BIOLOGY 103 FALL, 2002 FORUM 1

This is a place for conversation, not "formal" writing but thoughts, ideas, questions as they come to mind. Your quick reactions and thoughts in progress are valuable to others as they think things through themselves. And theirs can be valuable to you as you do the same thing.

So don't worry about getting things "right". The forum is a place to talk, and help each other get things less wrong. Enjoy.

Anyway...

To be perfectly honest, the main reason I signed up for this class was to fulfill my lab requirement. I took bio in high school, but didn't do so well in the class. I also took chem and AP chem. I liked chem, but my problem there is that I hate actually performing the experiments (I'm deathly afraid of doing something wrong and exploding the lab), but I liked observing the experiments and explaining in the write-ups what I had observed and why it happened that way. I liked finding out how the various chemicals in our world react. (Although my favorite experiments were always the ones that didn't involve any scary explosive reactions, but the ones where the reaction between various chemicals would turn them pretty colors.) So I didn't want to take chem in college because I knew I'd have to perform the experiments at some point. Physics is definitely not my thing, and geology is interesting but I didn't feel particularly thrilled at the thought of taking it. I would have loved to have taken astronomy because I love the night sky, but the math involved in astronomy is way too scary -- and besides, the wonder of the night sky (for me at least) is in its mystery, and if I took astronomy a lot of that mystery would be gone. So then I came to bio. I remembered my high school class being interesting, just not quite my style. I had Prof. Grobstein for my freshman C-Sem last year and he seemed like he would teach bio differently. And I am glad I decided to take this class.

I don't want to memorize facts that various teachers have been trying to chisel into my brain since elementary school, and I don't want to just hear the teacher talk at me about various things of little or no interest to me. The fact that this course is more discussion-oriented makes me think that this class will be all right, maybe even ... fun.

I like science in general -- I like learning about the world/universe around us. But the most fascinating thing to me is life itself. I love learning about the origin of life in general and the origin of humans, I think it is a fascinating subject. I like asking questions about the past.

I am not a person who enjoys science in depth, so don't talk to me about cells and other things that I can't see with my own eyes, but I do like learning about the things I can see. The fact that the things I can see are made up of tiny cells is amazing to me, but I find how these things go about living from day to day to be much more interesting.

I have always been interested in biology. I think I enjoy biology because it allows me to become more aware. Although the information above is disturbing, I think it is good to know. Now, this doesn't mean that we should walk around with rubber gloves and face masks, and shun fried chicken. But, maybe we should all just practice a little extra caution.

ADHD (Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder) is one of a family of related chronic neurobiological disorders. People suffering from this disorder along with ADD (Attention Deficit Disorder) may have an inability to concentrate or focus one's attention on one task. People with ADHD can often be easily distracted, frequently bored or even have difficulty completing routine tasks. Hyperactivity is also a frequent symptom of ADD and ADHD. When someone is hyperactive, they may not be able to sit still, talk incessantly, or do anything from tap their pencil on a desk or shake their leg during a period when they are forced to sit or pay attention. Another trait linked to ADD and ADHD is impulsivity. By impulsivity I mean that often people suffering from ADD and ADHD are unable to control their immediate desires or actions. They may blurt out whatever comes to mind without thinking about it until after it is said. Impulsive actions may also lead to lack of patience or inattention. Children with ADD or ADHD may have a harder time waiting for things they want or waiting to take their turn with others. They may be more compelled to act out by hitting or crying than children who do not suffer from ADD or ADHD.
Treatment for this condition is varied, covering everything from diet to prescription medication to behavioral therapy. More and more schools are taking this disorder more seriously by beginning to implement special education services for students with ADD and ADHD. These new programs are available for a variety of students spanning children in kindergarten up through to students in college.

My doctor recently cleared up years of menstrual confusion with the diagnosis of PMDD or Premenstrual Dysphoric Disorder (a.k.a. PMS from hell). I remember a boy in high school claiming the condition is made up and there's no such thing. I beg to differ. After 4 or 5 birth control pills and continued PMS and other such menstural symptoms, the diagnosis has peaked my interest about what is going on with my hormones.

PMDD is very rare - 3%-5% of women are diagnosed as having the disorder. Things clicked for me when I realized my mood swings, depression, crankiness, tiredness, and stress levels were directly linked to ovulation. According to WedMD and the Cleveland Clinic, this is exactly the best method of diagnosis. These web resources reccommend maintaing regular eating, sleeping and excercise schedules. Stress management is also reccommended.

However, www.pmdd.com (lol, lol) suggests that PMDD may be linked to low levels of serotonin in women's bodies. The drug Sarafem is thought to regulate an imbalance of serotonin.

