Loraine Roberts


Curing the Bug







“It's a wicked bug ... It's an environmental organism that's wherever the soldiers are -- in the water, in the trenches. It's able to survive literally anywhere -- in food, on human skin, and in the bowels and intestines of humans. And it has become highly antibiotic-resistant, with all sorts of enzymes that incapacitate antibiotics and a pumping mechanism that literally pumps out the medicine.” Philip Tierno. If you are interested in research or science, there are many opportunities to get your feet wet when you go to college. For example, you could be learning about how bacteria affect our body or the drugs that we take for certain diseases or infections in a science or research laboratory. Bacteria and other organisms can be beneficial to our wellbeing but at times they prove to be a hindrance to our health. Wouldn’t it be nice if would be if you were the person to discover the cure to a drug-resistant bacteria. You could save lives! In the past, an increasing number of drugs used to prevent infections and diseases have become ineffective because bacteria become resistant to the drugs. Researchers have recently discovered a new drug agent called antimicrobial peptide that could decrease or even prevent these bacteria from becoming resistant to certain drugs. In order to determine how effective the drug is, they conducted an experiment by placing an antimicrobial peptide with a resistant bacterium called staphylococcus aureus, a bacteria that causes Osteomyelitis. This is important study because osteomyelitis is an infection of the bone that affects both children and adult and we all know that teenagers get injured frequently.

Osteomyelitis which occurs through open wounds or fractures to the bone, during surgery, or just from bacteria found within the blood is very difficult to treat. So, doctors use antibiotic therapy as a treatment method for patients who contract the infection during surgery. This treatment method usually turns out to be ineffective. Due to the increased demand for antibiotic therapy drugs, there is a need for an efficient antimicrobial agent to battle the resistant pathogens. Antimicrobial peptides (AMPs) are a new antibiotic drug that is made from naturally occurring peptides or chains of amino acids found on skin surfaces, in secretion fluids, and in neutrophils or white blood cells that destroy foreign substances. An advantage of this new drug is that it has a lower tendency to cause resistance because it is difficult for the bacterial membrane structure to evolve. Researchers used an antifungal peptide found in human saliva. The special thing about this peptide or amino acid is that it’s made to create a positive charge and it penetrates the negatively charged bacterial cell wall, making it effective against the staphylococcus aureus bacteria.

To execute the experiment, researchers implanted the staphylococcus aureus bacteria into 36 rabbits. Some of the rabbits received the antimicrobial peptide antibiotic and some did not. Blood samples were taken to determine the number of white blood cells and erythrocyte or red blood cell sedimentation rate. The animals were also weighted and then injected with anesthetics. The result of the experiment was that the animals recovered from surgery and out of the 36 rabbits, 32 were used for statistical analysis. In short data showed that the antimicrobial peptide reduced some but not all of the resistant bacteria.

If you like science and research, it’s important to keep yourself updated with the latest discoveries. Although the Antimicrobial peptide was not as effective as researches hoped, there’s still a chance to improve it or find a better antibiotic agent. Who knows, it could just be you.



http://jac.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2004/11/10/jac.dkh441.short
http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://dbm.thewebconsole.com/S3DB1236/images/bacteria.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.donto

The Formula For the Future

Can scientists determine which threatened species deserve the most funding for their protection simply using mathematical formulas? According to the journal “Ecological Modeling”, deciding which species require the most resources and attention truly can be as simply plugging data specific to that population into an intricate calculation. By turning to mathematical calculations, the scientists avoid any subjectivity and instead place their faith in the simple power of math. While this use of mathematical models to predict developments and determine how to best utilize resources may sound effective in practice, the setbacks of this type of model often outweigh the benefits. In this type of scenario, when resources are a factor and there are multiple issues that need to be addressed, more data needs to be taken into account than simply the results of plugging raw facts into an equation.

