Jim 1 | 4
Aug 14, 2006 | #1
It seems credit card fraud is on the rise. I've just been informed I won't be paid for the example paper I completed because the client has used a stolen credit card. After personal investigation I found out the fraud lives in the Carol Stream, Illinois area and is enrolled in DEVRY University program (devry.edu).
I have already contacted the school; I hope this fraud will be tracked down and will use his/her skills to do something more useful than stealing other people's credit cards.
Class name: Rhetoric
Subject: Anything it is an open topic
Due Date:07/25/06
Instructions:
10 sources (only three general news sources such as newspaper and news magazines such as Time, Newsweek, etc. are allowed; only three websites are allowed. The remaining sources must be from "scholarly" sources , ie journals, electronic databases, etc. Take any topic of your choosing, pick a side and then convince me you are right. use good, autrhoritave sources to back up your main points and your argument as a whole. if you choose a topic that is commonly written ab out, make sure you show a fresh viewpoint or apply an interesting slant in order to keep the reader's interest. try to make your argument flow in a smooth, natural way from the introduction, to each major point and then to the conclusion. concentrate on making good transitions from paragraph to paragraph. pay close attention to word selection/usage. grammar and spelling mistakes are not allowed; it is time to take your writing/editing to as close to a professioinal level as you can manage.
-------------- PAPER -------------
Ideally, the debate over whether or not to allow the widespread use of genetically modified products would take the form of a scientific cost-benefit analysis, in which the expected gains were weighed against the potential risks. In such a scenario, one would imagine that genetically modified products would then be divided into three categories: those whose proposed benefits clearly outweigh their possible dangers; those whose possible dangers clearly outweigh their proposed benefits; and those whose dangers and benefits are too closely matched to make a final determination based on anything more than guesswork. Unfortunately, the debate has too often strayed away from hard science into ideological certitude and emotional rhetoric: "At the one extreme is self-righteous panic, and at the other, smug optimism" (Ellestrand, xi). The companies that stand to profit from genetically modified products understandably wish to understate the risks those products might pose to the environment, while environmental groups all too often call for a blanket moratorium on genetic engineering regardless of the benefits particular products have to offer. A closer, more balanced look at the arguments, however, shows reason to be cautiously optimistic about genetic engineering.
Before examining some of the risks and benefits of genetic engineering, one must first deal with the more metaphysical objections to it. The first of these takes the form of what might well be termed nature-worship, the idea that nature is somehow sacred, and not to be meddled with on any account. Sierra Club activist Wendell Berry provides us with one example of this line of thought : "For quite a while it has been possible for a free and thoughtful person to see that to treat life as mechanical or predictable or understandable is to reduce it. Now, almost suddenly, it is becoming clear that to reduce life to the scope of our understanding (whatever 'model' we use) is inevitably to enslave it, make property of it, and put it up for sale" (Berry, 11). The use of what Ayn Rand termed "the Argument from Intimidation" is noticeable here: "The essential characteristic of the Argument from Intimidation is its appeal to moral self-doubt and its reliance on the fear, guilt or ignorance of the victim. It is used in the form of an ultimatum demanding that the victim renounce a given idea without discussion, under threat of being considered morally unworthy" (Rand, 119). In this case, anyone who disagrees with the author by daring to believe that life is "mechanical or predictable or understandable" is clearly enslaved and thoughtless, or so Berry implies. Childish use of rhetoric aside, this argument is notable for its philosophical implications. Unlike some environmentalists who argue that we cannot predict and understand life, Berry seems to think that we can, but that we should not, because doing so somehow "reduces it," though what exactly he means by that is unclear (its value to him? its mystery? its meaning?) Humanity's attempts to understand the world, including the living world, are encapsulated under the term 'science'. If we should not seek understanding of life, then we should presumably back away from science, from knowledge, from technology, from everything that forms the basis of modern civilization. Once the full implications of this point of view are exposed, it finds, fortunately, few adherents.
A second, related objection to genetic engineering could be termed the argument from ignorance: "I am aware how brash this commentary will probably seem, coming from me, who has no competence or learning in science. The issue I am dealing with, however, is not knowledge, but ignorance. In ignorance I believe I may pronounce myself an expert" (Berry, 12). In one sense, this is a stunning indictment of both Berry and the environmental movement that would publish him. However, it ties into a more serious challenge to GM -- the precautionary principle. The precautionary principle states that no new technology should be implemented without first having been thoroughly tested and examined to determine possible side-effects. However, the scientists capable of making this determination are members of a privileged group with specialized knowledge not easily acquired or verified by the rest of us. Thus, if society subscribes to both the precautionary principle and to the distrust of authority often manifested by environmental protest groups, it will quickly reduced to the state where it is held hostage to the fears of self-proclaimed "experts of ignorance".
