Yesterday Casey Anthony was acquitted of killing her daughter and will probably serve no more than 4 years in prison. I have still not heard or read anyone saying they agree with the decision, which means that if anyone ever reads this, I ll have a lot of people arguing against me, but I am actually sort of glad she was not found guilty.
Do I think Casey Anthony killed her daughter? yes, but I do not know for sure and I am certainly glad the jurors kept in mind that their decision was potentially a life or death decision for another human being.
What I think people need to keep in mind is that steaks were really high for this case with a guilty verdict potentially ending up in death penalty, and no real tangible evidence that demonstrated guilt. If we try to get rid of emotion and look at the evidence, it is all circumstantial. Reports of a smell coming from a car, traces of chloroform in said car and multiple internet searches for chloroform (but no proof that chloroform was used in the murder) a brand of duck tape and garbage bags that match the brands used by the family and certainly very strange behavior for a person with a missing child. All of these make you wonder, but none of it proves guilt. There were also confusing reports that, even for some of us who believe that Casey killed Caylee, cast a shadow of doubt. Why did the lady who claims to have been Casey's father's mistress testify that he mentioned it being an accident? What would her reasons be for lying? I understand the dad's reasons for denying the relationship existed, and I even understand his reasons for denying his part in a body cover up if the girl did indeed accidentally drown. All these questions that will probably never be answer make it hard for anyone to decide that Casey was guilty with a hundred percent certainty, and with even a 1% of doubt you can not take anyone to the chair.
Wednesday, July 6, 2011
Friday, June 10, 2011
Education
Education is an important topic that I would like to talk about, but I have so much to say that I am not sure one entry will suffice.
Today an article came out in CNN that touches 2 topics: The value of an education and the cost of education. Some of the things mentioned in this article include the fact that people with higher education degrees end up making more money than people with just high school degrees, entire nations have achieved a lot of economic growth in just one generation by promoting higher learning, and the fact that some people believe that universities hinder creativity and innovation.
I have lived in the US for 13 years and experienced education systems of 2 states. I got my high school and undergraduate degree from public schools down in Florida and I am pursuing a doctorate degree at a state-related university in Pennsylvania. I have nothing good to say about the education I got at my high school, but I guess I have to give it the benefit of the doubt because of my unusual circumstances. I came to the US from a foreign speaking country and was enrolled in a huge high school (larges graduating class in the southeast US in 2000) with a graduating class of 1200. My assigned guidance counselor barely looked at my above average grades from back home and decided that, since English was not my first language, the best thing for me would be to take easy classes. I fought this decision as much as I could, but I ended up taking classes such as Algebra I, Algebra II and Geometry after having taken pre-calculus in the 10th grade back at home. I graduated with an exceptionally high GPA, but none of the basics I needed to go into an engineering school. This became painfully obvious when I started taking classes such as calculus and physics and I could see how for the rest of my peers these were refresher courses, while I struggled to keep up. It was a difficult time for me and made me completely hate school until I finally started taking the more advanced classes in my major. By then the gaps were still there, but I was finally at a point where it was easy to take a real interest in my major and decided grad school was the best option for me. The last few years were a lot of hard work and dedication. I had to make up for the fact that my grades in the first few semester were low, after all, despite all my hard work and dedication, there was a limit of how high my GPA would get. I decided to do research at school to strengthen my resume, but being a relatively new and small department, there were very few work opportunities for undergraduate students. I went outside my department and even outside my school for a while, but I made sure to have work experience, good recommendation letters and even my name in a few publications by the time I graduated. I also applied for, and on my second attempt received a research fellowship at the undergraduate level that would for sure look pretty good in my CV. I also got involved in professional societies as a board member not only for my resume, but also to take advantage of the networking opportunities that come with it. Finally I graduated with an OK GPA, high GRE scores and a good resume and I was able to get into a top 10 program in my field.
What is the point of that story? Well, there are several lessons to learn from this story. First of all, I came to my current institution thinking classes were going to be ridiculously hard. I was coming from a small, relatively new and widely unknown department to a top 10 school. What I learned really fast is that calculus and physics and chemistry are still calculus and physics and chemistry no matter where you take them. I think academically speaking I could even say I got a better education at my undergraduate institution. The reason for this would be that most of my professors were not world renowned scientists that have no time for anything, much less teaching. My graduating class was about 15 people; therefore all my higher level classes had about that many people, making education a little bit more personalized. So, what makes a program a better program? I think the answer is in the possibilities it gives its students. Needless to say my current department is enormous having at least 100 affiliated faculty members and collaborations with a number of departments within the same university. Undergraduate students are REQUIRED to intern at one of the labs for at least one of the semester, so they get the research experience that I had to go outside of my undergraduate department and to another university to get. Networking opportunities are tremendous and if the students decide to take advantage of all that is offered to them, they can be guaranteed a pretty successful career. That being said, college is what you decided to make out of it. You can go to a top 10 university, but if you do not recognize that you need to take advantage of that, you will get nowhere.
Going back to the original article and the comment that states that a university education hinders creativity and innovation, I have to say I partly disagree. I may be wrong, but my perspective on it is that if you are in an arts degree this may be truer than in a science and engineering environment. The way I see it, if you want to be a painter, then you need to have a talent for painting. There is only so much you can learn from going to class if you don’t really have a talent for it. In some cases classes may actually restrict artists by making them abide by some objective rules of what is proper art and what is not. I may be wrong about this but that is the way I see it. In the case of science and engineering, I think undergraduate degrees are meant to teach you the basics and provide you with some opportunities to apply them. That being said, I think the education system need a major overhaul. It is mind-blowing that we still tech classes the same way classes were taught centuries ago when lecturers mainly had to relay information to students that they could not obtain anywhere else. Today the information is at our fingertips, yet professors insist on standing out there talking about something that we could easily read in our books or computers. In science classes such as biology and chemistry, what good does it make for us to memorize the name and structure of every essential amino-acid if we do not learn how to apply this information? Furthermore, and this is a generalization that applies better to research institutions, there are few incentives for professors to get more involved in education, while the research aspect is highly rewarded. I understand that the main strength of a research institution is its research, however, a university is still mainly an educational business, where the customers are the students who are paying lots of money to get a good education and they should be entitled to do so.
