Agriculture Linked to DNA Changes in Ancient Europe

The agricultural revolution lead to the rise of modern civilization.  In a recent study, an international team of scientists has found that after agriculture arrived in Europe 8,500 years ago, people’s DNA underwent widespread changes, altering their height, digestion, immune system and skin color.  The researchers found indirect alterations by studying the genomes of living Europeans, making it possible to see the changes over thousands of years.  Prior to this discovery, scientists relied on bones and physical remains to comprehend European history.  The earliest bones of modern humans in Europe dated back to about 45,000 years ago.  Early Europeans lived as human-gatherers for over 35,000 years.  About 8,500 years ago, the first archaeological record of farmers was left on the continent.  By studying living Europeans, scientists have discovered that their ancestors adapted to agriculture through natural selection, utilizing molecular underpinnings of these traits.  Prior to the rise of agriculture, Europe was populated by hunter-gatherers.  Then, a wave of people from the Near East, as the DNA suggests, brought agriculture to the continent. Lastly, about 4,500 years ago, a nomadic population  from the unforested grassland of Russia, known as the Yamnaya, swept into Europe.  The scientists also published how genes have evolved.  Previous studies suggested that Europeans were more capable to digest milk once they began raising cattle.  In the study published in Nature, David Reich, a geneticist at Harvard Medical School, confirmed that LCT, the gene that aids milk digestion, experienced intense natural selection and became common in ancient Europe.  This dated back only 4,000 years ago.  Furthermore, the supply of protein in milk created risks.  Early European farmers who depended on wheat and other crops risked low doses of essential nutrients.  As a result, a gene called SLC22A4 encoded a protein on the surface of cells to draws in the amino acid called ergothioneine. Wheat and other crops have low levels of ergothioneine, and the new variant increases its absorption, increasing the chance of survival among the farmers. That would have increased the chances of survival among the farmers who had the gene.  Scientists hope to track historical changes in the human genome across the globe over tens of thousands of years.  Tracking the genome is a “time machine” to the past, as stated by Rasmus Nielsen, a geneticist at the University of California, Berkeley.

This article and the research conducted demonstrate the importance of reconstructing the human and unearthing more fossils in order to understand the origin and descent of ancient Europeans through the genome.  By studying the genome of living Europeans, scientists discovered the changes in skin color, digestive enzymes and height.  This study raises hopes that scientists can recover far older human genomes.  With the discovery of new fossils and skeletons, scientists are able to uncover and forge connections between the adaptation and migration of species.

This article was well written and interesting.  Zimmer clearly explained the theories of migration and adaptation.  He provided context for the new research by describing previous discoveries.  In addition, Zimmer cited all the scientists involved in the research and cited their disagreements in certain theories. However, the sequence of the article was confusing. The discovery of the evolution of traits of Europeans was left to the end of the article.  He provided too much context, before explaining the new research, theories and discoveries.

Zimmer, Carl. "Agriculture Linked to DNA Changes in Ancient Europe." The New York Times. The New York Times, 23 Nov. 2015. Web. 26 Nov. 2015. <http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/24/science/agriculture-linked-to-dna-changes-in-ancient-europe.html?_r=0>.

Paris Climate Talks Avoid Scientists’ Idea of ‘Carbon Budget’

Paris Climate Talks Avoid Scientists’ Idea of ‘Carbon Budget’

The suggestion of a carbon budget was made in 2013 by a series of scientific papers and is the idea that the amount of emissions we can use without significantly damaging the environment should be split between all countries. One way to think of it is like having a pie and needing to divide it, but the question is, how much do you give each country? Do you base it on size or use of fossil fuels already? Scientists believe that the cap of emissions would be reached when after calculating the total amount of carbon emissions and other green house gases the temperature of the earth could only increase 3.6 degrees fahrenheit. At 3.6 degrees the sea level would still increase by 20 feet but over an extended period of time, anything about 3.6 would result in high sea levels, catastrophic heat waves, and difficulty producing food. The article, however, went on to discuss how the carbon budget will not be considered at the Paris Climate Conference because it will be shut down immediately. The politics involving divvying up the amount of emissions that each country could use would be close to impossible and also very difficult to enforce. Countries have made their own carbon emission limiting plans yet none of them are drastic enough. Even if Europe, America, and China fulfill their plans, together they will use all of the emissions leaving none for any other countries. Scientists say earth’s only hope is that more country’s limiting plans are used and as time goes on begin even more drastic. 

This is important to all of us because it is going to effect our earth and the way we and our offspring live very soon. Many people don’t realize just how severe this situation is and that if we continue using fossil fuels at the rate we are, the world will not be able to sustain us for much longer. Ocean levels will increase, natural disasters will occur much more frequently, and temperatures will continue to rise causing droughts and fires. The United States emits the second largest amount of fossil fuels following China. As Americans we need to work to ensure that generations will have a future by pressuring the government to take drastic measures in limiting our amount of emissions. 

