Bio 103 Web Paper Forum

Biology and Philosophy of Love Name: Lara Kalli Date: 2003-10-10 19:49:28 Link to this Comment: 6881

Biology 103
2003 First Paper
On Serendip

What does it mean to love another person? This question is one that virtually every person has asked himself at some point; virtually every school of thought that exists has attempted to provide an answer of some sort. In this paper I will explain my own attempt at answering that question, from the perspective of an amateur philosopher; then I shall delineate the answers that some biologists have given. We shall see that, while at first these two sets of answers might appear to be quite different, there are in fact some interesting and notable similarities.

I have heard many different accounts of what it is to love someone - to care truly for that person's best interest, to be willing to sacrifice one's own life for that person's well-being, and so on, the list is infinite. To be sure, these accounts all have a measure of validity; there are many different forms of love. However, there is one aspect that all of them have in common, which is the same point at which I think they fail to capture what it really is to love someone: they are too altruistic. Humans, it seems to me, are essentially self-centered creatures; and I do not intend that statement to have the extreme negative connotations that usually accompany the term "self-centered". I mean it in the most literal sense: humans are centered around the self. Much as we may try, the self is un-transcend-able. At this point in scientific and spiritual progress, we cannot ever truly experience anything through another person's frame of reference - all that we can know for certain is that which we think and feel. Thus, it makes no sense to speak of love as a sort of "leaving the self".

How, then, are we to think about it? I offer this alternative: so as to avoid the mistake of treating love as a form of altruism, we should think of loving another person as the act of loving oneself through another person - in other words, we love the people that make us feel best about ourselves, that bring out the best in ourselves. It is important to note that by no means does this definition entail that we do not genuinely care about the people we supposedly love. We can see this as follows: by this definition, it is essential that we like the people we love (it would be impossible for someone I did not like truly to make me feel good about myself); we want the people we like to be happy; we are best suited to making other people happy by being happy ourselves; we cannot be happy unless we like ourselves. And how can we accomplish this feat? By seeking out the company of those people who, for whatever reason, make it easier to like ourselves. Upon reflection, this account seems to me to be the only one that allows us to love others without requiring that love to be a pure act of altruism.

And what does biology have to say about love? First of all, it seems to be widely agreed amongst biologists who study the subject that love is an essential part of human functioning. Dr. Arthur Janov, author of The Biology of Love, brings up a developmental fact essential to understanding this point: "The right hemisphere, which is larger than the left, is the site of feelings and emotions and of holistic, global thinking. Thoughts, planning, and concepts are the domain of the left hemisphere. The right brain is largely mature at the second year of life; the left brain is only beginning its maturation at that time. Feelings pre-date thoughts. In terms of evolution we are feeling beings long before we are thinking ones." (1) Furthermore, it has been shown that neglect, or lack of love, has a serious impact on human ability to survive and develop properly. (2) Dr. Janov notes that infants who are neglected have brains that are significantly different from normal brains: the number of stress-hormone receptors, for example, are much lower in the brain of a neglected infant, which entails a higher level of stress - and therefore unhappiness - in that person. (1)

Biology, as of this point in time, has successfully determined what processes exactly occur in the brain when one loves another person. However, there are studies that have been done that show some interesting correlations. Dr. Helen Fisher posits a dramatic increase in the amount of dopamine and norepinephrine present in the brain when one first becomes infatuated with another person, which would account for the feelings of euphoria, giddiness and so on that one would experience at that point. (3) Another study showed that, in the brains of people who had recently fallen in love, serotonin levels were significantly higher than those in the brains of the control group. (4) Yet another study demonstrated the possibility of a correlation between the ability of adults to bond emotionally with one another and the presence of the hormone oxytocin, which is normally associated with human reproductive processes such as lactation and, interestingly, male and female orgasm. (5)

How can these findings be applied to my theory as outlined above? Most notably, there is a correlation between the notion of loving another person as a form of self-love and the types of chemicals that scientists have found to be present in the brains of people who are in love. All of the chemicals stated above are associated not only with being in love but with other forms of gratification. Oxytocin, as stated above, is released in the brain during orgasm; dopamine is associated with pain relief (6) and euphoric feelings in general, as is evidenced by the role it plays in the effects of amphetamines and cocaine; serotonin is associated with feelings of calm and happiness. In other words: when we are in love, chemicals associated with pleasure are released into our brains; loving another person is comparable to self-gratification. To love another person in the philosophical sense is to love oneself; to love another person in the biological sense is to give oneself pleasure.

References

1. The Biology of Love; online excerpt of Dr. Janov's book 2. article on love and its biological necessity to human life 3. interview with Dr. Helen Fisher 4. study on the role of serotonin in love 5. study on the role of oxytocin in love 6. article on chemical nature of pain and pleasure

A Mad Artist Or Does He Really Hear Yellow? (And W Name: Mariya Sim Date: 2003-11-05 10:51:15 Link to this Comment: 7120

Biology 103
2003 First Paper
On Serendip

"The sound of colors is so definite that it would be hard to find anyone who would express bright yellow with bass notes, or dark lake with the treble," wrote Wassily Kandinsky in Concerning the Spiritual in Art (1). As the reaction to his book proved, he was largely underestimating the public's propensity to deride any assertion made with assurance, especially one so seemingly subjective. When Kandinsky followed this comparatively general statement with detailed profiles for each basic color - light red, for instance, was "warm," gave one "a feeling of strength, vigor, determination, triumph," and corresponded to the "sound of trumpets, strong, harsh, and ringing" - some of his more outspoken readers suggested that the artist was more fit for an insane asylum than for a painter's career. While today we cannot deny Kandinsky's artistic merits, an interesting question remains. Were the details of his descriptions mere metaphors resulting from the vividness of his imagination? Or was there a physical experience behind such an extravagant way of seeing the world?

It turns out that you don't have to be an artist to have an experience of reality akin to that of Kandinsky. Psychologist Carol Crane, for instance, always sees the letter c in tawny crimson (2), blue accompanies the sounds of the piano for professor of English Sean Day (2), and when journalist Allison Bartlett thinks of a year, she has a distinct vision of a horseshoe with different months distributed over it (3). All of them (including Kandinsky) have a neurological condition called synesthesia - a peculiar mingling of the normally separate senses. For synesthetes, the stimulation of one modality causes a perception in one or more different modalities, so that colors evoke sounds, tastes conjure up shapes, etc.

The name synesthesia is composed of two Greek root words, syn meaning "together," and aisthesis meaning "to perceive" (2). This "together-perception" is relatively rare: some researchers say that approximately 1 in 20,000 is affected (3), others suggest that as many as 1 in 200 may experience a basic form of this condition (4). As one can easily see, there is not much agreement among the scientists, and this is the case not only among the researchers, but also among the synesthetes themselves. The variations of synesthesia are virtually endless and difficult to categorize - though some attempts have been made (4) - because although synesthetic perceptions of one person are consistent over time, it is almost impossible to find two people with identical experience. In other words, if the letter a has always been dark blue for one synesthete, it has always been mustard yellow for another, light green for the third, and so forth.

There are only a few facts about synesthesia on which the researchers have come to an agreement. Synesthesia is genetic and is linked to the x-chromosome (5). It is more common in women than in men, with the ratio ranging from 2:1 to 8:1 (2). And, most importantly, two recent experiments evince that the elusive phenomenon is real. In 1993 Simon Baron Cohen, an experimental psychologist at the University of Cambridge, and his research group conducted a study that proved that synesthetic perceptions are consistent over time. They provided a group of synesthetes and a group of non-synesthetes with a list of numbers, words, and phrases and asked them to record the color each evoked. A week later they repeated the test without warning with the control group, whose responses were only 37 percent consistent with their initial answers. The same follow-up test was given to the synesthetes a year later - 92 percent of them gave an answer identical to one they gave previously (2). Baron-Cohen's later research shows that synesthesia can be measured using positron-emission tomography and functional magnetic resonance imaging. Thus, in synesthetes with colored hearing, areas of the brain connected with visual image processing as well as the areas responsible for sound processing become activated in response to sound stimuli, while in non-synesthetes the visual processing centers do not (6).

At this point one may ask a serious question: why should we care? While synesthesia is a fascinating and unique phenomenon, its very rarity should preclude it from being a general concern. Moreover, it is a condition that is "abnormal" only because it is rare. Tests have shown that synesthetes are mentally stable (7), they are physically and socially active, their secondary sensory experiences do not (except in some extreme cases, when the synesthetic colors, sounds, etc. are particularly unpleasant) interfere with their daily life (3). Thus, synesthesia is not an "abnormality" that requires medical treatment; on the contrary, most synesthetes enjoy having a multi-variable experience of reality and would never want to lose it. It seems that scientists should have ceased being interested in this phenomenon, having satisfied their curiosity as to its objective existence and having raised the awareness of it both in medical circles and in society, so as to affirm that synesthetes are not mentally or psychologically deficient. However, this is not the case. Groups of dedicated scientists in the world's major research institutes and universities are still studying synesthesia and have no intention of ceasing their efforts any time soon. Why? To answer this we have to ask another question: why is it that the synesthetes' experience of the world is so different from the non-synesthetes'.

The researchers have not found a single unifying explanation for this difference. However, major theories advanced by them suggest that, far from being an unusual and therefore mostly irrelevant phenomenon, synesthesia may actually provide a path to solving some of the most fascinating mysteries of how the human brain works. One of the researchers suggesting this possibility is Richard Cytowic, whose studies mark the modern revival of interest in synesthesia. Cytowic postulates that the synesthetic neural processes occur not in the neocortex (an area of the brain associated with "higher-level" thinking) but in the limbic system (regarded as more primitive in evolutionary terms and responsible for emotional, rather than logical, processes). Based on his experiments with synesthetes using the radioactive xenon method, which showed a great decrease in the subjects' cortical function during synesthesia, he proposed that neuroscience had greatly underestimated the importance of emotion in human thinking process. While conventional models of the brain describe neocortex (and rational thinking) as influencing the limbic system (and emotional or associative reasoning), synesthetic processes show that the two are interdependent. Moreover, as Cytowic suggests, the limbic system, in fact, plays the more important role in the process due to the fact that there are more projections from the limbic system into the neocortex than otherwise. (7)

Some may argue that synesthetes cannot act as convincing examples for such a generalization, since apparently their perception of the world is entirely different from that of the non-synesthetes'. Cytowic, however, advises that we should cease thinking of neural processes in terms of terminal events (for instance, of human perception of a color as the final stage of a linear neurological process, whose origin is in the cortex), but instead focus on the intermediate stages of neural transformations. What may then be inferred is that synesthesia is "a premature display of a normal cognitive process" (7). That is, perception is by its very nature holistic, and we are all, in fact, synesthetes, although only few people can "sample" not only the final isolated product (i.e. taste, color, smell), but also the work-in-progress, as it were. (7)

Although another synesthesia researcher, Simon Baron-Cohen, proposes that the brains of synesthetes and non-synesthetes are physically different (and in that disagrees with Cytowic), his explanation of the neurological basis for the condition suggests that this difference is not inherent, but acquired. According to Baron-Cohen's theory, synesthetic experiences are the result of an overabundance of neural connections in the brain. While in the normal human brain there exist separate unconnected modules responsible for different sensory perceptions, in the synesthete's brain there are connections between these centers, causing the unusual mingling of several modes of perception (6). Nevertheless, this theory does not imply that there are two distinct "kinds" of people - those with synesthetical connections and those without - but, rather, that all human infants are born synesthetic. In the majority of humans the connections between different modules are "trimmed" as they grow older, but in some they remain intact as the result of genetic predisposition (8). Therefore, synesthesia may still be helpful in gaining a better understanding of human neurological makeup.

Peter Grossenbacher, a psychologist at Naropa University, Colorado, offers yet another explanation for synesthesia. Unlike Baron-Cohen, he believes that the human brain does not have to have a physically different structure to be able to arrive at synesthetic perceptions. Grossenbacher advances a concept of uninhibited "feed-backward" neurological connections in synesthetes' brains. In the human brain there are "feed-forward" connections, which carry information from lower-level single-sense areas of the brain to the high-level processors, and "feed-backward" connections, which transport the processed information from these multi-sensory processors back to the single-sense areas of the brain (9). Normally, the processed information returns only to an appropriate single-sense area, thus allowing one to focus on a single sensory perception. However, in the brains of the synesthetes the neural pathways of the "feed-backward" connections may become disinhibited, allowing the information to return to more than one area and thus effecting a simultaneous perception in several sensory modalities (3). While in the synesthete's brain this disinhibition happens naturally, in the non-synesthete's brain certain hallucinogenic drugs (like LSD or mescaline) can induce a similar process (2). From this it could be inferred that most activity in the human brain depends not so much on its physical structure as on the exchanges of neurons between its different areas.

Vilayanur Ramachandran and Edward Hubbard of the University of California at San Diego support Grossenbacher's theory to some extent. Their research findings suggest that a process they term "cross-activation" occurs in the synesthetes' brains. Due to an imbalance of chemicals travelling between various areas of the brain, the normally inhibited "cross-talk" (the exchange of information between two separate modules) becomes disinhibited, so that one area produces an effect on the other. This theory accounts for the fact that certain forms of synesthesia (like sound-and-color connections) are more common, while others (like taste-and-shape) are less common. With the more common forms, the areas of the brain responsible for processing the different sensory perceptions are closer to each other, thus facilitating cross-activation, while the opposite is true for the less common forms (10). However, unlike Grossenbacher, Ramachandran and Hubbard do not consider this process of "cross-activation" an abnormality. Rather, they see it as a basis for something common to all humans, namely, for our propensity for metaphor, which is based on our ability to extract a common denominator from seemingly distinct sensory properties. According to them, this "extraction" can only occur if there is a time when all information, as it were, flows together in the brain, that is, when different sensory modes are engaged in cross talk. Since this predisposition for metaphor, and thus creativity, is essential to a human, synesthesia cannot be considered simply an obscure abnormality, but a more vivid manifestation of the process common to all of us (10).

Paradoxically, what these studies suggest is that we are all "closet synesthetes." While synesthesia par excellence is relatively rare, it would not be unfounded to suppose that cross-modal references occur in everyone's brain, although it is difficult to pinpoint them in non-synesthetes due to their diminished state (11). What implications then does synesthesia have for our perception of reality and what does its existence suggest about the nature of reality in general?

The synesthetes claim that not only objects, but also abstract concepts have a multitude of sensory qualities: color, sound, shape, smell, etc. Could it be that the nature of reality in general is multi-variable, that all phenomena objectively possess several qualities, some of which are more pronounced and others less? Some of Ramachandran's and Hubbard's research indirectly supports this assertion. They presented their subjects with two drawings (one blob with soft curved outlines and another with jagged sharp-edged outlines) and two nonsensical words (bouba and kiki). 99 percent of the subjects associated the curved blob with bouba and the sharp-edged with kiki (10). From this it may be inferred that there is some connection between the visual curviness/jaggedness and the auditory softness/sharpness, and, thus, that there are inherent connections between sensory modalities that we normally separate (for example, between visual and auditory modalities).

If the nature of reality is indeed multi-variable, it follows that humans normally suppress some of the qualities of perceived objects during the processing of the neural signals in the brain. Synesthetes, on the contrary, do not suppress most modalities due to a genetic predisposition. However, it is interesting that some synesthetes report that they can diminish their synesthesia by focusing on something other than the object or concept that evokes their secondary perceptions. Thus, Sean Day, who normally sees colors when he hears music, claims that if he closes his eyes or consciously concentrates on something other than the sound, the colors go away (4). Would it be possible for a non-synesthete to do something diametrically opposite, that is, to develop a conscious perception of the "abnormal" sensory variables of a given object? In this respect, it is interesting that some blind people report perceiving color and light via tactile experiences (11), while color-blind synesthetes report seeing vivid synesthetic colors (10).

Holistic nature of sensory perception (albeit unconscious) is important because it allows for a more complete understanding of the world, but also because it presupposes the existence of a certain common basis of reference that makes communication and understanding between humans easier. Synesthesia suggests that every person's conscious perception of reality is different from everyone else's (and that is also probably true - to a lesser extent - for non-synesthetes). On the other hand, some researchers have found common tendencies even in the seemingly endless variety of synesthetic perceptions (4), which may in turn suggest that our experience of reality is not as subjective as other researchers (among them Grossenbacher) would have us believe. But even if the results (the perceived colors, smells, tastes) of the neurological processing of sensory input are different (if each of us suppresses and, therefore, experiences different modalities), in the earlier stages of the process, when cross-activation takes place, our experience of the world is still much the same in its multi-variability. This is true even if one assumes that objects do not in reality posses multi-variability, but, rather, that different areas of the brain are randomly and subjectively cross-activated (that is, if the color blue really does not have a sound associated with it, but, rather, the signal "blue" randomly cross-activates the parts of the brain responsible for visual and sound perception). There is still some basis for a common experience.

Another important assumption that can be made based on synesthesia research is that emotions have a profound effect on our perception of reality. Synesthetes often report that their secondary perceptions become more vivid if they are emotionally involved in the experience. One of the more famous synesthetes - the Russian composer Scriabin, for whom music evoked colors - claimed that normally he had a "faint feeling" of color, which grew stronger and ended in a visual image of color as his emotional involvement in the music escalated. He also noted that not all music could produce synesthetic experiences in him. Some composers, like Beethoven, were too "intellectual" for that, while more "emotional" modern composers, like Tchaikovsky, inevitably evoked vivid colors. (12)

If we accept the notion that we are all "closet synesthetes," then future research on synesthesia and emotion may lead to a greater understanding of the neurological basis for our liking and disliking certain smells, tastes, colors, etc. It may also add to our comprehension of why purely intellectual pursuits have emotional value for humans, leading some to quasi-ecstatic states, while remaining a boring chore for others. The link between synesthetic experiences and emotions may also uncover the neurological basis for the psychological effects of colors (for example, the calming effect of blue) and music.

As one can see, the areas of research for which synesthesia is important are numerous and crucial for neurobiology and philosophy of science. Therefore, the continual scientific study of this condition is not based on mere curiosity, but on a desire to unlock some mysteries of the human brain. When the theories that the scientists arrive at become popularized, perhaps, people will recognize that even the "simple" and "natural" processes like seeing a color or hearing a sound are more complex than they think. Moreover, even such seemingly bizarre statements like that of Kandinsky would be attributed not to artistic whims and not even to a subjective and rare neurological condition, but, rather, to a neurological process of perception common to everybody. After all, how many of us would really associate bright yellow with bass notes and dark blue with C sharp? It turns out that not only we may really hear yellow, but that it may be as natural to a human as slandering every groundbreaking scientific theory or suspecting every observation that transcends the boundaries of "normal" experience (which, in turn, may, as synesthesia research shows, be self-imposed and subjective).

References

1)Kandinsky, Wassily. Concerning the Spiritual in Art. New York: George Wittenborn, Inc., 1947.

2)"Do You See What They See?" on "Discover" magazine home page, by Brad Lemley

3)"An Ear for Color" on "Washington Post" home page, by Allison Bartlett

4)"Professor Making Sense Out of Senses" on Journal-News.com, by David Brown

5)"I Can Taste My Words" on "BBC News" page, by Jane Elliott

6)"Everyday Fantasia: The World of Synesthesia" in "Monitor on Psychology" on American Psychological Association home page, by Siri Carpenter

7)"Synesthesia: Phenomenology and Neuropsychology" on "Psyche" page, by Richard Cytowic

8)"Is There a Normal Phase of Synaesthesia in Development?" on "Psyche" page, by Simon Baron-Cohen

9)"Cortical Feedback Improves Discrimination Between Figure and Background by V1, V2 and V3 Neurons" on "Nature" journal home page, by Hupe et. al.

10)"Hearing Colors, Tasting Shapes" on Scientific American.com, by Vilayanur Ramachandran and Edward Hubbard

11)"Synesthesia - A Real Phenomenon? Or Real Phenomena?" on "Psyche" page, by Luciano da F. Costa

12)"Synesthesia and Artistic Experimentation" on "Psyche" page, by Cretien van Campen

Dark Energy: The Mystery of This Millennium Name: Melissa Te Date: 2003-11-05 14:33:08 Link to this Comment: 7126

Biology 103
2003 First Paper
On Serendip

Billions of years ago, the universe was nothing but an infinitesimally small particle. Then, in less time than the blink of an eye, the universe expanded and increased in size by a factor of 1050. Expansion eventually began to slow down, allowing galaxies, star clusters, and so on, to form. Theoretically, expansion should still be slowing down; but to the contrary, expansion is in fact accelerating (10). Some scientists theorize that an unknown force, called Dark Energy, may be the cause of this accelerated expansion, while others disagree.

For some time, exploding stars, or supernovas, were used as a "cosmic measuring stick" (4). That is, scientists used these supernovas to calculate the age of the universe. In 1998, two groups of astronomers surveyed supernovas in very distant galaxies. These supernovas were much dimmer than expected to be, and calculations proved that the stars were over ten billion light years away, much farther away than they should be had the universe been expanding at a slowing rate, or even a constant rate, as previously theorized (5). This discovery proved that the cosmos are not expanding at a slowing or a constant rate, but instead they are expanding at an accelerated rate (4). Since this discovery, scientists have been trying to uncover what it is that accounts for this accelerated expansion.

Scientists have calculated the density of the cosmos, and they have also calculated the total mass of all visible galaxies. However, the galaxies make up less than one-third of the density needed to satisfy the current calculations of the early universe (2). Simple logic tells us that there must be something else in the universe, with some kind of mass, which accounts for over two-thirds of the density of the cosmos. The new theory incorporates a different force called Dark Energy. At first, scientists did not know how Dark Energy works or what it is physically made up of. Some proposed ideas of Dark Energy are: a cosmic field associated with inflation, a low-energy field called "quintessence," and the cosmological constant, or a negative pressure, as suggested by Albert Einstein (7).

In July of 2003, scientists confirmed that Dark Energy exists, but they still cannot truly explain it (6). They do know that Dark Energy is different from every other kind of energy found. Some say it is a negative gravity (1), while others say that it does not necessarily act opposite to gravity, but, instead, it acts more like a negative pressure (5). Scientists do know for sure that Dark Energy moves space apart, causing the rate of expansion of the universe to increase (3). Physically, Dark Energy is invisible and of an unknown form, but accounts for 65 percent to 75 percent of the makeup of the early universe. However, scientists have no way of measuring Dark Energy with the current technology, as it affects only the universe over very large distances, as opposed to gravity which affects the universe over both large and small distances (2).

Einstein's Theory of Relativity allowed for the existence of a force such as Dark Energy. He spoke of a "cosmological constant" that left open the possibility that even empty space has energy. Also, according to his theory, this energy must have some kind of mass since energy equals mass multiplied by the speed of light squared, or E=mc2 (3). While most of Einstein's theory makes sense, some say the amount of Dark Energy decreases with time, as opposed to remaining constant. It is quite possible that Dark Energy is controlling the expansion of the cosmos, so understanding the nature of Dark Energy is vital to the prediction of the fate of the universe. In order to do so, scientists must create more advanced technology to measure density, pressure, changes with time, and so on, in galaxies billions and billions of light years away (3).

There are also those scientists who do not believe in the theory of Dark Energy. Some physicists claim that they can explain the expansion of the universe without having to factor Dark Energy into the equations. These scientists say that gravity is, in fact, the force causing the cosmos to expand. They have added a term to Einstein's equations in his theory of relativity to support their ideas, which will not affect the early universe, but will instead affect the universe after billions of years (1).

Of course, there are many other theories involving and excluding Dark Energy. For example, an additional theory is that gravity slowed the expansion of the universe after the "Big Bang" until the universe was half of its current age. Then, an opposing force, Dark Energy, consumed gravity and it began pushing the galaxies away at an accelerated speed. Others say that Dark Energy conceals other dimensions that scientists have yet to find; we know of a first, second and third dimension, but where are the forth, fifth, sixth, and so on, dimensions hiding (4)? Some even say that in order for Dark Energy to be real, space must be flat as opposed to curved (8).

Scientists say that Dark Energy could also be responsible for the end of our universe. Some other theories of the end include the "Big Crunch" and the "Big Chill" which deal with either an abundance of gravity or a lack of gravity. However, a new theory, called the "Big Rip," says that if dark energy continues to accelerate, it will eventually rip apart stars, solar systems, galaxies, and even atoms. This theory was created by a group of scientists from Dartmouth College, who say that the universe has twenty million years left of existence (9).

In short, scientists are very uncertain as to nature of Dark Energy, and every group of scientists that studies the force has formulated their own respective theories. Which theory is correct? Is Dark Energy just an excuse for our miscalculations of the density of the cosmos? Could empty space really just be empty space? Will the universe indefinitely continue to expand, leaving the Earth and the human species alone for eternity? Perhaps scientists will never have the ability to answer these questions. However, what they know for sure, as scientist Michael Turner of University of Chicago says, is, "This is very weird stuff" (4).

References

1)Accelerating Universe Theory Dispels Dark Energy
2)Universe Mostly Made of Dark Energy
3)Beyond Einstein
4)Dark Energy Quickens Universe Expansion
5)Dark Energy: Astronomers Still Clueless
6)Dark Energy Confirmed
7)Dark Energy Fills the Cosmos
8)Direct Evidence Found for Dark Energy
9)Dark Energy May Rip Apart Universe
10)Decoding the Mystery of Dark Energy

Sibling rivalry (the slightly-less-amazing adventu Name: Brittany P Date: 2003-11-08 19:43:08 Link to this Comment: 7156

Biology 103
2003 Second Paper
On Serendip

Why yes, it's...

The slightly-less-amazing adventures of Professor Sanderson's Sociobiology discussion group!

Today's topic: Sibling Rivalry

**

Professor Armand Sanderson's Sociobiology lecture was not quite as popular as his brother Julian's Paleobio class. Partly this was because sociobio did not lend itself to psycho-Permian field trips; partly this was because he, unlike his Cosmopolitan brother, looked more like a lumberjack than a professor. In fact, the highest attendance he'd ever recorded occurred on the day he brought Julian in as a guest. This annoyed him.

"Good morning," he addressed the sea of faces sourly. "As I'm sure you all know, today we have my brother Julian in as a guest." Julian waved cheerily. Fifty-seven eyelids batted. "He's here for today's discussion on the biological origins and implications of sibling rivalry among humans. I expect you all to participate." Despite his gruffness, he received only minimal acknowledgement.

"Julian," he continued, noting with ire the sudden leap in his students' attention, "is here to provide a living example of the concepts we're about to discuss. He's also good with animal behavior, so he'll be starting you off today with some of the biological bases of sibling competition." He narrowed his eyes. "I expect you to pay attention to what he's saying."

The threat was habitual, and, in this case (he again noted with ire) completely unnecessary. The class had no trouble obeying. As Julian stepped forward, all talk immediately ceased---though some of the students' comprehensive faculties ceased along with it.

"Good morning, everybody!" Julian chirped. "Like Armand said, today we're here to discuss sibling rivalry. We don't have a lot of time, so I'll just jump right in. Now, how many of you here have ever fought with your brothers and sisters?" All but a few hands went up. Julian nodded, smiling. "Right. So you would say it's a common problem?" The class murmured agreement. "Well, you're absolutely right. This may come as a surprise to you, but humans aren't the only species who get ticked off by their siblings. In fact, sibling rivalry is ubiquitous in nature. ((5))"

Leaning back, Julian lifted himself to sit on the edge of Armand's desk. Armand, typically, scowled. "For a good example, look at baby pigs," the younger professor explained. "They push each other out of the way so they can get at their mom's anterior teats---that's where the best milk is. ((2)) And baby kestrels will physically fight one another over the food their parents bring back. ((3)) It gets pretty violent sometimes---just like home, right?" A few students chuckled. "Yeah. That's not even the half of it. For example, baby sharks will---this is gross---eat one another in the womb. ((5))" His face crinkled with disgust. Behind him, the elder professor breathed an imperceptible sigh. He had never appreciated his brother's tendency to melodramatize biology.

A hand went up in the back. Julian, abandoning his grimace, motioned the student to speak. "Um," she said uncertainly, "that's gross, but don't they do it for a reason? I mean, I read somewhere that this fits into Darwinism... does it?"

The professor scratched the back of his neck. "Tricky one," he replied. "Me, I say it does... what you're referring to is the theory that sibling competition---if it proves fatal, as in sharks---is actually natural selection because it weeds out the weaker genes from the stronger. The bigger, healthier baby shark will survive to breed. ((1)) However..."

"However," Armand broke in, with a grumble from behind his desk, "That argument falls when you consider that siblings share half their genes. ((1)). Why would you kill off someone who's going to pass on so much of your own genetic material?" He crossed his arms. "Even twins fight, though they're basically the same."

Off to the right, a pair of hands went up simultaneously. They belonged to the class's single set of twins, only one of whom---a darkly dressed but cheery looking goth---was actually enrolled. The other, a bouncy prep, was visiting for less academic reasons. "I take issue with that," the goth said when Armand waved her forward. "Twins may be genetically the same, but that's where it ends." Her sister propped her fists on her hips and added, "Yeah. My sister and I are identical twins, but we're totally different. If we had kids, they wouldn't be exactly alike. I mean, we'd raise them differently and stuff, because of our personalities." The goth nodded approvingly, then picked up, "Who you are isn't just genetic. Who says survival rates have to be dependent solely on genes?"

Armand frowned, looking surprised and a little ruffled. "True," he admitted. "But it's still the genes that determine who your children are. Darwinism still applies. If both of you reproduce, your offspring will have---from your side---the same genetic chances of survival."

A soft, disagreeing cough issued from the front of his desk. "But that depends on how important genetics are. Are they that crucial?" Julian asked quietly. For all his usual placidness, a distant debater's spark had appeared in his eyes. "Not very. Maybe how you're raised is more important. Kids, even twins, compete because they're not the same, despite genetics. No matter what their DNA, they'll still have differing chances of survival." He spread his hands. "Say those baby pigs are all identical twins. They're still individuals, so they still have to compete." Craning back, he flashed a brief grin at his brother. "So Darwinism still applies. It's just not genetic. Behaviors can be passed on, too."

The elder man let out a huff. "Fine," he agreed grudgingly, in a tone which by no means indicated surrender. "Anyway, we're getting off topic. What we're actually supposed to be getting to is why sibling competition occurs." He glanced at his brother. "Julian?"

"Eh, right, right." Julian crossed his legs and leaned back onto the desk. "Although I think we've already sort of addressed it... why do siblings compete? It's more a matter of what they compete over. And the answer can be summed up in one word: *Resources*. ((6))" He slung one arm across his knees, gesturing with the other. "Take baby birds. They fight each other for the biggest share of the food their parents bring home. The bigger chick generally gets more food and has a better shot at survival and, later, reproduction. ((6))" He looked amused, then thumbed a hand back at his brother. "For example, if Armand and I were chicks, he'd be the bigger chick, so he'd probably be the one who'd end up reproducing. Hah, hah."

Armand's eye was twitching. "That is wrong in so many ways I'm not even going to address it. Anyway," he cleared his throat disgruntledly, "now that we know a little about sibling competition in general, we can get on to our specific topic: what's the relation between animal sibling competition and human sibling competition?" He smirked a little as he added, "This is Sociobio, after all."

"But aren't humans animals?" a girl piped up from the recesses of the classroom.

He groaned. "Yes, yes, we'll get to that. Stay on the topic for now."

"Resources!" Julian chirped helpfully.

"Resources," Armand agreed tiredly.

The same girl broke in again, voice sounding slightly peeved. "But we can't talk about resources. Humans don't fight one another for worms like birds do. Our parents treat us equally."

"Ah, but do they?" Julian asked. He glanced back at Armand, who took the cue and continued.

"Look at it in terms of resources," he explained. "Human siblings do compete. They just compete for different resources than birds. Parental time, affection, love, and approval, to name a few. ((5))" He pursed his lips to hide a grin. "For example, Julian and I used to fight over our parents' time..."

"Yeah," Julian reaffirmed, chuckling. "You always wanted them to take us to those idiotic football games."

"And you always wanted to go shopping!" Armand snapped. Reddening, he turned back towards the class. "Eh... don't mind that exchange. The point is that it's these commodities---time, affection---that make for healthier human children. Well-loved children are always more likely to turn out all right. So siblings fight for that resource, just as they do in nature. ((5))."

"There's even a tendency towards birth order discrepancies," added Julian mildly. "You know how in animals the elder sibling is usually bigger and stronger? Well, in humans the older one tends to be more aggressive, perfectionist, blah blah... the younger sibling is easier-going. ((1))" He smiled sunnily. The class, swooning, smiled back. Behind the desk, Armand put his chin in one thick hand and frowned. He was saved from having to defend himself by the twins, who once again raised their hands simultaneously.

"Excuse me, but that's not always true," the prep-twin pointed out. "I know plenty of people whose younger sibling is the more aggressive one." Her sister nodded, myraid black bracelets jingling. She added, "Also, I don't think it's a given that human siblings always fight. My sister is my best friend." The prep sniffed approval, and threw an arm around her sister's shoulders to further illustrate the point.

Armand---surprisingly---responded to the counterpoint with a wide smile. The class lurched. "Finally," Armand ground. "I was wondering when someone would bring that up."

"Um...." Asked the prep twin, "Bring what up?"

"The fact that siblings don't always fight!" the elder teacher rumbled. "I thought that would have been the first thing you'd pointed out. This class is slow today." He tossed a dark look at his brother, who still perched, cross-legged and oblivious, at the edge of his desk. "Are humans animals? Yes. Do they act like animals? That's a more difficult question."

Julian let one leg drop and swung into a more stable position. "You have to remember that everything we're telling you is the result of certain scientists' studies. Just because they seem accurate for one case---say, baby pigs---doesn't mean they're accurate for other cases. Especially humans. We're different."

"Oohhhh." A new voice, high and quiet, drifted from somewhere in the intermediate middle of the room. "Because of consciousness," the student said. "And morality."

"Yes," Armand confirmed. "So the base question is: do humans still follow nature in the way they interact with their siblings? Competition, resources, and cooperation alike?" He scanned the class for hands.

After an awkward pause, one raised tremblingly, and the same high quiet voice began, "I think so." It paused, seemingly unconfident, then continued, "Look at many world societies. First-born children usually inherit the most parental power. They're treasured. Maybe it's because parents feel they're stronger, so they'll survive longer. ((1))"

Before Armand could comment, a different hand shot up. It belonged to an equine girl in the front row, who began talking without waiting for acknowledgement. "Not only that," she whinnied nasally, "but those same societies are famous for their sibling feuds. The story of one sibling opposing the other is ingrained into our culture." Her gaze flashed around the room. "Have any of you ever seen 'The Lion in Winter'?"

The elder professor nodded patiently. "Yes. You have a point about the deep-rootedness about the motif. But it's better displayed elsewhere than in Katharine Hepburn movies."

"Fairy tales, maybe?" Julian offered. "Cinderella's evil stepsisters? Belle's jealous sisters? Both were angry because she was the biological newcomer---yet also the prettiest, the most likely to win the heart of some prince and... um, well, reproduce. That jealousy fueled rivalry which got both princesses in trouble."

"But---" the prep twin blurted, a second before snapping her hand into the air, "You can't just say it's a motif like that. If you're doing fairy tales, look at Hansel and Gretel. They actually protected one another. No rivalry there." She blushed, obviously uncomfortable with directly disagreeing with Julian.

He shrugged obliviously. "Point taken," he admitted. "This is a hard question."

Armand looked towards the nasally girl. "And just because it's ingrained in our culture doesn't mean it reflects reality. If so, then unicorns and dragons would exist. What you want is biological evidence that human sibling rivalry is---well, biological. For example, the fact that siblings are different..." He inclined a shoulder at Julian. "... may show that they're using differing adaptations to get 'resources' like love and attention from their families ((1), (5))."

Julian had caught the movement, and returned it with a broad hand sweep. "To put this into more specific context," he extrapolated, smiling mischievously, "Look at Armand and me. He adapted all this brawny star-football-player-ness to demand attention and praise from our parents. And he adapted this standoffish Ivy League IQ that ensured they'd put him into graduate school." Armand's scowl deepened as his brother's grin broadened. "So I adapted the other way. I'm the cute one, the conciliatory one, that mum and dad liked to spoil. We both get what we want---he by showing off, me by looking cute." Feminine sighs and murmuring agreement from around the room enthusiastically confirmed his self-description.

"No, you learned how to whine," Armand retorted. He caught Julian's eyes. "Can we keep this impersonal, please?"

"Aw," Julian pouted. He held up a finger. "In one second." He finished hurriedly, "So you see, Armand and I are just like competing species. We find specific environmental 'niches' and we exploit them. In this case, the 'niches' are just sibling roles in our family structure. ((1)) Sibling rivalry, then, may mimic species competition on a broader scale..." he trailed off at another warning look from his brother.

A disappointed sigh emanated from the class, many of whom found their two professors' rivalry as interesting (if not more interesting) than the topic of rivalry itself.

The gothic twin, however, simply sighed and dutifully raised her hand. "Sorry to be devil's advocate here, but all of that didn't really answer my sister's question," she complained. "Some siblings don't compete. They're friends. And some of them are really protective of one another. Is that not biological?"

"Biological? Not sure," Armand grumbled, rubbing his temples. "Julian, is there animal precedent for that?"

Julian blinked. "Actually, yeah. Excuse the randomness, but in the Taiwanese aphid, each sibling pair has one sterile sibling and one fertile sibling. The stronger sterile sibling protects the weaker fertile sibling from predators, allowing it to reproduce. ((1)) And that's just one of many cooperating sibling pairs in nature."

The gothic twin blinked right back at him. "So you're saying that human siblings protect one another so that they can pass on the family genes?"

"Goodness, no," Julian returned, shaking his head. "I thought we agreed earlier that genes weren't the only important factor in natural selection. And that humans are different because of their morals. I was just saying that sibling cooperation isn't unheard of in nature as a whole." He, too, lifted a hand to rub at his temples, and for a moment the relationship between the two professors was blindingly apparent.

The twin pressed, "So then sibling cooperation in humans isn't biological?"

Armand sighed. "That is what we don't know, and it's basically the heart of today's discussion. Siblings---as annoying as they are---when they bond, are bonded together by love. So it basically comes down to whether or not sibling love is a biological emotion, or a sociological construct." He drummed his fingers across his desk. "If it is biological, then it's at odds with sibling competition. If it's not, then it's an imposed value that's overcoming a biological one. Which is just as interesting."

Both twins blinked; the prep, who was visiting the class for the first time, scowled in a desperate attempt at comprehension.

Julian, who had less experience with jargon and somewhat understood their puzzlement, quickly interjected in an attempt to dispel the conversation's heavyhandedness. "Uh, what he means is, do I love Armand because I was born to, or because he's just so darn loveable? And if it's because I have to, then why does nature tell me to fight him as well? And if it's not, is he so loveable that it transcends biology?" The tireless grin reappeared on his face. "Well, of course he's loveable, I mean, look at him, like a big teddybear linebacker---" he broke off when he saw his brother's face.

Armand's eye was twitching. "Sibling love must be biological, because I have no idea why I love you. Shut up."

"Gotcha," Julian yipped, and did.

"Anyway," Armand continued wearily, "This is not a question we can answer in one class period. There's biological evidence in animals for both sibling cooperation and sibling rivalry. In some species---humans included, there are even both simultaneously."

Julian was fidgeting. Armand sighed. "Already?" he drawled. Julian fixed him with a doe-eyed placating look. "Oh all right," his brother consented. "Make it quick."

"Ah, just a quick tidbit of information on the synchronous behaviors," he said hurriedly. "There's actually a scientist who did a study on this---name of William Hamilton---who said that siblings only compete when the benefits are greater than twice the costs of doing so. Because siblings share half their genes. ((1))" He glanced at Armand. "I know that it's obviously too simple a model to apply to human sibling relationships, what with our morals and individual consciousness, but it's something to think about. Ok, I'm done." He lowered his head like a guilty puppy. Half the class cooed; the other half shot nasty looks at Armand, who simply rubbed his temples and sighed.

"Continuing," the elder professor resumed, "As we've said, both cooperation and competition are practiced among humans. Both appear to have some biological basis. Is that basis the prime motivation for the behavior? In other words, is love biological? Who knows."

The prep twin nodded sagely. "That sounds like a wrap-up to me. We're out of time, aren't we?"

Armand nodded gratefully. "We can continue tomorrow on whether or not love is indeed biological." He gazed around the room. "Despite my brother's idiocy---"

"---I take issue with that!"

"---this was a good discussion. I'll see you all tomorrow. Class dismissed!"

***

References

Works Cited

1. 1)Sibling Competition Holy snickers, this article is AMAZING. Read it. The first half, anyway.

2. 2)Suckling pigs and sibling competition More math than I ever needed to see on the subject of nipples.

3. 3)Sibling Rivalry What it says.

4. 4)Siblicide Seabirds and other animals killing off their brothers and sisters. Fun stuff, eh?

5. 5)Sibling rivalry in humans On the psychological causes and lifelong effects of human sibling rivalry.

6. 6)Sibling rivalry and begging behaviors Again, just what it sounds like.

**

...read up on your fairy tales, children...

9)Hansel and Gretel!

9)Cinderella!

9)Beauty and the Beast!

9)Darwin!

(...for the record, I didn't use any of these sources in writing the report. We all know the stories. These links are just here for your enjoyment... and in particular, with the last two, a good laugh at the amount of annotations...)

Efficiency Above All: A Biological Look at Suicid Name: Nomi Kaim Date: 2003-11-09 16:46:02 Link to this Comment: 7159

Biology 103
2003 Second Paper
On Serendip

Efficiency Above All: A Biological Look at Suicide

"And let me ask you this; the dead,
where aren't they?"
– Franz Wright, New Yorker Magazine, Oct. 6, 2003

"Dear Mom and Dad," the letter begins benignly, "Thank you for all of your commitment. But I am not a suitable daughter, and you will all be better off without me. Please realize I have done this for your own good." Nothing more. And beside it, Mr. and Mrs. A find their daughter, dead by her own hand.

So begin the episodes of anguished soul-searching, of horrific "if-onlys" experienced by the family members of countless suicides. Anyone who has faced what Mr. and Mrs. A now grapple with knows that the girl is wrong: they will not be better off, not feel happier, without her. Yet each year, thousands of suicide victims express similar convictions: I am killing myself, they reassure us, for your own good. This thinking – this appeal for selflessness that our society cannot condone – where does it come from? Why, in truth, do people kill themselves?

The problem of suicide ravages the minds of its survivors – of philosophers – and, more recently, of psychologists. We simply cannot understand it. Why suicide? While many non-biological scientists are inclined to define suicide as a conscious act – thereby excluding, perhaps, all non-human self-inflicted deaths (1), (2) – lets us stick with the more basic definition of suicide as self-murder, with or without cognitive "knowledge" or "intent" (***). And, as the concerned psychologists plunge on in their direction, let us examine this problem from a different standpoint, that of biology. In order to make sense of the biology of suicide, however, we must first understand the more general omnipresent phenomenon: death.

All life has a catch: it ends. No living thing can escape death. Not only do people, animals and plants die, the components of living systems also die independently from their hosts, and continually (3). It begins in the fetus, whose extra, formative cells – like the webbing between the fingers and toes – die at a certain stage in development (4), (5). But cells also die by the trillions in the stretch between birth and death. In fact, every cell in the human body (except select nerve cells) will reproduce and die at least once during the human lifetime (4). Some cells, such as skin cells, die daily; we live beneath a protective layer entirely composed of dead skin cells (6). Truly, death exists all around us, upon us, within us. There is no escape.

But why – why death? Well, this mysterious force that we fear above all else works to keep life in balance. If living things did not die, but new things were born, then life would accumulate until it ran out of space and resources and could not survive. And if new life were not born – if reproduction did not exist – then life could not grow and change and increase in diversity. Life would be stagnant, and this WOULD NOT BE LIFE as we call it. For this reason, both reproduction and death are integral to the maintenance of life (7); life could not exist without death! Moreover, the natural selection inherent in the process of evolution requires poorly-adapted organisms to die off and turn over resources to the better-adapted. Yet even disregarding natural selection, death is necessary to allow for birth, which allows for increasing variation, and, thus, life.

It's all very well evolutionarily to die of old age or when your functions cease to be needed. But what about murder? Why must that take place? Though many of us accept death-by-old-age as "natural," we view murder as horrific, barbaric, most decidedly unnatural. And yet it isn't! If incurably sick organisms were left to die slow, natural deaths, the landscape of life on our planet would deteriorate just as an organism would languish and die if all of its old, slow-functioning cells were left intact, consuming resources at minimal output. As a body cannot be healthy when composed of old, sick, slowly dying cells, so a community cannot be healthy if made of weak, sick individuals (6). When a member of the whole starts to require more resources to survive than it produces in return, that's it – it's out of the game. Thus murder exists for those cases of slow undoing in which it would simply be impractical, uneconomical, to await death.

So perhaps we can condone murder, then, if we must – for the greater good. Perhaps it is all right that killer T-cells, a kind of lymphocyte, kill body cells infected with viruses (6); perhaps, even, we can admit to some rationale behind performing the death penalty or removing a person from life support. Whether to conserve resources, to curtail irredeemable suffering or to prevent future damage, the prevailing idea driving these murders is the same: It's not worth letting this one live any longer. Better to be done with him now.

Understanding the ubiquity of, indeed, the indispensability of death – old-age and murder alike – belies any perception of death as "unnatural" or "pathological." Seeing death as a part of the repeating, expanding cycle of life allows many mature people to reach some acceptance of this reality. But it is still not so with suicides. Crying out with a terror as intense as though the phenomenon were entirely new to them, most people label the self-murder of a human being a unique and wholly useless source of grief. But is suicide really unnatural? Is self-destruction unique to the human organism? Is it functionally useless? The answer to these questions is: No.

Like all of death, self-destruction is ubiquitous, occurring on many levels – cell (3), organ, human, animal, plant – and, like all of death, self-destruction is a vital component in the survival of life on earth. (4) The purpose of all death, regardless of its form (and including suicide), is to promote the survival of life elsewhere. Most directly, cells and organisms unsuited to cope with some aspect of their environments die so that similar cells and organisms, who are competing with them for space and resources (i.e. food), can get what they need to survive. It is a matter of investing energy and resources in the members who will contribute the most to the overall community – whether the community is the collection of cells in a living tissue or organism, the organisms in a clan or society, or even the whole of life on earth. An exercise in Utilitarianism, in sacrificing the lost sheep for the herd. And so antelopes killed by lions yield their places to other antelopes with the skills to escape the lions. Old people, and old cells, die once their systems have atrophied a certain amount so they will longer consume time, energy, resources needed by the more efficient bodies of their children, or children cells. Children who die of cancer sacrifice the resources afforded them to other children with the strength to survive (or altogether escape) the blow of cancer. Nerve cells in a developing fetus who cannot hook up properly to one another will die, leaving the job to those remaining neurons that can (6). (It is "survival of the fittest," as Herbert Spencer said, both for organisms and for cells!!) In all of these instances of self-sacrifice, death by self-destruction forms no exception. Lymphocytes, white warrior blood cells in animals' immune systems, self-destruct if they cannot kill invading pathogens so that the resources needed to create and sustain these lymphocytes go only to those fighters who can vanquish their enemies (6). On the macro-level, female octopi starve themselves to death after the birth of their offspring so their children will not have to share resources with them (1). Some lemmings, though their case is hotly disputed, probably walk off of precipices when their community gets too densely populated, so as to thin it out to a healthy number (2). In suicide, as in all death, the movement toward the greater good prevails.

Is suicide necessary? Could it be effectively replaced by the somewhat less humanly-objectionable phenomenon of murder? To answer this, imagine a community of ants, one of the most complex governmental systems visible within the two-square-foot window of the human eye. Within this little six-legged community are many hard-working members well-suited to their job in Antville. But Antville also possesses a significant contingent – perhaps 20% of its members – who wander aimlessly hither and thither, entirely maladapted to life as an ant, unsuited to do anything but gawk. Now, your job as the divine power stretching over Antville is to find and murder the deficient ants. If you do not, they will bump into the well-adapted ants, throw them off course, eat their food, and eventually cause the death – and downfall – of all of Antville! Quick, quick, find the deficients and eliminate them! The future of Antville depends on it!

Granted, this analogy is not quite accurate. Unlike a lymphocyte, you are not programmed specifically for spotting and killing misfits. And yet ... with so many poorly-suited ants, and more being born all the time, wouldn't it be easier if they could finish themselves off? What if the ants were endowed with inner machinery that caused them to self-destruct if they were not well-matched to their environments? Then you would get a break, and you'd be able to focus on protecting your ant community from invaders. The lymphocytes would get a break, and they'd be able to focus on fighting off viral and bacterial infections and demolishing (hopefully) invasive cancer cells (5), (6).

And so it is that many cells, rather than depending on other killer-cells, commit suicide on command. But this command, rather than coming from some overarching divine power, originates within. Cells contain the command for suicidal actions – the spouting of digestive juices from lysosomes, the rupture of membranes – within their all-important little control centers, the DNA of their nuclei. An encoded, preordained message for self-inflicted death (6). Many cells will self-destruct only under certain, specific circumstances, i.e., if glucose or water runs out. The suicide command gorged within the genetic material takes effect only in response to certain molecular triggers (like lack of glucose) (8), (4). But other cells, like the skin or plant leaves, are born to die of their own "hand" (8).

Suicide is NOT absolutely NECESSARY for life to exist – after all, cells might kill each other off, instead, as might other organisms (murder is always a possibility) – but suicide is highly practical due to its extreme EFFICIENCY. Suicide is more efficient, more economical, than both murder and death by gradual malfunction and breakdown (See CHART below). Just as the panoptic prisons of the 19th century took advantage of prisoners' innate abilities to psychically imprison themselves, thereby freeing up the wardens (9), biological systems profit from cells' abilities – indeed, predispositions – to self-destruct and liberate the cells that would otherwise be belabored with their murder. (In truth, cellular murder and suicide are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Cells in the process of self-destruction may be consumed mid-suicide by macrophages, other cells inclined to "eat" those surrounding them. Even cells that complete the process of self-murder are generally finished off by macrophages (4), (10).)

Does biology also profit from higher organisms' abilities to kill themselves? Does suicide among conscious beings – specifically, people – also originate from this drive of all things biological to conserve energy, time, and resources? Do the "natural laws" that govern suicide on micro-levels also apply on the macro-level? I shall not attempt to answer these questions. Ethics, at the crux of all human endeavors, stands in my way. For me to call suicide victims poorly-adapted and burdens to their environment would be insensitive at best, maybe cruel. And I can think of no other way to approach this delicate topic.

To fully unravel the enigma of human suicide in the light of biology will require great tact and even greater courage, courage to transgress fuzzy ethical boundaries (or the creativity to sidestep them!) in the hopes of encountering new insights. We have much to learn. Inquiry into this area should take the shape of comparison studies between cells, non-conscious organism (such as plants), animals, and human beings. Whatever sub-cellular interactions take place within the suicidal cell should then be screened for, on the macro (inter-cellular, hormonal) level, inside the bodies of suicidal organisms. Rather than focusing on consciousness – that sticky topic with no biological code and no parallels across the spectrum of organisms – scientists ought to pay attention to physiology. What physiological phenomena occur within the cell before it self-destructs, and do comparable phenomena occur in organisms? In people, even? A practical problem to overcome involves predicting when a cell or person is going to commit suicide; you cannot make accurate observations after death, as biological systems cease functioning then. But in uncovering the command for suicide within a cell's nuclear DNA (6), biologists are on the right path to determining which cells will kill themselves when. Then, when we can finally extend that knowledge to human beings, we will be able to understand suicide in a non-emotional, non-ambiguous, mechanical way. We may be able to predict suicides, assess their functions, and even, if we deem it necessary, prevent them.

The as-of-yet unbridgeable chasm between cellular self-destruction and human suicide is consciousness. Though we may never fully understand it, we cannot, despite my suggestions for rigorous objectivity, dismiss this unique quality. It is consciousness that makes us different (***). If nothing else, however, we may concede that it is interesting that the last conscious thought conveyed by many suicide victims – the selfless notion that "You will be better off without me" – precisely matches the non-conscious, evolutionarily-developed "intent" of cells that self-destruct to benefit their neighbors.

CHART: SOURCES OF INEFFICIENCY IN DEATH

Death By Old Age:
Long Time Required – YES
Other Agent Required – NO
Total Sources of Inefficiency – ONE

Death By Homicide:
Long Time Required – NO
Other Agent Required – YES
Total Sources of Inefficiency – ONE

Death by Suicide:
Long Time Required – NO
Other Agent Required – NO
Total Sources of Inefficiency - NONE
This simple chart compares sources of inefficiency in death by old age (gradual deterioration), murder and suicide. Note that suicide is the most efficient in terms of energy and resources being returned to the greater community. (Bear in mind also that old age, homicide and suicide are not always mutually exclusive.)

(***) An interesting afterthought: if we remove the conscious aspect of suicide, is there any real way to distinguish between self-destruction and death by old age? A cell that commits suicide dies quickly (with no external intervention); a cell that dies of old age dies slowly (with no external intervention). Both deaths occur to eliminate a now-useless cell. Wherein lies the time cutoff? And if we reduce human consciousness to mere brain behavior, is self-murder (initiated by the brain) any different from death by age and malfunction (initiated by, say, the heart or the liver)? In both cases, some part of the person's body dictates that the time has come for his life to end. Without the phenomenon of consciousness, only two kinds of death exist – death with, and death without, external intervention ("homicide"). Consciousness really DOES make all the difference ... !

