Olin's Mid Unit Post

For my Unit 3 Project, I will be discussing how I fit in a demographic group: cancer survivors. I am proud to say they that I am a cancer survivor. Cancer survivors are strong minded, and determined, and humbled by their past experiences.  Some cancer survivors are afraid to tell their stories because they are afraid of being judged by other people. We have a point to be afraid to tell our story. Survivors face judgements such as being weak, disabled, and unable to move on with their life, but merely surviving makes a person psychologically and physically stronger than the average person could ever imagine. Based on my research and personal experience, cancer survivors have many unique characteristics that the average person would not understand. In this paper, I will discuss the characteristics of a cancer survivor, discuss my own battle with cancer, and tie it in with what society thinks our weaknesses. This topic is near and ear to my heart, so expect an emotional auto ethnography.

Brendon's Mid Unit 3 Post

My Unit 3 Post will talk about the history of soccer as well as the positive aspects of soccer and how it is been a growing sport in countries such as the United States.  I have found many sources that talk about how soccer in the 20th century in the United States was overlooked by other sports such as football and basketball.  Soccer eventually became a foreign and diversely ethnic sport.  For instance, in the past many in the United States had negative opinions on soccer and had decided to distinguish itself from Europe.  Universities began to focus on other sports such as rugby.  However, soccer has been a growing sport and can bring people from diverse cultures together.  Soccer is a sport that is very cheap, which has made it a sport that anybody can play and enjoy.  The "beautiful game" has also shown that it can break down barriers of race, creed, language and color.  Past events have also showed that the simple sport can have an overwhelming effect and even heal divisions in countries.  During the time Ivory Coast had qualified for the 2006 FIFA World Cup the country was in the middle of a brutal and terrifying civil war.  Difference in religion and ethnics had torn the north and south apart.  The countries national team was nicknamed the elephants to represent what the country needed-unification.  After the team had qualified, Didier Drogba lead the team's pleas for peace.  This team became an example of how people of diverse cultures could come together by putting away their differences and worked together.  Today, clubs all over the world are made of players from different countries, yet teamates are able to cooperate and play as a team.

Alex's Unit 3 Mid-Post

For my Unit 3 post, I will address the stigma associated with tattoos that still occupies the minds of society. In order to do so, I have researched several sources that provide information regarding the history and opinions of tattoos from the past, how the culture of tattoos has evolved of the years, and the current viewpoints on the matter. Most, if not all of my sources, indicate that individuals with the body art are subject to disdain from their peers. Notability, one source applies a record of tattoos being used on criminals as a method to indicate their crimes and punishments. For instance, the Romans once used a similar practice as a method to identifying the individual’s role in society such as being a criminal or a slave. This outlook likely evolved into the current ideal most people adopt and frown upon. Even as tattoos are growing in popularity, there are these individuals who vocalize and disapprove of the act. Some of the perceptions given from those who view tattoos negatively include deviancy, freaky, impure, low class, unprofessional, thug, gang member, and rebel. Additionally, there is a fairly recent change to the matter. Only a couple of years ago, Japan revised a bill to prohibit tattoos under the age of 18. Originally the country associated the body ink as a symbol of being a Yakuza member and thus tattooed people were banned from public areas in the effort to drive the gang away from the establishments. This is only one example of the art being able to spread to new horizons, however so slow or difficult the change may arise, as it enforces the idea that tattoos may be able to be absolved from the stigma placed upon for thousands of years.

Robbie's Mid Unit Post

The three main points my paper will focus on will be: the social barriers faced by nerds in life, the success of nerds in the workplace, and that nerds have a more fulfilling social life. The sources I researched determined that nerds often have a harder time expanding their social life because of predetermined ideas that the public has. They don’t see nerds portrayed as “cool” in normal pop culture at all. These ideas can roll straight into the heads of the public and then they act upon it. Some of these barriers are similar to the ones placed upon homosexuals and African Americans by older media. Today the media wouldn’t pick on African Americans or Homosexuals, but they don’t think that nerds are off the list. The next topic is nerds having success in the workplace. Companies want to hire nerds because they are thinkers, rather than simply following the directions that they are given. They want employees to bring something new to the table and give a different perspective, and nerds can do that. They can also fully understand what a company does in a management position. This is something a company looks for compared to someone who is only talented in a management position. The last topic is nerds having a more fulfilled social life. The idea behind this is that they learn to make better friends because they’re not part of the “cool” crowd. Nerds often get dissed by the cool crowd, so they turn to others within their own community. Nerds wont judge what you look like or how many followers you have, they will like you for who you are.

