Hormone Replacement Therapy

When women reach menopause, there is a decline in their sex hormones such as estrogen and progesterone which causes various symptoms such as the mood swings, hot flashes, insomnia, decline in bone density, urinary tract infection and etc. This is where hormone replacement therapy is used to replace these hormones. Hormone replacement therapy is replaces the sex hormones the body no longer produces and by doing so, hormone replacement therapy relieves the symptoms of menopause.

The benefits sound good but the problem is that HRT has side effects as well. It’s difficult to say whether the costs of HRT outweigh the benefits or the other way around. Data have shown that hormone replacement therapy increases the risk of conditions such as heart disease, stroke, blood clots, and breast cancer. Yet, other than the relief of menopausal symptoms, hormone replacement has benefits such as maintaining skin collagen levels due to increased estrogen levels, fighting against osteoporosis, and boosting short-term memory.

In my opinion, choosing to do hormone replacement therapy depends on the patient’s condition and health history as well. For instance, the benefits may outweigh the risks if the menopausal symptoms are severe and they really interfere with daily life. In that case, if the women are healthy, HRT may work great for them and relieve them of the burden of their symptoms. Also, hormone replacement therapy may be beneficial to women with severe loss of bone mass (osteoporosis).  However, women who are not in good health or have reached menopause at a later age in their life, hormone therapy may have more risks than benefits and they should find alternative options.Because of the side effects, I think that hormone replacement therapy would not be healthy however if used over a long term. The body naturally stops producing the sex hormones, so by synthetically increasing them, the homoeostasis of the body would be affected. 

I believe that in the future more risks and side effects with the hormone replacement therapy may be discovered. People are becoming more educated about the consequences/ side-effects of health related procedures and that's another reason that less women might choose hormone replacement therapy in the future. However, this may cause scientists to research healthier solutions to help with hormone imbalances.

Psychopaths

We are afraid of psychopaths because they have no qualms about hurting other people. Discuss.

I agree with this statement. I think what makes psychopaths so scary is that they are unpredictable and it's hard to know what's going on in their mind. We are also afraid of psychopaths because they have a higher potential to cause harm because they are fearless and have no emotional attachment to others. Therefore they are capable of actions that other people are not capable of. (For example, like the man who murdered women and made furnitures with their skin). In addition, they are so difficult to detect as they are very good manipulators and have strong logic skills. For instance, a lot of criminals have psychopathic traits which means that they have a higher chance of being released from jail due to their masterful manipulation. Furthermore, psychopathy is an incurable mental illness and it is not possible to change the behaviour of psychopaths which is also a reason that makes them scary. Psychopaths are able to easily blend in with other people so we are scared of the fact that there are psychopaths around us that we are not aware of and we are also afraid to be a victim of their manipulation.

I also think that part of our fear of psychopaths comes from the way they psychopaths are always portrayed as violent in movies and media. It's true that psychopaths can easily become violent due to their lack of empathy for others, but most psychopaths don't act violent for no reason. As discussed in class, it's important to note that not everyone with psychopathic traits is a criminal or a violent person.

Parkinson's Disease

Treatment for Parkinson disease often hinder impulse control in human, therefore patients living with Parkinson disease should NOT be medicated.  Agree or disagree?  

I disagree with this statement. Parkinson’s disease is progressive, which means it gets worse over time. Medications help improve symptoms and therefore they should be used for Parkinson's disease because without them, over time the symptoms of Parkinson's disease would become severe. Although the medications have side effects such as hindering impulse control and muscle spasms, they can relieve or control many symptoms of the disease. Therefore, the benefits of medication outweigh the side effects. 

The muscle spasms and the lack of motor control (the condition known as Dyskinesia) are a main side effect of the most widely used and successful Parkinson's drug called carbidopa-levodopa (also called L-dopa). Parkinson’s disease is caused by the slow deterioration of the nerve cells in the brain, which create dopamine, a natural substance found in the brain that helps control muscle movement throughout the body. In order to increase dopamine, the goal of L-dopa drug is to converted to dopamine in the brain. Treatment with drugs is usually started when symptoms become disabling or disrupt a person's daily activities.  

