50 Harmful Effects of Genetically Modified (Gm) Foods Essay Example for Free

50 Harmful Effects of Genetically Modified (Gm) Foods Essay Introduction What is called biotechnology is a vital issue that impacts all of us. Largely between 1997 and 1999, genetically modified (GM) food ingredients suddenly appeared in 2/3rds of all US processed foods. This food alteration was fueled by a single Supreme Court ruling. It allowed, for the first time, the patenting of life forms for commercialization. Since then thousands of applications for experimental genetically-modified (GM) organisms, including quite bizarre GMOs, have been filed with the US Patent Office alone, and many more abroad. Furthermore an economic war broke out to own equity in firms that legally claimed such patent rights or the means to control not only genetically modified organisms but vast reaches of human food supplies. This has been the behind-the-scenes and key factor for some of the largest and rapid agri-chemical firm mergers in history. The merger of Pioneer Hi-Bed and Dupont (1997), Novartis AG and AstraZeneca PLC (2000), plus Dows merger with Rohm and Haas (2001) are three prominent examples, Few consumers are aware this has been going on and is ever continuing. Yet if you recently ate soya sauce in a Chinese restaurant, munched popcorn in a movie theatre, or indulged in an occasional candy bar youve undoubtedly ingested this new type of food. You may have, at the time, known exactly how much salt, fat and carbohydrates were in each of these foods because regulations mandate their labeling for dietary purposes. But you would not know if the bulk of these foods, and literally every cell had been genetically altered! In just those three years, as much as 1/4th of all American agricultural lands or 70-80 million acres were quickly converted to raise genetically-modified (GM) food and crops. See more: Unemployment problems and solutions essay And in the race to increase GM crop production verses organics, the former is winning. For details, see our article Who is Winning The Race Between GM Global and Organic Crop Production? Core Philosophical Issues When Gandhi confronted British rule and Martin Luther King addressed those who disenfranchised Afro-Americans, each brought forth issues of morality and spirituality. They both challenged others to live up to the highest principles of humanity. With the issue of GM food technology, we should naturally do the same, and with great respect for both sides. It is not enough to list fifty or more harmful effects but we need to also address moral, spiritual and especially worldview issues. Here the stakes are incredibly huge. For an introductory discussion of the philosophical issues involving GMOs, why this technology represents the impregnation of a mechanical worldview, a death-centered vision of nature that is greatlyt accelerating the death of species on earth, see our article GMOs Philosophical Issues of a Thanoptic (Death-Delivering) Technology. FROM HYBRIDIZATION TO GMOs Another challenging phenomenon to face in our modern world is that of hybridization. It seems to have worked so very successfully in some commercial realms, and as a major application of Gregor Mendels revolutionary Gene Theory. Mendel offered a logical extension of the larger mechanical worldview. Just as we create factory assembly lines for manufacturing inanimate products, why cant we also manufacture living organisms, and using the same or similar principles? Why not take this assembly-line process to the next logical and progressive level? Whats wrong then with the advance of genetic engineering? No doubt, with hybridizations conscious life is manipulated. But living organisms continue to make some primary genetic decisions amid limited selections. We can understand this with an analogy. There is an immense difference between being a matchmaker and inviting two people to a dinner party, to meet and see if they are compatible. This differs essentially from forcing their meeting and union or a violent date rape. The former act may be divine, and the latter considered criminal. The implication is that biotechnology involves vital moral issues in regard to the whole of life in nature. With biotechnology, roses are no longer crossed with just roses. They are mated with pigs, tomatoes with oak trees, fish with asses, butterflies with worms, orchids with snakes. The technology that makes this all possible is called biolistics a gunshot-like violence that pierces the nuclear membrane of cells. This essentially violates not just the core chambers of life (physically crossing nuclear membranes) but the conscious-choice principle that is part of living natures essence. Some also compare it to the violent crossing of territorial borders of countries, subduing inhabitants against their will. What will happen if this technology is allowed to spread? Fifty years ago few predicted that chemical pollution would cause so much vast environmental harm. Now nearly 1/3rd of all species are threatened with extinction (and up to half of all plant species and half of all mammals). Few also knew that cancer rates would skyrocket during this same period. Nowadays approximately 41% on average of Americans can expect cancer in their lifetime. ALARM SIGNALS No one has a crystal ball to see future consequences of the overall GMO technology. Nevertheless, there are silent alarm signals like the early death of canaries in a mine shaft. There is, for example, growing evidence that the wholesale disappearance of bees relates directly to the appearance of ever more GM pollen. If we understand certain philosophical issues about the 17th centurys worldview, the potential harm of GMOs actually can potentially far outweigh that of chemical pollution. This is because chemistry deals mostly with things altered by fire (and then no longer alive, isolated in laboratories and not infecting living terrains in self-reproducible ways). Thus a farmer may use a chemical for many decades, and then let the land lie fallow to convert it back to organic farming. This is because the chemicals tend to break down into natural substances over time, Genetic pollution, however, can alter the oils life forever! Farmers who view their land as their primary financial asset have reason to heed this warning. They need to be alarmed by evidence that genetically-modified soil bacteria contamination can arise. This is more than just possible, given the numerous (1600 or more) distinct microorganisms that can be found in a single teaspoon of soil. If that soil contamination remains permanently, the consequences can be catastrophic. Someday the public may blacklist precisely those farms that have once planted GM crops. No one has put up any warning signs on product packaging for farmers, including those who now own 1/4 of all agricultural tracks in the US. Furthermore, the spreading potential impact on all ecosystems is profound. Writes Jeremy Rifkin, in The Biotech Century, Our way of life is likely to be more fundamentally transformed in the next several decades than in the previous one thousand years Tens of thousands of novel transgenic bacteria, viruses, plants and animals could be released into the Earths ecosystems Some of those releases, however, could wreak havoc with the planets biospheres. In short these processes involve unparalleled risks. Voices from many sides echo this view. Contradicting safety claims, no major insurance company has been willing to limit risks, or insure bio-engineered agricultural products. The reason given is the high level of unpredictable consequences. Over eight hundred scientists