How Did Piaget View Cognitive Development Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words

How Did Piaget View Cognitive Development - Essay Example How Did Piaget View Cognitive Development? Jean Piaget (1896-1980) was one of the leading developmental psychologists that mainly focused on the impact of environmental and social factors on human development, particularly cognitive development in children. His theories on how a child’s way of thinking grows and adapts through acquiring experiences through the process of interacting with nonliving things as well as by engaging in social interaction with other children or adults, was very much looked upon especially during the pre-war era. Most of the theories were to be tested as models for improving people’s learning in school or at work, but were not tested fully after World War II broke out. In theory, development can either be continuous or discontinuous. Continuous development is related to the human development through gradual progress from infancy to adulthood. Discontinuous development, on the other hand, occurs through a fixed sequence that has discrete and predictable stages. In Piaget’s view on cognitive development in humans, the trend is rather discontinuous, and that growth is seen as having specific, qualitatively different stages. Each stage then has particular information-processing approaches that would be based on memory and language skills acquired at a certain stage. Also, cognitive growth is stimulated by what a child perceives, and that the process of learning can be enhanced by letting the child experience and discover new things suitable for his or her age.

HR Strategic Plan for the company I work for thhe company Essay

HR Strategic Plan for the company I work for thhe company - Essay Example It also set out new strategic directions and an action plan for implementation. A team headed by the Vice President, Human Resource Management has been inaugurated to monitor the implementation of the plan. The consulting firm is expected to evaluate plan implementation quarterly and present a comprehensive report to the Board of Directors, and also prepare and present an annual report at each AGM. JP Lexington was incorporated in the USA in 1978. It is essentially into manufacturing of electric generating sets and water pumping machines but has ventured into production of electrical and electronic accessories of automobiles. The company has its first and biggest plant at Ann Arbor, Michigan and three other plants in Virginia, Texas and Hawaii. JP Lexington has also successfully opened and operated offshore branches in Malaysia, Singapore and China. Its expansion plan included acquisition and partnership with firms in China and India for new or adaptive trademarks. The company’s headquarters in Ann Arbor and regional marketing offices in Brasilia, Brazil (for South America and the Caribbean), Abuja, Nigeria (for Africa), Dubai, UAE (for Middle East), Shanghai, China (for East and Central Asia), Moscow, Russia (for Russia, Caucasia and East Europe) and Amsterdam, the Netherlands (for West and Central Europe and Scandinavia). The company currently has 12,578 salaried employees and over 5,900 casualized employees. The company and its industry-specific, sector-wide and economic environment was x-rayed to identify the following strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats, which this strategic plan is designed to explore and transform. JP Lexington will in the next 10 years advance to the next level in the use of environmentally-friendly technology. It will continue producing sophisticated version of its old products buts will systematically divert is energy, resources and competencies into

Ethical Questions in the Stem Cell Debate

Ethical Questions in the Stem Cell Debate The Stem Cell Debate: Ethical Questions The story for the year 1997 was the sacred. We fear a Promethean blunder. We fear that our own human hubris will violate something sacred in our nature; and we fear that nature will retaliate with disaster. To protect ourselves from a possible Promethean blunder by science, we are tempted to stop further research with the commandment: thou shalt not play God! Then, during 1999, we opened the first few pages on chapter two of the cloning controversy story. I will refer to this chapter as the stem cell debate. The debate has only begun. What is not yet clear is just what needs to be debated. Perhaps nothing. Perhaps everything. What is clear is that the fallout from the cloning explosion is still lighting fires here and there. Whether or not the public will add stem cells to the fuel to make those fires burn hotter remains to be seen. Stem cells have become front page news in Australia, as well as in the United States and other countries. On February 4, 1999, the Australian National Academy of Science issued a position statement. Note the structure of Recommendation 1. Council considers that reproductive cloning to produce human fetuses is unethical and unsafe and should be prohibited.However, human cells derived from cloning techniques, from germ cells should not be precluded from use in approved research activities in cellular and developmental biology Here two things are put together. First, disapproval of reproductive cloning for the purposes of making children. Second, approval of research on human embryonic stem cells, approval even in the face of ethical squeamishness regarding embryo research. If this Australian statement is a barometer, we need to ask: what is the cultural weather forecast? What might be coming? In what follows it will be my task to report on the fast-moving frontier of stem cell research within the field of anthropology, agenda questions raised by science that need to be addressed by systematic theologians and public policy makers. I will ask more questions than I am ready to answer. Yet, I believe that such work invested in trying to formulate the relevant question (die Fragestellung) takes us more than just halfway toward a helpful answer. The Human Embryonic Stem Cell Debate Science, Ethics, and Public Policy Edited by Laurie Zoloth Human embryonic stem cells can divide indefinitely and have the potential to develop into many types of tissue. Research on these cells is essential to one of the most intriguing medical frontiers, regenerative medicine. It also raises a host of difficult ethical issues and has sparked great public interest and controversy. This book offers a foundation for thinking about the many issues involved in human embryonic stem cell research. It considers questions about the nature of human life, the limits of intervention into human cells and tissues, and the meaning of our corporeal existence. The fact that stem cells may be derived from living embryos that are destroyed in the process or from aborted fetuses ties the discussion of stem cell research to the ongoing debates on abortion. In addition to these issues, the essays in the book touch on broader questions such as who should approve controversial research and what constitutes human dignity, respect, and justice. The book contains contributions from the Ethics Advisory Board of the Geron Coroporation; excerpts from expert testimony given before the National Bioethics Advisory Commission, which helped shape recent National Institutes of Health policy; and original analytical essays on the implications of this research. Pros and Cons Debates over the ethics of embryonic blastocysts. Latest Developments The most recent research has shown that there are many options available other than working with embryonic stem cells. Stem cells can be obtained from cord blood or derived by manipulating differentiated cells (i.e. skin cells) to revert them to a pluripotent state. These are alternatives that may help broaden the acceptance of stem cell research. Background In November 1998 the first published research paper reported that stem cells could be taken from human embryos. Subsequent research led to the ability to maintain undifferentiated stem cell lines (pluripotent cells) and techniques for differentiating them into cells specific to various tissues and organs. The debates over the ethics of stem cell research began almost immediately in 1999, despite reports that stem cells cannot grow into complete organisms. In 2000 – 2001, governments worldwide were beginning to draft proposals and guidelines in an effort to control stem cell research and the handling of embryonic tissues, and reach universal policies to prevent â€Å"brain-drains† (emigration of top scientists) between countries. The CIHR (Canadian Institute of Health Sciences) drafted a list of recommendations for stem cell research in 2001. The Clinton administration drafted guidelines for stem cell research in 2000, but Clinton left office prior to them being released. The Bush government has had to deal with the issue throughout his administration. Australia, Germany, UK and other countries have also formulated policies. (Continued from Page 1) Pros The therapeutic cloning. Stem cells provide huge potential for finding treatments and cures to a vast array of diseases including different cancers, diabetes, spinal cord injuries, Alzheimers, MS, Huntingtons, Parkinsons and more. There is endless potential for scientists to learn about human growth and cell development from studying stem cells. Use of adult-derived stem cells, from blood, cord blood, skin and other tissues, known as IPSCs, has been demonstrated to be effective for treating different diseases in animal models. Umbilical-cord-derived stem cells (obtained from the cord blood) have also been isolated and utilized for various experimental treatments. Another option is use of uniparental stem cells. Although these cells lines have some disadvantages or shortcomings compared to embryonic cell lines (they are shorter-lived), there is vast potential if enough money is invested in researching them further, and they are not technically considered individual living beings by pro-life advocates. Cons Use of embryonic stem cells for reasearch involves the destruction of blastocysts formed from laboratory-fertilized human eggs. For those who believe that life begins at conception, the blastocyst is a human life and to destroy it is unacceptable and immoral. This seems to be the only controversial issue standing in the way of stem cell research in North America. Where It Stands In the summer of 2006 President Bush stood his ground on the issue of stem cell research and vetoed a bill passed by the Senate