This is the very first blog post for 2017 Science Scholars 102, and comes with its very own cutesy picture of a sunset. Very heartwarming. The fact that every single First Blog Post in WordPress probably has the exact same cutesy picture makes it slightly less heartwarming of course, but let’s not quibble.
You have to write blog posts for Science Scholars. You may hate this. You probably will. But if you cannot communicate your ideas to other people, you might as well give up and become a mathematician or something. Oh… wait… never mind. Erase that thought.
But seriously, writing science is almost as important as doing science. Maybe even as important. So grit your teeth and write those blog posts.
Make a serious effort at your posts. One sentence will make you look like a bit of a twit. A lazy twit. 20 pages will make you look very intellectual and serious, but is probably a bit overboard.
Probably a couple of pages is appropriate. Something like that. With proper speling, and gramar; of course?
Read the posts of your classmates. Comment on them. Start discussions. Talk about the issues raised. (Keep it courteous and professional of course, but you don’t need me to tell you this.) Think about what makes a good blog post, and what doesn’t. Try to improve your own contributions.
And remember, this is not just a meaningless assessment task. It’s an opportunity for you to learn how to communicate science, as all scientists must.
Should an individual’s family be responsible for their relatives’ body and organs after their death, having the last say? Should someone, dying of a terminal illness or organ failure, give in to the undeniable possibility of death because they cannot get an organ transplant – due to the opinions of another, far off family member? Organs give life, and life is one of the main things that we all have in common, yet everyone’s views on this matter are so varied. Isn’t it time we were all on the same page?
In the United States, as of April 2018, there were 114,000 people waiting for an organ transplant, yet in 2017, there were only 34,770 transplants performed. (1) The sheer difference in these numbers is almost incomprehensible, because for every person that lives another day without the organ they desperately need, they are one day closer to death. In fact, 20 people die each day waiting for an organ transplant. But we can change this.
Even though the majority of people are actually in favour of organ transplants, the problem is that it is a much smaller subset of this population that actually goes through with it. 95% of U.S. adults support organ donation, yet only 54% are signed up as donors. Why is this? What I think the main reason is, is that we are human: as a human we have emotions. Emotions can cloud our whole perspective and change even our most positive of intentions. Yes, so many of us want to help others, give others a chance at life if it is at all possible for us to help. But I think we are clouded by fear: fear at how our families would feel, knowing their loved one was being cut up and taken apart as soon as they die, regardless of the good they are bringing to the world. Fear of the thought of yourself being taken apart, piece by piece, and not being laid to rest peacefully for eternity. Maybe this isn’t the general case; everyone has different reasons, opinions and beliefs, but the reality is this: every 10 minutes, another suffering soul is added to the waiting list for an organ donor.
However, this is just half the story. Sure, part of the reason that so many people do not have access to the organs they need is because of the donors – but the other half is the sheer complicated nature of such a procedure. On top of the fact that when an organ is ‘donated’, there is a very short window of time to transplant this into another individual, the journey after implantation is equally as testing. This is because of the levels of tolerance to an organ. (2) Essentially, when a foreign organ is transplanted into someone else’s body, their body recognises it as a foreign object and immediately gets to work on rejecting the organ – just like your body would try to reject a viral infection as soon as you get sick – although in this case, rejection is not the desired outcome. To overcome this, immunosuppressant medication must be taken for the rest of the patient’s lives so that the immune system doesn’t reject the organ. Therefore, the success of an organ transplant is an ongoing process, and does not stop once the cuts have been stitched up.
Because of the extreme difficulty of a successful organ transplant, it is even more paramount that the number of possible organ donors available keeps increasing. I believe that organ donation is a process that should be talked about more, so that the society today can be more active in discussion with loved ones about the importance of donation of organs. The number of lives that can be saved is the only justification that I think is needed for this act. If you had the opportunity to save a life, would you take it?
School gym class was quite simply, never my favourite. In fact, I probably used every excuse in the book to get out of the daily torture — the twisted ankle, I have the flu, my knee is sore, I forgot my PE gear, can I study for my test instead? The list was endless. People would even joke that I acted as though I was allergic to exercise… but perhaps this wasn’t such a ridiculous excuse.
