Chemotherapy

After the in depth discussion regarding chemotherapy, list the advantages and disadvantages of this treatment. Do you believe that this is an effective method to "cure" cancer? Why or why not? In your opinion, under what circumstances should an individual consider chemotherapy?

Cancer is the uncontrolled dividing of cells due to mutations which develop tumors. These tumors grow and take energy away the body and healthy cells. One way to combat cancer is through chemotherapy which uses chemicals to kill cancerous cells. The following are advantages and disadvantages of chemotherapy:

Advantages:

• potential of successfully eliminating cancerous cells
• Drugs can be used to combat negative side effects

Disadvantages:

• Side effects: hair loss, nauses, loss of apetite, constipation or diareha, painful and weakness in body
• Different Organ problems: heart or kidney problems, lung tissue damage or nerve damage (1)
• chemicals injected into body cannot differentiate from healthy and unhealthy cells
• Expensive and long procedure

Cancer is one of the deadliest illnesses known to mankind and almost anyone affected with it would want to cure it. Although chemotherapy has many side effects, it is a treatment that is offered as a way to decrease cancer cells by sacrificing healthy cells. This choice is definitely up to the person and how they want to deal with their cancer. However, a person who wants to undergo chemotherapy has probably gone through many other treatments before finally wanting to undergo this long, chemically risky process. Furthermore, this is the most widely known cancer killing procedure known to public and, unless more options are available, most people who are in need of a "cure" will go for chemotherapy.

In that sense, those who are ill would rather spend their time with loved ones in the comfort of their own homes rather than in a white-walled hospital room. Additionally, they must consider their age, their chances of survival, their lifestyle, etc. This ultimately comes down to the patient's choice and how they want to spend their few years either fighting or accepting. 

Personally, if I was diagnosed with cancer now or before 35, i would undergo chemotherapy because I have no lived yet and I have family that would encourage me to fight for my life. However, if i was older such as 70+, I would still fight but if I have undergone so many unsuccessful treatments, I would accept my cancer and continue living my life and preparing myself and my loved ones within the limited time i have.

1. http://www.livestrong.com/article/71774-disadvantages-chemotherapy/#ixzz2PDnYFONb

IPS cells: Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells

 Discuss the significance of iPS cells in stem cell research. Do you believe it would be better to use replace embryonic stem cells with iPS cells despite the success embryonic stem cells already have? What are the advantages or disadvantages? What problems do you think could occur with the usage of iPS cells? And how do you think we can solve these problems? What do you think about the possibility of clones with iPS cells? Could they be abused?

IPS cells are cells that can potentially replace the use of ethnically problematic stem cells retrieved from embryos. Embryonic stem cells are cells created from the fertilization of an egg with a sperm that then duplicates into stem cells. These stem cells then differentiate into various cells needed for the body. These stem cells are highly versatile since they can be scientifically stressed to differentiate into specific cells and then cultured to develop tissues or organs. However, these stem cells can only be retrieved from the umbilical cord which only lasts for a couple of years or from fertilized eggs. 

Problems being to arise when embryonic stem cells are retrieved from fertilized eggs because some say that they are murdering a potential life since some believe that life is conceived once the sperm and egg fertilize. On the other hand, there are many embryonic stem cells that are going to waste such as those fertilized eggs that are used in vitro-fertilization. Once a couple has been successfully impregnated, the previous fertilized eggs are tossed out. Why not cultivate those for stem cells and sacrifice one potential life to save hundreds of others. If that is still an ethically sensitive way of obtaining stem cells, what about those who decide to abort their child even though there already is a mass of stem cells which could be defined as life. These people have, without a doubt, gone through hell to decide to terminate their child and have definitely been told NOT to abort their child however, they have made a choice that will stay with them forever. Since these woman/couples have decided to terminate, why not give them the option to donate the stem cells of their aborted child to science. However, they must NOT be given an incentive to donate the abort child's tissues as this can cause a "kids cash" business where woman continually get pregnant in hopes to sell their stem cells. It should be an option that is done with the purpose of helping mankind, like donating your body to science. If donating a body to science has been effective and accepted, they should be able to create a program for aborted children and stem cells with specific regulations and laws that can be socially accepted into society.

