Vocabulary from news and academic articles

[o0o ga chip 93 o0o]

NATURE VS. NURTURE
Shady Guirguis
April 26, 2004
NE 24

The nature (1) versus nurture (2) issue has been around for ages, and scholars (3) have still not concluded which of the two has a greater effect on a person. Nature, referring to heredity, and the nurture, referring to the environment, are two very reasonable explanations to why we are the people we are today. This debate over whether nature or nurture has a bigger effect on us has been argued and supported very well for both sides. Each side stresses very important details and good explanations for why nature, or nurture, controls how we develop. Experimentation (4) and research has been conducted (5) on these two sides, and each is supported with good theories as to why nature or nurture is the important influence on us.

Nature is believed to be what determines our personalities, looks, and other things because it's all genetically passed down. Any matter concerning traits relies upon the concept of inborn biology. Many American parents believe that any bad trait (6) that their child has obtained is because of bad parenting, but it may be more a matter of biology, and genes that run through the family. It has been concluded that a newborn doesn’t have a blank slate of personality (7), but does have a set of inherited (8) traits. Tests have been done at the University of Wisconsin to show that temperaments (person’s natural way of thinking) of an infant are influenced more by biology than experiences with their siblings.

In a way, our nature is our genetic gift, which gives us physical traits such as hair color, eye color, and form of the body. It does also determine the kinds of emotions and motivations (9) we will experience, which can be endless. Any new emotion is not possible to experience unless there is change to our genetic material. So in a way, genes give us certain traits or behavior characteristics; but it’s all a matter of whether or not we carry out our certain inherited qualities. And our environment (nurture) can sometimes make that choice for us.

The other side of the debate claims that nurture is the cause to our behavior as well as characteristics. Even though genes are what give us that certain spunk (10) to our personality, the environment has the power to alter it and make us into the exact opposite, as some say. Even the way that certain children are brought up can change how they turn out.

One comparison of how much the environment affects a child's development was done on tomatoes. Tomato seeds have certain genes in them, but what they grow into will be the same no matter what, and because of those genes in each seed, one may be destined to grow better than others. But if random seeds with different genes were split up (11) into two groups, with different environments, it is likely that the quality of the tomato would differ. One group would have all the benefits to help them grow better, such as water, sunlight, good soil, and extra care. Whereas group two would be given bad soil, not enough sunlight and water, and no extra care. These differences in their environment would definitely change the outcome of the tomatoes because group one would turn out a lot better than those in group two. It's a matter of what kind of influence they receive to turn out a certain way. "Bad soil" can alter how something may develop, such as humans.

Different ethnicities (12) have different expectations of how their child is to perform in school. We are perfect examples of the tomatoes because we all aren’t in bad soil, but some of us have higher expectations and environments, so we turn out differently than others. Asian families have higher expectations of their children when it comes to schoolwork. They are automatically expected to do well and excel academically at everything. This higher rate of expectations, and their environment with their parents, ultimately may lead to higher success for them in the near future. The way that Asian kids can be more successful, or even less because of all the pushing that they receive, is different from how other children turn out due to lower standards expected.

Along with having standards set for us in our environment, family surroundings can also affect a child. The family a child comes from is crucial to their development, thus, giving the nurture argument another reason why environment is important. Some authors know this, such as one who wrote this statement: "Children who grow up in a household with only one biological parent are worse off, on average, than children who grow up in a household with both of their biological parents, regardless of the parents' race or educational background, regardless of whether the parents are married when the child is born, and regardless of whether the resident parent remarries."

As our nature is a type of genetic endowment (13), nurture is the experience we have during our lifetime. But it's a little different from a regular experience because it resonates (14) with our motivations and emotions, and acts like our inner eye (15). This draws us to certain experiences and ignores others that occur. Society is the influence in our environment that may tell us to act a certain way, but if our inner eye does not motivate us to act that way, we most likely will not. It can control and motivate us to act how society wants us to.

Nature and nurture are tied in together in ways that many of us do not see, and it's an ongoing confusion as to which one creates a person's personality, looks, etc. I have an eclectic view and say that nature and nurture are both important influences to a person as they are developing their traits. Our genes are important because what we have inherited is essentially the basis of what kind of person we are, but the environment can alter and develop a person even more.

