SGE 4

Part4RealLifeScenario.docx

Part 4: Real World Scenario

Plant based meat

For this part of the assignment, you will provide a defense of plant based meat in response to a meat-industry smear campaign.

In this scenario, you will be working as a scientific expert in the public relations office of AwesomePlantMeat, Inc. The CFO came in to your office and said that you have lost 25% of your orders this month due to a smear campaign being put on by a Meat company competitor.

A public relations guy for MeatCompany, Inc. has been making the rounds on Fox News, MSNBC, and CNN talking about a recent research paper that was published. He has been pushing the idea that plant based meats are not as healthy and environmentally beneficial as we once thought.

You will want to read the paper that he is basing his argument on. (see Gorrison and Wiltard pdf with assignment)

Then read this synopsis of his interview:

“The meat industry has been inappropriately maligned over the past few years. So it was nice to see the authors, Gorrison and Wiltard put out their research showing how plant based meat is no better for you or the environment than real meat.

If you want to gain muscle mass or maintain your muscle mass as you age then the only way to do so is by taking proteins from meat. It is that plain and simple. When you look at the people of the entire planet, those who do not eat as much animal protein just don’t create as much muscle as we do in America. There is just no way of getting the adequate amino acids that your body needs by only eating plants. They even showed that no plant source of protein out there can get you all the essential amino acids that you need to survive. Is decreasing your use of animal products really worth your health? These fine scientists said that you cannot maintain your health without getting these amino acids from meat products. The researchers even showed that harvesting pants creates just as much carbon dioxide as raising animals! So eating all those different plant proteins create no less greenhouse gas than eating beef or pork.

There are companies out there that are trying to confuse consumers by saying that fake meat is just as good for you as real meat. I caution the listeners to do their research. Even if they create different blends there is no blend that will get you the same ratios of the amino acids that you need to build muscle mass. It is so nice that these researchers showed that meat proteins like the ones that we create are the best way of getting protein in your diet.”

Assignment:

You are to read the article, read the synopsis, then write a response to his position. You should point out where he is wrong, how he is misleading the public, and correct the record so your plant-based meat company doesn't lose additional market share that they have worked so hard to gain.

Your response needs to clarify or refute at least 5 points that he made in his news clip. Not all of the points he makes are wrong, just some may be incomplete or misleading. Each point that you refute needs to be supported.

Part 4 Real-life Scenario Rubric

	Substantially Exceeds Expectations (5)	Exceeds Expectations (4)	Meets Expectations (3)	Nearly Meets Expectations (2)	Does Not Meet Expectations (1)
Apply the scientific process to evaluate current issues and circumstances	The issue or scenario is clearly and concisely evaluated. Multiple perspectives are discussed.	The issue or scenario is concisely evaluated but clarity is lacking. Multiple perspectives are discussed.	The issue or scenario is clearly and concisely evaluated. Only one perspective is discussed.	The issue or scenario is evaluated but lacking clarity and details. One perspective discussed.	The issue or scenario is mentioned but not evaluated. Discussion is superficial
Demonstrate scientific literacy and knowledge about the study of matter, life and the universe.	The submission is directly related to the topic. The scientific data used to support the evaluation is sound and correct. The discussion is clearly supported by evidence.	The submission is closely related to the topic. The scientific data used to support the evaluation is sound and correct with only one error. The discussion is supported by evidence.	The submission is related to the topic. The scientific data used to support the evaluation has some errors The discussion is not well supported by evidence.	The submission is not related to the topic. The scientific data used to support the evaluation has errors The discussion is not well supported by evidence.	The submission is not related to the topic. The scientific data used to support the evaluation has many errors No evidence is present to support the discussion.
Critically analyze events through a scientific lens.	The submission includes discussion of the value of the supporting articles as they relate to the issue. The use of peer-reviewed data is clearly indicated. The data used as supporting evidence is correctly presented and analyzed.	The submission includes discussion of the value of the supporting articles as they relate to the issue. The use of peer-reviewed data is somewhat indicated. The data used as supporting evidence has some errors in presentation or analysis.	The submission includes limited discussion of the value of the supporting articles as they relate to the issue. The use of peer-reviewed data is not mentioned. The data used as supporting evidence has some errors in presentation or analysis.	The submission includes limited discussion of the value of the supporting articles as they relate to the issue. The use of peer-reviewed data is not mentioned. No data used as supporting evidence.	The submission does not include discussion of the value of supporting articles as they relate to the issue. The use of peer-reviewed data is missing. Supporting evidence is incorrectly presented.
Demonstrate quantitative reasoning and problem-solving.	Evidence-based explanations are present and correct. The analysis of data is appropriate for the topic. The analysis is communicated in appropriate form (written, graphically, numerically). Appropriate scientific reasoning is applied to the issue.	Evidence-based explanations are present and mostly correct. The analysis of data is appropriate for the topic. The analysis is communicated in appropriate form (written, graphically, numerically). Appropriate scientific reasoning is applied to the issue with limited errors.	Evidence-based explanations are present and mostly correct. The analysis of data is appropriate for the topic. The analysis is not communicated in appropriate form (written, graphically, numerically). Appropriate scientific reasoning is applied to the issue with a few errors.	Evidence-based explanations are present but weak. The analysis of data is not appropriate for the topic. The analysis is not communicated in appropriate form (written, graphically, numerically). Appropriate scientific reasoning is applied to the issue with a few errors.	Evidence-based explanations are present but weak. The analysis of data is not appropriate or related to the topic. The analysis is not communicated in appropriate form (written, graphically, numerically). Appropriate scientific reasoning is applied to the issue is incorrect.
Overall communication about science issues	Submission is clear, concise and complete. No more than one grammatical error. Citations are present and correctly formatted.	Submission is clear, concise and mostly complete. No more than three grammatical errors. Citations are present and correctly formatted.	Submission is clear, concise and complete. Several grammatical errors. Citations are present and correctly formatted.	Submission is not clear or complete. Several grammatical errors. Citations are present but not correctly formatted.	Submission does not stay on topic. Several grammatical errors. Citations are present but not correctly formatted.
Total (25)