that would have expanded federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. Currently, American federal funding can only go to research on stem cells from existing (already destroyed) embryos. Similarly, in Canada, as of 2002, scientists cannot create or clone embryos for research but must used existing embryos discarded by couples. The UK allows embryonic stem cell cloning. Use of stem cell lines from alternative non-embryonic sources has received more attention in recent years and has already been demonstrated as a successful option for treatment of certain diseases. For example, adult stem cells can be used to replace blood-cell-forming cells killed during chemotherapy in bone marrow transplant patients. Biotech companies such as ACT are researching techniques for cellular reprogramming of adult cells, use of amnionic fluid, or stem cell extraction techniques that do not damage the embryo, that also provide alternatives for obtaining viable stem cell lines. Out of necessity, the research on these alternatives is catching up with embryonic stem cell research and, with sufficient funding, other solutions might be found that are acceptable to everyone. On March 9, 2009, President Obama overturned Bushs ruling, allowing US Federal funding to go to embryonic stem cell research. However, the stipulation applies that normal NIH policies on data sharing must be followed. Despite the progress being made in other areas of stem cell research, using pluripotent cells from other sources, many American scientists were putting pressure on the government to allow their participation and compete with the Europeans. However, many people are still strongly opposed Research Ethics and Stem Cells Stem cells show potential for many different areas of health and medical research, and studying them can help us understand how they transform into the dazzling array of specialized cells that make us what we are. Some of the most serious medical conditions, such as cancer and birth defects, are caused by problems that occur somewhere in this process. A better understanding of normal cell development will allow us to understand and perhaps correct the errors that cause these medical conditions. Research on one kind of stem cell—human embryonic stem cells—has generated much interest and public debate. Pluripotent stem cells (cells that can develop into many different cell types of the body) are isolated from human embryos that are a few days old. Pluripotent stem cell lines have also been developed from fetal tissue (older than 8 weeks of development). As science and technology continue to advance, so do ethical viewpoints surrounding these developments. It is important to educate and explore the issues, scientifically and ethically. The discovery, isolation, and culturing of human embryonic stem cells has been described as one of the most significant breakthroughs in biomedicine of the century.1 This description would be warranted by virtue of the biological uniqueness of these cells alone—their ability to self-renew infinitely while retaining a remarkable capacity to differentiate into any form of cell tissue. But as well as this, the culturing of embryonic stem cells holds tremendous potential for the development of new forms of regenerative medicine to treat debilitating or fatal conditions that would not otherwise be curable.2 It is somewhat of an irony that the discovery of cells with such a tremendous potential for improving and prolonging our own lives, should bring with it some of the most trenchant and intractable questions about the value of life itself. The harvesting of embryonic stem cells results in the destruction of the embryos from which they are harvested. It results, in other words, in the expiration of the very beginnings of a possible human life. Issues about the value of life emerge here in perhaps their most stark and poignant form in the question of whether life for those already existing should be improved at the seeming expense of a possible human life that has just come into being. Needless to say, what the most ethically justified response is to this sort of question is far from obvious. It is not immediately apparent, either, just what should count as the appropriate criteria for assessing possible responses to it. Indeed, it is even contentious as to what the right concepts and terminology are for framing the central questions. What is clear, though, is that it would be remiss to fail to engage with these questions in a manner that is commensurate with their depth, complexity and importance. With due regard to that, the following discussion provides a brief overview of some of the core ethical issues arising from the Research Involving Embryos Bill 2002 and to some extent the Prohibition of Human Cloning Bill 2002.3 The public debate has focused mostly on ethical problems associated with the destruction of embryos (in the case of the first Bill), and with the creation of cloned human embryos (in the case of the second Bill). The current paper will confine its primary focus to the first set of problems, since many of the salient ethical issues about cloning will arise, as it turns out, in connection with embryonic stem cell research.4 1 Key Ethical Issues in Embryonic Stem Cell Research The paper takes most of the major ethical concerns in the debate to be encompassed by the following core questions: †¢ What, in principle, is ethically at issue with destructive embryo research? †¢ What is important when it comes to judging the value of the potential consequences of destructive embryo research? †¢ In what does the value of the human embryo consist? †¢ Does the means by which an embryo expires—whether it is destroyed or merely succumbs—make a moral difference? †¢ Is there anything morally worse about using embryos created for research purposes compared to using existing excess or surplus ART (assisted reproductive treatment) embryos? The purpose of the following discussion is to clarify some relevant moral and conceptual distinctions connected with these core questions, and to clarify the basic structure of the major views and argument themes that have been developed by philosophers, bioethicists and theologians in response to these questions. Of course, in their more fully expanded form these distinctions and arguments will involve subtleties and complexities that are beyond the limited scope of this paper to address. Nonetheless, the discussion here will hopefully give an impression of where some of those further complexities and subtleties might lie. The Basic Ethical Problem The possibility of destructive embryo research, particularly embryonic stem cell research, presents us with a moral problem because it appears to bring into tension two fundamental moral principles that we esteem very highly: one principle enjoins the prevention or alleviation of suffering, and the other enjoins us to respect the value of human life. As noted, the harvesting and culturing of embryonic stem cells has considerable potential to bring about remarkable potential benefits in the way of alleviating debilitating medical conditions. So, it satisfies the first principle to a very great degree. On the other hand, there is a case to be made that the harvesting of human embryonic stem cells violates the second principle in that it results in the destruction of human life with value (i.e. human embryos). Accordingly, both principles apparently cannot simultaneously be respected in the case of embryonic stem cell research. The question then is which principle ought to be given precedence in this conflict situation. Should we give more weight to the first, and permit destructive embryonic stem cell research because of its remarkable potential benefits? Or should we give more weight to the second, and prohibit destructive embryonic research because it violates respect for the value of the 2 Key Ethical Issues in Embryonic Stem Cell Research embryo as the very beginnings of a possible human life? This, at bottom, is the ethical problem generated by destructive embryo research. Crude as it may sound, responding to this problem calls for a moral calculation—a decision about how the positive value of destructive embryo research is to be weighted, from a moral point of view, in comparison to the negative value (or disvalue) of destroying embryos. Whatever way that calculation is done, it is important to get a clear idea of what moral weight each side of the equation has. This will involve: (i) developing a sound and accurate picture of what the real value is of the benefits of embryonic research, and (ii) clarifying what the value of embryos might consist in, and what, if anything, may be wrong with destroying them. The rest of this paper outlines some of the ethical arguments and philosophical considerations that have been considered relevant to these two matters. Evaluating the Benefits of Embryonic Stem Cell Research Evaluating the beneficial consequences of embryonic stem cell research is not straightforward. There are complexities associated with assessing how realistic the potential of the benefits is, how alternatives with different combinations of benefits and drawbacks are to be compared, and factoring in all of the sometimes overlooked possible consequences of embryonic research. Judging the Benefits Most attention has centred on the medical potential of embryonic stem cell research and cultivation, particularly somatic gene therapy for genetic disorders5, and the generation of replacement tissues and organs for transplant.6 There is no doubt that these outcomes, once realised, would be highly valuable. It is important to keep in mind, however, that currently these benefits are potential ones. A sound evaluation of stem cell research needs to take account of the likelihood of achieving its beneficial outcomes. In matters of science, and particularly, in areas that are newly developing and comparatively uncharted (such as embryonic stem cell research), it is sometimes difficult to settle on those probabilities with complete confidence. It is the nature of scientific discoveries and progress, that they are not easily predicted. Both advances and impediments to advancement can arise unexpectedly. This uncertainty about how real the potential benefits are, needs to be kept in mind wh en weighing and evaluating the consequences of embryonic stem cell research. 