Feeder 2.1
http://bmo.sagepub.com/content/34/5/386.full.pdf+html
The population of sports psychology has increased significantly as an academic regulation and an applied practice over the past two decades. Chris J. Gee wrote an article in Behavior Modification titled “How Does Sports Psychology Actually Improve Athletic Performance? A Framework to Facilitate Athletes’ and Coaches’ Understanding” that explains this increasing psychological study.
As any athlete would tell you, mental preparation before a sporting event as well as the in-game mental preparedness is vital in chances for success. Nevertheless, recent research has shown that given the need for this particular mindset, many athletes, coaches, and sports administrators are still reluctant to seek out the help of sports psychologists. One of the main reasons for this reluctance is the lack of understanding of just how important mental skills are in determining performance. “The purpose of this article is to provide the reader with a simple framework depicting how mental skills training translates into improved within-competition performance. This framework is intended to help bridge the general “understanding gap” that is currently being reported by a large number of athletes and coaches, while also helping sport psychology practitioners sell their valuable services to individual athletes and teams.”
Gee then talks about terminology such as Absolute Performance, “an individual’s theoretical optimal performance (i.e., 100% perfect performance) in a given athletic endeavor” and Relative Performance, “what a person’s 100% performance potential would be in a perfect world or ‘on paper.’” Gee uses figures and tables of athletes performances to explain these terms.
The article then transfers over to the mental side of sports performance. The idea that mind and body are inherently intertwined has been around for centuries. Our emotions and attitudes can directly affect our actions and instincts. These principals also govern sports performance. The main psychological issue facing competitive athletes is precompetitive anxiety. All athletes have experiences pre-game gitters or butterflies before big competitions at some point in their career. Elevated anxiety levels cause many changes in psychological mindset that have the ability to impede athletic performance greatly. High anxiety impairs fine motor functioning, disrupts blood flow patterns, impairs decision making abilities, and causes muscle to become more tense. The primary difference between these psychological factors and impending environmental factors is that the psychological factors are in the athletes control, unlike headwind or perhaps rain, thus explaining the importance of mental skill training.
Gee then talks about strategies to reduce precompetitive anxiety. Anxiety is both cognitive and somatic and both aspects negatively affect an athlete’s performance. Strategies addressed for fixing cognitive anxiety should appraise how athletes view the competitive habitat before competition. The main outcome desired with somatic anxiety is to minimize the psychological performance inhibitors and to help the athlete perform the relative skills to the best of his or her abilities.
Before concluding, Gee talks about sport psychology skills and relative performance. He states how it is clear that sports psychology cannot make someone a better athlete in the absolute sense, but what I can do is help someone performance at a level closer to their absolute potential. Psychological impediments differ greatly from competitor to competitor. Since these are very individualized, the relative impact on performance varies greatly between athletes. Gee uses an example of two athletes with headwinds and psychological impediments to show how different athletes are affected by the same inhibitors.
There are a number of psychological factors that have the potential to negatively affect the outcome for athlete’s ability to perform optimally. The role of sports psychology is to provide athletes with the necessary tools and strategies to address these psychological factors as they arise and thus minimize their negative impact over performance. The framework that Gee presented should be treated as preliminary at this point. However, he says that it should serve as a starting point for addressing the common concerns facing sports consultants in the field. Gee states that framework is an oversimplified explanation of sports psychology that he hopes will be expanded in the future.
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
Monday, October 25, 2010
Feeder 1.2
Kelsey Kolojejchick
“Sleep Debt” in the United States
Humans need sleep. Everyone knows how important the value of sleep is but why do we continue to decrease the amounts of sleep that we get? According to the article “The United States is a Sleepy Nation” on average, the average American needs eight hours of sleep a night. The lack of sleep within individuals can cause them to become short-tempered and decrease their abilities to concentrate. This lack of focus has lead to many accidents which has cost the nation billions of dollars. Teenagers are the main individuals who have reduced the amount of hours of sleep they need which has increased accidents as well as increased poor performances in school. These individuals are become the next generation to step into the real world but with the sleeping problems evolving now can have negative impacts later on. Adults on the job have had numerous occasions where they have been overly tired or feel asleep on the job which lead to accidents. This sleep deprived nation is a continuous struggle that is playing a role which is negatively impacting the United States individual performances.
People are increasing becoming more sleep deprived in the United States. This problem is increasing the number of accidents that are happening throughout the country. Many people are falling asleep at the wheel while driving, and falling asleep during their jobs which is costing money and even costing lives. When people are really tired from the lack of sleep, they become moody and unfocused which increases chances of having negative impacts within a specific situation. Teenagers are following asleep during school which is making the school lose its educational value because they are spending their time sleeping instead of learning. College students skip classes because they would rather be sleeping which can affect their grades poorly. On-the-job accidents are severe because of employees being sleep deprived. This article mentions incidents where a man’s lack of sleep played a role in a large oil spill. Another disaster could have been controlled if workers would have been able to respond quicker, when water pumps shut down at a nuclear power plant causing radioactive steam to be released which made the whole area evacuate.
The safety of individuals is a priority within the United States but with people becoming more sleep deprived has been increasing the chances of more accidents to happen. If people would get the proper eight hours of sleep, they would have better focus while driving, while at work and while at school to decrease accidents in the US. The proper amount of sleep is crucial to help increase individuals performances throughout the day as well as decrease the amount of sleeping problems within the US.
“Sleep Debt” in the United States
Humans need sleep. Everyone knows how important the value of sleep is but why do we continue to decrease the amounts of sleep that we get? According to the article “The United States is a Sleepy Nation” on average, the average American needs eight hours of sleep a night. The lack of sleep within individuals can cause them to become short-tempered and decrease their abilities to concentrate. This lack of focus has lead to many accidents which has cost the nation billions of dollars. Teenagers are the main individuals who have reduced the amount of hours of sleep they need which has increased accidents as well as increased poor performances in school. These individuals are become the next generation to step into the real world but with the sleeping problems evolving now can have negative impacts later on. Adults on the job have had numerous occasions where they have been overly tired or feel asleep on the job which lead to accidents. This sleep deprived nation is a continuous struggle that is playing a role which is negatively impacting the United States individual performances.
People are increasing becoming more sleep deprived in the United States. This problem is increasing the number of accidents that are happening throughout the country. Many people are falling asleep at the wheel while driving, and falling asleep during their jobs which is costing money and even costing lives. When people are really tired from the lack of sleep, they become moody and unfocused which increases chances of having negative impacts within a specific situation. Teenagers are following asleep during school which is making the school lose its educational value because they are spending their time sleeping instead of learning. College students skip classes because they would rather be sleeping which can affect their grades poorly. On-the-job accidents are severe because of employees being sleep deprived. This article mentions incidents where a man’s lack of sleep played a role in a large oil spill. Another disaster could have been controlled if workers would have been able to respond quicker, when water pumps shut down at a nuclear power plant causing radioactive steam to be released which made the whole area evacuate.
