Endogenous GA3 levels of artichoke plants: At different parts and various developmental stage

Planta Medica ◽  
2012 ◽  
Vol 78 (11) ◽  
Author(s):  
N Ercan ◽  
F Ayar-Şensoy
2016 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
pp. 33-43 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sofia Ribeirinho Leite ◽  
Cory David Barker ◽  
Marc G. Lucas

2009 ◽  
Vol 221 (03) ◽  
Author(s):  
JH Klusmann ◽  
FJ Godinho ◽  
K Heitmann ◽  
T Pushpanathan ◽  
D Reinhardt ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
Virginia TASSINARI ◽  
Ezio MANZINI ◽  
Maurizio TELI ◽  
Liesbeth HUYBRECHTS

The issue of design and democracy is an urgent and rather controversial one. Democracy has always been a core theme in design research, but in the past years it has shifted in meaning. The current discourse in design research that has been working in a participatory way on common issues in given local contexts, has developed an enhanced focus on rethinking democracy. This is the topic of some recent design conferences, such PDC2018, Nordes2017 and DRS2018, and of the DESIS Philosophy Talk #6 “Regenerating Democracy?” (www.desis-philosophytalks.org), from which this track originates. To reflect on the role and responsibility of designers in a time where democracy in its various forms is often put at risk seems an urgent matter to us. The concern for the ways in which the democratic discourse is put at risk in many different parts of the word is registered outside the design community (for instance by philosophers such as Noam Chomsky), as well as within (see for instance Manzini’s and Margolin’s call Design Stand Up (http://www.democracy-design.org). Therefore, the need to articulate a discussion on this difficult matter, and to find a common vocabulary we can share to talk about it. One of the difficulties encountered for instance when discussing this issue, is that the word “democracy” is understood in different ways, in relation to the traditions and contexts in which it is framed. Philosophically speaking, there are diverse discourses on democracy that currently inspire design researchers and theorists, such as Arendt, Dewey, Negri and Hardt, Schmitt, Mouffe, Rancière, Agamben, Rawls, Habermas, Latour, Gramsci, whose positions on this topic are very diverse. How can these authors guide us to further articulate this discussion? In which ways can these philosophers support and enrich design’s innovation discourses on design and democracy, and guide our thinking in addressing sensitive and yet timely questions, such as what design can do in what seems to be dark times for democracy, and whether design can possibly contribute to enrich the current democratic ecosystems, making them more strong and resilient?


2018 ◽  
Vol 11 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 257-278 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shirzad Azad

In spite of her troubled presidency at home and premature, ignominious exit from power, Park Geun-hye made serious attempts to bolster the main direction of the Republic of Korea’s (ROK) foreign policy toward the Middle East. A collaborative drive for accomplishing a new momentous boom was by and large a dominant and recurring theme in the Park government’s overall approach to the region. Park enjoyed both personal motivation as well as politico-economic justifications to push for such arduous yet potentially viable objective. Although the ROK’s yearning for a second boom in the Middle East was not ultimately accomplished under the Park presidency, nonetheless, the very aspiration played a crucial role in either rekindling or initiating policy measures in South Korea’s orientation toward different parts of a greater Middle East region, extending from the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) to Morocco.


1968 ◽  
Vol 29 (2) ◽  
pp. 308-312
Author(s):  
Ronald G. Elmslie ◽  
Nanette Harvey

1963 ◽  
Vol 42 (2) ◽  
pp. 214-224
Author(s):  
Raymond C. Mellinger ◽  
Jalileh A. Mansour ◽  
Richmond W. Smith

ABSTRACT A reference standard is widely sought for use in the quantitative bioassay of pituitary gonadotrophin recovered from urine. The biologic similarity of pooled urinary extracts obtained from large numbers of subjects, utilizing groups of different age and sex, preparing and assaying the materials by varying techniques in different parts of the world, has lead to a general acceptance of such preparations as international gonadotrophin reference standards. In the present study, however, the extract of pooled urine from a small number of young women is shown to produce a significantly different bioassay response from that of the reference materials. Gonadotrophins of individual subjects likewise varied from the multiple subject standards in many instances. The cause of these differences is thought to be due to the modifying influence of non-hormonal substances extracted from urine with the gonadotrophin and not necessarily to variations in the gonadotrophins themselves. Such modifying factors might have similar effects in a comparative assay of pooled extracts contributed by many subjects, but produce significant variations when material from individual subjects is compared. It is concluded that the expression of potency of a gonadotrophic extract in terms of pooled reference material to which it is not essentially similar may diminish rather than enhance the validity of the assay.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document