Poverty And Hunger Around The World

Poverty And Hunger Around The World Introduction In our world, there is enough food to feed the whole population. However, according to FAOs recent report, one out of every six or seven people is hungry and it is a possibility that one out of three children is underweight. Today a massive number of people are living under poverty and many are dying of hunger each day. According to a report, 40% of the worlds population is living under poverty (www.thp.org). The World Bank states in India, the worlds second most populated nation, has 34% living on less than $1 a day and 80% living on less than $2. The situation is the same in Sub- Saharan Africa. The same source indicated above claims that 41% of the population in Sub- Saharan Africa live on less than $1 a day which is considered as the international poverty line. What are the causes and effects of poverty and hunger and how are they spread out around the world? What does Poverty and Hunger Mean? Poverty and hunger are defined in different ways by different individuals. Poverty is defined as people living in household below 60 percent of median income ( Raffo et al 5). Encarta Dictionary also states poverty as the state of not having enough money to take care of basic needs such as food, clothing and housing. Encyclopedia Britannica defines poverty as the state of one who lacks a usual or socially acceptable amount of money or material possessions. All the definitions assert that poverty is a state in which one cannot afford to achieve a basic living standard such as food and clothing. Poverty may be considered as the condition of being extremely poor. Poverty is classified into two categories according to World Bank. These are income poverty and human poverty. Income poverty is related with only financial income whereas human poverty includes lack of proper diet, clothing, shelter and work. So far, weve defined poverty but what is hunger? In many sources including Encyclopedia Britannica, hunger is viewed as a feeling we have when we need something to eat. Both poverty and hunger are spread all over the world but the degree varies from country to country. The less developed countries suffer from it strongly whereas the developed countries are affected to a much lesser degree. Poverty and Hunger Facts Do you know how many people are living in poverty and how many are diying of hunger each day worldwide? There are a number of people who are poor and hungry in the world. The United Nations bulletin on the Eradication of Poverty claims that 1.2 billion people live on less than $1 a day which is viewed as the absolute poverty level. It is very shocking to know that so many people are living under poverty. According to the bulletin, 24,000 people die of hunger each day, 16,000 of whom are children under five years of age. In addition to this, 800 million people, or one in every six people, are malnourished, 200 million of whom are children. As a result, the average life expectancy where hunger is serious, is low. There are 19 million hungry people in developed countries and 53 million people are hungry in Latin America and the Caribbean. In Sub- Saharan Africa, 239 million people are also hungry (www.stwr.org). World Hunger Project further states the issue as follows: As of 2008, the World Bank has estimated that there were an estimated 1,345 million poor people in developing countries who live on $1.25 a day or less. This compares to the later FAO estimate of 1.02 billion undernourished people. Extreme poverty remains an alarming problem in the worlds developing regions, despite some progress that reduced dollarnow $1.25 a day poverty from 1900 million people in 1981, a reduction of 29 percent over the period. Progress in poverty reduction has been concentrated in Asia, and especially, East Asia, with the major improvement occurring in China. Hunger around the world There are many factors that are assumed to be root causes for the existence of poverty in the world. Lack of resources, an unequal income distribution, conflict, drought, famine and climate change, for example, are some of the causes of poverty and hunger in many countries. In Sub-Saharan Africa, the number of people in extreme poverty has increased. The economic systems of a nation may also be the principal cause of poverty and hunger. A number of international organizations which are working with poverty and hunger believe that the principal underlying cause of poverty and hunger is the ordinary operation of the economic and political systems in the world. In the developing countries especially in African, control over resources and income is based on military power. Therefore, everything is in the hand of people who are leading a comfortable life whereas the poor are the victim of the system. One of the causes of poverty and hunger according to FAO is conflict. FAO strongly believes that large number of people are poor and hungry due to conflict either inside their nation or outside. Moreover, UNHCR strenghens this fact in the following way: At the end of 2005, the global number of refugees was at its lowest level in almost a quarter of a century. Despite some large-scale repatriation movements, the last three years have witnessed