Science has confirmed that animals either evolve to their changing environment or go extinct, and humans are no different.  Over the course of mankind, humans have evolved in numerous ways to make us more fit to survive in a dynamic planet.  Some of these evolutionary characteristics include the ability to walk on two legs, use tools, and build fire.  While these changes in the human race occurred many years ago, there is evidence that we continue to evolve in more recent years.  For instance, about 3,000 years ago we developed lactose tolerance, recent statistics show that more and more people are born without wisdom teeth, and our brains are shrinking.  However, not all scientist are in agreement with the idea that humans will continue to evolve, some believe that we have reached our peak evolutionary fitness.  Having said this, are humans continuing to evolve and if so, what will we look like in the future?

“Because we have evolved, it’s natural to imagine we will continue to do so, but I think that’s wrong,” anthropologist Ian Tattersall of New York’s American Museum of Natural History articulates.  Ian Tattersall along with many other scientists believe that we have stopped evolving for multiple reasons.  The first of these reasons are advancements in medicine.  When Darwin wrote On the Origin of Species in 1859 the survival rate of British children to the age of 21 was only about 50%.  Now the survival rate of British children to the age of 21 is about 99%.  Darwin’s theory of evolution is built on the principle of survival of the fittest.  However, today in advanced nations, both the fit and the unfit survive to a reproductive age at increasingly high rates because of modern medicine.  So, if the the concept of survival of the fittest is obsolete, how will evolution continue to occur in humans?  Another reason why some scientists believe that humans have stopped evolving is the lack of isolation between human societies.  Darwin outlined in On the Origin of Species that genetic mutations are most likely to occur in small isolated populations.  This fact is supported by Darwin’s Galapagos finches which evolved to their own separate environments.  Thus, the increase of  crossbreeding between populations on earth will decrease genetic mutations and slow human evolution to a grinding halt.  However, there is another side to this debate.

For instance, a study published last month in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences suggested that women of the future could become shorter and stouter.  A group of scientists at Yale University led by Stephen Stearns found that shorter, slightly larger women tend to have more children than women that are taller and skinnier.  They believe that this correlation has to do with ovulatory characteristics that are beneficial to childbirth.  Another example of continued human evolution is in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences which found that over the past 5,000 years humans brains have been shrinking.  Scientists believe that this may have a few different causes.  One idea is that in large societies we are able to specialize our brains to do certain tasks, whereas in a hunter gatherer civilization, people are responsible for many different tasks in order to survive.  Another idea is that having a smaller head in general is beneficial to childbirth which may serve as an evolutionary advantage.  Whatever the reasons, there seems to be evidence that humans continue to evolve.

Based on the above evidence, can we conclude that humans will continue to evolve in the future?  In my brief meta analysis of various sources, the null hypothesis is that humans will not continue to evolve and the alternative hypothesis is that humans will continue to evolve.  There is little doubt in the scientific community that humans have evolved in the recent past and are evolving right now.  However, I do not feel that there is sufficient evidence to say that humans will definitely evolve in the future.  Thus, I have failed to reject the null hypothesis in favor of the alternative hypothesis.  This doesn’t guarantee that we will not continue to evolve, rather there is just not sufficient evidence to conclude for certain that we will continue to evolve.

My personal opinion on the matter is that human evolution will be dictated by various advancements in technology.  For instance, if future humans begin to live on different planets around the galaxy, it is more than likely that humans will evolve to their respective planet.  Chris Impey, an astronomy professor at the University of Arizona was quoted saying that if certain people did move to Mars then, “These people will become an offshoot of the human tree, and most likely evolve into something else.” Another consideration is how much better we become with medical treatment.  If medical practices continue to improve like they have over the past 200 years, there is a real possibility that evolution of humans slows down tremendously.  Having said this, I do believe that humans will continue to evolve but our evolution is impossible to predict because it relies so heavily on unknown technological advancements.

If you walk around campus, it seems like outside of every main building you can find at least one person “Vaping.”  Vaping has been a huge trend among my generation.  People vape for all sorts of reasons, some of which include a substitute for traditional tobacco, recreational purposes (fun), and stress relief.  Moreover, there is an overwhelming ignorance to the possibility that Vaping might be unhealthy.  This ignorance made me wonder if vaping was healthy or not.

First, what is vaping?  Vaping in its simplest sense is inhaling water vapor through a vaporizer often referred to as a vape pen.  The vapor can come in many different flavors that can be switched around according to some one’s preference.  Vapor companies advertise that it is like smoking without many of the down sides of smoking such as repugnant odor, bad breath, ashes, etc.  The vaporizer was invented nearly five decades ago but only became popular recently as the popularity of cigarettes plummeted due to increased awareness of health risks.  Having said this, is vaping a poor alternative to cigarettes because of other health risks?

