theiconoclast.info

Ebola (historyfilms.net)

Evolution has created some nasty microbes…

Anthrax: Anthrax, caused by the bacterium Bacillus anthracis, is one of the most lethal microorganisms in existence, killing over 80% of those it infects. The antidote doesn’t always work.

When your firsts become infected, you’ll just feel like you have a cold. But after a few more days, you’ll have trouble breathing as the anthrax voraciously eats your lungs and grows in your blood. The anthrax soon reaches the brain and causes it to bleed.  You’ll then lapse into a coma and suffer massive internal bleeding, eventually suffocating to death in your own blood.

Botulism: The bacterium Clostridium botlulinum produces the neurotoxin botulinum, two ounces of which is enough to kill the entire United States. You can get botulism from expired canned food. Botulism kills by slowly paralyzing all of your muscles, so that eventually you can no longer breathe. However, you won’t lose consciousness; as you die from botulism you will be aware of the paralysis overtaking your entire body and feel yourself suffocating.

Ebola: Ebola is probably the worst of all. There is no known cure for ebola, and over 80% of those that contract if die. When you first become infected with Ebola, the symptoms aren’t that interesting: headaches, muscle aches, fever, fatigue, nausea, and dizziness. But after a few days, Ebola will simply start to dissolve your blood vessels, and you will begin to bleed rapidly from every orifice. You eventually die either from organ failure, or the simple absence of enough blood in your body. To this day, no one knows where Ebola comes from, or even how it was initially transmitted to humans.

Source: This Will Kill You: A Guide to the Ways in Which We Go by HP Newquist and Rich Maloof

http://hilobrow.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/seti-cook.jpg

If an alien civilization tried to reach out to us, how would they do it? Radio waves are the obvious answer; they travel far and only require a small power input. But what type of radio signal would aliens send?

In the early seventies, physicists Phillip Morrison and Giuseppe Cocconi predicted that an alien civilization would transmit a radio signal at 1420 MHz and in a narrow band frequency. Why? An alien signal would have to be something more fundamental and universal than language, something that any intelligent civilization would understand. So why not use a number associated with the most common element in the universe, hydrogen? Hydrogen emits radiation at 1420Mhz. Furthermore, Morrison and Cocconi predicted that an extraterrestrial civilization would send the signal at a narrow band frequency, as narrow band frequency signals require less energy and are created by no natural phenomena.

On August 15, 1977, an exact match for this signal predicted by Morrison and Cocconi arrived on a detector in Delaware, Ohio. Astronomer Jerry Ehman, who first discovered the signal in the data a little while later, christened it the, “Wow!” signal. It has never been explained since.

http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/starwars/images/ e/e5/Clone_Troopers_Phase_I.jpg

 Recent advances in the biological sciences have made cloning, the production of a genetically identical copy of an organism, a reality. However, not everyone believes that scientists should attempt to clone human beings. Opponents of human cloning present a compelling case. First, they argue that cloning is an inefficient process that would likely produce an unhealthy clone. Furthermore, opponents warn that a clone would unfairly bear heavy psychological burdens. Finally, those against cloning caution that human cloning would be detrimental to society at large. However, those in favor of human cloning raise some valid points. For instance, advocates argue that cloning research may lead to medical benefits. They also make the case that cloning is just another form of reproductive technology that people should be free to use. Despite these arguments in favor of cloning, the negative aspects of human cloning outweigh any positive ones; scientists should not try to clone human beings.

Organismal cloning, the generic term for cloning that produces an entire human, animal or plant from a single cell, first emerged as a technology in 1958 when carrots were cloned from mature carrot cells. Like all clones, the cloned carrots carried the exact same genetic code as the mature carrot cells from which they were cloned (Petechuck). Cloning research continued to make incremental improvements over the next few decades, and in the summer of 1996 scientists accomplished the successful cloning of a mammal for the first time with the birth of Dolly, a cloned sheep, at the Roslin Institute (Nardo 35). Dolly’s birth spawned a media frenzy, and for the first time the public and politicians seriously debated the morality of organismal and human cloning. Shortly after Dolly, in June of 1997, President Clinton called on the U.S. Bioehics Advisory Commission to review the ethical and legal implications of cloning (Human Cloning). The debate on the ethicality of cloning, and specifically human cloning, hasn’t stopped since.

