Sunday, May 30, 2010

Over the past two centuries, technology has played a significant role in understanding, diagnosis, and treatment of disease in Canada. Technology - in the form of instruments, devices, machines, drugs, and systems has aided medical science, altered medical practice, and changed the illness experience of patients. Nineteenth century medical technology consisted of predominantly surgical and daignostic instruments use by individual practitioners. By the twentieth century, large, hospital-based technologies operated by teams emerged as powerful tool in the identification and management of disease. But let's refer back to the eighteenth century when diabetes became a major concern to a certian Canadian ...

On November 14,1891, in Ontario, Canada, a scientist was born. This scientist, and con-discover of insulin goes by the name of Fredrick Banting. For Banting to beomce a co-discover of insulin, he had developed an interest in patients with diabetes. It had recently been discovered that diabetes was primarily caused by a lack of specific protein in the body. He realized that the pancres' digestive juice was destroying the islets of his patient's hormone before it could be isolated. Banting had an idea as to how patients could overcome diabetes. If he could stop the pancreas from working, but keep the islets going, he should be able to find the stuff. But to test out his idea, he needed facilities, funding help. He recieved all three by speaking to J.J.R. Macleod; a Professor of Physiology at U of T. Macleod supplied an assistant in the form of Charles Best, still a medical student at the time, and facilities at the university. Banting and Best went to work and with the assistance from Macleod, eventually discovered insulin. Banting and Best published the first paper on their discovery a month later, in February, 1922. In 1923, the Nobel Prize was awarded to Banting and Macleod for the discovery, and each shared their portion of the prize money with the other researchers on the project. The team spli up after the discovery. Banting continued to work for the Hospital of Sick Children.

Ironically Banting's original idea wasn't entirely correct. He and Best later found they could obtain insulin even frmo the intact pancreas. Improved teachnology for testing and detecting sugar in the blood and urine provided information that earlier researchers didn't have, and this encouraged them to pursue a line of thinking that may have looked like a dead end to those working in the decades before them.

Today, 2 million Canadians live with diabetes - or put another way- 1 in 13 Canadians lives with diabetes. And the number will increase as scientific evidence recommends earlier screening of people at high risk for diabetes. Although insulin doesn't cure diabetes, it's one of the biggest discoveries in medicine made in the 1920's. When it came it was like a miracle. People with severe diabetes and had only days left to live were saved. Thanks to Sir Fredrick Banting, Dr. Charles Best, and the assistance of Professor J.J.R. Macleod people diagnosed with diabetes could live an almost normal life, as long as they keep getting their insulin.






























Wednesday, March 3, 2010

SBI3U1 U8

What is artificial selection? Artificial selection is the process of changing the characteristics of plants and animals by artificial means. It's a scientific term used to describe the breeding of plants and animals for desirable traits and not necessarily those that would allow the offspring to better survive in the wild. Artificial selection is relatively easy to accomplish. A specific plant of animal is chosen because it has a specific heritable genetic trait that the breeder desires. The plant or animal is then bred with another of its kind with a similar trait, resulting in offspring with a higher potential to display the specific trait. The cycle can be repeated with the offspring until the specific trait is achieved at the desired level.

Artificial selection has generated untold diversity in both plants and animals. Animal breeders are often able to change the characteristics of domestic animals by selecting for reproduction those individuals with the most desirable qualities. An example would be when we choose dogs with certain traits and breed them together to accentuate the traits we desire. The domestic cycle of dogs (canines) being bred by their owners in order to emphasize less-aggressive traits has gone on for thousands of years, and has resulted in hundreds of different breeds that look almost nothing like their grey wolf ancestors. Over the years, the plants with desirable characteristics are grown by man and their numbers increase. Meanwhile, plants without these characteristics are less likely to survive as they are not provided with fertilisers and pesticides by man. The Brassicas (a genus of plants in the mustard family) is a great example of artificial selection. Gardeners have cultivated flowers such as roses and orchids, carefully manipulated heredity to produce the perfect hybrid. Artificial selection is slowly effecting plants and animals.




