Imagine being served a life sentence for a crime you didn't commit. Recently our class looked into this, as well as the process of releasing wrongly convicted suspects. This process is called exoneration. Through watching TED talks, listening to a story on NPR, and watching other various shows, we were able to get a grasp on not only the science behind exonerations (which mostly dealt with DNA evidence), but were also able to learn about the permanent impacts of being wrongly convicted and the reasoning in cases of rushing to imprison a suspect.
A major focus of this research was learning about the Innocence Project, which describes itself as "a national litigation and public policy organization dedicated to exonerating wrongly convicted individuals through DNA testing and reforming the criminal justice system to prevent future injustice." Featured on the Innocence Project's website is an incredibly extensive list of the victims of inadequate conviction that appealed to have their cases reconsidered. With the help of the Innocence Project, these people were freed through reevaluating DNA evidence taken from the crime scene (no matter how old) and comparing it with the DNA of the supposed perpetrator. This was most helpful in cases of sexual assault, as DNA samples could be extracted from semen left on the body.
Personally, I found studying exoneration to be very interesting. I was initially astonished at the prevalence of subjectivity in our criminal justice system, as I learned that convictions can largely depend on a variety of different variables. These included pressure to make an arrest, authoritative bias, and mistaken eyewitness reports. However, I was reassured by the Innocence Project's ability to disprove wrongful sentencing through DNA testing. I thought it was amazing that simply the acknowledgement or ignorance of a single piece of evidence could alter the course of someone's life so drastically.
Wednesday, April 23, 2014
Thursday, January 23, 2014
Antiangiogenics
Can we eat to cure cancer? According to Dr. William Li, we can. Essentially, he says we can starve the cancer by deterring the process of angiogenesis. He studies how antiangiogentic foods can halt the blood and nutrient supply that feed tumors.
Angiogenesis is the process through which new blood vessels are created to supply various parts of the body. It works very smoothly until a cell mutates into a cancerous cell and uncontrollably reproduces itself, becoming a tumor. Once a cancerous cell cluster begins to demand its own blood supply, its growth only progresses. The idea behind anti-angiogenic treatments of cancer is to hinder this process. Cancer patients can eat foods considered to be anti-angiogenic (like pineapple, dark chocolate, strawberries, and raspberries) to potentially starve out the cancer.
Personally, I found the research Dr. Li presented in his TED Talk fascinating. It really exhibits how many different factors go into the effects of cancer on our bodies, from dietary choices to toxin intake to environmental exposure to genetics. It was amazing to me that something as simple as eating specific foods could lower my own risk of getting cancer and even slow or even stop cancer progression in those already diagnosed with the ailment. Because of the findings Dr. Li shared, I have made an effort to integrate more anti-angiogenic foods into my diet.
Angiogenesis is the process through which new blood vessels are created to supply various parts of the body. It works very smoothly until a cell mutates into a cancerous cell and uncontrollably reproduces itself, becoming a tumor. Once a cancerous cell cluster begins to demand its own blood supply, its growth only progresses. The idea behind anti-angiogenic treatments of cancer is to hinder this process. Cancer patients can eat foods considered to be anti-angiogenic (like pineapple, dark chocolate, strawberries, and raspberries) to potentially starve out the cancer.
Personally, I found the research Dr. Li presented in his TED Talk fascinating. It really exhibits how many different factors go into the effects of cancer on our bodies, from dietary choices to toxin intake to environmental exposure to genetics. It was amazing to me that something as simple as eating specific foods could lower my own risk of getting cancer and even slow or even stop cancer progression in those already diagnosed with the ailment. Because of the findings Dr. Li shared, I have made an effort to integrate more anti-angiogenic foods into my diet.
Friday, January 10, 2014
Lucy the Chimpanzee
Lucy, a chimpanzee crucial in breaching a gap of scientific understanding, was one of the many chimpanzees studied in a human environment. Eventually, Lucy's strength became too dangerous to house in such an environment, so she and others like her were shipped to a remote island. A scientist named Janice Carter lived in a cage to study them safely.
While most of the other chimpanzees moved on from their human lives, Lucy had more trouble. Her survival was difficult, as her situation could be compared to forcing a human child to fend for itself in the wild. Eventually though, when her disconnect was enough, Janice left, visiting less frequently. On her final visit, she walked onto the island, she found Lucy's bones, excluding hands, as Lucy had been poached. It is believed she was poached because she had been raised human, went to interact with other humans, and was treated instead as a chimpanzee.
Lucy taught us that the genetic gaps between chimpanzees and humans are very minimal. She also taught us how much of an impact socialization has, as her wanting to interact led to her downfall. After this story, my perspective on chimps has evolved to one of admiration, as they are not so different from us as we think. Even though the experiment ended in death, science benefited greatly from it, so I believe it was worthwhile. Lucy's end makes me feel upset because even though ideologically, Lucy was similar to us, it did not matter in the face of ultimate destruction.
While most of the other chimpanzees moved on from their human lives, Lucy had more trouble. Her survival was difficult, as her situation could be compared to forcing a human child to fend for itself in the wild. Eventually though, when her disconnect was enough, Janice left, visiting less frequently. On her final visit, she walked onto the island, she found Lucy's bones, excluding hands, as Lucy had been poached. It is believed she was poached because she had been raised human, went to interact with other humans, and was treated instead as a chimpanzee.
Lucy taught us that the genetic gaps between chimpanzees and humans are very minimal. She also taught us how much of an impact socialization has, as her wanting to interact led to her downfall. After this story, my perspective on chimps has evolved to one of admiration, as they are not so different from us as we think. Even though the experiment ended in death, science benefited greatly from it, so I believe it was worthwhile. Lucy's end makes me feel upset because even though ideologically, Lucy was similar to us, it did not matter in the face of ultimate destruction.