Research presented in this year’s American Thoracic Society International Conference displayed that certain flavorings used in electronic cigarette liquid may alter certain lung cells.  Research from The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill showed that changes in cell viability, cell proliferation, and calcium signaling were flavor dependant.  The study took human lung cells and exposed them to thirteen different flavors of E-cigarette liquid.  the results showed that five of the flavors had adverse effects on the cells and changed them in some way.  The mechanism behind these results is largely unknown, however this study should certainly be looked at when considering the health risks of vaporizers or e-cigs.

Another aspect that must be considered when looking into the health effects of e-cigs is the nicotine that can be inhaled.  Nicotine is a highly addictive substance which is often found in tobacco products.  That being said, it is possible to get addicted to e-cigs.  Thus, if a person attempts to stop using the e-cigs, they will undergo withdrawal symptoms such as headaches, irritability, and nausea.  Nicotine is also known to raise users heart rates and blood pressure so it is bad for people’s hearts.  

Next, the American Heart Association recently released it’s findings related to e-cigs in their scientific journal.  They were testing the overall claim from e-cig companies that “e-cigs are a safe alternative to cigarettes and will help you quit smoking tobacco.”  The researchers first found that e-cig users are 30% less likely to quit smoking cigarettes than other smokers.  Additionally, the American Heart Association concluded that e-cigs are not as safe as people think.  The e-cigs contain many carcinogens present in cigarettes such as formaldehyde and lead that can cause cancer.  So, e-cigs are not just delivering water vapor like companies advertise.

Another disturbing aspect of e-cigs is their popularity among young people.  The general fear is that many high schoolers who may not smoke normal cigarettes could be attracted to e-cigarettes and form life time addictions.  This fear is coming to fruition as 13.4% of all high schoolers report using an e-cigarette in the past 30 days apposed to the 9.2% of high schoolers who report smoking a cigarette in the last 30 days.  This 2014 study conducted by the CDC also found that from 2011 to 2014, the amount of e-cig users in high school rose 11.9% and the amount cigarette smokers fell 6.6%.  This equates to a net gain of 5.3% of high school students that smoked either e-cigs or cigarettes.  Additionally, 90% of all lifetime nicotine habits begin in high school so getting kids hooked on e-cigs with nicotine can not be a positive thing.  Moreover, e-cig companies are clearly marketing to a younger generation by creating new appealing vaporizers and advertising places that are often seen by high schoolers.  

In conclusion, it is not clear to scientists exactly how bad vaping and e-cigs are for us.  They are simply too new of a product for conclusive evidence to be present.  However, a simple overview of the chemicals involved and of early trials, suggest that e-cigs may have some similar effects on humans that normal tobacco products do.  In my opinion, I would say that e-cigs may be safer than cigarettes, but it is best to simply stay away from both.

Sources:

https://teens.drugabuse.gov/blog/post/e-cig-popularity-rise

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/american-heart-association-calls-for-tougher-restrictions-on-e-cigarettes/

http://www.drugs.com/sfx/nicotine-side-effects.html

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2015-05/ats-ecf050815.php

http://www.vapersoul.com/what-is-vaping/

http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/20150417202546.shtml

http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/youth_data/tobacco_use/

Over the world’s history, scientists know of five mass extinctions that wiped out at least 75% of the world’s living species.  Many new studies published in the journal of Science suggest that we are in the midst of another mass extinction.  Human population continues to grow, and a destruction of habitats and global warming has proven detrimental to other species.  Scientist predict that extinctions rates in the 20th century were 100 times faster than if humans were not inhabiting earth.

One study shows that the human population has doubled over the past 35 years, but in the same time the invertebrate animal population has declined by 45%.  These invertebrates do not attract the same attention that large animals might.  However, they are crucial to ecosystems functioning correctly.  Lead author Rodolfo Dirzo of Stanford University states, “We tend to think of extinction as a loss of a species from the face of the earth, and that’s very important, but there’s a loss of critical ecosystem functioning in which animals play a central role that we need to pay attention to as well.”  According to the study, 322 species have gone extinct over the past 500 years.  So what is to come?

Another study lead by Anthony Barnosky of the university of California, berkeley found that three quarters of today’s animal species could vanish in the next 300 years.  Additionally, Barnosky team found that over the past 65 million years, there has been an extinction rate of about two mammal species per million years.  However, over the past 500 years a minimum of 80 mammal species have gone extinct.  This is well above the average and suggests that we are in the beginning of another mass extinction.

Moreover, if all of the endangered mammal species go extinct within the next 100 years, in 334 years 75% of all mammal species will be gone.  Barnosky team extended to the study to many other living organisms such as reptiles and amphibians and found that a similar trend is taking place.  The team estimates that extinction rates are 3 to 80 times faster than what is considered normal.

The next logical question that someone may have is, will humans survive the sixth mass extinction?  The answer to this question is not fully known.  On one side, humans have proven that we are able to survive a loss of many species on earth.  We are providing this right now.  But what is the threshold?  Is there a point when ecosystems are so dysfunctional that we can not accumulate sufficient amounts of food to feed our ever growing population.  Moreover, the pollution that is killing off many species around us could one day become so severe it causes great health concerns in humans.  In countries like China, the health effects of high pollution are already evident.  Another question is, even if we can survive a drastic decrease in other species, is that the kind of world we want future generations to live in?

