Toxic Dinner by Shaye

Why is our food being made and modified by the world’s largest pesticide manufacturer? “GMOs, or “genetically modified organisms,” are plants or animals that have been genetically engineered with DNA from bacteria, viruses or other plants and animals. These experimental combinations of genes from different species cannot occur in nature or in traditional crossbreeding.” (nonGMOproject) Many studies indicate the possible long term health risks associated with the consumption of genetically modified foods such as cancer, Alzheimer’s, food allergies, and diabetes. Consuming genetically modified foods presents a huge risk to human health and can significantly impact the viability of human cells.

            In the 1980’s, scientists discovered that specific pieces of DNA could be transferred from one organism to another. From that discovery on, genetic modification took off. In 1983, the first transgenic tobacco plant that was resistant to antibiotic’s was created. Then, genetically engineered cotton was successfully field tested in 1990. Then in 1995, Monsanto, the leading biotech company, introduced herbicide-immune soybeans which are also known as “Round-Up-Ready.” Round-Up-Ready crops are designed to survive applications of their Roundup herbicide. Between 1996 and 2008, US farmers sprayed an extra 383 million pounds of herbicide on GMOs. (responsible technology) Monsanto then took genetic modification to the next level, our food source. As of 2004, genetically modified crops were being grown by 8.25 million farms. Genetically modified foods were not tested on humans, and started being sold in grocery stores with no labels to inform the people what they were eating. Monsanto’s untested, unlabeled products successfully made their way into our lives without us even knowing. Genetically modified foods represent a double chemical dose delivered directly to your dinner table- both inside and outside of the plant. (gmo-awareness) Since GMOs have been on the market, the rate of allergies, auto immune disease, Alzheimer's and autism has sky rocketed. Is it just a coincidence that after people started ingesting this toxic, modified, food that the rate of cancer and other diseases started increasing exponentially?

            Not only does the heavy use of chemicals harm the environment, but GM foods contain higher residues of toxic herbicides. “According to the World Health Organization (WHO), there is a very real risk of out-crossing, which refers to the transfer of engineered genes (transgenes) from genetically modified crops to conventional, cultivated plants or to related crop species in the wild. This may happen by means of wind, insect pollination, or other transfer.” (Natural News) If the foreign genes happen to cross contaminate with other species, it could result in hybridization of the genetically modified crop plant with a non-GMO plant. This could alter entire ecosystems and pose an indirect threat on food safety. In September of 2010, the World Health Organization reported an incident in which traces of a GM corn variety that was only approved to be used as livestock feed was found in corn products that were for human consumption in the US market.  Genetically modified crops greatly increase the use of herbicides and pesticides. “Scientists estimate that crops that are genetically modified to be herbicide-resistant tend to greatly increase the herbicide use. Knowing that their crops are more herbicide tolerant, farmers are more likely to use these often-toxic chemicals more liberally.” (Natural News) Genetic Engineering reduces genetic diversity of plants which means they would not be able to handle drought, fungus, or insects.

            Monsanto Company is an American  multinational chemical and  agricultural  biotechnology corporation. It is a leading producer of  genetically engineered seed and of the herbicide glyphosate, which it markets under the Roundup brand. Monsanto claims that GMOs will feed the world with the greater crop yields, drought resistance and increased nutrition. It also claims that GMOs are completely safe for human consumption since all genes are broken up and rendered inert during digestion. Monsanto states that it has done numerous studies that show no signs of genetically modified foods causing health problems. However, their studies were performed very quickly over the time span of just a few months, which does not give a sufficient enough amount of time to observe the effects of GMOs. Also, new, independent, studies are disproving that GMOs are broken up and rendered inert during digestion. A study in Norway, published in July of 2012, proved that GMO genes are in fact transferred through the intestinal wall into the blood. During this study pieces of genetically modified DNA were in large enough segments to be identified in the blood, muscle tissue and liver. When GMOs were tested on animals, they showed an increase in weight, increase in appetite, decrease in immune function, different intestinal micro-structure and more. Don’t these side effects make you think of the entire US population? It is not surprising that Monsanto does not want GMOs to be labeled in our country. We are all being blindsided into eating fake, toxic, genetically engineered food, and few people truly know what it is doing to their delicate bodies.