The article was very clear in explaining the concept of a carbon budget and why it was not working. The only thing I would improve is that it really did not give any suggestions or ways to improve the environment. The article was depressing in that it said we were pretty much doomed, unless as a world we could decide on a carbon budget plan which they later explained was close to impossible.  This only gives one side of the story and there are other scientists who have a more optimistic view of our future. Overall, I thought it very informative because I learned a new perspective on climate change and more about the Paris Climate Conference. 

Gillis, Justin. "Paris Climate Talks Avoid Scientists’ Idea of ‘Carbon Budget’." The New York Times. The New York Times, 28 Nov. 2015. Web. 29 Nov. 2015. <http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/29/science/earth/paris-climate-talks-avoid-scientists-goal-of-carbon-budget.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fscience&action=click&contentCollection=science®ion=rank&module=package&version=highlights&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=sectionfront>.

World’s Biggest Animal Cloning Center Set for ’16 in a Skeptical China

Two companies in Asia plan to build an animal cloning facility in China next year that would be the biggest of its kind. The people behind this compare the cloning of animals to the process that is used to grow genetically modified strawberries. Many people are concerned with the safety of cloned meat. The owners of the company say that their beef will be the best tasting and will solve China’s problem of importing cows. The lab won’t just produce cows they will also make embryos of sniffer dogs, and racehorses. The companies claim that their goal is to start a social movement and get other people to start cloning animals as well. The people of China and around the world have a lot of doubt about the lab and there is little support for it.

If this cloning center does what it is setting out to accomplish it will have a tremendous effect on agriculture. We will have more animals than we need and not enough food for them. I do not know how they are going to sell their embryos because a farmer would need a female animal to carry the clone and it makes more sense to have your cows naturally reproduce. In Europe they banned cloning of animals so I do not see a trend of livestock cloning spreading to new locations. No one seems to be backing the lab and I do not think that they will be successful. This situation raises a lot of ethical questions about the agricultural business.

I thought that overall the article was well written and informative. I would have liked to know what the Chinese, or any other, government had to say about the plans, or if anyone is supporting the lab. I enjoyed reading the article and found that both sides of the argument were discussed. I liked how the author connected this example to what is happening around the world with regards to cloning. The use of online reaction provided a nice viewpoint from the ordinary people of China where most articles would only interview experts.

Guo, Owen. "World’s Biggest Animal Cloning Center Set for ’16 in a Skeptical China." The New York Times. The New York Times, 26 Nov. 2015. Web. 29 Nov. 2015. <http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/27/world/asia/china-animal-cloning.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fscience>.

Mosquitoes Engineered to Zap Ability to Carry Malaria

Scientist have recently engineered a way to have Anopheles stephensi mosquitoes spread malaria resistance instead of disease.  Anopheles stephensi are a type of mosquito that makes up twelve percent of the population in India. The scientist have created a “genetic vaccine” using a gene-editing tool known as CRISPR/Cas9. CRISPR/Cas9 comes in two parts: a DNA-cutting enzyme called Cas9, and a strand of RNA that guides the enzyme to the location in the genome to be cut. This gene editing tool will continually inject itself into the mosquitos’ DNA. This vaccine, a gene drive, would allow the mutation to spread to every mosquito in the population in just a few years. Gene drives are engineered pieces of DNA that copy and paste themselves into precise locations in an organism’s genome.“This work suggests that we're a hop, skip and jump away from actual gene drive candidates for eventual release,” says Kevin Esvelt, a synthetic biologist at Harvard University. When testing they found in the first generation that only two of 25,712 larvae screened had the glowing red eyes that indicated they carried the gene drive. However in the third generation 98.9%of the progeny of male mosquitoes descended from the original two males carried the gene drive. So this technique is very efficient except for the females. In most of the offspring descended from daughters of the original male mosquitoes, eye color indicated that Cas9 cut the target DNA but it didn’t actually carry the gene.

The scientists are now working on a new drive that would only activate in males now. Gene drives alone won’t eliminate malaria, but it could help clear the disease and keep it from coming back. Malaria is a serious disease there are an estimated 207 million cases of malaria each year. So finding a way to stop this would be great! It is very important discovery.

I thought that this article was definitely very detailed. It gave me a good understanding of the discovery and how it is done. Even though it was clear and detailed it was dull. I found myself spacing out and rereading over paragraphs. It is a informative article so that it makes sense that the article was not that interesting. But overall it was an cool topic to read about. And it was very informative.      

"Mosquitoes Engineered to Zap Ability to Carry Malaria." Science News. N.p., n.d. Web. 29 Nov. 2015.

