GMOs Essay -- Science DNA Papers

GMOs What is a GMO? A GMO, or genetically modified organism, is a virus, bacterium, or more complex life-form in which the DNA has been altered for a particular purpose. Some of these purposes include: research into the nature of genes and biological processes, manufacturing animal proteins, correcting genetic defects, and making improvements to animals and plants (Natural Environment Research Council). Making improvements to animals and plants is a major motivation to produce GMOs. With a world population on its way to 9 plus billion by the year 2050, a viable option for sustenance production is needed. With this ever-growing world population there is a need for somehow controlling the amount of people born. China is one country which has dealt with their overcrowding problem, but it seems that many of the other countries of the world are not doing much if anything to control their own populations. Because of this lack of action in controlling the world population, the need is shifted to how we will pr ovide for all those people. GMOs are a way in which we as a world population can better provide for ourselves so that everyone will have enough provisions to survive. How is a GMO created? GMOs have been created naturally for millions of years. Agrobacterium tumefaciens is one example of a natural genetic engineer because it is able to alter another organism’s DNA to benefit itself. This species of soil-dwelling bacteria infects plant cells with a piece of its own DNA, and when it is integrated with the plant’s chromosome, it uses the plant’s own cells to proliferate the population of the bacteria. The way in which the bacterium does this is through the use of its bacterial chromosome and a plasmid, which is ... ...info/articles/myths.html Murphy, Paul. (2004, May) Gene firm pioneers desert crops. Retrieved October, 23, 2004 from: http://www.guardian.co.uk/gmdebate/Story/0,2763,1221662,00.html Natural Environment Research Council (n.d.). GMOs and the Environment: Scientific certainties and uncertainties. Retrieved October 3, 2004 from: http://www.nerc.ac.uk/publications/gmo/ Read, Deborah. (2000, December) Use of Antibiotic Resistance Marker Genes in Genetically Modified Organisms. Retrieved October 24, 2004 from: http://www.ermanz.govt.nz/resources/Publications/pdfs/ER-GI-01-1.pdf Shelton, Anthony M. (2000, March) Bt Crops on Trial. Retrieved October 24, 2004 from: http://www.foodsafetynetwork.ca/gmo/pr-bt-crops-on-trial.htm UNFPA. (2004) Population Growth is Still an Issue. Retrieved November 25, 2004 from: http://www.unfpa.org/swp/2004/english/ch1/page7.htm#1 GMOs Essay -- Science DNA Papers GMOs What is a GMO? A GMO, or genetically modified organism, is a virus, bacterium, or more complex life-form in which the DNA has been altered for a particular purpose. Some of these purposes include: research into the nature of genes and biological processes, manufacturing animal proteins, correcting genetic defects, and making improvements to animals and plants (Natural Environment Research Council). Making improvements to animals and plants is a major motivation to produce GMOs. With a world population on its way to 9 plus billion by the year 2050, a viable option for sustenance production is needed. With this ever-growing world population there is a need for somehow controlling the amount of people born. China is one country which has dealt with their overcrowding problem, but it seems that many of the other countries of the world are not doing much if anything to control their own populations. Because of this lack of action in controlling the world population, the need is shifted to how we will pr ovide for all those people. GMOs are a way in which we as a world population can better provide for ourselves so that everyone will have enough provisions to survive. How is a GMO created? GMOs have been created naturally for millions of years. Agrobacterium tumefaciens is one example of a natural genetic engineer because it is able to alter another organism’s DNA to benefit itself. This species of soil-dwelling bacteria infects plant cells with a piece of its own DNA, and when it is integrated with the plant’s chromosome, it uses the plant’s own cells to proliferate the population of the bacteria. The way in which the bacterium does this is through the use of its bacterial chromosome and a plasmid, which is ... ...info/articles/myths.html Murphy, Paul. (2004, May) Gene firm pioneers desert crops. Retrieved October, 23, 2004 from: http://www.guardian.co.uk/gmdebate/Story/0,2763,1221662,00.html Natural Environment Research Council (n.d.). GMOs and the Environment: Scientific certainties and uncertainties. Retrieved October 3, 2004 from: http://www.nerc.ac.uk/publications/gmo/ Read, Deborah. (2000, December) Use of Antibiotic Resistance Marker Genes in Genetically Modified Organisms. Retrieved October 24, 2004 from: http://www.ermanz.govt.nz/resources/Publications/pdfs/ER-GI-01-1.pdf Shelton, Anthony M. (2000, March) Bt Crops on Trial. Retrieved October 24, 2004 from: http://www.foodsafetynetwork.ca/gmo/pr-bt-crops-on-trial.htm UNFPA. (2004) Population Growth is Still an Issue. Retrieved November 25, 2004 from: http://www.unfpa.org/swp/2004/english/ch1/page7.htm#1