            Genetically modified foods could be the reason for the astounding disease and cancer rates in the United States. When GMOs started becoming more and more prevalent in the American diet between 1997 to 2008, the Pediatrics Journal reported a 250% increase in the prevalence of autism in American children. What is most disturbing about this increase is that the main dietary causes of autism include soy, which is the number one GMO crop, food starches, most of which are made from GMO corn, and gluten in all forms. When the health statistics of the Unites States were compared to health statistics of other nations where GMOs are outlawed, the results were alarming. Americans have the highest rate of cancer out of any other country on the planet- 1 out of 2 men and 1 out of 3 women are expected to get cancer in their lifetime. Even scarier, only 1 out of 10 breast cancers in women are inherited, leaving the other 9 incidences of beast cancer to be triggered by the environment. Those who do not buy GMO free food are ingesting 3 chemical meals a day and increasing their risk of getting cancer.  (gmo-awareness) In order to make crops more resistant to pests, a gene called a Bt-toxin is inserted into corn and cotton plants. The toxin attacks the stomach lining of  insects, killing the pests within a couple of days of ingestion. Over 65 percent of corn crops in the U.S. contain this gene that produces the insecticide. Biotech companies and the EPA assure the public that genetically engineered toxins such as Bt-toxin are safe. They claim that it dissolves quickly in the stomach, and won’t cause any side effects. This claim is very suspicious, as the Bt-toxin belongs to a family of bacteria (Bacillus Cerus) that cause food poisoning in humans. “When natural Bt spray was sprayed over regions of Vancouver and Washington State to control the gypsy moth population, 500 people reported adverse reactions. The majority complained of allergy or flu-like symptoms and six others were hospitalized for severe allergic reactions or asthma flare-ups. Farmers and workers exposed to Bt sprays have reported eye, nose, throat, skin and respiratory irritations.” (Underground Health Reporter) If these issues arose just by breathing this toxin, the consequences of eating it could be even more horrifying.

            Genetically modified corn and its derivatives are in just about all of the processed foods sold in America. Constantly ingesting this engineered corn is especially dangerous to human health and could be one of the reasons that Americans are becoming sicker and sicker as the years progress. A study led by Gilles- Eric Séralini, a leader of the Committee for Independent Research and Information on Genetic Engineering, followed 200 rats for a span of two years. The rats were divided into 10 groups, each containing 10 male and 10 female rats. Six of the groups were fed different amounts of Monsanto’s GMO corn. Three other groups were given different doses of Roundup in their drinking water, with the lowest dose being that of what might be found in tap water in the United States. The 10th group was of course the control group. Those rats were fed non GMO corn and plain water. The results were petrifying.  Séralini’s study found that in the group that ate genetically engineered corn, up to 50% of males and 70% of females dies before they would from normal aging. On the other hand, the deaths in the control group were only 30% of males and 20% of females. An astounding 50 to 80 percent of the female rats developed massive tumors, compared with only 30% of the control rats. (NY times) This study shows the danger of consuming genetically modified foods. Monsanto’s goal is not to feed the world healthy food, nor to grow it in a sustainable way. It simply wants to make money on their patented seed, upon which they spray their patented chemicals. Monsanto tries to silence all studies being done by third parties that show the dangers of GMOs.

            People need to be aware of what they are eating, and the effects that genetically modified foods have on the human body. There is no surprise that in the years GMO foods have been on the shelves, cancer rates have sky rocketed. Our bodies are not made to ingest chemicals and genetically engineered foods. Humans are unknowingly ingesting the chemical “Round Up,” which suppresses the growth of beneficial gut bacteria in humans, inhibits healthy reproductive capacity, and even enhances the toxicity of other chemicals and food additives. (Natural News) Monsanto is trying to hide the risks from the people because it knows just how unsafe GMOs are. In the United States, the FDA is supposed to protect the public from unsafe foods and drugs. However, isn’t it a conflict of interest that the FDA is being run by ex-Monsanto executives? If our government cares so much about our food safety, why is it protecting Monsanto by passing the Monsanto Protection Act, which bans the courts from stopping the sale of Monsanto’s genetically-modified seeds? It is blatantly obvious that our government is run by big corporations and it is all about the bottom line, the mighty dollar.