If we get into the economics of education, there are many things to be said. Tuition expenses keep going up every year and the government keeps making cuts to programs that promote education as well as funding for schools and universities. I constantly struggle between what system would work better: socialism or capitalism. A socialist system typically lacks incentives for people to progress by rewarding everyone equally no matter how much they contribute to society. Capitalism, however, does not provide everyone with the same opportunities. I think education-wise it would be sensible to implement a mixed system where everyone is offered the same opportunities. That involves ensuring high standards of affordable education for everyone as well as support to lower income individuals who normally would have to pass on higher education to financially help out their families. By doing so, you are providing equal opportunity, which does not necessarily mean equal outcome. Florida is a good example of this. When I graduated from high school, graduates who finished a GPA above 3.0 and SAT above 970 are eligible for 75% tuition at any Florida state school. A GPA above 3.5 and SAT scores above 1270 made me eligible for 100% plus a stipend for school supplies. As stated earlier in this post, high school in Florida was a joke and these qualifications where not at all hard to achieve. Furthermore, tuition was around 1500-2000 dollars a semester, which even for students who did not qualify for these scholarships was a lot more affordable than universities elsewhere. Despite all the criticisms that I may have, education in FL was affordable therefore available to pretty much anyone who wants to pursue it. I may have not gotten the same education that someone at other state schools with better education systems, but I looked for opportunities to make up for this and now I am at a pretty good program.
I am not trying to say it is OK to offer a crappy education as long as it is cheap. There are many things that I would try to improve at my Alma mater. The point I am trying to make with this story is that quality education should be available to everyone to level the field; after all, it is not fair for kids to have to pay for the consequences of their parents mistakes. What you decide to do with your education will dictate your future, and I guarantee not everyone will take advantage of the opportunities (I know lots of people in Florida who decided not to go to college even though they could have) and when you don’t succeed in life you will have no one to blame but yourself.
Today an article came out in CNN that touches 2 topics: The value of an education and the cost of education. Some of the things mentioned in this article include the fact that people with higher education degrees end up making more money than people with just high school degrees, entire nations have achieved a lot of economic growth in just one generation by promoting higher learning, and the fact that some people believe that universities hinder creativity and innovation.
I have lived in the US for 13 years and experienced education systems of 2 states. I got my high school and undergraduate degree from public schools down in Florida and I am pursuing a doctorate degree at a state-related university in Pennsylvania. I have nothing good to say about the education I got at my high school, but I guess I have to give it the benefit of the doubt because of my unusual circumstances. I came to the US from a foreign speaking country and was enrolled in a huge high school (larges graduating class in the southeast US in 2000) with a graduating class of 1200. My assigned guidance counselor barely looked at my above average grades from back home and decided that, since English was not my first language, the best thing for me would be to take easy classes. I fought this decision as much as I could, but I ended up taking classes such as Algebra I, Algebra II and Geometry after having taken pre-calculus in the 10th grade back at home. I graduated with an exceptionally high GPA, but none of the basics I needed to go into an engineering school. This became painfully obvious when I started taking classes such as calculus and physics and I could see how for the rest of my peers these were refresher courses, while I struggled to keep up. It was a difficult time for me and made me completely hate school until I finally started taking the more advanced classes in my major. By then the gaps were still there, but I was finally at a point where it was easy to take a real interest in my major and decided grad school was the best option for me. The last few years were a lot of hard work and dedication. I had to make up for the fact that my grades in the first few semester were low, after all, despite all my hard work and dedication, there was a limit of how high my GPA would get. I decided to do research at school to strengthen my resume, but being a relatively new and small department, there were very few work opportunities for undergraduate students. I went outside my department and even outside my school for a while, but I made sure to have work experience, good recommendation letters and even my name in a few publications by the time I graduated. I also applied for, and on my second attempt received a research fellowship at the undergraduate level that would for sure look pretty good in my CV. I also got involved in professional societies as a board member not only for my resume, but also to take advantage of the networking opportunities that come with it. Finally I graduated with an OK GPA, high GRE scores and a good resume and I was able to get into a top 10 program in my field.
What is the point of that story? Well, there are several lessons to learn from this story. First of all, I came to my current institution thinking classes were going to be ridiculously hard. I was coming from a small, relatively new and widely unknown department to a top 10 school. What I learned really fast is that calculus and physics and chemistry are still calculus and physics and chemistry no matter where you take them. I think academically speaking I could even say I got a better education at my undergraduate institution. The reason for this would be that most of my professors were not world renowned scientists that have no time for anything, much less teaching. My graduating class was about 15 people; therefore all my higher level classes had about that many people, making education a little bit more personalized. So, what makes a program a better program? I think the answer is in the possibilities it gives its students. Needless to say my current department is enormous having at least 100 affiliated faculty members and collaborations with a number of departments within the same university. Undergraduate students are REQUIRED to intern at one of the labs for at least one of the semester, so they get the research experience that I had to go outside of my undergraduate department and to another university to get. Networking opportunities are tremendous and if the students decide to take advantage of all that is offered to them, they can be guaranteed a pretty successful career. That being said, college is what you decided to make out of it. You can go to a top 10 university, but if you do not recognize that you need to take advantage of that, you will get nowhere.
