Steroid Shot Near Spine Gives Illness an Opening

 Grady, Denise. "Tracing Crucial Components of Meningitis Outbreak." The New York Times. The New York Times, 16 Oct. 2012. Web. 18 Oct. 2012. <http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/16/health/tracing-crucial-components-of-meningitis-outbreak.html?ref=science>.

            This article describes the meningitis outbreak across the country caused by contaminated treatments for spine and neck problems. The fungus causes a severe form of meningitis that can cause strokes and has resulted in now 19 deaths (the article, written two days ago, says 14), and 205 severe cases. It is estimated that 14,000 people have come in contact with the fungus. The fungus is called Exserohilum, one so rare that most doctors have never heard of it. The treatment that is contaminated is called methylprednisolone, and a total of 17,676 vials of it are involved in the outbreak. Though several patients have experienced symptoms, there are several more who have not gotten sick (some doctors estimate that the proportion may be as low as 5 percent). Doctors are now trying to find out why some people have been killed while others have gone symptom-free.

            Figuring out why some people are contaminated could have several positive implications on the science of administering drugs to the spine. There are a number of possible explanations for why some people get sick, relating to variations in the extent of contamination, the patients’ underlying health, and the procedure itself. As most of the patients had strong immune systems, doctors are led to believe that it is due to bad procedures on behalf of the doctors. The injection used to administer the drug should not pierce the Dura, one of the membranes that cover the spinal cord and brain. As most doctors do not use fluoroscopy to help them guide the needle, the contamination may be due to nicks in the Dura. This would allow the fungus to enter into the spinal fluids, and consequently, the brain. More research by specialists could help determine what physicians could improve when administering drugs, and could lead to better safety procedures in the field.

            I believe that the author could have done a better job organizing the article and explaining the effects of the fungus. She often went back to previous arguments, and sometimes her progression of ideas was confusing. She also didn’t explain how the fungus killed patients; she only explained what it was. She did do a good job explaining what could have caused the fungus to enter the spinal fluids and the controversy surrounding safety regulations in administering these drugs.

Rosner, Hillary. “A Chemist Comes Very Close to a Midas Touch.” The New York Times. The New York Times, 15 Oct. 2012. Web 15 Oct. 2012.

<http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/16/science/modern-day-alchemy-has-iron-working-like-platinum.html?ref=science&_r=0>

            This article goes into how Dr. Chirik, 39, is trying to use certain abundant elements to act as scarce ones, which are expensive and hard to get. At the beginning, the article leads introducing alchemy. In defining how it is the science of trying to change elements into others, like lead to gold, it goes into how Dr. Chirik has managed to achieve this idea, with a twist. Although not full blown atomically changing the element of iron to platinum, the chemist is able to essentially wrap an iron molecule in an organic molecule called ligand. This ligand alters the number of electrons available to form bonds, making iron act like platinum. The article then goes into how Dr. Chirik’s process now has to be flexible, in case certain elements that were abundant become scarce, like with what is happening with cobalt. As explained in the article, Dr. Chirik was working with cobalt in producing new types of cheap plastic, but with the cobalt now being highly used in flat batteries for iPads and iPhones, it has become too scarce and expensive to even work with. The ending of the article goes talks about how Dr. Chirik first got inspired into trying to use abundant elements to replace the scarce expensive ones. It even quotes him talking about a past experience of being extremely careful with a small amount of Iridium, which costs $16,00 per pound, and wondering why he cannot just use something cheaper.
            This can greatly impact the world, considering this scientific change could alter the economy for the better. As talked about in the article, small amounts of very scarce and expensive elements, such as platinum, are used in making products from jeans to beer. Large amounts of money are spent on elements like these (platinum costs $22,000 per pound) and chemically making a substitute would not keep manufacturing at the same efficiency, but also make it incredibly cheaper. A pound of iron only cost 50 cents, so having it replace something as valuable as platinum will have a strong affect on the global economy for the better, and that is only with one element.

