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.