ANNA'S WIKISPACE
NOTE: HOMEWORK ASSIGNMENTS ARE ON THE BOTTOM.

POST 10: Are Babies made smarter by listening to classical Music?
According to Francis Rauscer, the physocologist who unkowingly introduced this concept by perfoming a test on college-aged young adults finding that a few that listened to classical music were able to fold a peice of paper more efficiently after listening to Mozart, no. In fact all of this business has been attributed to today's parent's desire to see their offspring have the edge on everything on life- even if it means subjecting fetuses to multiple Sonatas a day in hopes of its proposed effectiveness.
But it isn't just parents that have bought into this madness. In 1998, a governor from Georgia amdated that ll new mothers be given classical CD's. Why all of the craze? Reasearchers place the blame on 'infant determinism' the idea we all seem to have adopted that says that infancy is key in development. Although music has been proven to relieve stress, perhaps increaing an individuals ability to be intelligent, the tests have only shown an overall increase of one and a half IQ points only for college students and only in relation to a paper-folding taks.
So, it seems that science says there is no relation between cognitive abilities in infants and listening to classical music. But it still does sound really perty!
external image baby-music.jpg

Swaminathan, Nikhil. "Fact or Fiction?: Babies Exposed to Classical Music End Up Smarter." Scientific American Sep 2007: n. pag. Web. 20 Jan 2011. <http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=fact-or-fiction-babies-ex>.

POST 9: INSTINCTIVE SELF-COMFORT.... CAN YOU RELATE?


Have you ever caught your hand in something? Perhaps someone slammed a door on you poor little fingers, leaving you in a state of utter shock at this unexpected pulse of pain shooting through your hand. Now think. What did you do next? Perhaps you, like most, grabbed your hand in a subconscience effort to ease the pain. this type of response is known as cognitive reflexive self-touch has been actually proven to reduce pain. The idea is, when you touch an injured part of your body, you are enhancing your brain's map of your body, allowing it to better cope with any associated pain.
But the comfort of self-touch does not end at injury. When placed in uncomfortable situations it is natural to touch oursleves as a form of comfort. In situations that our socially awkward, individuals can often be seen to rub or pat their hands or rub their legs in this form of self comfort. external image 42-15233976.jpg

Moral of the story? Next time you feel uncomfortable, resist the urge-especially since the world that reads my wiki now knows the truth behind the people that nervously rub their hands together! MUHAHAHAHA

Jabbr, Feris. "Why We Reflexively Sel-Grab when Wounded." Scientific American Jan 2011: n. pag. Web. 19 Jan 2011. <http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=a-soothing-touch#comments>.



Post 8: GRAY DAY!

I have always wondered why hair turns gray. It turns out that it is actually a really simple process! There is a chemical produced by the pigment cells in hair follicles that is responsible for this change! This chemical, melanin, is the cause of hair color as well as skin color. As humans age, the pigment cells in their hair follicles begin to die off, and hair begins to grow into strands of white, gray, or even silver. The time in a human’s life that their hair follicle’s pigments will die off is determined by their genes! In my case, my crazy genes determined that my first gray hair would show up when I was twelve! Thankfully, the few gray hairs that showed up then didn’t progress into anything too dramatic for the rest of my hair!
external image 0710_grayhair.jpg

Moral of the Story? Stress yourself with as many level 1 courses as you want! Your hair won't turn gray!

References:

Gavin, Mary. L, MD. "Why Does Hair Turn Gray?." Kids Health Aug. 2007: n. pag. Web. 10 Jan 2011. <http://kidshealth.org/kid/grownup/getting_older/gray_hair.html>.



Post 7-VITAMIN…CRAP?

So what is the deal on vitamin/ mineral supplements? Everyone’s pushing them…and every brand claims to be better than the others. What exactly are in these often over-the-counter pills, and are they effective? What are the real risks?