            The article, although fairly interesting, had a bad set up in my opinion. It kept on flipping from topic to topic while going back to Dr. Chirik’s progress. It seemed odd to end the article with Dr. Chirik’s motivation to go into this alchemy-type of thinking rather than start with it, and the article does not get to explaining how Dr. Chirik alters iron to act as platinum until halfway through the article. Lastly, it would have been more interesting to go into the actual chemistry of how exactly iron now can act like platinum in going through this process. Other than this, the article was still a great read.

Fountain, Henry. “A First: Organs Tailor-Made With Body’s Own Cells.” The New York Times. The New York Times, 15 Sep. 2012. Web 15 Oct. 2012.

<http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/16/health/research/scientists-make-progress-in-tailor-made-organs.html?pagewanted=1&_r=0>

            As the title suggests, this article discussed a medical breakthrough: the implantation of organs fabricated by scientists outside of the body, but with the body’s own cells.  The example discussed throughout the article describes a man, Mr. Beyene, who had a cancerous growth in his windpipe and opted to undergo the first transplant of a “bioartificial” organ, which ended up saving his life.  The bioartificial organs consist of what scientists refer to as a scaffolding, based on the extracellular matrix of a particular organ as observed from the organs of human cadavers and other animals, which is designed and developed by scientists known as tissue engineers.  Then, to ensure that the organ will not be rejected, cells are taken from the recipient and dripped via pipette into the scaffold.  Mr. Beyene’s scaffold was made out of plastic and was shaped based on scans of his natural windpipe.  The piece of porous plastic was able to become functional once Mr. Beyene’s own stem cells had been injected.  Since human stem cells are able to become specialized cells specific to particular tissues, the cells were able to adjust to perform the functions necessary for windpipe cells.

            The scientists and doctors profiled in this article suggested great hope for the future of this scientific field.  Dr. Macchiarini wants “to go even further-to harness the body’s repair mechanisms so that it can remake a damaged organ on its own.”  The future some researchers are imagining provides great potential for the re-growth of organs with little to know medical intervention.  It is possible that in the span of our lives, we will be able to receive organ transplants that are made from our own cells, which would certainly extend the human lifespan. 

            The article was, while fascinating, a little long-winded.  It was a little difficult to understand the exact method used by doctors to implant Mr. Beyene’s windpipe.  Also, while the author did brush upon the cost (up to half a million dollars), it would have been nice if they had specified the cost, as that is a crucial factor to how quickly these techniques will spread across the world and who they will be able to have an impact on.   I did enjoy the section ‘If It Bleeds, It Lives’ as I felt that it logically explained the details of how these biosynthetic parts truly have to have the “bio” aspect in order to function properly.  

Strides in Medicine, and Their Price

Altman, Lawrence K. "Strides in Medicine, and Their Price." The New York Times. The New York Times, 6 Oct. 2012. 11 Oct. 2012.

<http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/09/science/a-century-of-progress-comes-with-complications-the-digital-doctor.html?_r=1&ref=science>   

            This article talks about many of the great innovations that technology is allowing doctors to achieve in the field of medicine, but it also talks about the negative effects of this.  Some of these improvements include doctors' ability to preform surgery through keyhole-size incisions, the repairing of joints, drugs that can cure diseases, and flexible scopes that allow doctors to peer into the hard to reach places of the lungs and gastrointestinal tract.  Doctors who are learning how to preform certain types of surgeries are now able to preform unlimited amounts of practice on a nearly identical computer simulation.  Another advancement includes the use of motor-ambulances that are equipped with technology necessary to saving a life and helicopters.  Also, the use of computer scans of the head and body no longer use radiation, allowing for safer and easier procedures.  Although these new scans can be very helpful, they also have many negative effects.  Doctors will often order an x-ray for a patient without actually examining them fully, out of habit.  This is both a waste of money, and exposes patients to unnecessary radiation.  Another negative effect involves the decrease in the amount of autopsies because doctors believe that many of their techniques before death are enough.  However, studies show that autopsies pick up many things that the average doctor would not notice.  Costly procedures such as chronic renal dialysis have caused the creation of bioethics, which determines who will receive life-saving treatment, if it is only available to a certain number of people. 