Going back to the original article and the comment that states that a university education hinders creativity and innovation, I have to say I partly disagree. I may be wrong, but my perspective on it is that if you are in an arts degree this may be truer than in a science and engineering environment. The way I see it, if you want to be a painter, then you need to have a talent for painting. There is only so much you can learn from going to class if you don’t really have a talent for it. In some cases classes may actually restrict artists by making them abide by some objective rules of what is proper art and what is not. I may be wrong about this but that is the way I see it. In the case of science and engineering, I think undergraduate degrees are meant to teach you the basics and provide you with some opportunities to apply them. That being said, I think the education system need a major overhaul. It is mind-blowing that we still tech classes the same way classes were taught centuries ago when lecturers mainly had to relay information to students that they could not obtain anywhere else. Today the information is at our fingertips, yet professors insist on standing out there talking about something that we could easily read in our books or computers. In science classes such as biology and chemistry, what good does it make for us to memorize the name and structure of every essential amino-acid if we do not learn how to apply this information? Furthermore, and this is a generalization that applies better to research institutions, there are few incentives for professors to get more involved in education, while the research aspect is highly rewarded. I understand that the main strength of a research institution is its research, however, a university is still mainly an educational business, where the customers are the students who are paying lots of money to get a good education and they should be entitled to do so.
If we get into the economics of education, there are many things to be said. Tuition expenses keep going up every year and the government keeps making cuts to programs that promote education as well as funding for schools and universities. I constantly struggle between what system would work better: socialism or capitalism. A socialist system typically lacks incentives for people to progress by rewarding everyone equally no matter how much they contribute to society. Capitalism, however, does not provide everyone with the same opportunities. I think education-wise it would be sensible to implement a mixed system where everyone is offered the same opportunities. That involves ensuring high standards of affordable education for everyone as well as support to lower income individuals who normally would have to pass on higher education to financially help out their families. By doing so, you are providing equal opportunity, which does not necessarily mean equal outcome. Florida is a good example of this. When I graduated from high school, graduates who finished a GPA above 3.0 and SAT above 970 are eligible for 75% tuition at any Florida state school. A GPA above 3.5 and SAT scores above 1270 made me eligible for 100% plus a stipend for school supplies. As stated earlier in this post, high school in Florida was a joke and these qualifications where not at all hard to achieve. Furthermore, tuition was around 1500-2000 dollars a semester, which even for students who did not qualify for these scholarships was a lot more affordable than universities elsewhere. Despite all the criticisms that I may have, education in FL was affordable therefore available to pretty much anyone who wants to pursue it. I may have not gotten the same education that someone at other state schools with better education systems, but I looked for opportunities to make up for this and now I am at a pretty good program.
I am not trying to say it is OK to offer a crappy education as long as it is cheap. There are many things that I would try to improve at my Alma mater. The point I am trying to make with this story is that quality education should be available to everyone to level the field; after all, it is not fair for kids to have to pay for the consequences of their parents mistakes. What you decide to do with your education will dictate your future, and I guarantee not everyone will take advantage of the opportunities (I know lots of people in Florida who decided not to go to college even though they could have) and when you don’t succeed in life you will have no one to blame but yourself.
Tuesday, June 7, 2011
Marriage
I was watching a show on polygamy a few nights ago, and decided It would be an awesome topic for my blog. As I was thinking about what to write, I started thinking about gay marriage and marriage in general, so I decided to mix it all together into just one entry.
Let’s begin with polygamy. I think the whole idea is a little bit strange. I don’t think it is really my cup of tea as I don’t think I could handle the jealousy aspect of things. Also, I am happily married, but it I got to admit, there are some days when I really feel like kicking my husband out of the house for a few hours so that I can get some me time. I could imagine going crazy if I had to co-exist with more than one spouse. That being said, why is it that so many people have trouble with it? I just don’t see how other people being in a polygamist marriage negatively affect me. Would I be afraid of having kids that want to become polygamist? Well, I don’t think I would encourage them to, but as long as the marriage is between consenting adults, I don’t see why not. People would try to argue that they end up having so many kids and depending on welfare and stuff…but there are also tons of monogamist couples out there that have a million kids they cannot afford. Plus, if you want to talk economics of polygamy, let’s take a look at the following. Recently I read that the average cost of maintaining a prisoner for a year is between 30 and 40 thousand dollars. This polygamy show that I was watching on TV has one husband and 4 wives. They were under investigation for polygamy in Utah and they left because they could end up serving up to 20 years in prison for the husband and 5 years for each wife. That ends up being 40 years of prison total. Let’s say that because of the nature of the crime, they end up costing only 20,000 a year (not a max security prison), well, that costs tax payers a total of 800,000 dollars. Not to mention that they have a combined total of 16 kids all of which are underage therefore would end up being taken care of by child services. It just doesn’t make any sense. Switching back to the philosophical aspect of things, I was under the impression that there was a separation between church and government, but I cannot find any non-religious reason why polygamy should be illegal (unless the marriages are not between CONSENTING ADULTS)
Now, what about gay marriages? Well, a lot of the same arguments can be used in this case. How does it affect me negatively? No idea. Would I want to have a gay child? Would not encourage it, mostly because I would know their life would be a lot harder than if they were straight, but I also think there is nothing I could do about it, after all, I think being gay is not a choice, but part of nature. For all of those who disagree with this last statement, I have actually seen two male dogs having sex, therefore it does happen, plus, if we go about what is natural by what we see in other animal species, then marriage is unnatural because very few species actually mate for life...I forgot where I was going with this… anyways, I would still love my kids the same if they were gay and I would not be one of those parents who would not let my kids play with the kids of a gay couple because that is just mean. However, the biggest argument I have about same-sex marriage is that people fail to see what gay people are asking for. People keep going on about the institution of marriage being historically between a man and a woman…blah blah blah…. Well, then call it something different. Call it a partnership or whatever else you would like it to be named, but make sure gay couples who enter into an agreement that is equivalent to a marriage agreement are afforded the same rights than a married couple. This includes being able to visit their loved ones at the hospital when they get sick, being able to make medical decisions for them if they become incapacitated, being able to make funeral arrangements for them and being able to inherit a share of their estate after their death, adding them to their insurance plans as their spouses… and many many more. Also, if we allow same-sex couples adopt, we would be giving a lot of kids the opportunity to grown and thrive in a loving family.
