Cindy Kwok

Sept 27, 2017

“Cellular 'message in a bottle' may provide path to new way of treating disease.” ScienceDaily,

ScienceDaily, www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/09/170927093316.htm. Accessed 27

Sept. 2017.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/09/170927093316.htm

Cellular 'message in a bottle' may provide path to new way of treating disease

The article I read was called “Cellular ‘message in a bottle’ may provide path to new way of treating disease” from the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. It was about the finding of a new extracellular vesicle, which is a “sac secreted from cells that contains proteins and RNA molecules”, called ARMMs. Extracellular vesicles are many times more numerous than the number of cells in our body. ARMMs differ from the previous extracellular vesicles due to the way it was formed and what it can potentially do. ARMMs are secreted from the cell’s plasma membrane. It has a unique ability to “facilitate NOTCH receptor signalling at a distance”. NOTCH is a type of intercellular communication. Because NOTCH generally requires cell to cell contact, the vesicle’s ability to activate it without touching is central in the role it can play in future health. Some ideas that biologists are thinking about is swapping molecules inside of ARMMs for antibodies, and using it to direct towards specific cells and tissues in the body.

I think this article did a great job describing the potential use of ARMMs in the future. I especially enjoyed how senior author Quan Lu talked about the path that this new discovery can lead to. He describes his idea of directing ARMMs inside the body, but claims that it won’t be at least until 10 years later with sufficient research to even put the idea to use. One part I thought the article could do better on was describing the multiple ways to put the discovery to use. This may seem contradictory as I previously claimed to like this part of the article. However, the article ONLY points out the use of ARMMs from Lu’s point of view, meanwhile briefly mentioning how Lu’s idea differed from that of other researchers who were also researching extracellular vesicles. I thought the article could go more in depth about the other researchers because it may be interesting to see how their ideas could potentially combine.

This article in general was extremely interesting. I liked how it talked about ways this new discovery can lead to such a large impact on humans in the future, but emphasizes on how there is still lots of research to be done. When research is done however, this discovery can lead to easier ways of navigating antibodies and vaccines into the body and targeting specific areas, which has always been an obstacle.

Why Onions Make You Cry

Charlie Gay

9/24/17

Mr. Ippolito

AP Biology

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/05/science/onions-crying-chemicals.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fscience&action=click&contentCollection=science&region=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=89&pgtype=sectionfront

Klein, Joanna. “Why Onions Make You Cry.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 5 Sept. 2017. Web.

Current Events #2

Joanna Klein of the New York Times wrote the article “Why Onions Make You Cry.” In this article she explains the biological and chemical reasons for why onions make us cry. Klein says that onions make us cry because of a reaction in the onion that releases a chemical called lachrymatory factor or LF. When LF reacts with our eyes it causes us to cry. LF is only released from the onion when the cells inside the onion are broken and two substances that are usually separated combine.  Jose Silvaroli, an undergraduate at Case Western Reserve University in Ohio, said “It turns into a gas. It hits your eyes, and then it hits your sensory nerves in your eyes and causes them to tear up.” Klein explains that LF is a defense mechanism to protect onions against animals and organism, like ourselves. As the onion is cut or broken this defense mechanism is used. The substances in the onion that cause this reaction are sulfenic acid and alliinase. Both of these substances are separated in an unharmed onion. According to the article the sulfenic acid floats around in a cell and the protein, alinase, is found inside of a vacuole inside the onion. However, when the onion is cut these two substances mix together causing LF to bring tears to our eyes. Klein goes on to speculate about possible ways to prevent crying while cutting an onion, for example putting the onion in the fridge before cutting it. She even mentioned the invention of an onion that does not cause people to tear up. However, Klein’s final conclusion was that all of these tricks seem to alter the taste of the onion. Klein’s article ends with her writing, “For the love of onions, sometimes you just have to cry.”

