes, bibliography, and text in figures or tables).
Slideshow link: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1oVVlaQBzyb8c907rPybfaGci7odU-_fz/view?usp=drivesdk
Example essay:
Preventing Mental Illness: Why Genetic Editing Is Unfeasible Word Count: 2056
PT2 IWA Sample A, page 1 of 9
1
PT2 IWA Sample A, page 2 of 9
2
According to the National Institute of Mental Health, approximately 46.6 million adults in the United States currently live with a mental illness; that is almost a fifth of the country’s population (2017). Following the increasing prominence of mental health issues in modern society has come more research on the origins of these disorders. In addition to environmental factors, genetics have been found to play a large role in people’s likelihood of developing a mental illness (Hyman, 2000, pg. 455). For example, the serotonin transporter gene 5-HTTLPR has been discovered to have a relationship with depression and overall life satisfaction, as stated by Jan-Emmanuel De Neve, a professor of economics at the London School of Economics, and his colleagues of Harvard Medical School, the University of California’s Department of Medicine, and Warwick Business School respectively (2012, pg. 193). Gene testing and modifying technology has swiftly developed alongside this research; most notably, a new tool called CRISPR/cas9 has recently emerged. Jana Murovec of the Biotechnical Faculty at University of Ljubljana and her colleagues in the Department of Genetics, Development and Cell Biology at Iowa State University (2017) report that this new genetic editor is much more precise than any previous available technology and has opened new doors for the possibilities of DNA modification in a variety of organisms (pg. 917).
These simultaneous developments beg the question: to what extent might genetic editing be a practical preventive treatment for mental illness? Surrounding this query, there exists a wide range of opinions on the morality, safety, and applicability of germline genome editing in humans (Lawrence & Applebaum, 2011, pg. 315). According to Kelly Ormond, a professor in the Department of Genetics and Stanford Center for Biomedical Ethics at Stanford University (2017), germline genome editing is a revision of the human genome that occurs in a germ cell or
PT2 IWA Sample A, page 3 of 9
3
embryo and results in heritable altered traits that would likely be passed onto offspring (pg. 167). Despite the potential benefits that preventative treatments like this could provide for those highly susceptible to mental illness, genetic editing is largely believed by the scientific community to be ethically dubious, difficult to regulate, too complex to be reliably successful, and have a high potential for abuse, as reported by professor in the Office of Health and Safety at Hokkaido University Tetsuya Ishii (2015). At this point in time, the various concerns associated with germline gene editing outweigh its possible usefulness and likely make it too impractical to be successfully implemented.
The most prominent issue with DNA modification in humans is the controversy around its morality. Mary Todd Bergman, a correspondent at the Harvard Gazette, reports that there is a general sense among some of the public that it is inherently unethical to “play God” and alter the very fabric of what makes us up as people (2019). This often includes religious groups such as the 23 million Christians living in the United States (Pew Research Center). Therefore, any use of germline genome editing would likely result in widespread backlash among both the general public and the scientific community, as well as in few people being willing to participate in developmental research or the eventual treatment itself. There is also thought to be a high potential for abuse with genetic modification. Tetsuya Ishii (2015) describes how gene editing could easily transition from only being used for disease or disability prevention, as in the case of mental illnesses, to more cosmetic and medically unnecessary purposes, such as genetic enhancement (pg. 50). This would include parents being able to alter their unborn child’s traits such as height, pigmentation, or athletic ability without the child’s consent, even if this were not necessarily in their child’s best interest; in past discussions, these children of the future have
been referred to as “designer babies” (Ishii, 2015, pg. 51). This phenomena could lead to discrimination based on genetics or even the implementation of eugenics as was seen in the past in Nazi Germany (Ormond, 2017, pg. 170). Thus, the scientific community should continue to refrain from conducting research on human genome modification in order to prevent dangerous outcomes such as this.
Several countries around the world already have legislation outlawing germline genome editing, though it varies in leniency and intensity of enforcement (Ishii, 2015, pg. 53). According to Eric Juengst, the director of the UNC Center for Bioethics and a Professor in the Departments of Social Medicine and Genetics at the University of North Carolina (2017), if a scientific consensus were reached that DNA modification could be effectively and ethically used exclusively for the prevention of diseases or mental disorders, a massive overhaul of global regulations on this subject would be required (pg. 16). Japan, the U.S., China, and Russia in particular would be forced to confront the social concerns surrounding genetic editing and create regulatory policies despite their different stances on its legality. (Ishii, 2015, pg. 53). Enforcing these policies would surely be a challenge, as well. The outlawing of genetic enhancement may create an illegal market for this type of editing, subsequently forcing law enforcement officials to try to identify if individuals have been genetically enhanced merely from observing their external traits (Juenst, 2017, pg. 21). This probable inability to create and enforce successful regulatory legislation for DNA modification further contributes to why its implementation is risky in any capacity.