L-dopa is just one of the drugs used for Parkinson's disease; there are other medications depending on the patient's condition and the stage of the disease. There is no cure for Parkinson's disease yet, so medication is the only hope for patients to cope with their disease.With medication, the patient would have a chance to perform their daily tasks with a bit more ease and this can increase the quality of the patient's life. There is not evidence strong enough to justify avoiding a treatment that is highly effective for most people. In most cases, medication for Parkinson disease is recommended once the symptoms are severe enough to interfere with daily living.

Sleep..

High school students are sleep deprived, therefore less homework should be assigned to them. Agree or Disagree?

It's quite hard to choose a side for this question... I could definitely use more sleep and less homework... On one hand, I want to blame my lack of sleep on homework; but I also know that homework is essential for student success, especially high school students. So I think there are two sides to this issue.  

One reason homework is good, is that teenagers are generally easily distracted and they are not disciplined enough to do all the studying by themselves if no homework was assigned. Therefore, students need enough homework to understand and learn the lessons and prepare for tests. For instance, if I didn't receive all that load of math homework to practice, I would have probably failed my tests. Furthermore, homework is not the only factor that results in sleep deprivation in students. As mentioned, we students are very distracted (by things such as social media, Internet, TV, etc.) and sometimes a simple task takes longer than it should to complete because we don’t yet have the time management skills. Hence, we end up not finishing our homework on time and pulling an all-nighter.

While I believe that homework is very beneficial, I think that maybe some areas of daily homework should be lessened. For instance, sometimes certain assignments and projects are too time consuming and have unnecessary aspects that don’t really relate to the topic being studied in class; such as making the assignment “pretty” or doing a project on something that does not contribute to the understanding of important topics. For example, sometimes I finish the most important part of the project, which is research and application, but spend a vast amount of time on making a poster. In this case, I feel that part of the project could be cut as students would have a chance of just focusing on the application and purpose of the project itself and not the unnecessary time consuming parts. In addition, another problem is the distribution of the homework load and not necessarily the amount. Often teachers assign a large load of homework at once. Personally, I have that one week (each month) when everything is due from all my four courses which then of course leaves me sleep deprived.

It's especially important for youth to get enough sleep. So I think if teachers try to distribute the load of homework as evenly as possible and negotiate deadlines with students, then students would not be sleep deprived (or not as much) and they would still receive the amount of homework needed for success.

        

                                                            

The Cancer Genome: Chemotherapy

Chemotherapy is one of the most widely used methods that is used to treat cancer. Chemotherapy drugs target cancer cells and destruct and slow down their spread.
                                 

Advantages:

• Remission of cancer cells.
• Delays the recurrence of cancer. 
• Slows down cancer progression: chemotherapy keeps cancer from spreading, slows its growth, or destroys cancer cells that have spread to other parts of the body. 
• Relieves patients of caner symptoms: chemotherapy shrinks tumours that are causing pain or pressure. 
• Chemotherapy prolongs life span of patients by slowing down the spread of cancer cells and often remission of cancer which allows patients to get back to their normal lives. 

Disadvantages: 

• Chemotherapy has various side effects: hair loss, nausea/vomiting, fatigue, neutropenia (low white blood cells), anemia, loss of appetite, bowel movement problems, mouth sores, etc. 
•  Treatment schedule: depending on the severity of cancer, daily or weakly treatments may be required. 
• Treatment costs: chemotherapy can be very costly especially if the patient requires long term treatment. 
• Chemotherapy does not cure cancer but only puts it in remission.

I don't think chemotherapy is an effective "cure" to cancer however, chemotherapy is the best treatment available so far with the limited range of treatments for cancer. Chemotherapy has serious short term and long term side effects and basically it poisons the body. Also, chemotherapy is considered successful if there is a five year survival period, meaning that there is a high chance chemotherapy would not work. From the discussion in class, there is the possibility that chemotherapy might be actually what kills cancer patients sooner. It is not an easy decision to make regarding whether to go through chemotherapy; all the factors have to be weighed. It depends on the stage and type of cancer. If the cancer is at an early stage or the tumour is easy to remove, then chemotherapy may be a good decision because there is a higher chance that it would be successful. However, if the cancer is severe, and there is not much time left, it may be best to spend the remaining time at home with loved ones instead of suffering through chemotherapy. It also depends on the age of the patient. With young people, chemotherapy is worth the risk and suffering because they have so much more to experience in life and their bodies may be stronger. in old/elderly patients, I think it's best to not go through chemotherapy so that they can enjoy their last years of life. Sometimes, undergoing chemotherapy is not even about yourself, it might be for others such as family and friends whom you want to fight for and survive no matter the pain. It's hard to make a decision, because at the end, chemotherapy gives the patients some hope of survival. 

