As I was driving back home to New Jersey this weekend, I passed a sign that said “Bagels”. And it got me thinking, why were bagels at home in New Jersey and New York City. Anywhere else but those two states you will find bagels that are flat, dry and just not half as good as they are in NJ and NYC. So why?

Some say that its the water that makes these bagels so great. The water in New York City comes from the Catskill Mountains which is about 130 miles away from the city. The water from these mountains is referred to as “soft”- it has low concentrations of magnesium and calcium. However if this were the case- that the water is what makes these bagels so great, than why aren’t all bagels across the country this good? This water would be really easy to replicate in places like Boston where the water is even softer, but my roommate who is from Boston has told me that my bagels are in fact better. In fact which disproves this theory even more is a chain of stores called Brooklyn Water Bagels, which has locations throughout the United States. Many New Yorkers have gone to the chains ready to say that the bagels aren’t the same, however the company’s founder says “Every New Yorker that ever walked in here walked in here with that smug arrogance, which I love, and said to me yeah, sure, sure… it’s all about the water. Give me a bagel, ok? Invariably, 99 times out of a hundred that person will get back in line and… they apologize, they get it, they can’t believe it”. While there is most likely a confirmation bias and a possible file drawer problem with that statement, if the water didn’t make a difference and these bagels weren’t as good as they are in the City and NJ, then this chain would not be open throughout the country.

NPR wrote a piece on how it could be the process of how bagels are made. Yes the water does play a role with how the bagels taste and their texture, but its really the process of boiling the bagels and then baking them that makes the difference. Watch this video for a more in depth description of the process.

Now this theory makes much more sense to me. Nowadays many people are lazy and don’t have the time to make dough ahead of time and let it sit in coolers and then boil it. This also makes more sense scientifically, with the reaction of the calcium and magnesium in reaction to the yeast. As the NPR article states ” bagels are baked in a hot oven that is also injected with steam”. This steam will gelatinize the outside as well as adds more shine and color to the bagel- but you won’t get that same chewiness that you get from when you boil a bagel.

So when you get down to the science of it, when bagels are boiled a chemical reaction begins between the inside of a bagel (the yeast) and the water (which holds the perfect amounts of calcium and magnesium). These bagels would be very easy to replicate but many people just don’t want to waste their time. People always told me that I would miss my bagels from home the most and it is so true, if only Irving’s would get their hands on these great tips and recipes.

As October is National Breast Cancer Awareness month, I thought it would be really fitting to have a blog post on breast cancer. It turns out that Penn State could have a HUGE part with finding a cure.

Each breast cancer tumor is different- some have protein receptors for estrogen and others have receptors for progesterone. These hormones act as signal for the tumors to grow more.  In order to counteract this, hormone therapy is used which can lower or block the amount of hormones reaching the tumor. This slows down and can potentially stop tumor growth. This becomes really problematic though for those who have Hormone-Receptive-Negative breast cancer tumors. These tumors do not have hormone receptors, but this is where Dr. Craig Meyers comes in. Dr. Meyers works as a professor of microbiology and immunology at Penn State College of Medicine in Hershey, PA.
In 2011 an article was released by Penn Live about Dr. Meyers and his discovery of a virus that can deplete triple negative breast cancer tumors in mice (aka the Hormone-Receptive-Negative tumors). The virus that he has discovered how to kill cancer cells is called AAV2. AAV2 is not known cause any type of disease within humans and animals which is why it was such a surprise to find that it was able to kill cancer cells. In 2011 this idea was still going through FDA approval and in the process of completing the first step of the process- preclinical animal testing. In 2014 an article by Scicasts was written about Dr. Meyers discovery and it said that this idea was still going through preclinical animal testing. However instead of focusing on just breast cancer cells in mice, they were going to test cancer cells throughout each mouses body as it “would better model what happens in humans”.

This is a breakthrough technique because as Dr. Meyers says, “Treatment of breast cancer remains difficult because there are multiple signaling pathways that promote tumor growth and develop resistance to treatment”. The cancer cells are completely killed for the AAV2 virus by “activating a protein called caspases, which are essential to the natural death of a cell”. Not only does the AAV2 virus kill these really aggressive cancer cells, it also slows down their growth which makes it even easier to wipe the tumors out.

