Solid Idea?

Prior to researching the issue of use of biosolids as sustainable agricultural fertilizer I think that should be seen as realistic alternative to our current agriculture practices. Biosolids, or human waste, cannot disappear. It isn’t exactly pleasant but if it can be put to use in a safe way I do not see why we wouldn’t want to take advantage of such an opportunity. I just wouldn’t want to be the one in that field of work, no pun intended. ;)

Sewage sludge, also known as biosolids, is what is left behind after water is cleaned in waste treatment works. It is high in organic content and plant nutrients and, in theory, makes good fertilizer. However, most developed countries regulate its use because it also can contain a multitude of metals, organic pollutants, and pathogens. The application of sewage sludge to land, especially on agricultural lands, has been contentious since the late 1980s, when national and international clean water regulations prohibiting the ocean dumping of sludge were first enacted. Advocates enthuse about the natural ability of sludge, like soil, to immobilize potentially toxic metals, and they point to cleaner water, as well as higher crop yields for farms that use the material.




It makes the most sense to be 100% about an idea before following through no matter what it may be. Therefore I would suggest waiting to find out details such as the true composition of biosolids and how harmful they actually can be. However, this is not an issue that is being brought to my attention very often and if I was not told about the issue I probably would never have chosen a side. I think that if it is saving money it is a good idea as long as it does not harm any living things, including crops.

I think that many people may be affected by the western view of society and would be completely disgusted by such an idea. It can easily be seen as unsanitary and disgusting, of course, but if the research is done properly and biosolids proves to be a reasonable source of fertilizer I would support the cause. As we continue to use up more and more of our non-renewable resources on this plant we need to start learning to use what we have and will be able to last us. We need to start thinking about the future generations and how we can help them as well as ourselves.

The pressing issue of whether or not biosolids would be a sustainable agricultural fertilizer is something countries all over the globe are thinking about. North America and Europe are especially interested in the possibility; however, there are many mixed opinions in both continents which is leading to much debate. If it were up to me I would put a lot of funding into the research of this issue in hopes of being able to soon make use of the biosolids as best as possible.

Resources:
http://www.mindfully.org/Pesticide/Sewage-Sludge-Pros-Cons.htm
http://www.sencer.net/Outreach/pdfs/DCSymposium08/Posters/LUbiosolids.pdf

Technological Breakthroughs in the Medical World

Today I'm asked to evaluate the importance of various technologies, including Canadian contributions, to our understand of internal body systems and the first thing that comes to my mind is how am I supposed to write a bio blog on this huge topic? I decided on two major breakthroughs in the world of medical technology to discuss in my blog that were maybe not as likely to get written about. Penicillin and the cardiac pacemaker important discoveries that are used very often today and improve the lives of millions.

All About Penicillin

Originally discovered by Ernest Duchesne,a French medical student, in 1896 penicillin was rediscovered more than 30 years later in England by Scottish bacteriologist Alexander Fleming. It is one of the earliest discovered and most widely used antibiotic agents ever. However, at the time of its discovery and rediscovery no one seemed to fully understand its importance. In the 1940s Howard Florey and Ernst Chain isolated the active ingredient and developed a powdery form of the medicine. This is when it was first put to work and began to have a serious impact on the medical world.

Penicillin Put to Use

Penicillin is used to treat bacterial infections and cause the infection to be cured. It is currently the standard antibiotic treatment prescribed by doctors for bacterial infections in wounds, from sexually transmitted diseases, like gonorrhea, and diseases spread by animals and insects. We find penicillin very useful today but back in the war times it was extremely practical. Since many battles were fought in farming fields more soldiers died due to infected wounds than to the actual injury. Penicillin was able to save the lives of hundreds of soldiers and kept troops in shape to continue fighting!