Twin studies have been made to determine whether hereditary is the leading factor, or if it’s the environment. The results have shown that it's basically an even amount of influence on a person. The twins shared common interest in spicy food, struggled in math, while playing sports, and have similarities in temperament, tempo (16), and ways of doing things. The differences that they showed were in their working habits, and thoughts; whereas one brother was liberal, the other was very traditional. They had similarities due to heredity, but they did have differences because they grew up in two very different environments. They had their share of common things, as well as differences.

Nature and nurture are both important to acquiring or altering traits in a person. One or the other doesn't work dominate; there needs to be both heredity and environment to answer this long debate.
It seems that this battle between nature and nurture will go on forever because both sides can be easily backed up with supporting information as to which is more important. Some psychologists agree that nature and nurture are both major influences to the development of behavior. Psychologist Robert Plomin said, "…. But the genetic influence on traits and behaviors is only partial (17): Genetics account, on average, for half of the variance (18) of most traits. That means the environment accounts for the rest." We receive genes from our family, but our environment and nurturing can alter that if strong enough, as an influence. Whether we notice it or not, nature and nurture are mixed in with each other, influencing traits of everyone.

Society is made up of genetic beings, and it formed because people have a genetic impulse to group together. If you were to be away from a group, and feel loneliness, that is a genetic behavior, as are all emotions. Culture is also an expression of our common trend as individuals. So it is safe to say that society, at a certain level, is a complex genetic creature, which sends messages to the other individuals, which are also in part genetic. It shows that nature can influence nurture, and vice versa (19), because an inherited behavior can change as time progresses. "… it is a fallacy (20) to believe that any behavior that is genetically inherited cannot be modified (21) over a lifetime."

Nurture has a larger effect on us than does nature. Nurture is the characteristic builder that we gain as we grow up. It is what defines our nature and makes us who we are. Nurture cultivates our nature, and it is the main regulator of our being.

After reading this article, reader must be able to determine the perspective of the author such that nurture is more influential than nature.

Vocabulary and noticeable phrases:
1. Nature (n): heredity / The genetic transmission from parents to offspring(s) – di truyền.
2. Nurture (n): environment / process of feeding and educating children.
3. Scholar (n): specialist in given branch of science.
4. Experimentation (n): experiment / the testing an idea – thí nghiệm, thử nghiệm.
5. Conducted -> Conduct (v): organize / carry out.
6. Trait (n): Characteristic -> phẩm chất, tính chất, tính cách.
7. Blank slate of personality = Blank paper of personality. In here, the “blank slate of personality” means that when the person was born, he or she does not have personal characteristics.
8. Inherited -> Inherit (v): transmit of genetic characteristics from parents to offspring(s).
9. Motivation (n): the acts of motivating / encouraging / stimulating – sực thúc đẩy.
10. Spunk (n): the courage to carry on something / motivation / incentive – động lực.
11. Split up (v): divide up = categorize
12. Ethnicities -> Ethnicity (n): ethnic group.
13. Endowment (n): equipment ~ endow (v): equip or supply with a talent or quality.
14. Resonate with (v): evoke / bring up – gợi lên.
15. Inner eye: instinct / section in your brain that genetically laid out.
16. Tempo (n): speed – tốc độ, nhịp độ.
17. Partial (adj): being a part of something.
18. Variance (n): difference / divergence – đa dạng.
19. Vice versa: ngược lại.
20. Fallacy (n): wrong idea or belief – ảo tưởng, ngụy biện.
21. Modified -> Modify (v): change / revise / alter – thay đổi.

Similar Threads:

• Articles
• Articles, Determiners, and Quantifiers
• Articles
• The article about articles.
• Review articles

Other Threads:

• Phonetic symbols: A necessary stepping stone for ESL learners
• Vocabulary from news and academic articles
• Inspirational stories with Ga Chip
• NOTES for MIT and Harvard admission
• Reading Comprehension with ngoc_diem_131

[o0o ga chip 93 o0o]

His brain, her brain

This story appears in the March 7, 2005 print edition of U.S. News & World Report. Posted 2/27/2005

Anyone who’s heard a group of men discuss the virtues(1) of high-end stereo equipment(2) will have little trouble believing that men’s and women’s brain work differently. That’s also no surprise to scientists, who have spent the past two decades trying by nature, the verdict: Female and male brains differ in both structure and function, and many of those variations(3) start in the womb(4). It’s no longer: “Is there a difference?” It’s “What do these differences mean?”