            The advances in medicine due to new technological advancements will have huge effects on the wold.  These advancements have already saved countless numbers of lives, and have helped people that were originally thought to be disabled for life.  Since these technologies continue to improve and they are growing at a rate that is faster than ever, new procedures, medicines, and equipment will be developed in the near future that will be able to save lives, cure more diseases, and even increase the life expectancy of the average person.  Although these technologies have countless positive effects on the world, there are also many precautions that must be taken when using them.  Doctors can not become reliant on technologies, and they must always preform their jobs to the best of their abilities.  Even though there are some negative effects to the improvements of medical technology, these new technologies will improve the livelihood of many people and improve the world. 

            I thought this article was very well written, and it provided a good understanding of the topic.  It also was put together well, and it included a lot of specific facts and details involving the ways that technology is improving the field of medicine.  Another reason that I liked this article is that it was very easy to read, even though this is a complicated topic.  The writing flowed nicely, and I understood all of the information that was being presented.  Although the article was very good, there are a few things that I would have changed.  First, I would have liked a few quotes, since these provide a first hand account of what is being described.  I would have also liked a few more examples of specific studies that back up what the article was talking about.  Overall this was a good article that provided insight on a very interesting topic. 

posted for J. Dougherty

Properties of Water Projects

The assignment given to the class was:

First Quarter Project Newsletter 2012

The following are unedited products submitted by the students, Powerpoint Presentations followed by posters.

C. Adamiyatt's Project

Adamiyatt_Cyrus Water Properties Project

D. Borcich's Project

Borcich_Declan_ap Bio Props of Water

A. Chrappa's Project

Chrappa Argentina 11100324 Water Project - Argentina

E. Choi's' Project

Erica Choi Water_Properties

M. Chrisanthopolous' Project

Chrisanthopoulos Marika 300453 Bio Properties of Water

P. DeJoy's Project

Properties of Water Dejoy

T. Donohue's Project


Donohue Timothy Water Properties Project

J. Dougherty's Project

Dougherty Jack Properties of Water



A. Jones' Project
Jones AP Bio Water Presentation


M. Laurence's Project
Properties of Water-Laurence

H. Lilly's Project

Lilly Henry 11100371 Properties of Water

E. McGough's Project


McGough_Elizabeth_The Properties of Water

G. O'Toole's Project
O'Toole_Grace_Properties of Water Project

S. Past's Project
Past AP Biology Water ProjectA. Petnuch's Project

Petnuch Alexis 300526 BioProject1

N. Petnuch's Project

Petnuch Nicolette Properties of Water

N. Soroori-Motlagh's Project

Soroori-Motlagh_Nastaran_Properties of Water Project

Cover of G. Elbert's Poster-Booklet

Inside of G. Elbert's Poster Booklet

T. Harrison's Poster

Redefining Medicine with Apps and Ipads

Maddy Foley                                                                                                 

October 9, 2012

AP Biology Review

           Hafner, Katie. "Redefining Medicine With Apps and IPads - The Digital Doctor." The New York Times. The New York Times, 09 Oct. 2012. Web. 09 Oct. 2012. <http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/09/science/redefining-medicine-with-apps-and-ipads-the-digital-doctor.html>.

I read the article “Redefining Medicine with Apps and Ipads.” In this article, the author Katie Hafner presents the recent contributions to science made by the developments in technology. These technological developments involve the use of websites, apps and gadgets to provide medical symptoms and treatments that would have been supplied by a medicine handbook if this was twenty years ago. Some of these apps include MedCalc, a clinical calculator, ePocrates, an app for looking up drug dosages and interactions, and Qx Calculate, an app that creates risk profiles for their patients. There is even an electronic stethoscope that amplifies heart sounds while cancelling outside noise. Furthermore, all medical students at John Hopkins and University of Chicago are provided with Ipads through which they can easily access medical records, and rather than writing notes on paper, physicians jot down information on tablets. The article also provided the opinions of two doctors on the use of technology in medicine, as well as contained quotes from a patient.

