The ribosomes in eukaryotic cells are larger than the ribosomes in prokaryotic cells. furthermore, eukaryotic ribosomes are not affected by some chemicals that affect prokaryotic ribosomes, a fact that can be put to good use by microbiologists seeking new antimicrobial drugs. an example of this is the antibiotic erythromycin, which prevents protein synthesis by prokaryotic ribosomes but does not affect eukaryotic ribosomes at all. thus, erythromycin kills bacteria but does not affect humans or other animals. using this information, which of the following would be expected and would support the endosymbiont hypothesis? a) mitochondrial ribosomes will be smaller than prokaryotic ribosomes. b) mitochondria and chloroplasts will not have ribosomes. c) mitochondrial ribosomes will be larger than prokaryotic ribosomes. d) the ribosomes in chloroplasts will be sensitive to erythromycin

D) The ribosomes in chloroplasts will be sensitive to erythromycin

answer; ///i believe its: ///(embolus);

"1. it should be, it has been for about 20 years, and it's really not much different in the end than breeding animals to have particular traits. there are always concerns about genetically engineered animals/plants affecting the environment in unexpected negative ways, but i can't think of an example where the fears didn't turn out to be baseless.  

first, as you point out, it would be a great advance in pharmacology, to be able to tailor drugs and their doses to me. the pros involve better medical treatment. the cons involve privacy issues like insurance companies denying coverage to people with genetic risk factors. looking at dna markers wouldn't affect the frequency of genetic diseases, but it would allow detection of them earlier. and ok, actually i suppose that if people used this information to avoid having children with genetic diseases, some might decrease in frequency."