More information about the sources used for this research can be found in my synthesis matrix here

Climate Change and Poverty

When you think of climate change, what is the first thing that comes to your mind? Most people come up with weather, glaciers melting, or hot weather. These generalizations are only parts of climate change. While people across the globe have their own opinions on the effects of climate change, there is one issue that many tend to overlook: poverty. While much of the debate around climate change has centered on the aggregate effects of climate change and its solutions, the government and scientists should focus more attention on how climate change policies affect smaller groups, especially the global poor.

Throughout the world, poverty is the highest in areas where climate is the most drastic. These areas include parts of Asia and Africa. The climates in these areas are usually hot and dry, making it difficult for families to produce resources such as food and water. The map below shows the worldpoverty percentages.

Nearly 800 million people in the world are chronically undernourished and poor. For example, sub-Saharan Africa, one of the regions said to be most vulnerable to climate change, poverty rates reach a staggering 60 percent of the entire population (Fischer, Shah, and van Velthuizen). The countries that suffer the most from poverty tend be closer to the equator, where temperatures are the highest. These countries struggle, partly due to the fact that most of them are developing countries and have little to no stability.

As climate changes, we will begin to see it affect poverty in different ways. Food availability will be the biggest concern. There is a bit of uncertainty about whether or not modern agriculture practices and products can adapt to changes in climate. Hybrid corn and soybean seed, produced by Monsanto and Syngenta, already struggle today when there is an excessive amount of water or when there is little water. The agriculture industry struggles to produce enough food to feed the world and if the industry was unable to adapt to changes in climate, we would see a drastic rise in food prices, due to supply and demand. Households of the lower class already spend more of their income on food than any other social class and this trend would continue if food prices rose (Hertel).

According to an article published by Purdue University, a year 2030 climate change model predicts that grain and vegetable prices could rise 10-60%, causing food product prices to skyrocket. Simple vegetables and fruits, such as the ones pictured below, will become even harder for the poor to buy, causing the poverty rate to increase. Without regulation of food prices, food products will continue to become more expensive throughout this time period.

With these future struggles ahead of us, there needs to be solutions being made now. The government needs to be proactive about making policies that will ration food if supply gets low, that will hold prices food below a certain level. If countries across the world would work together and come up with global policies, we would be much more prepared for climate change's’ effects on people. The United States, for example, has made no progress on these policies. According to the New England Aquarium, the United States government only has policies that focus on preventing climate change, such as The American Clean Air and Security Act, which calls for an 83% reduction in carbon emissions by 2050 ("Endangered Species and Habitats"). This is a solid policy, but it still does not enact a plan of action for when climate change starts affecting agriculture.

Along with the creation of policies, research also must be done to not only help find solutions, but predict future climatic shifts. Crop scientists around the world are testing and developing crops that can withstand extreme weather, as well as keep up with the growing population. Monsanto, for example, is focusing their research on maximizing yield potential and increasing drought tolerance (DroughtGard® Hybrids) in crops ("The 2015 Pipeline Update"). These 2 areas of research are key to being prepared for climate change affects. Maximizing yield potentials in crops will prepare the world with a stronger supply of crops. Increasing drought tolerance in crops will allow farmers to continue to grow crops in areas where the climate changed.

As we draw closer to experiencing the effects of climate change, it is important for us to remember that it is more than just a scientific issue. Climate change is a scientific, political, and social issue. Based on the poor’s level of low income and sustainability throughout the world, it will be hard for them to survive the effects of climate change. It is up to us to stand up for them and make sure new policies are being created and research is being done to protect the lower class.













Work Cited

Fischer G., Shah M., van Velthuizen H. Climate Change and Agricultural Vulnerability. Laxenburg, Austria: International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis; 2002.