The safety of individuals is a priority within the United States but with people becoming more sleep deprived has been increasing the chances of more accidents to happen. If people would get the proper eight hours of sleep, they would have better focus while driving, while at work and while at school to decrease accidents in the US. The proper amount of sleep is crucial to help increase individuals performances throughout the day as well as decrease the amount of sleeping problems within the US.
Sunday, October 17, 2010
Feeder 1.2
Davis Rainey
The research that I read over is called “Relevant Problems of Chemistry of High-Purity Substances”, written by M. F. Churbanov. As stated by the author, this article is “The conceptual base, current state, and relevant trends of investigations in the chemistry of high purity substances are examined.” High Purity Substances, also known as HPS, are complex and elemtary substances. Their characteristics are they have a “low content of all impurities”, and a “maximum number of impurity-sensitive properties.” These substances are able to enter their state through “purposeful purification of all impurities.” Substances are known as chemically individual when its properties are considerably different than another individual. “The chemistry of HPS is a field of fundamental science.” It is aimed to determine the genuine properties of individual sciences. According to Churbanov’s data, the driving force of producing these low-impurity substances are the development of science and practical demands. Even though the problem of pure materials and substances has been around for thousands of years, the problem came into the field of fundamental sciences in the 1960’s—1980’s. since then, the technologies and chemistry of HPS of developing fields of science and scientific practice.
Churbanov later writes about the conceptual base of modern HPS chemistry. He states that it can be formulated as “impurities affect properties of substances and the character and the limits of this influence on different properties of substances are unalike.” The author then states that the number of determined substances and properties grows in accordance with the development of science and engineering. For example, the discovery of laser technology has led to discussion of laser strength of materials. The main problems with HPS chemistry are how to determine the property values of the substance without impurities or defects and how to determine the position of the impurity sensitive regions, the “range of concentrations where the impurities an impurity contribution to a property is determined explicitly and reliably.
The HPS chemistry scientific indicators are: “complete and reliable data on impurity composition in the best and typical HPS samples; substance grade distribution. The discovery of monocrystalline monoisotopic silicon-28 and the development of scientific foundations of technology are two of the most important HPS chemistry successes in recent years. “There are over a million individual inorganic substances.” Thus the number of identified properties is high, but the grades of many of them are limited.
In conclusion to the research, the “mission of HPS chemistry is to develop scientific
principles and techniques of production and analysis of substances with a limiting content of all impurities and to produce these substances and determine their properties. Such fundamental knowledge forms a scientific base for many fields of materials science.” The latest trends with HPS investigations are as follows: “to produce individual substances, monoisotopic ones included, with a lower total content of impurities; to determine their impurity content and to modify their structure; and to reliably and accurately determine their properties aimed at revealing the character and limits of the effect of impurities.
The research that I read over is called “Relevant Problems of Chemistry of High-Purity Substances”, written by M. F. Churbanov. As stated by the author, this article is “The conceptual base, current state, and relevant trends of investigations in the chemistry of high purity substances are examined.” High Purity Substances, also known as HPS, are complex and elemtary substances. Their characteristics are they have a “low content of all impurities”, and a “maximum number of impurity-sensitive properties.” These substances are able to enter their state through “purposeful purification of all impurities.” Substances are known as chemically individual when its properties are considerably different than another individual. “The chemistry of HPS is a field of fundamental science.” It is aimed to determine the genuine properties of individual sciences. According to Churbanov’s data, the driving force of producing these low-impurity substances are the development of science and practical demands. Even though the problem of pure materials and substances has been around for thousands of years, the problem came into the field of fundamental sciences in the 1960’s—1980’s. since then, the technologies and chemistry of HPS of developing fields of science and scientific practice.
Churbanov later writes about the conceptual base of modern HPS chemistry. He states that it can be formulated as “impurities affect properties of substances and the character and the limits of this influence on different properties of substances are unalike.” The author then states that the number of determined substances and properties grows in accordance with the development of science and engineering. For example, the discovery of laser technology has led to discussion of laser strength of materials. The main problems with HPS chemistry are how to determine the property values of the substance without impurities or defects and how to determine the position of the impurity sensitive regions, the “range of concentrations where the impurities an impurity contribution to a property is determined explicitly and reliably.
The HPS chemistry scientific indicators are: “complete and reliable data on impurity composition in the best and typical HPS samples; substance grade distribution. The discovery of monocrystalline monoisotopic silicon-28 and the development of scientific foundations of technology are two of the most important HPS chemistry successes in recent years. “There are over a million individual inorganic substances.” Thus the number of identified properties is high, but the grades of many of them are limited.
In conclusion to the research, the “mission of HPS chemistry is to develop scientific
principles and techniques of production and analysis of substances with a limiting content of all impurities and to produce these substances and determine their properties. Such fundamental knowledge forms a scientific base for many fields of materials science.” The latest trends with HPS investigations are as follows: “to produce individual substances, monoisotopic ones included, with a lower total content of impurities; to determine their impurity content and to modify their structure; and to reliably and accurately determine their properties aimed at revealing the character and limits of the effect of impurities.
The Gap Between the Rich and the Poor
Davis Rainey
The gap between the rich and the poor widens daily. John Mutter states that natural disasters, such as Hurricane Katrina in 2005, and climate change cause this increasing gap. Mutter also states that through economic development one can best improve this gap. Yes, clearly the disparity continues to grow between the rich and poor, but do these really cause disparity and does improving economic development the best way to improve this gap? I believe other, more important factors exist that have caused this gap between the rich and poor and better ways exist to improve this problem.
John Mutter, author of “Disasters widen the rich—poor gap”, stated in Nature’s opinion section of an August issue that“In the face of a growing population of poor people, the environmental stresses of climate change and its potential impacts on future natural disasters, the rich–poor divide is set to increase. Of all the consequences of our warming world, this could be the most predictable and the most unjust.” He uses resources such as the effects of Hurricane Katrina, as well as mentioning Hurricane Andrew of 1992 and the Chicago heat wave of 1995 to support his idea that climate change increases the disparity between rich and poor countries. Mutter relates New Orleans to the disproportion of wealth in the rest of the world and how it is minute in comparison to the gap in other countries. Using examples such as the 30 year set back of Samoa’s economy due to numerous hurricanes that devastated the entire island; and of course, Haiti, who suffered one of the most demoralizing earthquakes ever, killing more than 220,000 people and injuring more than 300,000 (Watson). Mutter continues to present factual information leading to the idea that the future will bring a larger and larger gap between the rich and poor, such as: the expected world population growth to 9 billion or more by 2050, and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change claim that meteorological hazards are likely to increase, causing more frequent intense storms and rains, and more areas affected by drought (article 6 of Mutters bibliography).
