Once a desirable sequence modification is identified through artificial means, what is often done in practice is to simply expose samples of the organism to UV until the desired sequence appears "naturally." The output of this process is not typically considered GMO, at least for regulatory purposes.
The Whanganui river is in fact only the second of three geological features to have been granted personhood in NZ, the others being Te Urewera and Taranaki Mounga (mountain).
Haha, it's all good, and it gets fun when you hit the South Island / Te Waipounamu dialect of Māori where a maunga is a mauka, and sky is raki not rangi, but both variants are still used.
A classroom at my childrens' primary school was called Maungatere (floating mountain) after a nearby mountain which is now called Maukatere, same meaning.
Likewise the local iwi/tribe in my area is known both as Kāi Tahu and Ngāi Tahu, and there's a town in North Canterbury called Rangiora, which translates to, roughly "Good sky", while the 3rd largest island of Aotearoa New Zealand is called Rakiura / Stewart Island, Rakiura meaning "Glowing sky".
And our tallest mountain Aoraki / Mount Cook used to be Aorangi / Mount Cook.
And to be fair, "Mounga" is a decent rendition of how you pronounce "Maunga".
Or, you know, you could use a mechanism that actually guarantees them some revenue and doesn't just burn the publication to the ground because you feel entitled to free access.
Minor correction, but in the book the act of asking to be discharged on account of insanity is taken as proof that one is sane, because no sane person would want to keep flying bombing missions day after day with low odds of survival.
That honestly doesn't make much sense when presented like that. It doesn't seem obvious that every single insane person would pick the insane choice in every scenario. It sounds more like a case of "necessary but not sufficient" in terms of sanity. (I imagine the book probably had plenty more nuance than the oversimplified strawman that I'm criticizing).
There's been conflicting information about this over the years. The latest research suggests that it may increase cancer risk when combined with other behaviors that themselves increase risk, but it probably has little to no effect on its own.
It's usually just called archaeology or perhaps biomolecular archaeology. Forensic archaeology is a bit different, and it usually pertains to humans and their crimes.
This is actually my wife's job/area of research, except typically they use the eggshell proteins to determine taxonomy. It's extremely rare that DNA survives in these types of samples but the proteins are preserved in the eggshell's mineral matrix.
Reminds me of the time I suggested to my cousin's new girlfriend (gentile) that she bring macaroons (a standard kosher-for-Passover dessert) to our Passover seder and instead she brought macarons (delicious but not kosher for Passover). We all had a laugh.
