2009 NUBC Bioethics Bowl
Download Case Studies HERE.
__________________________
HOW TO REGISTER A BIOETHICS BOWL TEAM:
1. Each team member and any coachers or sponsors must fill out the general conference registration form. In the comments section please include the bioethics bowl team name.
2. Each team member and any coaches or sponsors must pay the registration fee, or alternatively a group check may be sent to the Harvard Undergraduate Bioethics Society. (See Registration page for address).
3. An email should be sent to harvardbioethics(at)gmail.com with the subject line “(Insert your school) Bioethics Bowl Team.” This email should include the name of all team members and any coaches or sponsors. This email should be sent AFTER steps one and two are complete.
For more information email Nathan Nakatsuka at 08nanaka(at)gmail.com
__________________________
I. PROCEDURAL RULES:
Twelve case studies will be posted online (download above). Each case is 1-2 pages in length. In a Bioethics
Bowl match each team will be questioned by a moderator on one of these cases. The teams will not know in advance which of the cases they will be asked about at the Bioethics Bowl or what the questions will be. Judges and moderators will also receive copies of the eleven cases prior to the competition. Judges and moderators, like the teams, will not be informed in advance of the specific cases or questions teams will be asked about at the Bioethics Bowl.
Teams can be any size but only 5 or fewer can be active participants at any time. Substitutions cannot be made once the initial 5 or fewer are seated and ready for action. Substitutions CANNOT be made once the case is announced. Team members must be undergraduates.
During competition books and notes will not be allowed, however, scrap paper to jot down
thoughts is permissible and will be provided. The teams will be given a copy of the case and the question to which they must respond. Teams should wait to use the scratch paper until the case has been announced. Students are permitted to pass notes to one another at any point.
The Moderator will indicate the case with which the team that goes first (hereinafter Team 1) will deal, and then read Team 1's question about the case. (The Moderator will not read aloud the entire case).
Team 1 will then have two (2) minutes to confer, after which one spokesperson for the team may use up to ten (10) minutes to respond to the Moderator's question. The opposing team (hereinafter Team 2) receives two (2) minutes to confer, and then may use up to ten (10) minutes to present their side and comment about Team 1's answer to the Moderator's question. The commentary may include the posing of a question to Team 1. More than one team member may contribute to the commentary, but only one team member may speak at a time.
Team 1 receives one (1) minute to confer and then may use up to five (5) minutes to respond to Team 2's presentation and present closing statements. More than one team member may respond to the commentary, but only one team member may speak at a time.
Team 2 receives one (1) minute to confer and then may use up to five (5) minutes to respond to Team 1's commentary and present closing statements. More than one team member may respond to the commentary, but only one team member may speak at a time.
The judges will evaluate Team 1 and Team 2 on score sheets provided to them (see scoring rules below). AT THIS POINT, HOWEVER, THE JUDGES WILL NOT ANNOUNCE TO THE TEAMS THE SCORES THEY HAVE GIVEN THEM.
Team 1 and Team 2 will reverse roles for a second round with a different case.
At the close of the second round the Moderator will ask the judges to announce the teams' scores for the match (see scoring rules below).
The team with the highest total number of points is the winner of the match.
II. SCORING RULES:
Judges shall evaluate the responses of teams solely in terms of the following criteria:
Clarity and Intelligibility - Was the presentation clear and systematic? Regardless of whether or not you agree with the conclusion, did the team give a coherent argument in a clear and succinct manner?
Avoidance of Ethical Irrelevance: Did the team avoid ethically irrelevant issues? Or was the team preoccupied with issues that are not ethically relevant or are of minor ethical relevance to the case?
Identification and Discussion of Central Ethical Dimensions: Did the team’s presentation clearly identify and thoroughly discuss the central ethical dimensions of the case?
Deliberative Thoughtfulness: Did the team’s presentation indicate both awareness and thoughtful consideration of different viewpoints, including especially those that would loom large in the reasoning of individuals who disagree with the team’s position?
The judges will score each team as follows:
0-20 for a team's answer to the Moderator's question (20 best): In evaluating a team's answer the judges will give the team a score of 0-5 relative to each of the four evaluation criteria indicated above and total the sum.
0-20 for the opposing team's initial presentation (20 best).
0-10 for the response to the opposing team’s commentary and closing statements (10 best).
0-10 for the Opposing team’s commentary and closing statements (10 best)
Both in evaluating a team's commentary, and the other team's response to the commentary, the judges will take into account the four evaluation criteria indicated above, but give the teams an overall score, rather than a separate point score relative to each of the criteria.
|
