Genetic Screening of Newborns Not Yet Ready

DNA double helix

Twenty-five year old Jennifer Allen experienced the unreliability of genetic screening first-hand in the fall of 2010. Doctors screened her 10-day old daughter, Sophie, and the child tested positive for Propionic Acidemia, a potentially fatal disorder requiring a strict feeding schedule. Allen ceaselessly worried for her daughter until she received additional test results that stated that the initial test was a false positive.“There was all this pressure on me to keep her fed, to keep waking her up,” Allen recalled. “And then it came back that she was perfectly healthy. It felt like a part of what I was supposed to enjoy with her as a newborn was taken away from me” (Aleccia). This example highlights genetic screening’s inconsistency and inaccuracy; until the technology develops further genetic screening simply poses too many ethical problems to be implemented widely.

Another example of a false positive occurred at a genetic screening program in New York genetically tested one- million newborns for Krabbe, a fatal disease that damages the central nervous system and mostly develops in babies younger than 6 months of age. Over two-hundred were diagnosed with risk of this disease but only four of these two hundred children actually developed symptoms, about 2% of the children who were initially diagnosed with the risk of the disease (Bleicher). The limited predictive value of this extremely vague science is represented by this small percentage that actually developed the disease. Genetic screening of newborns is not yet developed enough for doctors to offer new parents despite its potential benefits because the science yields inconsistent results and creates ethical dilemmas.

Genetic screening is a science still in its infancy, which is obvious in the inconsistency of results in the screening of newborns. According to the Nature Journal editorial “Sequenced from the start”, sequencing can only diagnose about 15-50% of children with undiagnosable diseases. Ultimately, the majority of newborn screens reveal false positives. This exemplifies the flaws of this relatively undeveloped science. Although the New York program only tested for one condition, an increase in the number of conditions screened can lead to an increase in medical costs and false positives. These false positives could potentially “cause parents to anticipate health problems in their children and potentially lead them to undergo unnecessary and harmful procedures” (Almond).

Crouse hospital in Syracuse diagnosed Morgan McCall with the genetic disease Cystic Fibrosis, a life-threatening disease that primarily affects the lungs and digestive system. This news shocked parents Paula and Steve McCall. “Steven even wondered whether we should start planning funeral arrangements, but I told him no, because I was not going to go there”(McCall). Even if a screening is fully accurate, sometimes it may predict diseases and conditions that lack a cure. Parents are then forced to live with the knowledge that their child will eventually begin to suffer and potentially even die. For some parents, this can create an emotional detachment from the child. For others, it could cause the parents to become overprotective and try to unrealistically shelter the child.

Two different types of genetic screening are possible: general screening and specific screening both of which pose unique ethical problems. Generic screening attempts to identify any possible disease or condition, while specific screening focuses on identifying only one particular disease or condition. Both of these options raise questions as to whether or not consent should be required. With the option of generic screening, the potential for multiple false positives increases; the potential for false positives decreases with specific screening. Informed consent has been an issue since genetic screening was developed, “there was limited attention to consent issues, and there was concern that asking for consent would undermine the program’s public health mission”(Timmermans). Scientists worry that asking for consent would slow down the “mission” of advancing the field of genetics, however, critics argue that failing to receive parental consent tugs at those uncomfortable edges between ethical and unethical.

Early detection of genetic disorders and reassurance that no disease exists exemplify potential benefits of genetic screening. However, its underdevelopment and ethical complications outweigh its benefits. “Huge gaps exist in our understanding of genetic condition”(Timmermans). For this reason, the science requires much more extensive research in order to perfect it for routine use. This raises questions regarding the effectiveness of the science, and critics wonder whether or not the long term benefits will always be worth it.

Works Cited

Aleccia, JoNel. "Babies' Blood Tests Can End in False-positive Screening Scares." TODAY HEALTH.

NBC NEWS, 9 May 2011. Web. 15 Apr. 2014. <http://www.today.com/id/42829175/ns/today-today_health/t/babies-blood-tests-can-end-false-positive-screening-scares/#.U1ZzmfldXch>.

