Questões de Concurso
Sobre interpretação de texto | reading comprehension em inglês
Foram encontradas 9.443 questões
Read the text below and answer the following question based on it.
Disponível em:<https://baneofyourresistance.com/2012/09/14/break-the-urgency-induced-block/>. Acessado em 15 de outubro de 2017.
Read the text below and answer the following question based on it.
Is gene editing ethical?
Gene editing holds the key to preventing or treating debilitating genetic diseases, giving hope to millions of people around the world. Yet the same technology could unlock the path to designing our future children, enhancing their genome by selecting desirable traits such as height, eye color, and intelligence.
While this concept is not new, a real breakthrough came 5 years ago when several scientists saw the potential of a system called CRISPR/Cas9 to edit the human genome.
CRISPR/Cas9 allows us to target specific locations in the genome with much more precision than previous techniques. This process allows a faulty gene to be replaced with a non-faulty copy, making this technology attractive to those looking to cure genetic diseases.
The technology is not foolproof, however. Scientists have been modifying genes for decades, but there are always trade-offs. We have yet to develop a technique that works 100 percent and doesn't lead to unwanted and uncontrollable mutations in other locations in the genome.
In a laboratory experiment, these so-called off-target effects are not the end of the world. But when it comes to gene editing in humans, this is a major stumbling block.
The fact that gene editing is possible in human embryos has opened a Pandora's box of ethical issues.
Here, the ethical debate around gene editing really gets off the ground.
When gene editing is used in embryos — or earlier, on the sperm or egg of carriers of genetic mutations — it is called germline gene editing. The big issue here is that it affects both the individual receiving the treatment and their future children.
This is a potential game-changer as it implies that we may be able to change the genetic makeup of entire generations on a permanent basis.
Read the text below and answer the following question based on it.
Is gene editing ethical?
Gene editing holds the key to preventing or treating debilitating genetic diseases, giving hope to millions of people around the world. Yet the same technology could unlock the path to designing our future children, enhancing their genome by selecting desirable traits such as height, eye color, and intelligence.
While this concept is not new, a real breakthrough came 5 years ago when several scientists saw the potential of a system called CRISPR/Cas9 to edit the human genome.
CRISPR/Cas9 allows us to target specific locations in the genome with much more precision than previous techniques. This process allows a faulty gene to be replaced with a non-faulty copy, making this technology attractive to those looking to cure genetic diseases.
The technology is not foolproof, however. Scientists have been modifying genes for decades, but there are always trade-offs. We have yet to develop a technique that works 100 percent and doesn't lead to unwanted and uncontrollable mutations in other locations in the genome.
In a laboratory experiment, these so-called off-target effects are not the end of the world. But when it comes to gene editing in humans, this is a major stumbling block.
The fact that gene editing is possible in human embryos has opened a Pandora's box of ethical issues.
Here, the ethical debate around gene editing really gets off the ground.
When gene editing is used in embryos — or earlier, on the sperm or egg of carriers of genetic mutations — it is called germline gene editing. The big issue here is that it affects both the individual receiving the treatment and their future children.
This is a potential game-changer as it implies that we may be able to change the genetic makeup of entire generations on a permanent basis.
Read the text below and answer the following question based on it.
Is gene editing ethical?
Gene editing holds the key to preventing or treating debilitating genetic diseases, giving hope to millions of people around the world. Yet the same technology could unlock the path to designing our future children, enhancing their genome by selecting desirable traits such as height, eye color, and intelligence.
While this concept is not new, a real breakthrough came 5 years ago when several scientists saw the potential of a system called CRISPR/Cas9 to edit the human genome.
CRISPR/Cas9 allows us to target specific locations in the genome with much more precision than previous techniques. This process allows a faulty gene to be replaced with a non-faulty copy, making this technology attractive to those looking to cure genetic diseases.
The technology is not foolproof, however. Scientists have been modifying genes for decades, but there are always trade-offs. We have yet to develop a technique that works 100 percent and doesn't lead to unwanted and uncontrollable mutations in other locations in the genome.
In a laboratory experiment, these so-called off-target effects are not the end of the world. But when it comes to gene editing in humans, this is a major stumbling block.
The fact that gene editing is possible in human embryos has opened a Pandora's box of ethical issues.
Here, the ethical debate around gene editing really gets off the ground.
When gene editing is used in embryos — or earlier, on the sperm or egg of carriers of genetic mutations — it is called germline gene editing. The big issue here is that it affects both the individual receiving the treatment and their future children.
This is a potential game-changer as it implies that we may be able to change the genetic makeup of entire generations on a permanent basis.
