Unscientific America: Quality Over Quantity

On page 123 of Unscientific America the authors, Mooney and Kirshenbaum, make the point that “the United States can probably never hope to produce as many total engineers and scientists as India and China, given their vastly larger populations.” This would mean that the United States would forfeit its position as the country home to the greatest number of scientists, and just by numbers alone, India and China would be able to undertake more research endeavors, putting the U.S. dominance on scientific advances in jeopardy.

The prospect of a future where the United States is not the driving force in science is disconcerting. American post-war scientific advances have driven both the economic development of the United States and beyond and the upward trend of quality of life domestically and abroad. No nation has benefited as much from the “golden age” of American science than the United States itself. This is why it is so crucial that the United States, if it cannot create the most scientists and engineers, creates the best and most capable scientists and engineers. This will require the United States to create a climate hospitable for the cultivation of American scientific talent and the attraction of foreign talent as well. Being home to the best universities and colleges in the world makes this feat easily accomplished, but the true challenge lies in the creation of more science-based jobs and research opportunities in order to truly reap the benefits of having the most qualified and capable scientists in the United States.

Unfortunately, “job-creation” and other policy related issues are tasks stuck in the mire of politics, and with the current political climate where “bipartisanship” is a dirty word (and where many mainstream Republicans must pander to the anti-science fringe minorities or risk being voted out by angry old men wearing tri-cornered hats with tea bags dangling from them), the chances of congressional action to invest in science are slim. Funding research provides benefits for the future, and voters have demonstrated time and time again that the future is of no concern to them, think global warming, and legislators have responded by focusing on short-term gains, like allow the unbelievably idiotic sequestration to happen to demonstrate how serious they are about “cutting spending.” Until science is a primary Congressional concern, the United States will be at constant risk of losing its leadership position in the scientific realm.

The Greatest Show on Earth- "Unintelligent Design"

"For the eye has every possible defect that can be found in an optical instrument..."  -Nineteenth century scientist Hermann von Helmholtz

          When I think about interactions between organisms and each other (waggle dance anyone?) and organisms and the environment, I'm often struck by the beauty of what I see.  It may be partly due to the illusion of perfection that it is hard for people to wrap their minds around the idea of evolution.  Ecosystems seem so planned out, and everything seems to have its place.  And what about the organisms themselves?  How does such a complex body plan come about so perfectly without design?
          The huge problem is that we're not perfect, and neither is any other organism.  Dawkins gives many examples of how the seemingly perfect often isn't so perfect.  One of the examples he gives is the eye. (Sorry Jenette...)  The quote above by the German scientist Helmholtz is something to think about.  In reference to our eyes, Helmholtz also says " If an optician wanted to sell me an instrument with all these defects, I should think myself quite justified in blaming his carelessness in the strongest terms, and giving him back his instrument."  If you believe in a god, you're not believing that god is some blundering being who makes tons of mistakes and eventually gets them right by working around past problems.  I think it's safe to say that most people who believe in a god believe that that god is perfect.  Which is fine except if God was the maker of the earth in six days.  Because in that case, Helmholtz would be referring to giving our eyes back to god because he messed up repeatedly.  I don't think that that rules out a god at all, it just backs up evolution.  I think you can have a strong understanding of science and still be religious to a point. We don't know where everything came from, and no one knows how or why everything happened.
         So back to problems with the eye:  the photocells that pick up light line the back of the eye (the retina) and face away from the light source.  The data from the light has to go back to the retina, be picked up by photocells facing a different direction, and then once they do that, nerves have to bring the data back to the brain through the blind spot.  It's extremely inefficient and yet we see so well, considering all that.
         Dawkins also talks about the laryngeal nerve.  And in us and other mammals, it branches and detours when it has no reason to do so.  There is space for it to go directly to its destination, so why doesn't it?  Instead, one branch goes straight to the larynx and the other stretches down to one of the arteries coming from the heart, loops around it, and then goes right back to the larynx.  This is because this artery is going around something that isn't there anymore, and although I'm a little confused about the details, the difference between this and a similar nerve in fish is that the fish's nerve has to actually go around organs which we don't have, to reach the gills. It's even worse in an animal like a giraffe.  In adult giraffes, the laryngeal nerve can stretch up to fifteen feet longer than necessary!  So our anatomy is based upon fish anatomy.
        These detours wouldn't make any sense without evolution.  It's costly energy- wise to take the longest route to a destination.   It seems like what we have are variations and changes from an ancestor, because
natural selection doesn't make things perfect, it just allows variation which is neutral or beneficial to be passed on more easily.  So it can change what's already there, but it can't construct a whole other nerve going directly to our larynx from scratch.

                                                                 

The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks: Part II

Finishing part two of this book, I came to realize what would the effects be if Henrietta's doctor did ask permission to take the cells? Would the family not allow them to take the cells, or would they? After reading about the benefits and discoveries that came out of the research with these cells, I realized that maybe it was the right decision to take without asking. 

