http://www.the-scientist.com//?articles.view/articleNo/39753/title/Adult-to-Stem-Cells/
Wide-ranging effects from Down Syndrome genetic condition
http://www.the-scientist.com//?articles.view/articleNo/39726/title/Trisomy-21-Effects-Seen-Genome-wide/
15April It Pays to Pay Addicts to Get Vaccinations - NYTimes.com
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/04/15/health/it-pays-to-pay-addicts-to-get-vaccinations.html?referrer=
Fetal Brain Map
http://www.the-scientist.com//?articles.view/articleNo/39619/title/Mapping-Gene-Expression-in-the-Fetal-Brain/
http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2014/04/02/298332344/map-of-the-developing-human-brain-shows-where-problems-begin
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/05/us/politics/health-law-helps-increase-medicaid-rolls-by-3-million.html?ref=health
ReplyDeleteThe first article I found discusses how upwards of 3 million people have enrolled in Medicaid, which is the governmental program designed to help those individuals who can’t afford their own healthcare. The article discusses how the government was prepared for many people to enroll in healthcare; however, they were not prepared for the barrage of new enrollees that they actually received. The article states that about half of the states in the US expanded their healthcare system, causing this huge increase in enrollment. It will be interesting to see if the rest of the states expand their Medicaid enrollment requirements and if the number of people enrolled will continue to grow.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/04/140404221707.htm
The second article I found more closely relates to what we’ve been discussing in class. It talks about how researchers have looked at the DNA of women who develop ovarian cancer or are at risk of developing ovarian cancer and that they have found several uncommon DNA variations that contribute to the development of this cancer. This study, directed by the Ovarian Cancer Association, hopes to be able to help identify ovarian cancer before it is in the late-stage, incurable form in which it is often diagnosed.
http://www.newser.com/story/183515/blood-test-can-spot-alzheimers-years-early.html
ReplyDeleteThis article is about a new blood test that is out that can help spot alzheimers disease years before the first symptom is spotted. This test has supporters as well as people against it. It needs to be essentially up to the patient to decide weather or not they want to find out if they will acquire alzheimers disease in the future. Lots of doctors are calling this test a game changer though because they test this through 10 fat cells in the blood that could potentially be used to slow down or stop the disease all together. There would be pros and cons to both knowing, and not knowing if you were to get alzheimers disease. You could potentially plan for the future, or just wait for your fate.
The fact that Alzheimer's can be detected through a quick and easy blood test is mind-blowing. A few years ago it would have been impossible to detect things like Parkinson's and Huntington's, and now it's possible to detect a disease through blood testing. However, this relates back to the discussions we've had in class about genetic testing and discovering the diseases and things to which your genetics predispose you. I don't know if I would actually want to know that I will develop Huntington's or Alzheimer's knowing that there is no cure.
DeleteIt's unbelievable that such a simple test is able to tell us our predisposition for Alzheimer's. It is additionally amazing to recognize how long it has taken for us to just understand the cause of Alzheimer's- a lack of a single neuron. Although there is no complete cure for Alzheimer's, there are medications that depress the symptoms and help prevent breakdown of the neuron that Alzheimer's lack. Hopefully simplifying tests and increasing availability of tests for individuals will help them have an early access to medications, or lead to discovery of a cure.
DeleteThe idea of paying addicts to get a vaccination seems a little impractical, in my opinion. Although vaccinating these individuals against this highly contagious disease does help prevent the spread of Hepatitis B, it seems like giving addicts $50 would possibly encourage their tendency to go out and buy heroin. If the only individuals getting this offer are those in recovery, the amount of trust this places in them could help them on their road to recovery. However, if they are current addicts, I think this practice could create more problems than solutions.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.newser.com/story/185173/scientists-just-5-mutations-and-bird-flu-goes-airborne.html
This article discusses genetics and how changing only 5 genes in the bird flu makes the disease airborne. This is a big discovery because it shows how easily the bird flu, which is extremely deadly in the H5N1 form, could go airborne and cause a major pandemic. These mutations also made the disease more deadly and more hardy. Although it is useful to know that these mutations do these things, it brings up the question of whether these discoveries are more helpful than harmful. If this results of this experiment were ever to get out into the open, it would cause major problems for society at large. The experiment was also tested on animals, which brings up questions of ethical and humane animal testing.
