The long-standing argument of if homosexuality is something you’re born with or a personality trait that you acquire throughout your life has been around for a long time. With so many people in the world fighting for gay rights, this is something that we should look into if anyone hopes to gain any understanding of homosexuality. The subject matter is touchy but it needs to be asked. Is it possible to be born gay?

This argument started all the way back in 1991 with Simon LeVay, a scientist at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies in San Diego. He had a science partner who unfortunately died from the contraction of AIDS and it fueled him to look deeper into homosexuality and its origins. He conducted an observational study that looked into the hypothalamus in the human brain of 41 dead human corpses. 6 were women (sexual orientation unknown), 16 were men presumed to be heterosexual, and 19 were men presumed to be homosexual.  He noticed a correlation between the size of the INAH 3 neurons in the hypothalamus and the subject’s assumed sexual orientation. He noticed that the women and the homosexual men had a similar amount of INAH 3 in their hypothalamus but the heterosexual men had a much larger amount of INAH 3 in their hypothalamus. This led LeVay to conclude that there are psychological differences between gay and straight people. But there are a few problems with his study:

1.) There is no way to accurately determine the amount of INAH 3 in the human brain so the amount of INAH 3 in the test subjects that he found are not concrete to begin with.

2.) He only had reports from 2 out of the 16 heterosexual men saying that they had never engaged in sexual acts with other men. This means that 14 of the assumed heterosexual test subjects could’ve been gay but were not reported as such.

The graph created by Simon LeVay during his observational study.

3.) There were only slight size differences between the amount of INAH 3 in both homosexual and heterosexual men.

4.) Different demographics were not reported for in this study so the differences in size in the INAH 3 neurons could have something to do with different ethnic or health backgrounds.

Although LeVay had a correlation going, his study was a perfect example of the fact that correlation need not equal causation. A more influential study was then published by Dean Hamer who conducted an observational study with 40 pairs of homosexual brothers. He found that 33 out of 40 of the fraternal pairs shared a similar stretch on the same spot of their X chromosome. The problem with this study was that the stretch in the X chromosome was not found in homosexual pairs of sisters.

Illustration of the X chromosome difference in pairs of gay brothers.

Both of these studies tried to prove that homosexuality is something you can be born with. But there are other studies that argue that children being gay could have been a direct result of having homosexual parents. This is a huge third variable that was not accounted for in the two studies previously mentioned. Socialization is a huge part of child development. Kids use their parents as an example of how to act in society when they get older. It is only natural for kids to absorb the things their parents do and internalize them. So what if some of the test subjects in Hamer’s study had gay parents and that is why they are gay? This article says that homosexuality has a strong heritable component which suggests that homosexuality could come from an individual’s parents after all. I think that homosexuality, if it can be explained at all, can only be explained through the evaluation of social sciences. Maybe there was something about our population that changed in the past and it required a variation in sexual orientation. Or maybe this variation has always been around it was just kept quiet due to past conventional social norms. Homosexuality could simply be due to the fact that it has always been this way and it is going to be this way. We just need to accept it.

A chart depicting how many Americans believe people were born gay or that being gay is a choice.

The take-home message here is that homosexuality can not be explained by modern science today. Although there are strong correlations and substantial evidence that it could be something you’re born with, it is something that we can’t prove at this point in time. Maybe later on down the line, along with the inevitable advancements in technology, we will finally be able to tell if homosexuality is something you’re born with or something you learn how to be. But in the mean time we simply don’t know.

IMAGES:

http://www2.nau.edu/~bio372-c/class/behavior/apbg.htm

http://www.bio.davidson.edu/courses/genomics/2002/pierce/gaygene.htm

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/03/06/americans-are-still-divided-on-why-people-are-gay/

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2014/11/22/are-you-born-gay-or-is-it-a-choice-scientists-might-have-found-the-answer/

America has always been advertised as the home of the brave and the land of the free. Along with this advertising comes the expectation of an equal chance at the American dream. The class system in America has allowed both of these things to happen but only in theory. The idea behind the class system in America is that anyone can move up on the socioeconomic ladder granted that they’re smart, hardworking, or talented enough. This kind of system sounds pretty fair to most people which is why America has one of the highest immigration rates in the world. But I can’t help but ask if the class system in America is really as just and fair as everyone perceives it to be?

The idea of social stratification (or, at least, the knowledge that social stratification existed) emerged with the arrival of Portuguese explorers in India about 4,000 years ago. The Portuguese explorers were shocked to find that the indigenous peoples of India separated themselves into subgroups and only associated with the people within their own subgroup. “The many prohibitions on interaction led the Portuguese explorers to call the subgroups casta— a Portuguese word meaning “pure” or “something that ought not be mixed”.” (Lisa J. McIntyre, Pg. 196-197). This is where the concept of stratification systems emerged. In the caste system, mobility between different levels of the stratification system is impossible. You are born into your caste and then die in your caste. This same concept is prevalent in the estate system. But these stratification systems were more compatible with past times. The emergence of the class system in America came about around the same time as the industrial revolution and looks to be the most fair stratification system in the world. The harder you work, the higher up in social standing you climb. But that belief has been recently questioned.

Estate system.

Class system.

Caste system.

The Moore and Davis theory says that there is no social stratification system truly equal. They claim that inequality is present in every single stratification system or else there wouldn’t be people who have more than others. Branching off of this idea, the Michigan Panel Study of Income Dynamics goes on to explain why class systems are unequal. “We also examine whether the likelihood of attrition [Attrition definition: the action or process of gradually reducing the strength or effectiveness of someone or something through sustained attack or pressure] is related to past instability of such behaviors–earnings instability, propensities to migrate or to change marital status, and so on,” (The Michigan Panel Study of Income Dynamics, abstract). What the Michigan study is trying to say is that the reason individuals tend to belong to the lower levels of the stratification system is commonly due to the social standing of their parents. That means the reproduction of social structure is heavily correlated with the social standing of an individual’s past generations. This study had a very large sample size of 4,800 families and they meticulously accounted for third variables such as family dynamic. They even followed these families after the kids got older and created their own households. I would say that because of the large sample size, different demographics had to have been well represented. The sample size was also large enough to draw an accurate conclusion about the reasons behind the social standing of different people. A sociologist named James Loewen wrote an essay talking about how high school textbooks mislead students to believe that the class system in America is completely equal and that where you are in this particular stratification system is a direct result of the hard work of that particular individual. But what Loewen points out is that rich parents are able to afford certain health care and educational opportunities for their child which helps them to excel in life as well as increase their chances of staying higher up in the stratification system. However, poor parents don’t have these kind of resources available to them which puts their children at a disadvantage as well as keeps them lower down in the stratification system. Loewen got his information from 12 well-known high school history textbooks as well interviews with multiple high school teachers. His essay does not go into detail about the population or the demographics of the schools he visited so it is uncertain whether his conclusion is truly accurate. After finding many studies supporting that the class system is actually unequal, I tried to find other studies that argue that the class system is, in fact, equal. But It was hard to find any studies that strongly supported that argument. This leads me to believe that, if a meta-analyses was to be preformed on the many different studies supporting that the class system is unequal, we would run into a file drawer problem. It is possible that only studies agreeing with the inequality of the class system are being published and the studies disagreeing with the inequality of the class system are being kept in the “file drawer”.

