Blogging has been an interesting experience. When I first started, I was apprehensive. I did not want my thoughts on display for the world to see. I was afraid future employers, friends, and strangers of all kinds would take offense to my opinions, or that I would say something idiotic and regret it later. As I continued blogging and began participating in class, I started to feel more open about sharing my opinions. I realized that if I truly become knowledgeable in a subject area I was plenty comfortable sharing my thoughts. I had never done so not because I was neutral on every issue, but because I was too ignorant and too shy to take a public side.
Blogging and Issues class in general were good choices for me. I now know how to follow something I am passionate about, become knowledgeable beyond talking points, take a stand, and then argue my side with more than just opinions; with strong proof and meaningful contentions. By doing this, I finally feel like I am taking advantage of my right to free speech, a right that many still do not possess. This was the feeling the founding fathers must have wanted citizens of the United States to have: one of comfort and pride in one's opinions, and a freedom from fear when sharing them openly.
Sunday, May 20, 2012
After Dolly: A Review
Ian Wilmut's After Dolly: The Uses and Misuses of Human Cloning is a wealth of information presented as wittily and with as much enthusiasm as possible. Wilmut argues for advancement in cellular biology, cloning, and embryonic studies (among countless others), while trying to calm the misinformed masses who fear their replacement, or worse, their superior "self" is just around the scientific corner.
That being said, After Dolly is a book on stem cell research and Ian Wilmut's involvement with and thoughts on the subject. Parts of the book are clever and even entertaining (such as the section on dolly's fame) and others thought provoking and intriguing (such as the early section on exact human clone justifications or the later chapter on genetic diagnostics and therapy). On the other hand, parts of the book are simply dull.
For an introduction to the issue and the science behind it, the book was a good choice. I would recommend it to anyone who must research stem cells or cloning or development of embryonic studies. I would also recommend it to anyone with a genuine fascination with the topic as Wilmut makes it easily digestible and amusing along the way. That being said, if you do not particularly hold an interest in the issues of cloning, stem cell research, etc. After Dolly could be a long and grueling read, as it was for me. While I enjoyed reading about the controversies, media, and issues surrounding scientific advancement, the actual stories of this that and the other scientist, cell or mammal were less than enthralling. The resounding message, however, is one that I believe Americans ought to take to heart. Close to the end of the book, Wilmut phrases his argument the most eloquently. He states that "it is critical that we do not allow our fear of misuse of new knowledge to curb our exuberant creativity" (274). In other words, we ought not let the potential for things to go wrong from discouraging innovation and progress. This is a lesson not confined to the realm of scientific research and controversy, but it certainly applies.
While the pursuit of knowledge in this field is bound to lead (and already has lead to) serious ethical concerns, it is possible that the benefits to future generations will outweigh our growing sense of paranoia.
That being said, After Dolly is a book on stem cell research and Ian Wilmut's involvement with and thoughts on the subject. Parts of the book are clever and even entertaining (such as the section on dolly's fame) and others thought provoking and intriguing (such as the early section on exact human clone justifications or the later chapter on genetic diagnostics and therapy). On the other hand, parts of the book are simply dull.
For an introduction to the issue and the science behind it, the book was a good choice. I would recommend it to anyone who must research stem cells or cloning or development of embryonic studies. I would also recommend it to anyone with a genuine fascination with the topic as Wilmut makes it easily digestible and amusing along the way. That being said, if you do not particularly hold an interest in the issues of cloning, stem cell research, etc. After Dolly could be a long and grueling read, as it was for me. While I enjoyed reading about the controversies, media, and issues surrounding scientific advancement, the actual stories of this that and the other scientist, cell or mammal were less than enthralling. The resounding message, however, is one that I believe Americans ought to take to heart. Close to the end of the book, Wilmut phrases his argument the most eloquently. He states that "it is critical that we do not allow our fear of misuse of new knowledge to curb our exuberant creativity" (274). In other words, we ought not let the potential for things to go wrong from discouraging innovation and progress. This is a lesson not confined to the realm of scientific research and controversy, but it certainly applies.
While the pursuit of knowledge in this field is bound to lead (and already has lead to) serious ethical concerns, it is possible that the benefits to future generations will outweigh our growing sense of paranoia.
