Socrates was, if Plato is to be believed, as much of an anti-careerist as one might seek to find: the agora rather than the boardroom was his habitual place, or in more contemporary terms, what one might call the street. Moreover, in recent times, as the book makes apparent, not so many vice chancellors, principals, presidents, and business school deans have been prepared to take the hemlock rather than compromise themselves when a difficult and ethically challenging decision presented itself. Finally, the boardroom is the last place socrates would have wanted to be found in, given what we know of his life. In every way the book seems inappropriately titled and I havent even addressed the sub-title yet—but I will. The book asks a simple research question: is there a relationship between university performance and leadership by an accomplished researcher? The central conclusion, supported by evidence, is that top scholars should lead research universities (p. Note that while the first part of the statement is empirical the latter half is normative. Thus, the research moves from analysis to prescription.
Homework help & Study tips
The same fortified samples will be used for both qualitative and quantitative analysis. Individual participant performance on the quantitative analysis of samples will be posted on gipsas biotechnology web page. To obtain additional information on the usda/gipsa proficiency Program, contact Donald. Kendall, biotechnology Program Manager, at us, or by e-mail. Goodall, socrates in the boardroom: Why research Universities Should be led by top Scholars, Princeton, Princeton University Press, 2009 (208 pp). Isbn (hard cover) rrp.95. Socrates wrote nothing of which we are directly aware. We know him mostly through the works of Plato. Socrates was an advocate of the dialogical rather than the textual word; for an essentially bibliometric management analysis of citations of scholarship by university vice chancellors, principals, presidents, and business school deans, socrates in the boardroom, is a title that is singularly ill chosen. The book is not an analysis of the dialogic interventions of powerful people as they attend to the development of their strategies in practice; rather, it is an analysis of the metrics of what vice chancellors have been cited as having written, not that which.
overall, this is a slight improvement from the previous cycle (may 2003). The mean results for the samples fortified with.0 transgenic soybean event were consistently higher than the fortification level, but within 25 of the target fortification level. The majority of the coefficients of Variation (CVs) were below 50 for all event/concentration combinations except the.1 fortification level. The cvs for the majority of event/concentration combinations were lower for this cycle as offer compared to may 2003. January 2004 Sample distribution several changes are planned for the january 2004 sample distribution:. . Samples distributed in January 2004 will include two new biotechnology corn events commercialized in the. In 2003: mon863 (Monsanto event) and TC1507 (Dow AgroScience/Pioneer Dupont event). All participants will receive six corn samples and three soybeans samples.
This Program continues to grow, with new and probably less experienced organizations being added. . These less experienced organizations typically request samples for qualitative analysis, and therefore, probably have a higher error rate. . In addition, the samples distributed really to these organizations are fortified to contain.1 of the event, a level that approaches the limit of detection reported by many organizations. The organizations requesting samples for quantitative analysis are typically the more experienced organizations. . In addition, the samples distributed to these organizations are fortified at levels ranging from.1.0. . Typically, higher concentrations are easier to detect, and therefore, the error rate should be lower. Quantitative analysis Data overall, the data from this sample distribution show improvement in both accuracy and precision:. . The mean results for corn events T25, cbh351, ga21, E176, Bt11 and NK603 were generally within 25 of the target fortification level (except the.1 fortification level). .
Cv, reported, event T25 (Corn).0 .0 .0 -.05 NA NA .1 .19 .0.1 .5 .34 .6 -.3 .45 .7 22 event cbh351 (Corn).0 .0 NA NA . The transgenic seed or grain used to prepare these samples was made available to gipsa by the life Science Organizations. . Care was taken to ensure the transgenic material was either essentially 100 positive for the event, or adjusted accordingly. . The fortified samples were prepared using a process that has been verified to produce homogenous mixes, and representative samples were analyzed to ensure proper fortification and homogeneity. Qualitative analysis Data It is interesting to note that the organizations analyzing samples for qualitative analysis (Table 1 and Graph 1) and organizations analyzing samples for quantitative analysis (Table 2 and Graph 2) differed in their capability to detect the presence of biotechnology events. . Table 6 shows the performance by event for the organizations receiving the different samples. For every event except NK603, the organizations analyzing samples for qualitative analysis scored lower in their ability to correctly identify the presence of the events relative to the organizations analyzing samples for quantitative analysis. Comparison of Performance (Mean for each event) cbh mon sample type t ga21 E176 Bt11 NK603 rr-soy qualitative.4 .6 .5 .8 .7 .2 quantitative.9.5.0 difference .5 .9 .7 .2 .4 .8.
Etiquette of Wedding Invitation Enclosures
The result was incorrect if the participant reported sample positive for an event which the sample did not contain (i.e., false positive result). Participants were evaluated on their ability to detect the biotech event contained in the samples for quantitative analysis using the same process as paper described in the section. Samples for qualitative analysis: dna-based Results. Samples for quantitative analysis: Protein-Based Results. Table 4 shows the results for the Cry1Ab protein (MON810 and/or BT11 corn events) and the cp4 epsps protein (soybean event) using the elisa plate tests reported by this participant. Samples for quantitative analysis: Protein-Based Results by participant.
