“Scientists Take First Step Toward Creating ‘Inorganic Life’”

Carty Caruso
9-18-11
Current Event

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/09/110915091625.htm

“Scientists Take First Step Toward Creating ‘Inorganic Life’”

In the article I read, scientists have begun to create the first inorganic cells. These new cells are called iCHELLs. iCHELLs are created by compartmentalising internal membranes that control the passage of materials. These cells are made from inorganic matter and chemicals. They do have characteristics of cells such as; a semi-permeable membrane, self-replicating, and evolving. iCHELLs can have several chemical processes occurring inside them at the same time. One researcher said,

“What we are trying do is create self-replicating, evolving inorganic cells that would essentially be alive. You could call it inorganic biology.” Inorganic Biology is the perfect term to use for the potential of the ability to watch the evolution and production of the chemical based cells, these inorganic cells. These cells can store store electricity, oddly enough, and thus they could be applied in medicine.

This creation of iCHELLs could revolutionize many things. Firstly and probably most importantly, this could change our whole prospective on life and if it could exist elsewhere. The prospect of having inorganic life on other planets is incredible at the least, mostly because of the new possibility that it could come from inorganic compounds. An other way these iCHELLs could affect us is the ability to see life evolve from a different prospective. Previously thought to be inanimate objects could actually be alive. What we could potentially learn from watching the evolution of these cells could benefit our knowledge of organic cells and help us in medicine or biotechnology.

This article was very insightful, but it lacked a few things. First of the article was very short and did not offer much information in this amazing new topic of inorganic biology. The article also did not provide a very detailed description of how the iCHELLs are created, or how many of them there are. This article did do a very good job, however, of providing many theoretical effects of these iCHELLs. Overall I see this article as being the first in many to talk and theorize about inorganic life.

Cold-Water Detergents Get a Cold Shoulder

"Cold-Water Detergents Get a Cold Shoulder" by Andrew Martin and Elisabeth Rosenthal

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/17/business/cold-water-detergents-get-a-chilly-reception.html?pagewanted=1&ref=science

Tide, a company owned by Proctor and Gamble, has been working since 2003 to convert the world to a place where laundry loads are done with cold water. People have traditionally used hot water to clean their clothes, believing that the hot water gets rid of stains and dirt more efficiency. However, '"efficiently"should be the last word used to describe hot water loads. Proctor and Gamble conducted a study in 2003 where the realized that about three quarters of the energy use and green house-gas emissions used when doing a load of laundry, comes from the process of heating the water. Proctor and Gamble, after seeing these results, made a goal to convert 70 percent of laundry loads to cold water, versus hot water, by 2020. They estimated that this past year alone, 38 percent of loads were done with cold water. Dawn French, the companies director of North America laundry products research and formula design believes that cold water loads will continue to grow in popularity. Companies such as Whirlpool, have developed new washing machines that have a special cold water function that is designed to work efficiently with cold water detergents such as Tide's products.

This article makes us think of how many ways energy is used today, and how often times it is used inefficiently. For example, not many people think of washing machines as something that uses a lot of energy, but this article makes us realize that there are many things that we take for granted and use in our daily lives, that give off greenhouse-gasses and use a lot of energy. Before reading this article, I really had no idea of the cons of using hot water in laundry loads, and I did not even realize there were certain detergents for cold water loads. That may be because I've honestly never done laundry in my life, but this article definitely makes people view this topic in a different light.

I think that this article has a bias that supports virtually all of the actions that are put forth by Proctor and Gamble throughout this article. I am sure that there are many negative things that come from not washing your laundry with hot water, but this article barely scratches the surface on this topic. I research another article on this subject after reading this one, and it clearly had a different view on the concept of cold load washes. It stressed that in many case, people washed with cold water detergent because they thought it was more eco-friendly, however they realized after their laundry was done, that many stains were not taken out, they then found it necessary to do another load but had to use hot water. This ultimately leads to more energy use and more greenhouse-gas emissions by doing two loads, versus one hot water load. Tide responded to this saying that people should invest in washers that support cold water, and that they will continue to push their scientists to create a more efficient detergent. It was a little aggravating to me that I had to research another article to find counter-points to the article on the New York Times, I wish that the authors of the NYT article had provided us with more cons to using cold water loads as well.