from 84 countries have signed The World Scientist open letter to all governments calling for a ban on the patenting of life-forms and emphasizing the very grave hazards of GMOs, genetically-modified seeds and GM foods. This was submitted to the UN, World Trade Organization and US Congress. The Union of Concerned Scientists (a 1000 plus member organization with many Nobel Laureates) has similarly expressed its scientific reservations. The prestigious medical journal, Lancet, published an article on the research of Arpad Pusztai showing potentially significant harms, and to instill debate. Britains Medical Association (the equivalent of the AMA and with over a 100,000 physicians) called for an outright banning of genetically-modified foods and labeling the same in countries where they still exist. In a gathering of political representatives from over 130 nations, drafting the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, approximately 95% insisted on new precautionary approaches. The National Academy of Science report on genetically-modified products urged greater scrutiny and assessments. Prominent FDA scientists have repeatedly expressed profound fears and reservations but their voices were muted not due to cogent scientific reasons but intense political pressure from the Bush administration in its efforts to buttress and promote the profit-potentials of a nascent biotech industry. To counterbalance this, industry-employed scientists have signed a statement in favor of genetically-modified foods. But are any of these scientists impartial? Writes the New York Times (Feb 20, 2000) (about a similar crisis involving genetic engineering and medical applications). Academic scientists who lack industry ties have become as rare as giant pandas in the wild lawmakers, bioethics experts and federal regulators are troubled that so many researchers have a financial stake [via stock options or patent participation] The fear is that the lure of profit could color scientific integrity, promoting researchers to withhold information about potentially dangerous side-effects. Looked at from outside of commercial interests, perils of genetically modified foods and organisms are multi-dimensional. They include the creation of new transgenic life forms organisms that cross unnatural gene lines (such as tomato seed genes crossed with fish genes) and that have unpredictable behavior or replicate themselves out of control in the wild. This can happen, without warning, inside of our bodies creating an unpredictable chain reaction. A four-year study at the University of Jena in Germany conducted by Hans-Hinrich Kaatz revealed that bees ingesting pollen from transgenic rapeseed had bacteria in their gut with modified genes. This is called a horizontal gene transfer. Commonly found bacteria and microorganisms in the human gut help maintain a healthy intestinal flora. These, however, can be mutated. Mutations may also be able to travel internally to other cells, tissue systems and organs throughout the human body. Not to be underestimated, the potential domino effect of internal and external genetic pollution can make the substance of science-fiction horror movies become terrible realities in the future. The same is true for the bacteria that maintain the health of our soil and are vitally necessary for all forms of farming in fact for human sustenance and survival. Without factoring in biotechnology, milder forms of controlling nature have gravitated toward restrictive monocropping. In the past 50 years, this underlies the disappearance of approximately 95% of many native grains, beans, nuts, fruits, and vegetable varieties in the United States, India, and Argentina among other nations (and on average 75% worldwide). Genetically-modified monoculture, however, can lead to yet greater harm. Monsanto, for example, had set a goal of converting 100% of all US soy crops to Roundup Ready strains by the year 2000. If this plan were effected, it would have threatened the biodiversity and resilience of all future soy farming practices. Monsanto laid out similar strategies for corn, cotton, wheat and rice. This represents a deepest misunderstanding of how seeds interact, adapt and change with the living world of nature. One need only look at agricultural history at the havoc created by the Irish potato blight, the Mediterranean fruit fly epidemic in California, the regional citrus canker attacks in the Southeast, and the 1970s US corn leaf blight. In the latter case, 15% of US corn production was quickly destroyed. Had weather changes not quickly ensued, most all crops would have been laid waste because a fungus attached their cytoplasm universally. The deeper reason this happened was that approximately 80% of US corn had been standardized (devitalized/mechanized) to help farmers crossbreed and by a method akin to those used in current genetic engineering. The uniformity of plants then allowed a single fungus to spread, and within four months to destroy crops in 581 counties and 28 states in the US. According to J. Browning of Iowa State University: Such an extensive, homogeneous acreage of plants is like a tinder-dry prairie waiting for a spark to ignite it. The homogeneity is unnatural, a byproduct again of deadening natures creativity in the attempt to mechanize, to grasp absolute control, and of what ultimately yields not control but wholesale disaster. Europeans seem more sensitive than Americans to such approaches, given the analogous metaphor of German eugenics. HISTORICAL SYNOPSIS Overall the biotech revolution that is presently trying to overturn 12,000 years of traditional and sustainable agriculture was launched in the summer of 1980 in the US. This was the result of a little-known US Supreme Court decision Diamond vs. Chakrabarty where the highest court decided that biological life could be legally patentable. Ananda Mohan Chakrabarty, a microbiologist and employee of General Electric (GE), developed at the time a type of bacteria that could ingest oil. GE rushed to apply for a patent in 1971. After several years of review, the US Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) turned down the request under the traditional doctrine that life forms are not patentable. Jeremy Rifkins organization, the Peoples Business Commission, filed the only brief in support of the ruling. GE later sued and won an overturning of the PTO ruling. This gave the go ahead to further bacterial gmo research throughout the 1970s. Then in 1983 the first genetically-modified plant, an anti-biotic resistant tobacco was introduced. Field trials then began in 1985, and the EPA approved the very first release of a GMO crop in 1986. This was a herbicide-resistant tobacco. All of this went forward due to a regulatory green light as in 1985 the PTO also decided the Chakrabarty ruling could be further extended to all plants and seeds, or the entire plant kingdom. It then took another decade before the first genetically-altered crop was commercially introduced. This was the famous delayed-ripening Flavr-savr tomato approved by the FDA on May 18, 1994. The tomato was fed in laboratory trials to mice who, normally relishing tomatoes, refused to eat these lab-creations and had to be force-fed by tubes. Several developed stomach lesions and seven of the forty mice died within two weeks. Without further safety testing the tomato was FDA approved for commercialization. Fortunately, it ended up as a production and commercial failure, and was ultimately abandoned in 1996. This was the same year Calgene, the producer, began to be bought out by Monsanto. During this period also, and scouring the