            If Monsanto is so proud of its product, why would it fight against labeling it? Why would they be so opposed to doing long-term studies on the health effects of GMOs?  It is extremely evident that Monsanto is up to no good. We do have the power to stop Monsanto from treating us like a science project. If genetically modified foods are boycotted, Monsanto will have no choice but to stop what they are doing. Just by moving to the US, a person’s risk of cancer increases by 400%. This statistic alone proves that the United States is doing something wrong. Over 60 countries have either banned GMOs or placed heavy restrictions on them, and we need to be next to stand up and fight for our rights to know what we are eating.  The answer to this outbreak of health issues is as simple as sticking to organic, non-GMO foods that the body knows how to digest. Monsanto is a company that only cares about money, not about the health and well-being of its consumers. Just ask yourself this question: would you spray the chemical Round Up on a salad before serving it to your family? Because when you eat GM foods, Round Up is part of the plants DNA.  Don’t let Monsanto trick you into giving yourself cancer; stay away from Genetically Modified Foods.

CITATIONS

"All About GMOs." GMO Awareness. N.p., 8 Mar. 2013. Web. 02 Nov. 2013.

Pollack, Andrew. "Disputed Study Links Modified Corn to Greater Health Risks." NYtimes. New York Times, 19 Sept. 2012. Web. 03 Nov. 2013.

"What Is GMO?" Nongmoproject. N.p., n.d. Web. 04 Nov. 2013.

"GMO? Hell No!" The Nation. Danny Khol, 28 June 2001. Web. 05 Nov. 2013.

"10 Reasons to Avoid GMOs." Institute for Responsible Technology. N.p., n.d. Web. 06 Nov. 2013.

Dill, John. "The Dangers of GMOs." NaturalNews. N.p., 28 Sept. 2010. Web. 01 Dec. 2013.

Collins, Danica. "Do Genetically Modified Foods Cause Cancer, Lung Damage & Birth Defects?" Underground Health Reporter. N.p., n.d. Web. 03 Dec. 2013.

Why We Need Computer Science Class by Paul

             Most parents think that their child is getting a decent education at their local public or private school. For example, high schools in Palm Beach County offer a wide variety of classes such as Graphic Design, Chemistry , Pre-Calculus, Spanish and other classes that can help us choose our career paths. One class which should be taught at every school, but isn't, is Computer Science. Society is changing and so are the jobs available to us. Technology has improved greatly in the last few years, and it is altering and changing the way we live every day. Computer Science classes need to be a universal component to our educational system. 

            Computer Science is basically code  or  “programming”. It is defined as “the systematic study of the feasibility, structure, expression, and mechanization of the methodical processes (or algorithms) that underlie the acquisition, representation, processing, storage, communication of, and access to information, whether such information is encoded in bits and bytes in a computer memory or transcribed in genes and protein structures in a human cell” according to the department of Computer Science at Boston University. Some people believe that high school students do not need to be exposed to these types of classes, since it is not a traditional science class, and that it wouldn't benefit their child. In reality, these are the classes that need to be offered because our society is changing and requiring more computer-driven jobs. Many schools do not have the budget required to offer these classes, which may be the main reason why they are not taught at school.   

           

            In the 1980s through 2000s, doctors and lawyers had the best paying jobs. Many high school students would take pre-medical classes and anatomy classes because they knew they wanted to pursue this career path,or they would take government and history classes to prepare to become a lawyer. In our current generation, computer programmers make the same amount of money or more than lawyers. According to US News, computer programming salaries have reached new heights. A computer programmer or software developer can easily make an average of $90,000 a year. Depending on where the individual lives, he or she can make an average of $115,000 a year. According to US News, a lawyer would make an average of $100,000 a year. Schools should be exposing our generation to some sort of Computer Science so we can get an early start to this path, just like the students that want an early start to law or medical professions.