Hertel, Thomas W. "Climate Change, Agriculture, and Poverty." Oxford Journals. N.p., 1 May 2010. Web




Nature. "Preparing Farms for The Future." Nature.com. Nature Publishing Group, 21 July 2015. Web. 05 Oct. 2015.




"Endangered Species and Habitats." New England Aquarium. N.p., n.d. Web. 06 Oct. 2015.




"The 2015 Pipeline Update." Monsanto. Monsanto Company, n.d. Web. 07 Oct. 2015.

The Importance of Interdisciplinary Research

In the past, interdisciplinary research and science was never really looked at as important as most scientist focused on one field. Interdisciplinary research is a type of research that combines or involves two or more fields such a biology and chemistry or biology and physics. This type of research has only been growing recently but interdisciplinary research is now starting to sweep the nation across universities. However, there are still some negatives of interdisciplinary research that has caused for slower growth of this topic. For example, this type of research takes more time, funding can be expensive, reviewing the work is harder, and often scientists that are from different fields can find it hard to communicate as their language from their respective fields are different. The few negatives that interdisciplinary science and research has can be overlooked by the many positives that it can create like answering questions that couldn’t be answered in the past, extending horizons in single fields, and creating new fields such as bioinformatics. Despite the negative connotations that arise from interdisciplinary research, it has become an important skill with positives that outshine its negatives. Interdisciplinary research should be continued as institutes such as Bio X are thriving and bringing many new advancements.
                      

From the positives in interdisciplinary research there are also the negatives. One major negative of interdisciplinary research is that it is very time consuming. In the past interdisciplinary research was frowned upon because it took longer than single-field projects as it took time for scientists of different fields to communicate their information to each other effectively. Scientists from different fields might speak the same language, but the format of the language of which it is spoken can be very different. For instance, a person that specializes in Biology can speak and format their work very differently from one that is an expert in computer science. Another issue is that peer review for interdisciplinary work is tricky and sometimes very hard. It can become difficult to analyze and review data that comes from multiple fields. To get a well and actual review of the work, a team of experts from the exact same fields would have to be put together. Then it would also take time for this newly created team to cooperate effectively and discuss the research that was done. Additional time would then have to be taken to actually review the work.

An additional negative for interdisciplinary research at universities is funding. As stated by Rick Rylance, “Academic institutions' budgets, governance and promotion arrangements are usually organized around single disciplines, as are processes at many granting bodies and journals.” Many find interdisciplinary work as inferior and can weaken single discipline and those who attempt it “struggle for recognition and advancement.” This causes potential funders to look the other way and refuse to fund the work. Also, with few supporters of interdisciplinary research, institutes find themselves fighting each other for funding. An addition to this, with funding hard to look for, it creates some resistance to the idea of interdisciplinary research. The added resistance to interdisciplinary research makes it unappealing to some colleges, therefore not creating or building up new institutes.

The negatives can be overlooked as they’re many more positives to interdisciplinary research which can outweigh the negatives. In the article Mind Meld many of the positives are discussed while the few negatives of interdisciplinary research are also mentioned. One positive that is discussed is how interdisciplinary research can “solve problems that have never come up before. But it can also address old problems, especially those that have proved unwilling to yield to conventional approaches.” An example of this productive interaction can be seen at the University of Manchester, UK in the John Rylands Research Institute. The institute was found in April 2013 and it brings together scientists, conservators, curators, digital-imaging specialists and more. This institute now studies and researches digital humanities, “a field that enables the study of books and manuscripts in ways that were unimaginable a generation ago.” Funding also was not a problem for the John Rylands Research Institute as they were able to raise around five million dollars in funding. With this funding new advancements and discoveries were made through their interdisciplinary research. For example, the institute, using a combination of new techniques were able to identify the earliest examples of gold ink. They are also revolutionizing the understanding of paypri and palimpsests. Researchers at John Rylands Research Institute were also able to create detailed images or artifacts using cutting-edge technology. But from this there was still the problem of all confusion that was occurring from having people from different fields work together. A great way the John Rylands Research Institute was able to get rid of some of the confusion was installing a buddy system. All researchers of this institute were given a curator with intimate knowledge of the material that was being studied. With this buddy system it is easier for the researcher to comprehend and learn the new field that they are studying. The researcher would then be able to ask questions and quickly learn the format of the field’s language.
            

