Year 7 Science · AC9S7H03

Scientific Responses: Benefits, Risks and Trade-offs

Evaluate proposed responses using scientific evidence plus ethical, environmental, social and economic considerations.

Part A — Accessible

  1. For each item, name the main lens: (a) habitat loss, (b) construction cost, (c) community access, (d) consent.
  2. Why is “Does the technology work?” not enough to decide whether society should use it?
  3. What is an unintended consequence? Give one science-related example.
  4. Why should stakeholders be identified when evaluating a response?

Part B — Standard

  1. A desalination plant improves water security but uses large amounts of energy and discharges concentrated brine. Explain one benefit and two trade-offs.
  2. A cultivated-meat product uses renewable electricity but costs much more than conventional meat. Which lenses are relevant, and why?
  3. A pest-control method reduces an invasive species by 90% but also harms a native scavenger. What extra evidence would you want before recommending full-scale use?
  4. A company develops a medicine using First Nations medicinal plant knowledge. Explain why scientific effectiveness does not remove the need to consider consent, attribution and benefit-sharing.

Part C — Challenging

  1. Two communities see the same flood-risk evidence. One chooses a levee; the other chooses relocation. Explain how both choices could be reasonable.
  2. A renewable-energy project cuts emissions but disturbs threatened-species habitat. Write a conditional recommendation that uses evidence and safeguards.
  3. Why can staged implementation be appropriate when evidence is promising but uncertainty remains?
  4. Extended response: choose one contemporary issue and evaluate a proposed scientific response using all four lenses, stakeholders, uncertainty and a justified final judgement.

Answer key / marking guidance

1

(a) environmental; (b) economic; (c) social; (d) ethical.

2

A response can work technically but still create unfairness, environmental damage, unacceptable risk, social disruption or excessive cost.

3

An unintended consequence is an effect that was not the main intended outcome; for example, a pesticide controlling a pest but harming non-target species.

4

Different groups may receive different benefits, costs and risks, so impact distribution matters.

5

Benefit: reliable fresh water. Trade-offs: energy/emissions, marine brine/intake effects, and/or high financial cost.

6

Environmental: production impacts may be lower depending on energy/source and inputs. Economic: current production cost/affordability. Social/ethical may also matter through acceptance and animal-welfare considerations.

7

Measure the non-target harm, long-term ecosystem effects, effectiveness in multiple sites, recovery, and whether safeguards or alternatives reduce risk.

8

Scientific efficacy answers whether the medicine works and is safe; knowledge governance asks whether rights, permission, attribution and fair benefits are respected.

9

They may weigh risk tolerance, cost, cultural/place attachment, disruption and long-term consequences differently while accepting the same evidence.

10

Strong answers retain emissions benefits while requiring siting changes, ecological surveys, thresholds, monitoring or habitat protection before proceeding.

11

A staged rollout can gather real-world evidence while limiting potential harm and allowing adjustment if unexpected effects appear.

12

High-quality responses explain the issue and mechanism, use evidence, cover ethical/environmental/social/economic impacts, identify stakeholders and uncertainty, then give a balanced recommendation with conditions where appropriate.