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
Thursday, February 8, 2007
Wednesday, February 7, 2007
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.
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
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
Thursday, February 1, 2007
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
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
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
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.
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)