Week Thirteen---Vaccines and Public Health ....

Should "parents take a more active role in designing their children's immunization schedule"? ....General recommendations for childhood immunizations are just that---very general. I feel that a child's immunizations should be an ongoing dialogue between parents and health care providers. But unfortunately, Western medicine is largely "one size fits all" and most children, unless their health is already compromised, are put on the same immunization schedule. But with that---there are reasons for these schedules, including factors such as the development of a child's immune system correlated with illiciting a good immune response to a particular vaccine, protecting a child before they are in a situation, such as school, where there is a greater potential for contracting a serious illness, and finally, general public health concerns and responsibilities. Overall, I feel that a recommended vaccination administration "time range" should be given to parents ranking the importance of individual vaccines and recommended ages for their administration, including the known and potential risks of receiving each vaccine, as well as the consequences of not receiving a given vaccination, including information about the illness or disease that the vaccine is intended to prevent. If a parent is required to take a more active role in their child's vaccination schedule they may learn more about the risks involved on both sides, and therefore, make educated decisions ....and in turn, play a greater role in holding the medical establishment responsible for the true safety and efficacy of the vaccines that they develop and strongly recommend.

Would you support making vaccination programs compulsory? .....I am divided on this issue. To begin, I do have concerns about the side effects of certain vaccines, especially those adminstered to children, and too, whether certain vaccines are administered to babies and children too soon. I also feel like the public is provided with loads of conflicting information about the safety and risks of vaccinations. There is a lot to consider. Should it be a parent's choice whether or not their child is vaccinated? Or should public health concerns dominate? ....This issue is not black or white. And not every vaccine has the same risks or the same efficacy rates---I feel that each vaccine needs to be considered individually. And while I think it is important to maintain some element of choice for the parent, I do feel that the fact that many infectious diseases have either been erradicated in our country, or controlled through the use of vaccines, compared to many other parts of the world---this should not be taken for granted. People all over the world are dying of diseases that can be prevented through vaccination---and while this is a deeply complicated issue involving politics, economics and social justice .....I do not feel that we need to write vaccines off as "bad."

Week Eleven---Which way Forward? .....

"We plan to bring out innovative tailor-made cells for diseases" ...What implications do you see in this approach? ....One concern that comes to mind (besides the zillion ethical concerns I have) is that the correlation between lifestyle choice and health will be further diluted, if not negated entirely for some. We live in an industrial society. We have industrial diseases---diabetes, high blood pressure, heart disease, liver disease .....all diseases that are directly influenced by diet and other lifestyle choices, such as stress management or physical activity levels. It blows my mind that many people do not see the connection between good health and lifestyle, or worse, disregard them for "tomorrow." I will start eating healthier foods tomorrow. Tomorrow, I will walk the two flights of stairs to my office. Next week, if it is sunny, I will start riding my bike that one mile to work. I feel sick today, but if I am not better tomorrow, then tomorrow I will take it easy. Being someone who makes conscious choices in regards to my own health and well-being, I can not help but hold others responsible for their own (if it is within their means, of course)....and I realize that I do have to reign myself in sometimes from being overly critical or judgmental. One issue within our culture is choice---we have too many choices. And time---we never have enough time. Overall quality of life is squandered for immediate pleasure ....and in the future, if we have the option to grow ourselves a new liver---why not have a couple of gin and tonics every night until then? There are of course many people who suffer from unfortunate diseases that are beyond their control; thinking about the option of growing "tailor-made cells" for them takes on a different tone for me. Clearly, stem cell technology is a huge issue, and it is our future, whether we agree with it or not. The article we read in class just screamed "infomercial" to me---stem cell technology is big business. An industry. Perhaps a cottage industry that will develop the "cures" for the industrial ills of our society. We are still treating the symptoms and not the problems.

Would you expect "carbon offsets" to work effectively? ....No---carbon offsets are not a solution for carbon emissions. They are merely a salve for our environmental guilts. I think that adding a "carbon surcharge" to the cost of an airline ticket is a better solution---this money would be invested in the development of improved flying technologies that had lower carbon emissions. Given the number of people who take flights everyday, the cost could be very reasonable; and too, the cost should be low enough that flying should not become cost prohibitive ....(or should it?)

