The Case:
Read the case study entitled, NUTWADS. Imagine that you are running for the Congressional seat of a popular Representative, who is retiring. A Nuclear and Toxic Waste Disposal (NUTWADS) Facility is to be built at one of two sites in your socially, educationally, and economically depressed district. The facility will provide employment, bring medical care, stimulate education, and generally improve living conditions through the kind of progress that usually accompanies technology. NUTWADS is the retiring Representative's legacy to the district and the citizens are generally pleased. Unfortunately, the benefits provided by NUTWADS will not come without costs, most of which will be ecological no matter which site is chosen (see attached case study). By getting elected, you won't be able to stop NUTWADS ---nor do your neighbors want you to--- but you will be able to control where it goes, monitor how it is developed, and educate your fellow fellow citizens. Your press statement, therefore, needs to be packaged in philosophy and language so transparent that the newspapers will editorially applaud your obvious wisdom and endorse your candidacy.

The Question:
In which of the sites should NUTWADS be built? Why?

Suggestion #1:
Disciplinary insights can be gained from biology, economics, political science, sociology, and ethics.

Suggestion #2:
Your correct application of bioethical principles to the position you choose is far more important than the position itself. Therefore, research the texts and apply relevant principles to support your recommendation. Remember: The first question to you is likely to be, "Why do you argue as you do? What reasons strong enough to sway skeptical voters support your statements?" Failure to have such reasons plainly evident will result in your recommendation being disregarded.

Suggestion #3:

After you have accomplished your integrative task and written your paper to address the questions above, please have someone else read it and consider the questions listed below.

• Is interest sparked and maintained throughout the discussion? At what point(s) does interest wane? Where do arguments falter and become unclear?
• Are the argument and language appropriate for the intended audience?
• Has meaningful and appropriate research been done? Are the presented facts beyond dispute? Are there some questions that still need to be answered?
• Are the sources incorporated smoothly and purposefully, or do quotations seem "tacked on"?
• Does the case analysis follow good critical thinking that is clear, logical, deep, broad, and discriminating? Does one point move smoothly to the next?
• Is the thesis insightful? Is it either too nebulous or too trivial?
• Does documentation follow a correct, clear format?
• Is the prose clear and engaging?

---after Carolyn Haynes, Miami University, Ohio

• Please limit yourself to four pages. In-text citations and complete bibliographic references are required for ideas not your own.
• Your audience for this paper is the civil court judge. Use vocabulary, syntax, and format suitable for communicating effectively to a general audience with some knowledge of biology, economics, political science, sociology, and ethics.
• Expectations and limits related to the mechanics of writing, proof reading, and editing, as outlined in the syllabus, are in effect. A fatal error policy is in effect.
• For this paper, please use a separate page for the title and your name. Staple; do not fold.

Main Learning Objective:
Can the student identify the core of a bioethical problem, construct and analyze viewpoints that may differ in disciplinary content and perspective as they apply to a real problem, subscribe to standards of validity corresponding to those viewpoints, and communicate an understanding of how separate disciplinary standards contribute to support a third [better, interdisciplinary] interpretation?