Ending Script
6/07/2010
5/26/2010
Medical Technology
Topic: Evaluate the importance of various technologies, including Canadian contributions, to our understanding of internal body systems (digestive, circulatory or respiratory)
I remember reading somewhere that the human is the most extensively researched mammal in history. This is no surprise when you consider our ever-growing population of over 6.8 billion and our long history on planet Earth. You would think that after centuries of extracting human body parts (hello Egyptians!), slicing them up, and drawing them (Da Vinci, anyone?), we would have satisfied our need to understand our own bodies. But by the looks of it, it is apparent that we really just can't get enough of ourselves!
Suffice it to say, we have come a long way from the ancient Egyptian way of understanding internal body systems. We now know that the brain, not the heart, is the source of our wisdom and thought processes. Our improved comprehension of body systems has led to many great advancements in the field of medical technology.
One of the only Canadian medical breakthroughs that ever people talk about is Dr Frederick Banting's discovery of insulin. Frankly, I believe it is unfair that not more of us acknowledge the many other contributions made by other great Canadians who are either a) very humble about their work or b) are simply overlooked by the general public.
An example of this is Canadian physician and scientist, Thomas Chang's role in jump-starting the emerging technology of artificial cells and his part in the new area of biological research called "synthetic biology".
Chang is responsible for inventing the world's first artificial cell in 1957. This artificial cell, which is made of Polymersome, would effectively carry hemoglobin much like a regular blood cell would.
Ethical concerns aside, this invention has allowed for several beneficial applications in both medicine and biotechnology. This artificial blood could be used as a safe substitute for damaged blood cells. Chang discovered later on that the enzymes carried by these artificial cells had the ability to fix certain metabolic disorders. He also managed to insert charcoal into an artificial cell, which helps treat drug poisoning when injected into the body.
It is technologies like these—artificial cells, insulin, X-ray machines, endoscopes, and so many others—that save lives everyday. Who knew our fascination with our own bodies could lead to such great things?
Sources:
I remember reading somewhere that the human is the most extensively researched mammal in history. This is no surprise when you consider our ever-growing population of over 6.8 billion and our long history on planet Earth. You would think that after centuries of extracting human body parts (hello Egyptians!), slicing them up, and drawing them (Da Vinci, anyone?), we would have satisfied our need to understand our own bodies. But by the looks of it, it is apparent that we really just can't get enough of ourselves!
One of the only Canadian medical breakthroughs that ever people talk about is Dr Frederick Banting's discovery of insulin. Frankly, I believe it is unfair that not more of us acknowledge the many other contributions made by other great Canadians who are either a) very humble about their work or b) are simply overlooked by the general public.
Chang is responsible for inventing the world's first artificial cell in 1957. This artificial cell, which is made of Polymersome, would effectively carry hemoglobin much like a regular blood cell would.
Ethical concerns aside, this invention has allowed for several beneficial applications in both medicine and biotechnology. This artificial blood could be used as a safe substitute for damaged blood cells. Chang discovered later on that the enzymes carried by these artificial cells had the ability to fix certain metabolic disorders. He also managed to insert charcoal into an artificial cell, which helps treat drug poisoning when injected into the body.
It is technologies like these—artificial cells, insulin, X-ray machines, endoscopes, and so many others—that save lives everyday. Who knew our fascination with our own bodies could lead to such great things?
Sources:
2/16/2010
Bigger, Fatter, Tastier!
Topic: Artificial selection has resulted in plants that are more disease-resistant, cows that produce more milk, and racehorses that run faster. One must wonder what will come next. In the blog entry answer the following question - under what circumstances should humans be artificially selecting plants or animals, if any?
Since the time of early Egyptians, humans have strived to achieve perfection in their genes and that of their pets through the use of artificial selection. Artificial selection is "Human intervention in animal or plant reproduction to ensure certain characteristics are represented in successive generations".
You may be thinking, "wait—the Egyptians didn't have modern science on their side!" Well you're right—they didn't. But the form of selective breeding they used is called inbreeding. This means that many Egyptian royalty were married to their own siblings to ensure a pure bloodline and strong offspring. And the same was done to their dogs, as in, those from the same ancestral lines were mated with one another to ensure that all were strong and had beautiful coats.
This method of inbreeding is still used with dogs today, but we have come a long way since the Egyptians. Now, artificial selection has extended to a great number of animals and most of the food on our tables—fruits, vegetables and meats. But why do we do it in the first place? Why do we use artificial selection and why do we genetically modify other organisms, fruits and vegetables?
The answer: To get the best! We do it to grow the biggest, juiciest, tastiest, fastest-growing fruits and vegetables. And in terms of porks, beef, and chicken, to get the meatiest and largest cows, pigs and chickens. We also take advantage of this new technology to create faster racehorses, cuter dogs, fluffier sheep—you get the point. This all sounds fine and dandy...but is it really? Sounds a bit too good to be true don't you think?