Anyways, I know it is not a lot of new insight into any of these subjects, but I guess I just wanted to put it up in writing. Plus I secretly hope that one of these days someone who completely disagrees with me writes a comment and gives me the opportunity to have a very open (but hopefully respectful) argument about these things. It could give me an insight on why people disagree with things I agree with (and vv)
Let’s begin with polygamy. I think the whole idea is a little bit strange. I don’t think it is really my cup of tea as I don’t think I could handle the jealousy aspect of things. Also, I am happily married, but it I got to admit, there are some days when I really feel like kicking my husband out of the house for a few hours so that I can get some me time. I could imagine going crazy if I had to co-exist with more than one spouse. That being said, why is it that so many people have trouble with it? I just don’t see how other people being in a polygamist marriage negatively affect me. Would I be afraid of having kids that want to become polygamist? Well, I don’t think I would encourage them to, but as long as the marriage is between consenting adults, I don’t see why not. People would try to argue that they end up having so many kids and depending on welfare and stuff…but there are also tons of monogamist couples out there that have a million kids they cannot afford. Plus, if you want to talk economics of polygamy, let’s take a look at the following. Recently I read that the average cost of maintaining a prisoner for a year is between 30 and 40 thousand dollars. This polygamy show that I was watching on TV has one husband and 4 wives. They were under investigation for polygamy in Utah and they left because they could end up serving up to 20 years in prison for the husband and 5 years for each wife. That ends up being 40 years of prison total. Let’s say that because of the nature of the crime, they end up costing only 20,000 a year (not a max security prison), well, that costs tax payers a total of 800,000 dollars. Not to mention that they have a combined total of 16 kids all of which are underage therefore would end up being taken care of by child services. It just doesn’t make any sense. Switching back to the philosophical aspect of things, I was under the impression that there was a separation between church and government, but I cannot find any non-religious reason why polygamy should be illegal (unless the marriages are not between CONSENTING ADULTS)
Now, what about gay marriages? Well, a lot of the same arguments can be used in this case. How does it affect me negatively? No idea. Would I want to have a gay child? Would not encourage it, mostly because I would know their life would be a lot harder than if they were straight, but I also think there is nothing I could do about it, after all, I think being gay is not a choice, but part of nature. For all of those who disagree with this last statement, I have actually seen two male dogs having sex, therefore it does happen, plus, if we go about what is natural by what we see in other animal species, then marriage is unnatural because very few species actually mate for life...I forgot where I was going with this… anyways, I would still love my kids the same if they were gay and I would not be one of those parents who would not let my kids play with the kids of a gay couple because that is just mean. However, the biggest argument I have about same-sex marriage is that people fail to see what gay people are asking for. People keep going on about the institution of marriage being historically between a man and a woman…blah blah blah…. Well, then call it something different. Call it a partnership or whatever else you would like it to be named, but make sure gay couples who enter into an agreement that is equivalent to a marriage agreement are afforded the same rights than a married couple. This includes being able to visit their loved ones at the hospital when they get sick, being able to make medical decisions for them if they become incapacitated, being able to make funeral arrangements for them and being able to inherit a share of their estate after their death, adding them to their insurance plans as their spouses… and many many more. Also, if we allow same-sex couples adopt, we would be giving a lot of kids the opportunity to grown and thrive in a loving family.
Anyways, I know it is not a lot of new insight into any of these subjects, but I guess I just wanted to put it up in writing. Plus I secretly hope that one of these days someone who completely disagrees with me writes a comment and gives me the opportunity to have a very open (but hopefully respectful) argument about these things. It could give me an insight on why people disagree with things I agree with (and vv)
Friday, June 3, 2011
Old Rants about Embryonic Stem Cells
As researchers we have to keep the ultimate goal in mind: "Improve the quality of life of people with diseases by looking at possible treatments" scientist should also avoid being biased towards a cell type but instead looking at all the alternatives. I do ESC research, but I also use IPScells and adult stem cells. Ultimately we want to use the cell type that shows the most promising results, whichever that cell type is. The argument that ESC research will take money away from adult stem cell research is not necessarily correct. Getting federal awards for research is a very time consuming and painstaking process that requires scientists to present preliminary data that suggests there is potential in the area. This means that in order for money to be awarded, whether it is for stem cells or adult stem cells, scientist first have to show that there is potential.
***
Urgh...this is so frustrating and infuriating. I am OK with people having an opinion, even if it is not the same as mine. What really bothers me is that I have been reading most comments, and everyone is so ill informed about the subject and everyone picks bits and pieces to support their arguments but so few people actually understand the big picture. We need someone to write an article that explains in very simple terms what embryonic research entitles, what the policies have been and what those policies mean in terms of availability of resources and amount of research done as well as results obtained as well as the pros and cons of embryonic research....at least then, no matter what the outcome is, people can make an educated decision.
***
ll try to leave my opinion out, but instead clarify a few facts about embryonic stem cell (ESC) research:
1. ESC are from the embryo at a very early stage (before implantation) therefore if you are far along to know you are pregnant, the cells are not stem cells anymore. I bring this point because some people seem to think that ESC and abortions go hand in hand. This is a big misconception
2. As it has been pointed out, ESC usually come from embryos left over from in-vitro fertilization (IVF). What that means is that whenever you do IVF they fertilize more than one egg and they try implanting a few and keep the rest frozen in case the first round doesn’t work out. If the person does get pregnant the first time you have the option of keeping the embryos frozen for future use (if you have more babies) or they can throw them away (or use them to create stem cell lines)
3. I think this is a big point that few people have brought up: In order to do ESC research you don’t have to harvest and embryo every time. There are 93 NIH approved cell lines. What that means is that 93 embryos were harvested; the stem cells were isolated and expanded as well as immortalized so that researchers studying stem cells with NIH money can use any of these cell lines. After harvested these cells don’t have the ability to form a baby anymore and the cell lines have already been created
4. This is something that I am not entirely clear on, but I think nobody really is: The ruling made by Judge Lamberth does not mean doing embryonic stem cell research is illegal. It just means that it can’t be done with federal funding. Before Obama’s reform there was even SOME federal funding for ESC research, but it was limited to the approved cell lines which were not that many. After Obama’s reform he approved the creation of new cell lines which were necessary for validation of results obtained with the original lines. Private funding for biomedical research is very hard to come by.
