- From: http://www.alsa.org/
I was curious about the disease ALS (Lou Gehrig’s Disease) so I searched for an article about it and I found one that scientists linked three genes for the most common type of ALS. Scientist always thought that genetics had something to do with this disease but we never had the evidence to back it up until now. There is about 30,000 Americans that have ALS, and about 5,600 new people are getting it every year. After you are diagnosed with ALS your life expectancy is only about 3-5 years. By knowing that having this combination of the 3 genes on chromosomes 2, 4, and 10 puts you at high risk of developing the disease, it will give us a good idea on how to get a cure for ALS.
Do you think they will come up with a cure with this research? How do you think they will get a cure with the next 5 years? How would they test the cure?
Article: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/09/090909122110.htm
The Cause of Swine Flu Deaths
Lung inflammation and respiratory failure have been proven to be the fatal part of getting the N1H1 flu. Three new studies show that the flu hits young adults the hardest but can be fought of using anti flu medications and if necessary a mechanical breathing machine. All three studies show that there is oxygen deprivation in the blood of patients who are critically ill. This condition could lead to shock and eventually organ failure and death.
During the lung inflammation fluid starts to build up in the airways and the lungs and sometimes-even starts bleeding. Most patents are still able to breath and take breaths they are just ineffective because the blood pressure usually crashes and there isn’t enough blood circulation. The fatality rate for N1H1 is between 21 and 41 percent.
Is the lung damage done buy N1H1 reversible after treatment?
What kind of flu medication is used?
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/48293/title/Getting_to_the_core_of_H1N1_flu_deaths
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swine_influenza
Mikael Damkier/iStockphoto
A 10 year study published this week shows that children with abusive childhoods have a shortened life expectancy. The study shows that people with 6 or more ACE’s (Adverse Childhood Events) have a shortened life expectancy by 20 years. Also, those who experienced 6 or more ACE’s were 54% more likely to die during the 10 year study. ACE’s include any kind of abuse, physical, sexual, mental as well as dysfunctions such as divorce or substance abuse.
CREDIT: ISTOCKPHOTO/MARKPAPAS
Even those with 1-5 ACE’s who died during the study were an average of 5.4 years younger than those in the control group, who reported no ACE’s. The most common ACE’s wwere physical abuse followed by substance abuse and divorce. This study did not take into account the effects of ACE’s on the study participants habits; it was purely focused on life expectancy. Maybe the shortened life spans were products of habits formed because of ACE’s like drug abuse and alcoholism. You can read the main article here.
What effects do you think childhood abuse has on a persons behavior later in life?
What are your thoughts on childhood abuse leading to depression?
From: http://www.flickr.com/photos/decibells/2994361442/
A study has shown that higher levels of BPA (bisphenol A) in pregnant mothers may be linked to odd behavior in their children. BPA is a chemical that mimics estrogen in the body, and it is found in many everyday things, like plastic water bottles, other polycarbonate plastics, and food can linings. It can leach into foods and drinks. In children who were exposed to higher BPA concentrations in the womb, boys became more “feminized” and girls became more “masculinized.” The girls were more aggressive and the boys were more withdrawn and anxious. There were 249 randomly selected pregnant mothers in this study, but their kids are only 3-5 right now, so researchers don’t know if the behavior will continue on to later life. The kids will be tested until they start school, so we’ll have to see what happens.
This topic interested me because I did a speech on plastic water bottles last year and the harmful effects that BPA in them can have on people. I think this is scary because BPA is everywhere and we are exposed to it a lot. I don’t want my kids to turn out acting like the opposite gender! But something we can all do to help reduce our intake of BPA is to stop drinking out of plastic water bottles.
Knowing the effects that BPA could have on you or your kids, would you be willing to stop using products containing BPA?
Do you think everything that has BPA in it should be labeled?
Here is the original article: http://sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/48065/title/BPA_in_the_womb_shows_link_to_kids%E2%80%99_behavior
Here are some sites that tell more about BPA and its effects: http://sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/46019/title/Science_%2B_the_Public__When_BPA-free_isn%E2%80%99t
http://sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/45214/title/Concerns_over_bisphenol_A_continue_to_grow
At the Medical College of Wisconsin in Milwaukee, students and professors have grown liver cells from human skin cells. The skin cells were “reprogrammed to become cells that resemble embryonic stem cells,” then placed in an environment mimicking embryonic development. The cells then differentiated into normal, functioning liver cells. The researchers were able to produce large numbers of liver cells in culture dishes which could perform the activities needed for healthy adult liver function. Injected into mouse livers, the new cells integrated with the mouse liver cells and produced human liver proteins.
The liver regulates metabolism, sugar and cholesterol levels, produces hormones and blood clotting factors, and helps prevent toxins from damaging other organs. Liver cells can now be grown and experimented upon to develop treatments for many often-fatel diseases and disorders. Liver cells can be grown from the skin of patients with diabetes, hyperlipidemia, and hypercholesterolemia and used to test new treatments. Eventually, we may be able to replace diseased livers with cells grown from the patient’s skin cells.
Could this be done with other organs? Could organ farms replace the need for donors?
On December 10th, the anniversary of Alfred Nobel’s death, in Stockholm Sweden, biophysicist, Venkatraman Ramakrishnan, biochemist, Thomas A. Steitz, and molecular biologist, Ada E. Yonath will receive the Nobel Prize in Chemistry for their studies of the structure and function of the ribosome.
