The long-standing debate about whether to fluoridate our drinking water continues

Fluoridation is the addition of fluorine to public water supplies with the aim of reducing tooth
decay. The fluorine, when mixed with water, becomes fluoride and the desired concentration
of fluoride in public water is approximately one part per million, depending on the regional
temperature and hence the amount of water people are likely to drink. Many studies, such as
those by McClure in 1970 through to Burt in 1983, have shown that when children drink
fluoridated water, their average rate of tooth decay seems greatly reduced. A typical figure
claimed is 50 percent reduction. This apparently enormous benefit for children's teeth is the
major argument in favor of fluoridation.

Three main grounds for opposition to fluoridation have been expressed. First, opponents
claim the benefits are exaggerated or not established. Second, there are claims of health
risks to pans of the population, for example, allergic reactions. It is also accepted that high
levels of fluoride can cause discoloration of otherwise healthy teeth. Proponents do not
consider this to be a problem in such small concentrations, whereas opponents disagree -
especially because some people drink more water and obtain much more than the standard
1 milligram of fluoride per day. Third, fluoridation is thought to be an infringement on
individual rights because it is compulsory medication of all members of a community.

An understanding of the fluoridation issue has important implications. If, according to the
experts, fluoridation is unquestionably a beneficial and non-hazardous measure, then the
wisdom of allowing the public to vote on, and reject it must be questioned.

Almost all studies that have been done have assumed that the scientific aspects of the
controversy are unproblematic, and they have excluded science from sociological
examination. The traditional view is that science is a special kind of knowledge, which is
established through scientific methods and objectively applied by members of a scientific
community. However, in recent years there has been a major challenge to this picture by a
sociology of science that shows how scientific knowledge is socially negotiated, and
inevitably linked to the values of the relevant parties, both scientists and nonscientists.
These challengers do not see scientific knowledge as exempt from social inquiry.

Kuhn (1970) argued that scientific knowledge does not always develop as an orderly
process, but is characterized by periodic revolutions. in which the methods of study and the
assessment criteria change in a fragmented way. According to Kuhn, the shift from one
scientific way of thinking to another is not made solely on the basis of clear rules of formal
scientific practice, but can include social factors, though Kuhn has never developed a full
analysis of what these might be. Collins (1975) took this concept further when he asserted
that the outcome of experiments was not something whose meaning could be immediately
comprehended, but rather something for interpretation, discussion between scientists, and
reinterpretation in the light of other experiments.

One interpretation of this analysis of science is that traditional distinctions between facts and
theories, and between scientific knowledge and values, can no longer be justified. Because
social processes are involved at all stages of the creation, evaluation, and establishing of
scientific knowledge, social values may also be involved.

In the same way as many scientists who study fluoridation have overlooked social values,
sociologists have also downplayed an important part of the debate by ignoring the number of
eminent scientists who have questioned aspects of fluoridation. An example is the study by
Sutton in 1960, which analyzed the classic North American studies of the effect of
fluoridation on tooth decay, and found that each showed significant methodological
shortcomings. Sutton's detailed study throws doubt as to the extent of reductions in tooth
decay from fluoridation. Yet Sutton's book is not cited in a single analysis of the fluoridation
issue by any sociologist. In a situation of some scientific uncertainty, differences in values
are highlighted. A supporter of fluoridation might argue. The evidence for the benefits of
fluoridation is quite substantial, while the evidence for harm is limited and dubious. I think the
likely benefits outweigh the possible dangers; hence I support fluoridation because it is the
cheapest and easiest way to make sure every child reaps the benefits. An opponent might
argue, 'Though the evidence for the benefits of fluoridation is substantial, there is some
doubt about it. Since fluoridation is not necessary for good teeth, we should forego the
benefits if there is some slight chance of harm. Some scientists claim that a small
percentage of the population could be harmed by fluoride. Therefore I oppose fluoridation of
water supplies and favor the voluntary use of fluoride tablets by those who want to take
them.'

Both arguments consider the scientific evidence concerning fluoridation, but differ in their
assessments of the social benefits and costs. This difference is not between rationality and
irrationality but is a legitimate difference in values, for example, the positive value placed on
good teeth, the negative value placed on possible health risks, and the social benefits or
costs of compulsory or voluntary intake of fluorides.>> Form đăng kí giải đề thi thật IELTS 4
kĩ năng kèm bài giải bộ đề 100 đề PART 2 IELTS SPEAKING quý đang thi (update hàng
tuần) từ IELTS TUTOR

From the sociological point of view, opposition to fluoridation is not necessarily irrational.
Rather, claims to rationality and to scientific authority are better seen as part of a strategy to
promote fluoridation than as incontrovertible statements of fact. Second, social values are
likely to be bound up in any decision about fluoridation, so this is not an issue on which
declarations by scientific experts ought to be considered the final word.

Questions 1-5
Choose the correct letter, A, B, C or D

Write the correct letter in boxes 1-5 on your answer sheet

1. The optimum amount of fluorine in fluoridated water is calculated partly according to

A how hot the area is.

B how warm the water is.

C how many dental problems there are in the community.

D how much fluorine the community chooses to have in its water.

2. One reason given by the writer for opposing fluoridation is that

A it may contribute to tooth decay

B it will be unacceptably expensive for the public.

C obligatory fluoridation takes away personal freedom.

D excessive fluoride could be added to the water by mistake.

3. The writer mentions Kuhn in order to

A provide a contrast with the view of Collins.

B support the rational nature of scientific inquiry.

C demonstrate that Kuhn did not argue his case adequately.

D show that science can be influenced by non-scientific considerations

4. What did Sutton's research discover about earlier studies in North America?

A There were failings in the way they were carried out.

B The scientists involved had achieved unique results.

C Proponents of fluoridation had not understood its long-term effects.

D Fluoridation had a greater effect on tooth decay than previously believed.

5. In the last paragraph, what does the writer say about scientists?

A They should reveal their true motivations.

B They should not decide the fluoridation policy.

C They are solely concerned with scientific truths.

D They cannot reach agreement on the fluoridation issue.

Questions 6-9

Do the following statements agree with the views of the writer in Reading Passage?

In boxes 6-9 on your answer sheet, write

YES if the statement agrees with the views of the writer

NO if the statement contradicts the views of the writer

NOT GIVEN if it is impossible to say what the writer thinks about this

6 Scientific knowledge should be kept separate from social values.

7 Many sociologists have disregarded the doubts that some scientists have concerning
fluoridation
8 Sutton's findings have been given insufficient attention by scientists outside of North
America.
9 There are valid arguments on both sides of the fluoridation debate.

Questions 10-14
Complete each sentence with the correct ending. A-G. below. Write the correct letter. A-G, in
boxes 10-14 on your answer sheet.

10. The traditional view of science is that

11. A sociological view of science argues that
12. Collins is of the opinion that
13. The writer suggests that a supporter of fluoridation may conclude that
14. The writer suggests that an opponent of fluoridation may conclude that
A the results of scientific research are not always understood at first

B if it is impossible to say what the writer thinks about this

C people should be able to choose whether they want fluoride.

D there is insufficient proof to support a cautious approach.

E the serious damage fluoride causes far outweighs any positive effects.

F children are not the only ones who benefit from fluoridation.

G scientific knowledge is affected by the beliefs of everyone concerned.