Do you agree with "Laughter really is the best medicine"?....The opening line of the article says, "It might be regarded as a statement of the obvious. But scientists have proved what everyone else takes for granted - that laughter is good for you." This statement is interesting to me. It suggests that what most everyone feels, knows in their bodies, hearts and minds---that laughter is healing---can only be "taken for granted" until "proven by scientists." Well folks, the proof is in ....and I think the scientists may be laughing. On their way to the bank. Do we really need to be spending money on this kind of "research" ...?

Week Ten---Restoring the American Bison to its Rightful Range ....

How would you prioritize the reintroduction of the American Bison? ....The American Bison holds a deep, sacred symbolism for many Native Americans and their supporters. The restoration of the American Bison to its "rightful range" symbolizes a return to a more harmonious relationship with Nature, the land and its vast population of different animal and plant species. A bit of a reminiscence, or longing, for the past. But it is more than that. Restoring the American bison population feels like an attempt to right catastrophic wrongs in our American history, to heal cultural wounds. And while there is a certain nobility in this venture, I do wonder if the honest sentiments of many involved in the project may be ultimately exploited by those seeking economic gains. Its is quoted in our readings (PBS) that "selling bison meat has become a $650 million industry -- one that many Native Americans are eager to join ..." Is the restoration of the American Bison to its "rightful range" a capitalistic venture or are monies intended to benefit the Native American community as a whole, and equally? ...Is the American Bison meat industry going to raise each and every one of these animals humanely?---thus honoring the bison with the love and respect that is central to this restoration project? The nobility of the Native Americans of the past is invoked---they engaged in sacred hunting, killing only what they needed to survive, and in turn, used each and every part of the animal ....is the American Bison meat industry going to be so noble? ....This is only one side of things. The greater intentions of restoring the American Bison have more to do with restoring Native American communities and their belief systems ....however, I do have concerns that these very sentiments may easily be exploited by hungry, opportunistic souls and that we may, in some ways, have a repeat of history.

"Child cancer risk higher in richer rural families" ....I am always suspicious about such reports. One must always consider their sources---who funded and conducted the study? No study is ever truly objective, and such reports are only a slice of the bigger picture. This particular report suggests that child cancer risks are higher for those who live in more isolated communities which, for the particular communities cited in this article, also mean economically richer communities. The writer of this article suggests that having less contact with others at an early age significantly reduces a child's exposure to potential bacteria and viruses, thus possibly leading to a higher cancer risk. To me, it seems like there is a lot of speculation going on. While there are many medical experts jockeying the idea that some cancers are caused by viruses, the real fact is---we do not know with any certainty at this time. This is one theory of many. One thing in particular that stands out to me in this article is the downplay of other environmental factors, such as radiation, in childhood cancers. Is it not a known fact that radiation can cause cancer, yet this article cites that it "plays a small role" ...? Hmmm.

Week Nine---Ecosystems and Deep Ecology ....