Amount of people in a population belonging to each social strata.

So what do these studies mean for the citizens a part of the class system in America? Even though there are legitimate studies supporting the inequalities of the modern-day class system, I still believe that hard work positively pays off in most situations. There are definitely variables to be considered when it comes to poverty in America but I have strong hope that the people who want better will be willing to overcome the statistical obstacles in their way. My mom has a pretty amazing story of her working herself from the bottom to the top of the class system. It was hard, stressful, and landed her in a lot of debt, but she made it and she’s happier than ever. I understand that this story is purely anecdotal evidence and should not be taken as concrete evidence that the class system is fair but it is a story that supports my opinion. After all, if the class system was truly unequal, we would never hear about the inspirational success stories of people going from rags to riches. Ultimately, I believe that your situation is what you make it.

IMAGES:

https://socl120.wordpress.com/category/social-class/

https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-Indian-caste-system-and-how-does-it-work

http://www.slideshare.net/jbradfo4/stratification-and-inequality

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-22007058

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joan-williams/is-the-sarah-palin-phenom_b_127521.html

One thing that men struggle with as they get older is erectile dysfunction. This sexual disorder in men is usually linked to cardiovascular diseases and a lot of men feel as if their erectile dysfunction is a result of something they did. There has even been the release of drugs such as Viagra and Levitra to help men cope with this sexual disorder. But what if the individual male patient isn’t the problem? What if male erectile dysfunction has nothing to do with anything they personally did? What if erectile dysfunction is evolutionary?

The first thing we should go over is how erectile dysfunction could possibly be evolutionary. This article states that because erectile dysfunction negatively effects a male’s ability to reproduce, it is considered to play an evolutionary role. The article states that erectile dysfunction correlates with age which means the older you get, the more likely you are to obtain erectile dysfunction. I think this is because the older a male gets, the more weak his sperm becomes and erectile dysfunction kicks in and prevents the weak sperm from being able to fertilize an egg. Therefore, evolution has created a biological mechanism that prevents weak sperm from being able to create weak and potentially mutated offspring.

Healthy sperm vs. unhealthy sperm.

A different article says that erectile dysfunction can be caused by stress in men but I would have to disagree with that notion. First of all, there are no credible source materials that test the effect stress has on a male experiencing erectile dysfunction. This means that the article is not very legitimate and so I can not help but disagree with the theory. And second of all, there is another article that takes a different approach to my argument that helps to disprove the theory that erectile dysfunction is caused by stress. The article I am referring to says that extravagant physical traits are given to males in order for them to become an ideal mate choice. These physical traits can only be acquired through healthy and strong sperm during the fertilization process. Evolution needs a lot of males with these physical traits in order to keep the population rising steadily. The more extravagant the physical traits that a male has, the more superior they are in phenotypic quality which makes them much more attractive to the women who carry the eggs that must be fertilized. This long evolutionary process of reproduction is what our population has depended on for so long. “In particular, the preferred traits can be expressed only in individuals with superior conditions…” (pubmed.gov). These superior conditions can be defined as healthy sperm from a young male. Erectile dysfunction is the logical next step in evolution in order to keep old and sick men from being able to reproduce males (or even females) with no extravagant physical traits.

There was actually a randomized survey-based observational study conducted in Massachusetts that attempted to figure out just how normal erectile dysfunction was. The sample size was 776 respondents and they all lived in the same community. The age group of the sample size was 40 to 70 years old. The study took place from 1987 to 1989 and many third variables were accounted for such as if the participants smoked, what their medical histories were, and if they had any diseases. Another important thing that they accounted for was the participant’s sociodemographic background. This means that different demographics were represented in the study and that helps with coming to a correct conclusion. This study came to many different conclusions. But the biggest correlation they found proved that erectile dysfunction in males has a strong relationship with old age. So we can conclude that one of the major reasons for erectile dysfunction in males is old age. I will admit, however, that this study could possibly suffer from the Texas Sharp Shooter problem. This is because the study was also looking into many other causes for erectile dysfunction other than just old age. An example of the other causes being tested was heart disease. This could mean that their biggest conclusion could simply be a consequence of them looking at so many different variables at once making them bound to find something.

Different variables being tested in the Massachusetts Male Aging Study.

But, nonetheless, this conclusion (as well as many other scholarly articles) supports my theory that erectile dysfunction is evolutionary. The older a male gets, the less potent and optimal his sperm is. Erectile dysfunction helps keep aged sperm from being able to fertilize eggs and create offspring that won’t have the extravagant physical traits necessary to be an asset to the growth of the population.

Data for the Massachusetts Male Aging Study.

The take home message is that erectile dysfunction seems to not just be a random act of nature. In fact, it is a way in which nature ensures that the population stays growing by increasing the amount of strong males that can create even more strong males. It is a part of the process of evolution. Men whose sperm that is no longer able to positively effect the population experience the inability to have productive sex lives. Viagra and Levitra are ways to only temporarily fix the problem of not getting an erection. There is an actual reason as to why some men are no longer able to get erections and my theory is that it has something to do with evolution.

IMAGES:

http://sites.amarillasinternet.com/marcosrobertovasquez/disfuncion_erectil.html

http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/00/slides/3602s1a/sld013.htm

http://www.herballove.com/guide/male-infertility-caused-unhealthy-sperm

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/5702.php?page=2

http://www.akbardawakhana.com/male-impotence-treatment.html

I’m sure everyone has already heard Charlie Sheen’s confession about being HIV positive. This news shocked the world due to his immense popularity and professional success. No one thought that someone like him could possibly have HIV. But what makes his story so shocking is that he admits to having numerous sexual partners without disclosing that he has HIV to them. This infuriated many people and it got me thinking about HIV in general. HIV is a sexually transmitted disease that weakens the immune system and makes carriers susceptible to a lot of other life-threatening diseases besides HIV. HIV has no cure but there are certain methods employed that effectively controls it. Recently, however, scientists have discovered a potential cure for HIV that no one had ever thought of before. This cure, although not 100% certain, could change medical history as we know it. HIV no longer has to be the end of a person’s healthy life. So does that mean there is there a possible cure for HIV?

The possible cure for HIV starts with the drug Disulfiram. Disulfiram is a pill administered to people with severe cases of alcoholism. This drug causes very unpleasant side effects such as nausea, headaches, blurred vision, etc. when just small amounts of alcohol are consumed. It is engineered to stop alcoholics from wanting to drink alcohol. Nothing about this drug seems related to HIV though, right? That’s where you’re wrong.

Disulfiram label.