There is no doubt that we need vitamins. Vitamin D is considered essential in the fighting of disease, while Vitamin A is proven to aid eyesight. And these are only two vitamins! But do vitamin supplements really deliver the needed amount of vitamin to make a difference?

It has been said that North Americans have enough vitamins in their diets independent from supplements and that taking a multivitamin may act as extra ‘insurance’ against disease. This statement implies that supplements do indeed have value; they work. Along with a healthy diet and good exercise, they can add to the health of an individual. Or so them big drug companies say…. J

Another study has released info that suggests that Vitamin C supplements either have no benefits or may be detrimental to the health of the average vegetable-consuming North American. As always, it is important to consult a health professional before commencing the use of any supplement: over-the-counter or otherwise!

MORAL OF THE STORY? The I-can-eat-as-much-crap-as-I-want-and-compensate-by-chugging-drugs argument doesn't work.
References:

Randerson, James. "Vitamin Supplements may increase risk of death." Guardian Apr 2008: n. pag. Web. 10 Jan 2011. <http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/apr/16/medicalresearch>.

Harmon, Katherine. "Another reason Vitamin D is Important: It gets T cells going." Scientific American Mar 2010: n. pag. Web. 10 Jan 2011. <http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=another-reaso

Hobson, Katherine. "Vitamins and Supplements: Do They Work?." U.S. News Dec 2008: n. pag. Web. 10 Jan 2011. <http://health.usnews.com/health-news/diet-fitness/diet/articles/2008/12/09/vitamins-and-supplements-do-they-work.html>. n-vitamin-d-is-importa-2010-03-07>.




POST 6: THE PLATYPUS RULES!



external image thumbnail.aspx?q=384099035077&id=a7d421ee357ec6730d812629a7c1305b&url=http%3a%2f%2fwww.ryanphotographic.com%2fimages%2fJPEGS%2fPlatypus%25204.jpgexternal image thumbnail.aspx?q=326094031885&id=99e7426a55fa943e91b7955984b5900d&url=http%3a%2f%2fi572.photobucket.com%2falbums%2fss168%2fgalleysmith%2fplatypus.jpg external image thumbnail.aspx?q=311155688759&id=74136e3975d8c90171e6a241030d8364&url=http%3a%2f%2fwww.enchantedlearning.com%2fpgifs%2fPlatypus_bw.GIF external image thumbnail.aspx?q=386907244358&id=27e42f36857c0a12b5e75234a79cce65&url=http%3a%2f%2fwww.cryptomundo.com%2fwp-content%2fuploads%2fevolution-platypus.jpgexternal image thumbnail.aspx?q=399444610495&id=7cbdd83c965962a7d3c4b5386bfc9b71&url=http%3a%2f%2fslices-of-life.com%2fwp-content%2fuploads%2f2007%2f05%2fplatypus_0.jpg

PLATYPUSES? PLATYPAI? Whatever their plural is...I've always thought they were the best! In fact, the beloved animal takes me back to my private school days where we'd often read Charles Dickens' excerps and odd poems on random things....


THE PLATYPUS
by: Oliver Herford (1863-1935)
external image m_pic.gifY child, the Duck-billed Platypus
A sad example sets for us:
From him we learn how Indecision
Of character provokes Derision.
This vacillating Thing, you see,
Could not decide which he would be,
Fish, Flesh or Fowl, and chose all three.
The scientists were sorely vexed
To classify him; so perplexed
Their brains, that they, with Rage at bay,
Called him a horrid name one day,--
A name that baffles, frights and shocks us,
Ornithorhynchus Paradoxus.
Patrick Barrington
Although when I was twelve, this poem just confused me. When reading it, I noticed an accompanying illustration in my textbook and remember thinking that there was no way that such a creature could ever exist. " What an imagination!" I thought, in reference to the writer. I was shocked, needless to say, when I learned that the platypus was real!
The Platypus is an egg-laying mammal that is classified as part of phylum Chordata , subphylum Vertebrata, class Mammalia, order Monotremata, family Ornithorhynchidae. It is found in Auatralia and Tasmania and, as a semi-aquatic animal can be found in various diggerent areas such as tropical swamps. In order to eat, the platypus gathers small freshwater animals from the muddy underwater bottoms of its habitat, and stores them in a pouch for consumption at the surface of the water.
Breeding involves the laying of 1-3 eggs in an elaborate borough where they are incubated byt he mother. When the cutsie-tustie babies are born they are fed in an interesting fasion; the platypus doesn't have nipples so off spiring consume milk by licking the fur of their mother as the platupus as many mamary glands all over its abdomin!
At full size, the male platypus weigs about 4 pouns and is about two feet long.

