Cuckoos, Wrens in Escalating Evolutionary Arms Race

• The Horsefield's bronze-cuckoo lays its eggs in the nests of other birds which most birds can usually identify as cuckoos before, but never after, the eggs hatch.
• However, superb fairy-wrens in Australia, who are bad at telling the eggs apart due to dark enclosed nests, have begun to adapt to recognize cuckoo hatchlings, and will leave them behind.
• To combat this, the Horsefield's bronze-cuckoos evolved to more perfectly match the calls of the fairy-wrens, rendering distinction almost impossible.
• With fairy-wrens unable to distinguish between egg type and hatchling call, it would seem that they would be doomed, but instead they just wait for the cuckoo to hatch.
• When the cuckoo hatches, it will push out all of the wren eggs, and the parent wren will discover the true identity of the impostor, taking advantage of Australia's long hatching season and re-nesting.

Reflection:
I chose this story because it proved to be a good clear example of an evolutionary arms race. I also had never heard of birds tricking other birds into taking care of their young for them. Another thing i found interesting was how the hatched cuckoos instinctively pushed all of the other eggs out of the nest. How even innocent baby birds could turn out to be ruthless contenders in the arms race was quite amazing. What I learned from reading this was that an evolutionary arms race is not always just a battle between two traits in two organisms like with the salamanders and the snakes, but that the species in the race can employ a much sneakier and wider range of tactics too.

Sources:

1. Owen, James. "Cuckoos, Wrens in Escalating Evolutionary Arms Race." Daily Nature and Science News and Headlines | National Geographic News. Web. 19 May 2010.
2. Drew, Ray. "Birds of South Eastern Australia." Untitled Document. Web. 19 May 2010. .
3. "The Escalating Coevolutionary Arms Race between Cuckoos and Their Hosts : Living the Scientific Life (Scientist, Interrupted)." ScienceBlogs. Web. 19 May 2010. .

This Germ Could Save Your Life

• Microbiologist David Thaler is one of the primary advocates for using genetically modified bacteria to fight disease instead of cause disease; however, this idea is having a very difficult time of becoming a reality due to the the difficulty being able to perform live tests, on actual people.

• This could become a reality with Jeffrey Hillman's research, which began with him setting up a series of cage matches between colonies of Streptococcus mutans, the sugar-eating bacteria that commonly cause tooth decay, to create a species of super bacteria that could easily wipe out all other bacteria in a person's mouth.

• The difference between these bacteria and their weaker counterparts, is that the genetically modified S. mutans contains a gene from Zymomonas mobilis, used in Mexican beer, so that the S. mutans will produce a harmless alcohol as waste instead of a tooth-destroying acid.

• Later, due to regulations from a special board on the FDA, the bacteria were made to be dependent on a certain amino acid which was made into a special mouthwash to prevent the uncontrolled spread of these bacteria.

• Finally, a in 2006 the bacteria was tested on real people (under heavy laboratory conditions though) and, as predicted, was a success, although it has yet to be tested freely on people with actual medical conditions in an actual environment.

Reflection

When I first spied this article, I thought having bacteria work for me to clean my teeth might be interesting, especially because I have braces, which make it extremely hard to brush and floss my teeth. However, as I read further, I realized that this could become the domestication of bacteria, and the domestication of plants and animals had been such a huge event that it had changed the entire world forever, and enabled a huge leap in progress, the creation of cities include. If more bacteria were “domesticated”, I thought, this would be like the Agricultural revolution from the Neolithic times. In fact, I wasn't at all surprised when one of the scientists described it as “the second Neolithic Revolution” later in the article. As I continued reading, it just seemed like such an ingenious plan that people would be able to “tame” bacteria to do their bidding. On the downside, though, I think that their could be a lot of risk involved in thrusting “safe” bacteria upon humans. The way I see it, scientists will only have one chance to impress the public with this new technology, before it is destroyed by rumors and hysteria.

Source:

Sachs, Jessica S. "This Germ Could Save Your Life | Popular Science." Popular Science | New Technology, Science News, The Future Now. Web. 19 May 2010. .