Agriculture Linked to DNA Changes in Ancient Europe

Zimmer, Carl. "Agriculture Linked to DNA Changes in Ancient Europe." The New York Times. The New York Times, 23 Nov. 2015. Web. 29 Nov. 2015. <http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/24/science/agriculture-linked-to-dna-changes-in-ancient-europe.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fscience&action=click&contentCollection=science®ion=rank&module=package&version=highlights&contentPlacement=7&pgtype=sectionfront&_r=0>.

The article “Agriculture Linked to DNA changes in Ancient Europe” by Carl Zimmer explained the study of human genomes in Europe that helped trace changes to the human genome that occurred around the time of the agricultural revolution. The agricultural revolution brought changes in height, digestion, immune system and skin color that help create many of the varying traits we see today. Rasmus Nielsen, a geneticist at university of California Berkeley describes this study as a “time machine,” allowing us to gain a much vaster amount of evidence than the previous method of bone examination. These studies lacked information on when these changes occurred and whether these changes were due to natural selection or migration of people into Europe. In looking at DNA, scientists have discovered that Europe was full of hunter gatherers and that agriculture started with the emergence of a DNA resembling that from the Near East, leading scientists to conclude that people from the Near East migrated to Europe bringing farming with them. Dr. Reich, a geneticist at Harvard Medical School, analyzed 230 different human genomes from people living between 8,500  and 2,300 years ago. One important discovery was LCT, a gene aiding milk digestion which was made more common through natural selection after farming emerged. Another important discovery was a gene SLC22A4 which codes a protein to draw in the amino acid ergothioneine. This was essential to farmers who ate lots of wheat and other crops lacking ergothioneine, which this gene helped to better absorb. However, scientists have seen that variations in this gene can cause digestive disorders such as IBS, irritable bowel syndrome. Although many advances have been made, scientists are still looking for answers. This study was inconclusive about natural selection in height; there is an observed difference between the much taller people in the north of Europe compared to the shorter people in southern Europe.

This article is very important because it not only explains many parts of the past that were misunderstood, but it also gives us insight into variations today. In studying the DNA, we can see how the human genome has changed throughout time. This is important because we can see that what we are exposed to and what we eat changes the genome through natural selection. It is important to see that when agriculture was adopted, although genes were able to provide better absorption of nutrients, there were negative effects causing digestive problems. So although agriculture was an advancement in society and we were able to adapt, there are variations causing health problems. This was the first time that DNA was analyzed about how farming was brought to Europe and if scientists continue to do research on the changes to the human genome, we can track historic changes to the genome across the globe.

This article connected studies done on the genome and compared them to our prior knowledge. The article was very clear about the study performed by Dr. Reich and gave lots of information on genes that were discovered and how they furthered our knowledge of the human genome. However, I felt that the article could have been organized better. For example, the author put information about critiques of the study before the study. He also talked about other studies but didn’t give information on who performed them or even what was done to gain the information. However, the author was able to use the information gained from Dr. Reich’s study and compare it to our genome today. He made very good connections showing how natural selection has benefits in promoting genes that aid us, but can also cause harmful variations. Overall, it was a very interesting topic that although focuses on genomes from thousands of years ago, is still relevant today.

Engineering Mosquitoes’ Genes to Resist Malaria

          For my current event review, I read the article “Engineering Mosquitoes’ Genes to Resist Malaria” by Nicholas Wade. Two teams of biologists, both working out of the Irvine campus of the University of California, have collaborated to create a revolutionary species of mosquito designed to eliminate (or at least limit) the effects of malaria and other diseases carried by mosquitos throughout the world. This species of mosquito has been engineered to have two specialized genes, one of which “spew[s] out antibodies to the malarial parasite harbored by the mosquito… render[ing] resistant to the parasite and so cannot spread malaria.” The other change causes a mechanism known as a “gene drive” to take place, which allows the malaria-resistance genes to thrive within a mosquito population, nearly assuring themselves spots in the genes of future generations of mosquitos. As a result, nearly all of the offspring carry the antibodies. Kevin Esvelt, a gene drive expert at Harvard, is thrilled with the outcome of the collaboration, stating, “We have a wonderful chance of knocking down malaria and dengue fever and other diseases…” Interestingly, this is a case of how published, reputable journals allow scientists to come together and solve practical problems with their findings. Dr. Gantz and Dr. Bier, two men who almost single-handedly revolutionized the gene drive technique through a series of experiments not depicted in the article itself, published their results in the journal Science. When Dr. James, the man who, along with his team, had produced the antibody gene, saw this entry, he immediately called Dr. Gantz and Dr. Bier, seeing an imminent opportunity to spread this malaria-ridding gene through countless wild populations of mosquitoes.

