"...the human species is living as if it had more than one planet to occupy..." What is your own view?
Ug. I think that what Ashley said is true - it's more that we are living without thinking about the consequences of our actions. I suppose that, by extension, the above statement is also true. But it doesn't seem as if people are looking for somewhere else to go - just blithely continuing to consume and destroy and mess things up. Fracking? Really? In California especially? Land of earthquakes and drought? It is so incredibly, shockingly messed up. That's just one small example. Everything is driven by profit, and there is no accountability. Just greed and blindness. I get really hopeless thinking about it.
Post your thoughts on our class discussions
Other classmates have also posted on the 3-D printed pills. It's a pretty striking concept that allows for a lot more flexibility and ease than is currently offered by the industry. It's really interesting to think about how far this will extend, what the future could hold. I imagine that regulating the home 3D printing of medications would be a whole 'nother ball of wax, but that will unfold, as well. So many things are becoming less centralized as technology and knowledge (via the internet) become more advanced and widely shared.
Friday, August 21, 2015
Wednesday, August 12, 2015
Biochem Week 3
"An act that would create uniform GMO labeling throughout the United States passed the U.S. House." Are you encouraged?
No! I am actually extremely discouraged an depressed about it. This bill was backed by Monsanto and other big ag and big chemical companies. It does nothing to protect consumers and their right to be informed about what they are putting into their bodies, and it would prevent states and municipalities from making their own decisions and own laws with regard to GMO use and labeling. How do we not become completely cynical?
Post your thoughts on our class discussions:
The article about the butter scientist was interesting because he was involved both in the reductionism of dairy and as a proponent of considering the impact of dairy as a whole rather than just looking at the effects of milk fat. One of the first people to identify dairy components at the level of specific acids, he was deeply involved in the 'scientification' of this basic food. And yet he also went against prevailing scientific opinion/fashion to look beyond the evils of saturated fat. (Perhaps he just loved cheese?)
No! I am actually extremely discouraged an depressed about it. This bill was backed by Monsanto and other big ag and big chemical companies. It does nothing to protect consumers and their right to be informed about what they are putting into their bodies, and it would prevent states and municipalities from making their own decisions and own laws with regard to GMO use and labeling. How do we not become completely cynical?
Post your thoughts on our class discussions:
The article about the butter scientist was interesting because he was involved both in the reductionism of dairy and as a proponent of considering the impact of dairy as a whole rather than just looking at the effects of milk fat. One of the first people to identify dairy components at the level of specific acids, he was deeply involved in the 'scientification' of this basic food. And yet he also went against prevailing scientific opinion/fashion to look beyond the evils of saturated fat. (Perhaps he just loved cheese?)
Biochem Week 2 (12)
Post your thoughts on one of our class discussions:
I was really disturbed by the article about placebos and thought it was too non-specific and sensational. 97% of physicians used placebos - right, by what definition? So I went looking and found the source study for the article. Here is a link:
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0058247
And citation:
Howick J, Bishop FL, Heneghan C, Wolstenholme J, Stevens S, et al. (2013) Placebo use in the United Kingdom: results from a national survey of primary care practitioners. PLoS ONE 8(3): e58247.
The authors didn't post their questionnaire as a supplement, unfortunately, but responses regarding use of the individual 'placebo' types are discussed in more detail than in the article we read in class. The paper reports that 12% of docs reported using a "pure" placebo (i.e. sugar pills or saline injection) "at least once" in their career - but it is difficult to see details from the table, which groups the rare and never responses. The proportion of doctors who reported "occasional" use of a pure placebo, which by their definition includes "at least once in the last year," is 1.5%.
In terms of the impure placebos, the most common "impure placebos" used were "positive suggestions," which was used by 51.7% of docs at least once a week and by 19.6% occasionally (i.e. at least once in last year), and "antibiotics for suspected viral infections," which was used by 25.2% of docs at least once a week and by 51.2% occasionally. I would have really liked to see the numbers with these two items removed. I have a real problem with the article (probably the press release) reporting on this paper. Again - the sensationalism...
Another interesting tidbit the authors reported - there were some differences in use by physician sex. "More females used positive suggestions on a frequent basis (64% versus 52%, RR 1.23, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.40, P = 0.0013), and more males prescribed off-label uses of potentially effective therapy frequently (18% versus 10% RR 1.82, 95% CI 1.23 to 2.71, P = 0.0029). "
Here is the table I referred to:
Check out various links on cells and post your impressions:
I appreciated the interactive 'Virtual Cell', but the animations were kind of old school so I went in search of more. Totally geeked out. Here are a few more interactive (or video) options:
Cell Organelles And Their Function Animation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKEaTt9heNM
Here's another (not video): http://www.cellsalive.com/cells/cell_model_js.htm
Ooh pretty: http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/cells/insideacell/
I was really disturbed by the article about placebos and thought it was too non-specific and sensational. 97% of physicians used placebos - right, by what definition? So I went looking and found the source study for the article. Here is a link:
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0058247
And citation:
Howick J, Bishop FL, Heneghan C, Wolstenholme J, Stevens S, et al. (2013) Placebo use in the United Kingdom: results from a national survey of primary care practitioners. PLoS ONE 8(3): e58247.
