COVID-19 Vaccine Development Threatens Shark Populations

 Nate Kim

AP Bio, Mr. Ippolito

9/28/20

Current Events

"COVID-19 vaccine development threatens shark populations. (n.d.). Retrieved September 28, 2020, from Discovery.com website: https://www.discovery.com/nature/covid-19-vaccine-threatens-shark-population"

Article

The article I read talked about why the COVID-19 vaccine would need to use sharks. A compound known as squalene is found in abundance in the livers of sharks. This compound is available from other sources, but it's more expensive and takes longer to extract. A group known as "Shark Allies" estimates that for one vaccine for every person on Earth 250,000 sharks would need to be killed. They also add that it's a definite possibility that two doses will be needed for an effective treatment, doubling the number of sharks needed. Excluding COVID-19 vaccines, squalene is already extracted from three million sharks a year for cosmetics and medicines. One example is the flu shot, which contains squalene in order to enhance immune system response. Shark Allies believes that the increased harvesting of endangered sharks could lead to the extinction of some species of sharks. They also believe that the alternatives for squalene, although less efficient and more costly, will be more beneficial for society in the long run.

One thing is for sure: in order to return to "normal life," we need a COVID-19 vaccine. From my prior research/ knowledge of this topic, I know that a lot of corners are being cut. The human test trials in China did not take into account long-term effects and have already been pushed out to thousands of citizens. In addition, the trials in America are being rushed to meet a November deadline. The reason for all these corners being cut is to get this vaccine out as fast as possible, and hopefully get some herd immunity before winter. If the government is disregarding requirements for a vaccine in order to push it out faster, I highly doubt that another half a million sharks will be able to stop the vaccine. It is interesting that this issue is being brought up now. As a relatively informed citizen, I'm well aware that some species of sharks are endangered. Until today, however, I had no idea that three million sharks a year were harvested for their livers. If sharks are endangered, why has this issue not been brought up sooner? Why am I just hearing about it now? The problem Shark Allies' argument is that the number of sharks harvested annually is too high. Adding a half-a-million onto three million doesn't seem like a huge issue. I mean, there's already three million being killed, right? Where's the harm in adding a couple more... If the number of sharks being harvested annually was lower (like 1 million or less), this case would be much easier to fight. As I see it, society's need for a vaccine as quickly as possible will lead to sharks being used.

This article has very few flaws. It is concise while being very informative. After reading the article, I felt that I had a rounded understanding of the situation and I felt that I had learned something new. The flow of the article was natural and the progression of ideas did not feel forced. If I had to critique anything, it would be that the specific costs/times of alternatives for squalene were not given. As an uninformed reader, I do not know how much more expensive and how much more time alternatives for sharks are. As a result, my final opinion is very biased because the article only includes thoughts from Shark Allies and leaves out any rebuttals. I am unable to make an informed decision on whether alternatives should be used because I do not know exactly how much more expensive the alternatives are. If the article included some arguments from organizations that disagree with Shark Allies and the specific costs of squalene from sharks and alternatives, this article would have been much more informative. It would also allow the reader to draw more independent conclusions. 

Europe Unveils Targets for Hyped Research 'Missions'

 

Nicholas Wallace Sep. 22, 2020, et al. “Europe Unveils Targets for Hyped Research 'Missions'.” 

Europe Unveils Targets for Hyped Research ‘Missions,’ ScienceMag, 22 Sept. 2020, www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/09/europe-unveils-targets-hyped-research-missions

Summary:

On September 22, the European Union finally announced their plans for ‘missions’ that they have been planning for months. These ‘missions’ will focus research funding towards five broad different areas; cancer, adapting to climate change, carbon-neutral cities, healthy waters, and soil health. These plans will be primarily funded by the Horizon Europe organization, which has grown to be an 81 billion euro company, in just seven years. And these funds will be supplemented by other programs in the EU as these missions will require several hundred million euros a year to operate. 