Almond, Brenda. "Genetic Profiling of Newborns: Ethical and Social Issues." Nature.com. Nature

Publishing Group, Jan. 2006. Web. 3 Feb. 2014. <http://www.nature.com/nrg/journal/v7/n1/full/nrg1745.html>.


Bleicher, Ariel. "Perils of Newborn Screening." Scientificamerican.com. Scientific American, 1 July

2012. Web. 03 Feb. 2014. <http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/perils-of-newborn-screening/?page=2>

Halsey, Dale, Janet Williams, and Patricia Donahue. "Ethical Issues in Genetic Testing."Medscape.com. Medscape, n.d. Web. 03 Feb. 2014. <http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/505222_4>.


McCall, Paula. "Cystic Fibrosis: A Family Faces a Child's Care Side by Side."Better Medicine. Health Grades, 2011. Web. 23 Apr. 2014. <http://www.bettermedicine.com/story/cystic-fibrosis-a-family-faces-a-childs-care-side-by-side%3Bjsessionid%3D915C3F8A7BE868517A09C20F4B216FA7?redirect=beme>.


"Sequenced from the Start." Nature.com. Nature Publishing Group, 11 Sept. 2013. Web. 3 Feb. 2014. <http://www.nature.com/news/sequenced-from-the-start-1.13712>.


Timmermans, Stefan. "Genetic Screening: Every Newborn a Patient." Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles Times, 19 July 2013. Web. 03 Feb. 2014. <http://articles.latimes.com/2013/jul/19/opinion/la-oe-timmermans-infant-genetic-screening-20130719>.

How Virgin Galactic Can Help Change Global Warming

Virgin Galactic's Mothership and SpaceShip Two
(6.)

Fossil fuels, biofuels and biomass combust form black carbon, one of global warming’s largest man-made agents. It stands in our atmosphere to absorb as much solar energy as possible, thus, warming the planet. As a result, scientists and enthusiasts are exploring for a way to reduce the production of global warming agents. So the question is: who can help fix this problem? Virgin Galactic, a commercial spaceliner, serves to help change global warming’s standing, as its resources and strategies will result in global warming’s decline in the distant future. Virgin Galactic’s main strategy in combating global warming will be cutting down on the amount of soot (also known as black carbon) that it produces in each of its launches.

For those who need a refresher on global warming, it is the continual rising of the temperature of Earth’s atmosphere, thanks to the amount of carbon dioxide, greenhouse gases, and many other harmful pollutants in the air. If global warming continues, the consequences will be dire; the polar ice caps will melt, the sea level will rise, and even arctic animals will die (due to the change of their environment). There have been many procedures that people have followed, in order to try and slow down global warming. Examples of these procedures include recycling paper, carpooling, and even taking shorter showers. Although many people follow these methods, global warming is increasing at a much faster rate, because of the soot emissions that rocket launches are exhausting, as well as other contributions, such as the burning of forests and savannah grasslands. Lauren Morello, the author of “Cutting Soot Emissions May Slow Climate Change in the Arctic,” argues that cutting down on the emission of soot is one of the quickest ways to slow down the rate of global warming. Furthermore, Morello states that cutting back on soot emission in a 15 year span can result in the reduction of the earth’s warming by 17 to 23 percent. The reason for this is because soot emissions only stay in the atmosphere for a short amount of time, rather than a lengthy period, such as carbon dioxide, which stays in the air for over 50 years. Cutting back will decrease the amount of soot in the atmosphere, which will result in soot absorbing less solar energy.