A recent article has claimed that researchers at the University of Melbourne in Australia have discovered a way in which Disulfiram can be used to destroy HIV cells. This drug would be used along with the traditional method of controlling HIV which is known as antiretroviral therapy (ART). ART is a combination of different medications used to slow the spreading of HIV throughout the body. The idea behind using Disulfiram to treat HIV is that it wakes up the dormant HIV-infected cells in the body making it much easier to kill those cells. This recent study concludes that using Disulfiram in HIV-positive patients works in awaking dormant HIV cells with certain doses. But researchers now need to figure out how to kill these awakened cells. Once the cells are killed, then HIV-positive patients can finally be cured. The current theory is to use the traditional antiretroviral therapies to kill these cells once they’ve been awakened. So scientists are hoping that disulfiram paired with antiretroviral therapies is the cure to HIV that everyone has been waiting for.

HIV can be found in dormant cells in the body which is demonstrated in this image.

But, of course, the ultimate question about this newest treatment regimen is if its safe. A study in the Oxford Journal shows that there was research concerning the safety of this combination of drugs to treat patients. The participants used in this safety experiment were all above 18, HIV-positive, and underwent antiretroviral treatments paired with disulfiram over a 14-day period. Third variables were accounted for in this study such as previous alcohol abuse, current medication usage, and serious illnesses. At the end of the experiment, it was concluded that the participants had no adverse effects to the combination of Disulfiram and antiretroviral therapy medications which makes it safe to use in HIV-positive patients. However, the demographics of the people involved in the experiment wasn’t specified so it is hard to determine if the treatment is safe for everyone. A similar study (mentioned earlier) performed the same safety experiment but used a different demographic. This study used 15 HIV-positive, homosexual men. The study (just like the Oxford Journal study) concluded that the mixing of antiretroviral treatments and disulfiram to treat HIV is safe. But I can’t help but question the number and the demographics of the sample size used. 15 people is not a lot so there is a possibility that chance is the reason why the treatment proved to be safe for everybody included in the study. Also, the sample size only included men. Women have HIV too. So what if this newfound treatment is safe only for men and we wouldn’t know because the sample size excluded women?

Should HIV-positive patients be taking this combination of treatments to kill HIV cells in the body? It all comes down to the risks that you’re willing to take. If you are an HIV-positive patient, you’re facing a very serious disease that could kill you. It would only make sense to try out a treatment that, after more than one experiment, was concluded to be safe for most people. There is no way to say that these treatments are 100% safe because nothing in medicine is 100% safe. But it is something that doesn’t hurt to try especially when facing a disease that could eventually kill you. HIV has been around for a very long time and is a serious threat to human lives. But finally, there is a potential cure for this disease and I think that it should be implemented into existing HIV treatments. If this new treatment idea goes well, HIV could become a disease of the past that no one has to worry about getting. And that is something that has the potential to go down in medical history.

IMAGES:

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/nov/17/drug-for-alcoholism-can-unmask-hiv-hiding-in-cells

http://www.dailymed.nlm.nih.gov/dailymed/archives/fdaDrugInfo.cfm?archiveid=140267

http://cebudailynews.inquirer.net/65831/772-cases-of-hivaids-recorded-in-june

Today, I attended the seminar that talked about drug-resistant bacteria and how, if we don’t do something about it soon, we have a big problem on our hands. A problem so big that drug-resistant bacteria could soon become the number cause of deaths by the year 2050. With this knowledge about drug-resistant bacteria, it is understandable why patients and doctors are trying to shy away from the misuse of antibiotics in humans. And not just in humans, but animals as well. An article that I found a few days before the seminar talked about how pediatricians are asking for the decreased use of antibiotics in animals. This is because antibiotics in the animals that humans eat could lead to an even larger immunity to antibiotics. And that is something the world is terrified of. But no one seems to be worried about the consequences we potentially face if we were to alter the way food is currently mass produced to the population. There are a lot of people on this earth to feed and, with the help of antibiotics, animals are able to grow much larger and, therefore, feed even more people. My question is, could the decreased use of antibiotics in animals cause an even bigger problem for humans than drug-resistant bacteria?

I started my research by looking for articles that didn’t agree with the theory that antibiotic-resistant bacteria is passed on to humans by animals. I found that scientists liked to focus on the potentially negative effects antibiotics have when administered to the animals that we eat. Notice how I use the word potentially. While there are many studies such as this one that talk about the potential dangers of giving antibiotics to animals, there are also some studies that are unsure. “Transmission of ARB [antibiotic-resistant bacteria] from animal to human populations is particularly difficult to measure, as it is the product of a very high exposure rate to potential contaminated food, and a very low probability of transmission at any given meal,” (plosmedicine.org). This article actually supports the banning of antibiotics in food animals. But even they had to admit that the amount of antibiotic-resistant bacteria passed on to humans from the animals we eat is unknown. And how are we supposed to know if giving animals antibiotics negatively effects humans if we do not know the amount of antibiotic-resistant bacteria being passed from animals to humans? In fact, who is there to say that any ARB is being passed from animals to humans? This article features a debate between scientists and meat-industry workers. This article prefaces the entire debate by saying that the decrease of antibiotic intake in animals could greatly effect food distribution. Sick animals need antibiotics in order to heal as well. It wouldn’t do anybody any good if people were eating sick animals and then dying or getting sick from it. The decreased use of antibiotics in animals could decrease their growth rate and that means less food to go around. The price of meat would consequently skyrocket. Also, meat industry workers are not very public with their antibiotic distribution techniques in their animals. That means that scientists have no legitimate numerical data to support their theory that antibiotic use in animals is creating ARB’s in humans. This article talks about how the resistance problem everyone is so worried about is mostly passed from human to human and the bacteria naturally found in animals is removed when adequately cooked. There is little to no concrete evidence that supports the argument that the passing of ARB’s is from animal to human.

I think that more experiments need to be conducted before scientists decide that antibiotics should no longer be given to animals. The experiment should be a randomized control trial of sick people. These sick people will have received no prior antibiotics to treat their current illness. The control group will eat meat known to have been treated with antibiotics and the other group will not eat meats known to have been treated with antibiotics. Both groups will be administered antibiotics at the same time. After a certain amount of time, the data will be compared and we will be able to see if the consumption of antibiotic-fed animals increases the likelihood of the participants not responding to the antibiotics they were initially given. I understand that this experimental design is not very thought through and could probably be done better, but the main idea is understood. We need more experiments to test the theory that antibiotic-fed animals pass on antibiotic-resistant bacteria to the people eating them. Or, scientists could do some digging with meat industry workers and find out if there is any antibiotic-resistant bacteria actually being passed on at all. Whatever experiment is conducted, there needs to be a wide range of different demographics so that we can see if the consumption of antibiotic-fed animals effects different kinds of people differently.