The technology that produced Dolly, and that could also create a human clone, is known as somatic cell nuclear transfer, often abbreviated as SCNT. In SCNT, the nucleus of an egg cell is removed, literally using a glass pipette. This nucleus is then replaced with the nucleus from a cell that contains the genetic material of the organism that is being cloned. Naturally occurring chemicals inside of the egg cell then cause the egg to develop into an embryo, just as it would if the egg had been fertilized naturally by a sperm cell (Sive). However, unlike a normal embryo, the embryo that results from SCNT is genetically identical to the organism that supplied the donor nucleus. In the case of humans, a clone would be a younger identical twin of the individual that had supplied his nucleus.

Though extraordinary, the technology of SCNT contains several peculiarities that create the first objection raised by opponents of human cloning; cloning is an inefficient process that produces physically abnormal clones. First, for reasons that remain obscure, the success rate of cloning experiments in producing organisms is extremely low. In a recent experiment that cloned human embryos through SCNT, only three out of twenty five attempts worked (Caplan). More generally, scientists estimate that the success rate of SCNT hovers around a mere one percent (Sive). Furthermore, animal clones almost always suffer physical problems that normal animals do not. For instance, Dolly suffered from extreme arthritis and lung disease that forced veterinarians to euthanize her at the age of six, when sheep normally live to the age of twelve (Petechuck). In addition to these physical problems, research showed that Dolly possessed DNA that was older than her chronological age. Carrying this older DNA made Dolly more susceptible to age-related illnesses, especially cancer. Old DNA and physical problems similar but not limited to those of Dolly have been observed in a wide range of cloned animals; nearly all clones have something wrong with them (Sive). Consequently, the pattern suggests that a human clone would be difficult to create and suffer many physical abnormalities.

As a consequence of the near certainty that human clones would bear many health problems, opponents of human cloning make the valid point that human cloning cannot be ethically carried out because it exposes clones to physical harm. Though future technology may be able to create healthy clones, the experimentation necessary to create such technology also violates moral principles, as the experimentation would likely produce physically damaged clones (Kaebnik).   Furthermore, regarding human cloning research, the President’s Council on Bioethics concluded that, “There seems to be no ethical way to try to discover whether cloning to produce children can become safe, now or in the future” (President’s). Since human cloning would produce clones with dramatic health problems, and any research that would make cloning safe would also produce babies with health problems, no situation exists where human reproductive cloning should be attempted.

Not only do opponents of human cloning argue that cloning would inflict physical health problems on clones, but they also warn that a clone would suffer psychological burdens to such an extent that cloning a person would be unethical. First, a clone would likely grapple with pronounced problems regarding his sense of identity and self. The President’s Council on Bioethics cautions, “Cloned children may experience serious problems of identity both because each will be genetically virtually identical to a human being who has already lived and because the expectations for their lives may be shadowed by constant comparisons to the life of the ‘original’” (President’s). Also, a clone may feel as if he had been denied an open future, as he would be constantly compared to the person he had been cloned from. Finally, any human clone will have to learn to handle the thought that he is a copy of someone else and not an original person (Wachbroit). Adversaries of cloning make the point that forcing a clone to accept his status as a copy and not his own unique individual fundamentally violates human dignity. Because a clone would have many painful psychological issues to confront, human cloning can only lead to suffering, and thus it should not be carried out.

Though the opposition of cloning makes the case that cloning should not be tried because it would cause the clone to suffer, human cloning also should not be attempted because it would have a detrimental effect on society. For instance, cloning creates the danger that some individuals may be cloned against their will. Since people give off cells everywhere they go, it would be nearly impossible to prevent someone from cloning another individual without that individual’s consent. Fans may try to clone actors or superstar athletes, and a woman could even clone an apathetic man that she wants to have a child with (Herbert). Moreover, human cloning may cause society to look at identity differently. “Cloning might force us to regard people as repeatable, and accepting that people are not one time occurrences is to allow the value of personhood to be diminished” (Kaebnick). Since a society that permits human cloning could not prevent individuals from being cloned without their permission, and also since the value of the person may be reduced, human beings should not be cloned.