What do you think of the "eight-point Deep Ecology Platform"? ....On paper, it is a beautiful set of ideals, but ideals are not meant to be realized, but rather, give us direction. I consider myself someone who is concerned about the well-being of the environment. I also carry around a bit of irrational guilt for being part of the race of beings, humans, who have tinkered too too much with our environment, tweaking it to fulfill immediate "needs" while disregarding the bigger picture. Once upon a time, we did not know any better ....but now we do. As humans, are we headed for self-destruction? This seems to be the case. But only a race of beings that longs to live forever, literally trampling the ground beneath its feet (our planet) in a race to 'live fully', would ever conceive of something called "self-destruction." Plants and animals do not diligently, willingly work towards their own demise---they take what their environment offers and adapts. They know no other way of being. I was looking out the window yesterday, observing the weather. Cloud-bursts. Sun. More cloud-bursts. I thought about what the world would be like if humans ever found a way to harness the Weather. We could make rain, clear the skies of clouds, generate wind ....and how this "power" would more likely become a terrorist weapon of mass destruction rather than a tool of 'good'. Humans would flood each other out before they would send rain to remedy a deadly drought. (By the way, my faith in the human race is not always so downtrodden.) Thinking about the Deep Ecology Platform, I have strong concerns about it erring on the side of fundamentalism. It takes the 'green movement' a step further, however, this step is more like a leap---it makes law what I feel should be personal choice (Tenet #6). It would be a drastic measure. However, it can not be denied that the environmental situation of our planet is drastic and that people are not making conscious choices. Tuning into my faith in humanity, I think there are some simple laws that could be put into place that could evoke and further inspire greater change for the health of the environment. For one, outlawing plastic bags. An intermediary step would be to charge people for plastic bags, and charge enough (a quarter?) so that people would rather re-use a bag or see that they do not actually need a bag. Human habits would change and the enforcement of a "no plastic bag" law would seem less drastic, and may not ultimately be necessary. There are ways to reach people, to get your message across without using force. People could come to this realization on their own: that humankind is an integral part of the environment .....perhaps this is my own idealism speaking.

Can you explain why "Ecosystems are both strong and fragile"? ....Ecosystems are communities. Tightly interwoven, made up of living and non-living elements. Each element is vital and the relationships between these elements is symbiotic. One seemingly small change, in effect, can cause an ecosystem to collapse. It is fragile in this way. Ecosystems are strong however, in their ability to adapt to change. Most humans do not see themselves as part of the ecosystem, but rather, as the ruler of the ecosystem. This approach to our relationship with nature has arguably caused our planet more harm than good. Ecosystems have integrity, and hopefully humans will one day have more integrity when it comes to respecting their mother, Nature.

How would you assess the "end goals" of Social Ecology (SE)? ....I feel that there is an "exposing" tone to the Social Ecology movement---it attempts to reveal and address our society's deeper motives and greater goals. It seems to glare upon society with a suspicious eye, ready to point the finger at corruption. And more than less, rightfully so. (For example, who is the biggest environmental polluter in this country---the US Military.) But more, The SE movement acknowledges that societies reproduce themselves through their practices, and this can not be denied. From an SE perspective, ecological problems are rooted in social problems, and by focusing on social problems, ecological issues, in tandem, will be dealt with and on a deeper level. In my understanding of SE, one of its core concerns is man's attitude of "domination" ....domination of nature and domination of each other. And coupling this with capitalism, hierarchy and a scarcity mentality---we have the state of the world as we know it. I feel that SE makes some good points and I certainly share many of its ideals, albeit it all a bit "utopian."

Week Eight---HIV and AIDS ....

How do you feel about western approaches to HIV/AIDS? ....To me, it seems Western medicine has an adequate understanding of the HIV lifecycle, however, it is very limited in treatment and prevention options because the virus is actually quite intelligent---it directly attacks the immune system, taking our helper T cells hostage, it tends towards latency, hiding in our genome, and when it does reproduce, it does so recklessly, thus spawning mutant variations of the virus. HAART, while this course of treatment does have many side effects, it does help many people extend their lives. Vaccination as a real means of HIV prevention is not an option at this time---social change, however, is within our means. HIV/AIDS is an epidemic. A pandemic. We know how the virus is transmitted, and we have educated people about these facts, but unfortunately, these facts are often pre-packaged, and not culturally specific. We can teach young women in sub-Saharan Africa to say 'no' to unwanted sexual advances, but does her culture give her the permission to say 'no'? Many women marry when they are young girls, and often to older men who have had many sexual partners---many HIV infected women contracted the virus from their husbands. Navigating cultural norms that are different from our own is a delicate process---to be effective, we must not judge. And we must not judge those who have been stricken with HIV/AIDS. In addition to general education about HIV/AIDS that is culturally specific, I feel that we must also work towards erradicating the social stigma that also affects those who are affected with the virus. Is HIV/AIDS not a ravishing disease that destroys lives like any other disease? In working to heighten awareness of the disease, we have also created panic. People are scared of HIV/AIDS, but with certain precautions, it is actually not that easy to transmit/contract. Think of the polio epidemic in this country---polio was at an all time high at a time when there was mass immigration, and the epidemic was blamed on the "dirty immigrants" whose customs seemed strange. But in fact, polio is a disease of CLEANLINESS. It's route of transmission is fecal-oral, and many contract the disease as babies---funny thing about polio, if you contract it as an infant, you are more likely to fight it off and gain immunity ....if you contract the infection at an older age, its disease is much more severe, often crippling its victims. People were trying to protect themselves from polio infection through excessive cleanliness, but in actuality, they were making themselves more susceptible ...and for a long time, even with this knowledge, people were still happy to ignorantly blame those who had recently immigrated to the country. What am I trying to say?---Medically, HIV/AIDS is challenging, both to treat and prevent; but through sensitive social change, we can both prevent the disease and offer better treatment to those who are infected by working towards eradicating the social stigma that one contracts along with the virus.

