After three years and much hesitation, I, DoubleH (HH, Homer, and H-dog are also accepted), return to you with a much awaited blog. Is this for you? Ehhh, not really, but I hope you enjoy it anyway!
Aging in and of itself isn't a disease. It's not a single thing that we can say, oh, the symptom of aging is this so let's give De this experimental drug and see what happens. It is a process that is determined by an intrinsic rate (our genetic disposition) and an extrinsic rate (determined by our environment: epigenetics-yes, it's back). While this process increases our susceptibility to diseases such as Alzheimers and common bacterial and viral infections, it's not something we can 'cure' with a drug. We CAN prolong aging, however. Episode 1 (trust me, better than the Phantom Menace) of this blog on aging is about that wonderful drug that everyone thought was incredible for you back in the day: blueberries. Well, not blueberries but what's in blueberries. Antioxidants. Scientists thought that if you took a ridiculous amount of antioxidants you could slow the progression of aging.
Before I continue let's get a quick background on the science behind antioxidants. In our day-to-day lives we produce what are known as reactive oxygen species (ROS). ROS are free radical molecules. This means that they have a single unpaired electron and are therefore incredibly reactive with the other molecules in their vicinity and can kill surrounding tissue and cells. Our body's defenses produces enzymes to neutralize these internal destructors. Scientists used to believe (and for some the jury is still out-this is an incredibly complicated topic when studied in depth) that over time, these free radicals would lead to cellular aging. They thought that taking large quantities of antioxidants, less reactive molecules that will donate an electron to quench the free radical, would prevent this process.
Stay with me-this is where it gets good. Our natural quencher is called SOD-1. It works with catalase to get these free radicals out of our mitochondria (where most ROS are found). Scientists found that giving paraquat, a pesticide that increases free radicals in the body, actually INCREASES lifespan. WHAT?! That's nuts. Taking pesticides can lengthen lifespan? Kids, don't try this at home-the experiment was done in C. elegans, a model organism worm. Research found that giving these worms pesticides increased the amount of SOD-1 in the body, allowing for better disposal of free radicals. Antioxidants on the other hand show no true benefit in increased lifespan, and some experiments even show them being detrimental to the body.
Next Time: Caloric Restriction-how eating less will make you live longer. Beware! Treatment has been show to increase irritability in all patients.
Sunday, November 29, 2015
Monday, April 15, 2013
Can "The Man" Own Your Genes?
DNA. It’s in our blood. And
recently, it’s also been in the news. This Monday, the Association for Molecular Pathology
is going up against Myriad Genetics in the Federal Supreme Court.
Myriad recently spent millions of dollars researching possible causes for
cancer, and found two genes to be associated with breast and ovarian cancer.
These genes have a high yield in predicting who will have cancer and who won’t. For those of you who don’t know, this is a huge breakthrough with the
potential to save thousands or even millions of lives. Now, Myriad wants to
patent these genes. And why? For money of course! And you may ask ‘Why would this have to go in
front of the Supreme Court?’ Well, for the first time our
constitution is vague and ambiguous on a topic, if you can imagine that. Like
the other posts on the blog, I’m going to state both sides of the argument, and
then attempt to bash the side I disagree with just for fun.
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by
securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to
their respective Writings and Discoveries.
-US Constitution
Patents
were debated to be founded anywhere from 1331 in England to 1474 in Italy, and
were and are used as an incentive for inventors. Essentially, the inventor of
the patent, and the inventor alone, can sell his invention for a given number
or years before others start copying the invention and selling it themselves.
This gives the inventor a huge leg up on other inventors because it allows him
to make money off of his invention without any competition, which the
government presumed the inventor may spend creating another invention, and
furthering science and perhaps the economy. In the United States, however, one
may not patent nature. National Public Radio used Albert Einstein as an
example, saying “even though it may have taken Einstein a long time to figure
out that E=mc2, he couldn't have patented that
law of nature.” Many argue that
DNA is part of nature. Is it not? Isn’t it inside each and every one of us, and
for that matter, every living organism known to man?