Moral of the Story: Don't be afraid to be weird.Weird things get poems written about them.


"platypus." The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. 2008. Encyclopedia.com. 14 Dec. 2010 <http://www.encyclopedia.com>.




Post 5 : The Man with no Face.


external image 4a1a4dedda2089.91654295frogview-gallery.jpg


When I first saw this man, I couldn't believe my eyes. Of course, my next action after recovering from shock was to find out what was causing such a deformity. I learned that Jose suffers from an extreme case of haemangioma. Haemangioma, as defined by Stedman's medical dictionary is a "vascular tumor, present at birth or developing during life, in which proliferation of blood vessels leads to a mass that resembles a neoplasm; hemangiomas can occur anywhere in the body but are most frequently noticed in the skin and subcutaneous tissues; most hemangiomas present at birth undergo spontaneouos regression." Jose's condition could be illlustrated by the following: blood is supposed to be flowing like a river through is face but instead it's forming a lake.

Jose can eat and sleep. Both of these actions, however, are painful; he wakes up to bloody pillows and he has to lift the masses of tumor up to eat. To complicate the treatment of his condition, Jose has refused blood transfusions as they violate his religious beliefs. Currently, doctors in England are looking at different options

Crazy, huh?

Moral of the Story: If your agnostic, make sure any religion you adopt allows you to remove masses of clotted blood off your face.

Stedman. "Hemangioma." Steman's Medical Dictionary. WEB MD, 2006. Web.


Moore, Matthew. "Fighting the Curse of the face-eating tumor." Telegraph 03 DEC 2007: n. pag. Web. 29 Nov 2010. <http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1571360/Fighting-the-curse-of-the-face-eating-tumour.html>.









Post 4external image stressed-out-person.jpg

Just in case anyone happens to be unaware, our midterm is this Friday. Now, before someone calls for the respitators I want you to stop reading this post, take a long deep breath, and say " I am in control of this midterm...it does not control me." Deep, long breaths....

Now that you are in control of your emotions, I would like to point out some of the consequences of stress to your physical and mental health. To do this, I must first explain, on a fairly superficial level, what happens in your body when you are experiencing stress. Stress is ( as defined by Webster's) "a physical, chemical, or emotional factor that causes bodily or mental tension and may be a factor in disease causation ." When you are threatened your body produces a stress hormones that can make your heart speed up, your muscle tension increase, and can cause you to breathe faster, in order to bring more oxygen to your muscles. This, in a moment of sudden stress, can provide an abnormal amount of energy. Essentially, this means that these stress hormones can actually be a good thing, if they are needed only occassionally. Problems arise when stress is a consitent factor in your life.

What causes stress? A variety of things do. However, your body can't distinguish between physical and physiological stress. Therefore, when your heart is racing over a presentation coming up or a mid-term you forgot all about until the morning of (AHHHH...JUST THE THOUGHT MAKES ME SHUDDER!) , the damage done to your health is equal to that as if your body thought it was in a potentially fatal situation. Obviously, this means that it is importnat to limit stress!

We cannot control all of the stress-inducing factors around us, but we can control the extent to which they effect us! Dwelling on past mistakes, future challenges, and inadeqecies we may see in ourselves can all be potential major stress-causers.

So my advice to myself and everyone else in regard to lowering your stress level this week: Be content with all of your hard work and awesome study habits and ENJOY the midterm.

