MesozooplankTons O' Fun!

The scientific article I studied was about mesozooplankton in the Icelandic Basin. It was targeted towards other scientists interested in the populations of plankton communities in frigid locations. Through abstracts, diagrams, and several different sources of data, the article helped articulate the point of the research clearly. The data was collected on four cruises to the oceanic region south of Iceland, the Icelandic Basin, between November 1996 and June 1997. It was then published in 2008.

Astthor Gislason, the scientist researching the mesozooplankton for the Marine Research Institute of Reykjavik, Iceland, talked about how the subfield of copepods are by far the most abundant type of mesozooplankton in the basin and how the C. finmarchicus* and P. norvegica* species are the most prominent, the P. robusta* are regular year round, and the P. norvegica* appear in deep depths in the cold season. In Gislason’s words, “I describe the abundance, seasonal vertical distribution and seasonal dynamics of zooplankton in the Iceland Basin.”

In the end, Dr. Gislason and his research team determined that the mesozooplankton community of the Iceland Basin is characterized by low diversity and few species, which is why he only studied the few specific species listed above. It was written in a scientific style with much analytical data and no fluff nor opinion. As I stated earlier, it had many diagrams of research as another source of media in order to mold the image of the results. The article ended with the results of the research in context of the contrasts of the genders, seasons, and locations. I enjoyed reading this article for the sole reason that it had only facts and more so added to a reader’s knowledge than informed, though it was obvious the article was for scientists and not me.

*calanus finmarchicus
*pareuchaeta norvegica
*pleuromamma robusta

Earth Goes Hard.

Think about an astronaut. More importantly, think about everything they are wearing. What would happen to an astronaut if they went on a space mission with regular clothes? They wouldn't live for long, that is for sure. The conditions of space are harsh and without proper equipment we aren't able to survive them. Electronics aren't any different.

No object can leave Earth without being destroyed by exposure to radiation or the extreme temperatures outer space presents. NASA’s radiation-hardening program, Radiation Hardened Electronics for Space Environment, was created so space electronics could be protected from these hazards, which have for so long caused power resets, and safing and system failures. RHESE is constructing a model of radiation effects on electronic devices in order to choose the best hardening components that will protect that nucleus of the device: the chip. Radiation-tolerant systems will be implanted to withstand radiation waves, as well as new processors and applications capable of resisting extreme temperatures. The newly designed devices will also have the capabilities to increase their processor performance and efficiency, reduce single event upsets and increase the reliability and accuracy of radiation effects modeling. With all these improvements, the RHESE program will increase the livelihood of any device sent to space and it will provide researchers with better, more accurate information about their findings. High performance devices, created by these technological advances, will open up many more possibilities to explore our galaxy and gain new knowledge about what our universe has to offer.

Imagine finding oxygen, sustaining planets that we could use to relocate our ever-growing population in order to keep Earth alive and prevent us from further contaminating it and depleting its natural resources. Not only that, but also think about the chances that there might actually be other life out there that could help us technologically and from whom we could gain knowledge about our origins. Countless of discoveries can be made with space exploration, making the RHESE program vital for the protection of electronic devices and the continuing research of our galaxy.

Let's see what the needles can do for you

Imagine lying still while multiple needles are sticking into your face and body. That doesn’t sound pleasant? Now imaging that you are paying someone to stick them in you. Does that sound better? Odds are that you know what I am talking about. That’s right folks—acupuncture. Acupuncture is the act of sticking needles into certain pressure points of the body in order to heal or positively affect another part of the body. This technique has been in use for centuries, but does it actually work? That is what some scientists writing for Human Brain Mapping tried to find out.

Their experiment was designed to test if two specific acupoints in the leg, named UB 60 and GB 37, had any effects on vision. In order to visualize how these needles affected the subjects, they were placed in an fMRI machine for six separate sessions and activity in the occipital lobe of the brain (the area that controls vision) was monitored. These six sessions were spread out over various time intervals in order to show that the mri scans were reliable throughout various time spans. Through the research, Kong et. all noticed a decrease in signals known as BOLD. This unfortunately does not provide any proof, though, since previous experiments have found increases in these signals as well as lack of change. In turn, individuals have been seen to have positive and negative changes as well as a lack of change of the BOLD signal throughout multiple trials. This research in turn is inconclusive since none of the data supports or denies the idea that these acupoints create an effect that is beneficial to vision.