References

1)Do Octopuses Commit Suicide?, subjective philosophical ruminations on suicide, octopi, and other animals

2)Jamison, Kay R. Night Falls Fast: Understanding Suicide. Knopf: New York, 1999.

3) Encyclopedia Britannica Article – Apoptosis, a definition of the mechanism of cellular suicide called apoptosis

4)Suicidal Cells, An Appetite For Self-Destruction – Animals, a good description of self-destruction of animal cells

5)Researchers Solve Killer Protein's "Crime", a discussion of cancer as a failure in normal programmed cell death

6)Clark, William R. Sex and the Origins of Death. Oxford University Press: New York, 1996.

6-b)Sex and the Origins of Death – A Book Review, a one-page review of the above book, from which I draw much of the information in this paper

7)Sex and Death: The Awful Existential Significance of Cellular Suicide, subjective ponderings on the interrelatedness of sexual reproduction and death, with some information on cancer as well

8) Suicidal Cells, An Appetite For Self-Destruction – Plants, a good description of self-destruction of cells, this time in plants

9)Foucault , Michael. Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. Random House: New York, 1977.

10) Weizmann Institute of Science: Death of a Cell, a discussion of one series of studies of cellular apoptosis

NOT CITED IN TEXT

11) http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1997/07/970722090258.htm>Stopping "Cellular Suicide" Could Boost Production in Biotech Labs, a look at some of the cons of cellular suicide in terms of technology

12)Researchers Find New Way to Trigger Self-Destruction of Certain Cancer Cells, a scheme for putting cellular suicide to use for humans!

Cloned Meat: Its What's for Dinner Name: Megan Will Date: 2003-11-09 17:09:12 Link to this Comment: 7160

Biology 103
2003 Second Paper
On Serendip

Cloned Meat: Its What's for Dinner

"[Cloning] first involves destroying the nucleus of an egg cell from the species to be cloned. A nucleus is then removed from a cell of an animal of the same species and injected into the egg cell. The egg, with its new nucleus, develops into an animal with the same genetic makeup as the donor." 1)

Sounds yummy, huh? You may soon be dining on Grade A, prime cut cloned beef. Or pork. Or chicken for that matter. Is the thought alone enough to make you want to become vegan? The Food and Drug Administration has issued preliminary statements about the sale of cloned meat and dairy products becoming a reality. These statements are based on a recent report from the National Academy of Sciences. "Eating meat or drinking milk from cloned animals is probably safe, experts from the National Academies of Science concluded after reviewing what little research exists on the topic." (2) But is there truly enough research on this topic to draw conclusions that could affect millions of people's health? Will we even know if we are eating cloned meat or products? And will this cloned meat be used in a way beneficial for society, or simply for a money making purpose?

Obviously, the FDA's main concern with the proposed consumption and sales of cloned meat and dairy products is how it will affect the people eating it. A possible negative effect the cloned products could have is allergenic consequences. A committee from the Academies has stated that the likelihood of these products having and allergenic effect is low.(2) Yet the committee also has cautionary words about the validity of their statements, claiming that the only way to actually find out the reactions to the products is to run multiple tests of consumption of the product; tests which have not occurred in great numbers. It is likely that it will be the offspring of the cloned animals that hit the selves for consumption, not the clones themselves. As the cloning process is still very expensive, the actual clones will be used for breeding, not slaughtering. However, many of the cloned animals are not near the age for breeding, lactating, or slaughtering. (3) This is one of the reasons for the lack of data available. Another concern is whether or not the proteins ingested by the cattle will seep its way into the milk that an unsuspecting human may be drinking. (2) The majority of these concerns are unanswered at this point, due to lack of substantial experimentation and available data. The FDA's preliminary report is based on the hypothesis that successful clones of healthy animals should produce healthy meat and milk. (3) The United States is not the only country interested in beginning to sell cloned meat and milk. Japan is actively researching the process and its risks, as is Canada.

What does the selling of cloned meat mean for the agricultural and food industries? Or the consumer, for that matter? The ideal situation would be that all meat on the market would be raised to a certain level of expectancy. If the prime steer or calf could be cloned, then all meat on the market should have the top quality cut. The overall quality of meat and milk should increase. However, let's not forget about the financial part of this situation. More likely, the cloned meat would be much pricier than the regular meat. A spokesperson from the Athens Corporation agreed. "Wanner said today's cattle and pork markets ring up $700 million annually, but with the introduction of pricier cloned meat, that market will rise to almost $2 billion -- and Wanner said the Athens-based company and UGA expect ''to have a significant piece of the pie." (5) As for the agricultural industry, if cloned animals and the offspring of these clones are allowed to be bred, slaughtered, and sold, it could change the entire face of the industry. "We are deeply disturbed by the idea of mass cloning by the industrial agriculture industry,' said Wayne Pacelle, senior vice president of the Humane Society. 'It will accelerate the drive toward factory farming, which is already becoming dominant.'" (3)

One of the main reasons that the FDA is holdings its final say in this matter is the fact that it is waiting for public feedback. "The consumer has a fear of the unknown. The only way to confront that from a science perspective is to do the studies." (6) In a survey conducted by the Washington Post on November 5, 2003, 56% of those polled said that they would not eat meat from a cloned animal. 32.8% said that they would eat the meat, while 11.2% said that they did not eat any meat at all. (6) CNN conducted a similar poll in August of 2002. Comparing the results, there is an increase in those who voted that they would not eat the meat. In August 2002, only 49% voted that they would not eat the cloned meat, 33% said that they would eat the meat, and 19% said that they were not sure. (2)

But once the FDA approves the cloned meat, will we even know that we are eating it?
The FDA stated that if the products are deemed safe, than they will not be required to have a special marking on them. (7) However, if health problems only occur after long periods of consumption of the cloned meat, shouldn't consumers know what they are eating? The Center for Food Safety thinks that labels should be required. "Certainly I think there should be labels," said Joseph Mendelson, legal director of the Center for Food Safety. "I think overwhelmingly consumers would want that information and I think there's reason to give it to them." (7) Mendelson also added that many Americans do not even know that they are currently eating genetically modified foods.

The use of cloned animals in the production of a greater quantity and quality of meat could be beneficial to society in so many ways. All food prices could go down so that low-income families could afford milk and meat. Meat could be produced to be shipped to third world countries, or those in war. Dying herds of animals in Africa and the jungles of South America could be jumped started. However, based on the price of the cloning process, and the payback that many farmers who endorse this process are expecting, more than likely meat from cloned animals will become some sort of weird, expensive delicacy.

References

1) World Book Encyclopedia; the entry for cloning

2) 2)Safety Report from CNN, article about the safety of cloned products

3) 3)Sept. 15, 2002 Washington Post article

4) 4)FDA report about cloning, minimal report on safeness of cloned products

5) 5)Online Athens article

6) 6)Nov. 4 Washington Post article, Article about FDA's decision

7) 7)Article about safeness of eating clone products,

Chronic Fatigue Syndrome: What It Is and My Own Pe Name: Elizabeth Date: 2003-11-09 17:28:25 Link to this Comment: 7162

Biology 103
2003 Second Paper
On Serendip

Everyone, especially college students (and their professors), gets a little worn out sometimes. Even weeks before vacations begin, students start counting down the days until they get to finally sleep in and forget about the stresses of life for awhile. Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, however, is vastly different. It is a debilitating disorder that can prohibit the sufferer from accomplishing even the most basic, everyday tasks.
The symptoms of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome are various. The most obvious are constant tiredness and feeling easily exhausted. Other symptoms include frequent headaches, joint and muscle pain, chills without a high fever, depression, difficulty with concentration, and tender lymph glands. Because many of these symptoms are common to other illnesses, it makes Chronic Fatigue Syndrome all the more difficult to categorize and diagnose (1).
While Chronic Fatigue Syndrome has only recently gained publicity, it isn't a new problem. What is new is its name. Researchers chose the name because it is believed that the illness is not one single disease but a culmination of many factors (1).
It is believed that at least two thirds of people suffering from Chronic Fatigue Syndrome are women, primarily Caucasian women of a middle class socioeconomic background. Most people with Chronic Fatigue Syndrome relate the onset of it to a particular infection, which most often includes respiratory or gastrointestinal illness, influenza, bronchitis, sore throats, colds or diarrhea, mononucleosis, hepatitis, or jaundice. In my case, I was diagnosed after a series of having Strep Throat three times over the course of one winter. Most people recover completely from these infections, as I did, however are left feeling very weak, tired, and depressed even long after other symptoms of the infections have disappeared (2).
A common factor in Chronic Fatigue Syndrome is allergy. Chronic Fatigue Syndrome patients have twice the number of allergic skin reactions as people without the illness (2). I've always suffered from allergies as a child, and at one point had psoriasis, a skin condition. Such experiences are not uncommon amongst people with Chronic Fatigue Syndrome.
Various studies have been conducted concerning the immune systems of patients with Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, and differences have been found between sufferers of the illness and healthy individuals. Several studies have shown that certain aspects of the immune system in Chronic Fatigue Syndrome sufferers behave abnormally. For example, the body produces two chemicals called Interleukin—2 and Gamma Interferon, for the purpose of battling against cancer and infectious agents. It was discovered in patients with Chronic Fatigue Syndrome that these chemicals were not produced in normal amounts. In addition, cells referred to as "natural killer cells", which also battle against infections, were found in vastly reduced numbers (2).
To combat against these problems, doctors have experimented with giving patients injections of Interferon. However, this procedure is actually known to cause fever, fatigue, exhaustion, muscle pain, and headaches—which would in effect contribute to and even worsen the symptoms of the Chronic Fatigue Syndrome itself.
In my experience, there has been a stigma attached with having Chronic Fatigue Syndrome. Oftentimes people write sufferers of the syndrome off as merely being lazy. Such reactions are especially hard to deal with while already suffering from the pains of the illness. Sadly, I've even come across this in college. I've been in classes with students who have come down with mononucleosis, and when they are absent teachers are very sympathetic. However, I've found that in some cases if I miss a class, and then explain to the professor about having Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, they are less apt to accept it as a reasonable excuse. The symptoms of mononucleosis and Chronic Fatigue Syndrome are so very similar, however this goes unrealized by many people. This is an unfortunate reality of having Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, and is, sadly, not uncommon.
While Chronic Fatigue Syndrome has been around for a long time, significant research has only started to be conducted. This proves to serve as a beacon of hope for Chronic Fatigue Syndrome sufferers. While many people are uneducated about the syndrome, the more research that goes on and the greater the conclusions that are drawn about the illness, the more publicity the illness will receive, and hopefully sufferers of the illness will no longer be looked down upon. As recently as twenty years ago, people suffering from Chronic Fatigue Syndrome were oftentimes referred to psychiatrists, because so many medical professionals believed the illness to be purely psychological. Fortunately now it has been realized amongst the medical community that the illness is most legitimate, and hopefully the quest to find out more information about the syndrome will gain even more momentum in years to come.

References

1)Straus, Stephen. Chronic Fatigue Syndrome. Washington, D.C. NIH Publishing.
1991.
2)
2. Hawkins, Joseph. Medical Questions. New York, N.Y. Brookings Publishing Co.
1994.

Men giving birth? Name: Vanessa He Date: 2003-11-09 23:10:01 Link to this Comment: 7167

Biology 103
2003 Second Paper
On Serendip

YOUR TEXT. REMEMBER TO SEPARATE PARAGRAPHS WITH A BLANK LINE (OR WITH

, BUT NOT BOTH). REFERENCES (IF ANY) GO IN A NUMBERED LIST AT THE END (SEE BELOW). TO CITE A REFERENCE IN THE TEXT, USE THE FOLLOWING AT EACH NEEDED LOCATION: (YOUR REFERENCE NUMBER).

References

SUCCESSIVE REFERENCES, LIKE PARAGRAPHS, SHOULD BE SEPARATED BY BLANK LINES (OR WTIH

, BUT NOT BOTH)

FOR WEB REFERENCES USE THE FOLLOWING, REPEATING AS NECESSARY

REFERENCE NUMBER)NAME OF YOUR FIRST WEB REFERENCE SITE, COMMENTS ABOUT IT

FOR NON-WEB REFERENCES USE THE FOLLOWING, REPEATING AS NECESSARY

REFERENCE NUMBER) STANDARD PRINT REFERENCE FORMAT

A leading British fertility expert, Lord Winston, says it should be possible for a man to carry a baby to term and then deliver it by a Caesarean section. In Winston's view, modern medical technology will soon allow homosexual male couples to bear children, or allow a heterosexual male to carry a child if his wife is unable to for medical reasons.
"Male pregnancy would certainly be possible and would be the same as when a woman has an ectopic pregnancy -- outside the uterus -- although to sustain it, you'd have to give the man lots of female hormones," Winston told the Times. He will outline the concept in his new book, The IVF Revolution. IVF stands for in vitro fertilization.
Winston acknowledges that there could be a few problems with the technique. Among other things, the man could experience internal bleeding -- and he might grow breasts. "I don't think there would be a rush of people wanting to implement this technology," he said. (1)
Presently, researchers are now busy perfecting a reliable birth-control drug for men. A five-year study, conducted by the ANZAC Research Institute in Sydney, involved 55 men using hormonal injections and implants as birth control. None of the men's partners conceived and there were no side effects compared to other trials, which have been terminated due to unforeseen problems. The contraceptive works by inhibiting sperm production through injections of progestin every three months. Since this hormone also reduces the sex drive, testosterone had to be implanted under the men's skin every four months to maintain their libido. After a 12-month period, participants would stop the treatment to recover their fertility.
"This is the first time a reversible male contraceptive that will suppress sperm production reliably and reversibly has been fully tested by couples," Professor David Handelsman, the study's director, was quoted by Reuters as saying.
Melissa Dear, a spokesperson for the Family Planning Association, told CNN that she thought it was unlikely that the final product would be marketed in the form of an injection. "It's too awkward a method," she said. "This study has brought the reality of the male contraceptive pill one step closer, but we need to look at combining both hormones in a tablet form." She added that although the Family Planning Association welcomed the news, she anticipated that it would be five to 10 years before a male contraceptive was available commercially. (2)
Hormones would be administered to make the patient receptive to the pregnancy. In vitro fertilization techniques would induce an ectopic pregnancy by implanting an embryo and placenta into the abdominal cavity, just under the peritoneum (the surrounding lining). Once implantation is complete, the intake of hormones ceases, because the pregnancy itself, as expected, takes over. The embryo secretes sufficient hormones to maintain its own growth and development. The delivery will require open surgery to remove the baby and the placenta. Removal of the placenta is the real danger because it forms such intimate connections with surrounding vessels that massive hemorrhage is likely. Implantation may have also involved other structures in the abdomen, including the bowel and it is possible that parts of other organs may need to be removed. Several physicians who are well-accustomed to advanced and dangerous forms of ectopic pregnancies should be on-hand to handle any complications. (3)

The first time I heard of these reports I was just amazed by the concept of men giving birth. But, really thinking about it I realized how the idea could take away a women's identity. For so long, woman have struggled to display themselves as strong beings capable of anything and used the ability of giving birth as part of their argument. If men take that away from women, then women lose part of the argument; moreover, the battle.
The perception of males can also change as well. There could be men who would want to raise a child on their own, as mothers who undergo artificial insemination. This scientific revelation could possibly turn into the reevaluation of gender roles; if there should be any or if new criteria is needed.
Nowadays, it seems as if there has been a role reversal. Fathers have been seen taking the job of caring for the children, while the mothers go off into the work field. Some women will feel inclined to make the men sacrifice the carrying of the child. At the same time, a couple might want to share responsibilities if they wish to bear more than one child. This could drastically change our future demographics, since it has been calculated that by the year 2020 there will be a lesser population of children. This new light of male pregnancy could rise the sagging decline of young children in the near future.
The new found discovery that the population of children is diminishing in the near future could be contributed by the advancement of male contraceptives. It doubles the rate of preventive measures and chances of impregnating. The effectiveness of these products will then encourage the administering of these male contraceptives, allowing the nation at large to feel safe using said drugs.

With the introduction of male pregnancy, there will be an expected growth in the percentage of young children residing in the world. Infertile couples will be given the gift of conceiving, homosexual couples will no longer need surrogate mothers, and males without partners could have children of their own as well. Many things could change, until then one can only imagine how.

(1) http://wwww.gsreport.com/articles/art000085.html
(2) http://www.cnn.com/2003/HEALTH/10/06/male.pill/index.html
(3) http://www.malepregnancy.com/science

The Diverse Landscapes of Life Name: Laura Wolf Date: 2003-11-09 23:16:25 Link to this Comment: 7168

Biology 103
2003 Second Paper
On Serendip

Living organisms have been found to exist in many diverse environments on this planet; places where perhaps no human had thought to look before. Sometimes life is found because of the wild imaginations of a few curious people – other times it is stumbled upon nearly by accident. This paper will explore two seemingly unlikely landscapes of life, and will highlight the successes of discovering new living organisms in terms of expanding the array of possibility and our perception of the question "What is Life?"

One environment receiving a lot of attention from scientists is the bottom of the ocean. Earlier in history it was thought that no creature could survive under the immense pressure and the total darkness of the ocean. The landscape remained untouched by humans, because without that sense of possibility for life, the technology was not created to explore the area. Until finally, in 1972, studies conducted near the Galapagos Islands reported vents, or hot water plumes. Now that something unexpected had been found, curiosity, possibility and new questions arose. The search began to accelerate along with the technology. A deep-sea robot named Alvin was sent exploring and a whole array of bottom dwellers was found. There were giant worms, clams and mussels (1).

Once a community of living organisms has been found in a foreign environment, explanations will start rolling out. These hypotheses generally attempt to compare the system of life to our own systems – grappling for similarities among the resources of the new landscape those we are already familiar with. For instance, in forests and jungles (environments which are very understandable to us) there are some animals that can climb or fly to the tops of the trees where the fruit is. Other animals must stay on the ground, and so they live off of fruit which has fallen out of the tree. When a few organisms were found in the depths of the sea, it was first conjectured that they ate food that floated down to them from the "lighted regions of the ocean" (1), which seems very similar to the configuration of the familiar woodland food-system. This story was adequate until it was discovered that entire "cities" of creatures were thriving down at the bottom of the ocean – biologists had to come up with a new story.

There are hydrothermal vents called black smokers which let off heat and chemicals from the bottom of the ocean. Entire communities of creatures live around these vents, and it was soon discovered that chemoautotrophic bacteria use chemicals from these vents as energy, rather than sunlight which was previously thought to be essential to all living organisms and life systems. The bacteria use chemical energy from the breaking-down of hydrogen sulfide, and they are at the bottom of the food chain in this environment. Many species have been discovered in this warm underwater system – including giant clams, crabs, and pink brotulid fish (2). Not only were these new species found, but entire categories had to be formed for certain creatures that fit into no pre-existing group. For instance, "a reddish worm known as vestimentiferan, which builds and lives in a tube up to 7.5 m (25 ft.) long, is so different from any other known animal that it has been classified in a phylum of its own" (2). By exploring this new landscape of life, the make-up of what we call "life" has been enhanced. The addition of new species and new categories of species means a wider spectrum of stories and explanations of life.

Even with all these discoveries, "less than 1% of the sea floor where hydrothermal vents are suspected has been investigated" (1). "One puzzle for scientists to figure out is why the chemistry of hydrothermal vents changes, not only among locations, but over temporal scales as well. Measurements of vent water taken from the time of a sea floor eruption indicate a change in the mineral composition being emitted. Scientists have also found that individual vents or entire vent fields can change anywhere from days to thousands of years" (1). So much remains to be understood about these systems, and there is an incredible probability that new creatures or new systems of life will be discovered in the depths of the seas. We simply have not been looking for very long; on the timeline of human history, these past few decades barely represent a noticeable mark, yet it embodies all we know of the bottom dwellers of the ocean.

Another set of landscapes which exist in the realm of unfamiliarity are caves. Caves seem dark, cold and lifeless to us, but to many species they provide an environment of perfect conditions. Organisms here are separated into four categories, troglobites, troglophiles, trogloxenes, and habitual trogloxenes. Troglobites are the only type that live entirely in the dark zone of a cave and cannot survive anywhere else. Troglophiles could actually live on the surface if the environment was comparable to that of a cave. Trogloxenes "occur in caves but don't complete their entire life cycles within a cave" (3), and habitual trogloxenes are only found in caves during certain periods of their life cycle.

For such a dark, unfamiliar landscape it is surprising to me how much is known about cave organisms and their life cycles. Many creatures live in puddles made by water dripping from the ceiling of a solution cave. A solution cave is actually created by water coursing through carbonate and sulfate rocks including limestone, dolomite, marble and gypsum (3). Stalactites and stalagmites can be found in these caves along with many unique species of animals. For instance, glowworms (otherwise known as fungus gnats) can be found on the ceilings and walls of some caves. When still in the larval stage, this creature glows because of a chemical called luciferin "which can be 'burned' with oxygen to produce water, carbon dioxide, and light---the exact opposite of photosynthesis" (4)).

There are creatures that survive only on the limited food sources inside the cave, however, some animals depend on outside sources being brought into the cave (especially in certain caves where plant-life is impossible). To survive in this environment, "sensory systems are adapted...Also since food is scarce in most of these caves, since plant life can't grow in the absence of light, there are metabolic changes to account for this deficit" (3). Sometimes organic matter flows into the cave when water flows in, or flows up from the ground. Other nutrients come from the guano of birds that nest in caves, such as the green-masked balaclava-bird. This "supports a thriving community of fungus and insect life, which in turn are eaten by larger organisms" (4). Bats also roost in caves, providing organic material rich in nitrates to many permanent cave-dwelling species. Therefore it seems that some connection with the outside world is necessary to many cave life-systems.

The ocean floor and the caverns of the earth have one major thing in common – they are not practical environments for a human to live in. They remain mysterious although it seems that a lot of progress has been made in the exploration of these two environments, particularly caves. This is surprising because there are many different types of caves and generally they are hard to enter and explore. Perhaps we know more about caves because they incited curiosity before the bottom of the ocean ever did; we can see the entrances to caves, and we imagined what creatures might live inside them. Also, the technology did not need to come as far to begin exploring caves (not including sea caves and ice caves).

In conclusion, finding every living organism on this planet is probably impossible. Discovering every living species is probably impossible. But beginning to explore all available landscapes and accepting the possibility of finding life is an important undertaking. To find life one needs curiosity, technology, and continuous, collective observations over time. This is true in unfamiliar settings as well as familiar ones – when our class explored the courtyards of the science building, treating them as foreign landscapes called Planet Nearer and Planet Farther, we were very successful with discovering living organisms and categorizing what we saw. The question "What is Life?" is better approached with a wider arena of understanding in terms of landscapes and habitats. The fact that we are discovering new organisms in unlikely places is a credit to the curiosity and the hypothesizing ability of human beings.

References

1)Information about black smokers, an in-depth site about underwater vents.
2)More information about black smokers.
3)Caves, a thorough look at caves and the different categories of cave-dwelling creatures.
4)Cave creatures, a guide to specific types of cave creatures in the Waitomo caves.

Sleep Paralysis Name: Rochelle M Date: 2003-11-09 23:22:02 Link to this Comment: 7169

Biology 103
2003 Second Paper
On Serendip

Rochelle Merilien
Class: Biology 103
Professor: Paul Grobstein
Due Date: 11/10/03

Sleep Paralysis

You are lying in bed taking a much-needed nap. You have had a long day and this little refresher is just what you need. You are slowly becoming awake and aware of what is going around you. You can hear someone in the kitchen cooking and through the open window by your bed you can hear the sounds of the kids of the neighborhood jumping rope and playing hand games. You can even hear Old Mrs. Jones yelling at Little Johnny for running all over her flowers. You have been sleeping for about an hour and you feel that it is about time to get up. So you open your eyes, or at least you think you do. For reason some they are not open. So you think to yourself, "That is odd, I thought I mentally told my eyes to open?" So you try again, and this time you hear your voice in your head say, "Eyes open;" but again nothing happens. Now you think maybe you are really out of it, and that you must be extremely tired and just need to rub your eyes a little to get them moving. So next you try to move your arm, only it is stuck. Then you realize that your entire body is stuck. You think that this situation has to be unreal. You are awake; you have to be. You can obviously think to yourself, and you can hear everything that is going on inside and outside, but why are you not moving? You try to open your mouth and call for help, but you cannot do that either. You are completely paralyzed! Then you start to think this that is some sort of nightmare-and it is, except it is very much real. You are experiencing sleep paralysis.

Sleep paralysis is a condition that occurs at either the onset or upon awakening of sleep. The medical terms for the two forms of sleep paralysis are hypnogogic and hypnopompic (1). When a person falls asleep, the body secretes hormones that relax certain muscles within the body, causing it to go into paralysis. Doing this prevents the body from acting out a person's dream, which could result in an injury. Sleep paralysis generally runs within one's family or in those who suffer from narcolepsy (2), but there is currently no explanation for why some people get it while others do not. While researchers say that sleep paralysis is not physically harmful, because the body is supposed to come out of that state within a few minutes after a person wakes up, they do not consider that the experience can take a toll on a person emotionally. The strain that a person feels and the stress that having this condition can cause, can possibly affect someone mentally, emotionally, or later on in life.

The reason I decided to research and write about this topic was because throughout my senior year in high school, I suffered from sleep paralysis, and have experienced situations much like the one described in the first paragraph. My senior year was packed with extracurricular activities. I worked part-time, preformed in three school plays and was also active in my religious responsibilities. It was April when I had my first experience with sleep paralysis. I honestly thought that I was loosing my mind. It was a Saturday afternoon and I was taking a nap. I had fallen asleep watching TV. One of the first things I became aware of after my initial shock of being unable to move any of my limbs, was that the TV had been turned off. I could also hear my mother cooking in the kitchen, and all I could think was, "This cannot be real. It has to be a dream; no one goes to sleep with the ability to move only to wake up paralyzed!" I was some how able to calm myself down and fall back asleep. When I woke up again, I was able to move and the first thing I did was tell my mom. Being from the Caribbean, she told me that when stuff like that would happen back home, people would say that it was demons. I honestly did not how to respond to that, but I told her it was one of the scariest experiences of my life and that I hoped it was one-time occurrence. Imagine my dilemma when it occurred two weeks later, and then again a few weeks after that. It would always occur on Saturdays between 2 and 4 o'clock in the afternoon. The difference between these occurrences and the first was that I could never calm myself back asleep. I would wake up immobile and immediately the fear would set in-the fear that I was no longer in control of my body. It was like being told I could not control my life. I would lie there wanting to scream, willing some body part to move or for someone to come into my room and wake me up for some stupid reason. Then a minute later I would regain my mobilization. I would be shaking and breathing heavily as if I was just suffocating.

While some of the triggers for sleep paralysis are fatigue, anxiety, and continuous changes in daily routine, I find it interesting that I have not suffered an episode during my attendance at Bryn Mawr-a place where I feel I have experienced much more anxiety and fatigue. For the month and a half that I suffered from frequent sleep paralysis episodes I dreaded taking naps on Saturday afternoons. I would torment myself thinking that there was always a chance that I might fall asleep and wake up and not be able to come out of my frozen state. As the months went by I was able to retake naps on Saturdays and I thought that the episodes had finally stopped. I was able to take the all of my emotional feelings about sleep paralysis and lock them away in the back of mind only to be released for anecdotal discussions. I felt great and thought I would never have to deal with it again, only during one of our school breaks, I had another episode. It was then that I knew that it wasn't really over-that there was always a possibility of it coming back.

Sleep paralysis is real. Although it does not affect everyone, it does occur. I and others I know who suffer from it are living proof if that. There are those who pass it off as mere hallucination and do not believe in it because it is not commonly discussed or well-known. In researching sleep paralysis, I feel that even those who do know about it and have written about it do not validate the emotional injury that suffering form this condition brings upon a person. Many of the web pages I visited would state that sleep paralysis was not harmful to a person physically -which is true, but they rarely made any mention of the agitation, despair, and fear that is experienced when a person goes through it. There was only one page that I went to that actually offered suggestions as to what a person can do to calm down when waking up in paralysis. It is very easy to say, "Take deep breaths and concentrate on trying to move one small body part" when a one is awake, but it is quite different to try to do that when one is within the paralysis.

(1) Hypnogogic refers to the period when the body is in paralysis before a person falls asleep and hypnopompic refers to the period when the body is in paralysis when a person is about to wake up.
(2) Narcolepsy is a neurological condition where a person has uncontrollable attacks of deep sleep.

References

1)Stanford University Sleep Paralysis Information Page , Dr. William C. Dement's page on sleep paralysis
2)skeptic homepage , The Skeptic's Dictionary
3)Sleep Paralysis information , Sleep paralysis is normal
MP
August 29, 1997

Why is Diabetes an Epidemic in the African America Name: Ramatu Kal Date: 2003-11-10 02:25:09 Link to this Comment: 7170

Ramatu Kallon
11/10/03
Biology 103
Professor Grobstein

"The facts are clear: The diabetes epidemic sweeping the U.S. is hitting the African American community particularly hard, according to doctors." (2) Diabetes is defined as, "A disease that affects the body's ability to produce or respond to insulin, a hormone that allows blood glucose (blood sugar) to enter the cells of the body and be used for energy." (1) There are two types of diabetes: type 1 diabetes and type 2 diabetes. Type 1 diabetes, which usually begins during childhood or adolescence, "Is a condition characterized by high blood glucose levels caused by total lack of insulin. This occurs when the body's immune system attacks the insulin producing beta cells in the pancreas and destroys them.." (2) Type 2 Diabetes, most common form of the disease, "Usually occurring in middle age adults after the age of forty-five, is a condition characterized by high blood glucose levels caused by either lack of insulin or the body's inability to use insulin efficiently." (2) National health surveys over the past 35 years show that the number of African American's that have been diagnosed with diabetes is drastically increasing. In fact, it has been reported, "Out of 16 million Americans with diabetes, twenty-three million are African Americans." (3) There are clearly many implications on why diabetes is so rampant in the African American community, those of which will be discussed in this report. In this report, I will exam aspects of the "African American Culture," in order to determine whether those aspects have anything to do with the reasons why diabetes is higher in the African American community, more so than others.

"Have you ever heard in the Black culture someone say to another "I'm going home to grease?" or "Mama can sure burn." Do they mean that literally? Is there a lot of grease in soul food? Do African Americans like their food well done or almost burnt? Do greens and beans require pork to satisfy as soul food? Is this a legacy from slavery that remains with us 135 years later?" (4) These rhetorical questions are solutions to why diabetes is most prevalent in the African Americans community. "Fifty percent of African American women suffer from obesity. African American adults have substantially higher rates of obesity than white Americans." (3) Overweight is a major risk factor for diabetes 2 in the African American community. Excess amounts of fats and sugars are killing the African Community. In the bestseller Satan", by Dr. Jawanza Kunjufu, she argues that "Diabetes is the third leading killer after heart disease and cancer among African Americans." (4) She goes on to say that, "Historically black people have played diabetes off and commonly referred to this deadly disease by saying Mama has a sugar problem." (4) In order for the expansion of diabetes to lessen in the black community, people have to be comfortable enough to name the disease and realize that "if mama has a sugar problem," then mama needs to stop eating five pounds of sugar! Many African Americans tend characterize diabetes as being a "sugar disease", but there are so many other factors besides sugar, to take into account when talking about diabetes. For one, a high amount of fat intake can be a huge risk factor for diabetes 2. My parents both have diabetes 2 (which is common in African Americans) and their parents and grand parents suffered from diabetes as well. The manifestation of diabetes in my family history is not surprising to me, primarily, because my mother cooks with massive amounts of oil and sugar. My mother generally cooks with palm oil, which is notorious for clogging the arteries, which can put people at greater risks for high bloods pressure, diabetes and obesity. According to ADA (American Diabetes Association), "Many African Americans who have diabetes know they have it, but continue their same diet." (4) That statistic holds true for my parents, whom know they have diabetes, yet continue to eat with the same amount of oils, sugars and fats as before.

Poor dieting is another risk of diabetes amongst all ethnicities, particularly the African Americans. African Americans reportedly have a higher sugar and fat diet and tend to neglect eating vegetables and fruits. Last summer, I worked at a camp, which was predominantly African American. At every meal, the campers were given a main entree with vegetables and fruits as side dishes. What disturbed me the most about the meal was that the campers never ate their vegetables nor were they encouraged to eat them. When many children see their parent and peers consuming more sugar and fat and less fruits and vegetables, they are often going to do the same. Thus, the cycle of diabetes continues through the family lineage.
"The common finding that diabetes runs in the families indicates there is a strong genetic component to type 1 and type 2 diabetes." (3) Some researchers believe that inheritance of diabetes, specifically diabetes 2 is more apparent in the African Americans community, than any other race. African American children have most recently been reported as being more susceptible to diabetes 2 than whites. Researchers also believe that "African Americans inherited a "thrifty gene" from their African ancestors." (3) This "thrifty gene" enabled "Africans during the "feast and famine" cycle, to use food energy more sufficiently once food was scarce." (3) However, today the "thrifty gene" that was meant for survival makes African Americans more susceptible to diabetes type 2.

So far in this report, I have given some of the causes of diabetes in the African American Community. There is one piece missing to this puzzle and that is the affects of diabetes. "Compared to white Americans, African Americans experience higher rates of diabetes complications such as eye disease, kidney failure and amputations." (3) Some other factors that influence these complications are high blood pressure, cigarettes smoking and lack of exercise. It is unfortunate that so many diabetics, particularly African Americans do not exercise. In the NHANES survey, "Fifty percent of African American men and sixty-seven percent of African American women reported that they participated in little to no leisure time physical activity." (3)
There is obviously still a sense of apathy in many Americans, particularly African Americans when it comes to caring for diabetes. In this report, I have revealed several aspects of the "African American culture" that can contribute to the high diabetes risk in the African American community. The risks discussed include, excess amounts of oils and sugars in food, improper dieting and apathy towards treating the disease. Diabetes is a major disease in all ethnicities, particularly in African Americans and can be deadly if not treated properly. If the cycle of diabetes is to lessen, in the African American community, people have to take the approach to eat right and exercise, or else the diabetes will continue to run rampant throughout the community.

WWW Sources

1 , a rich resource from the diabetes community outreach project

2) , a rich resource from the department of health and diabetes.

3, a rich resource on diabetes

4) ", a rich resource on diabetes

Why is Diabetes an Epidemic in the African America Name: Ramatu Kal Date: 2003-11-10 02:25:16 Link to this Comment: 7171

Ramatu Kallon
11/10/03
Biology 103
Professor Grobstein

"The facts are clear: The diabetes epidemic sweeping the U.S. is hitting the African American community particularly hard, according to doctors." (2) Diabetes is defined as, "A disease that affects the body's ability to produce or respond to insulin, a hormone that allows blood glucose (blood sugar) to enter the cells of the body and be used for energy." (1) There are two types of diabetes: type 1 diabetes and type 2 diabetes. Type 1 diabetes, which usually begins during childhood or adolescence, "Is a condition characterized by high blood glucose levels caused by total lack of insulin. This occurs when the body's immune system attacks the insulin producing beta cells in the pancreas and destroys them.." (2) Type 2 Diabetes, most common form of the disease, "Usually occurring in middle age adults after the age of forty-five, is a condition characterized by high blood glucose levels caused by either lack of insulin or the body's inability to use insulin efficiently." (2) National health surveys over the past 35 years show that the number of African American's that have been diagnosed with diabetes is drastically increasing. In fact, it has been reported, "Out of 16 million Americans with diabetes, twenty-three million are African Americans." (3) There are clearly many implications on why diabetes is so rampant in the African American community, those of which will be discussed in this report. In this report, I will exam aspects of the "African American Culture," in order to determine whether those aspects have anything to do with the reasons why diabetes is higher in the African American community, more so than others.

"Have you ever heard in the Black culture someone say to another "I'm going home to grease?" or "Mama can sure burn." Do they mean that literally? Is there a lot of grease in soul food? Do African Americans like their food well done or almost burnt? Do greens and beans require pork to satisfy as soul food? Is this a legacy from slavery that remains with us 135 years later?" (4) These rhetorical questions are solutions to why diabetes is most prevalent in the African Americans community. "Fifty percent of African American women suffer from obesity. African American adults have substantially higher rates of obesity than white Americans." (3) Overweight is a major risk factor for diabetes 2 in the African American community. Excess amounts of fats and sugars are killing the African Community. In the bestseller Satan", by Dr. Jawanza Kunjufu, she argues that "Diabetes is the third leading killer after heart disease and cancer among African Americans." (4) She goes on to say that, "Historically black people have played diabetes off and commonly referred to this deadly disease by saying Mama has a sugar problem." (4) In order for the expansion of diabetes to lessen in the black community, people have to be comfortable enough to name the disease and realize that "if mama has a sugar problem," then mama needs to stop eating five pounds of sugar! Many African Americans tend characterize diabetes as being a "sugar disease", but there are so many other factors besides sugar, to take into account when talking about diabetes. For one, a high amount of fat intake can be a huge risk factor for diabetes 2. My parents both have diabetes 2 (which is common in African Americans) and their parents and grand parents suffered from diabetes as well. The manifestation of diabetes in my family history is not surprising to me, primarily, because my mother cooks with massive amounts of oil and sugar. My mother generally cooks with palm oil, which is notorious for clogging the arteries, which can put people at greater risks for high bloods pressure, diabetes and obesity. According to ADA (American Diabetes Association), "Many African Americans who have diabetes know they have it, but continue their same diet." (4) That statistic holds true for my parents, whom know they have diabetes, yet continue to eat with the same amount of oils, sugars and fats as before.

Poor dieting is another risk of diabetes amongst all ethnicities, particularly the African Americans. African Americans reportedly have a higher sugar and fat diet and tend to neglect eating vegetables and fruits. Last summer, I worked at a camp, which was predominantly African American. At every meal, the campers were given a main entree with vegetables and fruits as side dishes. What disturbed me the most about the meal was that the campers never ate their vegetables nor were they encouraged to eat them. When many children see their parent and peers consuming more sugar and fat and less fruits and vegetables, they are often going to do the same. Thus, the cycle of diabetes continues through the family lineage.
"The common finding that diabetes runs in the families indicates there is a strong genetic component to type 1 and type 2 diabetes." (3) Some researchers believe that inheritance of diabetes, specifically diabetes 2 is more apparent in the African Americans community, than any other race. African American children have most recently been reported as being more susceptible to diabetes 2 than whites. Researchers also believe that "African Americans inherited a "thrifty gene" from their African ancestors." (3) This "thrifty gene" enabled "Africans during the "feast and famine" cycle, to use food energy more sufficiently once food was scarce." (3) However, today the "thrifty gene" that was meant for survival makes African Americans more susceptible to diabetes type 2.

So far in this report, I have given some of the causes of diabetes in the African American Community. There is one piece missing to this puzzle and that is the affects of diabetes. "Compared to white Americans, African Americans experience higher rates of diabetes complications such as eye disease, kidney failure and amputations." (3) Some other factors that influence these complications are high blood pressure, cigarettes smoking and lack of exercise. It is unfortunate that so many diabetics, particularly African Americans do not exercise. In the NHANES survey, "Fifty percent of African American men and sixty-seven percent of African American women reported that they participated in little to no leisure time physical activity." (3)
There is obviously still a sense of apathy in many Americans, particularly African Americans when it comes to caring for diabetes. In this report, I have revealed several aspects of the "African American culture" that can contribute to the high diabetes risk in the African American community. The risks discussed include, excess amounts of oils and sugars in food, improper dieting and apathy towards treating the disease. Diabetes is a major disease in all ethnicities, particularly in African Americans and can be deadly if not treated properly. If the cycle of diabetes is to lessen, in the African American community, people have to take the approach to eat right and exercise, or else the diabetes will continue to run rampant throughout the community.

WWW Sources

1 , a rich resource from the diabetes community outreach project

2) , a rich resource from the department of health and diabetes.

3, a rich resource on diabetes

4) ", a rich resource on diabetes

Mtoion Sickness Name: Bessy Guev Date: 2003-11-10 10:08:22 Link to this Comment: 7174

Biology 103
2003 Second Paper
On Serendip

Ever felt carsick, airsick or seasick? Motion sickness is the most common medical problem associated with travel. As a child I was always told that "it was in my head," that if I wanted to, I could make it go away. I was made to believe that motion sickness was a psychological problem. To certain extend it is true that it is in my head, but it is not a psychological defect, but rather, a disorder that occurs when conflicting sensory information is sent to the brain. This mild and self-treatable disorder can affect anyone, but recent studies seem to imply that motion sickness may affect certain groups of people more than others. This paper will discuss the causes of motion sickness and will question the genetic and racial implications as contributing factors.

The anatomy of balance

Balance is maintained by a complex interaction of sensory parts of our body. The first are the inner ears, which monitor the directions of motion (such as side to side, back to front, up and down, and turning). Some people may feel dizzy without having to be spinning or turning. This dizziness is sometimes caused by an inner ear problem. Changes of fluids in the semicircular canals of the inner ear are one of the attributing factors of motion sickness. (1). Second, the eyes monitor where the body is in space and also the direction in which the motion is taking place. Third, the skin pressure receptors (joints and spine) send messages to the brain to inform what part of the body is down and touching the ground. Lastly, the muscle and joint sensory receptors are in charge of informing the brain which parts of the body are in motion. Through the interaction of all these parts, the central nervous system (the brain and the spinal cord) receives and processes all the information sent by the above mentioned four systems to make some sense of coordination. (2) If any of the four sensory systems are not in accordance with the rest of the systems, this resulting conflict thus leads to symptoms of nausea, dizziness, and sometimes vomiting. These symptoms are all pertinent to motion sickness. For example, suppose you are riding on Greyhound for thanksgiving, and decide to read a cookbook. While you are reading recipes, your eyes sense that your body is stationary. Your eyes cannot detect you are moving because you are inside the bus reading a book. However, your skin receptors and your inner ear fluids sense that your body is in motion since you are riding a moving bus. Consequently, your brain receives mixed messages, thus being susceptible to getting motion sickness or "carsick".

Risk Factors

There are risk factors that may increase your chances of getting motion sickness. Those include long or turbulent car, boat, plane, or train rides, amusement park rides, anxiety or fear, smoke or fumes, poor ventilation and having a minor illness, hangover, overeating, or overtiredness in the twenty-four hours before travel. Moreover, the following risk factors seem to have most significance: A) Age; children have a tendency (more than adults) to have motion sickness. In this situation, the cliché "you will grow out of it," is true. B) Family members who get motion sickness. This factor may imply that there exists a genetic link to the disorder. How could genes affect the equilibrium of our sensory systems? There is no clear hypothesis to explain the relation between DNA and motion sickness, but there are medical conditions linked to genetics that affect our sensory systems. Studies have shown that neurological diseases and allergies are genetically linked; both conditions affect the sensory systems. (3)

Upon researching, an article stated "....some families suffer from motion sickness more than others, there is also a racial difference which was shown in a medical trial...the Asian-American children suffered the most sickness..." (4) How could motion sickness affect one race more than another? Or, do Asian-American children travel more than African American children? I think not. This statement was immediately troublesome for me. Motion sickness (as stated above) is caused by a biological conflict influenced by one's moving surroundings. Race is a word used to describe people of different nations and should therefore, not be used or imply that motion sickness is part of one's self identity. It is true that some individuals are naturally prone to motion sickness since childhood (including myself), but this should not be because one is Latino or African-American. In fact, I dismiss the notion that race has anything to with one having motion sickness. Perhaps, it would've been better to investigate the environment and conditions of where people are located; there may be risk factors related to one's location in a geographical space.

1)What Causes Motion Sickness
2)Dizziness and Motion Sickness
3)What's Motion Sickness
4)What Causes Motion Sickness

On the Road to a Unified Science of Culture: Bewar Name: Su-Lyn Poo Date: 2003-11-10 12:56:14 Link to this Comment: 7177

Biology 103
2003 Second Paper
On Serendip

      Culture has developed far beyond the requirements for survival, such that our forays into art, music and pure mathematics are 'useless' from the biological point of view. In "The Selfish Gene", Dawkins (1987)⁵ introduced the concept of the meme, analogous to but separate from the gene, to explain this puzzling phenomenon. The resultant field, memetics, has been a recent battleground between various disciplines. While a natural science approach to culture remains the stage for the debut of a much hoped-for unified science, interdisciplinary work has yet to transcend traditional academic lines. Ignorance, prejudice and territoriality pose serious hurdles to the synthesis of science, which must, very simply, begin with the scientist.

      Memes are units of cultural transmission propagated by imitation and may include ideas such as natural selection and fairy tales, behaviors such as shaking hands and sitting upright, and styles such as baggy pants and slang. Like genetic evolution, memetic evolution fits the classic 'survival of the fittest' scenario: the process of replication produces variation that is acted upon by selection. However, memes exist for their own sake, not for the sake of man or the sake of genes. In this sense, they are 'selfish', and the separation means that human culture can no longer be explained in terms of biological advantage (Dawkins 1987)⁵.

      Memetics sprang from Dawkins' meme concept as a natural science approach to culture, and many grand visions have been penned for this, the final frontier of the unified science. Wilson exhorts the synthetic scientific method, which he terms consilience. He imagines connecting causal explanations across all levels of organization and between all branches of learning as the "Ariadne's thread" that is needed to traverse "the labyrinth of empirical knowledge" (Wilson 1998: 73)¹⁰ . Similarly, Plotkin (2002)⁹ thinks of complete intertheoretic reduction as the unattainable ideal, but believes that the possibility of some reduction by explanatory causal mechanisms extending across some levels is sufficient. He emphasizes that unified science requires all science to be done, and so does not sideline the work of social scientists. More importantly, both scientists believe a unified science of culture is possible because humans are products of nature and natural processes.
      Although a relatively new field, thus far held at bay by conceptual disagreements, the ranks from which the meme debate pulls its opponents is admirably wide. Cultural evolutionists Boyd and Richerson (2000a)² propose the study of cultural change as a population process, as most cultural information is transmitted not through genes but teaching and imitation, which also affect which memes are acquired. Conte (2000)⁴ , a psychologist, points to social cognitive processes as both means of acquisition and source of selection, in which the autonomous memetic agent is liable to social influence but decides, based on internal criteria and motives, whether to accept or reject it. Evolutionary biologists Laland and Brown (2002)⁸ suggest applying tests of genetic evolution, such as searching for character displacement, convergence and shifts towards new equilibriums after sudden disturbances, to determine where memetic evolution occurs.
      The criticisms of memetics similarly represent the lenses of different fields. Plotkin, an evolutionary psychologist, objects to imitation as the only mechanism of transmission, given that much of culture revolves around shared understandings, values and beliefs, which can only be acquired through memory and abstraction (2000)⁹ . It has also been argued that natural selection acting on random variation is not the only process shaping human culture. Memes are often transformed during transmission as a result of purposeful human decision-making (Dennett 1995)⁶, improvement and synthesis (Boyd & Richerson 2000b)³.
      Though these suggestions hail from different disciplines, they stand individually rooted rather than bridging separate fields. It is because of this lack of collaboration that memetics has managed to limp along while the group of social scientists traditionally charged with the study of culture remains absent from the table. Bloch, a social anthropologist "well-disposed" towards memetics (Bloch 2000)¹, tactfully points out that anthropologists have known since Tylor and Boas in the late nineteenth century, that information can now replicate, persist and transform by non-genetic means. Sadly, memeticists have proven themselves quite ignorant of the existing literature expanding on the points they are now only proposing.
      Anthropologists also express important objections to the meme. The transmission of culture by imitation runs against the understanding that culture is actively made and remade during communication, but more fundamentally, anthropologists take exception to the idea that culture is made of distinguishable 'bits' that replicate independently (Bloch 2000)¹. That pushes the gene analogy too far. The crucial question that anthropologists raise, then, is whether memes even exist in the first place.

      Hull, however, is not impressed by the paralyzing debates over conceptual issues. He argues that critics of memetics have assumed too high standards for scientific knowledge, that they do not realize that terms do not start out clear and uncomplicated (2000)⁷. Simplified models and crude methods can be very useful in refining theory and experiments (Hull 2000; Laland & Brown 2002)^7;8, though this is an approach that social scientists remain hostile towards. Laland and Brown (2002)⁸ address the issue that memes have ill-defined boundaries by pointing out that genes and species do too, yet this has not prevented very interesting and very important research from being conducted. Furthermore, the operational criteria for applying concepts will emerge only from doing memetics (Hull 2000)⁷.
      Bloch thus points out that the difficulty in achieving a unified science of culture arises, essentially, from putting specialists in different aspects of a unitary phenomenon in the same room. Apart from separate styles and traditions, cooperation fails as a result of "the crudest misunderstandings of either the nature of the social and the cultural by the natural scientists or of the biological and psychological by social scientists" (Bloch 2000: 190)¹. Prejudice, suspicion and territoriality remain as barriers to true interdisciplinary work.
      The problem with unified science lies not in any internal logic. The idea itself is sound and deserves serious consideration. However, its proponents are prone to hold the rest of the academic world in limbo. While the natural sciences have indeed gained many concrete footholds, the social sciences have not been stagnant - debates rage on about methodology and conceptual frameworks. The natural sciences are now in a position to contribute foundational knowledge to the cause, but they must do so with an awareness of the rich dynamics that have shaped the social sciences and the issues they tackle. Unified science does not mean exporting scientific methodology wholesale. It requires that both the natural and social sciences compromise, surrendering previously held conceptions of each other and some of their own methodological autonomy. New methods will arise through collaboration.
      Similarly, anthropologists must not be blindly prejudiced against science as a result of the time when they were once strange bedfellows in the form of social Darwinism and eugenics. That enterprise was based on seriously flawed scientific understanding and while science today is far from perfect, it is poor judgment to hold on to demons in the past. The ignorance of memeticists towards anthropology is all the more reason to jump in, not to return the favor. Only from the inside can anthropologists understand what memeticists are trying to achieve and the means to do so, and only from the inside can they deliver anthropological theory accordingly and exert some influence over the way in which the field will develop. The scientific approach to culture will not just go away if ignored. More importantly, by withholding any contribution to an interdisciplinary study of culture in a deluded attempt to control the territory, anthropologists are essentially excluding themselves from what will inevitably be a very productive pursuit.
      The science belongs to no-one; every voice is an input. Traditional claims of academic territories no longer hold as new methodologies become available and boundaries shift. The way is paved for a unified science that embraces perhaps the most complex question of our existence. While many recognize the value of and need for such interdisciplinary research, few appear to realize that it is not enough for teams to be assembled like mosaics from the ranks of biologists, psychologists, anthropologists and so on. Instead, the new challenge is for these individuals to themselves espouse the unified science. Ignorance can no longer be excused by specialism, nor prejudice by unfamiliarity. These are no longer the criteria by which scholars will be created and research dictated. Science at the edge pushes for synthesis to be achieved even before data collection has begun.

References

1) Bloch, M. 2000. A well-disposed social anthropologist's problems with memes. In R. Aunger (Ed.), Darwinizing Culture: the status of memetics as a science. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press.

2) Boyd, R. and P. J. Richerson. 2000a. Memes: Universal acid or a better mousetrap? In R. Aunger (Ed.), Darwinizing Culture: the status of memetics as a science. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press.

3) Boyd, R. and P. J. Richerson. 2000b. Meme theory oversimplifies how culture changes. Scientific American, 283(4): 64-72.

4) Conte, R. 2000. Memes through (social) minds. In R. Aunger (Ed.), Darwinizing Culture: the status of memetics as a science. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press.

5) Dawkins, R. 1989. The selfish gene. (2nd ed.) Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press.

6) Dennett, D. 1995. Darwin's dangerous idea. London: Penguin.

7) Hull, D. 2000. Taking memetics seriously: memetics will be what we make it. In R. Aunger (Ed.), Darwinizing Culture: the status of memetics as a science. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press.

8) Laland, K. and G. Brown. 2002. The golden meme: memes offer a way to analyse human culture with scientific rigour. Why are social scientists so averse to the idea. New Scientist 175(2354): 40-43.

9) Plotkin, H. 2002. The imagined world made real: towards a natural science of culture. London; New York: Allen Lane.

10) Wilson, E. O. 1998. Consilience: the unity of knowledge. New York: Knopf: distributed by Random House.

Suggested Web Resources

"What is a meme?"
Several scientists answer the question.

Memes: the new replicators.
The final chapter from Richard Dawkins' "The Selfish Gene" (1976, 1st ed.). Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press.

Memetics publications on the web
A good list for further readings available online.

Alt.memetics
Memetics user group and forum on Google.

Do You Choose to be Homosexual? Name: Alice Gold Date: 2003-11-10 13:18:18 Link to this Comment: 7178

Biology 103
2003 Second Paper
On Serendip

Is it possible for one to choose his or her sexual orientation? Is one's sexual orientation something that can be changed, or is it a fixed attraction? These are a few questions, among many others that have been raised by researchers and religious organizations, as well as everyday people. Particularly, over the last decade there have been various debates over whether sexual orientation is based on genetic factors or whether it is a choice.

