The Science Behind the Cell Phone Cancer Scare

• Cell phone radio waves have long been dismissed as too weak to cause any harm to people but nevertheless are still investigated by scientists today.
• Despite the facts that the energy from heat of phone waves is so weak and blood circulation would thin it out even more, there are implications of the waves being able to set off a chemical reaction in the thermoreceptors, but the consequences are unknown.
• While a 2006 study showed no relation between phones and cancer, a smaller study in 2008 warned of possible adverse affects, although the connection may not necessarily have been tied to cell phone use.
• Another factor to take into consideration is that there have been other false alarms related to cancer/cell phones in the past such as power lines and transmission boxes supposedly causing cancer or bees supposedly getting misdirected by radio waves.

The biggest factor to take into consideration when looking at this article is the fact that although lab tests may lean towards cell phones causing cancer, there really has not been any significant rise in brain cancer since cell phones started coming into wide use. So, if there is some connection to cancer, it obviously is not appearing easily. Of course, the article could have been completely biased with its sources but that wouldn't even make it completely wrong if it were. The good thing about this particular article, is that I have absolutely no bias in the subject. I am not really that wary about cancer, while as far as cell phone use goes; if my cell phone isn't lost, it's out of batteries. However, where the real key in proving or disproving that cell phones are dangerous lies in the fact that younger and younger generations are beggining to use them. As younger children's brains are not as fully developed, I would assume that that makes them more suceptible to damage and outside influence. This, paired with parents giving thier children cell phones at younger and younger ages, could have serious implications. However, data from research such as this must be handled very, very carefully, as I remember a story of how a tiny mistake gleaned from an experiment about a dead child lead to thousands of people suffering, some even dieing due to unecessary radiation treatment. Either way though, I'm sure that soon enough, research will end this debate once and for all. Unless, of course, another method of instant communication is discovered, but who knows what the future holds?

Source:

• "The Science Behind the Cell Phone Cancer Scare - Cancer - FOXNews.com." Breaking News | Latest News | Current News - FOXNews.com. Web. 28 Apr. 2010.

Pictures:

• "Cell Phones May Revolutionize Cancer Care for Young Patients | TopNews." Top News | Only Top Stories of the Day. Web. 28 Apr. 2010. .
• "Reader Question #1." Good Financial Cents -Jeff Rose Certified Financial Planner and Investment Advisor, Carbondale, Illinois. Web. 28 Apr. 2010. .

Expert Assesment: The next frontier in athletic doping -- genes

Article Type:

Report on New Innovation with International Implications

Important Personages:

1. World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) -- Dr. Theodore Friedmann; Frederic Donze
2. International Olympic Committee
3. University of California-San Diego
4. Science Magazine
5. Cell (an online journal)
6. FDA
7. Salk Institute for Biological Studies -- Dr. Ronald Evans
8. L'Agence Francaise de Lutte contre le Dopage (French-Anti Doping Agency) -- Pierre Bordry
9. Oxford Biomedica
10. Thomas Springstein
11. University of the West of Scotland -- Andy Miah, bioethicist
12. Oscar Pistorius
13. Atlas Sports Genetics -- Mike Weinstein

The Purpose:

The purpose of this article is to educate and expose readers to this new innovation in athletic technology. It also exists to allow the reader to make their own choice about a no doubt soon-to-be ethical issue.

Key Information:

