Sam+Bryton

= Week 3: Biology OUTSIDE the Textbook = Let's be real. As Juniors, our lives are pretty crazy, and often we find ourselves learning just what we need to get by. It sounds bad, but its the truth. Ideally, we would have an endless amount of time to not only learn information, but to enjoy absorbing it. Personally, I think that our trip to J and J put a whole lot in perspective for me. Yes, we all know that Biology is "the study of life". But in a year as stressful and jam packed as this one, its sometimes hard to physically realize and picture Biology outside of text and diagrams in our textbook.

The amount of research that goes on daily is fascinating, and I can only imagine how great it must feel to know that the physical work that YOU are completing is helping someone ELSE. Believe me, I know that it takes a lot to get to that point, but as we all learned, it IS possible.

One slide in today's presentation specifically stood out to me; the one that tracked the process of discovering a problem all the way to creating and eventually putting into use a new drug. On average, it takes about 15-18 years to complete the process from start to finish. Crazy, right? I mean, I guess in some aspects that's good, since it ensures that what goes on the market is safe AND effective. However, since the process is so long, it made me wonder: are all of the effective drugs that COULD be created ACTUALLY being created? Or is there a backup/delay due to the tedious procedure to reach a final product?

Roger Stein created an awesome Ted Talk regarding this topic, focusing on one of the reasons why drug research is slower than it could be. He doesn't deny the fact that the various safety precautions cant be overlooked, but he notes how the funding for drug research is extremely behind; 20 years behind, to be exact.

Everyone has been affected by cancer one way or another, whether it be directly or indirectly. 1 in 2 men in the United States will be diagnosed with cancer in their lifetime, and for women, the odds are 1 in 3. Clearly, cancer research is not only important, but necessary.

After living as a smoker, his father was diagnosed with lung cancer in 2009. Luckily, he was saved due to his participation in a trial for a new, experimental drug. There's no doubt that this is an amazing feat. But there could be MORE stories like his father's. What we can't forget about is the amount of drugs that have been waiting to get to this stage, but can't because of a lack of funding. Imagine what these drugs could do and the advances that they could lead to, if only they had the chance/

=(him and his father) = Stein's main goal was to bring awareness to the necessity of drug research funding. So many people live with Cancer today, and he wants them to get an opportunity to become apart of trials like his father's. However, this can't be done if all drugs are stuck in the early stage of development.


 * So What's Needed? **
 * FUNDING!!! **

With an increase in funding, hopefully there would be an increase in drugs put out in the future. This doesn't mean that the safety precautions would be brushed over, but instead it would simply give many drugs the opportunity. Think about it. There are probably so many innovative, therapeutic creations out there stuck in a lab due to the simple lack of funds, and that's sad to think about.

Stein makes it clear that even though it is difficult to get all of the money needed, it IS out there, and it IS possible. As long as the awareness stays high, hopefully funding will increase and a higher rate of successful drugs will make it past that first stage,hopefully one day changing lives.

= Week 2: Could there actuall y be an ET? = As a whole, this week in class we have been focusing on Sustainability. There seems to be many opinions as to what, exactly, the definition of Sustainability really is. Here's my shot at one... with a little help fro m Google :)
 * The quality of not being harmful to the environment or depleting natural resources, and thereby supporting long-term ecological balance.

==== Throughout history, the possibility of life existing somewhere else other than earth has seemed like an unlikely fantasy. However, with today's technology, this once questionable possibility has now become a plausible reality. You might be wondering--- how does the study of Extraterrestrials have anything to do with what we are doing in class? In class, we have been studying the sustainability of various sites on Earth itself through the cataloging of macro invertebrates. Even though we did it on a small level (just Robbins Park), scientists perform this task every day all around the world to give an accurate depiction of how sustainable Earth really is. This brings up a question though--> are there other planets out there that contain Sustainability, and thus a balance of life and natural resources? ====

Growing up, many of us are instructed that life off of Earth is silly, and something we would see only in movies, like E.T. Technology is rapidly increasing, and in return, imprinting this rejection to other life into children's minds may be disadvantageous. These kids will one day turn into adults, and ultimately the next generation of scientists. They must be open minded to continue the investigations that are being initiated currently. After spending a year studying Biology, which is literally "the study of life", and also watching a Ted Talk on this topic, my opinion has begun to sway. The universe seems virtually endless, with over 100 billion galaxies in reach of our current telescopes (thats not a typo!!). In my opinion, it seems highly unlikely that we are the only ones out there.

https://www.ted.com/talks/seth_shostak_et_is_probably_out_there_get_ready

The Ted Talk featured Seth Shostak, who works at the SETI institute (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence). He went into depth in explaining many of the high-tech telescopes that are in use today. Specifically, one of these NASA's Kepler Space Telescope, which he predicted will help discover which planets are suitable for life. Recent studies show that about 1 in 1,000 planets in our galaxy are capable of life. This means that there are at least one billion planets in our OWN galaxy that are similar to Earth. Imagine how many more there are in the billions of other galaxies in the universe!

