Treating Diabetes May Be as Simple as Growing a New Pancreas.

Anabel Maldonado

Ippolito C Even

Current Event #3

September 23rd, 2018

“Treating Diabetes May Be as Simple as Growing a New Pancreas.” Scientific American, SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, A DIVISION OF SPRINGER NATURE AMERICA, INC., 12 Sept. 2018, www.scientificamerican.com/custom-media/mount-sinai/treating-diabetes/.

Diabetes is an illness that about 9.6% of our country faces. It is possible that these millions of people’s lives can change with upcoming research. Several decades ago, two scientists: Yalow and Berson, discovered techniques to measure the insulin levels in people's blood which ultimately told them that “type 1 diabetes is characterized by insulin deficiency while type 2 diabetes results from insulin resistance.”(Scientific American states). After 60 years have passed, two unique and technologically advanced experiments have come out. Two researchers: Levy and Stewarts have created two possible cures that will impact the lives who suffer from diabetes.  Levy created an artificial pancreas to fix diabetic problems. He explains that his creation would pair with sensors in our body which would send instructions to the insulin pump - which has the ability to alter our blood sugar levels. These instructions would be able to instruct the insulin pumps to release more or less insulin which ultimately results in the blood sugars increasing or decreasing. On the other hand, Stewart is experimenting with new drugs which are trying to create new beta insulin-producing cells for the pancreas of diabetic patients (because the cells in diabetic pancreas’ are not present). Stewart was  able to make adjustments to his pills by researching inactive pancreatic cells in tumors as a “roadmap” to uncover the needs to make new beta cells which make insulin and grow.

Both of these research experiments are very relevant to our everyday lives. Diabetes is a problem for about 420 million people in our world. These 420 million people's lives are altered towards their disease, as some face death, constantly change their diets or take many shots in one day. The purpose of these new experiments is to reduce these burdens that are faced by the 420 million people face.  In fact, many individuals are already intrigued by these upcoming inventions. The artificial pancreas trials have been taking place for the past year. While, Stewarts’ experiment is testing their new pills, which may be able to be used in the next 5-10 years.

One thing I think the author could have approved upon was introducing the different scientists: Levy and Stewarts because I did not know who they were until I researched them in depth. I, also, did not like how the author transitioned from the two different experiments. I was very confused at first because I originally thought that this article was speaking about one experiment, yet I later realized it spoke about two. However, I really admired the way the author explained how the artificial pancreas works within, and why these pills are needed only for diabetic people. Also, the authors’ title drew my attention because it was unique and made me question how “Growing a New Pancreas” can treat diabetes. One thing I think the author could improve upon is talking more about the future plans of these medications and how they are impacting our society in a new way. Overall, though, I really enjoyed this article because it is a possible solution for something that our world struggles severely with.

Alyssa Lee

Mr. Ippolito

Current Event #3

9/5/18

“Octopuses given Mood Drug 'Ecstasy' Reveal Genetic Link to Evolution of Social Behaviors in Humans.” ScienceDaily, ScienceDaily, 20 Sept. 2018, www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/09/180920175206.htm.

Evolution is an intriguing field of science- not only because it tracks the incredible adaptations of organisms to their environments over time, but also the fact that we can uncover links between two species that are seemingly completely unrelated. Such is the case in the experiments of Dr. Gül Dölen, assistant professor at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, and his colleague Dr. Eric Edsinger from the Marine Biological Laboratory in Massachusetts. Dölen recently conducted an experiment to test his hypothesis that octopuses are distant relatives of human beings. Octopuses are supposedly rather antisocial creatures and tend to avoid contact with any live beings, including other octopuses (with the exception of mating, although even then octopuses tend to return to their solitude after ensuring the inheritance of their genes). This runs contrary to the ways in which human beings, who require bonding and physical contact with others, tend to behave. Nevertheless, Dölen surmised that there may be similarities between social behavior caused by neurotransmitters, or “signals that neurons pass between each other to communicate”, of both species. Upon examination, they found that the genomic sequence for the transporter binding serotonin, a neurotransmitter that regulates mood, to the neuron is nearly identical in the California two-spot octopus and human beings. Thus, the two researchers set up an experiment to test their hypothesis- they filled three chambers, one that only contained water, one that contained an action figure beneath a cage, and one that contained a lab-bred male or female octopus beneath a cage. They connected these three chambers and added liquified MDMA (a.k.a. “Ecstasy”, a drug that induces heightened sensation, energy, and pleasure in humans) to the control beakers where the octopuses were first placed. Without adding MDMA, the octopuses tended to stay away from the caged octopus. The results of the experiments were profound- all four octopuses that acted as test subjects were drawn to the chamber with the caged octopus and demonstrated unusually affectionate behavior such as hugging and “putting their mouth parts on the cage”. This was especially shocking behavior because it demonstrated that at one point along the evolutionary spectrum, octopuses evolved along the same lines as human beings did (in terms of social behavior). This may open up the possibility for future studies in the same field, as we now realize that there could be many evolutionary links between species that were previously thought to be have evolved separately.

