....because we all have those moments. Visitors of the page, please enjoy!
Saturday, June 15, 2013
Cute (Lame) Biology Pics..
....because we all have those moments. Visitors of the page, please enjoy!
Diabetes rant.
I would like to begin this post by saying that this comment of diabetes has definitely succeeded in getting me all riled up. I would like to put my foot down and say that irresponsibility of someone's diet does not always correlate with diabetes. Do not assume that just because a person is diabetic, it shows they have no self control over what they eat. While the statement may be true for some people, who do not pay attention to what they eat, and thus leads them to a life with diabetes, they can't represent the entire population of diabetics. More often than not, diabetes (or rather, the risk of developing it) is passed from generation to generation. It's hard to tell where to cross the line at "controlling a diet" because if some people are more susceptible to diabetes than others, then it doesn't take much for them to start showing the symptoms and thus eventually diagnosed with diabetes.
Once again, the idea of the government stepping in to take over control is always a bad idea. Since we are a democracy, if citizens don't like the idea of the government taking complete control of our diet, then we can always rebel against this rule, and get rid of the government if we're not satisfied with what they're doing. This is our lifestyle, our health, and ultimately, our choice if we want to live better, or live an eventual life of constant insulin shots. This freedom and the right to lead the life we want is what gives significance to our democratic society, so taking away this freedom of choosing what we get to eat would defeat the whole purpose of democracy.
Besides, if people originally weren't willing to control their diet, what makes you think that making the government step in would make any changes? If anything, it will cause an outrage amongst the people, and they will look for ways to get the freedom they had constantly had throughout their life.
The best solution would be to continue to educate the people on the dangers of diabetes. Education costs money, but since the rate of diabetes is increasing drastically each year, should it not be a worthy cause? One can only hope that people will decide to make the right choice, and if they don't, then in the end, it's their life. It's up to them to decide how they want to spend it, whether it be dying sooner or dying later, as long as they are aware of what they are doing to their own lives, which is what the aim is through education.
Once again, the idea of the government stepping in to take over control is always a bad idea. Since we are a democracy, if citizens don't like the idea of the government taking complete control of our diet, then we can always rebel against this rule, and get rid of the government if we're not satisfied with what they're doing. This is our lifestyle, our health, and ultimately, our choice if we want to live better, or live an eventual life of constant insulin shots. This freedom and the right to lead the life we want is what gives significance to our democratic society, so taking away this freedom of choosing what we get to eat would defeat the whole purpose of democracy.
Besides, if people originally weren't willing to control their diet, what makes you think that making the government step in would make any changes? If anything, it will cause an outrage amongst the people, and they will look for ways to get the freedom they had constantly had throughout their life.
The best solution would be to continue to educate the people on the dangers of diabetes. Education costs money, but since the rate of diabetes is increasing drastically each year, should it not be a worthy cause? One can only hope that people will decide to make the right choice, and if they don't, then in the end, it's their life. It's up to them to decide how they want to spend it, whether it be dying sooner or dying later, as long as they are aware of what they are doing to their own lives, which is what the aim is through education.
Are Vaccines Worth it?
While it may be true that vaccines can have horrible side effects, that can ultimately lead to severe brain disorders such as autism, ADD, and Parkinson's,the other side of the argument is if a person doesn't get vaccinated, they can die from deadly illness like HPV.
In a situation like this, where both options seem equally devastating, you have to ask yourself; which one of these two bad options seems more bearable? And the truth is, it depends.
If you are living in a town that is sexually active, then the better option for you is to get that vaccine shot. However, if you are in a town where everyone is abstinent, what's the point of getting vaccinated other than to playing Russian Roulette with the chance of getting brain disorders? I guess all I'm trying to say here is to be rational about this. Vaccines are an important, and effective way to prevent illnesses from spreading, and a method for citizens to protect themselves. The chance of getting a brain disorder and other harmful effects is minute, and unfortunately, that's one of the risks you have to take to protect yourself from the disease. We can't always live our lives in a nutshell, as good and pleasant as it sounds at times. If you're afraid of taking risks, then don't even bother stepping outside of your house anymore.
We as citizens should have been educated about the side effects of the vaccines, but told the truth of it, that there is only a rare chance of experiencing the side effects, and how important it is for us to be vaccinated at the moment for the disease we could potentially get if we don't vaccinate.
Knowledge is power, afterall.
Parasites.
The entire idea of parasites just gives me goosebumps. I know that a lot of people are scared of big tough animals like sharks, and rhinos, but personally, I would say parasites. Why? Well, because animals such as sharks and rhinos can be visibly seen from miles away, and thus easily avoidable. Parasites, however, aren't usually noticed with the naked eye, and can sneak up on you when you least expect it, and if you think that just because of their size correlates with the amount of harm they can inflict on a person, you are dead wrong. Parasites lives off of their hosts, exploiting them for food, water, heat, and pretty much everything else that they need to survive. These nasty little organisms can kill you from the inside, slowly. and painfully.
Okay, so now that we have established the hazardous level of parasites, we can move onto solutions on how to prevent for parasitic infections!
Ways of getting infected with parasites:
To be perfectly honest, there are lots of ways you can be infected by parasites, because there are so many different types of parasites, but I'll just list a few of the more common ways:
- Eating food or drinking water that has been contaminated with feces (especially that of contaminated humans or animals)
- Raw meat
- Through insects such as mosquitoes
- Sexually transmitted infections
- Stomach or intestinal infections
- Fatigue and problems with sleep
- Skin Disorders or Allergies
- Mood and anxiety problems
- Weight and appetite problems
- Muscle and joint pain
- Sexual and reproductive problems
Now, onto methods of prevention:
- Washing your hands (generic, but useful!)
- Disinfecting your drinking water (especially when you travel to places where there is no sources of clean water)
- Thoroughly cooking your food, and be aware of where you are getting your food from!
- Getting yourself, your family, and your household pets checked regularly
http://listverse.com/2010/01/13/top-10-most-horrific-parasite-infections/
Sunday, May 5, 2013
Hormone Therapy.