In coming up with the complex formulas for determining how to predict and manage populations, multiple factors are taken into account. First of all, this specific study deals with the growth, decline, and management of metapopulations. A metapopulation is essentially a population of a species that has been divided into a number of geographically isolated groups. This isolation can a result of natural causes but more often than not is a direct effect of habitat destruction by humans. However, the causes for metapopulations are not the focus of this study. The reason I brought them up is that some of the factors used in the calculations are associated with the number of groups and the characteristics of the places where they are located. Obviously, these factors are very important to consider, but this doesn’t mean that they should be simply inserted as raw numbers in a formula. The natural world is a very dynamic place that is always changing, and therefore environmental factors are not going to be stable and consistent. Therefore, characteristics of a species’ habitat are variables, not constants than can be plugged into a mathematical equation. Their consideration is unquestionably crucial to making an educated prediction and decision, but is important to use these details in logical and educated discussion rather than as a part of a calculation.

In addition to factors such as the physical structure of the ecosystem, there are other considerations in making a math-based prediction. Such considerations include the distance between the individual environments of each group and how that would affect the time for these groups to begin to intertwine and grow. The idea is that with greater distance between and greater isolation of each group, that the slower the species will expand and share boundaries. This seems pretty cut and dry, but species are so diverse that this model would need to be able to account for how suited to migration each individual species is. Some animals would be much more capable of moving between environments than others, and some may be incapable of moving at all. Therefore, a constant mathematical model would most likely be unable to accurately predict the migration and growth patterns of all species.

This story on managing resources and predicting populations can be applied to much more than the natural sciences. Throughout life as a college student, you will have many obligations, commitments, assignments, tests and other events. I have quickly learned that time is by far and away the single most valuable resources during one’s time at a university. If there was a single formula that could predict how exactly your time should be divided, then life would be immensely easier. Such a formula, however, is very unrealistic. From day to day and from week to week, there are unexpected changes to and deviations from what you expect to happen. Time management is crucial, but it never is the same from week to week, and the ability to deal with situations as they arise while staying on top of day to day tasks will do more good than any formula for time management.

Citation:
Multiple Authors, “Special Section: Metapopulation Networks: Simple rules for ranking and optimally managing metapopulations”,, 24 October 2010, Ecological Modelling, Vol. 221, issue 21, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VBS-4YPT4G2-2&_user=130907&_coverDate=10%2F24%2F2010&_rdoc=4&_fmt=high&_orig=browse&_origin=browse&_zone=rslt_list_item&_srch=doc-info%28%23toc%235934%232010%23997789978%232354737%23FLA%23display%23Volume%29&_cdi=5934&_sort=d&_docanchor=&_ct=16&_acct=C000004198&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=130907&md5=6dd657f248888fec5663689055c3906d&searchtype=a

Got Tonsils?

If you’re like me, you probably don’t go around thinking about the B cell activation of outer membrane vesicles. In fact, you’re probably sitting there thinking,”What the heck is she talking about?” Well, that’s exactly what I’m going to tell you. It just so happens that a group of scientists experimented to find out whether B cells can sometimes carry a bacteria called Moraxella catarrhalis to our tonsils or adenoids so that we contract laryngitis, the inflammation and irritation of your voice box that can cause you to lose your voice, or even the flu, which we all know and of course love...not. Basically, they were trying to figure out how these cells and bacteria interact with each other in order to make us sick.

I’m sure that if you are a human without supernatural powers like Superman you have most likely been sick at one time during your life, and that one of those times, you had a problem with your tonsils. I know I certainly have. Some of you might have even had yours taken out, if so you are more brave than I was. Maybe your tonsils were used in an experiment. That was the case for some children under 12 years of age. The scientists conducted this experiment using some children’s tonsils and isolating the B cells (a type of white blood cell located in your lymph nodes, like your tonsils, adenoids, or your armpits) to figure out if they had been activated by M.catarrhalis. How cool would it be if your tonsils were used in an experiment?! I think it would be cool, just saying.

Anyways, so B cells as I said earlier can produce antibodies, which are those things like white blood cells that recognize a certain bacteria and attack it, a.k.a. the reason why we get shots. If the bacteria is able to infiltrate the B cells, like spies on a secret mission, and cause them to begin making the wrong antibodies, it could be quite harmful to our body. If the B cells produce the wrong antibodies then your immune system, that thing that keeps you from getting sick every time you come in contact with a germ, will have its guard down, and the bacteria would be able to infect you without much response from your white blood cells or antibodies.