a significant increase in refugee numbers, due primarily to the violence taking place in Iraq and Somalia. By the end of 2008, the total number of refugees under UNHCRs mandate exceeded 10 million. The number of conflict-induced internally displaced persons (IDPs) reached some 26 million worldwide at the end of the year . Providing exact figures on the number of stateless people is extremely difficult. But, important, visible though it is, and anguishing for those involved conflict is less important as poverty as a cause of hunger. Using the statistics above 1.02 billion people suffer from chronic hunger while 36 million people are displaced (UNHCR 2008). Hunger can be viewed as the cause of poverty in a such a way that it causes poor health, low levels of energy, and even mental impairment. Due to this fact, hunger can lead to even greater poverty by reducing peoples ability to work and learn. Therefore, we may conclude that hunger is one of the causes of poverty. Climate change is another serious cause of hunger and poverty as global warming is increasing rapidly. As the result of change in climate, drought in the world is increasing day by day. Flooding and farming practices are other key issues regarding poverty and hunger. As it is mentioned earlier, factors such as land rights and ownership, land for non-productive use (such as tobaco industries and floriculture) increasing of export of food when the countrys people dont have enough to eat, poor methods of farming, war, drought, and many more are causes of poverty and hunger . How does poverty affect hunger? Poverty and hunger are almost inseparable. Poverty is the main cause of hunger, when people do not have money they can not afford to buy food and support themselves. Hence,world hunger is a symptom of world poverty. Although hunger is caused by many factors, the most dominant reason is linked with poverty. Conclusion The world community has the material and all that is needed to prevent and fight hunger and poverty. Yet, people are hungry even when there is enough food because it is not equally distributed and due to political unrests. Providing aid food for the hungry is not an ever lasting solution to tackle poverty and hunger. We need to find a sustainable solution to eradicate hunger and poverty. We need to address the issues such as poor farming practices, deforestation, overcropping and overgrazing that are exhausting land fertility and cause hunger. Wars are another underlying issue to poverty and hunger that need to be addressed as millions of people get displaced every from their homes leading to hunger and poverty.We need to find better ways of fighting hunger and poverty by addressing the issue at a prevention stage.

Heart of Darkness :: essays papers

Heart of Darkness Joseph Conrad’s Heart of Darkness, achieved classical recognition for its depiction of humanity’s struggle to reconcile good and evil. From the very opening pages of the Bible man has wrestled with choice, opportunity, propensity and instinct. The knowledge of good and evil has surely caused us to die to simplicity and burdened us with the curse of self-awareness. At first it was a struggle for me to get from page to page because of Conrad’s intricate details. I was not accustomed to his unique writing style and I would often find myself lost in his descriptive language. I soon became frustrated with both the book and myself, which made it even more of a task to read. The devastating transition of Kurtz was the factor that awoke my interest. Kurtz, a highly respectable man full of talent and potential was taken over by the evil that stirred from deep within his soul. I found this change of character fascinating because of my interest in the field of psychology. I find the study of human nature intriguing, which attracted me to Kurtz. Conrad had made me wonder what made someone of Kurtz’s caliber change so drastically. I found myself relating this change in character to a personal experience. A year ago someone whom I knew and trusted betrayed me. I saw a side of her that I would have never even imagined was there. Something deep from within caused this person to hurt me, an evil that even she was not aware she possessed. This event in my life made me question what separates the weak from the strong, the good from the evil, or even Kurtz from Marlow? Kurtz’s transition from good to evil led me to the issue of nature vs. nurture. This question of whether hereditary or environment is responsible for the development of ones personality has been around for centuries, and still it remains unanswered. We have discussed this question many times in psychology. Some feel that your personality is reflective of your genetic makeup, and that personality will stay the same regardless of environment. Others are convinced that environment shapes personal characteristics. In The Heart of Darkness, Kurtz seems to have changed because of the environment. He was placed in an atmosphere where his evil instincts were able to take over. Heart of Darkness :: essays papers Heart of Darkness Joseph Conrad’s Heart of Darkness, achieved classical recognition for its depiction of humanity’s struggle to reconcile good and evil. From the very opening pages of the Bible