Craving coffee? Caffeine does that.

Caffeine is addictive, psychoactive drug that is a central nervous stimulant. It is the most universally consumed, and studied drug. Many people, such as myself, have developed a dependency on caffeine due to it’s ability to hinder certain functions that cause sleepiness. Although the effects of caffeine seem desirable to many, it has a long economic history and may have a relation to many negative side effects.

Caffeine’s structure is remarkably similar to those of theophylline, which is in tea, and theobromine, present in cocoa. The only structural differences are the amount and location of the CH3 groups in each structure (caffeine having three and the others only two). Caffeine is found in many South American plants as well as coffee beans, tea leaves, cacao pods, cola nuts, mate leaves, guarana seeds, and yoco plants.

Many claim that they drink coffee because it wakes them up, but this belief is inaccurate. Caffeine simply renders certain processes that tire the brain and body. For instance, it protects against the effect of adenosine, a chemical that makes us sleepy, in the brain and parts of the body. Caffeine is a neuromodular, meaning that it decreases the frequency in which spontaneous nerve firing occurs. In turn, causing the release of other transmitters to slow down, which induce sleep.

Caffeine’s historic and present medical uses include the relief and prevention of asthma, treatment of migraines, increased blood pressure, and used as a diuretic. Although many may think caffeine is a miracle drug, it has a relationship to many negative side effects as well. These include links to certain cancers, heart disease, osteoporosis, ulcers, liver disease, kidney disease, sperm motility, decreased fertility, and negative effects on fetal development. There is no solid proof of a connection between moderate amounts of caffeine consumption and these effects, but it is considered a toxic drug. Ten grams of caffeine ingested by an average-sized adult would be a fatal dosage. This may sound shocking, but 10 grams of caffeine measures out to be between 55 and 125 cups of coffee, and twice the amount for tea.

It does not only affect individuals’ health, but has a history of causing political, economic, and environmental disputes and issues. The political and economic disparities that Haiti continues to face today are mainly attributed to the violent revolt against horrendous conditions of slaves used to produce coffee and sugar in 1791. It also caused the abolition of slavery in Brazil to be delayed in order to continue availability of cheap labor to produce coffee. In turn, it fueled Brazil’s economic growth, but for the price of deforestation, and the destruction of natural land and native animals to make space. Coffee plantation owners held power in the government and economics in many countries in Central America during this time, causing many similar issues and conflicts.

I never knew how caffeine worked in human systems to produce the addictive results that many crave. After looking at the medical uses, negative side effects, and historical issues associated with caffeine I’ve begun to think about my own consumption of the drug. Now that I know what causes the effects of caffeine on my brain and body, I wonder what long term, or future impacts it’s having within me as well. Just as Haiti experiences severe disparities currently due to the caffeine craze in 1791, do our bodies also suffer from the past and continued consumption of caffeine?

Unfair Distribution of Global Warming Effects

Global climate change has been a serious threat to organisms on Earth for many years now. The levels of greenhouse gases that are emitted into the atmosphere are well above natural levels. This is due to many issues including overpopulation, pollution, usage of fossil fuels, etc. The effects of global warming are apparent all over, but some countries are experiencing struggles that are already impacting their economy, health, agriculture, and all around well-being. In Emily Atkin's article, Climate Change Disproportionately Hurting Pakistan’s Women, Report Finds, she discusses some major issues and future implications of climate change on Pakistan. 

Pakistan is a developing country that naturally has a warm climate, making it more vulnerable and susceptible to climate change. Pakistan also has a history of severe monsoons and flooding, especially in the recent years of 2010 and 2011, which  damages crops and lessens the ability to use the land to produce more.  With rising temperatures, agricultural success is harder to achieve, less fresh water is available, there is less fuel wood and the Hindu Kush-Karakorum Himalayan Glaciers are beginning to melt. These major glaciers are a main source of water for the rivers in Pakistan and other surrounding countries. The melting of the glaciers will cause the frequency and severity of flooding in Pakistan to increase significantly and will eventually decrease the river flows as the glaciers recede. The travels to get fresh water are becoming longer and are having negative health effects on those, especially women, who have to travel to fetch the water. Pakistan, like many developing countries, is highly dependent on  farming and natural resources. Between 60 to 70% of the Pakistani population is dependent on the agricultural ecosystem to survive. Depleting sources of healthy soil and clean water, combined with the future increase of flooding and natural disasters, can be catastrophic not only to Pakistan's economy, but to the people living there as well. 