At this point in time, there is not enough evidence to get rid of the practice of feeding animals antibiotics. Maybe later on down the line, there will be a practice initiated in the meat industry that keeps animals big and able to feed many without there being a question of health safety. But, for now, the answer to my question is no. The decreased use of antibiotics in animals is not a bigger problem than drug resistant bacteria. And, if it is, we have no concrete evidence to support that theory. As of right now, drug-resistant bacteria is the most dangerous thing on the horizon for humans. And we need to come up with ways to decrease the chances of this dangerous thing happening. I just don’t know if the ways of decreasing this danger lies in the halt of giving animals antibiotics.

Leonard Guarante is director of the Paul F. Glenn Center for Science of Aging research at MIT. This lab is highly specialized in the research of aging. Their daily mission is to answer the questions that all of us have as we get older. Why do we age? Is there any way for us to increase human longevity? Guarante claims to know the answers to these questions. And because he knows the answers, he is the best person to help develop the newest supplemental vitamin on the market that claims to help reduce the effects of aging. Guarante is chief scientist on a team called Elysium made up of businessmen, researchers, and even past Nobel Prize winners. This elite team of brainpower came together when presented with the idea of a vitamin supplement that works on a cellular level to increase your health span. Instead of Guarante and his team claiming that their newly developed supplement helps individuals live longer, it advertises it’s ability to maintain ideal health in individuals well into old age. They are selling the idea of increased health throughout your entire lifetime instead of increased longevity. How is this possible? Guarante’s research led him to the conclusion that aging, as well as the health complications that come along with aging, can be slowed by altering an individual’s metabolism. He took this idea and ran with it when it came to the supplement he and his team created called Basis. Although Elysium has supported their product with a lot of research and data, I can’t help but ask the question all of society has asked for as long as we can remember. Is it actually possible to slow down the process/effects of aging?

Leonard Guarante and the formula for his newest NR dietary supplements called Basis.

Elysium claims on its product’s supplement facts that there are two main ingredients found to be effective when it comes to slowing down the process/effects of aging. These two ingredients are Nicotinamide Riboside and Pterostilbene.

Elysium Health’s NR supplement Basis.

Active ingredients in Basis.

Visual representation of the communication between the nucleus and mitochondria.

Nicotinamide Riboside is a producer of NAD+. NAD+ is found naturally in our cells and activates an enzyme also found in our cells called Sirutin1 (SIRT1). SIRT1 is the enzyme responsible for uninterrupted communication between the nucleus and the mitochondria. Why is this communication so important?  Because the minute the communication between the nucleus and mitochondria within our cells stop, our cells start to die and we begin to see evidence of aging in our bones, muscles, and skin. There have also been studies that show that the presence of Nicotinamide Riboside in yeast helps to increase yeast’s lifespan. This is why Nicotinamide Riboside is one of the primary ingredients in Basis. Pterostilbene is another main ingredient found in Basis. It is a natural antioxidant compound found primarily in blueberries. “Substantial evidence suggests that pterostilbene may have numerous preventive and therapeutic properties in a vast range of human diseases that include neurological, cardiovascular, metabolic, and hematologic disorders,” (US National Library of Medicine). Based off of this evidence provided by the US National Library of Medicine, it is clear to see that Pterostilbene is used in Basis because it helps to prevent many of the human diseases associated with old age. Based off of the research on the two main ingredients in Basis, it seems possible that the effects of aging can, in fact, be slowed. But it almost seems too good to be true.

One thing that needs to be considered by the large market of adults trying to slow down the aging process is if this vitamin supplement is safe or not. Elysium is not the first team to realize the positive effects Nicotinamide Riboside has on our cells. ChromaDex is a company that not only came out with NIAGEN NR (another supplement that contains Nicotinamide Riboside) but they also conducted the first human clinical study on the product to test how safe it was.

ChromaDex’s NR supplement product called NIAGEN.

NIAGEN’s active ingredients.

The results were exactly what the company was hoping for. In an observational study containing 12 healthy adults, ChromaDex was able to confirm that Nicotinamide Riboside is effective in increasing NAD+ in the body but it is also completely safe. There are a few things wrong with this study though that I should bring to my audience’s attention. The specifics of this observational study has yet to be released. In all of the reports on the study, it is only said that these specifics are supposed to be released in scientific literature for peer review sometime soon. That means that, for the time being, no one is able to thoroughly evaluate this allegedly successful study. I think that these details need to be released so we can evaluate the demographics in the sample of adults that was used. What if Nicotinamide Riboside reacts differently in hispanic women than it does in caucasian males? We need to be sure that Nicotinamide Riboside is safe for all kinds of people. I’m also thrown off by the size of the sample used. I feel as if 12 people is only enough if the sample was completely randomized and if a lot of different demographics were represented within the sample.

So because we do not know the specifics of this observational study, I feel like there are still some questions to be answered regarding the safety of NR supplements in humans. Just like Andrew said in class, we are able to see that NR supplements are effective but we can not say with 100% certainty that they are safe no matter how many studies/ experiments try to prove it. But if you’re asking whether or not you should start incorporating NR supplements into your diet, that is for you to decide. It all depends on if you consider the risk to be very big or very small. It’s all about what you can personally live with. A simple Cost-Benefit analysis could also help in your decision to take NR supplements or not. The Elysium Health website charges $60 for a one month supply of Basis. And although the one observational study concerning NR supplements proved it to be safe and effective, that was a study done with a different brand of product. Any NR supplements are too new on the market for there to be any solid evidence (especially anecdotal evidence) that they work the way they are advertised to work. Personally, I would take the risk of buying and using the NR supplements. The studies (although limited) are positive and the price isn’t that hefty if you just want to try it once. Although these supplements are said to work best if used continuously over a long period of time, I don’t think it hurts to try. But whether you want to take that risk or not is totally up to the individual.

So does that mean it is scientifically possible to slow down the process/effects of aging? Because of the newness of the product and the limited amount of studies done on the product, I would say it’s too soon to tell. Maybe later on down the line, Basis or Niagen consumers will speak out about their personal experiences using the product. And from there, legitimate studies concerning the safety and effectiveness of the vitamins will be able surface. But, until then, all we know for sure is that there’s a chance that the process/effects of aging can be slowed. And if it can, then science has truly made a revolutionary revelation.

Today in my sociology class, there was a discussion on older, younger, and middle siblings. This discussion led to who was the oldest, youngest, or middle sibling in their family and, of course, everyone joked about the middle children in the class and argued that middle-child syndrome is real. Everyone generally knows that middle children have it the hardest because they don’t  get the same attention that the youngest and oldest siblings get. They are always caught between the “first-born” and the “baby” and obviously this can have some psychological effects.

Middle children tend to act out due to lack of attention which gives them a reputation in many parental forums online. In these forums, parents are informed why their middle child acts the way they do and they inform them on the best way to treat a middle child. Being a middle child myself, I can easily see why middle children get the worst reputation in parenting communities. I always felt like I was the odd one out. There was no category to place me in other than just being the second, but not the last, one born. This led to some rocky adolescent years and very strained relationships with my parents and siblings. But now that I’m older, I notice that being a middle child is no longer as bad as when I was younger because I’m here at college creating my own reality. I am no longer under the label of ‘middle child’ and the amount of attention my parents pay me is no longer the most important thing in my world.