man has wrestled with choice, opportunity, propensity and instinct. The knowledge of good and evil has surely caused us to die to simplicity and burdened us with the curse of self-awareness. At first it was a struggle for me to get from page to page because of Conrad’s intricate details. I was not accustomed to his unique writing style and I would often find myself lost in his descriptive language. I soon became frustrated with both the book and myself, which made it even more of a task to read. The devastating transition of Kurtz was the factor that awoke my interest. Kurtz, a highly respectable man full of talent and potential was taken over by the evil that stirred from deep within his soul. I found this change of character fascinating because of my interest in the field of psychology. I find the study of human nature intriguing, which attracted me to Kurtz. Conrad had made me wonder what made someone of Kurtz’s caliber change so drastically. I found myself relating this change in character to a personal experience. A year ago someone whom I knew and trusted betrayed me. I saw a side of her that I would have never even imagined was there. Something deep from within caused this person to hurt me, an evil that even she was not aware she possessed. This event in my life made me question what separates the weak from the strong, the good from the evil, or even Kurtz from Marlow? Kurtz’s transition from good to evil led me to the issue of nature vs. nurture. This question of whether hereditary or environment is responsible for the development of ones personality has been around for centuries, and still it remains unanswered. We have discussed this question many times in psychology. Some feel that your personality is reflective of your genetic makeup, and that personality will stay the same regardless of environment. Others are convinced that environment shapes personal characteristics. In The Heart of Darkness, Kurtz seems to have changed because of the environment. He was placed in an atmosphere where his evil instincts were able to take over.

Morality and Gay Rights Discourse Essay -- Gay Rights Ethics Essays

Morality and Gay Rights Discourse When Aristotle discussed the material premises of enthymemes as being important in rhetoric, he was prescient of the kind of appeals that would be tendered by opponents in the discourse over gay rights issues long after his time. Smith and Windes express the nature of this conflict accurately when they write, â€Å"symbols expressing fundamental cultural values are invoked by all sides† (1997: 28). Similarly, Sarah S. Brown describes the participants in a â€Å"struggle to stake out symbolic positions of good and to frame their side in terms of morally powerful conceptions of right and wrong† (2000: 458). Fascinatingly, she suggests, â€Å"even people with deeply conflicting opinions appeal to the same moral concepts for the force of their arguments† (458). In fact, these same moral concepts are ubiquitous to all discourse and to life. They penetrate the social order at the most fundamental level. They are not static, however, and their malleability gives rise to a constantly shifting landscape of debate wherein, as Smith and Windes (1997) assert, the adversaries literally have so much impact as to drive the process of self-definition for one another. Related to that process is the way in which the landscape itself is defined, which Haider-Markel and Meier see as consequential in terms of â€Å"what resources are important and [what] advantages some coalitions [in the struggle] have over others† (1996: 346). (See also: Kintz, 1998; Smith and Windes, 1997). Particularly, they demonstrate that models of discourse which conceptualize gay issues in terms of morality (or culture) as opposed to politics or civil rights offer a rhetorical upper hand to proponents of anti-gay arguments. It is the objectiv... ...vation in Gay Rights/Special Rights.† In: Kintz, Linda and Lesage, Julia. 1998. Media , Culture, and the Religious Right. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Patten, Steve. â€Å"Preston Manning’s Populism: constructing the common sense of the common people.† Studies in Political Economy, Vol.50 (Summer, 1996): 95 Schulze, Laurie and Guilfoyle, Frances. â€Å"Facts Don’t Hate; They Just Are.† In: Kintz, Linda and Lesage, Julia. 1998. Media , Culture, and the Religious Right. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Smith, Ralph R. and Windes, Russel R. â€Å"The Progay and Antigay Issue Culture: Interpretation, Influence, and Dissent.† Quarterly Journal of Speech, Vol. 83 (1997): 28-48 Terry, Jennifer. â€Å"Unatural Acts In Nature: The Scientific Fascination with Queer Animals.† QLQ: A Journal of Lesbian and Gay Studies, Vol.6.2 (2000): 151-193

Macbeth-Response to Aristotles Tragic Hero Essays -- essays research p