Well in a way, it is. There are some major risks that come with doing this. Along the path of genetic modification, many complications can arise which, in turn, can give rise to all kinds of deformities and unwanted results. Also, this can decrease the genetic variety of a group of animals which can make them all susceptible to some unexpected virus. For the animals, it may not even be all that great.
Take for example the cows that have been bred with large udders. Yeah it's awesome for us because we can squeeze more milk out of them, but to the cows, I would imagine that it would be quite uncomfortable for them to be walking with their overly large udders.
By singling out specific traits and repressing others, we may well be in fact erasing certain genes from the gene pool altogether—which, in the longterm, is irreversible. Imagine if having chickens with no feathers and more meat became the norm. We may never see another chicken with feathers again!
And how will these chickens survive if they were to suddenly be returned to the wild? The thing is—they wouldn't. They would have no way of surviving because we have removed all its defenses.
The fact that preferential treatment is used, meaning that we are the ones choosing which aspects of the plant/animal to keep and remove based on our selfish needs, well, it just doesn't sit well with me. Who are we to decide what qualities are "superior"? Must we disregard the comfort and well-being of the animal itself in our fight for perfection? Why are we humans so selfish? How come when we are blessed with so many great things, we always keep wanting more more more? *sigh* So many questions, so little time.
Anyways, to answer the main question of this bio blog, no, under no circumstances should we be ever artificially selecting plants or animals. We should have left it all to mother nature from the beginning instead of intervening and trying to control the outcome of all kinds of plants and animals. This is just another thing that will hit us on the back of the head in the coming future.
Sources:
Since the time of early Egyptians, humans have strived to achieve perfection in their genes and that of their pets through the use of artificial selection. Artificial selection is "Human intervention in animal or plant reproduction to ensure certain characteristics are represented in successive generations".
You may be thinking, "wait—the Egyptians didn't have modern science on their side!" Well you're right—they didn't. But the form of selective breeding they used is called inbreeding. This means that many Egyptian royalty were married to their own siblings to ensure a pure bloodline and strong offspring. And the same was done to their dogs, as in, those from the same ancestral lines were mated with one another to ensure that all were strong and had beautiful coats.
This method of inbreeding is still used with dogs today, but we have come a long way since the Egyptians. Now, artificial selection has extended to a great number of animals and most of the food on our tables—fruits, vegetables and meats. But why do we do it in the first place? Why do we use artificial selection and why do we genetically modify other organisms, fruits and vegetables?
The answer: To get the best! We do it to grow the biggest, juiciest, tastiest, fastest-growing fruits and vegetables. And in terms of porks, beef, and chicken, to get the meatiest and largest cows, pigs and chickens. We also take advantage of this new technology to create faster racehorses, cuter dogs, fluffier sheep—you get the point. This all sounds fine and dandy...but is it really? Sounds a bit too good to be true don't you think?
Well in a way, it is. There are some major risks that come with doing this. Along the path of genetic modification, many complications can arise which, in turn, can give rise to all kinds of deformities and unwanted results. Also, this can decrease the genetic variety of a group of animals which can make them all susceptible to some unexpected virus. For the animals, it may not even be all that great.
By singling out specific traits and repressing others, we may well be in fact erasing certain genes from the gene pool altogether—which, in the longterm, is irreversible. Imagine if having chickens with no feathers and more meat became the norm. We may never see another chicken with feathers again!
And how will these chickens survive if they were to suddenly be returned to the wild? The thing is—they wouldn't. They would have no way of surviving because we have removed all its defenses.
The fact that preferential treatment is used, meaning that we are the ones choosing which aspects of the plant/animal to keep and remove based on our selfish needs, well, it just doesn't sit well with me. Who are we to decide what qualities are "superior"? Must we disregard the comfort and well-being of the animal itself in our fight for perfection? Why are we humans so selfish? How come when we are blessed with so many great things, we always keep wanting more more more? *sigh* So many questions, so little time.
Anyways, to answer the main question of this bio blog, no, under no circumstances should we be ever artificially selecting plants or animals. We should have left it all to mother nature from the beginning instead of intervening and trying to control the outcome of all kinds of plants and animals. This is just another thing that will hit us on the back of the head in the coming future.
Sources:
- http://www.biology-online.org/2/12_selective_breeding.htm
- http://scienceblogs.com/mikethemadbiologist/2007/02/artificial_versus_natural_sele.php
- http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIIE4Evochange.shtml
- www.hhmi.org/biointeractive/evolution/dog_breeding.html
- www.calacademy.org/science/sia/2009/07/artificial-selection-creating-the-perfect-pet/
1/18/2010
Would you like blonde hair with that m'am?