As I was reading I stumbled upon page 142. This was the page that changed my whole perspective because it listed all of the benefits that came from the research with these cells. Skloot wrote that by creating hybrid cells, scientists were able to "begin mapping human genes," "create cancer therapies like Herceptin," and they were able to increase the safety in blood transfusions. Although that doesn't stop there. According to the book, HeLa cells were used to see the effects of space on a cell and more. Clearly if the family knew before hand what the cells could do, they would say yes because whenever the family was asked about how the felt about the cell research, they said that it was good because Henrietta Lacks liked to help people and she would be happy if she knew that she was helping people after her death. Although what would happen if they said no?

Some reasons why are more on their moral values. Taking advantage of a woman who was dying was clearly out of the question. Another reason would be that the Lacks' didn't want Henrietta to suffer more than she has already. The effects of them saying no would be quite life changing to many people. The vaccines, treatments and safety methods of today may not be present because scientists wouldn't have been able to find cells that multiply as fast and can live as long. 

So is there an exception on testing people if it brings results? Or should we respect every person's opinion with the risk of slowing down the progress of scientific research that could save lives but allow the families and friends of the "victim" to live without a feeling of betrayal from people they thought they could trust?

The New Killer Diseases

After a certain point when we become seriously sick, we usually just put all our hope in the ones that wear the white coats, the doctors. The scary truth is sometimes the white coats are just as helpless as us when it comes to treating certain diseases, such as the flesh eating bacteria in Jeannie Brown's case. I could only imagine the disappointment of her doctor when she realized there was nothing else her team of doctors and nurses or herself could do to save Jeannie. At that point the doctors and nurses become just as helpless as the rest of us, just hoping that the drugs being administered are enough to combat the raging viruses or bacteria that try to destroy our bodies slowly or swiftly. With their level of intelligence in the medical field, they also receive the burden of knowing the truth, which is not always a great outcome, especially in a situation where a patient has a disease that is new or foreign and there is not much treatment for it. Even then if a patient does survive from one of these new deadly pathogens, as one of the doctors said, there is no standard medical procedure for how to follow up with these patients. It falls on the doctor to use their own judgement on how to go about with the aftermath of the disease with the treated patient. 

Then there are the terrible individuals or sometimes governments that are the exact opposite of doctors in terms of their goals because they are trying to harm and kill as many individuals as they can. While technology is great, it all depends on the user on whether or not it becomes good or bad. Researchers and terrorists have the ability to genetically modify and, as proven by Stony Brook, create a new virus from scratch. For the government to fight against this bioterrorism, it almost seems impossible, but at least with vaccines and having a watch list for certain diseases, there are some methods that could help stop these attacks. What makes the subject even more scary is certain countries, including the U.S.A., have harvested certain deadly pathogens for use in biological warfare, which could result in hundreds to thousands on innocent individuals being killed depending on the pathogen. 

The Omivore's Dilemma

The abundance of food in America is a gift and a curse. The curse is the Omnivore's Dilemma of what to eat. With the vast array of choices there are many detrimental ones that could be consumed, shortening ones lifespan. The abundance of food has increased all sorts of health problems such as diabetes and congestive heart failure. I believe the once resolved dilemma, was brought back by the food industry for money. Think about how much one can profit off of inventing new "healthier" foods with the marketing techniques we have today. General Mills, a corporation that manufactures some "healthy" brands such as cheerios, wheaties, and mountain high all-natural yogurt, spent over $1 billion on tv ads alone (http://www.businessinsider.com/the-35-companies-that-spent-1-billion-on-ads-in-2011-2012-11?op=1). Also I find it interesting how General Mills markets foods that are heavily processed as well as food thats marketed as organic. I believe they do this to target the health-concious consumer and the non-health concious consumer. To them it's about the money- not our health. The health condition of America is perfect for making money. You can sell all of these "healthier" foods in the consumers hope of becoming healthier. And a lot of times even though an item claims to be healthy it's usually not- like the example of whole wheat bread from my last post. The abundance of food is a gift because we don't have to worry about a shortage of food. Many foods in the market today contain various perservatives, which aren't necessarily healthy, but it helps food last longer, making food shortage a less probable event. Another benefit of the dilemma is having access to food that is not locally available. How else would I be able to consume the traditional food of my family or be able to try new dishes without leaving home?

"One of every 4 Americans lived on a farm when Naylor's grandfather arrived here...less than a century after, fewer than 2 million Americans still farm- and they don't grow enough to feed the rest of us." (p.34) That is a dramatic decrease in farmers for a short amount of time. We take it forgranted that we don't have to do the hard labor, we can just go and buy the food we want. I wish we all understood how much work is put out by farmers so we can have something to eat. Maybe if we all went back to farming for ourselves we would appreciate what the farmers do. Perhaps we'd also be healthier because this way we'd be getting exercise and since we'd probably produce less we would in return be eating less.

Page 36 states that Naylor doesn't use GMOs in his farm, unlike many of his neighboring farmers. He claims "They are messing with billions of years of evolution." I think that is a good point because we can not revert back to the natural state of an organism once the GMO transition is completed. Obviously Monsanto, a biotechnology company, is pushing GMO seeds for money.

