Demonstration Evaluation

  This post will evaluate a demonstration video on how to make a paper gun, which I found by searching the phrase "how to" on youtube.com.  The gun shown in the video is much simpler than the one in the picture above (which is made of paper, by the way), but something as complicated as the one above would require a much longer video.  The link to the video can be found here.

  This video shows the viewers how to construct a fairly simple paper crossbow, through a series of simple steps.  Most of these steps involve rolling several pieces of paper to form strong tubes, and then cutting and taping them together.  While the video was very easy to follow, I would have preferred that the demonstrator had communicated what the final product would be, as I was expecting a much more complex gun.  Besides that, the video was simple and effective, although if I ever become so bored that I decide to make a paper gun, I will choose a different video with a more aesthetically pleasing product.

Response: Ethics and Medicine by Adam Vander Pas

  This is in response to Adam's post concerning abortion.  Adam begins by explaining the controversy surrounding abortion, referencing the Roe v. Wade court case of 1973.  He states that the deciding question in the argument is when life begins.  He goes on to say that pro-lifers are frequently bashed as being 'un-scientific,' and asks why the moment when the heart starts beating is any more scientifically sound as the beginning of life than the moment of conception.    He references two articles, one pro-choice and the other pro-life.  He says that in making this decision we should use common sense, and realize that it is impossible to define when life begins.  However, he gives his definition, saying that conception is the point at which life begins because it creates a potential person.  He ends by saying that a woman should take responsibility for her sexual decisions, while he does acknowledge the case of rape.  Adam's article can be found here.

  While I do agree that pro-lifers are frequently bashed as being unscientific and illogical, perhaps unfairly, it is true that they appeal mainly to emotional arguments, rather than logical ones.  Have you ever seen a pro-life billboard?  Anyways, Adam's solution to the problem is to completely ban abortion, since it is so difficult to define when a human life starts.  Regardless of whether or not abortion is moral, it is an important issue which should not be dismissed solely because it is difficult to define when life starts.  There is a reason women go to extreme lengths to obtain abortions, and this decision should be made very carefully.  The question we must ask ourselves here is fundamentally what defines a human being.  I contend that human beings are defined not by our actual DNA, but by our mental capacity.  If pro-life supporters took the time to consider how they actually define a human being, they might become vegetarian.  If an abortion is done early enough, the embryo will have no neurons, and therefore the mental capacity of a jellyfish.  As cold as it sounds, killing a conscious cow is more akin to murder than killing a lump of cells.  Soon, we may be able to create a human being from a single skin cell.  Should we stop shedding skin because each skin cell could eventually be a potential human being?  Anyways, my position is that a human becomes a being when they can think.

Fetal Screening

    Since life support became available, many families have faced the difficult decision of whether to allow their loved ones to live or to end their suffering.  Now this question can be asked even before birth.  Fetal screening is a new phenomenon which may forever change the way we think about disability and the value of life.  With considerable accuracy, doctors can now test the DNA of an unborn fetus through non-invasive means, so parents now have the choice to terminate a pregnancy if the child has a genetic defect.  Considerable accuracy is a relative term, however.  Those opposed to this technology argue that more testing must be done to ensure

that no fetuses are being aborted needlessly.  They also say that the testing also borders on eugenics, similar to the purification campaigns of the Nazis; many believe that discrimination against the disabled would increase with fewer disabled people around.  It is also discomforting for many to judge whether or not a life with a genetic disorder is worth living.  

     The upside to the technology, however, is that it gives couples a choice.  Many lack the means to raise a child who requires constant assistance, and some believe that if the child would suffer their entire lives anyway, it would be better to have an abortion.  Both sides of the argument are effectively presented in this article.

    I, personally, find the ability to end genetic defects a bit discomforting, and I do not think there is any way to judge the worth of someone's life.  I support this screening as a means of allowing early euthanasia of fetuses with severe defects which would kill them very early, but I would hate to see children with down syndrome being aborted in large numbers.  I support this technology, but very hesitantly.

