Saying 'No' to Embryonic Stem-Cell Research

California just passed proposition 71, which allows them ten years to raise 3 billion dollars to allow human embryonic stem-cell research, according to Jonathan Knight’s article, “California Says ‘Yes’ to Stem-Cell Research.” We should not spend this money right now, and even Knight doesn’t do a superb job explaining why it should be done, and why the non-believers, such as myself, are wrong. The stem cell controversy is the ethical debate primarily concerning the creation, treatment, and destroying human embryos incident to research involving embryonic stem cells. The debate can be linked to abortion and pro-life versus pro-choice. This article not only ignorantly broadens the problematic partisanship in today’s society, but doesn’t even make a noteworthy logical reason to support his claim.

Embryonic stem-cells are pluripotent stem cells derived from the inner cell mass of the blastocyst, an early-stage embryo. In cell biology, pluripotency refers to a stem cell that has the potential to differentiate into any of the three germ layers: endoderm (interior stomach lining, gastrointestinal tract, the lungs), mesoderm (muscle, bone, blood, urogenital), or ectoderm (epidermal tissues and nervous system). Pluripotent stem cells can give rise to any fetal or adult cell type. Human embryos reach the blastocyst stage 4–5 days post fertilization.

Embryonic stem cells are thought by researchers to hold potential cures for spinal chord injuries, multiple sclerosis, diabetes, Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s, heart diseases and hundreds of rare immune system and genetic disorders. In the past decades, researchers have tried to come up with ways of implementing the embryonic stem cell research into traditional medicine.Like any medical issue, embryonic stem cell research has both pros and cons, from the religious and medical communities.

As anyone who even casually follows the news know, embryonic stem cell research is an extremely heated topic in politics. The stem cell controversy is the ethical debate primarily concerning the creation, treatment, and destruction of human embryos incident to research involving embryonic stem cells. Not all stem cell research involves the creation, use, or destruction of human embryos. For example, adult stem cells, amniotic stem cells and induced pluripotent stem cells do not involve human embryos at all. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and mine is that billions of dollars should not be spent on something I do not believe in.

The first thing the author of this article does, is immediately point out the things George W. Bush, all the people who liked him, and all republicans believe in, for no legitimate reason. What they believe in has no relevance to the story, and it just makes it seem like the author is almost attacking all of those people for their beliefs. They are all lumped into the same category that the author makes sound like a bad thing, when in fact, like in all political controversies, is not true. This ignorance and unnecessary action increases the separation between the already polarized parties. Attacking one group for what they believe in is arrogant and not what this country needs during a time of partial gridlock. He continues to demean all non believers of stem-cell research through the entire article which is quite insulting. Everyone is entitled to their opinion and to make one’s opinion seem wrong is unacceptable in any form.

According to the article, California will raise 300 billion dollars every year for ten years through bond sales to fund this embryonic stem-cell research. This is not something money should be spent on given this country’s current economic status, which is in a crisis. Money should be spent on jump starting our economy and attempting to bring us back to normalcy. And I certainly do not want to be paying for something that I do not believe in, and I’m sure that is the mind set of all people who do not agree with embryonic stem-cell research as well.

There is no clear cut definition on when life is actually given to a newly fertilized egg, or when to actually call it a human, but like the abortion controversy, it is a main aspect of the embryonic stem-cell research controversy. The only difference is that the egg is fertilized not in the womb of a woman, but via in-vitro fertilization, which means outside the body. Regardless, producing a fertilized egg with the intent of destroying it is crazy and absurd. People disagree by saying its only a week old, well it doesn’t matter if it is 1 day after it is fertilized, or 5 months after it is fertilized, it is still killing the potential human being which I believe is completely immoral and unethical.

There are other forms of multipotent research that can be done that does not involve the destroying of a potential life. The difference between pluripotent and multipotent cells is that pluripotent cells are f the "cells that are self-replicating, are derived from human embryos or human fetal tissue, and are known to develop into cells and tissues of the three primary germ layers while multipotent stem cells possess the ability to differentiate into various BUT are limited in the number of cell types they can differentiate into, especially into cells of a closely related family of cells. Even though multipotent cells are restricted and pluripotent cells are not, they are still a better option as they do not destroy a potential life of a human being. It is a better option that accomplishes the same tasks, it just may take more time.

Embryonic stem-cell research is not proven 100% effective. If we start pouring all this money and time into a project that could potentially be a complete waste, then it is not worth all this controversy. People will be outraged and furious if they find out their hard earned money that is extremely tight, like i mentioned before was wasted, it will just cause even more tension. Unless we find out that this process will be completely effective in curing the diseases listed previously, I think embryonic-stem cell research is too risky dealing with ethical, moral, monetary, religious, and time issues.

The author briefly speaks about why one might want to approve of embryonic stem-cell research. They spend 2 sentences trying to have the audience side with his personal views. If I was reading this article and was on the fence about embryonic stem-cell research It would not sway my decision to be for it, if anything it would make me vote against it. Yes, the main point of this article may be to talk about how California had already passed the law allowing funding for embryonic stem-cell research, but for those who may not be fully educated on the topic, and are clearly involved in the matter, to make the article work, the author needs to provide sufficient evidence on why it should be funded and that it is not a mistake. The fact that the author makes no effort to show this to the reader makes the me question his credibility in the subject, something vital to a good article.

To go along with that, at the end he shows the opinions of those who oppose embryonic-stem cell research, having the same ideas that are previously spoken about. He states why they disagree with the concept, but doesn’t attempt to prove them wrong, which would make the article stronger. They just leave it open ended, not tying any loose ends together that make leave the audiences’ mind unclear. They even spend more time explaining why people oppose embryonic stem-cell research rather than why they approve of it. As the reader, this makes me feel uneasy since a law has been passed to allow for the funding of this, something that after reading this article leaves the audience feeling negatively and almost scared about the idea.