Often times, science is about taking risks. Without taking steps into the unknown, there would be no advancement in science. With that being said, when do we know to take the risks ? Logically, it should be when the pros of the situation outweigh the cons, so that in taking the risk, there is a relatively beneficial result. Given that train of thought, hormone replacement therapy would sit right on the dividing fence between the two sides.
At the moment, hormone replacement therapy is probably most commonly used in women who have experienced menopause, since the decline of estrogen and progesterone in their bodies caused heart diseases and dementia. Since the loss of the sex hormones were responsible for these problems, it was decided that perhaps providing these women with a healthy dose of the sex hormones would resolve the issue. At that time, the pros of replacing the loss of sex hormones seemed to overpower the cons, especially since it was going to help the two most vital organs in our bodies; the heart, and the brain. However, that certainly didn't seem to be the case, as the hormone replacement therapy actually posed more problems than it was set out to cure. Side effects that the women experienced included strokes, blood clots, and breast cancers.
So then, should women use hormone replacement therapy as a solution? It really depends. Even though I put the case as black and white in the beginning, there are tons of grey areas as well. Hormone replacement therapy works great wonders for some women, and the treatment will definitely be worth it for them. However, with other women who have menopause at later ages, and are not in the best health, they should probably avoid hormone replacement therapy and try other options. All in all, hormone replacement therapy is a gamble, as women will not know whether they will receive the side effects until they've went through with the process.
Just whether it's a risk that you should take or not, is really up to the patient themselves. If the pros seem more appealing than the cons, then they should take it, but if they really believe hormone replacement therapy will not be beneficial for them, then they should move on to other treatments. After all, science is constantly advancing, and there will most likely be a better method to treating the diseases that follow menopause.
Personally, I'm also on the fence about the future of hormone replacement therapy, as it can go either way. The risks and side effects of the treatment may increase as time goes on, to the point where there are too few patients actually willing to consider going through with the procedure, thus encouraging scientists and researchers to find better ways to treat the symptoms of menopause. On the other hand, if the kinks and problems of hormone replacement therapy is worked out, then it could be a huge success, and used as treatments for many other diseases linked with hormones, for example, hypothyroidism, or hypoinsulinism.
At the moment, hormone replacement therapy is probably most commonly used in women who have experienced menopause, since the decline of estrogen and progesterone in their bodies caused heart diseases and dementia. Since the loss of the sex hormones were responsible for these problems, it was decided that perhaps providing these women with a healthy dose of the sex hormones would resolve the issue. At that time, the pros of replacing the loss of sex hormones seemed to overpower the cons, especially since it was going to help the two most vital organs in our bodies; the heart, and the brain. However, that certainly didn't seem to be the case, as the hormone replacement therapy actually posed more problems than it was set out to cure. Side effects that the women experienced included strokes, blood clots, and breast cancers.
So then, should women use hormone replacement therapy as a solution? It really depends. Even though I put the case as black and white in the beginning, there are tons of grey areas as well. Hormone replacement therapy works great wonders for some women, and the treatment will definitely be worth it for them. However, with other women who have menopause at later ages, and are not in the best health, they should probably avoid hormone replacement therapy and try other options. All in all, hormone replacement therapy is a gamble, as women will not know whether they will receive the side effects until they've went through with the process.
Just whether it's a risk that you should take or not, is really up to the patient themselves. If the pros seem more appealing than the cons, then they should take it, but if they really believe hormone replacement therapy will not be beneficial for them, then they should move on to other treatments. After all, science is constantly advancing, and there will most likely be a better method to treating the diseases that follow menopause.
Personally, I'm also on the fence about the future of hormone replacement therapy, as it can go either way. The risks and side effects of the treatment may increase as time goes on, to the point where there are too few patients actually willing to consider going through with the procedure, thus encouraging scientists and researchers to find better ways to treat the symptoms of menopause. On the other hand, if the kinks and problems of hormone replacement therapy is worked out, then it could be a huge success, and used as treatments for many other diseases linked with hormones, for example, hypothyroidism, or hypoinsulinism.
Saturday, April 13, 2013
Psychopaths.
There has always been something creepy about the idea of psychopaths. Perhaps it is in the way that they are portrayed in movies, that makes us so afraid, where they are able to senselessly kill others without a single trace of emotion. Then again, it is always human nature to fear the unknown, and the mind of a psychopath continues to remain somewhat of a mystery to us.
What we realize so that is that psychopaths have absolutely no consciences at all. They are people who have no feelings of guilt, or remorse, or even a slight amount of concern. That means that if they kill someone right now, they can walk away without it affecting them in any way whatsoever. This definitely brings a huge amount of fear and instability into our hearts. However, maybe we can take this as an opportunity to learn instead.
This may be completely crazy of me to suggest this, but perhaps being a psychopath may not be such a bad thing after all. There are quite a bit of advantages of having no consciences as well. For example, have you ever done something horrible in the past that have stuck with you even until now? Something in your mind that you can never erase? Something that keeps you up in the latest of hours and haunts you even in your dreams? If you were a psychopath, you would no longer be confined trapped in your own personal hell. You would be free from all your nightmares, and even though you would no longer feel the benefits that comes with having a conscience, you wouldn't have to deal with the horrible aspect of it either. This is certainly an efficient way of wiping your slate clean.
What about in the present, when you truly desired something so badly that it absolutely kills you not to have it? We are constantly held back by our moral compasses that we put aside what we really want in life, for what is morally right. Is this a fair trade off? As a psychopath, you would never even have to begin to consider it. You are never held back from your desires by any guilt or shame, other than potentially being physically restrained in a mental institute, of course. Even then, you are still set free from your moral restraints.
Maybe if we scaled the personality of a psychopath down just a bit, where you are able to become ruthless when the occasion calls for it, not letting your actions come back to haunt you, and carrying out your desires completely and whole heartedly, then these are aspects that can lead to success.
