Genetic engineering: trait, evidence and trade-offs
| English | Português |
|---|---|
| genetic engineering/dʒɪˈnetɪk ˌendʒɪˈnɪərɪŋ/ | genetic engineering |
| GM crop/ˌdʒiː ˈem krɒp/ | GM crop |
What would explain this observation?
- A bacterium can be engineered to make a human protein. Transferring a gene is different from repeatedly breeding whole organisms.
- Start with a prediction. State the quantities or features you would compare, then decide what evidence could distinguish two explanations.
Build the model
- Genetic engineering 基因工程 modifies an organism’s genome by introducing a gene from another organism to give a desired characteristic. Examples include crop disease resistance or improved fruit production, insect-resistant and herbicide-resistant crops, and bacteria producing human insulin. Introducing the gene allows the recipient cells to make the useful protein in the stated model.
- genetic engineering: Modification of a genome by introducing a gene for a desired characteristic; GM crop 转基因作物: A crop whose genes have been modified by genetic engineering.
Which is genetic engineering rather than selective breeding?
Potential agricultural benefits include improved yield or reduced crop damage. Evaluation also considers effects on wild flowers, insects, gene movement and farming practices. Medical benefits include production of useful substances and research on inherited disorders. The specification records objections and questions about long-term effects; these are issues to evaluate with evidence, not proof that every engineered product has the same risks.
Match each technical term to its precise meaning.
Use the definitions to distinguish related quantities and processes.
Choose evidence that can test it
- Potential agricultural benefits include improved yield or reduced crop damage. Evaluation also considers effects on wild flowers, insects, gene movement and farming practices. Medical benefits include production of useful substances and research on inherited disorders. The specification records objections and questions about long-term effects; these are issues to evaluate with evidence, not proof that every engineered product has the same risks.
- Compare supplied trials with treated and comparison crops, matched conditions, yield and non-target species counts. Distinguish the engineered trait from any additional pesticide treatment. State a conclusion supported by the particular data and identify further evidence needed. This classroom work uses supplied evidence; actual organism engineering is not required.
Which two habits make the investigation or model in this case more defensible?
Compare supplied trials with treated and comparison crops, matched conditions, yield and non-target species counts. Distinguish the engineered trait from any additional pesticide treatment. State a conclusion supported by the particular data and identify further evidence needed. This classroom work uses supplied evidence; actual organism engineering is not required.
Work from known quantities
- State the known values and their units. Choose the relation because its assumptions fit this case, then rearrange before substitution.
- Known: a supplied crop trial has mean yields of 8.0 and 9.6 tonnes per hectare. Difference = 1.6; percentage increase relative to the comparison = 1.6/8.0×100 = 20%. The denominator is the comparison yield. This does not by itself establish environmental safety or show that all GM crops increase yield by 20%.
Comparison yield is 5.0 and engineered-line yield 6.0 tonnes per hectare. Find percentage increase. Use the same sequence: known quantities → model → relation → substitution → unit and interpretation.
Comparison yield is 5.0 and engineered-line yield 6.0 tonnes per hectare. Find percentage increase.
The result is 20 %. Known: a supplied crop trial has mean yields of 8.0 and 9.6 tonnes per hectare. Difference = 1.6; percentage increase relative to the comparison = 1.6/8.0×100 = 20%. The denominator is the comparison yield. This does not by itself establish environmental safety or show that all GM crops increase yield by 20%.
Check the conclusion and its limits
- Genetic engineering does not necessarily make an organism larger or immune to every disease. Herbicide resistance in a crop is different from insect resistance. Detailed enzymes and vectors are separately Higher-only; common-tier evaluation uses the stated gene transfer and evidence.
- Return to the original observation. Explain what the result supports, which conditions it assumes, and one way to test a competing explanation.
Evidence about one GM crop proves every engineered organism has identical risks. This claim is false: Genetic engineering does not necessarily make an organism larger or immune to every disease. Herbicide resistance in a crop is different from insect resistance. Detailed enzymes and vectors are separately Higher-only; common-tier evaluation uses the stated gene transfer and evidence.
Genetic engineering: trait, evidence and trade-offs: Potential agricultural benefits include improved yield or reduced crop damage. Evaluation also considers effects on wild flowers, insects, gene movement and farming practices. Medical benefits include production of useful substances and research on inherited disorders. The specification records objections and questions about long-term effects; these are issues to evaluate with evidence, not proof that every engineered product has the same risks.
Evidence about one GM crop proves every engineered organism has identical risks.
Genetic engineering does not necessarily make an organism larger or immune to every disease. Herbicide resistance in a crop is different from insect resistance. Detailed enzymes and vectors are separately Higher-only; common-tier evaluation uses the stated gene transfer and evidence.
Modification of a genome by introducing a gene for a desired characteristic: write the technical term.
genetic engineering means Modification of a genome by introducing a gene for a desired characteristic.