Even though middle children get the worst reputation in families, they usually get the best reputation going into adulthood. Middle children are said, by this site, to be the most well-adjusted adults later on in life and tend to be the most successful. I bet you are wondering at this point if middle child syndrome can even be classified as a real psychological setback. Well, no. It actually isn’t. Its just a bunch of anecdotal accounts from middle children and their parents compiled into a syndrome supported by little to no evidence. But I have come up with a design that could hint at a strong correlation between being a middle child and how they are made up psychologically. I say correlation because, as we all know, correlation does not equal causation.

Let me preface this potential study with some background information. When you ask the internet about the typical personality traits of middle children, many different sites say nearly the same thing. This site in particular says that middle children tend to be very independent and the most sociable out of the birth order of oldest, middle, and youngest. The reason behind this is that middle children tend to compensate for the attention they don’t receive at home by forming strong relationships with a lot of different people outside of the household. This means that middle children are known to have a wider social circle and more complex social networks. But how do we prove that this is actually the case with middle children? We would need a biological mechanism that triggers this social trend in middle children. I did some minor research of the brain and I found that the part of the brain called the amygdala plays a huge part in mental states, psychological disorders, and social relationships.

The size of a person’s amygdala dictates a lot of things about someone such as how they respond to fear and even deal with anxiety. After the technological advances in neuroimages, it was concluded that the amygdala also plays a huge role in social interaction. “Amygdala volume correlates positively with both the size (the number of contacts a person has) and the complexity (the number of different groups to which a person belongs) of social networks,” (Wikipedia). This means the larger your amygdala, the more sociable you are. This means that my biological mechanism could possibly lie in the chemical makeup of the amygdala. So, using this information, I could conduct an observational study comparing the size of the amygdala in middle children to the size of the amygdala in older and younger siblings and see if there are any differences.

Actual MRI of human brain. The amygdala is highlighted in red.

The sample size for the middle children would consist of 100 people. We would then need a control group to compare the sizes of middle children’s amygdala to the sizes of older and younger children’s amygdala. I would bring in 100 people who report that they’re older siblings and 100 people who report that they’re younger siblings and put the older and younger siblings in two different control groups. I don’t want to mix older and younger siblings into the same control group because older and younger siblings differ in their psychological makeup as well and mixing them into the same control group could possibly lead to confusing results. Separating the two control groups into older and younger siblings can help me to avoid confounding variables. I would still account for confounding variables in the study however. An example of a confounding variable in this study would be if some of the people in the groups (older, middle, and younger) don’t live with or weren’t raised with their other two siblings. A child who is technically a middle child but was not raised with their other two siblings could also lead to confusing results so we would exclude those kinds of people from the study. All of the test subjects would undergo voluntary (to keep the study ethical) MRIs that would determine the size of their amygdala and then we would screen the younger and older control groups to determine the size of their amygdalas as well. After comparing the results, there would most likely be a strong correlation between middle children and amygdala size and we would be able to conclude that there is a chance that middle child syndrome is an actual psychological situation. Although I know that my design is not perfect and probably has some flaws, it helps to hint at any kind of correlation between being a middle child and having a certain mindset.

SOURCES:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-gail-gross/how-birth-order-affects-personality_b_4494385.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2079636/Middle-children-MORE-successful-So-true-family.html

http://www.education.com/reference/article/influences-sibling-relationships/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amygdala

The Japanese condom industry is boasting their brand new break-through in condom technology. These condoms are thinner than razors and even thinner than the condoms being sold here in America at 0.06 millimeters. These newest condoms by Japan’s first condom company ever, Sagami, are reported to be 0.01 millimeters. This makes them the thinnest condoms in the world.

These condoms have broken the Guinness World Record.

Why are condom companies out to create the very thinnest condom? Because, according to most people, condoms are not very pleasurable for men or women. This website even offers advice to the women who find it uncomfortable to use a condom. These days, it isn’t just men who would prefer not to wear one. Some women say that they are a nuisance for them too. In fact, here in America, Bill Gates is undergoing extensive research to figure out a way to create a thin and less cumbersome condom design. Bill Gates says that he is looking to make condoms almost like a second skin. The New York Daily Times says, “Billionaire philanthropist Bill Gates said Thursday progress is being made on developing a “next-generation” ultra-thin, skin-like condom that could offer better sexual pleasure, help population control and be financed by first-world investors,”. In this statement, there was no emphasis put upon the basic things that a condom are supposed to help fight against. Yes they slightly mentioned that these new condoms would help to prevent pregnancy. But what the Daily News stressed most about these condoms is that they are ideal for pleasure and will be ‘financed by first-world investors’. Not once did they bring up that these condoms are supposed to help fight against STDs. The main purpose of condoms is being lost when it comes to these newest leaps and bounds in condom technology. Japan is already ahead of the game with their newest condom design but no one is worried about the safety of these thinner-than-ever condoms. And thats the scary part. Sagami contests that, before releasing their newest and thinnest condom, they underwent many tests to make sure that they still were fully capable of complete contraceptive purposes.

These tests include water leak tests (filling condoms with 10 ounces of water and checking for leaks), tensile tests (testing how far the band at the shaft of the condom stretches), and airburst tests (seeing at what volume of air inside the condom that the condom bursts). Many companies are now trying to beat Japan in how thin they can make their condoms. In fact, a few companies have already come close to or beat Sagami’s innovative condom design and made their condoms even thinner. But I think people are putting their pleasure before their protection in this case. Condoms are around for the sole purpose of protecting sexually-active people from STDs and pregnancy. They are not to be used as pleasure enhancing objects. Although pleasure can definitely be a bonus, I feel like condom manufacturers are losing sight of that simple fact. Pleasure in a condom is a bonus.

Their first job and priority is to make condoms as safe as possible for consumers, even if that means making them thicker then just 0.01 millimeters. I do believe that these condoms were not released onto the market without making 100% sure that they are safe for use. But there have been no personal or anecdotal accounts to confirm or deny that these thin condoms can  break easily and/or fully serve their contraceptive purpose. I think there should be some research on the topic. Right now, all we’re seeing are the factory statistics. And who knows if they are exaggerating their test conclusions just so they can hurry up and get their product on the market and say that they beat the Guinness World Record for the thinnest condoms? There are so many people using condoms that need to know how safe their condoms actually are. Yeah they can be uncomfortable for some people and yeah you would much rather grab the thinnest ones so that you can barely feel them, but please keep in mind the reason you’re even buying the condom. To keep you and your partner safe.

