A lot of the people on this trip were especially excited for this day because they specialized in either international relations or economics. I'd say I was intrigued but this was not the main reason I came on the summer abroad trip.
That being said I had prepared diligently for the presentations by both the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC).
My Questions for the IAEA presenter were:
‣ China has increased its number of operating reactors by more than 10 times its number in 2000. It is the fastest expanding nuclear power generator in the world. Do you think their role in the IAEA will change over the years, and if so what will they do for the IAEA in the future? (Information drawn from an IAEA article published in 2017).
‣ Do you think public perception of benefits and detriments of atomic energy should change, and if so how would the IAEA go about fostering this change?
‣ As someone who lives 15 minutes away from the Lawrence Livermore Lab, that is one of the US's leading facilities on fusion energy, I am interested in the potential of this energy source. Does fusion energy fall under the IAEA, and if so what can you tell me about the UN's role in its development?
However the presenter was quite bad, and I could tell from pretty early on that he had fairly limited knowledge in the subject so the actual question I asked him was:
‣ How does the IAEA use nuclear technology to boost agriculture in developing countries?
His answer was that they used radiation to sterilize pests as well as mutate the genes of crops to make mold resistant strains. However he allowed me to guess what the answer was before he revealed it and I said, "site directed mutagenesis" which is when biologists specifically target parts of an organisms DNA to mutate it using either chemicals or radiation. He said that wasn't it and then proceeds to say that they use radiation to alter the genes of the crops. So basically I said the correct scientific term for what he was talking about and he used a much broader, slightly incorrect explanation. This is what led me to believe he was not all that competent in this field. If scientists were to just direct radiation at the whole plant and not pinpoint a part of the genome, the process would be horribly inefficient. Especially when scientists are now using CRISPR Cas9 technology, which renders site directed mutagenesis completely obsolete. He also asked the room what the main mechanism of genetic variation is, and I said DNA recombination and mutation. He said no, "guys! it's radiation!" in a patronizing voice that suggested we weren't listening in school. No, it absolutely isn't radiation. That's one of the mechanisms for mutations in genomes but the number one mechanism is error in DNA replication. DNA replication is a highly accurate system that will even correct errors caused by outside factors like radiation. However DNA Polymerase can still make errors at a rate of 10 to the negative eleventh power per base pair. Whatever, enough about him.
The questions I prepared for the presenter on the UN Office on Drugs and Crime were:
‣ Why have the prescriptions for opioids increased so drastically in the US within the last decade?
‣ With perhaps the exception of states like the Philippines and it new government, do you see a trend in global politics towards legalization and rehabilitation as opposed to criminalization? How would that policy change affect the UNODC?
‣ As and international organization, what can you say about the logistics of combating crime that crosses many borders? Will a trend towards integrated state alliances that have crime fighting infrastructure like Interpol in the EU become more commonplace with time?
This presenter seemed a lot more competent than the last, however her focus was not on drugs at all so I had to change my question for her. She presented on the UNODC's department on corruption. The question that I actually asked her was:
‣ What tools does the UNODC have to fight corruption, for example, bringing corruption into public view or embargoes?
Her answer was that this organization is not about enforcement but rather giving technical assistance and aid to the states that ask for it. So the UNODC doesn't "fight" corruption, they help those who want to get rid of it within their country. The technical assistance they provide is a series of modules and lessons that give information on the subject that they will send upon request.
The German word of the day is: Klar
The definition provided is: ok
Norwegians use the same exact word in the same context too. The actual translation is: clear. But the word is more often used in a context of things being ready or ok.
Comments