A third objection commonly raised by protest groups to biotechnology is its ties to capitalism. "Known as the 'Life Industry,' biotechnology, by its very nature, controls and diminishes the richness, diversity, and inherent creativity of processes larger than our commerce" (Desser, 17). Without launching into a full-fledged defense of capitalism, it is possible to nevertheless look askance at the sort of comments this attitude generates: "The economic success of the 'Gene Giants,' Monsanto, Novartis, DuPont, and others, depends upon control of nature and people . . . by patenting life for their exclusive use and gain" (Desser, 17). This is written in a tone of moral condemnation, which is in and of itself odd. The economic success of any business or individual depends upon both nature and people being tightly controlled by government and technology. The alternative is anarchy, which I presume is not what Desser intends to advocate. As for the patenting of life, he surely means that the companies patent certain forms of life, not life in general. Since these forms of life are artificial, and unlikely to arise spontaneously in nature, it is difficult to see what objection he could have to the patenting of them by the companies that created them. Possibly he objects to the idea of the patent system in general, but that system has worked so well in the West for so long that few people would share his discomfort with it.
Regardless of how vague and ill-defined Desser's ideas are, it is still worth noting that many opponents of genetic engineering employ the rhetoric of socialism, railing against the entrenched system of established interests, those with "economic success," and "control," who act for their "exclusive gain." A similar theme emerges in issues of BioDemocracy News: "In reality, through their business practices and political lobbying, the gene engineers have made it clear that they intend to use GE to dominate and monopolize the global market for seeds, foods, fiber, and medical products." Such rants substitute ideological passion for reasoned arguments. That big corporations make money off of genetically engineered products by selling them to willing buyers is not in and of itself a good reason to oppose said products. There may be valid scientific or moral objections against GMOs, but, no such objections are raised in many of environmentalist screeds, and it is worth deflating the rhetoric and cooling the emotional temperature of the debate before examining the science behind genetic engineering.
So what do scientists have to say about transgenic crops? The consensus is that the risks presented by such crops are both predictable and manageable. The goal is not to establish that a particular crop is 100% safe: "It is never possible to establish that releasing a transgenic plant will involve no risk. All of the activities people are involved in pose a degree of risk, no matter what kind of precautions are taken. The essential feature of risk assessment is to determine how the transgenes might alter risk compared with the non-transgenic crop" (Dale, 54). Research tends to show that the presence of transgenes in an organism, in and of itself, has virtually no effect on the level of risk that organism presents to its environment. As Ellestrand points out: "In itself the methodology of genetic engineering is 'special' only in that it has the potential to generate genetic combinations that are difficult or impossible to create by traditional breeding techniques" (Ellestrand, 172). Each genetic combination, regardless of how it is produced, must be evaluated based on its own unique properties. This view is echoed by other scientists: "the safety of any product, whether biological, chemical, or physical, is defined by its behavior, or properties, and not by its method of production" (Powell, 111). Because genetic engineering allows for more genetic combinations than traditional breeding, one would expect to find an elevated overall level of environmental risk for GMOs. However, each new variety should be judged individually, and many such varieties will be found to pose a level of risk less than or equal to that of traditional ones.
Scientific evidence does not bear out the environmentalists' worries that genetically-modified organism will present a dangerously higher level of risk to the environment than normal varieties. Nevertheless, the environmentalists' targeting of Monsanto and its ilk makes a certain amount of sense. Monsanto is a large corporation whose crops, often meant for human consumption, are frequently altered only to have increased resistance to specific chemicals, which provides only indirect benefits to the end consumer. However, prohibiting all genetically engineered products because the most widely used ones are of dubious benefit would be akin to shutting down the Internet because the most common websites - pr0nographic ones - are of doubtful social benefit. The full potential of genetic engineering is limited only by the boundaries of the human imagination. Often the purpose of a GMO is to solve a social ill, often in a more environmentally friendly way than any of the alternatives.