But is it too late to stop?  The good and bad thing about this apparent sixth mass extinction is that we as humans have caused it.  Due to increased awareness and technology, humans are able to delay the extinction of endangered species by placing them in controlled safe habitats.  Additionally, many scientist believe, if we can return some species back to their original habitats, we may be able to slow the extinction rates.  Additionally, if we are able to stop some of the obvious causes of global warming and habitat destruction such as pollution and rapid human population growth, we will be able to combat this increased rate of extinction.

Thus, it is evident that we are in at the beginning of another mass extinction like the one the dinosaurs faced millions of years ago.  However in this situation, we are not the dinosaur’s, rather we are the asteroid.  Stopping this human caused mass extinction will require a concerted effort from all of mankind.

Souces

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/06/150623-sixth-extinction-kolbert-animals-conservation-science-world/

http://news.stanford.edu/pr/2014/pr-sixth-mass-extinction-072414.html

http://time.com/3035872/sixth-great-extinction/

http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/biodiversity/elements_of_biodiversity/extinction_crisis/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/06/22/the-earth-is-on-the-brink-of-a-sixth-mass-extinction-scientists-say-and-its-hum
ans-fault/

http://www.theweathernetwork.com/us/news/articles/climate-and-environment/what-up-in-climate-change-this-time-we-are-the-asteroid/55506/

It seems like every year there is a new futuristic movie which depicts an overpopulated earth and some protagonist attempting to save mankind by venturing into outer space to find a new home.  While all of these movies are fiction, there is some truth to the plot.  In the future, if the human population continues to increase exponentially, and the rates of pollution continue to climb, it is quite possible that we as a society will be forced to disperse ourselves across the galaxy.  In recent news, there have been talks of sending humans to Mars to possibly colonize the planet.  Elon Musk even created Space-X with the primary goal of getting humans to Mars.  But, is mars the best option for colonization?  There has been much debate among scientists recently about which planet would actually be the best planet to colonize.  

The first thing to consider is that if humans attempted to colonize Venus, it would be impossible to live at the surface.  The average temperature at the surface of Venus is an unbearable 864 degrees Fahrenheit
.  Also, the atmospheric pressure on Venus is 92 times that of earth so if we attempted to travel to the surface, we would be crushed.  Moreover, it rains sulfuric acid on the surface and toxic chemical rivers are in abundance.  All of these factors in summation make living on the surface of Venus unimaginable.  However, NASA came up with an idea to create a blimp city 30 miles above the surface of Venus.  Considering this, what are the factors that determine which planet is a better option to colonize?

One factor that must be considered when deciding which planet would be a better option to colonize is location.  Mars is 54.6 Million Kilometers from earth while Venus is only 42 million kilometers from earth.  Colonizing a planet will require countless trips back and forth in order to deliver all of the supplies necessary to sustain life.  Thus, the shorter distance to Venus could save us a great deal of money and time.  Additionally, Venus is 2.1 times closer to the sun which means there are more opportunities to harness solar power.  Having said this, it is apparent that Venus has a leg up when it comes to location.

Another issue must be considered when deciding what planet is more viable to colonize are atmospheres.  Mars atmosphere is nearly nonexistent.  It is one percent the density of Earth’s and is comprised of 95% CO2.  The lack of atmosphere would expose its inhabitants to harmful radiation and UV rays.  Venus’s atmosphere is much thicker than Mar’s which might protect future colonies from asteroids, UV rays, and radiation.  As stated before, the atmospheric pressure at the surface of Venus is not habitable, but once you are 30 miles up, it is close to that of earth’s.

However, the deciding factor on the issue is gravity.  Humans do not react well to low gravity levels.  Our bones deteriorate at a higher rates when exposed to low gravity levels than people suffering from osteoporosis.  So, if we are looking for a place that we can live long term, a planet with extremely low gravity levels could be detrimental to our health.  Mars gravity is .4 that of earth’s.  While this is more gravity than the moon, it is most likely too little to be habitable.  In contrast, Venus has gravity is .9 that of earths which is certainly more bearable.  Many inherent qualities of a planet could be combated by an artificial environment.  However, we have no way of altering the gravity on a planet.

Considering these factors, I believe that Venus is a more viable option for colonization than mars.  However, it would be ignorant of me to say that I have all the answers.  This is  an ongoing debate and there is no one correct answer.  The one thing that most scientists can agree on is that we can not stay on earth forever.  Venus seems like a great option, however we will never be able to walk on the surface of Venus.  Furthermore, the greatest argument for Mars is that we have discovered water on Mars.  Water is an invaluable resource and there are no signs of water on Venus.  Additionally,  many of the great minds in of our time like Elon Musk feel that Mars is the better option.  So what do you think?

