It’s important to test Lee for genetic disorder with non-cancerous cells because in cancerous cells, countless mutations have already taken place. If we use a cell with mutations, it is hard to determine the problem in the first place or which parent/gene the disease is inherited from. The DNA sequence may also be altered which coded for Lee’s condition. Going forward with non-cancerous cell, if we test the relevant parent/gene then we can find out the identity of the genetic disorder.
You are here
Jean Baptiste Lamarck was a French naturalist. He was the first to research invertebrate animals, and an early advocate for the idea of evolution. He had a discredited theory that evolution occurs when parent organisms pass on acquired traits to their offsprings. Now, we widely believe in Darwin's theory that evolution occurs because of natural selection.
However, new research findings suggest that Lamarck's theory might have some truth to it. We now know that hereditary epigenetic changes violate Mendelian principles. Epigenetic changes occur by transcriptional modifications: due to alterations on histone tail charges, chromatin binding, X-chromosome inactivations etc. Although these changes pass on from mother to daughter cells, the modifications are typically erased in the germ cells. However, accumulating evidence suggests the opposite: passing on of epimutations. So far, the phenomenon has been spotted in plants, fruit flies and yeast.
However, scientists nowadays are starting to think that perhaps Lamarck's theory wasn't completely outrageous. The reason behind this phenomenon is because hereditary epigenetic changes seem to violate Mendelian principles. Epigenetic changes occur by transcriptional modifications due to alterations on histone tail charges, chromatin binding, X-chromosome inactivations etc. Although these changes pass on from mother to daughter cells, normally the modifications are erased in the germ cells. Recently, however, accumulating evidence suggests the opposite: passing on of epimutations. The phenomenon "has been spotted in plants, fruit flies and yeast". There was also a major study in mammals that indicated towards epimutations heredity.
Does the author recommend getting rid of amenities like telephone, staircases and visual signage , and making sure that everyone has access to the same resources? This way, the distinction between the "public world of ordinary citizens" and the "hidden world of disabled people" will lower a lot. But, it might be difficult to get people to comply with these changes, as they may see this as the reverse end of the norm: now instead of catering to abled people, catering to disabled people.
The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 makes it illegal for discrimination against disabled people for purposes of service or employment. The ADA defines protected disabilities as those that substantially restricts/limits one or more of the major life activities of an individual. How does one define "major life activities"? According to the US Equal Opportunity and Employment Commission, these activities include hearing, seeing, speaking, walking, breathing, caring for oneself, learning or working. But one type of activity might be more substantial/major to one person than another type. How does the ADA account for these subjective preferences in their rules? It is also stated that an employer does not have to provide reasonable accommodations if it imposes an "undue hardship" (significant difficulty or expense relative to employer's size, financial resources, and nature of operation). Does this not hinge upon civil rights of disabled persons seeking employment? Though if we consider it the other way, not allowing businesses to make reasonable choices for their profit might be infringing on their own corporate rights.
"What is Water" is about respecting others' autonomy and learning to instill into self that self is not the center of the universe and thus our discomforts or our desires are not any more significant than others', which is ultimately supposed to lead us to a conscious and good life. However, in personal life, Wallace has been shown to disrespect others' (various women around him) autonomies over and over, and value his happiness/comfort over all else. How clearly it shows the major problem with our persons and the overall society when it comes to problem solving! That though we may understand and agree with a concept in theory, it is often elusive in execution.
His obsession with self-gratification seems to only emphasize the difficulty with which one can achieve what he is trying to teach in What is water. While What is Water is about respecting others' autonomy and learning to instill into self that self is not the center of the universe and thus their discomfort or their desires are not any more or less significant than others', in his real life, he had done plenty of actions to the contrary.
First he accuses Meletus, the person who brought such charges, of not caring about the youth of Athens and simply wanting to condemn Socrates. Next, Socrates challenges Meletus to explain who might be improving the youth of Athens if he is corrupting them. Socrates lists groups of people (namely the jurymen, the councilmen, the audience), to all of whom Meletus replies in the affirmative. Thus, Socrates brings in the example of horses—that majority cannot improve horses (rather if they have horses and use them, they may corrupt the horses), and it is a singular group of people/ horse breeders who must take it upon themselves to care for the horses. Socrates also argues that if he has indeed corrupted the young, he has done so unwillingly, since no wise man would want to be harmed by the company that they have deliberately made wicked. In this case, he should be faced with instructions not punishment.
Over and over, Socrates mentions that "[he] differ[s] from the majority of men" (29). And, this fault is what eventually leads him to his death sentence. As humans, we like what/who is familiar to us. Thus, any new value or school of thought must be introduced to us as a renovation of old, or in relatable manner. Socrates either willingly refuses or unwillingly fails to achieve this purpose. In the beginning of his speech, he disclaims that he is not accustomed to speaking in the familiar language of court and jurymen must focus on the content rather than the manners of his speech. But, I am once again reminded, as a legal studies major, how hard it is to accomplish this feat.
Socrates's goal was not to receive an acquittal, it was to present his principles and die doing what is right. Thus, he may have accomplished his purpose in his mind. As humans, we like what is familiar to us. With new ideas and values, it is thus important to start out with presenting them as renovations of the old and in gradual steps. We like when we can be thought of as merciful. But, socrates, not once begs for mercy. As a legal studies major, this reminds me how important it is to speak in legal languages while in a court of law. Socrates decided to forego the traditional practice of speaking and presenting his case to the jurymen, and this might have been his true downfall, neither the contents of his speech nor his beliefs.