coming up on our t.v. round remember dolly the sheep when she was clone of the ninety's it caused quite a controversy so how would you feel about a three d. printed human it's a question we're asking today. and a real life battle of david and goliath proportions monsanto is battling a small farmer all the way to the supreme court coming up a look at the biotech giant the battle to protect its seeds. and ivy league interrogation reports says that yale is partnering with the pentagon for a training center on interrogation techniques will dive deep into the n.f.l. we've gathered on this story ahead.

it's tuesday february nineteenth four pm here in washington d.c. i'm liz wall and you're watching our team. we begin with a story that sounds like something out of a science fiction movie scientists literally printing organs and other body tissue the idea is if you need a new knee or a new heart the body part can be created by a three d. printer researchers from the university of edinburgh have created a machine that prints out embryonic cells well this brings back memories memories of dolly the sheep remember her back in the late ninety's she was the first mammal to be cloned and she was living proof that a clone can be produced from a cell taken from the body well with dolly in mind and with scientists working on being able to print of body parts is it just a matter of time before humans can be cloned for more on this fascinating and perhaps scary technology are to correspondent marina for in iowa joins us now hi there marina so we here at r.t. we've been reporting on three d.

printing we've reported on it before and how it can be used to make everything from guns to food president obama even brought it up in his state of the union speech let's take a listen. there are things we can do right now to accelerate this trend last year we created our first manufacturing innovation institute in youngstown ohio and once shuttered warehouse is now a state of the art lab where new workers are mastering the three d. printing that has the potential to revolutionize the way we make almost everything . so maria how can three d. printing be used to revolutionize the medical field. well liz as you noted when you first introduced the story major universities corporate laboratories and biomedical engineer is are now researching ways to print experimental heart valves need cartilage is bone implants kidney cells and healing tissue i don't think those are the type of subjects that

a us president barack obama was referring to when he was talking about three d. printing but this three d. bio printing essentially scorch ink of living cells to build up to shoot structure now eventually biomedical engineers hope to print out tailor tissues suitable for surgeries and entire organs that can be used in transplant surgery now of course this is also in some research stages far from any clinical use but it is being done these type of processes processes are being executed and this is just the beginning and if it's something that the president was referring to in the state of the union address i would imagine that we're closer than we might think to this three d. printing become somewhat mainstream for goods and for possible medical use incredible abuse a this might just be the beginning could this mean brianna that we're closer to cloning humans i mean if we can make body parts of we can make

organs from cells i mean is this paving the way for something as crazy as cloning human beings. look you never know how the technology can evolve as especially with in this new world of three d. printing but what what experts are saying is that the bio printing machines would ultimately be used to help certain people that are on display long list waiting for organs waiting to receive organs organ transplants and. that of waiting for years or decades this this bio printing machine would essentially be able to create an organ the organ that the recipient needs and others other experts have been quoted in certain and recent reports some published by the wall street journal indicate that this these type of organs and tissues would be created for the former pharmaceutical industry to test medication on and to be used in laboratories for

testing specifically but you never know how it's going to evolve i'm sure that when the internet was first created by the u.s. military they never anticipated or imagined that it would be a world wide web connecting people and people to create virtual identities and virtual world virtual lives so you never know where the technology will go how will it will unfold and how it will change society overall. wow yeah i mean this first some bo this sounds terrifying humans almost playing this role of god creating bart body parts possibly creating creating these forms of human life what are some of the other ethical concerns here. well there's i mean there's lots of ethical concerns with this specific bio printing circumstance because lots of people could live a lot longer than humanly essentially possible if you could keep replacing the

organs in the tissues in the bone structure of a human being who knows how long they can live in critics would argue that this is just another way of playing god and this is very unnatural of course the flip side of it the defenders of buyer bio printing say that this is to help patients in need of new tissues new bone structure new organs and it's also to help to test on further medicines that could one day help people so with that it's a debate that we've heard over and you know i think when people hear this. there is this fear of kind of losing control at least you want to be able to control when this happens and you know you leave kind of this genetic footprint or this carbon footprint everywhere you go a follicle of hair or particles of your skin i mean what happens i think we even have some kind of pictures to illustrate this what happens if if you leave behind these traces of of your d.n.a. could could potentially somebody then clone you or clone your body parts or use

your d.n.a. . there's lots of new software that's out right now specifically what we're looking at right now is images of three d. three d. structures are really images of a face there's a software out there right now called fish that can create three d. faces from just a few photographs you don't even need to have the person all you need is a few photographs of them you use this software and you can essentially create a three d. image of a per. who knows how many years it will take before it could just turn into a mask of a person and where where we'll go from there is quite unsettling many people don't know it could be quite scary scary i think is the word a lot of people will use and i'm going to say this is fascinating to say the least that was our to correspond lena poor and i are from our new york studio. and now to texas where another child adopted from russia has died and november of two thousand