Most researchers find that homosexuality, like many others psychological conditions, is due to a combination of social, biological, or psychological factors (1). Psychiatrist Jeffrey Satinover believes influences including a postnatal environment have an impact on one's sexual orientation. Examples within this postnatal environment include cultural behavior as well as the behavior of one's parents and siblings (1). This is just one specification that one's sexual orientation is determined at a young age, and is a lifestyle that is not chosen. A statement issued by the American Psychological Association can support this observation. A spokesperson for the organization states that "...However, many scientists share the view that sexual orientation is shaped for most people at an early age through complex interactions of biological, psychological, and social factors" (1).

Richard Green, a psychiatrist at the University of California, Los Angeles, conducted a study that compared effeminate and "masculine" boys (3). In this study, Green found that children who grow up to become homosexual often engage in "gender inappropriate play" in their early childhood. "Feminine" boys generally played four times as much with dolls and about a third as much with trucks than a "normal" or "masculine" boy (3). At the end of his study, Green concluded that 75% of emasculate boys grew up to be gay adults. He also found similar results among adult lesbians (3). Based on this study, one can further conclude that homosexuality is not a taught behavior, nor is it a copied behavior from other children in a family.

According to a study done by Simon LeVay, a former Associate Professor at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies, and current Adjunct Professor of biology at the University of California, sexual orientation is based substantially on biological makeup. LeVay found that the brains of a group of gay men differed from those of straight men (2). Specifically, the nucleus of the hypothalamus, which triggers male-typical sex behavior, revealed a small, but significant difference in the clusters of neutrons of homosexual men as opposed to heterosexual men. It was also found that the nucleus looked more like that of a woman's, which amounts to approximately half the size of a heterosexual male (4). In addition, LeVay discovered that the corpus callosum, which is an arched bridge of nervous tissue that connects the two cerebral hemispheres of the brain, allowing communication between the left and right sides, is significantly larger in gay men than that of straight men (2). Three years after LeVay's observations, molecular biologist Dean Hamer, of the National Institute of Health in Washington D.C., found evidence that a specific gene carried on the maternal line had an influence on sexual orientation in men. These observations, in additions to many others, strongly suggest that sexual orientation is deeply rooted in biology, and is not simply a matter of choice.

When questioning topics surrounding sexual orientation, there is generally a conservative view, which includes conservative Christian organizations, and the liberal view, which is comprised mostly of religious liberals, gays, lesbians, mental health professionals, and human sexuality researchers (3). Conservative organizations believe that homosexuality is a chosen lifestyle, or something that one does. They believe that this choice is caused by poor parenting, and possible demonic possession. Conservatives also think that one's sexual orientation is determined in his or her teenage years, and that homosexuality is an addiction similar to drugs and alcohol (3). In the opposite spectrum, the views of most liberals coincide with the findings of many scientists and researchers. Liberals believe that homosexuality is not a chosen lifestyle, but is something that one is. They feel that it is genetically predetermined, in addition to some unknown environmental factor in early childhood. Furthermore, liberal thinkers believe that one's sexual orientation is determined in pre-school, and is fixed and therefore unchangeable (3).

Based on research and observations over the last decade or so, it can be concluded that sexual orientation is determined more so through genetic make-up than any other suggested factors. One's sexual orientation cannot just change over night or within a couple of years. In many aspects, it is much like those who sing and dance. To elaborate, when hearing the biographies of many of today's stars, it is said that a vast majority of them started singing or dancing between the ages two and five. The same concept holds true for one's sexual orientation; it is developed early in one's childhood.

References

1)Is Sexual Orientation Fixed at Birth?

2)Is Being Gay Natural and Do We Have a Choice?

3)Homosexuality: Chosen Lifestyle or Fixed Orientation?

4)Homosexuality: Genetics & the Bible

Addicted to Coffee? Name: Adina Halp Date: 2003-11-10 14:07:34 Link to this Comment: 7179

Biology 103
2003 Second Paper
On Serendip

As a sophomore in college, I know how important it is to get that first cup of coffee in the morning. That first cup of coffee, second cup, and third cup seem vital to the well-being of Bryn Mawr students all over campus. They help us to stay awake through our classes, hours of study, and even time spent socializing. But is caffeine really addictive? Ask any Bryn Mawr student, and chances are that she will answer with an emphatic "Yes!" Ask any scientist or doctor the same question and the answer is likely to be just as emphatic, but what that answer will be is much less predictable.

It is universally recognized that caffeine is a stimulant, a substance that causes the body to act differently from the ways that it would naturally act by inducing "fight or flight" reactions which cause the body to act in emergencies (1). However, it is still debated as to whether or not this stimulate is addictive. When deciding whether a substance is addictive, most professionals who make diagnoses in the United States and in many other countries will turn to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, better know as the DMS-IV. This manual is published by the American Psychiatric Association and lists, among other things, the symptoms of all mental health disorders. According to the DMS-IV, the symptoms of substance dependence (in other words, substance addiction) are substance abuse, continuation of use despite related problems, increase in tolerance, and withdrawal symptoms (2).

The debate lies largely in the interpretation of these symptoms. What exactly constitutes a withdrawal symptom? Can having a headache for a few days even compare to the horrors experienced by heroine addicts who suddenly stop drug intake? Are there problems related to caffeine intake? What exactly is meant by increase in tolerance?

It seems to me that all of these symptoms apply to people who have a regular intake of caffeine (e.g. coffee, tea, and cola drinkers) but to a much lesser extent than apply to people who are addicted to other substances such as prescription and illegal drugs. When a person who has been regularly consuming caffeine suddenly stops caffeine intake, that person is likely to experience symptoms such as irritability, inability to concentrate, constipation, and lethargy (1). A study in which people in a mental hospital were given either caffeinated or decaffeinated coffee produced results which indicated that caffeine is in fact addictive when those who were given decaffeinated coffee increased their coffee intake to consume the same amount of caffeine as they had with fully caffeinated coffee (3). These results show people exhibiting symptoms of substance dependency.

As for whether there is an increase in caffeine tolerance, Georges Koob, Ph.D., reasons that caffeine intake does not stimulate a craving for more caffeine because the tolerance is so complete that the same results are felt after relatively large amounts of caffeine as are felt after relatively small amounts, and this "discourages a chronic destructive pattern of abuse." This is also the case with the hallucinogen LSD (3). Some experts also say that even small doses of coffee can cause negative effects in the body, such as tiredness in the afternoon when the caffeine wears off (1), and it is generally recognized that high doses of caffeine (about the equivalent of eight cups of coffee or more) cause anxiety, excitability, restlessness, dizziness, irritability, loss of concentration, gastrointestinal aches, headaches, and trouble sleeping (4).

Many other experts claim that caffeine is not addictive. Again, the interpretation of tolerance seems to be where many of discrepancies lie. Herbert Muncie of the University of Maryland's family medicine department perceives tolerance as meaning that "you begin to need more and more, or a higher dosage of the chemical to experience the effects." He reasons that because this is not true in the instance of normal coffee intake, then caffeine must not be addictive (5). Especially controversial was a study conducted by Astrid Nehlig, Ph.D. of the National Health and Medical Research Institute in Strasbourg, France, in which animals consuming the equivalent of one to three cups of coffee a day did not exhibit withdrawal symptoms when caffeine intake was suddenly stopped (3).

Central to Nehlig's argument is that in her experiment, small doses of caffeine did not trigger functional activity in the shell of the nucleus accumbens (6), the part of the brain that is involved in reward and punishment (7) and is heavily involved in the addiction of other drugs such as amphetamines, cocaine, morphine, and nicotine (6). Nehlig did find, however, that the equivalent of seven or more cups of caffeinated consumed by these animals did trigger the activation in the nucleus accumbens (6). This last finding eludes to the probability that it possible to become addicted to caffeine. Technically, according to this study, caffeine in large doses is addictive. I am cautious, however, in blindly accepting the results of Nehlig's study. Caffeine might not act exactly the same way on animals as it does on humans. No matter how similar humans are to some other animals, there is no guarantee that our bodies would react the same way in any given situation.

Using the DMS-IV's definition of substance dependence, it seems to me that even small does of caffeine are in fact mildly addictive, even without the participation of the nucleus accumbens. Nowhere in the definition is the nucleus accumbens mentioned. Addiction can also be different to substance dependence. Perhaps caffeine is psychologically addictive in the same way that gambling is addictive.
Some experts are skeptical as to whether the negative effects felt by people who regularly consume caffeine can be considered to be "adverse". As Charles O'Brien, M.D. points out, linking caffeine addiction with addiction to serious illegal drugs could make serious drugs appear less dangerous than they really are (8). Although this might be an ethical issue, one should not refrain from calling caffeine addictive on the basis that it could influence children's decision to take illegal drugs. This is a matter that should concern parents and educators, not doctors and scientists.

In conclusion, it seems to me that small doses of caffeine are mildly addictive. Large doses are definitely addictive. However, I see little harm in becoming mildly addicted to this drug. The negative effects linked with this drug do not, in all cases, hinder normal functions of the body and mind. The reputable Mayo clinic even recommends drinking "a cup of coffee, tea, or a can of soda pop that contains caffeine" to people who have trouble staying awake at work (9). It should be up to the individual to determine how "adverse" these effects really are. If they are causing harm, one should make up one's own mind to stop or reduce caffeine intake. As far as long term effects of caffeine use, research has linked caffeine to osteoporosis, birth defects, miscarriages, infertility, cancers, high blood pressure, premenstrual syndrome, ulcers and heartburn, fibrocystic breast disease, and heart disease (4), however, these are ongoing studies and are beyond the scope of this report.

And now if you'll excuse me, I have a lot of homework and it looks like it's going to be a long night. I'm going to get myself a nice, steaming cup of coffee.

References

1)Today's Question, on DrWeil.com, a question and answer site about health and wellness.

2)AllPsych Online, a virtual psychology classroom.

3)Researcher Brews Debate About Whether Caffeine is Addictive, an article on the American Psychiatric Association Website.

4)Go Ask Alice!: Caffeine's effects on health, on the Go Ask Alice site, Columbia University's Health Question and Answer Internet Service.

5)Fix on this, coffee lovers: Caffeine may not be addictive, an article in the Diamondback, the University of Maryland's Independent Newspaper.

6)ScienceDaily News Release: Debate Brews over Caffeine Addiction – Study Also Confirms Caffeine Improves Alertness And Energy, on ScienceDaily, an online magazine.

7)nucleus accumbens, a short description of the nucleus accumbens on the Department of Integrated Science and Technology section of the James Madison University website.

8)Caffeine Myths and Facts, on koffeekorner.com, a coffee appreciation website

9)Sleepy at work? How you can stay awake, tips for staying awake at work on MayoClinic.com.

Pain and Panic: The Demons behind Biological Fear Name: Lindsay Up Date: 2003-11-10 16:05:26 Link to this Comment: 7182

Biology 103
2003 Second Paper
On Serendip

"A variety of terms are used to describe fear. The Bible uses words like fear, afraid, terror, dread, anxious, tremble, shake, and quake over 850 times to portray this core human emotion. Healthcare professionals use terms like fear, anxiety, panic attack, and phobia to illuminate the spectrum of our fears." (2)

Our emotions are said to be the most subjective of all our biological components. It seems that we have a difficult time grasping them, and an even more difficult time controlling them. Fear seems to be one of the most challenging of our human emotions when it comes to trying to subdue it ourselves. When we see a creepy bug, or are caught off guard by an extremely loud noise, we jump before even thinking about it. It seems like a normal reaction, and then after the initial surprise we can assure ourselves that we are still alive, everything is fine. But what about people who have abnormal reactions to fears? People who develop a phobia that is not so easy to subdue?

These questions can be partly answered by looking at what happens in the brain when we are afraid. In an experience of danger the amygdale, a small part of the brain located behind both ears, is alerted. In response to the frightening stimulus, the amygdale sends signals to the circulatory system. Blood pressure goes up, heart rate speeds up, and muscles tense. Doesn't this response sound a lot like what we can see on the Discovery Channel? When a lion attacks, we can immediately see the antelope go into "defense mode." So basically, our initial reaction to fears is no different than the basic instincts of animals, an evolutionary response. (1)

But wait—animals do not, or CAN not get afraid of the same things that humans can. And I am fairly certain an antelope cannot be diagnosed with an anxiety disorder. Animals, for instance, do not live in fear that they might fail a test, or lose their job. These fears that humans develop that are not simply instinct reactions deal with another part of the brain, the cortex. Humans can use cognitive reasoning to assess whether or not we should feel afraid. Charles Darwin posed the question, "Does the reaction to fear precede the thought?" (3) The answer is yes. In studies, it has been shown that pathways from the cortex to the amygdale are weaker than those that lead from the amygdale to the cortex. For us, this means that we have the physical reaction, our heart races, before we can think about it. (1) In other words, when it comes to fear, emotion takes precedent over rationalization—no matter how much we may not like it.

Knowing how humans have complicated the experience of fear, I would expect that the emotion's presence would vary greatly from culture to culture, and from century to century. Tribes people of the African plains would probably rely more on the instinctual side of their fears when hunting large animals or defending themselves. In America today, we have more fear of a stock market crash than a charging wildebeest. However, in our society, many people, especially men, consider it a sign of weakness to admit they are afraid. Someone might have a prolonged fear that they will lose their job. They won't seek psychiatric help about it but their physician might find they have the physical symptoms of an anxiety disorder, such as high blood pressure or heart racing. (1)

It is estimated that about one-fifth of people have panic or anxiety disorders while about one-tenth have some kind of phobia. (3) A phobia is termed to be not just a recurring fear, but rather one that has a serious impact on a person's life and daily activities. For example, a phobia of heights might prohibit someone indefinitely from crossing a bridge or flying, making it nearly impossible to travel. Anxiety disorders and phobias are both very closely related to the phenomenon of fear, but develop in different ways. Our tendency to experience anxiety is probably genetic. Studies show that two out of three people with a panic disorder are not the only ones in their family to have it. (1) But this raises the question: Is a tendency toward fear and anxiety actually genetic, or simply suggested from parent to child? When doctors look at phobias, they are dealing with a specific form of fear or anxiety rather than a tendency to panic. So phobias are more associated with individual environmental experiences, fears that live on in our memory. (4) We are all familiar with the cultural image of the Vietnam War Veteran who panics every time he hears a loud noise. This is an example of one kind of panic disorder, Post-traumatic Stress Disorder. PTSD is prolonged fear from a trauma, the most common example probably being a car accident. (1) So our individual experience of fear is somewhat influenced by our genes, but also by the many events that take place in our own lives.

Fear seems to work in mysterious ways. We often speak about "facing our fears" in order to get over them. To me this sounds a bit idealistic and cheesy, but it has been shown that exposure to a fear will reduce it, while letting it go will more likely intensify it. In fact, this form of therapy is often used in treating patients of phobia. People with phobias also often undergo PET scans to image how the individual's brain responds to the fear or anxiety-triggering stimulus. (3) Perhaps PET scans help scientists answer questions about phobias, but I still have questions about fear in general. When I am on the edge of my seat in a scary movie, and I just know the killer is going to strike at any moment, does that make me jump a little higher when he finally does appear? At least for me, the expectation of being scared seems to trigger a stronger response. Also, do people in cultures where there is a greater danger or lower life expectancy live in more fear and anxiety than Americans? Many scientist say that fear is not a cultural phenomenon, that the percentage of people from country to country that suffer from fear and anxiety deviates generally no more than three percent. But I still think that if I moved to a place like the Bahamas, my fear and anxiety levels would go way down. It seems that every culture associates fear with different things. For some, fear is the opposite of bravery. For others, it is the involuntary reaction that occurs when bombs can be heard dropping at night, a few towns over. I think that while our evolutionary reactions to fear function essentially in the same manner, the way that we live and deal with our own fears varies greatly from person to person.

References

1) Exploring your Brain: Fear and Anxiety. , A radio interview with three doctors about fear and anxiety and their related disorders.

2)C.A.R.E. , Non-profit Christian organization seeking to help people with stress and anxiety.

3)Fear Itself: ,An article about fear and anxiety disorders.

4) Scientific American: Ask the Experts: , Biology: Is our tendency to experience fear and anxiety genetic?

What Do Breast Implants Say About Popular Culture? Name: Katherine Date: 2003-11-10 16:56:24 Link to this Comment: 7183

Biology 103
2003 Second Paper
On Serendip

Breast augmentation is rapidly becoming a common procedure among women in the United States. Shows detailing the surgery on TV station such as MTV and VH1 show mothers and their daughters getting implants together and teenage girls thrilled with their new 34-D chests. What most of these shows don't mention are the possible risks and painful recovery that come with the procedure. That breast implants are becoming more and more an accepted part of popular culture raises several questions. Are implants as safe and easy as they seem? Are women getting implants because they expect them to radically change their lives? More importantly, does our culture really believe that breast implants somehow improve a woman's quality of life?
There are two kinds of breast implants. Silicone implants, currently under review for re-approval by the FDA, consist of a silicone pouch filled with a silicone gel. Saline implants, currently the only implants available unless a woman is part of a medical trial, are simply a silicone pouch that is filled with saline solution once it is implanted in the woman ((1)). The risks associated with both kinds of implant include implant rupture, capsular contraction (where the scar tissue around the implant tightens), calcium deposits in the tissue surrounding the implant, infection, hematoma, delayed wound healing, a possible atrophy of breast tissue and an increased difficulty for medical professionals when reading mammograms ((2)). Rupture and capsular contraction are fairly common with both kinds of implant, and require that the patient undergo surgery to correct the problem. In fact, about 20% of women who sought breast implants for augmentation, and about half of those who had the surgery for reconstructive purposes have reported having "re-operations" ((3)). Despite all of this, many women say that they were not given adequate information about the risks associated with breast implants before undergoing the surgery ((4)).
The recent push for approval of silicone implants is particularly problematic. Doctors and patients often prefer the silicone implants because they more closely mimic the look and feel of breast tissue ((1)). Although there is little evidence supporting the claims made against silicone breast implants in the 1980's (which said that they contributed to autoimmune and connective tissue disorders), it can be said that silicone implants cause more problems than saline implants. When a saline implant ruptures, it deflates almost immediately, creating visible evidence of the problem ((1)). Silicone implants may show symptoms of rupturing, but many women have a "silent rupture" in which the scar tissue around the implant holds in the saline gel. Since these women have no symptoms, the only way to identify the rupture is through MRI ((5)). What makes this particularly alarming is that the long term effects of having the silicone gel sitting indirect contact with scar and breast tissue is unknown, which is one of the reasons that the chairman of the FDA advisory panel, which voted in favor of approving silicone implants, asked that the FDA ignore the panel's advice ((6)). Long term safety of silicone implants has simply not been demonstrated by any studies presented to the FDA, yet many in the plastic surgery community continue to push for their approval.
Aside from the physical risks of breast augmentation, there is the psychological aspect. Studies have shown that the connection that some once claimed existed between breast implants and suicide is not a valid one. What is now considered to more likely is that certain subgroups of women who seek breast implants are often in demographic groups that put them at a higher risk for suicide, but that this has nothing to do with the surgery itself ((7)). One doctor even goes so far as to claim that breast implants actually reduce the risk of suicide among women in these groups by improving their self image ((7)).
This theory brings to light what I consider to be the most troubling aspect of breast augmentation. It appears as though many people, including the doctors performing the surgery, see implants as a quick fix for women's body image. There has been a 600% increase in the number of breast augmentation surgeries performed in the last decade, with 32,000 performed in 1992 and 225,000 performed in 2002 ((8)). In between 2001 and 2002 the number of women ages 18 and younger getting the surgery increased by 19% ((9)). That the procedure is becoming more common among women in general suggests a disturbing trend; the idea seems to be that because you can do something about your small breasts you should do something about your small breasts. The increase in the number of younger women getting the procedure implies that society in general is becoming more accepting of the idea that a teenager who is unhappy with her body (which is fairly normal) needs to seek surgery to correct the problem, instead of developing a more healthy relationship with her body as it is before deciding on such a drastic procedure, the dangers of which she probably does not fully grasp.
I am not "against" breast augmentation or plastic surgery in general. Plastic surgery provides a valuable service to those who have been scarred in accidents, and to women who have lost their breasts to cancer. Even in cases where the procedure is non-restorative, breast augmentation can be beneficial for women who fully understand the procedure and acknowledge that it is more than likely not going to be a quick fix to their problems. The trend in popular culture, however, leans towards encouraging women to "explore the possibility of sculpting a new you" ((10)), as though surgery will somehow change and improve a woman's life. By encouraging this mentality, popular culture is able to avoid facing the problematic beauty ideals it constructs for all of its members, not just women. The idea that there is no reason to reevaluate the standards set by society because everyone can go under the knife to conform to the standards is a frightening one.

References

1)Saline Vs. Silicone Implants, Discusses differences in aesthetic qualities of implant types, as well as risk variances.

2)Potential Breast Implant Complications, Informs the reader of the various risks associated with breast implants and breast augmentation surgery.

3)Silicone Breast Implants Would Be Carefully Monitored, Lists some of the restrictions that would be imposed on silicone implants upon reapproval

4)Silicone Breast Implants Do Not Cause Chronic Disease, But Other Complications Are of Concern, Discusses the myths and truths about breast implant complications.

5)Silicone Breast Implants – Most Common Risks

6)FDA Advisor: Ignore Breast Implant Vote, Details the concerns that the FDA advisory board chair has about silicon implants.

7)Suicide Risk May Be Lower Than Expected, from the American Society For Aesthetic Plastic Surgery.

8)Silicone Breast Implants Redux

9)Silicone Breast Implants Could Make a Comeback After FDA Hearings, Talks about the rise in the number of breast augmentation surgeries.

10)Breast Enhancement For the Modern Woman, Article written by a plastic surgery

How We Measure Up: Height and Psychology Name: Julia Wise Date: 2003-11-10 17:08:49 Link to this Comment: 7184

Biology 103
2003 Second Paper
On Serendip

Your height won't influence what you earn as much as your race or gender, but it may well be significant. In Britain and America, the tallest quarter of the population earns 10% more than the shortest quarter. A white American man averages a 1.8% higher income than his counterpart an inch shorter (1). Economics is not the only area in which taller people win: out of the US's 42 presidents, only eight have been below average height for the time. Most have been significantly taller than the average for white adult males of their eras (2). Tall men are also more likely to be married and have children (3).

Outside of normal height differences, people with growth deficiency are much more aware of the role height plays in their lives. A study done through a growth clinic showed that children with growth deficiency are more likely to have social problems. The problems included lower social competance, increased behavior problems, and low self-esteem. Another study found lower rates of employment and marriage when children with growth deficiency grew up (4).

One theory of why tall people are more successful is that there is stigma attatched to height, and thus short people are seen as easier to dominate (2). Another theory is that evolutionarily, tall people had an advantage in hunting and such and were thus associated with positive traits (5). Perhaps we still retain this association unconciously. The third theory is that taller people have a better-self image, and this increased confidence makes them more successful (2).

A factor that may influence both earnings and height is one's family background. Shorter men tend to come from bigger families with parents who have less education than those of taller men. This shorter height may be a factor of poor childhood nutrition, and parents with less education are more likely to have children who also receive less education and therefore earn less. Family background is not the only influence, though, as shorter men still earn less than taller men from the same background a href="#2">(2).

Effects that appear to stem from one's adult height, though, may have a different cause entirely. Participants in one study were asked to report their heights at ages 7,11, 16, and 23. The height that affected one's adult earnings, it turned out, was not the adult height but the 16-year-old height. (The others did not correspond.) While adult height was found to correspond to earnings in other studies, it seems because of the correlation between adolescent height and adult height a href="#2">(2).

I have observed one phenomenon of height's effect on psychology in my own life. When a group of people have been asked to line up by height, there's always some debate. I usually end up next to someone who I consider shorter than me - but she considers herself taller. One of us is clearly wrong, since we can't both be taller, but it really doesn't matter which of us is right. The interesting part is that both of us perceive ourselves as being taller. My theory is that because height and confidence are linked, how people see themselves affects how they see their height. Since I am about 5'4", on the lower half of the height scale for women, I suspect most girls around my height would like to be taller. When we have to evaluate ourselves, our self-images cause us to overestimate our own heights.

I think, then, that the biggest part of height's role in our lives is not measurable in feet and inches, but in our own minds. The fact that our adolescent heights instead of our adult heights influence our earnings means that employers are not doling out pay based on simple physical appearance, but something that has been with us for years. Our own social skills and attitudes towards ourselves would seem to be what matter here. Maybe it's true - the scrawny kids who got picked on in gym class really were changed by the experience. Maybe they weren't as sure of themselves as the taller kids, and it affected how they did in school later, how well they worked with other people, how much they were valued as workers. Maybe it changed their success in love or presidential elections. It would seem the converse is also true, that one's self-image can change one's perception of height. So in a way, it's in our heads - the important thing is not how tall we are, but how that changes our own mindset.

References

1) National Longitudinal Surveys, an abstract of a study from The Economist

2) The Effect of Adolescent Experience on Labor Market Outcomes: The Case of Height, an extensive U Penn study

3) Tall Men Do Get the Girl, an article from Psychology Today

4) Concerns about Growth Hormone Experiments in Children

5) The Height of Love

Treatments for Depression Name: Flicka Mic Date: 2003-11-10 17:38:15 Link to this Comment: 7185

Biology 103
2003 Second Paper
On Serendip

Clinical depression is a disease that involves feelings of sadness lasting for longer than two weeks and is often accompanied by a loss of interest in life, hopelessness, and decreased energy. (3) Depression affects 340 million people in the world today. One in every 4 women and one in every 10 men develop depression during their lifetime. About half the cases of depression are untreated and about 10 to 15 percent of all depressed people commit suicide. (4) There are many different types of depression including major depression, Bipolar Disorder, Dysthymia, and Seasonal Affective Disorder (SAD), and there are different degrees of depression ranging from less severe to major severe. (3) There are various ways to treat depression, but what most people do not know is that depression is one of the most treatable mental illnesses.

There are a variety of drugs called antidepressants which help to increase certain neurotransmitters in your brain. There are also various types of counseling, psychotherapy, self-help techniques, and alternative therapies to help a person overcome
depression. In many cases, doctors combine different forms of therapies and treatments to produce the best result in depression cases. (1) The most widely used therapy today is antidepressants. Antidepressants are usually divided into three categories: Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors (SSRI), Tricyclic Antidepressants (TCA), and Monoamine Oxidase Inhibitors (MOAI). (1) SSRIs raise the level of serotonin in the brain because low levels of this neurotransmitter have been connected to depression. TCAs increase the level of norepinephrine in the brain. MOAIs increase the levels of epinephrine, norepinephrine, and serotonin in the brain.(1)

Another form of treatment for depression is psychotherapy. In some cases, psychotherapy can be just as effective as medication and antidepressants. There are many types of psychotherapy such as psychiatry, counseling, or cognitive behavior therapy. (2) Counseling is used to help a person understand his or her feelings and to help them deal with these feelings. Counseling can be different depending on each person's needs. There is individual counseling, group therapy, or therapy with a partner or relation. Counselors ask patients where these feelings came from, what brought them on, and together they explore options on how to overcome the feelings of sadness. Ultimately, counseling is a way for people to take a more positive, satisfying view on their own lives.(2)

There is also cognitive behavior therapy, which recognizes that a patient's self-criticism and self-disparaging thoughts are what lead them to depression. Cognitive therapy seeks to correct these negative thoughts and replace them with positive ones in order to overcome feelings of hopelessness and dejection.(5) Scientific studies show that cognitive behavior therapy is hopeful in its results. However, recent research shows that pharmacotherapy works better than cognitive behavior therapy in moderately to severely depressed patients.(5) Critics of pharmacotherapy claim that antidepressants remove the feelings of depression in a person but fail to get rid of the underlying problems behind those feelings. However,supporters of pharmacotherapy claim that the negative thoughts of a depressed person are the result of major depression and not the cause.(5)

There are other over the counter medications that are available to depressed people, such as St. John's Wort and S-adenosylmethionine (SAM-e). St. John's Wort is an herbal remedy which has reported to be effective in many depression cases in Europe. It is only used to treat mild to moderate cases of depression and can not be used to treat any form of major depression.(1) It has a few side effects so it can not be taken with other forms of prescription antidepressants. SAM-e is a natural component of living cells whose formula is derived from yeast. It is said to have very few side effects, but its effectiveness is controversial.(3)

Electroconvulsive therapy is an older form of therapy developed in the 1930s to treat a large variety of mental disorders. It sends tiny electric charges into the brain to stimulate the neurotransmitters in the brain. It is less frequently used now because of the permanent side effects which include sleep problems, memory loss, confusion, and sometimes brain damage.(1) However, for patients with sever depression or who do not respond to other forms of medication, electroconvulsive therapy is still an option. Phototherapy is another alternative for patients with Seasonal Affective Disorder (SAD). It is the exposure to natural sunlight that the patient lacks, therefore phototherapy creates a way for artificial light to enter the patient's eyes. A light box is set up with full spectrum bulbs that create between 2000 and 1000 lux, and the patient sits within 3 feet of the box for 30 to 60 minutes every morning. (3)

Another les intense treatment for depression is activity and exercise. Doctors believe that regular aerobic exercise stimulates the body's natural release of endorphins, chemicals that make you feel happy and self-satisfied. Walking, running, bicycling, swimming, or any other activity done for 20 minutes at least 3 times a week is shown to improve a person's confidence. Sometimes, becoming physically fit can have beneficial effects on a person's emotional well-being. (3)

While each therapy works differently person, most doctors suggest the combination of therapies to overcome depression. Most patients take a combination of antidepressant medication and psychotherapy. There was a research study done by doctors from the University of Nevada School of Medicine and Reno Veterans and a psychologist from the Clevland Clinic Foundation. (6) They studied the effects of different treatments on depression and came up with this conclusion: "Psychotherapy, notably cognitive–behavioral intervention or interpersonal psychotherapy, should be considered the treatment of first choice for depression primarily because of superior long-term outcome and fewer medical risks than drugs or combined treatment..."(6) The authors also said, "If antidepressants are used, psychotherapy should be included because of the higher risk for relapse with medication alone."(6)

In conclusion, there are many ways to treat depression depending on the form or severity of the disease. However, it seems that the combination of medication and psychotherapies is the most widely recommended treatment when trying to overcome depression. Other alternatives such as St. John's Wort and phototherapy work for mild cases of depression, while electroconvulsive therapy can be effective in cases of major or severe depression. However, doctors must be careful in prescribing the correct medication for the patient because of the many dangerous side affects associated with them. Maybe one day there will be a cure for depression just as we are searching for a cure for cancer or AIDS, and then people will not have to deal with this disease that causes them to lose 10 percent of the productive years during their lives.(4)

References

1)Depression Treatment and Help

2)50+Health-Home/Treatments for Depression

3)Other Treatments for Depression

4)Depression- Net, Info on Depression

5)Major Depressive Disorder: Treatment

6)Depression Treatment

Fighting More Than the Blues: A Look into Depress Name: Paula Arbo Date: 2003-11-10 22:31:19 Link to this Comment: 7186

Biology 103
2003 Second Paper
On Serendip

Fighting More Than the Blues: A Look into Depressive Disorders

This paper will focus on depressive disorders, and it will describe what they are, how they manifest themselves, what causes them and/or what makes certain individuals susceptible to the disorder as compared to others. This piece will also describe the most common treatment practices, and the effectiveness of these treatments. It will conclude by offering some testimonials from individuals who suffer from depressive disorders as well as some additional commentary about depressive disorders and their implications/challenges.

What is depression?
A depressive disorder is an illness that involves the body, mood, and thoughts. It affects the way a person eats and sleeps, the way one feels about oneself, and the way one thinks about things. It is not a sign of personal weakness or a condition that can be willed or wished away. A depressive disorder is exactly that—a disorder; therefore, people with a depressive illness cannot will themselves to get better they can't just pull themselves together. A depressive disorder requires treatment. (1) ("Depression 1)
1) Depression. National Institute of Mental Health,

Are there different types of depressive disorders?
Depressive disorders take on different forms. There are three common types of depressive disorders. They are major depression, dysthymia, and bipolar disorder. Major depression is characterized by a combination of symptoms that interfere with an individual's ability to work, study, sleep, and eat. Symptoms include but are not limited to the following: persistent sad, anxious, or empty mood, feelings of hopelessness, feelings of guilt, helplessness, worthlessness, decreased energy, fatigue, appetite and/or weight loss, or overeating and weight gain, thoughts of death or suicide among others. This depression episode is said to occur once, but may occur several times in a lifetime. Dysthymia, on the other hand, is a less severe type of depression, and is characterized by long-term, chronic symptoms that prevent one from functioning well or feeling good, but that are not disabling. People who suffer from dysthymia can experience major depressive episodes at some point in their lives. Another type of depressive disorder is bipolar depression, which is characterized by cycling mood changes—severe highs (mania) and lows (depression). Mood changes are usually gradual in people who suffer from bipolar disorder but they can also be dramatic and rapid. Mania is said to affect thinking, judgment, and social behavior. People who suffer from depressive disorders do not experience every symptom; some experience many symptoms, others experience few ones. Their intensity/severity varies from person to person. (2). (Depression: An Overview 1-2)
2) Depression: An Overview 1-2,

What are the causes of depressive disorders?
It cannot be stated with much certainty what causes depression, or what makes an individual more susceptible to depression than another; however, some evidence indicates that depressed people have imbalances in the brain's neurotransmitters, the chemicals that allow communication between nerve cells. Serotonin and norepinephrine are two neurotransmitters whose low levels are thought to play an important role. At the same time, the importance of environmental factors cannot be dismissed and when environmental factors are combined with biochemical or genetic disposition, life stressors may cause the disease to manifest itself. Substance abuse and side effects from prescription medication may lead to depressive disorders as well. (3). (Nordenberg, 3-4).
3)"> Dealing with the Depths of Depression, 3-4 ,

How is depression treated?
One of the major approaches for treating depression is the use of anti-depressant medications. The effects of anti-depressants on the brain are yet to be understood, but, it is believed that they restore the brain's chemical balance. Anti-depressant medications can control depressive symptoms in four to eight weeks. At the same time, different drugs work in different ways for different; hence, it is difficult to predict how people will respond to anti-depressant medications and their side effects (4). (Nordenberg, 4-6). People with milder forms of depression may respond favorably to psychotherapy; however, it is common for people with moderate to sever depression to benefit from both the use of anti-depressants and psychotherapy. Lastly, electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) is used by people who suffer from severe depression or by people whose depression is life threatening or for those who cannot take anti-depressant medications. ECT is most effective where anti-depressants can't provide sufficient relief of symptoms. In order for ECT to be effective, several sessions are necessary, usually three sessions per week.
(5). ("Depression: An Overview" 5-7).

Testimonials
The purpose of this section is to give voice and in a sense an opportunity for suffers of depression to express what depression feels like, the challenges that treatments or their failure pose on their lives, goals, personal sustainability, a space to express frustration but also hope.

Every minute feels like a week when I'm waiting to see if something will work.
It's like the worst migraine of your life, and it seems like it will never go away.
Nothing disturbs me more than when someone tries to describe something as complicated as a mental state with something as simplistic as serotonin levels.
I still have people tell me that I should cheer up because I have nothing to be depressed about, as if I had a choice in the matter.
So many people have worked hard to make me well, so I'm trying my damnedest hardest to cope with this. (6). (Schrof and Schultz 1-8)
4) Melancholy Nation, 1-8 ,

Final Comments
Depressive disorders and the people who suffer from these disorders must be better understood and analyzed before treatment can be effective. It is also a society's responsibility to better educate its citizens about this disorder not only to dispense more accurate information, but also to dispel myths, misinformation, and, ultimately, to help lessen the stigma that goes along with suffering from depression and being treated for it. Depression is not about dusting yourself off and trying again, it is not a character flaw, and it cannot be "cured" by popping a Prozac, or Tegretol, or Wellbutrin. It is in recognizing that depression like many other disorders is not so concrete, is not something that can be pointed to and identified as what it is, and then dealt with, that we, as human beings, as individuals that suffer from depression, as people who know people who suffer from depression, can begin to educate and inform others about the realities of this disorder.

Not just your kid's problem: Adult ADHD Name: Romina Gom Date: 2003-11-10 22:48:11 Link to this Comment: 7187

Biology 103
2003 Second Paper
On Serendip

Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). Everyone has heard of it. A few years ago every newspaper and weekly magazine had a feature about the disorder. The disorder was mostly associated with school-aged children because that was the time when most of the symptoms surfaced. Today ADHD is the most common behavior disorder diagnosed in children and teens. ADHD refers to a group of symptoms that begin in early childhood and can continue into adulthood, causing difficulties at home, at school, at work, and within the community if not recognized and treated (1). But what most people never hear was that ADHD also affects adults and if left untreated can have serious effects.

ADHD is a condition that makes it difficult for children and adults to pay attention, control their activity level and limit their behavior in age appropriate ways (2). Inattention is the most common symptom. In addition to having difficulty paying attention, people with this ADHD symptom often are unable to consistently focus, remember, and organize. They may be careless and have a hard time starting and completing tasks that are boring, repetitive, or challenging., impulsiveness and hyperactivity. With impulsivity, people who frequently act before thinking may not make sound judgments or solve problems well. They may also have trouble developing and maintaining personal relationships. An adult may not keep the same job for long or spend money wisely. A hyperactive child may squirm, fidget, and climb or run when it is not appropriate. These children often have difficulty playing with others. They may talk a great deal and not be able to sit still for even a short time. Teenagers and adults who are hyperactive don't usually have the more obvious physical behaviors seen in children. Rather, they often feel restless and fidgety, and are not able to enjoy reading or other quiet activities.

There are a couple of reasons why it is more difficult to diagnose an adult with ADHD than it is to identify a child with the same problem. One of the problems is that there is no real test for ADHD. Instead there are a series of evaluations that must be done that rule out other problems (2). The American Psychiatric Association describes the symptoms and criteria for diagnosing mental disorders in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV). Information used to diagnose the condition includes: an interview with the person, medical history, to include asking about the social, emotional, educational, and behavioral history of the person, physical exam, behavior rating scales or checklists for ADHD to evaluate the person's symptoms.

In the past these questions were geared towards children. Now researchers have realized that as a child with ADHD matures, the symptoms evolve so that they may be harder to detect. Adults with ADHD usually develop coping mechanisms that make up for their problems. Specific tools have been developed to aid in the diagnosis in adults. An example, physical hyperactivity may evolve into excessive talking or foot tapping. Impulsivity can be expressed as having a very short temper, quitting jobs or ending personal relationships suddenly and being prone to emotional outbursts. Inattention leads to poor time management, difficulty finishing tasks, and a tendency to miss deadlines and other important details at work, home and in social settings. All these symptoms can create enormous stress for adults with ADHD and their families. Unfortunately, this evolution of symptoms from childhood to adulthood isn't reflected well in the DSM-IV criteria. As a result, some experts believe the apparent remission of ADHD symptoms in many adolescents and adults is due primarily to the limitations of current diagnostic criteria. These criteria for diagnosis may be modified for use in adults. With adults, special care must be taken in the diagnostic process to distinguish between ADHD and other psychological disorders and/or other life stressors (2).

Now it is known that 60% of children with ADHD continue to struggle with the disorder into their adult life. In past years ADHD was very hard to diagnose among adults and it is estimated that 2.5% of the adult population have ADHD (3). However, only an estimated 1.5% of these adults are being treated for it. There is no cure for ADHD but there is treatment. Treatment ranges from therapy to medication.

Adults with untreated ADHD have been found to be more likely to have a substance abuse problem, which makes some people edgy about taking a controlled substance such as Ritilan because when used incorrectly can become addictive. However, when taken properly, medication can prove very helpful, allowing a person to concentrate on activities and be more productive. Therapy is especially helpful for adults in relationships because it allows them to bridge the gap in communication.

References

1)WebMD, Topics and Overview of ADHD

2)ADHD in Adults

3)Ruhrold, Richard, PhD Adult ADHD

The Science of Our Laws Name: La Toiya L Date: 2003-11-11 03:38:58 Link to this Comment: 7194

Biology 103
2003 Second Paper
On Serendip

Science and the Judicial System are two concepts that at face value seem to be very distinct and unique in their own nature, but at their cores share interesting parallels. They each propose a different way of understanding how we comprehend and organize order and structure within institutions, yet they do so with similar strategies. In this paper I'll address my understanding of both, what characteristics they share and how these similarities prove them to be inextricably connected by what we call life and its connection to the human experience.

Although Science is largely composed of observation, experiments and their results, it is often controversial because perspective and experience play a key role in how data is interpreted. And because perspective and experience undoubtedly vary with each person due to various reasons; how is it possible that we can assign concrete truths to such a varied conceptualization? Scientists fuse logic and philosophy.

Traditional science often fails to provide theories and explanations for phenomenons that hold truth and validation in both a scientific context and the context of the human mind. I feel that Science often caters to only a "black and white" way of formulating answers; failing to recognize the gray areas. Often times people try to find the most common and accepted ways to support their theories and in doing so they adapt to the standard and more traditional ways of viewing the world. This leaves less room for creativity and exploration of the mind when trying to formulate "truth". "A body of assertions is true if it forms a coherent whole and works both in the external world and in our minds." Roger Newton (1)

Much like science, the justice system in this country is very much based on experience. Although the understanding of these laws is largely composed of formal education, logic and reasoning, there is more to law then these solid and concrete aspects. Experience plays a key role because before obtaining any form of judicial authority one must practice and "get a feel" for what the position entails. Through these experiences one acquires a very personal and first hand knowledge and experience that is necessary before venturing out into his or her field. The judicial system poses a similar problem to that of traditional science. I believe the laws in our justice system are far too clear cut. There are a lot of gray areas when it comes to crimes committed, political decision making, and societal issues. I feel our constitution, which is what our laws are based on, is too limited and poses a problem because a lot of the pressing issues in our society such as abortion and gun control lay on right and wrong border lines. It's hard to come to a resolution because of the strict and limited language of our laws and also because of the fact that there's more to these problems than laws; they involve emotions, perceptions, culture, and perspectives; none of which are taken into consideration in legislation.

The controversy with Pro-Life or Pro-Choice is controversial and complex because there are so many ways to examine the issue, all of which have valid points depending on which light you're looking at it under. Abortion is both a societal issue as well as a political issue. It involves high sensitivity because of the direct connection to our emotions and personal values. Politics and laws also play a major role in this debate because so many of them have been passed concerning this issue. The Government on many levels is dealing with the issue of abortion. The courts, federalism, judicial review and the separation of powers are all involved in and dealing with this issue. In 1973 the Supreme Court declares abortion as a constitutional right. (2) Scientist have clearly declared the fetus as a living thing and it is clearly illegal by law to kill another human being, yet it is perfectly legal to have an abortion. When this issue is examined thoroughly one can see how controversies arise and stay in debate. So this case really depends on how one looks at it. This poses a problem because an agreement and a middle ground are almost impossible to reach because people specifically those with opinions about it, can only see the credibility in their value and position. Thus, the choice is highly dependent on personal perspective, moral, and experience. Although constitutional law governs the issue of abortions, science clearly plays a role of equal importance and authority.

Gun control is deeply rooted in controversy and is an epitome of a gray area when dealing with right or wrong. There are two conflicting sides, those in favor of gun regulation and those against it. It is an issue for our nation as a whole but it stems from the division of this country's mixed cultures. Those who have grown up in a culture where hunting is a family and cultural tradition are strongly against gun control, but for people who did not grown up with hunting as a sport do not see the same value. This conflict is rooted not only in value but also politics. The respective sums of experiences for both sides are the reasoning behind their positions on the issue. Science and the judicial system produce gray areas when trying to understand and rationalize. Both are inextricably connected to life. Holmes convinced people through his work and writings that the law should develop along with the society it serves. If this is true than law should always be changing because society is constantly changing with time and experience. "Life of the law has not been logic: it has been experience." (Oliver Wendell Holmes). We systematically try to put life in a box to create order, order insures a comfort, but that comfort often gets in the way of open-mindedness. The human mind by itself is a convoluted vast universe. We as scholars, scientists, and human kind need to understand that by assigning concrete truths, right or wrongs we are limiting the extent of our intellectual capacities.

References

1) Roger Newton,

2)Supreme court rules abortion a right,

3)Oliver Wendell 1,

4)Oliver Wendell 2,

5)Oliver Wendell 3,

test Name: Paul Grobstein Date: 2003-11-11 15:03:33 Link to this Comment: 7199

Biology 103
2003 Second Paper
On Serendip

YOUR TEXT. REMEMBER TO SEPARATE PARAGRAPHS WITH A BLANK LINE (OR WITH

, BUT NOT BOTH). REFERENCES (IF ANY) GO IN A NUMBERED LIST AT THE END (SEE BELOW). TO CITE A REFERENCE IN THE TEXT, USE THE FOLLOWING AT EACH NEEDED LOCATION: (YOUR REFERENCE NUMBER).

References

SUCCESSIVE REFERENCES, LIKE PARAGRAPHS, SHOULD BE SEPARATED BY BLANK LINES (OR WTIH

, BUT NOT BOTH)

FOR WEB REFERENCES USE THE FOLLOWING, REPEATING AS NECESSARY

REFERENCE NUMBER)NAME OF YOUR FIRST WEB REFERENCE SITE, COMMENTS ABOUT IT

FOR NON-WEB REFERENCES USE THE FOLLOWING, REPEATING AS NECESSARY

REFERENCE NUMBER) STANDARD PRINT REFERENCE FORMAT

test Name: Paul Grobstein Date: 2003-11-11 15:10:16 Link to this Comment: 7201

Biology 103
2003 Second Paper
On Serendip

YOUR TEXT. REMEMBER TO SEPARATE PARAGRAPHS WITH A BLANK LINE (OR WITH

, BUT NOT BOTH). REFERENCES (IF ANY) GO IN A NUMBERED LIST AT THE END (SEE BELOW). TO CITE A REFERENCE IN THE TEXT, USE THE FOLLOWING AT EACH NEEDED LOCATION: (YOUR REFERENCE NUMBER).

References

SUCCESSIVE REFERENCES, LIKE PARAGRAPHS, SHOULD BE SEPARATED BY BLANK LINES (OR WTIH

, BUT NOT BOTH)

FOR WEB REFERENCES USE THE FOLLOWING, REPEATING AS NECESSARY

REFERENCE NUMBER)NAME OF YOUR FIRST WEB REFERENCE SITE, COMMENTS ABOUT IT

FOR NON-WEB REFERENCES USE THE FOLLOWING, REPEATING AS NECESSARY

REFERENCE NUMBER) STANDARD PRINT REFERENCE FORMAT

Yawning: It Isn't About Oxygen Anymore Name: Abigail Fr Date: 2003-11-11 19:55:07 Link to this Comment: 7213

Biology 103
2003 Second Paper
On Serendip

Have you ever wondered why yawns are contagious; have you ever been in class and seen someone across the room yawn and found yourself following along? Have you ever been reading a book and, upon coming across a yawning character, been moved to stretch out your own face muscles? Most likely these things have happened to almost everyone more times than they can remember. I cannot tell you how many times I have yawned in the process of researching and writing this paper. A friend of mine began to yawn uncontrollably as I discussed my ideas with her.

Yawning is a phenomenon that occurs for most people many times a day, yet it is not one that has been studied extensively by researchers. This is an unfortunate fact because he more I read about yawning and thought about number of situations in which it occurs, the more eager I became to better understand what is behind humans' tendency to yawn.

At first, one might see yawning as a silly phenomenon to spend time studying because, well, it is just what happens when we are tired; but it is more complicated than that. We yawn when we are tired, but also when we wake up, when we are bored, and even simply because we see others doing it. When one delves into the unknown of what causes a yawn, he or she will become intrigued by how mysterious the occurrence is and surprised about how little we known about it. The following will discuss the many theories that have been put forward regarding the phenomenon and its contagious qualities and explore the implications and problems with these various theories.

There exist both theories as to why we yawn and theories as to why yawns are contagious. Let us first look into why we yawn. The theory that has long been thought to explain yawning, and the one that has often used in medical textbooks, is that we yawn due to low oxygen levels in the lungs (1). When we are in a resting state, we make use of a very small percentage of our lungs' capacity and are only using the air sacs, or alveoli, in the bottom of our lungs (1). The alveoli partially collapse when the air sacs stop receiving fresh air, cueing our brains to induce a yawn (1). This theory has been largely cast aside, however, because our lungs do not necessarily detect oxygen levels (8).

The interesting contrast to the low-oxygen theory is that some observations have been made that suggest that fetuses in the womb yawn. Doctors have observed fetal yawning in utero at twenty weeks gestation and noted a 'fetal yawning movement' (7). Mouths opened widely resembling a yawn with qualities quite different from those of a brief moment of swallowing and the mouth remained open for around two minutes (7). These observations do not support the oxygen theory because fetuses in utero do not yet have ventilated lungs (8). Other doctors have responded to these observations in the New England Journal of Medicine saying that, "there is too much of a range of variation in the observations and that there is a discrepancy in the use of the anatomical criterion of retraction of the tongue to characterize the fetal yawn, whereas in yawning adults, the tongue is extended" (7).

One interesting study on the cause of yawning hypothesized that, "contagious yawning occurs as a result of a theory of mind, the ability to infer or empathize with what others want, know, or intend to do. Seeing or hearing about another person yawn may tap a primitive neurological substrate responsible for self-awareness and empathic modeling which produces a corresponding response in oneself" (2). Researchers tested this hypothesis by observing individuals that exhibited schizotypal personality traits. They felt that those traits would inhibit a person's ability to process information about the self and would therefore lower their tendency to yawn contagiously (2). Their lowered ability to identify with another's state of mind would prevent them from 'catching the yawns' as a result of empathizing with someone seen yawning. The researchers' findings were consistent with their hypothesis and could aid in explaining why schizophrenics rarely catch the yawns (3). Another experiment conducted at New York State University's Department of Psychology declared similar findings stating, "We have also shown that individuals who score higher on schizotypal personality traits are less likely to show contagious yawning because of a fundamental impairment of self-processing" (9).

There are evolutionary theories for yawning. Robert Provine, professor of psychology at the University of Maryland Baltimore County, suggests that yawning is about "transitions in the body's biology" (5). This theory might support observations that suggest fetal yawning. Perhaps it aids in maintaining the balance of amniotic fluid. Provine goes on to say that yawning can occur not only when transitioning from a state of alertness to a state of sleepiness, but also from a transition from sleepiness to alertness (5). He makes the point that, "at track and field events, sometimes you'll find participants in the race of their life will be standing around on the sidelines or in the starting block and they may be yawning. Or before a concert, a musician may yawn to prepare for an increasingly energized state" (5). The evolutionary theory behind this is that yawning is a result of synchronizing behavior based on these changing states of alertness (5). The changes in your body that "are brought about by yawning are synchronized in everyone that's doing it" (5). The associate professor of physiology at the Lake Erie College of Osteopathic Medicine suggested a similar theory, stating that, "the contagious nature of yawning is most likely a means of communication within groups of animals, possibly as a means to synchronize behavior; therefore in humans it is most likely vestigial and an evolutionarily ancient mechanism that has lost its significance" (8). Just as our teeth have gotten smaller as we have evolved, so has the significance and meaning of the yawn.

Continuing along the lines of evolution, one might consider the yawn in term of a link to our "furrier days" (6). At that point in human evolution, we would yawn to show our teeth, which is why zoologists speculate animals yawn. According to this theory, when someone near us yawns, our "subconscious Neanderthal responds to the 'aggressive challenge' with an I-have-big-teeth-too-yawn" (6). As the writer of the article that discusses this theory agrees and teases, the 'furry days theory' seems to be a fairly far-fetched argument. It makes sense that animals show their teeth to intimidate other animals, but should we call that a yawn or equate that act with the human act of yawning? It is hard to imagine that we are subconsciously putting forth an "aggressive challenge." Consider throwing the theory of evolution out the window. We cannot be certain that humans have evolved from monkeys. If, in fact, we have not, how might we explain the yawning phenomenon? I would like to suggest two theories that seem to me to bear the most significant and convincing evidence for why we yawn and why yawns are contagious.

There have been so many theories, and just as one of them starts to become convincing, a different discussion presents information that suggests such a theory does not make sense. Despite these discrepancies, we have to begin to make sense of the act somewhere. Yawning is undeniably a contagious phenomenon that I am convinced is more than a result of evolutionary adjustments and that has become an act having little meaning and that is insignificant to our function as humans. The idea of yawning being about transitions in the body's biology is my "first pick" as an explanation for yawning and into which I am inclined to look further. Through some discussions with my friends, it became clear that they not only yawn when they are tired, but many of them also yawn when they wake up in the morning. Further, I have been surprised to find myself yawning on numerous occasions because I was not feeling any hint of being sleepy, but perhaps it occurred at moments when something was happening for which I needed to be more alert than normal, and my body therefore responded with a yawn.

The theory of mind suggestion is my "second pick" and the experiment described earlier carried some very intriguing implications. It was interesting to think about the phenomenon in terms of personality traits that might lessen a person's chance to experience the same phenomenon. The fact that a schizophrenic patient does not 'catch the yawns' as easily as someone without the disease because of their difficulty in identifying with another's state of mind is convincing information in support of the theory of mind concept. Humans are very receptive organisms that respond quickly to the feelings and emotions of the individuals around them. We often find ourselves being very connected to those that we are close to in terms of interpreting moods and finding ourselves saying the same things at the same time or finishing sentences. These human tendencies convince me that a theory of mind that explains yawning is a very likely one. Our capabilities to connect with others on personal, intellectual, and subconscious levels are qualities of the human experience that are very difficult to explain, but that exist nonetheless. These characteristics are what make us such complex organisms.