"The Language of Life" Response: When it Comes to Racial Controversy in Medicine, the Solutions Aren't Always Black and White

       Humans have used taxonomy for hundreds of years to help make sense of the world. Classifying creatures makes it easier to analyze their relationships to one another, such as the Linnaean classification by binomial nomenclature. However, archaic methods of classification of our own species still influence modern prejudices. Linnaeus himself tried to group humans into one of four racial groups: Americanus, Europeaus, Asiaticus, and Africanus (What's Race Got To Do With It? pg 145). Yes, geological separation, genetic drift, the founder affect, and other factors have affected the phenotypic appearance of certain populations, but the genomes of two individuals differ by only about 0.4% across the board, regardless of "race." There is no scientifically proven evidence that points to any sort of superiority of one race over another, yet the struggle to eradicate the antiquated stereotypes of the past continues today.

       We've come a long way since the times when segregated medical care in America was an acceptable norm. The scientific and medical world is not the proper place for bigotry (Well, there's no proper place, but especially not in fields where reason and data show the illegitimacy of racial classification). When it comes to health care, the betterment of all people takes forefront importance. But what happens when racial profiling provides a possible medical advantage?

       It sounds crazy in the light of modern racial thought. In the past few decades, so much progress has been made to break down racial barriers, and rightfully so. That's why public outrage and confusion followed the FDA's decision in 2005 to approve BiDil, a drug marketed to treat congestive heart failure in self-identified African Americans. Early studies of the drug in the 1970's and 1980's with race-blind clinical trials suggested that the drug was statistically ineffective. A decade later, NitroMed (a medical company) reanalyzed the data and found a correlation between self-identified black patients and effectiveness of the drug. A larger study was conducted solely on African Americans, and the results were stunning: over two years, the death rate of treated African Americans was reduced by 43%. The FDA approved the drug and issued the following label: "BiDil is indicated for the treatment of heart failure as an adjunct to standard therapy in self-identified black patients," (What's Race Got To Do With It? pg 161).

       If humans of all races are so genetically similar, then what could have caused BiDil to work well just for African Americans? Could heritage, not race, better explain similarities between people? People who descended from populations that developed in isolation from others may have genetic markers or certain alleles characteristic of the ancestral population. Though possible, this explanation doesn’t hold water in explaining the data. This type of ancestral profiling is much more specific than just saying "I'm African;" Africa has more genetic diversity than any other region in the world! The most probable explanation lies in the small sample size of the original study. It should be noted that the original race-blind study only tested a few hundred individuals. It is possible that a larger study could provide further insight to its effectiveness in this scenario. The African American-only study showed that the drug does indeed benefit African Americans, but does not shed any light on whether the drug works or doesn't work well for people of other races.

       What struck a sour chord with me was the fact that people in the study categorized their own race…but what constitutes race? Francis Collins discussed this earlier in the chapter, referencing the ethnicity of President Barack Obama. Obama's ancestry is half African and half white European, yet Americans categorize him as black. Conversely, people in Brazil typically consider only people of strictly African heritage to be black. By that standard, they consider Obama to be white! How can scientists rely on self-identification to classify a person by one race or another? The labels are subjective, with no guidelines that define what constitutes being African American or not.

       The absurdity of racial profiling by the color of one's skin makes me seriously question the legitimacy of BiDil's specificity. But does that mean that it shouldn't be used to treat African Americans? It is proven to be effective for that demographic, and I see no reason to remove a drug from the market if it can help even just a select few people. It does concern me, however, that the racial specificity of BiDil might set a precedent that could set back the progress we've made against racial prejudice. I'd like to see a study that finds a biological explanation for BiDil's limited application because self-given labels based on skin tone don't reflect any scientifically sound biological classification.

Unscientific America: Societys Understanding

     This book still continues to amaze me. The statistics that they give are astonishing. I can't believe that 80 percent of Americans can't read the New York Times science section. Is it because it doesn't make sense or all they just not interested in learning about the changing world? "Only half of the adult populace knows the earth orbits the sun once per year." I thought that was common knowledge but I was proven wrong.
     A quote that stood out to me most while reading was "We need a nation in which science has far more prominence in politics and the media, far more relevance to the life of every American, far more intersections with other walks of life, and ultimately, far more influence where it truly matters.." I thought this was a great quote because it states how more people need to get involved in order to understand science and help their life in general. Science needs to be broadcasted more so individuals have a chance to learn but even when they do have a chance like the New York Times science section they just overlook it.
    I feel like over time science hasn't got the fame it deserves. Scientists during the period of World War II got a lot of fame because they made crucial wartime technologies that helped. Now since scientists don't help with coming up with things since they are already made then they don't get the publicity they deserve. People don't understand how science affect there lives everyday. After reading this book, I now understand that science is a big impact on our lives and most people have no idea anything about science unless it relates to them on a personal level. Obviously, science relates to them but if they are affected by it they don't care.