A team of 30 doctors carried out the surgery - the first of its kind in India - at a state-run hospital.
The boys were born with shared blood vessels and brain tissues, a very rare condition that occurs once in about three million births.
The director of the All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Randeep Guleria, told the Press Trust of India that the "next 18 days would be extremely critical to ascertain the success of the surgery".
The twins, hailing from a village in eastern Orissa state, were joined at the head - a condition known as craniopagus.
Even before the operation they had defeated the odds; craniopagus occurs in one in three million births, and 50% of those affected die within 24 hours, doctors say.
"Both the children have other health issues as well. While Jaga has heart issues, Kalia has kidney problems," neurosurgeon A K Mahapatra said.
"Though initially Jaga was healthier, now his condition has deteriorated. Kalia is better," he added.
Doctors said the most challenging job after the separation was to "provide a skin cover on both sides of the brain for the children as the surgery had left large holes on their heads".
"If the twins make it, the next step will be reconstructing their skulls," plastic surgeon Maneesh Singhal said.
The first surgery was performed on 28 August when the doctors created a bypass to separate the shared veins that return blood to the heart from the brain.
A team of 30 doctors carried out the surgery - the first of its kind in India - at a state-run hospital.
The boys were born with shared blood vessels and brain tissues, a very rare condition that occurs once in about three million births.
The director of the All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Randeep Guleria, told the Press Trust of India that the "next 18 days would be extremely critical to ascertain the success of the surgery".
The twins, hailing from a village in eastern Orissa state, were joined at the head - a condition known as craniopagus.
Even before the operation they had defeated the odds; craniopagus occurs in one in three million births, and 50% of those affected die within 24 hours, doctors say.
"Both the children have other health issues as well. While Jaga has heart issues, Kalia has kidney problems," neurosurgeon A K Mahapatra said.
"Though initially Jaga was healthier, now his condition has deteriorated. Kalia is better," he added.
Doctors said the most challenging job after the separation was to "provide a skin cover on both sides of the brain for the children as the surgery had left large holes on their heads".
"If the twins make it, the next step will be reconstructing their skulls," plastic surgeon Maneesh Singhal said.
The first surgery was performed on 28 August when the doctors created a bypass to separate the shared veins that return blood to the heart from the brain.
The underlying mechanisms responsible for phantom limb pain remain unclear. However, it appears that it may arise as a consequence of abnormal neural circuitry in central areas of the brain.
Limited success has been achieved with mirror therapy in which reflections of the unaffected limb can be used to create the illusion that the amputated limb is moving.
Sensors that could detect muscular activity were attached to the stump of the missing arm. The signals received by these sensors were then used to produce an image of an active arm on a computer screen.
Patients were trained to use these signals to control the virtual arm, drive a virtual race car around a track and to copy the movements of an arm on screen with their phantom movements. After twelve 2-hour treatment sessions, the patients underwent follow-up interviews 1, 3 and 6 months later.
Based on the patients' ratings, the intensity, quality, and frequency of pain had reduced by 50% after the treatment.
At the start of the study, 12 patients reported feeling constant pain whereas only 6 did 6months after the treatment. However, one patient thought that there was not a considerable difference in the levels of phantom pain before and after treatment.
The underlying mechanisms responsible for phantom limb pain remain unclear. However, it appears that it may arise as a consequence of abnormal neural circuitry in central areas of the brain.
Limited success has been achieved with mirror therapy in which reflections of the unaffected limb can be used to create the illusion that the amputated limb is moving.
Sensors that could detect muscular activity were attached to the stump of the missing arm. The signals received by these sensors were then used to produce an image of an active arm on a computer screen.
Patients were trained to use these signals to control the virtual arm, drive a virtual race car around a track and to copy the movements of an arm on screen with their phantom movements. After twelve 2-hour treatment sessions, the patients underwent follow-up interviews 1, 3 and 6 months later.
Based on the patients' ratings, the intensity, quality, and frequency of pain had reduced by 50% after the treatment.
At the start of the study, 12 patients reported feeling constant pain whereas only 6 did 6months after the treatment. However, one patient thought that there was not a considerable difference in the levels of phantom pain before and after treatment.
The motion requests the prohibition of the hunting of captive-bred lions under any conditions and also states that breeding should only be allowed at “registered zoos or facilities that demonstrate a clear conservation benefit”.
The passing of this motion has come at a critical time as despite more than 20 years of campaigning by local and international activists and organizations to bring an end to these practices, the industry has shown steady growth over the last decade.
Currently there are more than 180 facilities holding approximately 7000 predators used for a variety of commercial purposes, including captive or ‘canned’ hunts.
