Elephant Tusk DNA Helps Track Ivory Poachers

Sunday Ladas

Mr. Ippolito

AP Biology C-EVEN

20 September 2018

Citation:

Weintraub, Karen. “Elephant Tusk DNA Helps Track Ivory Poachers.” The New York

Times, The New York Times, 19 Sept. 2018,

www.nytimes.com/2018/09/19/science/ivory-poaching-genetics.html?rref=colle

ction%2Fsectioncollection%2Fscience&action=click&contentCollection=science

®ion=rank&module=package&version=highlights&contentPlacement=2&pgtype

=sectionfront.

Elephant Tusk DNA Helps Track Ivory Poachers

By: Karen Weintraub

Recent studies have shown that the elephant population is decreasing and elephants are at risk for going extinct. It is that poachers kill about 40,000 elephants per year, currently there is a population of 400,000 elephants world-wide. Poachers are killing elephants left and right however, scientists have seem to have found ways that will help stop these killings by using an elephants DNA. Dr. Wasser, the scientists who developed this theory, believes that by using the tusk DNA it will catch poachers. Dr. Wasser has developed a genetic map of African elephants by analyzing the animals poop. With this genetic map he found that he was now able to link it to the confiscated elephant tusks, this would conclude where the elephant was living when it was killed. This is major progress that could help the law enforcement teams to locate areas that they suspect poachers will go to and kill elephants. Law enforcement teams have stated that this newly discovered way to help track poachers have greatly improved and helped tremendously the fight to help find them.

Ivory poachers are a problem that are consistent throughout the society everywhere in the world. Creating ways to stop poachers of all kind is a necessity to the environment and to the animals that are being killed. Animals all over the world are being driven to extinction because of the resources they produce. Humans change the environment around them to make sure there is a greater chance of survival for them without taking into consideration the animals and environment around them that they could be killing. Creating solutions to stopping the ivory poachers could be the first stop to stopping all types of poachers and eventually finding solutions that will help improve the environment.

I thought that this article was constructed in a exceptional manor, I feel that the author made very good points and the authors tone showed the point of view he favoured. I felt that the piece itself was very opinionated, and that Karen Weintraub (the author)  did not look at the other side of the idea. I felt that the article could have been less opinionated which would have made the article even better. Weintraub did use a lot of facts that stated that convinced the author enough  that ivory poaching is a bad thing and that scientists finding ways to stop this would be beneficial. Lastly, I felt that she could have included more information about how the new piece of evidence has been helping stop elephant killings.  Overall, I felt this piece was very well written, however, it could have been less opinionated.

Cultured Meat: The Future of Farming

Eva Dani
09/18/2018

Oliveira, Sara. “Here's How We're Growing Meat in Labs Instead of in Animals.” Massive, 19 Sept. 2018, massivesci.com/articles/what-is-cultured-meat/.

Sara Oliveira’s article on cultured meat highlights the process of how meat cells become actual meat and possible ways the meat industry will adapt. Cultured meat has become a real phenomenon since the first burger trial in 2013, and has been becoming a business at a slow speed (astronauts now use cultured goldfish muscle as a source of protein). Cultured meat grows in two different ways: when the cells are grown in culture flasks, they either grow in a structured or unstructured manner. When cells grow unstructured, they began to take the form of meats such as sausages and hamburgers, while cultured cells that grow structurally they take a more organized structure to look like natural cuts of meat. Oliveira hypothesizes that in the future farms dedicated for cultured meat will overtake the meat industry, but ends her article on the note that lab grown meat may not be safe to eat, and more studies should be conducted to study the effects of cultured meat.
Cultured meat, which gained popularity when fast food chains were revealed to be using “not 100% real-meat”, and although many are adamant against synthetic meats, with the global warming and overpopulation on the rise, it will be difficult to manage agricultural resources in the next 10 to 20 years. Cultured meats are also often genetically modified, which sparks the debate of whether or not it is safe to eat GMO and other genetically modified food. At the same time, cultured meat would be more environmentally conscious than agricultural farming, and is slowly being pushed by animal rights groups like PETA
The author did a very good job of outlining what cultured meat is and how it will affect the farming industry, however, she did a poor job of more in depth views and opposing ideas in relation to cultured meat. Her article came across as simply a skim of a very complex subject. In the future, Oliveira should focus on expanding her research.

Seeking Human Generosity’s Origins in an Ape’s Gift to Another Ape

Aiden Hiller

Mr. Ippolito

AP Biology

9/21/18

Zimmer, Carl. “Seeking Human Generosity's Origins in an Ape's Gift to Another Ape.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 11 Sept. 2018, www.nytimes.com/2018/09/11/science/generosity-apes-bonobos.html.