If all these ideas do get turned down, IPS cells are the next best  thing as they are regular cells that have been reprogrammed to revert back into stem cells to be re-differentiated. They have the ability to function just like stem cells which eliminates the ethical concerns linked with using stem cells. Since these cells originate from adult cells, after going through the IPS process, the organ or tissues created will be easily accepted into the original person which means less rejected cells and less money, time and lives wasted. Remember, if an organ that is transplanted into a human being gets rejected, that organ is of no use which could have been implanted in another person to save their life. Other problems from IPS cells are the fact that is a long and expensive procedure, they may increase cancers or viruses, may stop dividing and have a higher rate of cell death (1). Although there are problems with IPS cells, the advantages override the disadvantages of use and scientific research of IPS cells because it is easier to "solve" scientific problems than ethnical and moral concerns that have constantly divided society for so long.

If IPS cells can be used, have such high potential and decrease ethical and moral concerns then IPS CELLS IT IS!



1. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=cell-induced-pluripotent

Discuss about the possibility of making an entire human being with the technology we have today. What do you think of it? Would you be able to accept an entirely synthesized human? What are the consequences? Do you think science has a limit?

Creating an entire human being with the technology we have today will be highly unlikely since we are not that advanced today. We may be capable of creating the individual organs via harvesting the cells and incubating them until they form into the organ but we are unable to create a heart or brain that is stable enough for transplant, let alone an actual human. Even if the organs were attainable, the process of connecting viable blood vessels, electrolyte signals and all the chemical needs is impossible in this period of time. Furthermore, the ability to package all the individual pieces in ONE single sheet of human skin that is smooth and "normal" looking is definitely far from our modern day technology. If a human were to be made, i fully believe that it would very much look like Anne Frank's Franklin! 

Since technology and science is rapidly advancing, it could be very possible that synthetic humans can be made-very far into the future that is. So, if these synthetic humans were to roam the earth, i do not believe that i nor others would be capable of accepting it into society as it is "against human growth". The idea that a human was created using stem cells of other people is going against the natural system of human growth. That human would always be considered the "scientific experiment" and become an "art piece" more so than a part of society. Furthermore, the price of synthesizing humans will inevitably cost thousands, millions, billions or even trillions of dollars; money that can be used for more promising things like finding cures and other USEFUL scientific discoveries. Also, the idea of creating a human, naturally, is much easier, simpler and cheaper.

The consequences of a synthesized human for the society that it will bring controversy of the definition of life and god. There will be many groups that will be against that human and new laws for science will have to be created. The human itself may become depressed due to all the negative groups against him and feel like a sojourner. The human will continually question his existence, creating psychological problems. Also, the question is what to do with the synthesized human, treat him like a human and blend it into society or make it a slave to serve us. Furthermore, the human many have needs, desires and urges and will they fall under the human rights act even though they are synthesized. What would happen if they were to procreate, etc? 

Science unfortunately does not have a limit because with every new discovery, new questions are created and thus, more science is needed to be discovered. Science is evolutionary and is therefore, forever changing. The limits for what to do with science is the question. As discussed in class, science is limited to the human capacity of discovering and will ultimately be limited to whether or not society accepts it. Society and the moral rights during that period defines what is accepted. For instance, the discoveries of great women like Barbara McClintok were denied because, during that time, women were incapable of scientific respect. Science is unlimited, human discoveries are unllimited, human capacity is limited and societal acceptance is limited

Transcription and Translation

Transcription: Produce a copy of RNA from a DNA strand

1.       Overall DNA strand: upstream (promotor region) where TATA box is found in DNA

2.        transcription unit is the bubble where the RNA is created

3.        downstream (terminator) where AAAUAAA box is found in RNA

4.       In transcription unit, DNA strand unwinds: one strand is antisense/template strand and is transcribed, other is sense/coding strand and is not transcribed

5.       RNA nucleotides being to grow in 5 to 3 direction, complementary base pairs from template/antisense strand (A-U) (T-A) (G-C) (C-G)

6.       RNA is fragile because: Single stranded, double hydroxyl groups therefore more reactive

7.       Gap-Cap (G) at very beginning and Poly-A-tail (AAAA) at very end of RNA stabilizes it

8.       If errors occur, only errors in protein which are not as significant as an error in DNA, which would change genetic makeup. Therefore, RNA transcription is faster

9.       Specific nucleotide in DNA template/antisense strand signals transcription to stop.

10.   RNA detaches from DNA strand, mRNA strand releases and DNA reforms

Translation: synthesis of protein from mRNA template

1.        Initiation factor proteins assemble mRNA and initiator tRNA

2.        Ribosomes, large and small subunits, attach to mRNA strand

3.        Within the ribosomes are sites where the tRNA can bind to

4.        tRNA bind to peptide (A)-tRNA with amino acid which is added to polypeptide chain as it enters the P site (P)-growing polypeptide amino chain. The tRNA, without its amino acid exits via (E)-unchanged tRNA without amino acid and gets ejected.