Virgin Galactic appears to be one of Earth’s best solutions to its problem. Although recycling and those other methods may have some effect, Virgin Galactic will make a much larger change by itself. Virgin Galactic is an American based, British owned company that plans to provide commercial spaceflights to the public. Sometime in the near future, it will have its own spaceport, named “Spaceport America,” in New Mexico. Traveling with them will be costly, as the cost to reserve a seat for a space trip is $250,000. Why does it cost so much? My best guess is because since it is a brand new industry, the demand for purchasing tickets is at an extremely high level. Virgin Galactic is a much bigger factor in improving our status in global warming than most people think. Matteo Emanuelli, the author of “Branson Claims SpaceShipTwo is Environmentally Benign,” observes that the ship is more environmentally friendly than other space shuttles. Unlike traditional space shuttles, the hybrid engines of Virgin Galactic’s SpaceShipTwo doesn’t burn as much fuel or need enormous rockets to reach suborbitals altitudes. According to Virgin Galactic’s website, their spacecrafts have a carbon composite construction, which is four times the strength of traditional steel, but only a quarter of the weight. As a result of the spacecraft being so light, the spacecraft does not require the disposable rockets, that you would see during space shuttle launches, to reach those altitudes. With no disposable rockets on the spacecraft, there will not be any debris left over that pollutes a habitat on the ground, or even in the water. The fact that Virgin Galactic’s ships do not require as much fuel and power to launch as conventional shuttles support that argument that they’re much more efficient and environmentally friendly than regular spacecrafts.

Tanya Lewis, the author of “How Virgin Galactic Private SpaceShipTwo Will Launch Science Flights,” argues that Virgin Galactic’s ships don’t have to be just for commercial purposes. She states that space shuttles can also help out with scientific research. Furthermore, she digresses that scientists can fly along with their equipment, or just send them up on flights dedicated for payloads. To reduce weight on the spacecraft, pilots can remove seats, which also makes room for the equipment. In order to further research, Virgin Galactic is looking to mount experiments outside of the ship, for specific purposes, of course. One example of an experiment that Virgin Galactic will help conduct will involve the collection of particles that are floating in space. Perhaps in the future, Virgin Galactic can make trips that are beyond the Earth’s atmosphere, such as to the moon, or even deep space, for scientific exploration and discovery.

Due to Virgin Galactic’s efficacy, Earth will soon reduce its ongoing problem of global warming. Thanks to their techniques and strategies, such as using hybrid engines, rather than the traditional shuttle engines, the spacecrafts will be as environmentally-friendly as possible. Although soot emissions stay up in the atmosphere for only a few weeks, the cut in emissions will make a major impact. With the cut in emissions, there will be less soot, or black carbon, in the atmosphere absorbing the sun’s energy. Global warming has baffled the world for quite some time now, but I believe with the implementation of the aircraft shuttle Virgin Galactic, the pressing issue can be lessened.

Works Cited

(1.) “Space hitch-hiker” Nature 467 (October 27, 2010) http://goo.gl/A5Z1Ik


(2.) Lauren Morello, “Cutting Soot Emissions May Slow Climate Change in the Arctic,” Scientific American, Climatewire, August 2, 2010, http://goo.gl/kJdaT3


(3.) “Black Carbon Causes Twice As Much Global Warming Than Previously Thought,” The Guardian, January 15, 2013, http://goo.gl/3haL9m


(4.) Matteo Emanuelli, “Branson Claims SpaceShipTwo is Environmentally Benign,” Space Safety Magazine, May 14, 2013, http://goo.gl/dBDsHS


(5.) Tanya Lewis, “How Virgin Galactic Private SpaceShipTwo Will Launch Science Flights,” Space.com, October 19, 2013, http://goo.gl/0dzuSQ

(6.) Photo credited to Tom Wigley, http://goo.gl/bqTq4U

Do-It-Youself Biology

BMW Guggenheim Community Lab

 

 

 

 

Kay Aull created and constructed a genetic test for haemochromatosis, a disease one can develop from the build-up of iron in the body (3). Raymond McCauley worked on his own genome sequence to test whether he could prevent macular degeneration through diet (3). Both of these people accomplished great feats in biology, yet they are not professional scientists nor researchers and they did not produce their work in a lab (3). Aull graduated from Massachusetts Institute of Technology and works as a lab technician. She made her test in her apartment in Boston, using old equipment (3). McCauley is a bioinformatician who tested his theory in his home lab and even carried out his own clinical trial (3). The scientific community refers to these innovators, who have an interest in science and independently perform biological engineering research and experiments, as do-it-yourself biologists, biohackers, or biopunks (1). This independent biology movement is growing at a rapid pace and interest in DIYbio community labs is on the rise (4). Currently, only the elite in the biological community have the right to conduct their research. DIY biologists hope to reach the goal of increasing equality in the biological community and decreasing restrictions placed on biohackers. In order to legitimize these citizen scientists in the eyes of society and support democratization in the biology community, the government needs to regulate where the biohackers’ research is allowed to be conducted, who is permitted to oversee this research, and what types of studies the DIY biologists can undertake.