Wednesday, May 9, 2012
Time Enough At Last
Though I do love the old Rod Serling Twilight Zones, the title is about all this post has in connection with them. It seemed fitting, though, as I'd like to talk about reading.
Having finally finished Dante's Inferno (part 1 of the three part Divine Comedy), I feel two things: first is accomplishment, I did finish the book, and it was as incredible as I thought it would be. (Seriously, if you have a few days, sit down and read the Inferno, it's downright cool). Second is a kind of disappointment. It's almost the end of the school year for me, and I've only read one book that wasn't required by school.
It seems between the extracurriculars, the college apps, the music and the precious time with friends and family, we've neglected to leave time for reading.
Curling up with a good book is comforting, it's escapism at it's finest with the added bonus of a larger vocabulary and a solid exercise in imagination. So why don't we read anymore? That's easy, because we have no time. I miss the days in elementary/middle school (gee, never thought I'd say that!) when there was time to simply plop down on a library bean-bag and read something fun.
Part of the joy of summer, for me, is having, at last, enough time to get to the things I miss during the school year; things like travel, quality time with friends and family, a healthy input of vitamin D, and catching up on my reading. But summer is still a few weeks away, so until then, I'll keep my list. . .
Next up: The rest of the Hunger Games trilogy, and then more classics! Any recommendations?
Having finally finished Dante's Inferno (part 1 of the three part Divine Comedy), I feel two things: first is accomplishment, I did finish the book, and it was as incredible as I thought it would be. (Seriously, if you have a few days, sit down and read the Inferno, it's downright cool). Second is a kind of disappointment. It's almost the end of the school year for me, and I've only read one book that wasn't required by school.
It seems between the extracurriculars, the college apps, the music and the precious time with friends and family, we've neglected to leave time for reading.
Curling up with a good book is comforting, it's escapism at it's finest with the added bonus of a larger vocabulary and a solid exercise in imagination. So why don't we read anymore? That's easy, because we have no time. I miss the days in elementary/middle school (gee, never thought I'd say that!) when there was time to simply plop down on a library bean-bag and read something fun.
Part of the joy of summer, for me, is having, at last, enough time to get to the things I miss during the school year; things like travel, quality time with friends and family, a healthy input of vitamin D, and catching up on my reading. But summer is still a few weeks away, so until then, I'll keep my list. . .
Next up: The rest of the Hunger Games trilogy, and then more classics! Any recommendations?
Friday, May 4, 2012
Peter and The Wolf
Orchestra rehearsals these days have taken an interesting turn as we play Sergei Prokofiev's Peter and the Wolf. Not your ordinary symphonic work, Peter and the Wolf is a piece intended expressly for young listeners, mainly small children. Unlike a more conventional composition, Prokofiev's piece actually tells a story beyond that of the music.
The characters are the different instruments:
Peter: Violin
Grandfather: Bassoon
Bird: Flute (That's me)
Wolf: Horn
Duck: Oboe
Cat: Clarinet
Hunters: Trumpet
Narrator: Conductor
The piece goes along like this:
The conductor will introduce the scene, saying something like "Peter played in the meadow" and then will cue the violins, playing Peter's theme sprightly and cheerily. Or perhaps, "the bird and the duck argued" and the oboe and flute will have a duet. The listener can follow each scene by not only listening to the conductor, but by hearing the different qualities of each of the characters (expressed by the timbre of the instruments) as they interact within the music.
The general plot is the story of Peter, who defies his grumpy old grandfather by playing in the meadow and proclaiming himself "not afraid of wolves." Peter interacts with the wildlife around him, listening to the bird, letting the duck out of the gate accidentally, watching the cat stalk the bird and duck etc. But meanwhile, the hungry wolf is prowling the area, ready to snatch up Peter and his friends...
The whole process reminds me of sitting in the back of my parent's sedan, listening to Peter and the Wolf of cassette tape (remember those?). The parts are wicked, and so is the nostalgia.
Curious? Come see and hear the DHS Orchestra play Peter and the Wolf on Thursday, May 17, 2012 in the auditorium. This concert is to be broadcast on the radio as well! Tune in to Chicago's classical station WFMT 98.7 over the summer to hear the Prokofiev and more!