world for valuable genetic materials, W. R. Grace applied for and was granted fifty US patents on the neem tree in India. It even patented the indigenous knowledge of how to medicinally use the tree f(what has since been called biopiracy). Also by the close of the 20th century, about a dozen of the major US crops including corn, soy, potato, beets, papaya, squash, tomato and cotton were approved for genetic modification. Going a step further, on April 12, 1988, PTO issued its first patent on animal life forms (known as oncomice) to Harvard Professor Philip Leder and Timothy A. Stewart. This involved the creation of a transgenic mouse containing chicken and human genes. Since 1991 the PTO has controversially granted other patent rights involving human stem cells, and later human genes. A United States company, Biocyte was awarded a European patent on all umbilical cord cells from fetuses and newborn babies. The patent extended exclusive rights to use the cells without the permission of the donors. Finally the European Patent Office (EPO) received applications from Baylor University for the patenting of women who had been genetically altered to produce proteins in their mammary glands. Baylor essentially sought monopoly rights over the use of human mammary glands to manufacture pharmaceuticals. Other attempts have been made to patent cells of indigenous peoples in Panama, the Solomon Islands, and Papua New Guinea, among others. Thus the groundbreaking Chakrabarty ruling evolved, and within little more than two decades from the patenting of tiny, almost invisible microbes, to allow the genetic modification of virtually all terrains of life on Earth. Certain biotech companies then quickly, again with lightening speed, moved to utilize such patenting for the control of first and primarily seed stock, including buying up small seed companies and destroying their non-patented seeds. In the past few years, this has led to a near monopoly control of certain genetically modified commodities, especially soy, corn, and cotton (the latter used in processed foods when making cottonseed oil). As a result, between 70-75% of processed grocery products, as estimated by the Grocery Manufacturers of America, soon showed genetically-modified ingredients. Yet again without labeling, few consumers in the US were aware that any of this was pervasively occurring. Industry marketers found out that the more the public knew, the less they wanted to purchase GM foods. Thus a concerted effort was organized to convince regulators (or bribe them with revolving-door employment arrangements) not to require such labeling. About the 50 Harmful Effects of GM Foods This article does more than dispute the industry and certain government officials claims that genetically-modified (GM) foods are the equivalent of ordinary foods not requiring labeling. It offers an informative list of the vast number of alarm signals, at least fifty hazards, problems, and dangers. also interspersed are deeper philosophical discussion of how the good science of biotechnology can turn against us as a thano-technology, grounded in a worldview that most seriously needs to be revisied. When pesticides were first introduced, they also were heralded as absolutely safe and as a miracle cure for farmers. Only decades later the technology revealed its truer lethal implications. Here the potentially lethal implications are much broader. The following list of harms is also divided into several easily referred-to sections, namely on health, environment, farming practices, economic/political/social implications, and issues of freedom of choice. There is a concluding review of means of inner activism philosophical, spiritual, worldview changing. Next there is a list of action-oriented, practical ideas and resources for personal, political and consumer action on this vital issue. Finally, I want the reader to know that this article is a living document, subject to change whenever new and important information becomes available. The reader is thus encouraged to return to this article as a resource, explore other parts of our site, and otherwise keep in touch with us and the Websites we link to. Most importantly please sign up for our newsletter so we can exchange vital information with you. Sign up now for our Newsletter to get invaluable updates and more HEALTH Recombinant DNA technology faces our society with problems unprecedented not only in the history of science, but of life on Earth. It places in human hands the capacity to redesign living organisms, the products of three billion years of evolution. Such intervention must not be confused with previous intrusions upon the natural order of living organisms: animal and plant breeding All the earlier procedures worked within single or closely related species Our morality up to now has been to go ahead without restriction to learn all that we can about nature. Restructuring nature was not part of the bargain this direction may be not only unwise, but dangerous. Potentially, it could breed new animal and plant diseases, new sources of cancer, novel epidemics. Deaths and Near-Deaths 1. Recorded Deaths from GM: In 1989, dozens of Americans died and several thousands were afflicted and impaired by a genetically modified version of the food supplement L-tryptophan creating a debilitating ailment known as Eosinophilia myalgia syndrome (EMS) . Released without safety tests, there were 37 deaths reported and approximately 1500 more were disabled. A settlement of $2 billion dollars was paid by the manufacturer, Showa Denko, Japans third largest chemical company destroyed evidence preventing a further investigation and made a 2 billion dollar settlement. Since the very first commercially sold GM product was lab tested (Flavr Savr) animals used in such tests have prematurely died. 2. Near-deaths and Food Allergy Reactions: In 1996, Brazil nut genes were spliced into soybeans to provide the added protein methionine and by a company called Pioneer Hi-Bred. Some individuals, however, are so allergic to this nut, they can go into anaphylactic shock (similar to a severe bee sting reaction) which can cause death. Using genetic engineering, the allergens from one food can thus be transferred to another, thought to be safe to eat, and unknowingly. Animal and human tests confirmed the peril and fortunately the product was removed from the market before any fatalities occurred. The animal tests conducted, however, were insufficient by themselves to show this. Had they alone been relied upon, a disaster would have followed. The next case could be less than ideal and the public less fortunate, writes Marion Nestle author of Food Politics and Safe Food, and head of the Nutrition Department of NYU in an editorial to the New England Journal of Medicine. It has been estimated that 25% of Americans have mild adverse reactions to foods (such as itching and rashes), while at least 4% or 12 million Americans have provably more serious food allergies as objectively shown by blood iImmunoglobulin E or IgE levels. In other words, there is a significant number of highly food-sensitive individuals in our general population. The percentage of young children who are seriously food-allergenic is yet higher, namely 6-8% of all children under the age of three. In addition, the incidence rates for these children has been decidedly rising. Writes Dr. Jacqueline Pongracic, head of the allergy department at Childrens Memorial Hospital in Chicago, Ive been treating children in the field of allergy immunology for 15 years, and in recent years Ive really seen the rates of food allergy skyrocket. The Center