Work Cited:

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=should+we+colonize+mars+or+venus&FORM=VIRE1#view=detail&mid=23791BC6717AA2BB120523791BC6717AA2BB1205

http://www.mars-one.com/faq/mission-to-mars/why-mars-and-not-another-planet

http://www.citylab.com/tech/2014/07/the-surprisingly-strong-case-for-colonizing-venus/373560/

Throughout the year in SC 200, we have discussed double blind placebo trials and many other types of trials that require placebo groups.  Double blind Placebo trials are especially important in clinical trials, testing the effectiveness of drugs.  It is necessary to have a placebo/control group so that there is something to compare the experimental group to.  However, sometimes the placebo group elicits a response because people think that they are getting the medicine so they report feeling better.  Having said this, in recent years, there has been a large increase in placebo responses in clinical trials.  The curious thing about this observation is that the increase in placebo responses have only been observed in the United States.

In one meta analysis, a study published in the journal Pain from McGill University, the researchers observed 83 trials investigating the effectiveness of pain medication.  These studies span many years from 1990 to 2013.  The researchers found that the reported levels of pain decreased steadily over the years reaching an average of 30% decrease in 2013.  Similarly, many other clinical trials were investigated which had to do with antidepressant drugs and anti psychotic drugs and a similar trend was observed.  This meta analysis compared the results of these trials in multiple countries and found that there has only been an increase in placebo response in US trials.  Also Fabrizio Benedetti, who studies placebo responses at the University of Turin, observed the same increase in placebo responses in the US.  But, why is this happening.

There are no definite answers to this questions, but scientists believe the evolving nature of clinical trials in America is playing a role in the trend.  In America, trials on average are becoming longer and are involving more people.  For whatever reason, it is believed that trials that take place over a longer period of time and have more participants elicit a larger placebo response.

Another reason why placebo responses may be increasing in America is that the United States is one of only two countries (New Zealand) that allow for drug companies to create advertisements promoting their drug.  This fact means that Americans are more likely to believe that drugs will work than other people around the world who are not constantly exposed to these advertisements.  If Placebo responses are increasing, what effect does this have on clinical trials.

An increased placebo response directly leads to an increase in the failure of clinical trials.  This is because if a drug decreases a person’s pain by 40%, but people in the placebo group are reporting a 30% decrease in pain, there may not be a large enough difference between the two groups to conclude that the drug works.  This is a massive issue because if we can not prove that drugs work through double blind control trials then how can we prove that they are effective?  Moreover, there are no easy solutions to this issue.

One possible solution is to end the advertisement of drugs.  However, this would create a huge legal struggle with the drug companies who runs the advertisements.  Another possible solution might be to decrease the size of the trials.  But, we know that increasing the size of a trial makes the trial more accurate so we would be sacrificing accuracy in order to decrease the placebo response.  The last possible solution is to decrease the length of the trials.  This is a possible solution but the link between longer trials and increased placebo response is extremely murky.  

Having said this, I believe that the true cause of increased placebo responses in America is rooted in the increase of advertisements through television and  the internet.  In my opinion, this is the only logical connection.  There is no reason that the increased size or length of a trial should increase the placebo effect.  But, the overwhelming affect of television, internet, and social media in American’s lives forces us to pay attention to advertisements.  One possible experiment to prove this is to create four groups in a double blind control trial.  Expose one group to a series of drug adds then the placebo, expose one group to no drug adds then the placebo, expose on group to drug adds and the actual drug, and expose one group to drug adds then the placebo and compare the results.  A possible issue with this is that the trial would not be fully double blind because the people would know if they were watching a drug add or not.  However, I believe that the trial would still yield useful data.

Work Cited:

Placebo response growing over time – but only in America

http://www.nature.com/news/strong-placebo-response-thwarts-painkiller-trials-1.18511

https://www.mcgill.ca/newsroom/channels/news/american-placebo-255973

Since coming to Penn State nearly two months ago, there have been many changes to my lifestyle.  Some of these being my eating habits, the amount of time I spend studying, and the amount of time I spend with my friends.  However, the most prevalent change that I have witnessed to my lifestyle and to the lifestyles of my peers is the drastic change in sleep.  When I was in high school, I consistently went to bed around 11 and woke up around 6:45, achieving close to 8 hours of sleep a night.  However, I find myself staying awake as late as 3 or 4 in the morning here at college.  Similarly, I have talked to countless friends about how their sleep habits have changed and they describe to me the all nighters they have had to endure while attempting to finish a paper or study for a test.  Also, it is no secret that the students who are pledging fraternities are forced to stay up to early hours in the morning while juggling academic endeavours.  So, this made me wonder what the effect of sleep deprivation is on my grades.

Researchers at University of St. Paul in Minnesota investigated this topic.  In 2009, they looked through the responses of 43,000 students in an attempt to study  the correlation between sleep and grades.  Their findings were shocking.  First, they discovered that college freshmen were more likely to be affected by sleep deprivation than upperclassmen.  Additionally, they discovered that sleep problems alone were a predictor of if a student would drop a class.  The first thing that I thought when reading this is, what if there are other variables involved?  For instance, what if students with anxiety issues or depression are more likely to get less sleep.  However, this study controlled chronic health problems, race, gender, anxiety, depression and work hours so they would not impact the results.  I would consider this study effective because the researchers accounted for confounding variables and took such a large sample size.  Additionally, researchers found that insufficient sleep had just as negative an effect on students grades as binge drinking and marijuana use.  

