- Two things that I got from the first link:
- This could be a major change in thinking about how some antibiotics are prescribed
- Headline writers are really bad at overstating the findings of studies
- Planarians (flatworms) are very cool. So very cool, that they can sense and respond to light without a head.
- Valid concerns, or “creating noise & sounding alarms [not] helpful to saving lives"?
Tuesday, August 1, 2017
Summer Assignment 8.1
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
61 comments:
For the first article I believe that you should not continue antibiotics if you feel better because then if an over use occurs than it can lead to another sickness. In the second article I find it fascinating that the flatworms can grow any part of it's body again in up to a week. And in the third article, I thought how weird it would be that radiation can lead to cancer but at the same time it may be a cure.
By:Jeffrey Salvador
After reading the list of articles, I decided to read the article, "Chop Off This Worm’s Head and It Can Still Detect Light," from the New York Times. This article was about how the planarian flatworm is such a complex organism. If you cut off any of its body parts, they'll regenerate within a week and they will be the same as they used to be, as if nothing ever happened. Even if you cut off one it's primary organisms, such as the brain, it will grow back. This organism is only able to see shadows, and it can't see any of the colors that we as humans can see. When light was shined on the worms, they preferred green light over blue and red light over green. They couldn't tell what the colors were and they couldn't detect any wavelengths, but they noticed which shadows were darker or lighter. According to Dr. Akash Gulyani, a multidisciplinary scientist at the Institute for Stem Cell Biology and Regenerative Medicine in Bangalore, India, the flatworm samples ran away from the UV light shadows even without their heads. I found this article to be intriguing because it was interesting to see how such a small, simple-looking organism could be so bizarre and complex in reality.
To begin with, I read the article regarding the use of antibiotics in patients. It stated that new studies questioned the need for patients to take antibiotics for long periods. Traditionally, doctors advised taking the antibiotics for a long period of time to prevent getting sick again. According to the article, the researchers claim that the rule is unnecessary since little evidence proves that the bacteria can come back in all types of infections. I believe that this is a bad idea and it's safer to keep taking the antibiotic. Thus, there would be no chances for the bacteria to become resistant. After all, this is someone's life and it's not safe to tell them to stop taking a medication when no one truly knows whether the bacteria will come back or not.
The next article I read was about how planarians responded to stimuli while decapitated. Planarians are a type of flatworm that have been researched extensively over the years. In this case, researchers decapitated the worms. I was surprised that these organisms can be dismembered in every spot, but could easily regenerate to its previous size. For example, its head could grow back in 1 week. The scientists in the study shined UV and other bright lights on the worms. Surprisingly, the worms moved away from the lights. It's believed that the worms were not reacting to shadows or wavelengths. This process continues to confuse scientists, and makes them wonder whether it's a capability shared with other small and simple organisms.
It is extremely disturbing to see the potential downfall of a cancer vaccination. It is amazing to see that technology is allowing us to develop advanced vaccinations that can be tailor-made for certain DNA structures. This is the only way to "vaccinate" cancer. However, this can lead to the targeting of certain races and genetic factors. The most alarming part of this is not the weapon itself, but rather the lack of implications for potential terrorists and others looking to cause harm. In previous styles of biological weapons it was unfeasible to use them because they would effect everyone- including the user. But now the weaponization of a potential cancer vaccination is easier and the dissemination has less drawbacks for the user. The only possible prevention for this is to create very small doses of the vaccination to avoid a catastrophic outbreak of cancer cells in cases of misuse and heavily armed governmental protection of the vaccination and clinics.
In the article, “Rule that patients must finish antibiotics course is wrong, study says”, I feel that it was a study that needed to be conducted. On one hand, it is great information because it is extremely dangerous to build up a resistance against antibiotics that treat harmful diseases such as tuberculosis. On the other hand, the article said that even if you feel better, the infection might not be out of your system. This is also dangerous because then the infection will just come back fighting harder a few days later.
In the article “Chop Off This Worm’s Head and It Can Still Detect Light” I think that useful information was presented. As the article says, this can provide more details on ways certain animals heal. We can then use this information to compare it to the ways that humans heal their wounds. Also, learning more about how animals’ eyes work can lead to more discoveries about them.
In the final article, “'There are things worse than death': can a cancer cure lead to brutal bio weapons?” I think that it is a very bad thing. If it is possible to do this in the future, our national enemies can do this to a certain type of people in the U.S. If a person that wants all blondes dead, for example, they can pay someone to make them a bio weapon using genes that will kill all of the blondes easily. This is very dangerous to society in general and i think that we need to find a way to prevent this from happening.
I chose to read the article "Rule that patients must finish antibiotics course is wrong, study say". We are always told that you should complete the entire course of antibiotics because even if the symptoms do not show, some of the bad bacteria could still be present and duplicate causing the symptoms to later resurface. This article suggests that patients should stop taking the drugs when they feel better rather than completing their prescription. In an analysis in the British Medical Journal, the experts say “the idea that stopping antibiotic treatment early encourages antibiotic resistance is not supported by evidence, while taking antibiotics for longer than necessary increases the risk of resistance”. Personally, I believe that you should take the full course of antibiotics but I believe more research needs to be conducted to make an educated decision.
Another article I read was the fault worm article. I found this very interesting because you can chop off a flatworm's head and in a week it's head, brain, eyes, and everything will grow back. After decapitation, the worm reacts to light and once its head grows back, I gains the ability to to see finer aspects of light. This reflex-like response had been observed by other scientists, but just how they do this and why they developed the greater complexity is still a mystery.
The article about the planarian flatworm was very intriguing. I was confused about how an organism could sense light without eyes or even a head. I thought it was interesting how this organism can sense light like it does just so it can survive after splitting in half or being cut. I also was interested in the fact that planarian flatworms could regenerate their entire head, including the eyes and brain. I wonder if scientists could use CRISPR to alter an organism's genes so that they could regenerate their eyes or other organs.
I was very disturbed by the possible uses of a cancer vaccination. If something like what Sotos said already was created, then people like Hitler could create a bio-weapon that could kill all people with genetic diseases or all people who are not Aryans. This technology could be very dangerous in the wrong hands, but I believe that people should create it anyway, because anything can be used for evil in some way, and cancer is a problem that needs to be fixed very quickly.
The article regarding the benefits of completing antibiotic courses was very interesting to read. I had always believed that not finishing an antibiotic course could result in the bacteria returning, but now I realize I was wrong. I have always believed that the use of antibiotics when they are unneeded can lead to resistance against antibiotics, but I am surprised that even the length of an antibiotic course could lead to bacterial resistance of antibiotics.