Myriad
takes a different standpoint. Gregory Castanias, Myriad's lawyer, states the
following on the findings of the genes: "it is the final step in an
extraordinarily complicated set of inventive actions that led to the creation
of this molecule, which had never been available to the world before."
Well Mr. Castanias, congratulations. You found the genes. But, you failed to
invent anything through your findings, and they are part of nature, so these
patents should be illegal!
From
an ethical standpoint, it’s terrible that Myriad Genetics is attempting to
patent these genes. By patenting them, the company is preventing any and all
research to be done on them for a large number of years. During this time,
millions of patients will be dying of the cancers that the study of these genes
can prevent.
However,
one cannot be this blunt without feeling bad for Myriad Genetics. They invested
millions of dollars in research to find these genes, and yet, other than the
benefit of helping the world, they get no money in return. Should they? If so,
what should they get and where should it come from? If not, why don’t they
deserve it?
Sunday, March 31, 2013
Are Asians Smarter Than Everyone Else?
“Of course you’re good at math, you’re Asian.”
“You’re black, of
course you can play basketball.”
“A Jew? Are you going
to be a doctor or a lawyer?”
Stereotypes
are not novel phenomena, and they’re not going away anytime soon either. They
permeate almost every level of society world-wide, and blur the line between fact
and fiction. So how can we know what’s true and what’s false if all of these
stereotypes are jumbled around in our heads? Answer: Science! There are
hundreds of stereotypes that I could pull from the top of my head, but so as
not to bore you, I will question the legitimacy of one of the most popular: Are
Asians actually more intelligent than other races? If so, why?
A
plethora of studies legitimize that the SATs are a good indicator of
intelligence and future success. Using statistics categorized by race from
1986-2011, researchers found that white and Asian students always scored higher
than any other races. Specifically, Asians have consistently scored higher in
the mathematics section, while white students have consistently scored higher
in the reading section. The fact that Asians don’t score higher in both
categories may suggest that there are different genes dictating proficiency in each
one. Or perhaps, the categories that Asians excel in are simply rooted in their
culture.
To
fully understand the origination and legitimacy of stereotypes, it is important
to consider the basis of these observations: the priorities of the culture
(nurture), and the genes of the race (nature).
Eastern culture differs from Western culture in that the East values collectivism while
the West values individualism. Collectivism values the group over the
individual, while individualism is about being self-reliant and unique. Perhaps
this difference in values contributes to the priorities that each culture sets.
Because Eastern culture is more interested in improving the group, they may not
be concerned with “finding themselves,” and instead stress the importance of
mathematical intelligence rather than creative thinking and reading. The East
may also be less concerned with social life and more concerned with intellect,
discipline, and good working habits, which would also account for Asian
superiority in their given fields.
But
is intelligence just based on cultural priorities? Or is there something biologically
different in Asians that makes them more intelligent? Science says there is.
General intelligence is heritable, and by following the gene FNBP1L, a known
gene that predicts high intelligence, scientists were able to anticipate who
would and would not be generally smart. So do Asians simply have better genes?
Or is there another chapter to the story? Is there a motivation gene? If so,
would it be more prevalent in Eastern cultures? Would a contrast in genes
result in the difference in culture? What are your thoughts?
By Project 80
Monday, January 28, 2013
The Quadruple Helix: Why much of what you know is a lie!
post by Andrew Verdesca
If you were to look at the world 100 years ago, it would look very different. Antibiotics hadn’t yet been developed, smoking was not linked to cancer, proteins were believed to be the method for transmitting genetic material instead of DNA… The list goes on and on. Science has a history of constantly adapting its most prevalent theories to adapt to experimental data. Which is good, buy and large. I mean, imagine a world where people still believed that smoking was good for you. But one of the consequences of this adaptability is the rapid obsoletion of information. In short, what you learn today, particularly in science class, could be proved wrong at any time.
