What is strategic human resource management and what is HR's role in Essay

What is strategic human resource management and what is HR's role in strategic management planning process - Essay Example Strategic HRM even includes the process of making strategy related choices and the development of priorities of different strategies. In basic terms, Strategic HRM revolves around the amalgamation of the strategy of both the company and the human resources so that HR strategies result in the attainment and implementation of the company’s strategy. It is more commonly practiced that the human resources department plays a major role in the implementation of the strategic plan. On the other hand some organization do consider HR’s role as an important one in the development of the strategic plan. While devising a strategic plan an organization needs to perform an internal assessment in various areas of the organization including the human resource aspect of the organization. The organization even performs an external assessment in relation to human resource management. While performing an external assessment an organization needs to focus on whether there are opportunities and threats related to human resources (Bernardin 116). For example: an external analysis may reveal that there is a threat to the organization because of shortage of laborers who can work on process of manufacturing denim clothes. The external assessment may even help in identifying opportunities such as an increase in number employees being laid off an d these employees have the ability to handle denim manufacturing processes. After conducting the external assessment, the organization turns to conducting an internal assessment in the context of human resources. For example: a denim manufacturing organization identifies that there is an increase in demand for denim. In relation to that opportunity the organization may conduct an internal assessment regarding whether the organization has the required human resources who are capable of handling denim manufacturing processes such as sewing. If

Employee privacy on computers in the workplace Research Paper

Employee privacy on computers in the workplace - Research Paper Example Such policies mean that it is becoming increasingly more difficult to define where personal privacy and eavesdropping laws end and the rights of the employer being with respect to monitoring any and all forms of electronic communication that the employee might engage in while employed. Accordingly, the purpose of this essay is to provide a thoughtful commentary on key issues relating to privacy and employer rights with respect to the issues at hand. Furthermore, the analysis will seek to raise some key questions with reference to what the technological development evidenced within the past few years portends for the employment frontier. Firstly, it should be understood that the technological development that has taken place within the past few decades has made a profound and lasting impact on the way that firms surveil and monitor their employees. Prior to this technological revolution, the ways in which an employer could surveil an employee legally were quite limited. Privacy laws d ictated that electronic eavesdropping by means of a microphone or the use of a hidden camera was illegal. As such, the level to which an employer could ethically, morally, and legally gain a degree of inference with regards to what activities and thoughts the employee shares within the company, among personal friends, or any other such activities is brought clearly into focus. The true crux of the matter is not the fact that the employer will be able to gain a high degree of inference with regards to the potential unethical or illegal activities in which the employee might be engaging; rather, it has been proven statistically that a high percentage of emails and correspondence that are done at work are of a personal nature. Naturally, such correspondence put a burden on the sender to understand and realize that the privacy of these communications is suspect due to the terms of the confidentiality agreement and terms of electronic communications that they have agreed to; however, the re is a small degree of moral burden on the part of the employer as well to actively seek to purposefully disregard such personal conversations as long as they do not represent a breach of contract or any form or manifestation of illegality (Detterman 980). Yet, the issue with such an approach hinges upon the fact that the employer will not be painstakingly reading each and every correspondence generated by the employee. Unfortunately, privacy laws or ethical considerations cannot guarantee that this will not be the case. Although this essay has spoken primarily about the privacy concerns that employees might experience as a function of having their employer read their correspondence, it would be remiss of this author to discuss this situation fully without offering advice for a simple way in which the employee can work to avert many of the negative repercussions of over-aggressive privacy policy (Evans 1116). Once the employee signs on the dotted line and accepts the fact that the employer can monitor their activity and communication via the devices that are utilized within the workplace setting, virtually no privacy whatsoever exists within these mediums. As such, it is the strong recommendation of this author that the employee be ever-mindful of the lack of rights they possess while utilizing the employer’

Philosophy of Education Essay Example for Free

Philosophy of Education Essay The word â€Å"teacher† does the profession no service. A teacher is really a combination of the most important professions in the world. Besides the parents, an educator is the biggest influence in a child’s life. The age span in which children are in school is the most impressionable years of their lives. A student’s educational experience can mold the events of his or her future. That is why I want to become a teacher. I want to be a mold for younger generations, and I hope for students to remember a knowledgeable and ethical teacher. Beliefs I feel the student should come to school willing to learn and the teacher should come ready to teach! The student’s role is just as important as the teachers; the student’s expectations of the teacher should be for her to teach and help them learn at all times. Teachers also play an important role in the classroom when it comes to the environment. If the teacher prepares a warm, happy environment, students are more likely to be happy. An environment set by the teacher can be either good or bad. If students feel the teacher is angry, students may react badly to that and therefore learning can be harder. I think teachers are responsible for the social behavior in their classrooms. This behavior is primarily a reflection of the teachers actions and the environment he/she sets. Metaphysics We are all here for a purpose and I believe that, that is to live for God and follow his way of life. It is hard to know what you are really on earth for until you find it through him! Some teachers will find it hard to keep the focus on the classroom do to all the other outside distractions but, I strongly believe that is you were meant to be a teacher then you will find a way to look past the bad and find the good. Why am I here? I think I am here to help children follow their dreams and make it through school easier than I did. When I become a teacher I want to be the best ever! I want to see that smile on the kids’ faces after I teach them something amazing. Progressivism I want to teach from some aspects of the progressivism style which focuses on respect for individuality, high regard for science, and learning from experience. I want to teach the children in my classroom to have respect for each other. This is a quality that will help them to be successful in society because if they respect others, then others will have respect for them. Having respect for others also shows that they have respect for themselves. I also want children to learn by hands-on activities. I will direct them from step to step and demonstrate how to do each step in the activities they perform. These activities make learning more interesting for the children because the children are able to get involved instead of just always watching the teacher do everything. Speaking of the children getting involved, they can really get involved when learning in a different atmosphere when on field trips. I feel taking children on field trips is an effective learning experience for them because it allows children to get out of the classroom setting and learn from a different perspective. In addition I want to focus on sciences because they are an important area in the knowledge of children. I think this growing area of our society should be focused on thoroughly because science advances and improves every day and I feel children should be aware of their changing world. Constructivism I feel like this is the main reason why I should teach and why I want to teach, I have learned so much though school and it has molded me to become who I am today. I learn a lot through experience and what I know will make me a better teacher it will help me relate to the ones that hate school or the ones that think they can’t do it. It’s all a process and the way you take the steps is how I think you will show others so you have to help them with their process and make sure that it doesn’t go bad or in the wrong direction. I plan to continue my education so that I may make teaching my profession. After graduation, I hope to find a position in an elementary school teaching in one of the first through sixth grade classes. I feel that elementary education is extremely important because it is here that children establish their foundation for the rest of the educational career. My goal and desires are to have the opportunity to touch a child’s life.