The findings in these experiments and the consequent collaboration that took place can and likely will have profound influence on the world and specifically, human beings. Nearly 600,000 people die from malaria every year, and if these species of mosquito can be incorporated into wild mosquito populations in malaria-prominent areas, the risk the malaria poses to human populations can be quickly reduced. It is important to note, however, that humans are generally skeptical when it comes to genetically manipulated organisms (as they should be). An enormous risk associated with these mosquitoes is that the artificially introduced mosquito population could interfere with the natural cycle of organisms in the area, drastically altering the wildlife. Only time will tell what practical, and hopefully profound, effects these mosquitoes may entail.

Overall, this article was extremely well-written and clear. While gene-drive and genetic altering techniques are things that I have touched on as a student in biology class, I did not know nearly enough to understand all the terms in the article beforehand. However, the author did a tremendous job providing essential background information and explaining certain mechanisms in layman’s terms such that they were easy for me to understand. Specifically, the author’s mentioning of the history behind the discoveries and experiments allowed me to paint a picture in my mind of the events as they were taking place. While these are qualities that one would expect from a author writing for a reputable paper like The New York Times, the article also flowed well, as one clear idea led to the next throughout. As a result, I am glad I chose this article to read and review; I learned a lot.

World’s Biggest Animal Cloning Center Set for ’16 in a Skeptical China

Reviewed By Trevor Pettit

Northwest China’s port city of Tianjin is set to become host to the world’s biggest animal cloning center this upcoming year. China’s Boyalife Group and South Korea’s Sooam Biotech have set foot in a venture to create the world’s largest factory farming project. The compounds, consisting of a laboratory, gene-bank, and museum,  will “eventually churn out up to a million beef cattle embryos a year, as well as sniffer dogs, racehorses and other animals” (Owen Guo, New York Times). This enormous project is attached to a projected cost of $500 million.

The Chinese public has so far been anxious regarding the booming factory farming industry. Many Chinese citizens have posted their concerns with Boyalife Group and Sooam Biotech’s collaborative project across social media; however, factory farming is already playing a large role in China’s produce, and it could serve to help quell public food safety concerns. For example, many strawberries and bananas sold across China are products of cloning technology. Furthermore, Xu Xiaochun, and executive of this Tianjin Project, sees cloned beef as a solution to the overwhelmingly large population of low quality beef in China. Xu said, “One reason we have so much low-quality beef is because we haven’t applied clone technology...this is the only way to allow Chinese and many other people in the world to enjoy high-quality beef in an efficient manner” (Owen Guo, New York Times). Public food safety has become a large concern following exposures of scandals like melamine-tainted baby formula and recycled industrial “gutter oil.” Executive Xu concluded that the cloning process would be just like “pouring a glass of orange juice into another empty glass” (Owen Guo, New York Times).

Several analysts from China’s financial sector have questioned the profitability of this project however. They proposed that cloning may be a fiscally reasonable solution for combatting endangered species, but that farming via cloning would not produce reasonably priced meat. Boyalife Group and Sooam Biotech await approval from the Chinese Government as they continuing building their facility.

This article is extremely relevant because it proposes a solution to China’s many public safety issues -- cloning would ensure that meat comes from a viable source. However, with what would likely be a high pricetag, cloning may not be the ultimate answer, as legitimate meat would still be inaccessible to China’s explosively large working class. This article also illuminates much of the stigma attached to cloning. The Chinese people feel as though cloned product would be filthy and disgusting, even though it would, likely, be of much higher quality than what they currently have access to. The origins to this stigma seem to elude the author of this piece as well as Boyalife Group and Sooam Biotech.

I felt that this piece was written very objectively. The author did not seem to have any bias, but rather he just provided the entire context of this development and the opinions of the public and the company. This made the article very easy to read, and also gave the reader space to formulate their own opinion. This really made the article very intriguing to me, as I ultimately decided that I conditionally supported this venture depending on the price tag. As expected from a reputable source like the New York Times, I encountered no grammatical errors or spelling errors. In conclusion, I really enjoyed reading this piece for its objectiveness, for the relevance and depth of the topic, and for the great amount of information given in this piece. I would strongly recommend it.

Source:

Guo, Owen. "World’s Biggest Animal Cloning Center Set for ’16 in a Skeptical China." The New York Times. The New York Times, 26 Nov. 2015. Web. 29 Nov. 2015. <http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/27/world/asia/china-animal-cloning.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fscience&action=click&contentCollection=science®ion=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=4&pgtype=sectionfront&_r=0>.