WORKS CITED:

Knight, Jonathan. "California Says 'yes' to Stem-cell Research." Nature.com. Nature Publishing Group, 03 Nov. 2004. Web. 12 Feb. 2012. <http://www.nature.com/news/2004/041103/full/news041101-11.html>.\

"General Facts About Embryonic Stem Cell Research." Embryonic Stem Cell Research. Embryonicstemcellresearch.org, 30 Jan. 2012. Web. 16 Feb. 2012. <http://www.embryonicstemcellresearch.org/ http://www.embryonicstemcellresearch.org/>.

Keep the Elephants out of Hawaii

Bowman suggests bringing into Australia “predators to control the feral animals, and bring in herbivore species to graze the flammable grasses”. He also suggests bringing to Australia: elephants and rhinoceros, which he believes could help tame the wild grasses that are fuel for wildfires. Although this solution would be without any chemicals, there is a distinct possibility it could be the most dangerous for the animals and the people who reside within Australia. If the introduction of new animals did in fact fail, Australia would have another difficult situation on their hands, but the difference would be that this time it would have been of their own doing. In the past, there have been many cases of animals being introduced to new lands, and the responses have been disastrous. Once animals are introduced to a new ecosystem, it is nearly impossible to eradicate them, so there is almost no chance of going back to what the land was like before their arrival. Even the most minute ripple in an ecosystem can have a domino effect, and can have extremely serious ramifications. By using examples from history and a little bit of logic, it does not seem that Bowman’s idea of introducing wildlife would be a very good idea for Australia.

In 1936, Robert K. Merton defined the law of unintended consequences as reactions that “may be positive, negative or merely neutral, but they veer off from the intent of the initial action”. Merton believes that there are two main reasons why the law of unintended consequences works. The first reason, he says, is because the people who wanted to make some change could not fathom all of the outcomes it could have. The second reason is that those who were in charge decided the change did not have its desired reaction, and they then made errors in attempting to fix their mistakes. All of this essentially means that no matter what is done, there will be consequences that were not expected. Bowman does say in his article that “it would be essential to proceed cautiously”, and that studies would be necessary before they brought in foreign animals to Australia. If they were to do studies, it would be nearly impossible to imagine the long term effects of the animal’s appearance into the wildlife, especially considering the many different ecosystems that encompass Australia.

Bowman’s idea to bring in foreign species to help the environment is not a new concept to Australia. During the 1930’s, a species known as the Bufo Marinus, or more commonly, the cane toad, was introduced to Australia. The cane toad was brought to Australia as an alternative to using a chemical solution to control bugs that were destroying the sugar cane crop. The results were devastating. The eggs, tadpoles, full grown toads, and even their carcasses are extremely dangerous to not only the Australian wildlife, but also the Australian people. The adults, eggs, and tadpoles are toxic to vertebrate predators. The carcasses of the cane toads that rot can contaminate the drinking water of humans. Because of the great numbers of the cane toad, at this point, eradication of the species from Australia is not an option. Eighty years after the cane toad had been introduced to Australia, they are still wreaking havoc, and the Australian government still does not know how to get the cane toads under control. Although it is easy to see what a mistake this was after the fact, it did seem like a good idea at the time, and a positive alternative to using harsh chemicals. If bringing in the cane toad to Australia had such a damaging aftermath, why would Bowman believe that they could control several different species of predators and herbivores all at the same time, and why does he believe that there could not be serious adverse outcomes?

According to scientist Heather Eijzenga “The accidental or intentional introduction of alien species is one of the most serious threats faced by island ecosystems”. In Hawaii, even herbivores that are not native to the land can be very dangerous to the rest of the wildlife. Rabbits and rats are destroying the ecosystems of the seabirds that come to the island of Lehua. The rabbits and birds are both contending for the same nesting grounds; so if the rabbits take the nesting grounds of the birds, they will not be able to lay their eggs on this island, which could possibly destroy the ecosystem of Lehua. Also, the rabbits can destroy the vegetation and make the birds more susceptible to predators. The rats that have been introduced to this island are notorious for eating the eggs and the newly hatched chicks. Animals that are not poisonous like the cane toad can severely damage an ecosystem, which can have long term repercussions. Although these animals were not introduced with a purpose, so they were not monitored, they still have had a damaging impact on the island. This island is also without people, so if two herbivores have destroyed the ecosystem of an island that is without people, predators and large herbivores that are introduced could have dismantling effects.

Although David Bowman is an Australian and a professor of environmental change biology at the School for Plant Science in Australia, his article has zero supporting scientific evidence. He makes a bold claim that the Australian government should introduce new predators to the environment, and then attempts to qualify his argument with saying how he knows it is in fact, a bold claim. If he does have any scientific evidence supporting this idea, he does not present it in his article. To bring in predators to Australia with the belief that the government would be able to control wild animals is an ignorant position to take. Bringing in a species that is not native to the lands of Australia could have a disastrous aftermath on the environment, ecology, and overall safety of the Australian people.







Works Cited

"Cane Toad Invasion." Invasion of the Cane Toad. Web. 27 Feb. 2012. <http://www.canetoadsinoz.com/invasion.html>.

"Cane Toads." Cane Toads. Web. 27 Feb. 2012. <http://www.canetoads.com.au/canetfact.htm>.

Eijzenga, Heather. "Studying the Effects of Removing Non-native Herbivores on Lehua Island’s Vegetation." Department of Botany at the University of Hawaii, Mano. Web. 27 Feb. 2012.

Ellis-Christensen, Tricia, and O. Wallace. "What Is the Law of Unintended Consequences?" WiseGeek. Conjecture. Web. 27 Feb. 2012. <http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-the-law-of-unintended-consequences.htm>.