Male and female brains differ in how they’re built, with some parts larger in man, others larger in women. The variation is most striking(5) in overall size. Women’s brains are about 10 percent smaller than man’s, a fact that in centuries past provide ammunition(6) for the argument that women were by nature mentally deficient. Yet, despite this difference, women do just as well as man on intelligence tests. Researchers at the University of California-Irvine say they have figured out one possible explanation: In January, the reported that men have more gray matter in the brain and women have more white matter. Gray matter forms the brain’s information-centers, and white matter serves as writing connect processing centers. “Female brains might be more efficient”, says Richard Haier, the psychologist(7) who led the study. Women also tend to use their frontal lobes(8) for intellectual(9) performance, while the gray matter used by men is distributed throughout the brain. That has implications(10) for treating diseases like stroke and Alzheimer’s, Haier says; treatments could be targeted to protect or restore those critical regions.

Divergence(11). When it comes to putting brains to work, women and men have their own areas of expertise(12). Men do better than women at spatial(13) tasks such as thinking about rotating or manipulating an object. They’re also better at navigating(14) along a route and at high-end mathematical reasoning’ men have scored more perfect 800 scores on the math portion of the SAT than women have every year since 1964. Women excel at tests that measure word recall and at other tests of verbal memory. They’re also better at remembering landmarks and where objects are located. It’s used to be thought that these differences in cognitive(15) skills didn’t emerge(16) until puberty(17), but researchers have found the same differences in very young children.

The big question, of course, is whether the differences in his and her brain cause the variation in cognitive skills or whether society pushed women toward verbal, people-oriented(18) tasks, and men toward quantitative(19) fields like engineering. Few women in science have forgotten the infamous Teen Talk Barbie 1992, which chirped(20), “Math is hard!” and although the number of women in the sciences has increased steadily over the past 30 years-women now compose the majority in medical schools and graduate programs in biology –they are still underrepresented(21) in math, engineering and physics.

In 1980, psychologist Julian Stanley and Camilla Benbow ignited a firestorm when they proposed(22) that gifted boys did better at math than gifted girls because of a “math gene”. The nature vs. nurture debate continues 25 years later, but it is becoming more pragmatic(23) as researchers use MRI and other brain-imaging tools that show differences in male and female brains even when performance is identical(24). “In the early 80s, we were worried that sex differenced in the brain would be used against us as women”, says Jill Becker, a psychologist at the University of Michigan. “We are all more comfortable with diversity these days, and we’ve come to accept that there are many different ways of solving a problem. No two brains are the same.” – Nancy Shute.

Vocabulary (24 words):
1. Virtues -> Virtue (n): moral excellence, goodness = good moral quality – đức hạnh.
2. Stereo equipment (n): thiết bị âm thanh.
3. Variation (n): difference – sự khác biệt.
4. Womb (n): the part of the body of a female mammal in which the young are developed and kept until birth – dạ con.
5. Striking (adj): attracting attention/ impressive – đầy ấn tượng.
6. Ammunition: things used in firing of gun such as bullets – đạn dược.
7. Psychologist (n): person who studies about psychology – nhà tâm lí học.
8. Frontal lobes: thùy trước. frontal (adj): be in front of something. Lobe (n): division/part of a brain.
9. Intellectual (adj): rational / able to use the mind creatively – thuộc trí óc.
10. Implication (n): suggestion.
11. Divergence (n): drawing apart from common point – sự phân tán. In this case “Divergence.” stands alone as a dependent sentence due to the author’s purpose. The purpose will be discussed in my session.
12. Expertise (n): skillfulness/ having skill and knowledge in particular areas. – sự thông thạo.
13. Spatial (adj): relating to space – thuộc không gian.
14. Navigating -> Navigate (v): direct or guide to move in particular direction – dãn đường.
15. Cognitive (adj): thuộc nhận thực >> cognition (n): sự nhận thức.
16. Emerge (v): appear/ come out – nổi lên.
17. Puberty (n): the time when a child's body becomes sexually mature – tuổi dậy thì.
18. People-oriented refers to teaching, nurturing tasks.
19. Quantitative (adj): relating to considerations of amount and size – (thuộc) lượng, số lượng.
20. Chirped -> Chirp (v): sound/ make such a sound.
21. Underrepresented (adj): inadequately represented.
22. Propose (v): offer for consideration/ suggest – đề nghị.
23. Pragmatic (adj): dealing or concerned with facts or actual occurrences; practical – thực tế
24. Identical (adj): similar/ to be the same.