BP Shortcuts Led to Gulf Spill, Report Says

"BP Shortcuts Led to Gulf Oil Spill, Report Says"

by John M. Broder

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/15/science/earth/15spill.html?_r=1&ref=science

Bp, in completing the Macondo well in the Gulf of Mexico, which cheap construction created the blowout and oil spill last year, report says. The explosion aboard the Deepwater Horizon was a failure of the cement at the base of the 18,000 foot-deep well that was supposed to contain oil and gas instead. The human and mechanical errors that followed created natural gas to build up pressure that caused an explosion killing 11 members of the crew and an oil spill which took 87 days to control. The report concluded that BP was responsible for the accident and the chief contractors, Transocean and Halliburton are responsible for the fatal mistakes. The Justice Department is currently conducting a criminal investigation that could bring indictments and many fines. Though there had been questions in the past whether the oil spill was directly related the BP’s actions, the report leaves no question that there were human errors and overlooked problems, all of which could have been avoided if BP was not in a rush to complete their Macondo well last year. Instead, now work has halted completely and men are worse because of it.

This article brings into light the real events of last year’s oil spill due to BP. There is hope in seeing that many of the people responsible for short-cuts and poor mechanisms and overlooking the issue of built-up pressure will be held responsible for their actions and will face criminal charges. BP has suffered unpopularity after their oil spill, and have issued apologies and know their own place in this fatal mistake, but just understanding that one is wrong is not the same as coming to reconciliation, and due to the legal actions, hopefully BP will not be so quick to use damaging short-cuts in the future. However, they seem to be fully aware of errors made and even more compromising with the legal action, which will follow. BP is aware that deaths have been caused due to poor judgment, and are ready to face their consequences.

This article paints BP in too positive of a light. They have caused death and destruction, which is unforgivable, but John Broder feels no need to go into the true disaster at the Macondo well last year and just openly says the BP will be willing to face any sort of legal action because they are aware of their wrongs. BP caused an oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, and it has taken a year to discover that they were the actual cause behind said oil spill, when they have undoubtedly known about their own mistakes for the entirety of that time. Instead of portraying BP has an upstanding company ready to face any troubles they might have for the death of 11 of their workers, Broder should be much more harsh as to say it is the fault of BP and no penance will ever allow those workers back to this world, and that oil spill which now needs to be cleaned up has caused even more damage.

"Scientists Hint at Why Laughter Feels So Good", Amanda Austi

“Scientists Hint at Why Laughter Feels So Good”

By James Gorman

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/14/science/14laughter.html

Review by Amanda Austi

Laughter is something that is apart of our daily lives; or at least we hope it is! But why is this action enjoyable to human beings? This question is something that James Gorman reports on. Laughter has always been viewed in a positive way with no real explanation as to why this is the case. Dr, Dunbar, an evolutionary physiologist, has looked deeply into this socially accepted phenomenon. He proposes that laughter feels good to humans, not because of the intellectual affect that we enjoy humor, but because of the physical effect it immerses to humans. Many tests that him and his colleagues have performed, have proven that the muscle exertions involved in laughter give off endorphins into the brain. Endorphins are chemicals that have are neurotransmitters in the brain. Therefore, many of us know them as “feel good chemicals”, because they trigger a positive reaction in our bodies. To first test this, Dr. Dunbar and his team decided that they would test pain resistance of individuals, before and after laughter. The reason why he tested pain resistance is because pain resistance shows the presence of endorphins in the brain. Scientists are not able to analyze endorphins because they are brain chemicals, and thus cannot be seen in blood samples. His results eliminated the commonly known hypothesis that pain resistance is dependent on the well being of a person, rather than laughter. However, to further test these results on a higher level, he carried out further experiments. Dr. Dunbar decided to closely look into “social laughter”, laughter that he would describe as relaxed, unforced, natural, and contagious. In this study, he had humans watch comedy videos (test results of laughter), neutral videos (not intentionally meant to make someone laugh), and “feel-good” videos (positive videos, not made to make one laugh). The time each person laughed was recorded, and their pain resistance was tested before and after the showing of the films. The results of this experiment proved that the more laughter, the higher the pain resistance of a human being was. The good feeling videos had no effect on their pain resistance, and therefore, eliminated the other hypothesis. Therefore, because the laughter generated the most pain resistance, Dr. Dunbar was able to conclude that laughter creates many endorphins in the brain. His conclusions are the reason why we all enjoy laughter.

Laughter is with out a doubt a universal activity in our world. Dr. Dunbar’s discoveries about the benefits have laughter have a major affect on humanity. He has proposed that laughter contributed to the bonding of human beings since the beginning of time. And to this day, laughter continues to make social human beings. This proposal relates back to the study of evolution. Dunbar believes that laughter could have brought together groups of human beings. With out the bonding of humans, communities, towns, cities, countries, and even continents would not exist. Everyone would be on their own. If laughter is something that humans used to bond together, then by evolution theories, it must be an adaptation. This use of inductive reasoning shows that laughter was an early mechanism in primates. This is evident in the laughter of apes. The laughter of apes is them panting. This connection, has proposed that the sounds of apes laughing, “pant- pant”, eventually evolved into the sound of human beings laughing, “ha-ha”. Although this new discovery in science affects our world as a whole, it can individually affect us. Next time we laugh, we now know what is causing us to feel good. Therefore, now that we know that laughter causes endorphins, next time we are feeling down if laughing doesn’t do the trick, we can try to feel better by doing another activity that releases endorphins. For example, a physical activity such as running. Since laughter is a universal aspect of life, the studies of laughter in this article have a huge impact on the study of human beings.