I believe that artificial selection is not right on plants and animals. We as humans should be leaving all plants and animals the way they should be, the way they're supposed to grow and evolve. Humans shouldn't change the characteristics of plants and animals because the way they're supposed to grow, the reason why they're made, goes against how the natural order of things should be. If we do effect plants and animals by changing their characteristics, we as humans make it seem like we don't accept the way they are. Artificial selection on plants and animals, I believe, can be related to the transformation of baby's before they're born. Adjusting the characteristics and abilities of baby's before they're born isn't right because it makes the parent's of the child seem like that they don't accept the way they're child would grow, as if they wouldn't love the child because they aren't a certain way. This goes to show that allowing artificial selection on plants and animals would make us seem like we don't like something because it isn't the way we want it to be. If we do follow through with artificial selection, it wouldn't allow us to explore other things, to discover other things. We would take advantage of artificial selection, it wouldn't allow us to research things that would help us instead of just changing things in order to get what we want. If artificial selection isn't right for unborn babies, then it isn't right for plants and animals either.


Artificial selection is modification of a species by human intervention so that certain desirable traits are represented in successive generations. Another word to sum this all up is inbreeding. Inbreeding is the mating together of closely related animals, for example mother/son, father/daughter, sibling/sibling-matings, and half-sibling/half-sibling. It is the pairing of animals which are more closely related to the average population. In my opinion, artificial selection on plants and animals isn't right. I believe that change isn't always good, especially on the way things that already know how to grow on their own. By using artificial selection on plants and animals, it may effect us too because we would choose to change things just because we don't like they way something is going to turn out. But if we know how something is going to turn out, instead of resorting to transforming it, we can explore and discover other things that could help us.
Work citied list:
Pictures:

















Tuesday, January 19, 2010

SBI3U1 U5 Designer Babies

"Designer babies" is the term being used by the media to describe the future of modifying or selecting our children's genes for desirable characteristics (medical and cosmetic). A revolutionary technique called "pre-implantation process" is used to screen embryos for any genetic disease and only the disease free embryos are implanted into the mother's womb. This process can prove that we are going against what God truly wants for his children. I believe that going along with this process allows parents to make their child a "perfect child" is wrong. "Designer babies" is wrong, medical and personality wise.


A designer baby is a term used to describe a cloned embryo that has had it's genes chosen. Advances in genetics have given birth to this concept of "designer baby," wherein parents and doctors are able to genetically screen embryos for any genetic disorders. The technique is not limited to screening for genetic hereditary disorders, but is also for cosmetic reasons. The adoption of genetic engineering for cosmetic reasons; for genetic enhancement has spearheaded a lot of controversies. Current techniques of genetic modification introduce genes at random places in the genome. We should be concerned about the possibility that an inserted copy of NR2B (code for one type of glutamate receptor) may arrive in the target genome in a way that disrupts the function of another gene crucial of survival. Many of the traits that we may want to select are influenced by multiple genes. A gene affects intelligence only in combination with other genes. We are unlikely to find single genes whose modification would reliably produce a 20-point boost in IQ. For example, parents who are passionate about sports would have the athletic ability engineered into the child, however the child may not want the same. This reduces the child's freedom to choose. These techniques show parents that they can choose what they want for their children before they even have a say for themselves.



The National Director of Christian Voice, Stephen Green said, "The objection to the idea of designer babies is that it divorces procreation from the act of sexual congress, and there's a real sense in which it is playing God." Scientists and doctors have proven that allowing parents to have their "perfect child" won't allow them to build character. It won't allow them to become what God wants them to be. This may seem like parents are going against what God wants of the future children, freedom. God wants all of his children to be free, have a say in everything, especially for themselves. Children should develop their personality on their own, not on what their parents want. Parents shouldn't allow doctors and scientists to help them choose the genes they want for their children, they should accept their child no matter what.