and twelve three year old mckim cruz in the end was adopted by the shadow family in gardendale texas they renamed him max less than three months later the young boy died and members of the russian government expressed anger that they have only now learned of max's death and are blaming the death on parental abuse and today russia's parliament observed a moment of silence dedicated to the boy all child protective services over in texas said that they had received a report on the boy's death as well as allegations of neglect and physical abuse the case is now under investigation now this death comes just weeks after the russian parliament passed a bill to end russian adoptions to the united states following high profile cases of abuse one such cases that have chase harrison adopted by a couple in north ridge genya now he died before he turned to when his father left him in a hot car and the two boys were adopted from the same orphanage in russia all near

rebin author of the stork market is the former director of the american adoption congress and joined r t earlier to discuss the shadow case. this is been the ongoing problem and work russia has been demanding from from the us for years is follow up but the united states is not set up to follow up on adoptions once they're finalized that's been a thorn in the side of russian officials for good reason with these now twenty cases of abuse that have resulted in the deaths of these twenty children and we don't know how many other children are living with abuse or you know that haven't died from it. we will keep you updated on the investigation as it continues. well it's a case of a giant sea of corporation against small farmers the supreme court today is hearing the case of monsanto versus this indiana indiana farmer

a seventy five year old man by the name of burning hugh bowman monsanto is accusing him of infringing on their seed patent and he's not the only small farmer the seed giant has filed in court monsanto has launched one hundred forty four lawsuits against four hundred ten farmers and fifty six small farm businesses and monsanto along with two other companies own more than half of the global seed market so what kind of a case does monsanto have and do these small farmers stand a chance to discuss this case i'm joined now by patty lovera she's assistant director for food and water watch welcome there patty so monsanto says that this man the gentleman we showed a photo among hundreds of others infringed on their patents by using this genetically modified see that their company created does the company have a right to protect their pattinson the argument is that they pumped all this money into research and development and they now have the right to control their product

what do you think well farmers all over the world and you know all over this country are watching this case because this is. of the critical issues involved there's a lot of issues with biotechnology with genetically engineered crops and this is one of the big ones is should a company have a right to patent these seeds and so the fact that it's made it to the supreme court means that there's legal issues to be explored here and lots of farmers all over this country and around the world really are hoping that the monsanto does not come out of this with the right to continue to patent things in this way which has really changed really changed how agriculture works you know in the course of the regulation of let's talk more about these legal issues i know that these farmers or monsanto is saying that once these farmers plant the seeds even the offspring of these seeds month sandow has the rights to what's at stake here so that's kind of what's at stake so this farmers saying i buy seeds that we're the next generation removed from what you patented that patent shouldn't apply here anymore and months

into saying the patent applies forever and so that's i mean that's really incredibly dramatic change to the way people have done agriculture since agriculture was started people save seeds that's part of what domesticating food sources want it kind of raises this question of how long can they control the seeds is it for the next generation is it for generations to come can they control the offspring of these seeds forever right that's what this case is about that's what the fight is about and you know lots of folks including us including lots of farm advocates all over the world think that this is just an inappropriate use of a patent there are other lawsuits to try to deal with this patent issue as well months and of course is enormous they along with two other companies they own more than half of the seeds the seed market in the world do small farmers stand a chance against this company. it's a great question the question we're dealing with in every venue of government you know in and to date months into has gotten what they've wanted they've written a lot of the rules and regulations for how we approve these crops the fact that we

don't have labeling of foods made from these crops i mean that's all because the biotechnology industry months into is a huge player in that industry they have a lot of political power but you know i mean there's an argument here there's some legal theory here and we have to see what the court decides but there's also really at the same time this is happening people all around the world and all around the country are saying enough is enough and they're demanding a change in these rules and they're demanding labeling so there are people that are really getting involved to try to take some of the power back and this is being now argued in the supreme court let's say that they rule in monsanto's favor what would be implications of that be how would that affect small farmers across the u.s. and he's going to pay more for their seeds and that's been happening since you know since we've seen a lot more biotechnology in agriculture since you know more and more a bigger percentage all the time of you know corn and soybeans and cotton farmers are paying more and a large part of what they're paying is fees the technology fee for this patent and so if you know if the outcome of this is the months and so can go generation after