References

1) NBC News Health , Theory on why we yawn.

2) Good study on schizotypal patients

3)Nature: Science Update, Links self-awareness and yawning

4)National Library of Medicine, The Neuropharmacology of Yawning

5)NBC News, Yawning and its Contagious Tendencies

6)Island Scene Online, Speaks on why a yawn can be more contagious than the flu

7)Fetal yawning in utero, Addresses observations of fetal yawning at 20 weeks

8)Scientific American, Addresses why we yawn and why yawning is contagious

9)Article in press at www.elsevier.com, Discusses the impact of schizotypal personality traits

The Kohen Gene Name: Talia Libe Date: 2003-11-11 22:59:46 Link to this Comment: 7218

Biology 103
2003 Second Paper
On Serendip

Talia Liben
November 10, 2003
Biology 103
Prof. Grobstein

The Kohen Gene

In a world where Jews have assimilated so much into other cultures, is it possible to trace the lineage of an elite group of Jewish men all the way back to a man who lived three-thousand and five-hundred years ago? According to Karl Skorecki, a scientist at the Israel Institute of Technology in Haifa, and Michael Hammer, a geneticist from the University of Arizona at Tuscan, the possibility is alive (1).

In Jewish tradition, as written in the Hebrew Bible, the Children of Israel were split into three groups. The Kohanim (the singular is simply Kohen) were the priests. The first Kohen was Moses' brother, Aaron, and all Kohanim since then are said to be descendants of Aaron. The second group was the Levis, of which Moses himself was a part of, and the third group was compiled of the remaining eleven tribes (of which ten have said to be "lost"), simply called the Israelites.
Since the Kohanim were the priests among the Jewish people, their duties were the holiest and most important. They were in charge of the sacrifices brought to the Temple, and thus had the most intimate relationship with God, aside from the prophets such as Moses. After the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 C.E., and thus the secession of sacrificial offerings, the role of the priests became ceremonial. However, despite the fact that their strict duties do not apply today, all Kohanim, according to Jewish tradition, must still obey many commandments that pertain directly to them. The hope is that one day, a new Temple will be built, and their service will be required once again (1).
According to Jewish tradition, the role of each individual (Kohen, Levi, or Israelite) is passed down patrilineally from father to son. In traditional and orthodox Judaism, a woman is known as "the daughter of a Levi" (if her father is a Levi) until she marries, and then she is "the wife of a Levi." So, the concept of a "kohen gene" can only pertain to Jewish men who have not converted into the faith (1).

A gene is a sequence of DNA that is used by cells to create protein. It has all of the information needed to make a protein. It knows when to make these protein and where to begin and end. The functions of a cell are then carried out by the proteins. When someone speaks about a gene for eyes, he is talking about the gene that codes for the protein that is the pigment for the eye color (2). A gene is a "functional and physical unit of heredity passed from parent to offspring" (3).
Since genes are hereditary, the question among certain scientists, and many Jews, became an interesting one; whether or not it is possible to have a gene that marked Kohanim throughout the centuries. In January of 1997, after working on the project for over four years, Hammer and Skorecki found that the priestly lineage can indeed be traced all the way back to Aaron, the first High Priest of Israel.
Jews are split in two by another category, aside from tribal divisions. Those born in, or whose ancestors came from, Europe, are called Ashkenazi Jews. Those from Spanish and Middle Eastern countries are called Sephardi Jews. The researchers discovered that the gene was found in Jewish Kohanim of both Sephardi and Ashkenazi lineage (4).
The two scientists tested genetic samples from the inside of the cheeks of unrelated Jewish men. These men came from three different nations – Israel, North America, and Britain (3). There were 188 men in the original testing who believed that they were descendents of the line of Kohanim. The majority of these men had genetic phenotypes that genetically differed from those of the men who did not believe themselves to be Kohanim. The Y-chromosome YAP, DYS19B haplotype is passed down from father to son, and it is the genetic marker that was found in 98.5% of the Kohanim (4).
There are several implications of these findings. Besides being a biological proof of events and traditions that have remained alive for 3, 500 years, Michael Hammer says, "it's a beautiful example of how father to son transmission of two things, one genetic, one cultural, gives you the same picture" (5). It also shows that the wives of these Kohanim have remained extremely faithful to their husbands. More than 90% of the Kohanim ultimately tested share the same genetic markers. Dr. David Goldstein said that "even a low rate of infidelity would have dramatically lowered the percentage" (6).
The prevalence of this gene in Kohanim is convincing evidence of the existence of The Temple and the priests as described in the Bible. An estimated 5% of the Jewish males in the world (by 1997 when the study was done) have the y-chromosome gene in them, and are therefore Kohanim. The fact that the gene was found in men of both Ashkenazi and Sephardi lineage is interesting, because it means that the priesthood is older than the division of the Jewish people into these two groups. It is a division that transpired during the Middle Ages, over a thousand years ago (4). This also refutes the possibility that Ashkenazi Jews did not descend from the ancient Hebrews, but were a part of a Turkish-Asian empire from before the tenth century. The empire was said to have converted en masse to Judaism (7).
Using the tools available, researchers are now searching for the "ten lost tribes" who were uprooted from the now State of Israel by the Assyrians. DNA can now be used to "discover historical links to the Jewish people" (7). In an attempt to learn whether or not they are truly Kohanim, many Jews have tried to get tested for the common y-chromosome.
Is it possible that the preponderance of this genetic marker among self-claimed Kohanim is a fluke? The Levis is also a tribal group which is passed down from father to son. Yet, when Levis were tested for a common gene, there was no genetic marker found. Is it possible that these scientific findings could cause rifts among nations or religions? Can biological proof of an old-age tradition truly exist without a doubt? And does it really matter?.

Work Cited

Cohen, Debra Nussbaum "Kohen Gene Pioneers Fear Misuse" 1997
YourGenome.org
HyperDictionary.com
Jeffrey, Grant "A Genetic Trace is Found Linking Kohanim Worldwide"
Hammer, Professor Michael, New York Times, 1997
Goldstein, Dr. David, Oxford University Science News, 1998
Kleiman, Rabbi Yaakov, "The DNA Chain of Tradition: The Discovery of the "Cohen Gene""
Jewish Post, "Scientists Discover Chromosome Similarity of Jewish Priests" 1997
AccessExcellence.org

Catch A Yawn Name: HoKyung Mi Date: 2003-11-11 23:52:27 Link to this Comment: 7220

Biology 103
2003 Second Paper
On Serendip

A trick in every girl's handbook: If you want to know if someone is checking you out, yawn and check to see who, if anyone, yawns back. While we may be using the contagious phenomenon of yawning to our advantage, the age-old question still lingers on - why, in fact, is yawning contagious? Plausible explanations range from historic origins to muscular requirements. However, one answer that encompasses all other questions about the cause and traits of yawning has yet to be found.

First, let's tackle the question of why we yawn. An evolutional/psychological theory has claimed that yawning was once used as a non-verbal form of communication to synchronize group behavior among animals (9). For example, the leader of a pack of wolves would yawn to set a certain mood or signal a change of activity. Humans also being group-oriented animals may have assimilated to this form of agreement. In the same way that one pumped up team member can influence the level of aggression and team-spirit of an entire team, one yawning client can also affect the mood of sales-pitch meeting. Another good example of synchronization among humans is if a group is sitting around a campfire and the leader yawns, it most likely will act as a signal to the others that it may be time to call it a night.

Yawning is commonly perceived to be a sign of boredom or tiredness. Dr. Robert Provine, known as the yawn-expert from the University of Maryland, performed a study on 17-19 year old students to test this perception. In comparison to a group of students who watched music videos for 30 minutes, a group who watched an uninteresting color test bar pattern for 30 minutes yawned more (10). Dr. Provine also suggested that yawning is like stretching (5). Much like stretching, blood pressure and heart rate can be increased just by yawning. Perhaps animals yawn instinctively when bored or tired to get their blood pumping so that they may be physically stimulated to move or seek a new activity. But then why is it that we yawn after waking up? If we yawn after waking as a physical prompt to become active that's one thing. But yawning as a sign of tiredness can be ruled out if we yawn after waking from a restful sleep. Maybe a study could be done in which a comparison could be made between the hours of sleep and the occurrence of yawning when waking.

Above all, the most widely known reason for yawning is because our lungs need more oxygen. Medical schools teach that animals do not use their entire lung capacity when breathing normally. Because the alveoli, air sacs on the lower portion of the lungs, partially collapse when they do not receive fresh air, the brain is thought to signal the body to yawn or sigh to take in more oxygen (1). Along the same lines, when a person is bored his or her breathing slows and thus less oxygen is brought into the lungs.

However, I disagree with this lack of O2 theory for several reasons. First, Dr. Provine set up another experiment in 1987 to test this theory that yawning is caused by high CO2/low O2. Results showed that the test subjects' number or length of yawns were not affected by breathing 100% of O2 for 30 minutes (1). Therefore, this particular study acts as evidence the lack of O2 is not cause of yawning. To further support my disagreement of the O2 theory is the fact that an 11 week old fetus can yawn. Since fetuses do not receive oxygen to the lungs it has no reason to compensate a lack of oxygen in their alveoli. Additionally, just watching, hearing, or even reading about yawning can cause a person to yawn. Even if a person on TV is in a room with low levels of oxygen per say, regardless of the oxygen level in the room of the viewer, the viewer will still yawn.

This brings us to the next question: Why is yawning contagious? Some have agreed with Walter Smitson, professor of psychiatry at University of Cincinnati Medical Center, that as social creatures we are highly inclined to copy one another (2). If yawning is indeed related to mood, the suggestion of one person being tired, bored, or lacking oxygen can cue, alert, or suggest to others in the group to feel the same. This can also be linked to the previously suggested cause of yawning as a synchronizing behavioral act.

The "copycat" theory can be supported by the similar phenomenon humans find with tearing. When a child sees its mother crying it is natural for it to also cry. Even though it could be attributed to a maternal connection to one's mother, it could also be that as a helpless follower the child takes its mother's tears as a behavioral sign that something is wrong and mimics its leader. But does this then somehow imply that women or females are more sensitive to each other's feelings?

Although not a very strong supporting fact, it is often true that seeing, hearing, or even just reading about someone else's tears of pain or sadness can cause the recipient to also tear - granted this may be more applicable to women or that this "copycat" tearing could be a result of various emotional factors. Or is this an indication that women have stronger behavioral synchronization? After all, many more women than men choose to cry together - female support groups such as divorcee groups are more common than male support groups.

Then why is it a fact that men yawn more than women? (2) Dr. George Bubenik from the University of Guelph brings the debate back to the theory of supplying oxygen to the body. He proposes that, based on the O2 theory, men yawn more than women due to their larger muscle mass, which in turn require more oxygen. From a very general standpoint with the minimal data provided Dr. Bubenik's idea could be valid to a certain degree. If a legitimate connection between muscle mass and yawning can be made, perhaps it could support the O2 theory to be true.

Overall, there seems to be more research done on the causes and reasons for yawning than the contagious factor of yawning. So, I did some of my own research by asking others about their thoughts on the subject. The best suggestion I gathered was the possibility of a domino-effect theory. Some time long ago, one yawn could have been "caught" by several people and spread like a continual virus to others who passed it on to even more people and the cycle just never stopped. Therefore, someone is always "catching" someone else's yawn somewhere.

In the end, the answer to why animals yawn or what makes yawning contagious may not be as straightforward as we would all like. But discovering and dissecting an array of answers is what makes animals, oxygen, emotions, behaviors, our bodies, and science so interesting. Whether you yawn because you are signaling our boredom to others or because we are lacking oxygen in our alveoli, drop our jaw, yawn the average 6-second yawn, and just try checking who's yawning back.

References

1) MSNBC News, "Why we yawn."

2) Reily, Mary. E-briefing, "A Real Yawner: Causes, Concerns and Communications of the Yawn."

3) Hughes, Ron. Science Shorts, "What Makes You Yawn?"

4) Hughes, Ron. Science Shorts, "What Makes You Yawn?"

5) Neuroscience for Kids - Yawning.

6) Wong, A. Scientific American, "Why do we yawn when we are tired? And why does it seem to be contagious?"

7) Argiolas A, Melis. "The neuropharmacology of yawning."

8) Provine, R. PubMed, "Yawning: no effect of 3-5% CO2, 100% O2, and exercise."

9) Raphael, Rebecca. ABC News, "Is Yawning Contagious? Understanding Behaviors That Are Out of Our Control."

10) Dobson, Roger. Yawning Explained, "If you yawn, you're a human dynamo."

11) Provine, R.R. Yawning: effects of stimulus interest. Bulletin Psychonomic Sociology, 24:437-438, 1986.

The Joy Of Laughter Name: Sarah Kim Date: 2003-11-12 04:16:39 Link to this Comment: 7222

Biology 103
2003 Second Paper
On Serendip

Laughter is defined by dictionary.com as "the act of expressing certain emotions, especially mirth or delight, by a series of spontaneous, usually unarticulated sounds often accompanied by corresponding facial and bodily movements."(1) A thesaurus offers immense amounts of synonyms for the word "laugh", including giggle, cackle, chortle, snort, chuckle, crow, howl, snicker, snigger, convulse, titter, and the list goes on.(2) There are many words to describe laughter because it is such an integral part of our lives. The question of why we laugh may first be answered by looking at laughter in the purely physiological sense, which has been studied as gelotology. Then we can look at the effects of laughter, not just physically, but mentally and socially as well. After going over the oft-overlooked background of laughter, we can delve into the motivations behind our laughter.

The actual flow of physical effects in the brain after hearing a joke are as follows. First, the left side of the cortex analyzes the words and structure of the joke. Then the brain's large frontal lobe becomes very active. This part of the brain has a lot to do with social emotional responses. After this, the right hemisphere of the cortex helps with comprehension of the joke. Then stimulation of the motor sections occurred, producing the physical responses of laughter.(3) The production of laughter is also highly involved with certain parts of the brain. For example, the central cortex has been found to have a negative electrical wave as a person laughs. The hypothalamus, part of the central cortex, has been found to be a main contributor to the production of loud, uncontrollable laughter.

The combination of the set of gestures and production of sound is what makes up laughter. The actual muscles that create a smile are fifteen facial muscles which contract and stimulate the zygomatic major muscle, which basically lifts your upper lip. When the epiglottis half-close the larynx, the respiratory system is upset which causes air intake to occur irregularly, making you gasp. (3) In extreme circumstances, the tear ducts are activated, so that while the mouth is opening and closing and the struggle for oxygen intake continues, the face becomes moist and often red. Laughs can range in sound from virtually silent to noisy guffaws.

The overall physical effects of laughter are that laughter stimulates the immune system. The experience of laughter lowers serum cortisol levels. Elevated levels of corticosteroids (which are converted into cortisol in the bloodstream) have an immunosuppressive effect, so lowering the levels helps boost the immune system. Laughter also increases the amount of activated T lymphocytes, which provides that lymphocytes that are "awakened" and ready to combat a potential foreign substance. In addition, it increases the number and activity of natural killer cells which are a type of immune cell that attacks viral or cancerous cells and do not need sensitization to be lethal. They are always ready to recognize and attack an aberrant or infected cell. An intact immune system can function appropriately by mobilizing these natural killer cells to destroy abnormal cells. (4)

Laughter is also a good cardiovascular workout! Researchers estimate that laughing 100 times is equal to 10 minutes on the rowing machine or 15 minutes on an exercise bike. Laughter also gives your diaphragm and abdominal, respiratory, facial, leg and back muscles a workout. Blood pressure is lowered, and there is an increase in vascular blood flow and in oxygenation of the blood, which further assists healing. (3)

John Morreall, a philosopher at the University of South Florida in Tampa, proposes that the first laughter developed as a sign of shared relief at the evading of some danger.(5) This is simply using laughter to release the tension that was built up from the automatic flight-or-fight response. Laughter truly does make the muscles in a person's body relax. This is a sign of trust in the person's companions. Robert Provine, a behavioural neurobiologist at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County, says that laughter must have evolved as a manipulation technique to change the behaviour of others.(3) In an embarrassing or otherwise threatening situation, laughter may serve as a gesture of appeasement, a way of deflecting anger. If the threatening person joins in the laughter, the conflict may be avoided. Laughter is a way to connect people, to bond. Laughter is a social signal; people are 30 times more likely to laugh in a social situation than when alone.

The psychological benefits of laughter are amazing as well. People often store negative emotions, such as anger, sadness and fear, rather than expressing them. Laughter provides a way for these emotions to be harmlessly released. Laughter is cathartic. Humor can also be used as an empowerment tool. Humor gives us a different perspective on our problems and, with an attitude of detachment, we feel a sense of self-protection and control in our environment.(4) Humor is a quality of perception that enables us to experience joy even when faced with adversity. Our sense of humor gives us the ability to find delight, experience joy, and to release tension. This is extremely important not only for a person under a lot of stress, but also for a person's quality of life in general. Increasingly, mental health professionals are suggesting "laughter therapy," which teaches people how to laugh openly at things that aren't usually funny and to cope in difficult situations by using humor. (3)

There are three traditional theories of what makes us laugh: the incongruity theory, the superiority theory, and the relief theory. The incongruity theory is when a person expects one outcome and another happens. The superiority theory is reflected in jokes pointing out another's mistakes or stupidity. The relief theory is just releasing built up tension through laughter.(3) These are the three main theories of why we laugh, but everybody laughs at different things.

Many things can affect what each individual person finds humorous. Age is a big determining factor in what a person finds humorous. For example, infants and children are constantly discovering the world and much of it seems ridiculous or surprising, which strikes them as funny. As they grow older, adolescents tend to find sex, food, authority figures and subjects that are typically frowned upon as more humorous topics. Adults tend to laugh in shared common predicaments and embarrassments; basically they laugh at stressors. Also, the environment you were raised in has a lot to do with what you find funny. Political, social and economic issues surrounding your upbringing will affect what you find funny and what you find offensive. The country where you live has a lot to do with what you find amusing, too. Overall, there are many determining factors in what motivates laughter in a person.

Can laughter really be quantified? Even through the problem that laughter often cannot be produced when it is ready to be observed, especially in a laboratory, electrical signals are traced through brain activity, every muscle contraction can be recorded, all the hormones monitored, and every physical reaction measured, but is that really laughter? Laughter is an expression of mirth and delight. Scientific research has even found that one of the best predictors of long-term relationship health is the ability to laugh together. Researchers at the University of Seattle say couples who have the best chance of staying together long term should be chuckling with each other at least once a day.(6) Indeed, a sense of humor is usually one of the most desirable qualities in a person, not only in terms of a relationship, but also a friendship. Laughter is contagious, and people want to be around somebody who makes them laugh. Laughter produces such positive benefits, it's no wonder an entire field of therapy has developed simply to harness the power of laughter. Overall, it's impossible to say what exactly makes people laugh. It is different for every person. And for all the measurements taken, there is still no definitive answer.

References

References:
1)Dictionary.com, definition of "laughter"

2)Thesaurus.com, synonyms of "laugh"

3)Howstuffworks.com, How Laughter Works

4)Jesthealth.com, Humor:An Antidote to Stress

5)Globalideasbank.org, Why Did Laughter Evolve?

6)msn.com, "How To Diagnose A Healthy Relationship"

The Anxiety of Anti-Anxiety Medications Name: Brianna Tw Date: 2003-11-12 22:16:02 Link to this Comment: 7242

Biology 103
2003 Second Paper
On Serendip

The Anxiety of Anti-Anxiety Medications

19 million Americans (approximately one in eight) aged 18-54 suffer from anxiety disorders. (1) When I heard this statistic, I realized how important the discussion of such disorders was to the sciences. 1/8th of the most productive portion of the US population suffers from an anxiety disorder. The National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH), a division of the Institutes of Health for the Federal Government, is committed to research causes and treatment of such disorders. (2) Progress has been made, comparing studies of animals to studies of humans, in pinpointing the specific areas of the brain. Anxiety is associated with fear- fear of a specific object or situation, generalized fear and worry, recurring fearful memories, etc. The NIMH has found that a specific portion of the brain, the amygdala, controls the body's automatic response to fear. When the brain is confronted with fear, the brain takes two course of action. One, the brain transmits information to the cerebral cortex (the thinking part of the brain) to inform it of what specifically is endangering the individual. Second, the brain transmits to the amygdala the same information, so that the body might prepare for action.
Beyond this information, not much is known regarding the causes or mechanics of anxiety. Granted, understanding which portions of the brain are affected by or control anxiety is an important step. However, not much conclusive evidence or useful conclusions have been reached regarding anxiety.
With this information in mind, I began thinking of my personal experiences with anxiety. On one occasion I went to the emergency room, expressing the inability to breathe and dizziness. It was concluded that I was suffering from an anxiety attack, and was offered Xanax. I refused the medicine until I might better research what I would be taking. Much later, I attended counseling in effort to deal with anxiety issues, and once again was offered anti-anxiety medicines, otherwise known as anxiolytics.
Clearly, regardless of the inconclusive evidence regarding the causes of anxiety, the medical professions are quick to administer medicines when faced with a patient suffering from anxiety. My personal encounters with this are not the only evidence. At Bryn Mawr, through counseling services, I know many students who have received anxiolytics. Of course, there is an evaluation process. Nonetheless, many students are able to receive medication, regardless of the inconclusive evidence of the causes of anxiety. Additionally, the statistic regarding one in every eight adults suffers from anxiety proves true amongst my peers, and in fact, is a significantly greater number. Of my fifteen closest friends, both at school and from home, nine have suffered anxiety attacks, two have received medication for anxiety, and two for depression.
I have several concerns with this issue. Many medicines given to treat anxiety have a plethora of negative side effects, everything from insomnia to addiction. While information is available regarding the possible long-term effects of anxiolytics, evidence of their direct connection or effect on anxiety is not available. The question at hand, then, is whether or not it is useful- or even safe- to administer medicines for a disorder of which there is little information or understanding.
To better understand this question, information regarding anti-anxiety drugs is needed. It should be noted that frequently medication is accompanied by psychotherapy. There are many varieties of anti-anxiety medications, but they are all of two types: benzodiazepines and antidepressants. Because there are so many variations of the two, I shall only discuss in detail the two separate types.
Benzodiazepines, which include medicines such as Xanax, Versed, and Restoril, depress the central nervous system (CNS) at the limbic system, which controls automatic functions, the reticular formation of the brain stem, which controls respiration, heart rate, posture, and state of consciousness, and the cortex, which is where most of the brain's neurons are located. (3) These areas of the brain are associated with the function of fear, and the brain's response to fear. A benzodiazepine interferes with this process; however I cannot find information on how. Because it is not clear exactly what happens in the brain to produce anxiety in an individual, understanding how a medicine might interact with the process is impossible.
Benzodiazepines are used to treat many disorders or illnesses besides anxiety. This list includes insomnia, catatonia, alcohol withdrawal symptoms, convulsions, depression, mania, bipolar affective disorder, and PMS. Considering this list, I find the use of such drugs to be very interesting. For one, a benzodiazepine is used to treat insomnia, the inability to sleep, as well as catatonia, which may manifest itself in the inability to respond to stimulus, i.e. a lack of motivation. These are two seemingly opposite illnesses. Additionally, the drug is used to treat PMS, which, though potentially extreme, is a much milder illness than mania. If these drugs can treat such a wide variety of illnesses or disorders, what does this say about the nature of the drug? How can a drug treat two opposing disorders?
Besides these questions, one must consider the adverse affects of benzodiazepines. The most common side affect is generalized sedative effects, such as drowsiness, fatigue, confusion, dizziness, etc. Benzodiazepines may also cause paradoxical agitation, such as insomnia, hallucinations, nightmares, euphoria, rage, etc. Additionally, most benzodiazepines are highly habit forming, as well as tolerance building. Thus, intake of the drug not only must increase over time, which may result in toxic level doses, but also discontinuing use of the drug would result in withdrawal.
Just as with benzodiazepines, there are many variations of antidepressants. For the purposes of this paper, I shall only discuss Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors (SSRI's), which includes medicines such as Paxil and Prozac. The exact way in which SSRI's work is unknown. However, it has been concluded that they cause a "down-regulation" of receptors by blocking the re-uptake of serotonin. (4) Antidepressants are used primarily for generalized anxiety disorder, which is a general feeling of worry or anxiety, and posttraumatic stress syndrome, which is reoccurring anxiety at the recollections of a specific traumatic memory. Possible side effects of SSRI's include insomnia, chronic fatigue syndrome, mania, and headache, et al. However, most informational websites state that side effects cannot be anticipated for most patients. (5)
This information produces several interesting discussions. It is important, in this discussion, to bear in mind that the health of the patient is the top priority. That having been said, I would like to consider whether it is good for the patient to use drugs such as benzodiazepines and antidepressants for the treatment of anxiety. For one, the causes of anxiety are unknown. Second, the exact mechanisms of these medications are unknown. Putting these two statements together, doctors are using a drug that they do not understand to treat an illness of which there is no clear conclusive evidence. Granted, patients who use these drugs do more often than not experience alleviation of anxiety symptoms. However, the exact way in which their anxiety is being relieved is unknown. How responsible is this of the scientific community?
An additional cause to be weary of these medications is their side effects. They can in fact induce symptoms that they are trying to treat. For a patient suffering from anxiety, occurrences of mania are very dangerous. This is a big risk to take, in my opinion, in hopes that a medicine in some way alleviates an illness that no one has figured out.
There are, of course, benefits of this method of treatment. Once researchers figure out the ways in which antidepressants and benzodiazepines interact with the brain, they can use this knowledge to decipher the way anxiety interacts within the brain, assuming the medications directly treat anxiety. It is a process of elimination of sorts- it is one step in the scientific process of discovery. Thus, perhaps the prescribing of such medications will facilitate researchers. However, I think the scientific community ought to bear in mind the potential dangers of this method before applicating its results directly to patients.

References

1)National Institute of Mental Health
2)National Institute of Mental Health
3)Neuropsychology Medical Resources
4)Neuropsychology Medical Resources
5)PDR Health

Are you sick, or do you just want attention? Name: Lara Kalli Date: 2003-11-13 17:37:27 Link to this Comment: 7251

Biology 103
2003 Second Paper
On Serendip

Most of us, in our youth, were probably asked this question in some form or another at least once by our parents; and most of us would probably admit to having faked being sick at least once in our lives. It is interesting, then, to note that there seems actually to be a pathology associated with this kind of behavior known as Munchausen syndrome.


What, technically, is Munchausen syndrome? According to the Merck Manual, it is "Repeated fabrication of physical illness - usually acute, dramatic, and convincing - by a person who wanders from hospital to hospital for treatment." (1) People suffering from this disorder will even go so far as to inflict physical harm upon themselves in order to get the attention they want. Generally, it is associated with a past history of severe neglect and abuse inflicted upon the subject. It is important at this point to differentiate between Munchausen and two other pathological behaviors for which it might be mistaken: unlike hypochondriacs, Munchausen sufferers are conscious of the fact that they are not genuinely sick (2); unlike malingerers (people who fake or induce the symptoms of illness for some external gain, such as the prescription of painkillers (3)) the behavior of an overwhelming majority of Munchausen sufferers cannot be attributed to conscious motives. (1)


A far more alarming variant of this disorder, known as Munchausen syndrome by proxy, has also been documented. In these cases, the subject fabricates the existence of physical illness in another person, usually the subject's child. The same sorts of behaviors occur - faking or simulating the symptoms of illness, resorting to physical harm in order to induce those symptoms. Even though the parent - the Munchausen sufferer - will always appear to be deeply concerned for the child's welfare, her actions will not infrequently result in the child's being severely deformed or even dying. (2) Both variants of this disorder are highly uncommon.


At present, people with either Munchausen syndrome or Munchausen syndrome by proxy are seldom, if ever, treated with drugs. Standard methods of management and treatment include early recognition of the disorder and years of intensive counseling; many doctors believe that the disorders are not treatable, inferring from the nature of the disorders that giving the subject medical attention would in fact heighten the severity of their pathology. (2) Munchausen syndrome and Munchausen syndrome by proxy are rarely treated successfully. (1)


Current research has not been able to determine any biological basis for Munchausen syndrome, due to its extreme infrequency and the fact that when it has been determined by doctors that an inpatient at a hospital has the disorder or is the victim of abuse by someone with the disorder, that person usually flees. So what can be said of this disorder? I would like to advance my own thoughts on the subject here:


Munchausen syndrome seems to me to be reminiscent of two other, much more documented mental illnesses: antisocial personality disorder and dependent personality disorder. People with antisocial personality disorder - sociopaths, as they are more commonly known - are unable to distinguish "right" or "good" behavior from "wrong" or "bad" behavior; they seem to have little concern for anyone's personal safety, including their own; they are often impulsive and pathological liars; furthermore, they frequently seem to exhibit no remorse for any of their actions that might have had negative consequences. (4) Munchausen sufferers seem to exhibit many of these same characteristics to varying degrees, most notably the pathological lying aspect. Furthermore, it has been hypothesized that Munchausen sufferers, similar to sociopaths, might get a distinct measure of satisfaction from successfully fooling doctors into thinking that they are sick. (5) The parallel continues in Munchausen syndrome by proxy subjects, as these people exhibit a disregard for or inability to comprehend the effects that their actions have on the children that are their victims. People with dependent personality disorder, as one might imagine from the name, are characterized by "a pervasive and excessive need to be taken care of that leads to submissive and clinging behavior and fears of separation." Notably, people suffering from this disorder have a tendency to go to great lengths to receive the attention they desire. (6) This particular symptom is also, as we can see from the above characterization, one of the most salient features of Munchausen syndrome. It would be, I believe, a very rewarding and enlightening task to study Munchausen syndrome with these two other disorders in mind. Of course, it is important to remember that very little is known for sure about Munchausen, and so the majority of theories advanced about it are more conjecture than anything else; the thoughts I have presented must be construed more as questions than statements.

References

1. the Merck Manual entry on Munchausen and Munchausen by proxy

2. an overview article on Munchausen and Munchausen by proxy

3. Dr. Marc Feldman's website on factitious disorders

4. Internet Mental Health's information database on antisocial personality disorder

5. Internet Mental Health's information database on dependent personality disorder

6. an account of a woman who recovered from Munchausen syndrome

Related Reading

a recovered Munchausen patient's first-hand account of the illness

an account of a doctor's encounter with a Munchausen sufferer (skip to the section titled "A Case of Munchausen")

an account of a person suffering from factitious bereavement

a detailed description of Munchausen syndrome by proxy

The Selfish Gene Name: Melissa Ho Date: 2003-11-13 22:16:25 Link to this Comment: 7255

Biology 103
2003 Second Paper
On Serendip

"We are survival machines—robot vehicles blindly programmed to preserve selfish
molecules known as genes."
-- Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene (1).

Can genes alone determine your DNA's place in the next generation? Are humans simply vessels for these genes?

With his provoking work entitled The Selfish Gene, Richard Dawkins attempts to answer such questions as he proposes a shift in the evolutionary paradigm. Working through the metaphor of a "selfish gene", Dawkins constructs an evolutionary model using a gene as the fundamental unit of selection, opposed to the more commonly accepted belief of the species as the unit of selection.

This "selfish gene", possessing a certain selfish emotional nature, acts as an independent entity fighting to ensure its replication in future generations, maximizing its number of descendents (2). Those successful in replicating have made the most of their given environment (1). For the interests of this paper, is it valid to assume that natural selection occurs at the level of DNA? Hence, what can be implied about genetic predispositions?

For Dawkins, evolution of a species is dependent upon the transmittance of this information to the next generation; the individual species is irrelevant (2). This theory is a departure from Charles Darwin's theory of evolution, which concentrates on the species. Species, to Dawkins, are "survival machines" whose purpose is to host these genes, as species are mortals and fleeting, whereas genes are not (2).

Is it valid to assume Dawkins position that humans are merely "robot vehicles"? This concept, alienating emotion, physical, and cultural growth from evolution, can be startling. By placing the importance of natural selection at the level of DNA, all humanistic aspects are removed. Inherent complexities arise, as the individual is of little importance— other than to provide shelter and nourishment, so to speak. Varying schools of philosophical and scientific thought could argue the ethic and biological counterarguments to this theory.

Dawkins' gene is a personified entity, seemingly to the extent that it is an independent being to an extent. The "machines", therefore, are subjected to programming of sorts by the genes. Capable of selfish and altruistic behavior, the gene "reaches" outside of the human body to interact with its environment (3). "With only a little imagination we can see the gene as sitting at the centre of a radiating web of extended phenotypic power," stated Dawkins (3). By granting "phenotypic power", the genotype (as determined by the interaction of genes) behaves in such a manner which dictates the phenotype, or physical expression of the gene. By following this pattern—interaction between the gene and its environment, it is arguable that the environment is actually governing genotypic behavior. By this, the environment is not merely a factor manipulated by the gene, but instead can manipulate the gene itself.

Apply the above reasoning to the concept of genetic "predisposition" to maladies and conditions. In Dawkins theory, only the "strong" genes persist. One, therefore, can perhaps assume that only the most preeminent and healthiest genes exist. Given this predilection for only the genetic superiority, then why do maladies exist? One response could be similar to the idea outline above—the environment's role in phenotypic expression is dominant to that of the gene. Alternatively, the "bad" genes leading to disease and illness are actually the dominant units. These malignant genes could be a natural mechanism of population stabilization along the survivorship curve. The environment serves a godlike position—choosing those who will carry on and who will perish (3).

Genes are malleable entities. They interact with their environment—it is tested, processed, articulated, and modified with time—responsive to necessary changes in order to maximize survival and "replication" (3). Change is inevitable and imperative. Author Oliver Morton best describes this dynamic:

Just as organisms are interpretations of genetic information within a specific environment so the use of this genetic knowledge will depend on the environments—economic and ethical, personal and political—in which that use is made. But those uses, good or ill, will surely be made. The genes that imperiously limited and permitted will be bent to human will; limits will become movable, permissions stretched. Genes have never been the complete masters of human destiny, but nor have they been humanity's servants. Until now. (3).

As humankind progresses, so does its ability to become the master of one's own fate. Dawkins theory of the "selfish gene" offers one possible version to the many reasons how humans evolve. While he offers intriguing insight by bringing the evolutionary process to the micro-level of DNA, the personification of genes is an exceptionally difficult idea to support.

When observing genetic maladies, it is difficult for Dawkins theory to hold completely—as it is not necessarily capable of fully encompassing the idea of anything more than the "superior" genes survival—it fails to explain flaw. The relationship between the genetics and their environment is best explained offering the genes as a framework for evolution, with the environment as the substantive filler interpreting how the framework will ultimately look and act.

References

Works Cited

1) "The Selfish Gene" , The opening pages of and selections from Dawkins work

2)The Selfish Gene Theory, Explanatory site providing overview of theory

3) The Selfish Gene?" Reason in Revolt , Genetic issues and Dawkins discussed

Works Consulted
4) In Defense of Selfish Genes , Dawkins refute to claims made about his theory by Mary Midgely

5) Selfish Genes and Social Darwinism , Counterarguments for Selfish Gene Theory

6) The Selfish Gene: The Underpinnings of Narcissism , Further discussion and implications on Selfish Gene Theory

First and Second Language Acquisition Name: Margaret T Date: 2003-11-13 22:57:38 Link to this Comment: 7256

Biology 103
2003 Second Paper
On Serendip

In our everyday lives, the origin of our ability to communicate is usually not often taken into consideration. One doesn't think about how every person has, or rather had at one time, an innate ability to learn a language to total fluency without a conscious effort – a feat that is seen by the scientific community "as one of the many utterly unexplainable mysteries that beset us in our daily lives" (3).. Other such mysteries include our body's ability to pump blood and take in oxygen constantly seemingly without thought, and a new mother's ability to unconsciously raise her body temperature when her infant is placed on her chest. But a child's first language acquisition is different from these phenomena; different because it cannot be repeated. No matter how many languages are learned later in life, the rapidity and accuracy of the first acquisition can simply not be repeated. This mystery is most definitely why first language acquisition, and subsequently second language acquisition, is such a highly researched topic.

On the surface one would look at child first language acquisition and adult second language acquisition and see similarities. In each case the learner first learns how to make basic sounds, then words, phrases and sentences; and as this learning continues the sentences become more and more complex. However, when one looks at the outcomes of these two types of acquisition, the differences are dramatic. The child's ability to communicate in the target language far surpasses that of the adult. In this paper differences in these two processes that most always produce such different outcomes will be explored.

Before this exploration begins, however, I would like to state that I am looking at child first language acquisition and adult second language acquisition because they both seem most relevant to our lives right now – as college students who have most definitely mastered our first language at a young age, and are mostly likely attempting to master our second as adults. One could also look at situations where only one variable is changes (e.g. child first vs. child second or child second vs. adult second) but these comparisons are not represented in this paper.

The first area of difference between first (L1) and second (L2) language learning is input – specifically the quality and quantity of input. It is the idea of the "connectionist model that implies... (that the) language learning process depends on the input frequency and regularity" (5).. It is here where one finds the greatest difference between L1 and L2 acquisition. The quantity of exposure to a target language a child gets is immense compared to the amount an adult receives. A child hears the language all day everyday, whereas an adult learner may only hear the target language in the classroom – which could be as little as three hours a week. Even if one looks at an adult in a total submersion situation the quantity is still less because the amount of one on one interaction that a child gets for example with a parent or other caregiver is still much greater then the adult is receiving.

This idea of one on one interaction versus a class room setting (where an instructor could be speaking to up to twenty, or more students) also ties in with the idea of quality. It is also much easier for a parent or caregiver to engage the child in what he or she is learning. It is hard, however, for a teacher to make the topic being learned relevant to the students' lives. This can lead to a lack of concentration, and a lack of motivation – something that will be visited later.

The next great and obvious difference between L1 and L2 learning is age. A large part of this train of thought is the idea of a "critical period, or the "time after which successful language learning cannot take place" (4).. This time is usually aligned with puberty. This change is significant, "because virtually every learner undergoes significant physical, cognitive, and emotional changes during puberty.

There are three main physical changes one undergoes in regards to language acquisition. The first is the presence of muscular plasticity. A child's plasticity goes away at about the age of five. After this age it is very hard for a learner to fully master pronunciation of a second language. The second change is one's memorization capabilities. It is fairly well known that as a person grows older their ability to hold large amount of information reaches its peak fairly early in life, and then begins to decrease. This is seen most dominantly with very old individuals. The third physical change that occurs is more related to neurology.

"As a child matures into adulthood, the left hemisphere (which controls the analytical and intellectual functions) becomes more dominant than the right side (which controls the emotional functions)." (2).

This idea is called the Lateralization Hypothesis. The significance these specific neurobiological changes have on language learning will be discussed below.

The one advantage adults seem to have over children is their cognitive ability. Adults are better able to benefit from learning about structure and grammar. Unfortunately this slight advantage in ability does not help adult second language acquisition in general. In fact this ability almost hinders them in that they analyze too much. Specifically, they cannot leave behind what they know about their first language, which leads to a tendency to overanalyze and to second guess what they are learning.

The final area that puberty changes is within the emotional, or affective, realm. Motivation is much affected by emotional change. A child's motivation is simple. In order to communicate and to be a part of family and society the child must master the target language. This motivation is quite weighty, especially when compared to the motivation that adults have, or rather, must find. Adult motivations usually fall into one of two categories: "integrative motivation (which encourages a learner to acquire the new language in order to become closer to and/or identify themselves with the speakers of the target language) or instrumental motivation (which encourages a learner to acquire proficiency for such practical purposes as becoming a translator, doing further research, and aiming for promotion in their career)" (5).. Either one of these types of motivation must be prevalent for successful acquisition to take place.

The final change that takes place, and changes language learning has to do with egocentricity. Children are naturally egocentric. While learning their language they are not afraid to make mistakes, and in general, they do not feel abashed when they are corrected. Also, their thoughts usually do not surpass their language ability. Adults, on the other hand usually suffer form a fairly large amount of language learning anxiety. Adults often "feel frustrated or threatened in the struggle of learning a different language" (5). Mistakes are seen more as failures then as opportunities for growth. "The adult learner may also feel greatly frustrated, for being only able to express their highly complex ideas at a discourse level of an elementary school pupil" (5). These new emotions leave an adult learner in a slightly helpless position, unable to regain the egocentricity of their childhood, which is just on more hindrance in a line of many.

Although the desired outcomes of child first language acquisition and adult second language acquisition are exactly the same, the actual outcomes are in reality quite different. Factors such as motivation, quality and quantity of input and a lack of egocentrism, among many other factors, will forever stand in the way of adult second language learning. In conclusion, because of so many varying factors, both the processes and outcomes of child first language acquisition and adult second language acquisition are extremely different, and are only connected by a common goal.

References

1)Comparing and Contrasting First and Second Language Acquisition

2)First and second language acquisition

5)First Language Acquisition

4) Gass, Susan M., Larry Selinker. Second Language Acquisition. London: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates Publishers, 2001.

5)Reviewing First and Second Language Acquisition: A Comparisono between Young and Adult Learners

Male Menopause: Fact or Fiction? Name: Enor Wagne Date: 2003-11-14 16:51:27 Link to this Comment: 7260

Biology 103
2003 Second Paper
On Serendip

"Male menopause is a lot more fun than female menopause. With female menopause you gain weight and get hot flashes. Male menopause - you get to date young girls and drive motorcycles." (11)

While 'male menopause' has provided both sexes a variety of jokes and frustration, there are researchers and scientists studying the alleged condition with great seriousness. Those who support the existence of male menopause feel strongly that its affects on the male mind and body should be regarded with the same credence that society attributes to the female menopause.

Male Menopause begins with declining testosterone levels and is eventually characterized by the following symptoms: hair loss, depression, a slower immune system, weight gain, less stamina for physical activity, forgetfulness, irritability, and loss of or reduced interest in sex. (5) Impotence may also occur. Usually this "change" arises between the ages of 40 and 55, although it has been known to transpire as early as 35 and as late as 65. (6) Several different clinical terms exist for the popularized term "male menopause" such as "andropause" or "viropause". (2) Andropause was named for the hormone "androgen" which is essentially testosterone. It is also the name of the therapy with which they treat a man suffering from male menopause. This treatment comes in the form of injection, skin patches or liquid gel. (5) In order to be diagnosed with male menopause, one must have reached the eligible age then endure a physical exam wherein blood samples will be taken. These samples are tested for hormone levels. If these blood samples demonstrate low levels of androgen and the patient seems to be suffering from the symptoms associated with male menopause, a physician will most likely prescribe a proper hormone replacement treatment.

There are a number of arguments against the possibility of there existing such a thing as "male menopause". First, it has been estimated that approximately 25 million American men are currently going through male menopause and researchers expect that number to double by the year 2020. (6) However this hypothesized statistic does not seem realistic. Such a statement implies that more men will go through the change in the future than are going through it today. How can the number of men afflicted double? It is not contagious, and there is no biological proof that such a gene exists that may help yield the affects of male menopause.

The second objection to the term "male menopause" is that it does not occur in ALL men as it does in all women. At least, research does not show it affecting all men. In a woman's case, she is biologically predestined to endure menopause. Her chance of escaping the most feared female phase of life is as unlikely as men ever attending Bryn Mawr undergrad. For men, there is a percentage that applies to male menopause, for females it is simply a fact of life.

Lastly, the term menopause has been attributed to women for a reason. The prefix 'meno' comes from the latin root 'menses' which means menstruation, while the suffix 'pause' signifies a halt. Women experience menopause because their levels of estrogen, upon reaching a certain age, drastically drop, causing their menstruation cycles to cease. When men undergo so-called "male menopause" or "andropause" their hormone levels slowly decrease, not abruptly. And while men may suffer from sexual side effects or loss of sexual appetite, their ability to conceive offspring is in no sense taken away. Thus, if there exists such a thing as male menopause it should be properly renamed for the connotations that ensue are false and misleading.

Once the term "male menopause" has been rightly named, it is understandable that certain symptoms, health problems, and its predictable timing lead the public to justify "andropause" as the male equivalent to the female "menopause". However, with this misapprehension clarified, the similar experience of hormone depletion in both men and women is cause for concern. If women have been supplemented with estrogen as a populace once menopause occurs, and men have altogether not been, could this be the reason that women tend to live longer than men? In America the average life expectancy of a man is 74, (8) for women it is 80. (9) Do the supplemented hormones augment the life expectancy in women? Do neglected hormone deficiencies take a toll on the aging process? It is true. If a person has hormone levels lower than they had in their younger years, the depletion will eventually lead to a more rapid aging process. Perhaps, if society treated 'male menopause' as gravely as they treated female menopause; urging men to test their hormone levels once they reach a certain age, men would eventually live as long as women do.

One of the problems with society is its obsession with 'the male mid-life crisis', a hopeless sitcom cliché. (1) Most people believe that the terms 'male menopause' and 'mid-life crisis' are interchangeable. However, they mean completely different things. Andropause (male menopause) occurs due the declining in androgen in some men at mid points in their lives. Men usually experience a midlife crisis as a result of the change, because they do not know how to deal with their lessening hormones.(10)

While there are many differences between male and female menopause, one similarity rises above tying men and women into one undeniably human knot of anatomical fate: all women and most men suffer from hormone depletion past a certain age. It should be taken into consideration that hormone replacement therapy is not a natural process, thus if it did not exist what would happen? Would a certain age point inevitably mark a genderless phase of life? Women would have low or no estrogen levels and men, since the number suffering from male menopause is allegedly increasing, would eventually lose their testosterone. Would the elderly become an androgynous human species, with only the once-reproductive parts of a woman and man? Would this breed make society reflect on the trivial gender wars and gender discrimination that exists today and wonder what it was all for? If we eventually all become just human, what is the point of stereotypes and unequal pay and gentleman's clubs and feminism? Shouldn't it all be useless debate and tiresome justifications if we eventually all naturally become genderless anyways?

While the genderless proposition may be a bit extreme, it is still a necessary question we must ask ourselves in considering the possibility of male menopause as a biological truth. It is obvious that male and female menopause cannot be parallel for reasons of syntax and universality and biological repercussions, enough comparisons can be made between the two midlife trials to relate them with one another.

References

1)CNN Science Page, article produced by CNN entitled "Male Menopause: Is It for Real?" explains the differences between male menopause and the male midlife crisis

2)CNN Science Page, another article to follow up the first which explains androgen treatment therapy

3)CSUN Research Page, this page offers links to different areas of interest in male menopause

4)BBC Science, article argueing against the possibility of male menopause, instead calls it laziness

5)Monterey Clinic Page, article called "Andropause, the Male Menopause" explains the treatments available for men undergoing andropause, also offers a number of statistical information relating to male menopause

6)Today's Healthy News, an article relating to male menopause which discusses the alleged augmention in the number of men that will experience male menopause

7)Human Development Report, provides the average male life expectancy statistics for all countries

8)Human Development Report, provides the average female life expectancy statistics for all countries

9)ABC Science, short article by ABC questioning the reality of male menopause

10)ABC Interview, interview with Jed Diamond, author of Male Menopause, a 1998 best seller. who used to be a disbeleiver in male menopause but now firmly credits the possibility of a male 'change'

11)Women Joke Page, Male menopause joke

Sexual Selection: Fact or Fiction Name: Natalya Kr Date: 2003-11-16 23:11:14 Link to this Comment: 7281

Biology 103
2003 Second Paper
On Serendip

Darwin's theory of sexual selection is an intriguing one because it offers an explanation of human striving and cultural value systems. The theory is that humans who are more sexually desirable will have more offspring and thus their traits will be passed on to future generations to a greater extent than those of less sexually desirable humans. As opposed to Darwin's other theory, natural selection, those who are the best adapted to their environment will be more likely to pass on their genes, or, "survival of the fittest", you might call sexual selection "survival of the sexiest." The theory is intended to in part explain why, when humans diverged from other primates, the human brain tripled in size in just two million years. At first glance, this theory also seems to explain much of the motivation behind human culture and achievement. Upon closer inspection, there are some fairly conspicuous problems with it, especially when it is extended to describe not only human evolution in the distant past but it the present, but it may still be the most plausible explanation available to explain why humans mental capacities have expanded so far beyond those of our primate relatives.
It makes complete sense that we would be biologically driven to prove our sexiness. At the most basic level, this could explain the plenitude and popularity of fashion magazines for young women and the emphasis on being good at sports in school for both genders. Beyond this, it could also explain why men and women are driven to succeed at their various careers, or to be perceived to be successful, smart, witty, fun-loving, good-looking, responsible, or any of a number of things that human aspire to be which are also sexually attractive. The drive for achievement could be rooted in their biology - and their desire to be considered sexually desirable.

What is interesting is that while it seems logical that the desire to succeed is rooted in the desire to appear sexually desirable, (and by that standard, many people are trying very hard to be sexually desirable), in this day and age, sexual desirability bares little or no direct correlation with the number of offspring one produces. In fact extremely sexually desirable people, supermodels, billionaires, sports stars, and affluent people in general, tend to have fewer children than those who are less sexually desirable by this definition. Even so, many of us are highly motivated to prove our sexual desirability, but the purpose of doing so, if it ever existed, seems to have been lost or distorted.

Was it ever really true that the more sexually desirable people had more offspring, or is this theory only speculation? According to Geoffrey A. Miller, a senior research fellow and University College London, anthropological data show that in our hunter/gatherer days good hunters had more extra-pair copulations than poor hunters, but that is hardly concrete evidence that good hunters actually produced more children than poor hunters (4).

Miller rejects both the rapacious male/helpless female and the choosy female/displaying male models of sexual selection. (Studies done with primates suggest that male and female hominids exercised mate choice and followed a pattern of serial monogamy, and that rapists would have been ostracized or killed.) Instead he believes that over the course of evolution, both sexes have had substantial choice in sexual partners, and even in the case of arranged marriages, the parents have exercised choice of sexual partner for their children based on certain desirability standards.

If the theory does hold, and, in the past, at least, those who were more sexually desirable did indeed have more offspring, that would imply that, over the course of human history, humans generations were getting sexier and sexier, meaning that whatever traits were valued in terms of sexual selection were becoming magnified in the human population over time.

Some of the diverse traits that Miller suggests as possible factors in sexual selection are art, morality, language, and creativity. In the case of art, his argument is that it acts as an extended phenotype, basically demonstrating the biological fitness of the creator. The argument for morality is based on modern (unsubstantiated) sexual abhorrence of selfishness, lying, and cheating, and a study by David Buss (1989) which found kindness to be the most desired trait in a mate across 37 cultures (4). In addition, traits like conspicuous magnanimity are good fitness indicators. The language argument is predicated on the belief that there are more words in most languages than are necessary for survival so they must serve some "self-advertisement" function. In addition, he claims that today, vocabulary is more influential than any other mental trait in mate choice. In terms of creativity, with the assumption that courtship entails a great deal of conversation, Miller concludes that there would be plenty of time before the probable time of conception for either lover to decide to dump the other on the basis of speaking, listening, thinking, remembering, storytelling or joke-telling ability. (He cites Cyrano de Bergerac as an example of these sexually desirable abilities at work.) In addition, he theorizes that early humans, as humans today, would become bored with predictable mate, so unpredictability, a form of creativity, was probably a sexually selected trait. (4)

The problem with this theory is that it is largely speculative. You could claim sexual selectivity for any trait that humans today possess, and I see no reason why positive traits like creativity and morality should come before negative ones like unimaginativeness and immorality, which are also in abundant supply today. Sometimes the positive and negative are even inextricably linked.

Creativity, which Miller credits partially for the rapid evolution of the human brain, has also been linked with mental illness and attention deficit disorder (Evolution, Creativity, and ADD ). Thus creativity can often be detrimental to the individual who has it or the society in which they live, but on other occasions, it can lead people to create great inventions and works of art. Because of the potential detrimental effects of creativity, it would not be useful for everyone in a society to be extremely creative, because this would probably mean that a large proportion of people would also be mentally ill or have ADD, and pandemonium would ensue (2),/a> . Conversely if a small portion of the population possesses these traits, the detrimental effects remain manageable, and the rewards are still great. In this case, the theory of sexual selection might not be applicable, because it would not be beneficial to the species to produce such unstable elements in greater and greater numbers.
Furthermore, who is to say that everyone is attracted to the same characteristics. Some people may value kindness in a mate, but others may consciously or unconsciously like to be treated cruelly. In addition, I see no reason why people who are more sexually desirable would have more offspring, even in earlier stages of evolution. Sure they might have a greater choice of potential mates, but does that mean they would necessarily have children more often than ugly, unsuccessful cavemen and women did with each other? After all, just because they are more sexually desirable does not necessarily mean they enjoy sex more or have more children, and just because they have more choices in terms of sexual partners does not mean that undesirables were left without anyone with whom to copulate.
In more general terms, I see no reason to believe that the human race was or is becoming more creative, ethical, or verbal, with each passing generation. Instead, it seems much more logical that as a species, we maintain a stable proportion of people with varying creative and verbal capacities, and that ethics are only marginally, if at all, genetic. The one instance in which this theory makes any sense at all is over the course of the two million years when human brain size tripled. However, even then, natural selection, not sexual selection, or perhaps a totally different force was responsible for this dramatic change. Maybe certain traits were considered unacceptable culturally and so no one was allowed to mate with people baring these characteristics, even if they were sexually desirable - one could call this cultural selection.