The authors didn't post their questionnaire as a supplement, unfortunately, but responses regarding use of the individual 'placebo' types are discussed in more detail than in the article we read in class. The paper reports that 12% of docs reported using a "pure" placebo (i.e. sugar pills or saline injection) "at least once" in their career - but it is difficult to see details from the table, which groups the rare and never responses. The proportion of doctors who reported "occasional" use of a pure placebo, which by their definition includes "at least once in the last year," is 1.5%.
In terms of the impure placebos, the most common "impure placebos" used were "positive suggestions," which was used by 51.7% of docs at least once a week and by 19.6% occasionally (i.e. at least once in last year), and "antibiotics for suspected viral infections," which was used by 25.2% of docs at least once a week and by 51.2% occasionally. I would have really liked to see the numbers with these two items removed. I have a real problem with the article (probably the press release) reporting on this paper. Again - the sensationalism...
Another interesting tidbit the authors reported - there were some differences in use by physician sex. "More females used positive suggestions on a frequent basis (64% versus 52%, RR 1.23, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.40, P = 0.0013), and more males prescribed off-label uses of potentially effective therapy frequently (18% versus 10% RR 1.82, 95% CI 1.23 to 2.71, P = 0.0029). "
Here is the table I referred to:
Check out various links on cells and post your impressions:
I appreciated the interactive 'Virtual Cell', but the animations were kind of old school so I went in search of more. Totally geeked out. Here are a few more interactive (or video) options:
Cell Organelles And Their Function Animation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKEaTt9heNM
Here's another (not video): http://www.cellsalive.com/cells/cell_model_js.htm
Ooh pretty: http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/cells/insideacell/
Tuesday, July 28, 2015
Biophysics Week 2 (11). Energy Medicine and Energy Fields
Acupuncture as effective energy medicine:
First, acupuncture as energy medicine... Because acupuncture is a qi-based system, I think it is appropriate to call it energy medicine.
Is it effective? That's not entirely for me to say. It depends for what and for whom. There are some things for which it has been scientifically 'proven' to be effective. But largely, the process of Western scientific inquiry is not set up to consider and hold whole systems - it is far more reductionistic and requires looking at, measuring, one little aspect. Energy medicine, by its nature, is more encompassing.
What conclusions can you draw from Kirlian photography?
I actually spent a lot of time searching for scientific research on Kirlian photography. I failed to find much. Mostly, it was generic descriptions or people attempting to critique and debunk it. Perhaps this lack of available information is due to its development in the 1930s in Russia - apparently any research from that period and place is not available online in English. I think it's really interesting, but I can't personally draw any conclusions about Kirlian photography.
First, acupuncture as energy medicine... Because acupuncture is a qi-based system, I think it is appropriate to call it energy medicine.
Is it effective? That's not entirely for me to say. It depends for what and for whom. There are some things for which it has been scientifically 'proven' to be effective. But largely, the process of Western scientific inquiry is not set up to consider and hold whole systems - it is far more reductionistic and requires looking at, measuring, one little aspect. Energy medicine, by its nature, is more encompassing.
What conclusions can you draw from Kirlian photography?
I actually spent a lot of time searching for scientific research on Kirlian photography. I failed to find much. Mostly, it was generic descriptions or people attempting to critique and debunk it. Perhaps this lack of available information is due to its development in the 1930s in Russia - apparently any research from that period and place is not available online in English. I think it's really interesting, but I can't personally draw any conclusions about Kirlian photography.
Week 1 (11) Biochemistry
Thoughts on one of the Discussion items:
One of the big news items of the week is that Russian billionaire Yuri Milner has donated $100 million to further the search for extraterrestrial intelligence. I’ve always wondered how we (as in we humans) assume we would know when we find it. Who is to say that life is so narrowly defined as carbon-based forms? What if there are intelligent other beings we can’t even begin to conceive of? What if they are just so different that we don’t realize it? One of the things that struck me was when Larry said that silicon (right below carbon on the periodic table) could also be the basis of life, but it's too heavy. What if other places simply have heavier life forms or an atmosphere/biosphere such that carbon isn't heavy enough to support life? I think that thoughts about what life can be composed of are too limited.
Select one of the definitions of the "Chemistry of Life" and post your thoughts:
I selected three, because it was more the relativity of them that I found interesting.
"Biochemistry is the study of molecules (e.g. proteins) in the absence of the rest of the organism." This statement makes me want to run away. Of the more reductionistic approach.