After Andrew’s lecture on science and his allusion of science to Mt. Everest, I have a good idea of how long/difficult it will be to get this past the first preclinical stage. Once it gets past that stage though, I think that many patients would be willing to participate in the trial- one in three diagnoses of breast cancer are hormone-receptive-negative. As Andrew also taught us, cancer trials are ethical because there is a 50-50 chance of the treatment being good vs harmful. Hopefully this treatment will get past the first stage of preclinical treatment so that some human trials can occur. It would be very easy to hold a double blind control trial, the infection is injected right into the tumors and because there are no side affects (illness wise) neither the doctor nor patient would know which treatment the patient is receiving. It will be really interesting to see where this treatment goes- hopefully it is the answer to breast cancer!

When I was diagnosed with hypothyroidism three years ago, my mom immediately began looking for more “natural” things to help me. We went to Indonesia a year after my diagnosis, there they have this thing called a Reiki Master who is supposed to balance out the good and evils within a body. Defined by Kathleen Whelan and Gracie Wishing as “a complementary healing method to enhance an overall sense of well being, reduce pain, decrease stress, and foster relaxation”. After I got my treatment, I did feel better, more at peace- but was this a result of confirmation bias?

A randomized control trial done in Seattle, Washington where 100 patients who suffered from Fibromyalgia a chronic pain condition, were tested with Reiki Masters or an actor. The objective of this experiment was find whether or not Reiki helped with the pain. The results from this trial was that Reiki did not help the patients symptoms. All of the outcomes were identical to those who were treated by the actors.

Not many trials have been done on this idea, it’s a hard concept to come to terms with because it is not something that is measured statistically. Yes, you can do an experiment by which I meant there is a control group and a tested group, but how these groups are measured is by observations. A potential problem with doing lots of experiments with Reiki is the Texas sharpshooter idea. The concept of Reiki is very cool and it would be great if it could help someone, but if too many experiments are done, than something is bound to come up as Reiki working.

The idea of Reiki is really cool, I felt much more relaxed and at peace with myself and body, but maybe that was because I was laying on a comfy massage table with my eyes closed for over an hour. It might have been confirmation bias for me because I would really love for it to work for me. But who knows, after all Reiki is a very spiritual matter so it is really hard to judge.

To see a Reiki master in action, click this link!

The other day I was sitting in a class waiting for it to begin when a girl walked in with her headphones blasting music. Some classmates looked at each other with the “WTF” faces while others started dancing to the music as it was so loud. One kid even started playing his own music over it to create a “remix”. It got me thinking, how bad is listening to music on high levels- especially with headphones in.

According to Dr. James E. Foy who is an osteopathic pediatrician says that “Listening through headphones at a high volume for extended periods of time can result in lifelong hearing loss for children and teens. Even a mild hearing loss due to excessive noise could lead to developmental delays in speech and language.” This connection however was found through correlation, not an experiment. The American Osteopathic Association (AOA) reports that “Today, 1 in 5 teens
has some form of hearing loss – a rate about 30% higher than it was in the 1980s and 1990s – which many experts believe is due, in part, to the increased use of headphones”. This is an extremely high rate, and a scary one at that. Hearing loss has become more and more prevalent in kids ranging in ages from 6 to 19 according to a study done by Amanda Sue Niskar, RN, BSN, MPH; Stephanie M. Kieszak, MA, MPH; Alice Holmes, PhD, CCC-A; Emilio Esteban, DVM, MBA, PhD; Carol Rubin, DVM, MPH; Debra J. Brody, MPH.

The idea that high volume levels can hurt ears comes from the impact of sound on the fragile hearing system. Peter M. Rabinowitz says,

“To be perceived, sounds must exert a shearing force on the stereocilia of the hair cells lining the basilar membrane of the cochlea. When excessive, this force can lead to cellular metabolic overload, cell damage and cell death. Noise-induced hearing loss therefore represents excessive “wear and tear” on the delicate inner ear structures.”