The plans that were published introduce ideas about the advisory boards, responsible for designing the missions, which will consist of scientists, politicians, entrepreneurs, and other luminaries. These individuals will be taken with finalizing long term plans in addition to interim targets, which will then be reviewed by the European Commission. All of this responsibility and uncertainty poses questions and concerns for the public. “It is still unclear how the missions will be organized and managed, and what their budgets will be, casting some doubt on whether they will be ready by the January 2021 start of Horizon Europe” (Wallace). 

Additional challenges may arise when the organization takes the plunge from looking how to form the big picture to actually acting on their targets. The secretary-general of the Guild of European Research-Intensive Universities, Jan Palmowski, expressed both these anticipated challenges in addition to highlighting how quickly these plans are coming together, as European politicians did not agree on the five targets until early 2019. 

They debited on the five areas to highlight and further the diction needed to portray their objectives; for example, after discussing their plans for clearing the water, they changed the name of the water focus from: “oceans and healthy waters” to “healthy oceans, seas, coastal and inland waters” to better represent their goals. 

As far as interim goals, the plan states that they aim to reduce carbon emissions from the shipping sector by 45% and phasing out bottom trawling. Lamy, a former French naval officer expressed how “People roughly understand that we have a problem in the atmosphere…” and continues to talk about how the ocean is often overlooked as we are not living as in touch with it as we are with the ground around us. 

Switching over the “Conquering Cancer” sector of the plan, they aim to “prevent 3 million cancer deaths by 2030 through better prevention and treatment, and to improve rehabilitation for cancer survivors” (Wallace). In addition to establishing an EU-wide networking platform that would allow for cancer research sharing and improved access to early cancer screening. This aspect of the plan would not only increase funding for cancer research, but also connect policies regarding the risk factors, including taxes on tobacco and alcohol. Noting that you can not be serious about finding a cure for cancer without addressing its risk factors head on. Which has added some controversy to the finding.

Some skeptics believe that because the plan covers new aspects, such as looking into the causes, that the funding money would not be put to good use as it will not go straight towards cancer research. This is an issue that we see across america today in organizations that claim to be nonprofit, but their spending is disproportionate to what they claim their primary goals are. 

In the end, this proposal of focusing on specific sectors for funding is in its early days and it is ‘too soon to tell’ what the future of funding will look like. 

Relevance: 

In today's pandemic ridden world it is easy for people to be distracted from the other long term issues that nations across the world are divided on. Reading this article made me think about how many different issues we have in today's society and how funding is necessary to address and improve almost all of them, often resulting in political debates as to where funding should be focused. In the plan proposed in the EU they have decided to focus on five separate rather broad issues that will each have their own funding for research and environmental conservation. Cancer is the first area in which they are proposing additional research, aiming to save the lives of millions by getting involved further in prevention, early diagnosis, and treatment. This is relevant throughout the world today as tens of millions of people are diagnosed each year and a cure could save the lives of millions. The later four focuses of this plan are on the environment; an issue that is often overlooked by the American government. With our current nationals leaders simply dismissing climate change and not addressing the growing carbon footprint; the EU is taking the opposite approach highlighting and funding environment conservation efforts. The specific areas they are focusing on are ‘adapting to climate change, carbon-neutral cities, healthy waters, and soil health’. If these same policies were implemented throughout the world, the carbon footprint would be reduced, the rising global temperature would plateau, the water ecosystems would flourish, and the soils nutrientes would be restored in just a matter of years. 

Critique: 

Overall I think that this article was incredibly informative and well written, as I simply had no idea about the implementation of these policies overseas. Nicholas Wallace did a very good job expressing and citing information from experts in the field and those that worked with the plan directly, this allows for the reader to trust the points that were being made while also addressing the perspective they were coming from. Wallace did not provide a lot of background information about what reforms were taking place prior to this proposal which leads me to question what the motives are and where the funding is being spent now. What other areas does the EU deem valuable enough to highlight and further allocate funding towards? I also would have appreciated if he referenced other forthright policies in the same field as this could provide a valuable contract to show just how innovative or traditional these ‘missions’ are.

