Thanks to Qi wen for reminding me to do this blog entry. I have completely forgotten about this due to preparation for mid-term. I apologies for doing this entry too late and too rush.
Our group have chosen genetic engineering as our round-table discussion and I would be in charge of handling the public or government point of view as to why they would reject or only apply it to a certain extend.
The first article I have chosen is from The Institute of Science, Technology and Public Policy, titled genetic engineering: A caution approach (http://istpp.org/genetic_engineering.html). In this article, the author is telling us that little is known about genetic engineering such as genetic surgery. The danger post by these surgeries and how our genes in the body might react of foreign genes is too profound and unknown to us. It went on to urge us to be wary against the dangers of irreversible gene pollution and we should be monitoring such development closely. Some problems and scientists views were written and the author wrote about what the government has failed to do and proceed on with a case study. Some environment concerns caused by the usage of genetic engineering such as the imbalances in our environment and ecosystem caused by herbicides are also discussed. He ended off by encouraging us to put our safety first and to build a society that upholds the integrity and dignity of life for us all. I feel that the article is useful in spreading the message of safety to us, we should be wary of what we do with our body, food and the environment.
1)mandatory-required, necessary
2)radical-fundamental, basic
3)frailties-weakness, flaw
4)Touted-generally agreed upon
5)assert-insist, declare, maintain
The second article I have chosen is an article about The New Zealand government stand towards genetic modified (GM) food. Title of the article is GM debate will continue (http://www.terranature.org/gm.htm) and the article mainly speak about the government and the world public reaction towards GM. New Zealand went ahead with GM believing that going towards GM could help them stay competitive in the world markets although a large percentage of New Zealander’s want the ban on GMOs to continue. The public feel that the government is going against the well-known “clean and green” New Zealand brand; some statistics is shown by the author to show how the world will react to New Zealand’s decision. The article went on to talk about the reason for opposition to GM and talk about how severely the ecosystems will be affected and ended off accusing that the government went on blindly ahead with GM. I feel that the article is much related to the topic we are discussing, it shows how at times government went on with certain decision to maintain competitive and ignored the public feelings and views.
1)moratorium-suspension
2)sterile-unproductive, clean
3)acutely-sharply
4)pollination-the enrichment of land
In conclusion, after reading these two articles, I feel that different groups of people might take a different stand towards GM and this is very much dependant on their area of focus at the certain point.
Sunday, March 01, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
wah... what's up with these... it doesn't look like blogging at all sia...
Mingzong mentioned about genetic surgery and gene pollution, which are areas unheard of to me prior to reading his post. His first article is insightful as it reminded me on the issue of reversibility. Can the doctors and scientists reverse what they had done to our genes? Humans always like to have something they can fall back on in whatever they do.
For the second article, he talked New Zealand and how GM food can supposedly tarnish the food reputation the country enjoys. I would say the extent of GM usage should be assessed on the extent of its necessity.
Post a Comment