Rafi

~WEEK 4

I found a very disturbing article. To start things off, read this quote: "Mom gave a blood sample. Dad spit. The entire genome of their fetus was born." This quote is the first line of the article, and it really captured my attention. Now, with science's modern technology, geneticists can construct a baby's entire genome just from taking a blood test from the mother and a saliva sample from the father. This concept captivated me for a number of reasons, as listed below. Also, I want this issue to be open for debate, so please state your opinion in the comments section. :)

1.) First of all, it's amazing what science is capable of at this point, but such a "revolutionary" idea can pose some ethical concerns, as can many topics in the world of science. Eventually, the parents will conduct these tests to determine what diseases the baby will be susceptible to, and if the baby's conditions are unfavorable, then they have the ability to kill it prematurely. The video mentioned that the test can determine the baby's vulnerability to over 3,000 diseases. Also, as many already know, scientists can conduct tests to determine the baby's sex. But now, they can also determine more specific details, such as eye color, hair color, height, weight, etc. And with our knowledge increasing every day at such a remarkable rate, one day we may even be able to determine the baby's intelligence or how well they will perform on tests. This almost gives us a look into the future, as though we can completely assess the baby's skills and disabilities. My question to you all is: do you think it's right for us to be granted this clairvoyance? What gives us the right to know everything, to be omniscient?

2.) This concept may hinder biological diversity. Diversity is when random mating takes place and there is genetic variation amongst all organisms due to crossing over (during Prophase I of meiosis). However, when humans start picking and choosing whatever traits they deem most favorable, this completely negates all randomness in fertilization. Now, we are able to select for our babies whatever we want, so there is nothing random about it. It is similar to customizing a pair of shoes: you can change the color, the size, the laces, the design, etc. Of course, selecting a pair of shoes at random from a shoe store would be impractical, but in the world of biology, this is necessary. It seems like with all these new discoveries and technologies that humans are developing, we are also positioning ways for us to hurt ourselves in various ways. Almost every scientific breakthrough nowadays has its drawbacks, something that makes it imperfect, which is why science must always be prudent and patient in such affairs.

3.) Do you think such testing is a waste of money? I sure do. The article states that the cost for such advanced genome sequencing is approximately $50,000. In the past, the cost used to be much higher, and now it is gradually dropping. Yet, the cost of such a test is unbelievably high, and I cannot understand why anyone would go to such desperate measures to determine their baby's entire life. Personally, I would be perfectly fine with waiting for a baby that I know nothing about. Randomness is not always a bad thing, and it's unwise to be so pessimistic about the future. What you get is what you get. We should learn to accept that and stop hoping for something better. After all, people for the past thousands of years have been doing just that. What about those who ended up with deformed or diseased babies? How do you think they dealt with such misfortune? There's a point at which we must appreciate whatever we are given, no matter how faulty it may be, because there are others who cannot even produce babies at all, much less take care of them once they are born. It is our duty to respect all life, no matter how small, unfamiliar, or flawed it may appear.

Here is the article. As I mentioned, I intended for this post to be open for discussion, so don't hesitate to post your opinions! []



        <span style="background-color: #e1e0e0; color: #ff8a00; display: block; font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 200%; text-align: left;">~WEEK 3



<span style="color: #008080; font-family: 'Arial Black',Gadget,sans-serif; font-size: 110%;">This Thursday, when we all went to Robbins' Park, we got the change to not only conduct tests that yielded interesting results, but we were also able to witness the beauty of the surrounding environment! As I'm sure you all noticed, there were a lot of butterflies flying around, and Ross even caught one! After overcoming my jealousy of Ross's accomplishment, I began wondering what the significance of butterflies is in natural environments. As many of you probably already know, butterflies have a rolled-up tongue called a proboscis (those of you who take Spanish probably know this very well!) which is used to suck up nectar from flowers. While it does this, pollen from the flower accidentally rubs up on the butterfly's body, and is thereby spread to other flowers to pollinate them as the butterfly flies about. Therefore, the presence of butterflies in an environment can be indicative of a healthy ecosystem. From the tests we conducted in the lakes, our data helped us determine that the lakes were "unhealthy". While this may be true, it doesn't necessarily mean the ENTIRE ecosystem is "unhealthy". I also did some additional research on butterflies, because I have a newfound obsession with them, and discovered that they also provide food for other organisms in the environment. Butterflies, with their interesting growth stages, produce eggs that provide food for ants. Other insects and birds feed on the butterfly larvae. And the caterpillar form can be eaten by scorpions, ants, and birds. Evidently, butterflies have a massive impact on ecosystems. Moreover, it has been proven that increased butterfly populations can lead to increased plant diversity, since they aid in pollination. Now, here are some pictures of beautiful butterflies. We didn't see any extravagant ones at Robbins' Park; we mainly saw the plain white ones. Also, I provided links from where I obtained all the information mentioned above. Enjoy! [] []

<span style="background-color: #e1e0e0; color: #ff8a00; font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 170%;">~WEEK 2