Of the many positives of interdisciplinary work, another discussed in Mind Meld would be that new fields and sciences are being developed and formed for students at universities. Many universities not just across the nation, but across the world, are creating new institutions for these fields such as Bio-X at Standford University and the Beckman Institute for Advanced Science and Technology at the University of Illinois. These new institutions are very important as it allows students to tackle the new unknown sciences and questions that have been arriving recently. These new institutions also allow people from different fields to meet and collaborate together. With these collaborations often new ideas and methods are developed. Input from different fields can become immense and very beneficial as it gives different perspectives and different ways to look at things. Interdisciplinary research has also developed new and important fields. Some examples of new fields that were created include cybernetics, biochemistry, biomedical engineering, and neuroscience.

Another positive of interdisciplinary work would be that students and researchers develop much need lifelong learning skills that are beneficial. Students and researchers are able to learn many things from the various fields. In a study done by Boyer and Bishop, they found that “interdisciplinary teaming not only had a positive effect on students learning, but also inhibited personal growth” (Boyer and Bishop). The students from the study learned tolerance of their peers as well as leadership and collaboration skills. With all the barriers and negatives to interdisciplinary research, the researchers and scientists that are in are well motivated and more likely to succeed. I say this because, if all goes well for them and they succeed, interdisciplinary researchers would be able to create their own research funding program and make their own promotion and tenure decisions. The percentage of those who succeed are low, but the ones that do become very successful in life.

The topic of interdisciplinary research is growing around the world and is subject to debate. Interdisciplinarity will be one of the headline topics at the GRC annual meeting in Delhi in May 2016. This meeting is organized by India’s Science and Engineering Research Board and RCUK. RCUK, on behalf of the GRC,will commission and report worldwide. The report would survey current policy and practice among the global research funders. This survey will begin to establish base data on how interdisciplinary work would best be stimulated and managed. The GRC also expects to issue a policy statement after the meeting. They would be able to marshal data while national policies are being developed and international cooperation is being established.

There are a decent amount of negatives to interdisciplinary research, funding and time being some of the biggest when making arguments about interdisciplinary research. However, many positives can be taken away from this type of work. New advancements and discoveries have been made thanks to interdisciplinary research. Many new institutes at universities across the world are being established and have begun to thrive in recent years. Old and new questions have and are being answered using interdisciplinary work. With all these positives and developments, interdisciplinary research should continue to be pursued and funded.

Works cited

Pormann, Peter E. “Interdisciplinarity: Inside Manchester’s ‘Arts Lab.’” Nature 2015: 318–319. Web.

News, Nature, ed. “Mind Meld.” Nature 2015. Web. 1 Oct. 2015.

Rylance, Rick. “Grant Giving: Global Funders to Focus on Interdisciplinarity.” NatureSept. 2015. Web. 1 Oct. 2015.

Ledford, Heidi. “How to Solve the World’s Biggest Problems.” Nature Sept. 2015. Web. 1 Oct. 2015.

http://dc.cod.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1121&context=essai

http://sciencecareers.sciencemag.org/career_magazine/previous_issues/articles/2003_01_17/nodoi.13930062608205039520

http://www.renkei-researcher-schools.org/files/2013/07/Interdisciplinarity-Simin-Davoudi-2013.pdf

Necessity of Marine Protected Areas

There is no doubt that people depend on resources, such as food and natural gases, every day from the oceans, but there is in how we affect the environments we collect from. Bodies of water, from all sizes, have been accumulating debris and pollutants despite bans that prohibit dumping of such waste in oceans, lakes, and rivers. In addition to the direct disposal of waste, some of the pollutants we discharge, such as carbon monoxide, contribute to climate change. Damages caused by climate change affects organisms like plankton and coral to fish and polar bears. There is a way to preserve these creatures and resource. In 2000, the National Marine Protected Areas Center was established in order to sustain vital marine resources. The National MPA Center collaborates with governments of the federal, state, and local levels as well as stakeholders like fishing industries, to develop and implement MPAs. In order to protect and foster the life and resources of the waters from pollution and climate change, governments should establish and improve more Marine Protected Areas (MPA) throughout their nation. However, the costs and restrictions with the implementation are obstacles that vary for each country.