While the stronger arguments do not support human cloning, those in favor of cloning raise some valid points. First, advocates claim that research on human cloning and SCNT may produce medical benefits. For instance, scientists may learn more about cellular differentiation, a process that often goes wrong in cancer, if they are permitted to study somatic cell nuclear transfer (Kaebnik). This is a valid point, but it only makes the case for allowing SCNT as a technology; it does not make the case that human beings should be cloned. On a more profound level, supporters of human cloning have argued that cloning is just a new form of human reproduction. “In general, why should a couple using cloning have a higher justification required of them than a couple using sexual reproduction?”(Pence). Likewise, cloning could provide infertile couples their only way to have biological descendants, and the ability to have biological descendants may fall under the rights granted to individuals in modern Western societies (Kaebnik). For instance, if cloning is just the newest form of human reproduction, then it is already protected in the United States by the Constitution (Pence). For the proponents of human cloning, its potential to help the sick, as well as those trying to become parents, is most compelling.

Though proponents of cloning raise substantial points, the arguments against cloning carry the day. Specifically, a clone would suffer immensely. He would be born with many health problems, and he would be forced to wrestle with many heavy psychological burdens. “Once the welfare of the clone is considered, the anti-cloning arguments far outweigh the pro-cloning arguments”(President’s). Furthermore, a society that allows cloning would experience detrimental effects, as it could not prevent cloning without permission and would see the value of personhood diminished. For all these reasons, the technology of cloning should not be applied to people; scientists should not attempt to clone human beings.

Works Cited

“Animal Pharming: The Industrialization of Transgenic Animals.” Center for Emerging Issues.      CEI.  Dec. 1999. Web. Feb. 2010.

Caplan, Arthur. “Human Embryos Cloned:  What does it mean?. MSNBC Health. MSNBC. 17     Jan. 2008. Web. 18 Feb. 2010.

Herbert, Wray, Jeffery Sheler, and Traci Watson.  “Ethical Issues Concerning Human Cloning.”                Contemporary Issues Companion. Ed. Lisa Yount. San Diego: Greenhaven, 2000.                                                                                                      

            129-134. Print. Excerpted from “The World After Cloning.” U.S. News and World.

“Human Cloning.” Issues and Controversies. Facts on File News Services, 29 Dec. 2006. Web.

22.Feb. 2010.

The Human Cloning Foundation. “The Medical Benefits of Human Cloning.” Contemporary        Issues Companion.  Ed. Lisa Yount. San Diego: Greenhaven 2000. 153-155. Print.        Excerpted from “The Benefits of Human Cloning.” 1998.

Kaebnick, Gregory and Thomas Murray. “Cloning.” The Concise Encyclopedia of the Ethics         of the Ethics of New Technologies. Ed. Ruth Chadwick. 1^st ed. Vol.1. San Francisco:          Academic Press, 2001. 51-64. Print.

Mautner, Michael. “Cloning Could Halt Human Evolution.” Contemporary Issues Companion.     Ed. Lisa Yount. San Diego: Greehaven 2000. 141-143. Print. Excerpted from “Will             Cloning End Human Evolution?” The Futurist. Nov. 1997.

Nardo, Don. Cloning. San Diego: Lucent, 2002. Print. Great Medical Discoveries.

Pence, Gregory. “Reproductive Cloning Does Not Demean Human Life.” Cloning: Opposing       Viewpoints. Ed. Tamara L. Raleef.  Farmington Hills: Greenhaven Press, 2006.  22-28.         Print.  Rpt. of “Ten Myths About Human Cloning.” 2001.

Petechuk, David. “Clone and Cloning.” Gale Encyclopedia of Science. Ed. K. Lee Lerner and      Brenda Wilmoth Lerner. 4^th ed. Detroit: Gale Group, 2008. Web. 22 Feb. 2010.

Pinker, Steven. “How the Mind Works.” New York: Norton, 1999. Print.