Paging Dr. Pigeon; You’re Needed in Radiology

Many view pigeons and other birds as animals that have no intellectual capabilities that could be beneficial to humans. However, pigeons have fantastic vision and can be trained to identify malignant and benign breast tumors like a radiologist or pathologist would. At the University of Iowa, researchers experiments with 16 pigeons who had been in studies before. Therefore, they knew the drill: pick correctly, receive food and receive nothing when they pick wrong. The researchers would place the pigeons in little boxes with touch sensitive monitors that showed the slides of breast tissue. Scientists then trained the birds to peck a blue rectangle when they saw benign tissue and to peck a yellow rectangle when they saw malignant tissue. However, experimenters wanted to test more. In one experiment, the birds were given slides in color and in black-and-white with varying degrees of magnification. In another, the pigeons were tested to see if they could detect calcifications which are difficult for radiologists to find. In a third test, the pigeons were shown mammograms to see if they could differentiate between a benign mass from a malignant mass. The results from these tests were encouraging: for the first test, where the pigeons were separating benign from malignant breast tissue, they averaged at 87 percent correct scores on already trained slides and 85 percent correct scores on slides they had never seen before. In the second test, the pigeons did just as well scoring with 85 percent accuracy on identifying calcifications. The third test did not go as well with the masses on the mammograms with 80 percent correctness on already tested slides  and only 60 percent accuracy on random new slides.

These experiments with the pigeons present possibly future medical tests that are faster and easier for doctors. The authors of the experiments wrote: “They may be useful as surrogates for human subjects in medical image perception studies because they can be used in repetitive ways that few people could tolerate.” These studies do no harm to the birds and result in positive testing results. In the future, who knows what other animals can do to help further the medical testing process related to cancer.

I was initially drawn to this article because it seemed different and interesting. I never thought that pigeons could be used medically. The author did a great job at summarizing the experiment. I liked how he included the exact percentages of the accuracies because it clearly demonstrated how successful the experiment is and how it can improve in the future. However, he definitely could have improved in some areas. I would have liked to understand how the researchers domesticated these wild pigeons to understand the difference between malignant and benign and how they trained these wild birds to peck the correct color. I also would have liked more information on why it was only breast cancer they were testing and not other types of cancer because the pigeons probably would have been able to notice the difference between malignant and benign. Overall, this was a very intriguing article to read and I am looking forward to see what other animals can affect the field of medicine.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/25/science/pigeons-detect-breast-cancer-tumors.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fscience&action=click&contentCollection=science&region=rank&module=package&version=highlights&contentPlacement=6&pgtype=sectionfront

Bakalar, Nicholas. "Paging Dr. Pigeon; You’re Needed in Radiology." The New York Times. The New York Times, 24 Nov. 2015. Web. 29 Nov. 2015.

In a Tooth, DNA From Some Very Old Cousins, the Denisovans

This article discussed how a tooth fossil was found in a siberian cave and that has yielded DNA from a separate part of the tree of human evolution, these “mysterious cousins” are classified as Denisovans. This species, as shown by the analysis of scientists, has evidence pushing back to 60,000 years ago, thus showing that they had the ability to live in harsh climates, considering their geographical location as well. These results also show that these Denisovans could have potentially breeded with other ancient hominins, “relatives of modern humans whom science has yet to discover.” The cave in which the traces of the Denisovans have been found is checked every summer. The cave is in the Altai Mountains in Siberia. Previous to this recent discovery regarding the Denisovans, they were known only from DNA in another tooth and a finger bone found in the cave in 2008. Analysis had shown them to be at least 50,000 years old, and with more study and analysis, they have arrived where they are today regarding this topic. Since there are virtually no bones to study, it is extraordinarily difficult to figure out what these Denisovans were like, but they do know that their closest relatives were the neanderthals. Scientists estimate that Neanderthals and Denisovans diverged on the human family tree 400,000 years ago. This “new” batch of analysis comes from a tooth discovered in 2010 in the cave in Siberia, and it, called Denisova 8, yielded only a modest amount of DNA. Although there wasn't much DNA, the scientists were still able to draw some important conclusions. This tooth is much older than the other discovered remains, approximately 110,000 years old.

This article has a profound effect on our society because it sheds much more light on possible relatives of humans and we can examine these Denisovans to draw some conclusions about things such as evolution. This article also adds to increasing evidence that our species kept company with many near relatives over the past million years. Also, by examining the diverse DNA of the Denisovans, we can draw comparisons between these and the Neanderthals, touching on how the Denisovans were much more complex, and much more similar genetically to the people in Europe right now. The DNA in the tooth can also lead to conclusions about the possibility of inbreeding of species. Although most of the genetic material in the tooth has a close relationship with the genetic material Neanderthals, some of it seems only distantly related to Neanderthal or human DNA.

One thing that I think this article succeeding in doing was in how the author (Carl Zimmer) included so much on how this recently discovered tooth is relevant and important, discussing the way we can examine the DNA of these Denisovans and compare it to that of Humans today. One thing I did not like about this article was in how Zimmer didn’t go into much detail about the other fossils found at all. This would be helpful because then the reader could see how the other discoveries compare to the tooth, and what this means for the human tree. One thing that could be improved would be if Carl Zimmer included more information about the other fossils found for the Denisovans, shedding much more light on the topic and the Denisovans themselves.