  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚     Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Shakespeare uses Aristotle’s ancient description of a tragic hero - a character between good and bad - to portray the protagonist in the tragedy Macbeth. Aristotle’s theory that tragedy must evoke pity or fear from the audience can be done effectively through an everyman character. In order to appeal to the audience and bring forth some empathy, Macbeth must show his righteous morals through his own soliloquies or through other characters’ lines. Macbeth’s changing attitude is influenced not only by Lady Macbeth’s convincing words, but also too by his mind, which is only human and therefore subject to temptation. Macbeth does however reach a turning point where he becomes so radical and paranoid that he can no longer find his moral conscience.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Macbeth’s righteous mind is most clearly visible in his first soliloquy in which he debates whether or not to kill the old king Duncan. Macbeth distinctly reveals his tragic flaw as â€Å"Vaulting ambition, which overleaps itself/And falls on the other.†(I, vii, 27-28). Macbeth’s decisions are continuously influenced by Lady Macbeth and her overdriving ambition to become Queen of Scotland. Macbeth knows that in the past he has had spurts of motivation that were fueled by his wife’s encouragement, but when left alone he could piece together his thoughts and discover what was right. Macbeth evokes empathy from the audience during his moral debate becaus...

Focus on the Murder of Simon in ‘Lord of the Flies’ Essay

Read from ‘Towards midnight†¦Ã¢â‚¬â„¢ to the end of Chapter 9. Contrast this description of Simon’s beatification to the previous description of his murder. How is Simon’s role in the Novel captured by this extract? The description of Simon’s murder and the description of his final journey out to sea after his death are completely different to each other. In the first, the boys brutally murder Simon because they think he is the beast. In the second, Simon is beatified and martyred as his body is carried out to sea. When the boys murder Simon, Golding’s use of language helps to create the sense of crowd mentality that the boys are feeling as the storm around them grows. Language such as ‘unbearable noise,’ ‘explosion,’ and ‘abominable,’ give the impression that the storm is deafening the boys, and that the cacophony of sound is contributing to the sense of hysteria that is driving the boys to their actions. In comparison to this, the use of language in the description of Simon’s beatification is much softer, and gives the reader a sense of calm, in contrast to the feeling of agitation in the description of Simon’s murder. For example, there is a wide use of language suggesting light in the description, such as, ‘phosphorescence,’ moonbeams,’ and ‘brightness.’ This gives the reader the idea that Simon is being watched over by God, or a higher being, and therefore suggesting that God is accepting Simonâ₠¬â„¢s body as a martyr. Golding’s use of pathetic fallacy also contributes strongly to the contrast between the two descriptions. In the first description, ‘the clouds opened and let down he rain like a waterfall,’ and ‘the dark sky was shattered by a blue white scar.’ This description of the intensity of the storm emphasises the madness of the boys. In contrast, in the description of Simon’s beatification, ‘the rain ceased and the clouds drifted away,’ and ‘the air was cool, moist and clear.’ This calming of the storm allows Golding to prepare the reader for the sense of reverence they should feel at Simon’s death. The manner in which the boys are presented in the first description is also significant. Language such as ‘struck,’ ‘bit,’ ‘tore’ and ‘teeth and claws,’ portray the group of terrified boys as an animal; a beast. However, the group also believes that they are killing ‘the beast,’ who is in fact, Simon. This shows the boys’ complete descent into savagery, as they become the very thing that they are trying to destroy. In complete contrast to this, the dead body of Simon, the beast, is described using language such as ‘silver,’ ‘marble,’ and ‘pearls.’ This use of precious white minerals suggests Simon’s innocence and purity, the polar opposite of the group of boys who murdered him. This extract describing Simon’s beatification helps to capture Simon’s overall role in the novel. Throughout the novel, Simon is the only moral and spiritual boy on the island. He is first singled out by Ralph and described as ‘vivid.’ On the boys’ fist journey into the jungle, Simon is fascinated by the beauty of the candle bud plants. When the boys are supposed to be building huts on the beach, Simon is the only one who stays to help Ralph build. All this shows Simon’s sensitivity and moral integrity. After his death, Simon has a Christ-like quality that singles him out from the rest of the boys. This is because of the spiritual intelligence that he shows throughout the novel. This final description of Simon also captures his role as a kind of guardian angel to Ralph earlier in the novel. When Ralph is despairing that the boys were becoming savages and would never get rescued, Simon appears to comfort him. He says, ‘I think you’ll get back all right.’ This suggests that Simon has some kind of foresight, as he realises that Ralph will get home, but that he himself will not. This foresight also contributes to his other-worldly spirituality. Overall, Golding’s use of language in the description of Simon’s beatification helps to suggest Simon’s spiritual and moral role in ‘The Lord of the Flies.’