The Pacemaker

Until the beginning of this year I never really knew what a pacemaker was and I'm happy to share a bit of information about it with you today! Until I actually learned about the pacemaker the first thing I ever thought about when I heard the word was the song "I'm A Hippie" by Spek. Part of the chorus goes "... I need a pacemaker that's built to last" I never understood that part, but now I do so let me share my insight! Born in 1919 was Canadian John Hopps, inventor of the cardiac pacemaker. Hopps earned a degree in electrical engineering from the University of Manitoba in 1941 and joined the National Research Council in 1942. At age 30, in 1949, Hopps began working at the Banting Institute at the University of Toronto. That is where he made the unexpected discovery of the pacemaker. This discovery would later be improved in 1958 by a Swedish team, whereby the pacemaker could be put into the human body. In 1984 Hopps needed his own pacemaker to save his life. 13 years later he required a replacement.

Function of the Pacemaker

The pacemaker may be used after damage to the body's intrinsic conduction system to produce rhythmical impulses synthetically. It regulates the frequency of the heart beat, and it coordinates the contraction of the heart muscle, so that the heart beats efficiently. However, pacemakers do not take over the work of the heart they merely help to regulate the timing of the heart beat.

How It's Done

The pacemaker has two main parts, the generator and the leads. Most pacemakers have two leads, one connected from the generator to the right atrium and the other from the generator to the right ventricle. The pacemaker leads detect the heart’s own electrical activity and transmits that information to the pacemaker generator. The generator analyzes the heart’s electrical signals, and uses that information to decide whether, when, and where to pace. If the heart rate becomes too slow, the generator transmits a tiny electrical signal to the heart, thus stimulating the heart muscle to contract.

Conclusion

These two discoveries may not be on the top of everyones list when it comes to medical breakthroughs but they are important nonetheless. I wanted this to be an interesting blog, not the same thing you read before or that you're going to read after! I hope you enjoyed it and have a new appreciation for these two medical advances seeing as they benefit the lives of thousands each day. One day you may find yourself relying on either penicillin or a pacemaker, maybe you'll think of my grade 11 bio blog too. I hope we continue to see more medical breakthroughs throughout the rest of my life. I have no desire to pursue a career in the sciences but for all of you that do good luck, I expect big things!

Resources

http://inventors.about.com/od/pstartinventions/a/Penicillin.htm
http://www.ehow.com/facts_4914662_what-does-penicillin-treat.html
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20081226085328AA6kCN6
http://heartdisease.about.com/cs/arrhythmias/a/pacemakers.htm

Artifical selection has resulted in plants that are more disease-resistant, cows that produce more milk, and racehorses that run faster. One must wonder what will come next. Under what circumstances should humans be artificially selecting plants or animals, if any?

I have only ever had two types of pets, many different fish and I had a hamster for several years (R.I.P. Jim). I currently would do almost anything to get a dog, specifically a pug! When I got my other pets I had lots of different choices of what kind I wanted, this is the same with dogs. Man’s best friend comes in hundreds of different breeds! Thanks to evolution there are so many different breeds of dogs. Also, more recently thanks to artificial selection we have hundreds more breeds to choose from! For example, my best friend has a Puggle! Never heard of it? It’s a mix between a pug and a beagle!! This breed has become increasingly popular after its big break in the movie I Love You Man. Anyways, getting to the point...

Sure, this dog breeding seems cool, and it is. I don’t deny that it’s cool. There are even benefits having a cross-bread dog! But it is starting to cause lots of problems but the issue is not really getting the attention it needs by the media. Dog breeders are using artificial selection to change/modify the original characteristics of one breed of dog or even to combine these characteristics with another breed of dog. Let’s go back to my example of Bella, the Puggle, her face resembles a pug but she has the ears, colour and senses (she smells everything) of a beagle. All Puggles are generally very small and weigh no more than 30 pounds. There is a picture of Bella when she was about 8 weeks old, now she is about one and a half, I believe. It was ideal for my friend and her family to get a Puggle because they wanted a small dog that didn`t shed too much. Beagles can get quite big so thanks to the pug genes Bella is a pretty small dog. However, she still sheds because Pugs are terrible for that but it isn’t as bad as a pure-bred would be. My friend and her family are fans of Pugs but didn’t really care for them as much as my mom and I do so for their dog to be half pug was the perfect solution, right?! Sure... why not? Except to many animal enthusiasts this may seem like a very selfish thing to do.