It’s unsettling to think that these types of virus mutations are being created haphazardly in a lab. I agree, I too did not see any purpose in mutating the virus, this does not help humanity. If anything, that is just more vaccines that will have to be manufactured in order to combat the viruses mutated strains. Instead of focusing on how the virus can change and harm us, why not focus on actually preventing the spread to H5N1 and its replication within the body.
Deletehttp://www.newser.com/story/185173/scientists-just-5-mutations-and-bird-flu-goes-airborne.html
DeleteThis article is a real eye-opener, It points out the little roadblock standing in the way of the H5N1 virus becoming a more potent air borne disease. Especially after knowing that DNA is able to mutate hundreds to thousands of times as the virus replicates. But at the same time this little road block is a big road block because the right combination of mutations has to occur in order for this to happen. I do agree that these scientists are playing with fire. But I also think it's necessary because if one day the virus does manage to mutate into a more deadly strain we have to be prepared to fight it. By playing with fire now we keep from getting burned later on.
I agree with Alex in that paying addicts to get vaccinated is very impractical. I also agree that giving them money to get a vaccine while they are addicts is only further encouraging their habits. They can have the vaccine but will still engage in the activities that transmit hepatitis B. What if they receive the vaccine, are doing drugs with dirty needles, and happen to come into contact before the vaccine was able to be in full effect (lag phase) within the immune system?
ReplyDeletehttp://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/04/16/is-a-patient-vegetative-the-crucial-answer-may-be-quite-wrong/
I found an article about positron emission tomography (PET) scanning and the changing of what it means to be in a “vegetative state” aka unresponsive wakefulness syndrome. There was a study done on 126 individuals using a MRI and a PET scan technology. The PET scan is found to be more accurate than a MRI in diagnosing/accessing levels of consciousness. With the continual use of the PET scan technology, proper ethical/medical diagnoses can be produced for patients in the vegetative state.
I can see how many people believe that paying drug addicts to get vaccinations would cause more problems than it solves. I wouldn't call myself a proponent for this idea but I can see its potential. I have the same concerns about the drug addicts turning around and using the payment to buy more drugs. But I don't believe the goal of this is to get junkies clean I think it is to ensure that the transmission of diseases is reduced. When a junkie uses drugs they are only hurting themselves but by not being vaccinated they could hurt an entire population. Also like the article says $50 is a small price to pay when compared to the potential cost of treating liver disease down the road.
DeleteI am not sure that paying addicts no matter if it is more cost efficient in the long run is morally permissible. Are we sure that these addicts are not in some way being taken advantage of? We are motivating them with $50 which does not seem like a significant sum but at the same time is enough for a drug user to score another hit with. Also, the drugs only slow the disease not prevent it. If the addicts do not fully understand this it is possible that in the future they will not take the precautions they have been to stop the spread of hepatitis B.
DeleteThe morally permissible thing would be to wean them off of their addiction but that would require more time and resources plus their is almost no incentive for the drug addicts to get clean. The reality is that there will always be drug users and the people behind this practice are just trying to make the best of a bad situation. If you can't get them clean the next best thing is to keep them at least somewhat healthy. Also the drug addicts are getting vaccinated through a series of three injections, which does in fact prevent the disease. Although there is still a chance to contract Hepatitis B if they use dirty needles before the completion of the injections.
DeleteI don't think the addicts are being taken advantage of in this situation. With informed consent, they are fully aware of Hep B and the possibility of themselves contracting it with their lifestyles. I just think that before they are able to participate in the vaccine they should be concurrently enrolled in rehab to prevent reoccurring habits. This would be the better for the community as a whole. The addict could get clean and prevent the spread of Hep B in the community. Maybe drug addicts shouldn't even be a target population?