On the other hand, what other way is there to explain the importance most people attach to being sexually desirable: beautiful, smart, sociable - successful. What other biological reason is there for us to be so driven not merely to survive, but to succeed, to prove ourselves, and why else would we have so much of our emotional well-being wrapped up in whether we succeed or not? According to the theory of sexual selection we care about success because success makes us sexy, and reproduction is the biological purpose of life. Still, it is clear that if sexual selection ever did function, it has become completely perverted (no pun intended) now; the most successful people do not have the most offspring. It is difficult to judge whether or not sexual selection functioned in the distant past because there is only patchy data to support or give evidence against it.

The other problem I have with this theory is that it is too deterministic. It attributes too much to genetics and not to human striving. Vocabulary, for example, is acquired, not inherited. If it is highly heritable, as Miller suggests, this is probably because children generally learn to speak from their parents, not necessarily because they share a similar language learning ability. Ethics are even more difficult to attribute to genes. Decisions, in general, ethical ones should be no exception, tend to be based on past experience not DNA.

The perspective that our genes are the only thing attracting us to each other is fundamentally depressing. What is the point of human striving if everything is predetermined by our genes? Or is the only point of all of our striving to prove to society and potential mates the genetic capability we had all along: is success an extended phenotype? The truth may be that even we don't know the true extent of our genetic capability until we try to test it out in the real world. Still, true ability always remains ambiguous because there can always be barriers to success even if you do have the genetic capability for it. Certainly one can't achieve things without a certain innate ability. Perhaps we all strive to achieve in order to reach our full genetic potential so that others will know the full extent of our genetic desirability. We are frustrated when we fail because it either means we aren't living up to our potential or we don't have the potential at all. Luckily, we can give ourselves the benefit of the doubt because as of yet, there is no way to measure to absolutely measure "potential", or our genetic make-up. Luckily, as well, if we don't have certain sexually desirable traits, like physical attractiveness or intelligence, we can always have others like kindness and magnanimity.

Humans are relatively more creative, verbal, artistic and ethical (by our standards) than other primates and the theory of sexual selection does provide a plausible explanation for this. Early humans probably did select mates who had relatively greater capacities in these areas. This would explain why brain size increased so rapidly. However, the theory does not necessarily extend to recorded history. Even if this theory was once true, it does not appear to hold true anymore, because those who we consider the most successful and desirable are not producing the greatest number of offspring, and so, the traits that are being selected for future generations may be entirely different. Ironically, we may be spending our lives trying to prove we have traits which evolution is actually selecting against.

References

1) Creativity, Evolution and Mental Illnesses

2) Evolution, Creativity, and ADD

3) Sexual Selection and the Mind: A Talk with Geoffrey Miller

4) The Mating Mind: How Sexual Choice Shaped the Evolution of Human Nature

Is War Unavoidable? Name: Maria Scot Date: 2003-11-17 14:14:37 Link to this Comment: 7290

Biology 103
2003 Second Paper
On Serendip

The question that I sought to answer with this paper was whether humans are biologically destined to wage war on one another. Admittedly, something of a broad topic. It seemed to me from news headlines and various history classes over the years that wars, in general, are fought over race, ethnicity or religion. Obviously, often the divides that exist between two ethnic groups don't surface in the form of war or conflict until an issue such as territory comes up. Yet even in territory disputes, the conflict itself still is rooted in the distinction the two sides see in one another: "no, you can't share this lake with us because you look differently/speak differently/worship a different god". Race is not a voluntary trait; it is genetically determined. Ethnicity is, to some degree, a plastic concept; created by human perception of boundaries and distinctions. Religion is an identity that one actively assumes, it involves participation and the adoption of a belief system. From this, one can see that the nature of the distinction is not so important as the distinction itself being made. From this, it would be easy to slip into the assumption that all it takes is the presence of difference to incite violence between populations; but this, I think, does not give humanity enough credit. My goal in this paper is to present an argument that while perhaps inclined, humans are by no means destined to wage war on one another.

Violence and war are, by most people, considered along with reproduction to be two of humanities most fundamental instincts. People point to our bloody past as well as to the prevalence of violence among other animal to whom we are genetically similar as evidence of the futility in pursuing a peaceful future for the world. It is true that even animals such as chimps-who share 98 percent of the same genes with humans- have been known to hunt down and exterminate different groups within their own population (1). Chimps also can be sexually aggressive and violent and dominate females who otherwise would not mate with them (4). But another species, the bonobo, uses sex to deal with conflict that arises and does not often resort to violence. There is no reason that we be more like the warring chimps than the bonobo, or ideally, a nice middle ground where we rely not solely on violence or sex to resolve problems. The hamadryas baboon shows even more restraint, even though they are fond of peanuts, if one is thrown before two males, both will ignore it as it is not worth the fight that would ensue (1). Even Jane Goodall, who spent years studying the acts of chimps in their natural habitats does not feel that the violence that is part of their natures has any definitive impact on the behaviour of humans (3). What makes chimps especially interesting in terms of their behaviour towards their peers is that they do have an emotional awareness that many animals are without. It poses a question that was well articulated by Dr. Goodall, "How should we relate to beings who look into mirrors and see themselves as individuals, who mourn companions and may die of grief, who have a consciousness of 'self'? (2)" How much of the behaviour of the animals can we see as interesting and relevant to our own? While studying the behaviour of animals can perhaps provide insight into the issue of our biological predilection for death and destruction, it is also important to remember that these are monkeys and we are not.

While most countries have had wars, indeed, almost all have, that does not mean that we are destined in the future to do so. It does not mean that there is a biologic basis for war. There are inborn tendencies to defend offspring, to be territorial and these have resulted in wars, no doubt, but if there was another way to deal with those conflicts, would wars still persist? Even if there is not any compelling animalistic impulse to go to war or to hurt one another, human history would suggest that there is some compelling force that must make warfare appealing or at least appear necessary to the human mind; something that makes people regardless of location, race or nationality, prone to warring. Chris Hedges, author of 'War is A Force that Gives Us Meaning' (and incidentally, the man about to marry the mother of my little brother's best friend.) describes the appeal of war as giving "us what we long for in life. It can give us purpose, meaning, a reason for living" (1). So then it perhaps is not an impulse to wage war that is so central to the human nature, but an impulse to have a sense of meaning, a sense of self-both of which can be found on the battlefield, but not only on the battlefield. It is the process of establishing what you are by identifying and attacking those that you aren't.
There is the disturbing fact that militarism appears to have existed in roughly 95% of the societies that we know of (1). Within mane of those societies, warriors, traditionally, have been heralded as heroes (1). And yet, the militaristic prowess (or lack thereof) of many countries today is very different from their past. The Swedes have not fought a war for almost two hundred years, yet they are descended from the Vikings, who fought all the time (1). The militaristic sentiments of past generations clearly don't translate genetically to future generations, it is a matter of culture and of choice-two things that we can if not determine, then at least control.
While it would be idle to argue that there is not a side to human nature that craves conflict, it would also be inaccurate to say that our biology makes endless war inevitable. The behaviour of those animals to whom we are genetically similar-in this case primates- can provide proof for both arguments; both that we are capable of atrocities (which we already knew) and that we are capable of peaceful conflict resolution. Even now there is evidence surfacing in the form of studies that are hopeful. In particular the results of a game theory experiment in which the subjects were able to risk everything to gain more for themselves, or to settle for a lesser gain that was reliable and harmed no one else in the group. Around the world, the majority of subjects chose the latter option (1). Proving that while we are far from perfect, that it is not our fate to perpetually engage in self-destructive behaviors.

Sources
1) NYT article: 'Is War Our Biologic Destiny?'
2)Official Chimp Site of Jane Goodall
3) Jane Goodall's main page.
4) NYT article 'Are Men Necessary?...'

You Can't Smell It, But It's The Pain of Your Exis Name: Diana E. M Date: 2003-11-18 03:18:32 Link to this Comment: 7303

I sit at a bar and there is something about him that makes him different from the guy behind. I tell my friend, "Isn't he attractive?" and she says, "not in a million years!" However, I proceed to say that if I were gutsy enough I'd start a conversation with him as I find him greatly striking - despite my friend's disgust. My friend and I leave the bar and I can't help but wonder why the random attraction to equally random people. What is it abut other human beings that give us "that feeling" way before we even get a chance to know them personally? What is it that sets one person apart from the other when it comes to sexual attraction? Is it animal instinct, is it social predispositions, is it mental archetypes, or is just plain chemical? Is it all of the above? My focus of research will be on the "chemical" part, so if you're a romantic, get ready to kiss cupid goodbye. He's out of arrows and his bow is gone.

Research done on this subject has brought about the theory that sexual attraction could potentially derive from hormones called Pheromones. These are airborne, mostly odorless chemicals that alter sexual behavior, mark territory, and influence reproduction throughout the animal kingdom. But whether humans send and receive "sex chemicals" is a hot and bothered topic. Recent studies suggest that chemicals emanating from our pores do affect the behavior and biochemistry of others. Fragrance companies have caught "whiff" of this research, and the Internet abounds with products sporting names such as "Primal Instinct" or "Rogue Male" promising to make you an irresistible sex magnet(5)
While many scientists believe that human pheromones exist, they disagree about whether they have identified any specific chemical compound that causes other humans to react to it in a specific way. In the popular understanding, pheromones cause an instinctual, almost automatic sexual response, which scientists call a "releaser" effect. That effect is well studied in animals, but has never been observed in humans. Nevertheless, fragrance companies are focusing -- and funding -- research concerning pheromones' potential for sexual arousal. (1) We know that animals have signaling chemicals that induce sexual behaviors. For example, a male pig secretes the pheromone androstenone in his saliva, and when the female "smells" it, she goes into a mating stance. If humans do produce pheromones, the underarm is where we might do so, with its many glands and its proximity to a companion's nose. Our sebaceous glands secrete a clear liquid that becomes mixed with thousands of odorless compounds oozing from other glands. Bacteria on our skin break down those compounds into volatile molecules, both odoriferous and odorless, producing an "odor print" as unique as our fingerprints. Any pheromones among them would drift into our companion's nasal passage and stimulate specialized but still elusive receptors. Finding those receptors will resolve the dispute about whether humans have a "vomeronasal organ" - devoted to sensing pheromones, as many other animals do, or whether pheromone receptors are interspersed with olfactory receptors in the nasal passage.(4)

George Preti, an organic chemist at the Monell Chemical Senses Center in Philadelphia, first began researching this topic in the 1980s in collaboration with Winnefred Cutler of the University of Pennsylvania's psychology department. They hoped to explain the observation that women living together fall into menstrual synchrony, a finding made in 1971 by Martha McClintock, a leading pheromone researcher at the University of Chicago. Preti and Cutler discovered that women exposed to just the underarm extracts of other women adjusted their menstrual cycles to be in synch, and that male underarm extracts made women with irregular cycles more regular. They hypothesized that those underarm extracts must contain pheromones, because the effects could not be explained in any other way, and they were consistent with the way pheromones function in other mammals. (1)Recently, it has been reported that male underarm extracts can affect the cycles of a specific reproductive hormone in women. Those extracts also affected the mood of women, making them calmer and more relaxed. On the other hand, a 2001 study conducted with males by researchers at the University of Texas, described the smell of a woman's T-shirt as more "sexy" or "pleasant" during the fertile stage of her menstrual cycle than the shirt of the same woman during her infertile stage. (3) The reasoning behind both these tests is that two compounds with mixed reputation as pheromones - androstadienone, (AND) and estratetraenol (EST) and copulins - were at play. AND is a derivative of testosterone, EST is a poorly understood relative of estrogen and copuline is a strictly female substance, which is found in human vaginal secretions. (has been shown to both elevate male testosterone levels - directly linked to increased sex drive - and positively affect perceptions of female attractiveness in targeted males )Could AND and EST be human pheromones? Some scientists are ready to say yes, because these chemicals considerately changed brain patterns as detected by EEGs, functional MRIs, and PET scans, and induce mood changes. (2) However, it needs to be noted, and not overlooked that those results were obtained from solutions of pure compounds with a thousand times the concentration found in humans.

These studies, however, did not examine physiological or biochemical changes and critics contend that the data did not support those conclusions. They point to inconsistencies with the numbers and to the small sample sizes and short time period of the studies. But the biggest problem is that the experiment can't be replicated because the chemical composition of what was being tested is unknown. Nonetheless, pheromone research is reshaping the fragrance industry, indicating that the romance of scent is not just the fragrance you put on your skin, but also the chemicals that are coming out of your pores. Still, there are so many factors affecting human communication that if pheromones do play a part, it isn't the main part.
So, I did end up developing the courage to approach this non-descriptive male at the bar and I proceeded to have the most obtuse conversation possible. The physical attraction remained, but anything else flew out the window of the bar as quickly as I realized my friend's phrase, "not in a million years," was exactly right. There was absolutely nothing interesting about him, nothing that fit my intellectual needs, nothing that suited my ideas of a good partner, of a possible good dad, or even less a possible "show and tell" prospect for my Thanksgiving dinner. So what happened? Well, the pheromones apparently played a role in awakening my sexual desire towards another member of my species, but it certainly did not do the trick of actually following it up. Therefore, when need be, put the blame for your failed relationships where it truly belongs or if you still remain a romantic blame cupid for his deplorable aim.

References:

1), M. Delude, Cathryn Looking for love potion number nine: Scientists and perfumers are searching for the chemical scent that drives humans wild, The Boston Globe, Published by The Globe Newspaper Company, September 2, 2003
2 2), Kaufman, Kasey Pheromones at First Sniff, WBZ4 News Report,
3 3), Lee, Scarlett Pheromones: The Olfactory Love Letter, Varsity Science and Technology.
4 4), Pines, May, A Secret Sense in the Human Nose: Pheromones and Mammals, Seeing, Hearing and Smelling The World, A Report From the Howard Hughes Medical Institute
5 5), Pheromone fragrances

Are Genetics Responsible for Allergies? A Study In Name: Melissa Te Date: 2003-12-03 17:30:15 Link to this Comment: 7450

Biology 103
2003 Second Paper
On Serendip

Everyone has either suffered from some kind of allergy, or knows somebody who has suffered from allergies. Allergies are the source of irritating symptoms, ranging from a painless skin rash to life-threatening breathing problems. For years, researchers have been trying to find out the source of these allergies. Some have suggested that environmental factors or early exposure to certain foods can cause allergies later in life, while others say that allergies are caused by genetics. To test the latter theory, many researchers study identical twins to see if sets of twins share allergies. If both twins were to share a particular allergy, than this may prove that allergies are genetic.

To completely understand the remainder of this essay, one must understand the difference between identical twins and fraternal twins. Twin zygosity is the genetic relationship of twins. There are two types of twins: monozygotic twins, also known as identical twins, and dizygotic twins, also known as fraternal twins. Identical twins have exactly identical DNA strands; they are same sex and they have very similar physical traits. They come from one egg that is fertilized by one sperm. Some time after conception, the egg splits resulting in two babies. Fraternal twins only have half identical DNA; that is, only one strand of the double-stranded DNA is the same. They come from two individual eggs that are fertilized by two individual sperms. They are either same sex or different sex, and are just like siblings of same parents born at different times. There are other kinds of twins as well; for example, "mirror-image twins," "polar body twins," and "half-identical twins." These names refer to the time that the egg splits in identical twins. This essay, however, will deal with only identical and fraternal twins (5). The question now is, Are identical twins allergic to the same things? Since identical twins have exactly identical DNA, the sharing of allergies can shed some light on the role of genetics in allergies.

All sorts of food allergies affect eight percent of children and two percent of adults in the United States. Allergic reactions happen because one's immune system overreacts to regular foods that are ordinarily harmless to the general population (7). An allergy affecting many children and adults recently in the United States is an allergy to peanuts. In the last few years, tremendous amounts of people have developed this allergy, which seems, in most cases, to be very severe. To be exact, scientists estimate that three million Americans are at risk at having an allergic reaction to peanuts (7). In the past, some have said that the allergy is caused by early exposure to peanuts, either in early childhood or during prenatal stages. Now, many researchers say that a gene causes this allergy.

A study was done on 58 pairs of twins, consisting of 44 pairs of fraternal twins and 14 pairs of identical twins. In every set of twins, at least one of the two had a convincing history of a peanut allergy. The twins were observed for signs of allergic reaction, including hives, wheezing, repetitive coughing, vomiting and diarrhea, within sixty minutes of eating peanuts. The results were as such: 65 percent of the identical twins shared the allergy, while only seven percent of the fraternal twins shared it (3).

Something interesting found was that the allergic symptoms among individual sets of twins could vary. For example, one twin may have a skin rash, while the other twin may experience asthma in reaction to the peanuts. These variations may be attributed to early exposure, environmental factors, infections, medications, and so on (1).

Because of these results, Mt. Sinai School of Medicine claims that genetics accounts for 81.6 percent of the risk of peanut allergy (3). Similarly, a group of British researchers say that, considering genetic and environmental factors, the allergy is inherited 82 to 87 percent of the time. They also say that when ignoring the genetic factors, that percentage drops to 18.99 percent (7).

In response to this study, a professor of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology at the University of Arkansas Medical School is in the process of creating an allergy-free peanut by genetic engineering (3). If this allergy is, in fact, genetic, then this may be a wonderful alternative to those suffering from the allergy.

Food allergies are not the only types of allergies affecting most people. Asthma is, at times, a severe allergy that causes problems in the airways of the lungs. When one has an asthma attack, the muscles surrounding the airways contract, the walls of the airways swell, and mucus is produced inside the airways, all making it very difficult for air to pass through while breathing. This attack can be caused by animal hair, colds or infections, dust, mold, pollen, cigarette smoke, or even weather, exercise and air pollution. Researchers used to think that asthma was solely caused by environmental factors, for example air quality, but now they are considering the effect of genetics as well. A study took place in Arizona involving 344 families. From families where neither parents had a history of asthma, only six percent of children suffered from asthma. In families where one parents suffered from the condition, only 20 percent of children suffered as well. And in families where both parents had asthma, 60 percent of the children had asthma as well. This shows that there is a strong link between asthma and genes (8).

In another study, the Department of Biological Psychology at Vrije Universiteit in Amsterdam studied 3600 pairs of twins from the Netherlands. Those observed consisted of pairs of identical and fraternal twins, all five years of age. The researchers had the parents fill out a questionnaire inquiring of the following: a) the presence of wheezing and coughing in the last twelve months, and b) if the twin children were ever diagnosed with asthma, allergies, hay fever, eczema, bronchitis, or pneumonia. They found that 50 to 80 percent of the time, identical twins shared allergies. However, fraternal twins shared allergies only 25 to 40 percent of the time, which is half of the results of the identical twins (2).

In Australia, the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council Twin Registry studied 3808 pairs of fraternal and identical twins. The twins were of all ages, from children to adults, and were being observed for asthma, wheezing and hay fever. The results were similar to the last study; 65 percent of the identical twins shared allergies whereas only 25 percent of the fraternal twins shared allergies (6).

Another study was done hypothesizing that genetics and environment were both very involved in suffering from asthma. Of 84 sets of twins, at least one of the two had a history of asthma. Among the 84 pairs, 39 pairs were identical twins and 55 pairs were fraternal twins. The study showed that among the identical twins, both twins suffered from asthma 59 percent of the time; and among the fraternal twins, both twins suffered from the condition only 24 percent of the time. When looking at the results of the identical twins, they show that 41 percent of the time only one of the two will get asthma. This neither proves that genetics are the main factor nor that the environment is the main factor, but instead that both genetics and the environment are large roles in developing the condition of asthma (8).

The National Jewish Medical and Research Center has been observing identical and fraternal twin children to see if there is a correlation between children with severe allergies and behavioral problems. The behaviors that they are most concerned about are aggressiveness, depression and irritability. The study wants to see if the behaviors are problems because allergies are a nuisance for the children, or if the behaviors and allergies are linked genetically. The Center observed 200 twin children between the years of three and eleven. They found more of a correlation between the allergies and the behaviors among the identical twins than among the fraternal twins. Their claim is that allergies and behavioral problems are both genetic and linked. In fact, they say that genetics accounts for over 70 percent of the relationship between allergies and aggressive behavior. If this is true, then children with allergies may have a higher chance of having behavior problems as well. More so, a genetic link may potentially lead to a treatment for both allergies and behavior problems (4).

All of these studies have tested for the same thing, whether or not allergies are genetic. The results are not exact, but one thing is in common: allergies among identical twins, who have identical DNA strands, are shared more often than among fraternal twins, who have only one strand of DNA in common. The percentages of the results for identical twins are clearly not 100 percent. Some may say that the results are close enough to 100 percent to say that genetics are the cause, while others may say that it is not close enough to make any definite conclusions on the matter. Perhaps a more involved study should take place, one that involves extensive research on each specific kind of allergy among twins. Maybe it is possible for some allergies to be genetic while others may be products of environment, diseases, and so on. In short, all of these cases suggest that genetics may have something to do with allergies, but at this point, that is all that it is: a suggestion. The important thing is to know that genetics and the environment could potentially be the main factors in developing allergies; so if one twin in a set has an allergy, it is a good idea to have the other twin evaluated just in case.

References

1)Twins and Allergies
2)A Study of Asthma and Allergies
3)Genes Cause Most Peanut Allergies
4)Genetic Link
5)Proactive Genetics Inc.
6)Entrez-PubMed
7)AAAAI Patients and Consumers Center
8)Asthma and Genetics

"WAYS OF KNOWING, MODES OF ACTING": THE THERAPEU Name: Anna Katri Date: 2003-12-04 07:47:23 Link to this Comment: 7459

Biology 103
2003 Second Paper
On Serendip

THE LANGUAGE OF PERFORMANCE:
ENGAGING THE SPECTATOR IN INTELLECTUAL
INTERCOURSE WITH THE SPECTACLE

Life, as it is represented through various media, has a brainwashing effect on the spectator: he consumes a fabricated world rather than producing one of his own. The unconscious is constantly repressed, while the conscious is force fed images which basely appeal to the controlled linear processes of the brain. Psychiatrist C.G. Jung writes:

"The source of numerous psychic disturbances and difficulties occasioned by man's progressive alienation from his instinctual foundation, i.e., by his uprootedness and identification with his conscious knowledge of himself, by his concern with consciousness at the expense of the unconscious. The result is that modern man can know himself only in so far as he can become conscious of himself--his consciousness therefor orients itself chiefly by observing and investigating the world around him, and it is to its peculiarities that he must adapt his psychic and technical resources. This task is so exacting, and its fulfillment so advantageous, that he forgets himself in the process, losing sight of his instinctual nature and putting his own conception of himself in place of his real being. In this way he slips imperceptibly into a purely conceptual world where the products of his conscious activity progressively replace reality. Separation from his instinctual nature inevitably plunges civilized man into the conflict between conscious and unconscious, spirit and nature, knowledge and faith, a split that becomes pathological the moment his consciousness is no longer able to neglect or suppress his instinctual side." (1)

The prozac world we inhabit is a direct result of doctors eager to "fix" or "cure" disorders through administering prescription drugs. These drugs don't cure diseases, but rather numb their symptoms; the patient acts their daily ritual of dealing with life in a zombie like trance instead of confronting the horror, terror, and chaos essential to the Nature of the world so as to better understand the self and the self's place in it. It's easier to turn off the receptors that trigger emotions, ideas, or urges we don't like facing than to explore their origin. This method of treatment is not only dangerous, but frightening, because it threatens the very existence of humanity by crippling the self's internal communication necessary to forming individual identity. This calls for a radical change in the medical health care system (2)); where responsibility is placed on doctors to approach a patient's psychosis on equal ground with the rational consciousness which seeks to diagnose and treat it, while challenging patients to reject the petrified idea that the mysterious depths of our selves and our relationship to the world are somehow limited by the frontiers of language and reality.

The biological duality of theater as both a place and an art form (10) consisting of live representations which require the player and spectator to be present in the space and to each other, simultaneously triggers an autonomous unconscious reaction within the spectator's self--which, I argue, is a psychological process of renewal or rebirth of the spectator's spirit resulting from the exploration and emergence in the depths of theatrical ecstasy. The spectator consciously allows himself to entertain the psychotic idea and virtual reality of the spectacle: essentially, he capitulates himself to madness (8).

"The stage is a concrete physical place which asks to be filled, and to be given its own concrete language to speak. I say that this concrete language, intended for the senses and independent of speech, has first to satisfy the senses, that there is a poetry of the senses as there is a poetry of language, and that this concrete physical language to which I refer is truly theatrical only to the degree that the thoughts it expresses are beyond the reach of the spoken language. These thoughts are what words cannot express and which, far more than words, would find their ideal expression in the concrete physical language of the stage. It consists of everything that occupies the stage, everything that can be manifested and expressed materially on a stage and that is addressed first of all to the senses instead of being addressed primarily to the mind as is the language of words...creating beneath language a subterranean current of impressions, correspondences, and analogies. This poetry of language, poetry in space will be resolved precisely in the domain which does not belong strictly to words...Means of expression utilizable on the stage, such as music, dance, plastic art, pantomime, mimicry, gesticulation, intonation, architecture, lighting, and scenery...The physical possibilities of the stage offers, in order to substitute, for fixed forms of art, living and intimidating forms by which the sense of old ceremonial magic can find a new reality in the theater; to the degree that they yield to what might be called the physical temptation of the stage. Each of these means has its own intrinsic poetry."
(3) -Antonin Artaud, 'The Theater And Its Double'

Drawing from the Homeopathic Law of Similars (4) and Jung's statement that a schizophrenic is no longer schizophrenic when he feels understood by someone else (1) -- I nurture the idea that an entertainment of the very "madness" that afflicts the self and is essential to Artaud's organic theater, both illuminates the spectator's understanding of himself and his relationship to the world around him; and provides the self with a "safe" space to indulge the non rationality of language and culture, seeking understanding and therapeutic regeneration through the sacred kinship of player and spectator communicating via the language of gesture and symbolism. Active (whether conscious or unconscious) indulgence in the delusional reality and fantasy of the spectacle frees the spectator's instinctive impulses and challenges his archetypes (8). The result is a fascinating method of communication and web-like interplay between the spectator and player, the spectator and the spectacle, and the spectator's unconscious and conscious being; a suspension of the normal communicative, analytical, and articulative limitations of the brain to allow for understanding from reflection of self in space.

The unconscious, explained in Freudian terms (5), is the source of our motivations, desires, drives, and primitive instincts. It includes all things that are not easily available to awareness, housing those experiences that we cannot bear to consciously confront, which might result from a trauma of sorts. In our lives we are driven to deny and resist these motives, which makes them inaccessible to the conscious state of mind one normally occupies. It is difficult, if not impossible to know what's "in" our unconscious by thinking about it. The unconscious appears to us in a disguised or fragmented form (6), lacking the coherency or controlled linear processes central to the conscious. True theater, as Artaud describes (3), is organic in nature and boundless in time and space, breaking the barrier of language to create the psychologically disastrous void (9) that suspends all normal limitations of the player and spectator to make them see the world in the most abstract, mystical sense. Freedom from the constraints of self and "being" leaves the spectator present and open to the player for communication in the space, resulting in an exploration of the very nature of the unconscious. The abandonment of conscious existence from the world outside the theatrical performance requires the spectator to adopt the language of the space, living in the theatrical dialogue of gesture, movement, music, and dance; while actively engaging the senses in an open awareness of and communication with the various hieroglyphs, symbols, and sign systems used to communicate the play's larger metaphysical concepts. The biological boundlessness of this theater creates an atmosphere of decadent danger for the spectator. For the player to conjure a virtual reality, she must forge a sacred connection with the bodily presence of the spectator. This relationship has the potential to turn disastrous (9) for the spectator, as it is a delicate balance of mutual understanding for the purpose of knowledge (1). As master of the unknown, the player brings that which "does not yet exist into being" (3). Thus, she seduces the spectator into sensory intercourse, "sacrificing his own individuality so that it may be assimilated by that of the other" (1) --energizing the physical space through the absorption of the spectator. The cruel nature of the spectacle (3) manifests in the empty space of the spectator's mind. Bedazzled, mystified, terrified, and tempted by the disaster (9): the spectator undergoes an exorcism, loosing all power over his conscious Other, to essentially "die without disappearing" (3), subjected to the depths of the spectacle.

The language of the spectacle is the same as the language of dreams: in Lacan terms, it is the ultimate "language of the Self" (7), and a form of internal communication. The content of the dream reveals ideals, aspirations, ambitions, notions of perfection--all of which are in conflict with, or illuminate the dreamer's tension with the external world. Therefor, the dreamscape of the spectacle gives voice to the repressed ideals of the spectator which clash with cultural reality. The spectator "finds himself living in a psychic modality quite different from his surroundings. He is immersed in a myth world ... His emotions no longer connect with ordinary things, but drop into concerns and titanic involvements with an entire inner world of myth and image. Once lived through on this mythic plane, and once the process of withdrawal nears its end, the reconnection to the specific individual problems must again be encountered and worked upon. The archetypal affect-images await a kind of reinsertion into their natural context in the complexes, and their projective involvements in outer life" (8). As the spectator encounters the shadows of the images produced in the now empty space, he reclaims and reorganizes his self. Forced to confront the ideas, and motivations generated by the spectacle, the individual begins to make process in conquering his own performance anxieties in everyday life.

References

Works Cited:
1) Jung, C.G. The Undiscovered Self. The New American Library: New York, 1957. pp., 64, 92. An excellent introduction to modern psychiatry, Jung was a pioneer (with Freud) in exploring the conscious and unconscious aspects of the human psyche.

2Paul Grobstein, 'Psychoanalysis, Neuroscience, and Evolution'; Course forum area, on the Serendip web site, Provocative insights and dialogue in response to how "psychoanalysis and neuroscience can work together to improve the mental healthcare system." Explores using theater as a form of therapy, specifically the relationship between spectacle and spectator.

3) Artaud, Antonin. The Theater And Its Double. Grove Press: New York, 1958. pp., 13, 36-8. The figurehead of the avant garde theater movement, Artaud's manifesto claims the nature of the spectacle as magical and terrifying; space that speaks a language of gesture and symbols capable of transcending man beyond the limits of reality. One of the greatest books of all time, it serves as proof of the madness essential to genius.

4The Law of Similars, Homeopathic medicine is a natural alternative to conventional healthcare. Illnesses are treated in a manner which seeks to understand the phenomenon, treating the body and mind as a whole, restoring its balance and harmony without prescription drugs.

The Homeopathic Law of Similars:
The principle that like shall be cured by like, or Similia similibus curantur. This principle, recognized by physicians and philosophers since ancient times, became the basis of Hahnemann's formulation of the homeopathic doctrine: the proper remedy for a patient's disease is that substance that is capable of producing, in a healthy person, symptoms similar to those from which the patient suffers.
In other words, a substance produces symptoms of illness in a well person when administered in large doses; if we administer the same substance in minute quantities, it will cure the disease in a sick person. Hahnemann suggested that this is because nature will not allow two similar diseases to exist in the body at the same time. Thus homeopaths will introduce a similar artificial disease into the body which will push the original one out. The dose is small so that there is no danger of any long term side effects.

5)Dr. C. George Boeree's Personality Theories, A resourceful site presentation of Freudian Theory.

6)Psychoanalysis & Sigmund Freud, Another Freud site, but more pertinent to the discussion of: dreams, displacement, the repressed, the unconscious, and sublimation.

7)Montage, Realism, and the Act of Vision, A lengthy, but fantastic excerpt discussing the psychoanalyses of Jacques Lacan, his idea of the "fragmented body," and the necessity for symbolization in the Nature vs. Culture realm.

8) Robert Couteau's review of John Weir Perry's The Far Side of Madness, Out of the four psychoanalyses offered in this paper, Perry's radical theories on hysteria, schizophrenia, and other behavioral disorders deserve careful attention. He believes mental disorders spring from the patient's pre psychotic personalities, and that during psychosis the patient creates and enacts a drama in a fragmented language of myth and symbolism.

9) Blanchot, Maurice. The Writing of the Disaster. New Edition. University of Nebraska Press: 1995. pp., 1-8, 58-9. A great philosopher of Fragmentation of the self and world, and the Nature of the Disaster which plunges the self into the void. For Blanchot, the disaster solves everything.

10) McAuley, Gay. Space in Performance: Making Meaning in the Theatre. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor: 1999. pp., 7, 40, 92, 107. One of the heaviest influences on this paper-- the idea of performance space, space in performance, spectacle and spectator, and the importance of a performative language which transcends the play's text in creating the theatrical spectacle. McAuley notes the twisted psychology involved in a player's "conning" the spectator along for the theatrical joy-ride.

Additional Sources:

11)Sue Broadhurst's "Liminal Aesthetics", An intriguing essay on the "aesthetic theorizations" of philosophers and playwrights with regard to experimental theater, or "liminal performance," which the author defines as "being located at the edge of what is possible."

12)Victor Grauer's "Montage, Realism, and the Act of Vision".

13) Richard van Oort's "Performative- Constative Revisited: The Genetics of Austin's Theory of Speech Acts".

14)Art and Pain Abstracts. Estelle Barrett, "Reconciling Difference: Art as Reparation and Healing.

Social Anxiety Name: Paula Andr Date: 2003-12-11 19:33:10 Link to this Comment: 7511

Biology 103
2003 Second Paper
On Serendip

Social Anxiety

A woman hates to stand in line in the grocery store because she's afraid that everyone is watching her. She knows that it's not really true, but she can't shake the feeling. While she is shopping, she is conscious of the fact that people might be staring at her from the big mirrors on the inside front of the ceiling. Now, she has to talk to the person who's checking out her groceries. She tries to smile, but her voice comes out weakly. She's sure she's making a fool of herself. Her self-consciousness and anxiety rise to the roof...(Richards 1) (1).

A student won't attend her university classes on the first day because she knows that in some classes the professor will instruct them to go around the room and introduce themselves. Just thinking about sitting there, waiting to introduce herself to a roomful of strangers who will be staring at her makes her feel nauseous. She knows she won't be able to think clearly because her anxiety will be so high, and she is sure she will leave out important details...The anxiety is just too much to bear---so she skips the first day of class to avoid the possibility of having to introduce herself in class... (Richards 2) (2).

These are just two examples of how people who suffer from social anxiety disorder feel about social situations and everyday interactions. Their fears can be paralyzing.

Social anxiety disorder is the third largest psychological problem in the United States. It affects approximately 15 million Americans every year. It is a widely misunderstood disorder, where nearly 90% of people with social anxiety disorder are misdiagnosed. They are often misdiagnosed with schizophrenia, manic-depression, clinical depression, panic disorder, and or personality disorder (Richards 1-3). Misdiagnosis and undertreatment of anxiety disorders, according to "The Economic Burden of Anxiety Disorders," a study commissioned by the ADAA, costs the United States more than $42 billion a year and more than $22.84 billion is linked to the repeated use of healthcare services for symptoms that mimic physical illness. In addition, people with anxiety disorder are three-to-five times more likely to go to the doctor and six times more likely to be hospitalized for psychiatric disorders when compared to those who do not suffer from anxiety disorders ("Brief Overview of Anxiety Disorders" 2) (3).

Social anxiety disorder can be defined as the persistent fear of one or more social or performance situations in which the person is exposed to unfamiliar people or to possible scrutiny by others, and where exposure to such situations provokes anxiety. People who suffer from social anxiety avoid or endure with severe anxiety or distress these much-feared situations. The avoidance, anxious anticipation, or distress in the social or performance situation interferes tremendously with the person's normal routine at work, in school, during social activities, and/or in relationships. Although people who suffer from social anxiety disorder recognize that this fear is unreasonable or excessive, they cannot merely will themselves to stop having these unreasonable or excessive preoccupations. Because social anxiety disorder has only been officially recognized since 1980, and since the problem did not become adequately explained until 1987, the definition is contestable, and not totally accurate ("DSM—IV Definition of Social Anxiety Disorder 1-2) (4).

The causes for social anxiety disorder are not fully known. They continue to be investigated and researched. However and according to the National Institute of Mental Health, some investigations implicate a small structure in the brain called the amygdala. The amygdala is a central site in the brain that controls fear responses. Activity at this site may be linked/responsible for social anxiety symptoms. Social anxiety symptoms include heart palpitations, faintness, blushing, and profuse sweating. Other investigations are trying to explore whether there is a biochemical basis for the disorder. Scientists are exploring whether heightened sensitivity to disapproval may be physiologically or hormonally based. Lastly, other researchers are investigating environmental influences on the development of social phobia ("National Institute of Mental Health--Facts about Social Phobia" 1) (5).

Although more research needs to be done regarding the causes and the characteristics that define social anxiety disorder, several treatment options are available. Social anxiety disorder can be treated with medication, psychotherapy, or both. A number of medications originally prescribed for the treatment of depression are now being used to treat anxiety disorders. They are selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and monoamine oxidase inhibitors. Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors act on the brain on a chemical messenger called serotonin; they tend to have fewer side effects than older antidepressants. Monoamine oxidase inhibitors are the oldest of the antidepressant medications; phenelzine, the most commonly prescribed MAOI, is helpful for people with panic disorder and social anxiety disorder. Meanwhile, high potency benzodiazepines and beta-blockers are specifically used as anti-anxiety medications. High potency benzodiazepines are used to relieve the symptoms caused by anxiety. They have few side effects but can be addictive. They are prescribed for short periods of time. Beta-blockers, often used to treat heart conditions, have been found to be useful for patients suffering from social anxiety disorder. They may be prescribed in advance of a situation that would produce anxiety like an oral presentation in order to keep anxiety related symptoms such as heart pounding, shaking hands, and other physical symptoms from developing ("National Institute for Mental Health—Anxiety Disorders" 9-10) (6).

Although medication may be very helpful and useful for the treatment of social anxiety disorder, cognitive behavioral therapy seems to be very effective and useful. The goal of cognitive behavioral therapy is to reduce anxiety by eliminating beliefs or behaviors that help maintain the anxiety disorder. Cognitive behavioral therapy has two components. The cognitive component helps people change thinking patterns that keep them from overcoming their fears. The behavioral component of CBT seeks to change people's reactions to anxiety provoking situations, exposure being an integral element in the behavioral component. Exposure is a technique used to help people suffering from anxiety disorders confront the things they fear. For example, when using the exposure technique, a person with social phobia may be encouraged to spend time in feared social situations without giving in to the temptation to flee. However, the exposure technique of CBT will only be used when the patient is ready. It cannot be done without the patient's consent. In order for the exposure technique to be effective, it must be done gradually and with permission. In order for cognitive behavioral therapy to be most effective, it must be catered to the person's specific anxieties. CBT usually lasts about twelve weeks. It is sometimes conducted in a group, with permission of course, and the positive effects are noted to last longer, upon discontinuing therapy, when compared to medication ("National Institute for Mental Health—Anxiety Disorders" 11-12) (7).

Social anxiety disorder is still widely and seriously misunderstood both by the medical world and by society in general. It is very important not only to medically and scientifically be able to obtain more information on social anxiety disorder, how it develops, and how it can be treated, but, it is equally as important to make this information accessible to a larger community. Information alone cannot educate people about what this disorder looks like and what people who suffer from social anxiety feel and think, but it is one step in a larger process. Social anxiety, like several other mental health related disorders, carries a stigma, which can only be dismantled if people are forced to recognize that these disorders exist and that they can be treated. In general, people need to learn to understand that people can overcome social anxiety. Overcoming social anxiety or learning how to live with it is a difficult task, but it is possible to live a "normal" life. Although it is more important for people who suffer from social anxiety disorder to be convinced that overcoming this disorder and its stifling effects are possible, it is equally as important for a larger audience to be aware that this disorder exists.

References

1)What is Social Anxiety ,

2)What is Social Anxiety ,

3) Brief Overview of Anxiety Disorders ,

4) Diagnostic Statistical Manual—IV Definition of Anxiety Disorder,

5) Facts about Social Phobia ,

6)Anxiety Disorders,

7)Anxiety Disorders,

The third leading cause of death amongst teenagers Name: Ramatu Kal Date: 2003-12-13 01:50:55 Link to this Comment: 7521

Did you know that suicide is currently the third leading cause of death among teenagers in the United States? (4). In 1992, more teenagers and young adults died from suicide than those who died from stroke, cancer, heart disease, AIDS, birth defects, pneumonia, influenza and chronic lung disease combined
(4). Suicide is definitely a compelling problem amongst youth in the U.S today.

It is estimated that 300 to 400 teen suicides occur per year in Los Angeles County; which is equivalent to one teenager lost every day (1). Many concerned people ask, "What is going on?" and "Why is this happening?" Among many things, some suicidal youths experience family trouble, which leads them, to doubt their self-worth and make them feel unwanted, superfluous, and misunderstood. According to one study, 90 percent of suicidal teenagers believed their families did not understand them. Young people reported that when they tried to tell their parents about their feelings of unhappiness or failure, their mother and father denied or ignored their point of view
(1). Suicide can be prevented; in fact, suicide prevention has saved over ten percent of teens who have tried to attempt suicide (1). In this paper I will prove that although, suicide is a serious epidemic amongst teens in the U.S., it can also be prevented.

"I'm depressed." You might say it casually to refer to sadness that engulfs you and then goes away. But depression is also a mental health illness that may require help from an experienced professional(1). Depression has been considered to be the leading cause of teen suicide in the 20th century, affecting approximately eight million teens in North America (2). Recent studies show that greater than 20% of adolescents in the general population, have emotional problems and one-third of adolescents attending psychiatric clinics suffer from depression (2). Being a young person in today's world is no easy task, they have to deal with increasingly difficult decisions and pressures every day. Tragically, young people feel they are not able to cope, that there is no one who either cares enough or is able to help them cope with their worries. They become desperate enough to take their own lives.

Some teens, who have committed suicide because of depression, come from homes with family problems. "Families who use guilt as a means of controlling behavior, make talking honestly and directly, difficult for the teen." (2). Too often parents and other adults criticize the child rather than the behavior. Apparent loss of love contributes to the risk of suicide. This was true in the suicide case of Katja Lewis, who committed suicide at the young age of 19. "Katja was a young woman, searching for the answers, always unsure of herself, looking for love but never seeming to find it . Katja, decided life was no more worth living, on Tuesday, September 30th 1997; when she took an overdose of anti-depressants and left this world sometime around 3 a.m. She never saw the sun rise again, and she never will. (3).

Divorce, the formation of a new family with step-parents and step-siblings, or a move to a new community can be stressful and can build up self-doubts. In some cases, suicide appears to be a "solution." Seventeen-year-old Charles Burnes committed suicide just two months after his parents divorced. It was said he was never the same after his parents divorce. He began to slowly withdraw from society until one day he gave up and ended his life. (2).

These two stories above are just some of the many suicide cases sweeping the country everyday. Each year, more than 400,000 teenagers attempt suicide and more than half of that number actually commits suicide. People might ask, "What can we do to prevent this epidemic?" There are many things we as individuals can do to help our friends, husbands, and family members who might be thinking about suicide.

There are many ways teen suicide can be prevented. Psychologists say that parents who feel that their child is suicidal or troubled should ask him or her to talk about their feelings. The parent should reassure them that they are loved, and remind them that no matter how awful their problems seem, they can be worked out. Listen carefully. Do not dismiss. The important thing is to pay attention. Encourage them to talk. Listen. Be on their side. Reassure without dismissing. (1). It is very important to talk to someone who might be contemplating suicide. Do not accuse people of being suicidal, listen and let them do most of the talking. The important thing to do is to continue to listen to the person who is suicidal, "Bringing up the question of suicide and discussing it without showing shock or disapproval is one of the most helpful things you can do. This openness shows that you are taking the individual seriously and responding to the severity of his or her distress" (2).

Suicide is a problem affecting many teenagers today. Often teens are depressed and do not know who or where to turn, so they find comfort in killing themselves. Family issues can be sufficiently overwhelming. Some teens feel they cannot handle life. As a result, they hurt themselves to revel how much they are hurting inside. It does not seem right that a teenager who has lived for such a short time would choose to die. Suicide doesn't have to happen. Teens need to feel wanted, and to find someone in whom they can confide. It's important that teens who are suicidal seek help from someone who will help them realize that there is so much more to life, than trying to end it. As we can see here, suicide is definitely an epidemic affecting millions of people in general. If someone you know is thinking about suicide, make sure you find the best way to help them, that might even mean seeking some form of counseling.

Below are some useful facts about teen suicide:

Teen Suicide Fact
Each year 500,000 young adults, aged 15 to 25, attempt suicide.
Each year 5,000 young adults succeed.
Suicide is the third leading cause of death among 15 to 25 year olds.
Suicide is the sixth leading cause of death among 5 to 14 year olds.
Young adult males succeed a suicide almost two times as often as any other group.
Without treatment, of those who attempt suicide, 80 percent are likely to try again.
Teen depression almost always leads to suicidal thoughts.

While the above teen suicide facts are astounding, here are some positives about teen depression and suicide:
The number one cause of teen suicide is untreated depression.
Most suicidal teens respond positively to psychotherapy and medication.
Nearly 90 percent of depressed people benefit from medication.
Those contemplating suicide can be "talked out of it."

WWW Sources

1)Teen depression homepage, a rich resource on how to prevent teen suicide

2)Teen depression homepage, a rich resource on causes of suicide.

3)Teen depression homepage, a personal story on teen suicide

4)Teen depression homepage,facts about suicide

Menstrual Synchrony Name: Julia Wise Date: 2003-12-13 20:48:46 Link to this Comment: 7523

Biology 103
2003 Second Paper
On Serendip

Generations of women have noticed it: you and your sister, or your roommate, or lover, or mom, get your periods at the same time. It doesn't always happen, but it catches the attention when it does. Female rats living in the same air space ovulate at the same time. Menstruation in monkeys synchronizes with the full moon (7). So is it all in our heads, or is the same pattern present in humans?

The clearest argument against the existence of menstrual synchrony is that since the length of the menstrual cycle varies from person to person (2), two women with different cycle lengths will never synchronize. They may menstruate at the same time, but the next month they will be a little different, the next month more different, and so on. By this argument, synchrony is simply a myth.

I cannot believe this argument, since it assumes that menstruation can be graphed and analyzed like a sine wave. Human bodies rarely adhere to perfectly timed schedules. Many women have irregular periods, and the regularity of the menstrual cycle changes at different stages of life (3). So if a woman with a cycle of 25 days and another with cycle of 28 days live together, they might both shift to a cycle of 26 or 27 days. In this way, synchronization would still be quite possible.

So if this phenomenon does exist, what explanation can there be for it? One theory is that lunar cycles may have some connection to the pattern. At first this makes some sense, since both cycles happen about thirteen times each year. A study on the Dogon people of Mali found that although they had no electricity and spent most nights outdoors, thus being as likely as anyone to be affected by the light of the moon, menstrual cycles among the Dogon did not match up to any lunar phase. Another theory
was that synchronization might be due to the same factor that causes pendulum clocks near each other to tick at the same time. This was later shown to be purely mechanical, though, with the swinging of the heaviest pendulum merely rocking the shelf a little and throwing off the beat of other clocks (1).

The most likely theory is some kind of hormone change. Women's menstrual cycles respond to contact with men, becoming shorter and more regular. So rather than a mechanical synchronization, like pendulum clocks, the cause is more likely chemical. In 1971, Martha McClintock published a study about the 135 women in her dorm at Wellesley College. She found that the synchronization of menstruation between roommates and close friends did increase after the women began living together. McClintock's explanation was pheromones. She co-authored a followup experiment, exposing women to chemical compounds from the armpits of other women. She concluded that this did alter menstruation (4).

There are a number of problems dealing with the statistics of this and other experiments, though. The data can be interpreted to either support or negate McClintock's conclusion, depending on how it is analyzed (4).

Why synchronize? One possible benefit of simultaneous ovulation for the whole population is simultaneous birthing. When female rats give birth at the same time, their pups are significantly healthier and more likely to survive. Certain times of the year may be better for births, as when lambs are born in spring rather than fall. So synchrony may have developed because it is helpful in raising healthy young (6).

The research I have done has increased rather than answering my list of questions. Is the math used in these studies wrong? Most articles I found denouncing the theory were written by men; most supporting it (or even denouncing it but wishing it were true) were by women. So is this just something women want to believe because it would be cool and bring us closer together? Also, according to McClintock, some women responded strongly to other women's pheromones, while others did not respond at all (6). Does this mean that it is not strictly group behavior but leader/follower behavior,
with some women's cycles setting the trend for the others? If so, does this chemical leadership correlate to any kind of social behaviors, like alpha females among wolves? My conclusion can only be that despite all those sex-ed videos from seventh grade, menstruation is still awfully confusing.

References

1) "Blood, Bread, and 'Menstrual Mind'?", dealing with Judy Grahn's book on menstruation
2) "Convergence and Divergence of Menstrual Rythms", analyzing the math used on Martha McClintock's study
3) "Menstrual Cycle Length as Function of Age"
4) "Do the Menstrual Cycles of Women Living Together Tend to Synchronize?"
6) "Menstrual Synchrony", an interview with Martha McClintock
7) "Converging Menstrual Cycles"

Why Gamble? Name: Enor Wagne Date: 2003-12-14 21:06:34 Link to this Comment: 7527

Biology 103
2003 Second Paper
On Serendip

Why Gamble?

For centuries, people have indulged in different types of gambling: poker, horse races, bingo, lottery, and slot machines. Gambling has seduced any and almost everyone between the ages of sixteen and ninety years old. Before turning eighteen, the legal age of casino and horse race admittance, those younger make monetary bets on football and high school stunts. Gambling is even more prevalent today than it was yesterday with the added attraction of on-line casinos, offering jackpot equivalent to twenty years salary in exchange for a credit card / debit card number. Gambling was suppressed in the 1920's as a result of Prohibition and because of this will forever lure people into its taboo trap. Gambling as sport is hard to resist because it offers immediate gratification. Not only is there a chance that you may quadruple the amount of money that you lay down, a literal payoff, but there is also a feeling of hope, an alternate limbo between reality and fantasy that can be translated into a sort of mental payoff. The question is: is it all about the money?

It couldn't be all about the money, unless the general public was extremely stupid. The odds of winning the lottery are lesser than the odds of someone being struck by lightning (1 in 649,739) or than someone being killed by a terrorist attack abroad (1 in 650,000). (7). It has been said, "If you bought 100 tickets a week your entire adult life, from the age of 18 to 75, you'd have a 1 percent chance of winning the lottery". (7) Now, a number of psychological studies have been done which indicate that the desire to play the lottery has more to do with the inability or unconcern of a person to calculate the total sum of their own money over time spent of these dollar tickets. The hope and fantastic feeling they receive is worth more than the dollar they give the 7-11 clerk at that time.

Casino games create a different sensation. Whether it be cards, slots, or dice games after being seated in front of it for an hour or two there will generally be a win, some kind of win. Usually that win is small. It serves the person, or the brain, with a sort of reward. The reward entices the person to want to continue their game so to get another reward (7).

The basis for this affirmative award is biological. Research done at the Massachusetts General Hospital has showed similar brain activity induced by prize money to food and drug rewards. The scientists measuring this brain activity compared it with giving a cocaine addict an infusion of cocaine. (2) An experiment was set up wherein the brain activity of the subjects was measured while they gambled. "Each subject was offered one of three spinners: a 'good spinner' offered them a chance to earn $10, $2.50, or nothing; an 'intermediate spinner' offered $2.50, $0, or -$1.50; and a 'bad spinner' let them win nothing or lose, -$1.50 or -$6." (3) The brain activity was measured with a high-field functional magnetic resonance imaging, otherwise known as an fMRI, while they were spinning for six seconds and after then after they had spun. The results showed that the brain activity proved to be strong, moderate, and low in accordance with the level of spinning - good, intermediate and bad. The proportions always demonstrated the expected brain activity. The scientists performing this experiment came to the conclusion that money serves as the same type of reward to humans as does drugs and food; it sets into motion a reward mechanism in the brain providing relative stimulus to the amount of reward or loss which is taking place. "The similarity suggests that a common brain circuitry is used for various types of rewards."(3)

Considering the conclusion of this experiment to be true, there still remains an unsettling question pertaining to gambling and brain circuitry. Why do some people gamble more than others? At first I searched for some demographic conclusions to support a hypothesis that some group of people gambled more than others. However, there simply isn't much discrimination when it comes to gambling.

The National Opinion Research Center, a government based study, showed that there is no gender gap in terms of gambling: the 1998 statistic showed 49% women and 51% men gamble in general. (1) The consensus showed that all different ages gamble. Some specifications were made like people between thirty and sixty tended to gamble with more money than the younger and older, but that seems natural because that range probably gains the most salary. It also specified that those under eighteen tended to play less in casino, lottery and horse races but that is because they were not allowed in. Thus, those under eighteen were showed to make more wagers outside of a gambling facility than the other age groups. Depending on the game, there seemed to be a pretty even distribution of race among gamblers. The bottom line being; the desire to gamble does not depend on any specific background or gender or age or culture. It depends on the human desire to gain monetary pleasure, to get something for little to nothing, to be rewarded via dollars rather than food or drugs.

The demographic statistics and equalities listed above still do not account for why some crave gambling more than others. Distinctions have been made among gamblers. The categories are as follows: non-gambler, low-risk gambler, at-risk gambler, problem gambler and pathological gambler. (1) The desire to gamble becomes increasingly more prevalent and obsessive as the levels progress.