Fast and Furious: Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells

 
Discuss the significance of iPS cells in stem cell research. Do you believe it would be better to use replace embryonic stem cells with iPS cells despite the success embryonic stem cells already have? What are the advantages or disadvantages? What problems do you think could occur with the usage of iPS cells? And how do you think we can solve these problems?

IPS (induced pluripotent stem) cells are very significant in stem cell research as they have great potential in regenerative medicine without the controversy associated with embryonic stem cells.  IPS cells which are reprogrammed from somatic cells are pluripotent cells with the ability to self-renew. These cells can be taken from any body part and can differentiate into different cells to create the tissue that is needed. A significance of iPS cell technology is that it allows creating cells that are genetically tailored for a patient’s need which reduces the chance of immune rejection. There has been more research on iPS cells in recent years; however, embryonic stem cells are currently safer and more popular. Looking at the advantages of embryonic stem cells, there is more knowledge on embryonic stem cells and they currently have a higher success rate. However, the technology of embryonic stem cells raises an ethical concern since most embryonic stem cells are from human embryos and many people believe that life begins at conception and that performing research on embryonic stem cells is morally unacceptable. iPS cells provide a less controversial way since they don't deal with destruction of an embryo. Also, iPS cells are cheaper and easier to use than embryonic stem cells since they are taken from our own body. I think it would be beneficial to invest more on iPS research and practice but not to completely replace embryonic stem cells with iPS cells because embryonic stem cells might have some benefits that iPS cells do not have. I think that with more research done on iPS cells, they might become more successful or as successful as embryonic stem cells in the future.

There are risks associated with iPS cells. For instance, iPS cells are associated with cancer and they can potentially trigger the expression of cancer causing genes. The abuse of iPS cells is another problem as well. Since iPS cells allow regeneration of tissues, humans might start to neglect their bodies and health (this is if iPS cells become very cheap). Any new technology has the potential problem but I think iPS cells are more beneficial as they hold potential to cure disease and repair damaged organs.

Human Synthesis?

Discuss about the possibility of making an entire human being with the technology we have today. What do you think of it? Would you be able to accept an entirely synthesized human? What are the consequences? Do you think science has a limit?

With the fast advancements in science, it's not a rare possibility to make an entire human being in the future; but the technology is not there yet. Creating individual organs may be possible but human body is very complex and putting together these organs and tissues  in a way that they function properly is still too advanced for us. I think if this significant achievement was made, it would be something to be proud of. However, I think that society would not be ready to accept an entirely synthesized human due to the ethical controversies that would arise. Society has difficulty accepting people with differences as it is, so it would most probably struggle with considering synthesized humans equal to natural humans. Personally I would not be able to treat an entirely synthesized human like a natural human no matter how hard I tried because I would know they were not conceived in a natural way and the way they were synthesized goes against nature.

So why synthesize a human? What is the purpose? Would this human be used as an experiment subject or slave? Would this human's life be valued? There are many consequences tied to this idea. Synthesizing a human being is not beneficial to people and there is no purpose to do such thing.  Making an entire human being brings ethical and religious controversies in society. Moreover, It's not just the ethical issues in society that would be created, but also the synthesized human itself would be affected too. The synthesized human would have emotions just like all other humans and he might develop serious psychological and identity problems. Also, there are health risks associated with synthesis of humans as the synthesized human could have defects and therefore go through additional pain and suffering. Furthermore, the money and time spent on synthesizing humans could be spent on other research that is actually beneficial to society.

Science is unlimited as there is always something to be discovered. What limits science are the human capacities and societal ethnics. I believe science needs these restrictions as they are essential in preventing society from destruction. We are responsible for where we apply our knowledge and its consequences. We should decide the right limits on science by considering the consequences of our scientific knowledge.