I read the article, "Chop Off This Worm’s Head and It Can Still Detect Light," from the New York Times. This article was about how the planarian flatworm is so complex. You can cut off any of its body parts, they will regenerate in such less time and will be all normal again as if nothing happened to their body parts. Even if you cut off a major organs like the brain, it will grow back. The planarian flatworm can only see shadows it can't see any of the colors that human beings can see. When light was shined on the worms, they wanted red light over green and green over blue. The flatworm could not tell what the colors were and could not detect any wavelengths, but the flatworms noticed that shadows that were lighter and darker. According to a Doctor Gulyani at the Institute for Stem Cell Biology and Regenerative Medicine in Bangalore, India, the flatworm samples went away from the UV light shadows even without their heads. I found this article to be very interesting. Imagine if humans had the ablitly to regenerate new organs that are needed to cure illnesses and diesaese.
The article “Rule that Patients Must Finish Antibiotics Course is Wrong,” was very interesting because it challenged the idea that if someone is taking antibiotics, they should finish the amount they were prescribed. Doctors recommend finishing your dosage even if you feel better because it prevent the bacteria from becoming resistant to the drug. I believed that a person should finish their dosage to kill all the bacteria causing the infection. When a person feels better, it doesn't mean all the bacteria is dead. A person can feel better, but the bacteria or virus could just be weakened. If a person stops taking an antibiotic when they feel better, the weak bacteria can regain its strength and start causing harm. However, in the article it explains taking an antibiotic for a long time can cause the bacteria or virus to build a resistance to the drug. Some diseases like tuberculosis require the drug to be taken for a long time. Most other disease are spread through communities, and only affect someone if these germs enter their blood stream or gut. President of British Society of Immunology, Peter Openshaw explains that shortening the duration of a course of an antibiotic will lower the risk of antibiotic resistance. Prof Helen Stokes says an improvement of symptoms doesn't mean the infection has been cured. Shortening the duration of antibiotics can give people the impression that they can stop taking antibiotics once they feel better. She explains that keeping the current duration will leave a clear message that an antibiotics full course should be taken. Changing this ideology now will confuse people. I do not believe we should shorten the duration of the antibiotics because this article did not have any evidence or studies to support their claims. Each antibiotic has a certain duration because of previous experiment that show how long it needs to be taken to cure the infection. More experiments and research should be done for each disease and antibiotic to find the right length of time for the antibiotic. Experiments should be conducted to find the right amount of time the drug should be taken before the bacteria develops a resistance.
The first article I read was "Rule that patients must finish antibiotics course is wrong, study says." In the article they talked about patients not needing to take all their antibiotics but instead stop after they feel better. The theory before was that be not completing the course the bacteria would mutate and become resistant to the drug. Now it is said that taking the antibodies longer than necessary will increase the bodies resistance to the drug. In the year 1999 professor Harold Lambert wrote a article about not to keep taking the drugs after you feel well. Scientists, however, due to too little research still do not know the correct amount of medication to take before you are resistant to it. The correct amount is difficult to set since it varies per person because of their history of antibiotics. However if people stop taking medication once their symptoms stop they could again become sick if the infection has not been expelled. I think people should continue to take the full course of the medication unit scientists figure out the proper amount of time before you can stop. While this can make you resistant to antibiotics which means you will have to take even stronger medications, it is better that you are not hurting yourself.
The second article "'There are things worse than death': can a cancer cure lead to brutal bioweapons" talks about the possibility of using the technique of curing cancer to inflict harm on others. John Sotos, a chief medical officer, says that the cure for cancer would be a treatment that would only attack cells tagged for cancer. If this is so, then it is possible to build a bioweapon that could attack specific genetic markers. This could mean a weapon that could be aimed a specific gender, race, or family. The thought of being attack individually because of your genes is terrifying since you cannot block the attack. While this type of technology has yet not been invented I do think we should prepare ourself if such a event occurs. I believe if this type of technology is available it would be taken advantage of.
The first article regarding whether a course of antibiotics needs to be finished or not, I thought this was very interesting because I personally dealt with this situation only last week. I had developed strep throat, and the antibiotics course would've taken two weeks to finish, but I felt ideal in about four days. Being the rebel that I am, I didn't finish the course. However, I think that a more deeper study should be conducted to realize whether there is actually a significant increase in the drug resistance by actually finishing the drug dose, or whether the patient is actually at risk for not completing the dose.
Regarding the second article with the flatworm and it's ability to detect light without a head, I thought that it's ability to detect light was amazing. However, what I fond more amazing is that it has the ability to regrow it's brain and eyes. Regardless of how primitive the brain is, it still is a bundle of neurons, and humans are not able to regenerate their neurons whereas these worms are. By studying these worms more, maybe there could be a solution for humans to synthetically be able to generate nerve cells, which could maybe centuries later be applied to curing paralysis or mental damage that is caused by neural damage.
I think the situation in the third article is quite disturbing, how people may potentially be able to save their lives, but the same technology could kill the person as well. Bioweapons are definitely a threat to society, but I think that such technology should be developed regardless because cancer has claimed the lives of millions, and in order to develop a bioweapon, I don't think it is as simple as the article claims it is. It will take so many years for some third party terrorist organization to recreate such an amazing feat, that scientists may find a potential for to the problem of a potential bioweapon within that time frame.
1. The article "Rule that patients must finish antibiotics course is wrong, study says" was an interesting read, because it suggested that taking antibiotics for the fully prescribed period of time may lead to more bacterial resistance than when the antibiotics are taken until the patient feels better. I personally think that more studies and experiments should be conducted to prove this idea before people follow it. Antibiotics are prescribed by professionals trained in the medical field, so it is better to take their prescription than taking the risk of becoming sick again - especially when the medicine is for a serious disease. Studies on this topic are important, because if taking antibiotics for the prescribed period of time actually promotes resistance within bacteria then that could be very harmful. On the other hand, Professor Helen Stokes-Lampard brings up a great point in the article. She says that even if patients start to feel much better, there is still a chance that the infection/disease hasn't been completely taken care off. If patients start to decide themselves when to stop taking antibiotics, they may be risking harm towards themselves if the disease is still present within their body. More research should be done so that the professionals in the medical field know what is better to recommend to their patients.
2. The second article I read was "There are things worse than death': can a cancer cure lead to brutal bioweapons?" Although John Sotos brings up a pretty grave perspective to the possible alternate use of a cancer cure, I believe that finding a cure for cancer is much more important. Sotos is right to be worried about how a cancer cure can be turned into a bioweapon that could possibly attack race, gender or specific individuals, but I agree with the other scientists who criticized him for distracting from the real problems of cancer that are present. According to cancer.gov, in 2012 there were 14 million cases of cancer and 8.2 million deaths worldwide from cancer. Cancer is a severe issue in our world today, and finding a cure for cancer is extremely important. Although the threat of a bioweapon stemming from the cure is possible, it is speculation and a "worst case scenario" according to the article. Former chief data scientist of the US Office of Science and Technology Policy DJ Patil even says that the risk of turning the cure into a bioweapon is small, because the cure would be very hard to mass produce. The best thing for people all over the world who suffer from cancer would be to find possible cures, or even medicine that could fight off cancer better for longer periods of time.