President’s Council on Bioethics. “Reproductive Cloning Demeans Human Life.” Cloning:           Opposing Viewpoints. Ed. Tamara L. Roleff.  Farmington Hills: Greenhaven, 2006.    16-21. Print. Rpt. of “Human Cloning and Human Dignity.” Presidents’s Council on           Bioethics. New York: Public Affairs, 2002.

Picture of Global Warming

Everyone worries about global warming these days. As a direct result of humans pumping trillions of tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, global temperatures are predicted to steadily climb, leading to the melting of the polar ice caps by around 2100 (according to the most dire predictions) and a vast rise in sea level that would put modern coastlines under water. The only chance humanity has of halting the progress of global warming is to cap our emission of carbon dioxide, and even then a significant amount of warming will likely still occur (as a result of the CO2 already in the atmosphere). Or is there another option?

There is… geoengineering. Earth scientists have come up with a multitude of ways that people could cool the climate in order to mitigate or prevent the effects of greenhouse gas-induced global warming. In this blog, I’ll focus on the most likely and most cost effective method: sulfur dioxide emission

How It Works:

·         Using commercial planes, military fighter jets, or even giant balloons,  vast quantities of sulfur dioxide would be transported into the stratosphere daily

·         Once in the atmosphere, the SO2 would oxidize to form sulphate (SO4) aerosols

·         Sulphate aerosols are reflexive, so they will reflect some sunlight from the earth and thus cool the planet

·         This concept has already been demonstrated in principle with the Mt. Pinatubo volcanic eruption in 1991. This eruption unleashed a huge quantity of sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere, and global temperatures fell by half a degree Centigrade a year later.

Potential Drawbacks:

·         Although the sulfur dioxide approach would help with global warming, it would do nothing to combat the ocean acidification that carbon dioxide emission is causing

·         The world would need to come to an international consensus before this plan could be put into place

·         Since current climate models aren’t very accurate, there is a very real possibility that humans could overcompensate with the sulfur dioxide and cause too much cooling

·         The view of the stars with underground telescopes would be obscured because of all of the aerosols in the air… KHS Astronomy Club… Bye bye…

·         Solar power would be less efficient

·         Potential drought; the year after the Pinatubo eruption had the lowest rainfall over land ever recorded

Should we geoengineer? The potential problems are real and dangerous. Still, global warming is just as real and dangerous, and geoengineering may be the only way to stop drastic climate change. As time moves on, people will have to weigh the costs and benefits of geoengineering against the consequences of global warming. For instance, which is worse… The drought that would likely be created from sulfur dioxide geoengineering, or the worse hurricanes and rising sea levels that would result from global warming? More importantly, who decides? Thoughts?

Sources:

http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2009/10/weighing-the-pros-and-cons-of-stratospheric-geoengineering.ars

http://www.climateark.org/shared/reader/welcome.aspx?linkid=140354

Superfreakenomics  by Stephen J Dubner and Steven Levitt

http://michaelscomments.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/bacon.jpg

Bacon is good. However, some people don’t like that you have to kill pigs for it. But what if you didn’t have to?

For the first time, scientists have grown bacon in a petri dish. Well… almost. Two Dutch scientists, Bernard Roelen and Henk Haagsman, at Utrecht University, have managed to grow small bits of pork in the lab. This lab grown pork still lacks the fat, blood vessels, and consistency (lab muscle is a lot weaker than muscle that has been exercised through movement) characteristic of normal pork; think mushy ground pork instead of a pork chop. But it is a step toward lab grown bacon nevertheless.

First, the researchers collected pig myoblasts, which are muscle stem cells. They then used a special nutrient broth (made from pig fetuses, but researchers think synthetic substitutes may one day be available) to stimulate the myoblasts to grow into large bits of pig muscle. This is essentially pork.

Besides the obvious application of allowing vegetarians to eat pork, scientists hope that this would be another way to feed the hungry. Also, since there is no reason this technique wouldn’t work on other animals, people may one day be able to go to the store and buy all kinds of exotic meat: lion, tiger, penguin, giraffe… Who knows?