DeleteI understand the intention behind the matter. I think, like many plans, it definitely has good intentions but fails to see the reality like many of you mentioned before (using the money earned to purchase more drugs, etc.). However, simply trying to educate addicts about the harmful spread of Hepatitis B or other viruses/disease isn't enough motivation. If giving them money as a form of motivation that is actually successful, then it should continue until a better solution comes about. Addicts getting vaccinated, as well as anyone else, is only better for the community and gives a greater chance of elimination of diseases.
DeleteI agree with Tori. I understand the impracticalities of giving a drug addict money in order to get healthy, but I think this proposal needs to be looked at in a bigger picture. Different diseases can be easily spread to others because of drug related activities. So by preventing that spread of disease, we aren't just protecting the drug addicts but non drug addicts who could be in contact with those people. Vaccinating affects society as a whole.
DeleteSeems almost as if they're trying to start a vicious cycle. Give a crackhead $50 dollars to get vaccinated, the same $50 he's gonna turn around and spend to score grade A Colombian bam bam and be still on the streets. It seems almost as if they're encouraging these addicts to stay on drugs with the small asterisk *as long as you're "safe" about it* .
DeleteAlthough I find it impractical to give the addicts money, I agree with Tyler's second post when he says that the government is just trying to make the best out of a bad situation. Either way, the government loses- if they do nothing, they and the general public lose. If they pay the addicts to get vaccinated, then the public condemns them for creating the "vicious cycle" that Corey talks about.
DeleteI think it's amazing that these patients, when given an MRI, were declared vegetative but then were declared to have a reasonable level of consciousness when given a PET scan. This research will cause a lot of trouble in the future because families that "pulled the plug" according to an MRI will wonder whether they made the right decision. This just shows that, even though medicine has advanced so much, there is still so much more to discover and so much more to learn.
ReplyDeleteThat is scary to think about how many people might have been given up on too early according to this information. I think it will definitely cause controversy within families who have had to make difficult decisions involving their loved ones. It's fascinating as well to be living in a world that's new technologies keep exceeding expectations and going above and beyond what we thought possible.
DeleteThe articles about the stem cells are very interesting. First off, being able to create human embryonic stem cells from adult stem cells is a serious breakthrough. The science behind how they did it is very complex and I hope to one day be able to grasp the processes that resulted in this discovery. Everyone’s concerns regarding the potential repercussions of this discovery can be justified. Fear of humans being able to one day be cloned is something many scientists hold in common. The reality is that human clones are far in the future. Also the potential regenerative properties this discovery could lead to are limitless. Which could introduce another ethical dilemma like human life being prolonged indefinitely. What many people don’t realize is that this breakthrough could cause as many problems as it solves.
ReplyDeleteHear me now? Gene therapy improves 'bionic ear' technology
ReplyDeletehttp://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-gene-therapy-improves-bionic-ear-technology-20140422,0,2370106.story?track=rss
This article relates how researchers believe that by stimulating growth in spiral ganglion neurons next to cochlear implants they can help patients detect and interpret speech by encouraging these nerve cells to grow closer to the electrode. I thought this was interesting because of the question we had in class if a child was born deaf and his parents chose not to give him implants to correct that problem. If this becomes viable would that lessen the responsibility placed upon the parents for choosing not to give implants early in life when as of this point in time they are most effective?
I think it would certainly lessen the responsibility placed upon parents; if they chose not to correct their child's impaired hearing early in life, this wouldn't necessarily be a permanent situation. If cochlear implants are ultimately improved, it seems to me that a person could greatly enhance their hearing at almost any stage of their life. As a result, a person who is born deaf and is deaf for the majority of their childhood could then choose to reverse that through this procedure once they are an adult.