Basically, don't throw your cards down on the table just yet. Even though this particular study doesn't prove that acupuncture works for vision, it doesn't rule it out. Acupuncture is proven to work for other areas of the body and brain; we just need a few more studies before this particular effect of acupuncture can be proven or not. So if you go to your nearby acupuncturist to cure a toothache, why not go ahead and ask them to test out your UB60 or GB37? Maybe a personal experience is all you need to see how this affects your vision.

Is It a Pandemic?

With every new virus there comes the question of its seriousness. Many viruses pop up and quickly fall off the grid while others become widespread and have more severe consequences. These differences all play a role into how governments react to different diseases whether its worth an intervention or not. This question is always brought up in light of new diseases and has recently been an topic of discussion with the rise of the new flu strain, H1N1 also known as the swine flu.

The swine flu is rapidly spreading across the Western Hemisphere causing much concern for government authorities. The virus is rapidly spreading and causing some fatalities. The issue at hand is over the seriousness of the virus. Many believe it doesn’t have serious implications for it is not very lethal on its own. The few deaths that have occurred in the North America have been due to complications with other viruses combined with the new flu. Some of these have been bronchitis and pneumonia. The debate is over whether or not the government should be upgrading its pandemic status to move the goalposts to delay or prevent a move to phase 6 (level of pandemic), by redefining it to include an assessment of the severity of the disease, and not only its geographical spread. "When is a pandemic not a pandemic?"** believes this should not be done. The status of a pandemic is not based off of severity but off of the geographical spread for a reason. The severity of a disease can change so that this new flu could simply just fizzle out or could strike with serious implications in the near future. Plus the severity of a virus is all based on perception. What might be deemed a very treatable, non-lethal, and mild virus for a rich country with many doctors might have great implications on a poorer third world country. This is why its geographical spread is more important of an issue and considering the way this new flu has spread there should be actions taking to prevent its spread.

In a different article Nature, "Flu-virus prevalence comes under scrutiny"*, it argues that the actual number of cases has no number. This could mean that it really might not be considered a pandemic even based off of just number of cases. Right now all numbers for cases are just predictions and recently this number has come under scrutiny. There is no actual info on number and most predictions are based off of reported flu symptoms, which often comes out to be false. Many times people report symptoms but it is just another virus such as the regular flu or just ne other virus. There is just no accurate way to report actual number and recently there is some consideration to the fact that authorities have just blown it out of proportion.

*"Flu-virus prevalence comes under scrutiny" Published online 24 November 2009 | Nature 462, 398-399 (2009) | doi:10.1038/462398a
**"When is a pandemic not a pandemic?" Published online 21 May 2009 | Nature | doi:10.1038/news.2009.501

Ecstasy's Effects vs Thinking Objectively

The science editorial I chose to research was a September 18th, 2003 writing entitled “Ecstasy’s After-effects.” It was an anti-prohitibitionist biased work about a scientific issue that resulted in a study concerning the potentially negative effects of MDMA on the bodies of monkeys. The debate discussed in this and the following article is the either support or opposition of legalized medicinal use of MDMA in case studies to find whether or not the synthesized substance has any redeeming medicinal value.

The editorial opened with the statement, “It was a pretty peculiar result in the first place,” which immediately enforces a sense of imminent misjudgment and doubt upon the reader about the topic. It continues to discuss how Neuroscientist George Ricaurte and his colleagues at the Johns Hopkins Hospital of Medicine in Baltimore, Maryland tested these monkeys by giving them supposedly three recreational hits of ecstasy, in which study two of the test monkeys died and most of the other monkeys suffered severe damage in neurons involved in movement and mood. This outcome, the editor later writes, was a field day for the prohibitionists and for “the Bush administration’s jihad against recreational drugs.” It was later found out, however, that the experimental substance the monkeys had been given was not actually metheylenedioxymethamphetamine(MDMA), but rather just simply doses of methamphetamine(meth). This outcome, they explain in a frustrated tone, was not nearly as well-publicized as the initial findings and nor was the consequential AAAS-issued retraction. This strongly perturbs the writer and this, I get the feeling, is the inspiration for this piece.