After reading the article "Rule that patients must finish antibiotics course is wrong, study says," I've come to the conclusion that I'd still take antibiotics until the end of the prescription. My reasoning behind this is that people don't always know when they are sick, so why risk still having bacteria within when one can just take some extra antibiotics to be on the safe side. The article states how it hasn't been proven for an entire course of antibiotics to need to be taken to create less of a chance of the bug having immunity to the antibiotic, but this has only been recently found out. I believe that this needs to be a repeated test because it is amazing how we have answers that contradict themselves left and right. Everything in the medical field is constantly changing and evolving, so I believe there should be a definite answer before we make these changes to medications that could have positive or negative effects among all.
After reading the article of antibiotics, I believe that patients should take their full course of antibiotics. It is better to be safe and take the full course, rather than stop early and risk the bug becoming resistant. more research should be conducted on this topic, as the duration of antibiotics will be slightly different for every individual.
Planarian flatworms look like very simple organisms, but are more complex than what meets the eye. You can chop them up, and they will still grow back to their original form in about a week. It is fascinating how they are able to react to light after decapitation, with no eyes or brain. Further research should be conducted to find out how and why planarian flatworms are able to do this.
The most fascinating article was definitely the one about the regenerative worms. The idea of body parts growing back, in itself, is amazing and very beneficial to a species. My guess about how the body parts can grow back is that the organism is constantly producing cells that have not yet differentiated, so when a body part is cut off, the new cells can differentiate to recreate that body part. The reason humans cannot do this is because we do not have undifferentiated cells being produced, we have a certain amount and no more. But the interesting part of the article was the fact that they respond to light stimuli even without a head, brain, or eyes. This would have to mean that all of their cells, or at least cells other than brain cells and the cells in their eyes are able to respond to light. I cannot say much about this because, as the article said, their is very little understanding of how this happens. If humans had the power to regenerate body parts it would be a massive leap in medicine and technology that would benefit millions of people around the world.
This weeks article that I found most interesting was the New York Times, "Chop Off This Worm’s Head and It Can Still Detect Light,". I kinda found this article to be mind blowing in a way. If we think about us humans, one of the most complex organisms on earth, its impossible for us to grow back limbs or even once we have gotten a deep cut it is covered with scar tissue rather then the original epidermis and dermis. But a such a primitive organism can grow back its brain and even its whole body. personally I believe that is amazing, with further research into this scientist might be able to figure out how the flatworms reproduce their cells and regrow their vital organs such as the eyes and brain. Another interesting sense the flat worms had was the ability to react to the UV lights with out having a head. Finding that out lead me to believe that the flatworms nervous system must be very complex as well, if they are able to sense light without having actually eyes to see form.
I read the article about research for a potential cancer cure. Personally, I understand the concerns for safety, but I absolutely believed it was “creating noise & sounding alarms [not] helpful to saving lives". In this case how could the benefits of the research not outweigh the "dangers"? Having both friends and family who have suffered from cancer, I do not think these concerns should stop us from removing something that terrible from our lives. While the implications of bioweapons are horrible, Sotos also said that the refinement of genome editing is, "inevitable. There are going to be thousands of people doing this sort of genetic manipulation down in the basements of hospitals.” The technology is going to advance regardless of who develops it for what. So why would it not be a better option to move it along with the intent to cure cancer if the risk is inevitable? Sotos provides a valid arguement about the general potential dangers but also according to him it is a simple fact that it will always be there regardless of intention. So I beleive that the technology should be used for what is right and beneficial because the threat will always be there no matter what.
The Guardian is fluffing up this story about antibiotics to be much larger than it should. The entire article would give the same amount of information as a single sentence: "Hey, maybe taking too much of your antibiotic is actually the cause for the bacteria mutating and becoming resistant... or hey, maybe not, antibiotic courses are usually over by the time symptoms are gone anyway. So whatever, who knows?" It is just proposing a hypothesis and two possible answers.
The fact that a species like Planarians are able to detect light without a brain or eyes really speaks to the beauty and awe of evolution. The forces of nature constituted that during reproduction, flat worms are vulnerable to predators, so their DNA needs to be upgraded. The science behind this mystery would be very interesting if it is to be discovered.
The idea of a bioweapon that could target any trait, person, or group of people that you want is pretty cool... and pretty scary.
Being interested in regenerative medicine, I felt compelled to read the article "Chop Off This Worm’s Head and It Can Still Detect Light". Because worms are a simple form of life, they have basic organs, which allow the worms to easily regenerate them when needed. They can also detect light without using their eyes. Humans cannot regenerate their organs because our cells are differentiated and we are a far more complex organism. However the cells of worms may have not differentiated to the extent of a human, allowing all body parts to be able to regenerate. After conducting further research outside this article, I found that all worms do not have the regeneration capabilities to the extent of the Planarian Flatworm. After having a body part(s) severed, a signal acts as a molecular switch to allow cells to regenerate the parts that were missing. After reading this, one can wonder how this concept can be applied to humans. However at some point, we hope to figure out a way to regenerate human organs to an extent.
Seemingly the most useful article, "Rule that patients must finish antibiotics course is wrong, study says" was also the one I found most interesting. While I agree that the headline writers should read an article on the dangers of oversimplifying things and making wild generalities, it was enough to make a reader question everything their primary care physician has ever told them. It was an interesting point to bring up that a full course of antibiotics may be unnecessary and even harmful. The article hypotheses that taking an antibiotic for longer than absolutely needed will increase the risk of resistance.
Later, the article argues that not taking a drug for long enough will allow the bug to become resistant. Unfortunately, neither point is explicitly proven or even given much evidence. The article essentially concludes that more research is needed to determine the proper duration of antibiotics and there is not yet a concrete answer, so just keep taking your antibiotics like your doctor prescribes.
The first article "Rule that patients must finish antibiotics course is wrong, study says," was interesting because it challenged the way antibiotics are traditionally used. However, the article did not have substantial evidence to say that we should stop taking antibiotics once we start to feel better. Right now we always finish the antibiotic course because of the idea that "taking too few tablets will allow the bacteria causing their disease to mutate and become resistant to the drug." The article then goes on to say that many doctors and scientists around the world believe that the more tablets that you take, the higher chance that the bacteria will mutate to become resistant to the drug. Although this may be true, the doctors that they brought up said that there was not enough evidence to completely change the way antibiotics are prescribed. The title of the article itself was wrong. There was no study that that says that patients do not have to finish their antibiotic course.
I found the second article about the flat worms and their regenerative abilities to be very intriguing. Although the flat worms have a very primitive brain, they are still capable of abilities that humans can only have in their dreams. It's hard to believe that the same flat worm that had its head chopped off can regrow its brain and eyes when given time. It was also very interesting to see how the flat worms could still react to light although it was decapitated.