Posted for A. Koenig

The Truth: Polar Bears are Really Starving Because of Global Warming

Angelinna Faisca

AP Bio E/F Even

Current Event  #1

Leahy, Stephen. “Polar Bears Really Are Starving Because of Global Warming, Study Shows.” Polar Bears Are Starving Because of Global Warming, Melting Sea Ice, Study Shows, 1 Feb. 2018, www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2018/02/polar-bears-starve-melting-sea-ice-global-warming-study-beaufort-sea-environment/. 

In the article by Stephen Leahy, "Polar Bears Really Are Starving Because of Global Warming, Study Shows", there is a significant amount of importance that is placed upon the problem of the polar ice caps melting. The reason that this problem is so important, is because now Polar bears have to swim farther in order to capture seals, which make up about 95% of their diet, meaning that without seals, they will not have proper nutrition. Along with this percentage, Polar bears now have to spend at least 60% of their energy, meaning that if they do not get a meal, it is all for nothing. As we learned in bio, ,without the proper resources, such as food and space, animal populations can do nothing but go down. In the article, population is talked about, as there is about 770,000 miles less of ice than there was in the 1980's. This number is alarming, as Polar bears are faced with longer trips and fights amongst each other. In one study, made by Anthony Pagano, it involved capturing nine female Polar bears and releasing them, re-capturing them eight to 11 days later. One bear had gone about 155 miles just to look for food, and the result of this study was that about four bears were not able to obtain a seal. From this study, we were given the percentage of about 35%, which showed how active they are, but it is even more alarming that they use up so much energy, mainly from reserves, as they use up about 12,325 calories a day, however they rarely get the chance to make up those calories again. The article also spoke of the myth of climate change, and how it doesn't affect people or animals. Leahy talked about a study that had shown that by scientific projections, populations now, of 20,000 to 30,000 are going to be less than 10,000 in the year 2050.  In another study by Andrew Derocher, it has been found that Polar bears are not made for walking, and because of the their home melting, they have to exert themselves to find food. Overall, his article examined the importance of the factors that have been ailing the poor Polar bears, and has said again why the ice caps need saving, and why people need to be more open about and aware of.

Polar bears aren't the only things that get impacted by the melting ice caps. People also are afflicted by this, including having their homes washed away, and ocean levels rising. I think this article describes what the problems are and the effects of them, trying to make people aware of what is actually going on. Especially for those who do not want to see the truth in global warming, especially when the ice is melting about 14% every year. Over all this article helps to show people why saving the ice caps is and should be a real talked about issue.

I thought that the author of this article, Stephen Leahy, made it very simple for you to understand what is going on, and also showed pictures of these animals, trying to get the reader more involved with the issue, including showing a video of a poor bear, that is starved and skinny, walking around and trying to find food, which finally, it finds some in a garbage can, also telling readers that they become very desperate as they are trying to find food. I think the article could have been structured in a more professional way, instead of small paragraphs and then it moves on to the next section, which I found to be tedious. Regardless of this, this article was very informative and the video Leahy had included, really affected me and I think it will stay with every one of its readers.

Maya Brinster 

AP Bio EF Even 

Current Event #1 

9/24/2020 

Linden, Sander van der. “The Science Behind Dreaming.” Scientific American, Scientific American, 26 July 2011, https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-science-behind-dreaming/