Deletehttp://edition.cnn.com/2002/HEALTH/12/27/cnna.gupta.boisselier/
ReplyDeleteThe cloning of a baby girl. This was a reading we had and this lady was in it. (Brigitte Boisselier)
It's one thing to want to have a baby of your own but to actually clone someone is just beyond comprehensible to my understanding. Science definitely has it perks, as it is able to come up with cures for new diseases and help people become healthy. However, I feel science definitely should have it's limitations, and cloning an actual human being is one of them. I know that there are different circumstances of why someone would decide to clone, but there are different routes for one to take other than cloning.
DeleteI agree with Alex, paying addicts to get vaccination seems very impractical to me, it is almost as if they are rewarding them for being addicts by giving them vaccinations that prevent them from getting hepatitis b. And giving them $50 seems absurd to me because more than likely they will use that money to go get more heroin after they leave the place of vaccination. Instead of offering them a monetary reward for getting the vaccination maybe they should offer them free treatment to get off heroin. I know that heroin has the worst withdraw symptoms and addicts will get sick if they don’t get their heroin for the day. I just don’t think offering a monetary reward is very practical to give to a heroin addict, I think that would support them in their addiction rather than get them off of heroin.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you, but I think people getting vaccinated affects society as a whole. For example, when parents started refusing to get their children vaccinated, they became prone to diseases that other children were not. The mumps outbreak in the area seems to be linked to a lack of vaccinating. So making sure that the drug addicts don't get hepatitis b is also preventing others who aren't drug addicts from getting hepatitis b.
DeleteThe fact that people have created human embryonic stem cells from adult skin cells really blows my mind. I like how they used an older person’s skin cells and a younger person’s skin cells, I like this because, as it said in the article, with the older person’s skin cells they might be able to find cures for diseases that come with age such as Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s disease. If they are able to find cures for infants using elderly people’s skin cells that would really be a break through because infants would be able to be born and not have the chance of getting Alzheimer’s or Parkinson’s disease. If this technique is possible it would change the way people view stem cell research, I think people would want to do more research on stem cells if this is possible.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/18/business/scientists-report-advance-in-therapeutic-cloning.html?_r=0
ReplyDeleteThis article discusses how researchers are close to using stem cells to match a person's DNA in order to properly treat their disease. I think that is very interesting to see that researchers are coming up with different ways to help people become healthy if they have a certain kind of disease. But while researchers are able to come close to treating a disease, they are also using the skin cells as a way of therapeutic cloning. While this is used to treat a disease, this is also be used for reproductive cloning. It's amazing to see how one approach can lead to two different intentions.
It's surprising when looking at research ideas where they end up going. I know plenty of medicines that have been "accidentally" created, or research that has one intention but discovers something else instead. It's really interesting and a lot more common than one would think!
DeleteWhat about the negatives of therapeutic cloning? As the article pointed out in the US federal funds cannot be used for this right now. Also the United Nations called on countries to ban it in 2005. Surely there are some moral questions to consider if that recommendation is made.
DeleteI agree its fascinating to see how one medical approach can lead to two different outcomes. I think it's also very interesting to see the pros to cloning, since I've mostly been against it. I think anything that is able to help cure patients of diseases should be deemed moral and usable.
Delete"Mind Control in a Flash of Light"
ReplyDeletehttp://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/22/science/mind-control-in-a-flash-of-light.html?ref=science
This New York Times article discusses a new potential way to govern neurons and possibly manage certain neurological disorders. This idea dips into the topic of Gene Therapy and Manipulation we have been discussing in pass classes. Dr. Karl Deisseroth first became interested in psychiatry during his clinical rotations in medical school. The phenomenon of various psychiatric disorders affecting people as a physical disease or virus fascinated him. He came across many patients suffering from disease without cures and became interested in curing the disorders. To find a cure, he proceeded with two researches. The first method was low risk, and involved enhancing growth of neurons from stem cells. The second reflects the title- using light to control neurons, yet it was high risk. The research involving light is called optogenetics. They began the research on neurons on fruit flies and eventually moved up to mice. The article isn't clear on whether the research has been tested on human subjects or not.