The article "'There are things worse than death': can a cancer cure lead to brutal bioweapons?" raises a valid concern of scientists and researchers. Any important information discovered about possible threats to society should be spread, but just what information is considered important? The fact that procedures used to create cancer vaccines can be manipulated into very harmful technology that can negatively effect one's DNA may seem like a very dangerous and serious problem, but it is very difficult to perform and create. Although a threat may seem quite improbable, however, there is always a chance that it may occur, and spreading at least a slight amount of awareness is necessary. Other threats should be known of, but scientists and other individuals with power should explain just how much or how little of a threat a certain thing may be, in order to allow the people to know what they should be truly concerned about. If a threat is more valid, such as "drug resistant TB and pandemics" (Patil), relevant information about them should be more frequently spoken of, as scientists can add to current research and work to invent technology that is in our ability to create today.
I found it amazing how planarian flatworms can grow parts of their bodies back in a short amount of time after being decapitated. In the article “Chop Off This Worm’s Head and It Can Still Detect Light”, the author discusses a peculiar organism that has the ability to react to light when its head is decapitated. When scientists experimented with planarians in the lab, they discovered that the decapitated planarians ran away from the UV light. It’s very fascinating how a small organism with simple organs is able to respond to light without having its eyes. Complex organisms like humans are not capable of doing this. Humans have complexed eyes that are capable of seeing clear images. Since Planarians do not have eyes like humans do, they can only see moving shadows. This article proved that some organisms can do so much with having so little.
As I began to read about the Planarian Flatworm, I immediately thought of the creature belonging in the Asteroidea class, commonly known as the Seastar. Most know that a Sea star has the captivating ability to regenerate it a limb once amputated. The Planarian Flatworm, similarly, is able to grow back its head, fully equipped with eyes and brain within a week. Another point of comparison is the way they reproduce. In order to reproduce, the worm splits in half. One of the ways the Sea star reproduces is by amputating its own arms, eventually being able to regenerate into a fully grown sea star. Also, it can split itself into pieces through fission. I couldn’t help but wonder what exactly made it possible for these creature to grow themselves back. Would it be possible to remove something from within them and make it applicable in modern human science? Is there a future in humans beginning to regenerate missing limbs or organs?
I think that some patients are sometimes highly mistaken that once they feel better it is okay to stop however they do not know that the disease or infection in their body is NOT completely gone. It is better to give it a full course antibiotics because you don't know that the bug is still resistant or not. Also, it is prescribed from professional medical doctors so it is for your own good to take the medicine and be on the safe side. But Martin Llewelyn acknowledges a great point "'the idea that stopping antibiotic treatment early encourages antibiotic resistance is not supported by evidence, while taking antibiotics for longer than necessary increases the risk of resistance.'" Sometimes overdosing might be a problem too. I think there should be further research on this, so the doctors can be completely sure before recommending.
Planarians are such an interesting creature that I didn't know existed. I learned that even when you cut Planarians heads off it can grow back in a week. Also, their eye shape is like a cup that can and aligned with cells that traps presence of light and where it's coming from. When scientists researched in the lab they found that when UV and white light were projected onto Planarians they swam away from it. Furthermore, when Planarians starts to develop thier eyes they start to sense white light. The scientists are still trying to figure out how the Planarians develop these abilities in such a mysterious way. I am looking forward for this further researcher.
The article that interested me the most this week was "Chop Off This Worm’s Head and It Can Still Detect Light." This is because I thought it was making how a flatworm has the capability of detecting light without its head. A planarian flatworm can go from being decapitated to normal within a week. The article states that planarians tend to hide in the dark in the wild, so when they were put under two different lights, the flatworms swam to the darker light. However, they had the same reaction when they were headless as well. Planarian flatworms seem to only really need their eyes and brain for fine tuning. Unlike humans and animals, they don't need their eyes and brain to survive, and a flatworms eyes and brain can grow back. The article also states that Akash Gulyani and his team have had the opportunity to study how animals recover and how their eyes have evolved. This means that scientists may soon find a way to help animals recover more quickly and efficiently, and they may have studied how the use of eyes has changed over time. If scientists are able to aid animals in recovery, they may be able to find a way to help humans in a speedy recovery for diseases that take time to recover from.
I found the New York Times article to be very interesting. I know that some animals can grow back limbs like a lizard’s tail, a cockroaches’ legs, and a starfish’s entire body. However, I never heard of the planarian flatworm’s amazing capabilities. They can be decapitated or chopped up into a tiny speck, yet still grow back in a week with their eyes and brain intact. Even more impressive is how these worms, when decapitated, can still detect light. They can convert our rainbow colors into their grayscale in order to protect themselves for predators. In the study they preferred the darker colors, green and red, as they would select darker or deeper spaces in the wild away from their natural predators . The study mentioned in the article could lead to new studies on other animal recoveries and how eye perception and color schemes can vary throughout the animal kingdom.
The headline for the Guardian article regarding cancer research and bio-weaponry was very eye catching. I believe it can be possible that some scientists could use genetic alterations to target certain people in a harmful way, however I feel it is too soon to determine the harmful affects of this research when it has not been completed yet. There is still not a cure for cancer, so to look at the research in a pessimistic outlook it not benefiting anyone. When the time comes to determine if the cure could be used as Bio weapons, then this article might be relevant, but to publish this now to bring concern and negativity to the cancer cure is simply uncalled for and not needed at this time to promote medical advancement.
The article I read discussed the concerns of chief medical officer at Intel, John Sotos, regarding the possible dangers of a cure for cancer. Sotos fears that the same technology used to cure cancer can lead to the creation of bioweapons. Cancer is a disease that affects the DNA, therefore a cure would attack cancer cells based on genetic flags. This same treatment could be harnessed and used to attack other genes in humans. Individuals of a certain race, gender, or ancestry could be attacked based on their unique genetic flags. Though these are valid concerns, I believe the focus of the scientific community should be finding a cure for cancer as opposed to worrying about this unknown threat. Cancer has taken the lives of millions, therefore it should be more of a worry than a possible advancement in bioweapons.
The article I read this week was warning people about the potential effects the cure of cancer can have on human society. Although cancer is a serious illness that results in many fatalities each year, the dangers of a solution can lead to the disastrous bioweapons that can be lethal if it were the fall in the wrong hands. John Sotos, the chief medical officer of Intel, believes that not only can bioweapons result in mass casualties but can cause the earth to be just like “hell”. For example, groups can have the ability to spread their agenda’s in variety of ways by rewriting their DNA to possibly give them advantageous traits and also destroy lives of others. However, many scientists such as DJ Patil thought Sotos was thinking out of proportion because of the small chance that this catastrophe would actually happen. I think that this advancement in biotechnology is inevitable with our world advancing at rates faster than ever in this field so I believe that for the betterment of society, it will be essential that this cancer saving technology is in control by medical corporations and doctors.
The first article I read was "Rule that patients must finish antibiotics course is wrong, study says". I found this article intriguing because it disputed the common belief that patients must complete their full course of antibiotics or else it causes the disease to mutate and become resistant to that drug. The article states there are others who argue that antibiotics should be stopped when patients feel they are healed as it might make antibiotic resistance less likely. While both sides of the arguement provide valid points, the lack of scientific evidence to back the new theory is unconcealed. Due to the need for further research and study, I believe patients should not shorten the duration of antibiotics because a relieve of symptoms does not necessarily mean the disease has been fully cured. The second article I read was 'There are things worse than death': can a cancer cure lead to brutal bioweapons?" I found this article devastating as it proves how such an irreplaceable advancement to society can be torn apart by ones who manipulate the studies into bioweapons. Targeting only the cells with genes for cancer can lead to bioweapons that target and attack cells with particular genes. Therefore, i truly believe there must be strict regulation on biological advancements like these.
