Stupid is a Mean Word!

Don’t be stupid!  Seriously…

In the podcast Drink Now, Pay Later, Karen Hopkins reports that if you start drinking too early, lets say as a teen, it will set you up for a lifetime of bad choices.  The study, in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, scientists studied the effects of alcohol on teenage rats.  The results showed that the rats that were pre-exposed to alcohol were more likely to eat food associated with high risk instead of an easy, non risk, meal.

I thought the article was rather ironic.  I knew that alcohol made you make bad choices while under the influence, but I think it’s hilarious that it will make you do stupid things in the future as well.  One more reason to wait for 21.  

Lions, Tigers and Giant Chickens Oh My!

Close your eyes.  Imagine a baby chick. A GIANT 3 POUND BABY CHICKLET GENETICALLY ALTERED TO TERRORIZE AN ENTIRE CITY!!!  Okay maybe not that last part but the giant chick is no over-exaggeration.  Geneticists are challenging our understanding of animals—like a chick.

Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO) and Selective Breeding are highly argued in today’s food industries.  Basically GMO’s are weird combinations of certain animals that aren’t considered normal.  One case of GMO’s is geneticists are taking the gene that makes jellyfish glow, into rabbits.  The result is a rabbit that glows green under ultraviolet light.  Now I know what your thinking, that’s weird right?  Well is it really?   It doesn’t hurt the rabbits at all its just weird so why is it argued?  People argue it because they think it’s inhumane to alter anything’s genes, whether it hurts them or not. 

Obviously glow in the dark rabbits is not entirely a qualifier for the Nobel Peace Prize but, GMO can be a good thing.  In the near future geneticists will be able to create people with almost supernatural power.  How would you like to be able to lift a car with your bare hands?  Genes are wondrous things and geneticists will be able to insert genes into humans and other organisms that make them super strong or have night vision or even think with a 4000 IQ.

The choice is essentially yours if you agree or not.  Is GMO that bad?

Selective Breeding on the other hand is a lot more disputed topic.  Selective breeding is a  natural way of creating what we want in an animal.  One case of this is in Belgian Blue Cows.  Geneticists are creating a Belgian Blue that has triple the muscle mass as a regular cow.  This is completely natural though.  Basically how they achieve this is only breeding the cows with the most muscle mass.  In turn the gene for large muscles will be inherited down until the breed is completely free of low muscle mass genes.  This creates a breed in of its own that has triple the muscles.  This process isn’t tampered with at all, all geneticists are doing is breeding only the cows they want, no needles, microscopes or tampering.  The major benefit of this is that you have three times the meat on one cow.  Increasing profit due in part by the reduction of feed requirements.  One cow, big or small, eats the same amount so its more efficient to have one giant cow than three little ones.

Should we be worried?  I think that we might want to be worried about GMO’s rather than selective breeding.  The reason I think this is that do you want to eat a jellyfish glowy gene?  That could make you glow in the dark too! Also the genes may have side effects, possibly injuring the test subject.

Selective breeding I believe has no after effects and I would completely back this.

Gregor Mendel, the founder of genes and genetics has to be proud of what we are doing.  I mean he was working with peas without any altering or anything.  Now we can create glow in the dark rabbits!  Why wouldn’t he be proud?

Personally I would strongly agree with selective breeding.  Why not maximize profit on an animal that is destined to be slaughtered for food.  It seems that it would be more efficient in the long run.  GMO on the other hand I believe is weird and should be illegal.  Why we need glowing rabbits is beyond me but until we come up with better uses for GMO’s it’s unnecessary.  

  

Ecosystem Services

Air-$100, Trees-$50, Snow-$75, Animals-$25

Can we really put a price on nature?  That is what the podcast at scientificamerican.com is discussing in ecosystem services matter.

Peter Kareiva, a scientist at The Nature Conservancy has put a dollar sign on nature services.  He states that if we aren’t putting a dollar sign on nature, say for parks and rivers clean up, we aren’t giving nature what it deserves.

I would have to agree that without putting a value on nature no one will care.  If we do’t care about nature it will eventually go away, and that’s not good.  Without nature we won’t have food to eat or oxygen to breath.  This is why we must give nature what it deserves, a clean healthy environment.  We can only give that to nature if we give it a dollar sign.

Mosquitoes?

God made everything in this world with a purpose... but mosquitoes come close.

Do mosquitoes have a purpose? Can they be eradicated?  Are they really that important?  I mean how useful can an obnoxious little pest that makes you itchy all over be?

Actually mosquitoes are vital to the survival of many species such as the mosquitofish.  The mosquitofish loves mosquitoes so much that they are actually stocked in rice fields and swimming pools as pest control.  If mosquitoes are eradicated the mosquitofish would go extinct.
Although the mosquito is quite a nuisance since they terrorize caribou in Alaska.  Alaskan mosquitoes form such thick swarms that they can asphyxiate the caribou!

Personally I would have to say that it would be bad to get rid of mosquitoes.  Mosquitoes are such vital parts of some ecosystems that getting rid of them could truly ruin a perfectly good ecosystem.  One example is most mosquitoes are large pollinators of plants such as cocoa.  If we rid ourselves of pesky mosquitoes we rid ourselves of chocolate! That’s not good! I think we can get along can’t we?  Just use bug spray.   

HIV Video

DON'T EAT MONKEYS!!!!!!! 

Can killing a wild animal give you HIV or AIDs?  Scientist Nathan Wolfe thinks he's figured this out.
 
In some countries people have resorted to killing wild animals for meat.  This is called "Bush Meat."  Most animals that live in the wild of rain forests have contracted HIV.  HIV does not affect animals as it does humans.  The animal is then skinned, causing the animals blood to contact the skin.  This contact with the blood may infect the skinner with HIV.  Wolfe has done research on these animals and informed the public in these countries what HIV is and how it is spread.  Wolfe has also created many research labs in these countries, as to get a better understanding of what species of animals are most likely to contract HIV.

I thought that this is awesome that someone is trying to prevent and or slow the pandemic of HIV.  HIV and AIDs is one of the leading killers in third world countries like Africa, and it’s great that there is at least one method of stopping it. 

Animal Testing

Should Chimpanzees be implanted with deadly viruses?  The article Chimps fate ignites debate, discusses this issue. 

The article states that in Alamogordo NM a Chimpanzee research facility has brought several unofficially retired chimps back into testing.  This has sprung up a lot of debate among the scientific community.  Most scientists believe that the chimps should return to testing and shouldn’t be allowed to retire.  Animal rights activists say that the chimps deserve retirement to a chimp sanctuary.

I think that the chimps should get to retire after a certain amount of testing.  One the chimps have a few months of testing they should be moved into a sanctuary and no longer able to be tested.  I also think that the chimps shouldn’t be taken from the wild but rather bred in the testing facility.  I don’t think it is right to take a wild animal into testing.

Organ Transplants

Last week in Biology we read an article on organ transplants.  The article was about criminals who were in jail, being able to get new organs.  I strongly disagree with the article because when you break the law you have given up the right to a new lung, kidney, heart, ect.  Although, crime is a very touchy subject.  I think that no one who has murdered someone or assaulted someone should be eligable for organ transplants.  On the otherhand someone who shoplifted a candy bar because they were hungry, I think that they should not be deprived of such a valuable item.  I think it all depends on the severity of the crime.  A simple shoplifting case (although shoplifting $2 million or something like that would not count) shouldn't count against a person in need of an organ.  Also if they have a record of criminal activity they do not diserve an organ.  I think they need to show signs of improvement towards a non-criminal lifestyle.