Although global climate change affects the entire planet, less developed countries will be the first to have detrimental issues due to the change because they are more dependent on natural resources and have less of an ability to adapt to the warming temperatures. In 2009, Pakistan emitted less than 1 metric ton of CO2 per capita and the US emitted 17.28 metric tons per capita. Although Pakistan is not contributing to global warming nearly as much as other countries, they are experiencing the effects in a more severe manor. Pakistan is only one example of the many places experiencing struggles due to global warming and can be used as a vague representation of what is happening and what could happen in other places.

Global warming is relevant to us all, and will eventually cause severe issues globally, but the people and the government should take steps now to reduce the severity of future affects. Just because we aren't experiencing obvious signs of global warming in the US doesn't mean we should take it less seriously. We should take the effects on Pakistan as an example, a warning, and an incentive to act now for the sake of our planet and the people, and other organisms, that inhabit it.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/11/29/3005311/climate-change-hurting-pakistans-women/

Renewable Ocean Power Energy

        Energy is crucial to our daily lives; whether it be how we commute, cook our food, charge our phones, or just turn the light on in the morning, we are all consuming energy more than we realize. In a day and age when increasing global temperatures is a serious concern for the environment, as well as the inhabitants, new energy sources that have less of an environmental impact are being studied and pursued.

         A source of energy that is making the news today is Ocean Power Technologies. This power source has been studied for decades, but hasn’t been seriously pursued until recently. Ocean Power is a renewable energy that is environmentally friendly. This energy is collected through special buoys that are moved up and down by the ocean’s waves. Integrated hydrodynamics, electronics, energy conversion, and computer control systems are all used to complete the process of gathering the energy. The wave movements are then converted in order to drive an electrical generator. The wave power is then transmitted through underwater power cables to get to land.

         It only makes sense to cultivate and use energy that the earth naturally produces. By converting wave power into energy that we can use on land is a great source of energy that won’t negatively affect the environment. Ocean Power Technology is a promising energy source that could help the world appreciate the importance of using renewable resources. With all of the publicity that new energy sources are receiving, hopefully societies will move away from harmful sources such as fossil fuels and move towards renewable, environmentally sound forms of energy.

http://www.oceanpowertechnologies.com

Science in the News. Is HIV a possible cure for cancer?

 In John Aravosis' article HIV is being used as a possible cure for cancer, he mentions an interesting experiment that could be a breakthrough in the attempt at curing cancer. The interesting thing about his article is that it mentions the intriguing experiments of Penn State researchers that used altered HIV cells to make progress towards finding a cure.

Researchers from Penn have been experimenting with the intent on killing cancer cells. Their main area of focus includes the effects of altered HIV cells on cancerous tumors. The idea behind it is that the destructive nature of HIV could be targeted to attack cancer cells exclusively. In order to accomplish this goal, the researchers developed a technique to modify T-cells to produce an antibody-like protein.

The researchers would remove the T-cells from a patient who had failed all previous chemo treatments and would most likely would have died within a month. Then, the cells would be cultured and the genetically engineered HIV would be added to the existing T-cells. Turns out, the HIV naturally binds to T-cells and injects its own genetics, successfully taking the cells over. This forces the cells to produce millions of copies of HIV before they die, but the researchers edited the HIV so that it wouldn't cause infected cells to produce additional HIV cells. The cells would then be infused into the patients.

These "serial killer" T-cells have the potential to kill about 1,000 tumor cells that had the specific antigen in them that the HIV-altered cells were targeting. Most results were very successful in the study. For example, in an experiment, T-cells destroyed approximately two pounds of cancerous tumor. There were twelve patients who served as participants in a small clinical trial with the altered HIV T-cells and nine patients, after three years, show no evidence of any remaining leukemic cells and are doing well compared to those who have cancer.

