Ian

= Week IV - Genetically Modified Organisms = For my final topic, I am choosing a issue that is certainly just as if not more re,event than most other debatable topics: genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Mrs. Lilliendahl has brought up the topic this past week in class for a brief moment when we discussed further methods of sustainability, and that got me thinking: are GMOs a step forward? Is it safe to expand the field of something we have so little true knowledge of so quickly? In class, we said that selecting the traits of these organisms can reduce biodiversity, which would ruin sustainability in the future. I had studied GMOs in the past, but it sounded like the opinion of them had drastically changed, and I wanted to dig for the truth. An article supporting what we discussed in class: http://www.gmo-journal.com/2011/06/17/loss-of-biodiversity-and-genetically-modified-crops/

To clarify, GMOs are usually fruits, vegetables, and animals raised for the purpose of having one or more traits that are "favorable" for their consumption or survival. This may be longevity, color, or thickness of a fruit for a specific plant. The main debate surrounding the use of GMOs is their safety. In the U.S., there are ZERO restrictions on HOW GMOs have to be produced or how they are labeled, which is a sore point for a multitude of individuals, especially because of the advances many European countries have made in regard to their restrictions. For this precise purpose, the Non-GMO project, a non-profit movement against the use of GMOs, was established in order to provide the people with  "North America’s only third party verification and labeling for Non-GMO (genetically modified organism) food and products." Up to eighty percent of our processed foods have been genetically modified, and by informing consumers of their possible unwanted side effects, a healthier and smarter America can be established the true mission of the Non-GMO Project. If interested, here is the information page for the project, which also gives a pretty good insight into GMOs in general.

Non-GMO Project

= Week III - The Virus That Could Destroy Us = media type="custom" key="23191972" align="center"

http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/28/health/france-coronavirus-death/index.html For those who may not be aware, good news! There's now an extra thing to worry about when it comes to global extermination! According to Margaret Chan, director-general of the World Health Organization (WHO), a branch of the United Nations, a new coronavirus is causing some somewhat major panic. This virus, for now dubbed "novel coronavirus," is similar in nature to the SARS virus, a coronavirus that saw its own epidemic in 2003. This new virus is thought to have originated in the Middle East, more specifically, in Saudi Arabia. As of May 28, 44 people had been diagnosed with the virus, and half of those individuals have died. A particular case involving a man in France brought the virus further into the spotlight after he died of organ failure as a result of the virus, making him the 23rd fatality.

The virus, now named "Middle East respiratory symptom coronavirus" ("MERS-CoV") causes cold-like respiratory symptoms, such as fever and cough, but can cause more severe illnesses such as pneumonia, kidney failure, and diarrhea. Researchers have not yet discovered how the virus is transmitted, but it appears that it is most prevalent in older men with some other illness. Cases have been identified in eight countries, one of which is not the United States, as of yet. However, the CDC has identified the virus, and its knowledge up to this point is posted here: http://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/mers/. This virus evokes the thought of the H1N1 Swine Flu of a couple summers back, and the magnitude of the issue, at this point, appears to be as serious, if not more serious. The immune response, which we studied in class, once identified, should help in preventing widespread devastation at the hand of this virus.

