Questões para Concursos

Read the

Text I and answer the question that follow it.

Text I Correspondence Human genome editing: potential seeds of conflict Recently, The Lancet published an important declaration regarding the necessity of regulating and legislating for human genome editing. We agree with their opinions that the human genome editing technology and resulting research can have both positive and negative effects on human society. The use of genome editing for research and commercial purposes has sparked debates in both biological and political realms. However, most of them have mainly focused on the effects of human genome editing on the patients themselves, and little attention has been paid to their offspring. Several films, such as Gattaca and Gundam SEED, have addressed the conflicts that arise from human genome editing. Such conflicts not only exist within the generation who have experienced editing but are also transmitted to their offspring. For example, in these films, the offspring of people without genome editing felt a sense of unfairness regarding the inferiority of their physical (or other non-edited domains) status, whereas the offspring of people with genome editing grew up in a biased, discriminated against, and ostracized environment. They could have lived in peace with a strong and well regulated government; however, when the tenuous grip of government weakens, jealousy and resentment can lead to ruins. Although these scenes still exist in films, they might become increasingly plausible in decades to come. Using the concept of preparedness, access, countermeasures, tools, and trust, we should prepare legitimate human genome editing, establish access to deal with imminent or potential discrimination, develop countermeasures and tools for prevention and resolution of conflict, and entrust future generations with the responsibility to use them wisely. Bing-Yan Zeng, Ping-Tao Tseng, *Chih-Sung Liang Adapted from: www.thelancet.com, vol. 401, June 24, 2023 at https://www.thelancet.com/action/showPdf?pii=S0140-6736%2823%2901084-X

Read the

Text I and answer the question that follow it.

Text I Correspondence Human genome editing: potential seeds of conflict Recently, The Lancet published an important declaration regarding the necessity of regulating and legislating for human genome editing. We agree with their opinions that the human genome editing technology and resulting research can have both positive and negative effects on human society. The use of genome editing for research and commercial purposes has sparked debates in both biological and political realms. However, most of them have mainly focused on the effects of human genome editing on the patients themselves, and little attention has been paid to their offspring. Several films, such as Gattaca and Gundam SEED, have addressed the conflicts that arise from human genome editing. Such conflicts not only exist within the generation who have experienced editing but are also transmitted to their offspring. For example, in these films, the offspring of people without genome editing felt a sense of unfairness regarding the inferiority of their physical (or other non-edited domains) status, whereas the offspring of people with genome editing grew up in a biased, discriminated against, and ostracized environment. They could have lived in peace with a strong and well regulated government; however, when the tenuous grip of government weakens, jealousy and resentment can lead to ruins. Although these scenes still exist in films, they might become increasingly plausible in decades to come. Using the concept of preparedness, access, countermeasures, tools, and trust, we should prepare legitimate human genome editing, establish access to deal with imminent or potential discrimination, develop countermeasures and tools for prevention and resolution of conflict, and entrust future generations with the responsibility to use them wisely. Bing-Yan Zeng, Ping-Tao Tseng, *Chih-Sung Liang Adapted from: www.thelancet.com, vol. 401, June 24, 2023 at https://www.thelancet.com/action/showPdf?pii=S0140-6736%2823%2901084-X

Read the Text II and answer the question that follow it. Text II Global plastic treaty should address chemicals In March, the global community agreed to establish a legally binding treaty to end plastic pollution. To deliver on this goal, the treaty needs to cover all issues of plastics chemicals as an inseparable part of the problem. Plastics are complex materials consisting of chemical mixtures, including polymers, additives, residual monomers and processing aids, and non-intentionally added substances. Such mixtures release across the plastics life cycle, from feedstock extraction, production, and use, to reuse, recycling, and disposal; they also recombine along complex, unplanned pathways. As a result, humans and environments are ubiquitously exposed to plastics chemicals, often with serious consequences. Out of more than 10,000 known plastics chemicals, at least 2,400 are classified as toxic, such as many phthalates and brominated flame retardants. Documented health effects span generations and include premature births, low birth weight, obesity, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, endometriosis, infertility, and cancers. In the United States alone, associated costs of endocrine-disrupting chemicals amount to USD$300 billion/year. The total burden on community, ecosystem health, and biodiversity is far greater. Even with material recycling, plastics chemicals ultimately proliferate in the ecosystem, whether as emissions or by entering new products, exposing waste-laborers, consumers, and frontline communities to new chemical cocktails. An effective, fair, and safe circular economy can only be achieved by phasing out toxic chemicals from plastic production. As negotiations for a global treaty begin, plastics chemicals need to be front and center. However, preparatory meeting documents focus on downstream plastic waste and work from a narrow definition of chemicals as hazardous additives. To enable the treaty to fully address plastics’ ecological, health, and environmental justice problems, it is essential to redefine plastics as complex chemical mixtures and to integrate chemical issues across the life cycle within the scope and core obligations of the legal instrument. Adapted from: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adf5410.