The characters are the different instruments:
Peter: Violin
Grandfather: Bassoon
Bird: Flute (That's me)
Wolf: Horn
Duck: Oboe
Cat: Clarinet
Hunters: Trumpet
Narrator: Conductor
The piece goes along like this:
The conductor will introduce the scene, saying something like "Peter played in the meadow" and then will cue the violins, playing Peter's theme sprightly and cheerily. Or perhaps, "the bird and the duck argued" and the oboe and flute will have a duet. The listener can follow each scene by not only listening to the conductor, but by hearing the different qualities of each of the characters (expressed by the timbre of the instruments) as they interact within the music.
The general plot is the story of Peter, who defies his grumpy old grandfather by playing in the meadow and proclaiming himself "not afraid of wolves." Peter interacts with the wildlife around him, listening to the bird, letting the duck out of the gate accidentally, watching the cat stalk the bird and duck etc. But meanwhile, the hungry wolf is prowling the area, ready to snatch up Peter and his friends...
The whole process reminds me of sitting in the back of my parent's sedan, listening to Peter and the Wolf of cassette tape (remember those?). The parts are wicked, and so is the nostalgia.
Curious? Come see and hear the DHS Orchestra play Peter and the Wolf on Thursday, May 17, 2012 in the auditorium. This concert is to be broadcast on the radio as well! Tune in to Chicago's classical station WFMT 98.7 over the summer to hear the Prokofiev and more!
Tuesday, May 1, 2012
After Dolly: The Pharmer in the Dell
No, that's not a typo you see up there in the title of this post, pharming actually exists. For eons humanity has been selecting genetic attributes in creatures both companionable and consumable to make them more ideal for their purposes in our lives. Wilmut uses the example of dogs, having originated as wolves which now look and act far less menacing in many cases. How the great carnivorous hunter became dainty and totable (or even simply a more friendly or more athletic) breed is all genetic manipulation over generations of breeding for specific trait continuation.
On a much more precise and timely scale is modern genetic manipulation of animals, in this case livestock. Only this time we were not breeding for behavior, but for products. Wilmut discusses how he and his team "wanted to do more than merely improve the performance of farmyard animals. The idea was to give these animals an entirely novel role. . ." (51). From that wish developed the pharming industry. Which, as the name suggests, is a mash-up of pharmaceuticals and farming. In plainer terms, animals as drug factories. By manipulating certain genes (the ability took years and years of trial and error and technological advances to develop) we can, essentially, program animals to make what we need or more of what we can already obtain naturally in the way of pharmaceuticals. For example, pharmed animals can make "the human proteins factor VIII and factor IX to treat hemophilia [a disease that inhibits vital blood clotting] and the enzyme AAT. . . used to treat lung disorders such as cystic fibrosis" (51).
One of the first pharmed animals was Tracy, another famous sheep, who's "milk was rich in the human protein AAT. . . in every liter she made 35 grams" (54).
While the ethical ramifications of genetic tinkering for drugs are suspect (who knows what the animals endure with abnormal genes and if they are affected or unchanged) I must agree with Wilmut that the idea seems simple and effective. It poses little difference from the more archaic forms of genetic manipulation with the exceptions being that it is more accurate and possibly more beneficial today. Stem cell and genetic research is not the work of evil geniuses with a "God complex" but the work of everyday people looking to improve the health and well-being of others. Whatever your opinions on animal drug testing, it cannot be denied that research into stem cells and genetics in general have lead to valuable breakthroughs and have real significance for humanity.
On a much more precise and timely scale is modern genetic manipulation of animals, in this case livestock. Only this time we were not breeding for behavior, but for products. Wilmut discusses how he and his team "wanted to do more than merely improve the performance of farmyard animals. The idea was to give these animals an entirely novel role. . ." (51). From that wish developed the pharming industry. Which, as the name suggests, is a mash-up of pharmaceuticals and farming. In plainer terms, animals as drug factories. By manipulating certain genes (the ability took years and years of trial and error and technological advances to develop) we can, essentially, program animals to make what we need or more of what we can already obtain naturally in the way of pharmaceuticals. For example, pharmed animals can make "the human proteins factor VIII and factor IX to treat hemophilia [a disease that inhibits vital blood clotting] and the enzyme AAT. . . used to treat lung disorders such as cystic fibrosis" (51).
One of the first pharmed animals was Tracy, another famous sheep, who's "milk was rich in the human protein AAT. . . in every liter she made 35 grams" (54).