            Giving this opportunity to our generation would allow us access to a field that is growing in importance and potential payoff. Since these jobs pay very well, they need people with this type of experience all over the world. The website for ObamaCare launched on the first week of November and was shut down the day after launch due to “technical problems”. Computer programmers and scientists are the ones who would fix the site. These jobs pay so well that people educated in computer science would not want to teach these classes since they wouldn't make as much money in teaching. There are a few more reasons why these classes are not being taught, one of them being that budgets for public schools and private schools are lower than before. Due to the fact that we are in a mild recession, schools are cutting back and are focusing on main core classes rather than secondary classes and because of this, students are not getting the opportunity to take computer science as a class. In defense, Computer Science can be a core class because it is a science and a language at the same time.

            Like learning another language, Computer Science is a different way of thinking. You have to use different parts of your brain that you are not used to using in your day-to-day tasks in order to understand and comprehend that language. Whether it be Java, C++, C or even visual basics, learning Computer Science is like learning Spanish or French, and the only difference is that it involves math, making it a bit more challenging. For example, if I wanted to learn how to say “Hi” in Spanish I would just say “Hola”, but If I wanted to say "Hi" in Computer Science, I would have to say, depending on the program, "Hi" like this: public class hi {   public static void main (String [] args) { System.out.print( “ Hi “); } }. There are tons of different ways to say "Hi" so a computer can understand it, making learning very difficult, but learning different languages helps the brain grow. So, learning Computer Science should make the brain improve even more because you are learning math at the same time as a language. According to (science daily.com), Swedish studies say that people who are bilingual have increased certain areas of the brain such as the hippocampus, which is involved with the learning of new material and spatial navigation, and three areas in the cerebral cortex. What seems like an unnecessary elective class could actually be more beneficial than the required classes in today's high schools.

            Technology is something that will last forever. If one studies Computer Science in high school or even follows that path to college, a job will always be available to them. Computer Science is the next big thing for our education system and will be a great benefit for the future to our society.

                                                         

Work Cited

Computer Science Department. Ms. Jennifer Streubel, 3 Apr. 2003. Web. 6 Nov. 2013.

     <http://www.cs.bu.edu/AboutCS/>.

Lund University. "Language learning makes the brain grow, Swedish study suggests." ScienceDaily, 8 Oct. 2012. Web. 6 Nov. 2013.

<http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/10/121008082953.htm>

Money Careers. N.p., n.d. Web. 6 Nov. 2013. <http://money.usnews.com/careers/best-jobs/lawyer/

A Painless End by Brittney

           Physician assisted suicide is the practice of aiding a patient in ending his or her life to relieve pain or suffering. A physician will “provide a competent, terminally ill patient with a prescription for a lethal dose of medication, upon the patient's request, which they will use to end his or her own life.”(Washington) It is up to the patient to decided whether and when to take the lethal medication. Physician-assisted suicide should be an option for incurably ill patients; the right to die should be a freedom for the sick. 

            Since people do not have the choice to be brought into this world, they should then have the right to take them selves out painlessly. The constitution does not state nor imply the federal government has the authority to keep a person from committing suicide or from a doctor assisting in a person’s death.  The government does not have the moral right to let the sick endure misery. In a country that is free, this should be a basic right for the suffering.

            Furthermore, “patients can die with dignity rather than have the illness reduce them to a shell of their former selves and avoid tremendous pain.” (Balancedpolitics) My grandmother suffered from dementia along with depression. She was no longer herself after a year of the diagnoses. It was sickening to see her mind wither away to a dark place.  My grandmother progressively got worse until she took her life by jumping off the roof. The autopsy showed that she was still alive three minutes after the fall. If physician assisted suicide were legal in the state of New Jersey, my grandmother could have passed peacefully and painlessly. She was still mentally competent to participate. She would have been fully aware of the choice she was making.  It could have saved our family from the pain of knowing how much it must have hurt her to still be breathing for those three minutes. I feel ashamed she had to let her self go in such a fashion. Because of this experience, I firmly believe doctors should be allowed to prescribe lethal medication to the ill for them to die with dignity.

            However, some argue physician assisted suicide could be taken advantage of. To the contrary, laws can be established to prevent the abuse of disturbing lethal medication to people. For example, Oregon holds precedent that laws can be created to prevent abuse and “protect the value of human life.”(Balancedpolitics) Under Oregon’s Death with Dignity Act, “ After the request is made, another physician must examine the patient's medical records and confirm the diagnosis. If the request is authorized, the patient must wait at least fifteen days and make a second oral request before the prescription may be written. If either physician determines that the patient's judgment is impaired, the patient must be referred for a psychological examination.”(WordPress) Laws such as these can prevent the unnecessary prescription of lethal medication.