Although this article does not provide society with a cure to a disease or a life altering  lesson, it is a very relatable article for us all. Everyone knows the feeling of not being able to stop crying while cutting an onion. Personally, I have always tried to not cry while cutting an onion and have tried to “beat the system.” Reading this article has made it clear to me and most likely to everyone else that it is not possible. The LF released when cutting an onion makes it almost impossible not to cry. There will always be someone who says they can cut an onion without tearing up, but that is most likely a lie. This article can serve as a lesson to us all that we all should and will cry when cutting an onion. This article could also lead to someone in society finding a way to make people not cry when cutting an onion, while also not altering the taste. Most of all this article serves as a learning experience for all of society. Almost everyone has experienced crying while cutting an onion, but most people, like myself, never knew why this was the case. This article makes society a little more knowledgable on a topic everyone can relate to.

I really enjoyed reading this article. I thought this article did a great job of explaining some of the biological terms such as, a vacuole and lachrymatory factor. Even a person who is not familiar with biology or science would be able to understand this article. I also enjoyed how Klein included quotes and information found from doctors and scientist. This allows the reader to know that it is a credible source and allow the reader to better understand the science behind the findings. Although this article was very well done I wish that Klein included information about how these findings were found. I would have been interested to learn about what types of experiments were conducted in order to come to this conclusion. I also wish that this article expanded on its ideas slightly more. I felt that their were some ideas that could have been talked about a little longer. Overall, this was a very well written article that could have expanded on some of its ideas and could have explained some of the process involved in reaching this conclusion.

"Do Animals Murder Each Other?"

Jack Kochansky

AP Biology EF Even

Mr. Ippolito

24 September 2017

Castro, Joseph. “Do Animals Murder Each Other?” LiveScience, Purch, 16 Sept. 2017, www.livescience.com/60431-do-animals-murder-each-other.html.

“Do Animals Murder Each Other?”

by Joseph Castro

With all of the violence that is happening and hatred that exists among humans in the world today, it is interesting to consider whether or not similar things happen with animals.  As it turns out, several species of animals do murder each other, and there are some that people would not generally expect.  As Mr. Castro explains in his article, animals kill not only other animals for food but will at times kill animals of their own species.  Sometimes, it is accidental, through sexual or territorial disputes.  Castro points out, for instance, that “. . . male Western toads may crowd on a female in the water, inevitably drowning her.”  However, other disputes, such as those over territory, can lead some animals, like betta fish, to deliberately kill one of its own kind to secure its own area.  Similar territorial conflicts can be seen in animals like cats and dogs, although these domesticated animals tend to stop short of killing each other.  Even more strangely, some animals like the black widow spider kill their mates.  The female spiders murder their male counterparts while mating as a part of the typical process of reproducing.  Other animals that one would not expect, like horses, squirrels, and chinchillas also murder each other, research showed.  A study of 4 million animal deaths in 1024 species carried out by researchers in Spain found that humans do not even rank in the top 30 for the most murderous species of animals.  Monkeys, wolves, and lions, which are all viewed as fairly violent creatures towards one another, did rank in the top 30, however.  The research also showed that most animal murders are infanticide committed by the dominant adults of a group to stop potential threats from children of subordinates in the group.  Surprisingly, though, meerkats were found to be the animal that murders its own species most often.  About 20 percent of meerkats are killed by other meerkats.  So as bad as humans can seem, meerkats are a whole lot worse.

This article is relevant to the world of today because it can often feel like humans are terrible creatures of hate and violence, and unfortunately, we sometimes are.  But looking at other animals, we can see that humans are not entirely different from other animals in the realm of murder.  Although “when it comes to killing adults, ‘humans really are exceptional,’” we are certainly not alone in murder.  Among other things, competition can drive people do commit terrible acts, just as it drives animals to do so.  By studying patterns of behavior in animals, we can get some sense for what humans do in situations of conflict.  It is also informative to contrast the murderous behaviors of different types of animals -- spiders kill each other for different reasons than toads or meerkats, for example.  Studying this can help us to learn more about the instincts and nature of these animals and ourselves.

One of the strongest parts of this article was its brevity, as a brief article is key in today’s world for keeping the attention of readers long enough to communicate an idea.  The article provides many specific examples of animals that do and do not kill each other, which helps to offer knowledge on a wide range of species.  Because all animals are so different, the inclusion of many species in the article helps us to learn about more than just a few particular groups -- we cannot really extrapolate to other types of animals.  However, in part because the article is so short, it has a few shortcomings.  For example, it mentions that the study of animal deaths was carried out by Spanish researchers on 4 million animal deaths, but it does not establish the credibility of such research.  The points that Castro makes would have been stronger if he had cited the specific research completed.  Castro also says that humans are exceptional as animals that murder adults of our own species, but he does not really elaborate on how we are exceptional.  It would have been useful for him to go into greater detail on the specific ways in which humans are different from other animals on this front.  Overall, “Do Animals Murder Each Other?” was an interesting article that has relevance to our world and humans today, but there were a few improvements that Castro could have made.