It has been 15 years since the fruition of the the National Marine Protected Areas Center, which was established after Executive Order 13158. This mandate called for the strengthening of management, protection, and conservation of existing MPAs as well as the establishment of new and expanded MPAs. Thus, the National MPA Center was created to lead in the development of a national system of MPAs. Additionally, the National MPA Center is a partnership, consisting of the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration and the Department of Interior, that provides federal, state, local, and tribal governments a resource for maintaining the health of the nation’s oceans. The mission of the National MPA Center is to build partnerships and tools that can aid in the protection of Marine Protected Areas. The Center also collaborates with governments and stakeholders to ensure more effective and efficient use of MPAs. These stakeholders can range from citizens and fishermen who need to make an income, zoologists and marine biologists studying the marine life and environment, and engineers and technologists who develop means of protection for MPAs. By interacting with groups such as these, the National MPA Center can pinpoint an appropriate course of action that conserves and sustains the nation’s vital marine resources. MPAs have over 1,600 locations in the United States ranging from open oceans, coastal areas, inter-tidal zones, estuaries, and the Great Lakes. Although about 41 percent of the U.S. marine waters are protected in some manner and tolerate certain actions, three percent are highly protected to preserve delicate species and habitats. Some of the actions that nearly all MPAs allow include activities such as fishing. However, MPAs like marine reserves are more restrictive by limiting the capturing of fish, collection of shells, and other activities which something may be removed or damaged within the area. While these MPAs may not provide recreation, they are an enclosure where people can appreciate nature. Visitor facilities can also provide the local community education on MPAs and advocate volunteer efforts and innovations from individual citizens, the community, and coastal decision makes. Aside from leisure, since some of the more reserved MPAs are strictly regulated, this provides researchers a safe haven to study the sensitive marine life and environment. Marine Protected Areas procure protection for environmental and cultural resources and allow some forms of human interaction in an effort to address the issues that require the use of MPAs and how those factors continue to have an effect on these areas.

That being said, although MPAs protect organisms and habitats, this does not mean they are invincible. Just as in nature, MPAs feel the same effects of climate change that are felt by broader bodies of water. Some of these changes include changes in the water temperature and oceanic circulation, rising sea levels, water acidification, and weather abnormalities in precipitation and storms. With changes in water temperature and currents in the oceans, marine life would undergo alterations to their overall lifestyle. According to the World Wild Fund, rises in temperature can affect the metabolism, lifecycle, and behavior of the species inhabiting the area. This would mean that some organisms would develop abnormal eating habits, some would have a shorter lifespan than its average, and some may even leave the area and enter a new environment. As with rising water levels, glaciers and polar ice are melting due to global warming and increases in temperature. Some creatures, such as polar bears and penguins, may lose their habitat where some organisms, like marine plants and algae, may have difficulty gathering sunlight for photosynthesis with the increase in sea level. Another one of the climate changes is with the emission of harmful chemicals and pollutants from human activity growing every year, these chemicals eventually make their way to sources of water. This causes the waters to become more acidic and have negative impacts on marine species; for instance the WWF has noted that fish may find difficulty in extracting oxygen from acidic water. Additionally, due to global climate changes, storms and precipitation have become extreme and uncertain. At the presence of powerful tropical storms and hurricanes, the ecosystems of the coast and natural formations, such as coral reefs, are presented with increased probability of physical damage and erosion. Of course, if climate change is a proprietary reason for Marine Protected Areas, then the causes for those changes are also a factor.