Exercise Induced Anaphylaxis is a disorder in which anaphylaxis occurs after physical activity and exhibits the same physical symptoms as somebody who is allergic to peanuts, eats them — hives, wheezing, nausea etc — and ceases and the stopping of activity. (1) However, these attacks are typically only triggered when co-factors such as foods, alcohol or temperature are also present. For example in Food Dependent Exercise Induced Anaphylaxis, the reaction will not occur due to exercise, nor the specific food, alone — anaphylaxis develops only if physical activity occurs within a few hours of eating a specific food. (2) So unfortunately, my distaste for, and lack of breath after, exercise, will not allow me to add this ‘allergy’ to by repertoire of excuses for skipping gym class.
Joe O’Leary is (in my opinion), one of the lucky few that have the BEST and most valid excuse for skipping PE class. After splitting having a pizza for dinner one he decided to hit the gym. Only to find that half an hour in: “My eyes were watering, I was having trouble breathing, in another five minutes I was struggling tobreathe. I looked behind me into the mirror, and my eyes were swollen—every part of my face was swollen.” (3) It was later found that the tomatoes he ate as a part of his pizza, in conjunction with his workout, was to blame for his allergic reaction to exercise.
However, for such an odd disorder, we know very little about its mechanism of work, except that when we exercise, blood in travelling more often to the stomach and picking out traces of the food we ingested and this is why people with Food Dependent Exercise Induced Anaphylaxis can eat, tomatoes (for example) and be fine, but once they start exercising have an anaphylactic reaction.
Other than this, exercise allergy is treated as any other allergy — avoid the trigger (such as foods, alcohol or temperature) and carry an epinephrine pen.
So whilst I am definitely not allergic to exercise… and am really just lazy and unfit… this could definitely be worth a try next time the teacher doesn’t believe I have twisted my ankle for the 6th time this month.
Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are evident amongst most major sectors in New Zealand. Research, medicine, agriculture, and education all utilise GMO’s in their respective fields across the world. The scope of genetically modified organisms have endless potential to further countless fields in New Zealand. Included but not restricted to; the modification of genomes to cure disease, making previously uninhabitable environments habitable or to create a sustainable agriculture sector to support our ever increasing population.
But have we given enough thought to the impact and management of GMOs on our ecosystem and the cultural implications with reference to the Maori peoples of New Zealand?
Have we considered the adverse impacts it may have on the diverse range of indigenous flora and fauna found in New Zealand, that are used in traditional Maori medicine for healing purposes?(1) Harakeke (flax), kōwhai and mānuka are renowned for the healing properties they hold in Maori medicine (2), so it is naturally of concern for Maori that flora such as these may be at risk with the introduction of genetically modified organisms.
Maori philosophies and ideas have a large impact on our culture as a society, so surely we must acknowledge the implications that GMO’s may have on this unique aspect of our country. Iwi in New Zealand theorise the DNA of a living being to be the physical expression of the connection we share with the Gods of creation (whanaungatanga).(3) Whanaungatanga connects an individual to all other living things in nature and looks at the physical and spiritual aspects of a being holistically. Changing the genetic makeup of a living thing is, potentially, separating the physical and spiritual, and disregarding the connection between living things and the Gods of creation. Maori ideologies hold nature in very high regard and strongly maintain that it must be protected.
Currently, in New Zealand, precautions have been put in place in order to minimise the negative impact of genetic modification on the ecosystem, which encompasses the protection of flora and fauna that are so valued in Maori culture. The current New Zealand Government restricts the release of any genetically modified organisms under The Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996.(4) It is a criminally prosecutable offence to release a GMO without the approval of the Environmental Risk Management Authority, an independent body who determine whether the benefits of releasing a genetically modified organism outweigh the potential risks. (5)
These restrictions were, even though beneficial to Maori traditionalist views, actually made law in order to protect the diverse and potentially fragile ecosystem that we have in New Zealand. Genetic modification has the potential to give animals or plants an adaptive advantage in their ecological niches. These adaptations may allow them to adapt to, or inhabit the niche of another organism, forcing an organism to either inhabit another niche itself, or face extinction (Gause’s Law). (6) This has every possibility to cause a ‘run on’ effect and drastically change the dynamics of the New Zealand ecosystem by the introduction of organisms with competitive advantages.