After stating his claim and supplying his research, Mutter makes an argument to his claim that in some cases, natural disasters can be good for a nation. For example, some say that Alaska was better off after the damage from the 1964 earthquake due to the proposition of recovery programs. Finally, Mutter finishes with his solutions to the changing climate, “The underlying problems of poverty, poor construction and lack of economic security need to be addressed more comprehensively.”
Mutter starts off his article with aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, but there is no evidence that Katrina was the result of a human-caused climate change, and we don’t know that climate change will increase the disparity between the rich and the poor. This is a confused blend of ideological issues that Mutter bases on no clear evidence. If the policy makers had wanted to make New Orleans an opportunity, they shouldn’t have continued to weed out the population.
Mutter’s article is called “Disasters widen the rich—poor gap,” however, Mutter never really talks about the gap. Yes, he explains how the Central Business District of New Orleans, the richer side, had a high repopulation number and the Lower Ninth Ward, the poor side, had a sharp decrease in population after Katrina. All of this is true and I agree with Mutter that the gap is widening, yet is the disparity between the rich and the poor even relevant to his article? His article talks mainly about natural disasters and their impacts, but the gap between the rich and the poor has nothing to do with when and where natural disasters will occur, and how these disasters widen the gap. This disparity only seems to be relevant if you are under the impression that economic development is at zero-sum, meaning that in a certain situation, one participant’s gains result only from another’s equivalent losses (Investorwords.com), and that rich countries wealth somehow comes at the expense of poorer countries. Mutters lack of ability to connect his main claim with the topic of his article throws off his organization, therefore hurting his argument.
Rich country development has benefited poorer countries through trade, local aid, and technology transfer. By comparing costs and benefits of international commercial agreements, we can see that developing countries to benefit from trade with rich countries. Cline (2004), a leading reference of the subject of the World Trade Organization, WTO, projects that trade liberalization with rich countries would lift 540 million people out of poverty. At the UM Millennium Summit meeting of heads of state in 2005, leaders of wealthy nations committed to deeper debt relief and increased aid programs for developing countries (Birdsall). Also, there was a European Union pledge to spend 0.56% of Gross National Income on poverty reduction by 2010, and 0.7% by 2015 (Shah). Technology has benefited developing countries, for example UN information technology has benefited developing countries opening new business opportunities (Schlein).
All of Mutters ideas suggest that an excellent way to reduce the destruction of natural disasters is to maximize the economic development. However, maximizing the economic development means no more government aid, which can be harmful; it means promoting pro-growth policies, not the Western European regulation and redistribution; and it means no more attempts to reduce carbon emissions, which effects climate change—what Mutter believes causes the rich and the poor gap to expand.
Finally, Mutter ends with his solutions to the widening gap between the rich and the poor. “There are lessons to be learned from how wealthier nations respond to crises following man-made disasters, such as the financial slump.” However, poor regulation of the financial region was not the leading cause of the financial slump. The slump was caused by the lacking monetary policy of the Federal Reserve and the “guaranteed” mortgage lending of the federal government.
Mutter reveals a current issue in that the gap between the rich and the poor is drastically changing. However, his stand on the cause and effect of this gap is misleading and not thought out. Mutter brings to attention the harmfulness of natural disasters and the potential ways to reduce these harms. The effects of natural disasters and the rich and poor gap are two different topics that Mutter tries to cram into one paper. If each topic were to be centralized and focused on individually, this would be a much better argument and Mutter would be able to clearly support his main claim. I agree with Mutter, however, that something must be done before this monetary gap is too large.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v466/n7310/full/4661042a.html
Birdsall, Nancy. "How To Help Poor Countries." Foreign Affairs. N.p., July 2005. Web. 13 Oct 2010..
Schlein, Lisa. "UN: Information Technology Can Benefit Developing Countries." IWS- The Information Warfare Site 21 November 2003: n. pag. Web. 13 Oct 2010..
Shah, Anup. "Foreign Aid for Developement Assistance." Global Issues. N.p., April 25 2010. Web. 13 Oct 2010..
Watson, Ivan. "Six months after quake, Haiti still suffers." CNN July 12 2010: n. pag. Web. 13 Oct 2010.
The gap between the rich and the poor widens daily. John Mutter states that natural disasters, such as Hurricane Katrina in 2005, and climate change cause this increasing gap. Mutter also states that through economic development one can best improve this gap. Yes, clearly the disparity continues to grow between the rich and poor, but do these really cause disparity and does improving economic development the best way to improve this gap? I believe other, more important factors exist that have caused this gap between the rich and poor and better ways exist to improve this problem.
John Mutter, author of “Disasters widen the rich—poor gap”, stated in Nature’s opinion section of an August issue that“In the face of a growing population of poor people, the environmental stresses of climate change and its potential impacts on future natural disasters, the rich–poor divide is set to increase. Of all the consequences of our warming world, this could be the most predictable and the most unjust.” He uses resources such as the effects of Hurricane Katrina, as well as mentioning Hurricane Andrew of 1992 and the Chicago heat wave of 1995 to support his idea that climate change increases the disparity between rich and poor countries. Mutter relates New Orleans to the disproportion of wealth in the rest of the world and how it is minute in comparison to the gap in other countries. Using examples such as the 30 year set back of Samoa’s economy due to numerous hurricanes that devastated the entire island; and of course, Haiti, who suffered one of the most demoralizing earthquakes ever, killing more than 220,000 people and injuring more than 300,000 (Watson). Mutter continues to present factual information leading to the idea that the future will bring a larger and larger gap between the rich and poor, such as: the expected world population growth to 9 billion or more by 2050, and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change claim that meteorological hazards are likely to increase, causing more frequent intense storms and rains, and more areas affected by drought (article 6 of Mutters bibliography).
After stating his claim and supplying his research, Mutter makes an argument to his claim that in some cases, natural disasters can be good for a nation. For example, some say that Alaska was better off after the damage from the 1964 earthquake due to the proposition of recovery programs. Finally, Mutter finishes with his solutions to the changing climate, “The underlying problems of poverty, poor construction and lack of economic security need to be addressed more comprehensively.”
Mutter starts off his article with aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, but there is no evidence that Katrina was the result of a human-caused climate change, and we don’t know that climate change will increase the disparity between the rich and the poor. This is a confused blend of ideological issues that Mutter bases on no clear evidence. If the policy makers had wanted to make New Orleans an opportunity, they shouldn’t have continued to weed out the population.