(geez...it's like reverse psychology : " I love pain.")

Moral of the Story: Next time, choose level 2 Bio.


Slowick, Guy. "How Does Stress Affect the Body?." eHealthMD. eHealthMD, n.d. Web. 06 Nov 2010.
POST 3

There has been controversy arising lately in the medical world in regard to CT and MRI scanning. In 2007 a person admitted to an emergency department with an injury was over 3 times as likely to undergo a scan (from 6% to 15 %.) Contrastingly, the probability of a life-threating condition being discovered from these scans is only 1.2 times as likely (2 percent of scans result in such a discovery in comparison to 1.7 in 1998.)
According to Frederick Korley, doctors are more eager to scan a patient’s injury because of liability issues. Doctors don’t want to be at fault for missing a serious condition, but at the same time have to weigh the risk of the radiation emitting scans. Two studies (one released in 2007, the second 2009) provided some form to the level of risk. In 2007, an average of 29, 000 cancer cases appeared as a result of MRI or CT scans. Obviously, this means that the radiation from these scans can cause cancer, however, on an individual level, it is very unlikely. The likelihood of a woman developing cancer as a result of an MRI or CT is 0.004% and a man, 0.002%. Furthermore, the likelihood of a person dying from cancer (somewhere between 14 and 25%) narrows the possibility of death to an even greater extent.
So, in regard to possible life-threatening injuries, doctors are eager to play these comparatively favourable odds just to ‘make sure’. There is more to this issue than the health of the patient. MRI and CT scans cost money; in the US $2.17 billion was spent in 2007 in comparison to $975 million in 200. Also, visits that require a scan take an average of 2 hours and 6 minutes more than visits that do not require one.
Korley sums up the issue by insisting that doctors need to get the right information and use what they’ve learned to make the best decisions[duh????] and by making reference to the Hippocratic Oath ( to ‘do no harm’.)

Moral of the Story: Don't make promises you can't keep.
Harmon, Katherine. "A Surge in CT and MRI Scans has Not Boosted Diagnosis Results." Scientific American Oct.2010: n. pag. Web. 10 Oct 2010.


POST 2
When one of my many sisters was a baby we noticed that she was left-handed. This was interesting as, at that point, the rest of us were, like the majority of the population, right handed. However, as my sister grew we noticed that she would eat with her right hand but would continue to wave and draw/colour with her left. This experience made me wonder if being right/left-handed was in any way connected to genetics, if it was connected to a person's environment, or if both applied. It's sort of a nature vs. nurture thing. I reasoned that my sister probably began using her right hand while eating because my family always eats together, giving her an opportunity to imitate her big sisters. Also, I had heard that back in the 1940's general-era-of-time left-handed children at school were forced to write with their right hand, so conditioning them to drop their left-handed habits for life. The above prior knowledge makes me think that nurture must play a significant role in this area.

A professor named Clare Porac seems to insist that nature is dominant. She states that, "The two most widely published genetic theories of human hand preference argue that evolutionary natural selection produced a majority of individuals with speech and language control in the left hemisphere of the brain. Because the left hemisphere also controls the movements of the right hand--and notably the movements needed to produce written language--millennia of evolutionary development resulted in a population of humans that is biased genetically toward individuals with left hemisphere speech/language and right-hand preference." She continues by saying that "The genetic proposal to explain hand preference states that there are two alleles, or two manifestations of a gene at the same genetic location, that are associated with handedness. One of these alleles is a D gene (for dextral, meaning �right�) and the other allele is a C gene (for �chance�). The D gene is more frequent in the population and is more likely to occur as part of the genetic heritage of an individual. It is the D gene that promotes right-hand preference in the majority of humans. The C gene is less likely to occur within the gene pool, but when it is present, the hand preference of the individual with the C gene is determined randomly. Individuals with the C gene will have a 50 percent chance of being right-handed and a 50 percent chance of being left-handed."
So, it seems quite evident that nature is indeed the most influential aspect of this issue. However, environment can and does play a role in this too, as per my sister's example, as well as those left-handed schoolchildren that were friends with my grandmother.