for Disease Control confirmed the spike on a US national level. Given the increased adulteration of our diets, it is no wonder at all that this is happening. Yet the FDA officials who are sacredly entrusted to safeguard the health of the general public, and especially of children, declared in 1992, under intense industry-lobbying pressure, that genetically-modified (GM) foods were essentially equivalent to regular foods. The truth is that genetically modified foods cannot ever be equivalent. They involve the most novel and technologically-violent alterations of our foods, the most uniquely different foods ever introduced in the history of modern agriculture (and in the history of biological evolution). To say otherwise affronts the intelligence of the public and safeguarding public officials. It is a bold, if not criminal deception to but appease greed-motivated corporate parties and at the direct expense and risk of the publics health. The FDA even decided against the advice of its own scientists that there was no need at all for FDA allergy or safety testing of these most novel of all foods. This hands-off climate (as promoted by the Bush Administration and similar to what was done with the mortgage and financial industry) is a recipe for widespread social health disasters. When elements of nature that have never before been present in the human diet are suddenly introduced, and without any public safety testing or labeling notice, such as petunia flower elements in soybeans and fish genes in tomatoes (as developed by DNA Plant Technology Corporation in the 1990s), it obviously risks allergic reactions among the most highly sensitive segments of our general population. It is a well-know fact that fish proteins happen to be among the most hyper-allergenic, while tomatoes are not. Thus not labeling such genetically modified tomatoes, with hidden alien or allergenic ingredients, is completely unconscionable. The same applies to the typical GMO that has novel bacterial and viral DNA artificially inserted. Many research studies have definitively confirmed this kind of overall risk for genetically modified foods: CORN- Two research studies independently show evidence of allergenic reactions to GM Bt corn, Farm workers exposed to genetically-modified Bt sprays exhibited extensive allergic reactions. POTATOES A study showed genetically-modified potatoes expressing cod genes were allergenic. PEAS A decade-long study of GM peas was abandoned when it was discovered that they caused allergic lung damage in mice. SOY In March 1999, researchers at the York Laboratory discovered that reactions to soy had skyrocketed by 50% over the year before, which corresponded with the introduction of genetically-modified soy from the US. It was the first time in 17 years that soy was tested in the lab among the top ten allergenic foods. Cancer and Degenerative Diseases 3. Direct Cancer and Degenerative Disease Links: GH is a protein hormone which, when injected into cows stimulates the pituitary gland in a way that the produces more milk, thus making milk production more profitable for the large dairy corporations. In 1993, FDA approved Monsantos genetically-modified rBGH, a genetically-altered growth hormone that could be then injected into dairy cows to enhance this feature, and even though scientists warned that this resulted in an increase of IGF-1 (from (70%-1000%). IGF-1 is a very potent chemical hormone that has been linked to a 2 1/2 to 4 times higher risk of human colorectal and breast cancer. Prostate cancer risk is considered equally serious in the 2,8. to 4 times range. According to Dr. Samuel Epstein of the University of Chicago and Chairman of the Cancer Prevention Coalition, this induces the malignant transformation of human breast epithelial cells. Canadian studies confirmed such a suspicion and showed active IGF-1 absorption, thyroid cysts and internal organ damage in rats. Yet the FDA denied the significance of these findings. When two award-winning journalists, Steve Wilson and Jane Akre, tried to expose these deceptions, they were fired by Fox Network under intense pressure from Monsanto. The FDAs own experiments indicated a spleen mass increase of 40-46%- a sign of developing leukemia. The contention by Monsanto that the hormone was killed by pasteurization or rendered inactive was fallacious. In research conducted by two of Monsantos own scientists, Ted Elasser and Brian McBride, only 19% of the hormone was destroyed despite boiling milk for 30 minutes when normal pasteurization is 15 seconds. Canada, the European Union, Australia and New Zealand have banned rBGR. The UNs Codex Alimentarius, an international health standards setting body, refused to certify rBGH as safe. Yet Monsanto continued to market this product in the US until 2008 when it finally divested under public pressure. This policy in the FDA was initiated by Margaret Miller, Deputy Director of Human Safety and Consultative Services, New Animal Drug Evaluation Office, Center for Veterinary Medicine and former chemical laboratory supervisor for Monsanto. This is part of a larger revolving door between Monsanto and the Bush Administration. She spearheaded the increase in the amount of antibiotics farmers were allowed to have in their milk and by a factor of 100 or 10,000 percent. Also Michael Taylor, Esq. became the executive assistant to the director of the FDA and deputy Commissioner of Policy filling a position created in 1991 to promote the biotech industry and squelch internal dissent. There Taylor drafted a new law to undermine the 1958 enacted Delaney Amendment that so importantly outlawed pesticides and food additives known to cause cancer. In other words carcinogens could now legally be reintroduced into our food chain. Taylor was later hired as legal counsel to Monsanto, and subsequently became Deputy Commissioner of Policy at the FDA once again. On another front, GM-approved products have been developed with resistance to herbicides that are commonly-known carcinogens. Bromoxynil is used on transgenic bromoxynmil-resistant or BXN cotton. It is known to cause very serious birth defects and brain damage in rats. Glyphosate and POEA, the main ingredients in Roundup, Monsantos lead product are suspected carcinogens. As to other degenerative disease links, according to a study by researcher Dr. Sharyn Martin, a number of autoimmune diseases are enhanced by foreign DNA fragments that are not fully digested in the human stomach and intestines. DNA fragments are absorbed into the bloodstream, potentially mixing with normal DNA. The genetic consequences are unpredictable and unexpected gene fragments have shown up in GM soy crops. A similar view is echoed by Dr. Joe Cummins, Professor of Genetics at the University of Western Ontario, noting that animal experiments have demonstrated how exposure to such genetic elements may lead to inflammation, arthritis and lymphoma (a malignant blood disease). 