Mutter’s article is called “Disasters widen the rich—poor gap,” however, Mutter never really talks about the gap. Yes, he explains how the Central Business District of New Orleans, the richer side, had a high repopulation number and the Lower Ninth Ward, the poor side, had a sharp decrease in population after Katrina. All of this is true and I agree with Mutter that the gap is widening, yet is the disparity between the rich and the poor even relevant to his article? His article talks mainly about natural disasters and their impacts, but the gap between the rich and the poor has nothing to do with when and where natural disasters will occur, and how these disasters widen the gap. This disparity only seems to be relevant if you are under the impression that economic development is at zero-sum, meaning that in a certain situation, one participant’s gains result only from another’s equivalent losses (Investorwords.com), and that rich countries wealth somehow comes at the expense of poorer countries. Mutters lack of ability to connect his main claim with the topic of his article throws off his organization, therefore hurting his argument.
Rich country development has benefited poorer countries through trade, local aid, and technology transfer. By comparing costs and benefits of international commercial agreements, we can see that developing countries to benefit from trade with rich countries. Cline (2004), a leading reference of the subject of the World Trade Organization, WTO, projects that trade liberalization with rich countries would lift 540 million people out of poverty. At the UM Millennium Summit meeting of heads of state in 2005, leaders of wealthy nations committed to deeper debt relief and increased aid programs for developing countries (Birdsall). Also, there was a European Union pledge to spend 0.56% of Gross National Income on poverty reduction by 2010, and 0.7% by 2015 (Shah). Technology has benefited developing countries, for example UN information technology has benefited developing countries opening new business opportunities (Schlein).
All of Mutters ideas suggest that an excellent way to reduce the destruction of natural disasters is to maximize the economic development. However, maximizing the economic development means no more government aid, which can be harmful; it means promoting pro-growth policies, not the Western European regulation and redistribution; and it means no more attempts to reduce carbon emissions, which effects climate change—what Mutter believes causes the rich and the poor gap to expand.
Finally, Mutter ends with his solutions to the widening gap between the rich and the poor. “There are lessons to be learned from how wealthier nations respond to crises following man-made disasters, such as the financial slump.” However, poor regulation of the financial region was not the leading cause of the financial slump. The slump was caused by the lacking monetary policy of the Federal Reserve and the “guaranteed” mortgage lending of the federal government.
Mutter reveals a current issue in that the gap between the rich and the poor is drastically changing. However, his stand on the cause and effect of this gap is misleading and not thought out. Mutter brings to attention the harmfulness of natural disasters and the potential ways to reduce these harms. The effects of natural disasters and the rich and poor gap are two different topics that Mutter tries to cram into one paper. If each topic were to be centralized and focused on individually, this would be a much better argument and Mutter would be able to clearly support his main claim. I agree with Mutter, however, that something must be done before this monetary gap is too large.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v466/n7310/full/4661042a.html
Birdsall, Nancy. "How To Help Poor Countries." Foreign Affairs. N.p., July 2005. Web. 13 Oct 2010.
Schlein, Lisa. "UN: Information Technology Can Benefit Developing Countries." IWS- The Information Warfare Site 21 November 2003: n. pag. Web. 13 Oct 2010.
Shah, Anup. "Foreign Aid for Developement Assistance." Global Issues. N.p., April 25 2010. Web. 13 Oct 2010.
Watson, Ivan. "Six months after quake, Haiti still suffers." CNN July 12 2010: n. pag. Web. 13 Oct 2010.
Thursday, October 14, 2010
Does Money Does Buy You Happiness?
What is happiness and what is the true definition of being happy? Are our lives really optimistic, cheerful and content like they seem? Do we determine happiness by our stress levels or our income? The controversy is whether human wealth or emotional well-being an individuals thoughts about happiness. The article, “The price of Happiness” by Phillip Ball states that people who state that they are content say “you need to be highly educated, female, wealthy, married, self-employed and not middle aged. And misery, meanwhile, comes from unemployment, low income, divorce and poor health.” Wealth for individuals can help measure their happiness because they are able to receive top notch health, education, relationships, etc. People gain satisfaction when they receive extra bonuses at work or unemployed people that find a job which pays better than previous jobs. Studies have shown that the sense of ‘self-righteous satisfaction’ hits a limit where it stops increasing. Emotional well-being is a key feature determining happiness rather than income. People can be happy while earning an average wage rather than a rich, old single man or woman. An individuals emotional well-being has more impact on happiness that wealth can’t buy.
Income plays an insignificant role in an individuals day-to-day happiness. People assume that with more money in their pockets, they would be happier and do more enjoyable tasks until reality sets in. People think that with nicer houses, cars, and so forth, they will be happier but according to the article, “Money does not buy much happiness” states that “those with higher incomes tend to be tenser, and spend less time on simple leisurely activities” (Sarah Goudarzi). People with higher incomes were devoting more time working, traveling, and shopping rather than spending time with their families and friends. Parents that are off on business trips and away from their families for long periods of time can decrease the happiness within a family. The children will not experience the love and affection they deserve from their own parents they are never around. Is money worth leaving your children behind for long periods of time? Also, leisure in the United States is important and a government statistic claims “men who make more than $100,000 a year spend 19.9 percent of their time on passive leisure activities such as watching television and socializing. Meanwhile, men whose annual income was less than $20,000 spent more than 34 percent of their time dedicated to passive leisure”(Sarah Goudarzi). An individuals emotional state is important determining an individuals happiness where money reduces the importance of family, friends, social life and leisure activities during peoples day to day lives.
Wealth does not have a positive influence towards children’s emotional well-being of happiness. A large sum of money does not help teach parents how to raise respectful, responsible and happy children. Children growing up with large amounts of money do not learn the true value of money and its worth. Many take this amount of money for granted while average and poor children know the true value and work hard to earn their own. According to “What Money Can’t Buy”, social scientists who study the effect of income on children’s well-being emphasize different aspects of well-being depending on their discipline (Susan Mayer). People believe that children coming from poor households are more likely to drop out of school, have behavior problems and delinquency which in some cases can be true but many of these families are interested in their children’s moral character, happiness and social conscience to teach them proper values in life. If a child raised from a poor family is taught proper moral values throughout their life they can grow to have a happy, successful life that doesn’t involve a large income. A rich child can grow up with larger amounts of money but can never be taught proper values which can have negative effects in their life and make them unhappy in the long run. They are normally seen as being ‘spoiled’ because they get whatever they want and never take no as an answer. They will buy the most expensive things for no apparent reason and never experience the true worth and the true happiness that average children feel when they buy something they worked hard for. This type of behavior decreases the emotional well-being of these rich children. Money cannot buy the moral character, happiness and social conscience to help raise a child.