Topic: "Designer Babies" is the term being used by the media to describe the future of modifying or selecting our children's genes for desirable characteristics (medical and cosmetic). Are things getting our of hand with our research into genetic processes? In this blog, investigate social and ethical implications of this research and technologies that have been developed from it.
The possibility of modifying the genetic make-up of an unborn child is one of the few things that futurists and scientists alike are anticipating will become possible in the near future. This developing technology will allow parents to choose almost every aspect of their child; From hair and eye color, to height and skin tone—and maybe even down to their gender!
This reminds me of a computer game called The Sims 3. Some of you probably know it already, but in this highly-addictive game you get to create and "design" a Sim character, in addition to controlling their whole life. You can have a Sim who goes to the gym often and is very athletic, or another one that has a green thumb and eventually becomes a famous chef—but I digress.
The main point is that every single part of the Sim character's appearance is in the player's hands. Body type, weight, voice pitch, size of nose, amount of freckles, you name it.
Ew, I don't want my unborn daughter to be a redhead! Make her blonde instead! They have more fun...
But what always bothered me while playing this game was that it always felt like I was playing some sort of God. This is the same feeling I get when I read about how a couple will soon be able "mold" their child to their liking. To me, it would be like playing God and that's just...so wrong.
On the other hand, this technology would be revolutionary to the health of future generations. Most, if not all genetically-inherited diseases would cease to exist. Never will a child get hemophilia or diabetes just because someone in his/her family has it too. This would ensure a brighter and more prosporous future for the human race—or will it?
Since mortality rates would decrease significantly, this would also cause the earth's population to rise even more. Think of the implications this will have on our planet. Natural resources are already scarce due to overpopulation, but it will get even worse as many genetically-transmitted diseases are eliminated. Sooner or later, the planet won't be able to keep up with human demands or needs and then we'll have no choice but to compete with each other for food. (or am I just being paranoid here?)
Another downside is that the diversity of our species will be thrown out the window. In this day and age where everyone is already so focused on unhealthy superficial ideals (read: skinny), why should we encourage this mindset by allowing parents to decide how their children will look? Everyone's going to end up choosing only the "ideal traits" (e.g. fair skin, lighter hair, green/blue eyes) and the whole population will look like clones
This will also cause a bigger gap between the rich who can afford "designer" babies and the poor who cannot afford it for their children. In turn, the "beautiful" babies/children/teens will become superior and the unmodified ones will be deemed deficient or defective in society. Do we really want this to happen?
All in all, I do think we have gone too far with our research into genetic processes. This would surely help the state of the next (next next next) generation's health, but at the same time, we should learn to love what we are given as parents—imperfections and all.
Sources:
The possibility of modifying the genetic make-up of an unborn child is one of the few things that futurists and scientists alike are anticipating will become possible in the near future. This developing technology will allow parents to choose almost every aspect of their child; From hair and eye color, to height and skin tone—and maybe even down to their gender!
This reminds me of a computer game called The Sims 3. Some of you probably know it already, but in this highly-addictive game you get to create and "design" a Sim character, in addition to controlling their whole life. You can have a Sim who goes to the gym often and is very athletic, or another one that has a green thumb and eventually becomes a famous chef—but I digress.
The main point is that every single part of the Sim character's appearance is in the player's hands. Body type, weight, voice pitch, size of nose, amount of freckles, you name it.
But what always bothered me while playing this game was that it always felt like I was playing some sort of God. This is the same feeling I get when I read about how a couple will soon be able "mold" their child to their liking. To me, it would be like playing God and that's just...so wrong.
On the other hand, this technology would be revolutionary to the health of future generations. Most, if not all genetically-inherited diseases would cease to exist. Never will a child get hemophilia or diabetes just because someone in his/her family has it too. This would ensure a brighter and more prosporous future for the human race—or will it?
Since mortality rates would decrease significantly, this would also cause the earth's population to rise even more. Think of the implications this will have on our planet. Natural resources are already scarce due to overpopulation, but it will get even worse as many genetically-transmitted diseases are eliminated. Sooner or later, the planet won't be able to keep up with human demands or needs and then we'll have no choice but to compete with each other for food. (or am I just being paranoid here?)
Another downside is that the diversity of our species will be thrown out the window. In this day and age where everyone is already so focused on unhealthy superficial ideals (read: skinny), why should we encourage this mindset by allowing parents to decide how their children will look? Everyone's going to end up choosing only the "ideal traits" (e.g. fair skin, lighter hair, green/blue eyes) and the whole population will look like clones
All in all, I do think we have gone too far with our research into genetic processes. This would surely help the state of the next (next next next) generation's health, but at the same time, we should learn to love what we are given as parents—imperfections and all.
Sources:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
