Change Your Ways, Or Else

If given the choice, many people would choose not to know how the rest of their life is going to end up. However, many of these same people would not pass up an opportunity to delay their death for at least a little while. When we participate in potentially health harming behaviors, we are doing the exact opposite of delaying death.

A recent study in Behavior Modification questions what causes people to engage in these risky behaviors, and particularly whether or not negative emotions predict alcohol consumption, saturated fat intake, and physical activity in older adults.

Those that participated in the study included 23 older adults, with the average age being 58 that were enrolled in either an in or outpatient executive health program. All of the participants completed a questionnaire focusing on their experience with and expression of anger. The respondents also completed a second questionnaire relating to feelings of depression in relation to how they have felt in the last week. Finally, the subjects completed a health appraisal survey.

Results of these questionnaires compared to other dietary and health evaluations led to results showing that levels of depression, anxiety, and anger all influence health behaviors. High levels of anger and depression proved to be accurate predictors of increased saturated fat intake while these same levels of anger were negatively correlated to the amount of time the participants put towards aerobic exercise per week. The levels of stress and anxiety reported by the participants also pointed to a negative correlation with alcohol consumption.

Previous research has stated that levels of anxiety were positively related to alcohol consumption, a finding that is the exact opposite of the one in this study. One possible cause of this difference in results could be the lack of alcohol consumption in this particular group of participants. While this may be a possible cause, the difference is still intriguing enough to warrant further inquiry from professionals.

The importance of this study lies in the fact that it is one of the first to expose the relationship between anger levels and the expression of this anger as related to health related behaviors. People experiencing such negative emotional states may suffer from lack of motivation to participate in self-improving health techniques.

If other studies continue to elaborate on this one to prove that there really is a strong relationship between anger and poor health habits, then at-risk individuals could be identified. Treatments for these at-risk individuals may include instructions and skills imperative to controlling their anger and managing the way they express their anger as well.

Limits to this study include a small sample size and the reliance of the investigators on the participants to accurately self-report their health behaviors. A more comprehensive study including a wider range of participants as well as covering a larger span of time may produce entirely different results. What is most important, however, is the fact that this subject has been brought up to stimulate further study.

Overall, the findings show the public that negative emotions such as anger and anxiety lead to a decrease in positive health behaviors. More research would be beneficial in understanding the relationship between mental and physical behaviors and could lead to worthwhile interventions and prevention.

References

http://bmo.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/29/4/677

http://psp.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/28/4/521

A New Perspective on the "Freshman 15" and Other Weight Gain...

It is common knowledge that eating bad foods and not exercising can lead to bad health, but these habits can also be caused by anger and depression. Recently, in an issue of Behavior Modification, Steven D. Anton and Peter M. Miller of the Medical University of South Carolina conducted a case study on how the negative emotions of older adults affect alcohol consumption, saturated fat intake, and physical activity. The study included a series of questionnaires proven to be accurate. There were 23 participants, 16 males and 7 females, all of whom were successful in corporate business and were Caucasian. It is important to realize that the health of the American society is on average, below normal and investigating the problem can only result in positive feedback on an issue that many people battle daily. The scientists made a new discovery in treating obesity and this experiment was just the beginning of more research to be conducted in this area of cognitive behavior.

Coronary Heart Disease (CDH) is defined as the end result of the accumulation of atheromatous plaques (fat/cholesterol build-up) within the walls of the arteries that supply the myocardium (the muscle of the heart). “Coronary heart disease and stroke are the leading cause of death and disability in the United States and while genetics may contribute to this disease, it has been proven that lifestyle factors play a significant role in the development and progression of chronic disease” (Anton, Miller 2). The main goal of this study was to isolate other causes of chronic disease besides strictly bad eating habits and no exercise. The participants, with an average age of 58, were given a series of questionnaires dealing with anger expression (STAXI), depression levels (CES-D), anxiety rating, fat intake (FIS), and a “focus on the heart” questionnaire, which analyzed alcohol consumption. Each of the surveys asked the subject specific questions where they rated their answers on number scales (Anton, Miller, 6). The authors clearly state more experimentation is necessary into the psychological aspect of these cognitive habits, as this study had several factors of deviation. All the participants are Caucasian and the race with the highest coronary heart disease risk are African-Americans. Also, only so much accuracy can be extracted from questionnaires, because the experimenters are putting great confidence in the truthfulness of the subjects.

After analyzing the answers, Anton and Miller came up with several common conclusions, as well as, one surprising cause of exercise. The first topic addressed was alcohol consumption. They multiplied quantity (number of drinks) by frequency (drinking days per week) to come up with correlation numbers. Levels of tension and anxiety were negatively correlated with alcohol consumption and neither depression nor anger scores were correlated with alcohol (Anton, Miller, 7). This means that as alcohol was consumed, the tension and anxiety levels were not affected. Next, levels of saturated fat intake were taken in. The CES-D survey and the FIS survey were directly correlated, which means that as depression increased, saturated fat intake also increased. The FIS survey was also correlated with the anger and expression survey, concluding that levels of saturated fat intake increased with poor anger expression. Exercise and aerobic conditioning were negatively affected by amount of stress. However, the one new, major conclusion of this experiment was that there was a strong positive correlation between internal anger expression and strength training. The scientists found that people who contain their anger without expression are more likely to participate in strength training because that type of exercise works to release anger.

In the scientists discussion of the experiment they state that they expected depression and trait anger would be positively associated with increased levels of saturated fat intake (Anton, Miller, 9). They also stated that they were surprised that stress and anxiety were negatively associated with alcohol consumption, as previous studies have found that negative emotions increase consumption. They attribute this deviation to the sample of subjects; by stating that most were successful corporate executives who tend to stray from alcohol because of decreased productivity (Anton, Miller, 10). “The key findings of this study were that anger levels and expression style were strongly associated with health behaviors” (Anton, Miller, 10). The researchers believe that if further research continues to conclude that there is a strong relationship between anger levels and poor health habits, then efforts should be made to identify and treat those at risk (Anton, Miller, 10).

The experimenters, as well as myself, believe that obesity is a problem and it is important to take in all the aspects of this problem. The findings of this study open the door for future research into this area of psychology. “Further research examining this relationship would enhance our understanding of both personality and health behaviors, leading to more effective interventions for CHD risk factors” (Anton, Miller, 12). It is essential that medical researchers address this issue to bring the large number of people affected by coronary heart disease down.

Works Cited:
Anton, Stephen D., and Peter M. Miller "Do Negative Emotions Predict Alcohol Consumption, Saturated Fat Intake, and Physical Activity in Older Adults?" Behavior Modification 29 (2005): 1-13. Sage Journals Online. 15 Feb. 2007 .

And You Thought Picking Your Nose was Gross....