Overview Of The Enola Gay Controversy History Essay

Overview Of The Enola Gay Controversy History Essay The term History Wars was coined in the United States in 1994  [1]  . It was based on the controversy over how history should be represented for the decision of dropping an atomic bomb on Japan when the Smithsonians National Air and Space Museum drafted an exhibit entitled The Crossroads: The End of World War II, the Atomic Bomb and the Cold War around the refurbished Enola Gay to mark the fiftieth anniversary of the end of the war in 1995. This controversy centred around the failed 1995 Smithsonian National Air and Space Museums exhibit of the Enola Gay, which intended to examine intersection the end of World War II beginning with the dropping of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Along that process, various stakeholders in the representation of this historical event were embroiled including Smithsonian curators, veterans such as the Air Force Association and the American Legion, members of the United States Congress, academic historians, media, American public and even the Japanese. As early as in 1988, Smithsonians National Air and Space Museum (NASM) announced that they would display the Enola Gay as part of an interpretive exhibit on the end of World War II and the origins of the Cold War  [2]  . This announcement brought the museum into contact with a variety of interested groups. As the scripts developed, the exhibit had set off a heated controversy concerning national ideologies, the collective memory of self-victimization, and contestation over historical knowledge. The story of the Smithsonian and the Enola Gay reflected a larger battle in America over academic goals, cultural superiority, sacrifices, heroic effort and how should American remember their past.  [3]   This essay explores the ways in which the Enola Gay debate was fought out primarily in the American public media and in congressional hearings about history and memory. It will focuses on various predicaments in an attempts to produce a nations single and definitive public history and memory shared commonly and objectively by a nation. The Enola Gay controversy or some might called it the Smithsonian atomic bomb exhibit debates sparks a History Wars in American public. In fact, any attempts to produce or exhibit narratives about the past will always spark a controversy and incites various arguments and struggles over historical truth. This essay furthermore attempts to situate The Enola Gay debates within the larger context of the condition of the knowledge that describes those who were involved in this polemic. The Enola Gay controversy was not really about facts, nor was it about which side represented the facts more accurately. Rather, it centred on questions about for whom, for what objectives, and for whose community the event need to be remembered. The difference between the two different factions did not actually portray whether one side distorted the facts more than the other, although there were a number of events that which conservative politicians and veterans deliberately refused to acknowledge the existence of certain information, records and archives materials. Although those who involved in this debate be it veterans, Air Force Association, American Legion, news editors, conservative politicians, academic historians, Smithsonian curators and American public agreed that the main objective of the exhibit is to commemorate the important mission that led America to victory, there will always be different approaches on how to portray American as a saviour of the world and to acknow ledged the United States as the nation that ends the war. The conflation of the history wars with rhetoric of educational over the exhibit escalates during the development of the script. The exhibition main objectives were to showcase the plane that had dropped the atomic bomb on Hiroshima to end the war.  [4]  The script would have taken visitors through five sections moving from victory in Europe through the nuclear proliferation of the Cold War.  [5]  Along with the script preparation, gradually there are contradiction and different perspectives among the groups involved. The heated discussion of the initial script became public when the Air Force Association accused Smithsonian curators of politicizing the script.  [6]  These debates between veterans and curators foreshadowed a two-year struggle over plans for the exhibition. Veterans insist that the bomb had ended the war and thus prevented further loss of American soldiers lives, while academic historians and curators believed the other way round. The contradiction of the story which is one of a weapon that brought peace and victory and the other side weapon that brought destruction and terrify the world had created different views to American public  [7]  . Martin Harwit, the Smithsonians director, along with his curators, had held numerous discussions with veterans, academic historians and other interested groups in preparing the script of the exhibit.  [8]  During the preparation of the script and long before the official opening exhibition which is planned in August 1995, criticism on this exhibition increased largely due to the alleged political correctness and historical accurate polemic. There was an intense pressure against the Smithsonian from the veterans especially from the American Legion and the Air Force Association in developing the script. The Smithsonian wanted to tell a narrative purely based on the factual historical event while veterans insist on the portrayal of the struggling American troops, their heroic action that eventually fought to end the war and how the bomb could save approximately hundred thousand lives of American soldiers  [9]  . Tom Crouch, Chairman of the Institute of the Aeronautic Department at the Smithsonian Institute, already getting fed up with the continuous unresolved debates over the objectives of the exhibit, had asked this very important question in his memo to Harwit: whether the museum was producing an exhibit that was intended to make veterans feel goods or an exhibition that will lead our visitors to think about the consequences of the atomic bombing of Japan? Frankly, I dont think we can do both  [10]  . Veterans boasted that they had a number of powerful lobbying groups in Congress and they have the strength in number. They claimed that they have public backing and the American is always behind them. Their claim is true; on 27 August 1994, twenty four Congressmen sent a letter to the Smithsonian calling the exhibition as anti-American and a historically narrow, revisionist view of the Enola Gays mission  [11]  . When the veterans felt that they were going to be portrayed unfairly in the exhibition, they began to react and gather the support from those who felt the same way they did and started to interfere in the Smithsonian