However, despite the controversy surrounding this idea, genetic alterations to reduce vulnerable people’s predisposition to mental illness have the potential to be very effective if
PT2 IWA Sample A, page 4 of 9
4
PT2 IWA Sample A, page 5 of 9
5
carried out responsibly. Steven Hyman, the director of the Stanley Center for Psychiatric Research and a member at the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard, as well as a Harvard University Distinguished Service Professor of Stem Cell and Regenerative Biology (2000) reports that recent research has been able to identify certain genes or gene combinations that influence the transportation of neurotransmitters between neurons as well as the proteins that make up the brain’s synaptic structure, both of which substantially contribute to mental health (pg. 455). He states, “Family, twin and adoption studies have shown that, for schizophrenia, autism, manic depressive illness, major depression, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, panic disorder and other mental illnesses, the transmission of risk is due to heredity” (2000, pg. 456). This means that genetic modification could likely edit those inherited genes to significantly reduce the probability that an individual will develop one of the aforementioned illnesses. Additionally, a study conducted by Han-Na Kim, a professor of the Department of Biochemistry of the School of Medicine at Ewha Womans University (2013), found specific genes that influence the different personality profiles of women (pg. 667). This also indicates that traits such as neuroticism, which influence mental health, can potentially be successfully altered by genetic editing. This method would attack the source of mental disorders before they could even arise, making it a valuable tool to consider regardless of its drawbacks and the other disputes surrounding it.
Yet, in spite of the potential of this preventative approach to heritable mental health issues, concerns still remain about the actual applicability of genetic editing even with its hypothetical usefulness. Hyman (2000) explains that although certain specific genes have been identified to significantly influence one’s risk of developing particular mental illnesses, inherited
PT2 IWA Sample A, page 6 of 9
6
predisposition is still very genetically complex. This means that multiple genes most likely interact in a variety of ways to produce traits like vulnerability, or lack thereof, to mental illness, and would therefore be difficult to isolate and successfully edit (pg. 457). Additionally, the notion that genetic modification would meaningfully reduce the prominence of mental disorders does not take environmental factors into account; these factors include external influences such as one’s childhood, past experiences, stress, relationships, diet, exercise, and other elements, as reported by researcher Minae Niwa of the Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine (2013, pg. 335). Environmental factors also mean the places that people find, or do not find, mental wellbeing in their individual lifestyles, like certain routines or media consumption. Andrew O’Hagan, novelist and Visiting Professor of Writing at King’s College London, shows one example of this in stating,”[Disney’s] contribution gives life to the notion that happiness is a creation, something made rather than inherited” (2015). This exemplifies why genes are only partially responsible for mental health. Hyman summarizes, “Gone is the notion that there is a single gene that causes any mental disorder or determines any behavioural variant. [This concept] has been replaced by that of genetic complexity, in which multiple genes act in concert with non-genetic factors to produce a risk of mental disorder” (2000, pg. 455). Thus, the potential effectiveness of genetic editing is undercut by the intricacy of causative genes as well as the major impact of environmental components on mental health.
Concurrent developments in the fields of psychology and genetics have recently revealed valuable insights on both how genes influence human susceptibility to mental illnesses as well as how to edit the genomes of certain organisms with tools such as CRISPR/cas-9. Exploring the
PT2 IWA Sample A, page 7 of 9
7
possibility of genetic modification as a preventative treatment in order to lower predisposition for mental illnesses therefore presents a pertinent discussion. Despite the speculative potential of this method, several concerns have been presented that arguably outrule its practicality. Gene modification, particularly germline genome editing in humans, is generally viewed as ethically questionable in the scientific community as well as within the informed public. It has a high potential for future abuse for purposes such as unnecessary genetic enhancement or eugenics. If somehow implemented responsibly, it would still be a hassle to create functional regulatory legislation and to enforce it around the world. Furthermore, the genetic editing that is currently possible might not even be successful in changing mental health outcomes because of the genetic complexity and unaccounted environmental factors that also affect vulnerability to mental illness. Hence, the conclusion of the Second International Summit on Human Genome Editing supports that the use of gene modification to reduce predisposition to mental disorders in at-risk individuals is an inappropriate and ineffectual approach at this point in time (National Academy of Sciences, 2018). Until more research and organized public discussion is conducted, it will remain unfeasible.
References
Bergman, M.T. (2019). Perspectives on gene editing. The Harvard Gazette.
Perspectives on gene editing
De Neve, J.E., Christakis, N.A., Fowler, J.H., & Frey, B.S. (2012). Genes, economics, and
happiness. Journal of Neuroscience, Psychology, and Economics, 5, 193-211. Hyman, S.E. (2000). The genetics of mental illness: Implications for practice. Bulletin of the
World Health Organization, 78, 455-463.