I have not yet really told you what M.catarrhalis is or really what it does. M.catarrhalis is an aerobic bacteria, meaning it needs oxygen to grow, that effects the areas above the opening in your throat, basically your adenoids; sinuses; and tonsils. So as I said earlier, it causes the flu and laryngitis, however this nasty germ can do much more than that. I’m pretty sure that you’ve never heard of sinusitis, but it’s basically a sinus infection that is caused by M.catarrhalis. I know, gross right. It can also cause bronchitis, pneumonia, ear infections, and even sometimes meningitis (scary). All those are pretty easy to understand and also pretty common. However, this germ can also cause exacerbations or increases in the severity of obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), which is the chronic or continual blockage of air flow through, into, and our of your lungs. Obviously, M.catarrhalis is not a good thing.

Now that you understand the bacteria and the B cells, I will attempt to explain how they relate to each other. B cells are able to absorb bacteria because they are white blood cells, however if they absorb a bacteria that is able to change the antibodies so that they do not attack the bacteria, but rather travel throughout the body, this makes your immune system weak, leaving you open to bacteria that can attack your body and make you sick. Thus, in the experiment, it was found that Moraxella catarrhalis can activate the B cells and cause them to produce incorrect antibodies. I think that this topic is extremely interesting, and I hope that you have learned just a little bit about B cells and maybe even your immune system. I hope that this blog finds all of you well. Don’t get sick! :)

Cardell, Lars-Olaf; Jendholm, Johan; Larsson, Christer; Mansson, Anne; Morgelin, Matthias; Reisbeck, Kristian; Vidakovics, Maria Laura A. Perez; B Cell Activation by Outer Membrane Vesicles--A Novel Virulence Mechanism. PLoS Pathogens. January 2010. Volume 6 Issue 1.
http://ehis.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=3&hid=117&sid=c6b3fc91-12d6-4e95-9edd-9e7451dfa126%40sessionmgr113
ADAM, “Laryngitis,” https://health.google.com/health/ref/Laryngitis
ADAM, “Sinusitis,” https://health.google.com/health/ref/Sinusitis
MedicineNet.com, “COPD(Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease)Symptoms, Causes, and Treatments,” http://www.medicinenet.com/chronic_obstructive_pulmonary_disease_copd/article.htm
eMedicine, “Moraxella Catarrhalis Infections,” http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/222320-overview
NIDCD, “Ear Infections in Children,”
http://www.nidcd.nih.gov/health/hearing/earinfections
The Free Dictionary, “Moraxella catarrhalis,”
http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com
Kate and Neil’s Awesome Website, http://www.kateandneil.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/tonsils.jpg

Nuclear Sustainability for the Future

In the year 2150 how do citizens of the world go through everyday routines? And what allows them to drive their cars, operate manufacturing plants, or even simply look up the daily news on the web? Energy sustainability takes a political backburner to other issues the public seems more concerned with; but in the long run if world leaders fail to address the issue, humans will be living in the dark by the year 2150. The energy produced by nuclear fission offers a solution to this problem. Although some oppose the idea of nuclear reactors yet fail to realize how little difference they could make in everyday life, after all surrounding areas of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill receive power from a nuclear plant. In a world desperate for lasting energy sources, nuclear energy production offers sustainability through economies of scale and low environmental impact. Security and potential accidents, however, play a key deterrent for advocates against nuclear sustainability.

As the cost of fossil fuels rise, in particular crude oil, the United States and the remainder of the world desire a more economically efficient energy source. Nuclear power reactors face high initial start up costs but the costs significantly lower once the plant establishes itself and begin to produce energy. Economists call this economies of scale, where a firm, in this case the nuclear reactor, experiences lower costs per unit of output the more units produced.  With the current limit of the life of a nuclear reactor, the plants are not able to take full advantage of economies of scale. Although the reactor can receive a renewal to continue running after the limit expires, the policy needs change. In order to provide sustainability in the future, companies must build the reactors with the intention of running for significant periods of time. Many different engineering firms currently spend millions of dollars trying to develop this technology for more efficient reactors but cannot devote their full resources to it due to policy regulations. Once a plant is allowed to operate for a long lifetime, energy costs lower for both the company producing the electricity and customers paying the bill.

