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.