Bioethics and gene patents

Among the most controversial issues in biotechnology over the last ten years has been the patenting of human DNA sequences as well as human genes. The medical, pharmaceutical along with economic interests at stake are huge, making investments in biotechnology firms involved in gene patenting highly volatile. Gene patenting is a relatively broad term and refers to the patenting of individual processes that involves the isolation of DNA or other associated material and also to any chemical substance that is related to DNA. The idea of gene patents has played a key role in the rapid growth of the biotech industry over the last two decades.The earliest of the gene patents were obtained back in 1978. One of the biggest issues involving biotechnology and the law is the patenting of human genes. Because of advances in technology, it is relatively routine a procedure to isolate genes and determine their genetic sequence (Birren & Rommens 1999). With the recent completion of the Human Genome Project, we now know the entire genetic sequence of the human genome. All that remains is for science to determine which portions of the sequenced genome correspond to actual genes (Eisen & Laderman 2007).For these reasons, the United States Patent and Trademark Office witnessed a tremendous increase in the number of patent applications for human genes. The number of applications more than doubled in the last ten years, from approximately 16,000 applications in 1990 to 33,000 applications in 2000, and in the last twenty years, â€Å"the [PTO] has granted patents on about 1,000 human genes or gene fragments† (Willing 2000). USPTO has issued a large number of patents for gene fragments. Full sequence as well as function is in many cases not known for the gene fragments being issued patents on.Many questions have arisen over when, from the discovery to development into viable products, the exclusive right to genes may be claimed. This is important as a patent lasts for 20 years. Congress exercised its powers under the Constitution to pass the Patent Act. Under the Patent Act, a patent gives one the right to exclude others from making, using, selling, or importing the patented invention in the United States â€Å"beginning on the date on which the patent issues and ending 20 years from the date on which the application for the patent was filed. â€Å"The 300- to 500-base gene fragments which are better known as expressed sequence tags (ESTs), make up about 10 to 30% of the mean cDNA, while the genomic genes typically happen to be 10 to 20 times bigger than the cDNA. A cDNA molecule is made in the laboratory and is a version of the gene which only contains the information-rich (exon) regions; these molecules offer a way to researchers to fast-forward through the genome get to more biologically significant areas. The initial chromosomal locations as well as biological functions of the while genes identified by ESTs happen to be unknown in the majority of ca ses.The patenting of genes has been a controversial area to say the least. The argument is that patenting such discoveries is not justifiable because the effort to find a certain EST is meager when compared with the work of isolating and characterizing a gene and gene product, finding out what it does, and developing a commercial product. They feel that allowing holders of such â€Å"gatekeeper† patents to exercise undue control over the commercial fruits of genome research would be unfair.Similarly, allowing multiple patents on different parts of the same genome sequence –say on a gene fragment, the gene, and the protein– adds undue costs to the researcher who wants to examine the sequence. Not only does the researcher have to pay each patent holder via licensing for the opportunity to study the sequence, he also has to pay his own staff to research the different patents and determine which are applicable to the area of the genome he wants to study. Some physic ians believe that if a lot of genes receive patents, the genetic testing of patients could end up being prohibitively costly.Even though the technological knowledge is there to develop such tests, a lot of work remains to produce them. And if the license fee that is associated with the use of each test is charged via multiple companies and entities, each owning multiple genes, then this technology may never be exploited effectively in order to help patients. On the other hand, if protection is not offered to the industry, then R & D expenses may not be recouped, therefore reducing incentive for investment in the industry. The implications of gene patenting on R & D have been the subject of considerable debate.Advocates say that gene patents like normal patents encourage