script. Veterans organization had a very high expectation that the exhibition would provide enough balanced historical context so that the reason to drop the bomb were justified enough or at least reasonable, legitimate and might be a necessary to avoid unbalance inference that will equal the bombing with more tragic incident such as holocaust. The politicians were also jumped into the bandwagon in support of the veterans resistance. Newt Gingrich, a Republican leader in House of Representative said that American had been tired and sick of being told by some so called historians that they ought to be ashamed of their country in the way they end the war  [12]  . In the following month, the Senate adopted Senate Resolution 257 which stated: . . . any exhibit by the National Air and Space Museum with respect to the Enola Gay should reflect appropriate sensitivity toward the men and women who faithfully and selflessly served, and should avoid impugning the memory of those who gave their lives for  [13]  . The Smithsonian is being criticized from all corners, from those who consider the exhibition as revisionist which is critical of the American History Wars to those who accuse the curators and the historians of staging and exaggerating which glorifies the decision of dropping the bomb. The curators and historians wanted the exhibition to be devoted solely to the justifications in using such a weapon and the task of the curators is to educate people, not to spread some kind of propaganda. Curators have not always been comfortable creating exhibits to celebrate technological prowess, devastating impact, losses of lives and wartime sacrifices. The curators saw the chance to display the Enola Gay as an opportunity to bring to a wider audience the issue of the consequences of the devastating impact for using such a terrible weapon and helping visitors to have better understanding the meaning and implication of the decisions and events that have shaped the subsequent history of the twentiet h century. The veterans accused the Smithsonian in denying the justification to drop the bomb at that time by questioning the morality and motives of President Trumans decision to end the war soonest possible  [14]  . On the veterans point of view, the decision is just a noble thing to be made which is to save as many American lives possible and to end the war immediately. As the script developed, both parties seem to be at loggerheads. The Smithsonian refusal to change the script infuriates the veterans. The American Legion insists that the script inferred that America was somehow in the wrong and her loyal airmen somehow criminal  [15]  . The congressmen step into the debate sided with the veterans and accusing the Smithsonian as a blatant betrayal of American history, biased and anti-American  [16]  . According to veterans, the script was a politically rigged program that made the Japanese in World War II look like victims instead of aggressors, and showed Americans as ruthless i nvaders, driven by racism and revenge.  [17]   Veterans reacted strongly to any Smithsonian attempt to remember the bombing that questioned the good war. They heavily criticized the progress of the script and particularly disturbed by the scripts suggestion that there were element of US aggression and imperialism even in what had been described as the most just and sacred of American wars ever fought.  [18]  While the curators wanted the public to interpret the consequences of the terrifying weapon and the horror of the war, veterans wanted the exhibit to commemorate the sacrifices they made to end the war. Their complaints reflected a perception that the curators and historians refusal to restructured the script as what the veterans wanted was seen as slap in the face of all Americans, including our courageous fallen, who fought from Pearl Harbor to Tokyo Bay.50 Bob Dole, a war veteran and a Republican Presidential candidate, told the American Legionnaires during the speech in Labor Day added that a generation of historians were in fact tend to be intellectual elites who seem embarrassed by America51. Charles B. Sweeney, the pilot who dropped the atomic bomb on Nagasaki, heavily criticized the curators and described it as an assault on our language and history by the elimination of accurate and descriptive words.52 The media also inflames the controversy by bringing the exhibition into disrepute. A day after the exhibition were cancelled, the editorial of the Washington Post wrote : It is important to be clear about what happened at the Smithsonian. It is not, as some have it, that benighted advocates of a special interest or right-wing point of view brought historical power to bear to crush and distort the historical truth. Quite to the contrary, narrow-minded representatives of a special-interest and revisionist point of view attempted to use their inside track to appropriate and hollow out a historical event that large numbers of Americans alive at that time and engaged in the war had witnessed and understood in a very different and authentic way  [19]  . The main problem is to decide who the decision maker in this exhibition is. Curators is just doing their job and they have the right to interpret the past based solely on their scholarly credentials and other primary resources such as archives, historical records, photographs, interviews, bibliographies and also advised from academic historians. In contrast, the veterans claimed that they too have the rights to portrayed the exhibition based on their personal and wartime experience. As far as the veterans concerned, their criticism is not solely against the suffering of the Japanese people due to the dropping of the bomb, but they call for more balance and the completeness of the story rather than for accuracy or fidelity to what happened in fact. Apart from contrary belief that veterans were at all time against the historical accuracy, veterans greatly appreciated the curators effort to portray the exhibition as much attractive as ever but they wanted them to be displayed more on the Americans favour rather than Japanese one. As a whole, all parties came into agreement that they wanted to make this exhibition a success. Everybody involves in the controversy over the exhibition seems to agree that the decision to drop the bomb will resulted various interpretation but it is clear that the decision made in 1945 will be viewed differently as in present day. The veterans came into agreement that the exhibition should tell another side of the story about Enola Gay so that the balanced display would allow visitors to make their own judgement about what happened, how and why. The Enola Gay controversy clearly demonstrates that one cannot effectively seek proper representation in a national public sphere solely by claiming to possess knowledge that is solidly based on factual authenticity. To differentiate between factual history and imaginary commemoration is problematic precisely because it can prove debilitating when trying to prevail over those who adhere to opposed understanding of history. Moreover, as observed in the Smithsonian dispute, to rationalize the demand for the representation in the public sphere by opposing ones legitimacy on factual authenticity alone may unwittingly help perpetuate the myth that the subaltern history is more accurate than mainstream history. As The American Legions national commander, William M. Detweiller declared in November 1994: More than anything else, our disagreements centre on the estimate numbers of lived saved by the use of atomic weapons in 1945. Does it matter? To the museum and the historians, it seems to be of great importance in determining the morality of President Trumans decision. To the American Legion, it matters less, if at all.  [20]   In truth, to all concerned, it mattered a great deal. In the end, everyone believed that memory and history had been abused, and the controversy over the Enola Gay exhibit became a useful symbol for all sides in the history wars going in America. Controversies over museum exhibition clearly demonstrate that political correctness has displaced historical accuracy over issues of humanities, race and history itself.  [21]   If this is true, then the controversy accompanying this fiftieth anniversary marked a dark spot in Americas collective memory, when latent struggles came to the surface about which histories needed to be remembered or forgotten. These are not just academic questions, because public memories are also forms of cultural practice. Scholars should therefore attend to the ways historians, curators, the media, and ordinary citizens participated in the creation of the symbolic repertoires that made up the Enola Gay dispute. For the veterans, the exhibition will display not only the historical memories of the American veterans but also at their sense of personal and national identity. They wanted the exhibition to reflect their past glory and to portray themselves as the saviour of America who risks their lives in order to bring peace to America and the entire world. The exhibit floundered when pressure from conservative politicians and veterans groups denounced it and Congress threatened to cut the museums funding  [22]  . In the end, after the exhibit had finally been cancelled, Harwit admitted that his curators were defeated by veterans organizations whose summed membership stands six million strong.  [23]   The history wars have a negative influence not because they encourage public debate about historical matters, thereby removing control of them from the authority who really in the know about the subject matters. History is unceasingly controversial because it provides so much of the substance for the ways a society defines itself and considers what it wants to be. The history wars, though unnerving and nasty, offer the public an opportunity to talk with historians and about how history is written, how research has changed in recent decades, and how arguments about the past illustrates the future. History does matter, and it is important for American at the end of the twentieth century to understand how the recent history wars have unfolded, how these struggles are connected to earlier arguments over interpreting the past and what does it tell us of current state of present society. This controversy became a new battle in a war over American culture life and the exhibition is a new ex perience for American public especially in the way the debates were fought between various sides. History Wars are not only occurred or debated in America alone, but in other countries as well. Around the world, various History Wars have sparked over museum exhibits, national commemoration, public anniversaries, history textbooks, usage of jargon and parades.5 Where ever there are past event, there will be History Wars sparked by that particular event. In the past twenty years, there are debates about events that happened in the past. These debates all exhibit the same characteristics: the same obsessive collective pronouns and terminology, as well as the same parochialism and national preoccupations. Such example was a tragic event of infamous holocaust that still been debated until today by different party. There will always be a group of history revisionist, left wing or far-right denial that will keep on debating the truth about events that happened in the past. The debates on History Wars are not restricted in the western society but it also being debated everywhere. In the Far East during the Sino-Japanese War in 1937, the Japanese Army committed atrocities against the inhabitant of Nanking which will be remembered in history as The Rape of Nanking. The Japanese aggression caused the massacre of more than 260,000 Nanking civilian  [24]  and the Japanese government refusal to confess their past aggression and apologizing their atrocities infuriates the Chinese Government and its people. In the Japanese textbook, there were nothing being mention about their atrocities in the past and refusal had been condemned by China and other nations  [25]  . In Australia, History Wars represent an ongoing conflict between conservative, leftist groups, politicians and academic historians over the early white settlements and the behaviour of Australias settlers in regard to the indigenous peoples. The History Wars have also been an integral feature of the cultural war conflicts in Australia of recent years and of the consequent attacks on the academic historian publicly. The politician, journalists and revisionist and academic historians try to interpret issues about treatment of Australias indigenous people, the stolen generations, Black Armband view and others  [26]  . Such questions dominate the History Wars; in this case a Smithsonian lengthy politicised and polarised debate that have raged over years. Such dispute show how issue on nations past has become in US, as academic historians, curators, veterans, politicians and media find themselves increasingly entangled in a heated public debate. It was a paradox where while school children in US found that the subject of American history is being too boring  [27]  , the perspective wasnt shared by the people of the older age, in fact it seems more fraught than ever, in this case at least in this Smithsonian debate. As Richard H. Kohn, professor of history at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, said that the cancellation of the original Enola Gay exhibition may constitute the worst tragedy to befall the public presentation of history in the United States in a generation .  [28]  In my opinion, this exhibit is a major opportunity to inform not only the American people but to all m ankind about war and its consequences and the tragedy of the cancellation was a great loss.