Diet and Sugar Consumption

My favorite meal to pick up is from a fast food restaurant is Chicken McNuggets, with fries and sweet tea. A meal with nearly 475 calories, 30 grams of fat, 30 grams of carbs, and well over 500 mg of sodium. I can admit that this is most definitely not nearly a healthy diet or source of nutrients, but I can also admit that it is quick, cheap, and convenient. Americans started the “Western diet” trend of processed foods that are unhealthy and high in sugars. Countries such as Denmark and the United Nations have picked up these habits and are struggling with the same issues. In this article, the authors argue that adding artificial ingredients to our diets can lead to health issues, and should be controlled by the government.

If I had to guess the most prevalent reasons for mortality, my answer would probably be that most deaths are caused by criminal acts such as murder. According to “Public Health: The Toxic Truth About Sugar” I would be wrong. The authors of this article makes it clear, and states more than once that most deaths come from noncommunicable diseases.    A diet that is not nutritious and helpful in aiding the body carryout normal functions, can lead to obesity and or malnutrition. More importantly though, these diets can deter the body’s rate of metabolism, leading to seriousness such as; obesity and cardiovascular disease. Heart disease, diabetes, and cancer lead to nearly 35 million deaths and this number is steadily growing as the consumption of poor diets continue to become more and more common.

What can be done to stop this ongoing issue? Well, the UN feels as if tobacco, alcohol, and diets are the central factors in noncommunicable disease. Since they regulate tobacco and alcohol they feel as if diet should be regulated as well. However that is tricky because unlike tobacco and alcohol, food is a necessity. In Denmark, there is a tax on foods that are high in saturated fats; interesting, since fat is not considered to be the issue. The country is now contemplating on if sugar should be taxed as well because it can be defended and proven to lead to these noncommunicable health factors.

The authors give their readers an idea of how the government could and should intervene. The first raise the point of controlling taxation, distribution and age limits of products with added sugars. They propose the idea that adding taxes to soda, for example, would decrease the amount and how often people will go out and by the product, and it would also allow the government to benefit economically. Yet to do so and be affective, the price of a 2 Liter would have to go from two dollars a bottle to four. What better way to reduce consumption that limit distribution? The government should control the hours retailers are open, make a obtaining vending machine license more difficult, and limit the number of fast food restaurants in low-income communities. If that doesn’t work, why not limit sales during school hours and put an age limit on the purchase of soda? “Sugar is cheap, sugar tastes good and sugar sells, so companies have little incentive to change.”  

Although I feel the authors raise logical as well as ethical points in trying to convince people to change their diets, I do not necessarily agree with the ideas on intervention. Its not fair to consumers or business owners to tax or limit food consumption because it is a choice. It is up to the consumer to decide what they would like to purchase for dinner, not the government. However what they can do is raise awareness of what a healthy diet consists of, or teach children that healthy diets can taste good as well. Either way, regulating sugar consumption will not be easy, and it may take years to come to a conclusion as to what should be done to put an end to poor diet choices.

Animal Testing Controversy

As you stand in front of a whole collection of prescription drugs, do you ever question the lengths taken to create those medications? More than likely, you just take the necessary medication and continue your day; however, many medications are products of animal testing. Katharine Sanderson’s article, “Rat helps pinpoint pain molecule,” asserts that rat animal testing presents a potential pain treatment in humans and is thus considered a “necessary evil.” The common products produced through animal testing use all types of animals that we adore. Animal testing should be stopped due to the unethical treatment of animals and its uncertain benefits, and regulations preventing animal testing should be implemented.

Sanderson’s article states that scientists at the Scripps Research Institute in La Jolla, California took rats with surgically damaged paws, which were suffering from neuropathic pain, pain that affects the sensory system, and examined their metabolites. These metabolites, substances formed in or necessary for metabolism, are instrumental in the route to treating pain caused by nerve damage. Scientists identified the metabolite, N,N-dimethylsphingosine (DMS), and by inserting it into healthy rats, found that it was indeed involved in neuropathic pain. But to what degree is animal testing, in this case rats, ethical? In this experiment, scientists surgically damaged rats’ paws only with the expectation, no certainty, that a pain treatment for humans would be discovered. They also implanted DMS into healthy rats to determine the metabolite’s function, causing pain and harm to the rats. In my opinion, no animal should suffer for the improvement of another species. Animal testing is simply unjust.

Not only is animal testing limited to prescription drugs, but it is also used in other industries. For example, The Draize Eye test conducts inhumane experiments on conscious albino rabbits. In this test, scientists place 100 milligrams of a concentrated solution, such as shampoos, household detergents, and pesticides, in the eyes of these rabbits, who are typically immobilized with a head restraint. This test can last anywhere from 7-18 days while the rabbits’ eyes are held open with a clip. These innocent animals must endure such pain and suffering solely for human benefits. Animal testing is also common within the manufacturing of cosmetics. The Lethal Dose 50 test uses mascaras, lipsticks, skin care products, etc. to investigate a substance’s dosage that will kill 50% of the animals given the dosage. This experiment manipulates and sometimes destroys animals’ lives for human value. Not only is this experiment unethical, but it has a limited significance when applied to humans. These two examples show the wrongdoings of animal testing and provide only a small portion of the animal testing spectrum.