When looking at the potential of genetically modified organisms, however, we must acknowledge the potentially limitless benefits it provides in terms of making crops more nutritious and easily accessible. For lower socio-economic families, this could provide a huge opportunity to increase their wellbeing, by gaining access to quality food and avoiding food that is notoriously low in nutrition but easily affordable. This is particularly relevant for Maori families in New Zealand, as they are overrepresented in the low socio-economic sector of our communities. (7) This highlights how the introduction of GMOs raises moral and ethical issues. In terms of the ethical principles of social justice, it is societies moral duty to provide opportunities for equality within our communities, and easily accessible and nutritious food is a large part of this duty. The question is whether this should come at the expense of our unique New Zealand culture.
So whilst it can be agreed that genetically modified organisms offer great potential in fields ranging from agriculture to health, the implications on the New Zealand culture by their introduction must be heavily considered. Genetically modified organisms, in principle, go against key values of Maori culture. So in order for New Zealand, who is made unique because of this culture, to move forward with genetic modification, consultation with qualified iwi must be a priority. I strongly believe that we as a society must respond to the potential of genetically modified organisms with these implications in mind.
The fluoridation of drinking water in New Zealand has been a controversial issue for quite some time. Those who oppose its use mainly argue against its ethics, whereas, parties who condone its use are strong advocates of its medicinal benefits. (2)(3)
Fluoride is a naturally occurring element used in drinking water to protect teeth from demineralisation and in order to remineralise teeth; this reduces the prevalence, in these areas, of tooth decay.(3)
However, overexposure to fluoride can cause dental fluorosis, which typically presents itself in small white marks on the teeth enamel. In fluoridated areas in New Zealand, up to 30% of children display signs of minor dental fluorosis. The problem with fluoridating the NZ water supplies, is that it is unreasonable to monitor how much of the substance is being ingested by each individual. So for the general population it may be perfectly safe, but we cannot be 100% certain that a minority are not receiving a toxic dose. (1) Advocates for water supply fluoridation argue that the amount of fluoride added (remains between 0.7-1.0 parts per million) is not enough to cause this sort of deterioration.(3) They also urge for people against its use to understand that any mineral taken in too high of a dose can be virulent. (4)
Despite this, the benefits of fluoridation are clear. It has been scientifically proven numerous times that it does decrease the frequency of dental tooth decay. (4) Provided the levels of fluoride in the water supply stay between 0.7 and 1.0ppm, the risk of dental fluorosis is minimised, but teeth health is benefited. Fluoride can also be obtained through fluoride toothpastes and a healthy diet. But for those in a lower socio-economic class these are not necessarily obtainable and so by fluoridating the water supply, there is access to a form of dental care regardless of financial circumstances. (4)
By fluoridating the water supplies, anyone in these areas have equal access to some type of dental heath care. For some poorer communities this is the only exposure they will have. It is in these situations where fluoridation is most effective, not in wealthy areas where dental visits and a healthy diet are the norm.(4)
The question has also been raised on whether it is ethical to mass medicate a population without every individuals consent. The general public are robbed of their choice on whether they want to consume fluoridated water or not. In New Zealand it is illegal to medicate anybody without previously having received their consent, so is fluoridation of the water supply breaching this right?(2)
The addition of fluoride into the water supply is addressing aneed to reduce teeth decay, but it is not a necessary mineral for our body to function. It does not aid the bodies health or functioning ability; nobody is deficient in fluoride. Unlike iodine which is added into salt to address a deficiency in general diets, in order to keep the body healthy and working at its optimum performance. Knowing this, is it ethical or economically sound to be fluoridating the water when it is not vital for overall human health? (5)
None-the-less, fluoridated water in cities across New Zealand, has been proven not to cause any serious physiological damage to people in fluoridated areas, but has increased the dental health of its occupants. If this were the only factor, then it would be ludicrous for City Councils not to fluoridate their water supplies. But as it is, there is a large question over the social aspects of its use, and this is what has caused the controversy over its common practice.