(Kepler Space Telescope)

Shostak predicted that we will come across a signal from other sources of life in the next two dozen years, which will lead to innumerable advances. He expects that the life that we will eventually come across will be millions of years ahead of Earth technology-wise. Even though it will be difficult to initially communicate with them, once we passed that barrier, we could learn so much from them. If they really are millions of years ahead of us, it would be beyond beneficial to learn basically what's good and what's not good--- what we should do to succeed, plus what to stray away from. We would be able to progress at a much faster rate with less huge mistakes and setbacks.

It still seems crazy and out of this world (literally), but it is our job as the next generation to keep open minds regarding these seemingly impossible ideas. The truth is, we don't know what's out there. We can't disregard the possibility of other life until we have evidence of its nonexistence. After all, Earth is only one planet, and there is an innumerable amount of planets in the universe. Does it really make sense that we are the ONLY living things out there?

= Week 1: Human Pheromone Research = I watched a few Ted Talks before deciding on the topic of Human Pheromones. This specifically stood out to me because in class, we've talked abut pheromones and their effects on many different species, but I never really thought about the possibility of them being an active force in humans. However, to relate it to this week in particular, my plant experiment tested Gibberellins, which is also a hormone. At this point in time, the existence Human Pheromones is a debated topic. While some people believe that pheromones do in fact play a role in our day to day lives, others think the opposite.

Here is the Ted Talk that I watched.

http://www.ted.com/talks/tristram_wyatt_the_smelly_mystery_of_the_human_pheromone#t-769707

The exact definition of pheromones is as follows: A chemical that is secreted by an animal, especially an insect, and that influences the behavior or development of others of the same species.



Typically, pheromones allow organisms to show aggression, territory marking, or to indicate willingness for copulation. At first glance, these actions don't jump out as applicable to humans, which is why for a while, scientists didn't even consider them. However, research shows that many mammals that are evolutionarily similar to humans such as monkeys, have pheromones. The fact that many other species as well such as mice, hamsters, and rats release this hormone, scientists decided not to discard the idea of it being present in humans anymore.

In the Ted Talk, Tristram Wyatt went into depth in providing evidence for pheromone presence. He noted that quite an important reason as to why pheromones exist in humans is because of the change in a person as they grow up. Throughout one's life, they smell quite different. A room filled with young children would most definitely smell much different than a room filled with a group of teenagers. Why? As a child reaches the years of puberty, pubic hair along with hair in the armpits causes new secretory glands which produce new hormones, in turn, causing a change in smell. However, the "bad" smell that is associated with armpits is not the secreted hormones themselves. Instead, it is the bacteria which lives in the hair, as they break down the products of the secretions.

A team in France, led by Benoist Schaal, researched the activity of pheromones between a mother and child. The picture labeled B displays a rod, with nothing placed on it, put under a sleeping baby's nose. In this case, they baby stay's fast asleep, with no sign of movement at all. On the other hand, in the picture labeled C, a rod with milk secretion from a woman's areolar glands was placed under the same baby's nose. This time, the reaction is visibly different. The infant is stimulated, opening its mouth and tongue, attempting to suckle. What is interesting about this experiment is that the milk wasn't from the baby's mother specifically. This implies that it really could be a pheromone causing this reaction, rather than just individual recognition.

Another interesting study was performed by Dr. Alex Comfort, which analyzed the changes in menstruation patterns over the past three centuries. In the early 1800's, menstruation began at an early age. However, during Victorian times (1830's through 1900), the age of menstruation raised significantly. This is because during this time period, males and females were separated for the most part to prevent them from mingling. When this time period ended, and the genders were allowed to mingle again, the menstruation age lowered significantly. As a result, there is now an idea that there is a significant correlation between menstruation age and contact with males, most likely since the males produce specific odors.

As a whole, human pheromones are still widely debated today. While there is quite some evidence supporting them, the ideas are not yet widely accepted. While many may only equate pheromones with a direct physiological response, that may not be the case for humans. For other organisms, pheromones and their processes are very black and white, while being easy to understand. Humans, on the other hand, are not that way. With the controversy put aside, if pheromones really do exist in humans, they must be extremely complex and interacting with many other systems in the body. This is another reason why it is so difficult to decide if a specific response in a human is due to a pheromone. Due to the human body being so complex, it is often virtually impossible to identify whether or not the stimulus is in fact a pheromone. However, research still continues in hopes to find answers to these questions.

__** So, what do you think? Human Pheromones-- Fact or Myth? **__