In Psychiatric news, the range of women with PMDD broadens between 3 - 8% and the newsletter also reports the FDA approval of a new drug, Fluoxetine. Further research indicates that PMDD could be caused by an abnormal biochemical response to normal hormonal changes. Routine changes in estrogen and progesterone associated with menses may, in vulnerable women, induce a serotonin deficiency that could trigger the symptoms of PMDD.

However, womens-health.com says the treatment for PMDD is similar to that for major depression: the use of antidepressants and psychotherapy. Antidepressants should be taken on an ongoing basis. Psychotherapy can help *me* cope with the symptoms and with other challenges in *my* life.

Now, www.medem.com explains how antidepressents can help with PMDD: Studies show some women with PMDD may benefit from treatment with antidepressants called selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs). These medications also are prescribed commonly for depression, but for women with PMDD they usually work more quickly and are prescribed in lower dosages to be taken for just part of each month. Also turns out the other drugs (Sarafem and Fluoxetine) are also SSRIs.

As in many medicinal fields, PMDD deserves further attention and study. Hopefully my doctor and I can find a solution that works for me. I hope this wasn't too personal for everyone.
~mhoyt

I was reading some of the articles that are posted on the class website. I thought 'Some Language Experts Think Humans Spoke First With Gestures' was interesting. What irritated me about the people who disagreed with M.C. Corballis was that they didn't have much of an argument themselves. They discredited his theory because he wasn't a linguist, but then said in the next sentence that the field was unanswered and everyone had a theory. So what was wrong with Corballis having one too?

• Why do we go looking for "scientific" information about things in our personal lives (such as allergies, trouble sleeping, food choices, restlessness, PMDD)?
  
• How do we decide how valid/useful any given piece of "scientific" information is? Should we trust "science nerds"? Why or why not?
  
• Why (as we're talking about in class) can't scientists "get it right"? How come "scientific" information is frequently conflicting, and often changes? How should we deal with that? Can we, at any given time, do better than "needs further attention and study"? If so, how?
  
• Can science "prevent disease"? Why or why not? If not, is there any good reason for doing science?
  
• Should scientists study/tell us about asteroids and similar things that might or might not matter in the near term?
  
• Does it make sense that "you really are what you eat"? If so, why?
  
• Do bacteria have "immune systems"? How come they and we both get "stronger" (sometimes) when exposed to hazardous agents?
  
• Is biology different for women and men? What are the pros and cons of discussing biology separately or together?
  

All good science begins with the personal. And no, it can't be TOO personal. Maybe we can sort of flip back and forth between the personal and the general? what people's own experiences are and the broader issues to which they relate?

I think we look for scientific evidence in our lives because of what we were taught in high school. Science was always presented as facts, absolute truth. While many people know this isn't true the basic conviction that whatever someone in a lab says is true MUST be true is still pretty much assumed. I myself am guilty of this. I think, though, that this isn't completely false. While a cure for the common cold has not yet been found there are certain things that science has found to help prevent symptoms from getting out of hand. Most people have to admit, drinking a glass of orange juice makes you feel healthier, even if it is just psycologically. So why not go looking for "scientific" information? The very fact that it hasn't been disproven yet doesn't mean it won't work, and if it makes you feel healthier to eat chicken because becoming more vegetarian is supposedly bad for you, then eat chicken. Doesn't mean it's true, but it doesn't mean it's false.

Everyone's different. I have a friend who can eat anything she wants and stay as thin as a stick, and another friend who gains five pounds just looking at a cookie. Some things work better for some people than for others, so science will never find a complete cure for something because someone will always be pretty much immune to a pill or whatnot. As for men and women's biologies being different, it's true and false. As I said, everyone's different on some levels just as everyone's the same in others (we all have lungs, don't we?). At the same time, Men and women do differ physically. For instance, if a guy starts menstruating...he really should get that checked out.

That's all I'll say for right now, but I have one last question. I know we're supposed to want to be wrong, but is anyone else contradicting themselves before they state something, or ask a question?

The search for knowledge is at the base of science. We all know that. But why should scientists be afraid of admitting that they do not know all the answers. I am more reassured by those people who admit that they only have the best of their knowledge to rely on, and that they could in fact be wrong.

No one ever gets everything completely "right," and science is the most fallible of all. By trying to come to a conclusion that summarizes the observations which have been seen, scientists really try to fit the laws of nature into words which we can understand, rather than trying to phrase our words to fit nature's rules. While many people might think that these two actions are one and the same, the real difference is that scientists now assume that they can completely understand everything given their "laws" of today. That assumption is erroneous.