5. It is true that adult stem cells have a lot of potential. It is true that more clinical trials have been done with these cells. The problem with adult stem cells is that, unlike embryonic stem cells, they are not pluripotent. What that means is that bone marrow cells have the ability of becoming blood cells and therefore curing some blood-related diseases, however, they have not been able to differentiate into liver or pancreas… ad same goes for other types of adult stem cells. What happens is that in the very early process of differentiation cells become one of three “germ layers” so one germ layer will form certain tissue but not all tissues. Most available adult stem cells come from mesoderm origin which will be able to form blood cells, muscle cells, bone and cartilage. ESC have not committed to any of the “germ layers” so they can become anything. ESC have not shown a lot of results yet because until just a few months ago the money for research was very limited so not a lot of people could do it and there are a lot more procedures from institutions to get permissions to do research with them.
6. ESC cells have helped us understand how cells develop. By studying ESC researchers have learned how to make cells with ESC characteristic from skin cells (called induced pluripotent stem cells) however, this is relatively new technology and has a lot of drawbacks but by doing more research in ESC we will be able to create new technologies to cure different diseases moving away from ESC
***
Urgh...this is so frustrating and infuriating. I am OK with people having an opinion, even if it is not the same as mine. What really bothers me is that I have been reading most comments, and everyone is so ill informed about the subject and everyone picks bits and pieces to support their arguments but so few people actually understand the big picture. We need someone to write an article that explains in very simple terms what embryonic research entitles, what the policies have been and what those policies mean in terms of availability of resources and amount of research done as well as results obtained as well as the pros and cons of embryonic research....at least then, no matter what the outcome is, people can make an educated decision.
***
ll try to leave my opinion out, but instead clarify a few facts about embryonic stem cell (ESC) research:
1. ESC are from the embryo at a very early stage (before implantation) therefore if you are far along to know you are pregnant, the cells are not stem cells anymore. I bring this point because some people seem to think that ESC and abortions go hand in hand. This is a big misconception
2. As it has been pointed out, ESC usually come from embryos left over from in-vitro fertilization (IVF). What that means is that whenever you do IVF they fertilize more than one egg and they try implanting a few and keep the rest frozen in case the first round doesn’t work out. If the person does get pregnant the first time you have the option of keeping the embryos frozen for future use (if you have more babies) or they can throw them away (or use them to create stem cell lines)
3. I think this is a big point that few people have brought up: In order to do ESC research you don’t have to harvest and embryo every time. There are 93 NIH approved cell lines. What that means is that 93 embryos were harvested; the stem cells were isolated and expanded as well as immortalized so that researchers studying stem cells with NIH money can use any of these cell lines. After harvested these cells don’t have the ability to form a baby anymore and the cell lines have already been created
4. This is something that I am not entirely clear on, but I think nobody really is: The ruling made by Judge Lamberth does not mean doing embryonic stem cell research is illegal. It just means that it can’t be done with federal funding. Before Obama’s reform there was even SOME federal funding for ESC research, but it was limited to the approved cell lines which were not that many. After Obama’s reform he approved the creation of new cell lines which were necessary for validation of results obtained with the original lines. Private funding for biomedical research is very hard to come by.
5. It is true that adult stem cells have a lot of potential. It is true that more clinical trials have been done with these cells. The problem with adult stem cells is that, unlike embryonic stem cells, they are not pluripotent. What that means is that bone marrow cells have the ability of becoming blood cells and therefore curing some blood-related diseases, however, they have not been able to differentiate into liver or pancreas… ad same goes for other types of adult stem cells. What happens is that in the very early process of differentiation cells become one of three “germ layers” so one germ layer will form certain tissue but not all tissues. Most available adult stem cells come from mesoderm origin which will be able to form blood cells, muscle cells, bone and cartilage. ESC have not committed to any of the “germ layers” so they can become anything. ESC have not shown a lot of results yet because until just a few months ago the money for research was very limited so not a lot of people could do it and there are a lot more procedures from institutions to get permissions to do research with them.
6. ESC cells have helped us understand how cells develop. By studying ESC researchers have learned how to make cells with ESC characteristic from skin cells (called induced pluripotent stem cells) however, this is relatively new technology and has a lot of drawbacks but by doing more research in ESC we will be able to create new technologies to cure different diseases moving away from ESC
Thursday, June 2, 2011
War
Recently, I have been reading about the Balkan wars. It is a topic I had very few information about. I was reading an article on CNN about Mladic and about demonstrators in Serbia treating him as a hero. Before I continue, I have to explain that a lot of my rants do not come from the news themselves, but from the comments that people make about the news. Well, this CNN user made a comment about Bosnians also killing a lot of people and US news agencies just showing a biased perspective of the news that make Serbs look bad. This what my reply: “We really don't know what happened and we should hear both sides of the story before we decide to take sides, however, ordering the killing of thousands of innocent civilians is genocide and there is no justification for it. There may have been unusual killing of Serbs in Bosnia, but ordering the execution of thousands of people does not make up or even it out. An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind” his response to my reply was something along the lines of “why should you know about this conflict, you only had 18 years to lean about it.” BURN!