I believe that the process of "designer babies" is wrong. It doesn't allow children to grow into what they are truly supposed to be. They can't develop their own personality's because their parents decided to choose their genes for them. In a way I believe that it may discriminate children who are or may develop a disability or sickness as they grow. This process allows other parents to see that children shouldn't have disabilities because they won't be accepted, but it shouldn't matter if a child is sick or not because we need to accept everyone. We shouldn't be leaving people out because they're "different," we should be letting everyone in to our lives. We need to allow everyone to live they're own life and be the way they want to be. Having children with disabilities allows parents to have a challenge in their life, and experience what it's like to have a challenged child. Many parent's still need to learn that their child will always be amazing because they are their child. Parent's should never give up their child just because they are not up to their expectations, but parent's shouldn't have expectations or limits for their child. I don't think designer babies it a good idea because it doesn't allow children to be what they want to be.


Designer babies is a term meaning that parent's get to choose what genes they want for their child. Technology is allowing parents to take advantage of what they want for their children. The process for designer babies doesn't allow children to make up their own personalities for themselves. I believe that this whole process is unnecessary because it doesn't allow children to grow in to they want to be. Designer babies is not for everyone.

Websites:

































Friday, October 9, 2009

SBI3U1 U2


Human intervention has a negative effect on the biodiversity of our ecosystems. A city's ecological footprint, an example of human intervention, contributes significantly to biodiversity loss, both locally and at the global level. Loss of biodiversity can have far-reaching consequences on the well-being and prosperity of human kind, because it reduces the strength and capacity of ecosystems to provide essential goods and services. Biodiversity is declining rapidly due to factors such as land use change, climate change invasive species, overexploitation, and pollution. The biodiversity of our ecosystems is soon coming to the end because of negative human intervention.

Studies of the "ecological footprint" of cities show that cities effect a geographic area vastly greater than their own surface area. Coastal cities which damage their ecosystems can give themselves particularly vulnerable. By over exploiting the seas as a source of food and as a location for waste disposal, cities compromise the benefits offered by their location. The Korle Lagoon in Accra, Ghana, absorbs the city's floodwater's, and receives the waters of several rivers. Water pollution and domestic and industrial discharges have a severely affected the lagoon's flora and fauna, and lagoon fisheries have been almost entirely destroyed. The lagoon's reservoir function has also been compromised, resulting in more frequent flooding in the city. Like The Korle Lagoon, the biodiversity of our ecosystems is being destroyed constantly.

Biodiversity loss has negative effects on several aspects of human well-being, such as food security, vulnerability to natural disasters, energy security, and access to clean water and raw materials. The availability of biodiversity is often a "safety net" that increases food security and the adaptability of some local communities to external economic and ecological disturbances. For example, due to natural disasters, the loss of mangroves and coral reefs, which are excellent natural shields against floods and storms, coastal communities have increasingly suffered from severe floods. An example of poor energy security is the shortage of wood fuel. This shortage occurs in areas with high population density without access to alternative and affordable energy sources. The continued loss of forests and the destruction of watersheds reduce the quality and availability of water supplied to household use and agriculture. Biodiversity loss affects everyone in many different ways, and we seem to be taking it for granted.

While changes in biodiversity are more clearly linked to direct drivers such as habitat loss, they are also linked to indirect drivers that are the root of many changes in ecosystems. The main indirect drivers are changes in human population, economic activity, and technology, as well as socio political and cultural factors. The changes in ecosystems are harming many of the world's poorest people who are less able to adjust to these changes and who are affects by even greater poverty, as they have limited access to substitutes or alternatives. For example, poor farmers often cannot afford using modern methods for services previously provided by biodiversity. In terrestrial ecosystems, the main driver has been land cover change such as the conversion of forest to agriculture. Exposure to one threat often makes species more susceptible to another, multiple threats may have unexpectedly dramatic impacts of biodiversity.

Human intervention has had a negative effect on the biodiversity of our ecosystems for a while now. Human actions are often contributing to irreversible losses in terms of diversity of life on Earth. As we are constantly taking our world for granted, the biodiversity loss will continue to be negative on the aspects of human well-being.Urban interests have had a damaging effect on the ecosystems around the cities, destroying the biodiversity of the surrounding areas, and in turn threatening the life of the cities themselves. If we continue to make human intervention a negative effect, the biodiversity of our ecosystem will come to an end.

Resources:

http://www.goert.ca/images/rock_outcrop_dev.jpg