We have all heard of different obsessive compulsive disorders that prevent individuals who experience them from carrying on an everyday routine, however most people are unaware of the very unusual disorder, chronic skin picking. Skin picking by definition is the recurrent picking of the skin accompanied by visible tissue damage, resulting in significant distress and/or functional impairment. (Flessner, 2) Classified as an obsessive compulsive disorder, skin picking most frequently occurs in females with the onset of the disorder happening at age 16. Since little research has been done regarding this disorder, Christopher Flessner and Douglas Woods, of the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, conducted a case study to determine the phenomenological characteristics, social problems and economic impact of skin picking. The results of this study were analyzed and significant relationships were revealed between chronic skin picking and depression or anxiety disorders. The information collected from this study can help others gain a sense of knowledge for a disorder that is normally unheard of.

As I said before, little research has been done on the chronic skin picking disorder, however it was recently determined that a psychological reason behind skin picking is experimental avoidance. Experimental avoidance is the tendency for an individual to avoid or escape from negative private events or emotions, in other words picking the skin to relieve his/her anxiety or depression. (Flessner, 3) This relationship was the basis for the study conducted by Flessner and Woods to learn more about skin picking as a whole. To begin their study, participants were recruited through a link on the Trichotillomania Learning Center’s home page. Trichotillomania (TTM) is an impulse disorder that causes people to pull out hair from their bodies (http://www.trich.org, 1), therefore this website might also be visited by chronic skin pickers, making it an ideal site for recruitment. Receiving 101 responses from their internet survey, the authors analyzed the answers of 92 participants. Of these, 85 were completed by women, supporting the theory that the disorder is more common among females. The survey used in the study included demographic questions such as age, race and income, and phenomenological questions for instance, “Do you experience pleasure after picking?” These questions were included to learn more about the phenomenological characteristics of the disorder. As a whole, the survey took an average of 45 minutes to complete, at the end of which participants gave their consent to participate in research.

Although this study seems somewhat informal, the results obtained are beneficial when trying to learn more about the causes and effects of the chronic skin picking disorder. The most commonly picked area on the body was the face, arms and legs for the whole population survey, indicating a reason for depression in many because of the permanent scarring that can result from recurrent skin picking. A surprising fact found in the study was that those who pick their skin actually spend 2.75 hours per day picking the skin, resisting the urge to pick the skin, or thinking about picking the skin.

In relation to depression or anxiety, many facts were found to support this claim. 85% of participants reported engaging in behaviors to conceal the effects of their picking, and 40.2% of participants stated that they avoid social events all together, for fear of others noticing their scars. All respondents admitted to experiencing some form of depression or anxiety as a result of their skin picking, with ¼ of participants claiming to have been on medication to relieve these negative feelings.

As for the economic impact skin picking has on an individual, the study found that participants spend $160 per year on products to conceal the effects of their picking. A reported $500 per year are spent on physicians’ fees and $1000 per year on medications to relieve negative feelings from skin picking. Combined, these results signify that chronic skin picking can be financially harmful to the victim and/or the victim’s family.

Overall, this study conducted by Flessner and Woods was beneficial in the fact that it was the first of its kind. There have been no other studies conducted to learn of the social or economic impacts of chronic skin picking. Consequently, the results obtained from the study, that skin picking has a major economic impact, and impacts an individual’s social lifestyle, reveal that more research needs to be done in this area of healthcare. If more became known about the disorder, a cure may be found to alleviate victims from this unusual disease.

References:

Christopher A. Flessner and Douglas W. Woods Phenomenological Characteristics, Social Problems, and the Economic Impact Associated With Chronic Skin Picking
Behav Modif 2006 30: 944-963.

Why Must I Suffer?

Surgery for many children can be a stressful experience. For over sixty years, clinical researchers have observed significant emotional reactions in young children. For example, Eckenhoff (1953) look at six hundred children to discover a link between “unsatisfactory” anesthetic inductions and a change in a child’s personality. In the United States, approximately four million children undergo anesthesia and surgery (Kain and Caldwell-Andrews, 2005). Some people believe that an average of forty to sixty percent of children experience anxiety. Anxiety is expressed in many ways for children. For instance becoming agitated breathing deeply, trembling, crying, stop talking, etc. From high anxiety up to twenty-five percent of children requires physical restraint to help with anesthetic induction.

It appears anesthesia is the most stressful period during preoperative period. “Preoperative anxiety is anxiety associated with a particular event – surgery.” This is not to be associated with anxiety as children would have a greater response such as waking up, crying, disobeying parents, separation anxiety, etc. In order to reduce the results of children with anxiety, a number of prevention strategies have been “employed.” A drug has proven to be effective in reducing anxiety, Midazolam, a benzodiazepine and amnestic properties. At the same time the Midazolam has side effects such as delay on emergence behavioral changes and amnesia. In 1998, a US Food and Drug Administration approved of Midazolam in syrup in the form of 2 mg/mL. Although over time 0.50 mg/kg is the most effective dose amount with few side effects.
Another method to help reduce preoperative anxiety is music therapy. Kain, Caldwell-Andrews, Krivutza, Weinberg, Gaal, and colleagues (2004) found that children that undergone music therapy before and after surgery was less anxious. At the same time, hypnosis can reduce anxiousness in children. Furthermore, hypnosis has been found to reduce maladaptive behavioral. Hypnosis, also, allows children to go to participate in the induction experience in a relax state of mind.

Still a big debate faced by hospital across America is allowing parents to be present when treating or preventing preoperative anxiety. In 2003 “Kain, Caldwell-Andrews, Wang, and colleagues” observed that eighty percent of parents wanted to be present because they felt their presence would be a benefit (Wright, Kristi et al, 61). In 2002 twenty-six percent of hospital surveyed had a formal policy about parental presence during induction (Krivutza et al., 61). I can see why a hospital would not want a parent to present before a child goes into surgery. Since I was a child, I have been deathly afraid of needles. Just a regular check-up would make me cringe at the thought of the doctor giving me a shot. Every time I did get a shot my mom was present and by the time I was in high school I still would want my mom to be there with me in the doctor’s office. By having my mom constantly coming with me to the doctor’s office made me depended on her instead of realizing there is nothing to fear.

Even though I now go to the doctor’s office by myself, I still get nervous when it comes to getting a shot. Take for instance this year I need to get my wisdom teeth taken out. This is not major surgery, but when I first heard that all four of my wisdom teeth would be taken out some new fears arise. My dentist said that they needed to cut into my gums before my wisdom teeth start to push against my other teeth because my mouth is too small to hold all my teeth. That is why I was drawn to this article. This article realizes that major procedures can have a lasting affect on children, but if action is taken at a young age the anxiety felt before and after surgery can be reduced.