A pathological gambler, according to the DSM-IV criteria is constantly preoccupied with gambling, increases the amounts of money spent over time on gambling so not to achieve a tolerance, cannot stop gambling, gambles as an escape, attempts to 'break even' after having lost money, lies constantly to friends and family about gambling, sometimes commits illegal acts to support gambling, risks significant relationships, jobs, or education for gambling, and uses the financial help of others to be 'bailed out' of some situation caused by gambling. (1) Why are these people so obsessed with gambling that it takes over their lives? It has been hypothesized that pathological gamblers have dysfunctional reward pathways. "When the pathways function correctly, one important result is a release of dopamine, a neurotransmitter that can stimulate pleasurable feelings." Pathological gamblers have been proven to have lower activity in an enzyme that breaks down neurotransmitters. This may create a problem for serotonin distribution. Also, researchers have identified a greater amount of certain genetic configurations in pathological gamblers, a variation which may be responsible for the deficient reward pathway. (4) The medication prescribed to some of these pathological gamblers who were tested increased their serotonin levels and seemed to have positive effects in the way of their resisting the urge to gamble.

Many equate the pathological desire to gamble with a problem in the decision-making area of the brain, a constant lapse in judgment so to speak. The areas of the brain associated with the decision-making process are the middle frontal, inferior frontal and orbital gyrus. (4)

While this neurological analysis may offer some understanding to why people gamble for monetary / reward purposes, it does not explain the bigger relationship between human beings and gambling. Gambling does not necessarily need to involve money; it can instead be translated to a risk. People gamble everyday whether it be the tasting of a new food or skipping an important business meeting. It seems that gambling is a part of life necessary to perpetuate the human species.

Diversification, a part of natural life, involves adapting to different environments and niches. Say a bee only acquired nutrients from one specific flower, never venturing out to samples other types of pollen, what would happen? Suppose one winter that specific type of flower failed to survive, or some sort of spontaneous extinction occurred, all the bees who fed off this flower would become extinct as well. The same sort of thing may occur if a person moved to a different country, wherein the food looked completely different. In order to stay alive, that person would have to take a chance on a new type of diet. Human beings, as well as a majority of the remaining Animal Kingdom are inclined to diversify and adapt to new surroundings in order to stay strong and able to perpetuate their species.

The same notion of adaptation for survival applies to drastic temperature changes and the effect it has on the body. (5) "Although shell temperature is not regulated within narrow limits the way internal body temperature is, thermoregulatory responses do strongly affect the temperature of the shell, and especially its outermost layer, the skin." The temperature of the environment is directly related to the thickness of this shell. If the shell is needed to conserve heat, it may expand to a several centimeters underneath the skin's surface, however, if the environment is warm, then the shell will tend to only be about one centimeter thick. This shell of warmth protects people in the case that they wish to change environmental settings, or so the same species can survive in all different locations. The complex nature of the human body responds well to their desire to gamble, to diversify, to extend their minds and risk.

Whether it be monetary, behavioral or just plain desire to risk, humans are drawn towards the new and the chancy. It is the danger of loss and the thrill of life that keeps us breathing.

References

1)Government issued National Gambling Study, Approximately one hundred pages of gambling statistics and surveys issued to different casinos across the nation. Provides the DSM-IV criteria for Pathological Gambler. Also explians the different catagories of gamblers.

2)Science Daily Homepage, An article containing neurobiological conclusions about gamblers.

3)Scientific America Homepage, More neurobiological findings, explains a relevant experiment performed which relates to the study of gambling in relation to biology.

4)The Wager homepage, Denotes the hypothesised difference between gamblers and pathological gamblers in biological terms.

5)Study of Temperature and Human Beings, this article discusses the adaptive mechanisms of the human body.

6)Mathamatical Statistics about Gambling, explains statistics for winning in a mathamatical fashion.

7)Gene Expression homepage, Statistical information about the likliness of succeeding as a gambler.

8)Gambling, Biology, and Psychics, Article offers alternative suggestions about why one may gamble.

9)Could Gambling Save Science?, Article links gambling to science as a matter of human interest.

Book References

1)Alvarez,A. The Biggest Game in Town. New York: Chronicle Books, 2002.

2)Brunson,Doyle. Doyle Brunson's Super System. Cardoza Pub, 1979.

3)Dostoeyevsky,Fyodor. The Gambler. New York: Viking Press, 1966.

Earworm: The Song That Won't Leave Your Head Name: Diana E. M Date: 2003-12-14 23:31:34 Link to this Comment: 7529

Biology 103
2003 Second Paper
On Serendip

I woke up and I was mortified. It was the first thing in my mind when I opened my eyes and I just could not believe this silly little thing had become as involuntary as breathing. I tried another song, but it would come back without me realizing it. I walked to work and it came with me, I sat in class and it spoke louder that my professor's voice, I even took a nap and it kept me awake. I had a stupid song stuck in my head and it wouldn't go away.

What is it that happens in the brain that causes this annoyance to go on for days? And why does it remain in the head even when it's driving us so crazy that we want to scream in pain? According to research done by Professor James Kellaris at the University of Cincinnati, (1) getting songs stuck in our heads happens to most if not all of us. His theory shows that certain songs create a sort of "cognitive itch" - the mental equivalent of an itchy back. So, the only way to 'scratch' a cognitive itch is to rehearse the responsible tune mentally. The process may start involuntarily, as the brain detects an incongruity or something "exceptional" in the musical stimulus. The ensuing mental repetition may exacerbate the "itch," such that the mental rehearsal becomes largely involuntary, and the individual feels trapped in a cycle from which they seem unable to escape.

But why does this happen? Apparently, repetition, musical simplicity and incongruity are partly responsible for the annoyance. (2) A repeated phrase, motif or sequence might be suggestive of the very act of repetition itself, such that the brain echoes the pattern automatically as the musical information is processed. Still, simpler songs appear more likely to make your brain itch, - like Barnny's "I love you, you love me" tune - but at the same time a song that does something unexpected can cause the brain to latch on because of whatever unconscious cognitive incident occurred at that very moment. These traits of simplicity, repetition and circular composition1 are potent because we don't remember songs as one complete image, like a picture, but as temporal sequences that unfold in our brains. (3) In other words, we don't "see" an entire song in our head; instead, one image (or line in a song) triggers the subsequent one. If there is a circular quality to a song, then it ends up being a kind of neural network loop that just keeps cycling around and around.

However, it has also been argued that there is a tendency to remember an incomplete task rather than a completed one. So when a chorus keeps looping around in our mind, preventing us from remembering how a song ends, we experience the Zeigarnik effect2 - where we just want to complete the song. The brain has a natural tendency to focus on incomplete problems, such as getting through the song and, in a sense, obsessing about it. This is not done consciously. It's simply a kind of an unconscious need to complete a problem.

The typical episode lasts from a few hours (in 55% of people) to a full day (23%). A quarter was haunted by songs or jingles for several days (17%) or longer than a week (5%). (4) Interesting facts show that women report more irritation and frustration as a result of earworms - the term used for "a song stuck in your head" - as well as people who are constantly exposed to music. More so, there may be a connection between earworms and a person's level of neurosis as this may cause them to react quicker to the onset of an earworm. (6) Usually, neurotic individuals experiencing an earworm are easily exacerbated by wondering how long it's going to last, or simply by predisposing themselves to the idea that it is going to remain there for a while. Seventeen percent and less of the individuals who were part of Kellaris's sample group expressed that the earworm lasted three days or more days and 100% of these individuals presented signs of mild to severe neurosis. (1)This lead the investigation to conclude that being susceptible to neurosis increases the chances of being "annoyed" for longer periods of time.

So how do we keep earworm from wriggling through our head? Research shows that there really isn't a proven psychological tonic, but deconstruction is a strategy that is often recommended by cognitive psychologists. (3) The trick is to ask ourselves, "why is this song in my brain? What do I hate or like about it? And what the heck do those lyrics mean? Apparently, the reason it's in your heads is because we've got this kind of cognitive itch that leads the to brain to conclude that something is not quite complete, so we try to complete the task in some other way, namely, by repetition. So, it would seem reasonable to think that if we can't remember the words or the complete song, we try to analyze it or think about the song in another way so that we have a sense of accomplishment - that we've actually resolved some question about the song. (4) When the brain thinks, "ok, well, I've done my job," it creates a sense of closure which may free us from the affliction, allowing our brains to move on to more important matters.

The research is of particular interest to both the pop industry looking to boost sales and to advertisers, who often use jingles to get their brand name stuck in the head of listeners. For both advertising purposes and pop music purposes, it's of great value to know that once and something heard is not forgotten quickly or easily. This is why TV or radio commercials create jingles that are "catchy" phrases that are "fun" to sing along with when listened to. (1) These are often short and concise, allowing the consumer to associate the tune to a particular brand or product. For advertisers, being able to get to invade consumer's mind in such a way that they will pick one brand over another based on the silly jingle is exactly what makes the big difference. Say, buying "Mr. Clean, Mr. Clean," as opposed to any other disinfectant or "cha cha cha, Charmin" instead of Kleenex tissue paper. As for songs, the issue is a little more random. Though, it is true that one is bound to repeat Britney's "ooh baby, baby. I did it again" as opposed to a less popular song, the chances of being "infected" are the same. Equally, the conscious or unconscious significance a particular song has for an individual could possible lead for the involuntary repetition of a song's segment. This is why, Kellaris recommends analyzing the relation a song could have with our personal lives.

Just a few weeks back, I came across Rockwell Church's new hit, "Chemical." I liked the song so much that I played it on repeat over and over again, singing it every time it started to play. I was aware of the fact that the song did hit some emotional nerves, which is why I wanted to hear it repeatedly. The song was kind of pseudo-therapy that allowed me to cope with whatever I was feeling at the moment. However, after the twentieth time, I got so tired of it, I turned it off, but unfortunately, it was now permanently lodged in my brain - I was just unable to shake it off.

As I began to research this paper, I became aware that I was part of the 17-5 percent of the population who experiences severe cases of cognitive itch - not only with songs, but with poems, sentences, images. Somehow, these just get wedged in my brain, without my realizing and just stay there for days on end. Nonetheless, I must admit that the Rockwell Church earworm was completely my fault and I was so fascinated by it, that I even went on to write my second web paper on it - the effects of chemicals in interpersonal attractions. So much for an obsessive mind! When I asked Pofessor of Biology, Paul Grobstein, what the heck was happening in my brain, he gave me a similar explanation to this paper, and then went on to candidly say, "you're just neurotic." That too was true.
I have unsuccessfully completed my 5 page assignment without several short-lived earworms. I do listen to music a lot when typing, but I must admit I was predisposed to thinking I was inevitably going to suffer from brain itch while I completed my essay. Nevertheless, I was forced to think of some tunes to illustrate the evils of earworms and the different types there were. So, in payback for what has already been lodged in my head for the sake of this paper, I shall pass it on to you. Sing along...
"This is the song that doesn't end. And it goes on and on my friends. Some people, started singing it not knowing what it was, and they continued singing it forever just because this is the song that doesn't end and it goes on and on my friends, some people started singing not knowing what it was and they continued singing it forever just because this is the song that doesn't end and it goes on and on my friends, some people started singing not knowing what it was, and they continued singing it forever just because this is..."

-Lamb Chop, Charlie Horse, Hush Puppy, and Shari.

1 Which reminds me of Lamb Chop's diabolic tune to the "never ending song."
2 Named after Russian psychologist Blum Zeigarnik who came up with the theory in 1927.

.

References

References

1) Brain Itch Keeps Song in the Head, Wednesday, 29 October 2003

2)Why Songs Get Stuck in Our Heads All Day?

3) Kevlar, Cognitive Itch, 2003

4) Gigson Stacey, No Cure For Songs Stuck in Your Head

5) Ask us at U of T

6) The Wrong Song Stuck In Your Head

7) Annoying Songs Stuck in the Head

Female Genital Mutilation Name: La Toiya L Date: 2003-12-14 23:44:14 Link to this Comment: 7530

Biology 103
2003 Second Paper
On Serendip

Female Genital Mutilation (FGM), also known as female circumcision, is a destructive and invasive procedure involving the removal or alteration of female genital. The procedure is carried out at a variety of ages, ranging from shortly after birth to some time during the first pregnancy, but most commonly occurs between the ages of four and eight. There are three main types of FGC that are practiced: Type I (Sunna circumcision), Type II (Excision), and Type III (Infibulation). These three operation range in intensity, from the "mildness" of Type I, to the extreme Type III.

The practice occurs in Africa, the Middle East, parts of Asia, and in immigrant communities in Europe and North America. An estimated 135 million of the world's girls and women have undergone genital mutilation, and two million girls a year are at risk - approximately 6,000 per day - about one every 15 seconds. (1) Although Female Genital Mutilation predates Islam and is not practiced by the majority of Muslims, it has acquired this religious dimension. However, FGM is a cross-cultural and cross-religious ritual. In Africa and the Middle East it is performed by Muslims, Coptic Christians, members of various indigenous groups, Protestants, and Catholics; to name a few.

The type of mutilation practiced, the age at which it is carried out, and the way its done varies according to a variety of factors, including the woman or girl's ethnic group, what country they are living in, whether in a rural or urban area and their socio-economic background. The first and "mildest" type of FGM is called "sunna circumcision" or Type I. The term "Sunna" refers to tradition as taught by the prophet Muhammad. This specific procedure involves the removal of the tip of the clitoris and/or its covering (prepuce). The second type of FGM, Type II also known as clitoridectomy, involves the partial or entire removal of the clitoris, as well as the scraping off of the labia majora and labia minora. This procedure is often used by countries that are prohibited from using the more extreme procedures. Clitoridectomy was invented by Sudanese midwives as a compromise when British legislation forbade the more extreme operations in 1946. (2)

Infibulation (a.k.a. Pharaonic circumcision) is the third and most dramatic procedure of FGM's; it has been banned in some countries but still exists in others. This most extreme form consists of the removal of the clitoris, the adjacent labia minora, labia majora, and the urethral and vaginal openings are cut away. The vagina is then stitched or held together with thorns, leaving a small opening for menstruation and urination. To engage in intercourse the woman is then cut open by her husband on their wedding night. The woman's vagina is often restitched if her husband leaves on a long trip to secure fidelity. Female Genital Mutilations are mostly done without anesthesia and in unsanitary conditions where instruments such as unsterilized razor blades, tin lids, scissors, kitchen knives, and broken glass are used. (3)These instruments are frequently used on several girls in succession and are rarely cleaned.

In various cultures there exist different "justifications" for Female Genital Mutilation including preserving cultural and gender identity, controlling women sexuality, and other things as well. Other arguments supporting FGM are that it will reduce promiscuity, increase cleanliness, and enhance femininity. In cultures where FGM is common, marriage prospects are higher for a woman who has undergone the procedure. Many people in FGM-practicing societies, especially traditional rural communities, see FGM as a large part of their cultural identity and regard it as so normal that they cannot imagine a woman who has not undergone mutilation. Jomo Kenyatta, the late President of Kenya, argued that FGM was inherent in the initiation which is in itself an essential part of being Kikuyu, to such an extent that "abolition... will destroy the tribal system". (4)

Societies that practice infibulation are strongly patriarchal. Preventing women from indulging in "illegitimate" sex, and protecting them from unwilling sexual relations, are vital because the honor of the whole family is dependent on it. Infibulation does not, however, provide a guarantee against "illegitimate" sex, as a woman can be "opened" and "closed" again. Unmutilated women are often regarded as unclean and are not allowed to handle food and water. In some areas of Africa, in relation to pregnancies, FGM is delayed until two months before a woman gives birth. This practice is based on the belief that the baby will die if she/he comes into contact with their mother's clitoris during birth or the baby will be hydrocephalic (born with excess cranial fluid) if its head comes in contact with the clitoris. In some societies the clitoris may represents other harmful things including:

--The clitoris is dangerous and must be removed for health reasons. Some believe that it is a poisonous organ that can cause a man to sicken or die if contacted by a man's penis. Others believe that men can become impotent by contacting a clitoris.

--Bad genital odors can only be eliminated by removing the clitoris and labia minora.

--FGM prevents vaginal cancer.

--An unmodified clitoris can lead to masturbation or lesbianism.

--FGM prevents nervousness from developing in girls and women.

--FGM prevents the face from turning yellow.

--FGM makes a woman's face more beautiful.

--If FGM is not done, older men may not be able to match their wives' sex drive and may have to resort to illegal stimulating drugs.

--An intact clitoris generates sexual arousal in women which can cause neuroses if repressed.
(1)
The most common justification for FGM is its tradition. Many of the practitioners are unwilling to change their customs and are often kept ignorant of the real implications of FGM, and the extreme health risks that it involves. These beliefs and baseless fears are among the many justifications of this appalling procedure.

Aside from the obvious pain and torture that these women must go through there are several other serious and fatal effects. During the procedure pain, shock, hemorrhage and damage to the organs surrounding the clitoris and labia can occur. The use of the same unsterilized instrument on several girls can cause the spread of infections including HIV, which in most cases can lead to AIDS. Extreme discomfort and pain is felt as a result from the common chronic infections, intermittent bleeding, abscesses and small benign tumors of the nerve from clitoridectomy and excision. As a result of infibulation there are even more serious long-term effects: chronic urinary tract infections, stones in the bladder and urethra, kidney damage, reproductive tract infections resulting from obstructed menstrual flow, pelvic infections, infertility, keloids (raised, irregularly shaped, progressively enlarging scars) and dermoid cysts. In order for sexual intercourse to take place the opening of the vagina must gradually and painfully dilated, in which most cases cutting is necessary. The sewn vagina is also cut open during pregnancy so that the child may pass through, and they are then sewn back together to make them "tight" for their husbands. The constant cutting and restitching can result in tough scar tissue.

The issue of FGM has received increasing global attention and controversy over the past several years for various reasons. Yes it is true that the practice must be dealt with in order save these women and promote Human Rights, but we must take into consideration the strong and unbinding presence of cultural importance and implications which make the matter much harder to resolve in a way that is effective. Although Female Genital mutilation is seen as barbaric, we must shed light on the fact that up until a few decades ago, the clitoris was still believed to be a very dangerous part of the body. "Elimination of clitoral sexuality is a necessary precondition for the development of femininity." (Sigmund Freud) As recently as 1979, these surgeries were performed on women in the United States. In this sense the controversy regarding FGM can be seen as a form of hypocrisy and cultural imperialism, which leads people to ask, "What right do others have to criticize our way of life?" leading them to challenge Western practices such as giving people up for adoption, sending parents to elderly homes, or conducting abortions. This forces me to think open-mindedly about this issue. The first place we should start, as people who are concerned, is educating. Members of African societies whom perform these procedures must first know of the fatal consequences. Educating these communities and higher officials will shed light on the risk and danger involved, and then those communities can work on shaping a society which keeps its culture, traditions, and rituals but reexamines the bloodiness and torture involved in them. To just eradicate these rituals won't do much good, because we can erase the practice but we can't simply erase the mentalities attached. Men and other authoritative figures will continue to instill these same values of superiority and dominance thus creating a majority where women will be caught between the social norms of the "educated" and those of the majority. The struggle is not getting rid of these horrendous practices, more importantly the struggle involves reshaping the consciousness involved, which isn't so easy a task.

(Additional Material)

Testimony

"I was genitally mutilated at the age of ten. I was told by my late grandmother that they were taking me down to the river to perform a certain ceremony, and afterwards I would be given a lot of food to eat. As an innocent child, I was led like a sheep to be slaughtered.

Once I entered the secret bush, I was taken to a very dark room and undressed. I was blindfolded and stripped naked. I was then carried by two strong women to the site for the operation. I was forced to lie flat on my back by four strong women, two holding tight to each leg. Another woman sat on my chest to prevent my upper body from moving. A piece of cloth was forced in my mouth to stop me screaming. I was then shaved.

When the operation began, I put up a big fight. The pain was terrible and unbearable. During this fight, I was badly cut and lost blood. All those who took part in the operation were half-drunk with alcohol. Others were dancing and singing, and worst of all, had stripped naked.

I was genitally mutilated with a blunt penknife.

After the operation, no one was allowed to aid me to walk. The stuff they put on my wound stank and was painful. These were terrible times for me. Each time I wanted to urinate, I was forced to stand upright. The urine would spread over the wound and would cause fresh pain all over again. Sometimes I had to force myself not to urinate for fear of the terrible pain. I was not given any anesthetic in the operation to reduce my pain, nor any antibiotics to fight against infection. Afterwards, I hemorrhaged and became anemic. This was attributed to witchcraft. I suffered for a long time from acute vaginal infections."

Hannah Koroma, Sierra Leone
(4)
.

References

1)Female Genital Mutilation In Africa, The Middle East & Far East, Nice site, but focused around breaking down religious misconceptions.

2)Female Genital Cutting (FGC): An Introduction, This Site is basic, yet informative.

3)Female Genital Mutilation; Contemporary Human Rights Issues, Short and to the point.

4)What is female genital mutilation?, This site is nice pretty good because it's outlined by very common yet helpful and interesting questions.

Biology 103
2003 Second Paper
On Serendip

Female Genital Mutilation (FGM), also known as female circumcision, is a destructive and invasive procedure involving the removal or alteration of female genital. The procedure is carried out at a variety of ages, ranging from shortly after birth to some time during the first pregnancy, but most commonly occurs between the ages of four and eight. There are three main types of FGC that are practiced: Type I (Sunna circumcision), Type II (Excision), and Type III (Infibulation). These three operation range in intensity, from the "mildness" of Type I, to the extreme Type III.

The practice occurs in Africa, the Middle East, parts of Asia, and in immigrant communities in Europe and North America. An estimated 135 million of the world's girls and women have undergone genital mutilation, and two million girls a year are at risk - approximately 6,000 per day - about one every 15 seconds. (1) Although Female Genital Mutilation predates Islam and is not practiced by the majority of Muslims, it has acquired this religious dimension. However, FGM is a cross-cultural and cross-religious ritual. In Africa and the Middle East it is performed by Muslims, Coptic Christians, members of various indigenous groups, Protestants, and Catholics; to name a few.

The type of mutilation practiced, the age at which it is carried out, and the way its done varies according to a variety of factors, including the woman or girl's ethnic group, what country they are living in, whether in a rural or urban area and their socio-economic background. The first and "mildest" type of FGM is called "sunna circumcision" or Type I. The term "Sunna" refers to tradition as taught by the prophet Muhammad. This specific procedure involves the removal of the tip of the clitoris and/or its covering (prepuce). The second type of FGM, Type II also known as clitoridectomy, involves the partial or entire removal of the clitoris, as well as the scraping off of the labia majora and labia minora. This procedure is often used by countries that are prohibited from using the more extreme procedures. Clitoridectomy was invented by Sudanese midwives as a compromise when British legislation forbade the more extreme operations in 1946. (2)

Infibulation (a.k.a. Pharaonic circumcision) is the third and most dramatic procedure of FGM's; it has been banned in some countries but still exists in others. This most extreme form consists of the removal of the clitoris, the adjacent labia minora, labia majora, and the urethral and vaginal openings are cut away. The vagina is then stitched or held together with thorns, leaving a small opening for menstruation and urination. To engage in intercourse the woman is then cut open by her husband on their wedding night. The woman's vagina is often restitched if her husband leaves on a long trip to secure fidelity. Female Genital Mutilations are mostly done without anesthesia and in unsanitary conditions where instruments such as unsterilized razor blades, tin lids, scissors, kitchen knives, and broken glass are used. (3)These instruments are frequently used on several girls in succession and are rarely cleaned.

In various cultures there exist different "justifications" for Female Genital Mutilation including preserving cultural and gender identity, controlling women sexuality, and other things as well. Other arguments supporting FGM are that it will reduce promiscuity, increase cleanliness, and enhance femininity. In cultures where FGM is common, marriage prospects are higher for a woman who has undergone the procedure. Many people in FGM-practicing societies, especially traditional rural communities, see FGM as a large part of their cultural identity and regard it as so normal that they cannot imagine a woman who has not undergone mutilation. Jomo Kenyatta, the late President of Kenya, argued that FGM was inherent in the initiation which is in itself an essential part of being Kikuyu, to such an extent that "abolition... will destroy the tribal system". (4)

Societies that practice infibulation are strongly patriarchal. Preventing women from indulging in "illegitimate" sex, and protecting them from unwilling sexual relations, are vital because the honor of the whole family is dependent on it. Infibulation does not, however, provide a guarantee against "illegitimate" sex, as a woman can be "opened" and "closed" again. Unmutilated women are often regarded as unclean and are not allowed to handle food and water. In some areas of Africa, in relation to pregnancies, FGM is delayed until two months before a woman gives birth. This practice is based on the belief that the baby will die if she/he comes into contact with their mother's clitoris during birth or the baby will be hydrocephalic (born with excess cranial fluid) if its head comes in contact with the clitoris. In some societies the clitoris may represents other harmful things including:

--The clitoris is dangerous and must be removed for health reasons. Some believe that it is a poisonous organ that can cause a man to sicken or die if contacted by a man's penis. Others believe that men can become impotent by contacting a clitoris.

--Bad genital odors can only be eliminated by removing the clitoris and labia minora.

--FGM prevents vaginal cancer.

--An unmodified clitoris can lead to masturbation or lesbianism.

--FGM prevents nervousness from developing in girls and women.

--FGM prevents the face from turning yellow.

--FGM makes a woman's face more beautiful.

--If FGM is not done, older men may not be able to match their wives' sex drive and may have to resort to illegal stimulating drugs.

--An intact clitoris generates sexual arousal in women which can cause neuroses if repressed.
(1)
Aside from the previously stated beliefs the most common justification for FGM is its tradition. Many of the practitioners are unwilling to change their customs and are often kept ignorant of the real implications of FGM, and the extreme health risks that it involves. These beliefs and baseless fears are among the many justifications of this appalling procedure.

Aside from the obvious pain and torture that these women must go through there are several other serious and fatal effects. During the procedure pain, shock, hemorrhage and damage to the organs surrounding the clitoris and labia can occur. The use of the same unsterilized instrument on several girls can cause the spread of infections including HIV, which in most cases can lead to AIDS. Extreme discomfort and pain is felt as a result from the common chronic infections, intermittent bleeding, abscesses and small benign tumors of the nerve from clitoridectomy and excision. As a result of infibulation there are even more serious long-term effects: chronic urinary tract infections, stones in the bladder and urethra, kidney damage, reproductive tract infections resulting from obstructed menstrual flow, pelvic infections, infertility, keloids (raised, irregularly shaped, progressively enlarging scars) and dermoid cysts. In order for sexual intercourse to take place the opening of the vagina must gradually and painfully dilated, in which most cases cutting is necessary. The sewn vagina is also cut open during pregnancy so that the child may pass through, and they are then sewn back together to make them "tight" for their husbands. The constant cutting and restitching can result in tough scar tissue.

The issue of FGM has received increasing global attention and controversy over the past several years for various reasons. Yes it is true that the practice must be dealt with in order save these women and promote Human Rights, but we must take into consideration the strong and unbinding presence of cultural importance and implications which make the matter much harder to resolve in a way that is effective. Although Female Genital mutilation is seen as barbaric, we must shed light on the fact that up until a few decades ago, the clitoris was still believed to be a very dangerous part of the body. "Elimination of clitoral sexuality is a necessary precondition for the development of femininity." (Sigmund Freud) As recently as 1979, these surgeries were performed on women in the United States. In this sense the controversy regarding FGM can be seen as a form of hypocrisy and cultural imperialism, which leads people to ask, "What right do others have to criticize our way of life?" leading them to challenge Western practices such as giving people up for adoption, sending parents to elderly homes, or conducting abortions. This forces me to think open-mindedly about this issue. The first place we should start, as people who are concerned, is educating. Members of African societies whom perform these procedures must first know of the fatal consequences. Educating these communities and higher officials will shed light on the risk and danger involved, and then those communities can work on shaping a society which keeps its culture, traditions, and rituals but reexamines the bloodiness and torture involved in them. To just eradicate these rituals won't do much good, because we can erase the practice but we can't simply erase the mentalities attached. Men and other authoritative figures will continue to instill these same values of superiority and dominance thus creating a majority where women will be caught between the social norms of the "educated" and those of the majority. The struggle is not getting rid of these horrendous practices, more importantly the struggle involves reshaping the consciousness involved, which isn't so easy a task.

(Additional Material)

Testimony

"I was genitally mutilated at the age of ten. I was told by my late grandmother that they were taking me down to the river to perform a certain ceremony, and afterwards I would be given a lot of food to eat. As an innocent child, I was led like a sheep to be slaughtered.

Once I entered the secret bush, I was taken to a very dark room and undressed. I was blindfolded and stripped naked. I was then carried by two strong women to the site for the operation. I was forced to lie flat on my back by four strong women, two holding tight to each leg. Another woman sat on my chest to prevent my upper body from moving. A piece of cloth was forced in my mouth to stop me screaming. I was then shaved.

When the operation began, I put up a big fight. The pain was terrible and unbearable. During this fight, I was badly cut and lost blood. All those who took part in the operation were half-drunk with alcohol. Others were dancing and singing, and worst of all, had stripped naked.

I was genitally mutilated with a blunt penknife.

After the operation, no one was allowed to aid me to walk. The stuff they put on my wound stank and was painful. These were terrible times for me. Each time I wanted to urinate, I was forced to stand upright. The urine would spread over the wound and would cause fresh pain all over again. Sometimes I had to force myself not to urinate for fear of the terrible pain. I was not given any anesthetic in the operation to reduce my pain, nor any antibiotics to fight against infection. Afterwards, I hemorrhaged and became anemic. This was attributed to witchcraft. I suffered for a long time from acute vaginal infections."

Hannah Koroma, Sierra Leone (4)
.

References

1)Female Genital Mutilation In Africa, The Middle East & Far East, Nice site, but focused around breaking down religious misconceptions.

2)Female Genital Cutting (FGC): An Introduction, This Site is basic, yet informative.

3)Female Genital Mutilation; Contemporary Human Rights Issues, Short and to the point.

4)What is female genital mutilation?, This site is nice pretty good because it's outlined by very common yet helpful and interesting questions.

Why We Still Get the Flu Name: Adina Halp Date: 2003-12-15 23:08:00 Link to this Comment: 7537

Biology 103
2003 Second Paper
On Serendip

This winter, media reports of early influenza (flu) deaths in American and British children sparked a panic that is spreading throughout the United States and the world. People are currently rushing to get flu shots to try to prevent this virus, which can be temporarily debilitating and even lead to death (1). With readily available flu vaccination and medication, it is a wonder that the flu is still an extant disease. In fact, in any given year, the flu kills about 15 million people world wide, more people than are killed by AIDS, lung cancer, and heart disease combined (2). With so much modern medical technology, why is it that we are still getting the flu?

Influenza, commonly known as the flu, is a virus that infects the trachea (windpipe) or bronchi (breathing tubes) (1). Strains of the flu may belong to one of three different influenza virus families, A, B, or C (3). Symptoms include high fever, chills, severe muscle aches, headache, runny nose, and cough. Complications can lead to pneumonia. Those most at risk of dying from the flu or contracting complications include asthmatics, people with sickle cell disease, people with long-term diseases of the heart, kidney, or lungs, people with diabetes, those who have weakened immunity from cancer or HIV/AIDS, children on long-term aspirin therapy, women who are on their second or third trimester of pregnancy, children under the age of nine, and adults over the age of 50 (1).

Flu shots may be a miracle of modern technology, but they are not received by everyone. The flu is a world-wide problem. While Americans spend $2 billion treating and preventing the flu every year, those countries known as the Third or Developing World simply cannot afford such a luxury (2). Even relatively wealthy countries cannot give the flu shot to everyone. Most Singaporeans are being urged to wait to get their flu shots until they have been administered to the more susceptible groups such as children and the elderly, and to health care workers and those traveling to parts of the globe where the flu season is at its worst, such as the United States and Britain (4). The United States, too, has not until recently been able to offer the flu shot to everyone. During the winters of 2001-2002 and 2002-2003, the US did not have enough influenza vaccines to administer to all of its residents, so the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) asked healthy Americans to wait until those who were more vulnerable to the virus had a chance to get vaccinated (5).

Even those who are able to obtain flu shots often do not take advantage of them. For example, even though the flu triggers asthma attacks, studies suggest that only 8.9% of all people with asthma receive flu shots (6). In 2001, only 67% of people aged 65 years and over, another at-risk group, received the shot despite the fact that it is covered by Medicare (3). This flu season, even though many experts are recommending that most Americans receive a flu shot, a number of factors are preventing many people from doing so. Because the vaccine is made with hens' eggs (1), people who are allergic to eggs should not receive the flu vaccine. There are also some side effects of receiving the flu vaccination. Less than one-third of those who receive the vaccination experience soreness at the vaccination site, and five to ten percent suffer low-grade fevers and headaches (7). Some people are afraid of contracting the virus from the injection; however, they are misinformed as it is impossible to catch the influenza virus from the shot (8). Others are too pressed for time to receive a flu shot (5). Many people simply hate going to the doctor and getting shots, an experience that is usually physically and sometimes emotionally painful.

Even if everyone in the world got the flu shot, we still would not be eradicated of influenza. The flu shot is only about 75% effective in preventing the flu and reducing its severity. This is partly because it takes the vaccine one to two weeks to fully travel to the lungs (2), during which time the individual who has received the flu shot is just as susceptible to contracting the flu as is the individual who has not received it (7). Another reason that the flu vaccine is not always effective is that the virus that is injected into the body is never the exact same virus that is in circulation. The flu is a virus that naturally undergoes mutations from year to year, with multiple strains from three different virus families circulating somewhere in the world at any given time. This year's Fujian flu appears to have mutated from the more common Influenza A/ Panama virus (9). It is a slight "reshuffling" of existing strains of flu, a process called "antigen drift". In other years, when worldwide epidemics or "global pandemics" occur, it is often due to a major change in the flu's genetic material, an alteration into a completely different strain (4). As was the case of the 1918 Spanish Flu virus, a pandemic that killed more than 20 million people worldwide, it is also possible for genes that code for the proteins within the virus to split and recombine (10). The influenza virus can also jump from one species to another, exchanging genetic material in viruses afflicting different animals and creating new influenza strains (9).

By the time each vaccine is created, new strains of the flu are usually circulating. This is why influenza vaccines can only be made using flu varieties of the previous year, combining different strains of those flues in order to best protect against any extant strain of influenza (1). Because the strains are usually similar, these vaccines offer very good cross-protection; but they are not 100% effective (9). It is because of mutations and because the flu vaccine is made from a "killed" virus and is thus weaker than it would be if it were made from a live one that the immunity from the vaccine is short lasting, and it is recommended that people receive flu shots every year (7). If we spent a few years vaccinating the world's population as was done during the World Health Organization's smallpox eradication program (11), new strands of influenza would probably come into existence by the time everyone had been vaccinated from the old ones.

There are, at least in America, other options that help to prevent the contraction of the flu. One such option is FluMist, a nasal spray that was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in September of this year (12). It is a live but weakened form of the flu virus, and this gives it greater potential to produce a broad immune response (13). The fact that it is a nasal spray makes it much more appealing than the flu shot, which can only be administered via needle. However, because FluMist is administered through breathing, it has potential to be secreted, subjecting those who have not been vaccinated to the live virus. The fact that it is a live vaccine makes it possible for those who receive it to contract the virus from it. It is for this reason that FluMist is not recommended for people who fall in the groups most at risk of catching the flu (12).

Medications for flu are also not completely effective. Although there are currently over 100 over-the-counter flu medications, including Sudafed, Alka-Seltzer, Tylenol, Robitussin, Actifed, Dristan, Contac, TheraFlu, Dimetapp, and Nyquil, these drugs treat the flu's symptoms – they do not prevent the flu (2). One new drug, Zanamivir, can be inhaled and has been shown to reduce the symptoms of both A and B strains of influenza if taken at the onset of the disease, as has Oseltamivir, a drug taken in pill form. Oseltamivir can be used to prevent influenza, and so can the antiviral drugs, amantadine and rimantadine, although these two drugs need to be taken "as long as influenza cases continue to occur in the community," they are only useful for the prevention of Influenza A, and they can cause mild side effects. These two medications can also be used to treat influenza if taken soon after its onset (3), but again, this is not prevention, and the contagious influenza virus can still be spread.

Though it is extensive, current technology could not rid the world of the flu even if these medications and preventative measures were available to everyone. This is especially evident when we look at another kind of modern technology, the technology of travel. Today we constantly hear that the world is "getting smaller". Travel is much easier and much more frequent than it has ever been in the past. As was the case with last year's rapid spread of the SARS virus, people infected with a flu virus that is common in one area of the world constantly come into contact with those who live in areas not in contact with that particular virus, quickly spreading different strains of the flu throughout the globe. At least for now, all we can do is try to prevent ourselves from contracting and spreading influenza by receiving flu shots, inhaling FluMist, or taking medication to prevent influenza or reduce its symptoms.

References

1)Influenza Vaccine | Vaccine Education Center, an informational site on the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia website.

2)Influenza is America's #1 Killer: Flu Vaccine Found Least Effective for those Counting on it Most, an article that gives shocking flu facts.

3)American Lung Association Fact Sheet – Influenza

4)Mystery flu and its myths: Vaccination frenzy but most adults not at risk, article on a Singaporean news site.

5)MSNBC – Americas Urged to get Flu Shots, recent MSNBC news article.

6)Influenza: Serious Problem for People with Asthma, facts to do with influenza and asthma on the American Lung Association website.

7)Care Dynamix – Flu Shot Facts, facts provided by an on-site flu shot service.

8)Floyd Co., VA – Flu Vaccine

9)Fujian flu vaccine ready by next year; news article on the Star Online, a Malaysian Newspaper.

10)ScienceDaily New Release: Australian National University Scientists Find Genetic Trigger For The 1918 Spanish Flu

11)WHO 50th – Smallpox Eradication, Site Commemorating the 50th anniversary of the World Health Organization.

12)FluMist: No More Flu Shots? , On the Mayo Clinic website.

13)ScienceDaily News Release: A Better FLU Vaccine? Nasal Spray Vaccine May Give More Protection Against 'Drifted' Strains

Put Your Dukes Up; Nature and Nurture Go at it Ag Name: Megan Will Date: 2003-12-16 11:10:16 Link to this Comment: 7540

Biology 103
2003 Third Paper
On Serendip

The Judd family is blessed with vocal and dramatic talent, as the James family was cursed with a lust for crime and the fast life, as the Bush family exudes, well, a good hair line. But is that truly the case? Can Ashley and Wynonna hit that high C simply because Naomi Judd, their mother, could? Did Frank and Jesse James both have the same gene that gave them their love of robbing banks and aggressive nature, passed on from a great-grandfather somewhere down the line? Or were these characteristics groomed by experiences and environment? What gives humans their traits and behavior?

The case of human traits and behavior is yet another battle in the on-going war of nature versus nurture. As in all prize fights, the challengers must be introduced. Nature versus nurture is a popular phrase used in most contemporary debates over what degrees genetic makeup, or "nature", and life experiences, or "nurture", influence traits or behaviors. Nature can encompass genetic makeup, as well as human nature, or instincts. Nurture has historically referred to care given to an individual by their parents, but can also include experiences in the womb, childhood friends, and one's early experiences with the television (1),as well as environment in which one lives.

In specific regards to human characteristics, there is a strong case for at least partial biological predetermination. On the obvious level, humans "breathe, sneeze, laugh, cry, sleep, and otherwise engage in a variety of activities which need not be learned" (2).From this we can derive that there are human activities or behaviors that need not be learned from experience. There are some proven cases in which it makes sense to say that a particular trait is due entirely to nature. Huntington's disease is a highly penetrant genetic disease, and one will only contract Huntington's if they have the corresponding gene variant.
Scientists are sure of the fact that genes do code for things such as eye and hair color. However, whether or not genes determine common human traits is still based all on theory. One such theory is the Nature Theory (3). The Nature Theory hypothesizes that abstract human traits such as intelligence, sexual orientation, and aggression are decided by DNA. For example, in the case of human aggression, the fact that our early human ancestors, as well as species closely linked to humans, display aggression also merits that the behavior is at least partially predetermined by genes. Unearthed Australopithecus skulls have indications of wounds caused by tools, among which some are considered to have been mortal. In some digs, remnants of cannibalistic meals have been discovered (7). Genes do not directly determine traits, in simplicity, genes code for protein. Yet genes do influence the developmental expression of traits, which "...represent the expression of the interaction of genes with environments." (6). And humans do obviously share genes with their ancestors. Sociobiologists use man's descent from hunters to support a genetic basis for human behaviors like aggression; we carry genes from a hunter/gatherer society, therefore it is embedded in our brains. Human aggression has been thought to be "an innate, unlearned behavior pattern" (4).

Research also shows that behavior could be mediated by the brain, the amygdala in particular. Texas sniper Charles Whitman begged for an autopsy after his execution because he believed that his actions were a result of his brain's inner-workings. The autopsy revealed he had a tumor pressing into his amygdale (4). Studies have also been done involving identical twins. The twins are separated at birth and have totally different lives and experiences, yet test back to have similar personalities and levels of intelligence. The only shared experience of these twins was that in the womb (1).

The other side of the argument is obviously the Nurture Theory. Psychologist John Watson experimented with environmental learning, and in doing so, demonstrated that the acquisition of a phobia could be explained by classical conditioning. Watson claimed: "Give me a dozen healthy infants, well-formed, and my own specified world to bring them up in and I'll guarantee to take any one at random and train him to become any type of specialist I might select...regardless of his talents, penchants, tendencies, abilities, vocations and race of his ancestors." (3)

Another development in the nature versus nurture controversy was the Human Genome Project. Set to determine exactly how many genes a human has, it was discovered that humans possess 30,000 genes, which is barely twice that of a fruit fly (3). "We simply do not have enough genes for this idea of biological determinism to be right," concluded Craig Venter, president of Celera Genomics.

Back to our human aggression model, the fact that modern humans are much more aggressive than their ancestors shows that environment and upbringing definitely effect levels of human aggression. In the modern world, factors such as "influence of media, smoke, noise pollution, air pollution, abusive parenting, overcrowding, heat, and even atmospheric electricity" can lend a hand in aggravating the aggressiveness in humans (6). Behaviorists generally view aggression as a set of acquired behaviors and attach less emphasis on biological determinants. These scientists commonly apply the "principles of social learning theory" when addressing aggression.

The public view on the nature versus nurture argument tends to sway to both sides. People are ready to accept that it is genes that cause diseases and cancer, even obesity and homosexuality. Of course, this takes the blame off of human lifestyle. If it is written into their genes, there is nothing they can do about it. However, the public tends to favor the nurture side of the argument when it breaches sensitive topics such as aggression or intelligence. If people truly believed that intelligence was totally dependent upon genes, there would be no waiting lists to get into the best private schools, no SAT tutors, and no French lessons for three year olds. When the Columbine school shootings went on, it was the angry music, the video games, and the parents that were blamed. No one even brought up the fact that the two shooters genetic makeup could have had anything to do with it. Eminem and Double Dragon took the rap, and the parents were questioned as why they hadn't known about it or prevented it.

Today's biologists tend to agree that traits and behaviors are dependent upon not only nature, but also nurture. Particular genes can influence the development of a specific trait, or can agitate a specific behavior. Rather, the question is not whether it is nature or nurture, the question becomes how the two interact to produce human traits and behaviors. The University of California did a study on perfect pitch. Perfect pitch is the "ability to recognize the absolute pitch of a musical tone without any reference note". (5). People with perfect pitch often have relatives with the same quality, and recent studies show that perfect pitch is possibly the result of a single gene. But the studies also demonstrate a requirement for early musical training, before age six, in order to manifest perfect pitch (5). Therefore, even if the perfect pitch "gene" is inherited, if it is not exercised at an early age, it will go wasted and undetected.

The lessons learned from this? Don't believe those headlines that say that scientists found the cancer-causing genes. Don't blame your mother for your inability to cook or poor handwriting. The nature versus nurture argument will go on forever, as people look for scapegoats to blame for their misfortunes and factors to praise for their luck. There will never be enough evidence to prove whether it is one or the other, people just need to add space in the pot for both theories. Mix in a little free will and you've got yourself a real party. Ashley Judd should thank her mother, not only for giving her the building blocks to a stellar voice, but also for putting her in those acting and singing classes and exposing her to the music world at an early age.

References

1. 1)Wikipedia, online Encylclopedia site

2. 2) Montagu, Ashley. The Nature of Human Aggression. London: Oxford University Press. 1976.

3. 3)Genetics, discussion of Nature versus Nurture argument

4. 4)Human Evolution, essay on Human Evolution and Behavior

5. 5)Human Genome Project,findings from Human Genome Project

6. 5)Human Aggression, discussion of Nature versus Nurture in human aggression

7. 7) Heller, Agnes. On Instincts. Netherlands: Van Gorcum. 1979

Ethiopia's Medical Dilemma Name: Maria Scot Date: 2003-12-16 11:47:03 Link to this Comment: 7541

Biology 103
2003 Second Paper
On Serendip

Living in an industrialized country like America, and especially in a community such as Bryn Mawr, we are well fed and given excellent healthcare. Despite student complaints that they cannot go to the health center for a cough drop without being asked if they could be pregnant, most students are aware that they are very lucky and appreciate that there are parts of the world that are ravaged by diseases such as Malaria, which kills three children every minute. We donate money, we participate in clothing drives, but it is there that our involvement often ends, and we rarely see how effectively organizations such as Doctors without Border or Unicef ameliorate epidemics and other crisis developing countries. If one judges by the recent outbreak of malaria in Ethiopia; these human rights organizations are not living out the 'I Dream of Africa'-esque humanitarian fantasy that the donors may have imagined. Unicef, in conjunction with the Ethiopian government has been using what some claim are outdated drugs to fight the disease, which The World Health Organization predicts will infect 15 million of Ethiopia's 65 million population ( three times the normal infection rate) (1) . However, international doctors groups' such as Doctors Without Borders argue that the outdated drugs will be ineffective and may even make the epidemic more severe. There are new drugs that both W.H.O. and Doctors without Borders favor, but they are expensive and it is felt that it might worsen the situation to switch tactics now. And so the problem presents itself: expensive, effective new drugs, or cheaper, older drugs that may not work(1). One can understand the position of the Ethiopian Government so far as that they would like to choose the less expensive option. However, if the treatment they buy is not effective and if the second line of treatment is not possible for many of the citizens, then it is not only in the Ethiopian government's best interest, but also their responsibility to seek out and use a drug that will in fact help their citizens.
In a country with an average life span on 44 years and a death rate of 17.2 percent for children under five, the health care in Ethiopia is already poor and this malaria epidemic is the worst that the country has seen since 1998 (3). Malaria is spread largely by Anopheles mosquitoes and attacks the liver and red blood cells, though it can also attack other organs, depending on the case (4). Heavy rains this year and hot weather encouraged the breeding of mosquitoes and caused the spread of the disease. Unicef tried to take preventative action by sending hundreds of thousands of mosquitoes nets and over a million dollars in drugs. Clearly the efforts did not prevent the spread, though whether they lessened the severity of the outbreak cannot be known. Unicef does not take full responsibility for the choice of drugs. As a United Nations agency, they must be guided by the country's government, and in this case, Ethiopia's government chose the older medications (3).
The problem with the 'out-dated drugs' is that the diseases they were designed to treat have mutated and are no longer responsive to the treatment. This is the problem that is facing Ethiopia (1). The strain of malaria that is currently ravaging the country is thought to be resistant to the drugs chosen by the Ethiopian government and supplied by Unicef: a combination of chloroquine and sulfadoxinepyrimethamine. The pills must be taken for one day and it costs roughly twenty cents per person. Doctors Without Borders has claimed that up to 60 percent of the patients they see have not responded to this treatment (1). The second line of treatment—that which is used if the first treatment fails—is a five day in-patient hospital stay while being given quinine. In a country such as Ethiopia, where many citizens live in rural areas or are nomadic, checking into a hospital or clinic for five days can be nearly impossible. In fact, resistance to chloroquine is so common that the World Health Organization advises against its use (1).
The treatment suggested by Doctors Without Borders is using medications that contain artemisinin (5). Artemisinin, a chemical that is found in the sweet worm wood plant, does fight malaria more effectively, but it also costs between $1.00 and $1.25 and the pills must be taken for three days, not one day (1). The World Health Organization also supports the use of "artemisinin cocktails." Other African Countries including Burundi, Liberia and South Africa are using "artemisinin cocktails."(5)
Some doctors would argue that the treatment chosen by Ethiopia is not only ineffective, but in fact detrimental. The drug attacks the malaria parasite during one phase of its life, but also speeds the rate at which it produces the cells that are transmitted by mosquitoes, making it spread faster. If it doesn't kill the parasite, then all you have is a more virulent and easily spread case of the disease (1).
What it comes down to is how accurate the reports of resistance is and how widespread the resistance is to the drugs that are currently being used. If the 60 percent resistance that Doctors Without Borders is reporting is accurate, then switching tactics would be "a sensible strategy to follow" according to Dr. Mary Ettling, chief malaria expert at the United States Agency for International Development. Indeed, the USA endorses using artemisinin (1). In the meantime, the disease continues to spread. This problem is not going to go away, indeed as diseases mutate and develop resistance to the currently available drugs the problem of new expensive drugs versus older and cheaper drugs will only become a more pressing dilemma. Perhaps Unicef will in the future be able to put more pressure on the governments of the countries in which it is working, but until then finances will continue to provide a barrier to health services in developing countries.
WWW Sources
1)New York Times Article ,Newspaper article on Malaria in Ethiopia, but you have to Purchase it.
2) W.H.O., the World Health Organization's site on Ethiopia.
3) Unicef, Unicef's webpage on Ethiopia
4) Web MD: Malaria, Web MD's summary of Malaria and its symptoms. In case you were worried that you had contracted it for some reason If you are a hypochondriac, I wouldn't recommend exploring this site. I speak from experience.
5)Doctors Without Borders, Doctors Without Borders website on the current outbreak of Malaria in Ethiopia.

References

SUCCESSIVE REFERENCES, LIKE PARAGRAPHS, SHOULD BE SEPARATED BY BLANK LINES (OR WTIH

, BUT NOT BOTH)

FOR WEB REFERENCES USE THE FOLLOWING, REPEATING AS NECESSARY

REFERENCE NUMBER)NAME OF YOUR FIRST WEB REFERENCE SITE, COMMENTS ABOUT IT

FOR NON-WEB REFERENCES USE THE FOLLOWING, REPEATING AS NECESSARY

REFERENCE NUMBER) STANDARD PRINT REFERENCE FORMAT

Eating Disorders in Males Name: Katherine Date: 2003-12-16 14:54:39 Link to this Comment: 7542

Biology 103
2003 Second Paper
On Serendip

disorders are largely considered to be a "female disease". Statistics seem to validate this perception – of the estimated five million-plus adults in the United States who have an eating disorder, only ten percent are thought to be male ((1)). Many professionals, however, hold the opinion that these numbers are incorrect – it is impossible to base the statistics on anything other than the number of adults diagnosed with eating disorders, and men are much less likely than women to seek help for such a problem ((2)). This means that the male population probably suffers more from eating disorders than the numbers show.
The fact that the number of men who suffer from eating disorders is larger than most people think, and the fact that most people do not consider men to be susceptible to eating disorders at all, raise the question of whether or not we treat men who may have an eating disorder the same way we treat women. Simply put, this knowledge begs the question: is it more dangerous to be a man with an eating disorder than it is to be a woman with one?
For quite some time, there was a great deal of debate within the medical community as to whether or not men develop eating disorders for the same reasons that women do ((2)). Since very few men are willing to participate in treatment and study programs for people suffering from eating disorders, there was little way of knowing what psychological factors triggered disordered eating in males. A study published in the April 2001 issue of an APA journal, which looked at men with eating disorders and compared them to women with eating disorders and men without eating disorders, found that "men are generally very similar to women in terms of comparing psychopathology," and that "the illnesses are much more equivalent in prevalence than was previously thought" ((2)). Triggers for developing eating disorders have been found to be similar between the sexes: low self-esteem, depression, anxiety, difficulty coping with emotional and personal problems, and other existing psychological illnesses are common underlying factors in the development of disordered eating ((3)).
Aside from having the same basic influences, men usually develop the same kinds of eating disorders associated with women. Many people think that, given the muscular appearance of the male ideal, "male" eating disorders would be different from what are considered to be "female" eating disorders. The most common eating disorders in men, however, are anorexia, bulimia and binge eating (in which the person uncontrollably eats large quantities of food but does not purge after eating), which are also very common among women who have eating disorders ((1)). Like women, men who are involved in weight-conscious sports, such as wrestling, swimming and running, are more likely to develop eating disorders than those who do not participate in such activities ((3)). The only notable difference found between men and women with eating disorders thus far is that "while women who develop eating disorders feel fat before the onset of their disordered eating...typically they are near average weight. Men are more typically overweight medically before the development of the disorder" ((3)).
Given that most of the underlying psychological triggers for eating disorders, as well as the way eating disorders manifest themselves, is basically the same for both men and women, it seems strange to suggest that eating disorders may pose more of a threat to men than to women. Many health care professionals who specialize in eating disorders, however, worry that this is the case. The first danger is that a man (and those around him) may be less likely to notice his behavior or to think it is a real problem because "eating disorders have long been assumed to plague women only" ((4)). Many men do not know the symptoms of eating disorders, which means that they would not know what to seek help for even if they felt that something was wrong ((4)).
Medical professionals may also be less likely to diagnose an eating disorder in male patients that in their female counterparts. When Jason DeMaio was taken to the hospital, he was so thin that the simple act of walking was almost too much for his body to handle. At 5 feet 7 inches, DeMaio weighed in at around eighty pounds. His doctors, noting his extremely low weight and swollen lymph nodes, thought that he was exhibiting symptoms of cancer. It was only after this line of diagnosis proved fruitless that they began to consider that their patient might have an eating disorder ((1)). When dealing with the other side of eating disorders, men who bingo or compulsively overeat may not be diagnosed as having an eating disorder not only because emotionally triggered eating is not associated with men, but also because of "society's willingness to accept an overeating and/or overweight man more so than an overeating and/or overweight woman" ((3)).
Even when men know, through diagnosis or simply through their own deduction, that they have an eating disorder, they are much less likely to seek professional treatment than women. Many men are unwilling to ask for help concerning what they, and many others, consider to be a woman's problem ((2)). They fear being labeled as weak, effeminate, homosexual, or simply "not real men," and feel an intense sense of shame surrounding their disordered eating ((1)).
The lack of availability of treatment centers that can effectively treat male patients both validates and augments these concerns. Centers that treat eating disorders are often geared towards women, and many dislike admitting male patients because their presence may make female patients feel uncomfortable. Most of the programs who do readily allow men to participate do not have separate programs for male and female patients ((1)). Just as women may not be comfortable discussing their disordered eating in front of a man, men may very well want to avoid talking about their problems in a group composed mainly of women. Since group therapy is one of the most common and effective tools in battling an eating disorder ((1)), it is important that men participating in these programs are in groups where the can share their feelings openly.
What all of this suggests is that eating disorders are actually more dangerous for men, if only because men are less likely to seek and/or receive help. What is most important in lessening this danger is, in my opinion, educating the public on the reality of male eating disorders. While the media attention dedicated to women and girls suffering from eating disorders has been helpful in educating the general public to the threat of eating disorders in females, its neglect in covering men with eating disorders may contribute to the problem. People do not see or hear about men with eating disorders; therefore men with eating disorders do not exist for most people.
The medical community holds a large portion of the responsibility for educating the public on the dangers that eating disorders pose to men as well as women. Family doctors, for example, gave my parents (and the parents of my female friends) lectures on the importance of promoting a good self-image in their daughters as they approached puberty; to promote healthy eating and exercise habits while at the same time offering emotional support and watching their growing daughter for the signs of disordered eating. My parents did not get the same speech regarding my brother, nor did any of the parents of my male friends. It is important that doctors tell parents to help their sons maintain a healthy body image and educate them on the early signs of an eating disorder in their child. It is also important that doctors be aware of the possibility that one of their male patients may have an eating disorder, and that they treat any of the symptoms that would lead them to believe a female patient had an eating disorder just as seriously when those symptoms occur in a male patient. By working to erode the assumption that eating disorders are fundamentally un-masculine, we assure that men feel able to seek the same help that as women.

