Scientists have recently discovered the tip of a girl's 40,000 year old pinky finger in a Siberian cave. Using advanced technology, they found out that modern humans have encountered at least two groups of ancient humans. They encountered the Neanderthals and the Denisovans The Neanderthals lived in Europe and Asia and the Denisovans lived in Asia. Both groups disappeared around the same time which was 30,000 years ago. Scientists have compared different genomes and have come to the conclusion that people outside of Africa have an average of 2.5% Neanderthal DNA, and people from parts of Oceania have about 5% Denisovan DNA. This is the result of modern humans interbreeding with the Neanderthals and the Denisovans. Scientists are trying to figure out where the mating took place, and are also trying to find out more information about the Denisovans.
Link: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/31/science/gains-in-dna-are-speeding-research-into-human-origins.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&ref=health
Do you find this article very interesting? Why or why not?
Tuesday, January 31, 2012
Unnatural selection: Is evolving reproductive technology ushering in a new age of eugenics?
Link: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/parenting/pregnancy/pregnancy-trends/unnatural-selection-is-evolving-reproductive-technology-ushering-in-a-new-age-of-eugenics/article2294636/singlepage/#articlecontent
Summary: Like the movie Gattaca, we are now moving into a time where people are able to make babies that have certain features. For instance, a couple could choose to have their baby be male, blue eyes and brown hair. Like in the movie, DNA readers a being made to read what traits the baby would have. The ability to have such power of a future child blurs the line between health and enhancement. However, with this technology, the world would be free of genetic diseases and other such problems. This defies the natural selection order, and it will be our next step in evolution.
Question: Should humans use the ability to defy natural selection?
Summary: Like the movie Gattaca, we are now moving into a time where people are able to make babies that have certain features. For instance, a couple could choose to have their baby be male, blue eyes and brown hair. Like in the movie, DNA readers a being made to read what traits the baby would have. The ability to have such power of a future child blurs the line between health and enhancement. However, with this technology, the world would be free of genetic diseases and other such problems. This defies the natural selection order, and it will be our next step in evolution.
Question: Should humans use the ability to defy natural selection?
No Transplant for Dying Illegal Immigrant Dad
Link: http://www.mercurynews.com/census/ci_19856536
Summary: This article features an Oakland man who is denied a kidney transplant because of his legal status as a citizen. According the the article, UC San Francisco Medical Center administrators are denying a transplant because they are afraid that the man would not receive enough care after the transplant. The man, Jesus Navarro, has private medical insurance, and his wife is willing to give up her kidney. Navarro has a wife, and a three year old daughter.
Question: Why pay for medical insurance, when one would be denied a transplant, due to their legal status? Do insurance companies do a background check for its insureds?
Summary: This article features an Oakland man who is denied a kidney transplant because of his legal status as a citizen. According the the article, UC San Francisco Medical Center administrators are denying a transplant because they are afraid that the man would not receive enough care after the transplant. The man, Jesus Navarro, has private medical insurance, and his wife is willing to give up her kidney. Navarro has a wife, and a three year old daughter.
Question: Why pay for medical insurance, when one would be denied a transplant, due to their legal status? Do insurance companies do a background check for its insureds?
Marion Cunnane- Bioethics of Human Engineering
Article:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4958965
Summary:
This article and podcast discuss the bioethics of human engineering. It discusses the advances in medicine and technology, giving us the ability to genetically alter things like height or weight. Also, it states how in the near future we will be able to fix our babies before they're born, if they have a deformity or a disease.
Question:
This article immediately brought me to question the fiscal impact of genetic engineering, how much will these processes cost?
Article:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4958965
Summary:
This article and podcast discuss the bioethics of human engineering. It discusses the advances in medicine and technology, giving us the ability to genetically alter things like height or weight. Also, it states how in the near future we will be able to fix our babies before they're born, if they have a deformity or a disease.
Question:
This article immediately brought me to question the fiscal impact of genetic engineering, how much will these processes cost?