Although these studies are very specific to a certain antigen and type of cancer, it is an innovative research experiment that will cause more ideas and experiments due to the high rates of success. The idea that a highly lethal virus could possibly be the cure for cancer is an enlightening idea. The genetically altered HIV study brings hope to other scientists that have the goal of curing a disease or improving the treatments.

Is the Scientific Method Used by Real Scientists?

The scientific method is taught to students in science classes at young ages. We’re all familiar with the routine and most likely have gone through the process once or twice for experiments in class. What about scientists though, do they actually utilize this system to design experiments in the practical setting of their field? I’ve asked a couple scientists from different fields what approach they take when designing an experiment and received interesting responses.

                The first response I received was from a paleontologist, Dr. Bulinski. She described everything from what begins her desire to experiment to every detail that follows in creating and performing the experiment itself. She, in fact, does follow the scientific method to a T. The scientific method seems like it is more practical for certain fields than others. In Bulinski’s response she states, “I do use the scientific method and my research is very much the exploratory kind—devising questions, crafting hypotheses that may be potential answers to those questions gathering observations and data to help me answer those questions and then interpreting the results.” Earlier in her response she discusses her belief that for a hands-on field such as paleontology, the scientific method is highly useful in order to organize an experiment. To me, it almost seems like a natural order of events that unfold, revealing the totality of the experiment.

            For other areas of science, such as biochemistry, the scientific method may seem less relevant to the importance of the study. When I asked Dr. Krzysiak, director of biochemistry and molecular biology at Bellarmine University, about her position on the scientific method she responded, “I believe the scientific method has its place, but it is not effective in the majority of biochemistry research.” She goes on to say that she doesn’t use the scientific method in her experiments, but she does use some of the basic ideas behind it. Her method involves the act of generating a question after an experiment or observation, designing an experiment based on the question, performing the experiment, and repeating the process as new questions arise. She does not generate a hypothesis. The question, in her process, serves the same role as a hypothesis.

            I think that the scientific method does not necessarily need to be followed step-by-step, every time. As long as the basic ideas and components are included, a well-designed experiment can be produced and be just as functional as one that follows the exact process of the scientific method.

1.Welcome to the Age of Denial

Adam Frank’s article, Welcome to the Age of Denial, has a well-intended message behind words that do not justify his beliefs in a flattering way.

Frank mentions that his dream of teaching science has come true except for the fact that, “…instead of sending my students into a world that celebrates the latest science has to offer, I am delivering them into a society ambivalent, even skeptical, about the fruits of science.” This viewpoint demonstrates his lack in recognition of the reasoning that today’s society demands and reveals an unrealistic idea; everyone should be intrigued by science.

Scientists should be open-minded, skeptical, and willing to accept challenges to former beliefs. Frank appears to be set in his belief system and uses bias language such as “silliness like creationism” in his article. Not only is that an offensive comment, but it is unprofessional in trying to support his point. His obvious passion and respect for science are not negative, but there are better ways to show it. He assumes that only a small handful of people have a care for anything science-related without taking into account the plethora of science available and accessible to the public at any time. The fact that research is still conducted, labs exist, colleges provide science majors, scientific magazines are published, science-related headlines make the news and various other means of exposure are surrounding the globe, means that we should not share Frank’s anxious concern about science dying out. There are more resources, scientists, and research studies today than during the scientific revolution of the 17^th century!

I do believe that science is underrated in our day and age, but instead of trying to force it down the throats of those who have little interest, I believe a more subtle encouragement would be more effective in grabbing a wider group of people’s attention. If school systems provided practical, hands-on, scientific experiments or activities during early years of elementary school, then children may have a higher interest in learning about science to begin with. I know if that were to have been my experience, I would have had a heightened interest in science compared to what I developed. Simple steps could make a world of difference in impressing upon people the positive and attractive side of science rather than the negative feedback received through forcing it upon people. The death or complete disinterest in science is not something we should hold as a concern. Instead, we should be more aware of the impression it has on people because that’s a major factor in the amount of interest shown in science.