References

1)Men With Eating Disorders Face Unique Challenges

2)News From the APA: Men Less Likely to Seek Help for Eating Disorders

3)Issues for Men With Eating Disorders

4)Men Less Likely to Seek Help for Eating Disorders 2

ABORTION: WHERE DO WE DRAW THE LINE? Name: Alice Gold Date: 2003-12-16 16:09:26 Link to this Comment: 7544

Biology 103
2003 Second Paper
On Serendip

Possibly one of the most controversial court cases in our country's history was settled in January 1973. In a decision known as Roe vs. Wade, the Supreme Court legalized abortion in the United States (1). Now, according to the National Center for Health Statistics, abortion practices have become the most frequent surgical operation in the United States. But at what point is abortion just wrong? Only under certain circumstances should abortion practices be legal.

Many would argue that abortion is wrong because as soon as the baby is conceived, it becomes a living, breathing organism. Therefore, aborting the small organism is simply murder. However, when Roe vs. Wade was decided, organizations like Planned Parenthood publicly supported this ruling, arguing that during the first three months of pregnancy, the fetus is nothing more than a mass of tissue (1). In addition to Planned Parenthood, there are also many religious organizations in agreement with the legalization of abortion. These organizations include American Baptist Churches USA, the Episcopal Church, Presbyterian Church USA, the United Methodist Church, and the United Synagogue for Conservative Judaism (2). But under what circumstances should abortion practices be accepted?

As time passes, it seems as if more and more women are having abortions as a way of shunning responsibility. According to the AG Institution, fifty percent of women who have abortions use it as their sole means of birth control (3). This is one example of how abortion practice is being taken advantage of and used for the wrong reasons. In addition, approximately 45% of all abortions in the United States are done by women ages 19 and under. Why is this? Based on a survey of 1900 women in this country, the two most common reasons for abortion are: 1) the woman can not afford to keep the baby, and 2) the woman is not ready for the responsibility. These responses accounted for nearly 42% of all answers (3). However, these reasons are far from legitimate because these issues can be easily fixed. There are too many contraceptives and other forms of birth control to allow these excuses to be justifiable.

So what are acceptable reasons to abort an unborn baby? For one, a mother's health should never be in jeopardy. Another understandable reason to have an abortion is when there could be possible health problems for the unborn child. This excuse is legitimate because there is no way that a mother could be able to live a peaceful life knowing that her child is suffering, or being deprived of a normal lifestyle in any way. Sadly, these two reasons combined only accounted for six percent of the 1900 responses. One final justifiable reason for having an abortion, and perhaps the most important, is conceiving due to rape or incest, which according to this survey, only accounts for one percent of the women's opinion (3). Getting an abortion under this circumstance will always be justifiable because the situation is clearly out of the woman's hands. There is no woman in this world that will ever be able to tell her child that he or she was conceived not out of love, but as a result of rape.

Abortion procedures are not a bad thing; they are just too commonly used, and therefore promote irresponsibility. But is there really a way to reduce the number of abortion per year, without making it illegal; most likely not. Abortion was not legalized to be used as a sole form of birth control, so why do 50% of the women in the United States abuse it in this manner? Legalized abortion is a prime example of how people are given an inch and in turn, they take a yard.

References

1)Get the Facts, a website i found very interesting
2)Talking about Freedom of Choice: 10 Important Facts about Abortion, another interesting site
1)Who Does Abortion Affect?, yet another site

Painting What We See Within: A Look at the Insides Name: Lindsay Up Date: 2003-12-16 23:30:44 Link to this Comment: 7546

Biology 103
2003 Second Paper
On Serendip

One of the most memorable experiences I had last summer was visiting the American Visionary Art Museum in Baltimore, Maryland. (3)At this museum, professional artists had created none of the works hanging on the walls. Visionary art is an individualized expression by people with little or no formal training; the rules of art as a school did not apply here. While I was there, I learned that for many years, the artwork created by patients of mental institutions, hospitals, and nursing homes were disregarded and destroyed by their caretakers. After seeing what powerful and telling work came from many people in these situations, I found this information to be very distressing. Fortunately, the development of art as a form of therapy has changed the medical attitude toward art created by the healing in the past fifty years. While the work created through this therapy is rarely showcased as at the American Visionary, it is aiding therapists and their clients in reaching a new awareness.

Art therapy uses media and the creative process in healing, the key word here being process. We all know how revealing the artwork of children can be of their emotions. Art therapy applies this concept across the spectrum in a multitude of situations. It functions in many of the same settings as conversational therapy: mental health or rehabilitation facilities, wellness centers, educational institutions, nursing homes, in private practices or in a client's home. An art therapist may work with an individual or group, in families or couples. While most therapy is based on conversation between the therapist and his or here client/s, art therapy integrates visual communication into the experience through painting, sculpting, drawing or other media. (1)

What occurs during an art therapy session depends mainly on the client. The theory behind it is that visualizing his or her feelings will help him or her to get beyond masking them through language. Imagine describing a dream. It is never quite possible to communicate effectively the images we are left by our subconscious. Art therapy allows the client or patient to relay these images in a raw and powerful way. (1) During the therapy, a client's artistic ability is irrelevant. While the session is not just a relaxing diversionary activity, it is also not an art class. Most sessions are structured to help get the client started on a project, and oriented toward helping him or her reach specific goals. The idea is for the patient to be able to work at his or here own pace as the therapist helps them to explore the work's significance. The therapist is not an interpreter of the client's art but rather a facilitator to his or her inner discovery. (5)

Many art therapy practitioners agree that it is a good alternative to verbal therapy if the client does not speak English or is shy or frightened about verbalizing his or her feelings and experiences. If the latter is the case, it is often easier or less painful for the client to discuss the image, rather than to discuss him or her self directly. In this way, art therapy is at once both therapeutic and diagnostic. The act of creating helps the client to heal and allows the therapist to perceive implications from the process. As the therapist learns about the individual, he or she is able to help the client further in exploring the work's significance. (4)

First and foremost, art therapy is in the process, not the finished painting or sculpture. Therapy and art are both processes in and of themselves that require deep introspection and a commitment to learn at one's own pace. Art therapy shares all of these attributes. A remarkable example of how art therapy works as a process is Silence Speaks. (2) Digital storytelling is a form of art therapy that uses filmmaking to help clients make sense of and share their experiences. Silence Speaks is a program that lets those who are in therapy for violence-related concerns to learn a new skill while sharing their stories through an art medium. This form of therapy not only benefits the individual or group that makes the film, but also those who watch the finished product, by hearing and seeing the stories of their peers. Digital storytelling combines art therapy with narratives one might hear in traditional verbal therapy. Music is also sometimes incorporated. This integration creates a process of therapeutic communication on multiple levels. At the same time, the films provide an alternative to representations of violence and the self in popular media. (2)

I believe creative art therapy helps to remedy some of the main problems that many people have with traditional emotional therapy. One of my friends was telling me that when her therapist asked her how she was doing, she would normally answer "fine." I think many people might react in the same way even when everything is not "fine" because we condition ourselves to speak and look to everyone else like we've got everything under control. Although journal keeping is a widely established therapeutic exercise, it is possible that we are just as skilled at not being completely honest in writing as we are in conversation. It seems like the use of painting, drawing or other creative arts like dance and music would make for a less inhibited representation of our feelings. Artistic expression is something that many people practice on their own in order to make sense of their thoughts. By sharing these expressions with another person, we have an alternate angle as to what is going on in our heads.

Most "grown-ups" don't take the time to practice creative art in a casual setting. Art therapy brings opportunities to do so to people who normally feel they too busy or it isn't serious enough for them. Art therapy brings creativity into places like hospitals and nursing homes, places that could use other forms of healing rather than just the medical or psychiatric. Personally, I don't see why the developments in the study of art therapy shouldn't change our attitudes toward creative arts in general. When was the last time you sat down with crayons and drew a picture, or put on your favorite song and danced just for the heck of it? Sure, if you are creatively talented you might study art or music, but through as we get older we take even our most creative work too seriously. We try to make it good according to external standards rather than doing it for our own good. In the broader sense of things, I don't think art therapy is just for the healing. I believe our lives would be brighter and less stressful if we got into the habit of being just a little creative every day.

References

1)The American Art Therapy Association, organization dedicated to the research, practice and education in art therapy.
2)Silence Speaks, information about the digital storytelling program.
3)The American Visionary Art Museum, website for one of the most innovative creative spaces on the East Coast.
4)Arts in Therapy, organization mostly for the collaboration of students and practitioners of art therapy, with useful information.
5)Creative Response, information about art therapy programs for patients of AIDS and cancer.

The "Gemini" Disorder Name: Patricia P Date: 2003-12-17 10:33:03 Link to this Comment: 7547

Biology 103
2003 Second Paper
On Serendip

The "Gemini" Disorder
What We Know and Are Still Discovering About Bipolar Disorder

"You must understand something about Andrew... he's a Gemini." This was a simple phrase I heard very often in the company of my dear friend and his clever well-intentioned mother. It was discovered a short time later that the aforementioned statement was justification for the earliest symptoms of Bipolar disorder (or manic depressive illness.) As Andrew and I matured into our twenties, it seemed that he was going to need to understand a bit more than his astrological sign to gain control of his life and his mental and emotional well-being. Thus, we sought this information out together.

It is important to consider the magnitude of people who are affected by this disease and the multitude of forms it can take. Bipolar disorder affects approximately 2.3 million American adults, or about 1.2 percent of the U.S. population age 18 and over in a given year. (1) Of this population, approximately 75 percent have at least one close relative with manic-depression or severe depression. (5) Men and women are equally likely to develop bipolar disorder. Children and adolescents may show signs or have symptoms of bipolar disorder, yet a person's first manic episode usually strikes in their early 20s. Bipolar disorder is also more common among those who have family members, specifically first-degree relatives, with this disorder than with those who do not. (6) Unfortunately, many people suffer for years before properly diagnosed and treated or the illness may be never recognized at all. (4) Generally, bipolar disorder causes dramatic mood swings—from overly "high" and/or irritable to sad and hopeless, and then back again, often with periods of stable moods in between. Severe changes in energy and behavior follow these mood swings. (4) However, this description of bipolar disorder does not delve into the specifics of the disease which often branch into separate diagnosis and needs for treatment. Bipolar 1 Disorder is the more classic form of this illness, easy to recognize due to its frenzied and often psychotic episodes of mania. During these episodes, people may experience hallucinations (hearing, seeing or sensing a presence that isn't actually there,) or delusions of grandeur (such as believing they are the President, invincible, all-powerful, or extremely wealthy.) During depressive episodes, the person may experience feelings of worthlessness, hopelessness, pessimisms toward the future, and thoughts of death and suicide or even suicide attempts. Bipolar 2 disorder is characterized by its more mild to moderate form of mania known as hypomania. People experiencing episodes of hypomania may feel extra alert, productive, and tremendously brilliant: "At first, when I'm high, it's tremendous... ideas are fast... like shooting stars you follow until a brighter ones appear... All shyness disappears, the right words and gestures are suddenly there...uninteresting people, and things become intensely interesting. Sensuality is pervasive; the desire to seduce and be seduced is irresistible. Your marrow is infused with unbelievable feelings of ease, power, well-being, omnipotence, euphoria... you can do anything." (4) Unfortunately this form of hypomania alternates with a proportionately mild form of depression. Between each episode, a person may be free of symptoms. Many are symptom free for surprisingly long periods of time. However, when 4 or more episodes take place within a year, a person may be diagnosed as having rapid cycling bipolar disorder. With some people, the symptoms occur in what is known as a mixed bipolar state, where symptoms of mania and depression transpire together.

It is important to recognize that manic depression doesn't only drastically affect the diagnosed individual's quality of life, but also his/her entire family and network of those he/she is close to. People close to those with bipolar disorder are often coerced into riding this painfully unpredictable and irregular emotional roller coaster. And even though this is not a physically deteriorating disease, it is not without its injuries or fatalities. Those who are ill often find sanctuary with the use of drugs and alcohol. Many people who suffer from this disease will also cause physical harm to themselves or others during a severe manic or depressive episode. Devastatingly, 10 percent to 15 percent of those diagnosed are successful in their suicide attempts. (3)

Right now, bipolar disorder is combated with a variety of methods. Unfortunately, as with many mental illnesses where the source of the problem is uncertain, treatment is complicated and less direct. People are commonly prescribed one of many available mood stabilizers, with other medications added in order to control specific episodes of mania or depression (such as antidepressants.) The key to medication is to find the one that reacts best to your body, effectively treats your symptoms, and allows you to maintain your feeling of self. The most commonly used mood-stabilizing medications used today are Lithium and Valproate. However, there are varieties of mood-stabilizing, antidepressant, and even anticonvulsant drugs used to treat more specific or rare cases. People continue this treatment over periods of years, as the medication does not cure, but rather lessen the severity of symptoms. Strategies that combine medication and psychosocial treatment are optimal for managing this disorder best over time. (4) Keeping your doctor current with your progress and finding an optimal combination of strategies is key. But is there reason to have higher expectations for treatment in the future? Possibly even a cure?

Now that we understand the people effected by, symptoms associated with, and differing diagnosis and treatment for this life altering disease, one might wonder about the missing piece of the puzzle: Why? Why do people develop bipolar disorder in the first place? Is it hereditary? If so, is it genetic? Explanations of bipolar disorder have ranged from a shortage of Lithium in the brain to dog bites in childhood! (6) Researchers have previously argued over whether manic depression was a "mental illness" or more specifically, a "brain disorder." For example, some resources warn, "Like other mental illnesses, bipolar disorder can not be identified physiologically—for example, through a blood test or brain scan. Therefore, the diagnosis is made on the basis of symptoms, course of illness, and, when available, family history." (4) However, further research provides hope for alternatives.

The initial ray of hope is provided by inheritability. The chance of two adults without bipolar disorder having a bipolar child is only about 1 percent. However, if one parent has the disorder, the offspring's chance of becoming bipolar raises to about 5 percent. Furthermore, if that same child has aunts, uncles, or another relative with the disorder, their risk rises to about 14 percent. In the unlikely occurrence that both parents have bipolar disorder, the child is at a 30% risk, rising even greater if sibling or other relatives suffer as well. (3) Although the risk for disease increases with heredity, it is not based on any concrete principle of inheritance or ratio as with single gene disorders, again, making it hard to study. We must also reconcile with the fact that someone who seems genetically susceptible to bipolar disorder will not necessarily develop it. Thankfully, this link to heredity serves as a starting point for biological answers.

It is among popular research to focus on the neurotransmitter system specifically. Mostly, this is because the drugs we are prescribing today are aimed at controlling neurotransmitters, and have been successfully controlling depression and anxiety disorders for some time now. Some studies indicate that secret may be high or low serotonin, norepinephrine, or dopamine levels. Others feel that the issue is with the balance or equilibrium of these substances, and not simply an incorrect quantity in the body. (6) The problem may also be the way in which these substances interact with the sensitivity of receptors on nerve cells. A recently published study from the American Journal of Psychiatry reports that within patients suffering from bipolar disorder, two major areas of the brain contain 30 percent more cells! These cells are specifically responsible for sending signals to other brain cells. (6) It is conceivable, based on the exaggerated emotional symptoms of bipolar disorder, that these extra cells are responsible for a type of over stimulation occurring in the brain. Prior to this study, three independent research teams, two supported by the National Institute of Mental Health, reported a genetic link to bipolar disorder. The studies found that chromosomes 6, 13, and 15 were partly responsible. (7)A short time later, researchers of the National Institute of Mental Health Genetics Initiative Bipolar group found "several different chromosomes that seems to be important for bipolar disorder, not only chromosomes 18 and 21, which were reported before, but also 1, 6, 7, 10 and possibly others." (2) Although the scientific world is not yet able to come to consensus on which chromosomes may be responsible, they raise hope for a cure that is more than just the treatment of symptoms. These studies lead us in the right direction for a possibly biological cure for a psychologically experienced disease, which is in itself a huge step!

The most recent science brings us to the conclusion that it appears to be slightly more of a biologically responsible disorder than an environmental one, experienced as a psychological one, and exerting its power in all functions of a person's life- emotional and physical. The disease can be treated from many angles, but with our focus on biological possibilities, we may gain genetic knowledge allowing us to "intervene in the disease process to control or reverse it." (3) The potential for identifying specific chemicals, chromosomes, or genes also allows us possibility to step in before the disease has had any effect on the person. If we can identify people at risk, we may be able to prevent the development of the disorder all together.

The more we discover about bipolar disorder, the more we are drawn to ask about it. Are we looking to control and stabilize a person's environment who is deemed to be at risk? Are we looking to target specific cells? Are we looking to target specific genes? Will people one day get tested for genes that are associated with bipolar disorder? Will the discovery of those genes lead to a cure for the disease? From Andrew's perspective, there is a genuine fear that creeps into his head when he considers beginning treatment: 'Will I loose my identity?' 'Will I discover that those moments of artistic genius and emotional enthusiasm are curable symptoms of a terrible disease?' What is important to recognize right now is that there is information available and that it is ever expanding and decidedly improving. With a better understanding of this disease, its origins, and its treatments, we will also begin to bridge huge gaps between the behavioral and possibly the genetic. Whether there are definite environmental factors, cells, chemicals, genes, or actual specific strands of DNA, or multiple interacting causal factors, scientists are reasonably sure of one thing: Andrew's behaviors are not likely the result of being a Gemini!

References

WWW Sources

1) The Numbers Count: Mental Disorders in America , A huge source of well sited statistics on mental disorders, suicides, etc.

2) Researchers find Genetic "Hot Spots" of Manic-Depression , A write up on a specific genetic study designed to find chromosomes responsible for bipolar disorder.

3) The Foundation for Genetic Education and Counseling: Genetics and Bipolar disorder , A very helpful question-and answer sheet set up by the Foundation for Genetics. It is particularly interested in explaining genetics and the implications of its possible connection in this disease.

4)
National Institute of Mental Health: Bipolar Disorder , Contains absolutely anything about bipolar disorder that is reasonably concrete information: treatment, symptoms, diagnosed types, and everything in between.

5)
Evidence of Brain Chemistry Abnormalities in Bipolar Disorder , Discusses connections between brain cell count and brain chemicals as possible explanations to bipolar disorder.

6)
What Causes Bipolar Disorder?, A discussion of causes for bipolar disorder. Specifically looking closer at cell counts and the neurotransmitter system.

7)
Scientists Close in on Multiple Gene Sites for Manic Depressive Illness , A genetic study contradicting the one introduced prior. It focuses mainly on chromosone links to bipolar disorder.

Stradivarius: Unsurpassed Artisan or Just Lucky? Name: Sarah Kim Date: 2003-12-18 00:26:29 Link to this Comment: 7550

Biology 103
2003 Third Paper
On Serendip

There are about seven hundred Stradivarius violins still intact from the 17th century, and they are among the most sought-after instruments in the world (3). Most, if not all, of the greatest violinists of modern times believe that there is something in the Cremonese violins that provides superior tonal quality to all other violins. Skilled violinists can even distinguish between different qualities in the sound produced by individual Stradivarius violins. The challenge for scientists is to characterize such differences by physical measurements. In practice, it is extremely difficult to distinguish between a Stradivarius instrument and a modern copy on the basis of measured responses because the ear is a supreme detection device and the brain is a far more sophisticated analyzer of complex sounds than any system yet developed to assess musical quality. There have been many theories as to why Stradivarius violins produce such legendary brilliance and resonance, none providing a conclusive answer.

To understand the factors that affect the quality of sound produced by violins, the functioning of the violin must be understood. First of all, sound is produced by drawing a bow across one or more of the four stretched strings, but the strings themselves produce almost no sound. The energy from the vibrating string is transferred to the sound box, which is the main body of the violin. The bridge, which supports the strings, acts as a mechanical transformer; it converts the transverse forces of the strings into the vibrational modes of the sound box (4). The bridge itself also has resonant modes, playing a role in the overall tone. The front plate of the violin is expertly carved with f-holes which boost the sound output at low frequencies, through the Helmholtz air resonance. The Helmholtz air resonance describes the action of the air bouncing backwards and forwards through the f-holes (1). Then, front and back plates are skillfully carved to get the right degree of arching and variation in thickness. Even the tiniest changes in the thickness of the plates and the smallest variations in the properties of the wood will significantly affect the specific resonance in the frequency range (1).

There are many theories as to the "secret" of Stradivarius violins. Of course what was obviously first explored was the exact size of the violins and ratio of the parts of the violin to each other. It was proposed that perhaps the magic lay in some perfect ratio of measurements in the pieces of the violin, but instrument makers have disassembled their violins, calibrated every dimension of the pieces to within the hundredth of an inch, and replicated the measurements perfectly in new instruments, but failed to duplicate the Stradivarius magic (2). Another factor to consider is that almost all Cremonese instruments underwent extensive restoration and improvement in the 19th century. For example, in the 19th century, both the bass bar and the sound post were made bigger to strengthen the instrument and increase the sound output. The bass bar is glued underneath the top plate to stop energy being dissipated into acoustically inefficient higher-order modes. The sound post is a solid rod wedged between the back and front plates which causes the bridge to rock, making the plates vibrate with larger amplitude, producing a stronger sound (1).

Some tests suggest that early Italian makers, such as Stradivari, may have tuned the resonant modes of the individual front and back plates to exact musical intervals (1). They would be identified by the traditional flexing and tapping of the plates, in essence, the violin maker's brain providing the interpretative computing power to perform nodal analysis. This would be consistent with the prevailing Renaissance view of perfection, which was measure in terms of numbers and exact ratios. Unfortunately, there is no historical evidence to support this case, and physicists have used lab equipment to analyze the vibrational patterns of Cremonese violin front and back plates and had craftsmen carve new plates that faithfully reproduce the patterns, yet still the extraordinary and brilliant tone of Stradivari's violins is missing (2). Also, top players regularly return their instruments to violin makers to optimize the sound by moving the sound post and adjusting the bridge, showing that there is no unique set of vibrational characteristics for any particular instrument, even a Stradivarius (1).

A claim had been made by one of the last famed Cremonese violin makers, Joannes Baptista Guadagnini, that Stradivari's secret laid in using wood that had been dry-aged, with no extra treatment (3). The problem was that in Venice, from 1700 until 1720, when Stradivari produced his most prized and valued violins, wood supplies were tightly controlled by government authorities. People would have been thrown in jail for simply walking out and cutting wood from the forests. Authorized woodcutters felled trees and dumped the longs into rivers where they were carried downstream to the capital. By the time violin makers had access to the wood, it had been sitting in water for weeks or even months at a time (2). When wood shavings from Cremonese instruments were examined, residue of bacteria and fungi showed up, just as you'd expect in wood which had been sitting in water. This suggests that perhaps Guadagnini was deliberately misleading people so that nobody could replicate the great masters.

One of the most widely known theories is that the secret lies in a special kind of varnish used. Scholars from Cambridge University used electron microscopy to identify many of the ingredients of the varnish itself and the materials used to smooth the surface before the varnish is applied (1). They concluded that most could have easily been bought from the pharmacist shop next to Stradivari's workshop and that there is no convincing evidence to support the idea of a secret formula. Joseph Nagyvary has a slightly different take on the varnish issue. He claims that the local lumberman and the local apothecary simply happened to supply Stradivari with the ideal wood and perfect varnish; the production of his magnificent and extraordinary instruments was just a lucky accident (3).

The secret to producing such amazing tonal quality, he claims lies in the varnish. Nagyvary proposes the idea that the insect-repelling mixture of "salt of gems" (which are finely crushed crystals) and borax that the Cremonese violin makers used as varnish is what fossilized the wood to a perfect pitch (3). He believed that the violin makers treated their wood with mineral solutions, which is not a far-fetched idea, as the alchemy books of the time had plenty of recipes for mineral-rich wood preservatives used by furniture makers to protect chairs and tables against damage from insects and general rot. Salt of gems was commonly used as well to add stiffness to the wood and make the finish glitter. Nagyvary's idea is that the accidental chemical reaction of phosphates and wood lifted Stradivarius's violins to a whole new level.

The finish of the most pristine of the surviving Stradivarius instruments has a brittle, almost glassy look. If Stradivari's varnish contained sugar or a polysaccharide, the molecules would have attached to one another and to the wood, stiffening it so it could vibrate more efficiently (4). Fruit-tree extracts were widely used in wood varnishes as well, and Nagyvary claims that the pectin creates polymers which continue to add to the superior brilliance of the Stradivarius tonal quality (3). Unfortunately, ultraviolet photography has revealed that many fine-sounding Italian violins have lost almost all their original varnish. These violins were recoated during the 19th century or later (1). Therefore, the composition of the varnish may have had little to do with the overall superior tonal quality of the Stradivarius violins.

Another important finding by Nagyvary is that violins acknowledged to be great by expert listeners all look similar on the sound analyzer. He found that the sound pattern almost exactly reproduces that of a human voice (2). He built violins to match the spectrogram tests of the Stradivarius violins, results registering between 4,000 and 6,000 kHz, the zone where the human ear is the most sensitive. Shunsuke Sato, a top violinist, played both a Stradivarius violin and Nagyvary's replica as a test. Though Nagyvary's violin exhibits an uncommon brilliance and resonance, the Stradivarius violin sounded much warmer and even the untrained ear could hear a distinct difference (3).

A new theory which has emerged attributes the climate of the time period to the uncommonly amazing sound of the Stradivarius violins. A tree-ring dating expert, from the University of Texas, and a climatologist, from Columbia University, claim that the wood used by Stradivari had developed special acoustic properties as it was growing because of a "Little Ice Age" (4). They propose the idea that an extended period of long winters and cool summers gripped Europe from the mid-1400s until the mid-1800s. The peak coldest point of this ice age was during a seventy year period from 1645 until 1715, known as the Maunder Minimum. This change in climate affected wood density, yielding uncommonly dense Alpine spruce for Stradivari, creating superior tonal quality. Stradivari was born the year before the Maunder Minimum began and produced his most prized and valued instruments from 1700 until 1720, right at the end of the period. These experts write that the narrow tree rings which personify the Maunder Minimum in Europe played a role in the enhanced sound quality of instruments produced by the Cremona violinmakers and that the narrow tree rings would not only strengthen the violin but would also increase the wood's density (4).

Overall, science has not provided any conclusive answer on the existence or otherwise of any measurable property that would set Stradivarius violins apart from the finest violins made by skilled craftsmen today. However, the really top soloists and the violin dealers remain convinced by the legend of the Stradivarius violins. Perhaps this is due to certain snobbery on the part of the violinists, attempting to set themselves aside as elite. Perhaps it is the dealers who do not want people questioning whether simply the name of Stradivari alone is worth a million dollars. Certainly, the secret of the Stradivarius violins is elusive. I would find it interesting, in light of this new study on the climate of the 17th century in Italy, to have scientists grow a crop of trees in controlled climates to produce exceptionally narrow rings, then attempt to recreate the magic of the Cremonese violins. This may be the real key to unlocking Stradivari's secret. Personally, I find it intriguing that science cannot find an answer to the brilliance of the Stradivarius violin's sound. Highly trained individuals can detect the difference between a Stradivarius and a new modern copy, however good the copy may be. Skilled individuals can detect the difference between the sounds of an Italian Cremonese sound and those with a more French tone. Experts can even tell apart an individual Stradivarius from another Stradivarius. Yet do not know how to characterize such properties in meaningful physical terms.

References

1)Science and the Stradivarius, PhysicsWeb, April 2000

2)Stradivari's Secret, Discover, July 2000

3)Stradivarius: Artisan or Accidental Chemist?, November 2001

4)Cool Weather May Be Stradivarius' Secret, CNN.com, December 2003

Obsessive Compulsive Disorders, Obsessive Compulsi Name: Elizabeth Date: 2003-12-18 10:16:30 Link to this Comment: 7551

Biology 103
2003 Second Paper
On Serendip

Elizabeth Bryan
Biology 103
Final Paper

Obsessive Compulsive Disorders, Obsessive Compulsive Spectrum Disorders, and the P.A.N.D.A.S. Connection

As someone who's been plagued by an Obsessive Compulsive Spectrum Disorder since childhood, I can say it seems hopeless at times. For so long a sufferer feels that what they have isn't a legitimate ailment and that he is alone in his battle. Thankfully, in recent years, more and more research is being done on Obsessive Compulsive Disorders, and more answers are being found.
Obsessive Compulsive Disorders are the fourth most common psychiatric diagnosis. Sometimes the onset of symptoms is sudden, but more often than not it is a gradual progression. Precipitating events that could spur the onset of an Obsessive Compulsive Disorder can include emotional stress (domestic or job-related), increased levels of responsibility, health problems, and bereavement. According to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders Fourth Edition, "the essential features of an Obsessive Compulsive Disorder are recurrent obsession or compulsions that are severe enough to be time consuming (i.e.: they take more than an hour per day) or cause marked distress or significant impairment. At some point during the course of the disorder, the person has recognized the obsessions or compulsions are excessive or unreasonable. It's important to note that this is difficult concerning children because children tend to not realize that their compulsions are excessive or unreasonable while adults do ((1) .).
People develop compulsions by trying to ignore thoughts or impulses, or by trying to neutralize them with other thoughts or actions. Compulsions are mental acts, and include repeating words, ordering things, hand washing, and various other motions. The goal of these compulsions is to prevent or reduce anxiety.
Because Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors (SSRI's) such as Prozac, Luvox, Zoloft, and Paxil are effective in controlling Obsessive Compulsive Disorders, it's believed that serotonin regulation is a part of the cause of OCD. Serotonin is a very important chemical messenger in the brain, and plays a role in a person's mood, aggression, impulse control, sleep, appetite, body temperature, and pain. Brain imaging studies have depicted various abnormalities in parts of the brains of Obsessive Compulsive Disorder sufferers. These parts include the caudate nucleus, the basil ganglia, the thalamus, orbital cortex, and cingulated gyrus.
Disorders that have the obsessive compulsive symptoms of intrusive, repetitive behaviors are often called OC Spectrum Disorders. Amongst these include Trichotillomania, Monosyruptomatic Hypochondriasis, Body Dismorphic Disorder, and some eating disorders. Other disorders also coexist with Obsessive Compulsive Disorders, and are referred to as Comorbid Disorders. The most common Comorbid Disorder is depression.
Trichotillomania is the chronic, repetitive pulling of bodily hair, most often being from the scalp, eyebrows, eyelashes, and pubic areas. Sufferers feel great anxiety before pulling, and feel a sense of relief after pulling out their hair. While more research needs to be done on Trichotillomania, it is believed to be related to abnormalities in brain function.
Body Dismorphic Disorder is "characterized by preoccupation with a minor bodily defect or imagined defect which is believed to be conspicuous to others" (Pedrick, #1). Repetitive Body Dismorphic Disorder behaviors include mirror checking, grooming, shaving, washing, skin picking, weight lifting, and comparing self with others. Both Trichotillmania and Body Dismorphic Disorder can be treated with medication and cognitive behavior therapy.
It is now widely believed that in many cases Obsessive Compulsive Disorders are triggered by a phenomenon called "P.A.N.D.A.S", or Pediatric Autoimmune Neuropsychiatric Disorders Associated with Streptococcal Infections. This term is used to describe children who have Obsessive Compulsive/"Tic" disorders (such as Tourette's Syndrome) in which symptoms worsen after a strep infection(2) ..
It's recently been found that in some children, the natural antibodies developed in their blood to fight a strep infection not only attacked the strep, but also attacked perfectly healthy cells as well, including the basal ganglia region, which controls the body's motor movements, and it also known to have abnormalities in OCD sufferers. Generally the onset of tics or compulsions is abrupt in P.A.N.D.A.S. cases, and may occur within days, weeks, or months following a strep infection.
Dr. Susan Swedo has been the most prolific researcher of P.A.N.D.A.S., and is the head of the Behavioral Pediatrics Department of the child psychiatry branch of the National Institute of Mental Health. Her department has been studying OCDs and their links to strep infections since 1986. According to Dr. Swedo, if the following criteria are met, a diagnosis of P.A.N.D.A.S. may be made:
1. "The presence of an OCD or tic disorder
2. Pediatric onset of symptoms (age three to pre puberty)
3. Abrupt onset or dramatic exacerbation of symptoms
4. Symptom exacerbation related to a strep infection
5. Neurological abnormalities during the exacerbation periods, which could include unwarranted fears, fidgeting, and difficulty in school" (2) .

Dr. Swedo also notes that if P.A.N.D.A.S. hasn't occurred by age twelve or thirteen, it most likely never will.
New treatments are being experimented with for P.A.N.D.A.S. In 1999, Dr Swedo reported at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry that plasmapheresis was successful in treating P.A.N.D.A.S. Dr. Swedo cited a preliminary study in which twenty-eight children were randomly assigned to receive plasmapheresis, intravenous immunoglobulin, or a placebo infusion. Tics declined fifty percent within one month in the plasmapheresis patients and twenty-five percent in the patients who received the immunoglobulin. No change was seen in the placebo group. Obsessive Compulsive Disorder symptoms were reduced by sixty percent with plasmapheresis, by forty-five percent with immunoglobulin, and virtually not at all with the placebo infusion(3) ..
Children treated with plasmapheresis showed greater improvement on global functioning measures, and their total improvement went on for over a month after their treatment. In the children who received the plasmapheresis, brain structures such as the caudate nucleus, basal ganglia, and globus pallidus, which are enlarged during P.A.N.D.A.S. flares, normalized. Dr. Swedo even said in some cases the difference in the size of the caudate nucleus is visible(3) ..
Thankfully, for OCD, OC Spectrum Disorders, and P.A.N.D.A.S. sufferers, more research is being completed everyday. Because significant research has only begun since the late 1980s, what is known now will be considered little in the years to come. The Plasmapheresis treatments now being experimented with look very promising in treating P.A.N.D.A.S. In terms of other OCDs, OC Spectrum Disorders, and Comorbid Disorders, cognitive therapy as well as medications have proved to be very effective. In my own experience with an OC Spectrum Disorder and depression, the combination of the right serotonin medication and therapy have proved very successful in allowing me to go on with my life without worrying about such disorders on a daily basis, as sufferers of these disorders often do.

References

SUCCESSIVE REFERENCES, LIKE PARAGRAPHS, SHOULD BE SEPARATED BY BLANK LINES (OR WTIH

, BUT NOT BOTH)

FOR WEB REFERENCES USE THE FOLLOWING, REPEATING AS NECESSARY

1)What Causes OCD

2)Not Just a Sore Throat: Common Childhood Infection May Trigger Neurological Disorder

3)Strep Related OCD/Tic Treatment Info

FOR NON-WEB REFERENCES USE THE FOLLOWING, REPEATING AS NECESSARY

REFERENCE NUMBER) STANDARD PRINT REFERENCE FORMAT

Noah's Ark Name: Justine Pa Date: 2003-12-18 13:10:15 Link to this Comment: 7552

Justine Patrick
Professor Grobstein
Biology: Basic Concepts
Final Paper
December 17, 2003

Noah's Ark vs. Jurassic Park:
As the human population of the world continues to increase the flora and fauna of the planet are becoming an increasingly smaller part of the picture. Environmentalist and conservationists all over the globe are working hard to find strategies and methods for the preservation of disappearing creatures and species. An increasingly popular idea that would allow for great benefits in the field of conservation became apparent in 1996 with the cloning of sheep by the name of Dolly. Since then the scientific debate on the relationship between cloning and conservation has ensued. Although the answer to that question remains on the horizon, cloning for helping endangered species is a process that may become a frequent procedure in the future.
When one thinks of cloning generally the first idea that pops into your mind is a large tube filled with some creature attached to a lot of tubes. Cloning actually, is a much more complicated and difficult process. Cloning, scientifically defined is, "asexual reproduction or as the creation of genetically identical individuals" (1). In the cloning process the DNA of one individual creature is "copied" into the cell, or embryo, of another and then that embryo develops into a baby and proceeds down the process of birth and embryological development. Currently, many scientists believe that if the DNA of endangered species is rescued and preserved that the DNA of that species could undergo the cloning process and thus produce a clone of that species. The results of this cloning process would be enormous or it "will open a new front in the battle to preserve the Earth's biodiversity by cloning endangered gorillas, tigers and other rare species" (2). Cloning of endangered species would be a monumental achievement for the scientific community. Many people when they think of cloning picture sometime weird science fiction creature in a test but in real life the idea of cloning could be a valuable tool for the environmental community and it would be a process could vastly improve the current situation of endangered species.
Part of the reason why the cloning process is so highly revered is because of the level of complexity and the multiple details that must develop accordingly for the process to work. Robert P. Lanza says, "It is a deceptively simple-looking process. A needle jabs through the protective layer surrounding an egg. A research assistant sucks out the egg's nucleus, which contains the majority of a cell's genetic material, leaving behind only a sac of gel called cytoplasm. Another needle is injected and an electric pulse fuses the newly introduced cell to the egg and the early embryo begins to divide. Soon, it will become large enough to move to a surrogate mother" (3). All of these steps must be completely perfect for the introduction of the cloning process. Although the entire process of reproductive physiology and endocrinology are currently unknown, scientists and biologists realize the many other hurdles must be jumped for the success of the cloning process. A statistic about the success of cloning states, "For every 100 eggs that are fused with host cells the expectation is only between 15 and 20 to produce the first step on the cellular level, known as blastocysts. And generally less than a fraction of 10 percent of those yield a single birth... But even in this instance we have to work hard to produce just a few animals" (3). Although the complexity of the cloning process illustrates the difficulty in the actual process of cloning, as reproductive technology and research increase further advances can be projected making cloning a more attractive prospect as a method for the conservation of endangered species.
If the process of cloning is successful there are multiple questions that arise with the induction of a clone. Cloning by definition refers to the copying of one individual and making it another. If a fundamental step in categorizing biological life has having diversity the process of cloning conflicts with this notion. Does that mean instead that cloned animals and species are not living? My answer to this question is no because life is not solely based on diversity although it is an essential aspect in the success of that species. According to the Scientific American, "cloning's main power, however, and is that it allows researchers to introduce new genes back into the gene pool of a species that has few remaining animals" (3). Cloning allows for researchers and scientists to use a certain type of species to improve the numbers of the population. Although the genetic material of the clone may come from one specific subject, it does not dictate all genetic characteristics of that species. There are certain fundamental characteristics in every living thing that is indigenous to that subject although it may have been cloned. In a commentary by Oliver Ryder he suggest, "the application of cloning technology stands to have a long-term benefit of increasing retention of genetic variation in small populations because the consideration of preservation of gene pools is a potentially major aspect of mammalian cloning" (1). He suggests that the cloning of one individual specimen will yield its own diversity although the genetic material is the same. As reproductive technology increases and cloning becomes a strong prospect for the conservation of endangered animals multiple question arise about the loss or lack of diversity that may arrive because of cloning.
The debate on the effectiveness and benefits of cloning when it comes to saving endangered animals is raised in the upbringing of the animal itself. One key factor in the cloning process lies in the actual birth of the animal. After the embryo as grown to a reasonable size it must be moved to a surrogate mother, or another female animal of similar species for the gestation period. In an article by Scientific American it states, " A clone still requires a mother, however very few conservationists advocate rounding up wild female endangered animals for that purpose or subjecting a precious zoo resident of the same species to the rigors of assisted reproduction and surrogate motherhood. That means that to clone an endangered species, researchers such as ourselves, must solve the problem of how to get cells from two different species to yield the clone of one" (3). So, even if the problem of finding a matching surrogate mother is found other questions arise. In an article that supports the cloning process that "If cloning were to become utilized, it would focus attention on the surrogate dams, [mothers], including their behavior. The importance of mother/infant relationships for instance, especially with regard to reinforcing appropriate natural behaviors adaptive to the wild for reintroduction purposes would receive increase scrutiny. The positive side of this is that females that impart desirable behavioral traits to their offspring could do so to genetically unrelated individuals" (1). If the mother of the clone is a different species a possible outcome could be that the clone would behave like the surrogate mother. This leads to the question of nature versus nurture. Does the environment of a specimen dictate its actions or are there certain social biological behavioral characteristics that exhibited by different species because of their biological background. If during the cloning process a panda happens to be raised by a black bear and exhibits the same characteristics as a black bear cub there could be major alterations to the outcome of the cloning process and the success of that clone in years to come. There are successful "interspecies embryo transfers" (3). "An Indian desert cat into a domestic cat; a bongo antelope into a more common African antelope; a mouflon sheep into a domestic sheep and a rare red deer into a common white-tailed deer. All yielded life births" (3). Only time will tell if there is any influence on the behavior of the creatures cloned. After the gestation period the question of the influence of the surrogate mother on the clone's behavior is another question and problem with the cloning process but a successful outcome in both situations can lead to better methods for the survival of endangered species.
Conservationists and scientists continue to support cloning as a method for saving endangered mammilla but during the cloning process the selected specimen may result in a specific gender of the animal. If once the decision to clone a certain animal has been made and there is only one sex represented how does that benefit the success of the species? A solution to this question comes from the Advanced Cell Technology (ACT). It says, "ACT plans to try to make a male by removing one copy of the X chromosome from one of the female specimen's cells and using a tiny artificial cell called a microsome to add a Y chromosome from a closely related species" (3). If this process works Noah's idea of "two by two" (a female and a male) is not necessary. This is genetic engineering of animals can be also considered by some as "playing GOD". But the success of the species resides in the ability for an animal to be able to reproduce, or one of the fundamental steps that is necessary in categorizing biological life.
Cloning as a method of preservation carries into the storage of the genetic material necessary for the beginning of the cloning process which begins with the DNA of the creature being clone. This idea also carries into a popular catch phrase known in the conservationist community as "frozen zoos, or there are cylinders of frozen genes from hundreds of rare plants and animals from around the world used in high-tech efforts to save endangered species and possibly cloning" (2). Scientists would be able to take samples of endangered animal's DNA and cryogenically freeze them until there is an opportunity to use the genetic material to further the success of the species. This sounds similar to a modern day creation of Jurassic Park. There was speculation about possible reintroduction of a 1000 year old wooly mammoth. But, the validity of this statement is limited because of the damaged done to the cells by changing in temperatures of the ice over the years. So, the Jurassic Park idea and the reintroduction of dinosaurs would not be applicable because there are no genes or genetic material that could allow for cloning. Cryogenics is a method that allows for the retention of the DNA necessary for the cloning process, which is a method of preservation for endangered animals.
The world is changing. Animals and the wildlife of the planet are loosing the battle with industrialization. A method to the salvation of these creatures lies in cloning. Cloning is a difficult process with many complicated aspects that are necessary for the success of the procedure. Although many may feel that this is the easy way out of conservation or will change the focus of conservationist the main focus is to allow the continuation of species that without the help of scientist and conservationist would disappear. The combination of the cloning process and an in increase methods for the preservation of the natural habitats will result in a longer lasting legacy and ability for future generations to be able to experience the majesty of the Earth's many diverse endangered species.

Works Cited
1.) Ryder, Oliver A. and Kurt Benrischke. "The Potential Use of "Cloning" in the Conservation Effort." Zoological Society of San Diego 16. (1997): 295-300.

2.) Dan, Fagin "Gene Back Acts as a High-Tech Noah's Ark." Long Island Queens: Our Future. .

3.) Lanza, Robert P. and Betsy L. Dresser and Philip Damiani. "Cloning Noah's Ark." Scientific American 19 (2000). 17 Dec. 2003. .

4.) Smith, Peter T. "Director's Diary: Cloning and Conservation." Concerning Conservation Newsletter 2 (1999). 17 Dec. 2003. .

Should the Morning-After Pill be Available Over-th Name: Natalya Kr Date: 2003-12-18 17:05:20 Link to this Comment: 7553

Biology 103
2003 Second Paper
On Serendip

Last Tuesday, advisors to the Food and Drug administration voted to make the "morning-after" pill available over-the-counter (1). The FDA has not yet acted on this recommendation (1). The morning-after pill is the vernacular term for emergency contraception, specifically, two pills with the commercial name, "Plan B", which have the ability to inhibit and, depending on one's perspective, possibly to terminate unwanted pregnancies. The FDA approved the first version of the morning-after pill for prescription use in 1998 (1). The issue today is whether it should be available without a prescription.

The morning-after pill is essentially a high dosage of the birth control pill (2). It can contain progesterone, estrogen, or both (2). . It can prevent fertilization in the fallopian tubes by altering sperm and egg transport or by preventing or delaying ovulation, and it can prevent fertilized eggs, or zygotes, from implanting in the uterus by thickening the uterine lining (1). It is not effective if the process of implantation has already begun (5). The morning-after pill is not to be confused with RU-486, the so-called abortion pill, which terminates a zygote implanted in the uterine lining (1).

All three mechanisms of the morning-after pill do not necessarily all take place every time it is used and it is impossible to determine which, if any, of them prevented implantation in any successful case (3). One controversial ethical issue surrounding the morning-after pill is whether it is tantamount to abortion. The debate concerns whether pregnancy and life begin with a fertilized egg or with its implantation.

If conditions in the uterus are ideal, a zygote will begin to implant itself in the uterine lining after about 6 days and take several more days to be complete the process of implantation (3). . One of the reasons why many scientists have chosen to define implantation as the beginning of pregnancy is because half of all zygotes do not survive beyond two weeks even if no action is taken to destroy them and so un-implanted zygotes are not considered necessarily viable (3). According to the Mayo Clinic, the morning-after pill prevents pregnancy from occurring because it does not terminate a developing zygote implanted on the uterine wall (1). According the American Bioethics Advisory Commission, preventing a zygote from implanting in the uterine lining, is technically abortion because life and pregnancy begin with conception (2). The American Heritage dictionary defines conception as the "formation of a viable zygote by the union of the male sperm and the female ovum; fertilization" (10). . Even this definition leaves room for interpretation about whether or not a zygote is viable, but for those who believe that every fertilized human egg is a human life, the debate here is identical to the debate over whether or not surgical abortion should be legal. It is a question of how human life is defined, when it begins, and under which circumstances, if any, it is permissible to end it. In polls, most Americans have demonstrated a preference for earlier abortions over later ones (7). For those who see more shades of gray in such matters, the question becomes, is the morning-after pill a better, more humane, and safer option, than surgical abortion and particularly late-term or partial birth abortion, and if so should it be made readily available?

In many ways, the morning-after pill is a remarkable advance over previously available methods of dealing with the prospect or reality of unwanted pregnancies. In the past women had to wait weeks for the results of pregnancy tests and then weeks more until they were at stage of development when surgery was possible (7). The morning after pill has the ability to prevent women from getting pregnant in the first place and it is not invasive, which makes medical complications far less likely. Still, critics point out that no studies have yet been conducted to reveal the long-term effects of the morning-after pill on the women who use it, especially those who use it more than once (1).

Sharon Camp, president and CEO of Women's Capital Corporation, which makes the morning-after pill, claims that 48% of American Women have had at least one unplanned pregnancy, with higher rates for teenagers and women over 40 (8). . Dr. Carole Ben-Maimon, president of Barr Research, claims that 15% of women who use condoms and 8% of women who take birth control become unintentionally pregnant and over 3 million unintended pregnancies occur each year, half of which terminate in abortions (1). She says it is estimated that half of these unintended pregnancies could be prevented with the morning-after pill (1). The United States abortion rate has dropped 5% between 1996 and 2000 (7). . Researchers at the Guttmacher Institute believe that much of this drop can already be attributed to increased use of emergency contraception (7). The morning after pill is already available over-the-counter in 31 countries and 5 states (1). In the Netherlands, where it is available over-the-counter, the abortion rate for women ages 15 to 19 is about 4 abortions per 1000 women, compared to nearly 30 abortions per 1000 women in the U.S. (9).

The designers of the morning-after pill claim that when it is taken within 72 hours of unprotected sex, it reduces the chance of pregnancy by 89 percent (1). Research shows the treatment to be most effective when taken within 24 hours of intercourse (1). Experts from the World Health Organization say that a woman's chance of becoming pregnant from unprotected sex doubles if she delays taking the morning-after pill for only 12 hours and increases with longer delays (4). Getting to the doctor to get a prescription can be difficult if not impossible on weekends or without a previous appointment. This is one of the main reasons why experts believe the drug should be available over-the-counter instead of by prescription only (1).

Some argue that the morning-after pill will promote promiscuity because it will alleviate the consequences of having sex before marriage (8). To begin with, the side effects of the morning-after pill include nausea, fatigue, headache, abdominal pain or cramps, dizziness, breast tenderness, diarrhea and moodiness, hardly a charming combination (5). More importantly, a teenager interviewed for CBS news in June said "I don't think that [the morning-after pill] causes people to be reckless any more than like airbags cause people to get into accidents. It's just something nice to have just in case something goes wrong, you know" (5). Her analogy is an apt one and illustrates the point that women who use the morning-after pill, in general, are trying to correct a personal mistake not to accommodate a careless lifestyle.

In summary, for those who believe life begins with conception and terminating an unborn human life is always unacceptable, the morning-after pill is just another method of committing an immoral act, but for those remaining, who do not consider all methods of terminating or preventing a pregnancy to have the same moral implications, the morning-after pill is a Godsend. It corrects for the chance ineffectiveness of methods of contraception like condoms and birth control without invasive surgery, and in some cases, or all, depending on one's perspective, without the moral quandary of pregnancy. The pill has the potential to reduce the number of surgical abortions and unwanted pregnancies in the United States dramatically, especially if it is provided over-the-counter. The abortion rate in countries like the Netherlands which already provide it over-the-counter, is marginal. The pill is significantly more effective the sooner one takes it after intercourse and the great advantage of making it available over-the-counter as opposed to by prescription only is that it would give a greater number of women faster and more access to it. This accessibility is crucial for women to be able to make effective use of the pill. Luckily, for the women of America, the Advisory Commission of the FDA has recommended making the morning-after pill available over-the-counter in the United States as it is in other countries. One can only hope that the FDA will follow suit.

WWW Sources

1) Health: Panel backs over-the-counter "morning-after" pill. (CNN.com)

2)The Morning After Pill: What You Need to Know About Emergency Contraception (American Bioethics Advisory Commission 2002)

3) Pro-Life Activities: Life Insight.

4) Health Pregnancy risk of "morning-after" pill (BBC New Online)

5) McKinley Health Center at University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign: Plan B Emergency Contraception (Morning-After Pills)

6) The Early Show: The Morning-After Pill, For Emergencies Only.

7) The Boston Globe: Women having earlier abortions; "morning-after" pill use rises.

8) CityPages.com: The Morning-After Pill Gets a Push.

9) Smn.com: There's got to be a morning after.

10) The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language: Third Edition. New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1996.