            Physician Assisted suicide offers a painless, humane, and orderly way for incurably ill patients to end their lives. It reduces the chance of a horrifying attempt to commit suicide such as overdosing, using a gun, or jumping off of a building. Strict laws can prevent doctors from prescribing the lethal medication to patients who are not terminally ill. In the end, physician assisted suicide should be legal in every state for the sick since it is ones own right to kill themselves and not the government’s. 

Work Cited

Messerli, Joe. "Should an incurably-ill patient be able to commit physician-assisted suicide?" Balancedpolitics. Web. 6 Nov. 2013. <http://www.balancedpolitics.org/assisted_suicide.htm>

Ethics In Medicine. University of Washington School of Medicine, 1998. Web. 5 Nov. 2013. <http://depts.washington.edu/bioethx/topics/pad.html#ques5>.

Globe, Diane. "Death With Dignity Laws." WordPress. Web. 6 Nov. 2013. <http://dianegoble.wordpress.com/2012/05/01/death-with-dignity-laws/>.

Is Peace Bliss? by Danny

Peace only exists because there can be war, but war is unnecessary because war is artificial where as peace is natural and requires no resources. While some might argue war is necessary and that even animals fight over resources, such as food and shelter just as humans do. However, as humans we are far more intelligent than animals and therefore should have an understanding how detrimental war is to us as a society, as a species.

Furthermore war destroys our planet, where as peace preserves it. As an intelligent species, humans understand this, but because we are caught up in our own problems nobody takes a second thought on how unnecessary war is.  Wars cost money and the lives of many.  War might seem necessary at times, for example when the twin towers were hit people wanted justice and revenge for those who perished so suddenly and unfairly. Unfortunately vengeance and anger made the United States blindly charge into a war and in the end accomplished nothing but more pointless deaths and wasted billions of dollars on war equipment  As Mohandas Gandhi said, “an eye for an eye makes everyone blind."

Many groups have accomplished their goals through peaceful protests. For example, Martin Luther King, the leader of the Civil Rights Movement, and a very intelligent man who understood violence would lead to more violence, embraced non-aggression. Unfortunately the world was not ready to accept peace at the time, and this resulted in Mr.King’s assassination. However, even thought it cost him his life, Mr. King was able to make a giant leap in racial equality through the process of peaceful protest and is a prefect example of how peace is a far better tool than a gun.

Unfortunately, there are times when war is needed. If your life ,liberty or loved one is threatened one must fight to keep those things safe. There will always be things worth fighting for and there will always be a war as long as there is something worth dying for. Until the day humanity realizes killing each other on such a massive scale is no longer war and instead genocide, there will always be war and at the end of that war there will be peace.

           

            In short, humanity cannot have eternal peace because we are simply not ready for it. War is nothing more than justified genocide and peace is only a goal we want to achieve; and, in order to achieve peace one must wage war. War only exists because there is peace and peace exists because there is war. Humanity will be stuck in this paradox until we either evolve past it or until humanity completely destroys its self. Which ever comes first is up to the choices we make.

 Works Cited

"Peace on Earth? Why War Can Never Finally Win." Golden Age of Gaia. N.p., n.d. Web. 06 Nov. 2013.

"Would the World Be a More Peaceful Place If There Was Only One Religion?" The Premier Online Debate Website. N.p., n.d. Web. 06 Nov. 2013.