• Gene doping is the process of modifying one's own DNA through any means of different methods, and although it was banned by the WADA in 2003, as WADA head Dr. Theodore Friedmann puts it, "It's not a stretch to imagine that there's an Olympic athlete -- possibly at Vancouver -- who has started this new, very risky form of gene manipulation."
• Testing with the chemical IGF-1 (insulin-like growth factor) on mice showed that once merged with their DNA, the small tears that occur naturally in all organisms muscles when they "work out" healed twice as fast with only half the effort.
• Similarly, scientist Ron Evans created two different pills Aicar and GW1516, both containing proteins which increase the performance of non exercising mice on treadmills, although neither have been approved by the FDA.
• This experiment was met with much controversy, as was his "Marathon Mouse", a mouse genetically modified to have weight gain reduced and performance doubled.
• According to WADA spokesperson Frederic Donze, there are literally no ways to test for Aicar and similar drugs in athletes short of cutting their muscles open and performing an biopsy, a wholly inefficient way to test.
• However, scientists speculate that if athletes' genes were kept on "file", a much simpler test could be performed, and both Britain and Canada have agreed to this for the upcoming London Olympics.
• Of course, these new methods are not without danger either, as demonstrated when a test group of baboons were given a certain substance that was meant to increase performance, but instead caused their red blood cells to replicate so rapidly that some died, and others lay on brink of death.
• In 2005, scandal erupted when a German track coach by the name of Thomas Springstein tried to obtain and supply a similar, unreleased substance called Repoxygen to his underage runners resulting in a court hearing and a 16 month sentence.
• However, in bioethicist Andy Miah's opinion, "The majority of athletes immerse themselves in a world of technology -- whether they perceive it or not -- and modern sport has always been about the obsession to evolve performance, beat world records and generally test the boundaries of human capability," although she does agree that current gene doping methods need to be improved in regards to their safety.
• There is also already a limited form of interest in athletes and genes already on the commercial market, as shown by the company Atlas Sports Genetics, who offer a $149 test for junior high students that reveals the presence of a gene known as ACTN3, which improves the capability of a person's fast twitch muscle fibers, one of the major factors in how fast a person runs.
• When Aicar inventor Ronald Evans asked a group of athletes why they would want to take a possibly unsafe drug, they posed the same question with, "Dr. Evans, let's say there was a drug out there that you knew would make you smarter and you might be able to make another discovery, would you take it?"

Key Conclusions

Obviously, one can immediately conclude from reading this article that no matter what happens, no matter what kind of scandal or controversy there is, this technology will reach athletes and will go into use. I can also see people dividing into groups based on technologically enhanced and "pure" athletes, although, as Andy Miah said, with so much technology already available, there really is no such thing as a "pure" athlete.

Background Research:

Athletes Beware, Scientists hot on Gene Doping Trail: This article further clarified the Springstein story and offered another story about an undercover journalist performing a sort of sting on a Chinese doctor offering stem cell injections, proving that this technology definately is out there. Also interesting, both articles noted that although there have been coaches caught trying to obtain this technology, there have been no actual recorded cases of athletes being busted for its usage. The one disparity between this and the main article is that this article made it seem like detecting illegally modified genes is slightly easier.
How Gene Doping Works: This article delved more into the actual processes, even sporting a nice little disclaimer saying that the author/website in no way endorse these practices. It mention one method in its most early stages through which stem cells can be modified, causing these altered performance genes to be passed down through generations. Another Bioethicist was featured in this article said that gene doping could do hardly any good and would cause almost all trouble. Also interesting was the mention of how gene doping could possibly link to cancer, a very loaded statement. Two of the most interesting statements, however, were the facts that gene changing is not technically illegal in the US only in Olympic competitions, and the fact that some people are just naturally born with performance enhancing mutations, but they are not considered cheaters.

Analysis of Potential Bias:

This article certainly seems very unbiased and there are many ways to prove it. Bias through selection/omission as the background research certainly corroborates the article. Being an internet article, there really was not much chance for placement bias, and bias through photos is impossible, as the only picture on the page features a pair of legs running. Statistics and crowd counts were also non-existent rendering this type of bias invalid. As far as word choice, there really seemed to be a good balance in the use of words, making much reference to how athletes have a "choice" and at some parts seeming ever so faintly like an article about abortion or some other major choice. However as, one of my background resources pointed out, although the words "doping" and "enhancing performance" (e.g. Wearing good running shoes is performance-enhancing.) have practically the same meaning, doping has a much more negative connotation, and doping was the favored term in this article. The only other possible bias is the use of sources, seeing a only one out of the many named sources was even remotely for genetic enhancement, and the title, for the previously mentioned reason about how the word "doping" has such a bad reputation.

Sources:

• Fantz, Ashley. "The next Frontier in Athletic Doping -- Genes - CNN.com." CNN.com - Breaking News, U.S., World, Weather, Entertainment & Video News. 19 Feb. 2010. Web. 21 May 2010. .
• Nasr, Susan L. "HowStuffWorks "How Gene Doping Works"" Howstuffworks "Science" Web. 21 May 2010. .
• Keim, Brandon. "Athletes Beware, Scientists Hot on Gene Doping Trail | Wired Science | Wired.com." Wired News. 4 Feb. 2010. Web. 21 May 2010. .