Response to "Thinking Like a Mountain" by Aldo Leopold
The wolf cares not for the deer, but for the wolf. The person cares not for the wolf, but for the person. Every singular being does not see outside itself, and is only concerned with its own welfare. If it interacts with another creature, it seems the circumstances are always "kill or be killed," as one assumes a more predatory role while the other acts as prey. As Aldo Leopold explains in his writing, "Only the mountain has lived long enough to listen objectively to the howl of a wolf."
"Thinking Like a Mountain" outlines the importance of a diverse ecosystem by illustrating what would happen if the wolves were to be eliminated from a mountain. Aldo Leopold demonstrates that even though an abundance of deer may initially seem enticing to hunters (and encourage them to kill off the wolf population to let the deer flourish), the lack of biodiversity would have severe consequences. According to Leopold, if the deer were a species uncontrolled by predators, all surrounding vegetation would be decimated until the ecosystem was barren. Without the plant life, the deer would all starve, leaving the mountain void of all life whatsoever. He states that the regeneration process for an entire mountain's creatures could take decades.
I very much liked this writing piece because it brought to light dire circumstances in an artistic and relatable way. I'd never been encouraged to deeply think about and form and opinion on biodiversity, so it was cool to find a new perspective on this topic.
"Thinking Like a Mountain" outlines the importance of a diverse ecosystem by illustrating what would happen if the wolves were to be eliminated from a mountain. Aldo Leopold demonstrates that even though an abundance of deer may initially seem enticing to hunters (and encourage them to kill off the wolf population to let the deer flourish), the lack of biodiversity would have severe consequences. According to Leopold, if the deer were a species uncontrolled by predators, all surrounding vegetation would be decimated until the ecosystem was barren. Without the plant life, the deer would all starve, leaving the mountain void of all life whatsoever. He states that the regeneration process for an entire mountain's creatures could take decades.
I very much liked this writing piece because it brought to light dire circumstances in an artistic and relatable way. I'd never been encouraged to deeply think about and form and opinion on biodiversity, so it was cool to find a new perspective on this topic.
Tuesday, September 3, 2013
Response to Stewart Brand's "The Dawn of De-Extinction" (TED Talk)
Humans' destructive habit of overconsumption has disrupted and even ended the lives of entire species permanently. As is common knowledge, extinction is irreversible... or is it? This is the question de-extinction biologist and activist Stewart Brand explores in his TED Talk presentation, "The Dawn of De-Extinction."
All animals, especially birds, have been subjected to humans' hunting and pollution, leading to decreased population and, eventually, extinction. In just two years, spanning 1914 and 1916, both the passenger pigeon (formerly the most abundant bird in the country) and the Carolina parakeet went extinct. While extinction is considered definite, Stewart Brand, a de-extinction biologist and self-proclaimed passenger pigeon enthusiast, thinks otherwise. A way to bring such creatures back, he says, is to extract DNA samples from extinct animals in field museums and plant it in an evolutionary descendant of that animal. It is a possibility for the older genes to dominate the newer ones, and for a once living species to be born from a more modern one. A success case of this procedure includes the bucardo, who was born from a regular goat. While the baby bucardo only lived a few hours, it served as proof to the scientific community that de-extinction is, in fact, possible.
As for my personal reaction, if this video triggers anything emotionally for me, it is hope. All we ever hear about the concept of extinction is the finality of it, but now that may no longer hold true, and I think that's fantastic. As Stewart Brand states in his speech, "Humans have made a huge hole in nature in the last 10,000 years. We have the ability now, and maybe the moral obligation, to repair some of the damage." I agree with him wholeheartedly. Most animal species have been on this planet longer than we have, so who are we to deny them a chance at life? De-extinction biology should be explored to its fullest potential, because with it we can begin to patch the biologic holes throughout history.
All animals, especially birds, have been subjected to humans' hunting and pollution, leading to decreased population and, eventually, extinction. In just two years, spanning 1914 and 1916, both the passenger pigeon (formerly the most abundant bird in the country) and the Carolina parakeet went extinct. While extinction is considered definite, Stewart Brand, a de-extinction biologist and self-proclaimed passenger pigeon enthusiast, thinks otherwise. A way to bring such creatures back, he says, is to extract DNA samples from extinct animals in field museums and plant it in an evolutionary descendant of that animal. It is a possibility for the older genes to dominate the newer ones, and for a once living species to be born from a more modern one. A success case of this procedure includes the bucardo, who was born from a regular goat. While the baby bucardo only lived a few hours, it served as proof to the scientific community that de-extinction is, in fact, possible.
As for my personal reaction, if this video triggers anything emotionally for me, it is hope. All we ever hear about the concept of extinction is the finality of it, but now that may no longer hold true, and I think that's fantastic. As Stewart Brand states in his speech, "Humans have made a huge hole in nature in the last 10,000 years. We have the ability now, and maybe the moral obligation, to repair some of the damage." I agree with him wholeheartedly. Most animal species have been on this planet longer than we have, so who are we to deny them a chance at life? De-extinction biology should be explored to its fullest potential, because with it we can begin to patch the biologic holes throughout history.
Thursday, August 22, 2013
Introduction
Hi, and welcome to my biology blog! My name is Oli Sakadinsky, and I'm a sophomore at Animas High School. This is where I will post my thoughts on various material in Biology class (articles, videos, and the like). I will continue to update here as I progress through the school year.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)