Generosity has previously been viewed as a fundamentally human trait, our ability to cooperate and feel compassion for others is key to explaining how we became overwhelmingly successful as a species. However, as we begin to learn more about our primate ancestors, we’re discovering that generosity originated long before humans. In an article by Carl Zimmer published in the New York Times, he examines one study that tested prosociality in chimpanzees and bonobos. The first experiment conducted tested the behavior of bonobos when given an opportunity to act generously. They placed two apes in separate cages connected by a window; the researchers then used a behavior seen in many primate species in which they crack nuts with two rocks. One ape had the rocks and the other had the food, so which was one more likely to act generously? The researchers found that the bonobo with the nuts was much more likely to offer one to his neighbor, but the monkeys with the rocks were stingy and almost never returned the favor. In a separate study of chimpanzees with similar conditions, researchers found that the opposite was true. Chimpanzees will often make the connection that the adjacent monkey needs a tool to reach the food, but they are not likely to share the food. In an experiment only testing generosity with tools, researchers handed the monkeys a stick through the cage and left the room; when they returned, chimpanzees handed the tool back but bonobos held onto it and even teased the researchers with it.

The basis for this difference in behavior shown between bonobos and chimpanzees is their environment. Chimpanzees have to be crafty when finding food, and use many tools to do so, because of limited availability, it’s common to see intraspecific competition for food.Whereas bonobos are limited to the forests of the Democratic Republic of Congo, and don’t have this problem because food sources are abundant. This kind of behavior can be described as reciprocal altruism, in which an organism reduces it’s fitness to increase the fitness of another, hoping that the favor will be returned. Since food sources are scarce for chimpanzees, the penalty is too great for them to be altruistic with food; however, they are more than happy to share tools because they understand their importance and there are plenty to go around. This behavior is comparable to the concept of tit for tat in game theory, the optimal strategy for the prisoner’s dilemma game. It’s interesting how this seems to be genetically embedded in many species; the organisms work together until they feel they have been cheated, and then refuse to cooperate. The article also mentioned how children around age five develop awareness of prosociality, and an understanding that these actions will increase their social standing; it just goes to show that we have much to learn about the genetic basis of behavior.

While the article did a great job of explaining the experiment itself, I think he could have done better with explaining the impacts of this research. Zimmer does not explain what this research indicates; he essentially just paraphrased the results. It was effective in providing background for understanding the purpose of this experiment, and has an alluring title that creates interest. He also incorporated quotes from an unrelated researcher about the contrasting behavior of chimpanzees that added significant substance to the article. The article was paced effectively in a way that maintains the reader’s interest. My only other complaint is that the quote used to conclude the article seems forced, I would have left it more open ended to facilitate the reader’s reflection on the article.

Classifying Drivers of Global Forest Loss

Michael Grieco

AP Biology

Current Event 2

20 September 2018

Curtis, Philip G., et al. “Classifying Drivers of Global Forest Loss.” Science, American

Association for the Advancement of Science, 14 Sept. 2018,

<science.sciencemag.org/content/361/6407/1108>.

“Classifying Drivers of Global Forest Loss”

By Philip G. Curtis, Christy M. Slay, Nancy L. Harris, Alexandra Tyukavina, and Matthew C. Hansen

This article follows up on the development of a computer algorithm that classifies the factors of forest loss
for the entire globe. It is a public dataset that processed satellite pictures of the entire globe from Google
Earth, allowing companies, nongovernmental organizations, and governments to “provide visibility on
deforestation risk” (p. 1). The five classifications include: commodity-driven deforestation, shifting
agriculture, forestry, wildfire, and urbanization, which are the causes of 99% of forest loss across the
globe (p. 2). The article provides a summary of the data in a chart (Table 1, p. 2), that shows how previous
studies on this issue (which used a sample to extrapolate the causes across the globe) were quite inaccurate,
and had deviation between different scientists, creating uncertainty in actual numbers. This new study
provides accurate data concerning the main causes to forest loss. The main point of this article was that
the 450 companies committed to zero deforestation within their supply chains could not identify
accordingly for two reasons. One was due to the complexity of supply chains, especially for larger
corporations who have unclear locations. And the other is, even if the location was known, the existing
data concerning the amount of deforestation was inaccurate. And this new data set will allow companies
to accurately target their efforts. It also opens up new discussions concerning the conservation,
restoration, and management of forest ecosystems.

Ecosystem conservation is a hot topic today, and this study comes in the perfect time. Along
with ecosystem conservation, recent studies have shown that deforestation has contributed to a
large amount of the global carbon emissions. Even though many companies have pledged to
stop the deforestation in order to produce goods, these policies will not succeed by 2020, which
is the goal of many of these companies (p. 3). And this study could be the key to increasing
these efforts, and helping humans reduce the growth of carbon emissions, and therefore slow
global warming.