To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee :: essays research papers

1. Show how at least two individual episodes, sections or events in your studied text held your interest as a reader. This essay will discuss how two individual events in To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee, held my interest as a reader. The two individual events are Tom Robinsons court case and the pageant at Scouts school when she plays the role of â€Å"Pork†. I will discuss what techniques were used in both events and how they held my interest. Mayella Ewell accuses Tom Robinson, a black man, of raping her and Atticus, Scout’s father takes the case. Scout and Jem, Atticus’s children sneak to the trial so we, as the reader, find out what is happening through Scout’s eyes. Scout has seen many trials, so her knowledge of what is happening makes it easier for the reader to understand, therefore holding our interest and stopping us from getting bored when we don’t understand the law jargon. Harper Lee wrote the book in a way that he would keep us in suspense. This is especially shown when Atticus is questioning Mayella Ewell. Atticus asked Mayella questions and called her â€Å"ma’am† which was something she had never been called before so she didn’t react well. This made her flustered and also made her say that Tom Robinson had thrown her down and beat her up. After this Atticus made Tom Robinson stand up only for the audience to see that he had a crippled arm. It was moments like this that made us, as readers not want to stop reading because we wanted to know what would happen next. We wanted to know what else Mayella would say. Harper Lee creates the suspension by writing the conversation between Atticus and Mayella Ewell. Lee shows how educated Atticus is in contrast to how uneducated Mayella is by the different language they use. It makes it interesting for the reader and it helps us be able to show who is talking at what moment. At the end of the trial, Atticus has done a good job making the reader think that Tom Robinson will go free. When actually, the jury finds him guilty. Harper Lee does this to shock the readers and to make them want to continue to read to see what happens after the trial, therefore continuing to hold our interest. The second event holds our interest in a similar way to the first event.

Hard Times †Charles Dickens Essay -- English Literature

Hard Times – Charles Dickens ‘Discuss the theme of education in Hard Times’ Charles Dickens was a great author of the 19th Century and his books are recognised and loved nation wide. Many people understand the meaning to his books, as they are not just plain fiction. In the novel Hard Times Dickens intensely criticises the British system of education and how it has evolved over the years: the 19th Century philosophy of ‘Utilitarianism’. Dickens believed this system was a failure, as it changed children’s minds and morals, and it is this novel that he attempts to show the horrors that this system has created. A principle was formed by Jeremy Bentham, the eighteenth century philosopher, calculating ‘the greatest good for the greatest number’. This theory explained that self-interest was the primary motivating force behind all human conduct; people strived for pleasure and tried in vain to avoid pain. Bentham advocated a system of calculation known as ‘moral arithmetic’. This was used whenever a decision had to be made about a particular choice of action, be it an individual deed or a law affecting million. The equation was a simple one: pleasure vs. pain. If all the factors fell in the direction of pleasure for the greatest number then the appropriate course of action was adopted. However, it failed to take account of the happiness and well-being of those who did not belong to the greatest number. It also presumed that every human being on earth prized nothing but material values. The catastrophes that this pathetic philosophy caused are explored and criticised by Dickens in the novel Hard Times. The philosophy also emphasised the practical usefulness of things. This meant that art, imagination, pl... ...ildren’s education. The grim pursuit of facts is contrasted with the colourful and rich life of the imagination as experienced by the circus folk. When one of them is subjected to the rigours of Gradgrind’s educational philosophy her human nature naturally rejects the attacks made on it: Sissy Jupe leans nothing from the artificially imposed educative processes familiar in the Gradgrind household. Nut, as we see later in the novel, her own essential goodness is instrumental in educating those suffering from the inadequacies of the Gradgrind philosophy. The children are denied the natural pursuits of childhood such as play, fantasy, fun and entertainment. They are ‘dead’ as children and are forced, by Gradgrind’s system, to become unnatural children. They are therefore without essential qualities needed in adulthood and as of this they become in humane.

Genetically Modified Organisms- a Step Ahead or a Step in the Wrong Direction?