This second piece is titled “Think harder about ecstasy” which discusses the same incident with George Ricaurte and the mistaken methamphetamine drugs, however this article opens much differently with the statement, “Advocates of therapeutic uses of the drug ecstasy have won the right to research its performance, but opponents continue to snipe. Both sides need to look more deeply into their research agendas,” and ends with first paragraph with the statement, “So who is right?” which gives the reader much less bias to start with than does the “After-effects” editorial. The “think harder” article does discuss the problems of the prohibition side in the same light, but they also use the ignorance of the pro-MDMA researchers towards lack of positive feedback as evidence for their indifferent stance in the argument. That bolstering of both sides of the argument is what’s missing in the “After-effects” and what makes me as a reader believe the “think harder” editor is more professional. The “think harder” article feels generally geared towards solving conflict whereas the “After-effects” feels like it has an agenda. Ironic when you consider the article itself bashes government drug enforcement officials for being too attached to agendas.

Think harder about ecstasy (here)

Ecstasy’s After-effects (here)

You might want to look at that food twice

Do you ever think about what you're really eating? The contents of that prescription medicine the doctor gave you?. The author of "Getting what you pay for" claims that the FDA is in a critical condition where the necessary tasks it is supposed to perform are being neglected due to a lack of funding. Necessary tasks include inspecting foreign and domestic foods and drugs. The author of "Food for thought" claims that the FDA food-safety inspections are failing due to inefficiency, inconsistency, and uncoordination of the administration. Each author provides a series of facts used to support their argument. Although the two articles do not contrast completely, each author has a distinct viewpoint on the subject, creating a broader view for the reader to interpret.

In "Getting what you pay for", the author focuses exclusively on the fininancial difficulties which the FDA is encountering. For example, the FDA is required to observe the validity of drug advertisements for consumers, and informational booklets given to the doctors. However, the FDA only received enough funding for 55 employees to perform this task. The author points out the idea that even though the agency's funding has been increased over the years, the amount of work loaded onto the FDA has increased faster. A rather disturbing fact, is that domestic food has a 25% chance of being inspected, every seven years. Many Americans, including myself, have overlooked food inspection in the past. Seeing the FDA's standard this low has changed my viewpoint (and probably others' as well) on the validity and efficacy of the FDA and the US government.

The other author (of "Food for thought") shows that the FDA is due for reorganization. The author quotes the GAO (Government Accountabilty Office) stating, "The current fragmented federal system has caused inconsistent oversight, ineffective coordination, and inefficient use of resources" ("Food for thought"). The GAO has also recommended that the government should "consider a fundamental re-examination of the system" ("Food for thought"). The government rarely admits that it is wrong, but when it does, something needs to happen. The research the FDA performs is also flawed in that they are not comprehensive. Recently, the FDA produced guidelines to help maintain clean and proper fruits and vegetables to help eliminate microbe infestations. However, it is not a uniform regulation, only a guideline for the producer.

The problem I am establishing is based on the American people's unawareness and overlooking the problems of the FDA. It seems that maybe, just maybe, we should look at the FDA differently now that it has lost its credibility. The two distinct arguments these authors make do not contradict one another, but allow the reader to percieve a broader viewpoint of the subject. One cannot determine a solution to a problem without contemplating all logical reasons for a solution. One must expand their horizons beyond their own view, and use others knowledge to create a comprehensive view. As we see (in this specific example), the FDA is due for some renovating financially and structurally due to its lack of funding and its lack of coordination. Next time you look at your food, think about what's really in it.

The articles cited and used for the purposes of insight and information cannot be accessed unless an individual or party has a subscription to the journal Nature. Here are the citations for the used articles:

"Food for thought." Nature (2007). Article : Nature. 14 Feb. 2009. Web. 28 Jan. 2010.