It is in my opinion that fluoridation of our water supplies should be continued. ‘Those who are unwilling to drink fluoridated water should not be permitted to impose the risks, damage and cost of failure to fluoridate others. The ethics and science in support of fluoridation are clear, but anti-fluoridation arguments often present a highly misleading picture of water fluoridation.’(4) Fluoride in water supplies is of benefit to everyone who comes into contact with it and in majority of cases will not cause any side effects. But, if an issue were to arise, it would be easier for a small number of people to find alternate pathways around the ingestion of fluoride than for a large portion of the community to try keep good dental heath without it.
While you may be well versed in the spiel of having to clean up our rubbish, what you may not be so well versed in, is how to clean up space rubbish. Space junk, the offcuts of our satellite technologies, is increasingly filling the space orbiting around the earth. But what exactly does this mean?
In our modern digital age, we rely on satellites for almost everything. As a means of communication; it provides us with information, entertainment and connections to every aspect of the world around us. Satellites however are not invincible. They too are subject to breakdowns or a limited life in the same way our computers and electronics at home do. However, what exactly happens to a satellite once it is decommissioned? It is certainly not worth the money and effort to go retrieve it, and so instead it floats in limbo. An endless orbit around the earth. Effectively, it has now become just another piece of space debris – one of the estimated 17,852 earth made objects that are stuck in orbit around our Earth, according to the United States Strategic Command. On top of this you have even smaller pieces of debris also trapped in orbit, small enough that they cannot be tracked, yet big enough that they can cause harm to delicate spacecraft. The more objects we send into the orbit, the higher the chance of a collision, and the more debris we produce. An unsustainable way of utilising a finite space.
Most of this debris is found in two layers of debris – the low Earth orbit (LEO), which acts like a cloud around the Earth and the geosynchronous Earth orbit (GEO), which is found in a ring around the earth
.
Satellites in LEO constantly battle against Earths atmosphere and so will experience orbital decay that will cause them to “burn up” within a decade or two. This is the zone in which we use satellite for things such as topographical mapping. Satellites in the GEO however tend to be the satellites used for industries such as communication or television. These satellites could remain for centuries as the air drag is less significant meaning that orbital decay takes longer. Since the late 1950s, we have released almost 7000 satellites, only about 1,400 of which are still operational. So where do all these satellites go?
Some satellites are moved into what is called the “graveyard orbit”, a disposal orbit in which to move satellites when they are coming to the end of the life, as a means of protecting the operational satellites from a collision. It is also essential for spacecraft as large bits of debris can be tracked and avoided, but the small debris (a result of collisions) cannot be tracked. It can cause damage along the same lines of sandblasting which is far from ideal considering the delicate optics these satellites are often equipped with. To combat these collisions, the International Telecommunication Union now require evidence that a satellite can be moved out of orbit when it is no longer operational, however with no international space law to enforce this, it often falls on deaf ears. Collisions however still occur, such as the European Space Agency’s telecom satellite Olympus-1 which was struck by a meteoroid in 1993 and then moved to the graveyard orbit. This movement to the graveyard orbit however, is only a short term solution, as the orbital space is a finite resource and the more junk littering it, the less effective operational satellites will become and the less successful space missions will become.
There is no one answer about what to do to deal with the impending threat of space debris. Increasing congestion of these earth orbits is a detrimental cycle that has to be addressed. It is not effective to retrieve the space junk and it is not effective to only implement proactive legislation as the level of debris is already huge. How exactly to handle this issue is one of the biggest facing science today.
Sulfur. Mostly seen as a beautiful lemon yellow element, and sulfur compounds are notorious for being responsible for the smell of Rotorua. Perhaps sulfur gets a bad reputation for this. However, it is one of my favourite elements, because it has extremely interesting chemistry and applications. It is a non-metal, and has an atomic number of 16.