Moral of the Story: The 1940's was not a good time for people who were different.

References:
Porac, Clare. "What Cuases some People to be Left-Handed, and why are fewer people left-handed then right-handed?." Scientific AMerican June 2004: n. pag. Web. 20 Oct 2010.




POST 1

So, I have found myself with a little bit of an issue that plagues my days at Leo Hayes. You see, I LOVE drinking water, and math glass…er…class makes me extra thirsty. Unfortunately, math is second period for me and in the farthest corner of the A wing and third period, though the best class of the day (*wink wink*) would have to be on the exact opposite end of the school and I ALWAYS have to make a pit stop…which *insert discreet excuse* sometimes makes me late for good ‘ole Biology. Now here’s my dilemma: I’ve disciplined myself to lather my hands for twenty seconds with soap before rinsing. I mean, there are posters everywhere saying that washing your hands for a millisecond less than that means the germs are “500 million percent more likely to kill you and your pet bearded dragon” or something to that effect. But really, who came up with that number? Furthermore, does the type of soap one uses effect anything (that cherry flavoured goop we have at school doesn’t seem to be that powerful). What about purrel? I mean, it kinda stings, so does that make it more effective?

According to Anna Bowen, the twenty second rule is crucial. She says [ It is] “the friction and duration [that is important]. You really need to scrub vigorously for about 20 seconds." Hmmn. An article posted on the Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety elaborates a bit by stating “While it is true that regular soap and water does not actually kill microorganisms (they create a slippery surface that allows the organisms to "slide off"), [WHAT???] antibacterial soaps are typically considered to be "overkill" for most purposes.” ( read the rest of that article here)

This brought me to another question. So, if purrel is ‘overkill’ and regular soap just helps those germies slide off then shouldn’t we be using paper towel to finish the job? According to the following article excerpt, we should.


handwashing%20steps.jpg handwashing.jpg

Paper or blower?

Then there's the question of how to dry newly washed hands.

Air dryers first became popular in the 1970s and were developed to reduce paper waste, save energy and cut maintenance costs. But consumers didn't like them, and today they're in only 6% of public restrooms in the USA, according to the consumer research company Mintel.

Which works better, paper towels or dryers, is hotly debated.

Doug Powell, a professor of food safety at Kansas State University in Manhattan, Kan., says numerous papers show that the friction created by using paper towels is actually a key part of the cleaning process. The friction "removes the bacteria, whereas blow dryers tend to disperse them in the air," he says.

A study by the Mayo Clinic in 2000 found that four potential drying methods — paper towel, cloth roller towel, warm-forced-air dryer and "spontaneous room air evaporation" — were all about equal in removing bacteria.

A study at Rutgers found that forced-air drying left slightly more bacteria on hands, while paper towels left slightly less.

Do warm-forced-air dryers breed bacteria, spewing it back over clean hands? Some research has found bacteria colonizing in the machines, though the findings are flatly denied by the hand-dryer industry.

"The only difference between the air going through the hand dryer and the air you're breathing is that it's been heated to 140 degrees," says Darryl Kirksey of Allied Hand Dryer, a distribution and sales company in San Antonio.

A mighty wind

Then there's the question of whether blowers actually get hands dry. A study at the University of Westminster in England in 1993 found that because of the time they took, people generally got their hands to only 55%-65% dryness before giving up, which made cross-contamination more likely later.

There's also anecdotal evidence that people simply don't wash when they see blow dryers because they take so long. "People are busy" and don't want to take the time, says Herbert DuPont, an infectious-disease researcher at the University of Texas School of Public Health.

Still, it's better to wash your hands and then dry them on your pants than not to wash them at all, the CDC's Bowen says. She did research in Karachi, Pakistan, which found that even when people used their clothing to dry their hands, there was still a 50% reduction in the rate of respiratory and diarrheal illnesses.