First of all, there are thousands of dog breeders out there, many of which are not even fully educated on the subject. Most breeders are just in it for the money. They breed dogs much too often and sell the puppies at half the price of pet stores (thank goodness, because those prices are ridiculous, but that’s a whole other issue). By breeding dogs too often you make them very week and they become very needy. Also, it is quite possible to pass on diseases when breeding dogs! They can get sexually transmitted diseases and pass them on just like we can! Not to mention genetic diseases as well. Most breeders don’t do their full research just like we fail to do when we decide we want an artificially selected pet. Another reason it could be considered selfish to breed or to purchase a dog from a breeder is because there are thousands of homeless dogs in Toronto alone, not to mention other cities all over Ontario and even all of Canada!!

Artificial selection is giving us too many options that most people are happy to take advantage of. However, I’d say more than 90% of the human population is unaware of the damage it does on the dogs without homes and the dogs constantly being bread. Until this issue gets more attention from the media, or any similar issue, I do not think that humans will realise the slow and steady damage they are having on living things by artificially selecting them. Having said that, I do not think we will eliminate dog breeders but it would be great to at least eliminate the ones that are doing it immorally and unethically. So final answer: the only time humans should be able to artificially select anything (plants or animals) is when it is being done by professionals, someone with a long background in the field and preferably for scientific reasons! Another example of artificial selection is the one with racehorses and trying to produce the fastest one, this is completely immoral and should not be done!! But dog breeding I think I could let slide if it is done responsibly. After all, without artificial selection we would not have many things that we are so a costumed to today like, corn, broccoli, cabbage, kale etc. This is another acceptable example. On the other hand, an unacceptable example relating back to artificial selection in plants/food is above average sized fruits (oranges, apples etc) and different shaped fruits (square watermelon). There is no purpose for these things and it is just an example of humans abusing power and technology.

Let me know what you think! Dog breeding, do you agree or disagree? Or artificial selection in general, good or bad idea? I think it’s one of those things that, it’s too late to get rid of it because no one thinks it is a problem but, this could easily get out of hand in the near future!

I'll leave you with this short video about why many breeders are giving their pups away to adoption centres:

Sources:

http://library.thinkquest.org/C0118084/Gene/Genetic_variation/artificialselection.htm

http://dogs.about.com/cs/generalcare/p/no_breeding.htm

http://www.learner.org/courses/essential/life/session5/closer1.html

"Designer Babies" is the term being used by the media to describe the future of modifying or selecting our children's genes for desirable characteristics (medical and cosmetic). Are things getting out of hand with our research into genetic precesses? In this blog investigate social and ethical implications of this research and technologies that have been developed from it.



The term “designer babies” first made its way into the Oxford English dictionary in 2004. The definition is as follows:

"a baby whose genetic makeup has been artificially selected by genetic engineering combined with in vitro fertilization to ensure the presence or absence of particular genes or characteristics.”

But it seems as though this definition can be expanded to give a slightly more accurate quick reference. There are two different ways to go about choosing a child’s genetics. The more well known way is mentioned above in the dictionary definition sometimes referred to as “test-tube babies”. The second way is called preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) which is used strictly for parents that have a high risk of passing on a serious genetic disease. It is an extremely expensive procedure. There is also an alternative method, cloning, but I won`t go into detail about that...