Sulfur has been known since antiquity, and is known as ‘brimstone’ in the Holy Bible. Scientist Antoine Lavoisier, in 1777, declared sulfur to be an element. Historically, it was obtained in volcanic regions through sulfur mining. These posed extremely dangerous conditions for workers – they were exposed to a variety of toxins, were high on a volcano, and often had little to no protection. This method is still sometime used, but in modern times, sulfur is obtained from oil refining, where hydrogen sulfide is a by-product. See the reactions below:
R-S-R + 2 H2→ 2 RH + H2S
3 O2+ 2 H2S → 2 SO2 + 2 H2O
SO2+ 2 H2S → 3 S + 2 H2O
Sulfur, at room temperature and normal atmospheric pressure, normally exists as the allotrope S8. The melting point of sulfur in this form is 115.21 degrees Celsius, and the boiling point is 444.6 degrees Celsius. An interesting fact about sulfur is that is has more than 30 allotropes. This is the most out of all the elements. It also reacts with the majority of elements, and sulfur is the 10th most common element. A famous reaction is the burning of sulfur in oxygen, forming the toxic gas sulfur dioxide. Sulfur is formed inside stars and is created from the fusion of a silicon and helium nucleus. Furthermore, it is present as S2- (sulfide anion) in meteorites. As mentioned previously, it is found near volcanoes and also in salt domes due to bacteria.
Although known for its bad smell, sulfur itself is odourless. It is sulfur compounds, especially organic ones, that have odour. An example? Skunk spray. Furthermore, hydrogen sulfide is the smell associated with anaerobic digestion and the smell of rotting eggs. However, not all sulfur compounds smell bad – the smell of grapefruit is due to sulfur-containing compounds!
Sulfur forms many oxoacids, oxoanions, and oxides. It is also present in several organic compounds, the most notable being thiols. Examples include allicin (the main ingredient in garlic) and penicillin, a notable antibiotic. Actually, sulfur is present in a variety of drugs. Sulfuric acid is the most abundantly produced inorganic compound, having important applications in fertiliser production. Carbon disulfide is used to manufacture the fabric rayon, and calcium sulfate is used in the production of concrete. Magnesium sulfate is utilised in bath salts and also as a laxative (eek). Let us not forget sulfur’s role in wine-making – without sulfites, bacteria would grow excessively in wine and we would be unable to drink it. Additionally, sulfur plays a massive role in biology. Disulfide bonds are important for protein structure – they increase firmness. The amino acid methionine, which contains sulfur, is one of the fundamental amino acids for humans.
Current research on sulfur includes reducing the production of acid rain, a result of burning fossil fuels. Researchers are experimenting with sulfur in producing a new type of plastic, which would hopefully give ‘waste sulfur’ from fossil fuels a purpose.
This is it. 2 weeks left until the end of year exams. Right now, I’m mentally preparing myself to hunker down at my desk for days on end. I’m stocking up on ramen and organising a bible and a half worth of past tests. But too often do I find myself wondering… is all my preparation even going to help? Because they say that 80% of your results come from 20% of your work. I’m spending so much time worrying about what and when to study but I bet that many of us have never truly considered how we study. So here are some more study tips that, if done right, might just get you the grade you want without poring over your notes at 2am on the night before the test.
1. Classical Schmassical
You’ve probably seen and heard on the Interweb that listening to classical music can sharpen your mind because of the Mozart effect. If you’re the type of person who studies while listening to music in the background, especially music by the likes of Mozart, STOP. What you’ve been doing was based on a study done in 1993 which found that the test scores of college students improved if they listened to music by Mozart in the background. Or, at least, this was what was found according to the media. This study was published in the journal Nature and the media, as always, sensationalized the original results.
The college students were only tested on spatial intelligence, the kind of smarts you use when folding a paper plane or solving a maze, which happened to improve when listening to Mozart’s beats albeit for only a quarter of an hour. Unfortunately, an improvement in one type of intelligence doesn’t necessarily mean improvements in other types (an athlete might improve their fine motor intelligence with enough practice in their sport but may not necessarily get better at solving differential equations i.e. improving their mathematical intelligence).
