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?

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

 Sources:

 http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/dev/25/2/217/

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2894685/  

http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/277/1681/529.full

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23358156

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9242404

http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=171

http://professional.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324162304578303992108696034.html?mg=reno64-wsj

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11381833?report=abstract

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.

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.”

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?

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.                                                            

            http://archpsyc.jamanetwork.com/article.aspxarticleid=190715#qundefined

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.

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

LiquidBio Journal Club

Monogamous Prairie Voles

If you are having trouble posting, please let me know. You can send me your response at hhomer@pingry.org and I will put it up for you. 
Sorry for the inconvenience,
HH

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:

http://randalrauser.com/2011/06/neil-degrasse-tyson-discusses-religion-bacteria-and-the-meaning-of-life/

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24628983/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/smartest-animals/

image from: harmoniaphilosophica.wordpress.com