Can TCM strengthen our immune systems? ....In thinking about HIV/AIDS and the mechanisms involved in the disease---how we don't really understand why the immune system ceases to fight the infection---it makes me wonder if the immune system just gets 'tired'. That perhaps our lifespan is directly correlated with the strength of our immune system, but that our immune system has a set point at which it has been 'used-up'. This would be our constitution. Even though our constitution is believed to be pre-determined by our pre-natal essence, it does not mean that we can not work with what we are given. By supporting our immune system, we can strengthen our constitution and keep it at peak function---every well-used machine is going to need maintenance. (Ah, but we are more than machines!) By clearing disharmonies in the body through various modalities---such as acupuncture, herbs or lifestyle changes---we are supporting our immune systems. Going back to HIV/AIDS, I think that using TCM to support the body in its attempts to manage the infection could strengthen the immune system, thus improving quality of life as symptoms of the disease would be less severe.

What do you think of "the deal that saved the whale?" ...I think it is a model idea. Not only does this plan have tremendous foresight for long-term environmental concerns, it is also meant to provide sustenance for the native people who populate this region. There are so few natural habitats on this planet untouched by human hands ....human hands can meddle, but they can also protect.

Week Seven---Cell Biology and Cancer ....

How sophisticated is our understanding of cancer? ....There is so much information available on cancer---statistics, potential causes and prevention. There are also a great number of people afflicted with cancer, and many who are not yet aware of their condition. And while cancer is a condition that many people have been touched by in one way or another (oneself, a family member or a friend has been diagnosed), I do not feel that there is a tremendous understanding of cancer in the realm of Western medicine. To me, cancer seems like an umbrella term for many possible cellular disorders that in time, with more research, may be siphoned out of the general 'cancer' category. Research that points toward viral factors as a potential cause in some cancers seems promising. In regards to treatment options, I feel that many Western therapies are too aggressive and invasive. There is too much focus on 'the tumor' and not enough on supporting the body as a whole (and the mind) while it undergoes the trauma of 'cancer therapy'. No doubt that being diagnosed with cancer is not an easy thing. I suspect that many people who are diagnosed may feel shocked and some-kind-of-panicked. I feel like there is this judgment here in Western society---we are supposed to *fight* cancer---and if you do not utilize all available technologies (surgery, chemo, radiation), then you are giving up on life. Living with cancer is not an option.

How does the TCM approach to cancer differ?....TCM takes the whole complexity of the situation into account. In contrast to Western medicine, TCM most notably treats the body as a whole and because of the philosophies behind TCM practice, namely the relationship between the internal organs and the emotions, the emotional well-being of an individual also figures into treatment. It is believed that a weakened body is highly susceptible to carcinogens, and therefore the development of malignant cells. Cancer is treated as a systematic disorder. The body is supported, not further traumatized. For cancers that are more advanced, TCM can be a tremendous suppotive therapy that can help ease the symptoms of cancer increasing quality of life and lifespan. TCM helps people live with cancer. TCM can also help prevent cancer by balancing the disharmonies that are believed to cause cancer before they do.