Aerial Williams: Bioethics and Child Testing By: Jennifer Ludden
Summary:
Ever since 1981, children were allowed to participate in studies that determines whether or not a certain product or drug can be put out on the market. There are no age limits to whoever can participate, meaning that the younger they are, the harder it would be to explain them the risks of the product or drug. In order for a child to participate in a study, all there needs to be is the child's permission as well as the parent's. There has been regulations from both the Department of Health and Human Services and the Food and Drug Administration that makes sure that children are getting protected during those services.
Question:
Do you think that children that are between the ages of 5-7 years old should be allowed to participate in drug studies? Why or Why not?
Link:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4662113
Monkey Embryo Mashup Results In First Primate Chimeras
http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2012-01/monkey-embryo-mashup-results-first-primate-chimeras
Scientists in some lab have recently been able to create monkey chimeras (conceived with different sex cells ) using stem cells gathered from two different rhesus monkeys. By combining the stem cells while the monkey was still a zygote (early stage of an embryo) a chimera primate was born. A specific type of stem cell was needed for the chimera to be produced, totipotent cells. Totipotent cells have the possibility to form any cell of the body. The stem cells made in laboratories, pluripotent cells, do not have the same capibility. While pluripotent cells can form into cells a body can use, it cannot form a whole new animal as shown in the monkey chimera.
This experiment shows that grown stem cells are not the same as embryonic stem cells. If so, is it still ethical to to use embryonic stem cells in research? would it be ethical to create a human chimera?
Scientists in some lab have recently been able to create monkey chimeras (conceived with different sex cells ) using stem cells gathered from two different rhesus monkeys. By combining the stem cells while the monkey was still a zygote (early stage of an embryo) a chimera primate was born. A specific type of stem cell was needed for the chimera to be produced, totipotent cells. Totipotent cells have the possibility to form any cell of the body. The stem cells made in laboratories, pluripotent cells, do not have the same capibility. While pluripotent cells can form into cells a body can use, it cannot form a whole new animal as shown in the monkey chimera.
This experiment shows that grown stem cells are not the same as embryonic stem cells. If so, is it still ethical to to use embryonic stem cells in research? would it be ethical to create a human chimera?
Margaret Chu: Gingrich's Views on Stem-Cell Research
Margaret Chu
LINK:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/gingrich-vows-to-ban-embryonic-stem-cell-research-questions-in-vitro-practices/2012/01/29/gIQAIO9saQ_story.html?tid=pm_politics_pop
SUMMARY:
Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich explains why he is completely against stem-cell research. As a strict Catholic, Gingrich is against stem-cell research, a process by which multipurpose cells of embryos are used to help the sick (brain damage, bone marrow transplantations, etc.) Stem-cells are special because these are cells that can eventually develop into any type of cell (once a cell becomes a heart cell, a skin cell, etc, it can no longer become another type of cell). Gingrich vows that he would not allow or fund any more stem-cell research, even if the research is done on embryos that would eventually be thrown away.
QUESTION:
Do you think that it is ethical for doctors to possibly save someone else's life at the price of an embryo's life? Some claim that embryos are not humans because they have not developed yet, while others claim that an embryo is considered alive from the day that it was conceived. Is it fair to take away the life of an embryo, a possible human being in order to save the life of someone that has already lived?
NEWT GINGRICH'S VIEWS ON STEM-CELL RESEARCH
LINK:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/gingrich-vows-to-ban-embryonic-stem-cell-research-questions-in-vitro-practices/2012/01/29/gIQAIO9saQ_story.html?tid=pm_politics_pop
SUMMARY:
Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich explains why he is completely against stem-cell research. As a strict Catholic, Gingrich is against stem-cell research, a process by which multipurpose cells of embryos are used to help the sick (brain damage, bone marrow transplantations, etc.) Stem-cells are special because these are cells that can eventually develop into any type of cell (once a cell becomes a heart cell, a skin cell, etc, it can no longer become another type of cell). Gingrich vows that he would not allow or fund any more stem-cell research, even if the research is done on embryos that would eventually be thrown away.
QUESTION:
Do you think that it is ethical for doctors to possibly save someone else's life at the price of an embryo's life? Some claim that embryos are not humans because they have not developed yet, while others claim that an embryo is considered alive from the day that it was conceived. Is it fair to take away the life of an embryo, a possible human being in order to save the life of someone that has already lived?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)