As proven in the world of physics and the example of the expansion of the galaxy, it is erroneous to assume that all "laws" are steadfast. Science would have a greater following among those of us who are "not science" people if man's fallibility were admitted and embraced.

And an organism is a living whole greater than the sum of its parts.

This was sort of a concept that I hadn't really gone into great depth thinking about until it coincided perfectly with a CSEM discussion later in the week. While talking about the evolution of the world and its species, we constructed a timeline of major (r)evolutionary events. The earth, as believed by a majority of scientists, is around 4.65 billion years old. The first evidence of bacteria dates back to around 3.5 billion years; the first plants around 1 billion and the first insects around 400 million. However, the first evidence of human-like characteristics (bid-pedal, opposable thumb, etc.) did not occur until around 100,000 years ago. In perspective, while the evolution of a single-celled organism took more than a billion years (!), humans have evolved in the past one-hundred-thousand--1/10,000th of the time. From an even greater mind-boggling standpoint, the past century has seen the advancement of human technology snowball at an astonishing rate. A hundred years ago, the automobile was still being perfected, child labor laws were only just beginning their movement, and Einstein hadn't even begun his theory of relativity.

The point is, a LOT has happened in such a short amount of time. Technologically, we have advanced as a people in unthinkable ways and at unthinkable rates. When I think back to the statement about an organism being "greater than the sum of its parts" I realize that it is so true. Humans are a perfect example. By definition, humans could in fact be a mere list of body parts, organs and cells but are more than those things singly. At the beginning of our CSEM class that day, we were asked to answer the question, "Who are you?" and my instructor noted, after everyone had read their answer, that never in the many years he has asked that question has anyone ever responded with something having to do with the actual chemical make-up of a human. More than by what we are made-up of, the label of Human or any being for that matter, encompasses more than just parts. We are defined not only by our biological make-up but also by what we do, achieve and how we live.

In this same way, science in general encompasses not just the "mundane facts" but the way those facts and terms combine to work from/with each other in an astonishing and extremely creative ways. The true definition of an organism (and more broadly, science) is reliant on the amazing interaction of its "parts".

I signed up for the class because, frankly, I need to get my lab out of the way before JYA next year and my friend Chelsea said that she was already enrolled. So I figured, if I'm going to go through hell (my picture of hell is one in which I'm stuck doing science and math forever, with voices yelling stuff like, "You suck! You'll never be able to do any of this!"), I might as well go through it with a friend. I was actually surprised in the first week of classes - maybe it won't be as bad as I thought!

I personally am interested in breast cancer. My grandmother was diagnosed last year and though she's doing well, I simply don't know anything about it and that doesn't make me feel good. I'd like to go into the causes of breast cancer, why it happens, who is more likely to get it and why, how it works, et cetera...

Okay, I'm done. Happy Sunday, everyone!

Maybe even textbooks sometimes get it wrong? And so we ... ? Nice work. Want to write the authors?

We've already discussed that the scientific information we have toniday cannot be taken as "truth," but the reason for that has largely been the lack of knowledge and continued discoveries in the field. I don't recall anyone mentioning that scientists themselves can be to blame for at least some of the inaccuracies because the observations they make and the experiments they perform to test the observations are all still based on unavoidable personal bias.

Even science nerds have to deal with internal politics. Status and reputations are at stake, funding depends on previous research, and critics and enemies can break a career for personal gain or just for sport. Not to make this sound excessively like a soap opera, but the point is that since scientists are human, they will inevitable make mistakes, and the data collected and analyzed by them will not and cannot be completely accurate, especially in a more subjective field like biology, which has less do to with math and formulas than other areas of science.

"The term natural flavor or natural flavoring means the essential oil, oleoresin, essence or extractive, protein hydrolysate, distillate, or any product of roasting, heating or enzymolysis, which contains the flavoring constituents derived from a spice, fruit or fruit juice, vegetable or vegetable juice, edible yeast, herb, bark, bud, root, leaf or similar plant material, meat, seafood, poultry, eggs, dairy products, or fermentation products thereof, whose significant function in food is flavoring rather than nutritional."

In other words, natural flavors can be pretty much anything approved for use in food.

(a)(1) The term artificial flavor or artificial flavoring means any substance, the function of which is to impart flavor, which is not derived from a spice, fruit or fruit juice, vegetable or vegetable juice, edible yeast, herb, bark, bud, root, leaf or similar plant material, meat, fish, poultry, eggs, dairy products, or fermentation products thereof. (http://www.howstuffworks.com/framed.htm?parent=question391.htm&url=http://class.fst.ohio-state.edu/fst621/Lectures/flavors.htm)

So I've come to the conclusion that it could possibly be defined not simply by movement, but more by reaction. Every living thing reacts to stimulus of somesort. If you knock over a tree it will either die or keep growing as is. It has some sort of response. When you ask a prof a question, he responds. The desk does not. That's one of the main ways we distinguish between livning and non-living things.