False benefits of animal experimentation serve as a strong opposition to animal testing. Andrew Rice, a neuropathic pain expert, describes such a drawback to Sanderson’s experiment. He states, “[the current animal model for pain] only corresponds to pain resulting from trauma, and not to the many other sources of neuropathic pain.” In other words, animal testing in search for a possible pain treatment is only useful when an individual suffers from pain resulting from trauma. Animal testing is not beneficial when the pain corresponds to diabetes, HIV infection, or stroke (Rice). Knowing this, wouldn’t you agree that there simply is not enough certainty about animal testing? Does it really help humans, or is it just a means of trial and error? Even if scientists discover conclusions using animals, there is a high chance that it may not actually work accordingly to humans. There are biological differences between animals and humans, and animal experiments often depend on the animal being tested. A product that does not affect rats could possibly be humanly fatal. From a realistic standpoint, there is no concrete evidence stating that animal testing will, without a doubt, support humans.

As rats are commonly used in laboratories for experimentation, so is the human’s closest ancestor, the chimpanzee. According to the article, “Great ape debate,” the chimpanzee has been historically used for scientific research dating back to polio and hepatitis vaccine developments. The opposition of chimpanzee research has reached a historic high as the United States is the only country in which these experiments are conducted. If chimpanzees are our closest ancestors, why is research continuing to be done on these animals? Through animal testing, chimpanzees are held in their non-habitats (with little to no interaction with one another) and are consistently presented to dangers during an experiment’s execution. While there is current legislation prohibiting the use of chimpanzees in research, it is unlikely that anything will be implemented as a result of our struggling economy. It is important that Congress, as well as our society, understand animal testings’ profound effects.

PETA, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, provides a strong position in the fight against animal testing. PETA’s article, “Alternative: Testing without Torture,” offers alternatives that would replace animal testing. Not only would these alternatives save countless lives of animals, but they would also be more reliable and cost efficient. Such possibilities are human population comparative studies and in vitro studies. Studies of human populations “allow scientists to discover the root causes of human disorders and diseases so that preventive action can be taken.” Human studies have proven to be beneficial in history. For example, they were an important factor in the discovery of the relationship between smoking and cancer and the transmission of AIDS and other infection diseases. In vitro (cell and tissue matter) studies are beneficial to the human population, because they screen for many different types of drugs and are used to test vaccines and antibiotics. While animal experimenters focus on the manipulation of innocent animals, clinical investigators ensure that there is no harm done to their participants. With these alternatives so readily available, animal testing should be banned and considered immoral.

Next time you go reaching for that typical prescription drug, or any other household product, think about how that item was created and produced. Animal testing harms those animals involved, and it does not always help further scientific research. The idea that the drugs were created through unethical means would be enough to prevent the purchasing of such medications and products.


Works Cited
Sanderson, Katharine. "Rat Helps Pinpoint Pain Molecule." Nature. Nature Publishing Group, 22 Jan. 2012. Web. 10 Feb. 2012. <http://www.nature.com/news/rat-helps-pinpoint-pain-molecule-1.9871>.

"Great Ape Debate." Nature. Nature Publishing Group, 15 June 2011. Web. 14 Feb. 2012. <http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v474/n7351/full/474252a.html>.

"Alternatives: Testing Without Torture." People For The Ethical Treatment of Animals. Web. 14 Feb. 2012. <http://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-experimentation/alternatives-testing-without-torture.aspx>.

Can we trust animal testing?

The National Anti-Vivisection Society (NAVS) currently ranks adverse drug reactions as the fourth leading cause of death. If this is the case, why does research and drug testing on animals still continue? The animal testing debate has split our society in half: animal activists and those eager to find cures. The editorial “Mouse Megascience,” discusses the need to promote and defend animal research continuation, specifically mice research. Those against animal research commonly signify the practice as a “necessary evil” (“Mouse Megascience”). The National Anti-Vivisection Society states that those who oppose animal research believe that the main problems encountered include animal pain and suffering, the medical field’s false progress, and animal and human differences.

The editorial, “Mouse Megascience” claims that mice “have become an important biomedical model”. The progression of mice research will soon create every gene modification possible, as well as the possibility to phenotype mice characteristics. The International Mouse Phenotyping Consortium (IMPC), the biggest group favoring mice research and phenotyping, says that “just” $900 million will allow scientists to phenotype 4,000 mutants in a five-year span. With such a high cost, the IMPC asks others for funding to complete their plan; spreading their opinions to a more varied audience would generate the best increase in funding. The IMPC argues that even though phenotyping costs are outrageously high, better technology will decrease costs. But how long can we wait for this new technology to be created before we have spent too much money on mice research?

When performing medical tests on animals, most animals exhibit pain and suffering disregarded by the scientist, a moral wrongdoing (NAVS). To us, animals seem to exist solely for us to use as we see fit. By removing them from their natural habitats we inflict physical and physiological pain (not to mention family isolation, depression, and the anxiety that can all form once their homes are removed). As humans we do not realize the pain we perpetrate because we have the freedom to make our own choices with the knowledge we acquired and language, but animals lack this trait and therefore cannot refuse or oppose treatments imposed. Even though animals cannot communicate with humans, they should be considered fellow living creatures that share our environment, not a medical resource. Take a moment and imagine switching positions; how would you feel to be under a constant scope of experiments, injected with various drugs, and possibly facing death?

Misleading advertised “cures” stand to be the second opposition to animal testing. How many times have you seen news broadcasting a new drug created that has “cured” a disease, only to find out that it’s success was observed in animals, not humans? It appears that humans use animals to determine if drugs are safe and efficacious. But as stated earlier, drug reactions are the fourth leading cause of death worldwide. This statistic should be very surprising since scientists and doctors tell us the drugs we take are supposed to make us better, not have the opposite effect. To further convince you the false drug advertisement, researchers have also found drugs to be 30-60% effective. With such alarming statistics, why do we use animals to create drugs that have such high chances to kill us and/or create an adverse reaction? And can we really trust the drugs being prescribed to us?