Global Warming

Kirsten Ircha           9/23/17  
AP Biology E/F Even        Current Event #2

Citation:

Strickland, Ashley. “Earth to Warm 2 Degrees Celsius by the End of This Century, Studies Say.”

CNN, Cable News Network, 31 July 2017, www.cnn.com/2017/07/31/health/climate-change-two-degrees-studies/index.html.

Ashley Strickland wrote an insightful article pertaining to climate change entitled, Earth to warm 2 degrees Celsius by the end of this century. The article generally speaks on how the global temperature is expected to rise by more than 2 degrees Celsius, or 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit by the end of this century. These conclusions were reached from two different studies, using different methods, published in the journal, Nature Climate Change. The first study came to the consensus that a 95% chance exists that the Earth will warm by more than 2 degrees Celsius, while only a 1% chance exists that the global temperature rise will be below 1.5 degrees Celsius.  Although the first study used statistical analysis to draw conclusions, the second study drew data from past emissions of greenhouse gases and the burning of fossil fuels. These scientists found that even if humans completely stopped burning fossil fuels today, the Earth will continue to heat up by more than 2 degrees Celsius by 2100. Based on this data, the second study also found that this temperature increase will most likely be as high as 3 degrees Celsius if emissions continue for 15 more years. Thorsten Mauritsen, author of the second study, elaborated on subject stating, "Even if we would stop burning fossil fuels today, then the Earth would continue to warm slowly." These studies were completed before the United States left the Paris Agreement and estimates of temperature rise are even greater due to this event. A 2 degree marked increase in temperature this century was the limit set up by the 2016 Paris Agreement, initially proposed by the Yale economist William Nordhaus in 1977. If this mark is surpassed, it is estimated that life on the planet would change greatly as human health and happiness would be negatively affected. The article goes on to further outline how currently 12.6 million people die annually due to pollution, extreme weather, and climate-related disease, and these number are expected to grow by 250,000 between 2030 and 2050. Currently, limiting the temperature rise for this century to 2 degrees Celsius is unlikely to occur unless more ways to mitigate the effects of emissions are used. However, the article does suggest very broad ways in which to reduce emissions including installing clean energy, increasing financial incentives to avoid greenhouse emissions, and greatly funding research that will lead to at least a partial technological fix of emissions

This article was extremely relevant to society as the actions individuals take now will have astounding impact on the future history of the planet. As we continue to admit massive amount of greenhouse gases and fossil fuels each day, we are continually adding to the problems of global warming. Although we may think that we are too small to make any significant difference, collectively we have the power to reduce the global rise in temperature in the coming century. Building off of this idea, if society does not change its habits, we will be bound to experience the horrible effects of our actions including, rising seas, mass extinctions, super droughts, increased wildfires, intense hurricanes, decreased crops and fresh water, and the melting of the Arctic is expected. Furthermore, air quality would be reduced, both water and food would be contaminated, and greater infection carried by mosquitoes and ticks along with mental health issues would occur, as reported by the Medical Society Consortium on Climate and Health. This topic is vital to the world now, as choices we make today will make or break the Earth tomorrow.

I feel the article was well written as it came from the reliable news source, CNN. The language used was quite simple, allowing the ideas to be understood at many levels of education and age. Furthermore, any complex thoughts were stated clearly, allowing the everyday person to fully understand the finding of the complex studies. However, I felt that the article provided an abundance of information about the problem, but offered few solutions or ways to aid in this issue. This was due to the fact that the paragraph explaining what can be done to help was extremely brief and offered little to no guidance as to how the typical person can reduce their greenhouse gas and fossil fuel emissions. This almost defeated the purpose of the article as it provided only information on what had been done incorrectly in the past but does not go into what can be done in the future. I feel that this article could be improved with an extension of a couple more paragraphs to explain how limiting emissions can be done through day to day choices. This addition would provide the reader with the tools to take action, or a stand against climate change.