The play is set up like the premise of a bad joke: Picasso and Einstein wind up in a bar in Paris in 1904. They have a bit of an on-going arguement about whose contributions to the world are more important, that of the artist or that of the scientist. It's a rather funny play, I highly recommend it: but in the interest of only taking up as much of your time, my fellow students, as vaguely relates to the topic at hand, I'd like to just post a small bit of the dialogue. I think it relates to the question of science and art's realtions to one another, and to the creative process, which in my opinion is what binds them together.

Picasso (P from here on out): ...And what the hell do know about it anyway? You're a scientist! You just want theories...
Einstein (E):Yes, and like you, the theories must be beautiful. You know why the sun doesn't revolve around the earth? Because it isn't beautiful enough. If you're trying to prove that the sun revolves around the earth, in order to make the theory fit the facts, you have to have the planets moving backwards, and the sun doing loop-the-loops. Too ugly. Way too ugly.
P: So you're saying you bring a beautiful idea into being?
E: Yes. We create a system and then check to see if our observations fit it..
P: So you're not just describing the world as it is?
E: No! We are creating a new way of looking at the world!

And by the end of the play, the two realize that their respective fields are closely enough related and relavent to the other that they can call each other brother.

So I posted this mostly because I really like this play, and reference it whenever I've got even a marginal excuse to do so, I think, but also because I think that drive to find a new and better way of looking at the world is the essence of science. And Lydia, as far as your question about whether or not science can be used to explain creativity, I offer the notion that it is actually a creative drive that explains science: with a guitar, you create an ordered series of notes in some sort of harmonious arrangement. Painting, you create an ordered image on a canvas when there was none before. And in science, we create systems to bring order to the world as we observe it. Those observations are ever increasing and changing; and since we do them as individuals, no two people's perceptions are ever exactly alike, we all have something to contribute. Science and scientists must always be striving to create the next best system, the next best summary of all observations, just as it is said that a writer must write, a dancer must dance. What causes one woman to create in a symphony and another to create in a laboratory, and why these urges are stronger in some people and not in others would be an interesting scientific study: I am personally inclined, through my observation, to just add the 'creative urge' to the list of qualities possessed inherently by human beings, and differences in strength and ethod of expression of creativity to the vastly different experiences people have from one another. Goodness, that was really long. Sorry about that.

1. Organisms tend to be complex and highly organized. Chemicals found within their bodies are synthesized through metabolic processes into structures that have defined purposes.
2. Living things have the ability to take energy from their environment and change it from one form to another. This energy is usually used to facilitate their growth and reproduction.
3. Organisms regulate their bodies and other internal structures to certain normal parameters.
4. Living creatures respond to stimuli. Cues in their environment cause them to react through behavior, metabolism, and physiological change.
5. Living things reproduce themselves by making copies of themselves.
6. Organisms tend to grow and develop. Growth involves the conversion of consumed materials into biomass, new individuals, and waste.
7. Life adapts and evolves in step with external changes in the environment through mutation and natural selection.

Almost all of the definitions just examined material components and the interactions that can be analyzed with physical means, but can life be described in such strictly scientific terms? No definition touched the subject of consciousness and none examined life as a force. Can there be more than one definition of life?

Source of discussion: http://www.garynull.com/Documents/CaffeineEffects.htm

I've noticed that a bunch of you were talking about issues related to health. So, I thought I'd comment on a related issue that I have something of a vested interest in -- vegetarianism and veganism. I'm currently a vegan and I was raised as a vegetarian (three cheers for being the child of ex-hippies!). Although a lot of the reasons I eat the way I do have to do w/ morality issues (a thought: just because we're biologically capable of doing something, such as eating meat, does that mean we should?), I also feel that it can be a healthier diet (can be ... um, if you eat nothing but potato chips it will probably be a bad idea ... just as eating meat can be made healthier or less healthy depending on the specifics of what you're actually doing). Anyway, I guess I'm also something of a living response to people who wonder if it's OK to raise children as vegetarians (*waves* I'm here, I'm 18, and I'm, knock on wood, doing well). I'm also likely to raise my children vegetarian (quite possibly vegan) so I tend to be interested in issues related to how best to do so, etc. Now, I'm reading this over and worrying that it somehow sounds preachy (not the intention) ... if it does, I apologize. Also, here's a website with more information if anyone is interested: http://www.veganoutreach.org/
Take care!
~Chelsea