SOURCES:

http://kotaku.com/the-worlds-thinnest-condoms-are-the-pinnacle-of-japane-1477798042

http://std.about.com/od/prevention/qt/womennocondom.htm

http://www.breitbart.com/news/682a04d6-658a-40ac-adfe-afaca3d75daa/

http://www.nydailynews.com/life-style/bill-gates-progress-made-new-super-thin-condom-article-1.1945616

https://www.utexas.edu/courses/bio301d/Topics/Condoms/Text.html

http://www.medicaldaily.com/worlds-thinnest-condom-sets-guinness-record-are-thinner-prophylactics-just-effective-regular-ones

Skinny jeans have been the number one style of jean for most women and even some men for a long time now. They are very fashionable but I think that very few people have serious thoughts about what extremely tight-fitting jeans can do to you when it comes to your health. There was always slight speculation by people, and even TIME Magazine, that just like high heels, skinny jeans are not the best thing to wear if you want to keep the muscles and nerve-endings in your legs healthy.

But,  just recently, three scientists have attempted to confirm with a scientific publication that skinny jeans can be the one to blame when it comes to enlarged muscles and damaged nerve-endings in your legs. However, I have a problem with this study. There was no formal experiment done to fully reject or accept the null hypothesis (that skinny jeans do not cause nerve and muscle damage). Instead, the three scientists got together and focused on one woman’s anecdotal account of how she was wearing skinny jeans when she was helping a family move and this included a lot of squatting in order to pick up boxes and such. This squatting in such tight denim caused numbness in one foot, severe ankle damage, and very enlarged lower calf muscles.

Woman’s leg after her jeans were cut off.

Her jeans had to be cut off and the scientists concluded that all of this is due to the skinny jeans she was wearing that night. Although this woman’s story does strongly hint at the fact that skinny jeans are not good for women to wear all the time, it doesn’t completely prove that skinny jeans are the ultimate problem. Why is it that this woman experienced acute leg pain but most other women who wear skinny jeans do not report the same problem? It could be that this woman’s skinny jeans malfunction is due to pre-existing health problems that makes the leg enlarged and causes ankle damage. On Mayo Clinic it was said that some reasons for the inflammation of leg tissue can be due to a problem with the lymphatic system, the circulatory system, or the kidneys. They also said that this inflaming in the legs can be caused by sprained or broken ankles. And while I don’t think this woman’s ankle was broken while she was helping a family move, it could be that her ankle was sprained due to helping in the move and this led to the inflammation of her right leg. There are many confounding variables that could be going on here that these scientists either didn’t account for or didn’t find due to the fact that they conducted an observational study instead of an experiment.

In short, I don’t think that people should stop wearing skinny jeans based off of this study. There is not enough evidence to support that skinny jeans are bad for your health and lifestyle decisions should not be based off of an anecdotal account. It doesn’t seem to be a widespread phenomenon that skinny jeans are inflicting harm to their wearers. Personally, I never had any problems with wearing my own pair of skinny jeans. In fact, when I heard that skinny jeans were bad for your health through some people here and there, I was very skeptical. Looking further into the issue, I can see that until more research has been conducted, people’s worries are unwarranted. Skinny jeans are just as healthy for you as high heels. And with that being said, it is up to you the health risks that you are willing to take.

SOURCES:

http://time.com/3930558/skinny-jeans-harms/

http://jnnp.bmj.com/content/early/2015/05/27/jnnp-2015-310628.full

http://www.mayoclinic.org/symptoms/leg-swelling/basics/causes/sym-20050910

It has always been somewhat accepted that yawning is contagious. Some studies have even gone on to say that the reason an individual yawns when they see another individual yawning is because humans have ingrained empathy in their brain. This empathy causes people to yawn in response to other people yawning to subtly show that they “feel their pain”.

When I went on the internet to find studies that went more in-depth on exactly why yawning is contagious, I came upon Jared F. Ericksen who conducted an experiment to test whether or not yawning is actually contagious. What I found in this experiment was pretty interesting. He brought 10 different test subjects into a quiet room where he asked them a series of irrelevant questions. He was asking these questions to leave the subjects under the impression that they were in an experiment for an entirely different reason than to see if yawning was contagious. On questions number 5, 15, and 25 Ericksen would yawn in the hopes that it would illicit a yawn from his test subjects.

It ended up that absolutely none of his subjects yawned in response to him yawning. And so Ericksen was forced to conclude, based off of his study, that yawning is not contagious. He rejected the alternative hypothesis (that yawning is contagious) but I don’t think that Ericksen should accept the null hypothesis (that yawning is not contagious) because there is a chance that this specific experiment is a fluke. Flukes happen 40% of the time in experiments so it isn’t hard to believe that this experiment was. Ericksen’s conclusion goes against many of the scientific articles and published studies that conclude that yawning is actually contagious. So there might be something going on in this experiment that could make Ericksen’s conclusion a false negative. Ericksen’s sample size of ten subjects could be considered small by some people but if absolutely none of the subjects yawned in response to the scientist’s yawn, then I don’t think the sample size is an issue. I think that the reason this experiment turned out to be so unfruitful is because of a lot of confounding variables that Ericksen didn’t take into account when he started the experiment. One confounding variable is the anxiety that probably all of the subjects felt being put on the spot and being asked questions for a scientific experiment. This anxiety probably affected their mindset and made it impossible for them to yawn in accordance with the scientist. Another confounding variable could have been the subject’s need to pay absolute attention so that they were a perfect subject for the false science experiment they thought they were in. They were probably not focused on yawning and completely focused on being the perfect test subject. I think that before we conclude (based off of Ericksen’s study) that yawning is, in fact, not contagious, more experiments need to be conducted. Or, maybe a meta-analyses of different studies and experiments should take place. That way we can compare Ericksen’s study to the studies that conclude that yawning is contagious and then we can come to a concrete decision as to whether yawning is actually contagious or not.

SOURCES:

https://www.usc.edu/CSSF/History/2010/Projects/J0309.pdf

I just recently saw a movie trailer advertising the newest movie scheduled to come to theaters on Christmas Day. It is called Concussion and stars Will Smith who plays Bennet Omalu in the movie. The movie is based off of a true story about the NFL trying to suppress Omalu’s research and experiments that shed light on just how dangerous concussions can be for professional football players. You can watch the trailer here.

The trailer got me thinking about the actual severity of concussions in football players. There are so many athletes that get up and go right back to playing shortly after they get surgery. So then how many players are there that go right back to playing after getting a concussion? Most likely a lot. And so I did some research and I found a study conducted by Johns Hopkins University that tested 9 former NFL players by preforming PET scans and MRIs to their brains to calculate physical and internal damages.

How concussions work.

The players were first asked how many concussions they have had in their football career and they also implemented a control group of normal people who have had no former history of brain damage. They scanned all of their brains and preformed memory tests. The results were that the former NFL players who had high internal and physical damage to their brain from their reported past concussions, scored low on their memory tests. But the control group with no history of brain damage scored high on their memory tests. This obviously means that concussions have a long-lasting effect on the brain and can lead to significant memory loss. Many people argue with this study saying that the sample size was too small and, therefore, we can not come to a concrete conclusion of whether or not concussions are as dangerous as the experiment makes them seem.