A second sustainability issue from nuclear reactors arises from the environmental impact and nuclear waste. Nuclear energy production affects the environment less than any other type of energy production, including solar, wind and hydroelectric production. This process emits such small levels of carbon dioxide; it does not adversely affect the environment. As leaders look towards the future and how the world will solve they energy crisis, they look to sources that will affect the environment in the best possible way. Although a location to store very small amounts of waste from the reactor is needed, nuclear production still positively affects the environment. The location poses difficulties due to the fact that citizens are skeptical of a “nuclear landfill” placed near their property.

In order to actively pursue nuclear sustainability a country’s nuclear energy program must be kept separate from any type of nuclear weapons program. Proliferation of nuclear arms must be discouraged in order for the world to safely advance in nuclear sustainability. With one hundred four current nuclear reactors in the United States primarily located on the east coast, the idea of a much larger number must be approached with caution. Nuclear energy production often receives an unfair reputation due to its association with nuclear arms, especially after the Cold War. An increase in the worldwide number of reactors calls for something that allows for regulation in order to prevent any sort of catastrophe.

In 1986 the city of Chernobyl, Ukraine experienced what is considered to be the worst nuclear reactor accident in history. Although the incident was not catastrophic, people generally look at the worst possible scenario. Many countries chose to discontinue their nuclear energy plans after the accident. Although the technology of nuclear reactors greatly improved over the past several decades, we must continue to focus on designing plants with safety and security first in mind. A reactor must be able to cool the fuel being used for fission in order to prevent overheating. This is also important in preventing strong bursts of thermal power like what happened at Chernobyl when a power surge led to a reactor rupture.

Nuclear energy production allows for a sustainable alternative to other current energy sources despite the many issues claimed in opposition. The high initial startup costs can be reduced over the long term when nuclear reactors are allowed to produce over long periods of time. The issue of nuclear wastes poses a small problem but the little amount of carbon dioxide emissions allows for a positive effect on the environment. The public’s image on nuclear reactors also presents sustainability issues. The world must gather behind and support the idea of nuclear energy production if we are to sustainably power the world into the future.

Piera, Mireia. “Sustainability Issues in the Development of Nuclear Fission Energy.” Energy Conversion and Management. Vol 51 Issue 5. May 2010.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V2P-4Y4XCD2-1&_user=130907&_coverDate=05%2F31%2F2010&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_origin=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_acct=C000004198&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=130907&md5=8b340b75dc9a9dce4cd08c36cb53440d&searchtype=a

Picture: Photographer Unknown

http://www.constellation.com/vcmfiles/Constellation/Images/newsmedia/9MP.jpg

The Secret to Making College the Best Years of Your Life: Sleep!

Did you know that seventeen hours of sustained wakefulness leads to a decrease in performance equivalent to a blood alcohol-level of 0.05%? So while you’re in college trying to ace that test go to bed and get some rest, you’ll feel much better and more prepared in the morning. Regardless of how much a student may want to sleep, he/she often stays up during the night having different kinds of experiences while trying to make college the best years of his/her life, and often neglecting the consequences. In college, sleep plays a very important role in your life, and some of us just don't get enough. Although some students believe longer hours are the secret ingredient for success (and they are still having all-nighters to try to achieve success), the lack of sleep that occurs while in pursuit of happiness, or A+s, can have a detrimental effect on both the quality of your academic success and your health. According to Jalonta Orzel-Gryglewska, author of the article “Consequences of Sleep Deprivation,” a lack of sleep or sleep deprivation can cause tasks that involve intense concentration or calculations to become difficult and health problems to occur.

In Orzel-Gryglewska's study it showed that sleep deprivation weakened the function in certain areas of the brain up to 15%. This study showed that the weakened functioning of the brain contributed to decreased performance rate on verbal and arithmetic tests, which definitely wouldn't help you on your SATs or more importantly your college midterms and finals. Sleep deprivation is also shown to increase the amount of time needed to do a task and the amount of mistakes that occur while doing the task. Sleep deprivation causes less rational and more superstitious reasoning to guide decision making skills. The use of unfounded reasoning and a tendency to become more paranoid coupled with frustration and anger can lead to fighting and other poor decisions, such as substance abuse.