What we realize so that is that psychopaths have absolutely no consciences at all. They are people who have no feelings of guilt, or remorse, or even a slight amount of concern. That means that if they kill someone right now, they can walk away without it affecting them in any way whatsoever. This definitely brings a huge amount of fear and instability into our hearts. However, maybe we can take this as an opportunity to learn instead.
This may be completely crazy of me to suggest this, but perhaps being a psychopath may not be such a bad thing after all. There are quite a bit of advantages of having no consciences as well. For example, have you ever done something horrible in the past that have stuck with you even until now? Something in your mind that you can never erase? Something that keeps you up in the latest of hours and haunts you even in your dreams? If you were a psychopath, you would no longer be confined trapped in your own personal hell. You would be free from all your nightmares, and even though you would no longer feel the benefits that comes with having a conscience, you wouldn't have to deal with the horrible aspect of it either. This is certainly an efficient way of wiping your slate clean.
What about in the present, when you truly desired something so badly that it absolutely kills you not to have it? We are constantly held back by our moral compasses that we put aside what we really want in life, for what is morally right. Is this a fair trade off? As a psychopath, you would never even have to begin to consider it. You are never held back from your desires by any guilt or shame, other than potentially being physically restrained in a mental institute, of course. Even then, you are still set free from your moral restraints.
Maybe if we scaled the personality of a psychopath down just a bit, where you are able to become ruthless when the occasion calls for it, not letting your actions come back to haunt you, and carrying out your desires completely and whole heartedly, then these are aspects that can lead to success.
To treat, or not to treat.
The topic of treatment for diseases often becomes very tricky to discuss, as it really depends on the situation that the patient is in, and their own bias on the effectiveness of treatments. Since I have personally never been in a position like that myself, it becomes very difficult to make a decision as to what would be the right thing to do for the patients with Parkinson's.
Parkinson's, as we've all seen, is not an easy disease to deal with. Parkinson's takes over the control of the body's motor skills, and results in tremors, and rigidness in the body. Parkinson's is deadly because, unlike a cancer which will cause a great amount of pain, Parkinson's actually hinders our body's functions on a daily basis. Patients with Parkinson's are unable to properly do the things that they can normally do, such as type, or brush their teeth, or even just drinking a glass of water. In this sense, Parkinson's may even be seen as a disease worse than cancer. Fortunately, there is a treatment for Parksinson's, and if it is successful, then the patients are able to get their lives back almost to the way it was before. However, the treatment also comes with side effects, and risks that may not be worth the success.
Speaking from a person who has had a bit of experience behind the counter of a pharmacy, I can definitely say that drugs are a dangerous thing to deal with. Even though there are drugs that work miracles for patients, and they are able to really help the patients with getting their lives back on track, more times than not, drugs create more problems that they solve. Unfortunately, drugs are only meant as a treatment to the symptoms of certain diseases and illnesses, and doesn't usually cure the problem itself. This then, easily results to patients increasing dosages and the amount of drugs they are getting as their symptoms are increasing and the medication is becoming less effective, as well as an addiction to their medication, or horrible side effects that the medication brings. It turns into a vicious cycle that patients can't escape, as they continue to rely on drugs for the rest of their diseased life. Therefore, being as torn as I am about using treatment for Parkinson's, all I can really do in the end is to support the patient's decision as to what they choose to due regarding their disease.
If the patient is aware of the side effects that come with their treatment, but are willing to go bear through it in order to get their life back on track because they might have others that rely on them, then I am completely behind them on their decision.
On the other hand, if the patient doesn't want to deal with the side effects that come along with the medication, then there are always other options they can choose to at least make their symptoms a little easier to deal with.
Parkinson's, as we've all seen, is not an easy disease to deal with. Parkinson's takes over the control of the body's motor skills, and results in tremors, and rigidness in the body. Parkinson's is deadly because, unlike a cancer which will cause a great amount of pain, Parkinson's actually hinders our body's functions on a daily basis. Patients with Parkinson's are unable to properly do the things that they can normally do, such as type, or brush their teeth, or even just drinking a glass of water. In this sense, Parkinson's may even be seen as a disease worse than cancer. Fortunately, there is a treatment for Parksinson's, and if it is successful, then the patients are able to get their lives back almost to the way it was before. However, the treatment also comes with side effects, and risks that may not be worth the success.
Speaking from a person who has had a bit of experience behind the counter of a pharmacy, I can definitely say that drugs are a dangerous thing to deal with. Even though there are drugs that work miracles for patients, and they are able to really help the patients with getting their lives back on track, more times than not, drugs create more problems that they solve. Unfortunately, drugs are only meant as a treatment to the symptoms of certain diseases and illnesses, and doesn't usually cure the problem itself. This then, easily results to patients increasing dosages and the amount of drugs they are getting as their symptoms are increasing and the medication is becoming less effective, as well as an addiction to their medication, or horrible side effects that the medication brings. It turns into a vicious cycle that patients can't escape, as they continue to rely on drugs for the rest of their diseased life. Therefore, being as torn as I am about using treatment for Parkinson's, all I can really do in the end is to support the patient's decision as to what they choose to due regarding their disease.
If the patient is aware of the side effects that come with their treatment, but are willing to go bear through it in order to get their life back on track because they might have others that rely on them, then I am completely behind them on their decision.
On the other hand, if the patient doesn't want to deal with the side effects that come along with the medication, then there are always other options they can choose to at least make their symptoms a little easier to deal with.
The importance of Homework.
As a student, I know the feeling of aggravation that comes along with doing your homework all too well. Every night, the task of doing homework is constantly on my mind, adding what seems to be a tonne of weight on my shoulders, and because of the stress of that, I tend to procrastinate and leave homework to be the very last thing I do before I go to bed. Unfortunately, homework always takes a lot longer than expected, forcing me to go to sleep later than I usually do, and waking up tired, and groggy the next morning.