"Biochemistry is a science that is concerned with the composition and changes in the formation of living systems." This statement is far more dynamic and recognizes the role of biochemistry in living systems rather than as concerned with only one component ("proteins").
"Biochemistry is an exciting area of study that examines the interface between chemistry and biology." This statement is more broad but comes across as sort of optimistic. "Exciting"!
One of the big news items of the week is that Russian billionaire Yuri Milner has donated $100 million to further the search for extraterrestrial intelligence. I’ve always wondered how we (as in we humans) assume we would know when we find it. Who is to say that life is so narrowly defined as carbon-based forms? What if there are intelligent other beings we can’t even begin to conceive of? What if they are just so different that we don’t realize it? One of the things that struck me was when Larry said that silicon (right below carbon on the periodic table) could also be the basis of life, but it's too heavy. What if other places simply have heavier life forms or an atmosphere/biosphere such that carbon isn't heavy enough to support life? I think that thoughts about what life can be composed of are too limited.
Select one of the definitions of the "Chemistry of Life" and post your thoughts:
I selected three, because it was more the relativity of them that I found interesting.
"Biochemistry is the study of molecules (e.g. proteins) in the absence of the rest of the organism." This statement makes me want to run away. Of the more reductionistic approach.
"Biochemistry is a science that is concerned with the composition and changes in the formation of living systems." This statement is far more dynamic and recognizes the role of biochemistry in living systems rather than as concerned with only one component ("proteins").
"Biochemistry is an exciting area of study that examines the interface between chemistry and biology." This statement is more broad but comes across as sort of optimistic. "Exciting"!
Tuesday, July 21, 2015
Biophysics Week 1 (Week 10). Life and Living Systems
I know I'm a "living system" because...
I know I’m a ‘living system’ because... I am mass and angles and vectors and flesh. I breathe, pump, circulate, ambulate, sweat, think, consume, excrete. I move of my own volition. I am cells and organelles. I am tissue and organs and systems. I am constantly killing and regenerating myself. I grow. I evolve. I atrophy. I age. I refine. I am complex, and it’s kinda miraculous that all of these elements (me!) work together as they do. I can be awed.
Comments on one of the discussions...
I know I’m a ‘living system’ because... I am mass and angles and vectors and flesh. I breathe, pump, circulate, ambulate, sweat, think, consume, excrete. I move of my own volition. I am cells and organelles. I am tissue and organs and systems. I am constantly killing and regenerating myself. I grow. I evolve. I atrophy. I age. I refine. I am complex, and it’s kinda miraculous that all of these elements (me!) work together as they do. I can be awed.
Comments on one of the discussions...
I was thinking about why Larry chose each of these articles for
a class on biophysics, “Life and Living Systems”. They represent lots of
thought-provoking topics at the interface of physics and biology. I found the
one titled “Conscious or Not?” to be particularly interesting and, in a weird
way, hopeful. A huge stressor in situations when a person is in a
coma is that family and loved ones (and doctors) don’t really know what is going
on with them. It seems that having a sense of how conscious someone is would be
incredibly helpful and reassuring when faced with difficult decisions and even
just a daily caretaking approach and how one might interact with the person, even if they can't respond. But perhaps there are situations in which it
would make decisions even more difficult - what to do when there is an
indication that someone is conscious but there is no hope of any degree of
recovery?
Tuesday, July 7, 2015
Week 8 - Descartes has a lot to answer for.
Descartes has a lot to answer for, indeed. Even though the reductionistic paradigm he spearheaded is less fashionable than in the not-so-distant past, I think that we (I) can barely even begin to comprehend the degree to which he has influenced how we in the West view the world.
Last semester we read an article for our tai ji and qi gong class on the history and basic principles of Neijing classical acupuncture by Ed Neal. He reviewed four primary differences between classical and modern scientific theory. One of the major differences he cited was the study of nature’s patterns versus its parts. “In classical sciences, the world of observable form is believed to result from intangible patterns of space/time rhythm. Because these underlying patterns are seen to antecede and give rise to the world of observable forms, traditional science prioritizes the study of these basic rhythms and patterns. From this viewpoint, the inherent scientific value in the manifest phenomena of nature lies in their ability to convey deeper insights into the intangible patterns of space/time motion that precede them. In contrast, modern scientific inquiry approaches the world through detailed investigations into the nature of forms and the material sub-structures of forms. Form and its component parts are examined and described with ever increasing levels of detail and differentiation, while the energetic patterns that generate them are mostly unrecognized.” How very true. And, I think, it started in large part with Descartes.
Certainly this approach of partitioning everything into smaller and smaller bits makes each bit easier to examine and 'study' and (think we) comprehend, but the sense of control this sort of examination and study affords us is misleading - we are complex systems existing as part of even more complex systems. As much as we would like to 'hold something constant' or 'control for' other factors, nothing is constant but change. The units or packages we cut things into are not really so tidy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)