Furthermore, 10 years later, researchers performed what has been referred to as the most comprehensive meta-analysis ever. Called the “Mozart-Shmozart Effect”, the meta-analysis found that between 40 studies conducted on the Mozart Effect, there was little evidence to suggest that listening to classical music improves performance on specific tasks and zero evidence that it improves your intelligence.
2. Talk to the Hand
They say that 80% of your communication is done non-verbally and if you’ve ever noticed, the best communicators never keep their hands to their sides. That lecturer who’s always walking across the front talking loudly and often waving their hands about is doing you a favour. Studies show that watching someone use their hands while they talk can help you better understand the information they’re presenting and even helps you to remember it for the future.
But watching someone gesticulate profusely not only benefits you, it benefits the person doing the gesticulating as well. This is where you talk to the hand. By using your hands while you’re explaining a tricky concept or repeating out loud that essay you’re trying to memorize, you’re decreasing the amount of energy spent to keep things in your short-term memory; you’re reducing the “cognitive load” of saying things to memorize them. The task of remembering information is shared across various parts of your body so your brain has to do less memory work. This helps you to learn faster and increase your ability to absorb and retain information.
3. Argue with Yourself
We all know that studying isn’t enough. It’s how you study that matters. And as you’ve probably figured out by now, there are tonnes of ways to better your study regime but some of those ways are scientifically unverified bs. However, there is one that was only recently discovered and proven to work by researchers at Columbia University. You learn best when you argue with yourself.
Now, I’m not talking about a straight up yelling contest between you and yourself. Arguing with yourself means asking questions about what you know, coming up with alternative explanations to things you might take for granted and constantly saying in your head, “why?”. It’s like having a mini-me on your shoulder and criticising your every thought. Your goal is to please that little monster with evidence and logic.
In Columbia’s March 2017 study, 2 hypothetical mayoral candidates were running for an election and students were required to do activities regarding that election. One group of students wrote a dialogue that a supporter for each candidate would have with one another while another group wrote an essay about the positive things about each candidate. Afterwards, both groups wrote a TV script about their favourite candidate. What researchers found was that students who wrote the dialogue showed greater understanding of the subject in their TV scripts, with references to city problems and the candidates’ proposed actions as well as criticisms of their proposed actions and linking different problems and actions together. The dialogue group showed less “absolutist” reasoning and had more flexible opinions which were based on the latest information.
The lead author of the study said that coming up with opposing views shapes how people perceive knowledge itself. Instead of associating knowledge with facts, arguing with themselves allows people to see knowledge as “information that can be scrutinized in a framework of alternatives and evidence.”
Note that while the above studies were carried out on students and the study tips are most applicable to students, learning can happen at any time and at any age. Really. Even on your deathbed, when a white, bearded male doesn’t come down from the heavens and greets you as one of his offspring, you’ll learn something new.
From the moment we hear the first utterance of musical notes from our baby mobiles, it is obvious how much of an impact music can have. This effect is perhaps most profound and noticeable in the context of our emotions. In such a way, songs have the ability to brighten happiness, deepen despair and accomplish everything in-between. But how does this mechanism work in a scientific context? Is there any substance to the idea that just listening to music can change your mood and even effect your decision making? I endeavour to address these questions from a scientific standpoint.
One of the clearest representations of the power of music can be seen on a daily basis – typically leaving us completely unawares. This avenue is known as advertising, and boasts one of the most prominent and scientific uses of music in the world. In this context, emotions associated with spending and needing are constantly reinforced – such as sadness, longing and jealousy. Such emotional transmissions are achieved in a variety of ways. For example, low level sombre music could be used in a life insurance commercial – with the sadness evoked hoping to guide your thoughts to the finite nature of life and guide your wallet to purchasing life insurance. On the other hand, new car commercials play roaring and enthusiastic tracks. This aims to raise your mood to excitement and thrill; suggestive of your emotions if you were to purchase the car.