Source
Wright, Kristi D., Sherry H. Stewart, G. Allen Finley and Susan E. Buffett-Jerrott. “Prevention and Intervention Strategies to Alleviate Preoperative Anxiety in Children: A Critical Review.” Behavior Modification. 31.1 (2007): 52-79. http://bmo.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/31/1/52.

When it comes to nuclear fuel some aspects are dangerous but there are ways it can be extremely beneficial to meet our society’s energy needs. Whether it involves storage, recycling, or using nuclear energy, controversy always seems to arise. The author of a recent editorial from the scientific magazine, Nature, discussed reprocessing nuclear fuels. The author established that reprocessing should be laid to rest ending “a three-decade strategy to severe the connection between nuclear power and nuclear weapons” (Nature, 1). While this is true, it is plausible that storage in the Yukka Mountains and nuclear reprocessing are viable solutions to storage problems and less production.

To date, nuclear waste is being stored in several areas around the United States, with the majority located on the east coast. This poses more of a threat than if it were stored in one concrete place, like the Yukka Mountains. A journal article entitled, Nuclear Waste, describes the province by stating, “few signs of civilization can be seen from the windswept crest of Yucca Mountain, a flat-topped volcanic ridge about 100 desert miles northwest of Las Vegas. The closest humans live 15 miles to the south, at a desolate crossroads known as Lathrop Wells — population eight” (Hansen, 1). Many people argue that is too high risk and bad for the environment and the booming tourist city of Las Vegas, but let’s face the facts, nuclear power is vital to meet our energy needs and with nuclear energy use, comes nuclear waste storage. “This country is choking on its own nuclear waste,” Murkowski thundered. “If we don't solve the problem of our spent nuclear fuel soon, the American taxpayer will bear the cost of the financial liability . . .” (Hansen, 2). People have to think about a solution to waste storage and so far, the Yukka Mountain province is the only plausible presentation. While the process will be long, taking an estimated 25 years to transport all the waste to the site, it will, in my opinion, be better in the long run. Also, there is a good possibility that scientists could develop better ways of storage in the near future. They are now looking at a process called transmutation, “some experts believe that a still experimental waste reprocessing technique may someday reduce the required isolation time for spent nuclear fuel from thousands of years to just a few centuries” (Hansen, 3). Unfortunately some people, like the editor of the Nature article, would probably agree with others who say that transmutation is just another name for reprocessing. Personally, as a resident of the east coast, where the majority of the current storage sites are located, I am directly affected and feel that the Yukka Mountains is an ideal place for storage.

Nuclear reprocessing is another option because it aims to reduce the volume of nuclear waste that has to be stored safely by recycling it for use in nuclear reactors (Nature, 1). The United States and Germany abandoned this process earlier but France has kept up with the costly fuel recycling. The United States is now “recycling the past” with President Bush’s proposal to bring back the reprocessing. The editorialist in Nature feels that this is not the way to go about solving this crisis and that it would be backtracking (Nature, 1). However, on the contrary, I feel that even though the process is costly, the United States could benefit from recycling. Why would people support recycling plastics for less pollution, but do not support recycling nuclear fuel for less waste, storage, and potential danger? The issue is much more complicated than what I just proposed, but it seems that people are not supporting storage solutions because they would rather be idle and not worry about the problem now. “Let’s cross that bridge when it comes,” is the old saying, but when this bridge comes it’s probably already going to be flaming and broken.

The nuclear waste debate is a fragile subject. President Bush believes we should build more plants for nuclear power, but the problem of waste disposal needs to be solved first and foremost. “Will there be accidents? That's certainly a possibility,” Benson says. “But we haven't been able to come up with a credible, real-world scenario where there would be any kind of catastrophic release” (Hansen, 5). There are going to be risks on both sides of the argument. If we do not re-start reprocessing, then there will be much more nuclear waste to store, and if we do not agree on where to store the waste that we have now, it is going to become very dangerous. Either way, waste will be created and until we agree or have an authority proclaim it, the waste is going to be too widely dispersed. The safety of millions will be affected if this problem is not addressed. The government spends billions trying to protect its citizens from other countries, but the real threat might turn out to be in our homeland.

Hansen, B. (2001, June 8). Nuclear waste. CQ Researcher, 11, 489-504. Retrieved February 15, 2007, from CQ Researcher Online, http://library.cqpress.com/cqresearcher/cqresrre2001060800.

“Recycling the Past.” Nature. 02 February 2006. 11 February 2007.

Transmutation of High-Level Nuclear Waste. Meyer Steinberg. 1990. JSTOR. 10 Feb. 2007 .

Immigration Restrictions Threaten Advancement in Pulbic Health

After September 11, 2001, America increased security including harder immigration restrictions. The restrictions affected those seeking citizenship and also scientists hoping to do research and teach. By 2004, the United State was warned that these policies would delay scientific exchange. According to a recent Nature editorial, these restrictions have improved. The government has managed to abandon a plan to force foreign scientists to obtain licenses to work in a laboratory. The editor feels complacent with the improvements made by the United States government. I feel that the United States has not done enough with the restriction policy for immigrants.

Right now America is faced with a big debate over the immigration between Mexico and America, its neighboring country. The reason why a lot of scientists want to come to America is because this country has a lot of new hi-tech equipment as well as a lot of funding that goes into scientific research. For scientists there is a great need to keep doors open between the science communities so that they can communicate ideas efficiently. According to another article by Nature in 2003, The Risk of Exclusion, an Australian citizen was sent to Montreal for a one-day visa interview. When he tired to return to the United States he was delayed for nine weeks because he was born in Malaysia and that was one of the 26 countries being investigated after 9/11(Nature, pg 1). This incident happened just two years before the editor in the 2006 article from Nature claimed that so much has been improved. I understand that the government finds a greater need to protect its citizens, but for the pursuit of higher knowledge in the field of science the government should try to find a more efficient means of allowing people to travel into the United States.

With these immigration restrictions not only are scientists feeling the affects but so are public-health programs. As mention in Nature’s 2003 article, “Chris Beyrer, who directs the AIDS International Training and Research Program at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, Maryland, says that visa delays have occurred…in Uganda and Thailand”(Nature, 2). For scientists that live in Africa coming to America it is very important to learn how to implement “Antiviral therapy for AIDS” (Nature, 2). Without this knowledge there is no hope in ending the AIDS crisis in Africa. However, new guidelines for obtaining a visa have pushed back much needed information other countries need to fight illnesses. As mention in 2003 Nature magazine, now many scientists have to wait three to five months for their visa to be processed (Nature, 1). The second stage of obtaining an entry stamp is harder to predict because consular officials can be faced with criminal charges for admitting someone who commits a terrorist act (Nature, 1). These delays not only affect other countries but the United States as well.