Furthermore, lack of sleep doesn’t seem to just have a negative effect on grades, but learning as a whole.  Studies
suggest that the amount and quality of sleep a person gets is directly related to how well they learn and remember information.  There are two main reasons why scientists believe this to be the case.  First, a person who is sleep deprived has a harder time focusing on the material being presented.  We have all been in this situation; half asleep staring at a professor speaking yet not comprehending what is coming out of their mouth.  Second, sleep has the ability to sort through information that we acquire during the day and file it into our memories.  Memory is generally broken up into three parts; acquisition, consolidation, and recall.  A lack of sleep negatively affects all three of these processes.  There has not yet been a mechanism discovered that explains why sleep has the ability to consolidate memories, but the data in support for this fact is convincing.

In conclusion,  sleep is essential to learning and getting good grades in college.  When contemplating weather to study all night or just go to bed, I would suggest going to bed.  A lack of sleep will inhibit our ability as students to process information and problem solve.  Quantity and quality of sleep are key variables in determining what one’s grade will be at the end of the semester.

Work Cited

http://www.aasmnet.org/articles.aspx?id=4780

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/sleep-problems-effects-students-grades-drug-abuse-new-study-finds/

http://healthysleep.med.harvard.edu/healthy/matters/benefits-of-sleep/learning-memory

https://www.google.com/search?q=go&biw=1014&bih=439&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0CAgQ_AUoA2oVChMIq764hqaxyAIVRTI-Ch2OzgMM#tbm=isch&q=sleep&imgrc=RSxS3Hfgllb3RM%3A

https://www.google.com/search?q=relationship+between+sleep+and+grades&biw=1014&bih=439&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAmoVChMItaWfqaOxyAIVR1Y-Ch3WTw0A#imgrc=YRncd-PMA1pc-M%3A

While researching a previous blog investigating if it is possible to live forever, I came across an article discussing various “proven methods” that expand one’s life span.  One method that caught my eye in particular is called calorie restriction.  Calorie Restriction is simply limiting one’s daily caloric intake to about 80% the recommended amount while still consuming all of the necessary nutrients.  This is supposed to slow the aging process altogether, and prevent various age related diseases.  My first instinct when I read this is that it must be too good to be true.  However, if  this is true, why don’t we all do this?  So, I figured I would investigate.

As I began investigating this topic, it became apparent that the scientific process taking place to answer the question of calorie restriction reflects what we have learned in class.  The first step is to preform a randomized controlled trial on mice.  In this trial, mice were randomly allocated to six different groups.  Each group was fed food according to different regimented diets.  These diets varied in the amount of calories consumed and what those calories were.  After the trial, it was discovered that the group of mice whose diet was restricted to 65% the normal amount of calories (the amount of calories given to the control group) lived the longest which equates to a 20-40% increase in lifespan.  These findings were published in the national library of medicine and are accepted around the scientific community.  Even though it was proven that calorie restriction increases the lifespan of mice, this in no way proves the impact of calorie restriction on humans.  The next logical step to take after this trial is to conduct a calorie restriction test on animals that share more similarities to humans than mice.  This is precisely what Richard Weindruch of the University of Wisconsin did.

In April of 2014, University of Wisconsin scientist Richar Weindruch released his results from a 25 year long experiment which began in 1989.  The experiment compared 76 Rhesus monkeys who were put on a diet restricted to 70% the normal caloric intake to monkeys that ate as they wished.  Weindruch and his team discovered that Monkeys allowed to eat what they wanted were almost 3 times as likely to contract diseases and their chance of mortality increases 3 times that of the experimental group.  These findings are influential because they display that calorie restriction increases the life span of primates.  However, there has yet to be a mechanism discovered that would correlate calorie restriction to increased life span.  The lack of a mechanism does not discredit this experiment, it simply means there is more to be researched.

Considering these two findings, the next step in proving  that calorie restriction works in humans would be a randomized control trial of humans.  However, a trial like this is nearly impossible to conceive.  This is because it would take upwards of 100 years to complete and is controversial because it could potentially put people’s lives in danger.  If calorie restriction has adverse effects on humans, an experiment like this could cause premature deaths of the subjects.  
Thus, even though there is ample evidence to suggest that calorie restriction may increase a person’s life span, we are far from a definite answer.  Evidence of this fact is in the Times article that states there is absolutely no convincing evidence that calorie restriction works in primates.  Like any science, there are people on both sides of the issue arguing for their point of view.  The only way to answer this question for sure it through a randomized control trial of humans, but a trial like this will most likely never take place due to ethical issues.  There is great commercial intrigue around this topic because if a mechanism could be discovered, companies might be able to make some sort of pill that actually slows down the aging processes.  The possibility of a supplement like this is extremely exciting and will most likely drive more research on this topic for years to come.