Genetically modified organisms- a step ahead or a step in the wrong direction? Paulina Langowska Genetically modified organisms, also known as GMO, are such organisms whose genetic material has been artificially changed using genetic engineering. Genetic engineering, to put it simply, is altering the DNA technology, using DNA molecules from various organisms and using this molecules to create a brand new set of genes. Then the set of genes is added to an organism’s genome. Below is shown an exchange of genes in corn, which is supposed to protect it from various insects.Genetic engineering can also change the color of the plant, make it resistant to difficult weather conditions, insects and viruses. The beginnings of genetic engineering take us back to the year 1973, when the first recombinant bacteria- a bacteria that has been genetically modified- was created. It was Escherichia coli, which from that point on became a popular lab rat used in genetic engineering. This creation led to discussions whether genetic modifications are safe and needed. The first conference when potential health risks were discussed took place in 1975.In late 1980’s in USA and Canada began an experimental usage of genetic engineered plants in a small scale. In 1990’s, after the approval for a larger scale, genetic engineering was more widely spread across the countries. From that point on, the interest in genetically modified organisms grew year by year. However, even though genetically modified organisms have gained population, the benefits of it and its harmlessness is disputable. Researches on lab pets show many harmful consequences.Some scientists decided to try and feed rats with genetic engineered potatoes. It was supposed to make them produce their own natural insecticide. But the results weren’t exactly as they were expected. Rats’ cells developed in a proliferative way and potentially cancerous cells. Also, the development of their brain and liver was inhibited and they suffered from an immune system damage. Also, another research was done in Russian Academy of Sciences. This time, female rats were fed genetically modified soy before and during pregnancy and also hile feeding their offspring. This time, the results included: * About 55% of offspring died during 3 weeks after the birth (compared to 9% of mortality among those fed with non-genetically modified soy) * Offspring was significantly smaller compared to other as well as their organs (heart, liver, kidneys, etc. ) * Both mothers and their children were very aggressive and anxious * When male and female (both form genetically modified soy fed mother) were paired, they were unable to conceive children.Although the results of this experiments are to be taken with a grain of salt, they are still alarming and disturbing due to the wide discrepancies between the GM soy fed rats and the control ones. The health damages found in rats fed with genetically modified potato es is just as much worrying. The reason rats are used for such experiments is that their morphology and biochemical structures are very similar to the human ones. That is why those experiments, as well as similar ones, provoke an essential question- is genetically modified food harmful to people.The answer to this question is very disputable. Some scientists claim that genetically modified foods are completely safe and otherwise they wouldn’t be approved. But there are numerous articles about possible harmful effects of genetically modified foods and they can’t be ignored. The main concern is allergies. Main aim of getting a new set of gene to an organism’s genome is to create a new protein and every protein is potentially triggering to allergic reactions. The problem with GM foods is that its protein are completely new and we can’t be sure about its effect.Truth be told, people (mainly in USA, where genetic engineered food is the most common) often consu me GM products without being aware of it- if you live in the USA and ate cheddar cheese in the past few years it is more than likely that you ate a genetically manipulated food, since genetic engineering is currently the most successful in cheddar cheese. Some say that genetically modified products they unwillingly consumed are to stand accused for their new allergies. Other concerns involve immunity system damage and stunted organ growth, however they are mostly seen in lab pets and are yet to be proved to occur.Another reason why genetic engineering receives so many criticism from the ethical point of view. Because if we can change genes in cheese or potatoes, what’s stopping us from changing genes in people? Scientists and psychologists are afraid that genetic engineering will become so developed that designing unborn children will happen on a daily basis. Parents will choose gender, height, hair color etc. From this point there’s not much to go to create an artific ial world, ruled by genetic engineering, looking like taken out of Huxley’s book.Futhermore, genetically modified organisms have a huge impact on our environment. One of the problems is gene flow. Gene flow is a natural occurring phenomenon that results in getting one organism’s DNA and transporting it to another one, be it from the same species or not. Some people are afraid that the engineered genes may spread and push out other, not modificated, plants. Yet another drawback is that they can be harmful to other organisms. Genetic engineering in plants such as crop is mostly focused on creating a defensive system against insects.But often, the newly created insecticide can be harmful to other, non-target organisms. Some sources agree that the existence of genetically engineered maize most commonly found in corn had a negavite impact on population of monarch butterflies living near the field, because they fed with plants dusted by the pollen from the corn maize. Both t hese phenomena’s can led to destroying natural biodiversity. So this leads us to a question: if genetic engineering has so much disadvantages, why is it still done and money is spent for researches?The truth is that even if it has many drawbacks, it still have many advantages that for some people are worth all the effort. Negative poster about GM foods One of them is that it is said to help us create food that is much more nutritious. It can be done by inserting a specific genes that are supposed to produce vitamins etc. to various crops. A well known case is inserting the gene making the vitamin A levels in rice much higher. Rice feeds currently more than 50% of the world population, but is not high in vitamins and other nutrients.Modifying it in such a way that It contains more vitamin A could help reduce deficiency resulting in blindness. If it was to be done successfully with other food products it would probably really help with fighting the malnutrition in third world o r developing countries. Moreover, genetic engineering can decrease crop failure. Crop failure is a very big issue and it is said to increase due to climate changes. Because of them, price of food gets higher, some countries need to ban all the export of some products (for example Russia banning wheat export in 2010) and ometimes it even gets so bad country really suffers from famine, especially when we consider developing countries. That’s why GMOs are so tempting to scientist. They hold potential for making plants more resistant to various insects and plant diseases. Some corn produce very much food but don’t defend themselves again insects while other that are able to repel insects cannot produce this much food. Therefore, scientists hope that they can combine these to and create a corn and then other plants that repel insects while producing big amounts of food.This also results in using o plants much less chemicals in order to reduce insect and disease damage. Thes e chemicals seriously hurt our environment. Thanks to adoption of genetically engineered of corn, cotton and soybeans during years 1997 and 1998 farmers used 8. 