The World Without Us

     Do we really own our property? Do we truly have ownership of the amount of land that we pay for, build homes on, and live in? Does the sum of money that we take out of our own bank accounts really account for the plot of dirt and grass that we're granted the deed to? Everyone does it eventually (buying homes/property) but do people realize that the land wasn't for anyone to sell in the first place? Nobody truly owns an area of land. It's not like buying a pen and owning it, if someone bought a pen they would probably use up all of the ink of the pen and then throw it away when they're done. They're done using the pen and have no need for it so they get rid of it because they can because they paid for it. What about land? Can you just throw away land once you don't want to live there anymore? No, because that land will most likely be there once you're ten feet underground, unless some sort of explosion happens, but let's not think that negatively. So if you don't own your land then who does? Nature owns it. As a society, we basically pay thousands of dollars to borrow land for a relatively short amount of time (compared to how long the has already been there and will continue to be there).
     So if nature is the true owner of "our" property, then what's stopping it from taking it back? The answer is, nothing. Nature is always actively trying to take back its land. This book has made me realize that all the "bad" things that happen to people's homes, such as termites or mold, is just nature taking back what belongs to it. And our expensive efforts of trying to stop these happenings, are only slowing down nature's course, NOT stopping it. Speaking of our EXPENSIVE endeavors, Alan Weisman reflects this costly notion well when he says, "Back when they told you what your house would cost, nobody mentioned what you'd also be paying so that nature wouldn't repossess it long before the bank."
     What's even worse about nature reclaiming its territory, is that it's happening whether any of us know it or not. As the book graphically explains, "...awful when you see it, worse when you don't, because it's hidden behind a painted wall, munching paper sandwiches of gypsum board, rotting studs and floor joists." Imagine, as you're reading this post, spores are penetrating through the exterior of your house and exploding, resulting in the molding of your walls and the attraction of more bugs. What if there were mushrooms growing in between your walls? One point for nature and zero for humans! But in reality, there's not a lot we can do about it. As humans, we'll always be innovative and build bigger and better homes, continuing to steal land away from nature. But nature will always try to reclaim its territory, even after we're all dead. So in the battle of good and bad, good is nature and we are the bad ones. And guess who always wins?

The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks

Pages 101-200

          In this section of the book two big events are touched on. First Bobette, Henrietta's sister-in-law, discovers the scenario with the HeLa cells accidentally. Due to her lack (Yes, I did it again) of education she doesn't really understand. She confusingly calls Day and tells him that part of Henrietta is still alive. They begin searching for her "alive parts". Its difficult to read this part because I can't help but think, "How could anyone be that foolish?" But I try to remember that this is in a time and demographic were education was seldom afforded. They don't understand the meaning of what these HeLa cells are, and its beyond frustrating.  I just want them to simply say cells, instead of "alive parts", but that doesn't happen till later when they actually get a full understanding (kind of).
         Also in this section of the book the HeLa cell contamination is widely discussed. As discussed in my previous post, HeLa cells grow in faster and in larger quantities than most cells, therefore, they are difficult to control. In many, most, of the laboratories that used HeLa cells they were so out of control that they infested other cultures. Once a cell line is infested by HeLa it is nearly impossible to eliminate the contamination.
This part is so interesting !!!! When a researcher is conducting his experiment on his daughter's cells he identifies an African American marker. Which would not belong to his daughter. He begins looking into the genetic markers on different cell cultures and realizes that HeLa cells are in many that they shouldn't be. Keep in mind through the past more than 20 years scientists have been doing research on many other cell lines for different things. The contamination of these cell lines invalidated thousands of scientist's research, research they had been working on for decades, gone.  For this reason many scientists didn't want to believe it. Its like something out of a Science Fiction movie. Its as if the HeLa cells had infested everything. Little parts of Henrietta Lacks, several decades dead, everywhere. A lot of progress made in the field of genetics and cytology was never really progress at all. I can't imagine the frustration. Just think people, how do you feel when you realize you messed up a 40 minute lab and you have to start over? Now thing how would you feel if you realized you messed up at 20 year lab and have to start over? Yikes.
       Another thing that I want to discuss, even though it only lightly relates to the book, is race and education. I want to know if there is a rhyme of reason as to why certain races value or utilize education more. Why were the three finalists in the Scripps National Spelling Bee all Indian-American, when they represent only about 1% of the population? I wonder if it is solely due to the way the children are parented, religion, or areas they are raised in? It is strange. Race, or rather simply skin color, is segregating, without there being any actual segregation (legally, some people are unfortunately racist still ).

The Demon In The Freezer: Should Smallpox Be Destroyed?