4. Indirect, Non-traceable Effects on Cancer Rates: The twentieth century saw an incremental lowering of infectious disease rates, especially where a single bacteria was overcome by an antibiotic, but a simultaneous rise in systemic, whole body or immune system breakdowns. The epidemic of cancer is a major example and is affected by the overall polluted state of our environment, including in the pollution of the air, water, and food we take in. There are zillions of potential combinations for the 100,000 commonly thrust upon our environment. The real impact cannot be revealed by experiments that look at just a few controlled factors or chemicals isolates. Rather all of nature is a testing ground. Scientists a few years ago were startled that combining chemical food additives into chemical cocktails caused many times more toxic effects than the sum of the individual chemicals. More startling was the fact that some chemicals were thought to be harmless by themselves but not in such combinations. For example, two simple chemicals found in soft drinks, ascorbic acid and sodium benzoate, together form benzene, an immensely potent carcinogen. Similarly, there is the potential, with entirely new ways of rearranging the natural order with genetic mutations and that similar non-traceable influences can likewise cause cancer. We definitively know X-rays and chemicals cause genetic mutations, and mutagenic changes are behind many higher cancer rates or where cells duplicate out of control. In the US in the year 1900, cancer affected only about 1 out 11 individuals. It now inflicts 1 out of 2 men and 1 out of 3 women in their lifetime. Cancer mortality rates rose relentlessly throughout the 20th century to more than triple overall. Viral and Bacterial Illness 5. Superviruses: Viruses can mix with genes of other viruses and retroviruses such as HIV. This can give rise to more deadly viruses and at rates higher than previously thought. One study showed that gene mixing occurred in viruses in just 8 weeks (Kleiner, 1997). This kind of scenario applies to the cauliflower mosaic virus CaMV, the most common virus used in genetic engineering in Round Up ready soy of Monsanto, Bt-maise of Novaris, and GM cotton and canola. It is a kind of pararetrovirus or what multiplies by making DNA from RNA. It is somewhat similar to Hepatitis B and HIV viruses and can pose immense dangers. In a Canadian study, a plant was infected with a crippled cucumber mosaic virus that lacked a gene needed for movement between plant cells. Within less than two weeks, the crippled plant found what it needed from neighboring genes as evidence of gene mixing or horizontal transfer.

Presidential Election 2000 :: essays research papers fc

The 2000 Presidential Election was one of the most suspenseful and unclear presidential elections for more than a century. For weeks after November 7, it had been uncertain to America who had won the presidency. The election’s closeness and bitter words between parties over the results will leave controversy for years to come.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  When the elections began, the Republicans and Democrats chose their candidates. Caucuses were held in each state to choose delegates. It had begun like any other election, and there was a lot of competition in the primaries. There were six Republicans running for party nominations. As the son of former president George Bush, George Bush Jr. had more money than any other candidate for campaigning. On the other hand, Al Gore had a good reputation, serving two terms as vice president under the Clinton administration.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  From July 31st to August 3rd, the Republican National Convention was held in Philadelphia. The Republican Party nominated Bush, he chose Dick Cheney for vice president. Under Bush’s father’s administration, Cheney had been secretary of defense. The Republican’s platform had been made to appeal to conservatives, with set positions on taxes, defense, education, and health care.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  From August 14th through 17th, the Democratic National Convention was held in Los Angeles, California. Al Gore was nominated the Democratic candidate for president, with his choice of Joseph Lieberman as vice president. Lieberman was the first Jewish vice presidential candidate of a major party. The Democratic platform outlined the achievements of the Clinton administration.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  There had been big differences between Gore and Bush on key issues. For example, Gore proposed a $500 billion tax cut, while Bush proposed $1.3 trillion. Bush was leaning for more defenses, and Gore was going for education. On the other hand, the two candidates had common opinions on issues. Both had supported stronger enforcement on the current gun laws. They both wanted to reform education in public schools. When the campaign had first begun, the polls had shown that the election would be very close. The candidates appeared on television talk shows, and had visited key states whose electoral votes would be important in the outcome. Gore and Bush’s previous positions also played a big role in the campaign.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã¢â‚¬Å"Third Party† candidates played a role in the 2000 presidential campaign. The strongest of the candidates was Ralph Nader. He is a member of the Green Party, and is a consumer rights activist. Presidential Election 2000 :: essays research papers fc The 2000 Presidential Election was one of the most suspenseful and unclear presidential elections for more than a century. For weeks after November 7, it had been uncertain to America who had won the presidency. The election’s closeness and bitter words between parties over the results will leave controversy for years to come.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  When the elections began, the Republicans and Democrats chose their candidates. Caucuses were held in each state to choose delegates. It had begun like any other election, and there was a lot of competition in the primaries. There were six Republicans running for party nominations. As the son of former president George Bush, George Bush Jr. had more money than any other candidate for campaigning. On the other hand, Al Gore had a good reputation, serving two terms as vice president under the Clinton administration.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  From July 31st to August 3rd, the Republican National Convention was held in Philadelphia. The Republican Party nominated Bush, he chose Dick Cheney for vice president. Under Bush’s father’s administration, Cheney had been secretary of defense. The Republican’s platform had been made to appeal to conservatives, with set positions on taxes, defense, education, and health care.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  From August 14th through 17th, the Democratic National Convention was held in Los Angeles, California. Al Gore was nominated the Democratic candidate for president, with his choice of Joseph Lieberman as vice president. Lieberman was the first Jewish vice presidential candidate of a major party. The Democratic platform outlined the achievements of the Clinton administration.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  There had been big differences between Gore and Bush on key issues. For example, Gore proposed a $500 billion tax cut, while Bush proposed $1.3 trillion. Bush was leaning for more defenses, and Gore was going for education. On the other hand, the two candidates had common opinions on issues. Both had supported stronger enforcement on the current gun laws. They both wanted to reform education in public schools. When the campaign had first begun, the polls had shown that the election would be very close. The candidates appeared on television talk shows, and had visited key states whose electoral votes would be important in the outcome. Gore and Bush’s previous positions also played a big role in the campaign.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã¢â‚¬Å"Third Party† candidates played a role in the 2000 presidential campaign. The strongest of the candidates was Ralph Nader. He is a member of the Green Party, and is a consumer rights activist.