Being Bad at Relationships Is Good for Survival

• According to researchers, evolution has naturally split humans into two distinct groups, those emotionally secure, and those emotionally insecure, and recent studies have shown why.
• An experiment was set up to simulate different groups of people in a building which had just begun to catch on fire, and groups containing more insecure people consistently reacted more quickly than those who did not.
• The scientists concluded that although an emotionally secure person will do better in relationships, which is a natural evolutionary advantage, their self-created sense of security causes them to react more slowly to immediate dangers.
• Conversely, more insecure people, will be much more aware, and not lulled into the sometimes false sense of security that strong group connections can provide

Reflection:
I found this article to be so interesting because it really demonstrates how two different adaptations can both be beneficial at the same time. Either be better at finding a mate and thus be able to reproduce more, or be more aloof but better at surviving, and thus being able to reproduce more. Typically, any example of natural selection I would have thought of would contain only one favored trait, but never would I have imagined that two practically opposite traits could both coexist and help survival. This is very much similar to the video we watched in class about the peacocks. Even though the bright feathers of a peacock slowed it down, hindered its flying ability, and made it stand out to prey, females would only choose mates who had these brilliant feathers. Just as interesting is the fact that such contradictory adaptions could even arise; after all, it would be much more beneficial for there to be one definitively better trait. Such a peculiar quirk in our evolutionary path has truly produced a double-edged evolutionary sword.

Source:
Minkel, JR. "Being Bad at Relationships Is Good for Survival | LiveScience." LiveScience | Science, Technology, Health & Environmental News. 15 May 2010. Web. 19 May 2010. .

After Years of Herbicide Use, Roundup-Resistant Superweeds Are Evolving to Invade U.S. Fields

• Through overuse of the herbicide "Roundup" produced by Monsanto, weeds have begun to take on the natural course of evolution and become resistant to Roundup.
• Unfortunately for Monsanto, this renders their genetically modified "Roundup Ready" crops, which were designed to be immune to Roundup so that the two products could be used alongside each other.
• 90% of soybeans, 70% of corn, and 70% of cotton in the US are having to be protected from weeds through use of even stronger herbicide, ultimately harming the environment and lowering crop yields, meaning higher food prices for everyone.
• This event is much akin to the overuse of anti-malarial drugs that caused malaria to be so deadly today.

Reflection:
This was a perfect article for me to read this year due to the excellent amount of background I have had, such as the GMO video and Food Inc. From videos and class lessons like these, I really could have predicted literally everything that happens in this article. It is very strange how such a huge and powerful company like Monsanto could be so caught off guard by such a foreseeable and natural event, that almost any high school biology student could predict. Of course, there is the possibility that Monsanto was fully aware that this would happen. After, they are such a big company that the only people who are really damaged by this are the farmers and consumers. Then Monsanto could make a new herbicide and new plants and the mind boggling number of farmers who use Monsanto's products would have to buy completely new ones all over again. Mark my words, as sure organisms evolve, Monsanto will evolve its products, and its profits, very soon.

Dillow, Clay. "After Years of Herbicide Use, Roundup-Resistant Superweeds Are Evolving to Invade U.S. Fields | Popular Science." Popular Science | New Technology, Science News, The Future Now. 4 May 2010. Web. 16 May 2010. .

TED 2010: Halting Blood Vessels Key to New Cancer Treatment; Possibly Obesity

• Dr. William Lee has recently made the connection that the treatments for cancer and obesity could be very similar, as both required a steady supply of blood to develop, making both prone to angiogenesis inhibitors.
• Connecting these two, he realized that perhaps diet could have a major impact on cancer, similar to its effects on obesity.
• Testing different foods, he found that extracts from foods like red grapes, strawberries, and soybeans could have an impact, and some, such as jasmine and sencha teas, would undergo a great increase in potency if combined, implying that the right combination of foods is the key.
• When tested alongside current major angiogenesis inhibitors known as statins, some foods actually showed more potential than the drugs, not to mention the obvious extra nutritional benefits provided.
• When similar tests were performed on obese mice, it was found that stricter regulation of angiogenesis could actually allow scientists to "cycle" the mices' weight up and down.

This is certainly an uplifting article; should more research show positive results, it would mean a simple, inexpensive way to control, health, obesity, and cancer all in one. If the results were to get enough publicity, it would force a major food overhaul in places like restaurants and supermarkets. Healthy food is definitely something that is very much needed in this country, and I do try to eat healthily, but it would be great if I did not have to try and food producers made better food instead of cheaper food. This would ultimately be a major success in the overall health of the entire country and others, especially seeing how those with less money would have the same edge in fighting off these diseases as the more wealthy. This is truly the type of research that needs to be done, research that will benefit all people, not just those who can afford it. Also the group of foods, which can be seen in the picture, is quite diverse as far as coming from different parts of the world, meaning other countries could benefit. In closing, this approach of looking from one angle at two approaches should be more widely used, as it would benefit all fields of almost everything.

Source:
"TED 2010: Halting Blood Vessels Key to New Cancer Treatment; Possibly Obesity | Epicenter | Wired.com." Wired News. Web. 10 May 2010. .

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. .