2 million fewer pounds of chemicals. Furthermore, genetically modified organisms are also more resistant to getting overrun or choked up by weeds and other plants fighting for the same nutrients. This results in weeds dying out, leaving room for crop.This and making plants more resistant to insects and diseases makes GMO very profitable. According to some economists, in 2007 farmers made additional $10 billion due to introducing gnetic engineered plants. Yet another advantage of genetic engineering is the fact that it can help us produce new, far more effective vaccines and medicines. Also they can create another form of them- edible vaccines. The idea is to put medication into some plant’s genes and distribute it around the world so that people eat it and get what they need.Scientists have already developed a transge nic potato, that prevented rats from getting rotavirus and E. coli. Hopefully, this idea will get developed and adopted in life, because this could help serious health problems, for example in countries of the third world. To conclude, genetic engineering is a very controversial subject and it surely needs more research. But it holds great potential for fixing many issues, many of them considering developing countries and people dying of starvation. Probably, as more and more investigation is done, health problems are going to be solved.Bibliography Pictures (in order of appearance): 1. http://www. ces. ncsu. edu/resources/crops/ag546-1/helixes3. jpg; date: 8. 05. 2011; author unknown 2. ‘Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods’; Jeffrey M. Smith; publisher: Chelsea Green, 2007 3. http://www. news. cornell. edu/chronicle/99/5. 20. 99/caterpillars. JPEG; date: 8. 05. 2011; Kent Loeffler 4. http://www. anunews. net/blog/wp-content/upl oads/2010/08/aa-frankenfood-cartoon-good-one1. jpg; date: 8. 05. 2011; author unknown Books and webpages: 1. Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods’; Jeffrey M. Smith; publisher: Chelsea Green, 2007 2. ‘Seeds of deception: Exposing industry and government lies about the safety of the genetically engineered foods you’re eating’; Jeffrey M. Smith, publisher: Yes! Books, 2003 3. http://www. sciencedaily. com/releases/2010/10/101007092817. htm; reprinted from materials provided by Univeristy of Leeds, 7. 10. 2010 (date of publishing) 4. http://www. suite101. com/content/the-benefits-of-genetically-modified-food-crops-a218670; Andy Luttrel; 28. 3. 2010 (date of publishing) 5. http://www. ehow. com/list_6019041_advantages-benefits-gmo. html; Gregory Hamel; 8. 05. 2011 (date of using) 6. http://en. wikipedia. org/wiki/Genetically_modified_organism; Yobot; 6. 05. 2011 ———————⠀”——————– [ 1 ]. http://www. ces. ncsu. edu/resources/crops/ag546-1/ [ 2 ]. http://en. wikipedia. org/wiki/Genetically_modified_organism#History [ 3 ]. http://www. seedsofdeception. com/documentFiles/120. pdf [ 4 ]. http://www. suite101. com/content/the-benefits-of-genetically-modified-food-crops-a218670 Genetically Modified Organisms- a Step Ahead or a Step in the Wrong Direction? Genetically modified organisms- a step ahead or a step in the wrong direction? Paulina Langowska Genetically modified organisms, also known as GMO, are such organisms whose genetic material has been artificially changed using genetic engineering. Genetic engineering, to put it simply, is altering the DNA technology, using DNA molecules from various organisms and using this molecules to create a brand new set of genes. Then the set of genes is added to an organism’s genome. Below is shown an exchange of genes in corn, which is supposed to protect it from various insects.Genetic engineering can also change the color of the plant, make it resistant to difficult weather conditions, insects and viruses. The beginnings of genetic engineering take us back to the year 1973, when the first recombinant bacteria- a bacteria that has been genetically modified- was created. It was Escherichia coli, which from that point on became a popular lab rat used in genetic engineering. This creation led to discussions whether genetic modifications are safe and needed. The first conference when potential health risks were discussed took place in 1975.In late 1980’s in USA and Canada began an experimental usage of genetic engineered plants in a small scale. In 1990’s, after the approval for a larger scale, genetic engineering was more widely spread across the countries. From that point on, the interest in genetically modified organisms grew year by year. However, even though genetically modified organisms have gained population, the benefits of it and its harmlessness is disputable. Researches on lab pets show many harmful consequences.Some scientists decided to try and feed rats with genetic engineered potatoes. It was supposed to make them produce their own natural insecticide. But the results weren’t exactly as they were expected. Rats’ cells developed in a proliferative way and potentially cancerous cells. Also, the development of their brain and liver was inhibited and they suffered from an immune system damage. Also, another research was done in Russian Academy of Sciences. This time, female rats were fed genetically modified soy before and during pregnancy and also hile feeding their offspring. This time, the results included: * About 55% of offspring died during 3 weeks after the birth (compared to 9% of mortality among those fed with non-genetically modified soy) * Offspring was significantly smaller compared to other as well as their organs (heart, liver, kidneys, etc. ) * Both mothers and their children were very aggressive and anxious * When male and female (both form genetically modified soy fed mother) were paired, they were unable to conceive children.Although the results of this experiments are to be taken with a grain of salt, they are still alarming and disturbing due to the wide discrepancies between the GM soy fed rats and the control ones. The health damages found in rats fed with genetically modified potato es is just as much worrying. The reason rats are used for such experiments is that their morphology and biochemical structures are very similar to the human ones. That is why those experiments, as well as similar ones, provoke an essential question- is genetically modified food harmful to people.The answer to this question is very disputable. Some scientists claim that genetically modified foods are completely safe and otherwise they wouldn’t be approved. But there are numerous articles about possible harmful effects of genetically modified foods and they can’t be ignored. The main concern is allergies. Main aim of getting a new set of gene to an organism’s genome is to create a new