[o0o ga chip 93 o0o]

Strait time - Tech and Science
HOME > BREAKING NEWS > TECH AND SCIENCE > STORY
Apr 17, 2011

'Human milk' to hit Chinese market in 2 years

BEIJING - CHINESE consumers will soon be able to buy dairy products that are produced by genetically modified cattle(1) and contain most of the nutrients as in human breast milk.

The Chinese Ministry of Agriculture has given the green light to test production of the human-like milk, which will be available on the Chinese market in two years, said Li Ning, a leading researcher at the State Key Laboratories for AgroBiotechnology at China Agricultural University.

The milk, which cows produced after researchers tweaked(2) their genetic codes, is rich in lactalbumin(1), lactoferrin(2), and lysozume(3) - proteins that abound(3) in human breast milk, said Mr Li. 'Such proteins can be easily absorbed by the human body and can boost the immune(4) system, which is why breastfeeding(5) is always better than using bovine milk(6) and infant formula,' noted Mr Li.

Though not yet a perfect substitute for breast milk, as it lacks some antibodies(7) and a protein that helps boost babies' intelligence, Li said that the 'humanised' milk had great marketing and industrial potential. "The milk pumped out by our cattle will be a cheap source for such rare proteins, which are precious components hailed(8) by the pharmaceutical(9), cosmetic(10), and food industries," said Li, adding that the annual sales of lactoferrin are expected to reach US$5 billion (S$6.2 billion) worldwide.

Genetic engineering has been a rising technology studied by the pharmaceutical and biological industries. It is now widely used to mass-produce vaccines and drugs like insulin. Food produced using genetic modification(11), however, has been met with less public and official recognition. -- CHINA DAILY/ANN

Vocabulary:
1. Cattle (n): kind of mammals including cows, oxen, steers… - gia súc
2. Tweak (v): sudden sharp pull – véo, ngắt.
3. Abound (v): to be plentifully supplied – cung cấp đầy đủ.
4. Immune (adj): protected against or naturally resistant to disease –miễn dịch.
5. Breastfeeding (n): the act of feeding babies by mother’s milk from her breast.
6. Bovine milk (n): milk from cattle. Bovine (adj) = cattle-like – giống gia súc.
7. Antibody (n): special kind of protein inside human body that helps prevent human from bacteria, viruses… - kháng thể.
8. Hail (v): greet or welcome as something – hoan nghênh.
9. Pharmaceutical (adj): of or relating to pharmacy

1. Cosmetic (adj): A preparation, such as powder or a skin cream, designed to beautify the body by direct application – mĩ phẩm.

11. Modification (n): the act of modifying. Modify (v): change in form or characteristics – sửa đổi.

Terminology – Vocabulary that is specially used in particular part of science.
1. Lactalbumin (n): a protein occurring in milk that contains all the amino acids essential to man.
2. Lactoferrin (n): Lactoferrin belongs to the innate(natural) immune system. Apart from its main biological function, namely binding and transport of iron ions, lactoferrin also has antibacterial, antiviral, antiparasitic (kí sinh), catalytic, anti-cancer, anti-allergic and radioprotecting functions and properties.
3. Lysozome (n): tiêu bào – chất enzim trong tế bào dùng để tiêu hóa các bào quan đã hết hạn sử dụng hoặc già.

[o0o ga chip 93 o0o]

World's first flu-resistant GM chickens 'created'

By Pallab Ghosh Science correspondent, BBCnews
Professor Helen Sang: "Not only could we use this approach to tackle bird flu but other diseases"

UK scientists have created the world's first genetically modified chickens that do not spread bird flu.
Writing in Science journal, the team says their work demonstrates it is possible to create a variety of GM farm animals resistant to viral(1) diseases.