As we learned from the "While You were Sleeping" seminar, sleeping is crucial to the functioning of our brain, as it allows time for the brain to make connections and catch up to the thoughts that entered our head throughout the day. If students are in a similar state of sleep deprivation, then it gives everyone a clear sign that we're not getting enough sleep. If we are not getting enough sleep, this means that we are not giving enough time for our brain to catch up with us, and thus we rob our brain of its ability to function to its full potential. Therefore, it is obvious that students need more sleep, and the solution should be simple; to assign less homework, right? Wrong.
Even though I may be sleep deprived, it really has little to do in relation to the amount of homework that is assigned, since homework is barely checked by teachers. It has everything to do with my habits, which is the same as most of my fellow sleep deprived classmates. Regardless of whether I have to write an entire essay, or just given a few questions of math homework, I will always begin the task of doing homework just before I go to sleep. What I do before that? I have absolutely no idea. All I know is that I manage to somehow waste my time away until the panic of not completing my homework settles in. Thus, assigning less homework will not help with this problem at all. In fact, when I'm given less homework, I end up staying up later, because I get distracted by some youtube video, and end up losing track of time.
Cutting down the amount of homework may begin to make a little difference at first, as the students will begin to sleep earlier, and they look a little more energetic throughout the day, but in the end, this solution is only temporary, and might actually end up causing more problems, as students will not be as well prepared for their tests as they should be. Same with every problem, this needs to be addressed at its roots. The root of this sleep deprivation problem lies in the students' habits, and their discipline. Perhaps a better solution would be to teach students strategies on not procrastinating, and getting their homework done earlier, so they can go to sleep earlier, and wake up with their brain working at its best.
As we learned from the "While You were Sleeping" seminar, sleeping is crucial to the functioning of our brain, as it allows time for the brain to make connections and catch up to the thoughts that entered our head throughout the day. If students are in a similar state of sleep deprivation, then it gives everyone a clear sign that we're not getting enough sleep. If we are not getting enough sleep, this means that we are not giving enough time for our brain to catch up with us, and thus we rob our brain of its ability to function to its full potential. Therefore, it is obvious that students need more sleep, and the solution should be simple; to assign less homework, right? Wrong.
Even though I may be sleep deprived, it really has little to do in relation to the amount of homework that is assigned, since homework is barely checked by teachers. It has everything to do with my habits, which is the same as most of my fellow sleep deprived classmates. Regardless of whether I have to write an entire essay, or just given a few questions of math homework, I will always begin the task of doing homework just before I go to sleep. What I do before that? I have absolutely no idea. All I know is that I manage to somehow waste my time away until the panic of not completing my homework settles in. Thus, assigning less homework will not help with this problem at all. In fact, when I'm given less homework, I end up staying up later, because I get distracted by some youtube video, and end up losing track of time.
Cutting down the amount of homework may begin to make a little difference at first, as the students will begin to sleep earlier, and they look a little more energetic throughout the day, but in the end, this solution is only temporary, and might actually end up causing more problems, as students will not be as well prepared for their tests as they should be. Same with every problem, this needs to be addressed at its roots. The root of this sleep deprivation problem lies in the students' habits, and their discipline. Perhaps a better solution would be to teach students strategies on not procrastinating, and getting their homework done earlier, so they can go to sleep earlier, and wake up with their brain working at its best.
Monday, April 1, 2013
Stem Cell Research
After reading the article "Fast and Furious", it has been brought to my attention that induced pluripotent cells could really be a significant change for stem cell research. Previously, scientists were still using embryonic stem cells, which created an enormous controversy about whether it was like "killing a baby" or not. The discovery of induced pluripotent stem cells are extremely important because they have the ability to take any cell from the body, reprogram them into an embyronic cell-like state and theoretically have them differentiate into any cell in the body. This then, takes the spotlight away from embryonic stem cells, as iPS cells can do the same job they can, but cause a lot less controversy.
Unfortunately, iPS cells have their advantages as well. Even though theoretically, iPS cells could differentiate into any cell in our body, in reality, that is not the case. Certain cells (fibroblast cells from the skin) are easier to differentiate than others, such as a neuron cell. Also, since embryonic stem cells have been studied for quite a long time in the field of stem cell research, the scientists are much more knowledgeable on how they work whereas iPS are still relatively new, and thus, if they have problems in their reprogramming or in their ability to function, it is a lot harder to find a solution. At the end of the day, it's sad to say that embryonic stem cells are the better option for stem cell research, with all ethical issues put aside. There are just too many problems that can occur with the usage of iPS cells, such as the possibility of cancer, because one of the genes used to reprogram the iPS cell, associates with cancer. Which brings up the question of whether using iPS cells is worth it. If you only had a just kidney to replace/repair with iPS cells, and you have the possibility of getting a fatal cancer, would you still go through with it? Or how about your heart? Would you rather die of a heart problem, or take the chance of living you could get with iPS cells?
Maybe in the near future, the problems that iPS cells bring will be solved. Perhaps we'll find a different gene to reprogram iPS cells instead of c-Myc (the one that can cause cancer), or maybe we'll find a way for the cells to be reprogrammed without c-Myc. Perhaps if we went really in-depth with the working of reprogramming iPS cells, we would be able to figure out how to make the iPS cells totipotent, and thus making them preferred over embryonic stem cells.
However, with the success of iPS cells increasing, so does the chance of iPS cells being abused. Perhaps in the near future, we could have the possibility of producing clones with iPS cells, and along with that comes a whole controversy of what these clones will be used for, such as for harvesting organs. This definitely wouldn't be fair to the clones themselves, as they are to be treated as people too.
Even though at the end of the day, people still might prefer to use embryonic stem cells instead of iPS cells, there is no denying the fact that iPS cells opened quite a number of doors for stem cell research, and probably will continue to do so.