Are our genes still being shaped by natural selection? ....Gosh. I hope so! However, I think genetic evolution is powered more by culture and politics these days than by the 'natural' criteria of Darwin's days. Survival of the richest is more the game. Ironically though, take away a rich man's toys and send him off into the woods to play ...not likely that he will survive. (I don't mean to sound so critical---try and try I might, I can't even light a fire in my fireplace!)

Week Six----The Nature of Life ....

How do you distinguish between living and non-living systems? .....To me, "living" implies a constant state of 'coming into being'---one is always 'becoming', shifting and changing through interaction with one's environment. Re-organizing. Adapting, for better or worse, but still able to adapt and thus live. I think of qi and its aggregation (life) and dispersal (death). To me, non-living systems are 'objects'---like a shoe. My shoes do not have the ability to generate new soles as they are worn down by friction with the pavement, and they never had this ability. The cognition factor is a bit complicating for me---meaning, cognition is usually associated with consciousness ...but are all living systems conscious? It is our consciousness that allows (or causes) us to see ourselves as separate, closed systems. We do not have roots. We must imagine that we do. We have a past, family and ancestors. But we are still individuals. I think about plant life. Plants have roots, and they are clearly living. And I feel that plants have their own kind of innate intelligence, but is it consciousness? Strange to think how different living systems may perceive the same world ....and how it is impossible to know the reality of any other.

What do you feel is the significance of the use of language and tools in chimps? ....In general, I feel that humans have this attitude that our species is the only species that could have language or the intelligence to use tools, but more to the point, when we witness these abilities in other creatures, we are marvelled and treat it as a novel 'discovery'. In the case of chimps, we are especially prone to treat their abilities to communicate with each other, or make and use tools, as something that informs us about ourselves---as if we are gazing upon our past in the present and---wow!---look how far we have come! I feel that the only significance that can be ascribed to chimps's use of language and tools is that they are intelligent beings interacting with each other and their environment. Any attempt to connect these 'findings' with human evolution are grasping attempts on the part of man frantic desperate to name his origins.

"Chinese Medicine Gaining Respectability in the West" ....I think most of us have some experience to share about how Western Medicine has let us down. Perhaps it is the very thing that brought us to the study of Chinese Medicine. Western Medicine is highly successful at treating traumas (this is my only reason for having medical insurance), but overall, I feel like it fails to see the bigger picture---whether that be the view of the body (mind and spirit) as a wholistic system, the treatment of symptoms and not the source problem, the deeper societal implications of a healthcare system that regards care as an economic privilege rather than a human right, etc.... What impresses me most about Chinese medical care is the level of interaction between the practitioner and the patient. The practitioner asks questions and listens, but more than anything---listens. I feel that many Westerners are becoming more and more disheartened by the poor level of care that they receive from their generic HMO plan. (Get 'em in and get 'em out! Pay your bill.) Because Chinese Medicine's diagnostic techniques rely so strongly on the patient-practitioner relationship, people automatically feel like they are receiving a higher standard of care. The fact that Chinese Medicine is gaining more respect in the West is in part due to Western Medicine's acceptance of Oriental medical modalities. Western Medicine still holds a position of authority in our society---afterall, many people still need a doctor's validation that they are 'sick' in order to acknowledge that their health is out of balance. But I do feel that in terms of healthcare, the health-carelessness that many of us are used to is being recognized as sub-standard. Our healthcare system is dictated by insurance companies, and with that, I am not sure how I feel about Chinese Medicine being subsumed into the Western Medical system (as it stands). This is a huge issue with many points to examine. But overall, I feel that this is a great time to be studying Chinese Medicine---as people mind's open more to the possibilites of non-Western treatment modalities, the more hope I have for positive changes in our country's healthcare system and standards of care.

Week Five----The Complexity of Life ....