The chemicals involved with music as the causation of emotion are important in understanding how music can manipulate us so effectively. The most substantial substance here is the neurotransmitter dopamine – responsible for the ‘feel-good’ emotions of our brains. In the car commercial example, the exciting music will lead to extra dopamine release. This occurs in the exact same way as when we eat a delicious meal, make someone laugh or generally evoke good emotions. Subsequently, the chemistry is exactly the same; once we hear uplifting music, dopamine binds to a region of the brain called the NAc – allowing our brains to experience those joyful emotions. It is also important to note that the regions of the brain play a role in our emotions. The situation is once again mirrored by music – whereby the left frontal region of the brain shows increased activity under musical stimulus. However, it is clear to realise that there is a difference between ‘liking’ a song and truly experiencing it on an emotional level. The songs we really love evoke all kinds of extra physiological reactions – from increased ventilation to faster heartbeats.
However, one of the most natural applications of music comes from listening to songs that reflect our mood, rather than affect it. We’ve all been there – listening to Sam Smith because of heartbreak, or Adele because we feel dramatic. However, it is possible to use our knowledge of music affecting emotions to change this. In such a way, if we are down, joyous music can gradually shift our mood until we are happy again. Music plays a key role in our everyday lives – most of the time without us even realising. From subtle songs in advertising to studying playlists of Shakespeare, it is clear how significant its impacts can be.
We’re not so different, us and them. We share various metabolic pathways. We share a ridiculous amount of the same cellular machinery. We even shared all of our ancestors, until perhaps 1.5 billion years ago. So why are plants so alien to us, to the extent we often don’t think of them as fellow brothers and sisters in the struggle for existence?
The main difference probably stems from our lifestyles. We animals tend to pride ourselves on mobility, if not moving the entire body from one place to another, at least changing the shapes of cells and structures, on a short term basis. We do this to feed, at the expense of other life-forms less agile and more fragile than we. Like plants, for example.
And plants? They construct their sugars using photon energy from our local star.
These two livelihoods lead to drastically different lifestyles.
Animals are built for movement. For sake of mobility, animals carry their fuel with them, in some way. Stomach, gizzard, gullet, crop, and of course intestines, all function as literal sacks to hold food and nutrients. Fat deposits also function as excellent safety pads if they’re not being actively burned.Our bodies are made for moving, and we carry all our organs and all our food with us wherever we go. A representative equivalent could be a tramper carrying as little weight as possible, because again they’re carrying all their necessary equipment with them everywhere they go. In both cases, it’s smart to minimise weight to increase mobility.
Sessile plants on the other hand adopt a different strategy. Plants are heavily defended fortresses, constantly under siege by the organisms around them. They’re good at manufacturing food, so everybody wants a literal piece of them.
Campbell Biology’s illustration of our comparative embryology. Animal cells go through an embryonic stage of totipotency, where one individual cell could give rise to an entire organism. Plant cells remain totipotent for their entire life, so it is possible to grow a tree from a single leaf.
Instead of developing lightweight mobility, plants possess cells laden with photosynthetic machinery. This could equate to carrying a large heavy array of solar panels on your back for your entire life. Not ideal for movement, but you’d get a whole lot of free power. As one can imagine, with weight comes the need for support, so large plants have developed strong, heavy, fibrous tissues to hold their own weight. (These also aren’t so nice to eat, as they’re essentially the plant equivalents of bone…)
So plants decided not to move. Individuals can’t migrate in search of nicer locations, and more importantly, plants can’t escape if you try to eat them. Instead of following the hunt, plants learned to make the most out of each location (or die trying), by wielding heavily fortified solar power plants, in a world populated by creatures constantly trying to steal your hard earned stockpile of food.
Opportunists are always looking to exploit others for personal gain. Plants in response have developed a plethora of defense mechanisms. These include the secretion of toxic chemicals and the growth of sharp microscopic spines, acting as miniature swords for any animal unfortunate enough to encounter them. Plants manufacture these in an attempt to prevent predators from dining on their flesh.
Meanwhile, animals are constantly evolving, finding better ways to adapt to plant defenses. New digestive enzymes render plant toxins useless, in the same way that bacteria adapt to our antibiotics. New feeding structures and tactics find ways around the physical defenses. Life is a constant arms race between predator and prey, one always trying to gain the upper hand in the struggle to survive and reproduce.