As mention in a meeting amongst the House Science Committee many expressed satisfaction from the exclusion of foreign scientist (Nature, 2). It is unlikely for a large number of committee members to change their mind in three years, especially, as the United States continues to receive biological threats that can be easily transferred on an airplane. However, there is still a great risk from not involving foreign scientists. As mention in Peuples and Monde, the United States can deny funding for scientific research of HIV (Peuples and Monde, 1). The Bush Administration appears to be in denial that there should only be “abstinence-only” programs regardless of the thousands of people who already have HIV (Peuples and Monde, 1). By having scientist from other countries coming to America, our scientists can be introduced to new ways to neutralize or eliminate the HIV virus. These other countries can use the funding provided by their government to discover new treatment. Although, if the scientists from these countries can not come into the Unites States then American citizens will be behind in beneficial treatment. HIV is a rapidly growing problem that needs to be contained now before it becomes out of hand across the world.

I am not saying that America needs to forget about 9/11 and allow any scientist to come to America. At the same time be excluding every scientist America falls behind in new ways from improving public health. As a college student with the lack of international students I can not fully expand my potential because I am not exposed to other ideas. With my goals of becoming a Pharmacist other ideas are key factors to creating cures for some of the most deadly and harmful diseases. Outside influences can point out things that I or other colleagues may have over looked. If other countries continued to be prevented from entering the United States these countries could create weapons that could harm us without our knowledge. As the saying goes “Keep your friends close, keep you enemies closer.”

Sources

Brumfiel, Geoff. “Researchers rage at tightened restrictions on US immigration.” Nature. 422 (2003): 457-458. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v422/n6931/full/422457a.html;jsessionid=89B39DFE562FCBA9117E7C9507675363

“Five years on.” Nature. 433 (2006): 2. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v443/n7107/full/443002a.html

“In the United States, today Science, as science, is under attack as never before.” Peuples & Monde. (2006): 2. http://www.peuplesmonde.com/article.php3?id_article=574

“The risk of exclusion.” Nature. 6.2 (2003): 203. http://www.nature.com/neuro/journal/v6/n3/pdf/nn0303-203.pdf

How Much is Too Much?

As a whole, many American people are unhappy with the way the Bush administration has continued to increase the United States military’s nuclear weapon stockpile. Many feel that actions like these violate nuclear weapons acts that were put into effect long ago. Speaking on behalf of people who share this belief, the author of “Rich in Plutonium,” an editorial published on October 26, 2006 in Nature, expressed his/her own feelings that the US nuclear-weapons complex is way too large and continued growth should be stopped. My personal opinion regarding this issue is that the government has taken the right steps in acquiring more nuclear weapons and more nuclear weapon facilities considering the high threat of nuclear warfare posed by pro-terrorist countries. In order to protect American citizens, it is only right to take every precaution, and by nuclear weapon increase the US will intimidate competing countries and stay ahead in the weapons race.

As of October 26, 2006 the United States was retaining about 50 tons of plutonium for military use. This amount is enough to fuel approximately 9000 warheads. (Nature, 2) While many Americans feel strongly opposed to the fact that our military has equipped itself with a large amount of nuclear weaponry, including the author of “Rich in Plutonium,” I feel that this is necessary in order to intimidate other countries who are planning to attack. Most of the countries considered to be “nuclear weapon holders” are ones that we are not at peace with. Thus, it is necessary to increase the amount of nuclear weapons in the United States in order to create a feeling of threat towards these countries. If they are aware that we are fully equipped to go to war with them at any time they are less likely to initiate conflict and turmoil. On October 9, 2006 North Korea successfully conducted an underground nuclear test in Hwaderi. This was following the statement of the United Nations Security council that warned North Korea against nuclear testing saying that “if a nuclear test was carried out it would represent a clear threat to international peace and security.” It was also reported by US intelligence that traces of plutonium were found in the air over the Kharan Desert in Pakistan, indicating a joint test of nuclear weaponry with North Korea. (Global Security, 4) Obviously pro-terrorist countries like North Korea and Pakistan are not respecting the values of the United Nations, in which the United States is a member. In order to gain this respect the US government must show other pro-terrorist countries that they will not back down from their posed threats. In effect, it is vital that we increase the number of nuclear warheads in our disposal, as to create a sense of ultimate superiority that these countries will learn to respect. Those in opposition might argue that creating intimidation will only generate hatred from opposing countries, it is clear that these countries have already chosen to instigate conflict with us, making it clear that they wish nothing but distress upon us.

In order to be successful at keeping other nuclear countries at bay, the American government must continue to excel in creating new ideas, specifically nuclear weapons and improved weapons facilities. The country who is ahead in the weapons race is always at a great advantage; holding the upper hand when it comes to running the show. Therefore it is imperative that the United States occupy this position. The main reason the US government is constructing this new nuclear weapons facility is to accommodate the production of a new kind of nuclear warhead. This innovative missile would require less maintenance than existing designs, accelerating the United States ahead of other weapon producing countries such as India, Pakistan, and North Korea in nuclear advancement. (Nature, 5) (Wikipedia, 1) While those in opposition of more nuclear weapons facilities argue that increasing our stockpile will only prompt other countries to reinvent their own, I feel that this type of competition is only natural. Every citizen should be aware by now that there are other countries out there that do not share our beliefs and practices and will do anything to overcome us. They are not going to stop producing nuclear warheads no matter how many treaties or signed. Consequently, we must enter into the competition and do our best to come out on top.

Overall, the idea of nuclear warfare between opposing countries is always going to raise some type of controversy and debate. As for the actions of the United States government I disagree with the author of the editorial “Rich in Plutonium” who feels that our country’s nuclear weapon complex has become too large. In my opinion, the actions of the US government have been correct and they should continue to increase their stockpile of nuclear weapons and nuclear weapons facilities. By intimidating competing countries and staying ahead in the weapons race the US government is keeping the best interests of American citizens in mind.

Works Cited

“Rich in Plutonium.” Nature. 443 (2006): 883-884. University of North Carolina, Undergraduate Library. 10 Feb. 2007. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v443/n7114/full/443883b.html

Nuclear Weapons Testing. John Pike. Oct. 10, 2006. Global Security. 10 Feb. 2007 http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/dprk/nuke-test.htm

Lists of States with Nuclear Weapons. 14 Feb. 2007 Wikipedia. 14 Feb. 2007 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_with_nuclear_weapons

Impending Doom

A virus’ impending doom can quickly spread to cause international concern. However, to sit and worry about attacks has never been productive. So, the real problem lies in what to do in preparation for the future.

A Nature article focuses on the lack of bird flu data, and pinpoints the root of the problem to not having an adequate flow of information between countries. While getting along with these other countries is important, should we not be more concerned about trying to produce a vaccine?