"Massive Genetic Study Shows How Humans Are Evolving: Analysis of 215,000 people’s DNA suggests variants that shorten life are being selected against."

Mia Gradelski

Mr. Ippolito

AP Biology

21 September 2017

Scientific American. Magazine, Bruno MartinNature. "Massive Genetic Study Shows How Humans Are Evolving: Analysis of 215,000 people’s DNA suggests variants that shorten life are being selected against." Scientific American. N.p., n.d. Web. 20 Sept. 2017. <https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/massive-genetic-study-shows-how-humans-are-evolving/>.

After reading the article “Massive Genetic Study Shows How Humans Are Evolving” by Scientific American, I obtained lots of resourceful information regarding our type of species, humans and how our genome is evolving through the analysis of a range of participants willing to test what their DNA supposedly says about their life span. At the start of this article, readers are introduced to the research on natural selection and how it is not “only getting rid of a harmful genetic mutation that could shorten people's lives” but describes how it is used as an attempt to shape the research regarding human evolution. Next, researchers explain how they must identify bits of the human genome that might be evolving by taking samples of people’s DNA which later could result in information regarding the “measure of longevity, or their own age in some cases.” Previous research suggests that people who carry harmful genetic DNA and diseases are at risk for an earlier death rate, which is in agreeance with Hakhamanesh Mostafavi, an evolutionary biologist who is conducting a similar study. Based on this research, the variant of the APOE gene, which is linked to Alzheimer’s disease and other known mutations, are less prevalent in people over the age of fifty of older. Backing up this data, the “mutation in the CHRNA3 gene associated with heavy smoking in men petered out in the population starting in middle age.” This means that people without mutations such as these, are likely to live longer according to researchers. By studying the effects of many harmful mutations that could arise in offsprings, leads to more questions regarding if the study of evolution is “weeding them out” according to Mostafavi. As this study continues to prevail, previous research done on natural selection shows that this new research done to observe the link between longevity and late fertility is correct. This article not only shapes people’s curiosity regarding ongoing evolution and how set backs such as gathering statistical data over a vast quantity of people is hard according to Gil McVean, a statistical geneticist could be possible, but delivers a prominent message regarding fertility and longevity.

After reading this article, I began to immediately question my own DNA history and being surprised at the findings that a set of mutations in delayed puberty and for older people are being found mostly in these age groups. I believe this article will greatly affect the way society thinks because the public is constantly observing how they can live longer and what they have to look out for. Humans are constantly improving their findings in science and most importantly looking into the future. As society becomes more curious, these breakthroughs such as pinpointing how the human genome is evolving leads society to become more interested in their genetics, by going onto sites such as Ancenstry.com or 23AndMe. After reading this article, people will have conflicting questions regarding evolution and past thoughts on natural selection that they initially thought were true. Having the scientists such as Mostafavi present their ideas and explanations regarding how longevity is achieved leads to the question why a genetic variant can influence survival. As a result, these findings done by multiple researchers and scientists will greatly affect the way humans study and hypothesize their own lives.

This article not only provides newsworthy thoughts and discoveries done by professional scientists across the globe, but gathers this information to lead to a worthwhile impact on each person and for generations to come. While reading, I noticed this article did a great job on identifying what could be done to understand the major questions about the human genome regarding how it might be evolving and if the genetic variant influences survival. Yet, we know that all this evidence is not fully backed up inside this article due to the case that “studying ongoing evolution in humans is notoriously difficult” stated by McVean. In addition, the article constantly mentions ongoing research that will happen in the future, which I believe frustrates readers if this information presented is true. In this case, this leads the public to be questioning if there is a link between longevity and late fertility through the “effect of wealth and education, because people with high levels of both tend to have children later in life” questioned by Jonathan Pritchard, a geneticist. It would of been better if the author explained how future studies will be conducted by providing statistical data that will be uncovered and how they would measure the frequency of the mutation in one generation. Conclusively, this article leads readers to become curious regarding their genetic heritage and what is to come in the future about ongoing evolution, which makes me look forward to reading followup information stated by these scientists.