Meaning that the high volume which exerts a strong force breaks the stereocilia which is”organelles of hair cells, which respond to fluid motion in numerous types of animals for various functions, including hearing and balance”. So basically these tiny hairs have a huge impact on your hearing, and it is believed that high volume levels can lead to the destruction of these hairs. With this idea it makes a lot of sense that headphones could cause hearing damage, sounds at really high levels literally inserted in your ear, close to your eardrum, yeah that could definitely cause damage.

These conclusions to give us reason to believe that hearing loss in kids can be traced back to headphones. But these are only observational studies. Had Amanda Sue Niskar, RN, BSN, MPH; Stephanie M. Kieszak, MA, MPH; Alice Holmes, PhD, CCC-A; Emilio Esteban, DVM, MBA, PhD; Carol Rubin, DVM, MPH; Debra J. Brody, MPH done an experimental study and not an observational one, we would have a more definitive answer. Doing an experiment on these kids would be really unethical because you could be causing them harm. The American Academy of Otolaryngology- Head and Neck Surgery say that there is a recessive gene that has been linked to hearing loss. So if music was played really loudly in a child’s ear who had this recessive gene, the study would be speeding up how quickly this kid goes deaf! They could try and do an experiment with animals but how would we actually know if the animal is hearing something. You might think we could try with a dog or some type of animal that responds to a voice, but personally my dog likes to ignore me. He hears me perfectly fine (I know this because he will pick his head up and look right at me) but will completely ignore me (he then proceeds to almost roll his eyes and lay his head back down). So in general, it would be really hard to hold an ethical experiment of this.

Overall, I personally will be wary of my headphone volume, it’s not worth risking my health later in my life. Even though these studies point to a correlation between headphone volume levels and hearing loss, there is no solid proof. After finding this article, it really has me thinking, it’s not worth not being able to hear for the rest of my life.

The Mozart Effect is commonly described as “he ability of Mozart’s music to temporarily heighten listeners’ spatial awareness and intelligence, to improve listeners’ concentration and speech abilities, and to advance reading and language skills”. So does it actually work? A book written by Don Campbell focuses on the development on children’s brains from Mozart music, from before birth to ages 8-10. In the book there is no clear conclusion drawn. This is probably because holding an experiment where you could potentially be inebriating a child from learning/getting smarter is unethical. Intelligence cannot be proven because as children get older, they also get smarter. Though you could compare the IQ’s of the children in a control group to the experimental group.

Rudi Črnčec, Sarah J. Wilson & Margot Prior say in their book The Cognitive and Academic Benefits of Music to Children: Facts and fiction that the effects of the Mozart Effect can not be reliably shown- the Mozart Effect has only shown an impact on reasoning skills. The Mozart Effect has so far shown no impact on normal kids in the academic field. However when it comes to kids with special needs, listening to classical music calms them down which in turn enhances learning. So there is an area to research more, the impact of classical media with those who suffer from mental disabilities.

Walter Verrusio, Evaristo Ettorre, Edoardo Vicenzini, Nicola Vanacore, Mauro Cacciafesta and  Oriano Mecarelli did a study on the Mozart Effect on adults. They took young healthy adults and healthy elderly and elderly suffer from Mild Cognitive Impairment and played Fur Elise by them. The impact of this was “an increase of alpha band and median frequency index of background alpha rhythm activity (a pattern of brain wave activity linked to memory, cognition and open mind to problem solving) was observed both in Adults and in Elderly”.  No changes were detected with those who suffered from MCI. This study was compared to one done with the same people but after they listened to Beethoven, the conclusion from that study was that there were no changes in alpha rhythm. So overall, from this experiment the conclusion drawn was that Mozart’s songs heightened SOME of the listeners intelligence level.

A problem with this whole concept in general though is the file drawer problem. Everyone wants this theory to be true, so if someone doesn’t fit this idea, it’s not going to be reported. Another problem is that it’s not like you can do a double blind experiment to compare those who listen to Mozart and those who do not, when you play music, the listener will know. Plus as mentioned before, if this were done, it would be unethical to the individuals not receiving Mozart’s music. Unlike the cancer treatments where there is a 50/50 chance of it having a positive impact, this could potentially hold back the participants learning abilities. Looking at the graph to the side, it shows that there is an increase of IQ when listening to classical music, but there are still so many confounding factors. What if the participant normally listens to music before a test and is now forced to sit in silence? That could be a confounding factor- along with what were the participants IQ scores before they listened to the music? This graph just shows IQ scores after listening, even if the groups were properly randomized theres still a chance that people with higher IQ scores ended up in the Mozart and Bach sections of the study.