The public has the right to know about this deadly disease, one that has the means to kill more people than many of the previous flu pandemics, including the epidemic of 1918. Scientists and government officials need to be ready for this type of outbreak, because once the flu mutates to become contagious between people, if immediate treatment is not given within the first 48 hours then death is even more rapid.

Instead, some people such as the author of the Nature article are more concerned about creating an international database containing information about the Avian flu. As of today, there are no laws requiring the government report any sicknesses other than yellow fever, cholera, and the plague leading officials to worry that there have been unreported cases of the bird flu.
But should we be putting all of our efforts towards trying to reform the World Health Organization, or should we be putting them towards bringing together the best internationally acclaimed scientists as a team?

Officials, both scientists and those in the government, are somewhat convinced that one of the first outbreaks of the Avian flu is going to occur after a plane ride. One person who has obtained the flu in another country may sit beside someone who has not yet contracted the flu. However, once the infected person sneezes or commits some other seemingly harmless act, the flu is transmitted and can quickly spread throughout the plane. Once these people get off this first flight, and either go home or transfer to another flight, the flu can quickly be spread.
How much help is an international flu database going to be, when these people have to be found, quarantined, diagnosed, and their lives saved within the first 48 hours of being on that plane?

No sure place has yet been reached that would make scientists feel confident enough to say they have a sure-fire vaccine in case of an epidemic. This obviously needs to be solved as soon as possible, for once the Avian flu mutates to become easily passable between humans, there is not much time to stop it before it spreads into a pandemic.

Scientists have stated that level of lethality in the virus depends on the changes it undergoes, but more importantly this means that the virus can take many different paths all to result in death. These different paths make it much more difficult to produce a viable vaccine, and simultaneously make it imperative for top scientists to consult among each other.

Scientists, as well as the world, need to be ready for the devastation this virus could induce. The only way we can be ready for this however, would be to completely focus on what to do once the outbreak hits, not overly worrying about what countries are getting along with whom.

The United States government has attempted to develop an adequate course of action to take in the event of a rapid flu spread, in order to prevent a pandemic. However, this falls in line with what the author of Nature is suggesting and nothing concrete has been set or even provided for monetarily. While the U.S. government has the ability to control things such as domestic travel and other regulations within our own country, the government would have trouble providing significant authority over international regulations, or even air flights. This may be where the Nature author feels it would be appropriate to have an international "treaty" of sorts, but once again, it would be impossible to terminate all flights and, in a sense, quarantine several countries at a time.

Instead of looking towards what is going to happen after the pandemic hits full force, it would be a much better investment of time to look tactics that would prevent a pandemic altogether.

Sources
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/11/world/11flu.html?ex=1171688400&en=66a4041d8b503b0f&ei=5070

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v440/n7082/full/440255b.html (Subscription required)

http://www.cdc.gov/flu/avian/gen-info/facts.htm

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/04/health/04flu.html?ex=1171688400&en=94ede87c8ed1ad2c&ei=5070

What Will You Do About the Avian Flu?

Scholarly Journals in the natural science area are easily found and contain a wide variety of information. In the previous assignment, we looked at Nature, a scientific magazine. We were particularly focused on editorials and opinions and were instructed to write on something we found particularly interesting. As I looked into bioterrorism in the previous post, I decided to view scholarly articles on the Avian Flu Epidemic that recently hit mainstream media and had a large number of people worried. I found that the distinct difference between scholarly journals and regular articles is the type of information each provides and I gained a great deal of useful information on the avian flu from the journal. We could all benefit from knowing so much about something that our government is worried enough to spend $3.8 billion dollars on, right?

It is not difficult to see that scholarly journals take on a completely different level of thought and organization. These writings are much longer and obviously take a much larger amount of time, effort, and research; whereas, most editorials give the basic outline of the situation and then discuss the author’s opinion on the subject. In the Avian Flu Threat, the report starts with an Abstract and Overview, which summarize the article and gives an overview of the situation and how it started. In this particular article, they talk about what is being done to combat the flu, the first human-to-human case, and the amount of money and lives this new threat has taken (Glazer, 1). They go on to explain the World Health Organization’s (WHO) involvement and include maps of bird migratory patterns for the spread of the virus. The scientist’s hypothesis is clearly stated throughout the paper, what is the United States going to do when another flu epidemic comes and it takes too long to create a vaccine?

The background gives information to better inform the reader of the data presented. In this case, information is presented on the flu outbreak of 1918, where an estimated 40 to 100 million citizens died worldwide (Glazer, 2). The SARS outbreak is also highlighted, along with facts about the expected mutation of the virus and the chances of it becoming spread vastly from human to human. “Today, the virus is “like a key that doesn't quite fit the lock” of human-to-human contagion, explains Michael T. Osterholm, a professor at the University of Minnesota's School of Public Health. “But if you jiggle the key enough times, occasionally it will open the door. The virus is moving closer to the key that would really open the door. That's when you get sustained human-to-human transmission.” The only available treatment are Tamiflu and Relenza, which are simply medicines for basic influenza.

Probably the most informative and interesting sections are the overview and current situation. It encompasses all the previously assessed information and relates it to citizens. There is a chart of avian flu cases and deaths since 2003 presented by the WHO and other informative visuals, such as, How to Avoid Risk. One can particularly find the set-up of these sections useful. The author presents the audience with a quesiton (e.g. “Is the United States Preparded for a Pandemic?”) (Glazer, 4), and then proceeds to provide the answer. Domestic efforts, liability, and quarantines are all presented in sections as solutions to the problem. Unfortunately what worries scientists the most is the fifty-percent death rate of this disease (Glazer, 4). An interesting topic also presented is the economic effects. Countries will shut down their borders and cut off trade, which will cause a severe medicine shortage in the United States, because we import eighty percent of our raw materials (Glazer). Scholarly journals not only present the entire subject, but also provide solutions and other information pertinent to the topic.

To sum up the information, scholarly journals usually contain an outlook section towards the end. We are left with a question, in this case, economic disaster? (Glazer) While many disagree on the severity of this epidemic, most agree that there will be another flu epidemic and that we should caution ourselves because chances are vaccines will be in short supply if it sneaks up on us (Glazer). This article contains useful information on how the government and other organizations are researching and providing answers to this threat. It presents the problems, how many vaccines will be needed, when vaccines will be available and how many can be produced? It really stresses the need to start now, because of scientists beliefs that there will be another flu epidemic and the medicine needed is not going to meet the number of people acquiring the disease. They also tell the stories of several people who died of the avian flu in Asia while the flu was believed to be a severe threat.