In one case, genetic engineering is being used to directly address environmental concerns. Pig manure from hog farms presents a major source of the pollutant phosphate, such that "concentrations of manure rank 'among the greatest threats to our nation's waters and drinking water supplies'" (Vestal). To solve this problem, Canadian scientists have now designed what they call "Enviropigs," hogs that "have been modified so that their manure contains up to 75 percent less phosphorus than the average swine" (Vestal). One might have expected green groups to embrace this development, but not so: "'Enviropigs,' represent a unique dilemma for environmentalists. Major green environmental organizations are virtually unanimous in the view that genetically-modified products should be banned. But the Enviropigs address a major environmental problem -- one those same groups have been fighting for years" (Vestel). Producing less phosphorous is hardly an adaptive trait. It seems unlike that such pigs would have an advantage over their wild relatives, should they accidentally escape in an area where wild pigs still exist. Nevertheless, environmental groups have protested the new pigs: "'This is just another quick fix,' says Laurel Hopwood, chair of Sierra Club's genetic engineering committee. 'The way to reconcile [the problem] is to stop factory farming'" (Vestel). Note that no scientific objection is presented. Instead, Hopwood presents a policy alternative that is blatantly unrealistic.
Another pressing social problem that biotechnology might help solve is the spread of malaria in many parts of the globe. The main vector for malaria is the mosquito. Scientists have recently genetically altered mosquitoes through a process whereby "the team added a gene that makes the testicles of the male mosquitoes fluorescent, allowing the scientists to distinguish and easily separate them from females. The plan is to breed, sterilise and release millions of these male insects so they mate with wild females but produce no offspring, eradicating insects in the target region within weeks" (Adam). This is a more environmentally sound way of attacking the mosquito population than traditional alternatives, because "unlike insecticides, sterile males target only the species you want to attack" (Adam). This new approach is desperately needed: "[Malaria] infects up to 500 million people each year, and kills an estimated 2.7 million people" (Adam). Since environmental groups are responsible for most of these deaths, which have occurred, and which continue to occur, largely because of the world-wide ban on DDT, one can only hope that they will embrace this pesticide-free solution to saving lives.
As a final example of what genetic engineering can accomplish, consider "genetically engineered salt-tolerant plants [that] actually remove salt from the soil. And because their salt-storing activity occurs only in the plants' leaves, the quality of the tomato fruit is maintained" (Bailey). Salinity is a major source of the diminishing amount of arable land in the world: "Worldwide an estimated 24.7 million acres (10 million hectares) -- about one-fifth the area of California -- of once agriculturally productive land are being lost annually because of irrigation-induced salinity, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture." (Bailey). Moreover, one of the major causes of deforestation in the developing world is the clear-cutting of land by people who need it for farm land because their old homesteads are no longer arable. Thus, these tomatoes not only promise to increase the amount of arable land in the world, but also to help fight an on-going environmental disaster long lamented by green groups.
Clearly, then, GM products can be used for a wide range of purposes. They can increase crop yields, fight pollution, control epidemics, or reclaim farmland. Do risks exists? Yes. Gene flow might alter in undesirable ways wild species growing near transgenic crops. Genetically-engineered animals might escape into the wild and disrupt native ecosystems. However, these are risks that humans have always faced when dealing with living organisms, even those produced by traditional breeding techniques. While common sense precautions should be taken, humanity should nevertheless move swiftly to embrace the benefits of the genetic revolution.
Works Cited
Adam, David. "Scientists create GM mosquitoes to fight malaria and save thousands of lives." Guardian Unlmited.
Bailey, Patricia. "Genetically engineered tomato plant grows in salty water."
Berry, Wendell. "Thy Life's A Miracle." Made Not Born: The Troubling World of Biotechnology. Ed. Cassey Walker. San Francisco: Sierra Club Books, 2000. 8-15
Cummins, Ronnie and Lilliston, Ben. "Hazards of Genetically Engineered Foods and Crops: Why We Need A Global Moratorium" BioDemocracy News, August 24, 1999.
Dale, Philip J. and Kanderler, Julian. "Safety in the Contained Use and the Environmental Release of Transgenic Crop Plants." Genetically Modified Organisms. Ed. George Tzotzos, Wallingford: CAB International, 1995. 36-63
Desser, Chris. "Unnatural Choice or Bad Selection." Made Not Born: The Troubling World of Biotechnology. Ed. Cassey Walker. San Francisco: Sierra Club Books, 2000. 16-26
Ellstrand, Norman Carl. Dangerous Liaisons? Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2003.
Powell, Don. "Safety in the Contained Use and Release of Transgenic Animals and Recombinant Proteins." Genetically Modified Organisms. Ed. George Tzotzos, Wallingford: CAB International, 1995. 110-146
Rand, Ayn. The Virtue of Selfishness. New York: Signet Books, 1964
Vestel, Leora Broydo. "The Next Pig Thing." Mother Jones.