The research team inserted an artificial gene into chickens; this introduces a tiny part of the bird flu virus into chicken cells.
These birds become infected(2) but render(3) the virus harmless to other poultry(4).

The team believes that the genetic modification they have introduced is harmless to the chickens and to people who might eat the birds.

Professor Helen Sang of Edinburgh University told BBC News that genetic modification is potentially a much better way of protecting against diseases than vaccination because the GM technique works even if the virus mutates(5).

"It will protect a whole flock(6) from avian(7) influenza infection. This is really exciting because bird flu is a real challenge to poultry production and if it were introduced to poultry breeding it would protect our large scale production flocks from avian inlfuenza," said Professor Sang.

Broad protection
The researchers say that, in principle, the technique could be used to protect any farm animal from any disease. The eventual aim is to develop animals that are completely resistant to viral diseases.

Genetic modification could be an alternative to vaccination, scientists say.

According to co-author Dr Laurence Tiley, from the University of Cambridge, UK: "Agricultural selective breeding has made huge improvements on productivity of many livestock - but it's reaching the point where it's now limited.

"And the GM technologies allow you to introduce novel genes that don't exist in nature but are based on our detailed knowledge of the molecular biology of viruses. We can specifically target these viruses to prevent them from replicating(8)." The researchers say they think the technology has the potential to boost food production and reduce costs.

"There's going to be a real problem in feeding the world as the population increases," says Professor Sang.
"As the demand for animal products increases and it's going to get increasingly expensive and we are looking at different ways to tackle(9) that problem."

GM techniques could also have benefits for human health, according to Professor Sang. If fewer animals are carrying viruses there is a lower chance of them mutating into a form that would be deadly to humans and so create a pandemic(10).

Cautious welcome
But the news received a cautious welcome from the poultry industry. Peter Bradnock of The British Poultry Council said more research was needed to assess(11) the long term impact on farm animals before food producers would even consider using the technology.
Even then, companies would have to assess the likely reaction from consumers: "We have to have a big debate as to whether society wants to have GM animals even for this very good potential benefit," he told BBC News.

And Tim Elsdale, who is an organic farmer in East Sussex, said it was better to adopt good farming practices to avoid animals getting diseases in the first place than to create GM farm animals. "We don't suffer much from animal diseases on this farm," he said.
"Organic methods of husbandry(12) doesn't encourage disease if the animals are well spaced enough. They live in a natural environment and they eat normal food then a lot of diseases that are prevalent(13) on conventional(14) farming would not be apparent(15) to us".

If the food and farming industry did want to use GM technology in this way in the UK, they would need to seek prior(16) approval from the Food Standards Agency (FSA). The FSA would conduct a full detailed safety evaluation before any of this GM produce could enter the market.

In addition to that, produce would need to be labelled so that consumers would be able to make a choice about the food they eat. If there were an application, the authorisation process could be carried out in a matter of months.
The FSA's Chief Scientist, Dr Andrew Wadge said it would be interesting to see if the debate over GM animals would go the same way as the debate over GM crops:
"I do think it's interesting that so far with GM technology it's not really a benefit for consumers and wouldn't it be interesting if we had produce that did offer a benefit?
"For example, food safety for us is about a bacteria found in chickens called Campylobacter(1) which makes 500,000 people ill each year.
"If we could develop a GM chicken that is resistant to Campylobacter it would be very interesting indeed to see how consumers saw that technology and whether it was a technology they would be willing to embrace(17)".

Vocabulary
1. Viral (adj): of or relating to viruses – (thuộc) virut.
2. Infected -> Infect (v): transmit disease to – truyền nhiễm.
3. Render (v): perform/ present – biểu hiện.
4. Poultry (n): farmyard birds such as chickens, turkeys, ducks… - gia cầm.
5. Mutates -> Mutate (v): change/ convert – (sinh học) đột biến.
6. Flock (n): group of animals that live, travel, feed together – bầy đàn.
7. Avian (adj): of, relating, characteristic of birds – (thuộc) gia cầm.
8. Replicating -> Replicate (v): reproduce or make an exact copy of something – sao chép*.
9. Tackle (v): solve/ deal with/ find down solution – giải quyết.
10. Pandemic (adj): affecting people over a wide geographical area = general – tính rộng rãi, phổ biến.
11. Assess (v): estimate/ determine – xác định.
12. Husbandry (n): The application of scientific principles to agriculture, especially to animal breeding (producing offspring/ give birth/ hatch) – nghề nông.
13. Prevalent (adj): widely occurring – thường thấy.
14. Conventional (adj): formal/ proper –theo tập quán thông thường.
15. Apparent (adj): visible/ obvious – rõ ràng/ dễ thấy.
16. Prior (adj): more important – quan trọng hơn ~ priority (n)
17. Embrace (v): accept/ welcome – đón nhận/ chấp nhận.