generation after generation it's more money for them and that money comes out of the the pockets of farmers now what about the consumer for the average of you are wondering how this is going to affect them i mean will it or how will it affect people's bottom lines when they when they go to the grocery store it's a good question it's hard to you know it's hard to pinpoint what causes what to happen in food price but there's a lot of hype and a lot of p.r. from the biotechnology industry about how this is going to feed the world that everyone's going to have cheap food because of this people are having a cheap food experience right now when they go to the grocery store you know for many folks who does is almost out of reach and you know we've had biotechnology for all these years it hasn't really made our food that much cheaper and it's happening on the backs of farmers and it's really changing who's farming how they're farming we have a lot less choices than we used to in the market now it's kind of this is there this fear if monsanto were to win that they would come. and of have this right to monopolize the seat in industry and implications like that they're pretty close to monopolise in the seat industry now so i mean they control a huge portion of the seat industry and they also control the genetics of what

other companies use in their seeds so you know we're all hoping for a good outcome at the supreme court i don't have a crystal ball i don't know what's going to happen but congress can weigh in on this we can change the laws to into that's for the political equation comes in we have to build more political power to fight back against this biotechnology where we don't have too much time left but one of the big arguments monsanto is making another huge agra giants but not even agricultural companies other companies like technology companies pharmaceutical companies they are saying that this case could potentially impact patents so when it comes to medicine when it comes to new technology that their patents are risk and this could set the precedent for that what's your response to that concern how this could have wide ranging implications for all kinds of industries and in the u.s. and in the patent law expert but i think most people are gut level think you should be able to patent life i mean a corollary or a parallel case to this is about patent human genes and whether you can use those for biotechnology and i think that really crosses the line for

a lot of people and when it comes down to this food is different we're not talking about the latest cell phone we're not talking about some new fancy new technology this is about whether people are going to afford be able to afford to forment afford to eat and we need to look at that in a smarter way that doesn't give all the power to one to the folks like monsanto very interesting argument now being argued from the highest court and we will be keeping a close eye on how this all plays out really appreciate coming to the studio that was patty lovera assistant director of food and water watch. also ahead here on r t apparently some do is it news organizations have a problem with using the word torture on air and in print a surprising look at how they prefer to use euphemisms when it comes to the word details when we come back. a lot of potentially deadly blizzard taking aim for the northeast it's expected to hit starting in a few hours from new york to maine we have team coverage of the storm. but we're watching is the very heavy snow moving into boston properly or today it

was very sticky you can see it start to become much more powdery down the line there's still a lot of snow out here a good place for snowball fight. jason it is been a pretty incredible day there and even record snowfall throughout much of it might still be a slog through driving the system urgency here exceptional. let me let me respond or don't let me ask you a question from. here on the spin working his way around in the day we have our knives out. the truth is this right to spend staying there together here in a situation where the united nations talk about the surveillance me.

still. here's mitt romney trying to figure out the name of that thing that the americans call. a dollar. i'm sorry. he doesn't hear that are. you sorry. you know what kind of mind they're terrorists still. want to wish to

defeat terrorism he on the liberal and the current public. really go to. the scrutiny to distract us from what you and i should care about because they're a profit driven industry that sells us and facials that garbage he calls it breaking news i'm having martin and we're going to break that. we turned out to be issue torture turns out when you substitute the word torture with a word or phrase that doesn't sound so harsh it shakes public perception about torture policy it's. got a has more on that study and links torture the media and public perception. the action or practice of inflicting severe pain on someone as a punishment or in order to force them to do or say something that's the definition

of the word torture recent polls indicate that us t.v. news media outlets don't like to use the word but would rather use torture euphemisms like enhanced interrogation this information comes to us from global news intelligence and rethink media which coded and index uses of the word torture versus torture euphemisms over the past two years it seems that print outlets like the wall street journal the washington post. and the new york times were nearly fifty fifty percent where services like reuters and a.p. where many reporters get their information first used the word explicitly at nearly sixty percent now the shocker in all of this is that cable news services like fox c.n.n. and b.c. have reportedly opted to use torture euphemisms at an overwhelming seventy two point two percent over the course of the two year pol study claims that public opposition to torture in places like one ton of obey decreases as the word itself

is used less and it wasn't until may two thousand and twelve that the senate intelligence committee issued a report on enhanced interrogation that was the only time in this data set when public media was overall using the word torture to describe well torture and that's more than just semantics i'm glad you know that i for our two. well an ivy league university is facing scrutiny over its partnership with the military and teaching soldiers interrogation tactics yale university has agreed to partner with the department of defense to open up a training center to teach soldiers how to effectively question subjects and these are research proven ways and making people feel comfortable and open up when being questioned one of the many controversial aspects of the program is that the center is using new haven's immigrant community as test subjects here's the director of the program dr charles morgan told r.t. exclusively quote there is no plan for anything related to training interrogators as part of a larger proposal to help soldiers stay well and resilient i suggested we offer