We animals and plants are locked together in this mortal coil. We wholly depend on plants for the fixation of solar energy, which drives virtually every ecosystem in the world. Plants on the other hand resent us animals, on account of how we devour them to survive. Our lives represent a constant arms race, with the winners of each battle surviving to reproduce.
Overall, in the quest to survive the saying “All’s fair in love and war” seems rather applicable to both us animals and to plants. All I wish is that more people appreciate our sister taxonomic Kingdom, as fellow vagabonds in the Journey of Life.
Vaccinations cause heated debates over the safety and wellbeing of the children being injected. Even with all of the safety measures taking place there are still some people who believe that vaccinations cause more harm to their children then good. With the number of deaths in once incurable diseases plummeting scientists have proven that you are more likely to be healthy if you are vaccinated as a child. But even with this idea being scientifically proven there are still myths that exist about the safety of vaccinations. So the point of this blog is to debunk three major myths that surround vaccinations.
Myth 1: Vaccinations cause autism.
It is believed that in some cases of autism the signs arise months after getting the MMR vaccinations. The idea arose from the symptoms that commonly occur when infected with measles, mumps or rubella. These symptoms are swelling of the gastrointestinal tract and the idea that the swelling occurs in the brain leads stunted development. The main evidence of this occurring was done in a study by Andrew Wakefield in 1998 called the Lancelet 8. Wakefield looked at 8 children who were vaccinated with MMR and were diagnosed with autism within months after. He concluded that it was the vaccination that caused the autism and when he published this paper it caused many families to stop vaccinating and the myth began circulating. The Lancelet 8 paper however had many flaws. Firstly, Wakefield did not look at any control subjects. During the time that the 8 children were vaccinated another 50,000 children were also vaccinated and showed no symptoms of autism. Wakefield also did not take into consideration that before vaccinations were around 1 in 2000 children naturally developed autism so the likelihood that the 8 would have gotten it without the vaccinations were still highly probable.
Myth 2: Natural Immunity is better than Vaccinations
Before the use of vaccinations in 1980 it is estimated that around 2.9 million people died from measles. With the use of vaccinations this number has dropped to approximately 134-200 children. This shows that with a deadly virus such as measles our immune system cannot beat it without help. The virus is highly contagious and once contracted it spreads to the respiratory tract. Deaths that are caused by measles are usually not due to the virus itself but due to the complications that is causes. These are most commonly brain swelling, dehydration or pneumonia. Natural remedies have been around since the early humans began contracting diseases. There are many natural remedies that are supposed to help with measles. These include liquorice, turmeric, orange juice, lemon juice, coconut, eggplant seeds as well as many more. However, these foods have been eaten for many hundreds of years and yet still people died from measles, mumps and rubella. It has been scientifically proven that up until the vaccinations began being used children and even some adults were highly susceptible and that there was no other medication or herbs that would successfully treat the infected patients. Hence natural immunity is not effective against the deadly viruses that vaccinations limit.
Myth 3: Vaccinations have nasty chemicals such as mercury in them.
Mercury, formaldehyde and aluminium are all toxic to the human body in large quantities, scientifically proven. These chemicals are also present in most vaccinations, also scientifically proven. However, the traces of these chemicals is not enough to harm a human or even emit a response. There is less mercury in a vaccination than a tuna that a person may eat and both are in such low quantities that they do not cause a problem. Formaldehyde is also present in vaccinations. It however is naturally made in the body and is present in some amino acids. These amino acids are essential for building proteins and carrying out every day functions. The formaldehyde in the amino acids is in a higher concentration than any found in vaccinations.
By looking at the myths around vaccinations we can see how some of them evolved. Parents protect their children and are cautious about what is getting put into their bodies. However, with anyone having access to post what they want on the internet parents are getting a lot of false information and this in turn is making them make the wrong decisions about vaccinating their children. We need to continue to debunk the myths that arise so that people do not risk the lives of their children.
It is a criminally prosecutable offence to release a GMO without the approval of the Environmental Risk Management Authority, an independent body who determine whether the benefits of releasing a genetically modified organism outweigh the potential risks. (5)
Science Scholars 2017 