If a cure for cancer is ever found, it can also be used as a weapon to attack groups by spreading the illness. Joe Biden started a program called "cancer moonshot”, which is US government-funded and has been made to find vaccine-based treatments for cancer. The Intel executive Sotos said that the success of this program would also uncover the hidden potential for deadly bioweapons. There is a risk to using weaponized diseases because they spread over their set distribution range. If you try to attack a close by nation, you could cause death in your own as well. However, just as they can try to create a treatment that can be filtered to attack only cells with the genetic flag for cancer, they can also build a bioweapon that can be filtered to attack only individuals with a particular genetic flag revealing their individual backgrounds. The technology for this does not exist yet, but someday gene hacking is predicted to become big. Curing cancer has been the goal for a lot of scientists, but I think that it will be used in destructive ways.
This week I read a very surprising article by The New York Times, "Chop Off This Worm's Head and It Can Still Detect Light". The fact that planarian flatworms can regrow their heads was not very surprising to me since I knew that other worms also had this quality. However, I was surprised with how very little time it took for planarians to regain full function of the eyes and brain, about a week! Even more surprising was that these worms actually reacted to light after decapitation! This was very shocking to me because planarian flatworms are very simple organisms that don't even see color. The article even states that the organisms' eyes lack lenses and describes their brains as "two blobs of cells". What was even more extraordinary was that they reacted to different colored lights in different ways, even though they don't see color! They were not seeing the color, rather they were sensing which light was darker. The simplest of organisms can do the most complex things.
Primarily, the article "Rule that patients must finish antibiotic course is wrong, study says" is a very innovative article. Stopping a course of antibiotics early is beneficial, according to the article, because scientific evidence states that it does not cause the bacteria to mutate and become resistant to the treatment. It can be helpful because it creates a more healthy body in general, creating a self-reliant system of fighting antibodies. In addition, as the article states, patients can be tested to decided when they should stop their course of antibiotics which gives them hope by knowing when they will be freed from drug therapy. I find this article especially interesting because I have always believed that being healthy and developing resistance is more important than having antibiotics prescribed to do it for you. To add, making patients stop their courses early as well as constantly monitoring them will help decrease addiction to prescription drugs. I hope this rule will lead to more people developing a better immune system.
As an elementary school kid, I felt superior to others after I stepped on stray worms on the sidewalks. On rainy days, walking home from the bus stop, me and my sisters would decide to kill these poor creatures. All I know is that we were, and still are, strange people.
Of course, this satisfaction lasted less than a second because we soon came to realize that the worms could still wiggle around and move with half of their body stuck to the pavement, and grew back their missing body parts. The phenomena puzzled me until I read the article "Chop off this worm's head and it can still detect light." As stated in the article, the Planetarian worm is found everywhere, probably all over my neighborhood, and when the head is chopped off it has the ability to grow back its brain. In addition, scientists found that it could still respond to sunlight. This article was both informative and surprising, and I hope to witness the regeneration in action more often.
The first article that I read was, " Rule that patients must finish antibiotics course is wrong, study says". This is very interesting to me because I have been sick quite a few times in my life and have had to take antibiotics before. The article introduced the theory that instead of taking antibiotics for the full recommended time, one should stop once they begin to feel better. I can see valid points in both sides of this argument. For one, I agree that no matter what a patient should listen to what their doctor tells them and if that is to take the full course of antibiotics, then they should. I also see the other side of the argument in the way that I understand that if one does stop the course early, then there will be a lesser chance of having that bacteria become resistant to the antibiotics. I do believe though, that taking the antibiotics the full course is the safest way to go and ensures you full health. I would like to see an experiment related to this theory in the future.
The other article I read was, "Chop off this worm's head and it can still detect light". This article was about the planarian flatworm, it noted how one of these creatures can still detect light even without a head. This flatworm has a way of regenerating its body parts when it is chopped off, so in this sense it will grow back all aspects of its head and eventually regain function. The most amazing part about this worm in my opinion is how it reacted to light without its head. The scientists performed an experiment where they observed the reaction of this worm to UV light. The worm reacted by freaking out and fleeing the scene of the light, and this was with its head on. Then they did the same experiment without the worm's head and it reacted to the same way as it did before. I find that absolutely amazing how it still has the same senses even when it is decapitated. Maybe one day, scientists can figure out how this is possible and apply it to humans.
The article "Rule that patients must finish antibiotics course is wrong" particularly interested me because I recently had my wisdom teeth taken out and I had to take antibiotics. It surprised me when I read that completing the prescription, as my doctor instructed me to do, could cause my body to resist against the antibiotics. However, as I read the article, I noticed that both sides had minimal evidence. There is not enough evidence that taking too few tablets will cause resistance to the drug nor is there enough evidence that completing the antibiotic course will build resistance. It also confused me that this new theory exists, since prescriptions are tailored to each individual and are not just made up. There needs to be more research on appropriate prescribing of antibiotics since it is so common for people to stop taking it when they "feel better" and since this new theory only applies to certain diseases. I hope that in the future we find out what the most favorable amount of time an individual should take his or her's antibiotics.
The article "Rule that patients must finish antibiotics course is wrong, study says" was interesting to read since I have always been told otherwise growing up. I see both sides of the story though and a lot about medicine is still unknown to us, so it's all about your own judgement. I thought it was interesting when the article mentioned "the length of the course of antibiotics has been estimated based on a fear of under-treating rather than any studies." This puts a different perspective on antibiotics and how doctors have prescribed medicines. They fear that the bacteria may still be remaining so the course of the treatment will be longer. Also, when you start to feel better it doesn't necessarily mean the infection is completely gone. This was an interesting article to read because it puts a new perspective on things we think are true.
I am very glad to have read this article mostly because I am considered one of these “patients”. “Rule that patients must finish antibiotics course is wrong, study says” is a two sided article and it answers some questions I've had for the past two years. I've been taking antibiotics for two years in the form of both pills and cream, and my doctor/dermatologist required me to take them once everyday at a certain time. However, sometimes I get lazy and a few days, even a week goes by where I haven't taken my antibiotics. This is when the difference in my skin is becomes evident. Specifically, during this time, my acne starts to show up again as opposed to having clear skin when I continuously take my antibiotics. This doesn't prove the title of the article and isn't as crucial as if it were for a disease, but it certainly does tell me that just because the symptoms aren't visible, it does not mean that the bacteria, virus, or any other sort of germ in my body is dead (as stated by many other people above). In fact, if antibiotics are stopped being taken early, the bacteria will grow and spread before one even recognizes it. This article is surely engaging, yet it can definitely be confusing and lopsided for some readers since words used like “some” and “other” and "necessary" don't give assurance to the topic as a whole. I'm not entirely against this article, but I do believe that the amount and time period the antibiotic should be taken varies from person to person and the extremeness of the disease. Does finishing the dosage required help or risk resistance? Of course this will take several tests and research for valid, definite and positive answers. For now, everyone should complete the prescribed course given to be on the safe side regardless of whether or not they feel better earlier.