Sleep deprivation also leads to a decline in mental health, which can have a significant impact on a student both wanting to be at school and being able to attend school. Sleep deprivation has been shown to cause low assertiveness, a lack of empathy, and an increase in negative thinking which can lead to anxiety, stress, or even more serious depression or an unhealthy idealization of suicide. For instance, a well-rested and emotionally sound student can force themselves to go to class even when they don’t want to; whereas someone suffering from depression as a result of sleep deprivation cannot summon the feeling to want to go to class.

Sleep deprivation also interferes with health by causing changes in the normal function of the immune system. It causes some things, such as helper T cells, which are a part of the cell-mediated immune system response to help target and destroy infection and disease, to be lowered, while it causes other things, such as leukocytes, or white blood cells, to increase. These fluctuations in the immune system have not yet proven to be beneficial or detrimental in the long run, but it can prove a problem if an opportunistic infection strikes just when your helper T cells are unusually low. Oftentimes, even missing just one or two lectures due to illness, or other more interesting excuses, can cause a student to fall helplessly behind.

In conclusion, sleep deprivation caused by all-nighters, partying, or even just watching TV can cause decreased focus on problems that involve calculations and a decrease in the quality of your overall health. Before deciding that when you get to college you want to have a double major with a minor, be involved in five clubs, play a sport or two and maybe do just a bit of volunteering to spice things up, remember what will be sacrificed: your precious sleep and any ability you had to apply yourself entirely to any one task, oh and that elusive 4.0.

References:
Orzel-Gryglewska, Jolanta, “Consequences of Sleep Deprivation”, International Journal of Occupational Medicine and Environmental Health, Vol. 23, Issue 1, http://ehis.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=4&hid=101&sid=25bef6d5-1011-4df4-81cf-e8f5b74c5558%40sessionmgr114&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZSZzY29wZT1zaXRl#db=aph&AN=50282342

Sleep Facts, http://www.abc.net.au/science/sleep/facts.htm
Tapasparida, http://www.flickr.com/photos/tapascreation/2536115479/

H1N1 Outbreak

Goldman Sachs first to get swine flu vaccine. While Saturday Night Live might poke fun at the investment bank being the first to get the swine flu virus during the controversy on the company inflating earnings, the H1N1 virus is no laughing matter. The World Health Organization issued an announcement declaring the virus to be a global public health emergency. This prompted debate over the reaction to the virus; some deciding the reaction was appropriate while others felt the World Health Organization overreacted. The journals “Nature” and online “Medical News Today” offer conflicting views on the World Health Organization’s reaction to H1N, the former claiming a job well done despite minor problems while the latter claims an overreaction to the influenza outbreak. The two conflicting views on the World Health Organization’s reaction allow one to determine what must be done in response to future outbreaks.

The author of the editorial “After the Pandemic” argues for the World Health Organization and their handling of the H1N1 or Swine Flu outbreak, stating the organization, along with world leaders and other academic experts, made some mistakes while dealing with the virus but overall a good job. Public officials spent hours of debate over how the outbreak of the flu epidemic was handled. This particular author wishes the World Health Organization disclosed the names of experts who sat on the emergency committee. He or she advocates the public’s right to know the names and organizations of those who are making decisions on such an important and dangerous disease. A popular counter argument to the author’s opinion states that withholding the names prevented those on the emergency committee from being influenced in their decisions regarding the virus. One might question whether the names being withheld prevented any decisions from influence as well as the possibility of persuasion happening if faced with another outbreak.

Another article in “Medical News Today” gives a different look on the World Health Organization’s reaction to the H1N1 outbreak. The author urges people to keep the H1N1 flu in perspective, giving reason that the effects experienced by those infected do not differ from those that stem from the normal influenza virus. In the author’s opinion the World Health Organization overreacted in announcing a global health emergency.  While he or she recognizes that the virus is a serious threat, the precautions that could be taken with spreading of the normal influenza virus could also work the same way with the H1N1 outbreak. The proper steps such as staying hydrated and quarantined when experiencing symptoms allows the virus to be relatively contained. This would go as good advice for any type of viral outbreak, whether one agrees with the reaction of the World Health Organization or not.

