On the 9^th of March three groups conducted a roundtable discussion about three different issues. The issues were mainly social oriented and each group was comprised on one supporting side and another side who are against it.

Group 1

The first group’s roundtable discussion was about whether Singapore should adopt the Green Chemistry by promoting the collaborative effort by industry, academia and government. They argued about the possibility of Singapore, being a country using biodegradable plastics instead of the normal ones.

The supporting side pointed out that the biodegradable plastic can be made from biomass. They pointed out that the biodegradable plastics enable the recycling process as well as its safe to the environment. The opposing side argued that such a replacement from normal plastics to biodegradable ones will be expensive.

Biodegradable plastics are the new way of controlling green house gas emissions. It is quite noticeable that the normal plastics cannot be recycled whereas the biodegradable ones can easily be recycled. With sufficient support from the government, it will be possible to implement the use of biodegradable plastics without making extra expenditure.

Group 2

The second groups focussed about the pros and cons of genetic engineering. The main point was to debate about whether the government and institutions should regulate the use of this technology.

The supporting side argued that the parents should have the right to decide how their children have to be. The points the groups discussed on are deciding the gender of the baby and the nature of skills they want to implement in their children. They also argued that by implementing this, common diseases that develop in children can be controlled.

The opposing side argued that deciding the gender of the baby can cause sex imbalance in the world population. They also pointed out that by doing this the complete control of a child skills will be upon the wish of their parents. A child will not be able to acquire a skill by himself/herself. The rebutted the argument of disease control in children, by pointing that the genetic engineering can cause other diseases which will be quite hard to wipe out.

I believe that genetic engineering is such an innovative technology and it should be used in a controlled manner. Some benefits of the genetic engineering like the parents deciding the skills that a child wants can be utilized. But deciding the gender using the genetic engineering should be controlled since it can lead to a high level of sex imbalance.

Group 3

The 4^th and the final group focused on the climate change mitigation technologies. They argued about whether the carbon capture and storage technology should be implemented or not.

The supporting side argued that carbon capture and storage is an effective and efficient way to control the greenhouse gas emission. They pointed out that the carbon dioxide can be stored at the sea bed and the sausage in which the carbon dioxide is leak proof. The opposing side argued that the carbon capture and storage technology is expensive to implement. They also told that most of the developing countries are not emitting carbon dioxide and they will not benefit from implementing this system. The space required for the storage will increase day by day and this will make this technology not feasible.

I believe that the carbon storage technology is something which needs the last attention upon. The down sides of implementing this technology are quite high. The earth quakes usually happen at sea bed since it being the nearest surface to the earth’s core, and the countries which badly need this technology are earth quake prone regions. This can act as a barrier in implementing this technology.