So, these ‘test-tube babies’ which are created via genetic modification lead us ask a couple of simple questions, such as, are the technologies safe enough to use on humans and is it a moral process? Personally, I think genetic modification is immoral because generally there is no genuine reason to follow through with such a procedure. We should be happy with our children the way they are. I think that if we were to start relying heavily on this procedure we would immensely distort our image of natural beauty and we would lose all perspective of what is so great in one another and what makes us unique. I think that our world is slowly spiralling down and this is not something we should be concerning ourselves with. I think it will only negatively affect the human population so why not deal with negative impacts we already have, such as global warming, than create new ones. Also, don’t you want a child that you can say is a 100% natural product of you and your loved one? I would be embarrassed to admit that my child was some science experiment. Anyways, not only are these kinds of designer babies unethical and immoral but there can be several complications to genetic modification! By introducing a new gene somewhere in a human (or any living thing) you can be affecting the way other genes work, some that may be necessary to survive, also, genes do more than just one thing, so by introducing one gene to do one job may start to do something else later on! Another complication is that in order to affect a specific gene we need to use a certain combination, so the process is much more complex than it actually seems to the average person!



Preimplantation genetic diagnosis, on the other hand, does not seem unethical in my opinion. I feel as though I cannot talk on behalf of someone that is in a situation to consider such a procedure because I have no idea what that would feel like. I dream of growing up and having my own family and if there was a chance that I could pass on something terrible like a genetic disorder to my children I would probably want to do anything to help them. But I think I’d rather just not know of such a thing and deal with whatever comes next. I think that life might have been better back in the day before technology started getting out of hand because no one knew any better. No one knew such ridiculous thing were possible! Anyways, getting more on track, this process also had several complications and is not 100% safe. Like I mentioned before it is also very expensive!! The whole process is as follows: a collection of embryos is created for the couple by in vitro fertilization. The embryos are then grown to the eight-cell stage, this is when a couple of cells may be removed and examined for genetic variants connected with the particular disease. Only the embryos without the particular variants are put into the womb. This process does not deal with genetic modification so it does not have the same risks as the process mentioned before, the biggest risk of PGD is the negative effect on the well-being of the person created via PGD due to the removal of cells from the eight-cell embryos. FYI, PGD has been around for less than a decade so take that into consideration before you decide to try it (hopefully no one reading this will have to make such a choice anytime soon... or ever for that matter). For more detailed information check out this video on youtube! It is a BBC documentary about the study done at Princeton University: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TN9ep4B9Hw0

On a more personal note, considering we go to a Catholic school I am assuming that most of us are content living in God’s image. I don’t want to get all corny and cliché but we are all unique and we shouldn’t want to change that for ourselves or for our future children. I believe that God put each of us on this earth for a reason and we are all meant to be the way we are. Our features and personalities will all affect other people’s lives and make us who we are. I do not think that we should be interfering; I think it will only hurt us in the long run. Also, after recently learning about Hinduism I found the concept of Dharma very interesting. The belief that we are born to be what we become. For example, your family doctor... it was his dharma to become a doctor. Like how people would describe a good soccer player to “have it in his blood,” that type of thing. I think that we shouldn’t try to change ourselves because we are all born to be something special.

For me this is such a huge topic and it isn’t easy to cover in one little bio blog but I tried my best. I could probably go on and on about designer babies for a while... I think it would slowly start to make less sense though! So I’ll stop here before I get too caught up. Happy New Year everyone!! :)

Sources:
http://www.actionbioscience.org/biotech/agar.html
http://wiki.ucalgary.ca/images/1/10/Designer_baby.jpg
http://www.goldprodukt.de/wearables/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/designer-babies.jpg

Many scientists consider humans as the most invasive species, as humans can greatly change an environment and impact living things that reside there. Are we being stewards of the world? Take a look at an issue in which human intervention has positively or negatively affected the biodiversity of our ecosystems.

Biodiversity Is...
The variability among living organisms on the earth, including the variability within and between species and within and between ecosystems.
So just a little refresher from our unit work, we need biodiversity, it's a very important part of life. A very basic example of biodiversity, is butterflies they are all similar see as they are all butterflies but different kinds of butterflies are immune to different living conditions, food, etc. What one butterfly may need to survive another may not.

That being said, let's get started!

