1ère. Scientific innovations and responsibility

Scientific innovations and responsibility

Find information about Sarita. Find information about Ramesh.

The document is an article about an Indian woman who wants to be a surrogate mother. IIt was published in 2009 by The Guardian. Sarita is 26. She's an Indian farmer's daughter. She is married to Ramesh, who is 41 and works in a garment factory. Sarita wants to earn money to increase the family income, so she would like to be a surrogate mother. However, Ramesh does not want her to be a surrogate because he is afraid of what people will think. Eventually, he agrees.

The document is an article published in 2009 by The Guardian. The article is about surrogate mothers in India. Sarita is an unpriviledged woman from India, she is 26. Her parents are poor farmers. When she was young she wanted to become a teacher, unfortunately, her parents did not allow her to go to school. When she was 16 she was married off to a man named Ramesh who was 31 and worked in a garment factory. Sarita would like to become a surrogate so she can make money to enhance her family's income. However, Ramesh does not want her to be a surrogate because he is afraid of their family's opinion.

20:00

1. Write the dialogue in your notebook. 2. Act out the dialogue.

Utilise le vocabulaire de la colère et l'interdiction (pour le mari) et la volonté, le conseil (pour Sarita).

In pairs, imagine a dialogue between Sarita and her husband.

05:00

1. Write the dialogue in your notebook. 2. Act out the dialogue.

Utilise le vocabulaire de la colère et l'interdiction (pour le mari) et la volonté, le conseil (pour Sarita).

In pairs, imagine a dialogue between Sarita and her husband.

Expressing anger : Can't stand / can't bear : ex : I have had enough of V-ing : Enough is enough ! : Giving advice : Should + BV : ex : Could + BV : ex :

1. Listen and spot keywords. 2.Sum up the document in your own words.

1.Compréhension écrite évaluée : revoir le texte "surrogate mothers", le vocabulaire et la grammaire. 2.Compréhension orale évaluée : revoir le chapitre. 3.Entrainement au débat. 4.Tâche finale : débat.

Next lessons

-Zilch=nonexistent -Opt=choose -Caste=social class -Delivery=birth

Expression écrite : Imagine the conversation between Sarita, Ramesh and the couple.

Vous allez écouter 3 fois un enregistrement de 1 min30 dont le titre vous sera communiqué avant la première écoute. Chaque écoute sera séparée d’une pause de 1 minute pour la prise de notes. Vous aurez finalement 15 minutes pour rendre compte par écrit en français de ce que vous avez compris.

Méthode Compréhension orale

Vous devez rendre compte en français de ce que vous avez compris. On ne vous demande pas de commenter, de prendre parti, de donner votre avis: restez neutre. N'espérez-pas comprendre tout. On ne s'attend pas à ce que vous ayez compris tous les détails. N'écrivez des mots isolés que sur votre brouillon : il faut faire des phrases complètes sur la copie. Rédigez des phrases simples mais complètes. Au brouillon, espacez bien vos prises de notes pour y revenir après chaque écoute. Laissez de grands espaces entre vos notes de façon à pouvoir les compléter au fil des écoutes. Ne traduisez pas en français en temps réel des choses dites dans une langue étrangère : notez ce qui est dit. Inférez grâce au contexte le sens des mots non perçus. Reconstruisez la logique du document ou juxtaposez les éléments entendus dans l'ordre de l'écoute.

Avant la première écouteAnticipez le sujet/contenu du document à partir du titre. 'Je vais entendre les mots …', 'Je pense que cela va parler de ...' Mobilisez les connaissances lexicales et culturelles que vous avez déjà sur le sujet. Pendant chaque écoute Concentrez-vous au maximum. Mémorisez un maximum. Pas de prise de notes chronophage. N'essayez pas d'écrire et écouter en même temps. Pendant les deux pauses de 1 minute Rajoutez les éléments que vous n'avez pas pris en notes pendant l'écoute. La phrase complète au brouillon est à bannir. Ecrivez simplement les mots essentiels : des mots, des mots, des mots.

Pendant les 10 dernières minutes Réorganisez vos notes de façon logique. Veillez à la cohérence de votre compte-rendu. N'oubliez pas les mots de liaison (ex chronologie, opposition, cause, conséquence) pour hiérarchiser vos paragraphes. Soyez concis : ne développez pas les points. Terminez par un commentaire sur l’attitude du locuteur; vous montrerez ainsi que vous avez compris l’implicite du document. Ne donnez pas votre avis sur le sujet ! Relisez-vous. Cas d'un document vidéo Soyez très prudent par rapport aux images dans les documents vidéo, ne négligez pas le son : ce qui est évalué est bien la quantité d'informations entendues que vous devez restituer en français. Si les images vous aident à inférer ou entendre des informations, seules les informations audios donnent des points.