Every day, people contribute to climate change with the simplest, mundane activities. Whether directly or indirectly, human beings introduce pollutants to the environment by driving vehicles that emit carbon monoxide, work in industries that disposes its waste unethically, or simply dropping trash on the ground. Climate change’s major contributor is air pollution caused by the emission of gases from human activities. When these air pollutants and greenhouse gases mingle with the atmosphere and creates climate change and ozone depletion. One of the results of this is acid rain, which is a form of precipitation that corrosive effects on the environment. Although this form of pollution may be indirect and unintentional, the toxins that we applied to the atmosphere would eventually make its way to the surface and runoff into rivers and oceans to further poisoning the marine life. In addition to pollution in the air, people also have made other indirect and direct contributions by discarding trash and waste into the ecosystem. Garbage such as plastic bags and bottles can be interacted with the aquatic organisms and possibly harm them. Additionally, chemicals and junk from factories and ships near the shore or out at sea can contaminate marine habitats. A notable example of this kind of pollution is the BP oil spill of May 2010. Following the accident in the Gulf of Mexico, the Deepwater Horizon oil spill released nearly 170 million gallons of fossil fuel into the sea. Thousands of species of birds, marine mammals, fish, and sea turtles felt the effects of the incident and were either found injured or dead. Birds that depend on fish as their source of food or inhabit the area were left coated in oil, which negates their abilities of buoyancy and regulation of their body temperature. Fish and marine mammals ingest some of the poisoned water and have been sickened and/or died which displaces the food web as some species become less in abundance for other species. Pollution from human activity has harmed the environment for marine life, causing some creatures to become endangered and extinct.

While these issues lead to the necessity of Marine Protected Areas, another problem lies with the establishment of the facilities. According to a survey conducted by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States (PNAS), an annual expenditure of an MPA would range from 0 to more than $28 million per kilometer. From the sample of 83 MPAs they surveyed, 13 were reported to have sufficient funding for effective protection and conservation. This is primarily due to the conditions and locations of MPAs. Marine Protected Areas will have higher cost depending on how much area it covers, its proximity to inhabited areas, and the costs of its structures. With insufficient funding found in 70 of the 83 MPAs reported, it is obvious that Marine Protected Areas should be given a more funding and is balanced among its different types. Along with the price for instituting a MPA, there are also limitations to the matter. With the amount of funding they have, MPAs have difficulty partitioning spending among strictly monitored MPAs and others. This means that they will have costs toward improvement on the reserve. These facilities must consider the possibility of the amount of income and tourism it will gain from the area. Based on the traffic of visitors, the MPA will have fluctuating earnings that are crucial to its funds on management activities. These uncertainties are worth noting in the development of Marine Protected Areas and can be benign or detrimental to its establishment.

This entire situation is like an arrow and a target; the goal seems like a straight shot, but there are the possibilities of missing and hitting different obstacles. There is no doubt that Marine Protected Areas need more establishments and improvements from the governments, but the costs and limitations of doing so are considerable. Besides the financial inhibitions, climate change and pollution continues to increase and complicate the effectiveness of MPAs. Stronger storms and toxins can destroy a marine environment and cause its denizens to either adapt or perish. These factors still affect the MPAs just as they would in nature and would prompt the National MPA Center to fortify its locations and attempt to rescue and shelter the species suffering from the catastrophe. No matter how anyone perceives the matter, MPAs are in a dire need of support and funding in order to maintain the prosperity and resources of the marine environments.













Work Cited

Featured Article

“Troubled Waters.” Nature 480.7376 2011: 151–152. Web. 22 Sept. 2015

Bibliography

“Message in a Bottle.” Nature Geoscience 6 2013: 241. Web. 23 Sept. 2015.

Balmford, Andrew et al. “The Worldwide Cost of Marine Protected Areas.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 101 2004: 9694–9697. Print.

http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/ecosystems/mpa/

http://www.wwf.org.au/our_work/saving_the_natural_world/oceans_and_marine/marine_threats/climate_change_impacts/

http://www.bcairquality.ca/101/pollution-climate-causes.html

http://www.nwf.org/What-We-Do/Protect-Habitat/Gulf-Restoration/Oil-Spill/Effects-on-Wildlife.aspx