If you were to look at the world 100 years ago, it would look very different. Antibiotics hadn’t yet been developed, smoking was not linked to cancer, proteins were believed to be the method for transmitting genetic material instead of DNA… The list goes on and on. Science has a history of constantly adapting its most prevalent theories to adapt to experimental data. Which is good, buy and large. I mean, imagine a world where people still believed that smoking was good for you. But one of the consequences of this adaptability is the rapid obsoletion of information. In short, what you learn today, particularly in science class, could be proved wrong at any time.
This
recently manifested itself when Cambridge scientists announced that they had
observed DNA in a quadruple-helix in human cells. Ever since Watson, Crick, and
Rosalind determined sixty years ago that DNA in cells was arranged in two
complimentary strands in cells, the idea of a DNA double helix has remained
generally unquestioned. The possibility of a quadruple helix of DNA has been
explored by science, but it’s never been observed in cells until now. This
so-called “G-complex” (four guanine molecules) is most often seen during DNA
synthesis, implying that it has a role in DNA synthesis.
In
his book, The Half-Life of Facts, Samuel Arabson argues that the half-life of
truth is just 45 years. This means, that in 45 years,
half of what you now consider to be fact
will be proved untrue. Since the 1960s, overall scientific knowledge has
grown by the steady rate of 4.7% per year. The growth of scientific knowledge
has largely helped to dispel many of these delusions, but it has also
inadvertently created some of its own.
In 2011, for example, a study in Nature reported that a team of researchers over 10 years was able to accurately reproduce the results of only six out of 53 landmark papers in cancer research. Statistician John Ioannides concludes, “For many current scientific fields, claimed research findings may often be simply accurate measures of the prevailing bias.”
In 2011, for example, a study in Nature reported that a team of researchers over 10 years was able to accurately reproduce the results of only six out of 53 landmark papers in cancer research. Statistician John Ioannides concludes, “For many current scientific fields, claimed research findings may often be simply accurate measures of the prevailing bias.”
Speculations about inaccuracy aside, I leave
you with this. How long do you think it will be before the current Pingry
curriculum is out-of-date? What do you
think the half-life of truth is, and why?
Sunday, January 27, 2013
No Sleep Treats Depression?
Couch (A. Vella) on Sleep Deprivation
At Journal Club this week Guarav
presented about sleep deprivation. The paper he discussed covered the positive
effects of sleep deprivation on the clinically depressed.
Here is a copy of the article although for many it will probably
be a little dense and rather confusing. Essentially it is building off the
hypothesis that two negatives make a positive.
While depression is terrible and takes
over your life, leaving you unable to eat right or sleep well or learn normally
and complete sleep deprivation causes hallucination, increased blood pressure,
and even depression. Somehow a mix of the two can lead to very temporary
improvements in depressed patients.
An increased level of dopamine was
found in the depressed who were forced to stay awake for 32 hours, making them
more or less, happy.
This seems to defy common sense and
raises a whole lot of questions. Why are they happier? Can there really be a
path to follow here that could be a real treatment for depression? Do you think
this "treatment strategy" could work for other negatives such as
starvation and depression?
We've all been there, running on just a
few hours of sleep, with a short temper, and even shorter attention span. Could
there really be a treatment hidden here for depression? Do you think there
could be any long term benefits of sleep deprivation?
Feel free to share your opinions with us on sleep
deprivation, or depression, or even better, how you feel they're related.
Sunday, January 20, 2013
CURE CHEATING?
DOUBLE H ONLOVE
Written by Harrison Homer (Project 80 Senior Editor)
For all those who weren't there last Thursday for Luke De’s presentation on Love is like a Heroine High, I would recommend checking it out here Youtube (Is Love a Heroin High).. The video is a little crappy and it starts after the first minute, but De brought up some interesting albeit far fetched points in his last presentation. . . Upon further thought, were they that far fetched?
