On the International Legal Aspects of Human Dignity
Human dignity is a value of great antiquity. Dignity for the classical Roman conveyed the sense of the rank of some citizens of Roman society. Later, in the period of the Renaissance, religious writings expanded the idea of human dignity to a quality enjoyed by all, not simply an elite. The Renaissance fortified the conception of the individual's capacity, through God, to transform themselves. 
 
The second great renaissance in the life of human dignity occurred at the end of World War II. The appalling loss of civilian life during this conflict and the gruesome revelations of the treatment of minorities, most notably the evil treatment of European Jews, revived discussion of human dignity. Human dignity may have waxed and waned in legal and philosophical attention after this time. In the 1970s, one writer suggested that discussion of human dignity 'seems to have suffered the fate of notions such as virtue and honour, by simply fading into the past'. However, human dignity has enjoyed yet another renaissance over the past decades, in debates about dying with dignity and the human cloning debates of the modem Genome Era.
Human cloning and the challenge of regulation.
The birth of Dolly, the sheep cloned from a mammary cell of an adult ewe, has initiated a public debate about human cloning. Although cloning of humans may never be clinically feasible, discussion of the ethical, legal, and social issues raised is important. Cloning is just one of several techniques potentially available to select, control, or alter the genome of offspring.1–3 The development of such technology poses an important social challenge: how to ensure that the technology is used to enhance, rather than limit, individual freedom and welfare. A key ethical question is whether a responsible couple, interested in . . .
LABORATORY AND FIELD TESTING OF SEED SPACING UNIFORMITY FOR SUGARBEET PLANTERS
Five planter configurations were evaluated for seed spacing uniformity at three field speeds using a seed 
location method in the field and a laboratory method involving an opto-electronic sensor system. Planter seed spacing 
uniformity was described using the Coefficient of Precision (CP3) measure. Results showed that CP3 measures 
determined using the laboratory test method were significantly different from those determined using the field test method. 
This indicated the laboratory test method cannot be used to predict planter seed spacing uniformity in the field. Seed 
spacing uniformity determined in laboratory tests was higher than, or equal to, seed spacing uniformity determined in 
field tests. This indicated the laboratory test method may be useful to screen out planters or planter units with poor 
uniformity of seed metering. Field testing of the planters that perform well in laboratory tests must be conducted to 
adequately determine the seed spacing uniformity of those planters in the field. Results from laboratory and field tests 
could be useful in determining areas for improvement of planters or planter units.