Example collocations logo

Genetically in sentence

283 examples of Genetically in a sentence

According to the organization, “it’s not logistically possible to obtain consent from each and every person affected” by the release of genetically modified mosquitoes.But the reason it is difficult to acquire informed consent from all people affected by gene-drive experiments is the same reason that doing so is absolutely critical.
On the contrary, several people I interviewed called for the experimental release of genetically modified mosquitoes to be halted until the risks and effects had been adequately investigated, and civil society across Burkina Faso had been fully informed.
According to the organization, “it’s not logistically possible to obtain consent from each and every person affected” by the release of genetically modified mosquitoes.
Gene flow is an age-old process that is well understood by farmers, who grow hundreds of crops, virtually all of which have been genetically improved in some way with a variety of techniques.
Unfortunately, Kenya’s government listened and did not permit their farmers to grow genetically modified (GM) maize, even though it has been approved, sown, harvested, and eaten by both humans and animals in South Africa, Argentina, Brazil, the United States, and other countries for many years.
Most of the food consumed by Americans is either genetically modified or exposed to genetic modification somewhere in the production process.
Moreover, the extensive use of fertilizers and pesticides – 99% of the world’s soy is genetically modified, and is routinely treated with pesticides – is also contaminating ground-water sources, destroying biodiversity, and eroding the soil.
By contrast, birds that are reared by traditional methods are likely to have greater resistance to disease than the stressed, genetically similar birds kept in intensive confinement systems.
Just Say No to Agricultural Gene DrivesLAGOS – First, the agribusiness giants came to take our land and disrupt our food systems with synthetic pesticides, fertilizers, proprietary seeds, and genetically modified organisms (GMOs).
Gene drives have been described as “genetic forcers,” because they literally force genetically engineered traits onto entire populations of insects, plants, fungi, and other organisms.
Based on research, biotechnology companies have invested in sequencing technologies and developed predictive tests to identify those who are asymptomatic, but genetically predisposed to a growing number of genetic diseases and more common disorders such as certain types of cancer.
Companies using toxic materials want to anticipate which workers may be genetically sensitive to toxic exposure.
At the opposite extreme is what is often called the “precautionary” principle, now popular in the European Union: until something – for example, genetically modified foods – is guaranteed safe, it must be postponed indefinitely, despite substantial expected benefits.
Some might expect that, nearly 30 years later, the area around the reactor remains a wasteland, sparsely populated by genetically damaged animals exposed to chronic radiation across multiple generations.
It may also be time we consider embracing high-tech – even genetically modified – agriculture to provide the food we need on smaller areas of land, leaving more space for wildlife.
Male mosquitoes do not bite, so their release presents no health risk, and, because their progeny die, no genetically engineered mosquitoes persist in the environment.
But, while SIT remains unregulated in most places, the regulatory reviews of genetically engineered living organisms have tended to be drawn out and excessive worldwide, with politics delaying – and sometimes even preventing – approvals.
Given the degree of suffering caused by mosquito-borne diseases, government leaders must not subject genetic-engineering solutions for controlling them to the same kinds of political and populist headwinds that have impeded the approval of genetically engineered agricultural products.
This principle underpins the EU’s refusal to import genetically modified (GM) foods from the US, where they are widely consumed.
Eliminating genetically caused conditions in future children might seem a welcome goal, particularly to couples with a family history of such diseases.
In the United States, for example, a Pew Research survey found that 67% of adults think that scientists lack a clear understanding about the health effects of genetically modified organisms.
This possibility highlights the weakness of the argument that abortion, too, is wrong because it destroys a genetically unique human being.
Consider, for example, Europe’s agricultural subsidies and ban on genetically modified organisms, the abuse of antidumping rules in the United States, or inadequate protection of investors’ rights in developing countries.
Today, my colleagues can genetically modify selected brain cells to make them controllable by laser light.
That is why the US Food and Drug Administration has ruled that such constructs do not need to be labeled as genetically modified organisms.
Such apples are already on the market, and are not considered genetically modified organisms.
But genetically affected couples who do not suffer from infertility may also be candidates for IVF with PGD.
The extension of prenatal diagnosis to an embryo in a laboratory dish will, in turn, reduce the incidence of certain types of genetically transmitted diseases.
Science is increasingly used to support what are essentially public-policy decisions, particularly concerning new and complex technologies like genetically modified (GM) foods, novel chemicals, and contending energy infrastructures.
They may do so through protest, as the Ottoman calligraphers did, and as Irish opponents of genetically modified potatoes did in 2002, by marching in Dublin to express their opposition to the “death of good food.”
Back