           A little more than halfway through the book, the author Richard Preston introduces the debate over whether or not smallpox should be destroyed.  Smallpox only legally exists in two places in the world, one in America and one in Russia.  In these high security containment facilities, the many different smallpox strains are kept in freezers, where they cannot escape and infect people.  The containers are hidden, moved constantly, and put under high security.  As I said in my last post, smallpox is the most dangerous virus known to man; it spreads quickly, kills many, and there is no cure.  A leak of the smallpox virus kept in these freezers could be disastrous to the human race.  Even though smallpox is SUPPOSED to be in only two places, it's common knowledge that it's not.  Other countries have it, terrorist groups have it, even Russia, who has legal possession over the virus, has used it in illegal ways.  The argument posed in the book was whether or not the USA and Russia should set a good example and destroy their supplies of smallpox, in the hope that others that possess the virus will destroy it also for the good of humanity.
          There are two "obvious" answers: yes, smallpox should be destroyed because it could seriously hurt us, and no, smallpox should not be destroyed because it could seriously hurt us.  Essentially, the two sides of the argument pose different solutions with the same reasoning behind them.  People like D.A Henderson, who led the eradication of smallpox, believe that smallpox must be destroyed completely.  He says on page 128, "'What we need to do is create a climate where smallpox is considered too morally reprehensible to be used as a weapon.  It would make the possession of smallpox in a laboratory a crime against humanity."  He believed, as many others do, that destroying the legal stocks of smallpox would convince the world to destroy ALL stocks.  He favored the idea of leading by example, and it's easy to see where he is coming from considering his background.  He traveled the whole world, saw thousands of people infected with smallpox, even die of smallpox, and worked tirelessly for fourteen years to get rid of it.  It's no surprise he wanted the virus sent where it could never hurt anyone again.  And yet the question lingered, enough to postpone the destruction of smallpox several times: what could we gain from keeping this disease around?  D.A. Henderson would say that "there was no good scientific justification for research into real variola [smallpox]" (page 130).  He thought the vaccine used in the eradication was good enough to protect people against the virus, and that other research would just be costly and useless.
          But guess what.  This disease is unpredictable; sudden changes can occur that can totally redefine the species and our supposed protection against it.  In 2000, Australian scientists tried to decrease a population of mice by infecting them with genetically engineered mousepox to make them sterile, discontinuing reproduction.  The mousepox virus was altered by inserting a gene from the mice; it was supposed to make them sterile, but instead, it wiped out almost all of the mice population.  The scariest part?  Even the mice that had been vaccinated against the original mousepox virus died.  What does this prove, you ask?  It proves that our vaccination isn't good enough.  Mousepox is very similar to smallpox.  If mousepox can be engineered to infect even vaccinated mice, the same could be done to the smallpox virus.  So?  So, our enemies could create a strain of smallpox to which we are left with ABSOLUTELY NO PROTECTION AGAINST.  Opposers of smallpox destruction say that we need this virus around to be experimented with.  We NEED to keep it around to further develop new protection, to understand how the virus works, to test, to explore, to possibly even find a cure one day for this disease.
           I couldn't agree more.  I know the risks of keeping smallpox around.  It's dangerous.  But it's even more dangerous to leave ourselves without any hope of retaliation against possible bio-warfare attacks.  Once terrorist groups hear that we have gotten rid of our smallpox, that we have no way of testing for new vaccinations or cures to the genetically engineered smallpox they are perfectly capable of producing, what will stop them from dropping the virus on us?  The vaccination we have isn't good enough.  Not for what today's science is capable of producing.  We need to keep this virus around because it's the only hope we have of protecting ourselves against smallpox.  And it's not just smallpox; like I said in my last post, other pox viruses are starting to make species jumps.  In a few decades, we could be victims of an onset of monkeypox or cowpox.  These diseases are similar to smallpox, and we could be able to develop protection against these viruses much faster with the advances we've already made with smallpox.  If, 50 years from now, monkeypox is destroying the human race, what are we supposed to do if we've destroyed smallpox?  Sit around and wait until we've collected enough information that we could have already had before we don't have to fear these viruses anymore?  Besides that, as stated in an argument against destroying smallpox on page 128, isn't it wrong to partake in the purposeful extinction of a species?  We're tampering with things we shouldn't be; maybe variola is important to the process of evolution.  The human race is growing exponentially- what if smallpox is evolution's way of controlling our increase?  We see it all the time in other species; outside forces limit the growth of a species to maintain balance.  I know it's in OUR best interest to get rid of our species' worst enemy, but we're messing with the balance.
           To sum it up, we need to keep smallpox around.  It can help us so much to protect ourselves and make advances in understanding the disease.  Even in the name of pure scientific interest, we must keep it around to advance our knowledge.  Plus, destroying our smallpox stocks would make us huge targets for terrorist groups, since we could not counter any bio-terrorism attacks with vaccinations.  Just because we get rid of our smallpox does not mean by any means that our enemies will; if anything, it will only encourage them to continue to toy with the virus, because they know we would be utterly defenseless.  And finally, it just isn't right to destroy a whole species; by doing so, we are playing God (pardon the expression) and upsetting the fine tuned balance of nature.  The question is not whether or not smallpox should be destroyed; it is whether or not we as humans even have the right to argue this.