Response: PTSD by James McGuire

  This post is in response to James McGuire's post, which discussed a medication for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, a condition common to many soldiers and other individuals who have suffered a traumatic event.  These individuals commonly exhibit detachment, anxiety, and other emotional symptoms.

   James begins by describing PTSD, and states that there are facilities and a variety of treatments for the condition.  He then presents a drug called Propanolol, which degrades memories associated with strong emotion.  He delves into the controversy surrounding the use of this drug: while it effectively alleviates the effects of PTSD, it can also erase other emotional memories, perhaps even positive emotional memories.  This changes the individual taking the drug, drastically changing their personality.  James presents two articles, one listing the benefits of the drug and another listing its disadvantages.  He finishes his post by stating that he believes the choice of whether or not to take propanolol should ultimately be up to the affected individual.

  I thought that James effectively and fairly presented the controversy concerning the medication, an interesting topic which is not widely discussed.  We have a family friend who has served in Iraq and it might be interesting to hear what he has to say on the subject.  While James did not discuss the conventional treatments for PTSD, I have heard that they are fairly effective.  Some involve having the individual recall traumatic thoughts and then immediately medicating them to reduce anxiety and 'reprogram' the memory.  I am not sure if these drugs are similar to propanolol, or if they are milder.  Overall, I thought James chose an intriguing subject and presented it well.

Self Evaluation: Demonstration Speech

This post will be a self evaluation of my demonstration speech on break dancing, for which the link can be found here.

  Unfortunately, the video did not work properly on my computer, so I could only hear the audio.  That being said, I could still observe my diction, but I will have to judge my body language based on what I felt at the time.  I felt that I projected my voice clearly with ample volume, despite a little bit of coughing, but I caught myself saying "um" once or twice.  This has been a problem in the past, but it seems to have diminished in this speech.  This is something I will work on in my next speech.
 
  Although I was unable to observe my body language, while giving my speech I felt like I was presenting a relaxed and confident posture, belying my nerves.  Interestingly, I only felt nervous at the book ends of my speech, and I caught myself stuttering a couple of times, but for the most part I thought I dealt with it well.
 
  Unfortunately, I was forced to change the organization of my speech while I was giving it, due to the size restriction of the room and the subsequent lack of volunteers.  While I greatly appreciated that Joe volunteered, I expected more people to volunteer, and was planning on giving more specific instruction on the dance moves.  Since Joe felt to awkward to try the steps as the only volunteer, I could not help him to improve, consequently, my speech ended up being much shorter than planned.  One thing I could have improved on greatly is reiteration, which would have emphasized my point and lengthened my speech.

Organs For Sale?

     This post will address the ethical issues involved with legalizing organ sales in the United States, referencing a BBC News editorial by Martin Wilkinson, which can be found here.

     I believe that one's most fundamental right is ownership over one's own body, and based on this simple premise, I would argue that organ sales in the United States should by all means be legalized.  However, the situation is more complicated than a simple question of ownership.  If organ sales were legalized, the poor would have a means of attaining a monetary reward, but they might also be forced into unfair deals by the more wealthy, seeking to exploit their financial situation.  If sales were legalized, they would have to be tightly regulated.  Another question we must ask is: what will happen to organ donation if a price is being set on organs?  Organ sales will most likely provide a larger pool for transplants, but they may also raise the price, since families of the deceased may no longer allow clinics to harvest the organs for free.  The augmentation in the price of organ transplantation will be particularly drastic if there is only a small pool of people willing to sell their organs.  I am dubious that a large number of people will volunteer their organs in exchange for money, given how invasive a procedure is involved, meaning that the price of organs would skyrocket while the supply would not increase significantly.

      The article did not significantly change my opinion on whether or not organ sales should be legalized.  Yes, it has the potential to provide enough organs to clear the waiting lists for transplantation, and I do agree that the solution to regulating most underground markets (like the organ sales on black markets in other countries) is to legalize the product.  Overall, I do believe that organ sales should be legalized, but I foresee a flood of problems and ethical questions ensuing.  If the government chooses to legalize sales in the U.S., I hope that they will regulate the market very carefully.