01:00

Prise de notes

15:00

Compte rendu en français

20:00

1. Go on the website : https://urls.fr/yomWSL 2. Choose 1 document. 3. Spot keywords in the document (in your notebook). 4. Present and sum up the document in your own words (in your notebook).

20:00

Let's debate!

1) In your notebook : say if you think the situations below are scientifically possible, then decide if they are morally acceptable. -Designer babies -Human cloning -Medicine babies 2) Discuss with your partner. 3) In groups of 4. You are the members of a bioethics committee. You are here to discuss several medical advances and decide which ones are acceptable. Choose one you will support, and one you will reject. One person will report your conclusions to the class and justify your choices.

Do you agree or disagree?

"Scientists should have no limits when it comes to innovation." "Human cloning should be legalized." "Technology is making us less ethical."

When you have finished, answer the other question.

10:00

Choose a question and explain your opinion in your copybook.

"Is it ethical to use animals for scientific experiments?" "Should governments regulate the use of artificial intelligence?"

10:00

Prepare your arguments :

1. Healthcare Professional (Doctor or Surgeon) Argument : life-saving potential of mandatory organ donation. 2. Patient Waiting for an Organ Argument : urgency and personal impact of organ shortages. 3. Family Member of a Deceased Person Argument : emotional or ethical right of families to decide. 4. Human Rights Activist Argument : individual autonomy and consent.

"Should organ donation be mandatory after death?"

10:00

Debate :

1. Healthcare Professional (Doctor or Surgeon) Argument : life-saving potential of mandatory organ donation. 2. Patient Waiting for an Organ Argument : urgency and personal impact of organ shortages. 3. Family Member of a Deceased Person Argument : emotional or ethical right of families to decide. 4. Human Rights Activist Argument : individual autonomy and consent.

"Should organ donation be mandatory after death?"

"You are participating in a talk show where you are asked to debate the following question: 'Should modern medicine be allowed to design babies?'" In a talk show, there is a TV presenter, a specialist, and 4 or 5 guests who talk abouttheir experience. Your teacher is going to give you a card with your role. You will have 15 min to prepare yourself, write down a few ideas.

Examples of roles :

-a TV presenter, -a doctor/genetic scientist -a psychologist or a sociologist, -a woman who is expecting a baby that she chose for aesthetic reasons, -a woman who has a 2 year-old boy. She and her husband chose genetic traits to avoid a disease, -a couple who have finally refused to design their baby, -a couple who think they should not have chosen the sex of their baby.

Roles

1) TV presenter : neutral : (FOR and AGAINST arguments) 2) Doctor specialized in genetics : FOR 3) A pregnant woman / her husband who chose for aesthetic reasons : FOR 4) Someone with a 2 year-old boy, who chose genetic traits to avoid a disease : FOR 5) Someone who has finally refused to design their baby : AGAINST 6) A pregnant woman / her husband who has always been AGAINST.

Black Mirror, by Charlie Brooker and Joe Wright, 2011.

Watch the video

1. Read the questions : 2. Watch the video again. 3. Answer the questions.

Black Mirror, by Charlie Brooker and Joe Wright, 2011.

Watch the video

1. Read the questions : 2. Watch the video again. 3. Answer the questions.

4. In groups, answer the questions : a. What does it warn us against? b.Do you think it is realistic? Why or why not?

https://digipad.app/p/1031951/bbf4982749c73

1. Scan the QR code 2. Read the description of YOUR video. 3. Watch the video and note keywords / expressions. 4. In your copybook, explain what the series is about.

https://digipad.app/p/1031951/bbf4982749c73

In groups, answer the questions : 1. Watch the trailer again and cut it in parts. Give a title to each part. 2. How does the trailer evolve? What does it suggest?

https://digipad.app/p/1031951/bbf4982749c73

1. Go into groups of people with different videos and explain your video to the others. 2. Answer the questions: a.How does these TV series warn us about the dangers of technology? b.What does it say about being human?

https://digipad.app/p/1031951/bbf4982749c73

3. Compare your documents. 4. Write a recap. -Present the documents, -Compare them (messages, goals, tools...), -Conclude.