Do-it-yourself biologists wish to help the community and have made several new innovations, including an inexpensive device for diagnosing malaria and a cheap alternative to commercial machines for the polymerase chain reaction (5). Biopunks gained more notoriety throughout the scientific community by creating innovations that are not helpful to society but are very interesting, such as a glowing plant (5). Society demands new scientific innovations to keep up with modern technology and medicine, but frowns upon any new invention that may be harmful. Society also demands that the innovations be safe and come from professional scientists, making it difficult for do-it-yourself biologists to maintain legitimacy, despite their many important scientific discoveries. While a DIY biologist makes just as many discoveries as a professional scientist, the science community still considers him or her an amateur who threatens the safety of society. If the government funds community lab spaces for biohackers, more innovations will be created to benefit society (5). Society would take the do-it-yourself biology movement more seriously if the government regulated the biohackers’ citizen science spaces and biopunks conducted more relevant research.

In 2010, a small group of biology enthusiasts in the San Francisco Bay Area asked for donations to start a community-operated laboratory (4). They raised thirty-five thousand dollars from their online fundraising campaign. Eric Gentry, a cofounder of the hacklab, used this money to rent twenty-four thousand square feet of space in Sunnyvale, California (4). Gentry received equipment from donors and filled the lab, which he named “Biocurious.” Biocurious opened in October 2011 as one of the dozen citizen science hackerspaces in the United States (4). Computer programmers, artists, and engineers have used community lab spaces for a long time, but the concept of wet lab workspaces for biologists is new and popularity is increasing (4). The government could further regulate the growth of do-it-yourself biology by only permitting biopunks to work in established community lab spaces that are pre approved by the government.

Once the government has approved these public citizen science lab spaces, they will be able to control the biopunks’ research by mandating safety guidelines in the labs. Even without government regulation, DIY biologists have already been proactive in addressing safety concerns (2). Genspace was the first community lab developed in the United States for do-it-yourself biologists (2). In December 2011, they recruited a safety advisory board made up of government, industry, and academic professionals to answer any safety questions from the members of the community lab (2). Scientists addressed the board about projects that required a Biosafety Level 1 environment (2).

For the broader citizen science community, DIYbio.org and the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars launched the “Ask a Biosafety Expert” web portal, which allows biohackers to ask questions about safety and security in the citizen science spaces (Kuiken). In Spring 2011, DIYbio.org and the Wilson Center made a draft of the first do-it-yourself biology code of conduct (2). The government could produce its own code of conduct, possibly based on this draft, to regulate safety guidelines for the biohackers to follow. If their studies uphold these guidelines, the biologists should be permitted to experiment in whichever field they choose. Community laboratory spaces have also served as a place for biohackers to discuss any biosafety concerns they may have while conducting their research (2). Citizen science lab spaces approved by the government would have to go over the safety code of conduct once a week, with all biohacker members of the lab present.

Most do-it-yourself biologists are young, educated, nonviolent, nonthreatening, and simply interested in biotechnology. A survey found that thirty-six percent of the biopunks are under thirty-five years old and seventy-eight percent are less than forty-five years of age (5). The survey also found that only six percent of the biologists said their experiments would require safety precautions against human disease (5). Nineteen percent of those surveyed have retained a doctorate-level degree and twenty-eight percent conduct at least some of their work in corporate, academic, or government labs (5). This survey shows that many of these biopunks are highly educated, so a biology exam should not be required to work in the community lab space, as long as the biohacker has a science background. If the DIY biologist has no background in science, he or she should have to pass an exam to be able to work in the lab, to prove that he or she is legitimately interested in biology. The government should also conduct background checks on anyone who wishes to work in a community lab space. If these potential members of the DIYbio community pass the background test, they should be allowed to work in the community lab spaces, as long as they follow the safety guidelines and attend the regular meetings. If a scientist refuses to work in the lab space and only wishes to work from home, his or her research would be disregarded by the government.