Unfortunately, iPS cells have their advantages as well. Even though theoretically, iPS cells could differentiate into any cell in our body, in reality, that is not the case. Certain cells (fibroblast cells from the skin) are easier to differentiate than others, such as a neuron cell. Also, since embryonic stem cells have been studied for quite a long time in the field of stem cell research, the scientists are much more knowledgeable on how they work whereas iPS are still relatively new, and thus, if they have problems in their reprogramming or in their ability to function, it is a lot harder to find a solution. At the end of the day, it's sad to say that embryonic stem cells are the better option for stem cell research, with all ethical issues put aside. There are just too many problems that can occur with the usage of iPS cells, such as the possibility of cancer, because one of the genes used to reprogram the iPS cell, associates with cancer. Which brings up the question of whether using iPS cells is worth it. If you only had a just kidney to replace/repair with iPS cells, and you have the possibility of getting a fatal cancer, would you still go through with it? Or how about your heart? Would you rather die of a heart problem, or take the chance of living you could get with iPS cells?
Maybe in the near future, the problems that iPS cells bring will be solved. Perhaps we'll find a different gene to reprogram iPS cells instead of c-Myc (the one that can cause cancer), or maybe we'll find a way for the cells to be reprogrammed without c-Myc. Perhaps if we went really in-depth with the working of reprogramming iPS cells, we would be able to figure out how to make the iPS cells totipotent, and thus making them preferred over embryonic stem cells.
However, with the success of iPS cells increasing, so does the chance of iPS cells being abused. Perhaps in the near future, we could have the possibility of producing clones with iPS cells, and along with that comes a whole controversy of what these clones will be used for, such as for harvesting organs. This definitely wouldn't be fair to the clones themselves, as they are to be treated as people too.
Even though at the end of the day, people still might prefer to use embryonic stem cells instead of iPS cells, there is no denying the fact that iPS cells opened quite a number of doors for stem cell research, and probably will continue to do so.
Saturday, March 23, 2013
Cancer
After the presentation, I now see cancer as a deadly, vile monster that enjoys taking the lives of others. It's so horrible that I wouldn't even wish it upon my worst enemies. Fortunately, chemotherapy was also brought to light as a treatment to cancer. Chemotherapy uses drugs to destroy the cancer cells, and can possibly cure the cancer once and for all. However, this treatment doesn't come without consequences as well. If I were a patient with cancer, I would definitely consider my options carefully before I make a decision regarding chemotherapy. While it remains true that chemotherapy can effectively kill off the cancer cells, and give the cancer patient a clean bill of health, where they are able to return to their normal lives, without having to suffer through the emotional and physical stress of cancer, sometimes you have to wonder if chemo is even worth it with all the pain and torture you have to suffer through during the treatment, as well as the high possibility of dying during the process.
If I were a cancer patient, I would definitely weigh in my options. Personally, I believe in living your life happily. Even though I would have a limited amount of time left to live if I was diagnosed with cancer, I could still live every last second of it to the fullest, as well as being more motivated to try the things I never did but always wanted. I don't believe that the last seconds of your life should be spent in a hospital writhing in pain and agony, as you come to regret not doing the things you should have done. I understand that there are people who I need to fight for, to live for, especially if I had children who were waiting for me at home. However, if the circumstances were similar to my current situation of living with two parents, I would probably not consider chemotherapy, because my parents and I both have similar opinions of being happy in life, and I would rather have them not see me suffering through chemotherapy. If there was someone that I had to live for, on the other hand, then I am left with no choice but to go through with the treatment.
Although, regardless of the circumstances, it really is your life. And even though you have obligations and attachments to others, if you're not happy with what you are doing, and you know that you'll end up regretting the choices you make, then it's up to you to make the final decision, despite how selfish the entire act seems.
In the end, due to strong opinions about chemotherapy, I suppose it really isn't such an effective "cure" to cancer. Perhaps if the treatment of cancer would continuously be improved overtime, so that there are less and less disadvantages, (such as the chance of death that comes with the treatment), and be more favoured as a cure to cancer.
If I were a cancer patient, I would definitely weigh in my options. Personally, I believe in living your life happily. Even though I would have a limited amount of time left to live if I was diagnosed with cancer, I could still live every last second of it to the fullest, as well as being more motivated to try the things I never did but always wanted. I don't believe that the last seconds of your life should be spent in a hospital writhing in pain and agony, as you come to regret not doing the things you should have done. I understand that there are people who I need to fight for, to live for, especially if I had children who were waiting for me at home. However, if the circumstances were similar to my current situation of living with two parents, I would probably not consider chemotherapy, because my parents and I both have similar opinions of being happy in life, and I would rather have them not see me suffering through chemotherapy. If there was someone that I had to live for, on the other hand, then I am left with no choice but to go through with the treatment.
Although, regardless of the circumstances, it really is your life. And even though you have obligations and attachments to others, if you're not happy with what you are doing, and you know that you'll end up regretting the choices you make, then it's up to you to make the final decision, despite how selfish the entire act seems.
In the end, due to strong opinions about chemotherapy, I suppose it really isn't such an effective "cure" to cancer. Perhaps if the treatment of cancer would continuously be improved overtime, so that there are less and less disadvantages, (such as the chance of death that comes with the treatment), and be more favoured as a cure to cancer.
Monday, March 4, 2013
A Synthetic Human.
Science is full of endless possibilities. Theoretically, everything in science is possible, such as time travel,or producing another human being. After reading the article "What to make with DNA origami", and discussing about the complex shapes and structures that can be made with DNA through nanoengineering. These structures made with DNA can be used for a variety of functions (such as capturing viruses and aiding in the transport of nutrients), and will be extremely useful in society if it proves to be success.
However, with this idea being introduced, we can't help but wonder what it would be like if we were to synthesize an entire human being. If this was to actually happen, I would definitely feel proud of the advancement science has been able to achieve in our society. Unfortunately, at the same time, like most ideas, theories, and inventions, I feel that if this were to happen right now, our society would not be ready for it. With a synthetic human being, there would definitely a question of how it is categorized in society. Should this human be treated like the rest of us, or should they be placed below us in society, because they could be easily made, and thus their lives are not to be valued? What will be the purpose of this synthetic human? Will they be treated as slaves to do our bidding? If they have no purpose, then why should we create them, when we have enough humans in the world as it is?