3 Key Ethical Issues in Embryonic Stem Cell Research Comparing the Benefits and Harms of Alternatives to Embryonic Stem Cell Research Adult Stem Cell Research Whether destructive embryonic stem cell research is the right thing to do or not, will partly depend on what the alternatives are, and how their particular benefits and drawbacks balance out. There is another research program involving adult stem cells that are present in and drawn from bone marrow, brain and gut, and other tissues. Some of these stem cells have a capacity to differentiate into a limited number of different cell types, such as blood cells, muscles and neurones (i.e., they are multipotent), but they have not been shown to be pluripotent (able to differentiate into any cell-type) in the way that embryonic stem cells are.7 This limitation means that adult stem cells offer more limited potential benefits in regenerative medicine and gene therapy, at least from the standpoint of our current understanding and available biotechnology. (But with that said, it is worth keeping in mind the points made above about the limited predictability of scientific advances, including the possibility of inducing adult stem cells to differentiate into a greater range of tissue types.) The harvesting and use of adult stem cells for biomedical purposes, however, avoids some of the ethically and biomedically problematic features of using embryonic stem cells. For a start, harvesting adult stem cells does not involve the destruction of embryos. The extent to which that is an advantage will depend on the extent to which that destruction turns out to be a bad thing, (and this will be taken up shortly). Tissues grown from adult stem cells will be immunologically compatible with the person from whom the stem cells are harvested. This means that those tissues can be transplanted into that person without fear of the body rejecting them. Tissues produced from embryonic stem cells for the purpose of regenerative therapy, however, are unlikely to be immunocompatible with the person for whom they are intended. The immunological properties of the tissue are set by the characteristics of whatever embryo the stem cells are derived from. Apart from the ongoing use of immunosuppressant drugs (with its possible serious side effects), two other potential solutions to this immunological limitation have been suggested. The first proposes a tissue bank with a sufficiently large number of different embryonic stem cell types to generate tissue that can be immunologically matched with different recipients. Hall points out, however, that this would require a huge number of human embryonic stem cell lines (the number being a matter of debate). Such an embryonic stem cell bank would be technically difficult and expensive to generate. The number of embryos that would be required to produce the cell bank would probably test public support †¦ 8. The second possible way of overcoming the problem of immunological incompatibility is through what has been called therapeutic cloning. In this process, the nucleus of a human oocyte or egg is removed and replaced with the nucleus of a cell taken from the body of the intended tissue re cipient. The new egg is induced to develop into an embryo, from which immunocompatible stem cells are harvested. The embryo will be a human embryonic clone of the recipient, with all his/her 4 Key Ethical Issues in Embryonic Stem Cell Research exact genetic characteristics. To date, there have only been one or two reported attempts at human cloning that have met with some success. A number of ethical objections have been expressed to therapeutic cloning, all revolving around the creating of an embryo, and moreover, the creating of an embryo for a use that will destroy it. These objections and arguments usually rely centrally on certain views about the value or moral status of the embryo, and these views will be outlined later in the paper. Whatever benefit the pluripotency of embryonic stem cells has in generating immunocompatible tissue, this benefit is likely to be possible only at the cost of having to engage in either the morally contentious practice of human (therapeutic) cloning, or the morally contentious practice of using (and destroying) a large number of embryos to create a sufficient range of embryonic stem cell lines for organ banks. It is especially important to note also, that if the Prohibition of Human Cloning Bill 2002 is passed in its current form, and any kind of human cloning, including therapeutic cloning, is prohibited, there will be less opportunity to maximise the potential benefits of embryonic stem cell research, and embryonic stem cells will effectively have less of the advantage they would otherwise have over adult stem cells. The Inevitable Succumbing of Surplus IVF Embryos The Research Involving Embryos Bill 2002 only permits excess ART embryos existing before 5 April 2002 to be used for research purposes in accordance with a licensing regime. It is a fact about those embryos that they would likely expire or succumb anyway. They would still be destroyed, in other words, but through exposure to natural processes. On the face of it, this looks as if the harm or negative value involved in embryos expiring (whatever it might be) will be the same whether embryo research is allowed or not. In each case the embryo will expire. But this impression can be a little oversimplified. Some philosophers argue that there is a moral difference between acts and omissions, between actively killing something, and passively failing to intervene to stop its death from other causes (when one could have). Even though the outcome is the same in each case, it can be argued that there is something worse, or more morally culpable, about actively bringing about the death oneself. There are different views on what the moral difference between killing and letting die amounts to, and there are those who argue that there is no significant difference. Whichever way one comes out on this, it is not clear that the act-omission distinction maps neatly onto the particular embryo research scenario under discussion. Destroying surplus embryos through research is certainly an act. But so too, some would argue, is removing surplus embryos from the cold storage that keeps them from expiring. They would hold that this looks less like failing to intervene in independently occurring causal processes (that will lead to expiry), than an act that sets those processes in motion. If this is true, then the first impression above will stand. The harm or negative value involved in embryos expiring (whatever it might be) will be the same whether embryo research is allowed or not. 5 Key Ethical Issues in Embryonic Stem Cell Research Some would argue that there is an important logical upshot from this. If the only two alternatives in the circumstances (destroying embryos in research vs making them succumb) involve the same level of harm or disvalue or moral wrongness, but embryo research involves much greater benefits than the other alternative, then it could be argued, it makes sense to opt for the more beneficial embryo research. And indeed, some might construe that as a sufficient case for the moral preferability of that option. (This would change, of course, if the relevant alternatives change—if say, embryos were purpose created for research, which were not pre-existing and destined to be expired).9 Taking into Account all of the Relevant Benefits and Harms The embryonic stem cell debate has been pre-occupied with the biological and medical benefits or drawbacks of that research. Central as these certainly are, there are nonetheless other, often-overlooked non-medical impacts that may be important to factor in. Some of the major among these are possible social impacts including: De-sensitisation to the Destruction of Human Life It is argued by some10 that allowing the destruction of embryos to become an entrenched practice would serve to desensitise the scientific establishment, regulating bodies, and society in general, to the destruction of life in general. An increased social toleration of loss of life, it would be argued, may make it easier for society to accede to (currently) more controversial practices involving the ending of life such as, late term elective abortion, or withdrawal of treatment for severely disabled infants, for example. This slippery slope argument about potential consequences is based on empirical assumptions about the causes and effects of certain social attitudes, and needs to be assessed in the light of their plausibility. Contributions to Social Oppression One strong but minority strand of argument emphasises the impact that biotechnology has on broader social relationships. It has been argued that research should be evaluated not only in terms of its effects on the subjects of the experiment but also in terms of its connection with existing patterns of oppression and domination in society.11 There is a considerable body of writing that explores the impacts of new reproductive technologies (such as IVF) on the interests of women, particularly how those technologies might contribute to oppression.12 In the case of embryonic research, it is sometimes argued that women who donate ova or embryos are at risk of exploitation to the extent that male-dominated medical practice appropriates their reproductive labour for research and commercial benefits. Women are at risk, therefore, of being alienated from their reproductive labour. Moreover, it is argued that womens body parts are at risk of being commodified, and their acts of altruistic dona tion demeaned, if downstream users can develop commercial applications for stem cells developed from their ova and embryos.13 6 Key Ethical Issues in Embryonic Stem Cell Research The Value of the Embryo What weight does the other side of the moral equation have? What is wrong, if anything, with destroying embryos? If there is something wrong with that, is it sufficiently wrong to outweigh or override the benefits of embryo research, and therefore, render that research morally impermissible? Most of the leading arguments about the rightness or wrongness of destroying embryos are based on some view or other about the moral status of the embryo—how the embryo ought to be regarded or treated from the moral point of view, in virtue of it arguably possessing certain morally important intrinsic characteristics. It is relatively uncontroversial to describe embryos as human life (at its very beginnings). It is another thing, however, to describe embryos as persons, or human beings, or potential persons, etc. These descriptions are morally laden in that they carry with