"Getting what you pay for." Nature (2009). Article : Nature. 25 Nov. 2009. Web. 28 Jan. 2010.

Eggs...to donate or to not donate?

Payment of thousands of dollars for egg donation has been a major controversy that has risen due to different viewpoints about what is and what is not ethical. On one hand Nature’s “The Ethics of Egg Manipulation”* is pro egg donation and is rooting for more states to follow New York’s steps and allow women to donate their eggs. On the other hand, Fr. Thomas Berg, who wrote “Scrambled Ethics”*, is not on the same page with Nature and feels that the whole donating eggs is too dangerous to be done.

“The Ethics of Egg Manipulation” argues that by allowing more states to do reproductive research concerning egg donation, newer and safer methods to give couples the power to have children of their own will arise. In vitro babies have a higher risk of being unhealthy, but new studies done on monkeys have shown that by using two eggs and manipulating the nuclear DNA, no mutations will be present in the embryo. The only problem with this is that the studies have only been done on monkeys, not humans. For this reason the editorial is urging other states to allow women to donate their eggs so that researchers can be sure that this method will work successfully on humans and couples will be able to have healthy babies.

Father Tomas Berg, executive director of the Westchester Institute for Ethics and the Human Persona, argues against egg donation due to the very serious health risks it entails, such as Ovarian Hyperstimulation Syndrome. The OHSS condition has a wide range of problems, from simple things such as bloating to more severe problems like organ failure and even death. Berg is against egg donations not only because of the health risks, but also because the amount of money given to women is an incentive to do something they otherwise would not. These researchers would target low income women, who are generally willing to undergo any risk in order to sustain their families by receiving high monetary rewards averaging $10,000.

Even though Father Berg’s argument has statistics that show the negative effects and risks of egg donation, it seems like overall the concept would be very rewarding. Just imagine how many couples would be elated to finally be able to have healthy babies. If human egg donation is not done, then no one will ever know if the successful results from the monkey experiments are the same with humans. Progress will be stagnant unless more states learn from the actions of New York and make egg donation possible.

*Nature 460, 1057 (27 August 2009) | doi:10.1038/4601057a; Published online 26 August 2009

*Berg, Father Thomas. "Scrambled Ethics." National Review 02 June 2009. Print.

This land is our land...so what should we do with it?

Think about the places you visit daily: your job, house, school, park, etc. What comes to mind? No matter what you are imagining I guarantee that they have one thing in common—human disturbance. Man-made structures, mowed grass, and invasive species are all examples of how man has affected the world around us. So how do you see these places? Are they a disgusting disruption of a pristine natural ecosystem or are they a beautiful adaptation of the world to benefit mankind?

According to an editorial in the scientific journal Nature*, approximately 77% of the earth’s ice-free ecosystems have been changed in some fashion by urbanization. Through the development of the land, humans have drastically changed the ecosystems and when the land is abandoned, the ecosystems cannot return to their original pristine condition. Conservationists** strive for the restoration of these areas; however some believe that instead of using resources to restore land, we should embrace the ecosystem at hand.

The recycling of current modified ecosystems can increase recourse available to humans as well as help with preservation. The preservation of untouched ecosystems is highly important to conservationists since these few areas help give us a better understanding of the Earth. By reusing old land, we can help protect these areas since there will be less of a need to develop elsewhere. This would cause us to be able to relocate the funds from prevention of primary lands to secondary lands, which might in turn help the economy since the money would not be spent on a dead end.

Though some may say that money should be spent on preserving virgin lands and other believe that this money should go towards restoring disturbed lands to their original condition, it makes more sense to take the lands we have as they are. All ecosystems have something useful to offer so all we need to do is to figure out how we can utilize them.

* Beyond the Prestine Nature 460, 435-436 (23 July 2009) | doi:10.1038/460435b; Published online 22 July 2009

** Earth's Boundaries? Nature 461, 447-448 (24 September 2009) | doi:10.1038/461447b; Published online 23 September 2009