Both authors employ different methods while trying to convey their conflicting views on the World Health Organization’s reaction to H1N1. The article in “Nature” writes formally and focuses on simply stating the organization did a good job but also had a few problems. The article in “Medical News Today” writes with a more casual tone and makes an appeal for the reader to consider the effects of the H1N1 against the normal strain and how they vary only slightly. The second article mentioned makes a stronger argument only due to the fact that it focuses on building the argument against the World Health Organization’s reaction. The first article in “Nature” seems more credible, as it comes from a science journal but lacks a very compelling argument. The two together, however, give a difference in opinion for which the reader is able to make ones own decision while offering light on what to do if another viral outbreak ever occurs.

Works Cited

“After the Pandemic.” Nature. 18 August 2010. Volume 466. http://www.nature.com

/nature/journal/v466/n7309/full/466903b.html

“Expert urges Responsibility, Perspective in Reaction to H1N1 Flu Pandemic.” Medical News Today. http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/164347.php

Photo:Photographer Unknown, http://www2.goldmansachs.com/

Open Season For H1N1

Who could forget the commotion that ensued last fall as news of the H1N1 flu (also called swine flu) spread across the news. When large numbers of students were forced to stay home, ill with the virus, mothers and fathers across the nation rushed to make sure that their children were protected. In the Nature article “After the Pandemic”, the author states that officials from the World Health Organization handled the situation quite well (despite maybe a few slip-ups) and did a fine job keeping the public informed without blowing anything out of perspective. However, the article “CNN Poll: Majority of adult Americans don't want H1N1 flu shot” from CNN in November of 2009 (when the virus was still a concern) speaks differently. It claims that a great deal of American failed to take precautionary measures either because the vaccine worried them or they were otherwise unable to receive it. In fact, when this article was released only 7 percent of people had received the vaccine. Though both of these articles have their points and well developed arguments, their underlying messages about how H1N1 was dealt with contradict sharply. From these contradictions, we can see that in order to judge how such a pandemic has been handled we must consider the data from the time of the outbreak, not just the final results.

The article “After the Pandemic” claims that overall, the World Health Organization (WHO) did a good job dealing with the virus. The author argues that this is so because they managed to keep the information coming out about about H1N1 pertinent and cautionary without causing panic or understating the danger. Also, this article claims that the WHO promoted strong communication and coordination among groups that were trying to deal with the outbreak. The only problem that the author cites when defending the success of the WHO is that production and distribution of the vaccine was difficult. This one setback, however, may have been a bigger problem than the somewhat insignificant afterthought that this article makes it out to be.

The article “CNN Poll: Majority of adult Americans don't want H1N1 flu shot” shows just what kind of failure the distribution of the H1N1 vaccine actually was. This article explains that the vast majority of Americans never received the vaccine, as a matter of fact, only seven percent of us did. The reasons so many people went unvaccinated are made clear in this article. For one, the majority (55 percent) of Americans simply shunned the vaccine due to fear of possible dangerous side effects or ignorance. Another large percentage of Americans (roughly 24 percent) planned to get the vaccine but just never took the steps to do so, possibly because they simply weren’t concerned enough about the potency of H1N1. And finally, the remaining 14 percent of Americans attempted to receive the vaccine but were unsuccessful. That is twice the number of people that actually did receive the vaccine! What this article makes clear is that the H1N1 vaccine failed to sufficiently reach and protect a substantial amount of people, and that this failure resulted from a lack of resources and a lack of education about both the virus and the vaccine.

So, when a pandemic breaks out in our country, do we value having an organization set up that will simply be able to warn us about the illness without causing panic? Most people would likely say that they would place more value on having education about and actual protection from the virus rather than just an effective warning system. If this strain of the H1N1 had been more deadly or had mutated into a deadly disease, the 93 percent of Americans who went unvaccinated would be in serious danger. The fact that the WHO was able to prevent panic was not necessarily an achievement in the first place, for if this strain had been more deadly, a little panic may have helped people take more precaution and have driven more rapid, prolific development of a vaccine. Overall, I believe that the WHO does not deserve the credit it is giving itself for successfully handling the H1N1 flu season. The organization seems to be giving themselves credit based solely on results, which under the circumstances of a virus are variable and may have nothing to do with the actions of the WHO. I just hope they have learned from their mistakes this time so they will be better prepared to handle such a situation in the future.