Differences between animals and humans serve as the third and final opposition to animal medical tests. Although animals and people have many similar characteristics and organs, animal’s genotype (genetic makeup which determines how and when animals react to medication) differs greatly. This difference can create many unusual reactions and responses. In early research, scientists tried to determine the basic body structures and the body’s internal composition, but now, research has turned to drug testing to produce cures. Many scientists know that the differences between animals and humans can cause complications when given the same drug, but scientists still chose to continue using animal research to create effective drugs. For example, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) tested 12 anti-cancer drugs that researchers found to be helpful in cancer revolving problems. While these drugs were effective in animals, this same drug proved to be only 37% effect in humans; a 63% failure. How do we trust the drugs being given to us even when they say that animal testing has proven the substance to be safe, when in reality the drugs attest to be ineffective?

To reduce animal testing we must create different ways to test substances (such as drugs) that does not involve animals. Many times we forget that crucial medicinal advances have come from human research and observation. Dr. Ray Greek, President of Americans for Medical Advancement (NAVS) states that animal testing has lost its suitability for research because we have surpassed the adequate human modeling through animals. Therefore, mice and other animal testing should not be used to advance. But future are said to potentially reduce animal testing and find alternatives to testing drugs. Finally, after surveying a group I found that many would not prefer to be lying on a table while inspected/tested and that as long as animal testing continues we cannot trust the drugs prescribed because of uncertainty in drug reactions. Unfortunately, alternatives to animal testing have not been discovered and the discovery of them is long overdue. But $900 million the IMPC wants could instead be used to search for more reliable and effective alternatives to animal testing.


Works Cited:
“Mice Megascience.” 02 June 2010: 465-7298. Nature: International weekly journal of science. Web. 15 Feb. 2012.

Nose is Most Prone to Injury

Obesity in America is among high concern of many of its citizens. Because of this, Precautionary actions such as physical fitness activities are on the rise. Many Americans have begun taking part in team sports. The most popular team sports are soccer, baseball, softball, and basketball. Because of this rise in physical fitness, injuries related to sports have subsequently also been increasing. Because of the prominent location of the nose, that is of the most common occurrence in sports related injuries. Because of its location and its functional and cosmetic importance, the evaluation and management of nasal injuries presents a challenge to head and neck surgeons, as well as primary care physicians and emergency department staff. A study was conducted to review the characteristics of nasal injuries in a series of patients who had been treated by the author of “Characteristics of nasal injuries incurred during sports activities: Analysis of 91 patients,” Dr. Rob Cannon.

It is generally accepted that nasal bone fracture is the most common of all facial bone fractures and these injuries have been found to account for about 10% of all sports-related injuries. In a prospective study of 140 patients with facial fractures incurred during an athletic event, Maladière et al reported that 13.3% had a facial bone fracture; of this group, the nasal bone was involved in 15.6% of cases. In a survey of facial plastic surgeons, Perkins et al found that 21% of facial fractures and 29% of nasal fractures had been experienced by patients aged 17 years or younger who had been engaging in a sports-related activity. This is the age group where most people will be taking acts in team sports, during high school there are a high number of athletes, bringing in the most number of injuries.

In a table created by the document, a study with 91 patients showed that 83 of those nasal injuries (91.2%) occurred during a team-sport event. 54 injuries (59.3%) occurred during an organized sporting event as opposed to recreational play. 40 injuries (44.0%) occurred during a game. 35 injuries (38.5%) occurred during a high school or college event, in which there is a high level of skill and competitive effort.  Only 12 injuries (13.2%) occurred during a contact sport like football. This shows that you don’t have to participate in a contact sport to get injured. The competitive nature of humans is what creates the risk for injuries. Anyone and everyone who plays a sport that has some level of competitiveness, and that can drive someone to get hurt or hurt somebody else, and since it was organized play rather than recreational play, we can tell that there was something to win or lose at stake, which raises the level of competitiveness, consequently rising the risk of injury. 32 cases needed to have surgery performed, but almost all of them were able to return to their sport after about 6 weeks.
Most doctors can tell quickly if a nose is broken or not, based on the shape of it, if there is a C shaped inward dent (like shown below), that is a dead giveaway that it is broken, but they still decide to use x-rays and other scans to make sure that there is nothing else wrong with the patients face.

Along with nasal fractures, some patients developed other injuries as well. The most common injury to come along with a nose fracture is a concussion. A concussion is an injury that causes trauma to the head. Symptoms of a concussion include dizziness, inability to remember, inability to balance, headache, poor eye sight, and others. With a concussion alone you must wait one week of being symptom free in order to return to physical activities. Along with a concussion, one can break other bones, or even damage the soft tissue around the injured area. This can be found using the x-rays and other scans and treated accordingly. Finally, facial injuries other than fractures, septal injuries, and contusions are not common, but they can occur, so a careful initial head and neck examination is important

Most of the injuries were made during organized play, but was not done with illegal play. This means that all the play was allowed and unintentional. Only .24% had been done illegally, or against the rules. This made the author conclude that nasal fracture injuries and the injuries that come along with it are inadvertent, and thus unable to be avoided. While playing any organized sports game, certain risks are entailed and the player should be aware of these before they decide to continue to play in the sport.  The fact that this type of injury is unavoidable and done usually accidentally during legal play is probably what makes it so common amongst sports related injuries.

After injury, and especially after surgery, which implies a more significant and serious injury, a patient may need or choose to wear a splint, shield, or other type of protective device when resuming his or her sport or activity (like the one below.) Wearing such protection can lessen the chance of reinjuring the nose, especially during the fragile time of repair/ recovery of the initial injury. Like any injury, a second injury or re-damaging that area becomes more prone and reoccurrence of the injury can increase, so with that said extra caution is advised to anyone who experience a nasal fracture.