Just by providing an overview of the contents of a scholarly journal, one can see that it encompasses a much higher amount of information. Editorials are intended to get the reader interested and provide an opinion, but one should always view scholarly journals when researching or learning everything they can about a subject. There is such a large amount of good information that it is hard not to learn more from them and this scholarly journal is a good start to inform oneself about this biological threat.

Works Cited:
Glazer, S. (2006, January 13). Avian flu threat. CQ Researcher, 16, 25-48. Retrieved January 30, 2007, from CQ Researcher Online, http://library.cqpress.com/cqresearcher/cqresrre2006011300.

Global Warming: The Ocean Might Be Our New Enemy.

Global warming is a worldwide problem that appears to becoming worse every year. In 2006 America experienced its warmest winter to date. Every year about 5.5 billion tons of carbon of carbon dioxide is released into the atmosphere. However, 2 billion tons of the carbon released is assumed to be absorbed in the ocean and in the biosphere.

As temperatures steadily climb scientist look at other sources of energy. In the last two decades, ocean exploration shows an abundant amount of methane hydrate in deep ocean sediments. For over 20 years in Messoyakh, Russia it has been used as a commercial production of gas. Methane hydrates is an ideal fuel because it only releases carbon dioxide and no other harmful pollutants. At the same time the chemical energy in all known methane hydrate is twice the amount than any fossil fuel, which makes it desirable among scientists to be able to exploit this amount of energy.

Even though this maybe more helpful than fossil fuels, the National Science Foundation’s Ocean Deep-drilling Program suggest the ocean may have helped in global warming. Scientist found microscopic methane bubbles that are nutrients for the “methane ice-worm,” which is the foundation for the deep-sea food chain. Although the energy released raises the ocean temperature it also releases carbon dioxide that could escape into the atmosphere. To further prove this idea, many people have been looking closely at the Artic ice melting. Many believe that the atmospheric heat has caused the ice to melt but there is not enough information from satellite remote-sensing data to prove that idea. On the other hand, since 1990 the Atlantic Ocean has become warmer and has been thinning the Artic ice which has caused an increase in the amount of ice that has been melting.

It is know that the United States is the world’s largest consumer of energy (about twenty-five percent). Thanks to Clinton’s Oceans Act in 2000, which does an eighteen month review of all ocean and coastal activities; the United States has begun to find fundamental steps for slowing the process of global warming. At the same time finding safe ways to mine for methane hydrate to be used for fuels in order to prevent large amount of energy from warming up the ocean and atmosphere. A supplement of methane hydrate for oil and coal the US can delay major energy crisis and gain economic benefits from reduced energy imports.

Throughout campuses across America students have been made aware of the dangers of global warming and encouraged to take a stand and try to slow down the process. This article shows what scientists are trying to do as much as possible to find other methods for fuel energy. Although, scientists also know that carbon dioxide and CFC’s are not the only things that cause a rise in temperature. I was surprise to learn that the ocean as has an affect on global warming and causing ice to melt in the Arctic. By watching the news, ocean patterns like the Gulf Stream has caused large amounts of warm water to travel up to the northern pole which has caused a rise in water levels from melted ice. As mention beforehand, a lot of the ice contains methane bubbles that can release carbon dioxide instead of being absorbed by the ocean. For America and the rest of the world we need to look at all causes for global warming in order to stop the process.

Source

Lai, Chung-Chieng A. David E. Dietrich, and Malcolm J. Bowman. “Global warming and the mining of oceanic methane hydrate.” Topics in Catalysis. 32.3–4 (2005): 95-99. http://www.springerlink.com/content/pn31475q37871408/fulltext.pdf

Safe in Your Own Home??

Have you ever considered the fact that your health may be at risk based on your choice of residence? If not, you may need to rethink your answer to that question. A scholarly journal, “Health and Place” recently published an article entitled, “Neighborhood and HIV infection among IDU: Place of residence independently predicts HIV infection among a cohort of injection drug users,” revealing a shocking study that investigated a poor Canadian neighborhood and its surrounding areas, deciding whether or not the environmental conditions were a risk factor for HIV infection in injection users. The study, conducted by medical professionals, found this claim to be somewhat true, bringing to surface a question in all of our minds; can we feel safe in our own surroundings?

Recently it has became known within the field of public health that certain environmental areas have been more subject to the spread of infectious diseases among injection users than others. These areas are usually characterized by extreme poverty, high crime rates, homelessness, unsatisfactory housing, and high levels of alcohol and drug abuse. (City of Vancouver, 2000; Wood et al., 2004b) The scientists conducting the study felt that Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) is a disease more likely to be transmitted in these conditions. Vancouver, Canada being one of these high risk areas was a perfect place to test the spread of HIV among injection users. The study began by collecting blood samples from the selected subjects, some being from downtown Vancouver, known for the above characteristics in which 4700 of Vancouver’s 8000 injection users resided. The other population samples came from surrounding Vancouver areas, where residents were less likely to reside in the previously mentioned environments. Each person was required to be HIV negative at enrollment. The subjects went through a variety of interviews where they were questioned on what types of injections they gave themselves, how frequently they were given, and what drugs were being injected. Those conducting the study used answers to these questions as variables in the experiment. To test the HIV rate of the subjects a Kaplan-Meier analysis was introduced. The goal of this type of analysis is to estimate a population survival curve from a sample. It was an easy way to determine the results of the study because if every patient is followed until death, the curve can be estimated by computing the fraction surviving at each time. (http://biostat.mc.vanderbilt.edu/twiki/pub/Main/ClinStat/km.lam.pdf, 1) The study found that as of December 2004, 133 of 1035 participants were HIV positive. The incidence rate was 16.1% for those residing in downtown Vancouver compared to 8.9% among those in the surrounding areas of Vancouver that had less of the high-risk environmental factors. (Maas, 12) This seems to be reason enough to believe that area of residence can increase the spread of infectious diseases among injection users. The conductors of the study also revealed that there was a substantial number of downtown Vancouver residents who reported moves to and from their area of residence, suggesting that the transmission of infection to other parts of Canada and the US would begin to greatly increase. (Maas, 15) While previous studies have shown that high risk environments can include shooting galleries, crack houses and public injection sites, who would have ever thought to look right in their own backyard? (Maas, 16) Not only do the residents of Vancouver, Canada need to be aware of this appalling evidence, but the rest of the public should as well.

Overall, the study conducted to determine whether or not one can feel safe from the spread of infection in his or her own surroundings was very informative. It revealed harsh truths that the public should be aware of and after learning of the problem officials should target high-risk environments with effective distribution of medicines and strive to prevent the spread of disease locally. Hopefully the knowledge acquired from this study will open everyone’s eyes to some of the major health problems affecting the world around us.

To Know Or Not To Know...