The emotional well-being can bring a constant sense of joy that an increased income cannot. Sure people get excited when they see $20 dollars on the ground but this moment only last about a minute. People who win the lottery or any amount of money are happy when they win but they will return to their previous level of happiness. These situations only have a small impact on long-term satisfaction. People who are wealthy take for granted or do not necessarily view happiness the way poor or average people do in life. According to “Money Won’t Buy You Happiness” believes that people aren’t very good at figuring out what to do with the money (Matthew Herper). People of average or low income use their money wisely and use it with purpose while wealthy people buy things they do not actually need, or buy some things that do not give them long-term pleasure. In some cases, people become less happy from the way they spend their money. People will quit their jobs early, buy a house that is very isolated with no neighbors, and normally find themselves lonely and depressed. Also a wealthy man buying a really expensive car at first seems like a happy experience that many people would kill for. The situation wealthy people do not consider is that the enjoyment of a fancy car with no one else in it slowly starts to wear off and make them less happy. Money can buy you a fancy car but it can’t buy you a partner you love to share and enjoy it with for a long period of time.
Money is an important aspect in today’s society when trying to be successful in life. The problem is many people believe that by being wealthy and successful, this will bring them happiness. Studies have shown that people who have a large income do not have a positive emotional well-being. Even though they are wealthy, their happiness does not add up to equal their amount of success. People of average or low income are seen to have good emotional well-being where money does not influence their happiness. Parent’s with a higher income can become too influenced by their jobs and forget that family happiness is first priority in life. Teaching and raising children proper moral values can help them become more successful in life and be happy while achieving their goals. Allowing children to become spoiled increases the chance of their happiness to only show when money is involved when realistically money should not matter to them at all. Money in all aspects is important for many people but this society should not be basing their happiness around the amount of income they receive.
Works Cited:
http://www.nature.com.libproxy.lib.unc.edu/news/2010/100906/full/news.2010.447.html
http://www.livescience.com/strangenews/060629_money_happiness.html
http://www.forbes.com/2004/09/21/cx_mh_0921happiness.html
Income plays an insignificant role in an individuals day-to-day happiness. People assume that with more money in their pockets, they would be happier and do more enjoyable tasks until reality sets in. People think that with nicer houses, cars, and so forth, they will be happier but according to the article, “Money does not buy much happiness” states that “those with higher incomes tend to be tenser, and spend less time on simple leisurely activities” (Sarah Goudarzi). People with higher incomes were devoting more time working, traveling, and shopping rather than spending time with their families and friends. Parents that are off on business trips and away from their families for long periods of time can decrease the happiness within a family. The children will not experience the love and affection they deserve from their own parents they are never around. Is money worth leaving your children behind for long periods of time? Also, leisure in the United States is important and a government statistic claims “men who make more than $100,000 a year spend 19.9 percent of their time on passive leisure activities such as watching television and socializing. Meanwhile, men whose annual income was less than $20,000 spent more than 34 percent of their time dedicated to passive leisure”(Sarah Goudarzi). An individuals emotional state is important determining an individuals happiness where money reduces the importance of family, friends, social life and leisure activities during peoples day to day lives.
Wealth does not have a positive influence towards children’s emotional well-being of happiness. A large sum of money does not help teach parents how to raise respectful, responsible and happy children. Children growing up with large amounts of money do not learn the true value of money and its worth. Many take this amount of money for granted while average and poor children know the true value and work hard to earn their own. According to “What Money Can’t Buy”, social scientists who study the effect of income on children’s well-being emphasize different aspects of well-being depending on their discipline (Susan Mayer). People believe that children coming from poor households are more likely to drop out of school, have behavior problems and delinquency which in some cases can be true but many of these families are interested in their children’s moral character, happiness and social conscience to teach them proper values in life. If a child raised from a poor family is taught proper moral values throughout their life they can grow to have a happy, successful life that doesn’t involve a large income. A rich child can grow up with larger amounts of money but can never be taught proper values which can have negative effects in their life and make them unhappy in the long run. They are normally seen as being ‘spoiled’ because they get whatever they want and never take no as an answer. They will buy the most expensive things for no apparent reason and never experience the true worth and the true happiness that average children feel when they buy something they worked hard for. This type of behavior decreases the emotional well-being of these rich children. Money cannot buy the moral character, happiness and social conscience to help raise a child.
The emotional well-being can bring a constant sense of joy that an increased income cannot. Sure people get excited when they see $20 dollars on the ground but this moment only last about a minute. People who win the lottery or any amount of money are happy when they win but they will return to their previous level of happiness. These situations only have a small impact on long-term satisfaction. People who are wealthy take for granted or do not necessarily view happiness the way poor or average people do in life. According to “Money Won’t Buy You Happiness” believes that people aren’t very good at figuring out what to do with the money (Matthew Herper). People of average or low income use their money wisely and use it with purpose while wealthy people buy things they do not actually need, or buy some things that do not give them long-term pleasure. In some cases, people become less happy from the way they spend their money. People will quit their jobs early, buy a house that is very isolated with no neighbors, and normally find themselves lonely and depressed. Also a wealthy man buying a really expensive car at first seems like a happy experience that many people would kill for. The situation wealthy people do not consider is that the enjoyment of a fancy car with no one else in it slowly starts to wear off and make them less happy. Money can buy you a fancy car but it can’t buy you a partner you love to share and enjoy it with for a long period of time.
Money is an important aspect in today’s society when trying to be successful in life. The problem is many people believe that by being wealthy and successful, this will bring them happiness. Studies have shown that people who have a large income do not have a positive emotional well-being. Even though they are wealthy, their happiness does not add up to equal their amount of success. People of average or low income are seen to have good emotional well-being where money does not influence their happiness. Parent’s with a higher income can become too influenced by their jobs and forget that family happiness is first priority in life. Teaching and raising children proper moral values can help them become more successful in life and be happy while achieving their goals. Allowing children to become spoiled increases the chance of their happiness to only show when money is involved when realistically money should not matter to them at all. Money in all aspects is important for many people but this society should not be basing their happiness around the amount of income they receive.
Works Cited:
http://www.nature.com.libproxy.lib.unc.edu/news/2010/100906/full/news.2010.447.html
http://www.livescience.com/strangenews/060629_money_happiness.html
http://www.forbes.com/2004/09/21/cx_mh_0921happiness.html
Is PGD the right choice?
By: Ashley Contreras
Handyside claims that although controversy is inevitable, we should take advantage of what the technology has to offer. Families can avoid the pain and suffering of watching their child suffer because a genetic disorder consumes them, just by using this method to determine which fertilized embryo has the genetic disorder and implanting only those who do not have those genes. In vitro fertilization has helped so many people who have had trouble conceiving be able to have a baby. But now it’s been taken a step further and used to generate babies with no defects life threatening or not.
Basing on the benefits of this form of technology I would accept it more but not only do PGDs determine if the embryo has a genetic disorder, it can also determine several different characteristics such as eye color, gender and hair color. This is where I start to think if giving this information is the best thing to do. Even though this information is available, I feel more people will be interested in how the child will look as opposed to how healthy the child is or the parents will choose a child that has no disorders even if they are not fatal like asthma .