 

 

Genetics by Numbers

From the article, you learned about the difficulties (competition, politics, corruption, greed, pursuing of own interests, education, etc) that scientists face in trying to collaborate with each other to obtain the most accurate results. It has been established that the collaboration must be done for future SNP research. Then, how do you think these difficulties can be overcome and will there be further ramifications?

 

Often collaboration between scientists is necessary for advancement such as the research on SNPs as it requires vast data sets. Collaboration between scientists is important because it provides faster results and increases scientific progress. If scientists work together, the work load of the research would be divided and this would allow for more efficient research and faster results. Yet, from the article and class discussions, it is evident scientists face many difficulties when trying to collaborate with each other for instance, greed, competition, money, etc. Competition among scientists is hard to overcome as it is human nature to be competitive. A little sense of competition is ok since it creates motivation in scientists to work harder in order to be the first to discover, publish, and receive credit and grants. However, intense competition creates a barrier to collaboration as scientists would not receive all the recognition and financial grants to themselves.

In order to overcome these difficulties, scientists need to change their view and put aside their greed and understand that science is not about money and publicity but for the greater good of humanity. For instance, scientists could start working in research teams to develop a sense of team work where all the team members work towards SNP research together instead of trying to publish individually. By doing this, scientists would collaborate to benefit society and as a result there would be great advancements in research. Also, international research projects can be created to encourage the collaboration of scientists from different countries. The video on SNP Chip for the Sheep Genome is a good example of SNP international collaboration. To produce the SNP chip, nineteen countries collaborated, with each country playing a role in part of the research process to contribute to a piece of the puzzle. In addition, the funding for the research was shared as well. Together, these countries were able to create a pool of resources and developed a SNP chip.

This shows that it is in fact possible for scientists to overcome competitiveness and collaborate for the common good of science and society. However, this is hard to achieve in the science community as money and corruption tend to come in the way of collaboration.

 

Transcription and Translation

 

Genetic information is transferred from DNA to RNA to protein. There are two steps in this process, transcription and translation.

Transcription:

• The synthesis of RNA from a DNA template.

Initiation:

• Only one strand of DNA is transcribed. This strand is called the template strand. The other strand is not transcribed and is called the coding strand. The coding strand has the same sequence as the product mRNA except it has thymine instead of uracil .

• RNA polymerase: The main enzyme that catalyzes the synthesis of RNA from a DNA template. Promoter region: The RNA polymerase binds to a promoter region on the DNA which consists of a sequence of nucleotides that show the RNA polymerase where to initiate transcription.

• Two promoter sequences are required to show the RNA polymerase complex the correct strand for binding and the correct orientation.

• After binding to the DNA, the RNA polymerase unwinds and opens a section of the DNA.

Elongation:

• RNA polymerase synthesizes mRNA that is complementary to the template strand of DNA with the T being replace with U. The RNA polymerase add new nucleotide to the 3'-OH group moving in the 5'to 3' direction but since only one strand of template DNA is being synthesized  in one direction, Okazaki fragments are not needed.

• While one RNA polymerase moves along the DNA, another RNA polymerase binds to the promoter region synthesizing another mRNA molecule. This allows hundreds of copies of nRNA molecules to be made from one gene at a time.

• Synthesis of mRNA occurs at a faster rate than synthesis of DNA because RNA polymerase does not have a proofreading function. An error in transcription only results an error in one protein molecule, not in the genetic make-up of organism and therefore is not significant. Synthesizing mRNA at a higher speed is more important than minimizing sequence errors.

                                             

Termination:

• Specific nucleotide sequences in template DNA signal the stop of transcription. When RNA polymerases reaches this signal it detaches from the DNA strand.
• The new mRNA strand is released and the DNA double helix rewinds.
• A G-cap is added on the 5'end and a poly-A tail at the 3'end to make the mRNA stable.

Translation:

• The next step is translation where mRNA template is used to produce proteins with amino acid sequences.

Initiation:

• Proteins called initiation factors assemble small and large ribosomal sub-units, mRNA, and initiator tRNA.