Standardized Tests Have Validity by Hunter

            Some people will argue that standardized testing doesn't display how smart a person is. Some people believe that the testing isn’t a good indicator of how smart someone is and think the tests are only for colleges and companies to make money. Some people are wrong. It is true they make a profit on students taking tests, however they would be out of business if they didn’t provide an accurate service. There are “Approximately 4,168 colleges if you count all 2- and 4-year colleges, including those that are for-profit”(talk.confidential.com/ author Hoedown). And there are only about “850 colleges that don't require SAT or ACT Scores.” (Collegeapps.about.com/ author Allen Groove)  Why would about 3300 colleges use a test or information that isn’t the best and might not be the most accurate? They wouldn’t, which is why, to this day, the ACT and SAT are two of the main indicators of who gets in to college and who does not. The reason why standardized tests are so effective is because of their real world application and the relevant information that it tests. There is a reason why colleges today use standardized testing as a scale of knowledge and intelligence. It is because it is currently the most accurate way to judge how smart a person is. Standardized testing is a more effective test of how smart someone is than grade point average.

            The first thing to understand is the word “smart”. The dictionary defines it as “having or showing a quick-witted intelligence”. The first word to focus in on in this definition is quick. There are some critics who say that the ACT isn’t fair because it is timed and some people are not good at timed tests. Well, being quick is a requisite of being smart. So, the fact that the ACT is timed actually makes measuring how smart a person is even more accurate. If it was not timed, then they would not be measuring how quick someone can draw upon their previously learned information. However, it would still be a better indicator of how smart someone is than GPA.

            Standardized testing is a better system of measuring GPA for three main reasons. The first reason is that GPA has too many areas in which there are variables where mistakes can be made. For instance, a teacher may not like a student and therefore will give him lower grades and a harder time in class. Another student that the teacher likes will have an easier time and get better grades. Notice how the work they did and the knowledge they absorbed are not even included in this example, yet the person whom the teacher prefers gets a higher grade. The second reason is that homework is a part of the grading system. I can go home and look up all of my homework online and get a one hundred on all my homework assignments. I haven’t actually learned anything, however, my grade shows that I did and that I am knowledgeable on the subject. Standardized testing tests what knowledge you have and how well you can apply it, while homework can be done by looking up things on the internet and gaining outside information. The third reason is that it levels the playing field for all students, because everyone takes the same test and there are no biases by teachers or unforeseen variables.

            Standardized testing gives students a fair chance to display how smart they are. They get the chance to show how much information they have retained and how quickly and effectively they can apply it. It is more effective than grade point average because it equals the playing field for all students who take it. There are no advantages of easy teachers who give easy tests or negative biases that can skew the scores. These are the reasons that standardized testing is the most accurate way to display how smart someone is, and the reason people and companies all through America use the results as valid information.

                Works Cited

http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-search-selection/71235-how-many-colleges-there-america.html

https://www.google.com/search?q=definition+of+smart&oq=definition+of+smart&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l5.8735j0j4&sourceid=chrome&espv=210&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8

http://collegeapps.about.com/b/2012/09/08/now-850-test-optional-colleges.htm

Standardized Testing is an Incorrect Way to Measure Human Intelligence By Teddy

Taking standardized tests drives me insane. To have your intelligence judged by how well you can repair purposely-incorrect grammar or by how well you can apply mathematics skills, which you will never need to use in your existence on this planet, is an insult to my knowledge. Succeeding on a four-hour test, against the clock, in utter silence sounds more like a survival of the fittest challenge than a “standardized” test. Along with that, the test does not measure what is meaningful about education; it measures the “basic” skills, which then makes the test a memory game restricting the incredible mind to the hippocampus (memory) part of the brain. In addition, the test uses multiple-choice questions, which are a poor yardstick to measure intelligence by. These reasons strongly display that Standardized Testing is not an effective way of measuring human intelligence.

Sitting in a testing room for 4 hours uncomfortably can cause a lack of mental stamina boredom, and fatigue which are all distractions restricting you to perform to your best mental ability. The conditions of your testing room have a significant effect on your scores. 

On the other hand, http://paperlineresearch.blogspot.com states that taking a standardized test in these conditions is fair because the same test is given to all test takers in a similar manner and, therefore, the consistency levels in this type of examination gives room for adequate comparison of the results across all test takers.  I disagree with this because a student’s score outcome could be altered without the ideal testing conditions, which would be a place where a student feels completely comfortable. www.pgagroup.com/psychometric-test-room.html tells us that lighting; room temperature, posture, and writing surfaces have a significant effect on test takers, which is plausible because of my personal experiences as a test taker.