them potential implications about what can and cannot be done to embryos from a moral point of view. What those potential implications are, and indeed, whether they are sound ones, will depend on the nature and plausibility of the particular arguments that accompany each view on the moral status of the embryo. There are different views about this moral status. The leading views speculate that embryos have the status of: †¢ persons, or †¢ potential persons, or †¢ divine creations, or †¢ subjects of moral harm, or †¢ the beginnings of human life, with intrinsic value, or †¢ organic material with no more moral standing than other body parts. Each of these will be outlined in turn, with particular attention to (i) what the intrinsic moral characteristics are the each particular view attributes to embryos, and (ii) what these alleged characteristics or moral status are held to imply for our moral treatment of embryos—particularly whether they can ever or never be destroyed. Embryos have Status as Human Beings or Persons Some argue that, despite obvious physical differences between developed humans and embryos, the latter ought still be regarded as human beings or persons. One of the more plausible arguments to this effect relies on pointing out that there is no non-arbitrary point in the physical growth continuum between embryo and developed human that counts as a morally significant dividing line.14 Consequently, if individuals at their fully developed stage are human beings or persons, there is no non-arbitrary ground to think that they should not count as the same at their embryonic stage. Those who hold otherwise, 7 Key Ethical Issues in Embryonic Stem Cell Research according to this argument, need to indicate the developmental point at which personhood, or status as a human being, is acquired. The argument continues that it is a very deeply and commonly held view in modern liberal democracies that individual persons are deserving of especially strong moral respect in certain ways. All individuals, by virtue of being persons, have fundamental rights not to have their basic human interests interfered with in certain ways, and most importantly, their interest in the maintenance of their life and bodily integrity. If embryos have the status of persons, then they too will have rights not to be harmed or killed. Or, put in another way, we will be under a very strong moral obligation not to harm or kill embryos. Most prominent ethicists, philosophers and commentators would agree that persons have a status deserving of strong and special moral respect, protection and dignity. Many, however, would dispute that embryos should be considered persons or human beings in any serious sense. Even if one cannot point to an exact black and white dividing line in human development, it is still reasonable (they hold) to point to the fact that wherever the transition occurs, embryos do not have the psychological, physiological, emotional, intellectual properties that we tend to centrally associate with personhood. Embryos, particularly the very early pre-implantation blastocysts involved in stem cell research,15 do not, for instance, have consciousness, individuality, the ability to reason, or the ability to form courses of action in life and to choose between them.16 Embryos have Status as Potential Persons Some ethicists have a response to the foregoing objection to viewing embryos as persons. It is to concede that embryos do not currently exhibit these properties of personhood, but they will, if allowed to develop and fulfil their potential. To the extent that embryos are potential persons, it is argued, they ought to still be accorded the moral respect and dignity that personhood warrants. This potential person argument Ethical Questions in the Stem Cell Debate Ethical Questions in the Stem Cell Debate The Stem Cell Debate: Ethical Questions The story for the year 1997 was the sacred. We fear a Promethean blunder. We fear that our own human hubris will violate something sacred in our nature; and we fear that nature will retaliate with disaster. To protect ourselves from a possible Promethean blunder by science, we are tempted to stop further research with the commandment: thou shalt not play God! Then, during 1999, we opened the first few pages on chapter two of the cloning controversy story. I will refer to this chapter as the stem cell debate. The debate has only begun. What is not yet clear is just what needs to be debated. Perhaps nothing. Perhaps everything. What is clear is that the fallout from the cloning explosion is still lighting fires here and there. Whether or not the public will add stem cells to the fuel to make those fires burn hotter remains to be seen. Stem cells have become front page news in Australia, as well as in the United States and other countries. On February 4, 1999, the Australian National Academy of Science issued a position statement. Note the structure of Recommendation 1. Council considers that reproductive cloning to produce human fetuses is unethical and unsafe and should be prohibited.However, human cells derived from cloning techniques, from germ cells should not be precluded from use in approved research activities in cellular and developmental biology Here two things are put together. First, disapproval of reproductive cloning for the purposes of making children. Second, approval of research on human embryonic stem cells, approval even in the face of ethical squeamishness regarding embryo research. If this Australian statement is a barometer, we need to ask: what is the cultural weather forecast? What might be coming? In what follows it will be my task to report on the fast-moving frontier of stem cell research within the field of anthropology, agenda questions raised by science that need to be addressed by systematic theologians and public policy makers. I will ask more questions than I am ready to answer. Yet, I believe that such work invested in trying to formulate the relevant question (die Fragestellung) takes us more than just halfway toward a helpful answer. The Human Embryonic Stem Cell Debate Science, Ethics, and Public Policy Edited by Laurie Zoloth Human embryonic stem cells can divide indefinitely and have the potential to develop into many types of tissue. Research on these cells is essential to one of the most intriguing medical frontiers, regenerative medicine. It also raises a host of difficult ethical issues and has sparked great public interest and controversy. This book offers a foundation for thinking about the many issues involved in human embryonic stem cell research. It considers questions about the nature of human life, the limits of intervention into human cells and tissues, and the meaning of our corporeal existence. The fact that stem cells may be derived from living embryos that are destroyed in the process or from aborted fetuses ties the discussion of stem cell research to the ongoing debates on abortion. In addition to these issues, the essays in the book touch on broader questions such as who should approve controversial research and what constitutes human dignity, respect, and justice. The book contains contributions from the Ethics Advisory Board of the Geron Coroporation; excerpts from expert testimony given before the National Bioethics Advisory Commission, which helped shape recent National Institutes of Health policy; and original analytical essays on the implications of this research. Pros and Cons Debates over the ethics of embryonic blastocysts. Latest Developments The most recent research has shown that there are many options available other than working with embryonic stem cells. Stem cells can be obtained from cord blood or derived by manipulating differentiated cells (i.e. skin cells) to revert them to a pluripotent state. These are alternatives that may help broaden the acceptance of stem cell research. Background In November 1998 the first published research paper reported that stem cells could be taken from human embryos. Subsequent research led to the ability to maintain undifferentiated stem cell lines (pluripotent cells) and techniques for differentiating them into cells specific to various tissues and organs. The debates over the ethics of stem cell research began almost immediately in 1999, despite reports that stem cells cannot grow into complete organisms. In 2000 – 2001, governments worldwide were beginning to draft proposals and guidelines in an effort to control stem cell research and the handling of embryonic tissues, and reach universal policies to prevent â€Å"brain-drains† (emigration of top scientists) between countries. The CIHR (Canadian Institute of Health Sciences) drafted a list of recommendations for stem cell research in 2001. The Clinton administration drafted guidelines for stem cell research in 2000, but Clinton left office prior to them being released. The Bush government has had to deal with the issue throughout his administration. Australia, Germany, UK and other countries have also formulated policies. (Continued from Page 1) Pros The therapeutic cloning. Stem cells provide huge potential for finding treatments and cures to a vast array of diseases including different cancers, diabetes, spinal cord injuries, Alzheimers, MS, Huntingtons, Parkinsons and more. There is endless potential for scientists to learn about human growth and cell development from studying stem cells. Use of adult-derived stem cells, from blood, cord blood, skin and other tissues, known as IPSCs, has been demonstrated to be effective for treating different diseases in animal models. Umbilical-cord-derived stem cells (obtained from the cord blood) have also been isolated and utilized for various experimental treatments. Another option is use of uniparental stem cells. Although these cells lines have some disadvantages or shortcomings compared to embryonic cell lines (they are shorter-lived), there is vast potential if enough money is invested in researching them further, and they are not technically considered individual living beings by pro-life advocates. Cons Use of embryonic stem cells for reasearch involves the destruction of blastocysts formed from laboratory-fertilized human eggs. For those who believe that life begins at conception, the blastocyst is a human life and to destroy it is unacceptable and immoral. This seems to be the only controversial issue standing in the way of stem cell research in North America. Where It Stands In the summer of 2006 President Bush stood his ground on the issue of stem cell research and vetoed