atquang's blog

In this draft, I will be writing about whether the chicken or the egg came first. The debate comes down to the topic of evolution. Bird eggs that we recognize today (the amniotic egg) came about not by chickens but by the ancestors that lived before its time. The evolution of an amniotic egg came from the movement of water-reproducing organisms to land-reproducing organisms. As animals began to live on land, time brought upon genetic mutations that resulted in two almost-chicken organism. These cross between these two organisms is what created the modern chicken. As the modern chicken populated in species, these chicken produced what we know as chicken eggs. So in reality, the chicken is what came first, but the evolution of an amniotic egg came way before the modern chicken almost 340 million years ago. Depending on what kind of egg is in question, “the safest bet is to say the egg came first.”

https://www.science.org.au/curious/earth-environment/which-came-first-chicken-or-egg

In the future, I would like to use my biology degree to pursue a career in medicine. With that in mind, bioethics must be considered when approaching life science in the real world. Bioethics is the ethics of medical and biological research. Ethics drive the way we are allowed to behave in different settings, and the science field is no exception. One article illustrates the consideration of bioethics, where five couples are currently lined up for CRISPR babies to avoid deafness. The CRISPR-Cas9 system is a modern gene-editing technique that has not been well tested. It primarily causes a mutation in the germ-line cells, creating a heritable sequence for future generations. There are guidelines in place to make sure that CRISPR is not abused and tested on humans without proper conditions. One such condition is the inevitable death of some diseases. An example includes the editing of HIV-resistant infants. In this case, I think that the editing of infants to get rid of deafness is not life-threatening, so it should not be used and should be considered invasive, palliative surgery. However, moral guidelines may vary from country to country. Russia may have different protocols that may allow them to bypass this issue.

Nanotechnology is the branch of technology that deals with dimensions and tolerances of less than 100 nanometers, especially the manipulation of individual atoms and molecules. An example of a real-world application is the invention of artificially-crafted enzymes that can convert cellulose into ethanol (wood to fuel). The benefits of nanotechnology can improve fields ranging from electronics, medical, and energy applications. “Molecular nanotechnology is especially associated with the molecular assembler, a machine that can produce the desired structure or device atom-by-atom using the principles of mechanosynthesis.” The main benefit of utilizing nanotechnology is to create a product that is lightweight and high-strength/durability. This means the product must have less mass than its reproduced-counterpart.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanotechnology

https://www.nano.gov/you/nanotechnology-benefits

In the future, I’d like to use my biology degree to pursue a career in medicine. With that in mind, it is important that bioethics is considered when approaching life science in the real world. Bioethics is the ethics of medical and biological research. Ethics drive the way we are allowed to behave in different settings, and the science field is no exception. One article illustrates the consideration of bioethics, where five couples are currently lined up for CRISPR babies to avoid deafness. If you haven’t heard, the CRISPR-Cas9 system is a modern gene-editing technique that has not been well tested. It essentially causes a mutation in the germ-line cells, creating a heritable sequence for future generations. There are guidelines in place to make sure that CRISPR is not abused and tested on humans without proper conditions. One such condition is the inevitable death of some diseases. An example includes the editing of HIV-resistant infants. In this case, I think that the editing of infants to get rid of deafness is not life-threatening, so it should not be used and should be considered invasive, palliative surgery. However, moral guidelines may vary from country to country. Russia may have different protocols that may allow them to bypass this issue.

https://bioethics.com/archives/47444

Observation

The first difference between the two figures on page 25 includes the difference in length of the stamen, assuming that the picture on the left was the picture that was taken first. The second difference is that the maps in both images do not highlight the same areas. Unlike the leftmost map, almost all of Cuba is not highlighted on the rightmost map. The third difference is that the pictures of the pink leaf do not have the same rotation. The fourth difference that can be seen is that the picture on the right has labeled their photos with letters, while the one on the left has not. The fifth difference is that the photo on the left is more spaced out, while the photo on the right has their pictures less spaced out and evenly spaced in the horizontal and vertical direction.

Inferences

The first difference could be due to the amount of time that was given for the stamen to grow (time between the photos taken). One doubt I have is that the stamen length may be the same, but the angles of the leaf deceive the actual length of the stamen in the leftmost photo. The differences with the image formatting (differences 3, 4, and 5) could be due to inexperience with graphics software (e.g., Inkspace) or laziness. The difference in picture rotation could be due to style preferences, or because the figure was too large to fit.