<span style="color: #19de19; font-family: 'Arial Black',Gadget,sans-serif; font-size: 120%;">In the world of science today, it is not always easy to design and exploit a specific experiment, achieve results, and then proceed to share these findings with the rest of the world. One of the factors that makes such an achievement so unlikely is the competition and corporate greed that sometimes envelopes the minds of modern scientists. As Mrs. Lil mentioned in class on Thursday this past week, science sometimes depends on (free) collaboration and sharing, rather than competition that may only deter us from making new discoveries. One of the primary goals of science is, on the whole, to learn as much as we can about the natural world in order to provide for the rest of humanity. However, some scientists obsess over the fame and fortune that will ensue after making groundbreaking discoveries. This corrupts the minds of scientists and negates science's benevolent intentions, because the scientists will be solely focused on providing for themselves in terms of money and glory rather than providing for humanity and its well-being.

<span style="color: #008080; font-family: 'Arial Black',Gadget,sans-serif; font-size: 120%;">A modern, real example of this is the concept of gene patenting. If you have the time, read this brief article written by Michael Crichton: http://michaelcrichton.net/essay-nytimes-patentinglife.html <span style="color: #008080; font-family: 'Arial Black',Gadget,sans-serif; font-size: 120%;">Crichton is one of my favorite science-fiction authors because he is extremely intelligent, yet fervidly expresses his opinions on the ethics and morals of science. Anyway, the article, called "Patenting Life", describes the cons of gene patenting, stating how it severely exacerbates the costs of genetic tests, withholds information about your own body, and generally slows medical research and progress. I agree full-heartedly with this, and not only because I am bias toward agreeing with everything Michael Crichton says. :D While some may argue that it provides the scientist with more money to conduct research, it is not as beneficial to the rest of humanity in that it costs them unnecessary amounts of money to learn about themselves, which I find incredibly odd. Humans deserve the right to know about their own compositions, free of charge, and free from the oppression of greedy scientists. And speaking of greedy scientists, this all relates back to what I was discussing earlier: the greed and corruption that is apparent in the world of science today. Who knows, what if the "benevolent scientist trying to conduct further research" ends up only caring about his own economic prosperity? Gene patenting denies humans their freedom of knowledge to help a single scientist or company that may not even be reliable. It makes more sense to distribute our wealth more evenly in order to better our chances of making vital discoveries. All in all, gene patenting is one of the distinct examples of the corruption in the modern world of science. I'm not saying that all scientists are corrupt in this way, but there are definitely a good amount of them around the world. How many times have you heard of students who plan on pursuing "something related to science" because they want to make the most money? I've heard this on numerous occasions, and find that it is a major problem of science today.

<span style="background-color: #e1e0e0; color: #ff8a00; display: block; font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 200%; text-align: left;">~WEEK 1

media type="custom" key="18624092" In the video Mrs. Lil showed us today (Friday), it stated that by the year 2013, modern technology may be able to produce a computer that is more complicated than the human brain. Upon hearing this, my mind was absolutely blown!!! Up until this point, I had always thought that the human brain was the most complex structure in the universe. There is a lot that we already know about the human bran: how it is composed of cells called neurons, how it is divided up into separate sections that each have a specific function, how it receives stimuli and formulates a reaction, etc. However, there are still many mysteries: how does the subconscious mind function? What is the basis of intelligence? Why do humans dream, and how can we sometimes simulate the future through our dreams? Here is an article that gives examples of things mankind has yet to understand about the human brain. It helps convey the true complexity of the brain and how difficult it would be to construct a simulation of it. [] Evidently, there is far more to understand about the brain than what we currently do. Now, after hearing that technologists will be able to produce a computer as complicated as the human brain in approximately one year, I am completely taken aback. This cannot be possible. How can we re-create something that we don't even thoroughly understand? It is much too far-fetched.

For now, we can assess some of the pros and cons that could come about if technologists WERE in fact able to create a human brain computer. Let's start with the pros (because we're happy people :D ).

First of all, it may lead to a more efficient society. This may be a controversial suggestion, but it has some basis behind it as well. Typically, the human brain is drastically affected by many things, such as past experiences, desires, emotions, and opinions. Sometimes such things cause us to think narrow-mindedly or even irrationally. For instance, let's evaluate greed. Greed is what drives people to wanting to gain money, through whatever means possible. While it may motivate them to work harder, it may also lead them to make foolish, illogical decisions such as stealing. In the world-famous book __Jurassic Park__ by Michael Crichton, Dr. John Hammond is the geneticist behind bringing back extinct dinosaur species. He extracted DNA from ancient mosquitoes that were fossilized in amber (he probably used PCR!!!). After such a revolutionary scientific breakthrough, the only thing on Dr. Hammond's mind is money. This is unfortunate, because it compels him to convert his island into a petty amusement park to open to the public. Blinded by his greed, Hammond forgets that his island poses highly dangerous and destructive life forms that won't hesitate to attack the human guests. Ultimately, (SPOILER ALERT!!!) the dinosaurs break free from their restricted boundaries and kill nearly every person on the island. My point in describing all this is that Dr. Hammond's mind had been manipulated by imprudent desires and greed. If he had ignored these human impulses, then he may have not been destined for such a terrible fate. Surprisingly enough, this way of thinking is not uncommon; many people today are also corrupted by such selfish longings. However, a computer is not. A computer cannot be influenced by past experiences, because it has none. It cannot express any type of emotion, because it does not have feelings or sensations. It cannot possess any opinion, because it solely focuses on fact. What does this mean? This means that a computer, with the same structural complexity of a human brain, may be even more functional than its counterpart.