Can diversification save species? ....The extinction of many species of plants and animals is largely due to human activities. What comes to my mind is agriculture and our tendencies toward monoculture---the harvesting of short-term profit over long-term sustainability. The diversity of crop species is necessary for ensuring the security of our food supply. However, the fact is, we still choose to grow vast fields of only a few species of one crop (if that many), and they will be the most profitable species of this crop. And when this crop is attacked by a disease that threatens to destroy it because it lacks biological resistance, and even our chemical pesticides can not fix the problem ....we have a real problem. The article on Cavendish bananas we read in class is a perfect example of this not so uncommon scenario. At the end of the day, whether we are talking about crops, animals or our habitats---biodiversity breeds interdependence, and interdependence is what connects Everything.

Do you vote for the chicken or the egg? ....Ah, such a dilemma. I will stick with Darwin on this one---the egg. From Darwin's perspective, what qualifies as a "chicken" had to have been bred from two mating creatures that were not qualitatively "chickens," but together, made a "chicken." And this chicken hatched from his very own egg---a chicken egg---that was laid by his not-quite-chicken mother. (Afterall, a chicken can not hatch from a not-quite-chicken egg.) I vote for the egg.

"I always eat my broccoli!" ....I feel that food is medicine. There are foods that can protect against disease ....but there are also foods that can cause disease. We are what we eat---but we are more than that of course. We have our genetic pre-dispositions. We are also affected the environments that we live in, the air we breathe. But it is a no-brainer to me that eating foods as close as possible to their sources (for example, fresh vegetables) is nutritionally superior to the processed, packaged items that qualify as food for most people. My own food choices are primarily based on nutrition. One aspect of our culture that I find astounding is that many people lack knowledge of basic nutrition---do not regard food as their 'fuel'. And many do not respect the healing (and disease causing) aspects of food and realize that they have choices to make.

Week Four---The Pattern of Life ....

Is there a drug around for just about everything? ....In our highly medicalized culture, if there is not a drug for something, some one is sure to invent and market it---it is only a matter of time. In some scenarios, drugs are highly appropriate. For example, terminal illness and pain management in the latter stages. I am especially boggled by the medicalization of childbirth, that hospital birth and drugs are a standard birth plan (But check-in with me on the drugs part again after I have actually experienced childbirth---I am willing to concede on that.). Pills and potions aside. Aberrant behaviours that threaten the 'moral fabric' of our society are usually labeled as 'disorders'. Alcoholism. Gambling. Obesity. Homosexuality. The masses are controlled via television and most are hooked, passively entertained into submission. Drugged on snack food. And when many opt to leave the house and get some fresh air ...they go to mall and fight for that parking space closest to the entrance. Retail therapy. And I can not say that I never engage in one or the other---but I often feel sick afterwards, like I have overdosed on pacification.

Can we raise our levels of dopamine ourselves? ....I don't see why not. If the neurotransmitter dopamine is explicitly linked to human happiness, which comes first---the feeling of happiness, or the dopamine uptake? From a TCM perspective, the organs are affected by our emotions ....but our emotions also affect our organs. Repressed anger could cause damage to the liver; and liver damage may cause us to feel very irritated. In the West, feelings are usually associated with the brain, our 'central processing system'. If we feel happiness, it is thought that we feel it because of a complex chemical reaction in our brains. Neurons firing. Fireworks. To me, feelings are much more than chemical reactions in the brain. If we create a life for ourselves that is conducive to personal happiness (fulfilling relationships, goals, a functional belief system, etc...) then yes---perhaps we can increase our levels of dopamine ourselves. But also our greater sense of happiness.

How do you think humans and chimps diverged as species? .....Given that the fossil record is incomplete, my inferences are just as good as any biologists (Except I am far less invested in this evolutionary mystery---it is not my life's work afterall.). In my view, given the evidence that I have come across both independently and in class, humans and chimps are very likely derived from the same species. There is at least fair argument for the existence of a common ancestor. And the fact that humans and chimps may have continued to interbreed after the species had diverged is not at all surprising. I can see how some people might receive such a claim as blasphemy ...but it is not like a modern day human was breeding with a modern day chimp---this was millions of years ago. And with that, humans and chimps may have lived in environmental conditions that would foster such interactions. It seems only natural that they would continue to interbreed for some time.