In the end though, my opinion around this concept is that it doesn’t hurt to listen to some Mozart when studying, so far no negative impacts have been shown, and I like to listen to music when studying. So why not, it won’t be the worst thing to try something new like this.

In 1997, the first successful cloning of an adult mammal occurred. Dolly the Sheep was born in Britain, and since then goats, mice and pigs have been cloned as well. Cloning is done by “[taking] embryos and inserting these nuclei into egg cells. The resulting eggs could be implanted in surrogate mother animals.” However, cloning really is not that effective- for Dolly to be born, “The team that created Dolly placed nuclei in 277 eggs. Only 29 of those eggs developed into embryos that could be implanted, and of these, only one resulted in a live birth. ” So to create another person would be hard. But scientists think that cloning could help paralyzed or sick people, even possibly curing Parkinson’s disease. This type of cloning is called therapeutic cloning.

The other problem with cloning humans is who would be cloned, what makes someone “clone-able”? Would the rich only be able to afford it- or even what is the best human race to be cloned? Would they be more like property or have the same rights an individual has? Remember, clones are the same exact genetic make up of whoever is being cloned. Is it ethical to make a clone? In a way, it is unethical to make a clone, how would the clone feel about being a clone? Would they get the same opportunities as everyone else or be expected to follow in the original’s footsteps? In the US it has remained one of the most controversial issues, as some lawmakers and scientists want to allow limited research and other want to completely ban it.

There is some belief though that cloning could help bring back extinct/endangered species. Approximately 100 species of animals go extinct each day. Scientists think that if the embryos are placed within an animal somewhat relative to the extinct animals, it could possibly bring back the species.

Cloning could either help us – by bringing back extinct animals or helping cure diseases- or it could potentially be our demise. Human cloning in my opinion is unethical, as great as it would be to meet Ghandi or Audrey Hepburn, the amount of problems it would cause is not worth it. Imagine having to tell a certain nationality that they’re not worthy of being cloned, WWIII would probably break out! For now, the science of cloning should be stuck with animals or finding the cure to diseases.

The newest fad these days is dyeing your hair different colors. From pretty pastels and bold colors to ombre’s, everyone is getting interested with it, including me! But how harmful is hair dye/bleaching? What are the affects of it?

Scary enough, the American Cancer Society wrote an article on the affects of hair dye. It turns out there could be a link between cancer and hair dye. There haven’t been enough experiments to determine whether or not there is a link, but a few studies have shown a correlation between those exposed to hair dye at work and bladder cancer. However, they also write “studies looking at people who have their hair dyed have not found a consistent increase in bladder cancer risk”. The link between leukemia and lymphoids, and hair dye have been shown in some studies but not in others. The International Agency for Research on Cancer has concluded that “workplace exposure as a hairdresser or barber is probably carcinogenic to humans, based on the data regarding bladder cancer”. But the “IARC considers personal hair dye use to be “not classifiable as to its carcinogenicity to humans,” based on a lack of evidence from studies in people”. A study done in 1993 says that “Women with prolonged use of dark, particularly black, hair dyes may have increased risk of fatal non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and multiple myeloma, but these women are a small fraction of hair dye users.” These two conclusions do not tell us much besides for there being a possible link between hair dye and cancer, but there have been some correlations.

Maybe for future studies, scientists can test rodents by dying their fur and see if there are any relations. As unethical as it is, it’s better than doing that to human patients. The test would be hard to do/get past PETA because it involves cancer, but seeing how it is a risk for many people, the test should be done. But until we do an experiment we just have a few correlations to go by which don’t mean much. Possibly in the future, if more studies are done, we will get a more conclusive answer, but for now, as long as you’re not a hairdresser, you seem to be in the clear.