The Potential of Gene Therapy

Photo Dredit : Svilen Milev

Gene therapy is a revolutionary treatment that has the potential to become the medicine of the future. Gene therapy is the process by which scientists can replace faulty genes and replace them with more predictable and preferred genes. For example scientists have developed a way to mutate genes in order to make them immune to Malaria (“Splice of Life”). Scientists have also advanced this technology as far as editing complete embryos. From this they are given a preferred germ line. Germ line is another way to say the cells responsible for reproduction, or sperm and eggs. When this embryo develops, and then later reproduces, it also will pass on the preferred germ lines that have been altered. This is significant because babies will not have to deal with the devastating effects of genetic diseases passed on to them from their parents. Doctors can improve the overall quality of life for the human race. Essentially, doctors are improving the overall quality of life for the human race. However, Nature has an article mentioning that the recent success in the evolution of gene therapy could take a turn for the worse, specifically- “gene therapy might creep beyond eliminating deadly or debilitating heritable disorders to include disabilities, less serious conditions, and cosmetic and other supposed enhancements — leading to ‘designer babies’ and raising the spectre of eugenics.” (A Splice of Life). This is a stretch considering the author failed to cite any research of this being feasible to solidify his theory. The bottom line is that with a technology as advanced as gene therapy there will always be questions as to where the limits should be. Gene therapy is a growing medical field that still needs support from big health organizations such as the World Health Organization. There are also ethical and legal concerns surrounding gene therapy such as how far is too far when editing a genome. Medical researchers need continued funding because the potential upside outweighs the negatives.

Nature also mentions just how much power gene therapy has. Not only can it fix genetic diseases that a patient is given from its parents, it can also alter the patient’s gene line so that it is completely immune to things such as malaria or HIV (Cell Stem Cell). This type of research is the future and I completely agree with the author in this case. The author even goes as far as to say “A total ban on research would therefore seem counterproductive”.

Nature seems to then track back in its steps when it claims that there are currently better alternatives to gene therapy. “Preimplantation genetic diagnosis and selection of healthy embryos during in vitro fertilization already provides a safer alternative for avoiding genetic disease in newborns — as can prenatal screening and abortion” (A splice of life). The claim about abortion is completely false. Aborting a baby that has a genetic disease is not as effective as treating it because abortion is preventing it from having a disease free life. Also the previously listed treatments, in my opinion, are most likely as developed as they’re ever going to be. Gene therapy still hasn’t hit its ceiling, meaning there is a slew of untapped potential in this research. “While gene therapy will not be used routinely in the next decade, practitioners of oral medicine should be aware of the potential of this novel type of treatment that doubtless will benefit many patients with oral diseases” (Baum 115-118).

In regards to regulation of gene therapy Nature claims that “national governments need to step up on this issue” (A Splice of Life). Regulation is important to the progression of gene therapy. Not only does it provide safe and ethical guidelines, but it also makes it more acceptable in the public's eye. The “WHO” or “World Health Organization” is composed of scientists, regulators, and ethicists. They meet to discuss topics such as whether or not gene therapy is ethical. This regulation is important because it can set guidelines for the entire planet. It can also set the general guidelines for each country to base their research off of. The article lists other things the WHO has met to discuss, such as Ebola. WHO met rapidly last year to discuss the ethical concerns of the Ebola vaccine and just how safe it was for general use around the world. Overall Nature does a good job describing the WHO because it provides specific details that were left out of previous claims made by the author. For example when the author made the claim that the world will eventually see “designer babies” they provided no facts or sources to validate their claim.

The ethical problems surrounding gene therapy can be avoided through monitoring. In theory nothing can get out of hand when the proper measures are being taken and those responsible are held accountable. (Baum 115-18).As said by Nature, “Each new application of a gene therapy to humans undergoes extensive and multi step approvals that are required to demonstrate ample proof of both efficacy and safety in animal models.” The right steps are already in place for animal testing.The hope is that they can be easily rolled over into human use. Also no animals are hurt when developing, or being treated with gene therapy. This should silence any critics that say this treatment could be unethical. Science Direct also makes the same stance. They believe that gene therapy is ethical because it has been tested thoroughly on animals and yielded no negative results. If a patient is immune to the therapy, they will simply provide a transplant and that will solve the issue. They make the transplants safe by covering them in specialized stem cells that the recipient’s body won’t reject. They also believe the same exact procedures will roll over into use with human patients (Cell Stem Cell). This will make the transition to human treatment quick and painless. They also don’t harm other living things to acquire these transplants. The Nature article claims that, as of yet, gene therapy isn’t very safe or predictable, but the other two sources I viewed stated differently. The Nature article failed to mention the success researchers have had in applying gene therapy to animals. Science Direct and The Online Library prove that Gene therapy is ethical because of the success it has had in animals when curing diseases while simultaneously causing them no pain. They also describe how detailed the process of approving gene therapy for use is. In Science Direct alone the process took more than a year to get approved. This shows just how much administrators look into the process of gene therapy. If anything was unethical, it wouldn’t have passed such a rigorous examination.