 D.A. Henderson, supporter of the destruction of smallpox

Peter Jahrling, a key opposer of the destruction of smallpox

The World Without Us

In today’s world there is more CO2 floating around in the world than there ever was in the past 650,000 years.  The author says that we’ve basically become a volcano that hasn’t stopped erupting since the 1700s. Which is true, in today’s society 90% of our energy comes from the burning of fossil fuels which increases the amount of CO2  in the atmosphere. It’s pathetic how the U.S. is home to 5% of the world's population, yet consumes 26% of the world's energy. Even after we leave this world it would take approximately 100,000 years or longer for the world to return back to its normal CO2 levels. Although the CO2 levels would possibly revert back to normal levels, many other things would begin to fall apart without us. This was seen in Cyprus, Turkey. Allan Cavinder checked out the abandoned hotels after the war had happened. Animals took over and plants were beginning to grow over in the sand that was blown in by the nearby beach. Everything that humans built on the island was getting demolished by nature. Without us even the beautiful Hagia Sofia in Istanbul would collapse. Although great structures like the Hagia Sofia seem everlasting, they would perish because we wouldn't be there to repair it. Our buildings today are being made with cheaper material which would get destroyed even easier. Even if we reverted back to Roman technology of concrete and began building our buildings with concrete, it wouldn't be able to withstand an earthquake because we would want to build more stories such as hotels, while Roman concrete was only meant to hold one story. In the chapter “Polymers Are Forever” I was shocked to read that exfoliants that are used for facial and body products have mostly gone to plastic. These exfoliant beads that are used then go down the drain, into the water supply right to little sea creatures that swallow these beads. Although I have heard that sea otters and other creatures could be choked by the plastic rings from beer six packs, I would never think something small as exfoliant beads could be killing other creatures in the ocean. This makes me rethink about the products I use now and how using them could be harming other things in the world while it is benefiting me. I think everyone should see how the use of plastics instead of biodegradable items are affecting other food chains and we need to stop being self centered and worrying about how things benefit us. We need to benefit the earth in any way we can and we have to find other nature friendly resources to use.

The Blind Watchmaker

     The Blind Watchmaker, so far, has influenced the way I think about the world, existence and life forms. The first chapter, about echolocation in bats, is fascinating. I also enjoyed reading about the different philosophies involved in taxonomy, the classification of species. On page 15, Dawkins reveals his task: "My task is to explain elephants, and the world of complex things, in terms of the simple things that physicists can either understand, or are working on. The physicist's problem is the problem of ultimate origins and ultimate natural laws." He tries to explain complex things in an "utterly simple way." When thinking about evolution you immediately ask yourself how could such complex animals and organs have possibly come about without a design and designer (hence the name of the book - one can't imagine finding a watch and believe there was no watchmaker).
      So all this talk about creationism....should we all just toss out the concept of a god? Some people need to see this in person to believe it. Where is this proof of a "designer"? If the concept of god is thrown out of the picture, would there still be a belief in miracles? Dawkins shows that miraculous creation is extremely rare and probably would not occur. I think that miracles aren't as rare as he believes they are, but then again how would I prove that? In the book Dawkins talked about how he designed a computer program to demonstrate how a non-thinking, non-caring evolutionary process works. This program would conjure up random designs and he would select the designs that most resembled some sort of creature. But I noticed something, Dawkins showed evolution with this example, however, how did the computer come to be? It cant design itself, there was obviously a "designer" who created this machine, am I right? Could evolution be a process of creation or design? Is creation and evolution one in the same?

DNA soup

"Imagine having an international potluck supper, where everyone invited is asked to bring a soup that is specific to his or her own country. In our kitchen we have several dozen bowls of soup sitting on the table. Each has a slightly different recipe, but they all come from the same source. How do we know this? Because each recipe uses as its basic ingredient impala- a species of antelope that offurs naturally only in Africa. It is extremely difficult to obtain impala meat in many parts of the worls, but it is the cornerstone of all soup recipes and it must be included. As we taste the soups we begin to detect another pattern. Some contain black pepper, while others contain salt. There are the two main soup categories, and if you don't have one you don't have the other. There are many additional variants among the soup recipes- some with fish, others with barley, a few with unusual spices you can't identify- but they are all united by the presence of salt. Similarly the black pepper recipes have a huge range of additional ingredients- thyme, berries, pork, nuts- but they all contain black pepper."

So basically, we all have the same soup base (DNA code), but as we change from region to region we each have different ingredients (genes) which make our soups (DNA sequences and our phenotypes) different.

I like this analogy of soup to show the lineage of genes. Just like the chef and the recipes analogy in DNA replication, this helped me understand what the Y-chromosome markers meant and how they were different.