"Concussion- Overview." WebMD- Better Information, Better Help. WebMD, 10 June 2010. Web. 10 Feb. 2012. <http://www.webmd.com/brain/tc/traumatic-brain-injury-concussion-overview>.

http://ehis.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=1e30f976-e608-449a-a824-70d5b87a4a51%40sessionmgr110&vid=2&hid=102

"The Human Body is the Best Work of Art"

Hot dogs, pizza, potato chips, soda, and cheeseburgers all come to mind when I think of American foods. America is known for having a fairly large population of obesity and over eating. Most events we engage in involves food. If you go to a ball game there’s a concession stand, if you have a meeting to attend there is probably finger foods, If you host a party more than likely you provide your guest with h’orderves, bar-b-que’s, holiday dinners, etc. Sadly there are many people struggling to maintain a healthy and balanced diet and tend to overeat, but what about that small percentage of people who don’t eat enough? Anorexia is a very serious psychiatric disorder in which those suffering from it feel their best only by being as thin as possible.

I stumbled upon two works discussing the “hush-hush” issue of women battling Anorexia nervosa. “The Other Side of Well-being-What Makes a Young Woman Become Anorectic?” is a scholarly journal discussing research aiming to unfold the factors that cause young women to be come anorectic. Similarly, I found an article on the online source of the New York Times about a personal perspective of anorexia. Because of the first hand experience of anorexia, the author of the NYT article had a more personal tone and rhetoric as compared to the journal with educational and research based text.

The scholarly journal refers to the Western world’s idea of beauty. Everyone wants to look like what they see in magazines and on television, which is a size 0-2 model. Ironically enough, most people are “fatter than ever.” According to Savukoski, author of the journal, the eating disorder the disease became aware to the public in the late 1990s. Savukoski seems to center her research on the idea that the media is to blame for the causation of this disorder. “Media, indeed, maintains the excessive glorification of slimness and the idea of beauty resulting first and foremost from skinny slimness. Slimness seems to guarantee succeeding and doing nicely in life.”

Abby Ellin, author of the NYT article, is a physician and author of “highly respected” journals who suffered from Anorexia nervosa starting at the age of fifteen. She claims that having this disorder did not stop her from being functional; yet, measuring the seriousness of the disease using functionality is not very effective. Luckily, she was apart of the “one third will recover” group, however what “recovery” is when it comes to being anorectic is controversial.

I found these works helpful in defending my point of view in that young women, you are beautiful no matter what some guy says, what you see on TV, or what anyone has told you. Love yourself for who you are physically, mentally, as well as emotionally. Self-distortion, low self-esteem, and having poor body images is not a way of life.


Savukoski, Marika. "The Other Side of Well-being- What Makes a Young Woman Become Anorectic?" International Journal of Psychology 3.2 (2011). Print.



Ellin, Abby. "With Anorexia, Total Recovery Is Elusive." New York Times. 25 Apr. 2011. Web. 8 Feb. 2012. 

Picture: Santy Ago/ Flickr

<http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/26/health/26anorexia.html>.

Coffee to the rescue!

Photo credit: amanda28192 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/amanda28192/6216031916/)

Parkinson’s disease (PD) is the second most common neurodegenerative disease found in adults ages 50 and up. Research has tried to narrow down the cause to just one factor, but scientists have found that genetic and environmental factors are both at cause. While it is believed that genetic factors are a great influence in early cases of PD, environmental factors are a greater influence in the formation of PD in the elderly. Currently there is no cure, but recent studies by scientists from the Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease have showed that regular intake of caffeine can reduce chances of developing Parkinson’s disease by about 25 percent.

The main goal to finding a cure for PD is to fully understand how and why symptoms of Parkinson’s occur. Common symptoms include bradykinesia (slow movements), rigidity and body tremors. These symptoms are usually caused by damaged motor skills and olfactory nerves, and loss of memory functions in the dopamine section of the brain due to dopamine degeneration. Dopamine degeneration is the process that slowly eats away certain parts of the brain called neuroprotectors. These neuroprotectors allow for control of the body and motor skills each in person. Since Parkinson’s is such a common burdening disease around the world scientists have created several studies in order to decrease its occurrence; particularly the study of the relationship between caffeine and PD.

In the research study from the Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease a group of scientists searched the databases of Medline, LILACS (Latin America and Caribbean), Scopus and Web of Science in order to select and analyze a particular group of people that would fit their intended experiment. Studies included both cohort and case studies but did however exclude those samples that had short-term exposure to coffee. With a total of 134 reports, ages ranging from 42 to 77 years, the experiment analyzed the findings to denote the relationship between Parkinson’s and the intake of caffeine. Because of the wide range of caffeine sources, the study mostly focused on coffee and tea consumption, but some group studies did include caffeinated beverages and chocolate products. While experimenting, scientists looked at the cerebral cortex that is divided into four sections (frontal lobe, temporal lobe, occipital lobe, and the parietal lobe) each of which have their own function in reference to the five senses. The cortex was analyzed to see what caffeine does to the brain that improves PD. Scientists found that caffeine enhances the activity of neurons therefore constantly restoring/replacing the dying neurons.

So as you sit there, reading this post and possibly drinking something, consider a cup of coffee instead of whatever you have in your hand right now. Research from the Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease found that PD was reduced by 25% in those who consumed caffeine regularly throughout their lives. And from personal experience, Parkinson’s can possibly destroy family relations because of the constant burden it creates of taking care of the elder suffering. In the late stages of PD the brain almost completely shuts down, appetite decreases, and memory loss occurs. Another reason to drink coffee on top of all the negatives is fine by me. Coffee drinkers unite!


Prediger R. “Effects of Caffeine in Parkinson’s Disease: From Neuroprotection to the Management of Motor and Non-Motor Symptoms.” Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease 20:205-220. 2010. Web. 10 Feb. 2012.