It is said that humans are always negatively affecting biodiversity in more ways than one. One of the most talked about ways that we are negatively affecting biodiversity is climate change. Ideas that claim that the recent trends of global warming are affecting our planet’s biodiversity are correct. It is known that climate change is the main reason for many past fluctuations in terms of biodiversity levels. At least four out of the five past mass extinction periods (Ordovician, the Devonian, the Permian, the Triassic and the Cretaceous) have happened due of climate change. However, having said that, we currently have more species on Earth than ever before. We can also see that even though climate change brings down the population of some species, it creates suitable conditions for other species. Nonetheless, recovery time after a mass extinction, or any kind of extinction for that matter, is extremely long. It is said, and agreed on with most biologists that we are entering a sixth mass extinction period (Mongabay 2007).

Ways Climate Change Can Affect Biodiversity
• Expansion, contraction and “migration” of a habitat
• Increase in disease and in population of invasive species
• Changes in environmental conditions such as: temperature, precipitation etc.
• Shifts in food availability
• Lack of ecologic relationships with other species
• Rising sea levels
• Alters distribution, abundance, behaviour, phenology (the timing of events such as migration or breeding), morphology (size and shape) and genetic composition.

The best thing we can do to save biodiversity in regards to climate change is to protect large areas of natural habitats. We need to leave these large, biodiverse habitats intact, particularly in mountain ranges, be so that different species can go on living as normally as possible without being affected by climate change. If we try to change their habitat there will be no hope left. Whether we begin to do this or not is another story.
It is hard enough for us, as humans, to try to change the way technology has impacted our lives simply so we try to put a stop to global warming. Never mind how difficult it is for us to do that and not to use all of our available resources such as land. I think the biggest problem we are having right now is the lack of awareness. We need to spread the word about the loss of biodiversity, only then will we be stewards of the world. One problem I am having is not knowing what to do to help solve this huge issue that is climate change. There are too many different opinions on the topic that it makes me just want to forget about the issue all together. I don’t know if I should buy eco-friendly paint for my bedroom or if it really makes a difference when I follow my brother around the house and turn off all the lights he left on. Should my parents stop buying bottled water? Should our next car be a hybrid? I need to know if these things will really make a difference or not. I think if more people knew that they were actually helping the world they would be more excited about it and would be more likely to tell everyone they know that they can make a difference. Often times I get the feeling that my little acts to help save energy or to recycle are making no difference because I am only one person. If we could all be stewards of the world and try to make a positive difference then we might be able to turn things around and prevent climate change, even just a little.
According to Dr. Raven, director of the Missouri Botanical Garden and a renowned expert on biodiversity, it is time to act. He says, “The longer we wait, the fewer choices we have and the more we lose."

What’s the Worst That Could Happen?
Dr. Chris Thomas has written two papers in Nature and they are currently the best predictions we have as to what is to come with regards to climate change and its effects on biodiversity. Dr. Thomas says, “Using a variety of climate scenarios, assumptions and methods of analysis, we estimated that somewhere between 5% and 50% of the species we analyzed are at risk of extinction, with the central range of estimates falling between 15% and 37%. This is on the basis of warming projected until 2050, so the year 2100 risks of extinction from climate change are likely to lie in the upper half of this range,”(Mongabay 2007).

Conclusion
So basically, I do not really think that we are being the best possible stewards of the world but, that is not an easy task. I think that we can do more to help this issue but personally, I am still contemplating if I care enough to try and spread the word. If someone wants to, all the power to them, that’s when I will jump on the bandwagon. I think that maybe this is supposed to happen. The rest of the mass extinctions turned out well, didn’t they? Okay, not really, it took millions of years to recover but now we have humans on Earth! Alright, alright, I'm just kidding. This is really an important topic, we, humans, are being affected by the loss of biodiversity as you are reading this, you just don't really know it. But if we do not put a stop (or atleast try to put a stop) to things like climate change then we will eventually we directly affected by the loss of biodiversity and we will have no idea what to do. I think Dr. Raven is right, we need to act now!
Who's with me? Leave some comments :)

Sources
http://news.mongabay.com/2007/0322-extinction.html
http://www.birdlife.org/action/science/sowb/pressure/46.html