Text 3 Sweden Pushes Ban on Children’s Ads

When kids in Sweden watch the Pokemon cartoon series, they don’t hear the jingle that everywhere else in the world ends each show: “Gotta catch ’em all.” The country’s consumer ombudsman deemed it stealth advertising, ruling that the tune is a surreptitious plug for Pokemon playing cards.

That’s illegal on Swedish television. In fact, Stockholm has prohib­ited all TV advertising aimed at children under the age of 12 since 1991, so the ruling wasn’t all that radical. What alarms advertisers and broadcasters is that Sweden wants the rest of Europe to follow its lead.

Sweden’s Radio and TV Act has banned ads directed at kids from the first day that commercial television was allowed in the country on July 1, 1991. The ban was based on research that indicates children can’t fully distinguish between advertising and programming until about age 10.

Broadcasters argue that the revenue generated in the EU every year by TV ads for children's products — between 670 million euros and 1 billion euros — is essential for the creation of quality children's program­ming. European governments have been pushing television stations to pro­duce more of their own shows, to reduce the amount of American-made content that fills up TV schedules, but for-profit station owners say that without sufficient ad revenue, only fee-supported broadcasters will be able to even try to do so. (The Wall Street Journal, by Brandon Mitchener, May 29, 2001)

Science

Vocabulary

miscarriage

IVF

conception

uterus/ womb

virus

strain

plague

test-tube child

clinical trial

DNA

cell division

stem cells

inner organs

limb

pancreas

lungs/ kidney/ liver

bone marrow

ulcer

tissue

tumor

benign/ malignant

contagious/ catching

to contract

blood transfusion

brain concussion

transplantation

donor/ recipient

rejection

proteins/ fats/ carbohydrates

nutrients

genetically modified food

artificial intelligence

virtual reality

alternative/renewable sources of energy

windmill

solar panels

tidal energy

biofuel

voltage

velocity

EMT

ICU

ventricular

to elaborate

to deteriorate/ ameliorate

enfeeble immunity

to fertilize

inflammation

french pox

agent of disease

intestinal tract

failing heart

hereditary disease

CAM

ward

mutability

holistic

gland

complete genome sequence

inoculation

sterility

to inline cells

urine

antiretroviral

enzymes

extraterrestrial

lymph

solution

toxins

fatty acids

ethanol

feedstock

transgenic

to secret

to derive from

to endow

to cripple

a neuron

circadian rhythm

melatonin

artificial intelligence

cognition

pupil

lens

cornea

vascular system

digestive system

cryonics

preservation

UFO

constellation

alien

integral part

rough estimates

Texts for written translation

Text 1

The age of genes

Text 2

Text 3

Dispute over Stem Cells: A Timeline

For more than 40 years government officials have grappled with how to regulate and fund the controversial research  May 1, 2014 |By Roni Jacobson

The Science of Memory

Despite its promise, stem cell research in the U.S. has been stymied, time and again, by bioethical landmines. The explosive debate revolves around the fact that, until recently, the only way to get pluripotent stem cells was to extract them from human embryos left over from in-vitro fertilization—a process that destroyed the five-day-old embryo. The ongoing debate about when life begins has led many to oppose stem cell research on the grounds that it is immoral to destroy something that could eventually grow into a person. On the other hand, promoters argue that the potential to help millions of people with stem cell therapies outweighs the sanctity of cells that are not viable outside the womb and that often go unused. Arguments on both sides are based on personal beliefs that may never be reconciled, so the debate hinges on whether the federal government should fund research that many citizens find morally objectionable. The following box chronicles stem cell research regulation in the U.S.

1970s The Supreme Court legalizes abortion in 1973. The ensuing debate on the ethics of experimenting on fetal tissue prompts Congress to issue a moratorium on federal funding for research on human embryos the following year.

1990s In 1995 President Clinton lifts the ban on funding for study of stem cells left over from in-vitro fertilization, but leaves other restrictions in place. In response, Congress passes the Dickey-Wicker Amendment, prohibiting funding for all research “in which a human embryo or embryos are destroyed, discarded, or knowingly subjected to risk of injury or death,” regardless of the source of the embryo.

2000s President George W. Bush announces that federal funding will be made available for research on the approximately 60 existing embryonic stem cell lines, but not new ones. Congress twice votes to loosen the restrictions on funding for research using embryonic stem cells left over from in-vitro fertilization but President Bush vetoes the legislation both times.

In 2009, early in his first term, President Barack Obama removes the ban on federal funding for new stem cell lines but signs an omnibus bill preserving the Dickey-Wicker Amendment. The move retains restrictions against federal funding for the direct creation of new stem cell lines, but opens up funding for research on newly created lines developed with private or state money.  2010s In 2012 stem cell biologist Shinya Yamanaka wins the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for discovering how to reprogram adult skin cells into pluripotent stem cells. Going forward, policy makers will have to determine whether Yamanaka’s induced pluripotent stem cells (iPS) will face the same regulations as human embryonic stem cells or if new legislation is needed.