Work Cited:

Want to Live Longer? Don’t Try Caloric Restriction

http://news.wisc.edu/22672

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3958810

https://www.fightaging.org/archives/2002/11/calorie-restriction-explained.php

Ever since I was a kid, I have pondered if time travel was possible?  Old cartoons depict Superman flying faster than the speed of light around the world in reverse and causing the world to go back in time.  While, time travel of the future will not happen because of super man, I think enough people have wondered about the possibility of time travel for me to research it.

First, time travel is real.  We are all traveling through time right now.  We are traveling at a rate of one second per second, one minute per minute, or one hour per hour, or however you would like to look at it.  But, what if we could change this rate and travel at a different speed?

Einstein also had the same question as me and his answer to the question might blow your mind.  He predicted that we could in fact change the rate at which we are traveling through time.  This prediction was published along with his special theory of relativity.  Einstein predicted that the rate at which something travels through time is inversely proportional to that things speed.  So, if I were to travel through space at an extremely high rate of speed, close to the speed of light, the rate that I would travel through time would decrease.  For instance, if I flew in a rocket ship to another galaxy at a speed close to the speed of light and by the time I made it to that galaxy and came back, I had aged five years.  My friends back on earth may have aged 40 years.  Thus, I would have traveled through time at a rate less than one minute per minute.

Next, most scientists agree that it is possible to travel “forward” through time at varying speeds, traveling “back” in time can get a little tricky.  When Einstein first came up with various equations related to his theory of special relativity, no one could figure out a way for his equations to allow for time travel backwards.  Since then, scientists and mathematicians have been able to crack these equations in hundreds of different ways and hypothesize about ways that people could travel back in time.

In conclusion, it is possible to travel through time at different speeds and even travel back in time.  Traveling forward in time at slower speeds will require us to innovate ways to travel through space at speeds close to the speed of light.  However, traveling back in time is much more complicated.  One possible way to travel back in time is to drive through a worm hole, but this is estimated to require as much energy as is released from an exploding star.  So, until we learn to harness energy of these magnitudes, I would say traveling back in time is way out of reach.  Having said all this, time traveling is possible, but you will most likely never do it because the technology to time travel is way out of reach.

It seems in recent history, humans lifespans are increasing at dramatic rates.  If we look back only 50 years, the average life expectancy of a person living in America was 65 years.  Look back 100 years and the average life expectancy of a person living in America was 45 years.  These figures are mind boggling when you consider that the life expectancy in America today is 77.6 years.  So, why the drastic changes and how far can this trend continue? 

First, the question must be addressed of, why are we living longer?  According to the Royal Geographical society, we are living longer because of improvements in public health, nutrition and medicine.  In addition, vaccinations, improved working conditions, a decline in smoking, and lower fertility rates have lead to many countries average life span skyrocketing.  Moreover, our life expectancy is expected to continue to rise into the mid 80’s in many well developed countries.  But, will this trend continue?

The answer to this question is extremely complicated and convoluted for multiple reasons.  The first reason being that it is extremely difficult to predict what new inventions or innovations in the health community will be formed in the years to come.  For instance, famous author and scientist Ray Kurzweil believes an event will occur by 2045 called the singularity which means humans and machines will become one.  Another reason why answering the question of if life expectancies will continue to rise is that we do know exactly how much they have rose in the past.  Many scientists question if we are actually living longer today.  Their argument is that in the past, infant mortality and other non-ageing related deaths were much more prevalent which skewed the data.  For example, John Adam’s lived to age 90, Thomas Jefferson lived to 84, and Ben Franklin lived to 83; and they were born about 300 years ago.

Elaborating on this, there are many ideas out in the open today that could be the answer to aging.  Some of these ideas being a calorie restricted diet, anti aging pills, and HGH.  However, even though some of these concepts have been proven to work on other animals such as mice, it is going to be difficult to see their effects on people.  The first reason being that if a test group uses these possible anti-aging methods, it may take 75-80 years to see their effects.  Another reason why it will be difficult to see if these methods are viable it that people have different genes that will cause them to live longer or shorter lives so comparing two different subjects in a test using anti aging methods will be nearly impossible to do.

In conclusion, there is no definite answer to my original question of if we can live forever.  It will all depend on technological advancements over the next many centuries.  But, these advancements are nearly impossible to predict.  Having said this, based on my research, unless we discover a way to synthesize substitutes for our human bodies, it is not possible to live forever because our bodies simply take too much wear and tear over a lifetime.  But, let the future prove me right or wrong.

