User:Lijian Zhang/sandbox
 | This is a user sandbox of Lijian Zhang. You can use it for testing or practicing edits. This is not the sandbox where you should draft your assigned article for a dashboard.wikiedu.org course. To find the right sandbox for your assignment, visit your Dashboard course page and follow the Sandbox Draft link for your assigned article in the My Articles section. |
Original Article: Ice-minus-bacteria
Edit the parts of economic importance and controversy
Adding new references corresponding to the part added in above editting
Economic importance
[edit]
In the United States alone, it has been estimated that frost accounts for approximately $1 billion in crop damage each year.[citation needed] As P. syringae commonly inhabits plant surfaces, its ice nucleating nature incites frost development, freezing the buds of the plant and destroying the occurring crop. The introduction of an ice-minus strain of P. syringae to the surface of plants would incur competition between the strains. Should the ice-minus strain win out, the ice nucleate provided by P. syringae would no longer be present, lowering the level of frost development on plant surfaces at normal water freezing temperature – 0 °C (32 °F). Even if the ice-minus strain does not win out, the amount of ice nucleate present from ice-plus P. syringae would be reduced due to competition. Decreased levels of frost generation at normal water freezing temperature would translate into a lowered quantity of crops lost due to frost damage, rendering higher crop yields overall.
Besides agriculture, Ice-minus bacteria plays its role in rain-making and climate changes. As explained earlier there is enough evidence that P.syringae is having more ability to cause rain by precipitation (David sands,1982). Studies by meteorologists and plant pathologists are proving that the bacterium plays a crucial role in the formation of all forms of precipitation like raindrops, hailstones and snow. More studies in this bacterium as a rain-making element may give as a better chance to know more about its role in life cycle.
Controversy
[edit]At the time of Lindow's work on ice-minus P. syringae, genetic engineering was considered to be very controversial. Jeremy Rifkin and his Foundation on Economic Trends (FET) sued the NIH in federal court to delay the field trials, arguing that NIH had failed to conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment and had failed to explore the possible effects "Ice-minus" bacteria might have on ecosystems and even global weather patterns.[1][2] Once approval was granted, both test fields were attacked by activist groups the night before the tests occurred: "The world's first trial site attracted the world's first field trasher".[3] The BBC quoted Andy Caffrey from Earth First!: "When I first heard that a company in Berkley was planning to release these bacteria Frostban in my community, I literally felt a knife go into me. Here once again, for a buck, science, technology and corporations were going to invade my body with new bacteria that hadn't existed on the planet before. It had already been invaded by smog, by radiation, by toxic chemicals in my food, and I just wasn't going to take it anymore."[3]
Rifkin's successful legal challenge forced the Reagan Administration to more quickly develop an overarching regulatory policy to guide federal decision-making about agricultural biotechnology. In 1986, the Office of Science and Technology Policy issued the Coordinated Framework for Regulation of Biotechnology, which continues to govern US regulatory decisions.[1]
The controversy drove many biotech companies away from use of genetically engineering microorganisms in agriculture.[4]
Unlike scientists, normal people usually hold negative views regarding technologies that have been used in very recent days. "Breeding a better ketchup: Tomato tinkerers plan gene-altered condiments", "They're fiddling with our food, " "Allergy dangers lurk in gene mix", these are all good examples to show people’s resistance to these new things. Likewise, many people today in U.S. still hold negative views against Ice-minus bacteria as a recent-invented technology, and may lead to the discussion over the topic of how to persuade normal people to accept this one. There is growing recognition that poor communication between scientists and the public is a major root of the disconnect, and many people are trying their best to help new tech like Ice-minus bacteria be accepted by the major public.
References
[edit]1. Love, J.; Lesser, W. (April 1989). "The Potential Impact of Ice-Minus Bacteria as a Frost Protestant in New York Tree Fruit Production" (PDF). Northeastern Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics. 18 (1): 26–34. doi:10.1017/S0899367X00000234.
2. Parrott, Carolyn C. (1993). "Recombinant DNA to Protect Crops". Archived from the original on September 18, 2012. Retrieved February 11, 2007.
3. Hynes, Patricia H. (1989). "Biotechnology in agriculture: an analysis of selected technologies and policy in the United States" (PDF). Reproductive and Genetic Engineering. 2 (1): 39–49. Archived from the original (PDF) on December 4, 2014.
4. Bratspies, Rebecca (2007). "Some Thoughts on the American Approach to Regulating Genetically Modified Organisms" (PDF). Kansas Journal of Law and Public Policy. 16 (3): 393. SSRN 1017832.[dead link]
5. "GM crops: A bitter harvest?". BBC News. June 14, 2002. Retrieved April 4, 2016.
6. Thomas H. Maugh II (June 9, 1987). "Altered Bacterium Does Its Job : Frost Failed to Damage Sprayed Test Crop, Company Says". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved April 4, 2016.
7. Maykuth, Andrew (January 10, 1986). "Genetic wonders to come: Some see boon, others calamity". The Philadelphia Inquirer. Retrieved February 11, 2007.
8. Baskin, Yvonne (1987). "Testing The Future". Alicia Patterson Foundation. Retrieved February 11, 2007.
9. Love, John & Lesser, William. (1989). The Potential Impact of Ice-Minus Bacteria as a Frost Protectant in New York Tree Fruit Production. Northeastern Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics. 18. 10.1017/S0899367X00000234.
10. Allender-Hagedorn, S.. (2005). Ice-Minus strawberries, Flavr Savr tomatoes, and science literacy: the disconnect between science and the public. 254- 265. 10.1109/IPCC.2005.1494184.
11. Manohar, Prasanth & Nachimuthu, Ramesh & Gothandam, K M & Sivamangala, Kathikeyan & Thamaraiselvan, Shanthini. (2015). Pseudomonas Syringae: An Overview and its future as a “Rain Making Bacteria.. International Research Journal of Biological Sciences.
External links
[edit]- P. syringae genomic information from Cornell University's Pseudomonas-Plant Interaction Project
- Genetically modified organisms and food information from the Oak Ridge National Laboratory
- ^ a b Cite error: The named reference
Bratspieswas invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ Maykuth, Andrew (January 10, 1986). "Genetic wonders to come: Some see boon, others calamity". The Philadelphia Inquirer. Retrieved February 11, 2007.
- ^ a b Cite error: The named reference
BBC2002was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ Baskin, Yvonne (1987). "Testing The Future". Alicia Patterson Foundation. Retrieved February 11, 2007.