Sentences with phrase «own oars»

If confirmed, the violation would be considered by the IOC's OAR Implementation panel, the body in charge of monitoring the OAR team's behavior at the Games.

Then all the company's oars are rowing in the same direction.

So don't be the guy who drops your oar.»»

«[Coach Tom Kelly] would say, «There's 25 of you guys rowing this boat, and if one of you guys drops your oar we're going to sink.

One thing to know: The former NHL star has a chance to dominate for the OAR hockey squad because the NHL banned its players from going to Pyeongchang.

Pavel Trikhichev of OAR falls during the men's alpine combined downhill at the Jeongseon Alpine Centre.

Emina Malagich of OAR, Petra Jaszapati of Hungary and Charlotte Gilmartin of Great Britain crash during the ladies» 500 - meter short - track speedskating qualifying at Gangneung Ice Arena.

Mikhail Kolyada of OAR falls during the men's singles figure skating short program team event at Gangneung Ice Arena.

Get off your butt, Mr. Dix, not because the BC Liberals might win but because you might just lose, and forever be linked with Gordon Campbell as another man who leaned on his oars when he should have been rowing like hell.

In 1996, the only time in history a British Columbia government won without a plurality, Gordon Campbell of the BC Liberals decided to rest on his oars and lost.

As a senior vice president of a Fortune 50 firm told us, «They can and do sit in the boat without pulling the oars... and that may be worse than leaving.»

I can't even pull an oar!»

Seize the Oar will host a special launch party at the Renton Rowing Center Saturday at 1 p.m. for service members, veterans and other members of the community to participate in adaptive rowing.

The opening lines describe oars plunging into the sea with set - jaw determination, carrying you into a world of honor - seeking ambition that isn't as archaic as we often imagine.

A revisionist perspective tries to keep both oars moving.

OAR then uses it in a cloning procedure that would be otherwise immoral if used on humans.

In the clearest possible case, the ANT - OAR cell would differ from a zygote on all of the parameters noted above: The ANT - OAR cell would have a pattern of gene expression that is clearly distinct from a zygote; it would generate a homogeneous population of cells rather than multiple cell types; it would undergo simple cleavage divisions and not produce any multicellular structures.

The details, however, show that OAR would produce an embryo» albeit one that would be incapable of developing normally.

OAR proponents claim that when the altered donor - cell nucleus with its activated nanog gene is transferred to the enucleated oocyte (egg cell), the presence of nanog will immediately convert the enucleated egg cell to a pluripotent cell, without ever forming a zygote.

If this ideal situation proved to be consistently the case in animal experiments, then there would be near - absolute certainty that the cells produced by ANT - OAR are merely cells and not embryos.

The letter by William J. Burke, Patrick Pullicino, and Father Edward J. Richard raises two biological objections, and two more general objections, to ANT - OAR.

The authors conclude by raising what they consider to be «a broader ethical problem with OAR,» stating that this procedure amounts to nothing more than human cloning with the additional twist of introducing a genetic mutation» ominously concluding that a «combination of wrongs can not make the end result good.»

While those espousing «egg mysticism» may continue to wring their hands and express doubts that the magical properties they attribute to the egg have not been fully overcome, such doubts are not reasonable doubts and would not constitute a legitimate moral indictment of ANT - OAR.

Pulling solely on the oar of capitalist individualism results in nihilism, as it did in the Gilded Age and in the 1920s and «80s, and is no more satisfactory than trying to steer society by the oar of Christian communitarianism.

First, the authors focus on a protein, the transcription factor nanog, and assert that because it «does not block the early embryonic development of the zygote,» therefore ANT - OAR «produces a crippled embryo.»

If these experiments support their hypothesis, they will be able to go on to similar human - cloning experiments because, according to OAR proponents, there is no moral issue left to be determined.

Are there criteria that could be met to establish beyond reasonable doubt that ANT - OAR does not produce a human embryo, even a very short - lived embryo?

Finally, there is a broader ethical problem with OAR.

As I stated in my original article, prior to conducting experiments with human cells, ANT - OAR techniques would need to be rigorously tested in animal models to establish a procedure that guarantees with reasonable certainty that an embryo is not generated.

Condic and her colleagues propose a procedure, called «oocyte - assisted reprogramming» (OAR), which they claim will produce a pluripotent cell without first producing a totipotent zygote, the single - cell embryo.

Yet a mistaken judgment by scientists, that OAR works in mice, could lead authorities in the Catholic Church to the decision to approve creating crippled human embryos for research.

The clearly stated goal of ANT - OAR is categorically to prevent formation of an embryo, even «a short - lived embryo,» which everyone agrees «is still an embryo.»

Both of the scientific objections raised by the authors miss the point of the ANT - OAR proposal.

Perhaps the most dangerous ethical leap made by OAR proponents is that science, by itself, can answer the critical ethical question: Does the zygote exist, for even a short time, during the OAR procedure?

Due to the limited statistical and methodological certainty allowed by biological science, the occurrence of technical errors in biological experiments, the differences between human and animal embryo development, the rapidity by which the cloning procedure produces a totipotent zygote, and the philosophical and theological nature of the question, there is no biological experiment that will prove with moral certainty that a human zygote never exists during the OAR procedure.

The OAR proposal uses a variation of therapeutic cloning called altered nuclear transfer (ANT) in which the nucleus of a donor cell (a skin cell, for example), containing the 30,000 genes of the genetic code, is altered in such a way that it produces an epigenetic factor, a protein called nanog.

No embryo has been generated, no organism «cloned» if ANT - OAR succeeds in its goal of producing nothing other than pluripotent stem cells.

OAR produces a crippled embryo» one whose cells can divide and differentiate to a certain stage in embryonic development and no further.

Their oars had no more effect on the turbulent sea than toothpicks, even though some of them were fishermen, They were accustomed to wind and wave, but to nothing like this.

Should the ANT - OAR proposal work, the alterations made to the adult nucleus will ensure that the cell produced by ANT - OAR enters immediately into a restricted, pluripotent state, without ever generating a totipotent embryo.

ANT - OAR accomplishes this same goal, however, by using an approach that does not involve the generation and destruction of human embryos.

The ANT - OAR proposal represent a scientifically and morally sound means of obtaining human pluripotent stem cells that does not compromise either the science or the deeply held moral convictions of those who oppose the destructive use of human embryos for research» which is a creative approach that can be embraced by both the anything - goes camp and the nothing - goes.

Such a single - step conversion of an adult cell into an embryonic stem cell entirely avoids the question of whether an embryo has been created, since the cell produced by ANT - OAR never exhibits any of the properties of a single - cell embryo.

The cell produced by ANT - OAR would have all of the positive properties of a pluripotent stem cell» as well as all of the restrictions in developmental potency such cells normally exhibit.

a man went rowing to the middle of the water and then threw away the oars, and trying foolishly to reach the bank.rowing with his hands.

There is no assurance of salvation that permits us to «rest on our oars.»

Framed here in the language of interrelationship, they can perhaps provide a starting point for evaluating oar individual and collective actions with the Earth in answering Ingram's question — How then shalt we live?

I remember at a circuit assembly once the speaker said «As parents it's the hardest thing to save our children and it's like being in a life raft with your panicked child overboard and we want to just bop them on the head with an oar so we can pull them on board to safety...»

So you have oars, you have a motor, right before your eyes!

And I have no motor, oars or sail.