Response: "Organs For Sale?" by Joe Boehrer

     This post is in response to Joe's post, which discusses the ethical controversy associated with legalizing organ sales in the United States and presents his thoughts on the matter.  Joe states his opinion early, saying, that one's organs are one's personal property and that people sell a myriad of other goods and services ranging from hair to sex.  He makes the point that one deserves compensation for the organs one has taken care of (if they have done so) and that, unlike organ donation, organ sales are made by a conscious human being.  He says that he supports the organ donation system in place, but believes that legalizing organ sales would ameliorate the shortage of organs available for transplants by greatly increasing supply.  Next, he makes the point that the poor would most likely be forced into unfair compensation, but says that the health care system is already plagued by this problem.  He ends by saying that he finds no problem in legalizing organ sales, although he thinks that organ donations from the deceased should continue to be free.  He references this article, which presents the advantages of legalizing organ sales.

     First of all, let me say that I do agree with Joe's standpoint that organ sales should be legalized, but not wholeheartedly.  I found that overall Joe effectively presented both sides of the argument, but dismissed the issues of legalizing organ sales too easily.  Early in his post, when he writes that people sell stranger things, from hair to sex, he floats over the issue that many people find organ sales to be repulsive and unethical.  If organ sale were legalized, there might be a very small pool of vendors, meaning that the organ supply problem would not be drastically improved.  Skirting over the objections to organ sale by saying that prostitution is worse does not remove the controversy any more than citing the death count of World War II would make the situation in Afghanistan seem pleasant.  Likewise, his dismissal of the potential problem of unfair compensation for the poor by saying that the health care system is already plagued by this problem does not effectively erase the issue.  At the end of his post, he states that organ donation from the deceased should continue to be free, but doesn't state why.  If organ sales are legalized, the families of the deceased will most likely look for compensation for the organs donated.

     Overall, I agree with Joe's view that organ sales should be legalized, but I would not be so quick to dismiss the issues that will ensue.  Joe, your article was credible and I thought you represented both sides effectively, if not fairly.  Here's the link to Joe's post.

Technorati: a search engine I had no idea existed until now

     This post will cover the functionality of Technorati, a search engine which only searches for blogs and related content.  I will search for the topic of my informative paper, which is on regenerative medicine, and in doing so explore Technorati's capabilities.

     Upon searching Technorati for the phrase "Regenerative Medicine" I found no results.  When I changed the query to "Stem Cell Regulations" however, I encountered a blog entitled: The Blog of Legal Times (or the BLT) which contained an article on the recent judiciary blocking of federal funding for embryonic stem cell research.  The blog has many authors, but I will list all of them anyways: , Carrie Levine, David Brown, David Ingram, Diego Radzinschi, Jeff Jeffrey, Jenna Greene, Jordan Weissmann, Liz Engdahl, Marcia Coyle, Mike Scarcella, Tom Schoenburg, and Tony Mauro.  It appears that the blog has been active since February, 2007, and the authors make 4-8 blog posts daily.  The authors do use hyperlinks, usually linking to news articles from other websites.  They also use an abundance of pictures and some videos, which they procure from news stations as well.

The link to this blog can be found here

      I then searched the same query again and found another blog entitled "Daily KO's: This week in science" whose author goes under the blogging alias "DarkSyde."  This particular post was written on Sept. 11th, 2010 in response to the judiciary block on funding for embryonic stem cell research.  The tone of the post is drastically different from that of a research paper, it is laden with not only slang terms, but with personal bias as well.  This is apparent in sentences such as "we had all hoped we were past this insane stem cell crap."  One would never write this informally in a research paper, nor inject this sort of sneering bias into it, and I'm saying this as someone who supports embryonic stem cell research.

The link to this blog can be found here

Response: "Ethics and Medicine: Embryonic Stem Cells" by Eric Lardinois

     This is in response to Eric's post concerning the potential benefits of embryonic stem cell research and the ethical debate surrounding this activity.  He begins the by stating the potential benefits some believe embryonic stem cell research can provide, focusing specifically on organ transplants.  He states that stem cells can provide patients with organ without any immune-rejection issues, which I have found in my experience to be a potential benefit widely toted by ES cell research advocates.
    
