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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.