Apparently, there are some yet unknown pathways by which aneuploids can be generated.In most crops where androgenesis is used, regular meiotic pairing provides for a chromosome constitution of the microspores. In the absence of structural chromosome differences between the parents of a hybrid, any deviation from the standard karyotype among the regenerants can be attributed to chromosome instability while in culture . Still, in crops with regular meiosis such as wheat and rice, 11.1 and 10.2% aneuploids among regenerants have been detected, respectively . In triticale, with its inherent tendency to univalency, especially in F1 hybrids , there is an ample supply of aberrant microspores, and at least some data presented here can be interpreted as indicative of selection for such microspores at some stage in the process of androgenesis. While chromosomal abnormalities are noted in numerous crops to which androgenesis has been successfully applied , its frequency in triticale is such that any population of the DH lines must be produced considerably larger than the minimum required, to compensate for the aneuploids. Unfortunately, as experience here shows, aneuploidy appears to be the most frequent in the most recalcitrant combinations. This is perhaps because it eliminates, with some frequency, chromosomes that carry genetic loci that prevent the switch from the gametophytic to the sporophytic microspore. While aneuploids generated by androgenesis could potentially be used for some genetic experiments such as marker allocation to chromosomes,ebb flow table by and large they are an additional burden on the already cumbersome method and may tip the scale toward unprofitability.

The Berkeley Prize is the centerpiece of an endowment established in 1996 in the Department of Architecture at the College of Environmental Design at the University of California, Berkeley. Its activities are overseen by a group of interested academics and professionals who form a loosely knit Berkeley Prize Committee. Each year this group formulates a question, posted online, that asks students to put their thoughts and experiences with regard to an important social issue into words and selects a jury to review entries. In 2004 the prize jury included Marco Casagrande, architect and environmental artist, Finland; Beth Gali, urban planner and landscape architect, Spain; Peter Prangnell, architect, critic, and author, Canada; and Minja Yang, Culture Sector, UNESCO, France. In past years, the prize questions have asked students to think about such issues as the equitable use of public places; the appropriateness of institutional care for the elderly; the street as mediator between public and private selves; the search for lasting values in architecture; and the exploration of meaning in social architecture. All of these topics have been presented in ways that provoke consideration of the role architects may play in identifying and redressing complex social issues. In response and encouragingly, there is throughout the submitted essays an implicit idealism about the possibilities of an architecture that addresses social ills through good design. The 2004 prize cycle was no exception:When the general public is questioned about the problem of homelessness in their community, the answers are always the same. “They chose this lifestyle” or “if they wanted to change they would.” As we wait for someone else to initiate a solution, the number of people on the street grows steadily. Sure, we feel compassion when the nostalgia of the holiday’s set in, or on those cold winter nights when the thermometer plummets below freezing and we can’t imagine how anyone will survive on the street. Where is our concern through the remainder of the year as we hurry along ignoring the voices asking for spare change or even crossing the road so we won’t have to deal with this nuisance?We need a general reawakening of common sense and empathy towards our fellow citizen. Schools can start the process by integrating a social conscience into the education system. Young architects need to learn financial and social accountability when developing design concepts. To be told this isn’t important now reinforces the notion we are designing only for those with power and money.

Integrating all levels of income needs to play an important role in the design education of an architect.As in previous years, in 2004 students were not only asked to think about the chosen topic but to propose solutions. This is where the responses often become most ingenious. In the 2004 competition most entrants find fault with the conventional solution of the “shelter,” as they believed it to be conceived. Essentially, they argued that, after a brief reconnaissance, many displaced people find shelters stigmatizing and/or dangerous, and prefer the street. As an alternative, some students argue for respecting what the homeless do for themselves to solve their problems. Others argue for this respect, but also, simultaneously, for resources from the outside to augment their efforts. In essays from Singapore and Austria two students discuss racism as a factor underlying their cities’ reluctance to effectively assist outsiders. In one case, people considered different were seen as an urban blemish; in the other, it was people of color. As architects, and students of architecture, we should want to know if and how our professional skills can be of use to local governments, institutions, private groups, and individuals in meeting specific social needs — such as those posed by disenfranchised populations studied by entrants in the 2004 prize competition. To find out, we must first understand the issues directly, “on the ground.” Second, we must recognize that solutions to these problems are, by definition, interdisciplinary. Both ideas are an integral part of how students are asked to research and respond to the prize questions. By stressing essay writing, the prize deliberately forces students into unfamiliar territory where they must grapple with a form of communication not normally stressed in architecture education. Architects generally feel most comfortable communicating by way of drawn or modeled images of one sort or another. But they must also be able to communicate their research findings and design proposals effectively in verbal and written form to the public, to clients, and to colleagues. The Berkeley Prize asks students to create images with words, much like they might create images with drawings in the design studio. When they succeed in describing their ideas in words, they can not help but realize that, as future professionals, they have begun to train themselves in another way to advocate their thoughts to a general population that do not understand abstract drawings or even ordinary plans.