These changes should be implemented as soon and as smoothly as possible in order for biopunks to be legitimized as professionals. The new requirement of working in community wet lab spaces, rather than from a home, will affect few biohackers. A survey found that ninety-two percent of do-it-yourself biologists work at least some of the time in public spaces rather than their own personal space (5). With the mandate that biohackers must only work in community labs, the government can release the requirement of a biology exam and background check to the DIYbio community. Once the biohackers make it through these tests and enter their community lab, their supervisor will share the new safety guidelines. If these precautions are upheld, do-it-yourself biologists will be taken seriously by other scientists, society will feel safe, and beneficial research will be produced in community laboratories.






1. DIY Bio. P2P Foundation. P2P Foundation, 1 Oct. 2013. Web. 27 Feb. 2014. http://p2pfoundation.net/DIY_Bio

2. Kuiken, Todd. DIYbio: Low Risk, High Potential. The Scientist. LabX Media Group, 1 March 2013. Web. 3 Feb. 2014. http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/34443/title/DIYbio--Low-Risk--High-Potential/

3. Penders, Bart. DIY Biology. Academia. Nature, 14 April 2011. Web. 3 Feb. 2014. http://www.academia.edu/537068/DIY_Biology

4. Scudellari, Megan. Biology Hacklabs. The Scientist. The Scientist Magazine, 1 Mar. 2013. Web. 27 Feb. 2014. http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/34469/title/Biology-Hacklabs/

5. The DIY Dilemma. Nature: 503, 437-438. Nature Publishing Group, 26 Nov. 2013. Web. 3 Feb. 2014. http://www.nature.com/news/the-diy-dilemma-1.14240

Time Travel and its Paradoxes

Doctor Who's Tardis from the hit show

Stephen Hawking claims time travel is impossible. Since then, scientists alike explore time travel’s many facets and discover more to time travel than traveling from one point in time to another. When our mind travels from one place to another, or when we daydream, our minds displace with time. Though imaginative, it can be said that this is a way one travels through time. Doctor Who, television’s most celebrated time traveling show, stretches millions’ minds when one pushes possible limits. Though Doctor Who cannot support the theory of time travel itself, the BBC’s ability to play with the possibilities encourages mankind to do the same whether in science, art or individuals’ goals. Curiosity in something we know little about inspires others to discover new opportunities, for not accepting time travel as true but challenging it influences mankind’s motivation and intellect.


Phil Dowe’s curiosity led him to understand time travel’s possibilities, which suggests that pushing the scientific limits caters to the mind’s creativity. He argues that though he has not seen someone travel from one point in their life to another, it is possible to travel between places when we daydream or dream during the night (1). Similarly, the producers of Doctor Who looked towards curiosity to stretch science’s limits. In the show, they created a new time travel world for the doctor himself, and the audience absorbs this imagination and saves it for later (2). Through his own curiosity and research, Dowe was able to create something that everyone assumed false as a possibility. Whether there is evidence or not, both Doctor Who and Dowe have not proved Hawking’s theory false but rather added onto the possibilities of a scientific advancement that was always considered false. The additions and specializations of knowledge increase the intelligence of our world, and it starts with curiosity.


Peter Riggs denies entertainment the ability to play with the theories of time travel because he proclaims it isn’t possible, and allowing mankind to think it exists is a disservice. The disservice gives false hope, and this in turn is not helpful or efficient for movement forward. His argument parallels the Grandfather Paradox; if a person could time travel, they could go back in time and kill their younger self. They currently exist though, so how would they have killed themselves (4)? He accepted this paradox as true, and thus does not allow any interpretations of it. While thinking about this abstract concept, he disapproves anyone, including the producers of Doctor Who, who allow other to think of time travel as a possibility in our lifestyles because any mention of it is “not taken seriously” and “somewhat bizarre” (4). The Nature article suggests that though evidence does not currently exist, seeing science bent and warped facilitates new scientific advances, so seeing them in the media is in fact beneficial.