Another example of a situation exemplifying human error is when someone becomes angry. Anger is a human emotion. When someone stubs their toe on the door as they are walking into Biology class, they may become infuriated and perhaps curse aloud. Afterward, the person will remain bitter due to the pain. They may even take their anger out on someone nearby, such as Mrs. Lil, by insulting them or blaming them. This is completely irrational. Poor Mrs. Lil was in no way responsible, yet she suffered the consequences. Again, this would never happen with a computer. The computer does not have sensory mechanisms; it cannot become angry or express joy or be offended. It's an inanimate object, just like a table. It's not going to transform into the Hulk and start destroying things (HULK SMASH!!!!) Clearly, emotions can greatly influence a person's thinking. Some of the most common things we say: "I hate this song!", "I want that phone so bad!", "What's your problem?" all demonstrate our emotions affecting the way we perceive things and how we behave. A computer is free of all this external influence. This is a great benefit of a computerized human brain.

Additionally, a computerized human brain could lead to a more functional society in that it would refrain from being biased. As Obrad was saying to me today, a teacher can sometimes have bias and grade a particular student's essay more harshly due to a disliking for the student. Or maybe the teacher was having a bad day, and subconsciously graded harder. In fact, some teachers can go so far as to be entirely influenced by his or her current conditions. I was reading a biography about one of my favorite authors, Michael Crichton, and it said that while he was attending Harvard, he at one point decided to drop out because of the school's lack of efficiency. When completing one of the term's final essays, he decided he would rather not put the time and effort into writing an essay that he knew would not count, since he would be dropping out soon anyway. So, he decided to plagiarize (Mrs. Malatack would NOT approve!!!) and submitted an essay completed by George Orwell, a famous, renowned author. Somehow, when he received his grade for the essay, he ended up with a B-. This astounded Crichton and did not many any sense to him. On other accounts, I have heard of students who have submitted the same EXACT essays from students from the past, to the same EXACT teacher, and received different grades. How is this possible? Nothing changed, except the student. This just goes to show how teachers may have different attitudes when grading a paper due to the way they perceive a particular student. This is bias, and it is a huge problem in society. Once again, the computer would not be subject to such issues.

Now, let's move on to some of the cons. I personally believe that this is not a good idea, despite how much I have been supporting it up until now. Well, here is why I disagree. Let's say for the sake of argument that the scientists were successful in creating the brain-based computer. What would be its purpose? Would scientists only exploit this to show what they're capable of? Probably not. They would use it to program it to perform daily tasks that are seen as a hassle to humans, to perform tasks such as taking out the trash, cleaning the dishes, or, as mentioned before, grading an essay. Before we know it, everything we are accustomed to doing will be done by something else. This is derived from human laziness. Our laziness compels us to seek the "easy way out." We always want to simplify our workload and have someone or SOMETHING doing everything for us. Eventually, our world becomes one of those fictional, futuristic dystopias : robots take over and humans are rendered powerless. This may sound ridiculous, but it's completely possible. The only difference is that it does happen against our will, but rather, we are the ones enforcing it, supporting it, causing it. We WANT the robots to do our work for us. What is the outcome? A society where no one knows how to do work and depends entirely upon computers and robots to think for us. The day this becomes a reality is the day mankind achieves failure. It's no wonder obesity rate is drastically increasing each year. It is almost similar to the movie Wall-E, where the entire human species was overweight and did nothing but watch movies all day, while computers and robots bathed them and changes their clothes as though they were babies. I personally am disgusted with this prospect. I try my best to be proactive and depend on nobody but myself. Why would I want other people or appliances caring for me as though I were incapable? Yet there are scientists out there who are thrilled by this same prospect. They see it as "technological advancement" or "movement toward efficiency." Does efficiency mean being helpless, incapable, utterly dependent? No; efficiency means being smart and effective. This idea is neither smart nor effective.

While there is much more I would like to discuss on this topic, I will limit it to this to alleviate Mrs. Lil's workload. :) Hopefully this has sparked some interest and caused you guys to formulate some opinions of your own. Feel free to comment with a response or a rebuttal to anything I have mentioned. Thanks for reading, everybody!!! :D <span style="background-color: #e1e0e0; color: #ff8a00; display: block; font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 200%; height: 1px; left: -40px; overflow: hidden; position: absolute; text-align: left; top: 1272.5px; width: 1px;">WEEK 1