A professor conducted an unexpected “experiment” — putting a live goldfish into a blender and asking for a volunteer to press the button — at a summer camp for high-school students. It startled the students and sparked controversy and a public discussion.
The incident occurred on early this month, in a course about critical thinking given by a professor at National Cheng Kung University’s Department of Foreign Languages and Literature, as part of a 14-day National Taiwan University humanities and social science camp. It became public knowledge after a student wrote about it on an online forum, saying that the professor took out a blender and told the class about an art installation at the Trapholt museum in Denmark in 2000.
The student said the professor pressed the button to show that the blender was working, and later put a live goldfish into it, which startled the students, some of whom screamed or gasped. He then told the students that they could leave the classroom if they were scared, and about 20 of the 200 students did so.
The professor reportedly encouraged the remaining students to press the blender’s button, offering a book he wrote as a gift to volunteers. He asked the class to applaud when a student walked up to the stage to press the button. Fortunately, the blender had been secretly unplugged, and the fish was unharmed.
The student said they felt that they were the subjects of the experiment, and that many of them broke down and cried, as they experienced a combined feeling of shock, remorse, discontent and discomfort, while the professor laughed as if he seemed pleased with his successful experiment.
While the professor on July 12 apologized for any emotional distress he might have caused to the students, he also said that his goal was to use the “event” and “feelings” to inspire them to engage critically and discuss life’s meaning, and values and attitudes towards it.
The professor said the aim was not to kill the goldfish, but to inspire the students, and that he had asked the class to applaud those who left before the experiment, as they had followed their conscience and had the courage to listen to their own feelings.
Despite its goal of stimulating critical thinking, whether the experiment achieved its intended effect is questionable, as many students suffered emotionally, but were left confused about the experiment’s purpose, and only remembered applauding the volunteers, instead of those who opted out.
Ethical issues were also involved: The experiment was conducted without the students’ fully informed consent, and the possible risks were not carefully considered, despite the students being given the option to opt out and being repeatedly told that the experiment would benefit them.
Moreover, the experiment was conducted using deception, which, according to the institutional review board policies that govern research with human participants, can only be allowed after a careful review of whether it is necessary, of the appropriateness of the study population and of the potential harms — including damage to self-esteem and leaving the participant feeling ashamed, guilty, stressed or embarrassed.
However, while the professor praised the students who opted out for following their conscience, the experiment could have also induced conflicted insight (the unexpected realization of their flaws, causing emotional pain, such as shame, guilt and anxiety) among the students who remained in the classroom, which was not addressed afterward.
It is crucial that students learn critical thinking and that they be encouraged to think about the meaning of and respect for life, but educators must align their educational goals and methods, or courses might leave a deep (and possibly negative) impression on students, while the intended lesson might remain unlearnt.
Trying to force a partnership between Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) and Intel Corp would be a wildly complex ordeal. Already, the reported request from the Trump administration for TSMC to take a controlling stake in Intel’s US factories is facing valid questions about feasibility from all sides. Washington would likely not support a foreign company operating Intel’s domestic factories, Reuters reported — just look at how that is going over in the steel sector. Meanwhile, many in Taiwan are concerned about the company being forced to transfer its bleeding-edge tech capabilities and give up its strategic advantage. This is especially
US President Donald Trump’s second administration has gotten off to a fast start with a blizzard of initiatives focused on domestic commitments made during his campaign. His tariff-based approach to re-ordering global trade in a manner more favorable to the United States appears to be in its infancy, but the significant scale and scope are undeniable. That said, while China looms largest on the list of national security challenges, to date we have heard little from the administration, bar the 10 percent tariffs directed at China, on specific priorities vis-a-vis China. The Congressional hearings for President Trump’s cabinet have, so far,
The US Department of State has removed the phrase “we do not support Taiwan independence” in its updated Taiwan-US relations fact sheet, which instead iterates that “we expect cross-strait differences to be resolved by peaceful means, free from coercion, in a manner acceptable to the people on both sides of the Strait.” This shows a tougher stance rejecting China’s false claims of sovereignty over Taiwan. Since switching formal diplomatic recognition from the Republic of China to the People’s Republic of China in 1979, the US government has continually indicated that it “does not support Taiwan independence.” The phrase was removed in 2022
US President Donald Trump, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth have each given their thoughts on Russia’s war with Ukraine. There are a few proponents of US skepticism in Taiwan taking advantage of developments to write articles claiming that the US would arbitrarily abandon Ukraine. The reality is that when one understands Trump’s negotiating habits, one sees that he brings up all variables of a situation prior to discussion, using broad negotiations to take charge. As for his ultimate goals and the aces up his sleeve, he wants to keep things vague for
RSS