I have already contacted the school; I hope this fraud will be tracked down and will use his/her skills to do something more useful than stealing other people's credit cards.
GMO PRODUCTS
Class name: Rhetoric
Subject: Anything it is an open topic
Due Date:07/25/06
Instructions:
10 sources (only three general news sources such as newspaper and news magazines such as Time, Newsweek, etc. are allowed; only three websites are allowed. The remaining sources must be from "scholarly" sources , ie journals, electronic databases, etc. Take any topic of your choosing, pick a side and then convince me you are right. use good, autrhoritave sources to back up your main points and your argument as a whole. if you choose a topic that is commonly written ab out, make sure you show a fresh viewpoint or apply an interesting slant in order to keep the reader's interest. try to make your argument flow in a smooth, natural way from the introduction, to each major point and then to the conclusion. concentrate on making good transitions from paragraph to paragraph. pay close attention to word selection/usage. grammar and spelling mistakes are not allowed; it is time to take your writing/editing to as close to a professioinal level as you can manage.-------------- PAPER -------------
Ideally, the debate over whether or not to allow the widespread use of genetically modified products would take the form of a scientific cost-benefit analysis, in which the expected gains were weighed against the potential risks. In such a scenario, one would imagine that genetically modified products would then be divided into three categories: those whose proposed benefits clearly outweigh their possible dangers; those whose possible dangers clearly outweigh their proposed benefits; and those whose dangers and benefits are too closely matched to make a final determination based on anything more than guesswork. Unfortunately, the debate has too often strayed away from hard science into ideological certitude and emotional rhetoric: "At the one extreme is self-righteous panic, and at the other, smug optimism" (Ellestrand, xi). The companies that stand to profit from genetically modified products understandably wish to understate the risks those products might pose to the environment, while environmental groups all too often call for a blanket moratorium on genetic engineering regardless of the benefits particular products have to offer. A closer, more balanced look at the arguments, however, shows reason to be cautiously optimistic about genetic engineering.
Before examining some of the risks and benefits of genetic engineering, one must first deal with the more metaphysical objections to it. The first of these takes the form of what might well be termed nature-worship, the idea that nature is somehow sacred, and not to be meddled with on any account. Sierra Club activist Wendell Berry provides us with one example of this line of thought : "For quite a while it has been possible for a free and thoughtful person to see that to treat life as mechanical or predictable or understandable is to reduce it. Now, almost suddenly, it is becoming clear that to reduce life to the scope of our understanding (whatever 'model' we use) is inevitably to enslave it, make property of it, and put it up for sale" (Berry, 11). The use of what Ayn Rand termed "the Argument from Intimidation" is noticeable here: "The essential characteristic of the Argument from Intimidation is its appeal to moral self-doubt and its reliance on the fear, guilt or ignorance of the victim. It is used in the form of an ultimatum demanding that the victim renounce a given idea without discussion, under threat of being considered morally unworthy" (Rand, 119). In this case, anyone who disagrees with the author by daring to believe that life is "mechanical or predictable or understandable" is clearly enslaved and thoughtless, or so Berry implies. Childish use of rhetoric aside, this argument is notable for its philosophical implications. Unlike some environmentalists who argue that we cannot predict and understand life, Berry seems to think that we can, but that we should not, because doing so somehow "reduces it," though what exactly he means by that is unclear (its value to him? its mystery? its meaning?) Humanity's attempts to understand the world, including the living world, are encapsulated under the term 'science'. If we should not seek understanding of life, then we should presumably back away from science, from knowledge, from technology, from everything that forms the basis of modern civilization. Once the full implications of this point of view are exposed, it finds, fortunately, few adherents.
A second, related objection to genetic engineering could be termed the argument from ignorance: "I am aware how brash this commentary will probably seem, coming from me, who has no competence or learning in science. The issue I am dealing with, however, is not knowledge, but ignorance. In ignorance I believe I may pronounce myself an expert" (Berry, 12). In one sense, this is a stunning indictment of both Berry and the environmental movement that would publish him. However, it ties into a more serious challenge to GM -- the precautionary principle. The precautionary principle states that no new technology should be implemented without first having been thoroughly tested and examined to determine possible side-effects. However, the scientists capable of making this determination are members of a privileged group with specialized knowledge not easily acquired or verified by the rest of us. Thus, if society subscribes to both the precautionary principle and to the distrust of authority often manifested by environmental protest groups, it will quickly reduced to the state where it is held hostage to the fears of self-proclaimed "experts of ignorance".