Organizations that requested samples for quantitative analysis received six corn samples and three soybean samples. . The six corn samples consisted of duplicate samples from three different formulations. . This resulted in a varying number of reported results for each event/concentration combination. . Table 5 summarizes all samples results reported on a quantitative basis. Fortification Standard Results, level, mean, range, deviation.
This section includes a summary of the following sample results: Samples for qualitative analysis: dna-based results. Samples for quantitative analysis: dna-based results. Samples for qualitative analysis: Protein-based results. Samples for quantitative analysis: Protein-based results. This section provides summaries of dna-based quantitative analysis data submitted by participants who received samples for quantitative analysis. .
The data are presented on a composite basis and do not reflect any individual participant data assessment. . The following information is presented in Table 5: average analytical results reported for each fortification level and event combination (corn and soybean). Coefficients of variation (CVs) for the analytical results reported for each fortification level for each event (corn and soybean). The data submitted by the participants who received samples for qualitative analysis were assessed as follows: The result was correct if the participant reported the sample positive for an event which the sample did contain. The result was correct if the participant reported the sample negative for an event which the sample did not contain. The result was incorrect if the participant reported the sample negative for an event which the sample did contain (i.e., false negative result).
All, i survey essay xxxi - bibliowiki
Data submitted by the participants are summarized in this report, including tables and charts. . The data are summarized to reflect the number of resume participants who submitted results, the number of participants who classified all samples correctly as either positive or negative for the event, and the percentage of samples that were classified correctly by all participants. Participants were given the option of receiving samples for qualitative or quantitative analysis. . Some participants requested samples for quantitative analysis, but did not have quantitative methods for all events, and therefore reported results for some events on a qualitative basis. . qualitative results were reported as the presence or absence of a particular event in each sample. . quantitative results were reported as the concentration of a particular event in the sample. . due to the complexity of the data, this report summarizes the data as follows: qualitative data summaries.
no methodologies were specified, and organizations used both dna- and protein-based testing technologies. Fifty-two (52) of the participating organizations returned results by the deadline date. . Thirty (30) participants submitted results on samples for qualitative analysis, twenty-one (21) participants submitted results on samples for quantitative analysis, and one (1) participant submitted results on samples for both qualitative and quantitative analysis. Those organizations giving gipsa permission are listed by name in an attachment to this report your (Attachment). . Those organizations giving gipsa permission are also listed by name in the. Proficiency Program may 2003 Summary tables (Tables 1, 2, 3 and 4). . All other organizations were assigned a participant Identification Number.
corn samples contain various combinations of the events T25, cbh351, mon810, ga21, E176, Bt11 and NK603. . The soybean samples are either non-transgenic soybeans or non-transgenic soybeans fortified with roundup readytm soybeans at the.1 level. . Each participant receives twelve (12) corn and three (3) soybean samples containing approximately 20 grams of ground grain. Gipsa mailed samples to fifty-nine (59) participants. . Thirty-four (34) participants requested samples for qualitative analysis, twenty-three (23) participants requested samples for quantitative analysis, and two (2) participants requested samples for qualitative and quantitative analysis. . Participants included organizations from Africa (1 Asia (7 europe (23 north America (21) and south America (7). . Each participant received a study description and a data report form by electronic mail and with the samples. . Participants submitted results by electronic mail, fax, or regular mail. .
September 2003 Sample distribution, date of Report: January 27, 2004. Purpose of usda/gipsa proficiency Program, through the usda/gipsa proficiency Program, usda seeks to improve the overall performance of testing for biotechnology-derived grains and oil seeds. . The usda/gipsa proficiency Program helps organizations identify bill areas of concern and take corrective actions to improve testing accuracy, capability and reliability. In February 2003, usda/gipsas Technical Services division expanded the program to offer samples for qualitative or quantitative analysis. . Participants specifically request samples for either qualitative or quantitative analysis. . gipsa then mails the participant the samples they requested. . The samples for qualitative analyses contain different combinations of biotechnology events at a single concentration. . The samples for quantitative analyses contain combinations of biotechnology events at various concentrations.
Farmer or Industry and Parasitism
Uflc quality - speed is Power. High-speed hplc analysis to improve lab analysis productivity began in 1982 with the Shimadzu lc-5A/flc column. In 2006, the Prominence uflc/XR column system achieved ultra high-speeds while ensuring repeatability during continuous multi-sample analysis, in addition to maintaining durability and other forms of data stability. Since general hplc analysis is insufficient with respect to qualitative capabilities, risks related to overlooking impurities that can obscure peaks remain. Mass spectrometers are effective at minimizing these risks. To date, however, a commercial ms capable of reliably slogan providing the kind of sharp peaks obtained with ultra high-speed lc has not been available. Now, an ultra high-speed ms, compatible for the first time with ultra high-speed lc, has been released. The ultra high-speed LC/ms prominence uflclcms-2020 improves the speed and reliability of hplc analysis, offering dramatic improvements in lab productivity.