In “The Science Behind Dreaming,” author Sander van der Linden writes about recent studies that have worked to find the significance of dreaming, as well as the mechanism behind it. The purpose of dreaming is very controversial; Many believe that dreams have no specific psychological purpose, while others think that there is a significant purpose behind dreaming. Some scientists also believe that there is a concrete mechanism in the brain that produces them. Modern technologies now allow scientists to study these hypotheses in such a depth that wasn’t possible as little as a few years ago. Three studies’ findings in particular are discussed in this article and offer previously unknown information about dreams. The first, Carried out by neuroscientist Cristina Marzano and her colleagues at the University of Rome, revealed how people remember their dreams. According to the study, increased activity in the frontal lobe during sleep correlated with a higher chance of remembering the dreams. The frontal cortex is used during the recollection of memories, which explains its significance in the remembrance of dreams as well. A similar study, which used modern MRI technologies, examined the relationship between dreaming and other deep-brain structures. They found that more vivid or emotionally intense dreams, which are more likely to be remembered, are linked to parts of the hippocampus and amygdala. The hippocampus plays an important role in different memory functions, while the amygdala helps with the processing and memory of emotional reactions, which explains their correlation with the remembrance of emotionally charged dreams. The last finding was discovered after scientists examined the brain of a woman who had lost the ability to dream after developing a rare clinical syndrome that causes neurological damage. However, it had only affected her ability to dream, and nothing else. Scientists discovered a single lesion in the visual cortex of her brain, which proves that this part of the brain is the place in which dreams take place. These discoveries show how dreams help regulate the connections between our experiences with our emotions and memories. 

This article describes discoveries that are extremely important to neuroscience and biology in general. The brain is the most underexplored part of the body, and there is very little concrete information that explains its function and purpose, compared to that of other organs. Likewise, there is very little that scientists know about dreams. These studies help provide information that helps scientists become more familiar with the process of dreaming and dreams in general, which might prove to be useful in the future. 

This article is incredibly interesting, and Linden includes a lot of relevant and captivating information about dreams and the brain. He cites important information and includes many credible studies and information from a wide variety of neuroscientists. However, Linden’s point becomes rather obscure throughout the article. Although he ties the studies together at the very end, I was a bit lost during the middle portion of the article. To improve upon this, it might be useful for him to reiterate his point multiple times, and explain why each study he mentions helps to prove it throughout the entire article rather than just in the end. Overall, however, “The Science Behind Dreaming” was a very captivating read. 

A scientific first: How psychedelics bind to key brain cell receptor

 Holden D'Avico

Mr. Ippolito

AP Bio/Current Event 1 Article

9/24/20

               “A Scientific First: How Psychedelics Bind to Key Brain Cell Receptor.” ScienceDaily, ScienceDaily, 17 Sept. 2020, www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/09/200917181259.htm.  

   

 The article I read provided an analysis on the findings of an important study on the therapeutic effects of psychedelic drugs, conducted by scientists in the UNC Lab and the Stanford Lab. Psychedelic drugs such as LSD, psilocybin, and mescaline cause long-lasting hallucinations and are currently not being used for therapeutic purposes, however, recently scientists have discovered that these drugs also have very positive therapeutic effects on people with mental disorders or depression. In order to better understand how these drugs work, the scientists used new cry-electron microscopy technology which allows them to observe the structure of the drug when it attaches to the 5-HT2A serotonin receptor on the surface of brain cells. The article has a informative, objective tone; the author presents the findings of the study and is very optimistic of this new technology and how it can reveal the positive therapeutic effects of psychedelic drugs.

    The information and findings presented in the article are very important to humanity in general because they reveal a new purpose for a drug that was previously thought of as a hallucinator. With more and more research being conducted with this new cry-electron microscopy technology, psychedelic drugs can be used to treat patients with mental disorders and severe depression. Psilocybin, the psychedelic compound in mushrooms has been granted breakthrough status by the FDA to treat depression. If scientists can better understand LSD and other drugs, they can alter the composition of the drug so when it attaches to the serotonin receptor in the brain, it doesn't cause severe, long-lasting hallucinations but instead provides beneficial therapeutic effects for people who need it. Also, this type of breakthrough can be applied to many other areas of sciences where drugs/operations/foods that were previously thought to be harmful could be altered to improve people's lives. 

    After reading this article, I have very few negative things to say about it. The article had a logical flow, providing information and findings in an order that was easy to follow and understand. I would've liked for the article to go deeper into the actual science behind the technology used to analyze these drugs, however, I was still able to learn a lot from the article about how the chemical compositions of certain drugs can be altered to provide therapeutic effects. The article maintained an informative and objective tone throughout, which kept the tone consistent with the subject of the article. The article also provided direct quotes from medical researchers and professionals which I appreciated because it legitimized the article. If I were to change one thing about the article, I would discuss the process behind cry-electron microscopy technology more deeply, as well as analyze the reaction that occurs at the serotonin receptor more in depth. Overall, it was a very informative and interesting article that provided me with new information on a topic I had never heard about before.