The announcement was made in Stockholm on Wednesday and the prize will be equally split between the scientists due to their hard work over the past two decades.
The three men discovered the function of the ribosome by piecing together proteins and using x-ray crystallography to get a exact, atomic-scale map of the ribosome.
The researchers grew crystals of ribosomes, and to protect them from radiation damage froze them. They then used the x-ray to go through the crystal. The crystals provided the researchers with molecules that are arranged in a regularly pattern for them to study. This left the Nobel Prize winners with rays on the computerized detector.
From this, the researchers measured the position and intensity of each ray, and then calculated the electron density of the sample. From all this data, they were able to build a molecular model of the ribosomal structure. This new research is a milestone that is used by researchers working on to develop new antibiotics.
I chose to read this article because we just did a quick until on the cell. We learned that the Ribisomes generated proteins generated and the proteins regulate the chemistry in all living organisms.
Do you think this new information will result in a better antibiotic like they said?
A handful of dirt can contain 10,000 species of bacteria, so what if they told you antibodies were could be made from dirt. Dirt is disgusting packed full of bacteria but it has been the key to finding the antibodies to fight against that bacteria. We have only been using 1% of those microbial bugs to make antibodies. That is because Scientists have found it difficult to analyze the DNA on the other 99% of the microbial bugs. Researchers at Rockefeller University have been able to extract the genetic material from dirt and have been able to analyze the DNA, so now they can have access to many previously unknown organic compounds. They have already found two potential antibiotics.
Over time bacteria grows and changes providing resistance to antibodies, but at the same time bacteria can be monitored so that new antibodies can be produced. These researchers at the Rockefeller University have found a way to find the DNA codes so that they can make an antibody against it. This is really a break though for science because before this scientists have only had antibodies for 1% of the bacteria but now they can have it for much more.
What do you think? Will scientists ever be able to find antibodies for even at least 10% of the bacterium? Bacteria is always growing and evolving so do you think its even worth it to track bacteria and try to come up with new antibodies all the time?
To Visit my site:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/11/081111211446.htm
People suffering from Red-Green color blindness can change that fact. The University of Florida and Washington have discovered a cure. They experimented on two colorblind monkeys, Dalton and Sam, and believe they have found a safe and easy cure. When people are color blind they have a defect in the cones in their eyes, and the scientists found that they were missing a gene called L opsin. L opsin helps people distinguish their colors. Most people missing this gene are mainly missing it in their red cone. By injecting a virus, adeno-associated virus, which carries the L opsin gene, into the cone, it brings the L opsin gene into the red cone.
The scientists have found no side affects so far. The monkeys have been cured for 2 years and the labs want to start trying their latest discovery on humans that suffer from Red-Green color blindness. Scientists say that this disorder affects about 8% of Caucasian males and less than .5% of females. If you are interested on getting more information on this topic this is were I found the article.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/medicine/article6837392.ece
Questions to think about:
Is this a long term cure or will it fade overtime?
Just because this cure works on monkeys without any definite signs of adverse affects will it do the same for humans?
I read an article about sitting up straight. I was interested in this because it was sort of hard to believe, and I wanted to see what other people thought about this. Researchers say that after monitoring people who sit up straight, compared to those who sit slumped, there were actually some interesting findings.
Those who sat up straight were more likely to believe thoughts they wrote down for a job qualification. Those who sitting with bad posture were less accepting of the written down feelings about their own job qualifications. These results showed that by simply sitting up straight it affects what you think about yourself, and what others think of you. This included 71 students from Ohio State, and they were all brought into the lab, they were told to do a survey either sitting up straight, or slumped over. When they took the survey for the job qualification, the students sitting up straight rated themselves much higher than those who were slumped over.
I thought this was pretty interesting. Let me know what you think about it.
Click here if you want to read the article.
…and here are some other related links.
Posture experiment
Bad posture
How would to like to get smarter from taking drugs? More students are now turning to “Smart Drugs” to help boost their academic performance. In an article on http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/8284671.stm I read that soon students might have to take drug tests to prove that they are boosting their performance with these “smart drugs”. Like any type of performance increasing drug there is a huge argument whether this should be legal or not.
John Harris, a Professor of Bioethics at Manchester University’ has this to say about the new drugs. “My position on enhancement generally and on ’smart drugs’ in particular is that enhancement is definitely a good thing. If they do improve function in a way that is safe enough I think people should make their own choices about whether to access them. Drugs are banned by most sports governing bodies, so if athletes use them it is only cheating because it is against the rules. In education, there are lots of ways students can steal an advantage over others: they could be privately educated, have extra tuition, have access to expensive study aids or expensive computers. All of these, if others do not have access to them, are in a sense unfair but there are good reasons for students to improve their study skills.”
Dr Ken Checinski is a specialist in addictive behaviour and psychological medicine and he has treated many people who have used these new drugs. Dr Checinski said, “I obviously see the extreme cases, but people can develop severe anxiety from amphetamines, they make the heart beat fast and can fuel panic attacks, so people feel like they are having a heart attack which is very frightening. They can suffer sleeplessness and this can be very long-lasting; and they might have mood disorder not quite as bad as the crash from coming off cocaine but a near crash. They might even feel suicidal.” He also said, “That in extreme cases patients could develop psychosis and have delusion or hear voices.”
My questions for you are, 1. Do you think that these drugs should be legal? And 2. If they were legal would you use them?