An Attempted Robbery

One evening when the sun was about to set, my mother asked me to go and buy some onions and salt from the nearby sundry shop. The shop is run by Samy, a jovial middle-age Indian man with a huge pot-belly. His wife and two young children, a boy and a girl, help him run the shop. It was almost completely dark when I reached the shop. Samy had switched on the lights in his small but adequately stocked shop. He was alone at the time and I was the only customer. Samy greeted me with a huge smile. I always wanted to ask him how he kept his teeth so sparkling white but I was afraid to ask. Anyway I told him what I wanted to buy and he went about getting the things for me. Next door to Samy’s shop is a coffee shop run by another Indian man. It was still open at the time. From the coffee shop emerged two men. They came into Samy’s shop and I could smell the overpowering smell of beer coming from these two men. Both of them were young but from the way they half-walked half-staggered into the shop it was obvious they had a bit too much to drink. I kept a safe distance from these men. It is never a good idea to be near drunks. One never knows what they will do next. True enough, my caution was justified, for the next moment, without any warning, one of the men swept a pile of tinned goods from a table onto the floor. In a second the neat rows were reduced to utter chaos. The man who did it roared out in laughter. I could see Samy’s anger rising. He raised his voice. As if in reply to his retort, the two men started shouting obscenities at him. Then suddenly a knife appeared in one of the men’s hand. The man that held the knife was small and wiry and judging from the muscles in his hand I had no doubt he was very strong. The knife-man lunged and in a flash he had the point of his knife at Samy’s throat. Samy froze and his face paled. I was so overwhelmed by the suddenness of events that the next thing I knew I could not move my hands, nor the other parts of my body. I was held in a vice-like grip by the other man. I did not even see him coming. I struggled but all I could do was to make the grip tighten more. I got difficult to breathe. I heard a lot of shouting and I could see the knife-man slapping Samy. Reluctantly Samy opened the drawer where he kept his cash and the knife-man leaned over and made a grab for the cash. That was a big mistake he made. For a fleeting moment his knife was forgotten and in that short moment Samy seized his chance. Samy’s huge right hand came down hard over the back of the leaning man’s head. The force of the blow carried the man’s head right down hard onto the table. There was a sickening thud when face met table. The knife-man’s head rebounded like a rubber ball from the table and I could see blood all over his face. He was badly hurt. The knife dropped from lifeless hands on the floor. Moving with surprising speed, Samy grabbed a bottle of tomato ketchup from a shelf and broke it over the man’s head. Red tomato ketchup splattered all over the place. I could not distinguish how much of the red stuff on the man’s face was his own blood, or tomato ketchup. Slowly he sank to the floor and lay still. I struggled to get loose. I felt so easy. Then I realized that hands no longer held me. I turned around and saw the dark figure of a man running out of the shop and disappearing into the semi-darkness. I was about to go in pursuit but Samy stopped me. He said it was useless pursuing somebody in the dark. Moreover the man could be armed and that would be dangerous. Ten minutes later the shop was filled with curious people all wanting to know what had happened. The knife-man was herded into a police car. Samy and I had to give our statements to the police. When I arrived home half an hour later, my mother was waiting impatiently for me. She was about to lecture me about being so slow in getting a few things but she stopped and listened dumbfounded while I related the recent events to her. When I finished she smiled and said that she was glad I was not injured.

