Posts

Cancer bibliography

Stevie Hankins

Dr. Weiser

English 1110.01

Radiation and such

Cancer is an oppressive though and very difficult to understand. There are quite a few options when it comes to treating it. But the most common one any one tends to think about is radiation, it’s most common form being Chemo therapy. That’s not what is going to be discussed here. Were here for Actinium-225, a radioactive material that has (in more recent decades) been used to treat  different forms of cancer. So far, it’s been working pretty well. And some scholars agree.

From the journal of Applied Radiation & Isotopes there’s the wonderful article “Assessment of the Radiation Absorbed Dose Produced by 177Lu-IPSMA, 225Ac-IPSMA and 223RaCl2 to Prostate Cancer Cell Nuclei in a Bone Microenvironment Model.” By Azorín-Vega gently presents how well the Actinium-225 works along side “Cyclotron Production of Ac-225 for Targeted Alpha Therapy1[1] Dedicated to Prof. Dr. Franz Baumgärtner on the Occasion of His 75th Birthday.” how soon it’ll be able to be actively made for this purpose.

However some naysayers say it’s not enough or that in may be to risky such as “Actinium-225 for Targeted α Therapy: Coordination Chemistry and Current Chelation Approaches.” And “Tumor Therapy with Targeted Atomic Nanogenerators” which go on about how its got both unknown side affect and doesn’t last long enough to do as much to the cancer

However the wonders of the radiation has been included in other journals and articles. Mentioning it’s positive effects gladly. Articles like “Therapeutic Efficacy and Toxicity of 225Ac-Labelled vs. 213Bi-Labelled Tumour-Homing Peptides in a Preclinical Mouse Model of Peritoneal Carcinomatosis.” And “An Overview of Targeted Alpha Therapy.”

Works Cited

 

Thiele, Nikki A., and Justin J. Wilson. “Actinium-225 for Targeted α Therapy: Coordination Chemistry and Current Chelation Approaches.” Cancer Biotherapy & Radiopharmaceuticals, vol. 33, no. 8, Oct. 2018, pp. 336–348. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1089/cbr.2018.2494

Apostolidis, C., et al. “Cyclotron Production of Ac-225 for Targeted Alpha Therapy1[1] Dedicated to Prof. Dr. Franz Baumgärtner on the Occasion of His 75th Birthday.” Applied Radiation & Isotopes, vol. 62, no. 3, Mar. 2005, pp. 383–387. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1016/j.apradiso.2004.06.013

 

Azorín-Vega, Erika, et al. “Assessment of the Radiation Absorbed Dose Produced by 177Lu-IPSMA, 225Ac-IPSMA and 223RaCl2 to Prostate Cancer Cell Nuclei in a Bone Microenvironment Model.” Applied Radiation & Isotopes, vol. 146, Apr. 2019, pp. 66–71. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1016/j.apradiso.2019.01.020.

Essler, Markus, et al. “Therapeutic Efficacy and Toxicity of 225Ac-Labelled vs. 213Bi-Labelled Tumour-Homing Peptides in a Preclinical Mouse Model of Peritoneal Carcinomatosis.” European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, vol. 39, no. 4, Dec. 2012, pp. 602–612., doi:10.1007/s00259-011-2023-6.

Kim, Young-Seung, and Martin W. Brechbiel. “An Overview of Targeted Alpha Therapy.” Tumor Biology, vol. 33, no. 3, June 2011, pp. 573–590., doi:10.1007/s13277-011-0286-y.

Mcdevitt, M. R. “Tumor Therapy with Targeted Atomic Nanogenerators.” Science, vol. 294, no. 5546, 2001, pp. 1537–1540., doi:10.1126/science.1064126.

Climate change pt 2.

Stevie Hankins

English 1110.01 AU19

Professor Weiser

 

Do Companies Care About The Climate?

 

How much, if at all, do companies care for the environment? They have policies in play to reduce the amounts of emissions they can release into the environment. However, most companies don’t go beyond the minimum. So why are everyday people expect to pick up the slack for multimillion and billion-dollar companies? Because companies like to push blame and keep the money they make. Which David Roberts backs up and former president, Barack Obama. Although there are those few companies teaming up with scientists, like the Zimov’s, to make a difference. Although that might not be enough.

 

The three previously mentioned people have all written about the subject of climate change. Those like the Zimov’s are committed to slowing and preventing it through the wild idea of woolly mammoths and large grasslands. Barack Obama seems to believe that the climate on its way to being slowed as the economy grows, seeding as in recent years emissions have decreased from previous years. While David Roberts seems much more certain that it’s possible to stop the change but not by people living green alone.