Work Cited:

https://www.google.com/search?q=how+old+was+john+adams+when+he+died&rls=com.microsoft:en-US:IE-Address&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=ie7&rlz=1I7DMUS&gws_rd=ssl

http://theconversation.com/why-we-cant-live-forever-understanding-the-mechanisms-of-ageing-7353

http://www.rgs.org/OurWork/Schools/Teaching+resources/Key+Stage+3+resources/Who+wants+to+live+forever/Why+are+people+living+longer.htm

http://www.neuronalstimuli.com/2011/02/are-we-really-living-longer-a-closer-look-at-life-expectancy-averages/

http://science.howstuffworks.com/life/genetic/humans-live-forever.htm

Ever since the space race in the 1960’s, it seems as though we as a civilization have been taking momentous leaps to discovering various things about outer space.  We have the ability to shoot satellites into orbit, take high definition pictures of pluto, and soon we may even be able to send a man to mars.  However, the more we investigate outer space and make groundbreaking discoveries, the more questions appear.  One of the largest questions lingering about outer space since Einstein released his theory of relativity is whether or not multiple universes exist.  

What is the multiverse theory?  The multiverse theory states that our universe is not the only universe out there, rather it is just one of many universes parallel to each other.  There are various reasons that some physicists back this theory.

The first reason being that space is infinite.  If space is actually infinite then there exists an infinite number of molecules in outer space.  Considering this point, there are only a finite number of ways that these molecules can configure themselves.  So, if you go far enough into outer space, you are bound to find another planet just like earth, with a people just like us doing exactly what we are doing.  Elaborating on this, our observable universe is only the distance that light has been able to travel in 13.7 billion years.  Many physicists then consider this area our universe and anything past this, other universes.

Another explanation for the multiverse, suggested by Alexander Velenkin  is the external inflation theory.  This theory suggests that some pockets of space stop inflating while others continue inflating giving rise to “bubbles” which are actually universes.  According to the theory, some of the universes may have vastly different laws of physics.  Similarly hard to understand as this theory is Paul Steinhardt and Neil Turok’s theory which suggests that there are actually other universes lying in different dimensions.  So, if we are currently in a four dimensional universe (three space and one time) there are universes with other dimensions lying parallel to ours.

As difficult and improbable as these theories are to consider, it is fun to ponder the possibilities.  Therein lies the problem with answering the question of the multiverse, there are so many possibilities and so little evidence to say that one of these theories are more likely than another.  So, I conclude by saying it is impossible to say for sure if there are other universes out there, but if space is truly infinite, there may have to be.

Work Cited
http://www.space.com/18811-multiple-universes-5-theories.html

After a discussion in Science 200 Lecture about the dangers of smoking and the history of smoking in America I began to wonder, what would I have done if I was living in the 1960’s and it was unclear if it was unhealthy to smoke or not?  Following this train of thought, I pondered if there was anything similar to smoking in my generation that may soon be linked to serious health concerns.  The first thing that came to mind was fast food.

Today in America, 17.8% of adults smoke which is as low as the smoking rates have ever been.  This number pales in comparison to the 45% of adults who smoked in 1955 according to a Gallup poll.  Now, compare the proportion of Americans who smoke to the proportion of Americans that eat fast food.  25% of Americans eat fast food daily, 50% of Americans eat fast food weekly and 80% of Americans eat fast food at least once a month.  Having said this, is it possible that fast food is the “smoking” of my generation and is it just going to take a few years to see how bad fast food is for our bodies?

It is obvious that if somebody eats a Big Mac they will not automatically keel over and die, so how can fast food kill.  Similar to how a smoker has a much greater chance of getting lung cancer later in life, a person who frequently eats fast food has a much higher chance of having heart disease later in life.  Which is the leading cause of death in America with nearly 596,577 deaths each year.  Three of the main causes of heart disease are high amounts of fat and cholesterol in the blood, high blood pressure, and high amounts of sugar in the blood.  How  does fast food contribute to these causes of heart disease?

First, it is understood that fast food contains a lot of fat but just how much is a lot.  Let’s take a look at the popular fast food restaurant Wendy’s.  If some hungry customer were to go in and order a triple whopper, a large order of french fries, and a frosty,  they would consume 121 grams of fat.  This is double the recommended fat consumption for one day in one meal.  Second, let’s look at how fast food can lead to high blood pressure.  According to a study published in “The Journal of Nutrition” in April 2007, even one high fat meal at a fast food restaurant can have negative effects on a person’s blood pressure.  The study consisted of all healthy adults who were broken up into two groups.  One group was given a fast food meal containing 42 grams of fat on two different occasions and the other group was given two low fat, non fast food meals on two different occasions.  It was discovered that the group given fast food experienced increased blood pressure and increased heart rates after just one meal.  Third, sugar.  According to the American Heart Association, the maximum amount of added sugar that you should have in a day is 7 grams.  However, a 64 ounce soda which equates to a large size at many fast food restaurants can contain as much as 200 grams of sugar.  Based on these facts, it is evident that the consumption of fast food can play a role in many of the causes of heart disease

In conclusion, 158,040 Americans are expected to die from lung cancer in 2012, which is just a small fraction of those who will die from heart disease.  Furthermore, a report done by Dailymail.com reports that eating fatty foods often combined with sedentary lifestyle will take 12 years off a person’s life.  This being two years more than the estimated ten years that smoking takes off a person’s life.  Having said this, I can conclude that eating fast food often is more dangerous to a person’s health than smoking.