These findings are extremely important to the field of evolution because they have introduced the possibility that we as humans are far more entwined with other species along the path of evolution than we had once believed. If we are indeed genetically related to octopuses- a species that could not seem any more different from humans- then who is to say that we are not distant relatives of beetles or birds? This could lead to a whole new study examining different facets in which human beings could be related to other species, a study that could possibly turn our knowledge of evolution on its head. Scientists could examine a variety of new possible links between organisms as seemingly different from one another as fish and elephants. The results of these sorts of experiments could also aid us in explaining our physical, mental, and physiological developments and behaviors when compared to those of other organisms. Perhaps most importantly, this experiment provides further evidence (albeit perhaps not completely concrete evidence without the input of other researchers) of the digression of evolution, or its tendency to favor branching and multiple evolutionary pathways rather than being a more linear process. It helps us to gain greater understanding as to the ways in which human beings have evolved over time, and how, even despite our physical appearances, organisms that are as advanced along the evolutionary process as human beings could share a common ancestor with organisms as formless and gelatinous as octopuses.

This article is particularly strong because it clearly and concisely explains the specifics of the experiments as well as the science behind it- for example, it describes the basic layout of the experiment with the three chambers, and explains the scientists’ motives for conducting it (i.e. to test their hypothesis that stated that octopuses and human beings shared a remarkably similar genomic code in social behavior, specifically for serotonin receptors). There is little to no confusion as to how and why the researchers made the conclusions that they did based on the results of their experiment, and the article states the information in a way that makes the steps seem logical and rather easy to follow. Despite these strengths, there are a few weaknesses in this article as well as the experiment. In terms of the article itself, there are some issues that the author should address- for example, the author did not explain what MDMA was, and for readers that did not know what the acronym was referring to, the final connection between humans and octopuses would not make sense to them. I myself did not understand until I researched in more depth and found that “ecstasy” and MDMA were referring to the same drug. Additionally, the author did not explain why the octopuses tended to avoid only male octopuses, and this was my main source of confusion while reading this article. Although the reader could assume that males were avoided because the test subjects were male, this conclusion is uncertain and so the author could benefit from explaining exactly why male octopuses were more likely to be avoided than females (especially if some of the test subjects were female octopuses).

The Environment's New Clothes: Biodegradable Textiles Grown from Live Organisms

Alisa Kanganis

AP Biology

Current Event 3

September 22, 2018

Cirino, Erica. “The Environment's New Clothes: Biodegradable Textiles Grown from Live

Organisms.” Scientific American, 14 Sept. 2018, www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-environments-new-clothes-biodegradable-textiles-grown-from-live-organisms/.

This article by Erica Cirino touches upon one of the most wasteful and environmentally damaging industries in the United States - fashion.  In 2014 alone, discarded clothing made up about 9% of all municipal solid waste in the U.S., and not only does clothing create immense amounts of waste, but it also contributes significantly to greenhouse gas emissions and water pollution. However, as we become more environmentally aware researchers are trying to combat this issue, and the solution could be live organisms. Today, most fast-produced clothing is woven with plastic-based acrylic, polyester, and nylon, which are chemically produced and nonbiodegradable. Using living organisms, however, we can produce clothing that is biodegradable and consequently, can greatly reduce pollution. Regarding production, Theanne Schiros, assistant professor in the math and science department at the Fashion Institute of Technology in New York City, says, “First, a sugar called alginate is derived from kelp—a multicellular algal seaweed—and powdered. Next, the alginate powder is turned into a water-based gel, to which plant-based color (such as carrot juice) is added. Finally, the gel is extruded into long strands of fiber that can be woven into a fabric.”

While it may be years before these bioengineered textiles are produced for consumer markets, the benefits greatly outweigh the challenge. As of now, it is very expensive to create these clothes. For instance, a bioengineered scarf costs $139 dollars while a conventionally produced scarf costs only $10. Making the textiles durable and long-lasting is also another challenge researchers face. Despite that, if we do accomplish affordable and durable bioengineered clothing, waste can be cut down enormously as the organisms can be fit into molds so only the precise amount of textiles is produced. It would also aid the elimination of the 2,400 chemicals found in finished conventional clothing, according to the Swedish Chemicals Agency. While this would not solve all our problems, it is one way that we can push our Earth towards a healthier future.

I thought this article was very well written and informative. I appreciated how the author made it concise while still including enough detail to leave the reader with a good understanding of bioengineered clothing. I do, however, wish the author wrote more about how exactly this method of production will eventually make it to consumer markets and the impact it would have on factories and their workers. It would have also been helpful if the author included more statistics to support her claims. Other than that I thoroughly enjoyed this article.

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.