the disclosure as well as dissemination of ideas by opening critical uses of gene sequences to the publicly domain. Patents also offer more incentives to investors who may otherwise be reluctant to invest in ideas th at may simply be copied by competitors if not allowed patent protection. Many argue that genes are not â€Å"inventions,† but rather they are â€Å"discoveries† which do not require an inventive effort. Because the discovery of genes does not require an inventive effort, the PTO should not issue patents for genes (Hettinger 1995).In the same regard, because genes are â€Å"discoveries† and not new â€Å"compositions,† genes should not be patented because they are not â€Å"novel,† as required by section 102. For example, human genes have existed as long as the existence of humanity; therefore, an inventor can never discover a gene and claim that it is â€Å"novel† (Hettinger 1995). Finally, carrying patent law to its extreme, some argue that anyone containing patented genes within his or her body could be considered an infringer, because he or she is â€Å"using† a patented gene merely by being alive.Some argue that because of recent advances in the isolation, purification, and sequencing of genes, (Birren & Rommens 1999) it may take only a few days to determine the sequence of a particular gene. Therefore, the relative ease of determining the sequence of a particular gene should preclude patenting of the gene because obtaining the sequence is obvious. There is a difference between patents on compositions and patents on processes. Patents on compositions are considered broader than patents on processes because patents on compositions can cover all processes that use the composition.In order to limit the number of patents for genes, some argue that the PTO should limit patents on genes to processes that utilize the genes, and not the composition of the genes themselves, ESTs a case in point (Auth 1997). In the US patent system, an inventor's reward for an invention is the receipt of a patent, which permits the inventor to exclude others from making, using, selling, or importing the invention. The inventor can use this â€Å"right to exclude† to commercialize the invention or to license the invention and receive royalties.The â€Å"reward† of a patent thereby encourages invention and discovery, and the PTO takes the opinion that â€Å"the incentive to make discoveries and inventions is generally spurred †¦ by patents. † Some may argue that research and discovery satisfies an intellectual curiosity, and as such, hardly qualifies as labor. Therefore, intellectual endeavors, such as research and discovery, do not require rewards. Nevertheless, Congress designed our patent system with the underlying premise that reward is required, and it is difficult to envision why the law should distinguish the discovery of genes from other discoveries in this regard.Another argument is that the patenting of genes discourages others from performing research and discovery (Hoffert 1998). Under our patent system, after a researcher discovers and patents a gene, the researcher, as an in ventor, may exclude others from using the gene (Sturges 1997). When a second researcher studies a particular disease and the patented gene's role in that disease, it may be difficult to design an experiment that does not require the gene. In order to use the gene, the second researcher must seek a license from the patentee, undoubtedly requiring a fee in the form of a royalty.Some argue that this is a waste of valuable resources that could be used for research, rather than royalties, and therefore all human genes should be in the public domain (Bruce 2000). This is a compelling argument because it is difficult for a molecular biologist studying a particular gene or protein to conceive of experiments that do not require use of the gene itself. In this regard, perhaps it is better to view this perceived problem not as creating a disincentive to invent, but rather as impeding scientific progress. However, this argument is not unique to the patenting of genes.In fact, one could argue th at a patent on any invention might similarly impede scientific progress. Ethical arguments is the most difficult to marshal and address. As such, this author will briefly address only the two most common arguments against the patenting of genes. One of the most common ethical arguments is that the government should not issue patents on human genes because genes belong to all humankind, and therefore no single group should have the exclusive property right to exclude others from their use (Doll 2001).However, gene patents are not owned in the same sense as property is owned. A patent is intangible property (Haseltine 2000), and therefore, granting