Please understand that before these kind of studies were done, there were only anecdotal accounts of damage to the brain post-concussion as well as an unknown biological mechanism that could possibly cause damage to the brain. So it is understandable that some people are still skeptical about just how much damage a concussion can actually do. However, other studies have been conducted where they test adolescents for brain damage after their concussion and they came to the conclusion that concussions in children that young can stunt brain growth and maturity. And these are not the only two studies that can be found testing how dangerous concussions are for the brain. There are many other studies to be found and all them reach relatively the same conclusion. And so, I think it is about time we open our eyes to the severity of this problem. Football and other high contact physical sports need to come up with a systematic way of protecting the brain from concussions as well as healing the brain after it has suffered a concussion.

This systematic handling needs to be done in accordance with existing studies on the issue so that way the handling actually works. Right now, football is handling the soft end points of concussions such as fatigue and headaches. They deal with it by advising the patient to rest and “relax it off”. But we need to be looking at the hard end points such as physical damage to the brain that can lead to memory loss and decreased cognitive performance. Maybe they could add something inside of football helmets that would make it harder to get a concussion. Or maybe certain plays should be ruled illegal depending on if it contains way too much hard physical contact. The bottom line is, concussions are very serious and can be detrimental to the brain the more they are contracted. The sooner something is implemented in sports to help protect the players from them, more studies need to be done in order to show people just how serious concussions are.

SOURCES:

http://hub.jhu.edu/2015/01/26/nfl-players-concussion-research

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4382966/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Io6hPdC41RM

There are a lot of mothers out there who passionately argue that breastfeeding is the best way to feed their young child. They argue that there are much more nutrients in it healthy for their baby than there is in formula. But our intuition, even if it is a mother’s intuition, is mostly always wrong. So studies have been preformed by scientists to see if our preconceived notions about breast milk being better than formula is accurate.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) did an experiment to see if breast milk prevents infants from getting diarrhea and/or ear infections. They had mothers tell them if their child was exclusively breastfed; high, middle, or low mixed breast-and formula-fed; or exclusively formula-fed. They accounted for many confounding variables such as maternal education, occupation, household size, etc. They then tested all of the different babies for diarrhea and/or ear infections and what they found was that the risk for an infant getting diarrhea and/or ear infections increased as the amount of breast milk they received decreased.

The conclusion was that while the more breast milk a baby received did guard them against diarrhea and ear infections, the baby did not have to exclusively drink breast milk to stay healthy. Babies can still be fed formula along with breast milk without any harm coming to the child.

While breastfeeding is the way people have fed their children for a very long time, that does not mean that formula is not a good second option. In fact, formula has been refined over the years to contain the same immune boosting and growth promoting elements found in breast milk. Mayo Clinic says that, when prepared correctly, formula does support babies with normal dietary needs. Breastfeeding, however, is said to have certain benefits when it comes to the convenience of it always being available and the plus of it being free. Breast milk also contains active infection-fighting white blood cells that protect the baby from certain infections and fatty acids that promote brain development.

Although there are many benefits for babies when it comes to breast milk, I suggest that mothers do what they are most comfortable with. If breastfeeding is something that she wants to do, thats fine. But if a mother decides to feed her baby with formula, that is her decision as a mother and it should be respected. Parenthood doesn’t come with a how-to guide and no one is perfect. Every mother wants what’s best for their child and what is best for one child in a mother’s eyes does not have to be the same as what is best for another child in their mother’s eyes.

Breastfeeding is the method of feeding for infants that has been done since the beginning of time.

The science and evidence is there to help mothers with whatever feeding decision a she makes and so it is simply up to them what they prefer to do.

Sources:

http://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/infant-and-toddler-health/in-depth/breast-feeding/art-20047898?pg=2

http://www.fda.gov/Food/FoodScienceResearch/ConsumerBehaviorResearch/ucm080399.htm

http://www.webmd.com/parenting/baby/your-babys-feeding-breast-vs-bottle

Bird flu is not uncommon. It has happened before in our history. Although there has not been an outbreak in quite some time, there has recently been suspicion that the avian flu is present in many domesticated birds across the country. Especially in Iowa. This article states that over 31 million birds have been euthanized due to the suspicion that they carried the bird flu. Fortune.com goes into detail of the disease as well as where it has hit hardest thus far. In 1997, the same virus was circling around actually caused the death of some people who managed to catch the disease. This site explains that it is very rare for this particular disease to be spread among humans. It is hard for a human to pass it on to another human. The disease is acquired through close contact to any birds infected with the disease. This means if you come in contact with their droppings or even eat chicken that is infected. It is even being predicted that egg prices will rise dramatically as a result of this disease.

This bird flu is spreading was spreading very rapidly in Asia in the past and scientists are were working very hard to slow down the virus to keep it from turning into a human pandemic just like this article states. What makes this disease so scary is the fact that it is derived from the influenza virus which killed a lot of people in the past and seems to not have gone away. My suspicion is that the influenza virus, although it was eradicated a while ago, has evolved into a virus that stays inside of birds for now. But who is to say that the influenza virus will not evolve again and become ten times more powerful than it was in the past? This same idea has been considered and tossed around by a lot of different people. That is where movies like “Contagion” were given life. That very same instance can be applied to modern day and the bird flu. This avian flu has been rediscovered on multiple occasions in many different forms. So obviously the influenza virus is still strong enough to come back and haunt us to this day. I think that this bird flu only found in birds needs to be paid more attention to before it is a virus that a majority of the population extracts as well. We know what influenza can do. We have seen the deadly effects it has. This is not just some theory that a bored scientist came up with on the fly. This is something that can kill us and it’s slowly coming back. Wake up. It is time to get more serious about this deadly disease.

Many people, when they heard about the revolutionary 3D printer, got very excited. The only time people could actually press a button and print out an object such as pizza or parts for a machine was in the movies. 3D printing  has taken the entire world by storm. Especially the world of medicine. We are now able to print out prosthetic parts, heart valves, and even touch sensors. In context, this invention seems like it can do no harm. No longer will patients have to wait for a heart donor. In due time, all a doctor will have to do is print out a heart and put it inside of the patient. 3D printers are, in essence, a revolutionary breakthrough. But with all good things comes the bad things too.