Subway Verses the Tube Train

Subway and The Tube Train George Tooker, an American artist painted â€Å"Subway† in 1950. Cyril E. Power, a British artist, created â€Å"The Tube Train† in 1934. With a quick glimpse of the eye, one may think these two pieces of artwork are similar. After all, a subway and a tube train are basically the same thing. To a trained eye, one can see the many differences in the two pieces. Tooker was associated with the Magic Realism movements, and is best known for his depictions of alienation in modern city life (Artnet).Tooker focused on urban loneliness and disillusionment. His subjects are often obscured by heavy clothing and appear sagging and shapeless, trapped within their own dull worlds (Leninimports). Tooker adopted a method of using egg yolk thickened slightly with water and then adding powered pigment, a medium that was quick drying, tedious to apply, and hard to change once applied, called egg tempers (Leninimports). â€Å"Subway† depicts office workers trapped in a maze of prision-like passageways (Artnet).The central figure in â€Å"Subway† is a middle aged woman with short, gray hair, cut and curled in the style of 1950s (Whitney). Her facial expression is fearful, appears anxious, and looks depressed. Tooker paints her in midstride as she walks toward an unseen destination. She is wearing a bright red dress. The surroundings are dark and dull and of neutral colors. The viewer’s eye is drawn to the woman because of the positioning of the other figures in the painting and because the walls and railings of the subway create a fanlike effect around her (Whitney).The other female figures in the painting are in the distance and hard to be seen by the eye. The men in the painting are threatening figures who lurk in the background, wearing long coats, all identical except for the color (Whitney). Some of the men are looking suspiciously around the walls of the booths at the woman. The woman wears red, white, and blue whi ch may symbolize the desperate desire of American women in the 1950s to become more modern and independent (Whitney). Power was elected Fellow of the Royal Historical Society in 1925.That same year he helped set up Grosvenor School of Modern Art. It was here where he learned about lino cutting (Lenimports). Linocut is a printmaking technique where a design is cut into the linoleum surface with a sharp knife, with the raised areas representing a mirror image of the parts to show printed. The linoleum sheet is inked with a roller and then pressed onto paper or fabric. Power’s work was generally printed in color, with separate blocks for each color of ink (Nydam). â€Å"The Tube Train† is made of four colors, yellow, red, light blue, and dark blue.It is a representation of life in London as workers go home on the underground train. The seated rider’s heads are buried in newspapers. A few people are standing in the front of the train. Both men and women are seen in the print. The viewer is looking down the isle of the train, as if they are sitting in the back. This print is an example of a one point perspective. They print also uses a lot of repetition. The deiling design is repeated is all the ceiling tiles. All the seated riders are holding a newspaper. The men on the train are all wearing hats.One can now see how a quick look at a piece of artwork can be deceiving. Although the subject matter of art may be alike, the fine details, which give art its true meaning, can differ greatly from one piece to another. http://www. leninimports. com/cyril_e_power. html http://www. leninimports. com/george_tooker. html http://whitney. org/Education/Teens/RaidTheMuseum? GeorgeTookerByVita3052 http://www. artnet. com/artists/george-tooker/ http://nydamprintsblackandwhite. blogspot. com/2011/05/cyril-powers-tube-train. html http://query. nytimes. com/gst/fullpage. html