protein and every protein is potentially triggering to allergic reactions. The problem with GM foods is that its protein are completely new and we can’t be sure about its effect.Truth be told, people (mainly in USA, where genetic engineered food is the most common) often consu me GM products without being aware of it- if you live in the USA and ate cheddar cheese in the past few years it is more than likely that you ate a genetically manipulated food, since genetic engineering is currently the most successful in cheddar cheese. Some say that genetically modified products they unwillingly consumed are to stand accused for their new allergies. Other concerns involve immunity system damage and stunted organ growth, however they are mostly seen in lab pets and are yet to be proved to occur.Another reason why genetic engineering receives so many criticism from the ethical point of view. Because if we can change genes in cheese or potatoes, what’s stopping us from changing genes in people? Scientists and psychologists are afraid that genetic engineering will become so developed that designing unborn children will happen on a daily basis. Parents will choose gender, height, hair color etc. From this point there’s not much to go to create an artific ial world, ruled by genetic engineering, looking like taken out of Huxley’s book.Futhermore, genetically modified organisms have a huge impact on our environment. One of the problems is gene flow. Gene flow is a natural occurring phenomenon that results in getting one organism’s DNA and transporting it to another one, be it from the same species or not. Some people are afraid that the engineered genes may spread and push out other, not modificated, plants. Yet another drawback is that they can be harmful to other organisms. Genetic engineering in plants such as crop is mostly focused on creating a defensive system against insects.But often, the newly created insecticide can be harmful to other, non-target organisms. Some sources agree that the existence of genetically engineered maize most commonly found in corn had a negavite impact on population of monarch butterflies living near the field, because they fed with plants dusted by the pollen from the corn maize. Both t hese phenomena’s can led to destroying natural biodiversity. So this leads us to a question: if genetic engineering has so much disadvantages, why is it still done and money is spent for researches?The truth is that even if it has many drawbacks, it still have many advantages that for some people are worth all the effort. Negative poster about GM foods One of them is that it is said to help us create food that is much more nutritious. It can be done by inserting a specific genes that are supposed to produce vitamins etc. to various crops. A well known case is inserting the gene making the vitamin A levels in rice much higher. Rice feeds currently more than 50% of the world population, but is not high in vitamins and other nutrients.Modifying it in such a way that It contains more vitamin A could help reduce deficiency resulting in blindness. If it was to be done successfully with other food products it would probably really help with fighting the malnutrition in third world o r developing countries. Moreover, genetic engineering can decrease crop failure. Crop failure is a very big issue and it is said to increase due to climate changes. Because of them, price of food gets higher, some countries need to ban all the export of some products (for example Russia banning wheat export in 2010) and ometimes it even gets so bad country really suffers from famine, especially when we consider developing countries. That’s why GMOs are so tempting to scientist. They hold potential for making plants more resistant to various insects and plant diseases. Some corn produce very much food but don’t defend themselves again insects while other that are able to repel insects cannot produce this much food. Therefore, scientists hope that they can combine these to and create a corn and then other plants that repel insects while producing big amounts of food.This also results in using o plants much less chemicals in order to reduce insect and disease damage. Thes e chemicals seriously hurt our environment. Thanks to adoption of genetically engineered of corn, cotton and soybeans during years 1997 and 1998 farmers used 8. 2 million fewer pounds of chemicals. Furthermore, genetically modified organisms are also more resistant to getting overrun or choked up by weeds and other plants fighting for the same nutrients. This results in weeds dying out, leaving room for crop.This and making plants more resistant to insects and diseases makes GMO very profitable. According to some economists, in 2007 farmers made additional $10 billion due to introducing gnetic engineered plants. Yet another advantage of genetic engineering is the fact that it can help us produce new, far more effective vaccines and medicines. Also they can create another form of them- edible vaccines. The idea is to put medication into some plant’s genes and distribute it around the world so that people eat it and get what they need.Scientists have already developed a transge nic potato, that prevented rats from getting rotavirus and E. coli. Hopefully, this idea will get developed and adopted in life, because this could help serious health problems, for example in countries of the third world. To conclude, genetic engineering is a very controversial subject and it surely needs more research. But it holds great potential for fixing many issues, many of them considering developing countries and people dying of starvation. Probably, as more and more investigation is done, health problems are going to be solved.Bibliography Pictures (in order of appearance): 1. http://www. ces. ncsu. edu/resources/crops/ag546-1/helixes3. jpg; date: 8. 05. 2011; author unknown 2. ‘Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods’; Jeffrey M. Smith; publisher: Chelsea Green, 2007 3. http://www. news. cornell. edu/chronicle/99/5. 20. 99/caterpillars. JPEG; date: 8. 05. 2011; Kent Loeffler 4. http://www. anunews. net/blog/wp-content/upl oads/2010/08/aa-frankenfood-cartoon-good-one1. jpg; date: 8. 05. 2011; author unknown Books and webpages: 1. Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods’; Jeffrey M. Smith; publisher: Chelsea Green, 2007 2. ‘Seeds of deception: Exposing industry and government lies about the safety of the genetically engineered foods you’re eating’; Jeffrey M. Smith, publisher: Yes! Books, 2003 3. http://www. sciencedaily. com/releases/2010/10/101007092817. htm; reprinted from materials provided by Univeristy of Leeds, 7. 10. 2010 (date of publishing) 4. http://www. suite101. com/content/the-benefits-of-genetically-modified-food-crops-a218670; Andy Luttrel; 28. 3. 2010 (date of publishing) 5. http://www. ehow. com/list_6019041_advantages-benefits-gmo. html; Gregory Hamel; 8. 05. 2011 (date of using) 6. http://en. wikipedia. org/wiki/Genetically_modified_organism; Yobot; 6. 05. 2011 ———————⠀”——————– [ 1 ]. http://www. ces. ncsu. edu/resources/crops/ag546-1/ [ 2 ]. http://en. wikipedia. org/wiki/Genetically_modified_organism#History [ 3 ]. http://www. seedsofdeception. com/documentFiles/120. pdf [ 4 ]. http://www. suite101. com/content/the-benefits-of-genetically-modified-food-crops-a218670