Overall, I thought this article was extremely interesting. The topic chosen is something that is relatable to all readers. Whether you are interested in science or not, the topic was friendly to all interests. Therefore, the topic was relatable and personal to readers. Another strength of the article was the way Gorman followed the studies of one scientist. By doing this, the reader is able to follow the information clearly, with out any ambiguity as to what is being tested. Furthermore, Gorman also did a good job explaining the thoughts of Dunbar through relevant quotes. Last, I thought a strong point of the article was the way Gorman added in the information about evolution. This point makes the article strong because it gives readers insight on how human beings have evolved over time. Although Gorman has many strong points, one weakness was his organization. I think that he presented the information somewhat out of order, and should have grouped some information together as suppose to stating related facts in different sections of the article. However, overall I believe this article was very good and engaging.

Citation:

Gorman, James. “Scientists Hint at Why Laughter Feels So Good” New York Times Online. 15 Sep2011. 13 Sep2011.

An Immune System Trained to Kill Cancer

This article is about a new treatment doctors are experimenting with that uses your own white blood cells to kill cancer. The treatment involves a large number of T cells, which are a form of white blood cells, and injecting them with a form of HIV that carries cancer-fighting genes. When the T cells are put back into the body they begin destroying cancerous cells. So far the treatment has been used on three people with advanced leukemia that was unable to be treated with chemotherapy. The results so far have been very good. Two of the patients went into complete remission, while one entered partial remission. The doctors, however, are far from calling anyone cured, or in any way claiming they have defeated leukemia. Instead they have stated that although the initial results are positive, the treatment is still in its early experimental phase, and will require a lot more work. Other people in the field, however, have exclaimed that the group has made a significant break through. For years researchers have been trying to find a way to make a persons own body fight cancer, rather then having to use radiation to destroy the cells. This treatment is one of the biggest breakthroughs in that study, and could lead to many more discoveries. The treatment itself involves many steps. First the patient’s blood is run through a machine to extract as many T cells as possible. These T cells are then exposed to the gene carrying HIV virus, and frozen. At the same time the patient is given chemo to try to kill every remaining T cell in his or her body, so that nothing can interfere with the genetically modified ones once they reenter the blood stream. Finally the new T cells are put back into the body. Patients who have the treatment are not left completely healthy. The new T cells do weaken the immune system, so injections must be given every few months to stop infections. The treatment still has a long way to go. It can still be dangerous, and must be proven to be significantly more effective them chemo before it will be mass-produced, the groundwork, however, has been laid.

The information in this article affects humanity profoundly. Millions of people die every year from cancer, and even more are forced to live their life in pain from complications stemming from the disease. The way cancer is treated, which is in most cases chemotherapy, is also very bad for the body. This treatment proposes a way that your own body could learn how fight the cancer. This is a better situation then having to use an external force to kill the cancerous cells. This would mean that people who are having their cancer treated would not have to deal with many of the complications associated with chemo, such as general weakness. The immediate impact of this information on society, however, is not that great. The article makes it clear that although early signs are good this treatment will not be mainstream for a very long time, if ever. There are still many things researchers need to figure out before they can start treating more people.

I feel that this article was very interesting. It does a good job of explaining the treatment to the reader in an understandable way. This treatment obviously involves some very serious science, but the author is able to describe it in such a way that anybody can understand. I also think the article does a good job of managing expectations. It does not proclaim that cancer is now cured. It instead tells that reader that although there ahs been a great break through, there is still a lot fo work to be done