Terminology
1. Campylobacter (n): a rod-shaped bacterium that causes infections in cattle and man

[o0o ga chip 93 o0o]

Ambidexterity and ADHD: Are They Linked?
People whose brains are too symmetrical are at risk for cognitive problems
By Emily Anthes | August 5, 2010 | 5

One of the first things that anatomy(1) students learn is that the brain is divided down the center. In most people, one half, or hemisphere(2), plays a dominant role(3). Handedness has long been a crude measure of hemispheric dominance, because each side of the brain controls the opposite side of the body. Right-handers, for instance, are likely to have dominant left hemispheres. Today researchers are realizing that studying ambidextrous(4) children (who have no dominant hand) could yield insights into the consequences of an unusually symmetrical brain.

A team of European researchers recently assessed nearly 8,000 Finnish children and showed that mixed-handed children are at increased risk for linguistic, scholastic and attention-related difficulties. At age eight, mixed-handed kids were about twice as likely to have language and academic difficulties as their peers. By the time the children were 16, they also were twice as likely to have symptoms of ADHD(5) —and their symptoms were more severe than those of right- or left-handed students.

Ambidexterity(6) is not causing these problems. Rather “handedness is really a very crude measure of how the brain is working,” says Alina Rodriguez, a clinical psychologist(7) at King’s College London and the study’s lead author. In typical brains, language is rooted in the left hemisphere, and net­works that control attention are anchored(8) in the right—but brains without a dominant hemisphere may be working and communicating differently.

Consistent with this theory, a 2008 study by scientists at the University of California, Los Angeles, found anomalies(9)
in cross-hemisphere communication in children with ADHD. On tasks that should be the domain of the left hemisphere—such as linguistic processing—children with ADHD seemed to be getting too much input from their right hemispheres. Rodriguez is quick to point out, however, that mixed handedness does not, by itself, indicate a malfunctioning(10) brain and is “just one risk factor among many others.”

So why do some kids have overly symmetrical brains? The answer may lie in epigenetics(11)—the mechanism by which environmental influences affect gene expression. In 2008 Rodriguez found that women who experienced stressful life events or depression during pregnancy were more likely to give birth to children who became mixed handed, adding evidence to the idea that the experiences of a mom-to-be affect her fetus’s brain development. [For more about prenatal influences on mental health, see “ Infected with Insanity ,” by Melinda Wenner; Scientific American Mind, April/May 2008.] That means that handedness, Rodriguez says, “can be used with other markers to predict who’s going to have problems with behavior” and give parents, teachers and doctors the opportunity to intervene at the first sign of trouble.

Source: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=ambidexterity-and-adhd

Vocabulary:
1. Anatomy (n): the science that studies the physical structural of animals, plants or any part of them – khoa giải phẫu.
2. Hemisphere (n): half of symmetrical, approximately spherical object – bán cầu.
3. Dominant role (n): ruling role – vai trò chủ chốt.
4. Ambidextrous (adj): able to use both hands with equal facility and ease – thuận 2 tay.
5. ADHD: Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder – chứng khó tập trung.
6. Ambidexterity (n): ability of using both hands with equal ease. – khả năng sử dụng 2 tay/ sự thuận 2 tay.
7. Clinical psychologist (n): a scientist trained in psychology and works in clinic – nhà tâm lí học làm việc tại buồng bệnh
8. Anchor (v): fasten – gữi chặt.
9. Anomalies -> Anomaly (n): abnormality – sự bất bình thường.
10. Malfunctioning -> malfunction (v): to fail to function – trục trặc.
11. Epigenetics (n): explained in the passage – biểu sinh.