Sources:

·         Skeptic’s Guide to the Universe

·         http://www.thestar.com/News/article/245446

http://www.psychometric-success.com/images/PC0201.gif

The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (copyrighted, I don’t know how to type that little thing that symbolizes copyrighted-ness) is a personality test given to over two million people in the United States per year. If you are a high school student, your school probably uses it somehow to help you think about careers and college. The MBTI will break down your personality according to where you fall on 4 scales: (1) extraversion/introversion, (2) sensate/intuitive, (3) thinking/feeling, and (4) judging/perceiving. It all sounds very nice, and very scientific.

However, I’ve always been skeptical of the Myers-Briggs test. I have three reasons for this. First of all, I have taken the test multiple times, and each time I have gotten different results. Second, how is one supposed to accurately answer some of the questions on the test? I would think that your response to such questions as “often you prefer to read a book instead of going to a party”, would be highly influenced by your mood and the context. Also, wouldn’t it depend upon which book and which party were being considered?

The final reason I’m skeptical about the Myers-Briggs test is the Forer effect. The Forer effect refers to people’s tendency to rate vague statements that could apply to anyone as uniquely descriptive of them. This is why people often believe that they meet the description of “their sign” in astrology. In personality tests such as the Myers-Briggs test, I believe that the description one receives of their type is so vague that it could really apply to anyone. For a more thorough and referenced debunking of the Myers-Briggs test and description of the Forer effect, check out my main sources below.

http://www.skepdic.com/myersb.html

http://www.skepdic.com/forer.html

http://bizbox.slate.com/blog/google.jpg

I had planned to make this post titled “How to Cause an Earthquake”. But as I began my research, I had a different idea. The earthquake post is coming, but since I’m strapped for time today, I thought I’d go with my new idea.

Have you ever noticed that Google now tries to guess what you are typing before you finish? The interesting thing about this is that you can get an idea of what “other people” spend their time searching. Here are a few of my favorites:

Also, as result of this blog, Google now guesses my name before you can finish typing it. Of course a website about Polish plumbers also comes up… Ah well.

A few weeks ago, I met a girl who informed me that, if I want an interesting experience and have some free time, I should deprive myself of sleep and see how I feel. She told me that, if you haven’t slept for 72 hours, you are classified as legally insane. Furthermore, she said she tried it and kept a journal of her experiences. Obviously, I hang out with interesting people.

Never the less, I took her world for it. I wanted to try this, and write about my experience here. But my parents wouldn’t let me. So I decided to do the next best thing. Research it and see if I could find a sleep deprivation report to post here.

First of all, it turns out that there is no objective law that states “Anyone who has not slept for 72 hours is considered legally insane.” This is an urban myth. However, sleep deprivation has many affects on the body, and may be a possible reason for insanity if argued in court. Instead of listing and describing the affects of sleep deprivation, here is a journal of someone who deprived themselves of sleep for five days:

It is

1:00 PM, Saturday, March 27.

I haven’t slept in 5 hours.

I’m feeling normal right now. I slept ~8 hours last night.

———————- It is

2:00 PM, Sunday, March 28.

I haven’t slept in 29 hours.

Right now I’m feeling drowsy. I’ve been drinking a cup of coffee every now and then, and it’s working well. Through the night, I kept myself occupied as best as I could with movies and computer games. Staying awake wasn’t a challenge. I have no change in mood at the moment, although I am starting to feel slightly sluggish. I’m not quite as enthusiastic as I usually am about day to day activities. Overall, nobody I associate myself with has been able to tell I’m lacking sleep.

———————-

It is

5:00 PM, Monday, March 29.

I haven’t slept in 56 hours.

Right now I’m starting to get extremely apathetic towards everyday things. My performance in day-to-day dealings and events is extremely uninvolved. I’m starting to get slightly irritable and impatient with people who make mistakes/act stupid around me. Staying up is increasingly difficult. I find that if I do anything aside from quickly blinking, I nod off to sleep. This has happened 5-6 times, but I’ve snapped out of it. Caffeine is becoming a major factor in staying awake. I can’t perform complex literary/mathematical functions without many careless errors. Through the night I no longer watched TV - I was in danger of falling asleep. I must keep myself involved… busy to stay awake. My eyes are becoming slightly red, and slightly pained. This pain can only be relieved by closing them, which I simply cannot do. My reflexes are beginning to slowly dwindle.