Olivia Doyle

Mr. Ippolito

AP Biology

20 September 2017

Pappas, Stephanie. “500-Million-Year-Old Creature Looks Like Space Alien in Re-Creation.”LiveScience, Purch, 18 Sept. 2017. www.livescience.com/60434-bizarre-cambrian-creature-gets-detailed-reconstruction.html.

This week, I read an article entitled “500 million year old creature looks like space alien in recreation”, which discusses the development of new images of a now-extinct arthropod. Called the agnostus pisiformis, this creature was merely a centimeter long and lived in what is today Scandinavia during the Cambrian period, a time called by scientists as “one of the most exciting times in Earth’s history”. It was a period that gave rise to a rapid diversification of life, which produced odd creatures such as the agnostus pisiformis. Researchers found that it started its life as a larva and “developed into adulthood by repeatedly shedding and regrowing its hard exoskeleton”. The shell of the creature resembles that of a clam. It is believed that the A. Pisiformis fed off of organic matter out of the ocean water. Included in the article are images, which were able to be created because of the well-preserved fossils. Artists made sculptures of the creatures, including a partially unrolled sculpture to mimic the arthropod's likely position while swimming and a rolled sculpture to show how its exoskeletal shell would protect it.

The discovery and modeling of this fossil pertains to the scientific world as a whole because the species serves as an index fossil, which is used to date layers of rock. Because the fossils of the A. Pisiformis were found so well preserved in shale and limestone rock, “we can grasp the entire anatomy of the animal, which, in turn, reveals a lot about its ecology and mode of life”, geology professor Mats. E. Eriksson says. Studying the anatomical structure of the fossil allows us to speculate about how other arthropods evolved, thereby enabling us to comprehend evolution as a whole. Scientists are able to better understand the animal and its surroundings with this information, and thus able to analyze the living world before humans arrived.

The article, for what it included, was well-written in that it gave an understandable overview of the study and creation of these models. Additionally, the pictures that were included gave the reader a better understanding of what this creature looked like. However, it lacked a detailed, thorough analysis of the structure of the creature, as well as what its significance in the Cambrian period. The author could have discussed aspects of the Cambrian period and other animals that lived during that time in order to enable the reader to fully understand how this animal lived and interacted with its surroundings and environment. It would have been better if the author had gone in depth also about how this fossil is important in dating layers of rock, and what that means for the study of life before humanity.

"Climate Change Threatens the World's Parasites (That's Not Good)."

Susie Goodell

Mr. Ippolito

AP Biology

9/19/17

Zimmer, Carl. “Climate Change Threatens the World’s Parasites (That’s Not Good).” The New York Times, The New York Times, 13 Sept. 2017, www.nytimes.com/2017/09/13/science/parasites-extinction-climate-change.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fscience&action=click&contentCollection=science®ion=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=16&pgtype=sectionfront.

Current Event #2

For this current event, I decided to review the article “Climate Change Threatens the World’s Parasites (That’s Not Good)” by Carl Zimmer. This piece discusses a recent study that resulted in the discovery of the horrifying fact about parasites. Over the next century, one in three parasites will face extinction. Colin J. Carlson, the lead author of the study and graduate student at the University of California, Berkeley, led his team in their work experimenting with different kinds of parasites to see how global warming will affect their populations. Since parasites live in host species, but are not protected from the effects of the climate change, the team decided to study the effects of the changes on the hosts to discover how parasites will be affected. They estimated the risk that each species will face as our climate changes and discovered that some kinds of parasites will be better off than others, eventually evaluating that 30% of species could disappear in the future. These results challenge those of smaller studies which believe the opposite, that parasites and the diseases they cause will thrive as species die out. Carlson’s team also realized that some of the species that will survive may migrate to territories in which other parasites are declining and “wreak havoc” upon the inhabitants, including humans. These species such as deer ticks will cause worse disease and destruction for animalkind and humankind alike.

Parasites are extremely important to our world, something that goes unappreciated by most. The decrease in their population will lead to many changes in our environment and our food web. The author writes, “As it turns out, as much as 80 percent of the lines in a given food web are links to parasites. They are big players in the food supply.” He also suggests that it may bring harm to human health. Despite their negative connotation, parasites are extremely important and beneficial to our environment. This is why we must take precautions to protect parasites and their hosts from extinction.