basic interviewing skills like the ones we teach to medical students or use in psychiatry that are focused on understanding other people and being non-hostile non-threatening and that promote positive regard for each other the army like that idea well some students and other members of the community are not liking the idea and our t. producer rachel curteous joins us now for more either rachael so gail they're saying about this plan is to train soldiers in learning people skills what exactly does that mean tell us more about this with this research project sure so essentially it's called modified cognitive interviewing and it's something that dr charles morgan in conjunction with some of his colleagues developed in essentially it's about using psychiatry technique psychiatry techniques to better interview people so the idea is instead of kind of showing that that you're really strong and intense or that say you don't believe people so for instance they don't use lie

detectors because that creates the idea that already you're distrustful of them instead they try and use you know as you said people skills they try and be very comfortable they try and create a more comfortable situation so that people feel good about letting about giving away in the trying to make them feel that he is right i'm not your enemy i'm your i'm your friend exactly like here i am just trying to make you feel comfortable you feel at home we're on the same team here and it's essentially the idea is that. people military relies on intelligence from people on the ground and that if you're a little too forceful in trying to get that intelligence from people the likelihood that it's going to be correct actually decreases all right well some people are not liking this and i actually i want to read this part it's our in this clip it's from the yale daily news says quote it seems evident that yale would not train foreign military operatives to interrogate informants yele as an institution does not cannot align itself blindly with the goals of other militaries spoke who is to say

we should align ourselves with u.s. foreign policy so i know interesting question that these students bring up can you talk more about some of the controversy and the way students are responding to this sure so i think that editorial says a lot of the concern which is that listen gail is a global institution it's supposed to dedicate itself to learning from people throughout the world in and to be so brazenly on the side of the u.s. military in this instance might be seen as alienating or even worsening the ability of the institution to do its main job which is to educate so you know essentially they're very explicitly a gale university is very explicitly partnering with the u.s. department of defense special operations command in order to do this it been given a one point eight million dollar grant to start what's called the center of excellence for operational neuroscience and that center explicitly says that its main goal is to improve military intelligence so it's not to serve any purpose is for the school gale itself or its students but is actually devoted entirely to

improving military intelligence interesting i want to talk about one of them are controversial aspects of this project and it is that they are using immigrants in new haven population in the community there there's plenty of immigrants it's a diverse community. why use these immigrants what is the rationale behind that so that you're right i think that this is perhaps the most controversial aspect of the in. higher idea is that they're essentially saying we want to use immigrants because they are different explicitly they are different from americans and so they might do a better job of creating this in environment where in people feel a little feel like they have less in common and it's trying to bridge those gaps of them make them feel better but what people are saying is you know you're explicitly saying that first of all the people in the military say are all the all these green berets who are going to be doing the interviewing are white versus you know these non nonwhite immigrants charles morgan in his response me regarding this he said

you know i have the good fortune of having wonderful community relations with many non white communities and they've been eager to be a part of my educational teaching events i can't corroborate whether that's true that's certainly what he said about it they get the people who. participate do get a small stipend for their participation they get more money if they actually trick these green berets into thinking that they've been told the truth when they've been told a lie but the question is could this lead to further illini among immigrant communities in new haven who are kind of being explicitly courted for their difference it's certainly a possibility i guess and these cases they're being treated as if they are well the enemy and the battlefield they're certainly going to laying the enemy in this case yes i mean i don't know why you would sign up for that but. fifty hundred dollars looks good as well i want to ask you a more out of what the director of this program is saying he's saying you know this is more of just teaching friendly questioning how to get somebody to be almost

trying to get somebody to be your friend and these are teaching non-hostile. threatening. respectful ways of communicating with each other to gain information from each other and on the surface that doesn't sound so bad i mean it certainly sounds better than waterboarding right i mean it's much better evidently to teach people skills by which they're getting information in in a kind of friendship way but we can't forget that this is a means to an end so they're trying to. opportunities by which they can get information if they think it's better is through acting as if they're friends that's fine but the bottom line here is still to get the best quality military tell it is very interesting thanks for shedding some light on this interesting story that was our producer rachel courtesy as. that is going to wrap it up for now but for more on the stories we cover you can always check out our you tube channel you tube dot com slash r t america our web site r t v dot com slash usa you can follow me on twitter at liz wahl back back here in a half hour's see that. we

are facing a lot of problems. because no one thought to drink no good school. mates . for. what's not enough wealth is a law in the local needs you might want to see l.n.g. most will be used to. give debt down for a match up artist i was fired i must fight. all fights. right.

decision to leave. iraq. on my. prime. counting on the. wealthy british soil some time to play with.