There could be many potential problems with this idea as well. With synthetic projects such as these, there are always errors that can occur. Unfortunately, if these errors will affect their major organs such as the heart, brain or anything of the like, then they will have to suffer through the torture, and the pain of it all. It's just cruel to purposely create humans knowing that they might have to be put through complications such as these, because it feels as if we're treating them like toys, instead of actual people. If we really mastered the nanoengineering of our DNA, perhaps we can create them without feelings or emotions, but then we would basically be creating a robot, and removing the emotions and feelings may be alot more trouble than it's actually worth.
Another complication would be the cost of this synthetic human. Unless we had a valid reason for the creation of the human, than there would be insufficient funding for the project. The question would occur of why we actually require an expensive, fake human when we can have real ones for free. Would these humans be tailored to whatever we want them to be? For instance, if someone needed workers for their factory, would they just buy a bunch of humans to work for them? Or, if someone needed test subjects for research and studies of their own, then they can buy a human to work with? This would definitely be a subject of controversy since these humans are not given equal rights as everyone else.
Therefore, it is always amazing to find out just how far we have advanced in the scientific community. Unfortunately, we always have the limiting factor that restrict us from optimizing the scientific discoveries to its fullest, and in this case, the limiting factor is our society.
However, with this idea being introduced, we can't help but wonder what it would be like if we were to synthesize an entire human being. If this was to actually happen, I would definitely feel proud of the advancement science has been able to achieve in our society. Unfortunately, at the same time, like most ideas, theories, and inventions, I feel that if this were to happen right now, our society would not be ready for it. With a synthetic human being, there would definitely a question of how it is categorized in society. Should this human be treated like the rest of us, or should they be placed below us in society, because they could be easily made, and thus their lives are not to be valued? What will be the purpose of this synthetic human? Will they be treated as slaves to do our bidding? If they have no purpose, then why should we create them, when we have enough humans in the world as it is?
There could be many potential problems with this idea as well. With synthetic projects such as these, there are always errors that can occur. Unfortunately, if these errors will affect their major organs such as the heart, brain or anything of the like, then they will have to suffer through the torture, and the pain of it all. It's just cruel to purposely create humans knowing that they might have to be put through complications such as these, because it feels as if we're treating them like toys, instead of actual people. If we really mastered the nanoengineering of our DNA, perhaps we can create them without feelings or emotions, but then we would basically be creating a robot, and removing the emotions and feelings may be alot more trouble than it's actually worth.
Another complication would be the cost of this synthetic human. Unless we had a valid reason for the creation of the human, than there would be insufficient funding for the project. The question would occur of why we actually require an expensive, fake human when we can have real ones for free. Would these humans be tailored to whatever we want them to be? For instance, if someone needed workers for their factory, would they just buy a bunch of humans to work for them? Or, if someone needed test subjects for research and studies of their own, then they can buy a human to work with? This would definitely be a subject of controversy since these humans are not given equal rights as everyone else.
Therefore, it is always amazing to find out just how far we have advanced in the scientific community. Unfortunately, we always have the limiting factor that restrict us from optimizing the scientific discoveries to its fullest, and in this case, the limiting factor is our society.
Friday, February 22, 2013
One for All and All for One.
SNP research has always been a huge competition between the scientific community, as it was mentioned in the "Design by Numbers" presentation. The first to make a significant discovery, the first to publish, and the first to be given bragging rights. Of course, a healthy little competitive nature between scientists never hurt, as it can motivate them to work harder. However, as shown with the SNP research, too much of a competition can create friction between the community, and it eventually becomes every man for themselves. This corrupts the original purpose of scientific research, along with the corruption of their government and their own greed. With all this corruption around SNP research, it's no wonder the scientists are unwilling to collaborate with one another. Unfortunately, this results in a stunt in the growth of our society, as scientists are not willing to come together in order to break through their SNP research sooner.
Perhaps, if the scientists are willing, there should be a gathering every month to discuss the progress of their research so far. This will allow scientists to be with each other for as short of a time as possible since they do not trust each other. This gathering could even be done over the web with a livestream so that scientists from all over the world can participate. A specific time can be set so that all the scientists that contribute to SNP research will be able to join, no matter what time zone they are in.
Since the SNP research faces so much corruption already, there should be a neutral party involved in the collaboration as well. This third neutral party should have representatives from all countries involved in SNP research. All the scientists will be required to send in their individual findings to the neutral party, and altogether, they will gather them up, and redistribute them to the scientists so they obtain each others' research. If a scientist has not given in their findings, then they will not receive the findings of others.
During the collaboration, no one is allowed to publish individually, because they are all for the same goal, not for their own individual fame.
This could be a potential solution since it requires minimal collaboration from the scientists and their government. This will also make sure that the scientists are up to date with each others' research.
However, this plan can also give a huge amount of problems in the future if it were to be carried out.To begin with, there is a huge problem with communication if the scientists were to live stream with each other. Unless the scientists spoke a common language, they would probably need an interpreter. Unfortunately this gives room to vital information and pieces being lost in translation, as well as backhand schemes where the interpreter purposely gives wrong information. Another problem could be that the neutral party could be corrupt as well. Even though, given by their title, they are supposed to remain "neutral", they are only human and can definitely succumb to their personal greed and gains. Also, there will be a huge problem in convincing the government to fund such a party, as they more than likely believe that their country is superior, and thus it is not required of them to collaborate.
It is very possible that there will be a idea of collaboration that works sometime in the future, but until then, the corruption of the scientific community continues.
Perhaps, if the scientists are willing, there should be a gathering every month to discuss the progress of their research so far. This will allow scientists to be with each other for as short of a time as possible since they do not trust each other. This gathering could even be done over the web with a livestream so that scientists from all over the world can participate. A specific time can be set so that all the scientists that contribute to SNP research will be able to join, no matter what time zone they are in.