If a man is brave enough to challenge the laws of science, his influence will be seen not just in the sciences of the future, but the arts, humanities and the history books. Time travel’s exploration has already been seen in the arts such as Doctor Who and The Time Traveler’s Wife, but this arsenal will continue to grow. Without looking at scientific advances from another angle, everything we currently know will be the only information in the world. When Phil Dowe thought of spatial travel as a form of time travel, it was a new theory in the science world, but his works have been seen in the arts, humanities and now the history books. Peter Riggs was no doubt recognized for his work in the sciences, but he simply gave his own reasoning for a theory that has already existed. When one challenges something so passionately, the result is seen, understood and absorbed in multiple mediums of relative education.


Interest in time travel has facilitated the introduction of new scientific theories not just in the science world but the arts and humanities. Without challenging theories that mankind has previously understood as false, we wouldn’t see the overlap of arts and humanities like we see in Doctor Who. It is men like Phil Dowe who defy odds and inspire others to do the same that we learn how everything fits together.




1. Dowe, Phil. "The Case for Time Travel." Journals.cambridge.org. N.p., 8 Sept. 2000. Web. 03 Feb. 2014. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3751943

2. Lewis, Davis. "The Paradoxes of Time Travel." JSTOR.com. University of Illinois Press, n.d. Web. 03 Feb. 2014. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20009616

3. "Playful Paradoxes." Nature.com. Nature Publishing Group, 30 Oct. 2013. Web. 3 Feb. 2014. http://www.nature.com/news/playful-paradoxes-1.14046

4. Riggs, Peter J. "The Principal Paradox of Time Travel." - Riggs. Wiley Online Library, 17 Dec. 2002. Web. 03 Feb. 2014. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/store/10.1111/1467-9329.00026/asset/1467-9329.00026.pdf;jsessionid=B33C72042A1B1883A8E37210B48D78F3.f04t03?v=1&t=hsxfygfd&s=f10aed05dd0a7280fe28d399a7666108e4174924

5. Suddendorf, Thomas, and Michael C. Corballis. "Mental Time Travel and the Evolution of the Human Mind." Cogprints.org. N.p., 11 Mar. 2011. Web. 03 Feb. 2014. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9204544

Straying Away from Animal Testing

Animal testing exhibited in a lab

The basis for testing new medicines and other products on animals as a method for determining human safety follows the belief that a human life is valuable and should be protected at any cost. Yet, research has found that if a coin was flipped to judge how a human will respond to particular product or drug, that prediction would be equally as accurate as testing the drug on a nonhuman species (4). Such a low percentage of accurate human response prediction calls to question both the effectiveness and necessity of animal testing. Failed experiments continue to highlight the differences between animal and human genomes, and to continue testing animals would be counterproductive. The amount of animal testing in laboratories should be reduced, as it has scientifically become outdated by new technology that more accurately reflects the human genome.

Advocates of animal testing argue that animals are an accurate predictor of how humans will react to new drugs or medical products. However, the ongoing failure of experiments based off of animal testing demonstrates the falsehood of this argument . In the late 1950’s and early 1960’s, approximately 10,000 babies were born with birth defects and thousands of fetal deaths occurred as a result of the disconnect between animal reactivity to a drug and assumed human reactivity (2). The drug that caused this tragedy, Thalidomide, was released to the market and was originally considered an effective solution for insomnia, and later an effective solution for nausea and morning sickness for pregnant women (2). The drug passed initial animal testing, and the reliance on animal testing allowed it to be released to the public (2). A more recent example of the dangers in predicting human behavior after animal behavior is the administration of a voluntary trial for the drug TGN 1412 in Britain. TGN 1412 was approved for human testing after success was seen in animal testing as an anti-inflammatory (3). The trial was performed in London on six healthy, young males. Hours after being injected with the drug, the six young men ended up in critical care as multiple organs began failing (3). Despite years of improved drug regulation since the thalidomide tragedy, the disconnect between the animal and human genome remains and the inference that animals serve as an accurate indicator for humans continues to be detrimental for human health.