a patent on a human gene does not deprive humankind of â€Å"property† in the traditional or tangible sense. A gene patent only deprives other researchers, often attempting to realize a financial gain, from its use. The second most common argument against the patenting of human genes is that researchers derive a human gene from a hum an being, which violates our society's 150-year prohibition on humans having property rights in another human being.However, should a human gene qualify as a human being or a living entity? The U. S. Supreme Court has offered a potential framework for analyzing whether a gene should qualify as a living entity. In Roe v. Wade, the Court held that the State did not have a â€Å"compelling† interest in proscribing abortion where a fetus was not viable (Nature 2003). While we cannot equate a woman's right to seek an abortion with an inventor's right to patent a biological product, the viability test may have applicability in determining whether a human gene qualifies as a living entity.The viability test established by Roe v. Wade was whether the fetus could have a meaningful life outside the mother's womb. Human genes fail this test for viability because human genes are inanimate compositions of matter. Even with all the recent scientific advances, creation of a human being in v itro from the entire human genome is scientific fantasy (Mappes & DeGrazia 2001). However, even if human genes are not viable, some may argue that patents should not be issued for genes for the same reason that it is illegal to market other human products such as organs (Justine & Harris 2002).Clearly, society believes that some human products should not be for sale, although, society somewhat relaxes this policy by allowing one to â€Å"donate† certain bodily fluids, such as plasma, for money. The underlying concern for this ban on the sale of organs may be to protect those that are impoverished from sacrificing vital organs for financial gain, but this policy is not particularly applicable to the patenting of human genes. First, one can argue that patenting of genes is distinguishable in that there is not a market for genes similar to the market for human organs.Second, one may be able to isolate, amplify, and sequence a gene from a single cell (Overwalle 2007). Thus, a pat entee that patents his or her own genes is not deprived of a vital organ in the same way as an organ donor. Undoubtedly, there are additional ethical arguments against the patenting of genes. Ultimately, however, society determines what is ethical, and consequently whether the patenting of genes meets our ethical standard. The impact on the economy if gene patenting was banned is still a measure of debate. Most advocates in the biotech lobby are of the view that it may discourage investment in genetic research.Even so it is important to realize that the expense of identifying the function of a particular gene is only a small fraction of the total cost of turning it into something viable such as a drug. There is also an argument which says that the pharmaceutical industry would perform better if scientists and companies could work freely with any genes and rather focus their energies on patenting drugs. Since 1953, when Watson and Francis Crick discovered the double helical structure of DNA in chromosomes, scientists have known that the sequence of compounds called nucleotides along the DNA strands was the key to their information content.These gene sequences encoded instructions on manufacturing and controlling protein products that build, manage and organize everything in the cell. Biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies with high stakes in patenting genetically engineered products and their sequences have registered multiple patents over the last two decades to exploit that discovery for commercial use to make new products. List of References â€Å"Battle Over Gene Patents: The Legal, Economic, and Social Implications of Licensing the Core of Life Could Alter the Current Patent System.† (1996). Business Week -New York, NY. 3484: 56-59. â€Å"Gene Patents and the Public Good. † Nature. 423. 6937 (2003). Auth, D. R. (1997). â€Å"Are ESTs Patentable? † Nature Biotechnology. 15. 9 911-912 Birren, B. , & Rommens, J. M. (1999). Resource â €“ BOOK AND JOURNAl REVIEWS – Genome Analysis: A Laboratory Manual (Vol 1) Analyzing DNA; (Vol 2) Detecting Genes. Trends in Genetics. 15, 41. Bruce D. (2000). Ethical concerns about patenting in relation to living organisms. Human Reproduction and Genetic Ethics. 6, 10-4. Doll, JJ. (2001). â€Å"Talking Gene Patents.â€Å"Scientific American. 285. 