This method was to create a child that is considered to be a savior child, for example Handyside mentioned the set of British parents Shanana and Raj Hashmi that were given permission to select a child an embryo with tissue that matched the tissue of their son who was terminally ill with β- thalassaemia. This disease made him have less hemoglobin and fewer red blood cells in his body. By allowing him to have a donor he was able to live. These are the times that technology shines but one should also think of the other eggs that were fertilized and how they were just discarded not for having a defect but just for not being compatible with his tissue. This is going to be more prevalent if parent are informed more about the physical characteristics of the potential child.
According to Handyside’s article “Humans have an exceptionally high rate of pregnancy failure and loss, much of which derives from the inheritance of abnormal numbers of chromosomes in the gametes. Human eggs, which are formed before birth but do not mature until decades later, are five times more likely than sperm to develop an abnormality. This likelihood increases exponentially as a woman in her late-thirties and mid-forties approaches the menopause.” For that reason PGDs were recommended for women who had repeated miscarriage so that they could have a successful pregnancy but according to Mary D. Stephenson, M.D., M.Sc. from the University of Chicago and Mariette Goddijn, M. D., Ph. D. of the University of Amsterdam and authors of “A critical look at the evidence does not support PGD for translocation carriers with a history of recurrent losses,” claim that PGDs do not show any improvement in those women. If there is no improvement then there is no use in creating and discarding healthy embryos.
I believe that although PGDs is a very impressive form of technology, but it is not helping women have more successful pregnancies maybe it is not the best choice. And allowing parents to know the characteristics other than the health of the baby could incline parents to pick a designer baby.
"The Unnecessary Amount of Panic Caused by the WHO"
According to “WHO Says Swine-Flu Pandemic Is Over,” Dr. Chan states, the WHO might need to reconsider what diseases it defines to be pandemics because there are more deadly diseases the world should be aware of like the H5N1 avian flu. Many scientists are concerned with the H5N1 disease, which has a nature of not usually affecting humans, easily becoming a pandemic because of there not being any type of immune protection (Key Facts About Avian Influenza (Bird Flu) and Avian Influenza A (H5N1) Virus). Also in another article, “Report: WHO created ‘distortion of priorities’ over swine flu,” the WHO released one definition of the term “influenza pandemic” but then preceded to release a different definition which was probably caused more confusion and unease among the public. Because the World Health Organization, or the WHO, exaggerated its choice of words by describing it to be a pandemic, the media for the H1N1 virus caused an unnecessary amount of panic among the student population.
http://blogs.nature.com/news/thegreatbeyond/2010/08/h1n1_emergency_committee_membe.html
“WHO Says Swine-Flu Pandemic Is Over.”
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703435104575421591518817872.html
http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/292992
Ashleigh Dorman
The 2009 H1N1 virus started as a disease and developed into much more, an anxiety among the UNC campus. Flyers and directions were posted throughout campus giving students advice to avoid contracting the disease. The scare of the virus was not only campuses wide but began to grow to worldwide. In opposition to the article from the August issue of Nature, the World Health Organization, or the WHO, could have made better choices when solving the H1N1 crisis. Although the WHO successfully handled that flu outbreak, better choices, like not hiding information from the public, could have helped prevent the media from over exaggerating the information they did have to release about the swine flu that caused an unnecessary amount of panic among the student population.
The article, “After the pandemic,” from the August issue of Nature, states that the WHO did make some mistakes but overall did a good job dealing with the flu crisis. The author of the Nature article claims that even though some errors were made, the WHO deserves to receive credit for completing its job. However, the Nature article leaves out many vital concepts that should be taken into consideration when judging its success of handling the H1N1 virus. How can the public praise the WHO for causing so much confusion and such a huge scare? Governments, industry and academics worked well together when faced with a potentially disastrous threat — and will hopefully do so when called upon again” (“After the pandemic”).
The Nature article attempts to lessen the severity of the accusations made against the WHO by expressing the need to praise the WHO for all of their hard work to end the flu crisis. While the WHO did successfully end the flu pandemic in the US, the crisis is still circulating through other countries (“WHO Says Swine-Flu Pandemic Is Over”). The article from the editorial section of Nature fails to mention the continuing spread of the H1N1. The H1N1 flu is now considered a “seasonal flu virus” and will continue to spread now and in the future therefore it should have never been looked at as a pandemic (“WHO Says Swine-Flu Pandemic is Over”). According to the Pandemic-flu Guide, a seasonal flu virus “comes to an area every year, during the flu season of that country. Different countries have different flu seasons.” A pandemic on the other hand does not include viruses such as the seasonal flu virus or influenza because it is an infectious disease or condition that kills people (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pandemic).
According to “WHO Says Swine-Flu Pandemic Is Over,” Dr. Chan states, the WHO might need to reconsider what diseases it defines to be pandemics because there are more deadly diseases the world should be aware of like the H5N1 avian flu. Many scientists are concerned with the H5N1 disease, which has a nature of not usually affecting humans, easily becoming a pandemic because of there not being any type of immune protection (Key Facts About Avian Influenza (Bird Flu) and Avian Influenza A (H5N1) Virus). Also in another article, “Report: WHO created ‘distortion of priorities’ over swine flu,” the WHO released one definition of the term “influenza pandemic” but then preceded to release a different definition which was probably caused more confusion and unease among the public. Because the World Health Organization, or the WHO, exaggerated its choice of words by describing it to be a pandemic, the media for the H1N1 virus caused an unnecessary amount of panic among the student population.
Because the WHO had conflicting interests and were more concerned with their own benefits, the way the crisis was handled was not the best for the society as a whole. For example, the WHO just recently released the names of the emergency committee to the public. The Nature article states that the WHO chose not to release the names of the members on the emergency committee to help the members avert from outside influence. However, one advisor to the committee said that if her name had been released she would not have been bothered in the least. (“H1N1 ‘emergency committee’ members named”). Because this committee member would have accepted the world knowing she was on the committee, suspicion has raised that maybe the WHO had alternative motives as to not releasing the committee members’ names. One highly possible alternative motive mentioned was the need to raise pharmaceutical sales, in 2009 sales of the vaccine went up as high as 7 to 10 million dollars. Along with the increase in pharmaceutical sales rates there are a number of other possible motives that should be investigated, including, “the distortion of priorities, the waste of huge sums of public money, provocation of unjustified fear, and creation of health risks through non-tested vaccines and medications” (“Report: WHO created ‘distortion of priorities’ over swine flu”). The Nature article fails to mention anything about the loss of money, health risks, or anything of the like.
There are many ways the WHO could have chosen to deal with the flu outbreak but they could have made wiser choices. A lot of the panic present in the public could have been avoided if the WHO would have circumvented around calling the disease a pandemic. The process the WHO went through to solve the H1N1 crisis should be examined for changes that would have brought about a quicker end to solving the crisis. In order for the WHO to increase its likelihood of having a better success of handling similar diseases in the future, it will need to reevaluate its methods and note advances that could have helped to resolve the problem faster.