The Theoretical Background Upon Behavior Modification Techniques

The theoretical background upon behavior modification techniques Abstract Behavior modification is a technique about the change in undesired behavior and enhancing desired behavior. In this paper is shown the history of this technique, when it dates from, a theoretical background and the steps of the modification, in order to be successful and thriving. This paper will show one of the first experiments with the behavior modification and how they helped this behavior technique to evolve, so to be helpful for therapeutic purposes as well as for parental purposes. Table of contents: 1. Introduction†¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦.. 2 2. History of behavior modification†¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦.. 2 3. Principles of behavior modification†¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦.. 3 4. Techniques of behavior modification †¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦ 3 5. Steps of behavior modification†¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦.. 4 6. Conclusion†¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦ †¦. 4 7. Reference list†¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦ †¦. 5 1. Introduction Behavior modification is a technique concerning the change in the undesired behavior and enhancing desired behavior. It is an approach that aims to modify the behavior of a pe rson through the use of positive or negative reinforcement and punishment.Rewards such as approval, cloth, food or even money can support and strengthen the desired behavior and improve its regularity and occurrence. Behavior modification technique is used in many different situations, varying from the performance of children in their classroom, in their home or in the playground to the actions of adult prison inmates or people who need therapeutic treatment. For instance, if a child is doing her or his homework, this is a desired and wanted behavior. A teacher can support this kind of activity by providing the child with praise or a star on a chart to encourage the child to repeat this behavior.In the next lesson the kid has done the homework in order to get another star. This is a behavior modification. 2. History of behavior modification The theoretical background of behavior modification technique dates since 1911 when this term is used for the first time by Edward Thorndike. Th e behavior modification can also be traced to lab research in 1800's and 1900's. The greater part of this research was done through experimenting with animals. However, this technique is profoundly and intensely developed by American behaviorist Burrhus Frederic Skinner.He developed the idea of operant conditioning, which is the concept that the behavior of a person or an animal can be shaped by reinforcement or lack of one. (Skinner, B. F, 1938). Nowadays, these notions are used by parents and mental health professionals. Behaviorists strongly believe that people are a creation of their life experience with the ability to manage their behavior and study new once. Many routine programs are about reducing cholesterol, blood pressure or weight by using behavior modification techniques as a means of thoroughly modifying eating habits.In another words, behavior modification technique is used to replace undesirable behavior with desirable once. It is the process of modifying a person's r eaction to different stimuli. 3. Principles of behavior modification In the behavior modification technique there are two main principles and they are reinforcement and punishment; both can be either positive or negative. The reinforcement fortifies the behavior. It is something that a person obtains as a result of their behavior that makes it more possible to do it again in the future. A positive reinforcement is about encouraging desirable behaviors through a technique of rewards.In the behavior therapy, therapists often make contracts with their patients and clients in order to establish the terms of the reward system. A negative reinforcement illustrates wanted behavior which is rewarded with the elimination of a negative stimulus. On the other hand, the punishment lessens the behavior. It happens when a person obtain a consequence that they do not desire as an outcome of their behavior. A positive one takes place when unwanted behavior results in the addition of a negative stim ulus. A negative punishment takes place when unwanted behavior results in the removal of an enjoyable and satisfying motivation.B. F. Skinner display positive and negative reinforcement. He put a rat in a box. In this box there was a lever and when it was pushed it released food. The rat quickly understands that every time he pushed the lever he will receive food. In this case the positive reinforcement of receiving food made the rat to push the lever and so it has lever pushing behavior. In Skinner's other example, he put the rat in a different box with a lever. In this box there was an electric current. The rat would push the lever, which immediately turned off the electric current.So, the rat learned to push it in order to stop the current. This behavior was reinforced by avoiding negative circumstances. According to B. F. Skinner the punishment have to be used only as a last option. He thought so, because he believed that people will try harder for a prize than through fear of p unishment, so he stated that the positive reinforcement is more effective than the other methods. He also had the notion that the punishment did not result in the long run for the behavior modification, he believed that the punishment had only brief results. 4 . Techniques of behavior modificationIn the behavior modification there are three techniques which help to remodel negative thoughts or actions into positive ones and they are systematic desensitization, aversion and token economy. Systematic desensitization technique aid with lessen the fear associated with certain stimuli. The experience to the fear-producing stimuli, while focusing on easing techniques in the long run leads to the fear-inducing stimuli resulting in the easing response, rather than fear. Aversion technique support breaking severe or just troublesome habits through associating aversive stimuli to the unwanted habits.In the end, the unwanted habits become related with the negative consequence and the behavior is diminished. The most effective behavior modification technique is the token economy, mainly with children. With this technique a wanted behavior results in the reward of a token -for instance a star or a poker chip; on the other hand unwanted behavior result in taking away the token. When children gain a specific number of tokens, they get a meaningful item, opportunity or some kind of benefit in exchange for the tokens.Ultimately, the rewarding of tokens decreases the unwanted behavior on their own. 5. Steps of behavior modification The behavior modification technique is accessible for everyone – individuals, families and ill people and they all have to follow some steps in order the behavior modification to be successful. The steps are related with identification, education, environmental changes, encouragement and discouragement. The identification of a problem may be easy when an adult choose to stop smoking, or difficult when a student often interrupt the teacher in c lass.Behavior modification techniques involve an educational part to begin the wanted changes. For instance, a teacher might explain to a child in positive ways to express irritation with discussion, rather than throwing objects. Negative behaviors often take place in relation to exact circumstances. For instance, an overeater might always eat when watching TV or a smoker might always smoke when drinking coffee. Environmental changes diminish the chances for the negative behaviors to take place. When the proper behavior occurs, the individual obtain positive reinforcement.For example, a child who does her or his homework will be left to play games or extra hour on the playground. Negative reinforcement give unwanted consequences for keeping on the negative behavior. For instance, extra chores might be the consequence for a teenager acting disrespectfully at home. 6. Conclusion A behavior modification technique has the potential to help many people as well as everyday behaviors and c ircumstances and also to aid in many disorders. This technique has proved as successful many different treatments.For instance, it has helped with children with autism, conduct disorders, many different phobias and addictions; it also has helped in the treatment of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder as well as in parenting and classroom settings. In conclusion to be thriving it has to be followed five very important steps for successful behavior modification technique. First of all it has to be determining the ways for helping diminishing the problems. Secondly, it has to be developing a program designed to lessen the unwanted behavior and make stronger the wanted behavior.Third, it has to be carry out the program. Fourth, it has to be keep objective records of progress. And fifth it has to be supervising the program and results and modify as necessary. 