5.        First amino acid (AUG) starts in P site whereas all others begin at A site

6.         As the tRNA enters the P site, the amino acids attach to the previous amino acid in the A site and create a long polypeptide chain

7.         The ribsomes, tRNA process and Polypeptide chain continues to grow 5 to 3, until it reaches a stop codon (UGA, UAA, UAG)

8.         At the stop codon, the polypeptide and translation machinery detach and release factors cut the the polypeptide from the last tRNA

9.         Polypeptide chain is released into the ER

10.     The polypeptide chains are assembled or packaged together in the ER

BLOG 2: Write a 500-word reflection on the article "Genetics by Numbers".

From the article, you learned about the difficulties (competition, politics, corruption, greed, pursuing of own interests, education, etc) that scientists face in trying to collaborate with each other to obtain the most accurate results. It has been established that the collaboration must be done for future SNP research. Then, how do you think these difficulties can be overcome and will there be further ramifications? VIDEO FROM THE SEMINAR 

As discussed in class, the only way for scientists to strongly and effectively conquer SNPs is by collaboratively working together. However, it is in our human nature to be selfish and competitive therefore, inhibiting scientists to making scientific discoveries quicker. As a result, scientists need to set aside their competitive differences for the common good of science.

First off, the information collected and discovered should be shared among the scientific community so others can provide and aid in the SNP research. This allows for smarter and efficient research instead of having individual groups doing the same experiment over and over again. Furthermore, the human genome is extremely complex and lengthy. As Kevin said, if a person were to type 100 letters per minute, it would still take 50 years for that individual to completely type out the human genome. In this sense, how can you expect one group to label SNPs when the genome is complicated and extremely long? Therefore, if scientists work on an international level, this large work load can be distributed and SNPs can be quickly found.

An example of SNP collaboration in an international sense was shown in the video. There is a large establishment that studies SNPs among Australia, UK, United States and New Zealand. These SNP chips, created with the aid of 19 countries, is a genetic tool that enables scientist to track SNPs. These SNP ships will be placed in the sheep genome to track genetic variations. The reason this establishment is functioning so well is because many people have decided to put their competitive differences aside and work for the common good of science.

Another topic that was spoken in class was whether or not having the ability of knowing your SNP list is a positive or negative. According to me, this SNP list is a “double edged sword” in which it can provide both positive and negative attributes. The positives are the fact that you have the knowledge of your SNPs; you can prepare for the future, whether preparing for an illness or an illness-free life and can lead to future medicine by analyzing the SNP. The negatives are the knowledge of a life-threatening illness such as cancer or psychopathic behavior; being discriminating for having an illness or medical centers causing fear to uneducated patients. To me, I believe that knowing your SNP list would cause more positivity than negativity as a person can prepare for the future and it is something that they should know about, it is information that makes us, us.

On the contrary, the revealing of the SNP list is something that an individual has the right to do or not. They should not be pressured or feel obligated to because the SNP list is something private. So it begs the question, what if employers or insurance companies want to know your SNP information to ensure their company will be okay. I believe that the BEST negotiation between privacy and publicly with private and personal SNP information is providing a small list of the most life threatening illness or disease that people may not desire such as having a 99% chance of having psychopathic behavior

To ensure a promising future for SNP research, scientists must work together to achieve this goal and set aside competitive motions. As for the ability to attain other people’s SNP information, it ultimately is an individual’s choice to tell unless there is a check-mark for a highly negative SNP on a negative SNP list that the government and health system can provide. 

Deaf by Design

Blog 1:  Write a 500-word reflection on the article "Deaf by Design" and the video "Sound & Fury" answering one or more of the following questions:  Is it more of a blessing or a curse to have the ability to alter our genetic codes?  Do the deafs have as much right as the rest of us to abort a fetus that is, in their view, disabled?  Is "disability" a relative term?  What constitute to a person's disability? Is it in Heather's best interest to be raised as the only hearing child in the family? Justified.

