This suggests that there may be a discrepancy between how we perceive our own intelligence and our actual cognitive abilities, as measured by IQ test free, or that we may have a distorted understanding of our level of intelligence.
Probably for a very long time…we live in a very remote area…in the wilderness of Maine…our county has never allowed commercial development…the only things here are camps/cabins/homes.
My first thought was “WTF”, but then I considered the problem. You can grow beef cells, but only easily in a thin layer. So, get something porous but edible, and grow the cells all over it. Rice is just an obvious choice from a culinary perspective.
It’s weird, but I bet cooked up as a burrito or casserole this could actually be appealing, and it’ll be way easier to commercialise than more traditional meat shapes.
Edit: So, here’s Nature on the same. As usual, popsci left out the gotcha, and that’s that there’s not actually a significant amount of beef there. Rice is only slightly porous, just as it seems, I guess.
How do you define the two terms? I’m genuinely curious since the definitions I’ve seen for the terms imply that it is a type of plagiarism, but they definitely don’t have the same connotations.
A ghostwriter is usually someone hired to produce a piece of written work, with set terms like deadlines, payment, possibly confidentiality, and other things. Things like memoirs (even some presidents’) are ghostwritten by someone who listens to rambling stories and takes notes to produce something readable.
Plagiarism suggests Person B presenting Person A’s work as their own without Person A or their intended audience knowing that fact. In this scenario there is no compensation for the claimed work and presumably no communication or cooperation between the writer and plagiarizer.
Thanks for the comment, that was very insightful. I'm not sure I fully agree with this definition of plagiarism in academia though, but rather I am familiar with a broader one that includes both willful prearranged plagiarism and even self plagiarism.
In academia, the main discriminating factor to establish plagiarism would be the presence or absence of references, so in this case it would mean that the review would have had to include the ghostwriter as an author directly (and hence wouldn't be a ghostwriter anymore 😉
For those of you wondering how this is useful, tobacco is often used as a model organism in botany. The utility of this technique is less obvious in tobacco but more obvious in fruits, vegetables, etc. think seedless grapes, etc
Seedless grapes already exist, but I suppose you could now insert the gene into other plants/varieties to make those seedless as well.
I’m thinking more about how big ag companies could use this to prevent farmers from saving seeds/propagating a copyrighted variety (though I don’t know if that’s common with any crops where the seed itself isn’t the end product) or maybe more charitably, preventing their copyrighted plants from cross pollinating neighboring fields of the same species (e.g. ruining that neighbor’s non-gmo status).
Finally, this could be useful if it can be “switched on” i.e. by deliberately polluting an invasive plant’s gene pool with this gene and then switching it on to stall the invasive’s population growth. But I think most invasives are perennials, so would still need to be removed some other way.
science
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.