“CNN Poll: Majority of adult Americans don't want H1N1 flu shot”, CNN, 18 November 2009, http://articles.cnn.com/2009-11-18/health/poll.h1n1.vaccine_1_swine-flu-flu-vaccine-h1n1?_s=PM:HEALTH

“After the Pandemic”, Nature, 18 August 2010, Vol. 466 ,903, http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v466/n7309/full/466903b.html

Are Genetically Modified Foods Good, Bad, or Both?

In college you’ll encounter many things, but one of the main things will be food. Whether it’s pizza, ice cream, vegetables, cheese, fruit, or anything else, most likely you will eat something that has been genetically modified even if you don’t know it. The question is: does it matter? Does genetically modified food hurt anyone or is it something that only benefits you? In an article from Nature titled “Regulation must be revolutionized,” Ingo Potrykus, the chairman of the Golden Rice Humanitarian Project, seems to think that genetically modified food can save the world if the regulations on it weren’t so ridiculous. A different article on buzzle.com written by Deepa Kartha, a post graduate in English Literature, titled “Genetically Modified Foods Pros and Cons” cautions us to take a step back and examine both sides before deciding whether they are good for us or not. In short, both “Regulation must be revolutionized” and “Genetically Modified Foods Pros and Cons” address the fact that genetically modified foods can be good for you, however “Genetically Modified Foods Pros and Cons” reminds us that, although it can be good, any development made through science has its problems which must be brought to our attention.

Ingo Potrykus says that the legal requirements for genetically modified foods to be allowed to hit the shelves are ridiculous and are preventing the salvation of thousands from starvation and malnutrition. He claims that it usually takes over ten years to get a new GMF (genetically modified food) on the market. Because of this he says that the Golden Rice Humanitarian Project has been unable to get its golden rice, which is rich in Vitamin A, on the market even though it has been ready for about ten years. He says that the golden rice could help feed thousands in poor countries while giving them much needed nutrition, reducing deaths, and improving eyesight. If all of this could happen, why is golden rice still not on the market? It is because of the regulations. Ingo Potrykus says that, because of these regulations, resources are wasted, and it stops “potentially transformative crops from making the leap from lab to plate.” The ways to fix this problem is to treat GMF’s just like new drugs, and to allow them to be tested and proven safe or unsafe in the same ways. If regulations were changed, then many GMF’s would be able to hit the market earlier and help people sooner.

In “Genetically Modified Foods Pros and Cons,” it states both good and bad things about GMF’s. It leaves it up to you to decide whether you think GMF’s are good or bad. It states that GMF’s have the ability to prevent food allergies and perhaps even cure diseases through the genetic addition of certain vitamins or minerals so that maybe those of you who are allergic to chocolate or maybe lactose intolerant could one day enjoy chocolate and other wonderful dairy products just like the rest of us. There are several known GMF’s that are already on the market such as: cotton, soybean, canola, potatoes, egg plant, strawberries, corn, tomatoes, lettuce, cantaloupe, carrots, etc. The pros of GMF’s are that they have faster growth, are higher in vitamins and minerals than normal foods, are able to help prevent the certain diseases, and are cheaper to grow in the long run than normal foods. The cons of GMF’s are that they can cause harm to the human body such as the development of antibiotic resistant diseases or even cancer, many businesses do not say whether or not their foods are GMF’s therefore not giving the consumer a choice of whether or not they want to eat them, some people see GMF’s as an unnatural way to grow food and are against it, and many experts say that poor countries would come to depend on other countries for the GMF’s because they would be unable to make them themselves. Also, because it is a new scientific development, not much is known about the other effects it could have on humans in the long run so many people prefer to avoid them completely. Obviously, since not much is known either way, it will be hard to make a solid decision either way, but hopefully this article gave some useful information so that you can have a decent understanding of both sides.

Personally, I think that GMF's would be great if they can help save the world, but I personally don't know if they can really do what some people say they can. Obviously, according to Ingo Potrykus, we should support GMF’s and take away the nonsensical regulations, but according to Deepa Kartha we need to think about both the pros and cons of GMF’s before deciding to chow down. Both articles saw the pros of GMF’s, but only the last one addressed the cons as well. I think it’s really important to consider the cons because you need to know both sides of an argument before you can make an informed decision about it. However, the decision is really up to you and what you feel about modifying foods. GMF’s are something that shouldn’t be taken lightly because of the potential harm it can do to humans and to crops as well, but I don’t think you should be afraid to eat just because you might be eating a GMF. Do you think GMF’s are good, bad, or both?