Zimmer, Carl. "In a Tooth, DNA From Some Very Old Cousins, the Denisovans." The New York Times. The New York Times, 16 Nov. 2015. Web. 17 Nov. 2015. <http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/17/science/in-a-tooth-dna-from-some-very-old-cousins-the-denisovans.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fscience&action=click&contentCollection=science®ion=rank&module=package&version=highlights&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=sectionfront>.

Scientists Think They Just Found the Most Important Planet outside Our Solar System

AP Biology                     Jason Cushman

Current Event 8 review          11/17/15

The Los Angeles Times article “Scientists think they just found the most important planet outside our solar system” by Deborah Netburn describes the recent finding of a planet known as GJ 1132b.  This planet is one of the only earth-like planets close enough to the Earth, only 39 light years away, for astronomers to study it.  This planet is the closest planet with a rocky exoplanet and is only 16% larger than earth.  Scientists discovered this planet using the  MEarth-South Observatory in Chile.  This Harvard owned group of eight 16-inch wide robotic telescopes is constantly looking for nearby exoplanets, planets with a hard exterior or crust like earth.  These telescopes look at nearby stars and look for dimming of the stars that signifies a planet has passed in front of it.  .  They first saw GJ 1132b in May of 2014 and since have begun studying the planet and have found out a few basic measurements.  They measured the size using information of how much dimming is observed by the telescopes.  They were also able to measure the measure the weight of the planet by observing the “wobble” of the star which is created by the gravitational pull of the planet.  They then calculated the density of the planet and believe it to be primarily rock and metal similar to earth.  They also calculated by using the number of dim periods per day that GJ 1132b orbits its host star every 1.6 earth days and is therefore roughly 1.4 million miles away from its host star.  This has led scientists to believe that the temperature of GJ 1132b is roughly 500 degrees Fahrenheit due to its close proximity to the planet and therefore will not have liquid water on the surface.  Many scientists including Zachory Berta-Thompson a post-doc from MIT’s Kavli Institute for Astrophysics and Space Research are excited for what this discovery will bring in the future.  He mentions that a new powerful telescope, the James Webb Space Telescope, will be launched in October of 2018.  He summarizes scientists excitement by stating“ The discovery of this planet gives us the opportunity to switch our focus from imagining what is out there to testing our theories observationally.”      

Scientists for years have been trying to find other earthlike planets to study and have had little success.  Most are either too far or just gaseous blobs.  The discovery of GJ 1132b is so important because it could lead to an unknown number of discoveries about space, planets in general, and most importantly our planet.  We don’t know what it will tell us but we can be sure that we will learn a lot from this planet.  Scientists are especially interested in discovering more information about how rocky planets form, how they get into their orbits, and what is occurring on them every day.  This could lead to discoveries about the history of our planet and more information on what has occurred here since its creation.  This planet could also lead to the discovery of new life which scientists would be able to learn from and some of this information could be applied to life on earth.  

This article was extremely interesting and contained a lot of well organized pieces of information.  It also incorporated many quotes from multiple astronomers and astrophysicists.  I learned a lot but felt like even more detail could have been added  especially in the area of what the significance of this discovery is.  In the beginning the author quotes Drake Deming who and states “he described the new world as ‘arguably the most important planet ever found outside the solar system’” but there is very little explanation of why.  I think an important area that Netburn missed was the discussion on the potential for life on this planet.  She briefly mentions the topic but I feel that a discussion of the potential for life would be something many people would want to read.  Overall this was a very well written article which I enjoyed and learned a lot from despite a couple flaws.   

Netburn, Deborah. "Scientists Think They Just Found the Most Important Planet outside Our Solar System." Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles Times, 11 Nov. 2015. Web. 17 Nov. 2015. <http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-earth-like-planet-20151110-story.html>.

“Human ‘Mini Brains’ Grown in Labs May Help Solve Cancer, Autism, Alzheimer’s”

Patterson, Thom. "Scientist: We've Grown a Nearly Full Human 'mini Brain' - CNN.com." CNN. Cable News Network, n.d. Web. 17 Nov. 2015. <http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/06/health/pioneers-brain-organoids/index.html>.