7. Reference list †¢Fernandez, Cr. (2010) Examples of Behavior Modification Techniques Available from: http://www. lives trong. com/article/181974-examples-of-behavior-modification-techniques/ [Accessed November 2012] †¢Labrador, Fr. (2004) Skinner and the Rise of Behavior Modification and Behavior Therapy Available from: http://www. ncbi. nlm. nih. gov/pubmed/15581239 Accessed [November 2012] †¢Martinez, El. 2010) Types of Behavior Modification Available from: http://www. livestrong. com/article/123748-types-behavior-modification/ Accessed [November 2012] †¢Nayab, N (2011) Examples of Behavior Modification Approaches That Really Work Available from: http://www. brighthub. com/office/human resources/articles/107630. aspx [Accessed November 2012] †¢Steeves, J. (2012) A Review of Different Behavior Modification Strategies Designed to Reduce Sedentary Screen Behaviors in Children Available from: http://www. hindawi. com/journals/jobes/2012/379215/ Accessed [November 2012]

Causes of Visual Impairment in Essays

Causes of Visual Impairment in Essays Causes of Visual Impairment in Essay Causes of Visual Impairment in Essay Increasingly, cataract has been identified as the leading cause of blindness globally. No data on the causes of visual impairment in Central Region is available. Objectives The objective of the study is to examine the causes of visual impairment in Central Region of Ghana and to provide baseline information for planning eye care services in the region. Methods A retrospective study using hospital records of patients visiting three eye clinics between June 2005 and June 2006 were reviewed for the study. Results The records of 1,016 patients were reviewed. The study shows that cataract was the leading cause of blindness in Central Region accounting for 42. 5%. This was followed by refractive error (29. 2%) and glaucoma (7. 2%). Conclusion Appropriate programs directed at providing cataract surgery and refractive error services will significantly reduce the burden of visual impairment in Central Region since both cataract and refractive errors are responsible for 71. 7% of the causes of visual impairment. INTRODUCTION Globally, visual impairment represents a significant public health problem. This is both from the point of view of the suffering it imposes on the individual, family as well as the government in terms of economic cost. Smith and Smith have estimated that the annual worldwide productivity cost of blindness was $168 billion1. Recently, it has been estimated that over $102 billion would be saved globally if the Vision 2020 initiative is successfully implemented2. Current data suggests that there are over 161 million people who are visually impaired.

How is the 'success' or 'effectiveness' of social movements best Essay

How is the 'success' or 'effectiveness' of social movements best evaluated Discuss with reference to the Chartist and women's s - Essay Example People were organising for purpose, as they had over time to mixed results. While mass social movement as power in numbers seemed a logical vehicle for political and societal change, these changes as desired did not come easily or necessarily in the forms intended by their proponents. Social Movements Come to the UK From the days in the early nineteenth century, when a popular coalition brought down the monarch of Charles V in the later part of the century, the tendency toward mass movements had been growing as a popular uprising of sorts against government power versus the rights of people. Reverberations from France’s ‘revolutionary propensities’ (Tilly, 2005: 285) had naturally spread to Great Britain, where politicians for good reason began to fret that similar actions would be forthcoming and disruptive. As early as 1830 Tilly (2005) reports incidences including the Duke of Wellington and the London Police receiving offensive shouts from onlookers regarding a current institution of martial law. ‘Chastened by the experience’ , (Tilly, 2005:287) Parliament introduced motions to limit the practice—a move immediately countered by Wellington. ... 1-2) describes the movement as ‘a radical campaign for parliamentary reform of inequities remaining after the [passage of] the Reform Act of 1832. The term ‘radical’ may be used advisedly, depending upon which class and social status of the day was describing the movement. The middle and upper classes found the Six Step demands of William Lovell’s â€Å"People’s Charter† a frightening threat to their hold over society, with its ‘radical list of: votes for all men; equal electoral districts; abolition of the requirement that Members of Parliament be property owners; payment for M.P.s; annual general elections; and the secret ballot. (Everett 1987: par. 1-2). A precursor to the Chartist movement, the London Working Men’s Association and other movement organisations had promoted equality for the working classes. By the mid-1800s, their leaders had determined that democracy and its practices was the only practicable route to social equ ality and justice. What they did not know, or realise was that those forces presenting themselves as democratic would work against such equality in ways that would undermine any movement’s attempt to rectify ills. By 1839 the Chartists had collected one and a quarter million signatures in support of the Charter which, in that same year, was summarily rejected by a vote of 235 to 46 by the middle and upper class dominated House of Commons. Discouraged and angered at the slight, many of the movement’s leaders threatened to call for a general nationwide strike and were soon arrested. Incensed, their supporters marched on the prison where their compatriots were being held and soldiers fired on them, killing twenty-four and wounding forty. A second petition with three million

Applying Universal Design for Learning to Inclusive Classrooms in Essay

Applying Universal Design for Learning to Inclusive Classrooms in Saudi Arabia - Essay Example As the report declares the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia attempts to upgrade education to advanced levels to keep pace with advances in science and technology and human knowledge. It has paid increasing attention to special needs, especially in the last decade. The educational system for students with disabilities has improved dramatically since it began several years ago. The Kingdom also has not separated special education for public education at the level of attention. According to the paper findings the laws and regulations in Saudi Arabia has supported the implementation of student with disabilities in general education and has successfully included services for students with disabilities in the public school, these improvements was not followed by effective strategies to implement these programs effectively. The teachers are still unprepared to use appropriate teaching methods to teach students with disabilities alongside with their peers. This paper aims to provide a solution for them by addressing the strategy of Universal Design for Learning as a potential approach to ensure the equal opportunity for all students to participate in the general curriculum. Universal design of learning has not been addressed in my country, Saudi Arabia. It is an emerging topic that being discussed, but, there is no research conducted in this topic yet. With the introduction of inclusive classrooms in Saudi Arabia, there have been an increasing number of diverse students in classrooms.