Design of Vitrification Machine

Cryopreservation of living cells and biological material by vitrification requires the expertise of a skilled lab technician and a large amount of time. Vitrification must be performed one sample at a time on tiny subjects, which makes for a tedious and unreliable process. Moreover, there is a lack of standardization in the methods for preparing cells and biological material for the vitrification process. The purpose of the Vitrification Machine is to greatly simplify the process by making it faster, more efficient, cheaper and more reliable. The machine will be capable of handling several subjects at a time and will completely automate the most tedious portions of the vitrification process. This ease of use will allow researchers to experiment with new vitrification preparation methods on a larger number of samples more quickly and reliably. The applications of the Vitrification Machine are wide, but it is specifically being developed to automate the vitrification of human oocytes and eventually embryos. Female patients diagnosed with diseases whose treatments are detrimental to the reproductive process (such as chemotherapy), can have their oocytes preserved for use after their treatment is complete. The automation of vitrification by the Vitrification Machine will make this process faster, more reliable, more affordable, and therefore more available to patients. There currently is no known product on the market that fills all these needs or has the potential to drive down the cost of this portion of the fertility preservation process. Since the Vitrification Machine will be useful to clinical In-Vitro Fertilization (IVF) laboratories, animal science research and fertility specialists in both research and clinical settings, the market potential of the product is very large

Exploitation and Detection of a Malicious Mobile Application

Mobile devices are increasingly being embraced by both organizations and individuals in today’s society. Specifically, Android devices have been the prominent mobile device OS for several years. This continued amalgamation creates an environment that is an attractive attack target. The heightened integration of these devices prompts an investigation into the viability of maintaining non-compromised devices. Hence, this research presents a preliminary investigation into the effectiveness of current commercial anti-virus, static code analysis and dynamic code analysis engines in detecting unknown repackaged malware piggybacking on popular applications with excessive permissions. The contribution of this paper is two-fold. First, it provides an initial assessment of the effectiveness of anti-virus and analysis tools in detecting malicious applications and behavior in Android devices. Secondly, it provides process for inserting code injection attacks to stimulate a zero-day repackaged malware that can be used in future research efforts

Detecting Repackaged Android Applications Using Perceptual Hashing

The last decade has shown a steady rate of Android device dominance in market share and the emergence of hundreds of thousands of apps available to the public. Because of the ease of reverse engineering Android applications, repackaged malicious apps that clone existing code have become a severe problem in the marketplace. This research proposes a novel repackaged detection system based on perceptual hashes of vetted Android apps and their associated dynamic user interface (UI) behavior. Results show that an average hash approach produces 88% accuracy (indicating low false negative and false positive rates) in a sample set of 4878 Android apps, including 2151 repackaged apps. The approach is the first dynamic method proposed in the research community using image-based hashing techniques with reasonable performance to other known dynamic approaches and the possibility for practical implementation at scale for new applications entering the Android market

Managing Wicked Herbicide-Resistance: Lessons from the Field

Herbicide resistance is ‘wicked’ in nature; therefore, results of the many educational efforts to encourage diversification of weed control practices in the United States have been mixed. It is clear that we do not sufficiently understand the totality of the grassroots obstacles, concerns, challenges, and specific solutions needed for varied crop production systems. Weed management issues and solutions vary with such variables as management styles, regions, cropping systems, and available or affordable technologies. Therefore, to help the weed science community better understand the needs and ideas of those directly dealing with herbicide resistance, seven half-day regional listening sessions were held across the United States between December 2016 and April 2017 with groups of diverse stakeholders on the issues and potential solutions for herbicide resistance management. The major goals of the sessions were to gain an understanding of stakeholders and their goals and concerns related to herbicide resistance management, to become familiar with regional differences, and to identify decision maker needs to address herbicide resistance. The messages shared by listening-session participants could be summarized by six themes: we need new herbicides; there is no need for more regulation; there is a need for more education, especially for others who were not present; diversity is hard; the agricultural economy makes it difficult to make changes; and we are aware of herbicide resistance but are managing it. The authors concluded that more work is needed to bring a community-wide, interdisciplinary approach to understanding the complexity of managing weeds within the context of the whole farm operation and for communicating the need to address herbicide resistance

Managing Wicked Herbicide-Resistance: Lessons from the Field

Herbicide resistance is ‘wicked’ in nature; therefore, results of the many educational efforts to encourage diversification of weed control practices in the United States have been mixed. It is clear that we do not sufficiently understand the totality of the grassroots obstacles, concerns, challenges, and specific solutions needed for varied crop production systems. Weed management issues and solutions vary with such variables as management styles, regions, cropping systems, and available or affordable technologies. Therefore, to help the weed science community better understand the needs and ideas of those directly dealing with herbicide resistance, seven half-day regional listening sessions were held across the United States between December 2016 and April 2017 with groups of diverse stakeholders on the issues and potential solutions for herbicide resistance management. The major goals of the sessions were to gain an understanding of stakeholders and their goals and concerns related to herbicide resistance management, to become familiar with regional differences, and to identify decision maker needs to address herbicide resistance. The messages shared by listening-session participants could be summarized by six themes: we need new herbicides; there is no need for more regulation; there is a need for more education, especially for others who were not present; diversity is hard; the agricultural economy makes it difficult to make changes; and we are aware of herbicide resistance but are managing it. The authors concluded that more work is needed to bring a community-wide, interdisciplinary approach to understanding the complexity of managing weeds within the context of the whole farm operation and for communicating the need to address herbicide resistance

Managing Herbicide Resistance: Listening to the Perspectives of Practitioners. Procedures for Conducting Listening Sessions and an Evaluation of the Process

Seven half-day regional listening sessions were held between December 2016 and April 2017 with groups of diverse stakeholders on the issues and potential solutions for herbicide-resistance management. The objective of the listening sessions was to connect with stakeholders and hear their challenges and recommendations for addressing herbicide resistance. The coordinating team hired Strategic Conservation Solutions, LLC, to facilitate all the sessions. They and the coordinating team used in-person meetings, teleconferences, and email to communicate and coordinate the activities leading up to each regional listening session. The agenda was the same across all sessions and included small-group discussions followed by reporting to the full group for discussion. The planning process was the same across all the sessions, although the selection of venue, time of day, and stakeholder participants differed to accommodate the differences among regions. The listening-session format required a great deal of work and flexibility on the part of the coordinating team and regional coordinators. Overall, the participant evaluations from the sessions were positive, with participants expressing appreciation that they were asked for their thoughts on the subject of herbicide resistance. This paper details the methods and processes used to conduct these regional listening sessions and provides an assessment of the strengths and limitations of those processes