All of which may be moot with the coming of high-velocity hand dryers that take just seconds.

Two years ago, Mel Schiavelli, president of Harrisburg University of Science and Technology in Pennsylvania, saw an example in the Time-Life building in New York City. Made by the Dyson vacuum company, the devices blow a stream of room-temperature air over hands at 400 mph, drying them in less than 12 seconds.

Schiavelli was literally blown away. "They put out this incredible wind," he says. The university just opened a technology building to house 1,000 people, and he has had the devices installed in every bathroom.

There's one thing a blower can't do, though: It can't be used to open a bathroom door that has been opened by dozens of people who didn't wash their hands.

Says WebMD's Smith: "The paper towel is a very good friend."


...so, it seems,...that we aren't really out to kill the germs, but just to get them off of us. Who'da thunk?
MORAL OF THE STORY: Five-minute transition times are just not long enough.

P.S. This kid only scrubs for 5 seconds...she's gonna be one sick little girl.Weise, Elizabeth. "The science behind hand washing to ward off cold, flu bugs." http://www.usatoday.com Jan. 2009: n. pag. Web. 28 Sep 2010. Canada. Hand Washing: Reducing the Risk of Common Infections. CCOHS, 2009. Web. 28 Sep 2010
MY VIEW ON STEM CELLS

This is a very difficult topic for me to have an opinion on.

Why?

Primarily, I know so little about it.

And

Secondly, my philosophical view on the subject conflicts greatly with what seems, if even on a very superficial level, to make ‘sense’.

To really explain how I feel about this matter, I must first spend a little bit of time on a short, but very important, word.

IDEAL

An ideal, as we all know, is a standard or conception, if you will, of perfection. We all have certain ideals for ourselves such as:

Maintain an average of 100% in high school.

Be a size 2.

Be able to eat an entire container of hot sauce mixed with pickles and anchovies without wincing. (Someday….:)

Beyond our ideals for ourselves, we all have ideals for the world around us. Some of mine are:

No disease/illness/ calamity for anyone.

No war

No superficiality

Pretty typical, I do realize.

What is also pretty common is the ideal I have for the souls of everyone around me. The thing is, like many people in our class, I LOVE JESUS and I want everyone to be able to have what He’s given me. That’s a totally different story within itself, but it does relate to my view on this topic.


Part of the whole loving and believing in Jesus thing involves, and in fact is based on, believing, and TOTALLY buying into what the Bible says. To my interpretation, the Bible and stem cell research conflict. Why? Because the Bible teaches me that our bodies and our life here on earth is just a blink compared to eternity and what matters is our souls. And it says in Psalm 119: 13 “For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb.” This indicates God’s sovereignty in life and the idea that a person has a soul from conception onward.

This is a lot easier to accept when speaking in exclusively natural terms. You know, two people have sex, an embryo is created, and it grows and grows and grows into an adult. It’s easy-peesy-lemon-squeezy to argue that a “person’s a person no matter how small” in abortion debates or whatever, but it gets much more complicated when that ‘person’ came from a test-tube. THEN, people really have to think about what makes sex such a sacred thing in the first place. Was it always because it was the sole means of reproduction, creating something SO sacred: life? Or is there another reason all us Christian girls run around with our shirts buttoned up and our True Love Waits pure-silver-purity rings firmly fitted on our well-manicured fingers?

I recently read a book entitled Never Let Me Go by Kazuo Ishiguro. This book involves an alternate reality where people are cloned and their clones our raised as children at boarding schools and live into their mid-twenties when they begin to donate their internal organs and eventually die after their 3rd or 4th donation. This is VERY science-fiction, but, could science ever possess the capability to successfully clone humans for this purpose? Furthermore, would such ‘people’ have souls? For me, this question is beyond my capacity to answer.