It took me a while to correct grammatical and spelling errors in this update. There may still be some, but I don’t have the patience to fix them.

———————-

it is

8 pm, wed march 30′

i haven slept in 83 hrs

i can barely keep my eyelids open. i have to fight so hard not to just lose it and fall asleep. will power is is starting to become i bigger part of staying awake. ive abandoned any sort of activivty to requires intense attention because i just get frustrated- i lash out at people that get in my way and i find myself to be really irritable whn i can muster up enough energy and will power to yell at someone. caffeine is constantly coming into my body, and ive taken severla nodoze tablets. im not going to try anything illegal like meth because i decided this should be fairy level stated when awake this is really fucking difficult. i feel extremely apathetic to all sorts of things right now and generally dont give a shit. my eyes are extremely sore right now, and very red on top. at hour 70-72 somewhere i developed a dull headache that has been grwing in tension. i feel terrible and am close to mentally giving up and sleepng

-phlab,

———00000000

it is 6pm wednesd mar 31

havent slept in 105 hrs

my eyes are burnng horribly an seem to be bloodshot. as far as reaction time goes, its almost nonexistant. i had friend throw something at me, and didnt even bother flinching. needless to say it hurt, but felt duller and insignificant to if i was rested. nothing but incoherent thoughts ar ronning through my head, i cant concentrate on a thing. when i do talk i ramble nmeedlesly, mumbling notbhing but jibberish. my sense of taste is dwindlng, althoy i think i may just be imagining it. i try to keep myself busy drinkng coffee and other diuretics to keep myslf busy and pissin so i cant sleep with full bladder. as im writin this, im in danger of sleeping because this chasir is padded. i must stay in unconfortable positions endlessly to stay awake. my muscles are aching and sore all over my body from not gvng them a break. asi attemtp to watch tv, im tryng to listen and comprehend but its extremely unclearand i dont understand dont understand. i think i may be hearing things, auditory hallucinations, but im gambling thats its simply a placebo effect because thats what im expecting. i cnst explain myself right now ,this is so full of errors but i cannot allot my concrentration tow fixing thm,. if these auditory hallucinations continue and i can confirm that theyy rre actully hapnign, im stang up 6 dyas. hah. i doubt that somehow. i just want o sleep, its all i can hthink about. im feeling delirious-

with l ove

phlab

—————————————————

its 3pm, thurs. april 1

i haven not slept in 126 hrs

my mental aptitude is completely shot. words that come out of my mout are completely random ; nonsensicle. i have found a good way of keepng myself awake and active is wlaking around the neighbordhood. the fresh air, sun, and public environment somehow tells me brain it is not appropriate to fall asleep in the outdoor public setting, which somehow is relieving some of the severe urges to sleep. in addition to complete mental exauhstion, i am physically deprived. i cannot eat a thing, only takng in liquids. my appetite is completely gone, i havent eaten in 14-16 hours or so. time is beginning to drag, an percetion of it is slightly more difficult. my entire body is sore and the pain in my eyes is at a peak as im writing. the headache has gradually increased and is making is difficult to to stay much mawake more. in additon, i am developing a slight stomach ache that is more of a nuisance than anything. when all physical ailments are combined with complete mental emptyness this makes for an awful experience. i am certiain i am hearing audioty hallcunations - i hear a cat mewo despite thatfact thast i own no cats. i also hear a weird series of bleeps in different tones - i cannot find the sourceo f them. i snap in and out of an almost trancelike state wher i look at a random object an space out. ifeel delirious, a frien came over to check on me asi told him to, and he thought it was funny that my statements were halfbaked nonsensical jibberish. i no longer simply walk - it is more of a staggerlike lurchin g. my balance is also off. out of the corner of my eyes i believe im seeing visual disturbances an interruptions. no hallucinations - i imagin thos come muhc later - just ripples an slight distortions in my periphial. it may not even be a true hallucination, just delerium. i am so fatigued tha if sonmeone offered me to sprint around a track once for 100 grand, i most likely couldnt. when i fill my head with thoughts of going to sleep and curling up in bed under a blanket, i get a dumb smuile on my face. for all i know, it could be my brain releasing positive chemicals of some sort to will me into sleepng. i hope what i’m saying is makng sense. i have little attention span and my short term memory seems to to be weakened so i wrote thi update over about half an hour. i hav reached my goal an will stay up slightly longer to futrher explor auditory hallulcinations and see if the visuals increas. if not, im going to go to bed. i have a grin on my gesicht jsyt thinking about it,.