I would like to have more information about the subjects and why the light control research is considered high risk. If it causes a lot of harm, does it outweigh the benefits of curing a disease? Having more information about the subject, specifically the risk involved, would allow me to form a better opinion on the new research. Being interested in psychiatric disorders myself, I find it remarkable that there is a possibility the cure the diseases that haven't received a cure yet. On the other hand, I would like for the therapy to not be harmful for the patients.
Unanswered questions and thoughts remain from the article..Like any research on animals, there is always uncertainty on whether it will work on humans or not. Also, there is also a question, as in genetic therapy, whether the light therapy will advance to alter other genes besides the harmful ones.
Anything involving breakthroughs in mental health or neurological disorders really fascinates me. It's looking at mental disease in the term of a physical disorder or virus which I think often times gets overlooked when talking about mental illness. Yeah I would question why a light control research would be considered high risk as well. You don't often think that light therapy could cause disastrous consequences. Although this is fascinating, I do agree that it seems scary to have therapy be mentally harmful for the patients.
Delete"Just Give it to Me in a Chip": http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2014/04/health/the-cnn-10-healing-the-future/?frame=1&hpt=he_c1
ReplyDeleteScientists are attempting to develop a microchip in replace of medications individuals need. These microchips give are designed to release the correct amount of medication at the right time, relieving the worry of taking medications at an specific time, and even remembering to take your medications at all. These microchips are placed in an individual, where dose and the drug itself is controlled by the physician. The practiced this on eight women with osteoporosis with a medication normally given subcutaneously. The results showed the microchip was safe and effective. Scientists are planning on releasing this new form of administration of medication around 2017, starting as a hormonal contraceptive (estrogen, or progestin and estrogen combined). They are then hoping to move on to more serious medications to treat chronic conditions.
I'm currently taking a Pharmacology course and so this article was very interesting to me. There are many different methods a medication can be administered, each have their benefits and their downfalls (eg. the amount of time it takes to transport through the body, distribution and absorption of the medication, side effects of how it's taken, and how effective the medicine is). It's amazing to me that such a small device can replace multiple medications. I can see the benefits and the risks with having this new form of treatment. Many conditions require not only multiple drugs and doses, but the schedule of taking the drug is critical. In HIV patients, it is important to administer the medication required at a schedule to keep blood levels stable. Another benefit of having this chip is the chance that certain drugs may not deactivate each other through this method. Additionally, individuals take on average 18 drugs per year, 42 including nonprescription drugs-That is a lot for a person to remember to take. I think the microchip will be able to help those who struggle with remembering to take their medications. The risks that I see is the lack of control for the individual. If side effects are so severe and one wishes to discontinue the use of medication (although not recommended), a person is able to stop taking their medication. However with the microchip, one must be granted permission from the physician since they are the controller of the microchip. Overall, this article is amazing to me. Medicine itself is always changing, and treatments have come a long way.
I definitely agree, Tara. Who would have thought, 15 years ago, that a microchip would be developed that could administer drugs? This could also be a really good alternative for individuals who have a disease such as Alzheimer's or dementia, those who have just become forgetful in old age, or a patient with a mental illness. The microchip could be used to administer the medications without having to swallow a lot of pills, could eliminate time wasted delivering pills, and could help keep more people stable and lucid. However, I feel like the objection you made to the microchip is relevant, also. An individual could want to refuse a medication but the doctor could deliver it anyways, unbeknownst to the patient. Overall, I think the positives would outweigh the negatives as long as no severe complications are found.
Deletehttp://www.cnn.com/interactive/2014/04/health/the-cnn-10-healing-the-future/?frame=7&hpt=he_c1
ReplyDeleteI found this article about how doing certain activities can help improve eyesight and other traits. Participants were given games to test abilities in various subjects. The goal of these exercises and games was to test to see if there were exercises to help dementia. The other games involved improving eyesight, intelligence, and memory. Unfortunately there were no games or results that showed a program could help prevent dementia.