“After the pandemic.” http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v466/n7309/full/466903b.html
“H1N1 ‘emergency committee’ members named.”
http://blogs.nature.com/news/thegreatbeyond/2010/08/h1n1_emergency_committee_membe.html
“WHO Says Swine-Flu Pandemic Is Over.”
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703435104575421591518817872.html
“Report: WHO created ‘distortion of priorities’ over swine flu.”
http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/292992
“Key Facts About Avian Influenza (Bird Flu) and Avian Influenza A (H5N1) Virus.” http://www.cdc.gov/flu/avian/gen-info/facts.htm
“Seasonal Influenza.” http://www.pandemic-flu-guide.com/seasonal-influenza.html
“Pandemic.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pandemic
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
“Out with the old, in with the new”
Cancer has become this generation’s crusade, and in any crusade, an army needs weapons to fight with. For years, this weapon has been biological experimentation and observation and it has worked quite effectively. However, with the influx of new powerful technologies on the rise, traditional methods are being threatened by newer and possibly more efficient methods. These methods include wide scale, data harvesting performed by computers. In Robert Weinberg article, “Point: Hypothesis First,” he argues that while technology based data collection maybe seem like best approach, “From a cancer researcher’s perspective, the successes of hypothesis-driven science are clear and undeniable.” I, however, believe that Instead of using traditional experimentation methods for cancer research, as argued by Robert Weinberg in his article, the scientific community should take full advantage of the technology available to generate large amounts of data and more efficiently combat diseases that
kill millions of Americans each year.
In his article, Weinberg claims that while this new technology seems like an obvious route to pursue, it shouldn't replace smaller, hypothesis driven projects. He states that hypothesis based experimentation has worked for decades and continues to yield the most beneficial results in the fight against disease. He attacks large scale data efforts, saying they a costly and time consuming, yet only result in beneficial discoveries occasionally. He states, "These massive data-generating projects have yet to yield a clear consensus about how many somatic mutations are required to create a human turmour, and have given us few major breakthroughs in our understanding of how individual tumors develop." Weinberg's overall point is that while data harvesting may seem like an attractive option, it is ultimately risky. In order to undertake data harvesting efforts, smaller experiments must be replaced and the truth is, we don't exactly know how effective data harvesting is yet.
Biology is a science that can be traced all the way back to ancient times. The ancient Greeks, Egyptians, and Sumerians all studied the basics of life questioning what exactly makes things “work.” Originally, biology was a purely descriptive science, and the first man to make a truly significant contribution to biology was Alcmaeon in the 5th century, being the first person to practice dissection. Alcmaeon made strides in the discovery of how humans function internally through observation and description. He observed that when one suffers a concussion to the head, they have trouble thinking and performing, leading to the conclusion that our brain is in our head. Also in his dissections, he discovered the connections between the eyes and optic nerves, and the ears and the Eustachian tubes leading to the brain. These findings overturned another early biologist’s, Aristotle, claims that the brain was located in the heart.
During the 20th century, scientists began to break down complex biological systems into individual areas of study and the study of biology became a less of a descriptive science, and moved to hypotheses and experimentation. This evolution made it clear that observation alone was not enough without the support of experimentation, and the field of biology was permanently changed. Biology as an experimental science has lead to thousands of contributions to society, especially in the fight against disease and other threats to humanity. However, like all things that evolve, they don’t do so just once. The most recent advances in biological study have led to a new form of biological research based upon data and powerful computers. I believe that these data driven methods of research offer a greater hope for combating cancer than more traditional methods.
Todd Golub’s article “Counterpoint: Data First,” directly refutes Weinberg’s argument that traditional experimentation is more effective. Golub even says, “Despite decades of research, cancer-related death and suffering remains a massive public-health problem, with half a million deaths each year in the United States alone.” Golub recites several examples of how effective data harvesting can be, including the story of one of the most famous genome-inspired drugs, inmatinib or “Glivec.” This is the primary drug used in the treatment of chronic myeloid leukemia, replacing risky bone marrow transplants. The discovery of this drug began in the 1960’s when researches began to notice genetic abnormalities under the microscope. Traditional, hypothesis-driven experimentation was used for decades, however, it wasn’t until the 1990’s, with the introduction of powerful, data-harvesting computers, that scientists were able to sequence entire genomes, resulting in the development of the drug. Here is a case where traditional methods only could do so much, yet newer technological advances enabled researchers to make unprecedented strides. Advances in the field of cancer research such as this provide hope for the millions people with cancer, or who are at risk. Sequencing genomes is quick, efficient, and can ultimately even be less expensive than traditional methods.
Perhaps the most famous example of the potential of data harvesting is the Human Genome Project (HGP). The HGP officially began in 1990, however, its planning stages began in the 1980’s and its conceptual roots can be traced back even farther to the beginning of the 20th century. The project was completed in 2001, and has now provided the potential for many advances in biological research. According to the U.S. Department of Energy Office of Science (USDEOS), the project will benefit a wide range of subjects including molecular medicine, energy and environment applications, risk assessment, anthropology, forensics, agriculture and more.
The subject most influenced by the information gained from the HGP, is definitely molecular medicine and according to the USDEOS this should mean “improved diagnoses of disease, earlier detection of genetic predispositions, drug design, and pharmacogenomics or ‘custom drugs’.” Without the HGP, we would surely be farther behind in many of these fields than we are now. These potential products of data harvesting are far too important to be ignored simply because the method of obtaining them is possibly risky. Sometimes risks must be taken in order to make significant advances, and the human genome is a perfect example of this.
It is clear that hypothesis-driven experimentation is our primary tool for biological research, at least for the time being. However, with recent advances in the field of large-scale data harvesting, it is also apparent that using computers to generate massive amounts of data will become vastly more effective and efficient than traditional methods in the future.
Cancer has become this generation’s crusade, and in any crusade, an army needs weapons to fight with. For years, this weapon has been biological experimentation and observation and it has worked quite effectively. However, with the influx of new powerful technologies on the rise, traditional methods are being threatened by newer and possibly more efficient methods. These methods include wide scale, data harvesting performed by computers. In Robert Weinberg article, “Point: Hypothesis First,” he argues that while technology based data collection maybe seem like best approach, “From a cancer researcher’s perspective, the successes of hypothesis-driven science are clear and undeniable.” I, however, believe that Instead of using traditional experimentation methods for cancer research, as argued by Robert Weinberg in his article, the scientific community should take full advantage of the technology available to generate large amounts of data and more efficiently combat diseases that
kill millions of Americans each year.