Nature. “Regulation must be revolutionized.” Published online 28 July 2010
Nature Volume 466 Number 7306 pg. 531-660 http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v466/n7306/full/466561a.html
-Must have a subscription to view
Buzzle.com “Genetically Modified Foods Pros and Cons”
http://www.buzzle.com/articles/genetically-modified-foods-pros-and-cons.html
-picture from buzzle.com

Let's Agree to Disagree: We Can Use Biodiversity However We Want to!

“The value of biodiversity must be accounted for, says Pavan Sukhdev. It is time for governments to invest to secure the flow of nature's 'public goods'. Biodiversity is essential to the continued survival of all species and the well-being of all eco-systems.” states an article in the November 19 edition of Nature. In college, you will encounter many arguments that surround extremely important issues, such as biodiversity.When dealing with these types of discussions it is best to be able to both support and argue an opinion effectively. For example, two articles, both addressing the best way to improve biodiversity, disagree on which method to use to achieve improvement. Biodiversity is essential to the continued survival of all species and the well-being of earth's ecosystem, and in Nature, a weekly science journal, the two articles "Costing the Earth" and "Let the Locals Lead," discuss the important issue of the preservation of biodiversity. "Costing the Earth" presents a much more convincing argument than "Let the Locals Lead," because it provides evidence that focuses on reaching a broader audience, gives information relative to multiple countries, and explains how biodiversity is relative to both everyday life and the bigger picture, whereas "Let the Locals Lead" uses the discussion to shed more light on biases that occur behind the scenes.

In “Costing the Earth” by Pavan Sukhdev, a brief explanation about what biodiversity is and what exactly is threatening it is given in an effort to make the subject more understandable to more than the average reader of Nature. The article explains that biodiversity is disappearing due to what is known as the “Tragedy of the Commons,” in which the natural systems, such as forests and oceans, are considered as public goods and when these goods are used as a shared resource they are bound to be destroyed. “Costing the Earth” also gives multiple examples to show that decreasing biodiversity is a problem occurring all over the world. It describes that the United States loses billions of dollars due to over exploitation of resources, how Costa Rica’s government provides incentives to those who help to preserve the biodiversity of forests, and how the poor in India suffer more than they should have to due to the decrease in resources that they rely that is provided by biodiversity. “Costing the Earth” also uses the effect of decreasing biodiversity on the poor in India to give an example that show how relative this issue is to the lives of some people and how far reaching the effects are.

Although, “Let the Locals Lead” by Smith, Veríssimo, Leader-Williams, Cowling, and Knight agrees that something must be done to improve biodiversity, and believes that if academics and non-governmental agencies (NGOs) stepped back and “let the locals lead” it would improve, it does not use the opportunity to fully explain the hows and whys of improving biodiversity. Instead, “Let the Locals Lead” constantly restates that academics, non-governmental agencies (NGOs), and other agencies all have a vested interest in how to approach improving biodiversity. The article explains that academics often have pet projects and are trying to get published more than helping the areas that need it most. “Let the Locals Lead” also explains that NGOs push to use their own methodology without taking into account what would work best to improve the biodiversity of a certain area. Lastly, “Let the Locals Lead,” explains that agencies often lack funding or have donors who want to help specific areas, so once again areas that really need the help are overlooked.

In conclusion, in discussion arguments or opinions are only as effective as the strength of the evidence that supports them, as is the case in the discussions that occur in college classrooms. In this case the two articles agreed that something had to be done to improve biodiversity, however they disagreed in what would best improve biodiversity. In the case of “Costing the Earth” the evidence that was given helped explain what biodiversity is, what is threatening it, how it affected multiple areas in the world, and how it’s decline was relative. Unfortunately, in the case of “Let the Locals Lead” the evidence pointed to a desire to expose some biases that can occur while also explaining how to best improve biodiversity.

Smith, Robert J, et al, Let the Locals Lead, Nature, November 19 2009,462.7271, http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v462/n7271/full/462280a.html
Sukhdev, Pavan, Costing the Earth., Nature, November 19 2009,462.7271, http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v462/n7271/full/462277a.html
Rickey Rogers / Reuters / Corbis, http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1904174,00.html