a bill passed by the Senate that would have expanded federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. Currently, American federal funding can only go to research on stem cells from existing (already destroyed) embryos. Similarly, in Canada, as of 2002, scientists cannot create or clone embryos for research but must used existing embryos discarded by couples. The UK allows embryonic stem cell cloning. Use of stem cell lines from alternative non-embryonic sources has received more attention in recent years and has already been demonstrated as a successful option for treatment of certain diseases. For example, adult stem cells can be used to replace blood-cell-forming cells killed during chemotherapy in bone marrow transplant patients. Biotech companies such as ACT are researching techniques for cellular reprogramming of adult cells, use of amnionic fluid, or stem cell extraction techniques that do not damage the embryo, that also provide alternatives for obtaining viable stem cell lines. Out of necessity, the research on these alternatives is catching up with embryonic stem cell research and, with sufficient funding, other solutions might be found that are acceptable to everyone. On March 9, 2009, President Obama overturned Bushs ruling, allowing US Federal funding to go to embryonic stem cell research. However, the stipulation applies that normal NIH policies on data sharing must be followed. Despite the progress being made in other areas of stem cell research, using pluripotent cells from other sources, many American scientists were putting pressure on the government to allow their participation and compete with the Europeans. However, many people are still strongly opposed Research Ethics and Stem Cells Stem cells show potential for many different areas of health and medical research, and studying them can help us understand how they transform into the dazzling array of specialized cells that make us what we are. Some of the most serious medical conditions, such as cancer and birth defects, are caused by problems that occur somewhere in this process. A better understanding of normal cell development will allow us to understand and perhaps correct the errors that cause these medical conditions. Research on one kind of stem cell—human embryonic stem cells—has generated much interest and public debate. Pluripotent stem cells (cells that can develop into many different cell types of the body) are isolated from human embryos that are a few days old. Pluripotent stem cell lines have also been developed from fetal tissue (older than 8 weeks of development). As science and technology continue to advance, so do ethical viewpoints surrounding these developments. It is important to educate and explore the issues, scientifically and ethically. The discovery, isolation, and culturing of human embryonic stem cells has been described as one of the most significant breakthroughs in biomedicine of the century.1 This description would be warranted by virtue of the biological uniqueness of these cells alone—their ability to self-renew infinitely while retaining a remarkable capacity to differentiate into any form of cell tissue. But as well as this, the culturing of embryonic stem cells holds tremendous potential for the development of new forms of regenerative medicine to treat debilitating or fatal conditions that would not otherwise be curable.2 It is somewhat of an irony that the discovery of cells with such a tremendous potential for improving and prolonging our own lives, should bring with it some of the most trenchant and intractable questions about the value of life itself. The harvesting of embryonic stem cells results in the destruction of the embryos from which they are harvested. It results, in other words, in the expiration of the very beginnings of a possible human life. Issues about the value of life emerge here in perhaps their most stark and poignant form in the question of whether life for those already existing should be improved at the seeming expense of a possible human life that has just come into being. Needless to say, what the most ethically justified response is to this sort of question is far from obvious. It is not immediately apparent, either, just what should count as the appropriate criteria for assessing possible responses to it. Indeed, it is even contentious as to what the right concepts and terminology are for framing the central questions. What is clear, though, is that it would be remiss to fail to engage with these questions in a manner that is commensurate with their depth, complexity and importance. With due regard to that, the following discussion provides a brief overview of some of the core ethical issues arising from the Research Involving Embryos Bill 2002 and to some extent the Prohibition of Human Cloning Bill 2002.3 The public debate has focused mostly on ethical problems associated with the destruction of embryos (in the case of the first Bill), and with the creation of cloned human embryos (in the case of the second Bill). The current paper will confine its primary focus to the first set of problems, since many of the salient ethical issues about cloning will arise, as it turns out, in connection with embryonic stem cell research.4 1 Key Ethical Issues in Embryonic Stem Cell Research The paper takes most of the major ethical concerns in the debate to be encompassed by the following core questions: †¢ What, in principle, is ethically at issue with destructive embryo research? †¢ What is important when it comes to judging the value of the potential consequences of destructive embryo research? †¢ In what does the value of the human embryo consist? †¢ Does the means by which an embryo expires—whether it is destroyed or merely succumbs—make a moral difference? †¢ Is there anything morally worse about using embryos created for research purposes compared to using existing excess or surplus ART (assisted reproductive treatment) embryos? The purpose of the following discussion is to clarify some relevant moral and conceptual distinctions connected with these core questions, and to clarify the basic structure of the major views and argument themes that have been developed by philosophers, bioethicists and theologians in response to these questions. Of course, in their more fully expanded form these distinctions and arguments will involve subtleties and complexities that are beyond the limited scope of this paper to address. Nonetheless, the discussion here will hopefully give an impression of where some of those further complexities and subtleties might lie. The Basic Ethical Problem The possibility of destructive embryo research, particularly embryonic stem cell research, presents us with a moral problem because it appears to bring into tension two fundamental moral principles that we esteem very highly: one principle enjoins the prevention or alleviation of suffering, and the other enjoins us to respect the value of human life. As noted, the harvesting and culturing of embryonic stem cells has considerable potential to bring about remarkable potential benefits in the way of alleviating debilitating medical conditions. So, it satisfies the first principle to a very great degree. On the other hand, there is a case to be made that the harvesting of human embryonic stem cells violates the second principle in that it results in the destruction of human life with value (i.e. human embryos). Accordingly, both principles apparently cannot simultaneously be respected in the case of embryonic stem cell research. The question then is which principle ought to be given precedence in this conflict situation. Should we give more weight to the first, and permit destructive embryonic stem cell research because of its remarkable potential benefits? Or should we give more weight to the second, and prohibit destructive embryonic research because it violates respect for the value of the 2 Key Ethical Issues in Embryonic Stem Cell Research embryo as the very beginnings of a possible human life? This, at bottom, is the ethical problem generated by destructive embryo research. Crude as it may sound, responding to this problem calls for a moral calculation—a decision about how the positive value of destructive embryo research is to be weighted, from a moral point of view, in comparison to the negative value (or disvalue) of destroying embryos. Whatever way that calculation is done, it is important to get a clear idea of what moral weight each side of the equation has. This will involve: (i) developing a sound and accurate picture of what the real value is of the benefits of embryonic research, and (ii) clarifying what the value of embryos might consist in, and what, if anything, may be wrong with destroying them. The rest of this paper outlines some of the ethical arguments and philosophical considerations that have been considered relevant to these two matters. Evaluating the Benefits of Embryonic Stem Cell Research Evaluating the beneficial consequences of embryonic stem cell research is not straightforward. There are complexities associated with assessing how realistic the potential of the benefits is, how alternatives with different combinations of benefits and drawbacks are to be compared, and factoring in all of the sometimes overlooked possible consequences of embryonic research. Judging the Benefits Most attention has centred on the medical potential of embryonic stem cell research and cultivation, particularly somatic gene therapy for genetic disorders5, and the generation of replacement tissues and organs for transplant.6 There is no doubt that these outcomes, once realised, would be highly valuable. It is important to keep in mind, however, that currently these benefits are potential ones. A sound evaluation of stem cell research needs to take account of the likelihood of achieving its beneficial outcomes. In matters of science, and particularly, in areas that are newly developing and comparatively uncharted (such as embryonic stem cell research), it is sometimes difficult to settle on those probabilities with complete confidence. It is the nature of scientific discoveries and progress, that they are not easily predicted. Both advances and impediments to advancement can arise unexpectedly. This uncertainty about how real the potential benefits are, needs to be kept in mind wh en weighing and evaluating the consequences of embryonic stem cell research. 