Would people really want to know what lies ahead for them, especially concerning the length of their lives? Science is approaching the ability to make expert predictions, specifically in the concentration of certain diseases such as Huntington’s disease. Huntington’s is frequently used as an example in Biology courses as an autosomal dominant disease.

When you stop to think about it, there is not much that is more horrifying than the prospect of being susceptible to a deadly, irreversible disease that you did not even know you had until well until your life. One of the most terrifying aspects of this disease includes the fact that by the time a person realizes they are in fact a victim of Huntington’s they have already reproduced and passed the gene on, leaving their child with a 50% chance of also developing the disease.

The onset for Huntington’s is somewhat random, and the patient cannot fully be prepared to be attacked by the progressive neurodegenerative disease. However, once the disease has instilled itself into a patient there is no going back as there is no cure or treatment to date.

Presymptomatic testing can be given to healthy or asymptomatic individuals to let the patient know or be aware of their future health in regard to the inherited disease that they are tested for. The uncertainty of what age Huntington’s may begin is a sufficient enough cause for many patients to desire to be tested. Those that are at-risk for Huntington’s feel that there is much to be gained in knowing for certain the outcome of their health, including the medical, social, and mental preparations that must be made.

It is helpful to these patients, particularly in an economic sense, to be aware of what is to come. Long term diseases such as Huntington’s and Parkinson’s disease increase economic burdens for patients over the extended periods of time.

An experiment was conducted to further understand what the close relatives of Huntington’s Disease patients feel in relationship to the idea and outcomes of presymptomatic testing and also the prospect of testing positively. These opinions were then compared to that of medical doctors and randomly selected people with no direct knowledge of the illness.

The experiment was conducted in India, with a random group of participants in each sub-category. Each volunteer was given a short description of Huntington’s Disease and also listened to a speech given by a doctor. All of these subjects were asked to assume that they could be at risk in the future of developing Huntington’s Disease, which no doubt affected the outcome of their decisions.

The family members of Huntington’s patients almost equaled the doctors in their willingness to undergo genetic testing. While a higher number of controls than found in the other two groups were willing to be tested, the family members least wanted the results to be shared, while an almost equal proportion of doctors and “control people” wanted their friends to know. Doctors were concerned about becoming sick after the test results were unveiled, and less than half in all the groups would be willing to communicate results with their spouse. Almost all of the doctors felt that the test results would affect their decision to have children, compared to a relatively smaller number in the other two groups.

What does this all mean? The amount of information one has about the disease vastly affects what the person would do concerning being tested. Not only does it affect the decision to participate in the testing to begin with, but also with whom to share the information when the results come back and then what course of action would be best to take. Knowledge, with this disease as with many other things, will affect any long-term decisions.

References
http://www.neurologyindia.com/article.asp?issn=0028-
3886;year=2006;volume=54;issue=4;spage=359;epage=362;aulast=Nagaraja

http://www.ninds.nih.gov/disorders/huntington/huntington.htm

The Lesser Evil

In December 2006, a Libyan judge shocked the world and especially the medical community, by allowing six health professionals to be sentenced to death by firing squad. The basis of the sentence was grounded upon the claim that over 400 children had contracted HIV in 1998 deliberately as a result of these health professionals trying to find a cure for AIDS.

Those who oppose the ruling feel that the "authorities ignored a body of evidence demonstrating that the cause of the outbreak was the use of contaminated medical material in the hospital in Benghazi, and that many of the children were infected long before the medics even began working at the hospital," (Nature, par. 1). They feel that not only was the claim baseless, but the politicization is detracting away from the real political issues at hand. While this case is certainly horrible, there are lessons to be learned that Libya and the entire scientific community should act upon as, "the transmission of HIV in medical settings in many countries is a large but often 'invisible' problem," (Nature, par. 6).

On the other hand, the families and some political officials feel that the decision was adequate in punishing those they felt were to blame. In the perspective of Libya's court system, there was potential for a huge political web to be charged. In one particular instance of the trial, "the Libyan leader, Colonel Muammar Gaddafi, had accused the health workers of acting on orders from the CIA and the Israeli secret service, Mossad," (BBC, par. 1).

However, most noticeably, the arguments differ over what can be taken away from this case. Is the moral of the story a lesson in human rights or the need to push for better health care in underdeveloped countries? The Nature article suggests that this is a problem that could be prevented from occurring again. Countries have offered monetary aid with the intention to assist countries such as Libya to help increase their ability to handle HIV adequately and proficiently. There is no standard way of treating HIV cases internationally, so is this case pushing the international and scientific community in that direction?

Or should those same communities be more concerned with the affliction of human rights in this case? Protestors against the Libya death penalty feel that it is too widespread in the country and the government is using it too freely as a punishment for misdemeanor cromes. Questions have arisen over whether or not the trial was fair and if the medical workers were given an adequate opportunity to be represented.

Which is the lesser evil? Essentially, this is what people are asking themselves as they wonder what needs to be taken care of first. The answer to this question, however, does not seem to have an easy compromise as recently the trial, along with the sentence it imposed, has been postponed.




Sources

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/3689355.stm

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v445/n7123/full/445002a.html

The "Real" Victim

When a person hears of a major occurrence they are automatically going to form some sort of opinion about its morality or correctness. This was the case when six health professionals were sentenced to death in Libya charged on the basis that they deliberately infected 400 children with HIV. The charge was controversial on the grounds that many of the children were infected some time before the medics were even working at the hospital. While this is where many chose to disagree, the main controversy lies in deciding who the actual victims in the case were. The author of an editorial published in Nature, felt that the main victim(s) in this case were the Libyan public who has to deal with a poor healthcare system, whereas the author of an editorial published in the New York Times felt that the doctors and nurses sentenced to death were the only victims, and were being overlooked.

The editorial in the medical journal Nature contains facts about the case to support the writer’s claim that the real victims in the Libyan court case were the Libyan people who face a healthcare system that is medically inadequate. The writer makes it clear that he/she does agree that the trial and conviction of the prosecuted doctors and nurses was somewhat unfair, but it is obvious that their main concern is to advocate better healthcare for the country of Libya. Directly calling it a “right to safe healthcare,” the author feels that the Libyan people deserve to have better medical settings and safer medical procedures. The writer’s argument is that if HIV hadn’t been such an “invisible” problem then there wouldn’t have been a case to decide upon in the first place. In contrast to the editorial written in the New York Times about the same issue, this editorial writer feels that while the Libyan medics were faced with a trial of injustice, the rest of the world’s main concern should be the “tragic battlegrounds” that the Libyan case brought to light.