= Week II - Medical Imaging & Radiation =

Having one week of the wiki assignment under my belt, I selected the issue of radiation and medical imaging as my focus for the second. As the years have gone on and innumerable advances in medicine have been made, the same central group of medical imaging machines has been utilized by patients and doctors: MRI (magnetic resonance imaging), X-Ray, and CT Scan, to name the three most familiar. These machines still perform their desired function effectively, so why change their level of use in a negative way? Well, in addition to their increase in use, the public has also become increasingly aware of the radiation that these machines can give off to their users. While the amount of radiation per dose is not much, doctors are starting to think more about reducing any extra exposure whenever possible. This is extremely crucial after one is made aware of the results of one somewhat recent study, the findings of which were published in the New York Times: it was discovered that between the years of 1996-2010, CT scan use tripled, and MRI use quadrupled. As concerns grow in number related to cancer cases, one has to wonder: is it worth it? Should steps be taken to preventing cancer no matter what, or is it important to take a precautionary step or two to prevent further harm to one's self? Is there a middle-ground or balance that can be reached? We discussed the cell processes behind cancer when we studied both the cell cycle and cell-to-cell communication, but we really did not discuss the environmental factors behind cancer in great detail. Are there better places to reduce radiation or exposure to carcinogenic substances? I personally agree with the board of nine medical specialties mentioned in the same New York Times article, which called for a reduction of 45 commonly used tests and procedures. Many medical professionals are overusing such tests, and while, as I stated, the radiation is not much, continuing on the over-prescription trend in the future can only cause worse results.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/13/health/as-medical-imaging-rises-radiation-concerns-follow.html?_r=0

While what I previously stated about the above article is true, according to the article, some doctors are still rightfully hopeful about the advances in imaging technology, which they feel should be utilized to find injuries and diseases earlier in an effort to have a better patient prognosis. Lastly, the study in the article found that the use of CT Scans and MRIs peaked in 2007, which is a good sign for the future of the machines' use.

MRI (Open)

It was found that X-Rays, depending on the section of the body that is being scanned, can give off anywhere between .0002 and 1.1 mSv (milliSieverts, the metric unit of radiation dosage). CT scans can give off anywhere from .9 mSv to 32 mSv, with a full-body CT scan alone able to give off 20 mSv or more. Mammograms, commonly seen as a vital imaging procedure for women in the fight against breast cancer, can give off anywhere between .1 to .6 mSv.

X-Ray CT Scanner

For any further information and statistics from the same source: http://www.health.harvard.edu/newsletters/Harvard_Womens_Health_Watch/2010/October/radiation-risk-from-medical-imaging = =

= = = Week I - Neuro-Prosthetics =

For this, the first week of the wiki assignment, I have chosen to look into the topic of neuro-prosthetics. Neuro-prosthetics is an effort to create prosthetics, fake limbs or body parts, that can be controlled using brain signals. When someone loses control of a limb, a para- or quadriplegic, for example, they may gain an aesthetically pleasing limb that looks like their actual limb, but the function of such a limb can be relatively limited. By attempting to create artificial limbs that are controlled by brain signals, scientists can aim toward giving those individuals unfortunate enough to lose the use of a body part their independence back. The limb would function like a normal limb, like nothing had ever happened. In order to do this, researchers are attempting to record neuron signals in the brain, and hope to advance their studies within the coming years or decades. Having just learned about the neuron in class, I know that the neuron's method of signaling is complex, especially if there are the 40,000 to 50,000 simultaneous signals that scientists are hoping to see, and that neurons do not regenerate. Once a pathway is lost, such as after the loss of a limb and the pathway's subsequent disuse, it can be extremely difficult to recapture that function, and this invention is hopefully a gateway into the research that finally brings a solution to that issue.



The following video is an interview of Miguel Nicholelis, a neurobiology professor at Duke University, regarding his research into brain-machine interfaces, a field in which he is a pioneer. Nicholelis hopes to create an "exoskeleton," a suit that would be entirely controlled by brain signals for patients such as quadriplegics or those suffering from ALS. Also featured in the video is Francesco Clark, a man who is the epitome of scientific advances in regard to neurological research over the last ten years.

media type="custom" key="23070196" align="left" width="130" height="130"

As of right now, the most popular application of neuro-prosthetics is the cochlear implant, which enhances hearing for those who would be deaf otherwise. In relation to brain-machine interfacing, scientists continue to study separate nerve impulses in the brain in order to isolate the pathway for a specific function, such as raising an arm. While the research is young, and most advances are accomplished using cables, it is hoped that wireless signals can be utilized in the future. = =