3 Key Ethical Issues in Embryonic Stem Cell Research Comparing the Benefits and Harms of Alternatives to Embryonic Stem Cell Research Adult Stem Cell Research Whether destructive embryonic stem cell research is the right thing to do or not, will partly depend on what the alternatives are, and how their particular benefits and drawbacks balance out. There is another research program involving adult stem cells that are present in and drawn from bone marrow, brain and gut, and other tissues. Some of these stem cells have a capacity to differentiate into a limited number of different cell types, such as blood cells, muscles and neurones (i.e., they are multipotent), but they have not been shown to be pluripotent (able to differentiate into any cell-type) in the way that embryonic stem cells are.7 This limitation means that adult stem cells offer more limited potential benefits in regenerative medicine and gene therapy, at least from the standpoint of our current understanding and available biotechnology. (But with that said, it is worth keeping in mind the points made above about the limited predictability of scientific advances, including the possibility of inducing adult stem cells to differentiate into a greater range of tissue types.) The harvesting and use of adult stem cells for biomedical purposes, however, avoids some of the ethically and biomedically problematic features of using embryonic stem cells. For a start, harvesting adult stem cells does not involve the destruction of embryos. The extent to which that is an advantage will depend on the extent to which that destruction turns out to be a bad thing, (and this will be taken up shortly). Tissues grown from adult stem cells will be immunologically compatible with the person from whom the stem cells are harvested. This means that those tissues can be transplanted into that person without fear of the body rejecting them. Tissues produced from embryonic stem cells for the purpose of regenerative therapy, however, are unlikely to be immunocompatible with the person for whom they are intended. The immunological properties of the tissue are set by the characteristics of whatever embryo the stem cells are derived from. Apart from the ongoing use of immunosuppressant drugs (with its possible serious side effects), two other potential solutions to this immunological limitation have been suggested. The first proposes a tissue bank with a sufficiently large number of different embryonic stem cell types to generate tissue that can be immunologically matched with different recipients. Hall points out, however, that this would require a huge number of human embryonic stem cell lines (the number being a matter of debate). Such an embryonic stem cell bank would be technically difficult and expensive to generate. The number of embryos that would be required to produce the cell bank would probably test public support †¦ 8. The second possible way of overcoming the problem of immunological incompatibility is through what has been called therapeutic cloning. In this process, the nucleus of a human oocyte or egg is removed and replaced with the nucleus of a cell taken from the body of the intended tissue re cipient. The new egg is induced to develop into an embryo, from which immunocompatible stem cells are harvested. The embryo will be a human embryonic clone of the recipient, with all his/her 4 Key Ethical Issues in Embryonic Stem Cell Research exact genetic characteristics. To date, there have only been one or two reported attempts at human cloning that have met with some success. A number of ethical objections have been expressed to therapeutic cloning, all revolving around the creating of an embryo, and moreover, the creating of an embryo for a use that will destroy it. These objections and arguments usually rely centrally on certain views about the value or moral status of the embryo, and these views will be outlined later in the paper. Whatever benefit the pluripotency of embryonic stem cells has in generating immunocompatible tissue, this benefit is likely to be possible only at the cost of having to engage in either the morally contentious practice of human (therapeutic) cloning, or the morally contentious practice of using (and destroying) a large number of embryos to create a sufficient range of embryonic stem cell lines for organ banks. It is especially important to note also, that if the Prohibition of Human Cloning Bill 2002 is passed in its current form, and any kind of human cloning, including therapeutic cloning, is prohibited, there will be less opportunity to maximise the potential benefits of embryonic stem cell research, and embryonic stem cells will effectively have less of the advantage they would otherwise have over adult stem cells. The Inevitable Succumbing of Surplus IVF Embryos The Research Involving Embryos Bill 2002 only permits excess ART embryos existing before 5 April 2002 to be used for research purposes in accordance with a licensing regime. It is a fact about those embryos that they would likely expire or succumb anyway. They would still be destroyed, in other words, but through exposure to natural processes. On the face of it, this looks as if the harm or negative value involved in embryos expiring (whatever it might be) will be the same whether embryo research is allowed or not. In each case the embryo will expire. But this impression can be a little oversimplified. Some philosophers argue that there is a moral difference between acts and omissions, between actively killing something, and passively failing to intervene to stop its death from other causes (when one could have). Even though the outcome is the same in each case, it can be argued that there is something worse, or more morally culpable, about actively bringing about the death oneself. There are different views on what the moral difference between killing and letting die amounts to, and there are those who argue that there is no significant difference. Whichever way one comes out on this, it is not clear that the act-omission distinction maps neatly onto the particular embryo research scenario under discussion. Destroying surplus embryos through research is certainly an act. But so too, some would argue, is removing surplus embryos from the cold storage that keeps them from expiring. They would hold that this looks less like failing to intervene in independently occurring causal processes (that will lead to expiry), than an act that sets those processes in motion. If this is true, then the first impression above will stand. The harm or negative value involved in embryos expiring (whatever it might be) will be the same whether embryo research is allowed or not. 5 Key Ethical Issues in Embryonic Stem Cell Research Some would argue that there is an important logical upshot from this. If the only two alternatives in the circumstances (destroying embryos in research vs making them succumb) involve the same level of harm or disvalue or moral wrongness, but embryo research involves much greater benefits than the other alternative, then it could be argued, it makes sense to opt for the more beneficial embryo research. And indeed, some might construe that as a sufficient case for the moral preferability of that option. (This would change, of course, if the relevant alternatives change—if say, embryos were purpose created for research, which were not pre-existing and destined to be expired).9 Taking into Account all of the Relevant Benefits and Harms The embryonic stem cell debate has been pre-occupied with the biological and medical benefits or drawbacks of that research. Central as these certainly are, there are nonetheless other, often-overlooked non-medical impacts that may be important to factor in. Some of the major among these are possible social impacts including: De-sensitisation to the Destruction of Human Life It is argued by some10 that allowing the destruction of embryos to become an entrenched practice would serve to desensitise the scientific establishment, regulating bodies, and society in general, to the destruction of life in general. An increased social toleration of loss of life, it would be argued, may make it easier for society to accede to (currently) more controversial practices involving the ending of life such as, late term elective abortion, or withdrawal of treatment for severely disabled infants, for example. This slippery slope argument about potential consequences is based on empirical assumptions about the causes and effects of certain social attitudes, and needs to be assessed in the light of their plausibility. Contributions to Social Oppression One strong but minority strand of argument emphasises the impact that biotechnology has on broader social relationships. It has been argued that research should be evaluated not only in terms of its effects on the subjects of the experiment but also in terms of its connection with existing patterns of oppression and domination in society.11 There is a considerable body of writing that explores the impacts of new reproductive technologies (such as IVF) on the interests of women, particularly how those technologies might contribute to oppression.12 In the case of embryonic research, it is sometimes argued that women who donate ova or embryos are at risk of exploitation to the extent that male-dominated medical practice appropriates their reproductive labour for research and commercial benefits. Women are at risk, therefore, of being alienated from their reproductive labour. Moreover, it is argued that womens body parts are at risk of being commodified, and their acts of altruistic dona tion demeaned, if downstream users can develop commercial applications for stem cells developed from their ova and embryos.13 6 Key Ethical Issues in Embryonic Stem Cell Research The Value of the Embryo What weight does the other side of the moral equation have? What is wrong, if anything, with destroying embryos? If there is something wrong with that, is it sufficiently wrong to outweigh or override the benefits of embryo research, and therefore, render that research morally impermissible? Most of the leading arguments about the rightness or wrongness of destroying embryos are based on some view or other about the moral status of the embryo—how the embryo ought to be regarded or treated from the moral point of view, in virtue of it arguably possessing certain morally important intrinsic characteristics. It is relatively uncontroversial to describe embryos as human life (at its very beginnings). It is another thing, however, to describe embryos as persons, or human beings, or potential persons, etc. These descriptions are morally laden