In his article, Weinberg claims that while this new technology seems like an obvious route to pursue, it shouldn't replace smaller, hypothesis driven projects. He states that hypothesis based experimentation has worked for decades and continues to yield the most beneficial results in the fight against disease. He attacks large scale data efforts, saying they a costly and time consuming, yet only result in beneficial discoveries occasionally. He states, "These massive data-generating projects have yet to yield a clear consensus about how many somatic mutations are required to create a human turmour, and have given us few major breakthroughs in our understanding of how individual tumors develop." Weinberg's overall point is that while data harvesting may seem like an attractive option, it is ultimately risky. In order to undertake data harvesting efforts, smaller experiments must be replaced and the truth is, we don't exactly know how effective data harvesting is yet.
Biology is a science that can be traced all the way back to ancient times. The ancient Greeks, Egyptians, and Sumerians all studied the basics of life questioning what exactly makes things “work.” Originally, biology was a purely descriptive science, and the first man to make a truly significant contribution to biology was Alcmaeon in the 5th century, being the first person to practice dissection. Alcmaeon made strides in the discovery of how humans function internally through observation and description. He observed that when one suffers a concussion to the head, they have trouble thinking and performing, leading to the conclusion that our brain is in our head. Also in his dissections, he discovered the connections between the eyes and optic nerves, and the ears and the Eustachian tubes leading to the brain. These findings overturned another early biologist’s, Aristotle, claims that the brain was located in the heart.
During the 20th century, scientists began to break down complex biological systems into individual areas of study and the study of biology became a less of a descriptive science, and moved to hypotheses and experimentation. This evolution made it clear that observation alone was not enough without the support of experimentation, and the field of biology was permanently changed. Biology as an experimental science has lead to thousands of contributions to society, especially in the fight against disease and other threats to humanity. However, like all things that evolve, they don’t do so just once. The most recent advances in biological study have led to a new form of biological research based upon data and powerful computers. I believe that these data driven methods of research offer a greater hope for combating cancer than more traditional methods.
Todd Golub’s article “Counterpoint: Data First,” directly refutes Weinberg’s argument that traditional experimentation is more effective. Golub even says, “Despite decades of research, cancer-related death and suffering remains a massive public-health problem, with half a million deaths each year in the United States alone.” Golub recites several examples of how effective data harvesting can be, including the story of one of the most famous genome-inspired drugs, inmatinib or “Glivec.” This is the primary drug used in the treatment of chronic myeloid leukemia, replacing risky bone marrow transplants. The discovery of this drug began in the 1960’s when researches began to notice genetic abnormalities under the microscope. Traditional, hypothesis-driven experimentation was used for decades, however, it wasn’t until the 1990’s, with the introduction of powerful, data-harvesting computers, that scientists were able to sequence entire genomes, resulting in the development of the drug. Here is a case where traditional methods only could do so much, yet newer technological advances enabled researchers to make unprecedented strides. Advances in the field of cancer research such as this provide hope for the millions people with cancer, or who are at risk. Sequencing genomes is quick, efficient, and can ultimately even be less expensive than traditional methods.
Perhaps the most famous example of the potential of data harvesting is the Human Genome Project (HGP). The HGP officially began in 1990, however, its planning stages began in the 1980’s and its conceptual roots can be traced back even farther to the beginning of the 20th century. The project was completed in 2001, and has now provided the potential for many advances in biological research. According to the U.S. Department of Energy Office of Science (USDEOS), the project will benefit a wide range of subjects including molecular medicine, energy and environment applications, risk assessment, anthropology, forensics, agriculture and more.
The subject most influenced by the information gained from the HGP, is definitely molecular medicine and according to the USDEOS this should mean “improved diagnoses of disease, earlier detection of genetic predispositions, drug design, and pharmacogenomics or ‘custom drugs’.” Without the HGP, we would surely be farther behind in many of these fields than we are now. These potential products of data harvesting are far too important to be ignored simply because the method of obtaining them is possibly risky. Sometimes risks must be taken in order to make significant advances, and the human genome is a perfect example of this.
It is clear that hypothesis-driven experimentation is our primary tool for biological research, at least for the time being. However, with recent advances in the field of large-scale data harvesting, it is also apparent that using computers to generate massive amounts of data will become vastly more effective and efficient than traditional methods in the future.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v464/n7289/full/464678a.html
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v464/n7289/full/464679a.html
http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/home.shtml
http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/project/benefits.shtml
http://www.historyworld.net/wrldhis/PlainTextHistories.asp?historyid=ac22
http://www.genome.gov/12011239
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v464/n7289/full/464679a.html
http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/home.shtml
http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/project/benefits.shtml
http://www.historyworld.net/wrldhis/PlainTextHistories.asp?historyid=ac22
http://www.genome.gov/12011239
Monday, October 11, 2010
CSCs and their effects
By: Ashley Contreras
About eighteen years ago, my grandmother lost her battle with cancer and though I did not have a chance to meet her, I have seen what this disease does to patients and loved ones. Cancer does not discriminate against race, gender, or age. It can happen to anyone and it’s a very powerful disease but with a lot of medical attention could in fact be cured. Have you ever asked yourself why some cancers some patients survive while others fight and fight but they lose their battle no matter what treatment is used? Well in recent research it has been discovered that Cancer Stem Cell (CSC)-specific phenotypes and mechanisms that relate to functions in tumorigenicity, cancer progression, and therapeutic resistance have been identified. The article “The therapeutic promise of the cancer stem Cell Concept,” by Natasha Frank, Tobias Schatton and Markus Frank, states that CSC, cells that “possess tumor initiation and self renewal abilities correlate with malignant disease progression.” They tend to accelerate malignancy --becoming cancerous-- and because of these CSCs present, the current therapies are failing. With this new information we are now able to further research CSCs and find a way improve our cancer therapies.
“Tumorigenic populations fulfilling the definition of CSCs have been identified in a number of human cancers, including leukemias (23-28), bladder cancer (29), breast cancer (30), CNS cancers (31), colon carcinoma (32-34), head and neck cancer (35), ovarian cancer (36), pancreatic cancer (37, 38), malignant melanoma (13), liver cancer (39), and Ewing sarcoma (40).” (article). Because it deals with many different types of cancers our awareness about these cells should be broadened. Now there is a therapeutic promise in the CSC concept. Scientist are predict that cures will require suppression of all cells within the cancer. They not only have to focus on eliminating “bulk cancer populations” but also now they know to target the CSCs . In order to target these cell they are using approaches that include “direct strategies, such as ablation by targeting molecular markers of CSCs or CSC-specific pathways, reversal of resistance mechanisms, and differentiation therapy, and indirect strategies, such as antiangiogenic therapy, immunotherapeutic approaches, and disruption of protumorigenic nteractions between CSCs and their microenvironment.” (article)
With more technological advances and the constant information being discovered, cancer being one of the leading causes of deaths can be cured more efficiently and permanently. It is amazing how much science has discovered within the last few decades. Hopefully scientist will continue to research in more depth the cancer stem cells and find cures for all types of cancers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)