In response to continued findings that animal testing does not serve as the best indicator for human safety, new technology is being pursued to serve as a replacement to such a dated practice. In vitro practices serve as the most commonly used methods for replacing animals in testing new medical products (5). In vitro testing involves the use of cell cultures in test tubes. The benefits of this method are that not only can researchers use human cells to predict human behavior, but they can also study human reactivity on the cellular level, which is important as cell cultures can demonstrate the lowest amount of concentration at which a substance causes damage to the cell (5). The new emphasis being placed on using only human based data in the scientific community has facilitated immense progress, specifically in the fields of vaccine development and testing, as well as therapeutic research (1). With the use of in vitro technology, a surrogate in vitro human immune system has been created to better assess the human immune response to a specific vaccine or drug (1). This method of scientific testing not only accurately reflects the human genome, but it also shortens the discovery time for human response predictions in drug and vaccine testing (1). This system of scientific testing has statistically produced more accurate pre-clinical data as compared to data gathered through animal testing (1).

In conjunction with the progress gathered through human cell based research, computer simulated models are also being developed to better mimic human response. Currently the most common form of using computer models in predicting human response is in the field of trauma, which has served to be a very useful tool for military operation (5). An example of this type of alternative is the Combat Trauma Patient Simulator, which can reproduce human hemorrhaging, amputations, burns and fractures (5). Previously, animals were used in order to develop methods to these trauma symptoms and underwent processes such as burning their skin to see the results of medications (5). With the use of innovations such as the Combat Trauma Patient Simulator, the necessity of animals in labs becomes impractical and the suffering of these animals resultantly would end.

Scientific tests such as cell culture and computer models serve as more accurate tests in that researchers can trace back to the root of any observed problems as they can monitor progressions throughout the entire research, whereas, with animals, problems could be attributed to a variety of undiscovered issues that may only pertain to a specific species (5). The emphasis being placed on transitioning away from animal testing and focusing more on the human condition has produced more accurate and effective data in a multitude of scientific fields. As a result of this progress, the need for animal testing has become obsolete.


Works Cited

1. Ferdowsian, Hope R., and Nancy Beck. "Ethical And Scientific Considerations Regarding Animal Testing And Research."Plos ONE 6.9 (2011): 1-4. Academic Search Complete. Web. 18 Feb.. 2014.
http://eds.a.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=8f7f3331-ebb4-40d0-a144-e6c18dc23277%40sessionmgr4001&vid=3&hid=4211

2. Fintel, Bara, Athena T. Samaras, and Edson Carias. "Helix Magazine." The Thalidomide Tragedy: Lessons for Drug Safety and Regulation. N.p., 28 July 2009. Web. 25 Feb. 2014.
http://helix.northwestern.edu/article/thalidomide-tragedy-lessons-drug-safety-and-regulation

3. Healy, Bernadine. "The Tribulation Of Trials." U.S. News & World Report 140.12 (2006): 66. Academic Search Complete. Web. 16 Feb. 2014.

http://eds.a.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=10&sid=6f80a016-eb4e-4d74-9e5a-b835c2d669c0%40sessionmgr4004&hid=4108&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZSZzY29wZT1zaXRl#db=a9h&AN=20273163

4. "Limitations and Dangers | Animal Use in Research." Limitations and Dangers | Animal Use in Research. N.p., n.d. Web. 16 Mar. 2014. 

http://www.neavs.org/research/limitations

5. RANGANATHA, N., and I. J. KUPPAST. "A Review On Alternatives To Animal Testing Methods In Drug Development."International Journal Of Pharmacy & Pharmaceutical Sciences 4.(2012): 28-32. Academic Search Complete. Web. 16 Feb. 2014.
.http://eds.a.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=12&sid=6f80a016-eb4e-4d74-9e5a-b835c2d669c0%40sessionmgr4004&hid=4108

Global Warming Polarizes More Than Just Extreme Temperatures

Hikers in Melting Ice Caps

Climate change skepticism is not rooted in lack of knowledge or ignorance of key terms, but rather based on political party affiliation. In the past fifteen years, the belief in global warming gap between Democrats and Republicans has consistently widened; Democrats increasingly believe that global warming is occurring due to Al Gore leading the charge in carbon emission discoveries, while Republican skepticism in climate change data has caused a lack of belief in global warming.