in that they carry with them potential implications about what can and cannot be done to embryos from a moral point of view. What those potential implications are, and indeed, whether they are sound ones, will depend on the nature and plausibility of the particular arguments that accompany each view on the moral status of the embryo. There are different views about this moral status. The leading views speculate that embryos have the status of: †¢ persons, or †¢ potential persons, or †¢ divine creations, or †¢ subjects of moral harm, or †¢ the beginnings of human life, with intrinsic value, or †¢ organic material with no more moral standing than other body parts. Each of these will be outlined in turn, with particular attention to (i) what the intrinsic moral characteristics are the each particular view attributes to embryos, and (ii) what these alleged characteristics or moral status are held to imply for our moral treatment of embryos—particularly whether they can ever or never be destroyed. Embryos have Status as Human Beings or Persons Some argue that, despite obvious physical differences between developed humans and embryos, the latter ought still be regarded as human beings or persons. One of the more plausible arguments to this effect relies on pointing out that there is no non-arbitrary point in the physical growth continuum between embryo and developed human that counts as a morally significant dividing line.14 Consequently, if individuals at their fully developed stage are human beings or persons, there is no non-arbitrary ground to think that they should not count as the same at their embryonic stage. Those who hold otherwise, 7 Key Ethical Issues in Embryonic Stem Cell Research according to this argument, need to indicate the developmental point at which personhood, or status as a human being, is acquired. The argument continues that it is a very deeply and commonly held view in modern liberal democracies that individual persons are deserving of especially strong moral respect in certain ways. All individuals, by virtue of being persons, have fundamental rights not to have their basic human interests interfered with in certain ways, and most importantly, their interest in the maintenance of their life and bodily integrity. If embryos have the status of persons, then they too will have rights not to be harmed or killed. Or, put in another way, we will be under a very strong moral obligation not to harm or kill embryos. Most prominent ethicists, philosophers and commentators would agree that persons have a status deserving of strong and special moral respect, protection and dignity. Many, however, would dispute that embryos should be considered persons or human beings in any serious sense. Even if one cannot point to an exact black and white dividing line in human development, it is still reasonable (they hold) to point to the fact that wherever the transition occurs, embryos do not have the psychological, physiological, emotional, intellectual properties that we tend to centrally associate with personhood. Embryos, particularly the very early pre-implantation blastocysts involved in stem cell research,15 do not, for instance, have consciousness, individuality, the ability to reason, or the ability to form courses of action in life and to choose between them.16 Embryos have Status as Potential Persons Some ethicists have a response to the foregoing objection to viewing embryos as persons. It is to concede that embryos do not currently exhibit these properties of personhood, but they will, if allowed to develop and fulfil their potential. To the extent that embryos are potential persons, it is argued, they ought to still be accorded the moral respect and dignity that personhood warrants. This potential person argument

Lincolns Gettysburg Address (memo Guide) :: essays research papers

When the White Men Came I miss my home. I always thought I would be surrounded in its beauty forever, until they came to our land. Everyday it becomes more difficult to remember back to the days when it was ours. They took our lives away, and we were helpless. But there was nothing that we could have done. They were white men we were afraid. It began as the leaves started to change from cool green to warm red and gold. My sister had married only the night before and we were all very happy. Because of the change in weather and the addition to our family we had thought something wonderful would be granted unto us. We were wrong. I first felt that something was going on early the morning after my sister''s wedding. There had been talk of an enormous canoe seen in the water off the land away. The excitement seemed to be in full swing that morning. I sat with my father''s mother working on my weaving. She was talking about her own wedding and because she had told that story many times last night, it was easy for me to be distracted by the commotion outside. There were shouts and yells, but all to distant for me to make out what was being said. After a few minutes of listening, two men stopped and stood just a few feet away from my window. Thought out of eyesight, I could sense their uneasiness. The two talked of the great canoe. They were nearing. As they morning went on, I was assigned various tasks. One of my duties brought me not too far from the water''s edge. My mother knew of the excitement of what was approaching us, and warned me to stay away from the water. She knew that the bravest men in our tribe had gone down to investigate the situation and/or defend our village. As a 13-year-old girl, I knew of no such plan. But, of course, curiosity got the best of me and I hurried down to see what was going on. I hid behind a large tree and peeked out at the men. They stood watching the people lower smaller canoes into the water and get into them, still away from the shore. I observed from my hiding place, but soon fell asleep, still tired from the festivities the night before. I was awaken by a deafening bang.

Lucida the Lioness Essay

It was around the time of the 100 years war, the bitter battle between France and England. While the world was obsessed with creating empires there was one empire that existed on a plane beyond us. To silence the voice of lions was the intent of mankind. Many eons ago, the Lion did not roar, he spoke, loud from the mountain tops and filled the world with terror. He breathed fire onto the lands below and warned of the doom of the world should a savior not be found. The word of men assumed that that savior would be a man and did not look amongst women. The answer would come in the land of Lionire, whose king sought a solution to the endless battles and torments of the lions. The prophetess Clyra had told him that his strength lay not in a man or a god, but in a woman. She told him to set sail for an unknown land and was told that he would reach this place without needing a map. After months of travel and many toils, he landed on the Cypriot islands where he fell in love with a fisherman’s daughter. Lucida was beautiful and golden, unlike the maidens of his own land who were comparatively insipid. At Lionire, trouble was worse than ever before, the Lions burning the land to cinders. But Lucida sat in her parlor and looked out over the Purple Moors. She noticed on the far side, a group of hills to which she was unmistakably drawn. The sun shone high and Lucida took the road to the Lion Caves, although she knew not what awaited her. She walked and walked to a place where time stood still and even though she walked, seemed to be going nowhere. While the wind whipped through her golden hair and the sun shone on her deep gold skin, Alfred argued with his counsel that Lucida was the answer to the portent and the country’s prayers. Meanwhile, a messenger entered the counsel-room and announced that Lucida had disappeared. After a time, a herd boy entered saying he had seen her walking that morning. He told the counsel that Lucida was seen walking towards the Cractus caves where the great lions dwelt. The people searched and searched for days and could find no trace of Lucida. After the 5th day it was assumed she had been taken by the Lion, yet the search party could go no further than the entrance to the caves. Alfred gathered his troops and set off to war, but it was not with the fear that he had carried for years. He had a peace that Lucida was alive and that she was the chosen one. So, Lucida had looked up at the hills above her and seen the gigantic lion looking down at her, she had known fear like this before but her name meant ‘the light in the dark’ and she spoke clearly to the Lion of Cractus. â€Å"If I am to dine with you or to be dined upon, this is my destiny and I am here to honor it. † One step at a time, she walked into the caves and reached out towards the Lion who came to her as a kitten would. And Lucida spoke to the great lion of Cractus and the lion himself told Lucida that he was seeking a peaceful existence between man and animal, and that if she formed a pact with him, his voice would be silenced and no more people from Lionire would be killed at the lions den. He told her that she needed to gather the women of Lionire to go to battle with their men, that they should be a partnership and not of subordination. When Lucida came down from the hills on the 6th day, she was bright and engulfed in an expanding light that the entire Lionire could see. Alfred sat astride his horse and looked out at the impossible army he was supposed to defeat. They were outnumbered 5 to 1. On her return, Lucida gathered the woman of Lionire together and those who were able to fight and they marched to the battle-fields where the enemy would be defeated. On her return, it was known that Lucida had fulfilled the prophecy and had been blessed by the great Lion of Cractus. Thereafter, not a single Lionirian citizen was ever to be killed again by a lion of the Cractus caves. She became known as Lucida the Lioness and peace reigned over the country until Lucida’s apparent death. She was known to have emancipated the women of Lionire, giving them the right to fight for their country. As a result, Lionire held the finest army in the land, its women numbering amongst its warriors. It is said that a hundred years later, Lucida took the path to the caves one last time and was never seen again. The lion’s voice was silenced and in its place was a roar that still chills the blood of those who hear it. It is a symbol what the world used to be and of the strength of a woman who was able to lead an army.