Since the SNP research faces so much corruption already, there should be a neutral party involved in the collaboration as well. This third neutral party should have representatives from all countries involved in SNP research. All the scientists will be required to send in their individual findings to the neutral party, and altogether, they will gather them up, and redistribute them to the scientists so they obtain each others' research. If a scientist has not given in their findings, then they will not receive the findings of others.
During the collaboration, no one is allowed to publish individually, because they are all for the same goal, not for their own individual fame.
This could be a potential solution since it requires minimal collaboration from the scientists and their government. This will also make sure that the scientists are up to date with each others' research.
However, this plan can also give a huge amount of problems in the future if it were to be carried out.To begin with, there is a huge problem with communication if the scientists were to live stream with each other. Unless the scientists spoke a common language, they would probably need an interpreter. Unfortunately this gives room to vital information and pieces being lost in translation, as well as backhand schemes where the interpreter purposely gives wrong information. Another problem could be that the neutral party could be corrupt as well. Even though, given by their title, they are supposed to remain "neutral", they are only human and can definitely succumb to their personal greed and gains. Also, there will be a huge problem in convincing the government to fund such a party, as they more than likely believe that their country is superior, and thus it is not required of them to collaborate.
It is very possible that there will be a idea of collaboration that works sometime in the future, but until then, the corruption of the scientific community continues.
Wednesday, February 20, 2013
Translation
Translation can almost be looked at as the continuation of Transcription, where the mRNA is used as a template to make proteins. However, translation tends to differ quite a bit from transcription or replication since it is not making copies of genes, but rather converting genes into proteins. The process includes:
Just like replication or transcription, Translation includes three processes: Initiation, Elongation and Termination.
- tRNA (transfer RNA) which includes the 3 nucleotide anticodons
- mRNA, the finished product of Transcription, which includes the codons for tRNA to attach to
- ribosomal subunits to help the process along
Just like replication or transcription, Translation includes three processes: Initiation, Elongation and Termination.
Initiation:
- Proteins known as initiation factors assemble all the molecules together for the production of proteins. First, a small ribosomal sub-unit will find the start codon (AUG) in the mRNA, and attach itself there. This will act as a signal for the tRNA.
- After the tRNA has grabbed the corresponding amino acid to the mRNA codon from the cytoplasm, the tRNA comes over to the start codon, it will attach onto the mRNA with its anticodon, which includes the complementary base pair to AUG (UAC) and the corresponding amino acid for AUG, methionine.
- Then, the large ribosomal sub-unit joins the group, gets the process kicking. With the large ribosomal sub-unit, there are three binding sides for the tRNAs: The P (peptide) site, the A (amino acid) site and the E (exit) site.
Elongation:
- The mRNA is established as the reading frame, and the codons are read in sequence from the starting codon.
- The amino acid on the initiator tRNA, methionine, is the beginning of the polypeptide chain. It occupies the P site in the large ribosomal sub-unit. Simutaneously there is another tRNA in the A site, with the complementary anticodon of the subsequent codon sequence on the mRNA, carrying the corresponding amino acid.
- The amino acid of the initiator tRNA then forms a peptide bond with the amino acid in the A site, with the outcome of the a dipeptide attached to the tRNA at the A site.
- Once the initiator tRNA is now robbed of its amino acid, it goes to the E site, where it exits the ribosomal sub-unit. This entire process repeats, as the ribosomes moves one sequence over, putting the tRNA with the amino acids in the P site, and giving room for a complementary tRNA to land in the S site.
Termination:
- The process of elongation continues until it reaches the stop codon in the mRNA, signified with the codon sequences UGA, UAG or UAA.
- When this happens, a protein will come called the release factor, and cut the polypeptide from the tRNA it is on.
- Then, the polypeptide is released, and set out to carry out its duties in the cell.
Transcription
When I learned about the transcription of RNA, I realized it was pretty similar to how DNA replicated, except with a few differences:
- Tanscription of pre-RNA is single stranded instead of double stranded
- Uracil replaces Thymine
- ribose sugars are used instead of deoxyribose
- pre-RNA uses DNA as a template
When looking at the bigger picture though, pre-RNA transcription also includes three major parts: Initiation, Elongation, and Termination.
Initiation:
- The place where transcription happens is chosen on the DNA, based on a the location of the promoter (also known as the 'TATA' box) which signifies the beginning of transcription and the location of the terminator ('AAAUAAA' box) which signifies the end
- Then, transcription factors recognize the location of the promoter region, and bind to the promoter. Since pre-RNA is single stranded, only one strand of the DNA is used as a template. The other strand, the coding strand, is used to help guide the pre-RNA when it matches the complementary bases.
- The transcription factors are used to attract the RNA polymerase II, the enzyme used assemble the base pairs. Once the RNA polymerase II is tracked down,it begins to unwind the DNA helix.
Elongation:
- The polymerase II initiates the production at the promoter region, moving towards the terminator (going upstream and away from the promoter, then downstream and towards the terminator) as it synthesizes complementary bases to the DNA template, and matching the coding strand with the exception of T which is replaced with U.
- Just like DNA, pre-RNA grows in the direction of 5' to 3', attaching on to the 3' OH group, as it is the most reactive. Unlike DNA replication, however, the pre-RNA has no need for Okazaki fragments, since RNA is single stranded.
- As one RNA polymerase complex begins to move along the DNA, another RNA polymerase can bind to the promoter and begin synthesizing another strand of RNA simultaneously. This indicates that hundreds of RNA from the same DNA at one time.
- Also, the RNA polymerase II seems to be a one-man army, as it does not need polymerase III to proofread its work. This is because RNA is only used to form protein molecules, not the genetic make up. Thus, the production of RNA is much less time time consuming than DNA.
Termination:
- As the pre-RNA is being synthesized, the RNA polymerase II is also rewinding the double helix of the DNA at the same time, and the already made RNA detaches itself.
- Once the pre-RNA is synthesize, it is capped at the 5' end with Guanine, as the structure itself is too unstable, while poly-A-tails are added to the 3' with Adenine.
- Once the pre-RNA is modified, then it is ready to be sent into the cytoplasm.