• The small ribosomal subunit binds to mRNA near the start codon (AUG). Then, the initiator tRNA carrying an amino acid binds to the mRNA start codon with its complementary anticodon (UAC) and the corresponding amino acid methionine.

• The large ribosomal subunit joins to form the ribosome and starts the process. There are three binding sites for the tRNAs: the P(peptide) site, A(amino acid) site, and E(exit) site with the initiator tRNA occupying the P site and the A site ready for the next tRNA.

Elongation: (4 Steps)

• With the initiator tRNA occupying the P site, the next tRNA carrying second amino acid enters the A site. Elongation factors enable the tRNA anticodons to bind to mRNA condons.

• A peptide bond forms between the first and amino acid and the amino acid in the A site and the chain transfers from the initiator tRNA to the new tRNA at the A site. The resulting dipeptide is attached to the tRNA at the A site.

• The polypeptide chain is one amino acid longer nad the mRNA moves ahead by one codon and the tRNA goes to the P site.  

• The tRNA no longer carries its amino acid and exits from the E site.The new codon is at the A site ready to receive the new complementary tRNA.

                  

Termination:

• Elongation continues until the mRNA reaches a stop codon (with the codon sequences UAG, UGA, or UAA).

• A protein called a release factor cuts the polypeptide chain from the last tRNA.

• The polypeptide is released and folds into a three-dimensional shape ready to carry out its activities.

Deaf by Design Response

After having Mr.Chung present to us the Nature article Deaf by Design and the video Sound and Fury,here are some discussion question that we had to think about and respond to:  

 

Is it more of a blessing or a curse to have the ability to alter our genetic codes?

The ability to alter genetic codes is a blessing because it gives the option to make positive changes that would not have been possible in the past and prevents people from the suffering of chronic diseases and conditions. However, this ability can be a curse since it creates many ethical issues as to when it is acceptable and when it is misuse. It is our decision to choose how this ability is used.

Do the deaf have as much right as the rest of us to abort a fetus that is, in their view, disabled?

It is understandable why a deaf couple would want to abort a hearing, healthy fetus; it would be difficult to understand and raise a hearing child and there would be a gap in the relationship between the deaf parents and the hearing child. However, this is not a justified reason to abort a fetus. Abortion in cases where the fetus has a disability such as fatal health issues or serious physical/mental conditions be justified since it would avoid the fetus from the suffering that he/she would face if born. A healthy and hearing fetus should live because he/she has potential to live an average life. I find that aborting a hearing fetus would be selfish since it seems to be more towards the parents’ best interest rather than the child’s. Similarly, I think it’s not right for hearing parents to abort a deaf child either because in both cases, the “disability” does not restrain the child’s future. I believe that both for the hearing and deaf, it is only under fatal or extreme conditions where abortion of the fetus should be acceptable.

Is "disability" a relative term? What constitutes a person's disability?

Disability is a relative term because a disability can turn into an advantage in certain situations just like certain traits can turn into a disability in different situations. It is important to note that “normal” is a relative term as well. In the deaf community, the deaf consider themselves as normal and hearing is considered a disability. What is disability defined as? According to Oxford dictionary, disability is a physical or mental condition that limits a person’s movements, senses, or activities. Basically, any trait that limits a person from doing certain tasks that an average person would be able to do can be defined as disability, such as deafness.

Is it Heather's best interest to be raised as the only hearing child in the family?

I think that it is not Heather’s best interest to be raised as the only hearing child in her family. Being the only hearing child in her family would have a negative impact on Heather since all her family members are deaf. If Heather becomes the only hearing person in the family, she would feel disconnected from her family and her relationship with her family members, especially the parents, would become distant. Heather’s father has a strong opinion about the deaf culture and feels that hearing prevent Heather from fitting into the deaf culture. If Heather becomes hearing, it is going to destruct her relationship with her father. Also, hearing may weaken her bond with the deaf community since the deaf share strong emotional bonds compared to the hearing. At her age, Heather needs full support from her parents and she might lose her cultural identity if she becomes hearing. Heather is a bright child and she would have a successful future without having to hear. Also, thanks to modern technology, she would have other ways to communicate without using sign language such as texting. Therefore, it is Heather’s best interest to not receive an implant.