Work Cited

http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/adult_data/cig_smoking/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/06/fast-food-poll_n_3714988.html

http://blog.partnersforyourhealth.com/Blog/bid/85971/Shocking-Fast-Food-Statistics-You-Should-Know

http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/health-topics/topics/hdw/causes

http://bossip.com/708170/chubby-lumpkins-the-most-unhealthy-fast-food-menu-items-in-america-and-some-of-these-might-surprise-you/7/

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0922553.html

https://www.wendys.com/en-us/frosty

http://www.livestrong.com/article/362680-does-fast-food-give-you-high-blood-pressure/

http://healthyeating.sfgate.com/shocking-fast-food-1673.html

http://authoritynutrition.com/how-much-sugar-per-day/

http://www.lung.org/lung-disease/lung-cancer/resources/facts-figures/lung-cancer-fact-sheet.html?referrer=https://www.google.com/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1268921/How-eating-fatty-food-watching-TV-cut-12-years-life.html

Since the beginning of civilization, people have been searching for answers (unsuccessfully) to very similar questions.  One of these questions being, how did we get here?  Whatever your religious beliefs are, it seems as though scientists and much of society have switched from trying to answer this questions on a spiritual basis, to attempting to answer the question with science.  One of the latest examples of scientists attempting to prove that we are here from the big bang theory occurred in March of 2014 by BICEP2.  I understand that you may be left with more questions than answers from my introduction to this controversial issue but let me explain.

The first question that most likely arose as you were reading my introduction is, what are gravitational waves?  Gravitational waves were first conceived in 1916 by Albert Einstein alongside his theory of relativity.  The official definition of gravitational waves are: “ripples that carry energy across the universe.” In a more simple sense, imagine a pond, and we get a massive crane and drop a ten ton boulder in the middle of the pond.  What would happen?  Waves would propagate towards the outside of the pond.  Now, substitute the pond with outer space and the dropping of the boulder with some cataclysmic even that occurred in space such as the big bang.

Expanding on this, the discovery of gravitational waves would have huge implications in the world of science for two reasons.  The first reason being that the exhistance of gravitational waves would prove einsteins theory of general relativity to be correct.  Einsteins theory of general relativity explains that space is a fabric and extremeley large objects in space can actually bend space itself.  This explanation may be somewhat unclear but this video may offer some insight.  The second reason why the discovery of gravitational waves would be ground breaking is the fact that this would go a long way to proving the big bang theory true.  Concievably, any occurance in space could create ripples in space time.  However, the only known event in history that could explain the existence of ripples in space time that are large enough to be detected is the Big Bang.

Nearly a year and a half ago, BICEP2 located at the south pole discovered a curling pattern of light waves in the cosmic microwave background. This Curling of light waves is called B-mode polarization.  Based on the data collected from BICEP2, scientists predicted that that this activity could only be explained by the rapid expansion of the universe caused by the Big Bang.  However, as learned in lecture, science is a process and just because one team of scientists believe they have made a discovery, does not meant that they have.

Even though these findings seemed promising and exciting, in recent months the team of scientists that published this discovery actually withdrew their claim.  This withdrawal came largely because of findings by the European Space Agency and their Planck satellite.  This team of scientists proved that the findings by BICEP2 can all be attributed to galactic dust and not gravitational waves.  Having said this, Planck’s discovery does not 100% rule out the possibility that gravitational waves played a role in BICEP2’s reading, it only offers a viable explanation for the reading that is not gravitational waves.
So, considering this “discovery” and later disapproval, do gravitational waves exist?  I believe the answer is yes.  So far, all parts of Einsteins theory of general relativity have been proven and this is the last piece of the puzzle.  If Einstein was correct with all of his other postulations then it is reasonable to give him the benefit of the doubt on this one.  Furthermore, if space-time is a fabric, and we know a force on a taught fabric causes a wave to propagate across that fabric, why would a large force in space not create a wave?  Whether you believe in the Big Bang or not is a whole other issue, but if the Big Bang did happen, it would have to create gravitational waves in space.  It is only a matter of time until we detect them.

Sources:

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/mar/17/gravitational-waves-bicep-inflation-big-bang

http://www.livescience.com/44166-big-bang-inflation-gravitational-waves-physics.html

http://www.space.com/28423-cosmic-inflation-signal-space-dust.html

Hello Science 200 friends.  My name is Adam McCullough and I am a freshman from Aurora, Ohio.  I am attending Penn State for multiple reasons, however the most prominent is that both of my parents are alumni and they forced me to.  It also helps that Penn State has many outstanding academic programs, including the program I reside in (division of undergraduate studies), but I plan on going into Smeal.  I am taking this course because the idea of discussing controversial topics sounds intriguing to me.  Lastly, I am not perusing a career in Science because I despise tedious, menial labs.