Collapse

        The downfall of past societies can parallel and predict the downfall of current societies. It's actually frightening to think about, if you see how intelligent and complex civilizations have come to an end, almost too easily. If such a powerful society such as the Maya collapsed, who's to say the current prosperous societies of modern day are going to last very long? We should be learning about the mistakes that past societies have made and try to avoid making them ourselves. I feel like too many people are getting too comfortable or feeling "invincible" in their society, and not too many are taking into account that good times don't last forever.
        The author describes the history behind Easter Islands, which is strangely interesting and thought-provoking, along with describing theories on how the isolated society collapsed. After much thought, it was concluded that they collapsed largely on part due to overexploiting their own resources. Deforestation and destruction of the bird populations were major factors, which sound similar to what still goes on today. Easter Islands' collapse is thought to be a metaphor for what lies ahead of our world in the future. All the countries on earth depend on eachother, like all the clans on the islands did. If one country falls, it could cause a domino effect in the economy. The Islands were isolated in the ocean, as Earth is in space. They had no where to go after they destroyed their land, and we will have no where to go either. That fact alone is scary to think about. If the environmental destruction continues and if we continue to over-populate, we're stuck here in a mess. We only have one earth, shouldn't we be trying to take care of it as much as possible? You can say we're already ruining the planet, with global warming and deforestation and what not.
        "..if mere thousands of Easter Islanders with just stone tools and their own muscle power sufficed to destroy their environment and thereby destroyed their society, how can billions of people with metal tools and machine power now fail to do worse?" Exactly my point. With all the advanced technology now, yes, we've increased the standard of living and expanded our life-span, but we need to understand the consequences of our actions.
        After looking at the collapses of several more societies, the author concluded that the causes of the collapses were due largely in part to environmental and population problems leading to increasing warfare and civil strife. After a population peak, politcial and social collapses are usually soon to follow. Can this coincidence be seen again in our future? I think it's definitely possible, considering the frightening growth in population along with the growth of greed in people. The author connected Maya kings, who sought to outdo one another with more impressive temples, with American CEOs. Everything is based upon making money, and that is prioritized over trying to save the environment we live in. I don't think we would be knocking down forests to build a mall if it didn't make profit, right? The more competition in the economy, the more people become careless and strive to make money, no matter what the consequences are. That, I believe, will be a major factor in the collapse of our society.

Hot Zone

So from reading farther into the book so far, I have found out that there are more viruses like the Ebola. In fact there are two different strains of the Ebola virus. One is named Ebola Zaire, and the other is Ebola Sudan. These viruses belong in their own category called filoviruses. They are viruses that are shaped uniquely compared to other viruses, They are in teh shape of long stretched out thread like structures. Also another virus that belongs in this group is called Marburg. It was first discovered in 1967 in Germany, the effects of Marburg are similar to that of Ebola where internal hemoraging was very frequent.

But from reading so far, I can say that these three filo viruses that I know of have similar effects on people. The hemoraging of the body seems to be the biggest factor in common. However I also found good news while learning about these viruses and how there were more of them. There are only three strains, and they didn't originate in America, so the chance of me catching the virus is very slim. However if I do somehow encounter one of these viruses.. I probably wont live. The Zaire strain of Ebola kills 90% of all infected, Sudan kills about half of the infected, and Marburg kills about 25% of infected. So all in all, it's still a pretty scary thing.

Immortal Cells

"But Carrel set out to prove them wrong. At age thirty-nine he'd already invented the first technique for suturing blood vessels together, and had used it to perform the first coronary bypass and develop methods for transplanting organs. He hoped someday to grow whole organs in the laboratory, filling massive vaults with lungs, livers, kidneys, and tissues he could ship through the mail for transplantation. As a first step, he'd tried to grow a sliver of chicken-heart tissue in culture, and to everyone's amazement, it worked. Those heart cells kept beating as if they were still in the chicken's body.....Scientists said that Carrel's chicken-heart cells were one of the most important advances of the century, and that cell culture would uncover the secrets behind everything from eating and sex to 'the music of Bach, the poems of Milton, [and] the genius of Michelangelo.' Carrel was a scientific messiah. Magazines called his culture medium 'and elixir of youth' and claimed that bathing in it might make a person live forever.
   But Carrel wasn't interested in immortality for the masses. He was a eugenicist: organ transplantation and life extension were ways to preserve what he saw as the superior white race, which he believed was being polluted by less intelligent and inferior stock, namely the poor, uneducated, and nonwhite. He dreamed of never-ending life for those he deemed worthy, and death or forced sterilization for everyone else. He'd later praise Hitler for the 'energetic measures' he took in that direction.
   The real chicken-heart cells didn't fare so well. In fact, it turned out that the original cells had probably never survived long at all. Years after Carrel died awaiting trial for collaborating with the Nazis, scientist Leonard Hayflick grew suspicious of the chicken heart. No one had ever been able to replicate Carrel's work, and the cells seemed to defy a basic rule of biology: that normal cells can only divide a finite number of times before dying. Hayflick investigated them and concluded that the original chicken-heart cells had actually died soon after Carrel put them in the culture, and that, intentionally or not, Carrel had been putting new cells in the culture dishes each time he 'fed' them using and 'embryo juice' he made from ground tissues. But no one could test the theory, because two years after Carrel's death, his assistant unceremoniously threw the famous chicken-heart cells in the trash."

  It's very concerning that masses of people believed a figure such as Carrel. Even though he was considered "a scientific messiah," he also praised Hitler...He was a man who believed in the same kind of "superior race"idea that Hitler believed in, and wanted to use his scientific achievements to accomplish this. He did not want this discovery to help other people, he wanted it to fuel his own sick ideal world.
  This passage made me think about how susceptable people are when believing things that they hear. People often either never check their sources, or believe sources that seem to be superior because of their titles. Carrel was believed undoubtably because of his occupation as a scientist. Background research is rarely ever done concerning rumors and ideas.
  This could also lead to the discussion of social media. The popularity of social networking sites has exploded recently, starting with MySpace and FaceBook, and gradually evolving into Twitter and Instagram. According to mediabistro.com, there are 250 million active users on Twitter as of 2012. This is not nearly as much as FaceBook's 750 million active users, but the number of users on Twitter is steadily rising over time. I could post a rumor on Twitter right this very moment, and I'm sure I would be recieving text messages shortly after concerning my tweet. The number of users on these social networking sites makes it allarmingly quick for information to travel from one side of the world to another. This has many pros, such as updates on wars overseas, but could also pose many cons, especially if the information is not true. Will the rapid spread of social networking sites help our nation, or destroy it?
  