Although basic legislation is in place to regulate the captive keeping and hunting of lions in South Africa, IUCN members have acknowledged that the SA government has had limited legal scope available to terminate “canned” hunting altogether and are hoping the guidelines set out in the motion will assist them to revise legislation.
“The Department (of Environmental Affairs) will consider the implications associated with the motion; engage the relevant IUCN members and then take appropriate actions, guided by its legal mandate,” says Albi Modise.
Adding to further implementation, amendments to TOPS (Threatened or Protected Species) Regulations will be published early next year which are expected to include prohibiting the introduction of wild lion to captive breeding facilities and the captive breeding of lion if no conservation benefit can be demonstrated.
While the passing of this motion is significant, it is only the first step of what could still be a tricky process.
The motion requests the prohibition of the hunting of captive-bred lions under any conditions and also states that breeding should only be allowed at “registered zoos or facilities that demonstrate a clear conservation benefit”.
The passing of this motion has come at a critical time as despite more than 20 years of campaigning by local and international activists and organizations to bring an end to these practices, the industry has shown steady growth over the last decade.
Currently there are more than 180 facilities holding approximately 7000 predators used for a variety of commercial purposes, including captive or ‘canned’ hunts.
Although basic legislation is in place to regulate the captive keeping and hunting of lions in South Africa, IUCN members have acknowledged that the SA government has had limited legal scope available to terminate “canned” hunting altogether and are hoping the guidelines set out in the motion will assist them to revise legislation.
“The Department (of Environmental Affairs) will consider the implications associated with the motion; engage the relevant IUCN members and then take appropriate actions, guided by its legal mandate,” says Albi Modise.
Adding to further implementation, amendments to TOPS (Threatened or Protected Species) Regulations will be published early next year which are expected to include prohibiting the introduction of wild lion to captive breeding facilities and the captive breeding of lion if no conservation benefit can be demonstrated.
While the passing of this motion is significant, it is only the first step of what could still be a tricky process.
The motion requests the prohibition of the hunting of captive-bred lions under any conditions and also states that breeding should only be allowed at “registered zoos or facilities that demonstrate a clear conservation benefit”.
The passing of this motion has come at a critical time as despite more than 20 years of campaigning by local and international activists and organizations to bring an end to these practices, the industry has shown steady growth over the last decade.
Currently there are more than 180 facilities holding approximately 7000 predators used for a variety of commercial purposes, including captive or ‘canned’ hunts.
Although basic legislation is in place to regulate the captive keeping and hunting of lions in South Africa, IUCN members have acknowledged that the SA government has had limited legal scope available to terminate “canned” hunting altogether and are hoping the guidelines set out in the motion will assist them to revise legislation.
“The Department (of Environmental Affairs) will consider the implications associated with the motion; engage the relevant IUCN members and then take appropriate actions, guided by its legal mandate,” says Albi Modise.
Adding to further implementation, amendments to TOPS (Threatened or Protected Species) Regulations will be published early next year which are expected to include prohibiting the introduction of wild lion to captive breeding facilities and the captive breeding of lion if no conservation benefit can be demonstrated.
While the passing of this motion is significant, it is only the first step of what could still be a tricky process.
Next generation cars that can think for themselves have clear advantages over flesh-and-blood drivers: they don't get drunk or drowsy, daydream or get distracted by mobile phones and squabbling kids. As the driver is taken out of the equation, so too will a large proportion of accidents.
Worldwide, 1.24 million people die each year in road accidents and as many as 50 million are injured. Human error causes over 90 percent of these collisions.
Driverless cars, which can sense other vehicles on the road as well as obstacles and lane markings, are already proving much safer than human-driven cars. Driverless cars use a mix of GPS, cameras, complex scanners and sensors to detect vehicles, traffic signals, curbs, pedestrians and other obstacles. A central computer system analyzes the data to control acceleration, steering and braking. The software can simulate different eventualities to ensure safety on the road - and the results can be incorporated into the design and production process.
As well as detecting their surroundings using ultrasophisticated mapping systems, future cars will be able to communicate with each other, allowing as many cars as possible to fit on the roads. Connected vehicles will feature safety warnings that alert drivers of potentially dangerous conditions - impending collisions, icy roads and dangerous curves.
Experts say it's not the technology slowing our progress, but legal and practical issues such as who is responsible in the case of an accident, urban infrastructure planning, and the security of car computer systems. Once these details are worked out, and manufacturers have used sophisticated software tools to eliminate all potential problems, it won't be long until we're all a lot safer on the roads.