Botswana: Mystery Elephant Deaths Caused by Cyanobacteria

Ava Black

9/23/20

“Botswana: Mystery Elephant Deaths Caused by Cyanobacteria.” BBC News, BBC, 21 Sept. 2020, www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-54234396. 

This article described the newfound reasoning behind the deaths of hundreds of elephants in Botswana, Africa. In June 2020, 330 elephants mysteriously died; it was only until now that the cause of death was confirmed to be because the elephants ingested cyanobacteria, also known as blue-green algae. This is a bacteria that can be found in standing water and can also grow in large blooms. Animals can be poisoned by high levels of this toxin. Originally, scientists were skeptical that the cause of death was from cyanobacteria, since this bacteria grows on the sides of ponds and elephants usually drink in the middle. However, most of the elephants that died were located near watering holes and as these watering holes dried up towards the end of June, the number of elephants dying decreased. There are still questions that remain, however, such as why the elephants only died in one specific area. Thus, there is still more information that has yet to be uncovered and understood. 

This article is extremely relevant to today’s society as scientists warn that climate change may be the reason for these toxic blooms to occur. Humans are largely responsible for the increase in climate changes and it is necessary to understand that our actions impact species and ecosystems throughout the world. This event is just one example of how climate change is seriously disrupting the wildlife. Additionally, Botswana is home to a third of the Earth’s declining elephant population; it is the country with the largest amount of elephants. The fact that 330 of these elephants died in such a short period of time is incredibly concerning. 

Overall, this article was very straightforward and easy to understand, however, it did lack specificity. This article gave basic information which was helpful because it thoroughly explained what cyanobacteria is and why it is a problem without being overly complicated. However, it did not go into enough detail regarding why scientists now believe that this bacteria was the reason for the elephant deaths, other than the fact that it is found in water. Thus one improvement that could be made would be for the authors to include more quotes from researchers and evidence of certain studies that show support the claim that the cyanobacteria killed these elephants. In general, it was still an informative article that provided enough information on the topic to allow for the reader to fully grasp the issue of the situation. 

E.P.A Rejects Its Own Findings That a Pesticide Harms Children's Brains

Kelly Baclija

Mr. Ippolito

AP Biology

September 23, 2020

Friedman, Lisa. “E.P.A. Rejects Its Own Findings That a Pesticide Harms Childrens' Brains.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 23 Sept. 2020, www.nytimes.com/2020/09/23/climate/epa-pesticide-chlorpyrifos-children.html.

There has recently been evidence released that links chlorpyrifos, a pesticide widely used on soybeans, almonds, grapes, as well as other crops, to grave health problems--specifically stunting brain development in children. However, the Environmental Protection Agency announced that “despite several years of study, the science addressing neurodevelopmental effects remains unresolved”, although multiple studies have found an exact correlation between the pesticide and developmental disorders. The E.P.A. has received much backlash on the matter, some stating that the organization has essentially disregarded the prevention of children’s exposure from the extremely toxic chemical, all the while their own scientists have previously recommended to ban it; Erik D. Olson, the senior director for health at the Natural Resources Defense Council says “the science is being overridden by politics”, considering governmental agencies and the Trump administration are skeptical to put strict regulations on the pesticide in place. The argument about banning chlorpyrifos has been happening for more than 13 years-- the Obama administration declared the pesticide would be banned after studies by the E.P.A presented its negative attributes, until the decision was ultimately overturned. Today, however, multiple environmental and labor groups are suing the agency in hopes of forcing an immediate ban; several states, such as California, New York, and Hawaii, are trying to help the cause by enacted bans of varying levels of strictness and the world’s largest manufacturer of chlorpyrifos, Corteva, announced it will stop producing the chemical by the end of the year.