With these new developments has come conflicts over the medicinal profession and the effects of these technologies. While Dr. Rajkomar, a 28 year old resident doctor at San Francisco V.A. Medical Center  is a fervent user of these technologies and promotes the efficiency and accuracy of these processes, his coworker Dr. Heineken, who is 38 years his senior argues the importance of learning to preform without the assistance of a computer, IPad, or even CT Scan, MRI or ultrasound. Dr. Heineken, the elderly and more experienced doctor, worries about the loss of the human connection that exists at the base of the practice. Many older generations of physicians promote the personal interaction between patients and doctors, a process that is only hindered by the use of technology. As Dr. Paul C. Tang, chief innovation and technology officer at Palo Alto Medical Foundation in Palo Alto, Calif., puts it  “Just adding an app won’t necessarily make people better doctors or more caring clinicians.” However, the new apps, do provide a new important level of efficiency and accuracy. Through the use of MedCalc for example, Dr. Rajkomer was able to find the exact measure and rate of saline required to treat a sodium deficiency in a particular patient. This article helps to generate thought on finding a happy medium between the past and present. The information presented in this article is important to all current and future patients in today’s evolving world of medicine, helping to provide an understanding of the new medical processes.

            I think this article provided a good explanation of the new technological methods as well as insight into the duel opinions on the developments. By providing real life situations from two physicians who differed in opinion, the reader had a better understanding of the pros and cons of technology in medicine. I would have liked to see other opinions however, from an array of young and old doctors to further develop both sides of the debate. I also think the article could have provided a clearer picture in exactly how the apps and Ipads are used in medicine and supplied more statistical information on whether these technologies are actually found to be more effective, though one study from the University of Chicago was provided, which supported the effectiveness of the technologies.

"Infant DNA Tests Speed Diagnosis of Rare Diseases"

Science Article Review by Gina Elbert

October 4, 2012

Kolata, Gina. “Infant DNA Tests Speed Diagnosis of Rare Diseases.” The New York Times. 3 October, 2012. 4 October, 2012. < http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/04/health/new-test-of-babies-dna-speeds-diagnosis.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&ref=science>

Gina Kolata’s article discusses a groundbreaking movement towards diagnosis of rare diseases in babies: DNA testing. It begins by discussing the case of a baby girl with a seizure-inducing disease that had only been reported once before, caused by a certain gene mutation that was found by sequencing the entirety of her DNA. Although, sadly, this baby died, doctors performed similar tests on others and were able to identify the gene mutations that caused their diseases. They even did so for the older brother of one of these babies, who had his organs reversed and had to have surgery to move his heart from the right side of his body to the left. While the progress that these physicians have made in finding the genetic causes of certain diseases is significant, is must be noted that, “Scientists identified the faulty genes for about 3,500 of 7,500 known genetic diseases … adding that about 500 have treatments.” (Kolata, page A1) Much has yet to be done, but the questions that come up are not only those of medicine. Ethics also come into play, as because of the sequencing of the entire genome of individuals, doctors can find out if a certain person is likely to contract some kind of disease, such as diabetes or Alzheimer’s. So far, doctors have simply skipped over this, choosing not to study it in order not to alarm parents. Another major issue has been cost, because intensive care treatment, coupled with DNA testing, is extremely expensive, with the latter yet to be covered by insurance. While these problems have yet to be solved, it can still be said that, with the help of new computing equipment from company Illumina that sequence a genome in only 25 hours (as opposed to 50), the new genetic discoveries that doctors are making are indeed groundbreaking.

Because of their newfound ability to find genetic mutations in DNA, doctors will be able to diagnose rare diseases from birth. Since some can affect babies right from the start, it is important to find causes as well as potential cures as soon as possible. If, in the future, doctors are able to do both, it could save millions of lives and bring joy and happiness into the lives of parents, who always find it hardest to have to let their child go, just as the parents of the girl with seizures had to do. I chose this article because of its strong connection to biology and the cell. It shows how much we have yet to learn – and possibly never will learn – about life, but because of new information, we are possible to save lives. Every person has different DNA, so by analyzing it, we can possibly create customized plans for curing patients.

This article was well-written, but it did become slightly confusing because of all the examples that it brought it. They were interesting, as well as illustrative, but no names were mentioned, most likely for the sake of privacy. While this was a noble move, it made following the examples hard, as babies were only referred to as “the girl with this disease,” or the “brother with that disease.” If Ms. Kolata had made up names for the babies, with a footnote explaining her actions and motives, the article would have been easier to follow. Despite this fault, however, the article was very informative and clearly expressed the news that it was relating.