2 Eisen, A. , & Laderman, G. (2007). Science, religion, and society an encyclopedia of history, culture, and controversy. Armonk, N. Y. , M. E. Sharpe. Haseltine, W. A. (2000). The Case for Gene Patents. Technology Review -Manchester NH: 103, 59. Hettinger N. (1995). Patenting life: biotechnology, intellectual property, and environmental ethics. Boston College Environmental Affairs Law Review. Boston College. Law School. 22, 267-305. Hoffert, S. P. (1998), PTO Issues Biotech Patent Guidelines, The Scientist, July 6.Justine B. & Harris J. (2002). A Companion to Genethics. Blackwell companions to philosophy, 21. Malden, MA: Bla ckwell Publishers, 2002. Mappes, T. A. & DeGrazia D. (2001). Biomedical Ethics. Boston: McGraw-Hill. Overwalle, G. V. (2007). Gene patents and public health. Brussel, Bruylant. Sturges, M. L. (1997). Who Should Hold Property Rights to the Human Genome? An Application of the Common Heritage of Humankind. American University International Law Review. 13, 219-261. Willing, R. (2000). Gene Patent Gets Tougher, USA Today, Nov. 15, at 14A.

Advantages of Living with Parents in College Essay

When we see graduation caps in the sky, accompanied with laughter, applause and cry, it is a signal that we just welcome ourselves to the new world after high school. As we step into a college world as a new and fresh collegian, there are many facets that we have to think and decide, especially accommodation. Some people choose to live in the college dorms – making new friends and having more social activities, some other choose to share a house with couple of housemates, or just simply rent a flat and live independently. But, there are some that just decide to stay in town and live with their family. This last choice has three main advantages that we can consider: expense, support, and facilities. The first basic advantage of living with family, or parents, is expense. Imagine hearing your door knocked in the morning, and facing your landlord who demands your rent paid as the start of the day? Or when you can’t dial any number in the phone because you haven’t paid the telephone bill? And, the worst, when you don’t even have enough money to buy yourself breakfast because your parents haven’t sent you any monthly money? Well, you won’t have that drove of problems when you live with your parents. Expenses like food (especially healthy and delicious food), telephone, electricity, and many other will be covered by your parents, so that you can still save your own personal money. You don’t even have to pay more for movies or other leisure things when you hang out with your family. This first aspect of living with family is very, very efficient and helpful to save money! Another important facet of living with your parents is support. Being with family and living in your own home help you a lot when you have your transition phase from high school or college. It would be easier not to face other transition major adaptations, like being lonely in your own room, feeling aloof from family, meeting new hostile roommate who you are not connected to and start to adjust your own finance. You will have your family right beside you, and you will always feel like home. You will also be discipline and controlled since you still have curfew and ‘parents rules’. You can also keep your old friends around you, and you won’t even have to give up your old routines like playing tennis with your dad every Saturday or working in the grotesque diner down the street. This second advantage can make you feel like you are still the old you and you don’t even have to give up a thing. Last but not least, facilities can also be another advantage of living with your parents. You will still have anything you need for college like computer, electricity, internet, printer, scanner, or even fax machine, and they are all for free! Yet again, no expenses wasted. You also don’t have to wait the jamming docket bus that comes late in the morning, because you have transportation that keeps you punctual – somehow going to college in your mum’s car is okay! There won’t be any piling laundry because they are all taken care of. You can also have your own bathroom with hot water and hairdryer, plus clean towels every night. The point is it will be much easier for you to have your needed facility when you’re at home, especially without spending any cent. Living outside your house, like in the dorms or flats, won’t give you this kind of comfort. These three advantages show us that living with parents might be embarrassing and less challenging, but it can be considered since it saves a lot of money and gives you a lot of comfort and support. It can even be less expensive than sharing a house with other housemates! From not paying much of expenses, living in your old room every night, and having more facilities, doesn’t it sound like fun?