I believe that people should follow the doctors prescription exactly. Even if you have some symptoms it may be an aftereffect in which some symptoms are just lingering. If they continue to take antibiotics it may be prove to be inefficient and could let the virus to become resistant to the drug. This goes along with even how I take these drugs in, I would make sure I follow the Doctors prescription trying to prevent me from taking the drugs long enough that these viruses become resistant to the drugs. However stopping before the treatment is done is also not good as we don't know if the treatment worked or not. The symptoms may have gone away for a while but may be back the next day.
I believe that cancer treatment should continue, despite the chances of biological weapons. Cancer the number 1 cause of death in the world. However the equipment to do this must be unable to get to the public and Crispr should be altered that it would become ineffective within 3 days. So that means it has a 3 day shelf lifespan. The only concern I have is the fact that if could change the world. A radical group may use it to there advantage and that may prove to be devastating.
I read the article about the creation of bioweapons from cancer cures. I had never considered that trying to find a cure for cancer could be a gateway to create dangerous weapons. In the ariticle it mentioned that the creation of bioweapons was an extreme case but it is alarming that anything like this is a possibility. I thought it was interesting that they compared this to a nuclear weapon in the beginning of the passage because history may repeat itself (for example in Cold War where nuclear weapons played a big role in the tense relationship between America and Russia), but now with something more powerful. In the future, I hope that this project brings positive results instead of a new threat.
My eyes were drawn to the article regarding the atrocities that could happen if a cure for cancer fell into the wrong hands. The point of the article is that a cure for cancer could possibly be found by manipulating the patients DNA, but this new technology would also allow for people to build bioweapons attacking others DNA as well. As frightening as the idea may be that someone can choose to abruptly make you obese, allergic to meat, or intolerant to sunlight, I believe that a cure for cancer is worth the risk. Approximately 40% of men and women will develop cancer at some point in their lifetime based on 2012-2014 data. This disease already has too much control over us and scientists should be putting all their efforts into finding a cure rather than focusing on the small chance that the cure could allow for worse.
I believe that when people are taking medication, they should follow whatever the doctor says. We can never really tell for sure if the infection is gone, so only doctors can really know for sure when to stop taking the medicine. Personally, I was always told to take the remainder of the medicine even after feeling better, and now to hear the opposite is suprising. Often times when I get antibiotics I feel better by the time i finish half the prescription, which is a problem if taking too much pills really forms resistant bacteria. An antibiotic resistant bacteria would be devastating to the world, so it is vital that more studies are done to find the accurate dosage (or at least an estimate) to kill the infection and avoid taking too many or too little pills.
I read the first article, "Rule that patients must finish antibiotics course is wrong, study says". Just by reading the title I knew that this had to be interesting since doctors usually say to take the full dosage of antibiotics in order to prevent the bacteria to make you sick again. After reading the article I found out that it's okay for people to stop taking their antibiotics once they start feeling better. However, I agree with Professor Helen Stokes-Lampard since she said, "Changing this will simply confuse people.” The "this" that she is talking about is the idea of taking antibiotics for the amount of days that the doctor had prescribed. I also believe that this is the best way to take antibiotics until there is more evidence and it has been widely used. It ensures that the bacteria will not become resistant, while when stopping the dosage you are allowing the bacteria to mutate and resist the bacteria. Even after reading this article, I still believe that you should take the full dosage of antibiotics.
According to the article "'There are things worse than death': can a cancer cure lead to brutal bioweapons?", finding a cure to cancer may also lead to the creation of life threatening bioweaponry. John Santos, Cheif Medical Officer of Intel, claims that the" eventual success" of Joe Biden’s “cancer moonshot”, a government funded program which is working to create a vaccine in order to cure cancer, may also lead to this threat of the creation of bioweapons. Santos explains that as Cancer is a disease that requires the study of DNA, which may also allow for the potential creation of bioweapons. He explains that these bioweapons can alter ones DNA, forcing oneself to deal with characteristics of which they may not want to experience, or in other words against their credo. In addition to that, these weapons may be used for other purposes like stealing ones genetic code or by diasgnosing one with a disease. Santos shares this news with the world even though there is a small chance of the creation of these weapons happening, according to DJ Patil, but being thst there still is a chance that this unimaginable creation is to occur, I myself believe that the world should know that there is a slight chance that something like nuclear weapons may be created, known as bioweapons.
The article I read was “Rule that patients must finish antibiotics course is wrong, study says.” There are two sides to the argument. One side is that the patient must finish the treatment even if they feel better to be sure that the bacteria won’t come back, such as in tuberculosis. The other side of the argument states that the patient should stop taking the antibiotics whenever they feel better. This is to stop the bacteria from getting a long exposure the the antibiotic and therefore gain a resistance much quicker than expected. The side that supports ending treatment when the patient argues that each patient is different and will need to stop at different times, if they prolong the treatment a resistance may develop. Furthermore, they believe that the course has very little evidence for it being effective, and was probably made with a fear of under treatment. The side that supports patients completing the course rebuts by saying that the courses have research put into them and the courses are actually short. Moreover, they say that the patient feeling better doesn’t mean that the symptoms have subsided. I believe that the patients should complete the course because they are given clear instructions on when to stop the treatment. If they are told to stop when they feel better, they may stop when the still have the bacteria, and may spread the bacteria to more people. Though the bacteria may develop a resistance, this is a risk that must be taken for the safety of the patient here and now, not in the distant future.
In regards to the article describing what the optimum time is for antibiotic consumption, I can definitely see the different regions where these interpretations disagree. Although the Hippocratic oath is taken with the intent of supporting synonymous actions, there are many disputes in society within the field of healthcare and medicine. The same attributes visible on the locus of euthanasia legalization are visible here, being that there is a dissimilarity on how long people perceive the length in which antibiotics should be taken. Before I divulge into my thoughts, I'd like to make it clear that I am not taking a side on this issue. The reason for this arises because of two things- the fact that my understanding and level of exposure to the world of medicine is at a very immature and unsubstantial level, and that the article is constructed with evidence on both sides. After reading, I am starting to think that the length of antibiotic consumption is dependent on simply the actual illness. Certain illnesses, like TB as stated, evidently require extensive time with the drug, but the influences left on those who claim that it is best to only take the medicine as needed, may likely come from their understanding of different diseases and illnesses. Every particle of bacteria plays a different role in a different sector of our immune system and body, and as a result, it would be inaccurate to state that the antibiotic usage is a standard, rather than unique to the unique illness itself. In other words, it is wrong to assume that all antibiotics should be taken until feeling better, simply because the actual illnesses vary and require different situations. I also think it is crucial to recognize that people may be influenced by exterior factors, like work, family, or events, and may cast the assumption that they are fit to be released from medication. This inevitable situation can only worsen the health of the person. On the contrary... it is quite surprising that taking the antibiotic for the full length can yield bacterial resistance to the medicine. Overall, I can't take a side on what I believe is the more reliable option, as I see flaws and issues in both areas, but I think it is interesting to see another issue which will most likely be brought up in our near future. The debate over Euthanasia is consistently prevalent among political groups, and being that we are the future, it is understandable to make the conjecture that this is going to be our decision in the near future, based on societal research to come.