A third objection commonly raised by protest groups to biotechnology is its ties to capitalism. "Known as the 'Life Industry,' biotechnology, by its very nature, controls and diminishes the richness, diversity, and inherent creativity of processes larger than our commerce" (Desser, 17). Without launching into a full-fledged defense of capitalism, it is possible to nevertheless look askance at the sort of comments this attitude generates: "The economic success of the 'Gene Giants,' Monsanto, Novartis, DuPont, and others, depends upon control of nature and people . . . by patenting life for their exclusive use and gain" (Desser, 17). This is written in a tone of moral condemnation, which is in and of itself odd. The economic success of any business or individual depends upon both nature and people being tightly controlled by government and technology. The alternative is anarchy, which I presume is not what Desser intends to advocate. As for the patenting of life, he surely means that the companies patent certain forms of life, not life in general. Since these forms of life are artificial, and unlikely to arise spontaneously in nature, it is difficult to see what objection he could have to the patenting of them by the companies that created them. Possibly he objects to the idea of the patent system in general, but that system has worked so well in the West for so long that few people would share his discomfort with it.
Regardless of how vague and ill-defined Desser's ideas are, it is still worth noting that many opponents of genetic engineering employ the rhetoric of socialism, railing against the entrenched system of established interests, those with "economic success," and "control," who act for their "exclusive gain." A similar theme emerges in issues of BioDemocracy News: "In reality, through their business practices and political lobbying, the gene engineers have made it clear that they intend to use GE to dominate and monopolize the global market for seeds, foods, fiber, and medical products." Such rants substitute ideological passion for reasoned arguments. That big corporations make money off of genetically engineered products by selling them to willing buyers is not in and of itself a good reason to oppose said products. There may be valid scientific or moral objections against GMOs, but, no such objections are raised in many of environmentalist screeds, and it is worth deflating the rhetoric and cooling the emotional temperature of the debate before examining the science behind genetic engineering.
So what do scientists have to say about transgenic crops? The consensus is that the risks presented by such crops are both predictable and manageable. The goal is not to establish that a particular crop is 100% safe: "It is never possible to establish that releasing a transgenic plant will involve no risk. All of the activities people are involved in pose a degree of risk, no matter what kind of precautions are taken. The essential feature of risk assessment is to determine how the transgenes might alter risk compared with the non-transgenic crop" (Dale, 54). Research tends to show that the presence of transgenes in an organism, in and of itself, has virtually no effect on the level of risk that organism presents to its environment. As Ellestrand points out: "In itself the methodology of genetic engineering is 'special' only in that it has the potential to generate genetic combinations that are difficult or impossible to create by traditional breeding techniques" (Ellestrand, 172). Each genetic combination, regardless of how it is produced, must be evaluated based on its own unique properties. This view is echoed by other scientists: "the safety of any product, whether biological, chemical, or physical, is defined by its behavior, or properties, and not by its method of production" (Powell, 111). Because genetic engineering allows for more genetic combinations than traditional breeding, one would expect to find an elevated overall level of environmental risk for GMOs. However, each new variety should be judged individually, and many such varieties will be found to pose a level of risk less than or equal to that of traditional ones.
Scientific evidence does not bear out the environmentalists' worries that genetically-modified organism will present a dangerously higher level of risk to the environment than normal varieties. Nevertheless, the environmentalists' targeting of Monsanto and its ilk makes a certain amount of sense. Monsanto is a large corporation whose crops, often meant for human consumption, are frequently altered only to have increased resistance to specific chemicals, which provides only indirect benefits to the end consumer. However, prohibiting all genetically engineered products because the most widely used ones are of dubious benefit would be akin to shutting down the Internet because the most common websites - pr0nographic ones - are of doubtful social benefit. The full potential of genetic engineering is limited only by the boundaries of the human imagination. Often the purpose of a GMO is to solve a social ill, often in a more environmentally friendly way than any of the alternatives.