Similarly, as a result of this process, it is hoped that students might also begin to realize that it is actually through language that the images of intended building forms and the context in which they are embedded are conceived. At its heart, the Berkeley Prize seeks to challenge undergraduate students to use language to engage with and communicate ideas which are typically more sophisticated than those they might project through hand drawings or conjure up on their computers. Through essay writing the Berkeley Prize attempts to educate architects-in-training that the smallest act of building has global implications: that design can and does play a major role in the social,hydroponic grow table cultural and psychological life of both the individual and society.The success of the Berkeley Prize as a vehicle to encourage the study of social architecture will not ultimately be judged by the level or quality of the rhetoric of the competitors — although fine writing is a prize in itself. It will be successful because it has been able to encourage writing as a means by which awareness of social issues is explored and magnified. It will be successful because it demonstrates the potential for architects to become proponents of better policies and designs through words as well as images. The emphasis on encouraging students to view the public as their audience and to learn new ways to communicate with them has one final practical benefit. By learning to talk to the public, competitors should also discover that they can be persuasive advocates of social architecture among those for whom such advocacy is most important: those who use architecture, rather than those who make it.Students enrolled in any undergraduate architecture program throughout the world are invited to submit a 500-word essay proposal responding to the question. From this pool of essays, approximately 25 are selected by the prize committee as particularly promising. These semifinalists are then asked to submit a 2,500-word essay expanding on their proposals. A group of readers, composed of committee members and invited colleagues, selects five to eight of the best essays and sends these finalists on to a jury of international academics and architects to select the winners. The prize is announced, papers submitted, and reader and jury-reviewed all online. The most recent winner was awarded $3,500 from a $5,000 prize pool. During the past six years, hundreds of students have submitted proposals and essays, representing dozens of schools of architecture from nearly forty countries. In recognition of these efforts, the prize was the recipient of the 2002 American Institute of Architects’ Education Honor Award. The Berkeley Prize has also garnered international acclaim, not the least reason for which is its complete embracing of digital technology. In partial recognition of this outreach, the 2003 Berkeley Prize competition was named a special event of “World Heritage in the Digital Age,” a virtual congress helping to commemorate the thirtieth anniversary of the UNESCO World Heritage Convention.

Organized by the UNESCO World Heritage Center, the virtual congress was one of a series of events scheduled to highlight the far-reaching goals of the World Heritage Convention to “maintain, increase, and diffuse knowledge, by assuring the conservation and protection of the world’s heritage.” The 2004 prize competition attracted 97 entries from students representing 29 countries and 43 undergraduate architecture programs on six continents. Twelve of these entries were collaborative efforts. The 2004 competition also established the Berkeley Prize Travel Fellowship. This new prize recognizes the vital role that exposure to other cultures and environments plays in helping to demonstrate the reality and importance of the social art of architecture. All finalists for the essay competition are invited to submit proposals demonstrating how they would use a two-week, expenses-paid, trip to an architecturally-significant destination selected by the prize committee. The 2004 Berkeley Prize honored its continuing association with UNESCO’s World Heritage Center by enabling the travel fellowship winner to visit Barcelona for two The Berkeley Prize: How it Works weeks and attend Forum Barcelona 2004, a six month-long, city-wide, international cultural event partially sponsored by UNESCO . The travel fellowship was also seen as potentially enabling the student to take part in the international conference, “Arquitectura 3000: the Architecture of Indifference”, sponsored by Escola Técnica Superior d´Arquitectura de Barcelona at the Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya in Barcelona in the summer of 2004 .The over consumption of nutritive sugars continues to be a major dietary problem in different parts of the world. A recent report indicates than an average American consumes about 17 teaspoons of added sugar daily, which is nearly twice the amounts of the 6 and 9 teaspoons, recommended for women and men, respectively. This dietary behavior is linked to various adverse health effects such as increased risk of diabetes, obesity, high blood pressure and cardiovascular diseases. Hence, there are worldwide efforts to reduce sugar consumption. For instance, the World Health Organization made a conditional recommendation to reduce sugar consumption to less than 5% of the total caloric intake, along with a strong recommendation to keep sugar consumption to less than 10% of the total caloric intake for both adults and children. Currently, added sugar consumption accounts for approximately 11–13% of the total energy intake of Canadian adults, is greater than 13% in the US population, and is as high as 17% in US children and adolescents, the latter principally from sugar-sweetened beverages . Consequently, taxes on SSB have been proposed as an incentive to change individuals’ behavior to reduce obesity and improve health. Notably, the city of Berkeley, CA, USA successfully accomplished a 21% decrease in SSBs consumption within a year of implementation. Therefore, it is expected that more states and cities will adopt this policy. On the regulatory level, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration updated the Nutrition Facts label requirement on packaged foods and beverages, starting 1 January 2020, to declare the amount of added sugars in grams and show a percent daily value for added sugar per serving.