Read the Text II and answer the question that follow it. Text II Global plastic treaty should address chemicals In March, the global community agreed to establish a legally binding treaty to end plastic pollution. To deliver on this goal, the treaty needs to cover all issues of plastics chemicals as an inseparable part of the problem. Plastics are complex materials consisting of chemical mixtures, including polymers, additives, residual monomers and processing aids, and non-intentionally added substances. Such mixtures release across the plastics life cycle, from feedstock extraction, production, and use, to reuse, recycling, and disposal; they also recombine along complex, unplanned pathways. As a result, humans and environments are ubiquitously exposed to plastics chemicals, often with serious consequences. Out of more than 10,000 known plastics chemicals, at least 2,400 are classified as toxic, such as many phthalates and brominated flame retardants. Documented health effects span generations and include premature births, low birth weight, obesity, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, endometriosis, infertility, and cancers. In the United States alone, associated costs of endocrine-disrupting chemicals amount to USD$300 billion/year. The total burden on community, ecosystem health, and biodiversity is far greater. Even with material recycling, plastics chemicals ultimately proliferate in the ecosystem, whether as emissions or by entering new products, exposing waste-laborers, consumers, and frontline communities to new chemical cocktails. An effective, fair, and safe circular economy can only be achieved by phasing out toxic chemicals from plastic production. As negotiations for a global treaty begin, plastics chemicals need to be front and center. However, preparatory meeting documents focus on downstream plastic waste and work from a narrow definition of chemicals as hazardous additives. To enable the treaty to fully address plastics’ ecological, health, and environmental justice problems, it is essential to redefine plastics as complex chemical mixtures and to integrate chemical issues across the life cycle within the scope and core obligations of the legal instrument. Adapted from: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adf5410.

Read the Text II and answer the question that follow it. Text II Global plastic treaty should address chemicals In March, the global community agreed to establish a legally binding treaty to end plastic pollution. To deliver on this goal, the treaty needs to cover all issues of plastics chemicals as an inseparable part of the problem. Plastics are complex materials consisting of chemical mixtures, including polymers, additives, residual monomers and processing aids, and non-intentionally added substances. Such mixtures release across the plastics life cycle, from feedstock extraction, production, and use, to reuse, recycling, and disposal; they also recombine along complex, unplanned pathways. As a result, humans and environments are ubiquitously exposed to plastics chemicals, often with serious consequences. Out of more than 10,000 known plastics chemicals, at least 2,400 are classified as toxic, such as many phthalates and brominated flame retardants. Documented health effects span generations and include premature births, low birth weight, obesity, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, endometriosis, infertility, and cancers. In the United States alone, associated costs of endocrine-disrupting chemicals amount to USD$300 billion/year. The total burden on community, ecosystem health, and biodiversity is far greater. Even with material recycling, plastics chemicals ultimately proliferate in the ecosystem, whether as emissions or by entering new products, exposing waste-laborers, consumers, and frontline communities to new chemical cocktails. An effective, fair, and safe circular economy can only be achieved by phasing out toxic chemicals from plastic production. As negotiations for a global treaty begin, plastics chemicals need to be front and center. However, preparatory meeting documents focus on downstream plastic waste and work from a narrow definition of chemicals as hazardous additives. To enable the treaty to fully address plastics’ ecological, health, and environmental justice problems, it is essential to redefine plastics as complex chemical mixtures and to integrate chemical issues across the life cycle within the scope and core obligations of the legal instrument. Adapted from: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adf5410.

Read Text II and answer the question that follow it Text II Boy cries Wolf After astonishing breakthroughs in artificial intelligence, many people worry that they will end up on the economic scrapheap. Global Google searches for “is my job safe?” have doubled in recent months, as people fear that they will be replaced with large language models (LLMS). Some evidence suggests that widespread disruption is coming. In a recent paper Tyna Eloundou of OpenAI and colleagues say that “around 80% of the US workforce could have at least 10% of their work tasks affected by the introduction of LLMS”. Another paper suggests that legal services, accountancy and travel agencies will face unprecedented upheaval. Economists, however, tend to enjoy making predictions about automation more than they enjoy testing them. In the early 2010s many of them loudly predicted that robots would kill jobs by the millions, only to fall silent when employment rates across the rich world rose to all-time highs. Few of the doom-mongers have a good explanation for why countries with the highest rates of tech usage around the globe, such as Japan, Singapore and South Korea, consistently have among the lowest rates of unemployment. Here we introduce our first attempt at tracking AI’s impact on jobs. Using American data on employment by occupation, we single out white-collar workers. These include people working in everything from back-office support and financial operations to copy-writers. White-collar roles are thought to be especially vulnerable to generative AI, which is becoming ever better at logical reasoning and creativity. However, there is as yet little evidence of an AI hit to employment. In the spring of 2020 white-collar jobs rose as a share of the total, as many people in service occupations lost their job at the start of the covid-19 pandemic. The white-collar share is lower today, as leisure and hospitality have recovered. Yet in the past year the share of employment in professions supposedly at risk from generative AI has risen by half a percentage point. It is, of course, early days. Few firms yet use generative-AI tools at scale, so the impact on jobs could merely be delayed. Another possibility, however, is that these new technologies will end up destroying only a small number of roles. While AI may be efficient at some tasks, it may be less good at others, such as management and working out what others need. AI could even have a positive effect on jobs. If workers using it become more efficient, profits at their company could rise which would then allow bosses to ramp up hiring. A recent survey by Experis, an IT-recruitment firm, points to this possibility. More than half of Britain’s employers expect AI technologies to have a positive impact on their headcount over the next two years, it finds. To see how it all shakes out, we will publish updates to this analysis every few months. But for now, a jobs apocalypse seems a way off. From The Economist June 17th 2023, p. 71