In one case, genetic engineering is being used to directly address environmental concerns. Pig manure from hog farms presents a major source of the pollutant phosphate, such that "concentrations of manure rank 'among the greatest threats to our nation's waters and drinking water supplies'" (Vestal). To solve this problem, Canadian scientists have now designed what they call "Enviropigs," hogs that "have been modified so that their manure contains up to 75 percent less phosphorus than the average swine" (Vestal). One might have expected green groups to embrace this development, but not so: "'Enviropigs,' represent a unique dilemma for environmentalists. Major green environmental organizations are virtually unanimous in the view that genetically-modified products should be banned. But the Enviropigs address a major environmental problem -- one those same groups have been fighting for years" (Vestel). Producing less phosphorous is hardly an adaptive trait. It seems unlike that such pigs would have an advantage over their wild relatives, should they accidentally escape in an area where wild pigs still exist. Nevertheless, environmental groups have protested the new pigs: "'This is just another quick fix,' says Laurel Hopwood, chair of Sierra Club's genetic engineering committee. 'The way to reconcile [the problem] is to stop factory farming'" (Vestel). Note that no scientific objection is presented. Instead, Hopwood presents a policy alternative that is blatantly unrealistic.
Another pressing social problem that biotechnology might help solve is the spread of malaria in many parts of the globe. The main vector for malaria is the mosquito. Scientists have recently genetically altered mosquitoes through a process whereby "the team added a gene that makes the testicles of the male mosquitoes fluorescent, allowing the scientists to distinguish and easily separate them from females. The plan is to breed, sterilise and release millions of these male insects so they mate with wild females but produce no offspring, eradicating insects in the target region within weeks" (Adam). This is a more environmentally sound way of attacking the mosquito population than traditional alternatives, because "unlike insecticides, sterile males target only the species you want to attack" (Adam). This new approach is desperately needed: "[Malaria] infects up to 500 million people each year, and kills an estimated 2.7 million people" (Adam). Since environmental groups are responsible for most of these deaths, which have occurred, and which continue to occur, largely because of the world-wide ban on DDT, one can only hope that they will embrace this pesticide-free solution to saving lives.
As a final example of what genetic engineering can accomplish, consider "genetically engineered salt-tolerant plants [that] actually remove salt from the soil. And because their salt-storing activity occurs only in the plants' leaves, the quality of the tomato fruit is maintained" (Bailey). Salinity is a major source of the diminishing amount of arable land in the world: "Worldwide an estimated 24.7 million acres (10 million hectares) -- about one-fifth the area of California -- of once agriculturally productive land are being lost annually because of irrigation-induced salinity, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture." (Bailey). Moreover, one of the major causes of deforestation in the developing world is the clear-cutting of land by people who need it for farm land because their old homesteads are no longer arable. Thus, these tomatoes not only promise to increase the amount of arable land in the world, but also to help fight an on-going environmental disaster long lamented by green groups.
Clearly, then, GM products can be used for a wide range of purposes. They can increase crop yields, fight pollution, control epidemics, or reclaim farmland. Do risks exists? Yes. Gene flow might alter in undesirable ways wild species growing near transgenic crops. Genetically-engineered animals might escape into the wild and disrupt native ecosystems. However, these are risks that humans have always faced when dealing with living organisms, even those produced by traditional breeding techniques. While common sense precautions should be taken, humanity should nevertheless move swiftly to embrace the benefits of the genetic revolution.
Works Cited
Adam, David. "Scientists create GM mosquitoes to fight malaria and save thousands of lives." Guardian Unlmited.
Bailey, Patricia. "Genetically engineered tomato plant grows in salty water."
Berry, Wendell. "Thy Life's A Miracle." Made Not Born: The Troubling World of Biotechnology. Ed. Cassey Walker. San Francisco: Sierra Club Books, 2000. 8-15
Cummins, Ronnie and Lilliston, Ben. "Hazards of Genetically Engineered Foods and Crops: Why We Need A Global Moratorium" BioDemocracy News, August 24, 1999.
Dale, Philip J. and Kanderler, Julian. "Safety in the Contained Use and the Environmental Release of Transgenic Crop Plants." Genetically Modified Organisms. Ed. George Tzotzos, Wallingford: CAB International, 1995. 36-63
Desser, Chris. "Unnatural Choice or Bad Selection." Made Not Born: The Troubling World of Biotechnology. Ed. Cassey Walker. San Francisco: Sierra Club Books, 2000. 16-26
Ellstrand, Norman Carl. Dangerous Liaisons? Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2003.
Powell, Don. "Safety in the Contained Use and Release of Transgenic Animals and Recombinant Proteins." Genetically Modified Organisms. Ed. George Tzotzos, Wallingford: CAB International, 1995. 110-146
Rand, Ayn. The Virtue of Selfishness. New York: Signet Books, 1964
Vestel, Leora Broydo. "The Next Pig Thing." Mother Jones.