I chose to read the article about antibiotics and found it intriguing. The article showed two sides of an argument- whether patients should complete the course of the antibiotic or not. Personally, I feel one should complete the course to make sure the virus doesn't become resistant. Doctors have confirmed that the courses in general for antibiotics are not long and there is a specific amount of time needed to rid the body of the virus. The opposite side of this article, however, argues that patients do not have to finish the course if they feel better. After reading the article I did not see any sufficient data or evidence to back up this claim, unlike the first argument. I feel in order for people to follow the thought that antibiotics can be stopped safely before the course is complete, more analysis should be conducted on this topic.
The second article I read was about regenerative worms. The type of worm can grow any of its limbs or organs back after it being detached from its body- even the brain! It can't see color because it can't detect wavelengths like humans but it can grow its limbs back and humans can't. I found this very intersecting.
The first Guardian article is directly related to last week's article on the adaptation of MRSA, which more specifically addresses staphylococcus aureus in both articles. Having learned last week that this species became far more resilient when exposed to penicillin that it developed resistance to another similar antibiotic, methicillin. Although it is admitted that there is a lack of research supporting either side as to whether or not the usage of a given antibiotic should be long or not, this does support the unnecessity of prolong use of antibiotics.
As stated by the NYTimes article, a speculation was made on the planarian flatworm's ability to detect a range of wavelengths upon regeneration and still know to fear it for what inhabits it. The genetic material responsible for this along with the regeneration of every organelle could be credited to the simplicity of each cell and more ideally, a set few genes that are consistent in all planarians and can reconstruct the simple cells and the organism's behaviour as a whole.
Whenever a doctor or physician prescribes an antibiotic, we are always instructed to take the full, extensive antibiotics course to prevent the buildup of bacteria and getting ill again. However, many scientists say otherwise. The longer the bacteria are exposed to the specific antibiotic, the higher chances the bacteria will develop a resistance to the antibiotic. Of course, this is extremely dangerous, especially for deadly diseases like coronary artery disease (CAD). This article to me was slightly controversial as it would also confuse people if the idea of not completing the antibiotics course was altered. Besides, there is little to no literal evidence that this idea should be eradicated either. Until there is more research supporting that patients should stop taking the antibiotics when they feel better, the best advice would be to heed the words of healthcare professionals.
Sushrut Shendey, [09.08.17 18:11]
The points brought up in the article based upon the antibiotics are interesting and make logical sense in most cases. If the patient is feeling better, it seems right to stop taking the medication prescribed as the sickness is not apparent anymore. Even though the information presented in the article still needs more research go prove its point, this type of research can potentially change the dosage and other specifications for taking medications. The article also states that what the scientists have found are still under review and research in order to completely prove the way we deal prescriptions are not completely correct, yet the title makes it seem as though it is guaranteed and assured that the scientists have come to a conclusion. Near the end of the article, the author actually writes, using the words of Professor Helen Stokes-Lampard, that if a patient really thinks they are better when in reality they still are infected, it could further harm them. With this, the author recognizes why doctors want everyone to go through their full dosage, making the title seem like even more of an overstatement.
The second article based in the worm from the New York Times was an extremely interesting read as something like what was stated does not seem possible. Other species and animals, like lizards and other creatures, have the ability to regenerate tails and other limbs though I've never heard of a something being able to regenerate it's head let alone be able to sense light without it. If other creatures have similar capabilities that would make the world's nature even crazier than I thought of before and by finding out how these creatures do what they do, scientists could make other break throughs to help our society advance.
I found the article about the Planarizn flatworm very interesting. Its ability to regenerate a head, with functioning eyes and a brain, is unique and advanced. The flatworm was able to retain its senses and abilities even without a head, as scientists showed in an experiment with UV light and the worm's reactions to it. It was very interesting to see that the flatworm reacted the same to the UV light with its head and without its head. These advanced body functions are not common at all and can lead to even more interesting findings in other organisms around the world.
Regarding the article "Rule that patients must finish antibiotics course is wrong," the title was clearly clickbait. Journalists should not use overexaggerated titles when it comes to serious issues like public health because you never know who it may wrongfully inspire. I think the article brings up a a new perspective on the concept of dosage. It's an obvious plus that shortening treatment could reduce the risk of bacterial resistance, but it may not be great for the short term. Proper dosage will depend on each specific individual as everyone responds differently to medication based on prior treatments, genetics, etc. If they develop shorter, standardized dosages then they could run the risk of undertreating illnesses which leads to immediate negative reactions. Right now, our dosages are based around the fear of undertreating and the article also mentioned a good point that "...improvement in symptoms does not necessarily mean the infection has been completely eradicated." Basically, we are playing on the safe side in terms of medicine. However, the long term benefit could extend the life of the effectiveness of our medications. A caption on the side of the article said medicine could return to the dark ages which is something that shouldn't be taken lightly. Dealing with the gamble of shortening dosages will ultimately be worth it. Doctors already "customize" dosages for their patients, but this whole study would make doctors take customizing dosage a step further. Very tedious, but they won't be just helping the patients, they'll be helping the medication.
After reading the article on potential bioweapons, I am filled with concern. If the wrong people get their hands om this technology, it could mean the mass extermination of an entire race through a few bioweapons. While finding a cure for Cancer would be an amazing thing, it horrifies me to see that there is potential for all new horror through the cure. This kind of technology sounds like the kind of thing you'd see in the plot of a science fiction novel. Personally, I believe that these concerns are valid, and action should be taken immediately after a vaccine cure is found to prevent disasterous bioweapons. Sure, this concern could impact funding on Cancer research, but it is just as important that we prevent a genetic catastrophe like this.
After reading the article titled "Rule that patients must finish antibiotics course is wrong, study says" I have decided that taking the full course of antibiotics is the better route than stopping the course when you feel better. Although every body is different and should be evaluated individually to properly design a course of antibiotics that will lead to recovery, it is inconvenient to do so and "repeated testing may not be feasible." Like what England's chief medical officer Prof Dame Sally Davies says, we should continue to follow the medical advice of our healthcare professionals. Until there is further research done to tailoring an antibiotics course specific for a patient, we should complete courses of antibiotics because "improvement in symptons does not necessarily mean the infection has been completely eradicated."