thansk for readng. it will be interesntg to go over this log when ii ma fully rested an analy it a little after sleepngm.for the record the only stimulant usedd was caffeine, wich i stope usng 12 hrs ago becauee the comedown was killin g me./

goodnight. dropping into bed will be GOOD FEELNGI..

Phlab-

Source: http://www.modrs2.info/en/fringe/fringe_science/effectsofsleep173704.html

I’ve always liked science better than fiction. This is because, in the most exciting science, there are many unresolved questions that no one knows the answers to. Unfortunately, people are rarely taught what we don’t know. So, without anymore introduction, here are a five of my favorite mysteries of biology:

1.      It has been well demonstrated that chronic stress (such as caring for a sick family member, taking 5 APs while playing a sport and working, being a medical student, etc.) as a direct result of its hormonal effects on the body, reduces the efficiency of the immune system. But the question is, why? This is the evolutionary equivalent of kicking someone when they are down. Why would the body evolve to be more likely to get sick when it is all ready in potential danger (i.e. under stress)? Did our ancestors not experience the types of prolonged stress people experience in modern day environments? Are the harmful effects of stress merely byproducts of a response that is beneficial on a more profound level? Or is there a better explanation?

2.      Tumor suppressor genes are genes that occur in every cell in our body, and (surprisingly enough) they function to suppress tumors. We all have multiple tumor suppressor genes, but if 2 or 3 of these genes are somehow lost (as a result of mutation), cancer may develop. Therefore, one would expect that evolution would have placed these genes relatively far away from each other in the genome. That way, if a cell lost one of these genes, it would not necessarily lose all of them, and thus would probably not become cancerous. However, for unknown reasons (perhaps there are none) what are arguably the 3 most important tumor suppressors\ genes are located on the same 40 kilobase chunk of DNA. If this chunk of DNA is lost (and it often is) a cell will almost definitely become cancerous, as it has lost its 3 most important tumor suppressor genes in one shot. Why are these genes so close together?

3.      There was a particular lung cancer drug that was in clinical trials a few years ago. The drug worked by targeting a cellular receptor that was upregulated in lung cancer cells. The entire research community was excited about its chances for success…

And the drug failed epically. Except for in nonsmoking, Asian women. Why???

4.      Depending upon whom you ask, scientists have no idea what seventy five percent of the human genome does, as it doesn’t seem to encode any proteins.

5.      One would expect that genes would be dispersed evenly throughout the human genome. However, scientists have found that instead, genes are clumped together into gene rich regions, leaving long stretches of DNA where no genes are to be found. Why?

Brad Rybinski

The Iconoclast: Get Smarter

If you are lucky enough to be a member of my audience, chances are that you are all ready pretty smart. But then again, who wouldn’t want to be smarter if they could? Typing “become smarter” into Google produces over 12,700,000 results (in a handy 0.22 seconds). Regrettably however, many of the things these websites will tell you to do are either obvious (like getting a good night’s sleep and eating breakfast), mundane (teaching you how to study), or not backed up by even the smallest amount of science (taking a herb called ginkgo biloba). But fortunately, scientists may have discovered (a year or so ago) a way to actually make one legitimately smarter…

Go to  http://www.soakyourhead.com/ . They explain the research better than I’m willing to take the time to. But in summary, this is a link to a computer game (yes, a computer game) that has been shown in preliminary studies to boost IQ if played regularly. I used to play this game a lot (last summer), and although I don’t know if it produced any IQ improvement, I do know that I improved substantially at the game. Enjoy…

Brad Rybinski