This article does an amazing job at presenting the new data in a clear form, allowing it to be
interpreted without discrepancy. However, it should have been concise with some of the data
that the text presented. The tables and maps held all the data, and putting it within the text
lengthened the article a bit. I think that this made the article somewhat tedious in parts, and if it
was shortened, I would have had a bit less trouble reading. And finally, the first paragraph
stated that the locations of companies’ supply chains are not clear, preventing these companies
from discovering the actual source of their commodities, where they can focus their zero
deforestation efforts. The article did not follow up on this idea, as it did not provide a potential
solution. If the authors expanded and presented a resolution, it would have given me more
confidence that the deforestation prevention could be improved using this data.

People Are Now Taking Placebo Pills to Treat Themselves

Jordan Hoang

Mr.Ippolito

AP Biology

19 September 2018

Sifferlin, Alexandra. “People Are Now Taking Placebo Pills to Treat Themselves.” Time, Time, 23 Aug. 2018, http://time.com/5375724/placebo-bill-health-problems/

Placebo treatments- or pills with no active ingredients- have long been trialed in the medical world. In many cases, they have had surprisingly good results. One person named Linda Buonanno, for instance, had severe irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) and no medication or diet seemed to be helping her. However, after being given a few doses of a placebo pill through a trial, her symptoms vanished. Subsequently, after the trial had ended and she stopped taking it, “her IBS symptoms came back in full force for several years”. Doctors have hypothesized that the effectiveness of a treatment can be magnified by physiological aspects. Factors such as less stress, a good “bedside manner” (how a doctor treats the patient), and even the color of a pill have been known to increase the benefits of certain medications. In Buonanno case, just believing that the placebo pill had positive effects may have been the reason it was so effective. Scientists have also found that perceiving a condition negatively can intensify the severity of it. This is known as “the nocebo effect”, and is often displayed in those who claim to have intolerance for certain foods.  However, the legitimacy of placebos have been questioned, especially since it hasn’t been an ultimate cure for any disease. But despite this aspect, placebos have been known to improve the conditions of many suffering patients.

I resonate with a lot of points made in this article, which is why I ultimately chose to review it. I believe that how a person feels has astounding effects on their physical condition. I also know that psychological problems such as depression and anxiety have been known to aggravate other illnesses. For me personally, I know that when I am stressed, I tend to get more headaches and stomaches. In this sense, I believe that more placebos should be utilized, or at least tried, in the medical field. Although it might not be the right treatment for a patient, there is no harm in testing it out. Furthermore, like the article mentioned, I believe that more hospitals should “learn how to create an environment more conducive for healing” by targeting the mental health of the patient. Even if many scientists still don’t believe in placebos, I strongly believe that the emotional aspects of treatment can be very important.  

The title of the article really intrigued me and I found the topic to be very captivating. Over time however, the paper began to seem quite repetitive. I also believe it may have felt lengthy because of its lack of visuals. If they had used more pictures, I believe that they could have made the paper more appealing. Additionally, I think they could have organized the article better, possibly by sectioning each topic off with a subheading. This would have made it easier for me to grasp the information in the piece.  Despite its lack of visuals and organization though, I liked how the article had statistics and data to make their points convincing. Giving a lot of personal examples as well further validated the effectiveness of the pills and why more hospitals should take mental health into account.

Giant Trap is Deployed to Catch Plastic Littering the Pacific Ocean

Luke Freeman

Mr. Ippolito

AP Biology - Review #2

9/13/18

Caron, Christina. “Giant Trap Is Deployed to Catch Plastic Littering the Pacific Ocean.” The

New York Times, The New York Times, 9 Sept. 2018,

www.nytimes.com/2018/09/09/science/ocean-cleanup-great-pacific-garbage-patch.html

Christina Caron’s article, published by the New York Times, serves as a great explanation of the methods being tested to solve the ocean debris issue. In it, she describes the primary method: a 2,000 foot trap. Yes, after reading this, one might think that this method would be too simple to be effective, but that is the best part. Twenty million dollars worth of funding for development and research have been sunk into this project from the “Ocean Cleanup”, a nonprofit organization dedicated to fixing this issue. The “Great Pacific Garbage Patch”, as Caron puts it, is, “a gyre of trash between California and Hawaii, comprises an estimated 1.8 trillion pieces of scattered detritus, including at least 87,000 tons of plastic”. If all goes according to plan, by mid-October, this long trap will have been towed 1,400 miles to the garbage patch. Testing has concluded that the current should pull this large trap in a “U” shape through the debris, and with a net hanging ten feet below the surface, it should collect nearly all of the trash. The reader is assured that marine life will not be harmed as they can simply swim underneath. However, Caron does specify that this has not yet been tested on the open ocean, so it is unclear if this will end up being an effective means to “clean half of the garbage patch in just five years”, which is the goal. That being said, many scientists and sponsors of this project are decidedly optimistic, and predict a successful trial run.