But, again, how does this all relate to my views on stem cell research? I guess, all of this philosophy, is rooted in the question: does a test-tube embryo have a soul? I think so. I don’t believe that a soul is created separately from a human body but that the two are united until death. But, in actuality, I have no sweet clue. How could I? It’s ridiculous to guess a specific time. However, it makes the most sense and, based on this belief, is creating and purposefully killing an embryo murder? According to that belief system it really doesn’t seem so bad. I mean, that embryo won’t feel a thing and is totally unaware of what is going down, and is being used for a specific purpose. Yes, a soul is being forcefully detached from its body, but all the better for that soul. (?)

I have no idea. The main issue Christians seem to have with this is that we are taking something ordained by God, the creation of life, and we’re messing with it. This is why many Christians are against IVF in general, even for the purpose of reproduction for infertile couples. But for those who believe that everything that happens is within God’s will, curing illness could be seen as messing with God’s will. EVERYTHING could. And then we start making excuses. What differentiates this issue from anti-science fundamentalism is that we are messing with a human life that has absolutely no control over its future.

At this point, I’m back to ideals. An ideal for me would be that this was a non-issue. That there were no illnesses that needed to be cured, or that those that did could be exclusively and easily cured by adult stem cells, would be perfect. But ideals are just that:as perfect as this world is imperfect.

So, taking into consideration that I really do have no idea what I’m talking about and that in this extremely long winded-post I have answered very few of the questions that I’ve asked, I hope that you will be able to understand where I’m coming from in the following table.

Issue

Personal Ideal

What should be Legal:

Research from existing stem cell lines

Restricted

Controlled: What’s done is done and as long as efficiency and minimal waste is ensured existing stem cell lines should be used to further humanity.

Research from excess IVF clinics

Restricted

Controlled: Waste not, want not. These should be used for good.

Research from embryos created specifically for research

Restricted

Restricted: It isn’t overwhelmingly necessary, and scientists need to be aware of just how efficient this research needs to be so that, eventually, it is no longer of any value.

Therapeutic/ Reproductive Cloning

Controlled/ Restricted, respectively

Therapeutic: Controlled! This is a non-issue as it does in no way involve a soul.

Reproductive: Restricted: This issue, ethically, is just to far above our heads, and is much to unclear to be of value.

bonus HOMEWORK ASSIGNMENT: ANALYZING THE VIEWPOINTS OF CREATINEIn researching Creatine. I have come very lengthy and comprehensive viewpoints. To help organize said view points, I have constructed a table below.

Source Type/ Affiliations
For/Against Creatine Supplements , reasoning
Actions Taken
Jennifer Bailey ; online ‘expert’
For, conditionally: She states that “One of the biggest short-term risks in taking Creatine supplements is dehydration, which in some cases have become fatal. This is because included in the fluid that Creatine draws to muscles are the fluids that vital organs need to function. This means that people who take these supplements should make sure that they drink adequate amount of water. Other very common short-term risks include a higher incidence of muscle cramps, muscle pulls, and muscle tears. The reason given for these is that the high levels of fluid in the muscles as a result of fluid being drawn to them have made the muscles more vulnerable to these conditions. Other short-term risks include nausea, stomach pain, and diarrhea.” She continues to state that , “it can be said that one of the long-term risks of Creatine supplementation is that no one really knows what they are.” In general, she believes that if the athlete is well-informed then and only then should he/she take this supplement. [1]
She voiced her opinions online.
Molly Kimball, R.D., Sports Nutritionist, Ochsner's Elmwood Fitness Center
For: She is all for Creatine! Without going into any specifics, she states that “the results associated with Creatine are actually quite mild” and “ it’s one of the safest supplements we can use.” She does warn, however, that some of the results of creatine may seem better than they really are. [2]
As a sports nutritionist, she undoubtedly has many opportunities to influence those who may consider taking the Creatine Supplement. Clearly, she’s using them.
Dr. Ted Lambrinides, a Green Township resident considered by many to be the Greater Cincinnati authority on dietary supplements.
Unspecified: He says that “the tests are not definitive yet, but they show the possibility of side effects.” Additionally, he makes reference to studies that have stated risks associated with Creatine. He also notes that their may be some unspecified ingredients in these supplements.[3]
On the NCAA Speaker’s Bureau, Lambrinides does presentations on dietary supplements 20 times a year.
Mike Shibinski, a Princeton Strength Coach
Against: He says that Creatine can’t do what Mother Nature can. Strength comes from a healthy diet and proper exercise, is his philosophy.
For the football players at University, he has developed a handout warning against the seduction of Supplement Ads.
Dr. Timothy Kremchek, the Cincinnati Reds' medical director and team physician for many of the high schools local to his residence.
Against: He says that the only motivation to use such supplements is the pressure to perform well for high school/college etc. AND they aren’t good.
With direct influence over high school athletes as well as professional athletes, he is making his opinion known.