The topic of this article is incredibly relevant, especially in today’s society; something as necessary as banning a toxic pesticide, which numerous studies have proved causes serious health problems, should not be a political debate, especially to a governmental agency that has been formed to tackle environmental issues. Despite this setback, however, states and large manufacturers have managed to band together to form a solution in getting rid of chlorpyrifos which emphasizes their determination and tenacity. Furthermore, this article highlights how practices that were previously seen as useful are now proving themselves to be dangerous, considering that chlorpyrifos was patented in 1966 by the Dow Chemical Company, when its toxicity was largely unknown. This begs the question whether or not materials that are used commonly today will be shown to be harmful in the future.

I think that this article was relatively well written since it offers plenty of information concerning the timeline of chlorpyrifos and its usage, especially by including the fact that the debate over the pesticide has been relevant for more than a decade; this allows the audience to get more of an understanding of the situation. Despite this, Friedman does not offer much perspective from the E.P.A. and thus has a biased manner of writing the article; although a ban on the pesticide is definitely necessary, there was not many responses from officials of the agency and instead focused on those of the opposing side. All in all, I believe Friedman brought to light an important topic that has evidently been shown to not have a solution yet, although it is bound to happen gradually in the future. 

How Prescribed Burns Can Reduce California Wildfires

Olivia Cevasco

24 September, 2020

AP Biology - C EVEN

Current Event 1

Fuller, Thomas, and Kendra Pierre-louis. “A Forecast for a Warming World: Learn to Live With Fire.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 24 Oct. 2019, www.nytimes.com/2019/10/24/climate/california-wildfires-climate-change.html.    

The article “A Forecast for a Warming World: Live to Learn with Fire” explains that California’s wildfires are the direct result of the state’s record-breaking heat and drought conditions (due to climate change) which cause fuels, such as underbrush, to dry out, making them more likely to burn. There have been over 8,000 wildfires in California so far this year that have burned over 3.7 million acres of land. 

Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

In the past three years, the number and intensity of the wildfires in California have increased. So Thomas Fuller and Kendra Pierre-Louis raise the question: ‘How do we live in an ecosystem that is primed to burn?’ and offer a solution: prescribed burns. Prescribed burns could prevent wildfires by clearing out underbrush, such as grasses and shrubs, that cause extreme fires when they are overgrown, as was the case this year.  Prescribed burns are also more cost-effective than fire suppression, with $30 to $35 is spent per acre in a prescribed burn, while it costs about $1,000 dollars per acre to put out a wildfire. Furthermore, scientists discovered that if a wildfire does occur in a site of a prescribed burn, the fire is far less intense. A senior wildlife biologist for the Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Nathan Klaus, explained that a fires that occur after a prescribed burn go "from a 20- to 30-foot breaking front to two to three feet.” Prescribed burns are necessary to prevent extreme wildfires because they are cost effective and save lives. 

As a California native, I fully understand the severity of the past years’ wildfires. I know what it’s like to wake up and smell smoke in your house even though no windows or doors are open and the fire is hundreds of miles away. In 2018, my grandmother was evacuated from her home in Napa in the middle of the night, a helicopter flying low over her neighborhood blaring evacuation orders. The Partrick fire came within 200 feet of her home. This year, I’ve had friends who had to stay inside for over a month--not even because of coronavirus--because the air quality index was over 250 from the smoke. With that much particulate matter in the air, the inhalation of smoke is equivalent to smoking 20 packs of cigarettes each day. Smoke from wildfires can worsen pre-existing conditions like asthma and cause long-term effects such as lung cancer.   

I decided to review this article for two reasons. First, I want to understand the solutions to California’s wildfire crisis, and second, I felt that this topic ties into our recent study of ecology. While Thomas Fuller and Kendra Pierre-Louis provided a strong argument about the severity of the fires as well as the solutions, they could have furthered the reader’s understanding of the issue by explaining the long-term effects of smoke on health (I had previous knowledge of that). The journalists should have explained that California’s fires aren’t a short term issue; these fires are causing potentially deadly long-term health effects in humans and animals and reshaping California’s ecosystems and geography as a whole.