This issue of humans poluting the water has been one since the dawn of the modern era. Anything dumped into a waterway likely will end up in the ocean, which then gets picked up in the currents and accumulated, forming this massive garbage patch. For scale and an explanation of the currents effect on this plastic, I have linked a relevant picture computer generated image at the end of this article (see bottom). This island of floating plastic has serious environmental concerns, as marine life often gets ensnared in the plastic or swallows bits and pieces, which is hazardous to their health. A study published in “The Telegraph”, a British newspaper, found that, “more than a million seabirds and 100,000 marine mammals every year by ingestion and entanglement,” which is in part due to the inability of most plastics to biodegrade. Some small fragments of plastic can end up in our seafood. This in turn causes the digestion of unwanted chemicals. Overall, this is a worldwide problem which needs to be solved, and I think this trap method is our best bet.

While reading Caron’s article, I found myself very captivated. Not only does she do an excellent job of setting up the context, she also goes in depth into the techniques and proposed plan of action of the “Ocean Cleanup” project. Her small paragraphs also serve to keep the points of interest quick, and concise, while keeping the article itself moving. Yet, she does miss some key points which is a clear flaw in the article, that being Caron neglects to mention the significance and environmental impact the garbage patch actually has. After reading this article, I had to look up some of the statistics on marine life death, as well as what that means for humans. Other than that, Caron’s article does serve its purpose in explaining the trap technique, but more explanation of the garbage patch itself would have elevated it to the next level.

Garbage Patch Image:

https://liveicomgrshot.blob.core.windows.net/occfiles/UploadedImages/News/75c25774-e0ad-4df1-a7e4-826727a942d0.jpg

New Brain Process Responsible for Long Term Stress Identified

Andrew Goldbaum CE1 9/13/18 C Even

Velasco, Emily. “New Brain Process Responsible for Long Term Stress Identified.” Neuroscience News, NeuroscienceNews.com, 13 Sept. 2018, neurosciencenews.com/long-term-stress-process-9862/.

Researchers at Semmelweis University of Budapest, the Swedish Karolinska Institute, Yale, and the Medical University of Vienna discovered a new brain process responsible for delayed stress and the long-term effects of stress: What’s already known is that a specific group of neurons triggers two processes in the hypothalamus (region involved in homeostasis, sleep, and emotions). Both processes occur almost immediately after stress and are short lasting, one ultimately releasing hormones in the blood from the adrenal glands, the other an immediate neural attachment to the prefrontal cortex (a behavioral moderation “center”). This international team has discovered a more delayed and long-lasting response coming from the same group of neurons responsible for the first two. Ciliary Neurotrophic Factor, a molecule crucial for nervous system development and maintenance, diffuses in brain fluid as it approaches stress neurons. Since diffusion in the brain fluid is slow compared that in blood, CNTF lingers in the fluid and approaches the stress center for a long time, keeping the prefrontal cortex alert. These findings are the missing piece of the puzzle of stress response: now that the nervous system aspect of long-term responses to consistent environmental threats is elucidated and since molecular pathways were introduced in this research that can be drug targets for pharmacologists, an opportunity has opened  to treat problems associated with long-term stress, such as PTSD, consistent acute stress, chronic stress and burnout.

Since it is no longer a given what our role in the world is (hunter or gatherer in a tribe) and agriculture and technology have given us more free time to stress over self esteem and achievement of some spiritual purpose, and since there is so much competition, fluctuation, and choice with regards to one’s job, hobbies, finance and relationships; life may be easier and more cushy than it was for our caveman ancestors, but it is also significantly more complicated and arbitrary. Therefore, despite more comfort and less threat of death, we now live an environment conducive to dysfunctional levels of long-term stress. We are a gift of natural selection, but for an environment that mainly existed millions of years ago. Due to a more humane, human-run world, natural selection no longer occurs, so we will have to find artificial selection methods for preferable traits. This, thus far, has produced CRISPR-CAS9 and other gene editing techniques, but even this is in vain if the brain is still a complicated frontier: if we did not even know about where and how this stress response occurs, then how could we have possibly targeted and replaced the genes responsible with healthy ones? Because of this, any elucidation of brain function such as this is not just novel for treatment, but for the artificial selection and improvement of our species in decades to come.

Overall, this is a very well-written summary of these new findings that is both easy to understand and substantive: it described the broad reason for a slower response, molecular diffusion in the brain being slower than in blood, without going into too much detail about advanced topics, such as the specific pathway of neurons and action potentials as well as what triggers these specific molecules. It also clearly elucidates the role and importance of this finding: new molecular mechanisms found and knowledge of how long term stress begins in the nervous system. However, to more clearly explain what leads to the difference in this mechanism from the same neurons, insight should be provided into what triggers the release of the molecule by those neurons.