This article demonstrates some of the dangers 3D printing has in store for society. As of now, these printers are only used by professionals in regulated settings where they are used for a specific purpose. But once the popularity of these printers rise, they will quickly become a household staple for the public. At first, the printers will be used for innocent enough things such as tailor made clothes through online shopping, a specific makeup shade at the drop of a dime, or a quick meal for when you’re hungry. But it won’t be long before someone comes up with a way to print out a gun or maybe even print out illegal drugs and create an illegal business. This article puts into perspective all of the bad things people can make with a 3D printer. And, quite frankly, the list is scary. But the dangers of 3D printing are not just centered on everyday households who have access to a 3D printer. There are also many problems that this new invention can cause in the medical world too. While printing out body parts for someone may seem like the perfect solution to a lot of our medical problems right now, there can be problems with how much energy these printers take up. This article explains that the energy these printers take up is very high which could possibly interfere with the the intricate system hospitals have set up to keep their machines and technology running even in times of a power outage. These printers also are not fool proof. What were to happen if a doctor printed out a heart valve that had a small hole in the finished printed product? That patient could die all because of a small mistake of the machine. I think that a lot more tests need to be done before anyone introduces this cutting-edge technology to everyday life and work out some of the kinks to keep people from getting hurt. There are many success stories that go along with 3D printers but all of these stories are one person accounts. Before we go along with this very anecdotal evidence, we need to make sure that 3D printing is the logical next step in technology or if we should hold off on it for a while until all of the disadvantages are straightened out.

When I first got my cellphone, it was the coolest thing in the world to me. I always wanted to keep right it right in the palm of my hand so that I could see it and so could everyone else. But as time passed by and the newness of my cellphone wore off, I started needing places to put it. And, as a girl, I don’t have very large pockets in my jeans that can accommodate my iPhone. So I did what every other woman has done at least once in their life. I started to store my phone right in my bra. This was very convenient because I had easy access to it all day without it being out in the open where it could get lost. But one day my mom saw me stuffing my phone in my bra and she scolded me saying that putting my phone in my bra could cause breast cancer. I listened to her and took my phone out of my bra and into my back pants pocket but I always wondered just how true this breast cancer from cellphones things was. Was this just another way for our parents to scare us into listening to them or was this an actual health concern that more women need to be aware of?

Is putting your cellphone in your bra causing breast cancer?

After I did some research, I realized that a lot of people don’t actually know. There have been very little experiments to prove that cell phones in your bra will cause breast cancer but then there are individual accounts from women who have put their cellular devices in their bra and then developed a cancerous tumor in the same spot they store their phone. The woman in this article claimed that this exact instance happened to her. And while this incident is almost too coincidental, there is no way that we can take this one woman’s personal story as truth. Her story is anecdotal evidence that, although it happened to her, the same can not be said for every single woman who has put their phone in their bra for years. Granted, there might be a very strong correlation between these two events but there might be a hidden variable here that no one is taking into account. This woman who developed breast cancer may have family members who have or have had breast cancer as well. And if that’s not the case, then she might have an acquired gene mutation that is specific to her and was not handed down to her by the genes of her family members. There are so many factors to consider which is why it is very hard to say that cellphones in bras are the cause of many cases of breast cancer. This article says that there have only been a handful of experiments trying to prove that radio frequencies from cellphone can cause cancer. My personal opinion is that, until there have been more randomized experiments and we are no longer getting our information from anecdotal evidence, it is safe to say that radio frequencies from cellphones are not as big of a cause for breast cancer as a lot of people (especially parents) like to think.

I was looking around online for a topic that sparked my interest and could write a blog post about. And what really interested me was a website that was full of questions concerning science and one of the questions was “Will we ever cure cancer?” I expected the answer to be just as ambiguous as the cure for cancer. But the answer this website provided was a flat out ‘no’. And then I thought, “How is that even possible?” For as long as I can remember, there has always been an ongoing discussion about who will find out the cure to cancer and when, not if, we will find it. But cancer is a rare disease that is smart enough to mutate itself into different copies that can withstand different treatments. “That heterogeneity of tumors is the major, major obstacle to easy therapy,” (Fidler). The complexity of cancer tumors is what keeps any single treatment from being effective. So the dilemma in science is how to cure cancer when the entirety of a cancer cell or tumor can not be abolished by just one treatment.

Cancer could become the leading cause for death in humans.

But the problem is that if we do not stop cancer soon, it can very quickly become the number one cause for death among all humans. My thoughts on it are this. Scientists have made incredibly huge leaps and bounds when it comes to medicines and technologies and practices. So I find it hard to believe that the human race will not find the cure for cancer eventually and in due time. We have already come so far in cancer research and this research gave birth to ways in which cancer can be slowed down or even abolished in some patients. Although there has been no concrete cure for every type of cancer in all cancer patients, I think that it is only a matter of time before we find it. Some scientists would strongly disagree with my standpoint because cancer traces so far back in history which makes it hard for scientists to find the origin of the disease and makes it hard to cure. But I’m sure there were skeptics all the way back in the 1300’s who were convinced that the bubonic plague could never be cured and would simply wipe out the entire population. Today, the bubonic plague is all but unheard of. And maybe one day far beyond any near future, cancer will be an extinct disease as well.

There is a new FDA-approved pill called Addyi that is supposed to help women in boosting their libido. This medication is meant for women who suffer from hypoactive sexual desire disorder which is a sudden and unexplained lack of desire for sex. This pill is to be aimed at pre-menopausal women who want to boost their desire for sex. Many people argue that the FDA is sexist in rejecting the approval of this drug many times before approving it where as Viagra was approved in significantly less time by the FDA. But I disagree with the people who say that the FDA in being sexist in not approving Addyi at first.

For starters, Viagra effects the flow of blood to the penis. It is a drug that sparks a pure physical reaction in men that aids them in getting and keeping an erection. Because this drug alters the patient physically, things are going well for Viagra and there has even been a three year follow up article on how good Viagra is for you and there is nothing but positive tests and statistics. Surely, the FDA saw how positive the drug Viagra was and that is why they wasted no time in passing their approval. I can understand why the FDA hesitated to approve the drug Addyi because it is a drug that alters a woman’s sex drive neurologically. Anytime you mess with the chemical components of the brain, you are bound to run into risks. And after some tests, Addyi did prove to be risky when women test subjects claimed to wake up feeling groggy as well as reporting very high blood pressure levels when using the drug with alcohol in their system. Before approval of the drug, Addyi had to make an agreement with the FDA that they would continue to preform safety experiments with the drug.

The FDA is not out to be sexist, they are simply trying to protect the public from new and unknown medications that could affect our health. And as women, we should stand behind that, not against it.

Science Journalism

Just like a scientist, I view myself as a very curious person. I constantly have questions regarding how our world works, why we perceive things the way we do, and what makes things the way they are. I am always asking these questions and while I would love to know the answers, I rarely find myself going out and trying to seek out the answer.

So, in short, I took this course because it is an ideal platform to ask my curious questions while having a professional there to answer them for me. That way, I never have to go out and find the answers myself because it is not something I am very good at.

This leads to the reason why I am not majoring in Science. I am majoring in journalism so it is good for me to have my immense curiosity. But my major demands me to go to other professional people and find legitimate answers instead of going out and finding the answers myself much like science majors would through research.

Journalists and Scientists Have Different Roles, But They Share a Goal – An Informed Public