It is true, I usually get mat about people not caring enough about what is going on in the world, but in my defense, I was 10 years old when this happened and I was busy dealing with my own national conflicts. The point is that there are so many wars and disputes out there that it is hard to keep up. Even if we do have a general knowledge of what is going on, how do you know it is not a biased version of it? The reality of war is that it doesn’t matter who is right of wrong, it is often civilians that pay the price. Lets take the example of Israel vs. Palestine. I think I have a pretty good understanding of what is going on, I mean, it has only been going on for over 50 years and the conflict pretty much remains the same. The problem is that I can see both points of view. On one hand, Palestinians lived there for hundreds of year, and then all of the sudden they are losing their land because some people believe that was the land that was promised to them over 2000 years ago. But then I understand the Jewish people wanting to have their own nation after the atrocities committed against them and let’s face it, the majority of the world stood still and did nothing while millions of Jewish people got murdered. I am saying the majority, because there were hundreds, even thousands of people who decided to take action and for resistance groups, however, I also believe a lot of these were to protect their own interests. Let’s face it, had it not been for Pearl Harbor, the US would have never gotten involved. But I am starting to go on a tangent (or a tangent of a tangent) the point is that The Jewish people created a nation, and developed the land and made it into the technologically advanced nation that it is today so they feel like they have earned the right to stay. The problem is that Palestinians are still mad, and they have the support from the Arab world who has been at war with the Jewish world for centuries. But at the end of the day, it is the politicians who refuse to compromise while it is mostly civilians that get caught in the cross-fire. I guess what I am not too eloquently trying to say is that there are very few things worth fighting for. Life, opportunity and freedom are definitely worth fighting for. As Dante and MLK once said, "the hottest place in hell is reserved for those who choose to remain neutral at a time of great moral conflict." However, land, oil, diamonds, religion…definitely not worth fighting for.
I'll leave you with this: The picture below is the face of war. Look at the picture and tell me. Is it really worth it? Does the fact that this girl is from a different religion make it less painful?
The idea of this ever happening makes it one more reason to not bring another child into this world.
It is true, I usually get mat about people not caring enough about what is going on in the world, but in my defense, I was 10 years old when this happened and I was busy dealing with my own national conflicts. The point is that there are so many wars and disputes out there that it is hard to keep up. Even if we do have a general knowledge of what is going on, how do you know it is not a biased version of it? The reality of war is that it doesn’t matter who is right of wrong, it is often civilians that pay the price. Lets take the example of Israel vs. Palestine. I think I have a pretty good understanding of what is going on, I mean, it has only been going on for over 50 years and the conflict pretty much remains the same. The problem is that I can see both points of view. On one hand, Palestinians lived there for hundreds of year, and then all of the sudden they are losing their land because some people believe that was the land that was promised to them over 2000 years ago. But then I understand the Jewish people wanting to have their own nation after the atrocities committed against them and let’s face it, the majority of the world stood still and did nothing while millions of Jewish people got murdered. I am saying the majority, because there were hundreds, even thousands of people who decided to take action and for resistance groups, however, I also believe a lot of these were to protect their own interests. Let’s face it, had it not been for Pearl Harbor, the US would have never gotten involved. But I am starting to go on a tangent (or a tangent of a tangent) the point is that The Jewish people created a nation, and developed the land and made it into the technologically advanced nation that it is today so they feel like they have earned the right to stay. The problem is that Palestinians are still mad, and they have the support from the Arab world who has been at war with the Jewish world for centuries. But at the end of the day, it is the politicians who refuse to compromise while it is mostly civilians that get caught in the cross-fire. I guess what I am not too eloquently trying to say is that there are very few things worth fighting for. Life, opportunity and freedom are definitely worth fighting for. As Dante and MLK once said, "the hottest place in hell is reserved for those who choose to remain neutral at a time of great moral conflict." However, land, oil, diamonds, religion…definitely not worth fighting for.
I'll leave you with this: The picture below is the face of war. Look at the picture and tell me. Is it really worth it? Does the fact that this girl is from a different religion make it less painful?
Saturday, May 28, 2011
Old Rants
I like to believe that President Obama is aware of the way Americans are seen around the world and has tried really hard change this. I like to believe that this is what led him to make sure Osama received a proper burial and that pictures of his dead body are not being released. Unfortunately, I also believe that Osama bin Laden’s death has brought up the worst in us and has shown the world that we are the egocentric brutes everyone has suspected us to be.
First of all there is the issue of the celebrations around the nation. I am not saying it was wrong to be happy about Osama’s death, but a girl on someone’s shoulders holding a bottle of beer is not the picture of grace. A more sensible crowd would have held a minute of silence to honor the victim’s of Osama’s atrocities and reflect on the meaning of the end of Osama’s death. Furthermore, comments made by people in numerous media sources just show how ignorant and indifferent we are to the rest of the world. I have read a number of comments that refer to Osama as the deadliest criminal since Hitler. Not to belittle the monstrosity that 9/11 was, but let’s not forget about the many terrorists out there who have claimed lives of thousands citizens around the world: ETA, IRA, sendero Luminoso, FARC, The Rwandan government that lead the genocide, just to name a few. Which brings us to the next topic: for the past few weeks I have seen how so many people oppose to US military intervention in Libya, however, we expect support from the entire world in our war against terror when the terror is targeted against us. To reinforce this last point, the death of Osama Bin Laden has brought a lot of talk and remembrance about 9/11, but have we even remembered the victims of 3/11 in the Atocha station in Madrid? Or the victims of the attacks in London on july 7th, 2005.
Anyways…that was my rant of the day… See you later!