I thought the author did a great job explaining the situation and the evolution of this discovery. He gave background information on parasites to make sure the readers understood the topic of the article. However, I wish he had discussed this information more towards the beginning of the article because I was confused about parasites and what they are while reading. I also wish would have liked him to put a few more quotes from the scientists about the procedure they used and how they developed the idea. Also, the author could have explained the process of the experiment or discussed the scientists’ line of thought more deeply. Although, this article was very well-written and well-structured. The author did not include too many details and wrote using terms that were easy to understand. Overall, this article was informational and detailed.

Gigi Chrappa

AP Biology

Current Events #1

September 13, 2017

“What Swims Like a Duck and Quacks Like a Duck Could Be a Hybrid of Two Duck Species”

The article I decided to read, “What Swims Like a Duck and Quacks Like a Duck Could Be a Hybrid of Two Duck Species” was written by Joanna Klein and was recently published in the New York Times. This article was extremely informative and explains the crossbreeding of duck species. The article states, “when one duck mates with a duck of another species, there’s the risk that one of the original species could cease to exist. And then that duck is a duck no more” (Klein, 1). The article goes into depth, explaining that in a world filled with crucial environmental factors (climate change, people…), hybridization may upset the natural ecological balance. The article warns, although this is not a problem yet, this may become a problem in the near future. It seems odd, but the crossbreeding of duck species may leave the world with completely unexpected results. Instead of creating diversity amongst the duck species, this may actually lead to less diversity amongst the species across all of America. A study was performed on the breeding of mallard ducks with Mottled ducks, examining the hybrids formed. Although both, the mallard and Mottled duck species are still in abundance, history tends to repeat itself. Previously, the Golden Winged Warbler and Blue Winged Warbler interbred. This led to the near extinction of the two species. But, this also led to the creation of a hybrid species with traits from both, the Golden Winged Warbler and the Blue Winged Warbler. There are negative and positive effects of speciation. For example, preferable traits are passed on to the offspring providing for a better suited species in an environment. For example, mice in a warmer climate living on a beach will tend to inherit, over time, fur of a sand tone. And, mice in a cooler climate living in the mountains tend to inherit fur of a darker tone (similar to the shade of the mountains). This happens so that the mice are better suited for an environment and are less susceptible to environmental factors and natural predators. Certain animals such as hawks, would have much more difficulty searching to find a mouse of sand color fur on a sandy beach than finding a darker colored mouse in the sand. However, the negative effects include over population (and therefore a shortage of natural resources and necessary materials for a species to survive and therefore, leads to more competition).

You might be asking, why is this relevant? In reality, there are no environmental problems (as of right now) that will arise with the replacement of one species for the hybrid for another. However, there are several minor factors that may change. For instance, certain birds have inheritable traits (like characteristics of beaks) that serve to crack open the shells to nuts/plants. Over time, if birds with these inheritable traits become extinct, one might notice an abundance of uncracked nuts in a certain area. In particular, for the bird’s health, there are no issues arising (as of right now). The health of the birds should remain stable. In fact, the cross breeding of birds, and all species, will lead to an increase in preferable traits. However, it is still important to preserve the genetic lineage of animals throughout history. 

Regarding the author’s writing techniques, Klein produced a well-developed article with a lavish amount of details. I enjoyed the layout of her writing; she began with a series of rhetorical questions which forced the reader to think. I also enjoyed reading the conclusion of her essay; ending with a quote from one of her students, “The whole idea of speciation is like a mountain range. It’s easy to tell the differences between peaks, but saying where one starts and another begins is very difficult”. However, while reading the article, I began to become confused what the author’s argument was. It was difficult to understand what her stance was on the topic of speciation and it was complicated to understand what ‘call to action’ she had for the readers. Initially, I believed that Klein thought excessive speciation would be detrimental to a society of birds. However, while reading, it seemed that her opinion switched; she then stated that the over speciation of birds has no serious consequences. To fix this, I would recommend that the author clearly states her opinion in a thesis (in an introductory paragraph or somewhere else in the essay) or, overall, provide more evidence supporting her opinion. Overall, the article was a great read and extremely informative. It provided me with knowledge about crossbreeding and it explains how environmental factors may affect the way a species evolves over time.