The above table talks a great deal about the risks associated risks with Creatine, as welll as the motivation some athletes have in using them. What it does not specify is the proccess that Creatine actually goes through once it enters a person's body. When Adenosine Tripohospahte realeases energy by breaking down into Adenosine Diphosphate , it makes our muscles contract. What Creatine Phosphate does is restart the reaction. This is a natural thing! In theory, supplementing to body's creatine supply just makes everything more productive, but the possible side effects, though so far 'anecdotal' (that is, based on testmonials) are worth a good look at. My conclusion from the bit that I have read is that Creatine Supplements demand more attention in the form of studies/ experiments before being on GNC shelves. As of now, NO applicable governing bodies agree with me. That's right! No one is officially banning Creatine!
























[1] Bailey, Jennifer. "Creatine Risks." ezinearticles.com. Ezine Articles, 25/01/2005. Web. 21 Oct 2010.

[2] Kimball, Molly. "What are the Benefits and Risks of Creatine Use?." abcnews.go.org. ABC News, 01/06/2009. Web. 21 Oct 2010.


[3] Groeschen, Tom. "Creatine: Do risks outwiegh Rewards?." www.enquirer.com. Enquirer, 04/07/2004. Web. 21 Oct 2010.



HOMEWORK ASSIGNMENT NUMERO UNO: ARTICLE SUMMARIZATIONThere has been controversy arising lately in the medical world in regard to CT and MRI scanning. In 2007 a person admitted to an emergency department with an injury was over 3 times as likely to undergo a scan (from 6% to 15 %.) Contrastingly, the probability of a life-threating condition being discovered from these scans is only 1.2 times as likely (2 percent of scans result in such a discovery in comparison to 1.7 in 1998.)
According to Frederick Korley, doctors are more eager to scan a patient’s injury because of liability issues. Doctors don’t want to be at fault for missing a serious condition, but at the same time have to weigh the risk of the radiation emitting scans. Two studies (one released in 2007, the second 2009) provided some form to the level of risk. In 2007, an average of 29, 000 cancer cases appeared as a result of MRI or CT scans. Obviously, this means that the radiation from these scans can cause cancer, however, on an individual level, it is very unlikely. The likelihood of a woman developing cancer as a result of an MRI or CT is 0.004% and a man, 0.002%. Furthermore, the likelihood of a person dying from cancer (somewhere between 14 and 25%) narrows the possibility of death to an even greater extent.
So, in regard to possible life-threatening injuries, doctors are eager to play these comparatively favourable odds just to ‘make sure’. There is more to this issue than the health of the patient. MRI and CT scans cost money; in the US $2.17 billion was spent in 2007 in comparison to $975 million in 200. Also, visits that require a scan take an average of 2 hours and 6 minutes more than visits that do not require one.
Korley sums up the issue by insisting that doctors need to get the right information and use what they’ve learned to make the best decisions[duh????] and by making reference to the Hippocratic Oath ( to ‘do no harm’.)


Harmon, Katherine. "A Surge in CT and MRI Scans has Not Boosted Diagnosis Results." Scientific American Oct.2010: n. pag. Web. 10 Oct 2010.