Summery of round table discussion

Group1: the discussion is about the advantages and disadvantages of biodiesel.
The supporting side showed their agreement of deploying biodiesel. They explained that, biodiesel is non-petroleum-based diesel fuel making from vegetable oils or soya beans etc. The benefits of Biodiesel are renewable, safety to store and low pollution for environment.
The opposing side disagree the spread use of biodiesel because, it is harmful for the engine of the car. If we totally replace the petrol biodiesel, the horsepower will not sufficient.
The opposing side also pointed out that, since the biodiesel comes from food crops, the wider use of biodiesel may cause the lack of food, and some countries like Singapore do not have environmental condition to plant food for biodiesel purpose. Due to this opinion, the supporting side rebutted that, countries like Singapore can get the biodiesel material from other countries, and in some countries, the government has the right to control what type of crops should be planted on the land. If biodiesel is supported by the government, more policies will be established by government to ensure the sufficiency of food crop for biodiesel use.

Group2: The discussion is about whether Singapore is suitable for Green Chemistry deployment.
The supporting side explained their view mainly from technical benefits. They showed that Green Chemistry is renewable and reduce the pollution of environment. They held an example of biodegradable plastic which made from biomass. The benefits of biodegradable plastic are that it is renewable, safe, and more efficiency on manufacturing and waste conversion. As time goes on, it tends to replace the normal plastic.
The opposing side opposed mainly from economical part. They explained that Green Chemistry technology is very expensive to apply, and in Singapore, government does not give enough financial support for small companies who are willing to apply Green Chemistry.

Group 3: The topic of group3 discussion is about genetic engineering: whether government should regulate the parents to choose their baby’s gene.
The supporting side pointed out that, parents’ high expectation to their children is understandable, and they have right to expect what kind of person their child become to and what gender the baby is to be. Instead of focusing on parents’ rights, the opposing side declared the children’s right also. If gene can be decided by parents, children themselves will not choose their way of growing, they may be forced to do what they don’t interested in. For gender selection, the opposing side pointed out that, it may result the sex imbalance of population. But the supporting side showed his disagreement that, once the gene engineering deployed, a self-regulation will be formed by the society itself, like not all the family will not to have a boy since he will difficult to find a job or get married.
Supporting side also showed that, gene selection can also prevent some congenital diseases which may endanger the life of baby. To rebut this point, opposing side explained that, although some known diseases may be prevented by gene engineering, the change of gene may lead to more uncertain disease coming out, and we may not able to handle them.