Do Sunscreens’ Tiny Particles Harm Ocean Life in Big Ways

Hannah Beldotti
AP Biology
Current #1
September 12, 2017

“Do Sunscreens’ Tiny Particles Harm Ocean Life in Big Ways”

  Welch, Craig. “Do Sunscreens' Tiny Particles Harm Ocean Life in Big Ways?” National

Geographic, National Geographic Society, 11 Sept. 2017.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/05/150514-sunscreen-nanoparticle-nanotechnology-oceans-marine-beach-boat-toxic/

Do Sunscreens' Tiny Particles Harm Ocean Life in Big Ways? gives insight into an important debate that is still occurring. Some scientists fear that the nanomaterials used in some sunscreens and other cosmetics, as well as boat paint, could “harm marine creatures by disabling the defense mechanisms that protect their embryos.” According to a recent study, the nanomaterials in these products could have the potential to be dangerous to marine life, such as tiny marine worms, crustaceans, algae, fish, mussels, and other sea creatures. Most people are oblivious to the harm they can initiate when tens of people all step into the ocean with sunscreen on at the beach. Gary Cherr,  interim director of the University of California, Davis, Bodega Marine Laboratory, says, “"When they were exposed to these nanomaterials, even in extremely low concentrations that you wouldn't expect to have an effect, we saw all sorts of unusual patterns of development.” However, other scientists disagree with this experiment because they feel that the amount of nanomaterials used was a much larger amount than any of the marine life would realistically encounter. So, people such as, Paul Westerhoff, a professor at Arizona State University’s School of Sustainable Engineering and the Built Environment, believe that the experiment and conclusion were inaccurate. He continues to say, “It could be the amounts we tested are, in fact, higher than you would see. But when you look at the potential for a busy enclosed beach, we don’t know that.” Although the focus of the experiment was on marine life, scientists are also looking to view the effects on the environment itself.

I commend how the author included two point of views on the topic at hand. On one hand, Gary Cherr preformed an experiment that exposed urchin embryos to nanoparticles. Through this experiment, he claimed that his conclusion led him to believe that these nanomaterials are harmful even in the smallest amounts. On the other hand, Paul Westerhoff claimed that the experiment was somewhat invalid dude to the fact of nanomaterial that was used. This made it so that you know that the article is unbiased by comapring and contrasting the two scientists opinions and data. Also, you get to read the article in two different perspectives both supported with valid evidence. However, I do not think that the scientist Gary Cherr could possibly make a conclusion based on one experiment. It seems more reasonable to do multiple experiments with a realistic constant amount on nanomaterials(the control variable). Also, instead of simply testing just one animal with the nanomaterials, a variety of animals should have been tested in an environment with nanomaterials.

The authors conclusion made it so that you learned something after the article and that you could take away information from it. For example, in the last paragraph, the author says, “The advocacy organization Environmental Working Group has named zinc oxide as the best available sunscreen option for most consumers.” After reading the article and seeing the problem, you are able to take away this piece of information in this last sentence and learn and apply it.

x

Why Bats Crash Into Buildings

Timothy Cushman

AP Biology

Current Event #1

September 12, 2017

“Why Bats Crash Into Buildings”

Yin, Steph. “Why Bats Crash Into Buildings” The New York Times Online. 9 Sept 2017. 7 Sept 2017. <https://nyti.ms/2xSIunu>

Bats use echolocation, the use of high-pitched sound and its echo off of objects, to locate and avoid objects in their path. Echolocation allows bats to move around in the dark without seeing, however, echolocation has some flaws that allow bats to hit into smooth surfaces like the sides of buildings. A false environmental cue, such as a smooth surfaces in the case of bats, that tricks an animal is called a sensory trap. New findings may help us understand why bats are found dead near buildings. Dr. Stefan Greif, a researcher in the field of bats and their senses, set up two different experiments to test the echolocation of bats. One where he took smooth metal plates and placed them on the floor. The bats mistakenly, thought it was water. This lead him to create a second study. In this second experiment, with the help of Sandor Zsebok, a research scientist at the Max Planck Institute for Ornithology, he had bats fly down a tunnel which at the end had a metal plate resting against the wall. Of the 21 bats in the sample, 19 of them hit the wall. The bats crashed into the wall/plate because when trying to use echolocation, the majority of the bat’s high-pitched call was redirected away from the bat. Yin gave the analogy of pointing a flashlight at a mirror, when doing so, the light is reflected away from you as is the bat’s sound. Only when the bat got very close to the end of the tunnel did a small portion of the sound get back to it. Although those findings were compelling, bat expert Bronk Fenton from Western University, believed the experiment might be flawed. Bats use both echolocation and sight to avoid objects in their path. When sight and echolocation give different directions, he questions which sense took precedence.