A Squirt of Insulin May Delay Alzheimer’s

Nina Byers

9/13/11

A Squirt of Insulin May Delay Alzheimer’s

In an article recently published in the New York Times, it has been reported that shots of insulin, through the nose, may delay the development or reduce the effect of Alzheimer’s. This discovery evolved from a study conducted by Suzanne Craft, a professor of psychiatry at the University of Washington in Seattle and director of the memory disorders clinic at the Veterans Affairs Puget Sound Health Care System. In the four-month study, they divided the subjects into three groups. One got a placebo, one got 20 international (universal) units of aerosolized insulin a day, and the third group was given 40 international units a day. The group that was given the aerosolized insulin through the nose twice a day either remained the same or improved in assessments of their ability to handle daily activities and memory tests. Those who received the lower dose (20 units) of insulin seemed more effective than the higher one (40 units) and the patients on the placebos got worse. The reason insulin is the drug of choice for the study is because a trademark of Alzheimer’s is a reduced metabolism in the brain. Glucose is the fuel for brain cells and once it is less available, the metabolism slows. However, when insulin is in the cerebral system, patients used more glucose in their brains, thus improving their memory. Further, when an individual is diagnosed with Alzheimer’s, a toxic protein called beta amyloid accumulates in the brain and restricts insulin flow. For Dr. Craft, it is clear that the solution appears to be insulin, however, they needed a way to give their patients insulin to the brain, without it flowing to the rest of the body. Hence, the nasal spray. This squirt of insulin is injected deep into the nose so it can travel along the path of nerves to the brain. However, this device is not widely available and this study with insulin is still inconclusive as only a few have been conducted and the idea of injecting a chemical through the nose is a novelty to the medical world.

This study conducted by Dr. Craft represents a huge leap in Alzheimer’s research. Understanding the effects of insulin are crucial to the development of a cure. The studies must being somewhere and with Dr. Craft and her team they appear to be off to a good start. Yet, the article mentions that, “Dr. Martha Daviglus of Northwestern University, who led a panel last year that assessed published papers on preventing and treating Alzheimer’s, urged caution.” She preaches patience, for oftentimes brilliant discoveries in small case studies can “fall apart in larger or longer ones.” Like any discovery , taking advantage of insulin needs to be developed with care, but it appears that Dr. Craft is headed in the right direction.

The article itself, written by Gina Kolata of the New York Times, is clear and concise. She does an excellent job in examining not only Dr. Craft’s findings, but also opposing viewpoints. Kolata is aware of her audience and also explains different aspects of Alzheimer’s, without delving too deeply into confusing or complicated concepts about subjects such as the molecular make-up of insulin and how exactly it can travel on the nervous system. Though I, personally, would be interested to find out. Overall, this was an interesting article and I look forward to seeing the evolution of a drug for Alzheimer’s and the use of insulin to cure diseases.

Kolata, Gina. "A Squirt of Insulin May Delay Alzheimer's." New York Times. 12 Sept. 2011. Web. 13 Sept. 2011. .

New Fossils May Redraw Human Ancestry

This article, written by Nicholas Wade, is an interesting and informative piece on the discovery of a new series of fossils from the species known as Australopithecus sediba in South Africa. The discovery was made by Dr. Lee Berger, who claims that the species is an ancestor to humans. He says that the new species should replace Homo Habilis in the bridge that connects australopithecenes and humans. Berger describes how the fossils show evidence that the species was both apelike and humanlike. It had apelike fingers that were helpful in climbing trees, but also a thumb that would allow it to adequately hold tools. In addition, by making a mold of the inside of the skull, it was determined that the species had an apelike brain but it had taken the first steps to becoming more like a human brain. Dr. Bernard Wood claims that the time was too short for the Australopithecus to develop a fully human-like brain and evolve into the Homo Erectus. While Berger maintains that this species is more like a human than not, many other scientists argue that this may not be true. However the other specialists do not disagree that the discovery of these fossils is significant.
Although it is not clear whether the bones are more closely related to humans or to apes, it has been made clear that the discovery is noteworthy. The fossils provide evidence that at the time of their existence, a lot of evolutionary change was occurring with the australopithecine group. Dr. Wood reported that the fossils are also significant because they demonstrate that human evolution is very complex. It is important to understand that scientists continue to make discoveries about the origin of modern human beings and that, when provided with new evidence, changes are made to prior concepts and ideas, such as when and where certain early humanlike species roamed the earth. Scientists have differing views on certain aspects of evolution, for instance one man named Dr. Tattersall believes that the prehistoric species that are more closely related to humans likely arose suddenly, possible a result of a few genetic changes that proved to be critical in the evolution of human beings. He theorizes that this fact is why it is so difficult to trace the transition through the fossil record. As more fossils are discovered, new inferences are constantly being made about the origin of humans.
I found this article very educational and it was fascinating to read. However, as the article was printed in the NY times, I think that the author could have explained some of the vocabulary better. The article described complex ideas and used advanced vocabulary that was, at times, difficult to comprehend. Overall, the article was engaging and very informative.

Wade, Nicholas. "New Fossils May Redraw Human Ancestry." New York Times Website. NY Times, 8 Sept. 2011. Web. 11 Sept. 2011.
.