“Human ‘Mini Brains’ Grown in Labs May Help Solve Cancer, Autism, Alzheimer’s”

For less than a decade, scientists have been making brain tissue organoids - pieces of human tissue grown in petri dishes from skin cells- in labs. However, biomedical researcher at Ohio State, Rene Anand, has recently claimed that his team has grown organoids with most of the brain parts, even up to 98% of the cells that exist in a brain of a human fetus at five weeks, in some of his organoids. While scientists are very excited about the potential of the brain tissue organoids, the project is still at a very early stage, according to Anand: "The sooner we commercialize it and make a model available, the sooner everybody else can jump in and use it to solve these problems. Brain organoids may help researchers find key solutions to some sub-types of autism within 10 years.” Though the project may still only just be beginning, Rene Anand and Dr. Rudolph Tanzi were able to provide answers to a few general questions in this article. A few examples the author disclosed were that scientists could indeed make a miniature version of your brain (but it couldn’t develop into a fully grown brain), the brains could be used to contribute to new treatments by being used to mimic brains with various diseases, and the brain organoids are definitely not conscious. The nearly complete brain tissue organoids grown by Anand and his team were a major breakthrough, and hopefully will be ready to aid in research within the next five to ten years.

The growth of brain tissue organoids is definitely relevant to today’s society. People suffer from cancer, Alzheimer's, and Parkinson’s, but there is little doctors can do to treat it. Part of the problem is the great mystery associated with these diseases, the fact that scientists don’t fully understand them. Without having a complete understanding of a disease, obviously it is hard to come up with treatment. However, the organoids will be able to mimic brains with Alzheimer’s or cancer, and scientists will be able to see, first hand, what these diseases do to the brain. From there better treatment, or even a cure, can be discovered and diseases like cancer or Parkinson’s will no longer be a death sentence to the people who have them. While we can not yet really see the effects of the brain tissue organoids on our society, they hold great potential, and in a few years the impact they have in research will be significant.

Overall, I found the article very informative, and even enjoyable to read. The topic of growing brains in a lab is so fascinating, and it was very interesting to learn about it in the article. The author did a nice job of making the topic clear and easy to understand through giving just enough detail and using vocabulary that is understandable to people who aren’t scientists. The author also included many quotes from scientists and experts, specifically from Rene Anand and Dr. Rudolph Tanzi, so I knew that the information was from a reliable source and all the claims that were made by the author could be backed up. The only thing that could have been done better in the article would have been to give a more detailed description of the brain tissue organoids. The majority of the article was about the role the organoids played in role of research and discovering cures for diseases, but the author didn’t talk much about the organoids themselves. The only thing that was said, throughout the entire article, was that they are made up of pieces of human tissue grown in petri dishes from skin cells. It was a little bit strange to read an entire article about the great things brain organoids could do without really knowing what a brain organoid is, or how it functions. In the end, I did definitely learn a lot from this article and found it pretty interesting.

What if All of Earth's Insects Keeled Over?

Current Event Review by Tommy Maldonado

The article, “What if All of Earth’s Insects Keeled Over?” by Adam Hadhazy, discusses what the world would be like without insects. The article starts off by stressing the importance of insects, boldly stating that “we humans and most other complex life on the planet would be in dire shape without them.” Hadhazy then goes on to state the pros and cons of not having insects. The pros include not having them as little annoyances, not having dangerous insect-carried diseases, like malaria and dengue fever, and farmers no longer needing to use insecticides, of which more than 500 million pounds are used each year. While the pros are rather large, they are nonetheless greatly outweighed by the cons. Hadhazy starts with the immediate effect the absence of insects would have on plants. He states, “approximately 80 percent of all of the world's plant life are angiosperms, or flowering plants. In order to reproduce, these plants must have pollen physically transferred from a male anther to the female stigma within a flower.” Because such a large number of plants require pollination, which is namely done by insects, if the insects were absent, the angiosperms would all die. In turn, Hadhazy explains, all of the humans would die. This is because between 50% to 90% of the human diet comes directly from flowering plants, such as staple grains, like rice and wheat, fruits, and vegetables. Additionally, many flowering plants are food for animals lower on the food chain that we also eat, like cows, chickens, and even some freshwater fish. The absence of these animals would have a domino effect on the rest of the food chain. The two final consequences of the eradication of insects, as stated by Hadhazy, are the absence of insect-products and lack of decomposition of dead organic matter. The former is a simple disappearance of insect-products like honey and silk, while the latter is a little bit more complicated. Insect, bacteria, and fungi are the major decomposers of organic material, so the world would build up a large amount of dead matter, like dead trees, animal carcasses, and human bodies, without them. The last part of this article talks about how this process of eliminating insects is going on right now. Hadhazy states the two major problems are that “pesticide exposure, disease and habitat loss has decimated wild and commercially hived honeybees in recent years” and that “global climate change is throwing off the delicate synchronicity of insect hatchings and flower blooms in the spring.” Overall, this article states the pros and cons of losing insects, of which the cons outweigh the pros, and finally concludes by saying that this process is going on right now.