This article, although seemingly irrelevant to many, is very important to the bat population. It is another example of how we are altering the environments around us and how that can affect animals that live in it. I believe that developers and citizens need to pay more attention to how they are building large structures to try and prevent bats from flying into them and getting seriously injured or potentially dying.  One can infer from the article that altering the environment can affect not only bats but other animals as well.

Overall, I believe that the article was well written. Yin was clear in his writing but lacked details to support his ideas. There was sufficient background on the biology of bats and how their echolocation works. He also provided an excellent analogy to help the reader understand echolocation. To improve the article, the author could go into more detail about the first experiment and why the bats thought the plates were water. Also, the sample size of the second study was only 21 bats which is very small so the author should have pulled data from some additional studies. The author could also have looked into experiments done that studied the relationship between echolocation and vision.

'Missing link' explains how viruses trigger immunity.

Walter and Eliza Hall Institute. "'Missing link' explains how viruses trigger immunity." ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 12 September 2017. <www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/09/170912134812.htm>.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/09/170912134812.htm

For my current event report, I decided to read and analyze the article “‘Missing link’ explains how viruses trigger immunity” from the online news source Science Daily.  The article discusses the discovery of a specific protein by a Melbourne based research team. Researchers Dr. Tan Nguyen, Dr. Ken Pang, Professor Seth Masters, Professor Ian Wicks, Dr. Michelle Tate and Professor Craig Hunter were all involved in this crucial new discovery. The protein at hand, known as SIDT2, can discover viruses and strengthen immune systems before the disease is able to spread further. The protein is able to, “...detect viral components in their [SIDT2] environment, and initiate an immune response.” This is crucial to all cells that face viruses as without the SIDT2 protein, viruses may be able to bypass the immune system and infect the area before the cell even has a chance to respond. SIDT2 is said to aid RNA by maneuvering it to anti-virus proteins, some of which can be located in different cells, that commence the process of antiviral immunity. Also, SIDT2 is known for removing and transporting dsRNA, double stranded RNA viruses, away from the cell. This, again, is an especially helpful process to the cell as viruses are known for adapting to attempt to completely infiltrate and bypass the immune system of a cell.

Considering the fact that this article describes the discovery of a newfound protein that aids in the identification of viruses in a cell, it is evident that the SIDT2 revelation will have a profound effect on the future of treating different cellular viruses. In the article itself, the researchers responsible for the crucial discovery discuss the aid the protein can have on the future of therapeutics. “As well as being an important part of the intricate 'arms race' between viruses and our immune system, the finding could inform better approaches to delivering a promising new class of therapeutics.” Future studies involving test trials with SIDT2 could lead to further scientific advancements in the fight against certain bacterias and common viruses. Dr. Pang, one of the researchers involved in the discovery of the protein, discussed the fact that finding a way to add the SIDT2 count in one’s cell could help them detect viruses long before they spread. "Now that we know SIDT2 is important in trafficking double-stranded RNA into cells, future RNA-based therapeutics can hopefully be designed to maximise their transport by SIDT2," (Pang). If scientists find a way to help integrate more SIDT2 proteins into one’s body, different viruses may never be able to bypass a cell’s immune system again.

Overall, I believe the article “‘Missing link’ explains how viruses trigger immunity” was a very well written and equally informative report about an unexplored yet crucial subject. The authors easily simplify the advanced science behind the data to allow all readers to be able to interpret the information given. Many of the terms used are also defined and described. The authors go into amazing description when discusses how exactly SIDT2 works when helping a cell activate it’s immune system. In an effort to improve the article, the authors should have discussed how, exactly, the researchers involved in the project were able to identify the protein at work. It would have also been beneficial to ask the researchers responsible for the crucial discovery about how they plan on educating the world on the new, possibly lifesaving, protein.