Ishii, T. (2015). Germ line genome editing in clinics: The approaches, objectives and global
society. Briefings in Functional Genomics, 16, 46-56.
Juengst, E.T. (2017). Crowdsourcing the moral limits of human gene editing?. Hastings Center
Report, 47, 15-23.
Kim, H.N, Roh, S.J., Sung, Y.A., Chung, H.W., Lee, J.Y., Cho, J., Shin, H., & Kim, H.L. (2013).
Genome-wide association study of the five-factor model of personality in young Korean
women. Journal of Human Genetics, 58, 667–674.
Lawrence, R.E., & Appelbaum, P.S. (2011). Genetic testing in psychiatry: A review of attitudes
and beliefs. Psychiatry, 74, 315-331.
Murovec, J., Pirc, Z., & Yang, B. (2017). New variants of CRISPR RNA-guided genome editing
enzymes. Plant Biotechnology Journal, 15, 917-926.
National Academy of Sciences. (2018). Statement by the organizing committee of the second
international summit on human genome editing. National Academies. https://www.nationalacademies.org/news/2018/11/statement-by-the-organizing-committe e-of-the-second-international-summit-on-human-genome-editing
PT2 IWA Sample A, page 8 of 9
8
National Institute of Health. (2017). Mental illness. https://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/statistics/mental-illness.shtml#part_155771.
Niwa, M., Jaaro-Peled, H., Tankou, S., Sheshadri, S., Hikida, T., Matsumoto, Y., Cascella, N.G., Kano, S., Ozaki, N., Nabeshima, T., & Sawa, A. (2013). Adolescent stress–induced epigenetic control of dopaminergic neurons via glucocorticoids. Science, 6117, 335-339.
O’Hagan, A. (2015). The happiness project. The New York Times Style Magazine. https://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/17/t-magazine/happiness-project-disneyland.html
Ormond, K.E., Mortlock, D.P., Scholes, D.T., Bombard, Y., Brody, L.C., Faucett, W.A., Garrison, N.A., Hercher, L., Isasi, R., Middleton, A., Musunuru, K., Shriner, D., Virani, A., & Young, C.E. (2017). Human germline genome editing. American Journal of Human Genetics, 101, 167-176.
Pew Research Center. (N.D.) Religion. https://www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/
Name AP Seminar date ` school
Moral Courage in Individuals
Is moral courage primarily an innate trait, or is it developed through experiences and socialization?
The question of whether moral courage is innate or developed through experiences and socialization has contrasting perspectives. Some argue that it evolves over time, while others believe it is an inherent trait. Looking at sources like the “Inaugural Address” by Franklin D. Roosevelt, “Predator-induced fear causes PTSD-like changes in the brains and behavior of wild animals”, and narratives like “Through the Tunnel” well provide a nuanced understanding of moral courage as a dynamic interplay between innate predispositions and learned behaviors. In my argumentative paper, I will provide insight into how moral courage is a learned behavior and how it developed through experiences with connections to multiple sources, as well as disprove it being an inherited trait the same way as an animal instinct. This Research question is not only relevant in navigating current societal challenges, but also sheds light on the complexities of individual character development and ethical decision making in today’s world.
Moral courage could be experienced in a variety of situations that could show a person’s decision making, disobedience, intelligence, and leadership. These characteristics and qualities that make up moral courage are involved through real life experience. For example, children and animals that were born prey have the natural instinct of being afraid and tense in situations that cause discomfort or encourage fear. Beings, but more accurately humans have been recognized to have the quality of being courageous and confident when they learn to adapt to this discomfortable environment. This could be seen in all points of mankind, whenever that be from the Stone Age, Medieval age, The Renaissance, or the current modern. For example, during the civil rights movement Rosa Parks demonstrated moral courage by protesting and refusing to comply with segregation laws, even if she had to undergo arrest and hatred from society. Her most notable decision was to remain seated in a “white only” section of a bus when asked to get up, her courage to challenge white authority ignited a movement for racial equality. This act was not innate, but was shaped through her experiences of witnessing injustices and discrimination, and as a result she learned the importance of standing up against oppression and inequality. In the text “Through the Tunnel” by Doris Lessing, Jerry, the protagonist, demonstrates moral courage as he takes on internal conflict by “battling” to swim through an underwater tunnel. His decision to confront his fears through physical and internal obstacles isn’t an initiate trait, but a skill acquired from his experiences and socialization. This skill was acquired through Jerry’s determination and courage that was developed through his interactions with other characters. His initial interaction with the “local boys” created a sense of discomfort and inferiority in Jerry because of their older age and experience in swimming subjected him to improve on his limitations and lack of experience. Their presence sets him up for motivation to challenge himself and strive for a similar level of “success” or “competence”, they also emphasize his desire for independence, the need to prove himself, and seek his own path to bravery and self-reliance. Motivation for challenges or “accomplishing the impossible” …… km