A topic of life science I would like to explore is homeopathy, an alternative take to medicine. Homeopathy is defined as a system of alternative medicine based on the doctrine "like cures like," claiming that a substance that causes the symptoms of a disease in healthy people would cure similar symptoms in sick people. Homeopathy is interesting because as a student who wants to practice medicine in the future, the idea of injecting a virus into a sick patient to make them feel better contradicts what's taught in class. It is common knowledge that medication is used to cure a disease, which opposes homeopathy. Another doctrine that homeopathy follows is "potentization." The claim states that disease-causing ingredients in a substance would be more potent in a diluted setting, enhancing the effects. This doctrine does not make sense either because the more diluted a solution, the less concentrated/powerful it is. An external resource goes so far to say that if scientists want a single atom of the disease-causing substance (the most powerful way to enhance the effects), you must dissolve the single atom into 1*10^20 parts of water, making a pill that would be as long as the distance from the Earth to the Sun (150,000,000 km), "a pill so massive it would collapse into a black hole under its own mass." The third doctrine that backs the second one up is that "miasms" exist in solution. Essentially, a "bad air" or "spirit-like essence" is left inside the solution after extreme dilution, making the solution useable. We now know today that these doctrines are not true, and we do scientific research and experiments to understand what works and what does not work. 

A topic of life science I’d like to explore is homeopathy, an alternative take to medicine. Homeopathy is defined as a system of alternative medicine based on the doctrine “like cures like,” claiming that a substance that causes the symptoms of a disease in healthy people would cure similar symptoms in sick people. This is interesting because as a student who wants to practice medicine in the future, I do not understand how, for example, injecting a virus into a sick patient, would make them feel better. It is common knowledge that medication is used to cure a disease, which contradicts homeopathy. Another doctrine that homeopathy follows is “potentization.” The claim states that disease-causing ingredients in a substance would be more potent in a diluted setting, enhancing the effects. This does not make sense either because the more diluted a solution, the less concentrated/powerful it is. An external resource goes so far to say that if scientists want a single atom of the disease-causing substance (the most powerful way to enhance the effects) is to dissolve the single atom into 1*10^20 parts of water, making a pill that would be as long as the distance from the Earth to the Sun (150,000,000 km), “a pill so massive it would collapse into a black hole under its own mass.” The third doctrine that backs the second one up is that “miasms” exist in solution. Essentially, a “bad air” or “spirit-like essence” is left inside the solution after extreme dilution, making the solution useable. We now know today that these doctrines are not true, and we do scientific research and experiments to know what works and what doesn’t work.

One topic of life science I’d like to explore is the human eye. Light has both wave and particle-like properties. When resistance (a resistor) is placed against the electrical current, the resistance heats up and glows, converting electrical energy into light energy. The light energy then radiates photons towards the human eye, where it is reflected onto a focal point. This energy then radiates down a signal pathway consisting of neurons. Simply put, the brain creates an image based on the pattern of lights we are receiving, allowing us to see. The most fortunate thing that I believe people take for granted is the ability to see. Eye disease symptoms include hazy vision, eye pain, light sensitivity, and seeing flashes of light at a young age. It is not uncommon to see adolescents wear glasses in today’s age. One research that has been pointing to this is the dangers of blue light reflecting off screens. Short-wave blue light with a wavelength between 415 nm and 455 nm is closely related to eye light damage. Visible blue light is already between 490 and 450nm. The human eye creates a picture that may last a second, but the mistreatment of our eyes will last for a lifetime because our bodies do not reproduce eye cells.

Figure 1. Photograph of Tiger. Wild-type orange fur is one of the four fur colors. "TIger" flickr photo by Jeffrey Rolinc https://flickr.com/photos/jrolinc/6212814598 shared under a Creative Commons (BY-NC-ND) license

GMOs stand for genetically modified organisms. Their DNA has been artificially altered with the purpose to enhance effectiveness for human needs. These effects include longer shelf life, taste, nutrients, the ability to withstand pesticides, and faster/larger-growing plants and animals. GMOs are found in agriculture products and livestock. An explicit example of GMOs used is to fasten the growth and size of chickens. They are everywhere in grocery stores, and can even start from the birth of livestock. You have probably heard of people preferring organic-grown produce when shopping at their local grocery store. The preference stems from Monsanto, a major producer of pesticides and genetically modified crops, who sells farm products that have improved yields and cut down on some pest problems. A series of scandals involving Monsanto has damaged its reputation with consumers. Monsanto is well-known to genetically modify their seeds and crops, increasing annual yields by forcing growth hormones into livestock. Although there has been little evidence showing GMOs are harmful to our bodies, it has also induced a love-hate relationship between the available product and its consumers. They also sue many farmers over patent infringement, claiming they own the genetically modified crops they grow because of the seeds have been modified from the company. These are the reasons Monsanto is an unethical company.