The controversial effect of global warming is the increasing difference in seasonal temperatures. Climate is the accumulation of temperature and precipitation trends in certain areas of the world. Climate is often confused with weather, which is the experienced temperature and precipitation at any given moment. Global warming skeptics tend to proclaim that the Earth’s climate is not increasing due to the vastly cold temperatures in the winter; however, they are referring to regional reports of weather rather than of climate. These long durations of cold weather reports in the wintertime are attributed to the shift in the jet stream caused by the increasing average temperature of the Earth (i.e. climate).

Scientific statistics comparing the rise in emissions of greenhouse gases and the rise in the global average temperature prove that global warming does exist (4), but the reason for doubt in these statistics is not based on the public’s mistake of confusing the definitions of climate and weather; the doubt in these statistics resides in political bias. However, climate skeptics use the definition of weather in place of climate as a strategy to show their climate change disbelief. Record low temperatures in 2013 and 2014 in the southeastern United States gives means for climate change doubters to question global warming claims (1). While the author of the Nature article claims that their doubt in global warming arises from a lack of knowledge, political statistics show that their knowledge may not be lacking (2). The percentage of republicans who believe in global warming has declined from 49% to 42% in the past decade; these republicans believe that the media exaggerates the effects of global warming. On the other hand, the percentage of Democrats who believe that global warming is an occurring phenomenon has increased from 61% to 76% in the last decade.

Politicians at Climate Change Conference

The polarization of climate change support between Democrats and Republicans originates with President Ronald Reagan and his statement that “environment support hurts the economy” (2). Republican leaders (e.g. President George W. Bush) assert that there are more pressing issues than global warming, causing Republicans not to support global warming initiatives. As followers, Republican constituents tend to share the same idea as their leaders, so a more Republicans find other political issues more pressing than do Democrats, who strongly support green energy initiatives.

About 60% (in 2008 and declining) of Republicans believe that global warming is not actually caused by human activity, but by a natural fluctuation of the global average temperature (2). Their reasoning emerged from a 2008 scandal by Climategate, which revealed scientists giving false information about recent climate trends and actual climate graphs portraying an oscillation of global temperature rather than a rising one (3). Democrats, on the other hand, support the vast studies done by many scientists showing the direct trends between carbon emissions and rise in global temperature (4).

Al Gore ran part of his 2000 presidential campaign on green energy reform, calling for a need to reduce carbon emissions. As a result, a surge of Democrats began to research and believe in Gore’s claims. His 2004 movie, An Inconvenient Truth, also sparked climate change support from Democrats and other scholars because of his video evidence and scientific data to support his claims that carbon emissions directly affect the average global temperature. Because Al Gore released his movie just four years after his presidential campaign, conservatives were still unsupportive of his proposals. In fact, a sharp decline of Republican belief in the seriousness of global warming ensued in 2004 (2), the same year Al Gore began his Inconvenient Truth campaign.

In the past fifteen years, the belief in global warming gap between Democrats and Republicans has consistently widened; Democrats increasingly believe that global warming is occurring due to Al Gore leading the charge in carbon emission discoveries, while Republican skepticism in climate change data has caused a lack of belief in global warming. The increase in polarization between party lines, in effect, causes the polarization between climate change skeptics and climate change believers. Climate change skepticism is based on political party affiliation rather than ignorance in proven scientific facts.



1. "Cool Heads Needed." Nature News. Nature Publishing Group, 15 Jan. 2013. Web. 29 Jan. 2014.


2. Dunlap, Riley E., and Aaron M. McCright. "A Widening Gap: Republican and Democratic Views on Climate Change." Tandfonline. N.p., 7 Aug. 2010. Web. 3 Feb. 2014. <http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.3200/ENVT.50.5.26-35>.


3. Ferrara, Peter. "'Fakegate' Follows 'Climategate'" Townhall.com. N.p., 7 Mar. 2012. Web. 18 Feb. 2014. <http://townhall.com/columnists/peterferrara/2012/03/07/fakegate_follows_climategate/page/full>.

4. Karl, Thomas R., and Kevin E. Trenberth. "Modern Global Climate Change." Science Online. Facts On File News Services, 5 Dec. 2003. Web. 3 Feb. 2014. <http://www.sciencemag.org/content/302/5651/1719.full>.