While the ethical ramifications of genetic tinkering for drugs are suspect (who knows what the animals endure with abnormal genes and if they are affected or unchanged) I must agree with Wilmut that the idea seems simple and effective. It poses little difference from the more archaic forms of genetic manipulation with the exceptions being that it is more accurate and possibly more beneficial today. Stem cell and genetic research is not the work of evil geniuses with a "God complex" but the work of everyday people looking to improve the health and well-being of others. Whatever your opinions on animal drug testing, it cannot be denied that research into stem cells and genetics in general have lead to valuable breakthroughs and have real significance for humanity.
Tuesday, April 24, 2012
After Dolly: Rationalizing The Family Clone
Human cloning is not yet available, but we are not far from a time when cloning human beings could be possible. The question is, what are the ramifications (both ethical and scientific) and is it worth it? Wilmut cites three common justifications for the pursuit of human cloning, and goes on to explain the validity (or lack thereof) of each. "The first is to overcome infertility, the second is to 'bring back' a dead child, the third is to duplicate someone of astonishing ability or talent- to give the world another Mozart, Curie, or Einstein" (36).
In answer to the first point, it may not be worth the trouble. IVF (in-vitro fertalization) has given many an alternative to infertility, and new research outside of cloning is making progress. The second and third justifications: bringing back the dead and re-creating the exceptional are, unfortunately, out of our reach, and it is likely they will never be within the grasp of science.
When looking at the prospect of cloning specific persons, one has to look to real-life examples for information. As man-made clones are impossible to observe (there are none), one has to look at "natural clones" for context. The closest thing to a clone? An identical twin. But even identical twins are not exactly identical, are not clones. "Small variations in cell division. . .may slightly alter the appearance of one twin to another" likewise, nurture, innate personality, and environment play a role in how children develop (42). In reality, no twin is identical. The same goes for potential clones, but with added pressure.
"In an attempt to undo their terrible loss, some parents might want to clone their dead child from one of the infant's cells. . . drawing on the example of bereaved parents who try to deal with the loss by having another child in the hope that the new child would be a replacement for the one who died" (40). While cloning a dead child may seem like a good idea, the results would be heartbreaking, not only for the parents but for the clone. A person can never be truly reproduced like a document or photocopy. Genes are not enough. Nature, the surroundings, the moods around them, the times, the politics, the way life is will always be different, and so they will always be different. A clone could never "fill the shoes of the ghost" (40). They would either develop into their own person, or be miserable trying to be "a living memorial to the dead" (40). This approach is both unethical and sad, for all involved the emotional trauma has no rewards.
Another issue posed for the possibility of cloned persons (children or otherwise) is the "original" or "parent" donor. A clone would face expectations and bias from caregivers, making life more difficult. This is best illustrated by the real example of step-children, who are not biologically related to both parents. "Stepparents tend to invest less time and effort in the offspring from their partner's previous marriage than they do with their own children. . . the genetic parent of a clone may feel the child is 'mine' rather than 'ours'" (39). Children could receive less attention from parents because they are not a copy of that parent, the narcissism unfulfilled, the clone could be ignored or mistreated. On the topic of narcissism, the actual donor, the clone's original could be upset by the inconsistencies in their "copy" the same way parents get upset when their children fail to live up to their idea of what their kids should be. A clone in this postition, trying to develop their personality and life would suffer because the "parent or sibling" would feel "entitled to expect a clone to be just like him or his ideal" (39).
While the scientific community and citizenry could expect great rewards from cloning as far as progress in medicine and treatment of disease (which raises other ethical concerns that I'll adress in later posts), it appears the purley emotional desires for cloning, replication, narcissism, and replacement would be unethical to pursue, and impossible to satisfy.
In answer to the first point, it may not be worth the trouble. IVF (in-vitro fertalization) has given many an alternative to infertility, and new research outside of cloning is making progress. The second and third justifications: bringing back the dead and re-creating the exceptional are, unfortunately, out of our reach, and it is likely they will never be within the grasp of science.
When looking at the prospect of cloning specific persons, one has to look to real-life examples for information. As man-made clones are impossible to observe (there are none), one has to look at "natural clones" for context. The closest thing to a clone? An identical twin. But even identical twins are not exactly identical, are not clones. "Small variations in cell division. . .may slightly alter the appearance of one twin to another" likewise, nurture, innate personality, and environment play a role in how children develop (42). In reality, no twin is identical. The same goes for potential clones, but with added pressure.