Week Three---Genetic Evolution ....

"Human and chimp genes are 99.4% identical" ....I feel like this statement is biological proof of something that we already know by observable, visible characteristics---that humans and chimps are genetically related, and rather closely. On a cultural level, this is problematic. In our world, the majority of the human population may classify animals as lesser living creatures. To say that humans evolved from chimps, apes, monkeys, etc.... will cause a stir. (Especially amongst certain religious groups with contrary origin myths of man.) I feel like the only time humans can acknowledge that they are animals is when we refer to ourselves as 'mammals'. We invest so much energy in controlling and hiding our very 'animal-ness' ....and when it is revealed, we feel shamed. Naked. Uncivilized. If chimps are indeed the relatives of humans---should we start dressing them in trousers and calling them cousin? ....At the end of the day, I feel like such 'biological evidence' only inspires debates that boil down to semantics---are 'chimps' humans? are 'humans' chimps? But if the semantic debate is ever settled, the cultural impact could be enormous. If chimps were considered 'human', certain unethical treatments (animal testing on chimps, keeping them in captivity in zoos, etc...) would have to stop by way of human rights.

Prokaryotes, Eukaryotes & Viruses Tutorial ...

Question #1 ....What is not alive but requires life to be able to reproduce? Viruses. (This is actually a very controversial question ....I think some virologists may argue that viruses are 'alive'.)

Question #2 ...Which statement best describes the function of the rough endoplasmic reticulum? Synthesis and assembly of membrane and secreted proteins.

Question #3 ....Which statement best describes the function of the Golgi apparatus? Processing of membrane and secreted proteins, including glycosylation. (My favorite organelle is the mitochondria.)

Question #4 ...In some diseases like cystic fibrosis, a cell membrane receptor fails to function. In the majority of cases, the problem comes from a change in the receptor so that it cannot reach the cell surface. The site in the cell where membrane proteins are synthesized and assembled builds up with the abnormal protein. This site would likely be the: endoplasmic reticulum.

Question #5 ....The following organelle is found in prokaryotic cells but not eukaryotic cells of animal origin. Cell wall. (Is the 'cell wall' a true organelle?)

Question #6 ....Mitochondria and chloroplasts both: function to provide cellular energy, are present in plants and contain DNA.

Human Genetic Evolution ....I find research expounding the cultural origins of man to be far more interesting than scientific research that aims to singularly unearth the biological origins of man. Biology is mainly concerned with the origins of the physical body, and while I do have some 'trivia' interest in this kind of information, it lacks color for me. Emotion. We all have a story to tell---uncertain beginnings and very different endings, and everything else in between. If we want to know where we come from, we should look to our communities---who are my ancestors? what traditions do we practice? what is our material culture? (I worry that with the dawn of the electronic age, there will not be much evidence for future archaeologists to sift through, our musty memoirs. For example, photographs and journals.) A purely biological perspective attempts to reconstruct the skeleton of primordial man and scrape the marrow of his bones for precious remnants of DNA; I can't help but feel disconnected from this long long lost ancestor. However, I do support efforts like the Human Genome Diversity Project because its interests include biological, as well as cultural, evolution.

Week Two---Evolutionary and Developmental Biology ....