Gene therapy is something that should be legal to practice. As previously stated, the ethical concerns about gene therapy are non existent. The benefits of gene therapy heavily outweigh even the most ridiculous of claims. Nature states that “an entire ban on gene therapy would be counterproductive”. The author doesn’t have the realization that gene therapy is an important asset to the advancement of the medical field. They also claim it isn’t very reliable. This may be true for the specific study that they looked into, but other studies with different focuses have found gene therapy to be very efficient. Researchers have had very admirable success rates for a treatment that is not quite fully developed. When applying gene therapy for oral diseases to humans “the AdhAQP improved salivary flow rates in the targeted parotid glands of six subjects and led to a reduction in subjective complaints in five of those individuals.” AdhAQP is a vector used to replace DNA in a sequence (Baum 115). Success in five out of six patients is an impressive feat in any trial. They also tested their vector on rats. More than 200 rats were given a vector to test. What a vector primarily does is find the place of the DNA it is suppose to target, and then remove it. Once it has removed the target sequence of DNA it replaces the gap with DNA that is was carrying. None of them showed noticeable side effects. This proves that the way in which the treatment is delivered is also safe. If this treatment were made illegal, then researchers wouldn’t have advanced it as far as it is today. This is a prime example of why gene therapy should be legal. If the government were to cut gene therapy right now, then they would be hurting the future of medical development. The government needs to at least let gene therapy progress and let it fully develop to its full potential before imposing a complete ban. Nature is right to say that that gene therapy shouldn’t be banned, but they’re undervaluing its potential upside because stopping the development of futuristic medicine would be a very lousy decision.

Gene therapy is worthy of development because it can eventually become the ultimate medicine. In some fields, specifically oral diseases, it has become the preferred treatment because of its effectiveness and efficiency (Baum 115). The Online Library describes just how productive it has been. If they continue to develop then the sky becomes the limit. The eventual goal is to be able to translate all of the successes they have had in treating animals into treating humans. Given the success in oral treatments alone, gene therapy should be refined, a statement in which Science Direct also agrees. Imagine living in a world where HIV is no longer a problem. Gene therapy is worthy of development just because of its potential (Cell Stem Cell). Using the research done in “Cell Stem Cell” by Science Direct on non human primates, scientists feel they are comfortable now to begin testing on humans. Cost is also something to consider when talking about investing in gene therapy. The price of lifelong treatment for those who currently live with aids can be very expensive. If the patient was cured using gene therapy, they wouldn’t have to have to pay bills every month for their treatment considering It would just be a one-time procedure. As of right now, gene therapy is very expensive considering materials have to be purchased and researchers must be compensated. . None of the companies turn a profit to support themselves and many research groups have to look for outside donations.

In closing, gene therapy is a revolutionary treatment that needs continued support. It has the potential to completely change the way we treat diseases. The potential ethical concerns from the public aren’t anything that should be taken seriously. With the right precautions and guidelines in place, gene therapy won’t go as far as creating “designer babies.” Gene therapy is the future of medicine and needs to be treated as such.











Works Cited:




"Splice of Life." Nature 521.7550 (2015): 5. Web. 1 Oct. 2015.


Kiem, Hans-Peter, Keith R. Jerome, Steven G. Deeks, and Joseph M. McCune. "Cell Stem Cell." Science Direct 10.2 (2012): n. pag. Web. 1 Oct. 2015.


Baum, Bj. "Gene Therapy." Oral Dis Oral Diseases 20.2 (2013): 115-18. Web. 1 Oct. 2015.