The Wonder Of Genetics

The Wonder Of Genetics, is quite a wonder indeed, I was fascinated in genetics before so picking this book for me to read was a really good idea. This books discusses Women being Olympics, too marrying cousins, to why Antibiotics are losing its "punch" Its amazing to see how genetics really ties things together and affects our everyday lives much more than we see.
The book talks about the Conflict that everyone from biologists to psychologists to just your average teacher argues about; Nature vs Nurture, and there is a line on page 186 that stuck out to me " behavioral  scientists would probably not argue about whether particular behaviors are hereditary or environmental; rather they tend to ask whether a genetic component exists in the etiology of the behavior in the addition to the obvious environmental components"  I found it interesting because I had never thought of the conflict in that way, i always that about it in just a hereditary vs environmental conflict but that opened up the flood gates for different ideas and the relationship between hereditary vs environmental. An example of this would be the behavior of bees when their larvae become infected with Bacillus bacterium and die. To get rid of these dead larvae corpses there are four different type of worker female bees. Some bees will uncap the wax but wont drag out the dead from the hive, some will drag the dead out if a different bee uncaps the wax, some will do both, and others will do neither. It turns out that this is due to Mendelian Genetics, and dragging the dead out of the hive is a behavioral trait with a genetic basis. I found this to be extremely interesting and cool. Makes me wonder what and how genetics in my body affects my behavioral traits.

The Demon in the Freezer Part II

So far the book is covering the development of biological weapons in the former Soviet Union as told by Dr. Vladamir Pasechnik, who was a part of Biopreparat which is a large secret program devoted to research, development, and production of biological weapons in the USSR. Pasechnik wanted out of this program because he could not sleep at night due to his knowledge of all the horrible things being developed in this program. Page 103 discusses how the Soviets had genetically modified (GM) plagues by exposing it again and again to powerful antibiotics to force the rapid evolution of drug restraint strains known as "heating up". Biopreparat scientists were trying to come up with even more powerful strains by inserting foreign genes into a plague to further heat it up, does this work because these foreign genes are like nothing we've ever seen before and are therefore harder to defend against? These powerful strains of viruses could be loaded onto missiles, George W. Bush and Margaret Thatcher were informed of these ICBMS (intercontinental ballistics missiles) Thatcher freaked out and immediately contacted Mikhail Gorbachev, the head of the Soviet Union, and forcefully asked to see their bio warfare facilities but the inspectors found nothing. The thing that really shocked me was on page 110 at Corpus 6 in Russia which handles and preforms experiments with the smallpox virus and located there is an aerosol test chamber where bombs that release a biological agent in the air is tested. Sometimes they will hook up monkeys or other animals to this test chambers to test the effects of the air inside the chamber, I can't even imagine animals subject to this, much less humans (Corpus 6 aren't supposed to have stocks of smallpox in their laboratories, at the time only the CDC and an institute in Moscow were allowed to carry the virus) inspectors asked to see this chamber and take swab samples but the technicians refused saying that our vaccines won't protect us implying that they have developed viruses that are resistant to American vaccines. The head of Corpus 6 denied experimenting with smallpox and said they only had the DNA of the smallpox and not the actual virus (Page 111). The missiles the Russians were working on had bomblets inside the warhead which could hold 200 grams of liquid smallpox that was pressurized with carbon dioxide to blow out mists of variola. The strain of smallpox in the warheads is called India-1 collected in India by the KGB, the Russian Federation refused to share this strain with any scientists outside of Russia and so it's characteristics and means to defend against it are unclear. I could not put this book down while reading all this information, as interesting as it is, it is truly to frightening to read about. What if there are a lot of laboratories out there that lied about destroying their stock of smallpox viruses when they were ordered to and have developed a very powerful strain, enough to wipe out a small country? I find all this biological warfare so fascinating but the repercussions of it can be so devastating I don't even want to think about what it could do.

Our Common Ancestor

If you look around, you see a lot of different kinds of people. We are all the same species, evolved from the same ancestors, so why do we all look so different? Our phenotypes range by our skin color, eye shape, hair color, our height, our weight and many more characteristics. In the book Journey of Man, (we watched the movie in class) Spencer Wells travels on a journey to find where the oldest people on Earth are living. I think the people of the African Rift Valley in southwestern Africa are fascinating. This is the tribe that dates back to the oldest Homo sapiens on Earth. This is where it all started. I think it's so cool to see all of the different phenotypes in one group of people. There are different eye shapes and facial structures that we associate with different races around the world. So basically, this one tribe of people looks like every race in the world. And personally I think that's pretty amazing.