Thoughts on Evo-Devo ....I feel that evo-devo offers some fascinating insights into our biological origins. It is interesting that on a genetic level, organisms can share nearly identical genomes, but their morphologies are distinctly different. What factors account for the shift and drift of gene expression? are internal or external factor more determining?....I would infer that environment must be a key factor; if an organism could not survive in a given environment with the activation of X gene, but could with the XX gene, then it makes sense that the XX gene would be dominant. A good example of this can be found in the artilce we read in class on the Galapagos island and the finches---their beak structure is believed to have changed in order to adapt to environmental changes (The article does not mention if there was any change in the finch's genes...but I would infer that there was not, but rather that one gene for 'beak' was being expressed more than another?) To me, this seems more like a 'passive' change in morphology due to environmental pressures. But I do wonder about the intelligence of genes....For example, viruses. The influenza virus is segmented and has the ability to 'trade', or reassort, its genes with other strains of the flu virus. This 'shift' could result in a more virulent flu strain, or even a new strain that could jump species. The influenza virus also undergoes (or, initiates?) 'antigenic drift'---alteration of its surface proteins which allow it to enter and exit host cells, as well as evade immune response. For this reason, a new flu vaccine must be developed each year. Are these shifts and drifts of the influenza virus accidental, as in 'genetic error', or deliberate for survival and proliferation? The HIV virus is a classic example of 'genetic error'---its reverse transcriptase process is highly error prone resulting in antigenic variation, thus it has an unusually high mutation rate which allows it to develop drug resistance and therefore proliferate and thrive. I do think that genes have a very certain intelligence, but that there is some greater force directing their expression and suppression. When I think about the influence that environment, an external factor, must have, I have one of those deep breathe moments one has when they realize there is no interior/exterior ....that all is connected. Sigh and Wonder.

How does Darwinism matter to me? ....I think that Darwinism ('natural selection', 'survival of the fittest') was a ground-breaking evoltionary theory for its time, but like all theories, has undergone some necessary challenges by modern day biologists. I feel that environment plays a key role in evolution, but I also feel that there are other factors involved, as discussed above. Namely, the possibility of genetic intelligence and genetic error. Biologists have illustrated that differing morphologies do not always translate into differing genomes, and more research is necessary to understand the connections (or disconnections, as the case may be). Darwin cracked the egg.

Week One---Our Biological Selves ...

Who am I? ... My name is Jules ... Originally from Boston, I moved to the Bay Area in 2000 on a whim. I like to pack my bags and explore the world every chance I get, but at the age of thirty-one, I call Berkeley home. I recently graduated from UC Berkeley with a degree in Religious Studies. My focus was Buddhism, Hinduism, Shamanism and contemporary Western expressions of spirituality. I think I would make a good anthropologist. But I would make a better Chinese Medicine doctor.

A bit more about me: I am interested in nutrition and food politics, and more than less eat a vegan diet. I believe in localism and supporting our community businesses. I heart crafting---anyone want to start a knitting group??? I am also teaching myself to sew and love the challenge of re-functioning everyday objects. I love my cat and my friends, and I ride my bicycle everywhere. I am dedicated to self-awareness, waking up from the dream, or the nightmare, as the case may be.

What about the development of "artifical brains"?.... In the article that we discussed in class, a group of neuroscientists make the claim that they have come 'one step closer to building an artificial human brain'---I find this claim problematic for a number of a reasons. First of all, this claim seems to be contingent upon what your definition of "brain" is; if these neuroscientists define the brain as a "super-fast computer," then yes, perhaps they have come one step closer to building an artificial human brain. However, definitions of "brain" can vary considerabley. What is my definition? Let's see. It is an organ of the body, it serves as the 'control center' of the body's many functions, it processes sensory information from the outside world, it the source of consciousness, the seat of self-awareness .... or is it? This is where things get problematic for me. I think with my brain ... but I also feel that I think with my heart. I feel that I think with my heart. In Chinese Medicine, everything is relative, inter-connected, nothing can be isolated nor statically exist. And this holds true, of course, for the systems of the human body. The physical body. The emotional body. If neuroscientists one day develop an "artificial human brain," then that is all that they have developed. An artificial brain. They have not re-invented the human experience.

Impressions on next week's topic .... Evolution refers specifically to genetic changes, not cultural changes; however, genetic changes do ultimately influence cultural changes in our world. From my reading, I do not get the impression that the inverse is ever regarded as true, meaning, 'biology' is always given primacy over 'culture', and never 'culture' over 'biology'. I think this would be interesting to argue (but may boil down to a logic equation in the end?---I have to give this more thought.). Other points of interest: Darwin's survival of the fittest does not mean the 'best' or the 'strongest', but rather 'suitable' or 'adaptable'. The universe is a web and all species are interconnected and interdependent ...evolution is not a random process---it is not about 'chance'---but rather, the universe is ordered. Even if it may seem like chaos.