Head Case Name: Stefanie F Date: 2003-12-19 01:42:43 Link to this Comment: 7556

Biology 103
2003 Second Paper
On Serendip

Most of the little girls I knew in my childhood liked to play dress up, host tea parties, play with dolls, paint, and do other "normal" children's activities. When I was a little girl I enjoyed painting, hosting tea parties, and spent many of my weekends and school vacations competing in both national and international martial arts tournaments and exhibitions. Martial arts taught me self-discipline, self-control, and self-awareness as a child. It kept me physically fit, and made me more confident in my abilities. However, as I progressed through the ranks I spent more time training and much more time competing.

Once a practitioner reaches the level of Black Belt, all sparring matches become full contact, meaning blows to the head, neck, and below the waist are now scored as hits as opposed to fouls by sporting rules. I reached the rank of Black Belt at age eight, meaning I participated in full contact sparring matches for roughly six years. In addition to my competing as a martial artist, I was also an amateur boxer for two years- from ages 13 to 15. At the time, I didn't think about the consequences of the sport I had chosen. The daily punishment of taking one or two hard blows to the head didn't seem troublesome at the time. All competitors wore gloves in addition to protective headgear and mouthguards. In the roughly ten years in which I fought competitively I sustained several concussions, and only one in which I lost consciousness. However you may wonder, what is the clinical definition of this condition, and how are concussions diagnosed?

What is a Concussion?

When an injury to the brain is sustained, it causes the brain to bounce against the hard bone of the skull. The force of the hit against the skull might cause "tearing or twisting" of structures and blood vessels in the brain. This "tearing or twisting" deep within the brain tissue causes a breakdown in the normal flow of messages within the brain. This breakdown is the biological explanation of the concussion condition (1).

Oh No! Am I Concussed?

There are over 600,000 cases of sustained concussion in the United States alone each year. Symptoms include, loss of consciousness, dizziness, nausea or vomiting, increased size of one pupil, loss of memory, severe headache, weakness in one or more extremities, or changes in behavior. These symptoms may last anywhere from a couple hours to several weeks or months, depending on the seriousness of the injury, according to most physicians (1).

How is Concussion Severity Determined?

There are over sixteen concussion grading systems noted in medical literature however, the most widely used was developed by Dr. Robert C. Cantu in 1986. He, in 2001, revised these guidelines placing the emphasis on posttraumatic amnesia (PTA) and other post concussion symptoms as signs as opposed to loss of consciousness when determining concussion severity. The Cantu Scale goes from grade one to three. Grade one is a mild concussion in which there is no loss of consciousness, however there is PTA or post concussion symptoms which last anywhere from fifteen minutes to half an hour. A grade two concussion is described as moderate, with loss of consciousness (for no more than a minute), or PTA or post concussion lasting for longer than thirty minutes, but no more than 24 hours. The most severe concussion, a grade three, is when there is loss of consciousness for more than a minute, or PTA or post concussion lasting for longer than seven days (2).

Now, at age eighteen, I have been removed from martial arts and boxing for almost four years. In those four years I have sustained two additional concussions while playing basketball, both of which were only grade one severity. About a month and a half ago I sustained a third grade one concussion, which has since been upgraded to a grade three, as I am still experiencing post-concussion symptoms almost two months after the initial injury. The blow to my head in a routine drill, which was not even a hard hit, has also led to the end of my collegiate basketball career. Has my history of previous head trauma led to my current delay in recovery? Am I now more susceptible than other athletes to suffering a concussion? Most importantly, will I suffer long term damage from the injuries sustained during my youth and high school athletic years?

When is it Okay to Play?

One of the most frequently asked questions of physicians and certified athletic trainers is, when is it okay to play? There is no set timetable for athletes who are concussed, with regard to when they should return to the field, pitch, court, pool, or other venue of competition. Researchers at the University of Pittsburgh's have developed new technology known as Immediate Post-Concussion Assessment and Cognitive Testing system or ImPACT. The purpose of the ImPACT technology is to test the memory, reaction and processing times of athletes. A baseline assessment obtained at the beginning of a season would serve as a comparison to an athlete's performance post-concussion. The results would allow physicians, coaches, and trainers to have a more objective method of deciding the status of athletes following injury (3). ImPACT is affordable technology that is available for athletes at all levels and is currently used by the National Football League and the National Hockey League, in addition to high school, club, and middle school teams. Strict adherence to revised concussion diagnosis guidelines in addition to implementation of new diagnostic technology can help keep impaired athletes from further brain damage by allowing for ample recovery time. "On-the-field amnesia", not loss of consciousness, is most important in diagnosing concussion severity, in addition to deciding whether an athlete should be allowed to return to competition (4). With proper diagnosis in addition to allowing for recovery time coaches, physicians, athletic trainers, and other health care professionals are preventing possible long term damage.
Research by the team at the University of Pittsburgh has concluded that concussion is cumulative. Simply, the more a person is hit in the head, the more likely he or she is to recover more slowly, thus leading to a greater risk of another concussion. According to this research, I am indeed more susceptible to future concussions.

Concussion is one of the more allusive injuries in the sports medicine community. Diagnosis and treatment are hard to determine, as is the effect of concussion in the long term. These unanswered questions leave me, a victim of multiple concussions, uncertain about my future. My neurologist is unable to assure me that future problems do not lie on the horizon as the deeper, lasting impact of concussion is still a mystery.

References

1)Concussion, a guid to concusions for families provided by University of Missouri Health Care, Neuro-medicine

2)Concussion Grading Systems And
Return-To-Play Guidelines: A Comparison
By Robert C. Cantu, M.D., a resource outlining the symtoms of concussions and how they are graded

3)Serious Effects of Mild Concussions, a sports medicine article disgussing the concerns about the long term effects of concussions

4)FOR YOUNG ATHLETES WITH CONCUSSION, ON-THE-FIELD AMNESIA, NOT LOSS OF CONSCIOUSNESS, PREDICTIVE OF POST-INJURY SYMPTOM SEVERITY, an article reporting the results of a study of concussed student athlets by the University of Pittsburg Medical Center

'Golden Rice': who would have thought something s Name: Abby Fritz Date: 2003-12-19 10:59:05 Link to this Comment: 7557

Biology 103
2003 Second Paper
On Serendip

Heated debate over the bioengineering of a type of rice that has come to be called 'golden rice' has been taking place in the past five years. Exploration of the possibilities that would follow the mapping of the rice genome began in response to the huge populations in developing countries that experience vitamin deficiencies; namely, vitamin A. When biotech company, Syngenta, announced that they had mapped the rice genome, a series of activist groups spoke out against a project that was, many argued, politically and financially motivated. This has been a topic of intense debate that I was surprised to find. Developing a kind of rice containing a vitamin that is lacking among large populations seems to be such a great idea. So why does so much controversy surround the project? There are many more disadvantages to the introduction of the new technology than one might anticipate. The following first explores the effects of vitamin a deficiency and then the arguments of the opposition and supporters' responses to it.

Vitamin A is an organic compound that is needed in small amounts in the human body; however a deficiency in this micronutrient can lead to problems and illnesses (3). The vitamin is found naturally in many plant and animal foods in the forms of retinal in animals and carotene in plants (3). Retinal pigments that are very important for night vision are produced by Vitamin A; the vitamin is also important in maintaining the strength of epithelial tissues (5). Without proper amounts of Vitamin A, the outer lining of the eyeball becomes dry and wrinkled, leading to redness and inflammation and, which brings potential of blindness (3). Sources vary, but on average it is believed that as many as two million children die a year due to vitamin A deficiencies and that another 500,000 go blind (2).

It is because of these kinds of numbers that researchers have been searching for ways to bring more vitamin A into foods that are part of the diets of people in at-risk countries, especially in Southeast Asia. A genetically engineered rice, 'golden rice,' has been named one potential solution. Rice is a staple food in most of the countries that have been experiencing numerous health issues due to malnutrition, the greatest deficiencies being of vitamin A. Traditional rice, however, lacks vitamin A; this is largely due to a process called rice polishing that was introduced by The Green Revolution (4). The process involves removing the aleurone layer, because it causes the rice to turn rancid more quickly while being stored (9). 'Golden rice' is meant to return the vitamin A, in the form of pro-vitamin b-carotene, to rice so that the millions of people who rely on it as a major food source gain some nutritional value from it (2).

The concept sounds noble and logical enough. It sounds like a perfect solution to a widespread problem. Why not add vitamin A to rice? What could really be lost in the process? According to the numerous critics of 'golden rice' research and the recently discovered rice genome map, nothing but problems will arise upon the integration of the rice into the diets of the malnourished that the entire project claims to have wanted to help. One of the most substantial arguments that critics turn to is the fact that the addition of vitamin A into a staple food such as rice would be far from fixing the problem of malnutrition. People who are severely malnourished may not even be able to absorb the vitamin A ingested through rice if they do not have an otherwise overall nutritionally satisfactory health status (11). Pro-vitamin b-carotene is fat soluble, and therefore requires dietary fat for absorption (8). Therefore, the "digestion, absorption, and transport of b-carotene require a functional digestive tract, adequate protein and fat stores, and adequate energy, protein, and fat in the diet" (8). Because vitamin A deficiency is clearly accompanied by deficiencies of many other micronutrients, the proper absorption of vitamin A is easily hindered among the target population of 'golden rice.' Those with diarrhea, which is common in developing countries, are also unable to take in the vitamin A from rice (10).

Let us imagine for a moment that the bodies of those individual who had deficiencies could absorb the vitamin A existing in 'golden rice.' Critics also argue that experimenting with the possibilities of vitamin A in rice is completely trivial because the amount that a person would have to consume to even take in half of the necessary daily value of vitamin A is simply not practical. The average person would have to eat twelve or more pounds of rice to meet their daily vitamin needs (2). Realistically, three servings of a half pound of cooked 'golden rice' per day would provide only 10% of a person's daily vitamin A requirement, and less than 6% for a woman who was breast-feeding (10).

The combination of the amount of fat and other nutrients necessary to take in vitamin A and the impracticality of digesting many pounds of rice a day to even have the opportunity to take in nearly the required daily amount has resulted in the suggested that malnutrition merely a nutrition problem, but also as a social problem (12). Dr. Samson Tsou, Director General of the Asian Vegetable Research and Development Center (AVRDC) proposes that, "income generation, healthy diet and proper education need to be improved simultaneously for sustainable development" (12). He, as well as numerous others, thinks that the priority should be to increase vegetable production with high vitamin A content, as many leafy green vegetables and green and yellow fruits are rich in the vitamin (3). Nutrition experts have determined that, "a pre-school child's daily requirement of vitamin A can be met with just two tablespoons of yellow sweet potatoes, half a cup of dark green leafy vegetables, or two-thirds of a medium-sized mango; and unlike golden rice, these vegetables supply other micronutrients as well" (10). It is very possible that even the distribution of massive doses of vitamin A every six months, in addition to educating people to eat green leafy vegetables and yellow fruits like papaya daily, could be more effective than the proposed benefits of 'golden rice' (5). The doses have been given in the past in the amount of 200,000 I.U. every six months based on the property of vitamin A that allows it to be stored in the liver and used as necessary over a long period of time (5). These methods could be more effective used as part of a plan that might reduce vitamin A deficiency long term. In addition, encouraging people to maintain diversity in their diets is important and keeps them well-balanced.

Not only might the introduction of 'golden rice' as a "cure" for vitamin A deficiency reduce diversity among the foods eaten by an enormous population of the world, but this "prescriptive approach in which only a few varieties will contain the trait will further worsen genetic erosion," warns MASIPAG, (The Farmer Scientist Partnership for Development Inc.) in the Philippines (12). Local groups such as this are reluctant to combat a socio-economic problem through an artificially produced solution, as they are still attempting to recover from the Green Revolution, which they have totally abandoned (12). They see maintaining, or in some cases re-introducing, biodiversity in many forms of sustainable agriculture as being key because they have seen it practiced successfully by tens of millions of farmers all over the world (9). These local groups also distrust the instability of artificial gene constructs that have been known to be structurally unstable, because they easily break up and join incorrectly with other parts of genetic material, resulting in new and unpredictable combinations (9). These unpredictable products bring up huge questions of safety, especially as they have never existed in the many years of evolution (9).

As we have seen so far, the 'golden rice' project has been met with bitter controversy. Many critics are convinced that the entire program has been a publicity stunt and that its intentions were politically and economically motivated. Brian Tokar, a member of Biojustice, a group opposed to genetic engineering asserts that, "the purported benefits of golden rice are completely fabricated" (2). Some have even gone so far as to say that the entire project is "absurd" and that "it was a useless application, a drain on public finance and a threat to health and biodiversity" (9). They view it as a desperate effort to "salvage a morally as well as financially bankrupt agricultural biotech industry that obstructs the essential shift to sustainable agriculture that can truly improve the health and nutrition especially of the poor in the Third World" (9). The bioengineered 'golden rice' has come under severe scrutiny because it has been seen by so many critics as the "poster child" of the food biotechnology industry's extensive public relations campaign to convince the public that, "the benefits of genetically engineered agricultural products outweigh any safety, environmental, or social risks they might pose" (8).

Amid all of the skepticism and criticism, there remain adamant supporters of the possible benefits anticipated to become possible as a result of the development of such products as 'golden rice.' They have responded to the accusations of ulterior motives that are politically and financially driven by asking what the goals of organizations like Greenpeace might be saying through their criticism. Greenpeace has been a staunch critic of the introduction of 'golden rice' because it was developed through their "bete noir" of transgenic engineering and because it helps modern agribusiness (1). But supporters of its production feel they can just as easily point fingers at the organization asserting that GMO opposition has waged its own war of propaganda against the work of bioengineers. The argue that, "they [GMO organizations] are only pretending to work for mankind," or "are only satisfying their own egos" or "are merely working for the profits of industry" (13). Ingo Potrykus, Professor Emeritus at the Institute of Plant Sciences Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, has responded to these challenges firmly stating:

"By their [Greenpeace and associated GMO opponents] singular logic, the success of 'golden rice' has to be prevented under all circumstances, irrespective of the damage to those for whose interest Greenpeace pretends to act...The GMO opposition has been doing everything in their power to prevent 'golden rice' from reaching subsistence farmers. This is because the GMO opposition has a hidden, political agenda. It is not so much the concern about the environment, or the health of the consumer, or the help for the poor and disadvantaged. It is a radical fight against a technology and for political success. This could be tolerated in rich countries where people have a luxurious life even without the new technology. However, it cannot be tolerated in poor countries, where the technology can make the difference between life and death or between health and severe illness" (13).

Potrykus also clearly points out that the GMO opposition insists on demanding that scientists take full responsibility for their actions, while seemingly blind to the fact that they are not taking responsibility for their own actions by hindering the advancement of a product such as 'golden rice' that could help those that they claim to support (13).

These and similar remarks by those who support 'golden rice' technology are very logical and I have often thought the same way about radical environmentalist and humanitarian groups that thrive by bringing other organizations down to benefit of their own agendas. I find that there are possible benefits to this development in biotechnology. One is that rice is the smallest of major cereals: six times smaller than that of corn and 37 times smaller than that of wheat (1). The production of bioengineered rice could make way for possible and perhaps more beneficial production of more complex bioengineered products that contain more important vitamins and nutrients that the body needs. In this respect, no matter what the motives of the biotech industry might really be, there is no denying that the technology has potential of being helpful knowledge to have obtained.

At the same time, I am still uneasy about the integration of artificially engineered products with native or local species. After all, we have spoken all semester about the importance of maintaining diversity as a fundamental element in biological systems. Further, I am in agreement with the arguments that nutrition experts have made about the need for more than a vitamin A enhanced rice. There are so many more elements that contribute to malnutrition; and if people who do suffer from it will not even be able to ingest the vitamin A from 'golden rice,' due to a lack of fat intake or other necessary vitamins, then I see no need to push for its immediate introduction in developing countries. There are too many alternate solutions to the problem of malnutrition that would also quite possibly be more beneficial, especially in the long term. Promising options seem to be increasing awareness among at-risk populations about the foods available to them that consist of the greatest number and most beneficial vitamins and nutrients that are imperative as part of a balanced diet. The complexity of factors that lead to malnutrition support the notion that the addition of a single nutrient to a food will not play a large enough role in developing a remedy for the problem. To conclude, I would suggest that to assert, as many opponents have, that the entire 'golden rice' project has been a useless application and a waste of money is extreme. I think that the knowledge gained by mapping the rice genome will have a use in the future and may well play a role in solving hunger issues. As far as solving the present problem of vitamin A deficiencies, however, I feel that there are better, more economical options that will have much greater long-lasting effects for those affected by it.

References

1)"Rice Genome Brings Hope, Controversy.", The controversy over genetically engineered rice.

2) "'Golden rice' touted as one of biotech's benefits" , Various criticisms of 'golden rice' production

3)"The Basics of Vitamin A.", Everything you need to know about Vitamin A.

4)"Natural versus engineered Vitamin A.", More specifics on vitamin A and how much the body needs.

5)"The Indian Scene.", Specifics on malnutrition in India.

6)"The Doctor's Debate.", Malnutrition's effects on children.

7)"Natural Foods and Beta-Carotene.", Specifics on beta-carotene and its absorption.

8)"Unproven and unwanted science: the debate.", The use of 'golden rice' as biotech industry's "poster child."

9)"An exercise on how not to do science.", Author of this article is adamant critic of 'golden rice.'

10)"Golden Rice and Vitamin A Deficiency.", This article addresses problems with Golden Rice

11) "Golden Rice: blind ambition?" Friends of the Earth International. Link Magazine: Issue 93, April/June 2003. More arguments against Golden Rice

12)"Grains of delusion: Golden rice seen from the ground.", Assessment of pros and cons of Golden rice.

13)"Golden Rice and Beyond.", This article contains arguments supporting Golden Rice research and the importance of technology transfer.

Lung Cancer: A Good Reason to Stop Smoking Name: Flicka Mic Date: 2003-12-19 15:52:12 Link to this Comment: 7561

Biology 103
2003 Second Paper
On Serendip

Lung Cancer accounts for15 percent of all cancer cases, and an estimated 170,000
people in the United States get lung cancer a year. (5)About 155,000 of those people die from the cancer. Recently, the rate of women affected by lung cancer has increased, while the rate of men affected has decreased. However, lung cancer is the leading cancer that kills both women and men. (1) So, what is lung cancer? Lung cancer is the uncontrollable growth of abnormal cells in the lung. (5) There are two main types of lung cancer: non-small cell and small- cell lung cancer. Non-small cell lung cancer (or NSCLC) is more common than small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) and occurs in about 80% of all lung cancer cases. (3)

Early lung cancer does not cause symptoms, so when the symptoms finally do show and the cancer is detected, it is already at an advanced stage. (1) Smoking has been shown to be the primary cause of lung cancer. About 87% of all cases occur in people who smoke. (1) However, not everyone who smokes gets lung cancer and not everyone who gets lung cancer smokes. One of the main symptoms of lung cancer is a chronic cough that lasts for more than two weeks. Another is constant chest pain. Other symptoms include wheezing, shortness of breath, coughing blood, hoarseness, and repeated pneumonia or bronchitis. (1) There are also less noticeable signs such as unexplained fever, weight loss, or appetite loss. (2)

As mentioned earlier, there are two types of lung cancer: NSCLC and SCLC. NSCLC can be divided into three sections. First, there is epidermoid carcinoma which is usually starts in the large breathing tubes, and grows slowly. (5) There is also adenocarcinoma, which is found in the mucus glands and can vary in size and rate of growth. Finally, there is large cell carcinoma, which begins at the surface of the lung, and grows very rapidly. (5) SCLC, also known as oat cell carcinoma, has no divisions. It starts in the large breathing tubes, and grows fairly rapidly. This type of lung cancer is usually very large by the time it is diagnosed. (5)

There are also different stages of lung cancer. For NSCLC, there are four main stages. Stage I A/B is when the tumor has spread to the lymph nodes that are associated
with the lung. (2) Stage II A/B is when the tumor has spread to the lymph nodes in the tracheal area, including the chest wall and the diaphragm. Stage III A is when the tumor has spread to lymph nodes on the opposite lung or on the neck. Finally, Stage IV, the most severe stage, is when the tumor has spread beyond the chest. (2) On the other hand, SCLC only has two stages of cancer growth. Limited is when the tumor is only found in one lung and the nearby lymph nodes. Extensive is when the tumor has spread beyond the lung into other organs.

The treatments for lung cancer depend on the type, location, and size of the cancer. (3) One option is to remove the tumor through surgery; however, it depends on the location of the tumor. A surgeon can perform a resection, which is a removal of part of the lung. The removal of the entire lobe of the lung is called a lobectomy. (3) In addition, there is a surgery called a pneumonectomy, which removes the entire lung. Each kind of surgery is performed according to how advanced the cancer is and how much of the lung has been affected by the cancer. (3)

Another option for treatment is chemotherapy. Chemotherapy is the use of antidrugs to kill cancer cells or to control the growth of cancer cells in the body. It can also be used after surgery if any cancer cells remain. Usually, chemotherapy is administered by an injection through an IV or through a catheter. However, some antidrugs are administered through pills as well. (3) Chemotherapy can be used in advanced stages of cancer to relieve symptoms, and in all stages of SCLC. (1)

An alternative to chemotherapy is radiation. Radiation is the use of high-energy rays to kill cancer cells. However, they can only be directed towards a specific area and therefore only affect the cancer cells in that area. (3) Radiation treatments can be used before surgery to shrink the cancer cells or afterwards to get rid of any remaining cells. There are two types of radiation. External radiation is radiation that comes from a machine. (3) Internal radiation is when an implant of radioactive material is placed into or near the tumor. (3) Studies have shown that a combination of therapies can be more effective than just one treatment by itself.

Any person 60 years or older who has a history of smoking or is currently smoking should get tested for lung cancer. Screening tests are used to detect lung cancer early so that doctors may treat it before it spreads. One test is called the low-radiation dose spiral completed tomography scan, or low-dose CT scan.(2) Recent trials done in the U.S. and Japan have shown that this type of screening can lead to early detection of lung cancer in people with high-risk. They also found that this type of test worked significantly better than chest x-rays at detecting lung cancer. In the U.S., a study of 1,000 people who were at high-risk for lung cancer took the low-dose CT san. It exposed malignant tumors four times as often as chest x-rays and detected Stage I tumors six times as often. (2) Therefore, this type of screening is becoming more popular in patients with a high-risk for lung cancer.

New research studies are being done to test new drugs or combinations of drugs for lung cancer. Other clinical trials test the combination of chemotherapy and radiation treatments. (2) The newest breakouts in lung cancer treatment are usually discovered through clinical trials. Before the Drug and Food Administration can approve a new drug for treatment, it must go through a series of phases. Phase I Trials test how a drug should be administered to the patient, how often it should be administered, and in what dose. (4) These beginning trials only use a small group of patients for testing. Phase II Trials include the initial information about the effectiveness of the drug, and then can be used for testing to a specific type of lung cancer. Phase III Trials compare the effectiveness of the current drugs with the drug being tested. (4) These trials use a large number of patients from around the country. Each patient is randomly assigned a drug, either the new one or the standard one, and then the efficiency of each drug is tested against the other. The last stage in clinical trials is called Phase IV. These trials are used to continue testing the drug after it has been approved by the FDA and is already available on the market. (4)

Recently, the International Adjuvant Lung Cancer Trial (IALT) did a study comparing the effect of surgery to surgery combined with chemotherapy to treat NSCLC. The study included 1, 867 patients from 33 different countries. (4) Thirty-six percent of the people had Stage I lung cancer, twenty-five percent had Stage II, and thirty-nine percent had Stage III. They found that after two years, 61% of people who had combined treatment of surgery and chemotherapy were free of cancer, compared to the 55% of people who had just had surgery. (4) After five years, 39% of the people who had had adjuvant chemotherapy were cancer free, compared to the 34% of people who had had only surgery. (4) The discrepancy is small, but it is enough to help scientists evaluate which method of treatment will help the patient the most.

In conclusion, new studies are being done every day to improve the treatment of lung cancer. However, it is still a fatal illness that kills most people if it is not detected early. The main way to avoid lung cancer is to stop smoking! Cigarettes and tobacco have about 4,000 chemicals in them which lead directly to cancer. (1) The more a person smokes, the greater the possibility of lung cancer. However, if one stops smoking, the risk of getting lung cancer reduces each year. After ten years, the probability decreases to about one-half or one-third the risk of people who continue to smoke. (1) In addition, secondhand smoke causes about 3,000 people to die from lung cancer a year. (1)Therefore, the best way to prevent yourself or those around you from getting lung cancer is to stop smoking!

References

1)Facts About Lung Cancer

2) Lung Cancer.org

3) Treatment for Lung Cancer

4)ALCASE Education

5) What Is Lung Cancer?

Big Questions: Conversations inside the Third Cult Name: Su-Lyn Poo Date: 2003-12-19 17:11:29 Link to this Comment: 7563

Biology 103
2003 Second Paper
On Serendip

      In 1961, C P Snow introduced the idea of the "two cultures", the scientists and the literati, divided by a lack of communication that had been crystallized through academic specialization (1). Thirty years later, John Brockman unveiled the Third Culture as the new face of intellectual life, consisting of scientific thinkers who had ousted the traditional literary scholars in "rendering visible the deeper meanings of our lives, redefining who and what we are" (2). He has been criticized for his fragmented vision of intellectual culture, which affords no place to non-scientists in spite of the apparent inability of science to provide answers to the "big questions" that we ask (3). But are we defining these particular questions in a way that excludes science? If these are issues of truly universal significance, then no single discipline can claim monopoly over their interpretation: answers must draw from broader horizons.
     
      The scientific optimism of which Brockman boasts has been approached with much cynicism by humanist scholars. Much discomfort arises not from scientists' claims to general truths about the world, but from the assertion of many scientists that their work stops at the process of discovery: science has nothing to do with how politicians choose to apply their ideas (4). Humphrey (5) points out that it is a great cause of anxiety when those who generate knowledge disclaim all responsibility for how that knowledge is put to use, whether in the form of eugenics in the past, weapons of mass destruction in the present, or even possibly thought control in the future (5).
      Appleyard recognizes that science aspires to be a value-free pursuit of knowledge, but also that such pursuits are inevitably conducted in a value-laden world (4). If scientists refuse any role in shaping these values, then it is for the humanities and social sciences to help us understand the significance of scientific progress (6), whether it is through the way in which we define life, when confronted by abortion and cloning, or how increasingly closely-integrated communication networks have transformed human relations across the expanse of space and time. In this respect, Brockman's scientifically imperialistic conception of intellectual culture lacks the "questions of subjective, of spiritual and of social values" (3) that must lie at its heart.
      Furthermore, the criteria by which the sciences have established themselves and the standards to which they proudly hold have been responsible for the impressive advances, but as Taylor points out, "there are places where experiment and verification cannot go" (5). Given Brockman's emphasis on empirical facts, his understanding of "what it means to be human" (5) seems lacking. There is little room for the consideration of the moral dimension of the human experience. His words echo with what Leavis criticizes Snow for: an inadequate sense of human nature and human need (7). After all, according to Lanier, there are questions that must be addressed by any thinking person that lie outside of the established methods of science (5).
     
      If so, is it reasonable to expect science to provide a full worldview that can provide answers on the moral and spiritual levels? Hut's answer is hesitant: "Science just isn't far enough along to address that quest" (5). Instead, the scientific method should be used to sort through our inherited wisdoms, to separate that which is still useful from the dogmatic trappings of the past. Taylor maintains, therefore, that the promise of science lies not in "sweeping away other aspects of existence ... (but) respectfully deepening understanding of what it is to live and die as a human being and observing the universe from that perspective" (5).
      How is it, then, that Brockman can distinguish the achievements of the Third Culture, which he rightly predicts will affect everyone, from those of the humanities, described as the irrelevant and "marginal exploits of a quarrelsome mandarin class" (2)? Horgan reminds us that humanist scholars like Judith Butler, often derided for her work in deconstructing sexual identity, are "far more engaged with reality – our human reality – than are string theorists or inflationary cosmologists" (5). Ludwig Wittgenstein went so far as to argue that even when all the questions posed by science have been answered, the problems of human life will remain untouched (4). But is this true, or even a fair assessment of the purpose of science?
      What Brockman failed to make clear was that the sciences and the humanities have different goals, that the "deeper meanings" that the humanists seek are not necessarily the same that the scientists seek. Comprehension may arise from explanation, as offered by Pinker in his biological account of human nature (5). But we learn too from empathy (some may say more powerfully), as from Shakespeare's portrayal of Lear as the figure of fallen pride, repentant too late. The different approaches of sciences and the humanities obscure the relationships that do exist between what are often seen as separate cultures. Levine maintains that a kinship binds the two, that "science and literature reflect each other because they draw mutually on one culture, from the same sources", and yet they remain different enterprises, "(working) out in different languages the same project" (8).
      It is thus erroneous of Brockman to expect the goals of the humanities to align with those of the sciences, or to expect them to become empirically-based (Hauser, 5). By this same token, however, it is also unreasonable to expect the sciences to answer our big questions in the manner that we have posed them. One may argue that the point of science, given its specific methodological commitments, is to be held to a different set of questions, a different manner of asking and seeking answers. It is in bridging this gap that we see the power behind the enterprise of the Third Culture, which, contrary to Brockman's puzzling portrayal of it as predominantly scientific, draws a large number of its members from the humanities and social sciences. Smolin describes this community as characterized by a new epistemology, rooted in a pluralistic, relational approach to knowledge that gains from the rich exchanges between its diverse participants (5). Nagel's "view from nowhere" has proven unfruitful, and is here usurped by the view from everywhere.
     
      Perhaps nowhere is there a clearer record of the extent of this bridge-building than the World Question Center (9), an archive of questions and responses from the Third Culture. I provide a short list of some of the entries from 2002 as an indication of the breadth and depth of conversation. The contributors of these ten questions include professors of astrophysics, biology, classical studies, mathematics, physiology and social psychology, as well as science writers and laboratory directors.
* Can democracy survive complexity?
* Is it conceivable that the standard curriculum in science and math, crafted in 1893, will still be maintained in the 26,000 high schools of this great nation?
* Can there be a science of human potential and the good life?
* Why do we fear the wrong things?
* Will non-sustainable developments (i.e., atmospheric change, deforestation, fresh water use, etc.) become halted in pleasant ways of our choice, or in unpleasant ways not of our choice?
* Are space and time fundamental concepts or are they approximations to other, more subtle, ideas that still await our discovery?
* Could our lack of theoretical insight in some of the most basic questions in biology in general, and consciousness in particular, be related to us having missed a third aspect of reality, which upon discovery will be seen to always have been there, equally ordinary as space and time, but so far somehow overlooked in scientific descriptions?
* Do the benefits accruing to humankind (leaving aside questions of afterlife) from the belief and practice of organized religions outweigh the costs?
* Why bother? Or: Why do we go further and explore new stuff?
* Do 'folk concepts' of the mind have anything to do with what really happens in the brain?

      These pages stand as testament to the fact that science, in spite of its inability to answer some of the big questions that we have, is still willing and able to pose some of its own. It also presents with determined clarity the fact that the sciences and humanities (and everything in between) cannot and should not ask their big questions in isolation from or ignorance of each other. This is the hope of the world that the Third Culture bears: that we will begin to see holistic, encompassing answers rather than specialist treatments of a narrowly-defined topic.

References

(1) Snow, C. P. (1959). The two cultures and the scientific revolution. New York: Cambridge University Press.
(2) The Third Culture - An essay introducing the Third Culture.
(3) Durant, J. (1995, June 1). Off line: the third culture. The Guardian (London): pg 9. Retrieved December 19, 2003, from Lexis-Nexis database.
(4) Appleyard, B. (2003, November 30). Mugged by the science mafia. Sunday Times (London): Features; News Review 9. Retrieved December 19, 2003, from Lexis-Nexis database.
(5) The New Humanists: Science at the edge - Introductory essay by John Brockman and responses to it from members of the Third Culture.
(6) More on the Science Wars (2003, February 23). From the weblog of Steven Shaviro, Professor of English at University of Washington. Retrieved December 19, 2003.
(7) Leavis, F. R., and M. Yudkin. (1962). Two cultures? The significance of C. P. Snow. London: Chatto & Windus.
(8) Levine, G., and A. Rauch (Eds.). (1987). One culture : essays in science and literature. Madison, Wis.: University of Wisconsin Press.
(9) Edge: The World Question Center - An archive of responses from scientists, thinkers, etc. to the questions that John Brockman has posed.

The Needle Treatment Name: Laura Wolf Date: 2003-12-19 17:38:58 Link to this Comment: 7564

Biology 103
2003 Second Paper
On Serendip

Acupuncture is an ancient Chinese method of "encouraging the body to promote natural healing and improve bodily function" (1) that dates back as far as 4,700 years ago. Now for the past 25 years it has appeared in the U.S. as a popular form of alternative medicine, and it is "a licensed and regulated HealthCare profession in about half the states in the U.S." (3). It is most often called upon for problems such as lower back pain, migraines, arthritis, and additional non-fatal aches and pains. Some people say it works, others are still skeptical. Since this method does not seem to be based on "actual science", is it merely a placebo effect? Can a medical practice dated nearly five millenniums ago still prove to be valid?

When acupuncture was created, some of the medical concepts it employed were relatively new; there were not many falsified stories for it to build off from. In fact, "acupuncture is said to have been theorized... by Shen Nung, the father of Chinese medicine, who also documented his theories on the heart, circulation, and pulse over 400 years before Europeans had any concept about them" (1). Since then, Europeans and Asians alike have encountered centuries of medical dilemmas and successes. Over time, hypotheses emerge and are either disproved or continue to live on as part of scientific discourse and medical practice. For this reason, most old-fashioned treatments no longer hold true when compared to methods cultivated within the great wealth of knowledge attributed to medicine today – not because we are smarter now or are more civilized, but because the field of medicine has accumulated so much more experience and has improved methods to be "less wrong" countless times. So, why has acupuncture not been bettered or disproved after all this time? Is it perhaps a perfect form or treatment? Probably not. But, let us look more closely at the acupuncture treatment to understand its unlikely longevity in the medical world.

First, the patient must relax in order to prevent fainting or nausea; the most common side-effects of acupuncture, often due to nervousness. The practitioner will insert fine, hair-like needles into the body "at specific points shown as effective in the treatment of specific health problems. These points have been mapped by the Chinese over a period of two thousand years" (2). The needles go about ¼ to one inch deep, depending on the age and size of the patient and the location of pain on the body (2). The insertion of needles is sometimes accompanied by "heat or electrical stimulation at these specific [acupuncture] points" (1).

The process is relatively painless when done correctly. The patient "should feel some cramping, heaviness, distention, tingling, or electric sensation... In Chinese, acupuncture is bu tong, painless. Some Western cultures may categorize these sensations as types of pain. In any case, if you experience any discomfort, it is usually mild" (2). However, if the patient experiences a burning sensation, sharp pain, or if s/he is too nervous and feels uncomfortable with the procedure is it suggested that s/he let the physician know immediately. After researching this procedure and hearing over and over that it should be painless, the image of patients being used as human pin-cushions does not seem quite so frightening...

But why stick needles into someone? What is the point (no pun intended)? "The popular classical Chinese explanation on how acupuncture works states that channels of energy run in regular patterns through our body and over its surface. This energy force is known as Qi (pronounced Chee)" (1). The channels of Qi, as well as Xue (meaning blood) are said to "cover the body somewhat like the nerves and blood vessels do" (2). "The channels... are called Meridians, which are compared to rivers flowing to the body to irrigate and nourish the tissues" (1). Pain is created when these Meridians are blocked – like a dam in a river – causing backup and disharmony. The theory is that by stimulating certain points on the body, a natural flow of Qi and Xue will return and the pain will have been treated. "In this way, acupuncture regulates and restores the harmonious energetic balance of the body. In Chinese there is a saying, 'There is no pain if there is free flow; if there is pain, there is no free flow'" (2).

At first glace for a person of the Western world, this explanation may sound more like fantasy than medical fact. So, what is another, perhaps more "scientific" explanation?
"Western medicine's view is that the placement of acupuncture needles at specific pain points releases endorphins and opioids, the body's natural painkillers, and perhaps immune system cells as well as neurotransmitters and neurohormones in the brain. Research has shown that glucose and other bloodstream chemicals become elevated after acupuncture" (3).
This seems to support the Chinese blood-flood theory, or at least show that perhaps acupuncture is not simply a placebo. Something does happen to the body during this procedure, which is amazing considering it was theorized 4,700 years ago.

Patients come out of the treatment with mixed results, however. It depends on the skill and training of the practitioner, and it also depends on the patient. Often two people will have the same injury and receive treatment on the same day at the same clinic, but one will come out feeling better while the other has experienced no change. Obviously this is not a perfect treatment, but when it accomplishes something it seems to only help, never hurt.

However, there are some dangers to acupuncture when one uses it as a replacement for new medical treatments without understanding the true purpose of acupuncture – it alleviates non-fatal bodily pains, not cancer or any organic diseases. As one scientist warns:
"When sick people become irrational and fanatical about acupuncture, or about any other non-conventional form of medical treatment, resulting in the delay in diagnosis and treatment of their illness by a physician, this could lead to unnecessary increase in the risk, complications and mortality. Some preventable deaths due to delayed diagnosis and treatment have been reported among patients who insisted on nothing else but on acupuncture or on alternative medicine in the treatment of their organic illnesses" (1).
In other words, acupuncture should not be relied upon as some sort of medical miracle. It is an alternative treatment that is sometimes prescribed for the right reasons.

A lot of mystery still surrounds acupuncture, especially from a Western point of view. It has been used for some seemingly unlikely purposes; to cure smoking or alcoholism, to aid with psychological problems, to cure kidney failure or asthma. In China, it has even been used in animals "to turn the fetus into a normal position in the womb" (4). Altogether, acupuncture has withstood the test of time; not necessarily the test of criticism. The procedure seems to work sometimes, and so it has not been falsified. It seems very beautiful, ancient and creative, and so it is left alone as a non-conventional medical alternative. But there should be more studies done on the subject, especially to prevent people from depending on it because of a desire to be all-natural. This is not reason enough to abandon centuries of experience and of scientists getting it "less wrong". Acupuncture is a possible treatment – but not a perfect one.

References

1) Heart to Heart with Philip S. Chua, M.D. an overview of acupuncture, its origins, and its current uses and misuses.

2)The layman's guide to acupuncture. A wonderfully descriptive site, but biased in favor of acupuncture. Does not include downsides.

3) Acupuncture for children includes some general information about acupuncture.

4)Animal acupuncture highlights a few uncommon uses for acupuncture.

Major Depression Across Atlantic: Diagnosis and T Name: Mariya Sim Date: 2003-12-20 01:04:32 Link to this Comment: 7572

Biology 103
2003 Second Paper
On Serendip

In this day and age depression is a catchword. It is applied to all imaginable situations, from grieving after the loss of a loved one to simple foul moods. Although such a loose usage of the word is hardly warranted, the statistics of the World Health Organization suggest that there is some real basis behind it: about 4-5% of the world's population suffer from depression, and it is the reason behind about 60% of all suicides (1). United States is ahead of the world's quota in this sad race: according to the National Institute of Mental Health, about 9.5% of the population (or about 18.8 million adults) experience a depressive disorder in any given year (2). With such prevalence, one can hardly wonder why the issues of diagnosing and treating depression are so urgent and controversial both in the United States and around the globe.

While the growing awareness of the reality of depression as an illness gradually removes the stigma from those suffering from it, the public's attitude, at least in America, seems to be shifting to the other extreme. Almost any sadness, change of mood, or less-than-happy-go-lucky behavior is suspected of being a herald of depression, regardless of the possible causes. On the one hand, people began to be less reserved about seeking psychological help (which is a good thing). On the other hand, both psychiatrists and primary care providers are sometimes too quick to give a verdict "depression" and even more prone to use antidepressants as a cure-all. Although the causes of depression are by no means well-defined (3), drugs that supposedly adequately treat it are publicized without reservation and often regarded as the only possible solution to the problem. This is especially true in America, partially because most new anti-depressants are developed, produced, and hence marketed here, partially because of the methods of diagnosis commonly used, and partially due to the time restrictions placed by the health insurance companies on health professionals.

Since this situation is beginning to raise some concerns among the general populace and physicians, it would be beneficial to compare and contrast the diagnosis and treatment of depression in America and in a country, whose historical conditions shaped a different attitude towards this illness and towards the methods of dealing with it. Russia, being akin to the U.S. in both size and population, but sharply different in the organization of its medical system, could become a suitable subject for such a study. Without focusing on minute details, one can undertake a brief overview of the situation in both the United States and Russia and develop a general, but by no means definitive list of pros and cons for both systems. Although multiple variations of depression can be considered, we will focus on major depression in this study in order to keep the argument succinct.

Major depression, a combination of symptoms such as sadness, hopelessness, feelings of guilt, loss of interest in life, decreased energy, sleep and appetite disruptions, difficulty concentrating, etc. that interfere with one's daily life (2), has a long history of being recognized as an illness in America. Before 1960s, the methods of its diagnosis and treatment were largely left to the discretion of one's psychoanalyst. When first tricyclic anti-depressants were developed in 1960s (3), the psychoanalytic community was more than suspicious about their efficacy, often to the point of outright rejection (4). Medications were thought to provide temporary relief of the symptoms of depression, but the etiology of the illness was traced to the deep psychic conflicts that could only be approached with the help of a psychoanalyst (4).

As the research went on, various studies have suggested that the reason for major depression lied in the disruption of the functioning of certain neurotransmitters, which, in its turn, disturbs the communicative processes in the brain (5). Tricyclic anti-depressants and monoamine oxidase inhibitors stabilize these processes, although the mechanisms of this stabilization are multiple and in many cases contradictory (3). These medications were still not widely used due to rather serious side effects, but with the arrival of the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) in 1980s this ceased to be a major problem. The new medications, while providing the same relief, were more safe and produced less side effects for most patients (6).

From 1980s on, the use of anti-depressants to treat major depression is widely accepted and encouraged. Primary care physicians, psychiatrists, and psychoanalysts prescribe anti-depressants, often in combination with monoamine oxidase inhibitors, in the majority of the cases, regardless of whether counseling services or psychoanalytic services are provided (4). The readily discernible reason for promoting the use of anti-depressants is their apparent (and relatively fast) effectiveness; however, there are other factors that may contribute to their often being a treatment of choice in the United States.

One such factor is the official system used for diagnosing major depression in the United States. Popularly called DSM-IV, it is based on The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition. It provides psychiatrists with a list of particular episodes and then outlines various mood disorders based upon this list. It also specifies the details of the behavior and states of the patients with different disorders and provides information on the cycles associated with each (7). DSM-IV is often praised for not attempting to define the causes of depression, but for rather striving to delineate some useful categories based on the symptoms of the illness, thus providing a framework of terms and possible treatments, while not assigning the patients to any harsh categories (3). However, there is another reason for its popularity. Since the examination performed using this system results in very orderly forms with explicit delineation of the possible diagnosis, it is a god-sent to the insurance companies and researchers looking for consistency of their results (7). It can also provide an established and safe backdrop for psychiatrists not wanting to deal with the nuances of each individual case, much like the widespread acceptance of anti-depressants labels them as a safe choice despite the still-unknown mechanisms by which they function.

Many psychiatrists find fault with both the DSM-IV diagnosis system and with the unlimited and often indiscriminate use of anti-depressants for essentially the same reason: the lack of attention to the nuances of the individual case. Thus, Simon Sobo, the Chief of Psychiatry at New Milford Hospital, CT notes that anti-depressants are often used in order to simply alleviate the symptoms of the illness, with "treatment" stopping short just as the desired effect is reached. Even if one puts aside the dubious and uncertain nature of the usefulness of anti-depressants and accepts them as a helpful tool, there remains a problem of the physician often relying too much on the "fixing" power of the drug. Counseling, which should be used to acquaint the patient with the methods for dealing with stressful situations in the future, to teach him useful modes of thinking, and to elucidate certain behavioral patterns of the brain, is overlooked. The patient, in effect, remains dependent upon the drug, which, given the fact that major depression usually recurs several times throughout a person's life, does not constitute an optimal treatment. Sobo also notes that using anti-depressants often rationalizes the illness in terms of purely physiological disorders and discourages the patient from facing personality or attitude issues, which plays a crucial role in the process of recovery (8).

Similar arguments could be levied against DSM-IV diagnostic method. However, the issue is more complicated here since money comes into the forefront. U.S. medical insurance companies often allow as little as 15 minutes per a physician and 30 minutes per a psychiatrist visit. The lack of time necessarily results in the doctors' opting for faster, but not necessarily thorough methods of diagnosis and treatment. Filling out questionnaires provided by DSM-IV and prescribing anti-depressants may well become their legitimate choices, because of their apparent credibility and convenience. The doctor only has to evaluate a patient, prescribe a drug, and then continue to administer routine 15-minute check-ups to ensure the effectiveness of the anti-depressant (8), (9).

Insurance companies also play an unsavory role in misdiagnosing depression, since many primary care physicians simply do not have the time (in the 15 minutes allowed) to do a thorough examination and to detect a possibility of a major depression. Given the fact that major depression is often masked by somatic symptoms, many depressed patients never receive proper treatment for their actual illness (9). The same time-and-money problem often forces the patients and the physicians to discontinue treatment (both pharmacological and psychiatric) when the patient first responds to the treatment but before a full remission is achieved. Such cessation of the process results in recurrent episodes of depression, which could have been avoided, had the patient have enough financial resources to continue therapy (6).

Despite all of the above problems, there are important steps taken by the U.S. medical and insurance systems to ensure that major depression is recognized and treated as an illness. There are resources for patients who lack money or insurance coverage for proper therapy; a thorough publicity campaign is waged in order to make people acquainted with this "disease of the century"; governmental and private funds are allocated each year to the continuing study of the causes and processes behind this illness. New drugs are developed and tested, and new networks of support are built. (3)
This is not the case in Russia, however. The concept of depression as an illness is relatively new there and has not gained widespread recognition, despite the health professionals' attempts at popularizing it. This is warranted historically, since psychiatry in the Soviet Union dealt almost exclusively with the cases that threatened the social structure, in other words, with the patients who were potentially harmful to others. The other "branch" of psychiatry in the Communist regime was wholly dedicated to keeping the dissident movements in check. The psychiatric wards were filled with perfectly healthy Soviet citizens who for one reason or another did not please the authorities. They were kept placated by the means of heavy psychotropes and electrical shock. Needless to say, the word "psychiatrist" still associates for some people with these "doctors," while others think that psychiatrists exist only for the clinically insane patients who are threatening to society (10).

There are also cultural reasons for not recognizing major depression as a legitimate illness. Russians are a pretty melancholic and pessimistic nation: for instance, it is in bad taste to answer "Great!" to the question "How are you?" A person happily smiling without any special reason is considered a fool. This mood of universal sadness is darkened even more by the current economic situation, so much so that even severely depressed people often rationalize their condition and feelings by saying "And who is happy nowadays?" On the other hand, a person who openly admits to having depression or, worse, to going to a psychiatrist is considered at best a weak and lazy character and at worst a hypochondriac, a maniac, or both. Needless to say, in both cases this person stops being socially accepted and is often blamed for his "imagined" sickness. (11)

This attitude towards depression is so widespread that sometimes even physicians are unaware of or skeptical about it being an illness. This leads to frequent misdiagnosis, so much so that about 80% of patients suffering from major depression is thought to be currently treated by general practitioners, while every fifth patient seeking treatment from a physician really needs the help of a psychiatrist (1).

Of course, this also means that the current knowledge about depression is largely borrowed from Western studies, and, in particular, from American experience. Among psychiatrists, the United States, with its social and medical guarantees for depressed individuals, with research programs, and especially with an adequate attitude towards depressive disorders (at least by Russian standards), is highly regarded (14). Nevertheless, despite the Russian psychiatrists' attempts to emulate American approaches to diagnosis and treatment of major depression, certain specificities of the medical care and social security systems and cultural differences ensure sufficient variance between prevalent Russian and prevalent American methods.

Thus, although all Russian psychiatric reviews stress the utmost importance and effectiveness of anti-depressants, the economic conditions are such that they are simply not available due to their cost for most patients. Even though most anti-depressants are currently on the Federal List of Essential Drugs and, therefore, not only should be available in all drug stores and hospitals but also sold at bargain prices to qualified individuals, this regulation is rarely followed due to the lack of money in federal and state budgets (13). Therefore, psychiatrists are often forced to treat their patients in the absence of anti-depressants or with the help of the older brands, which shifts the emphasis from pharmacotherapy to various counseling methods.

These methods are very similar to U.S. counseling methods. Psychodynamic therapy focuses on the inner psychological conflicts, trying to help the patient recognize and identify the conflict and to learn to resolve it constructively. Behavioral psychotherapy attempts to solve the most bothersome current problems of the patient and to alleviate certain negative behavioral symptoms: passivity, monotonous life style, isolation from the loved ones, inability to plan and make decisions, etc. Cognitive psychotherapy in the Russian practice is a synthesis of the above two branches that combines working with the concrete difficulties in the patient's life as well as with his or her behavioral patterns and inner conflicts. Cognitive psychotherapy also aims at breaking the patient's habit of negative pessimistic thinking and at helping him or her to establish a new way of looking at the self and the world. (12)

Unlike their Western colleagues, however Russian psychotherapists do not have any time limits set for the course of therapy allowed to a patient. Medical care is still mostly state-owned, so each citizen is entitled to free medical help, including free psychiatric visits and counseling. This allows the Russian psychologists to lead their patients on a gradual path to recovery, making sure that they reach complete remission before treatment ceases. Since the majority of their patients cannot afford anti-depressants, the doctors focus more on teaching the patient self-regulation, thus providing him or her with a framework which would be applicable to all stressful, but not necessarily depression-inducing situation (12).

The lack of pressure from insurance companies also allows both general physicians and psychotherapists to ensure that each patient receives adequate examination, so that most possibilities for somatic disorders are ruled out before the patient is directed to the psychiatrist (1). This comparative freedom as well as the specific Russian situation concerning the misconceptions and misinformation about depression conditions certain research interests of Russian psychiatrists, which often include masked depressions and borderline depressive disorders (14).

This interest in diagnostics also manifests itself in the Russian method of diagnosis of major depression. While the official system for identifying and classifying depression is the World Health Organization's ICD-10, which is rather like the American DSM-IV, it is often, if not always, supplemented by the more individualized and carefully worded methods of such prominent Russian psychiatrists as Behterev, Topolyansky, and Strukova (14). These methods focus more closely on the patient's individual symptoms, on his attitude to life, on his expectations (or the lack thereof) from the psychiatrist, from himself/herself, from life. They also presume that the patient's family will be as involved and supportive as possible, since a Russian cultural trait assigns great significance to the social aspects and causes of depression (13).

Thus, the major strengths of the Russian system for diagnosing and treating depression are particular attention to detail, focusing on psychotheraphy rather than pharmacotherapy, allotting enough time for thorough evaluation and treatment of the patient, and involving the family into the recovery process. These services, however, are only available to patients already diagnosed, which is a relatively small number, given the general unawareness of and even disdain towards major depression. Russian psychiatrists would benefit from emulating their American colleagues in their efforts to publicize the condition. They would also benefit from anti-depressants being more generally available; however, that is beyond their control.

American methods for treating depression could also be improved by learning from the Russians. Methods of diagnosis, particular attention to counseling, and, perhaps, an attempt to re-evaluate the universal effectiveness of anti-depressants could all safely be borrowed from across Atlantic. Physicians and psychiatrists should lobby to increase the time allocated by insurance companies per doctor's visit, while continuing to do the good work of making the general population aware of the concerns and dangers of depression. Overall, the American system needs to be less money-and-time and more individual-and-quality oriented, keeping in mind the fact that giving drugs to a patient does not remedy the problem, but teaching him or her to cope with stress on their own potentially will. However, one should not underestimate the gains of the American doctors in the fields of awareness and social support of people with depression, which are unquestionably more advanced than their Russian counterparts. Both countries would benefit immensely from productive dialogue and exchange of experience. Hopefully, such a dialogue will be started in a foreseeable future.

References

1)"Depression in Medical Practice." The Research Center for Mental Health of the Russian Academy of Medicine.

2)National Institute of Mental Health Home Page.

3)All About Depression, A Comprehensive Overview of Depression.

4)"Psychoanalysis and Pharmacotherapy - Incompatible or Synergistic?" By Leslie Knowlton. Psychiatric Times online.

5)An article on depression on the Continuing Medical Education, Inc. website.

6)"Applying Innovative Approaches for the Treatment of Depression." on Critical Breakthroughs, an online compilation of recent publications for practicing physicians and psychiatrists.

7) A comprehensive review of DSM-IV.

8)"A Reevaluation of the Relationship between Psychiatric Diagnosis and Chemical Imbalances." By Simon Sobo, M.D.

9)"Discovering Depression in Medical Patients." By Kurt Kroenke, M.D. In Annals of Internal Medicine online.

10)"I Have Depression." By Frumkina, R.

11)"What Is Depression?" By Egorova, Elena, M.D.

12)"What Do You Need To Know About Depression?" By Holmogorova et. al. Russian Psychiatric Research Center.

13)"Masked Depressions." By Dmitriyeva, Tatyana. The Russian Academy of Medicine.

14)"Depression." By Petrov, M.D.