As students, we attend school to learn and advance our educational level past the basic requirements we need to advance to a collegiate level. We tend to focus on topics and skillsets that we will use in our everyday lives, rather than study skills that will only be applied on a test that we take at maximum three times in our life. Standardized tests measure only a small portion of what makes education meaningful. Gerald Bracey of http://standardizedtests.procon.org/#pro_con tells us that  standardized tests cannot measure include someone’s "creativity, critical thinking, resilience, motivation, persistence, curiosity, endurance, reliability, enthusiasm, empathy, self-awareness, self-discipline, leadership, civic-mindedness, courage, compassion, resourcefulness, sense of beauty, sense of wonder, honesty, integrity." I do not understand how you can judge somebody’s intelligence after all of these elements have been taken away from them. Stuart S. Yeh from the Education Policy Analysis Archives, tells us that standardized testing is focused it on important basic skills all students need to master. I disagree with this because with the creativity, critical thinking, resilience, motivation, persistence, curiosity, endurance, reliability, enthusiasm, empathy, self-awareness, self-discipline, leadership, civic-mindedness, courage, compassion, resourcefulness, sense of beauty, sense of wonder, honesty and integrity, students would be able to supply raw intelligence that allows the mind to flow and compose, rather than regurgitate old supplemental material that are the “basics” of learning.

Multiple-choice questions are a poor yardstick to measure student achievement http://apcentral.collegeboard.com/apc/members/courses/teachers_corner/40990.html states that,  "Multiple-choice items are best used for checking whether students have learned facts and routine procedures that have one, clearly correct answer."

On the other hand, test directions usually ask test takers to select the “best” answer. If, on a reading test, a student selected a somewhat plausible answer, does it mean that they cannot read, or that they do not see things exactly the way the test maker does? Choosing the “best answer” now becomes a matter of opinion, and forcing students to choose an A,B,C, or D limits the precision and range of the test takers knowledge.

Standardized testing cannot possibly measure a person’s intelligence due to these realistic reasons. Sitting uncomfortably for four hours in a room can cause a lack of mental stamina, boredom, and fatigue creates distractions restricting you to perform to your best ability. Standardized tests measure only a small portion of what makes education meaningful. And the multiple-choice questions are a poor indicator of student achievement. There are better ways to measure a student’s intelligence such as good teacher observation, documentation of student work, and performance-based assessment, all of which involve the direct evaluation of real learning tasks rather than taking a tedious, time consuming test which limit the intelligence of the mind to four letter choices in which only one of them has the “best” answer.  The raw truth is that some people may be smarter than others, but your intelligence should not be judged by the results of a paper test. This “Standardized Testing” is the inferior way to measure intelligence.

1.           "2013 Trends in Higher Education Series." College Admissions. N.p., n.d. Web. 5 Nov. 2013. <http://www.collegeboard.com>. (

2.           "PAPERLINE RESEARCH." PAPERLINE RESEARCH. N.p., n.d. Web. 5 Nov. 2013. <http://paperlineresearch.blogspot.com/>

3.           "PGA Group Consulting Psychologists - Results That Make A Difference." PGA Group Consulting Psychologists - Results That Make A Difference. N.p., n.d. Web. 5 Nov. 2013. <http://www.pgagroup.com>.

4.           "Standardized Tests - ProCon.org." ProConorg Headlines. N.p., n.d. Web. 5 Nov. 2013. <http://standardizedtests.procon.org/#pro_con>.

Give GMO's a Chance by Ethan

GMO’s or “Genetically Modified Organisms” are plants, animals, or even materials that have been created by genetically modifying the DNA of a plant or animal. They are very controversial due to the fact that their full potential has yet to be explored, and could potentially be dangerous if left unregulated or under-researched. There is a myriad of people who have opinions on the matter. Some say GMO’s are dangerous and should be left alone, others say they could be extremely beneficial if researched and implemented properly. Some people couldn’t care less about the topic. The large majority of non-believers don’t have the slightest clue what they are talking about and base their judgment on something they read online about tumors or other nonsense. The point is that GMO’s can be lead to great advancements in mankind if we give them a chance. The public would rather feel safe knowing that we were advancing at a snail’s pace as long as it meant keeping things the way they are now. There is a much smaller chance of things going wrong if we refuse to expand our horizons. If they refuse to jump on an opportunity to enrich the human race because they hear a few scary things about something that has yet to be researched properly, then we as a race will go nowhere.