Science has evolved over time and has improved our health in various ways. One of the more recent scientific advantages is the ability to genetically modify DNA. This advance in science is great as it can possibly eliminate negative mutations, disease and screen for other concerns parents and doctors may have. However, the power to manipulate DNA is also a curse as some may wish to “create” their child; it may reach a point in which people ask whether or not there is the right to choose our future children’s hair or eye color.

Although this idea seems extreme, it is something that is creating controversy that can be exemplified in the article Deaf by Design, in which the idea of genetically manipulating DNA to ensure a deaf child is born to deaf couples. In my view point, I believe that genetically modifying children to be deaf is not right as it is taking away one of 5 senses that all humans deserve to have. In some way, it is creating a disabled child; which leads to the question what does being disabled mean.

According to dictionary.com a disability is defined as a physical or mental handicap, especially one that prevents a person from living a full, normal life or from holding a gainful job (1). In this sense, being deaf is a disability since “normal” people can hear and being deaf may prevent those from attaining or maintaining a job. This idea of living a difficult and harder life was even seen in the video “Sound and Fury” when the grandfather admitted it was difficult for him to get a job and how it was also difficult for the father to get friends. I believe that being deaf or blind or any loss of the five senses is a disability as it inhibits quality of life. The difference is accepting the disability and cooping with it in harmony, which is what the deaf community has done so well. They have dealt with their situation so perfectly that they have forgotten that they are at a disadvantage from “normal” people. Yes, their culture and way of live is more intimate and expressional but ultimately, their life is harder and at a disadvantage and, from the movie, each person had difficulty in their life but accepted it because they had no other alternative.

On the contrary, a technological procedure called the cochlear implant, an electronic device that is surgically implanted to allow deaf or hard-of-hearing people the ability to hear (2). This device was the main conflict in the film, Sound and Fury, where a young 7 year old girl, Heather, wants this implant to hear but the parents are against it in fear of Heather losing her deaf culture. I understand her parents view points but I firmly agree with the grandmother’s statement in which she cares for Heather’s future. Just like how a family may migrate to Canada for a better life, Heather should be raised as the only hearing child in the family. At 7, she already knows she wants the implant, she wants to hear and she will inevitably use her ability to hear to help her family. Additionally, hearing, to the deaf community, is like another language. Something that she would use to aid her in the future but ultimately, she would be strung back to the deaf community since her entire family is deaf thus, no other way of communicating. It is like the immigrant child who speaks English but automatically switches to their primary language when they enter the home because that is their only way of communication in the home. Furthermore, the cochlear implant is something that can be removed therefore allowing become deaf whenever she wishes.

All in all, science should continue to advance but be cautious when giving people too much power in DNA changing, having a disability can become a blessing once a person accepts it and a cochlear implant can give individuals, like Heather the ability to hear which can greatly improve hard-of-hearing people.

(1) http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/disability?s=t

(2) http://www.nidcd.nih.gov/health/hearing/pages/coch.aspx

Cannon Design

Last physics class, we were told to design a cannon out of a possible of 8 cans that would fire a Styrofoam cup using only 2 ml of fuel. The cannon would be fired off a table and be graded based on the maxium x component; the distance of travel. So, for my design, I had to consider some factors

1. The angle at which it would be launched

2.The baffles to maximize pressure to shoot the cup

3. A way to decrease back fire (Just in case)

4. The fact that it would be fired off an elevated surface 

With these factors in mind, I created a flat cannon in the sense that the cannon has minimal to no angle and will be fired flat against the table. Although all the other groups created an angle of 45 degrees, this angle was best suited for case 4 projectiles; for projectiles that will start and end at the same level/height. Since my cannon will be fired on an elevated surface, it is pointless to fire it at an angle since the cannon will be wasting it's fuel trying to accelerate upwards rather than distance-wise, which is what I will be graded for Figure 1.

For the cannon itself, I used a large can, a medium and then a small one Figure 1. This was so the pressure would build up and then center itself behind the Styrofoam cup so it can be fired out. Also, the baffles are small holes distributed like a pinwheel so the pressure could be distributed even around the can instead of on one side Figure 2.

To decrease backfire and ensure that the cannon will not waste it's energy backfiring, I created a hook out of one of the empty cans and attached it to the cannon. The hook would hang over the edge of the table Figure 3.

Figure 1. Finished Cannon
Big to small cans to center pressure
Flattened can to ensure cannon will not move when being fired
Can hook to decrease backfire and wasted energy

Figure 3. Cannon Hook
Will be hooked onto testing surface to decrease backfire

Figure 2. Baffles