What Does HIV Sound Like?

HIV is a devastating disease, and is one of the many large obstacles facing modern science.  It has no direct treatment, and is posing a great challenge to the nations in Africa, with limited supplies and access to medical treatment.  Much advancement has been made to slow the assault of HIV, but none have solved this tortuous puzzle yet.

Alexandra Pajak has taken a different approach.  Rather than treat HIV, she has instead represented this virus’s genomic sequence in an artistic way.  Many artists have chosen their own paths to doing this, but Pajak has taken each of the nucleotides as well as the amino acids and assigned each one a pitch.  She strings together these notes, starting off of this set of information and choosing instruments and tempo to fit with it. Care to listen? Go to http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2010/10/27/what-does-hiv-sound-like-audio/

In my opinion, this melody has great potential to be very powerful.  I was unsure, as the music began; the notes seem disjointed and sharp.  However, as the song progresses further, there are harmonies introduced, and different instruments adding variety, and I think that the final result here is indeed an interesting and beautiful representation of a deadly and destructive force in our world.  The music even seems to have a mournful, plaintive aspect to it.  This seems appropriate, that this disease could be represented thus.  I believe this to be a powerful piece.

The Compromise of Genetic Manipulation

I’m sure you have heard of the new thing in food production: Genetically modified foods.  Very controversial, but the newest thing in a long line of increasing the possibilities of food.  This has sprung forward as a replacement to selective breeding, which has, through generations of breeding, given us many of the species we have today.  Both of these manipulation options have their positives as well as their down falls, but what if we could combine the best of both?  Enter Molecular Breeding: a technique that allows breeding for traits as in selective breeding, but is much more specific because it uses genetic markers to find and breed for very specific traits.

In this article that we read from Greenwire, molecular breeding is presented as the best solution to the food problems facing our world today.  Because it is the best of both worlds, it has less controversy, and has little regulation; it is being put into much wider use as the preferred method of agricultural development.  By using molecular breeding to find desirable traits, they have managed to combine traits from obscure and low yield rice, for example, and make the common rice be able to withstand flood for two weeks.  Or create a corn that is practically exploding with vitamin A, or wheat that can withstand the attack of aphids.  This process, rather than cutting and pasting genetic strands from totally disparate species, can simply speed up the species’ own evolutionary process by combining genes from the same species.

I find this new concept very interesting.  It doesn’t evolve actually ripping the genome apart, which is a plus for me, and I find that this seems to be much less invasive.  This combines the speed of genetic modification with the natural protection of the plants natural genetics.  I think that this holds so much more promise for our future without moving ahead too fast or endangering the genetic uniquity of these species. 

Pain free GMO factory animals: Ethically acceptable?

There is a new revolution in the world of genetic manipulation: the ability to genetically modify an animal to not feel pain.  This has been proposed to lessen the suffering that these animals go through in these places.  However, there is a lot of debate as to the ethical implications of this proposed solution.  Is no pain a substitute for a good life?  Are GMO’s even safe? Imagine the debate that goes on just for GM produce, amplified many times over as people fight for the right of animals to lead a happy life and not compromise that in order to assuage factories´ guilt.  The article that I chose to read dealt with this concept.  They say that because factory farm conditions are so awful, we should genetically modify the animal to feel no pain.  But why should we give in when we should be fighting for better farm conditions? You should not give in to the demands of the aggressor, because they will only ever want more.  We need to fight this new development and stand up for those who don’t have voices.  Their conditions need to be truly better, not simply treated. And pain is only one of many reasons that the factory farming is so unethical.  Why don’t we fix the root of the problem, rather than treating its symptoms?

DNA exoneration: The Freeing of James Bain

James Bain was 19 years old when he was convicted of burglary as well as the kidnapping and rape of a nine year old boy.  He was convicted using the eyewitness account of the child involved, and was initially put in the line-up because the uncle thought he fit the description.  He was incarcerated for 35 years, the longest of anyone yet exonerated by the innocence project.  When Florida passed a statute allowing cases to be reopened for DNA testing, he requested DNA testing four times but was denied.  He was only allowed to have a hearing when an appeals court ruled that he was entitled to one.  He was going to be set free with conditions attached but the DNA review was completed ahead of time and he was allowed to go free.  He was also given 1.7 million dollars in compensation because the prosecution declared him officially innocent.

DNA fingerprinting has come a long way in the past hundred years.  The study of genetics first came into being in the early 1900, but we did not know the structures of DNA until 1953 when James Watson and Francis Crick discovered the double helix structure.  Then, in 1980 the Cetus Corporation in Berkeley invented the polymerase chain reaction, which is vital to DNA fingerprinting as it multiplies specific DNA fragments.  Finally, in 1985, genetic fingerprinting is used for the first time in a court room.

I have said this before and I’ll say it again: the US justice system is only as honest as the people in it.  That is the nature of things.   As a human organization, it has the fallibilities of humanity at its core, but it is important to remember that in many cases it is effective.  It may be one of the most effective justice systems in the world, and while it has its problems, we can continue evolving it and making it more reliable through time.  DNA fingerprinting is a step forward in this direction.  Because science has entered the courtroom, we finally have objective evidence that points to specific people.  This is probably what I have most taken away from these stories: nothing is perfect, but it’s our job to continue working for change until we are as close as we can get. 

Want to learn more? Go to www.innocenceproject.org 

Lucy´s Story

This podcast follows the heart wrenching story of Lucy the chimpanzee.  In an effort to better understand the psychological state of the chimpanzee´s brain, several scientists decided to raise Lucy as they would a human child.  Later, Jamie was brought into the picture, first as a caretaker, then as Lucy’s main human connection.  Lucy’s life story is the saddening tale of a chimpanzee that finds herself stranded in the gulf between two species, unable to be human, but not exactly chimpanzee.

                Lucy had many human-like qualities that were almost uncanny.  For example, she could use language in a way that showed her grasp of it.  She also responded sexually to images of human males, and was able to recognize and respond to human emotion with emotional feedback herself.  I would classify her as one of the animals that people argue should be classified as “non-human persons”.  Because of this quality, when her “parents” decided to terminate the Lucy experiment, there was a bit of a problem.  They brought Lucy to a nature reserve, but she was showing signs of severe stress, such as infections.  So Jamie ended up taking Lucy and several other experimental chimpanzees.  She took them to a deserted island. Most of the chimpanzees adjusted, but Lucy clung to Jamie for more than a year.  However, after many battles of will, Lucy adjusted to the area and lived there until she died.

                I think one of the big things I will remember is the ethics of this story.  Taking a chimpanzee and making tem human enough to no longer be a chimpanzee, but not human enough to be human, then to abandon them in this in-between state is completely unethical.  You leave the animal with nowhere to fit in.  How can we force that on any person, human or not?  I think it’s sad, that we saw this depth of genuine emotion in Lucy, but were unable to accommodate for her physical needs.  It brings forward the issue of non-human persons.  Should chimpanzees be classified in this category?  One thing’s for sure: leaving these chimpanzees in this half state in immoral and unethical.

Welcome!

Welcome to my biology blog! I am a sophomore at Animas High School. This blog will be a space where I will be posting general assignments, as well as opinions and reactions to whatever we are learning in class. Stay tuned!