First of all there is the issue of the celebrations around the nation. I am not saying it was wrong to be happy about Osama’s death, but a girl on someone’s shoulders holding a bottle of beer is not the picture of grace. A more sensible crowd would have held a minute of silence to honor the victim’s of Osama’s atrocities and reflect on the meaning of the end of Osama’s death. Furthermore, comments made by people in numerous media sources just show how ignorant and indifferent we are to the rest of the world. I have read a number of comments that refer to Osama as the deadliest criminal since Hitler. Not to belittle the monstrosity that 9/11 was, but let’s not forget about the many terrorists out there who have claimed lives of thousands citizens around the world: ETA, IRA, sendero Luminoso, FARC, The Rwandan government that lead the genocide, just to name a few. Which brings us to the next topic: for the past few weeks I have seen how so many people oppose to US military intervention in Libya, however, we expect support from the entire world in our war against terror when the terror is targeted against us. To reinforce this last point, the death of Osama Bin Laden has brought a lot of talk and remembrance about 9/11, but have we even remembered the victims of 3/11 in the Atocha station in Madrid? Or the victims of the attacks in London on july 7th, 2005.
Anyways…that was my rant of the day… See you later!
Friday, May 27, 2011
Hello world!
I have been wrestling with the idea of starting a blog for a long time and I guess I finally caved in. First of all, I will apologize in advance for any grammar or spelling errors. English is not my first language, and while I have been in the US for a very long time, writing is still not my strength.
So, Darwinian Extinction....what an interesting name... what does it mean? Well, I am glad you ask. Originally I was going to name my blog "Evolutionary Suicide" thinking it was a term I made up and feeling very proud of myself... well, it turns out the term exists, and it is synonym with Darwinian Extinction. Wikipedia defines Darwinign Exticintion as "an evolutionary mechanism where adaptation at the level of the individual results in a situation where the entire population goes extinct". So, what does this have to do with me..... Well, let the rants begin!
I am currently in my late 20’s and it seems like everyone around me is having babies. The problem with this is that I am starting to feel pressured by constantly being bombarded with the question of when I am going to start having kids. Truth be told, I am not sure I even want to have kids. At first it started as a defense mechanisms; I thought that if I told people I did not want to have kids then they would stop asking. Well, what ended up happening is that people started asking why and it led me to come up with reasons why. I am at a point where I can actually find more reasons to have kids than reasons not to. Let’s take a deeper look into this.
Ok, let’s start off with why I think I should have kids. Right now the leading reason is that I am afraid that if I don’t I will regret it in the future. Not an awesome reason, but, it is the best I can come up with. People may suggest that I may want to have kids in order to leave a legacy; however, I think I have better chances of leaving a legacy if I do not have kids. I will be able to be more dedicated and be better at what I do, and maybe this will lead to important discoveries that will help a lot more people and benefit humanity in some way. So… what is it that I do? Well, I am a graduate student working in the biotechnology field. My goal in life is to do something that will lead to a better treatment for Type 1 diabetes. I like it a lot because I feel it will improve the QUALITY of life of millions of people out there that suffer from this disease. Regarding my career, I feel like I have spent all of my life preparing for it. I went to school so that I could go to college, and I went to college so that I could go to grad school, and I am in grad school with the hopes of one day having my own lab to do my own research. I have taken a lot of detours, but I am here, and it has not been easy and I don’t want to throw it away. Unlike most people I know, I am not in it for the money. I actually have a passion for what I do, and I genuinely enjoy doing it even though I have to admit it can be frustrating at times. So, how would kids interfere with this? Well, being realistic, I don't think you can be an awesome mom and an awesome scientist at the same time (unless you are Marie Curie) I don’t think I am willing to compromise a lot in my career and I don’t think being a mom is something you should half ass.
But anyways, I may be wrong and I may be able to be happy with not being as successful with my career if I do have kids, plus, not having kids doesn’t guarantee I’ll be great, so lets switch gears here for a bit and go into more philosophical matters. One of my biggest concerns about having kids is bringing another useless life into this world. I don’t think you need to be a failure in life to be useless, I just think we live in a world where people do not care about making a difference. I actually think that most people (me included-for now) are useless. Just by being born babies are having a negative impact on the planet. Let me try to the explain this: babies are expensive, even though they shouldn’t really be (let’s face it, for the most part they could be just breast fed and they just need a few onesies, plus, reusable baby diapers are very advanced these days) . People have baby showers and get a million blankets, clothes and other items that they will probably not use or just use very few times. After that, most of these items will probably be thrown away. This is an issue because of the social and environmental impact that the baby industry creates. It is hard to explain because I am not an environmentalists or an economist or a sociologist, but, I ll try to get more into it with an example I learned from a friend. This friend went to an African nation for a while and worked there. He said the problem some of these nations are facing comes from industrialization. Originally, people from these places lead a very simple but self-sustainable life. They live in communities and work for the welfare of the community mostly by farming. Granted, they don’t have a good health care system or education, but to an extent the system works for them. Then come the other nations that see these countries as a business opportunity. They have the land, they have the resources and they mean cheap costs so higher profits. They go in and they buy the land off the people who due to ignorance and pressure are forced to sell. They end up working for these industries for no good pay, no benefits, and no more self sustainability so they become dependent on other countries for their basic needs. Not to mention the environmental impact these industries create. The point of this story is that I think if you are going to bring one more person into this world you should understand the impact this has on a global level and do something to try to offset the impact. We need to understand that the more people that are born into this side of the world, the more the people in the other side of the world suffer.
So back to the subject at hand. In case you don’t understand by now where my title comes from, I am becoming a big advocate for people not having kids. What would happen if people stopped having kids? Well, we would become extinct. Why is it Darwinian extinction? Well, because if people were smart enough to realize that halting reproduction would help alleviate some of the world problems (hunger, pollution, etc) then as a result we would become extinct. I am personally all for it. The way I see it, I would rather the human race end in a few generations than imagine what the world will be in a few hundred years if we keep acting the way we are and much less know that my kids, or my kids’ kids would have to live through it.
