"
Team:Harvard/human practices/debate
From 2010.igem.org
| Line 22: | Line 22: | ||
</div> | </div> | ||
| - | <div id="tabs"> | + | <div id="tabs" style="width:600px"> |
<ul> | <ul> | ||
| - | <style>li{width: | + | <style>li{width:150px};</style> |
<li><a href="#intro"><span>intro</span></a></li> | <li><a href="#intro"><span>intro</span></a></li> | ||
<li><a href="#procon"><span>pro vs con</span></a></li> | <li><a href="#procon"><span>pro vs con</span></a></li> | ||
Revision as of 23:49, 21 July 2010
human practices background our vision the iGarden kit virtual iGarden opinion poll recycling references
the debate
debate in brief
Mauris mauris ante, blandit et, ultrices a, suscipit eget, quam. Integer ut neque. Vivamus nisi metus, molestie vel, gravida in, condimentum sit amet, nunc. Nam a nibh. Donec suscipit eros. Nam mi. Proin viverra leo ut odio. Curabitur malesuada. Vestibulum a velit eu ante scelerisque vulputate.
media
Sed non urna. Donec et ante. Phasellus eu ligula. Vestibulum sit amet purus. Vivamus hendrerit, dolor at aliquet laoreet, mauris turpis porttitor velit, faucibus interdum tellus libero ac justo. Vivamus non quam. In suscipit faucibus urna.
science
Nam enim risus, molestie et, porta ac, aliquam ac, risus. Quisque lobortis. Phasellus pellentesque purus in massa. Aenean in pede. Phasellus ac libero ac tellus pellentesque semper. Sed ac felis. Sed commodo, magna quis lacinia ornare, quam ante aliquam nisi, eu iaculis leo purus venenatis dui.
- List item one
- List item two
- List item three
consumer choice
Cras dictum. Pellentesque habitant morbi tristique senectus et netus et malesuada fames ac turpis egestas. Vestibulum ante ipsum primis in faucibus orci luctus et ultrices posuere cubilia Curae; Aenean lacinia mauris vel est.
Suspendisse eu nisl. Nullam ut libero. Integer dignissim consequat lectus. Class aptent taciti sociosqu ad litora torquent per conubia nostra, per inceptos himenaeos.
activism
Cras dictum. Pellentesque habitant morbi tristique senectus et netus et malesuada fames ac turpis egestas. Vestibulum ante ipsum primis in faucibus orci luctus et ultrices posuere cubilia Curae; Aenean lacinia mauris vel est.
Suspendisse eu nisl. Nullam ut libero. Integer dignissim consequat lectus. Class aptent taciti sociosqu ad litora torquent per conubia nostra, per inceptos himenaeos.
business
Cras dictum. Pellentesque habitant morbi tristique senectus et netus et malesuada fames ac turpis egestas. Vestibulum ante ipsum primis in faucibus orci luctus et ultrices posuere cubilia Curae; Aenean lacinia mauris vel est.
Suspendisse eu nisl. Nullam ut libero. Integer dignissim consequat lectus. Class aptent taciti sociosqu ad litora torquent per conubia nostra, per inceptos himenaeos.
policy
Cras dictum. Pellentesque habitant morbi tristique senectus et netus et malesuada fames ac turpis egestas. Vestibulum ante ipsum primis in faucibus orci luctus et ultrices posuere cubilia Curae; Aenean lacinia mauris vel est.
Suspendisse eu nisl. Nullam ut libero. Integer dignissim consequat lectus. Class aptent taciti sociosqu ad litora torquent per conubia nostra, per inceptos himenaeos.
Along with environmental activism, food awareness has recently come to prominence. Books such as The Omnivore's Dilemma by Michael Pollan and movies such as Food, Inc. call upon the public to take greater ownership over what we consume. One of the major issues in food awareness that sometimes slips under the radar is that of genetically modified foods. The main argument for creating and growing genetically modified crops is the great potential they have as solutions for such problems such as world hunger, nutrient deficiency, resource managment, and pesticide avoidance. Despite this high potential, it is important to be wary of progress and stress safety in any creation of a new entity. Among the opponents of genetic modification of crops, many of the arguments revolve around wariness of the risks of gmo's. Below, we've outlined some of the major arguments made against the safety of gmo's, and the rebuttals made by the GE community.