On the article about a cancer cure leading to bioweapons, I do feel that John Sotos has a valid claim. Using crispr to add portions to our DNA that attacks cancer cells will also create technology that "bio-hackers" can use to implant dangerous diseases into our DNA and crispr presents a bunch of other problems as well but I don't need to get into that. Although he has a valid claim, I do not believe that we should stop all of the progress we've made in fighting cancer and should continue to pursue this avenue, albeit with some caution. There are bigger problems in the medical field right now other than bioweapons, such as drug resistant bacteria and viruses that manipulate their DNA at catastrophic rates. On the article about the emergence of new ideas in the use of antibiotics, I do feel that the journalist did use a very click baiting title, but the point is still there. I do not think that we should take much stock into this new idea just yet because the research is still coming in, although I personally do believe that the idea that we should stop taking antibiotics once we feel better makes sense for some of the more common ailments such as strep throat. It makes sense that bacteria will become more resistant to medicine the more they are exposed to it, and we've seen this occur with antioniotics such as penicillin. I feel that we will just have to wait for more research to come out before the medical society can determine the right course in taking antibiotics, and for right now we should finish the whole course.
Planarian flatworms are definitely interesting and it would be fascinating to get to know more about how they function, even with their heads chopped off. Based on their asexual reproduction, as the article pointed out, it makes sense that as the fetus worm is developing, it will need to protect itself using its inner capability to detect light. It is amazing how this converts over to when a flatworm is harmed by the outside world, it still has a sense to detect light, and also regenerate. It seems as if this capability is inborn for planarians, making it "reflex-like," just as we humans have reflexes that are key to our survival when we are babies. Then, with the survival of planarians that posses this quality, the ability is passed down through reproduction, and therefore it survives with natural selection.
After reading the first article about prescribed antibiotics and when to stop taking them in a cycle, I had a mixed opinion on the entire topic. For one, the authors did provide an explanation from both sides of the argument. Some say that you should finish your antibiotics cycle to give the bacteria less time to develop immunity to it while others state that you should finish earlier than the prescribed date in order to prevent the bacteria from getting used to the antibiotic. Although these are valid arguments, the mistake the writers made was not providing enough information. The title of the article completely overestimates the article itself, not providing enough information and just stating two points. These types of articles give a false sense of credit towards the writers and benefits no one in terms of education or information.
The second article i read was the use of cancer treating technology as bio weapons. I found this article to be extremely interesting and made me think about our world today. We see that individuals today are so diverse and split on decisions and beliefs that they are willing to sacrifice everything for their personal views. We can see that if technology were to be so advanced that we are able to eliminate signs of cancer cells, there could be a chance for this technology to be used against certain races. All it would take is the DNA of a certain race, individual or religion to bring about death or even torture for these people by manipulating their genetic code. I believe that it solely depends on the type of individual handling this technology and the purpose they use it for.
I first read the article on flatworms being able to sense light when they were decapitated. They are known to be the a part of the oldest worm genus known to man, planarians. Because of the vast amount of time that their species spent on this planet, flatworms had experienced many difficulties, which then led them to evolve and adapt to these issues, decapitation being included. Even after getting their heads taken off, they were still alive, so in order to continue surviving, they needed to be able to sense predators while their heads were regenerating. This is a theory that could possibly explain the reason as to why the decapitated flatworms were still able to sense light. Flatworms feel more safer underground, which is darker, than at the surface, which is brighter, because there are less predators there. This could also explain why the beheaded ones were more attracted to the darker colors than the lighter colors.
I also read the article on how long patients should be taking prescribed antibiotics. I was a little taken aback when I read the title of the article, but once I actually read it, it made perfect sense. I never thought about the fact that too much exposure to a certain antibiotic could give bacteria enough time to develop resistance towards it; I, like most other people, believed that if a patient doesn't take an antibiotic for the time period it's prescribed for, then any evolved bacterium that developed a resistance towards the drug would reproduce offspring with the same abilities. I personally believe that neither one of the theories are incorrect. This is because some bacterium develop resistance due to limited exposure, while others develop resistance due to over-exposure, so it really depends on the bacteria. I am sure that there are other explanations as to why bacteria are able to fight antibiotics, but these two make perfect sense.
Reading the article about the planarian flatworms really surprised me. The fact that the flatworms grow their heads back even after being decapitated is quite astonishing. It was even more interesting to learn that the flatworm could still sense light even with no head (eyes and brain too). Once the worm starts to grow back it's head and eyes, the worm is able to detect white light again. After the brain fully develops, the brain regains its fine-tuning abilities. It's really cool to realize that such simple organisms with such simple organs have the ability to do a lot of complex processing. Maybe by continuing the study of the cells and functions of a flatworm, it may be possible in the far future for human cells to regenerate which could be really beneficial to medical advancements.
We are always told to complete the entire course of prescribed antibiotics so that symptoms do not come back. The article says that patients should stop taking the medicine once they feel better even if they are prescribed to take it for a longer time period. However, even if an individual does feel better, the infection or disease may not be completely out of your body and it might re surface if you stop taking the antibiotics.
I chose to read the articles “Rule that patients must finish antibiotics course is wrong, study says” and “Chop Off This Worm’s Head and It Can Still Detect Light.” The former countered a common misconception among patients who have been prescribed antibiotics. Normally, doctors recommend finishing an antibiotics course once it has been started. “In hospital, patients can be tested to work out when to stop the drugs. ‘Outside hospital, where repeated testing may not be feasible, patients might be best advised to stop treatment when they feel better,’ they say. That, they add, is in direct contravention of World Health Organization advice.” Essentially, new studies show that stopping an antibiotics course when one feels better is better than finishing the entire course (which is traditionally prescribed by doctors). I personally would continue taking the entire antibiotics course. While there may be studies that prove otherwise, the concept is still relatively new and foreign for me to place trust in it. So far, taking an entire antibiotics course has proven to be effective, so I will continue to do so. The second article presented some interesting facts about planarian flatworms. Planarian flatworms have the astounding ability to regrow body parts—which includes eyes and heads. Scientists, like Dr. Gulyani, discovered that a headless flatworm is still able to respond to UV light. Though this cannot be explained by scientists today, the prospect of flatworms having various methods of responding to stimuli is intriguing.
I found the article on the duration of antibiotic courses interesting because both sides of the argument are convincing. The resistance of bacteria to antibiotics is a rising concern, and I think that it will pose an even greater threat in the future. This is the main reason for why I think that prescribing antibiotics for a longer time than necessary is futile at best and dangerous or extremely problematic at worst. But the other side of the argument also stands because of the lack of knowledge in this matter. Relief of symptoms can be temporary, and luck may not always be on your side. So, how do we know when to stop if we’re not going to follow the prescription?
I read the article about flatworms because I find all organisms interesting. This one is especially interesting, because it's basically invincible. It is extremely cool how it still is functioning after going through a trama(like losing your head). I actually got jealous of this worm because its senses increase after being ampufied. I want to start a study to see what gives this little worm these amazing abilities and see if I could inject that into me.( New pair of legs please.)
Post a Comment