As for the editorial published in the New York Times on the Libyan court case, the writer of this publication makes it very clear that their stance on who the real victim(s) of the case is are the medical authorities who were sentenced to death for a situation that was not in their power to control. The writer expresses their feelings that there should be more international pressure for a fair trials and more scientific evidence needs to be heard in a case. The author calls the charges “preposterous” and describes the unfairness of the trial of the six doctors and nurses. While the author does recognize the fact that the United States and European nations set up funds to care for victims in the tragedy, and improve medical facilities, he goes on to call this a “grotesque outreach,” claiming that the only real victims were the convicted nurses and doctors. This is a direct disagreement with the editorial writer I mentioned previously who felt the Libyan people left to deal with poor healthcare were more victimized than the medics.

Overall, both editorial writers for the New York Times and Nature agreed on the fact that the Libyan court case was filled with injustice for the defendants. Where the two individuals disagreed was on who we should deem as the real victims in the case. The writer for Nature felt that the Libyan people were the injured party because they are faced with a very inadequate healthcare system, where the writer for the New York Times believed that the only real victims we should recognize are those who were convicted and sentenced to death; the doctors and nurses. An issue like this one raises much controversy and causes one to form an opinion for themselves.

Not In My Backyard!

The principle idea of “Not in my backyard” has been around since Chernobyl and other nuclear crises. With the Yucca Mountain province set as a nuclear waste dump, no one wants to live anywhere in the remote vicinity of Utah. However, after September 11, the defense system took on a new form, biodefense. With anthrax and other threats of biological warfare staring the government down, they felt it necessary to spend, to date, thirty-six billion on defense against the threat (Nature, 1). Has the government taken this threat way too seriously or is there validity in their spending?

In the November 6 issue of Nature magazine, an editorial addresses this very subject. “ “Who wants a bioweapons lab next door?” discusses the governments construction of a bioweapons lab in Boston’s Roxbury district. The community made an effort to sue Boston University Medical Center and the National Institutes of Health to block the construction of the one-hundred and seventy-eight million dollar project, but the courts denied to stop construction at the moment, only assuring that they reserved the right to stop construction at any time in the future” (Nature, 1). However, while construction persists, it seems doubtful that the courts will stop it after millions continue to be spent daily.

The author seems particularly concerned with how much is too much? While every person in the United States would love to be completely protected and have the ultimate safety, sometimes it is not possible. The premise that building vast amounts of bioweapon labs has not been thoroughly explained by the Bush administration, but the author states, “five years on, the time has come for it to do so” (Nature, 1). The author makes the valid claim that while anthrax and other bioterrorism techniques are threats, it seems as if spending has become excessive and is spilling over into the public arena because of the number of plants that are in the process of being built.

The problem with biological weapons in general is the fact that 34 years ago, they were banned. The Washington Post recently released an editorial emphasizing the need for the lab. A description of the lab states, “the heart of the lab is a cluster of sealed chambers built to contain the world's deadliest bacteria and viruses. There, scientists will spend their days simulating the unthinkable: bioterrorism attacks in the form of lethal anthrax spores rendered as wispy powders that can drift for miles on a summer breeze, or common viruses turned into deadly superbugs that ordinary drugs and vaccines cannot stop” (Warrick, 1). The Washington Post article differs from the Nature article, in that it openly supports the multi-million dollar project. While Nature is concerned about the citizens in the surrounding area, The Washington Post thinks that this project is looking out for the safety of all citizens. The article goes on to state the pros and cons of this massive project that is being developed by the government. “ "All the programs we do are defensive in nature," said Maureen McCarthy, Homeland Security's director of research and development, who oversees NBACC. "Our job is to ensure that the civilian population of the country is protected and that we know what the threats are" “(qtd. in Warrick, 2). The editorial provides interesting insight into the plans, layout, and use of the facility (Here is the link for further reading).

While I believe that our country does what is in the best interest of the people, this controversy is certainly one that need not be overlooked. The part I find most disturbing is the description provided by the Post of the building. It is difficult to assess the situation entirely because most people tend not to concern themselves with the threat of bioterrorism, but after researching this and reading opposing articles I realize the extent of the threat and the government response. To be honest, I completely understand the worries of the people in the Roxbury District and other surrounding areas. No one wants to look out the back window and see a large biological weapon plant or have their children playing in the backyard near it.

Works Cited:

"Enough Biodefence." Nature 44402 Nov 2006 1. 25 Jan 2007 .

Warrick, "Bioterrorism." The Washington Post 1. 25 Jan 2007 .

What are Scientists Up To Now?

In the twenty-first century people have been in a serious debate over stem-cell research. Now scientists are looking at the fusion of animal and human cells. This new step in stem-cell research has people concerned that this is not ethical. At the same time some scientist are excited at the possibility of finding a way to reproduce human stem-cells without having to use human embryos and eggs. In Nature magazine the editor explores both sides of the argument. In the end, the fusion of animal and human cells has yet to meet provision that would make the process possible.

In the magazine the editor does not take a side on the argument, but gives information as to why people raise concern to this new undertaking in stem-cell research. The debate takes place at the United Kingdom as government officials look at the question, should there be more restrictions on the fusion of human and non-human cells? At the moment the UK has restrictions on combining animal eggs with animal and human nuclei. For scientists this “’nuclear programming’” would help find a way to eliminate the human egg for reproducing human stem-cells (pg. 2). The same types of restrictions take place in the United States and Canada. The reason behind their decision was they did not want the animal used for testing to have the possibility of passing on human traits to its offspring.

At the same time, in Chronicle of Higher Education scientists discovered ways that human stem-cell would not be beneficial if produced in animal cells. As the magazine mentioned, right now “human embryonic stem cells available to federally financed scientists contain an animal molecule that would be attacked by the human immune system” which has caused a major setback for acceptance for this new procedure (Brainard, 1). Still there are scientists who feel that the use of animal cells is useful. For example, according to James F. Battey Jr. scientists feel they can move around the risk by having the animal molecule removed from the human cell (Brainard, 1). Ultimately by having a successful way to extract human stem-cell for an animal cell will help find a cure for new disease.

I believe that human life begins at the start of conception and therefore was not thrilled of the idea of using human embryos to develop human stem-cells. After reading the information presented before me, I cannot say that I now would totally push out the idea of using animal eggs to produce human stem-cells. By having family members pass away from cancer and other diseases, if stem-cell research would eliminate these diseases then I would accept the use of stem-cell. Furthermore, animal eggs are more abundant than human eggs so by finding a way that will successfully produce human stem-cells without any complications would be ideal.

Sources

Brainard, Jeffery. “Stem Cells That Qualify for Federal Funds May Be Useless for Treatment, Study Says.” Chronicle of Higher Education. 51.22 (2005): 1. http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=3&hid=4&sid=4dabcdfb-1b5c-48e5-89b3-3753619e0039%40sessionmgr2.

“Avoiding a chimaera quagmire.” Nature. 445.1 (2007): 1. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v445/n7123/full/445001a.html