Anyways, I ll end this already prolonged entry with this curious fact: Yesterday I decided to look up the “Top 10 greatest women in history” and found that at least five of them (not sure about Tomyris) did not have children. Interesting! I mean, I know it is half of them, but I think historically speaking, the amount of women that have ever lived that did not have children does not amount to that number, so it is an indication that kids do hinder your ability to do great things for humanity (as a woman). It does not mean that there is no way of great success if you do have children. There are some great ladies out there who are also mothers (Marie Curie being my personal fave). But for all those people who posted mean things about women who don’t have children on CNN'a article "Does having kids make you happy?" this just proves that there are other ways of laving a legacy than having kids and not having kids does not make you selfish.
So, Darwinian Extinction....what an interesting name... what does it mean? Well, I am glad you ask. Originally I was going to name my blog "Evolutionary Suicide" thinking it was a term I made up and feeling very proud of myself... well, it turns out the term exists, and it is synonym with Darwinian Extinction. Wikipedia defines Darwinign Exticintion as "an evolutionary mechanism where adaptation at the level of the individual results in a situation where the entire population goes extinct". So, what does this have to do with me..... Well, let the rants begin!
I am currently in my late 20’s and it seems like everyone around me is having babies. The problem with this is that I am starting to feel pressured by constantly being bombarded with the question of when I am going to start having kids. Truth be told, I am not sure I even want to have kids. At first it started as a defense mechanisms; I thought that if I told people I did not want to have kids then they would stop asking. Well, what ended up happening is that people started asking why and it led me to come up with reasons why. I am at a point where I can actually find more reasons to have kids than reasons not to. Let’s take a deeper look into this.
Ok, let’s start off with why I think I should have kids. Right now the leading reason is that I am afraid that if I don’t I will regret it in the future. Not an awesome reason, but, it is the best I can come up with. People may suggest that I may want to have kids in order to leave a legacy; however, I think I have better chances of leaving a legacy if I do not have kids. I will be able to be more dedicated and be better at what I do, and maybe this will lead to important discoveries that will help a lot more people and benefit humanity in some way. So… what is it that I do? Well, I am a graduate student working in the biotechnology field. My goal in life is to do something that will lead to a better treatment for Type 1 diabetes. I like it a lot because I feel it will improve the QUALITY of life of millions of people out there that suffer from this disease. Regarding my career, I feel like I have spent all of my life preparing for it. I went to school so that I could go to college, and I went to college so that I could go to grad school, and I am in grad school with the hopes of one day having my own lab to do my own research. I have taken a lot of detours, but I am here, and it has not been easy and I don’t want to throw it away. Unlike most people I know, I am not in it for the money. I actually have a passion for what I do, and I genuinely enjoy doing it even though I have to admit it can be frustrating at times. So, how would kids interfere with this? Well, being realistic, I don't think you can be an awesome mom and an awesome scientist at the same time (unless you are Marie Curie) I don’t think I am willing to compromise a lot in my career and I don’t think being a mom is something you should half ass.
But anyways, I may be wrong and I may be able to be happy with not being as successful with my career if I do have kids, plus, not having kids doesn’t guarantee I’ll be great, so lets switch gears here for a bit and go into more philosophical matters. One of my biggest concerns about having kids is bringing another useless life into this world. I don’t think you need to be a failure in life to be useless, I just think we live in a world where people do not care about making a difference. I actually think that most people (me included-for now) are useless. Just by being born babies are having a negative impact on the planet. Let me try to the explain this: babies are expensive, even though they shouldn’t really be (let’s face it, for the most part they could be just breast fed and they just need a few onesies, plus, reusable baby diapers are very advanced these days) . People have baby showers and get a million blankets, clothes and other items that they will probably not use or just use very few times. After that, most of these items will probably be thrown away. This is an issue because of the social and environmental impact that the baby industry creates. It is hard to explain because I am not an environmentalists or an economist or a sociologist, but, I ll try to get more into it with an example I learned from a friend. This friend went to an African nation for a while and worked there. He said the problem some of these nations are facing comes from industrialization. Originally, people from these places lead a very simple but self-sustainable life. They live in communities and work for the welfare of the community mostly by farming. Granted, they don’t have a good health care system or education, but to an extent the system works for them. Then come the other nations that see these countries as a business opportunity. They have the land, they have the resources and they mean cheap costs so higher profits. They go in and they buy the land off the people who due to ignorance and pressure are forced to sell. They end up working for these industries for no good pay, no benefits, and no more self sustainability so they become dependent on other countries for their basic needs. Not to mention the environmental impact these industries create. The point of this story is that I think if you are going to bring one more person into this world you should understand the impact this has on a global level and do something to try to offset the impact. We need to understand that the more people that are born into this side of the world, the more the people in the other side of the world suffer.
So back to the subject at hand. In case you don’t understand by now where my title comes from, I am becoming a big advocate for people not having kids. What would happen if people stopped having kids? Well, we would become extinct. Why is it Darwinian extinction? Well, because if people were smart enough to realize that halting reproduction would help alleviate some of the world problems (hunger, pollution, etc) then as a result we would become extinct. I am personally all for it. The way I see it, I would rather the human race end in a few generations than imagine what the world will be in a few hundred years if we keep acting the way we are and much less know that my kids, or my kids’ kids would have to live through it.
Anyways, I ll end this already prolonged entry with this curious fact: Yesterday I decided to look up the “Top 10 greatest women in history” and found that at least five of them (not sure about Tomyris) did not have children. Interesting! I mean, I know it is half of them, but I think historically speaking, the amount of women that have ever lived that did not have children does not amount to that number, so it is an indication that kids do hinder your ability to do great things for humanity (as a woman). It does not mean that there is no way of great success if you do have children. There are some great ladies out there who are also mothers (Marie Curie being my personal fave). But for all those people who posted mean things about women who don’t have children on CNN'a article "Does having kids make you happy?" this just proves that there are other ways of laving a legacy than having kids and not having kids does not make you selfish.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)