Food Waste Reduction in the Factory

3. 0Food Waste Reduction in the Factory It is obvious that dealing with food waste reduction in factory is simply just reducing the creation of food production in factory. Of course, this is some kind of irrelevant ways to prevent the production of food waste in industry without using any of an smart engineering method to actually reduce it without reducing the creation of food production in factory. At the same time, the profits that the factory made would not have occurs any reduction if an applicable food waste reduction techniques is applied.Thus, sources and products can be saved from waste which concurrently will also save from the consumption of time, money and workload in the factory (Creedon, 2010). Therefore, a necessary food technology engineering method should be applied to the reduction of food waste in factory. First of all, before the factory actually thinking of reduces the food waste of the food created in the factory, they should first know and to determine the char acteristics of every particular biscuits produced in Khong Guan.After the characteristics of every particular biscuits has been determined, then they need to monitored either hand-operated or non-hand-operated machine to detect the most acceptable range for the characteristic of every type of biscuits. The most vital characteristic of the biscuit that they should have been concerned on is the moisture content. The moisture content plays an important roles since its ensures that biscuits are generally free from microbiological spoilage and have a long shelf life if they are protected from absorbing moisture from damp surroundings or atmosphere.Biscuits have relatively high energy density compared with other baked goods. The biscuit produced in Khong Guan has a moisture content of about 1 to 5%, if it exceeded than that, it can be considered spoiled and be thrown away as food waste (Baked info). Technically, we cannot produce a good and perfect quality of the biscuit constantly in a d ay without have any unwanted or abnormal biscuit produced throughout the process. An abnormal biscuit is biscuit that is produced from the factory that did not meet the ranges and requirements of the quality or characteristic of the biscuit production.Hence, it is also called as unwanted since they do not want to have any irregular features of the biscuit production for the community. In this case, they use the most common engineering way of reducing the food waste by opt to recycle in order to save food waste, money and time in the factory. Another technique they use to recycle the food waste is by using the excess/extra dough after the molding has press on the dough sheet to make the rectangle shape of the biscuit and the extra one they recycled back to mix it with the fresh dough again.This procedures repeat itself on every dough has made after the molding process in order to get the used flour and reuse it for the fresh one. This way is not only save the food waste created from the process, but also save more cost on buying more flour for the fresh dough production (Answer TM, 2009). The other common cases happened such as, the over flour created, abnormal shape of the biscuit, extra moisture content of the biscuit or the cream as we have mentioned before at above, and etc.All of these matters they have put in more awareness so that the biscuit production produce more constantly good products by using recycling method. Since recycling is apparently the easiest way to reduce the food waste produced in factory (Brokerage, 2012). Thus an engineering thought has been made that, since they cannot produce a 100% good quality of biscuit constantly throughout the biscuit process production, but they are able to actually reduce the food waste creation by opt to recycle the unwanted or abnormal biscuit to repeat the same process to obtain a better quality of the biscuit products.There are other methods they use to reduce the food waste in factory which they use the cold chain and packaging method where they store the food into the so called refrigerator to ensure the characteristic of biscuit requirements are maintained in ranges. The transportation of temperature sensitive biscuits sometimes requires an in-depth knowledge of the cold chain: a poorly controlled step can result in the loss of a biscuit or a biscuit that becomes toxic.Moreover, lack of knowledge about the cold chain or about the rules applicable to the use of packaging can result in lost biscuits. Thus, this method is able to cut food waste and create good security of the biscuit. Other than that, the methods of reducing the food waste of biscuit in factory also affected by the workers themselves in the factory. Of course, people nowadays in a modern era started using more advanced technologies to produce products in any factory. Otherness in Khong Guan, most of the process was operated by human’s hand to produce some particular types of biscuits.Hence, this is an importa nt procedure that needs to be operated thoroughly in order to avoid human’s error. Otherwise, the characteristic of the biscuit produced does not meet its requirement and this will cause a major destruction of the biscuit products that will eventually lead to food waste. The other method such as improving a quality control and process monitoring rigorously of the biscuit also can be made in Khong Guan factory. Steps can be taken to ensure that the number of reject batches is kept to a minimum.This is achieved by increasing the frequency of inspection and the number of points of inspection. For example, install particular automated continuous monitoring equipment can help to identify production problems at an early stage. This step can reduce the product waste at early stage and avoids any complication before the process moves to the mid-stage of process. Another common methods can be used in any food processing factory is to obtain a good designs of a silo as the raw material storage. Why this is important?Well, as we already covered an essential part of particle technology that so much related to the food technology, we need to find what is the best condition to design a silo that used to store raw material before it proceeds to the processing part. Otherwise, like I said, the design of the silo is not at the specific range in terms of angle of repose or the sizes, it will create an arc shape which blocked the material to flow through. Eventually, the hopper storage will get clogged and lead to food or material waste.Hence a better design of the silo/hopper for any particular raw material needs to be aware as well. References â€Å"Waste minimisation. † Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia. Wikimedia Foundation. Web. 13 April. 2013. â€Å"Angle of repose. † Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia. Wikimedia Foundation. Web. 13 April. 2013. Answer TM. (2009). Retrieved April 12, 2013, from What is the moisture content of biscuits? : http://wiki. an swers. om/Q/What_is_the_moisture_content_of_biscuits Biscuits. (n. d. ). Retrieved April 13, 2013, from Bake Info: http://www. bakeinfo. co. nz/Facts/Biscuit-making Brokerage. (2012). Why Recycle Food Waste? Retrieved from ECO Food REcycling LTD: http://www. ecofoodrecycling. co. uk/services-products/why-recycle-food-waste/ Creedon, M. (2010, July 15). Less Food Waste More Profit. Retrieved April 13, 2013, from http://www. carlow. ie/SiteCollectionDocuments/All%20Services/Environment/Business%20Waste/less-food-waste-and-more-profit. pdf