This article is excruciatingly relevant to the world around us. We are in constant contact with insects every single day and usually don’t think twice when killing a mosquito or bumble bee that is bothering us. This article lets us know that, in our every-day lives, we should try to kill as few insects as possible, even if they are extremely annoying. We take these insects for granted and don’t quite realize that our lives actually depend on them. If we don’t monitor global climate change, pesticide exposure, disease, and habitat loss of these insects, whole species could go extinct, leaving a devastating effect on human life. In general, this article is very relevant to our society right now because of the underappreciated yet crucial role that insects play in the world.

This article was had strengths and weaknesses in different areas. One of its main strengths was its catchy opening. The article begins with the quote, “Ewwww… a bug!” to relate to the most common reaction to bugs. By saying this, the author immediately connects with the reader and captures his or her attention. Another strength of this article was it had credible sources of information. For example, it took information from Goggy Davidowitz, a professor in the departments of entomology and ecology and evolutionary biology at the University of Arizona. By presenting the source of this information as a credible one, the reader is already more ready to accept the facts that soon will follow. One last strength this article had was its ability to make the reader realize that this crisis, in which insects are disappearing nonstop, is going on today. For example, this is made blatantly clear when Davidowitz is quoted, saying, “This is not an abstract thought process… This is happening now." While the article had other strengths along with these, there were also a couple of weaknesses I found. For instance, while the author argued that the disappearance was an ongoing problem, he did not provide very convincing evidence. He stated that there were certain communities of insects that were being wiped out, and some species are being affected by climate change, but there is no immediate issue that concerns insects as a whole. The second weakness that I found was that the author never provided a clear call to action. Though he stated that climate change, pesticide exposure, disease, and habitat loss of these insects is slowly wiping certain populations out, he never stated how the reader could solve this problem.

Hyperlink:

http://www.livescience.com/52752-what-if-all-insects-died.html

Citation:

Hadhazy, By Adam. "What If All of Earth's Insects Keeled Over?" LiveScience. TechMedia Network,11 
Nov. 2015. Web. 17 Nov. 2015.

Editing of Pig DNA May Lead to More Organs For People

This article talked about the use of a new gene altering method, known as Crispr to alter genes more effectively. It is projected to be so revolutionary that researchers are calling for limits on its use, so that it is not used to alter human DNA and create so called “designer babies”. George Church of Harvard Medical School was a pioneer of the Crispr technique. In his experiments, him and his colleagues were able to alter 62 genes at once, an amount previously unheard of. Through this, they hope to make it possible to transplant pig organs into human. The major hurdle in the process of transplanting pig organs into humans were viral genes. These genes, known as endogenous retroviruses, are known in pigs as Porcine Endogenous Retrovirus Versions, or PERVs for short. These viruses have been found to not only attack pig cells, but also human cells. All attempts to destroy these PERVs has resulted in completely mangling the DNA, making it useless. However, Church and his team identified 62 key genes that were the cause of all PERVs, as all PERVs link to a common ancestor. Using Crispr, the 62 genes were altered and there were no signs of PERVs, and the cells grew normally- they were not cancerous or unable to reproduce. This was done using a single molecule via Crispr, and this opens the door not only into an essentially infinite source of organs from pigs, but to all sorts of genetic modification. Church and his team are now looking to reduce the rejection rate of pig organs by altering the genes that code for the surface of the cell and alert the immune system that there is something foreign. Ron  Weiss, a synthetic biologist at MIT, summed it up nicely:

Will we be able to change 12 genes in 12 seconds? That’s not going to happen.”

“But if you say 12 days, that’s pretty likely.”

This article has great importance not only to us as Americans, but to people all over the world. The ability to obtain organs for transplant without having someone die young in an unprecedented medical miracle. This will greatly reduce the number of people on organ recipient lists and save many lives. It will also create a new organ farming industry that will undoubtedly employ thousands of American workers. Some greater, more controversial effects of these procedures include the creation of “designer babies”. Through gene altering, parents may be able to hand design their child to suit their desires. This is thought of by many, myself included, as an extremely creepy and weird thing that should be banned immediately should we ever gain the capacity for it.

I thoroughly enjoyed reading this article. One this that I thought was excellent was that it had many quotes from experts. Another thing was that it went into depth on all of the possibilities that these technologies have in the future. One thing that I would’ve liked to know was what exactly the Crispr process is, and how it is different from previous processes. If that information was added, possibly where it mentions that Crispr uses only one molecule, I would not have any further complaints.

Citation:

Zimmer, Carl. "Editing of Pig DNA May Lead to More Organs for People." The New York Times.

The New York Times, 19 Oct. 2015. Web. 17 Nov. 2015.

<http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/20/science/editing-of-pig-dna-may-lead-to-more-organs-for-pe

ople.html?ribbon-ad-idx=5&rref=collection%2Fcolumn%2Fmatter&module=Ribbon&version=origi

n®ion=Header&action=click&contentCollection=Matter&pgtype=article>.