Obesity has become one of the largest problems in todays society. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention describes obesity as “Weight that is higher than what is considered as a healthy weight for a given height”. The problems that obesity can lead to are diabetes, cardiovascular disease, cancer, depression, reduced fertility rates, respiratory disease, memory loss, thinking skills and musculoskeletal disorders. In 2013, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention did a study and found 30% of Pennsylvanians was considered obese. They also found in America that 28.3% of citizens were obese. The map to the right shows the states and the percentage of people who are considered obese within their population. A conclusion we can draw from this map is that there are a lot of obese people living in America.

Losing the weight by exercising is not enough, it is hard to lose that much weight.  However studies have shown that green tea, theanine and caffeine all have the power to help people lose weight. In 2004, a double-blind placebo experiment was done with mice that showed those who were given a green tea powder and caffeine decreased the amount of weight gain in the mice. “Body weight and food intake were determined monthly during this period, kidneys, adrenals, liver, spleen, brain, pituitary and intraperitoneal adipose tissues (IPAT) were weighed and lipid levels in the serum and liver were measured at the end of this period.” The IPAT levels at the end of the experiment decreased by 76.8% in comparison to the control group. The green tea and caffeine also helped reduce the triglyceride levels in the mice’s kidneys. All these results indicated that “caffeine and theanine were responsible for the suppressive effect of green tea powder (GTP) on body weight increase and fat accumulation.”

In 1992, a double-blind clinical trial was done in Denmark that took 180 obese patients and tested the affects of caffeine, ephedrine, caffeine and ephedrine (appetite suppressant), and a placebo on a patient. The study was over a course of 24 weeks, and mean weight losses were found to be greater in the group treated with the caffeine and ephedrine. The weight loss of those treated with the placebo, caffeine or ephedrine (alone) were found to be around the same. The conclusion from this study was that caffeine acted as a stimulant of the ephedrine and can help treat human obesity.

Obesity can be helped, with exercise and eating the right things (always have some caffeine!) you can stop gaining weight. There is hope for our overweight country.

My 5 year old cousins favorite animal is an Orca, whenever I am with him we swim and play with his Orca float. Theses days, Orca’s have become one of the biggest reasons why SeaWorld is constantly in the hot seat. At least once a year an article/protest/law suit comes out against SeaWorld- more often than not relating back to its Orca captivity.

How many miles can an Orca (Killer Whale) swim in a day? The answer is 100 miles, in a SeaWorld tank that would be the equivalent of 1,208 laps. To put that into perspective its approximately the distance from New York City to Wilmington, Delaware. The tanks that SeaWorld has do not provide enough room for the exercise that these creatures need.  This is part of the reason why the life span of Orca’s in captivity is significantly lower.

Deborah A. Duffield, Daniel K. Odell, James F. McBain and Brad Andrews wrote, “The live wild-caught whales ranged in estimated age from 12–27 years. The captive-born whales ranged in age from <1 to 8 years.” The oldest known wild Orca is Granny who is 103 years old, she was spotted 800 miles off the coast of Canada this spring. SeaWorld likes to dispute the fact that the tracking of wild Orcas started 40 years ago means no one actually knows Granny’s age. But  Melissa Cronin wrote that based off of Granny’s offspring, she was born around 1911. There is a significant difference in lifespans based on where the Orca is living.

Orca’s in SeaWorld have also been seen with collapsed dorsal fins. The  National Marine Fisheries Service Northwest Regional Office wrote:

“The collapsed dorsal fins commonly seen in captive killer whales do not result from a pathogenic condition, but are instead thought to most likely originate from an irreversible structural change in the fin’s collagen over time. Possible explanations from this include: (1) alterations in water balance caused by the stresses of captivity dietary changes, (2) lowered blood pressure due  to reduced activity patterns, or (3) overheating of the collagen brought on by greater exposure of the fin to the ambient air”

Orca’s are supposed to live in the wild and feed themselves, that’s why releasing them into the wild is only semi-successful. Once in captive, they are used to being fed, not having to fend for themselves. They also don’t have physical deformations like the collapsed dorsal fins. It is not popular for wild Orca’s to suffer from collapsed dorsal fins, studies have proven that its uncommon. However SeaWorld has twisted these studies and made it look normal for this to happen.

Clearly, an Orca living within a tank with the sole purpose of amusing audiences is unethical- especially when it is causing health problems to the animal. Orca’s belong in the wild, if they remained there, we would not have had any orca related deaths. As much as SeaWorld tries to dispute the facts, the facts remain the same- and holding Orca’s in captivity is really hurting them.