     The second paragraph goes on to explain the ethical questions stem cell research provokes.  He states that the main question in the controversy is whether or not an embryo constitutes a human life, and whether the benefits of embryonic stem cell research merit the sacrifice of a human embryo.  He goes on to say that both sides of this argument are well-supported, and that they seem to be in a stalemate.  He provides links to two websites, one arguing for embryonic stem cell research, and one against:
The article for ES cell research
The article against ES cell research

He states at the end that he finds the anti-research argument more compelling.

     I found Eric's post to be fair and unbiased, and I thought he used relevant, logical statements throughout the post as well.  His articles, however, did not do so in my opinion.  The article supporting stem cell research spent much of its time explaining strange applications of embryonic stem cell research, such as infecting fully-formed embryos with various diseases and observing the effects of such an action.  First of all, this would not be stem cell research, but human testing since the embryo would be whole, larger than a blastocyst (a 70 cell ball from which ES cells are harvested), and alive.  It is illegal to expressly infect a human being to test diseases, and I doubt any group would successfully obtain federal funding for such research.  It also argues that embryonic stem cell research reduces the scale of animal testing, which is unlikely since mice have been used as a human-similar test subject for decades.  Before human testing can be performed, research institutes must perform extensive animal testing to ensure safety, so embryonic stem cell research arguably increases the incidence of animal testing.  I felt that the article spent too much time covering obscure topics and not enough time focusing on relevant benefits of stem cell research.

     I found that the second article often used ridiculous hyperbole and its arguments were often very illogical.  The author of the said article at one point compared the extraction of stem cells from an embryo to lynching African Americans.  These two events have almost nothing to do with one another; lynching is a hate crime and a horrendous, inhuman act made expressly to kill another human for killing's sake, while harvesting the ES cells from an embryo is an act which transforms something that would be wasted into valuable medical science.  The author even went so far as to say that stem cell research will lead to the slaughter of newborn babies.  If there is this much opposition to the killing of a 70 cell cluster, there will be no newborn babies killed.

     This is not to say that many of the anti-ES research arguments are not compelling, their opinion is valid; I just thought the article Eric chose contained logical fallacies and too much hyperbole.  Personally, I believe that the death of a 70 cell human for stem cell research is more human than the slaughter of say, a calf (which has a nervous system) for veal.  Eric, kudos for your unbiased post, even though I don't agree with your articles.  Cheers!

Here's the link to Eric's article

Post 1: Obstacles in Reading/Writing The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks

     The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks is an important story for the public to hear for a number of reasons.  Like Lacks, many of us are subjected to unconsensual tissue sampling, and usually without being informed in any way.  Any person could easily relive the story of Henrietta Lacks without even knowing it; her own family discovered the truth years after Lacks' death.  Thus, her story is relevant to the public and uncomfortably close to reality.  The public should be aware of what is happening to the cells given through their tissue samples in order to prevent the same situation from occurring to them.
     However, her story also carries poignancy through its exposition of the general attitude toward African Americans, and women, in the 1950's.  While no laws have ever been in place to require consent for tissue sampling, her story still begs us to question whether scientists 60 years ago would have paused to think about using a white man's cells for research without consent.  Certainly those people could not have predicted the implications of the cells they extracted, although they inevitably had biases consistent with the time period.

      Rebecca Skloot most likely found writing this book challenging because of its technical content and broad audience.  After years of researching a topic, it is easy to forget that one's readers may not have any background knowledge whatsoever concerning the topic.  At the same time, her book may well be read by professionals in a medical field, who would find the content geared toward the less-informed too basic and mind numbing.  She most likely strove toward a 'happy medium,' where the general public could infer most of the material but those knowledgeable in the subject would not feel bored.

     I do not have much background knowledge in terms of the research being performed on Lacks' cells, but I anticipate that Skloot has explained everything in an accessible way.  I do not anticipate any challenges in reading this book.