Tuesday, February 12, 2013
What is Perfection?
When I first read "Deaf by Design", my immediate thought was that being deaf was a disability, and it was completely unethical of the parents in the article to enforce deafness upon their child. This is because a majority of the world has the capability to hear, and therefore, the child would have a disadvantage over the others.
However, after watching the video "Sound and Fury", and really getting to understand more about Heather's parents along with their deaf community, I realized that perhaps it was me who has been unethical about the whole topic. Even though the word "disability" may have a by-the-book defintion, it can still be perceived differently by different people. That doesn't mean one person is more right than the other though. "One man's trash is another man's treasure". We are all entitled to our own opinions and beliefs. To the deaf community, deafness is not viewed as a disability, but rather, as a blessing. They see it as a means to preserve their deaf culture.
Disabilities are anything that gives you a disadvantage over others. However, what is seen as a disadvantage or advantage can only be determined by its survival in a given environment, as explained by Darwin in his theory of natural selection. Since the environment is constantly undergoing change, then the image we paint in our heads of "disabilities" should change as well. In Heather's case, she lives in an environment where deafness plays a huge role in her life. Her parents take pride in being deaf, and teach their children to sign, while Heather is always being exposed to the deaf community. In this environment, deafness to Heather, would not be a disadvantage. If Heather were deaf, then she would fit into her community, and be accepted amongst her friends and parents. In fact, it would probably be more of a disadvantage if Heather was not deaf, since she would feel shut out of the society that her parents value so much, and would not understand or sympathize with her parents on their beliefs. For Heather to ensure her best survival in her own environment, it is better for her to remain deaf.
It is unfortunate that just because a majority of the society has a certain image of "perfection" that it automatically makes people think it is the "right" image. Although, just because it is the belief of the majority, does not necessarily indicate that it is the right belief. Therefore, if we were to follow that logic, then deaf people aborting what the majority of society considers a "normal" child is not the wrong thing to do. It is just viewed as immoral by the majority of others because they live in an environment where it is more beneficial for a child to have hearing. Everyone has a right to their own opinion, and no one's opinion is ever really wrong if there is proper reasoning behind their thinking, and thus, deaf people have every right to abort a child who has normal hearing because in their minds, a deaf child is advantageous over a child who can hear.
Nevertheless, this whole controversy was brought to light was because of the ability to alter our genetic codes. Having the ability to alter our genetic codes is an amazing advancement in our society, but it doesn't come without consequences as well. Just as with every gift, comes a curse, altering genetic codes can easily be abused by the parents who hope for a "perfect" baby. Not only does this mold our society into something artificial and shallow, but it decreases the chance for genetic variation. When the genetic variety in our community decreases, we are more in danger of becoming extinct if there was a severe change to the environment. Even though the idea of altering genetic codes started off with good intentions, it became too easily abused, and thus, becoming more and more of a curse.
In summary, perfection is definitely in the eye of the beholder. We have become too corrupted by present day media as to what is "ideal beauty". This article has opened both our minds, and our hearts into accepted different kinds of beauty, and different ideals of what perfection is. Thus, from this, we can conclude that everyone is perfect, and everyone is beautiful :)!
However, after watching the video "Sound and Fury", and really getting to understand more about Heather's parents along with their deaf community, I realized that perhaps it was me who has been unethical about the whole topic. Even though the word "disability" may have a by-the-book defintion, it can still be perceived differently by different people. That doesn't mean one person is more right than the other though. "One man's trash is another man's treasure". We are all entitled to our own opinions and beliefs. To the deaf community, deafness is not viewed as a disability, but rather, as a blessing. They see it as a means to preserve their deaf culture.
Disabilities are anything that gives you a disadvantage over others. However, what is seen as a disadvantage or advantage can only be determined by its survival in a given environment, as explained by Darwin in his theory of natural selection. Since the environment is constantly undergoing change, then the image we paint in our heads of "disabilities" should change as well. In Heather's case, she lives in an environment where deafness plays a huge role in her life. Her parents take pride in being deaf, and teach their children to sign, while Heather is always being exposed to the deaf community. In this environment, deafness to Heather, would not be a disadvantage. If Heather were deaf, then she would fit into her community, and be accepted amongst her friends and parents. In fact, it would probably be more of a disadvantage if Heather was not deaf, since she would feel shut out of the society that her parents value so much, and would not understand or sympathize with her parents on their beliefs. For Heather to ensure her best survival in her own environment, it is better for her to remain deaf.
It is unfortunate that just because a majority of the society has a certain image of "perfection" that it automatically makes people think it is the "right" image. Although, just because it is the belief of the majority, does not necessarily indicate that it is the right belief. Therefore, if we were to follow that logic, then deaf people aborting what the majority of society considers a "normal" child is not the wrong thing to do. It is just viewed as immoral by the majority of others because they live in an environment where it is more beneficial for a child to have hearing. Everyone has a right to their own opinion, and no one's opinion is ever really wrong if there is proper reasoning behind their thinking, and thus, deaf people have every right to abort a child who has normal hearing because in their minds, a deaf child is advantageous over a child who can hear.
Nevertheless, this whole controversy was brought to light was because of the ability to alter our genetic codes. Having the ability to alter our genetic codes is an amazing advancement in our society, but it doesn't come without consequences as well. Just as with every gift, comes a curse, altering genetic codes can easily be abused by the parents who hope for a "perfect" baby. Not only does this mold our society into something artificial and shallow, but it decreases the chance for genetic variation. When the genetic variety in our community decreases, we are more in danger of becoming extinct if there was a severe change to the environment. Even though the idea of altering genetic codes started off with good intentions, it became too easily abused, and thus, becoming more and more of a curse.
In summary, perfection is definitely in the eye of the beholder. We have become too corrupted by present day media as to what is "ideal beauty". This article has opened both our minds, and our hearts into accepted different kinds of beauty, and different ideals of what perfection is. Thus, from this, we can conclude that everyone is perfect, and everyone is beautiful :)!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)