As the Penn State Plague is hitting, it makes me wonder, is everyone getting sick because of stress? PJ Rosch says “stress can cause hypertension, heart disease, ulcer, cancer, emotional illness, or an upset in a sporting event”. According to Bert Uchino, Timothy Smith, Julianne Holt-Lustan, Rebecca Campo and Maija Reblin, “the emergence of psychoneuroimmunology as a discipline in the early 1970s has resulted in the immune system becoming a third major physiological perspective, which links stress to health outcomes”.

So what exactly is this stress thing that’s causing health problems? Lazarus and Folkman say it is “defined by the perception of the environment event. This perception involves the appraisal of potential harms, threats, and challenges … stress arises when a person … does not have an appropriate coping response immediately available”. They also say, “…stress can influence health by increasing the frequency of unhealthy behaviors, by decreasing the frequency of healthy behaviors”. When you are stressed you tend to forget to exercise, eat healthy or sleep, this can then cause illness. After these factors come together and an individual falls sick, the individual is still stressed out and pushes off seeking health care which causes the illness to get worse.

In 1979 an experiment was held to see if stress had anything to do with colds- “52  volunteers were given experimental colds through nasal inoculation with rhinovirus during the course of a 10-day residential stay at the Common Cold Research Unit, Salisbury. Prior to their inoculation, they were assessed on 5 different measures of recent life stress”. It was found that “…’changing gear’ seems more important in relation to colds”. It was also found that the level of social activity (whether an individual is an introvert or extrovert) had an impact on how sick a person would become.

In 1991 another test was done by Dr. Sheldon Cohen, Dr. David Tyrrell and Dr. Andrew Smith to see if stress and colds had any relation to one another. 394 formerly healthy patients were given nasal drops containing one of five different versions of rhinovirus. 26 others were given normal saline drops. The conclusion from this experiment was “Psychological stress was associated in a dose-response manner…. [it] was attributable to increased rates of infection”.

So overall, yes stress has a huge impact on your health- and we found that from some very unethical testing. The consequences of being stressed out can lead to colds or even heart disease. So don’t procrastinate, to do some meditating and stay relaxed during this hectic time of our lives.

I used to always make fun of my sister- going into eighth  grade still having to use her hands to determine which way was left and right. When she would read aloud and say words that did not belong in the sentence, we would laugh at her. But who would’ve known that these things were caused by Dyslexia?

Something that affects 5-10% of people almost caused  my sister to transfer schools in order for her to get more attention, but for what, the mix up for a few letters in some words? Just because someone is Dyslexic does not mean that he or she needs more attention. Frank R. Vellutino put it best, “Dyslexia is a term commonly used to refer to severe and pervasive reading impairment in otherwise normal children”.

So how come my youngest sister suffers from it but my brother, other sister and I don’t? Is it a genetic problem? Well according to Ingenta Connect, “chromosome 6 produces antibodies which impacts the growth of magnocells. The theory on how people become dyslexic is the development of magnocells may be impaired by autoantibodies affecting the developing brain. Magnocells are the cells \develop the brain and when they are damaged they impact the visual timing when reading.”

But really, what exactly is Dyslexia?  Is there any set definition for what Dyslexia actually is? According to PsycNET no, there is not a set definition, it is constantly being rewritten and updated as more and more research comes out. Will we ever completely know when or what Dyslexia is? For now though the main theory is that there’s “a causal link between a visual attentional disorder and a failure in reading acquisition“. Dyslexia is one of those strange things that seems like it’ll always be a mystery, but hopefully with all of the up and coming technology, we will soon have a good definition and full understanding.

Hi my name is Caitlyn Ark and I’m from Montgomery, New Jersey which is a town about 10 minutes north of Princeton! I am a freshman looking to major in Health Policy and Administration.

I am taking this course because at orientation when I was signing up for classes, I saw that this one was aimed for people who don’t really like science. I am not a science major because I disliked the classes I took in high school and spending hours researching to reveal nothing does not appeal to me. I went to Croatia over the summer, here’s a picture of one of the beaches.
If you like puns, you’ll like this link.