Should the healthcare system be obligated to provide these activities to help improve eyesight, memory, etc. as preventative care for patients? It is great to have all of this new research done in improving our lifestyles, and this could be another factor in helping us.
DeleteThe article about paying drug addicts to receive vaccines against Hep B seems problematic. I understand the importance of helping people to not become infected, but doesn't "paying them off" imply that they may very likely continue to use the drugs? Preventing them from getting one disease does not take into account other problems that these people will have, such as mental and other physical issues. Instead of spending money on getting them to be vaccinated, perhaps more should be spent on attempts to help them with their addiction issue in the first place. Why not pay them to receive therapy instead? It could probably help with more of the underlying issues than just one complication.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.lifesitenews.com/news/after-ivf-we-became-pregnant-with-triplets-then-my-wife-had-two-of-the-babi
In some research I was doing the other day, I came across this article, and even though it's 2 years old, I found it relevant to some of the issues we've been discussing in class. It's an article written by a man who decided with his wife to use IVF to have a baby. They had already used this method once and had a child, and they were trying again. When his wife became pregnant with triplets, he wanted to keep them, but she refused and insisted on having two of them aborted. This they went through with and in the article the man is expressing his regret. I found this article powerful because it laid out the fact that there are some serious issues with IVF; for example, situations like this where there are multiples and this is not the desire of one of the parents. It makes me think that the complex issues that could arise from attempting IVF are enough to make it something that shouldn't be messed with, not to mention the moral problem of the freezing and discarding of embryos. I think that these issues should be thoroughly considered before so readily concluding that IVF is such a great thing.
In relation to the first article you mentioned, I agree that "paying them off" may result in more severe and detrimental issues. You mentioned the idea of paying them to receive therapy; while this would be ideal, couldn't this situation still result in the same problem (i.e. paying them to buy more drugs/other vices)? How do we ensure that any of this "treatment" will actually take place? It seems like for both scenarios, the drug addicts would almost need someone to watch them/check up on them in order to make sure that they were following through with either their therapy or their vaccine. This situation is just so difficult to address and manage, as solving one problem could create many more.
Deletehttp://blogs.scientificamerican.com/psi-vid/2014/04/21/the-perfect-46-the-future-is-near/
ReplyDeleteWhile this article describes the details of a new movie, the premise behind it may not be that far off. The movie is titled "The Perfect 46", and it centers around a company that contains the ability to use the information stored in your DNA to determine if you are with "the one" for you. This website pairs individuals with their ideal genetic partner for children, and allows you the opportunity to find out if the offspring you were to conceive with your partner would be free from known genetically heritable diseases. Though this is a movie premise, I still feel that it deserves to be acknowledged. We're already beginning to entertain the numerous possibilities with which genetic engineering provides, so it wouldn't necessarily be wrong to assume that a scientific opportunity such as this may be available in our near future.
This seems really interesting! The idea that a person would be paired with someone whose DNA is compatible but whose personality and likes and dislikes may not be seems like it would take a person's autonomy. Yes, their baby may be genetically perfect but the idea that two people were paired together by a website to make that perfect baby seems morally questionable. Is the intention of the website to make people happy and to make humanity better or to make a race of perfect people? I also agree that this type of scientific opportunity is not that far off in the future.
DeleteThe article which describes the movie seems to be questioning whether or not we would be "steering" evolution in any way with this technology. I can't imagine how people could be truly happy in this type of scenario; sure they'd have the "perfect" child, but does that really matter if this child wasn't created out of love? Some of the "pairings" may actually work out, but the odds don't seem to be in their favor.
DeleteThe article about creating the embryonic cells was really fascinating to me. The fact that they can use an older person's skin cells and generate embryonic cells is a huge breakthrough. This could possibly lessen the moral implications of embryonic stem cell research and could lead to huge breakthroughs in the research of diseases. However, then an ethical issue about cloning could arise. It's all a game of give and take. Do the benefits of this type of cloning and research outweigh the possible negative outcomes and ethical dilemmas?
ReplyDelete