De based his presentation on biological research. It turns out that two hormones, and the cells that receive them are very important in monogamy. In fact, altering them can turn monogomous animals in to much less reputable and racy animals. The reverse is also true. The opposite alterations can turn the heathens of the animal worls into god-fearing, reputable, single, sexually faithful individuals.
The two main questions that I have received regarding the topic of the presentation are:
“Can love be quantified?” and
“if there were to be a a pill for cheating would it be ethical to use it?”
I came home Thursday ecstatic. What can I say? I love to argue and De’s presentation gave me a whole new playing field to work with. When discussing the article with my family, I came across a common argument. Can love be quantified simply by faithfulness? Personally yes, it can. But then again, I am the one writing the science blog, not the creative writing major. I may take a more quantitative rather than romantic opinion of love. But why shouldn’t love be able to be quantified, even in a romantic sense? Love is faithfulness: love is how far you will go to meet someone, what you will go through to see someone, who you won’t sleep with to be with someone-and all of this can (and was) quantified.
The second question is, "If there was a cure of cheating, an injection or a pill to make someone faithful, would it be ethical to use it?" Should we treat infidelity medically? First of all, my view is that people should not take it, and that it shouldn’t exist in the first place. If couples have to take a pill to be faithful, than what’s the difference between simply cheating and taking the pill? If you’re not going to be faithful by your own will to your partner, than you two should simply not be with each other. Biologically, would it be healthy to take this pill? If this pill were to give you a love high, and make you faithful, what’s the difference between this love drug and any other drug? My opinion; This drug is not a good idea. I do, however, believe that the paper opens up a whole new world of opportunities for researchers to discover.
CARE TO DISAGREE, OR EVEN WORSE PERHAPS. . . AGREE?
Sources
Sorry for the inconvenience,
HH
Tuesday, January 8, 2013
Atheism: A prerequisite to become a scientist?
Welcome to the first post in the Project80 Blog! As this post will
cover a controversial, deep, and intense topic, I hope to get some comments and
student involvement. Here goes!
What is the purpose of life?
To fully comprehend and to even begin to attempt to answer this question, a
definition of life is necessary. So, what is life? Here’s my definition. Life is
any living thing that abides by the following guidelines: the organism must
contain DNA, adapt or evolve in a change in its environment, be self
replicating (either sexually or asexually), use energy (metabolize), and be
sentient. Life consumes water, contains cell(s), and produce gas(ses) as well
as heat. These definitions will
help us to try and find the purpose of life, for, exemplified by all the
definitions above, life does not simply apply to humans. One must include
bacteria, fungi, reptiles, mammals, birds, etc. Thus, a strict biological
scientist might declare that the purpose of life is simply to reproduce. Most
biological functions of all organisms point to faculties that allow and help
reproduction.
However, I do not believe
that this is the only purpose for humans. Evolutionarily (or perhaps
religiously…whatever floats your boat), humans have become the most intelligent
beings on earth (that we know of). Like all other organisms, humans can
reproduce. However, in addition to this requisite, we also have incredibly
complex brains, which allow us to carry out abstract thought: concepts such as
philosophy, questions of morality, etc. So why would we “be granted” this
intelligence and yet have no reason to use it?
Neil deGrasse Tyson, a famous
atheist scientist, puts forth another interesting perspective. He notes “How about human life itself? If you are religious, you might
declare that the purpose of life is to serve God. But if you’re one of the 100
billion bacteria living and working in a single centimeter of our lower
intestine (rivaling, by the way, the total number of humans who have ever been
born) you would give an entirely different answer. You might instead say that
the purpose of human life is to provide you with a dark, but idyllic, anaerobic
habitat of fecal matter…”
Tyson concludes that true scientists must state
that there is no greater purpose or special meaning to life, and that a belief
in God and or a greater purpose to our existence is not necessary to explain
our existence and is therefore unscientific. Therefore he believes that the
true scientist must be an atheist. Do you agree? Do you think that he is
entitled do make this statement?
Sources:
image from: harmoniaphilosophica.wordpress.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)