"In an attempt to undo their terrible loss, some parents might want to clone their dead child from one of the infant's cells. . . drawing on the example of bereaved parents who try to deal with the loss by having another child in the hope that the new child would be a replacement for the one who died" (40). While cloning a dead child may seem like a good idea, the results would be heartbreaking, not only for the parents but for the clone. A person can never be truly reproduced like a document or photocopy. Genes are not enough. Nature, the surroundings, the moods around them, the times, the politics, the way life is will always be different, and so they will always be different. A clone could never "fill the shoes of the ghost" (40). They would either develop into their own person, or be miserable trying to be "a living memorial to the dead" (40). This approach is both unethical and sad, for all involved the emotional trauma has no rewards.
Another issue posed for the possibility of cloned persons (children or otherwise) is the "original" or "parent" donor. A clone would face expectations and bias from caregivers, making life more difficult. This is best illustrated by the real example of step-children, who are not biologically related to both parents. "Stepparents tend to invest less time and effort in the offspring from their partner's previous marriage than they do with their own children. . . the genetic parent of a clone may feel the child is 'mine' rather than 'ours'" (39). Children could receive less attention from parents because they are not a copy of that parent, the narcissism unfulfilled, the clone could be ignored or mistreated. On the topic of narcissism, the actual donor, the clone's original could be upset by the inconsistencies in their "copy" the same way parents get upset when their children fail to live up to their idea of what their kids should be. A clone in this postition, trying to develop their personality and life would suffer because the "parent or sibling" would feel "entitled to expect a clone to be just like him or his ideal" (39).
While the scientific community and citizenry could expect great rewards from cloning as far as progress in medicine and treatment of disease (which raises other ethical concerns that I'll adress in later posts), it appears the purley emotional desires for cloning, replication, narcissism, and replacement would be unethical to pursue, and impossible to satisfy.
Monday, April 23, 2012
Phase 5: Asleepyness
To those of you who don't know, the title references 21 Jump Street, which is probably still in theaters. It's sophmoric humor, but incredibly funny. Asleepyness is phase five of the drug the two protagonist buffoons are trying to find and eliminate. The other phases are not quite appropriate for this blog, so go see the film to find out what they are.
So, it's the Monday after prom, and so far there have been 9 kids in my gym class, 6 in my issues class, and 5 in my English class. I don't blame them for ditching. It's looking more and more attractive with each tick of the clock, frankly. It's not that I don't care about school, just the opposite, actually. But I am too tired to function. After getting no sleep on Saturday night and just a few measly hours last night, I not in a good state for learning. Things I am in the perfect state for include (but are not limited to) falling, napping, power-napping, straight-up sleeping, sprawling, lying down, and drinking water/caffinated soda (but never energy drinks: the taste and heart palpitations are icky).
Until today, I had thought senior ditch day was silly. Why couldn't kids go to school? Did they just not care? Now, I realize that people are exhausted, and to something from class at this point would be miraculous. But I didn't want to take the 3% grade hit after all my hard work these last four years.So here I am and here I'll stay, right in Phase 5, waiting for Pase 1: the giggs, when I can laugh it up with my friends and enjoy the memories that come from four years well-spent.
So, it's the Monday after prom, and so far there have been 9 kids in my gym class, 6 in my issues class, and 5 in my English class. I don't blame them for ditching. It's looking more and more attractive with each tick of the clock, frankly. It's not that I don't care about school, just the opposite, actually. But I am too tired to function. After getting no sleep on Saturday night and just a few measly hours last night, I not in a good state for learning. Things I am in the perfect state for include (but are not limited to) falling, napping, power-napping, straight-up sleeping, sprawling, lying down, and drinking water/caffinated soda (but never energy drinks: the taste and heart palpitations are icky).
Until today, I had thought senior ditch day was silly. Why couldn't kids go to school? Did they just not care? Now, I realize that people are exhausted, and to something from class at this point would be miraculous. But I didn't want to take the 3% grade hit after all my hard work these last four years.So here I am and here I'll stay, right in Phase 5, waiting for Pase 1: the giggs, when I can laugh it up with my friends and enjoy the memories that come from four years well-spent.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)