Bath salts are an excellent example of things that terrified the public before they were even researched. After they were studied, it was discovered that most of the chemicals used are incredibly dangerous and have close to zero medicinal value, but the point remains the same.  Note, however:

"The federal law passed [in 2012] bans a handful of the chemicals used to make them but not all of them," Horowitz says. "Those chemicals are now labeled as schedule 1 drugs, which means they have no medicinal value but a high potential for abuse.”

The public’s fear of certain things isn’t always misplaced. After the zombie incident involving bath salts, there was a legitimate cause for concern. That same fear is present when regarding GMO’s.  However, some GMO’s have been researched and are proven to be safe to consume and use.

            A common way of testing a new or controversial substance is to conduct a lab/experiment. In one particular lab, different groups of rats were given different diets. One was a control that was fed non-GMO foods and water. Three other groups were given foods created from GMO’s, some treated and some untreated. After the 2 yearlong study was finished, It was determined that the rats that ate the foods made from GMO’s have an increased chance of dying prematurely and contracting tumors compared to the control group. The problem with this is not only that the sample size in incredibly small sample size, but the rats used were known to contract tumors quite often. There is also a problem with the fact that not a single human who has a tumor has had it linked back to the consumption of a GMO product.

            There are roughly 7 billion people on our planet. Out of those 7, a little over 1 billion don’t have enough food to live a healthy life. Healthy food is expensive, and moving it across the globe is even more so.  Consider this argument, for example:

“Since they are cheaper to grow, increase yields, and extend the time food remains edible, it seems reasonable that GM plants should provide more food to a hungry world. However, it is not clear this is panning out as may have been naively anticipated several years ago. The countries that could benefit most from genetic engineering have actually benefited the least. A 2008 Science article, "Agriculture at a Crossroads" noted that, "The potential of GM crops to serve the needs of the subsistence farmer is recognized, but this potential remains unfulfilled. No conclusive evidence was found that GM crops have so far offered solutions to the broader socioeconomic dilemmas faced by developing countries."

GMO’s have the potential to feed a starving world. The crops could be grown in their own back yard due to increased fertility and resistance to harsher climates. Obviously this would be a huge step forward to ending world hunger.

            Genetically Modified Organisms are not just limited to foods. They can also be used to create new objects, mass produce uncommon materials, or even make vaccinations easier to administer.  It has been suggested recently that,

“People may soon be getting vaccinated for diseases like hepatitis B and cholera by simply taking a bite of banana. Researchers have successfully engineered bananas, potatoes, lettuce, carrots and tobacco to produce vaccines, but they say bananas are the ideal production and delivery vehicle. “

There is no for foreseeable end to what we can do with GMO’s. Silk that is stronger than steel, or cats that can glow in the dark. There is no telling what we can do. Perhaps we could even be able to change physical traits in our children before they are born. We are afraid of doing things simply because they are new. Of course, with great power comes great responsibility. We need to moderate and regulate. Without regulation, the things that some are saying could hurt us, have a considerable chance of actually hurting. Where would we be without nuclear technology? If we keep restricting ourselves to the point where we are unable to move forward, it will harm us indefinitely.

Works Cited:

·         Feature, Matt McMillen WebMD. "Bath Salts Drugs: Problems, Ingredients, Dangers, and More." WebMD. WebMD, n.d. Web. 05 Nov. 2013.

·         Philpott, Tom. "Does GMO Corn Really Cause Tumors in Rats?" Mother Jones. Mother Jones, 21 Sept. 2012. Web. 05 Nov. 2013.

·         Diehl, Paul. "Can Genetically Modified Food Feed the World?" About.com Biotech / Biomedical. About.com, 26 Mar. 2013. Web. 05 Nov. 2013.

·         Byrd, Deborah. "How Many Hungry in a World with 7 Billion?" EarthSky. EarthSky, 30 Oct. 2011. Web. 05 Nov. 2013.

·         "12 Bizarre Examples of Genetic Engineering." MNN. MNN, n.d. Web. 05 Nov. 2013.