Biological factors in respect to gender identity and sexual orientation

Suppose that you are biologically and physically a male, but on the inside, you feel as though you are female. What could possibly cause this unorthodox feeling? You find the answer from none other than the brain. The human brain plays a major role in sexual differentiation in relation to gender identity as well as sexual orientation. These sex differences are expressed in human behavior following the first few days of birth until adulthood. For example, when infants are 3-8 months old, girls tend to choose to play with dolls while boys prefer toy cars and balls; however, there are individuals who do not identify with these normal feelings and behaviors. In the article, "Sexual differentiation of the human brain,” biological factors, such as mutations and structural and functional brain differences, can result in conflicting gender identities and sexual orientations.

Sexual differentiation of the genitals takes place at a much earlier state than sexual differentiation of the brain. Once the differentiation of sexual organs is established, sexual differentiation of the brain occurs. This process involves a direct effect of testosterone on the developing human brain. Individuals who are present to their standard levels of testosterone in the womb will develop normally and healthy. Sometimes, however, mutations can occur within the womb. For example, girls who are exposed to high testosterone levels in the womb are more likely to choose boys as playmates and display certain typical male personality characteristics. Furthermore, a male fetus that does not successfully allow the transformation of testosterone into dihydrotestosterone (a male sex hormone) will result in a ‘girl’ with a large clitoris. These children are typically raised as girls, but the occurrence of puberty raises many questions for how the children should then continue to live. Because testosterone levels increase, some of these children will choose to live as heterosexual males. This is important in the establishment of gender identity. If an individual is biologically a female, is she obligated to live her life as a female or should she decide based on how she feels inside? Thus, testosterone levels prove to play a crucial role during pregnancy in the development of such sex differences in behavior.

Sexual orientation refers to the gender to which a person is attracted. Much like gender identity, sexual orientation is determined during early development as a result of genetics. Both structural and functional brain differences can cause differences in sexual orientation among individuals. The suprachiasmatic nucleus, a structure within the hypothalamus of the brain, can be attributed to sexual orientation. D.F. Swabb found the suprachiasmatic nucleus to be nearly twice the size in homosexual men as heterosexual men. In his research with laboratory rats and ATD, an aromatase inhibitor, D.F. Swabb was able to support his hypothesis that an increased number of vasopressin neurons found in the suprachiasmatic nucleus of adult homosexual men is strongly correlated with differences among sex hormones and the brain early in development. The X-chromosome is also believed to play a role in sexual orientation, because it encompasses genes involved in sex and reproduction. Hamer and colleagues found linkage between DNA markers on the X chromosome and male sexual orientation. The significance of these functions relates to how individuals identify with people of the same or opposite sexes and can help individuals identify with their sexual orientation. The suprachiasmatic nucleus and X chromosome thus prove to be important elements in respect to sexual orientation.

The causes behind gender identity and sexual orientation have been an increasingly controversial debate. Information based on the findings of D.F. Swabb has shown that differences in gender identity and sexual orientation are a result of biological factors. With understanding of these concepts, individuals may finally be able to assess and understand their own behaviors and feelings.



Photo Credit: B1SHOP

Research Funding

Ceaira Mckoy
Feeder 1.1
Funding Scientific Research is very expensive. I have to admit I am guilty of ignoring the importance of the monetary compensation of such strenuous processes. When doing assignments for class I merely go to the Internet and google necessary information, or go to the library respectively. Where would the world be without scientific research? How can we afford to discover scientific phenomena? I have stumbled upon two articles with opposing view points where funding comes from and where it should come from. The arguments in these sources is, “should funding for such research come from nontraditional sources, or is it the responisibility of the government to fund research in improvement of citizens’ health?”

“As the director of the US National Cancer Institute (NCI) and a senior adviser to the director, we and others have developed a different way to manage a significant portion of the agency's research portfolio. Our Provocative Questions initiative asks investigators to propose intriguing questions in cancer research that need attention but would usually find it difficult to get. The initiative does not replace the NCI's traditional reliance on the imaginations of individual investigators; nor does it intend to restate obvious goals. Instead, it aims to engage a diverse range of scientists in a challenging intellectual exercise to define then solve the major unsolved or neglected problems in oncology.” This quote contains the thesis statement, from the article. The purpose of the article was to raise awareness that institutions such as the NCI need funding so that research is affordable for subject areas that are less studied. More specifically, funding from nontraditional sources: tax payers, benefactor, etc. This particular article chose to include drug mechanisms, cancer evolution, obesity risk, and ageing and cancer as specific under-studied topics.

This article opposes the article above. “According to the U.S. Constitution, one role of the government is to "promote the general welfare" of its people. This clearly means that the health of the citizens of the United States is important to the success of the nation. Also according to the United States Constitution, the Congress has the power to collect taxes that will pay for the general welfare of United States citizens as long as every American benefits equally.” As where the first article argued research funding needed to come from other sources, this article deems the federal government responsible for such monetary compensation. The article also goes on to say that the money taxpayers’ pay is not put to good use. This article doesn’t really hit the topics of under-studied areas, but as far as funding is concerned it is very clear that the author of the article hold the US accountable for the necessary funds. The author feels strongly on the misuse of the moneys the government receives from taxes, and states that Ideally, the U.S. government will stop spending trillions of our tax dollars on military equipment and conquests. Instead of finding new ways of killing people with unmanned aircraft and depleted uranium bombs they will spend that money on trying to save the lives of American taxpayers.






Works Cited

Varmus, Harold, and Ed Harlow. "Science Funding: Provocative Questions in Cancer Research." Nature.com. Nature Publishing Group, 25 Jan. 2012. Web. 26 Jan. 2012 <http://www.nature.com/doifinder/10.1038/481436a>.