Firestarter

Firestarter is the 8th novel written by Stephen King/Richard Bachman and the 10th to be adapted into film. It came out in 1984 right on the heels of four other adaptations of King works released between 1983 and 1984 namely Christine, Cujo, The Dead Zone and Children of the Corn. Unfortunately, the commercial success of the book did not translate into box office receipts in spite of how closely it followed the book. Then again, it could also be said that its faithful adaptation diminished the impact it could have since film is a different medium altogether.The book’s plot followed a formula – that of a government experiment gone wrong. An experimental drug code-named Lot Six was administered by The Shop, a shady government agency, to twelve college volunteers. They wanted to see if psi ability can be stimulated by drugs and bring about telekinesis, thought transference and mental domination. The action in the film and in the book started when The Shop decided to bring i n the McGee family particularly Charlie McGee, the eight-year old child who was the result of the union of the only two remaining relatively healthy subjects who took Lot Six. The others had died or lost their minds and maimed themselves during the experiment or later committed suicide. Far from being an ordinary child, Charlie could make fires with her mind.As in the book, the movie used flashbacks to provide the background on how things came to be. In the book, this approach was used effectively since it can put in as much detail as it can not merely to explain the how and why, but also to gain sympathy for the characters’ plight. In the movie, however, this approach limited the development of the character. As it was, the characters became mere representations of the institutions they stood for. Perhaps, it was assumed that the stellar cast and their acting reputations would create audience empathy. It failed to do that, however.Stanley Mann’s script paid homage to the original lines found in the novel. It was necessary to create closer affinity to the book. No updating was necessary since the setting and context was still relevant at the time the movie was made such as the anti-Russian comment against warrant less searches. The Cold War was still very much felt in the 1980s. Aside from being a King novel, one other reason that this was made into a movie was its potential for spectacular effects of fire and explosions. Its target audience were obviously the fans of the Stephen King’s books who would most likely be curious how the fiery scenes would be pulled off. This was why the script followed the book as faithfully as it can so as not to alienate the purists as Stanley Kubrick did with The Shining. However, the book Firestarter is in itself not compelling.The origins of Charlie’s extraordinary ability was explained early on hence there was not real tension or suspense to be had. Once the pursuit started, their capture and the eventual escape were already predictable. The good guys and the bad guys were firmly established that there could only be one ending. King may have wanted the basic premise to be thought-provoking, that of inflicting unethical experiments on unsuspecting victims. The book focused on the consequence of the experimentation. However, the movie seemed to have focused more on reaching its climax than to pursue this premise. In the movie, there was no exploration of Andy and Vicky’s unease after their psychedelic experience. There was no feeling of dread over what had transpired. There was not feeling of common guilt of being responsible why Charlie turned out to be a firestarter.The director banked on Drew Barrymore to carry the movie and show the incongruity that such an angelic face can carry an ability that can only destroy. Dr. Wanless diatribe and should have explored   the horror of the immensity of her probable power but it just came out as politically preachy. Had the ap proach been altered so that it followed a chronological and continuous tale from the 1969 experimentation up to the pyrotechnic display, perhaps a certain suspense could have been maintained with the audience and the characters could have been developed more clearly which the audience can relate with. Also, the visual tricks of physical turmoil used in the movie such as the nosebleed on top of his facial contortions seem over the top. King did not use both devices in the book. He just made him turn pale and very tired and if we wanted something more visual, there were the explorations of numbness on his face.With Barrymore, her face was fully exploited. In the book, her character was becoming drawn, but in the movie she was in the peak of health. Every time she hurls fire, she gets a close u and her golden hair would be blown away from her face (the better to see you, my dear, so to speak) so one can be mesmerized by how beautiful she was as she hurled her fireballs of death. The so undtrack by Tangerine Dream also helped set the mood as its synthesized music shifts from slow to mysterious to panicky as appropriate with the action taking place on screen. The unilateral explosion of the cars in the Manders farm visually showed he spontaneity and the lack of control by Charlie over her powers as compared to the deliberate way made her fireballs and directed them towards specific subjects at The Shop’s compound.The choice of George C. Scott as John Rainbird was a notable deviation from the book. While Scott was truly effective as the assassin sociopath, being able to transform from a kindly orderly who’s afraid of the dark to the ruthless killer who can just as easily â€Å"strike her across the bridge of the nose, breaking it explosively, and sending bone fragments into her brain,† his native American ancestry was stretching the realm of make-believe quite a bit.   In the movie, his face was not deformed.His eyepatch was a perfunctory disgu ise and not used to actually cover up an eyeless socket. The book explained his deformity as a result of the stupidity of his stoned fellow soldiers in Vietnam. One can only guess why these details were left out. A true Native American may not have been chosen so as not to stir up any resentments and controversy for portraying a crazy man. Moreover, his lack of deformity would avoid questions as to how he got his battle scars. In 1984, moviegoers were not yet primed by Oliver Stone’s Platoon which came out in 1986 to the harsh realities of war.Then, there was Martin Sheen’s depiction of Hollister. The book had him losing his mind in the end, seeing things that were not there, a negative after-effect of Andy’s mind domination if he â€Å"pushed† too hard. Instead, he was made to play it like a fool in the movie, mindlessly following orders with no manifestations of incipient craziness.The ending was also rather stilted. After the climax and after running f or almost two hours, the movie just had to end quickly. There were no speculations as to what would happen to the Manders couple whose farm was the scene of the first outburst, and which The Shop knows about once Charlie sought sanctuary with them. There was no speculation about The Shop nor to the effects on Charlie who just lost her father and killed a lot of people (in self defense). The book showed The Shop running after her again and Charlie, on her own, found the Rolling Stones magazine to tell her story. It could be that the movie audience can reconcile it better if Charlie had adult supervision.Works CitedFirestarter, Dir. Mark L. Lester. Perf. David Keith, Drew Barrymore, Martin Sheen, George C, Scott. Universal Pictures, 1984.King, Stephen. Firestarter. New York: Signet, 1980.