http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/10/101001105205.htm
October 2, 2010
A study done by researchers a Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory come up with a strategy to try and counter act global warming by genetically engineering trees. This process could not only increase the plants efficiency to absorb light, but also alter the plants so that they send more carbon to their roots. This could also alter the plants so that they are better able to withstand “stresses of growing on marginal land”
This article shows bias because it emphasized global warming. It also states that, genetically engineered plants is the one of the only ways to boost carbon sequestration. The article does not present the potential negative effects of genetically engineered plants or the other options.
This article applies to: II-B: energy flow, IV- A: agriculture, B: forestry, VII- B: Global Warming.
Julie Wegmann period 7
I think that the idea of genetically plants and trees could be a good one. If plants could be grown to absorb more sunlight and carbon dioxide, it would be beneficial to all life on Earth. If they could be grown to produce more oxygen, or grown to increase food storages, it would be even better.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure if this is a good idea, as all things in nature were made to balance themselves out. As humans, our role is to take part in that cycle, not to manipulate it. I saw some clear bias in this article in that they never mentioned the potentially negative effects of genetic engineering.
ReplyDeleteCharles Elmer 7th
I do not think that it is a good idea to genetically engineer trees to help with global warming. Although global warming is detrimental to the environment, it should not be solved by changing the chemical and genetic make up of plants. The problem should be solved by preventing pollution, and it should not be solved by changing how trees function and react to global warming.
ReplyDeleteMore harm than benefit would come out of genetically engineering trees. Nature is intricately connected, and humans already alter it enough. Intentionally manipulating tree's genetic make-up is going a step further in the wrong direction, even if it is with good intentions. Nature needs to be tempered with as little as possible in order to help the climate issues.
ReplyDeleteI think that this would be a good idea if these trees could be kept in control because it would reduce the levels of carbon dioxide in the air. However, it sounds like more sun and carbon dioxide absorption would make the trees grow faster and be more durable, so it sounds like this could cause them to take over other preexisting plants which would be a negative effect.
ReplyDeleteI think at first this could be a good idea, however, I think it could also end up with more negative effects than positive. Global warming first started with pollution caused by humans and other ways we keep changing nature and its original system. I think if we create genetically engineered plants it would only cause many other problems. This also shows the biased this article has. It gives no examples of negative effects of the genetic engineering, and it gives no other possible ways to counter global warming.
ReplyDeleteMax Hutson
I think that this article was bias because it did not mention any of the negative effects that genetically engineered plants could have. Everything has good and bad effects, and it is very important to consider both sets of effects when evaluating something in the environment. For example, what d these types of plants do to the soil? Nature was doing just fine before humans came a long, it is important that humans help reverse the damage that they have done and help return nature to its original state so it can go back to being ok. If we start to genetically alter plants, than we are only further changing nature, and it might have grim unforeseen consequences.
ReplyDeleteI think this would be a good idea to improve our ecosystem. As Charles said, it is indeed man kind's role to just take part in the cycle of life and matter, but maybe the role we are meant to take is to manipulate earth's variables. Manipulation is inevitable, especially negative and unintentional. Therefor it is actually our duty to manipulate nature, such as mutating and engineering the trees, so that we can help restore the balance and negate the negativity we have created.
ReplyDeleteI believe that it is a good idea people are trying to find help the world from global warming but this isn't the way to do it. Instead of messing with the earths natural process and engineering and creating a new one, I think we should find ways to not pollute the earth and cause global warming- which is making us have this problem in the first place. If we do create genetically engineered trees, there could be some negative effects and hurt our earth even more than we are each day. This article shows the positive effects of this proposal, but it doesn't tell the negative, making this very article bias.
ReplyDeleteThis sounds like a good idea when hearing all the positive effects of the idea. However, the writer doesn't present other issues that could result from genetically altering the trees. Many animals have adapted to certain trees, and if they were different, it could endanger a species. I see the writer as being biased in favor of the experiment.
ReplyDeleteThis article seems very biased towards genetically modifying the plants. It doesn't detail the ethical implications of genetic modification or the possible problems that could result (mutant plants). This seems like another case of humans trying to fix nature with technology, which almost always backfires.
ReplyDelete