Crain, Sandi. ""Should the Government Fund Cancer Research?"" Helium.com. Helium, Inc., 10 Apr. 2010. Web. 30 Jan. 2012. <http://www.helium.com/debates/106766-should-the-government-fund-cancer-research/side_by_side>.

Animal Testing

Animal testing is a very controversial topic raising many different opinions. Many people believe that animal testing is beneficial for the human population and should be utilized. Others believe that it is unethical for humans to torture animals for their own benefit. The Articles “Rats Help Pinpoint Pain Molecule” and “Making the Choice to be Against Animal Testing” both admit to some beneficial aspects to animal testing, but explain the positive and negative costs of animal testing respectively.

In Katharine Sanderson’s article, “Rats Help Pinpoint Pain Molecule,” she speaks about how thousands of small molecules involved in the body's metabolism may have uncovered a potential route to treating pain caused by nerve damage. In order to test this, scientists surgically damaged the paws of rats, which were then suffering from neuropathic pain, and analyzed their metabolites, those small molecules mentioned above. Samples of the injured rats’ blood plasma, of tissue near the injured paw, and of tissue from different areas of the spinal column, and compared the metabolites present with that of the same site in healthy rats. Using cultures of spinal cord cells the researchers then tried to work out which of the altered metabolites might be responsible for pain. One molecule, the previously unidentified metabolite N,N-dimethylsphingosine, stood out for the amount of pain signaling it triggered in the cells. To test experimentally whether this molecule was involved in neuropathic pain, the team then injected small amounts of DMS into healthy rats, and sure enough, those rats showed signs of pain. Using these rats, scientists are not able to help neuropathic pain that is developed in humans

On the contrary, the article “Making the Choice to be Against Animal Testing,” testing on animals is not a good idea at all. According to the article, animal tests are not required by law and often produce inaccurate and misleading results. So, even if they do find good results that could potentially help the lives of humans, it may not actually work on humans. The worst part is, even if the product has harmed an animal, it can still be marketed to us. According to People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), hundreds of thousands of animals are poisoned, blinded or killed every year in outdated ineffective product tests for personal care and household products. So, the animals are being tortured to try and help humans, but in the some cases, they may not even be helping. But in some cases it does help, which is what makes the process legal. If it is helpful in some way, it is not totally a stupid idea. However, the author of this article tries to sway people to turn “cruelty free” and instead, look for products, companies, etc. that do not use animal testing in their products for these reasons.

When you go to the drug store and pick up a prescription, the first thing you think about probably isn’t how the drug was developed or tested. Most likely, it was tested on an animal, and that animal most likely suffered for it. However, if in the long run it could potentially help humans, in this case be neuropathically pain free, then I think it is beneficial. Who knows, testing on animals could help find the cure for Cancer. No one really knows for sure what the outcome is going to be with animal testing, but it definitely could makes the lives of millions Americans easier in the future.

Works Cited


"Against Animal Testing - A Caring Choice." Natural Living for Women. 2011. Web. 31 Jan. 2012. <http://www.natural-living-for-women.com/against-animal-testing.html>.

Sanderson, Katharine. "Rat Helps Pinpoint Pain Molecule." Nature Publishing Group. Nature.com, 22 Jan. 2012. Web. 31 Jan. 2012. <http://www.nature.com/news/rat-helps-pinpoint-pain-molecule-1.9871>.

Gene Therapy

Elizabeth Fedele

The author’s Ewen Callaway and Dr. Mae-Wan Ho have very different viewpoints on gene therapy. Callaway presents an idealistic world where the gene therapy is successful every time, while Dr. Mae-Wan Ho makes gene therapy look bleak and inconsistent with examples of when and how gene therapy has failed. Gene therapy is a procedure that could alter the lives of it’s patients; although depending on which article you believe more, it could be for the better or for the worse.

In ‘UK sets sights on gene therapy in Eggs’, the author Ewen Callaway, writes an article on how in the United Kingdom, scientists are testing techniques that combine both the parent’s DNA, and then an outside third parties mitochondrial DNA. By doing this, scientists are giving the child a chance to lead a normal life, because mitochondrial deficiencies can cause muscular dystrophy and neurogenerative disorders. This topic is controversial because this process involves the destroying of fertilized eggs, which as of right now is illegal in the United Kingdom. Callaway makes an argument that by making this process legal, it could be saving the 1 in 5000 people that are affected by neurogenerative disorders. This number may seem like an abstract idea, as many statistics do, but the idea that it could be your child with diseases, and there is something out there that could possibly prevent it, makes potential parents think about their feelings on the matter.

In ‘Gene Therapy Woes’, the author Dr. Mae-Wan Ho, writes an article explaining the negative effects of gene therapy. Gene therapy can cause death by toxic shock, leukemia, and immune responses to the viral vector. Dr. Mae-Wan Ho also talks about how some scientists believe that it is not ethical. Scientists and other people believe that it is not ethical because ethic codes require that clinical research must be capable of generating valuable medical knowledge, and often times, gene trials fail to do this.

There's still a lot of testing on gene therapy that needs to be done. Although it has a long way to go, there could be a good chance that it could positively effect many people's lives. We cannot know the full effects of gene therapy until testing is complete.




Works Cited

Callaway, Ewen. "UK Sets Sights on Gene Therapy in Eggs : Nature News & Comment." Nature Publishing Group : Science Journals, Jobs, and Information. 24 Jan. 2012. Web. 06 Feb. 2012. <http://www.nature.com/news/uk-sets-sights-on-gene-therapy-in-eggs-1.9883>.

Mae-Won Ho, Dr. "Gene Therapy Woes." The Institute of Science In Society. Web. 06 Feb. 2012. <http://www.i-sis.org.uk/GTW.php>.