 

Roberts is on to something, people who live green lives tend to counteract their own and other peoples green deeds (136). He even goes on to state that individuals cant make up for companies’ emissions “even if every American could get their lifestyle missions down somewhere close to that baseline it still wouldn’t be nearly enough to solve climate change. To reduce Americans per capita baseline to sustainable levels will require decarbonizing power, transportation, and industry, goals over which most individuals have limited control” (136).  Which bring into question Obama’s claims that emissions are falling due to the economy rising (125).  He points out the more recent fall since 2008 “Specifically CO2 emissions from the energy sector fell by 9.5% in 2008 to 2015 while the economy grew by more than 10%” (125 ). The only reason such a fall happened was due to policies that were introduced. Former President Obama had also placed high hopes on The Paris Agreement. Which the US hadn’t signed due to Donald Trump, of which is a billionaire and an owner of many companies. Companies that could be giving money to the Zimov’s to further fund their research and help fund for the clones of their mammoths. For further explanation, as brought up by both the Zimov’s and Obama;  the permafrost in the Arctic is thawing. Which one brings up the strategies to stop it. Lowering emissions, and woolly mammoths. To be brief, grasslands would absorb less heat than the forests that are on the Arctic tundra. To instate these grasslands large herbivores would have to both tear down the forests and spread the grasses, as well as survive the cold. So, in short, their solution is the wooly mammoth (Andersen, 5).

 

In conclusion, why aren’t we, the general public, holding companies to a higher standard? How can we hold them accountable? That may have an answer eventually but it might not be soon enough. In short, don’t try to make up for the companies, it’s not gonna work. Although volunteering to do clean up’s isn’t a terrible idea.

 

Works Cited

 

Andersen, Ross. “Pleistocene park.” The Best American Science and Nature Writing 2018, Sam Kean, Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2018, 1-22.

Obama, Barack. “The Irreversible Momentum of Clean Energy.” The Best American Science and Nature Writing 2018, Sam Kean, Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2018, 124-132.

Roberts, David “Wealthier  People Produce More Carbon Pollution – Even the “Green” Ones.” The Best American Science and Nature Writing 2018, Sam Kean, Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2018, 133-137.

Pleistocene park

Stevie Hankins

English 1110.01 AU19

Professor Weiser

 

The Far Away Dream of Pleistocene Park

 

In his article on Pleistocene Park, writer Ross Andersen challenges that radical Russian scientists, Sergey and Nikita Zimov’s, ideas might just be far off dreams. Today, climate change is what a lot of people are worrying about. However there are plans in motion; plans like Pleistocene Park. Pleistocene Park was the idea of Sergey Zimov and eventually headed by his son Nikita Zimov. The idea of the park is rather simple in thought, to tear down the Siberian forests and have large grassland take over. The forests have been accelerating the thawing of the permafrost – thick frozen layers of soil – and lush grasslands would slow such thawing (Andersen 5). To keep up and maintain the grasslands and the deforestation, comes the unorthodox idea: Bring back mammoths. Now mammoths are not the only animals being reintroduced, but they are the most crucial and they’ll take the longest to get. Mammoths are relatively new in the grave, so one hope is to clone pre-existing mammoth DNA. However if that’s not possible there is another option, genome editing. Geneticist George Church and his team of scientist at his Harvard lab have been trying since 2014 to just that, using CRISPR to edit the genome of Eastern Asian elephants (Andersen 6). Even then, it doesn’t have to be perfect. Natural selection can do the rest. Andersen addresses this by referencing another reintroduced species “Yakutian wild horses took less then 1000 years to regrow long coats after they returned to the arctic” (Andersen 6). The question arises however, how will that help the climate now.

 

The climate is quickly going down hill, and the amount of time we have to slow and/or reverse it is dwindling. While Anderson presents this project as inspIt takes 22 months for an elephant to complete gestation (Andersen 6). That’s a little under two years. How many mammoths would it take for the project to be underway.  Now to bring back mammoths which can take longer to edit and bring into the world not to mention the 1000 years to evolve back into their woolly state. This idea while plausible, may take too long. The fear is that by the time the Zimov’s and Church get Pleistocene park up and running it may be too late. Time is of the essence and this plan takes too much of it. Church has been working on recreating the woolly mammoth since 2013 and the Zimov’s have been advocating for longer. Andersen also doesn’t fully believe in the Pleistocene Park, mentioning “I don’t know whether Nikita can make his father’s mad vision a material reality” (Andersen 22). With such a big project and many unforeseen challenges and set backs. Pleistocene park may end up mammoth less.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Works Cited

Andersen, Ross. “Pleistocene park.” The best American Science and Nature Writing 2018, edited by Sam Kean, Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2018, 1-22.

Final

Stevie Hankins

Dr. Weiser

English 1110.01H

12/2/19

The Start of A Rabbit Hole

 

“Sexual assault is the most underreported violent crime in America” (Jones, 421). Sexual assault runs rampant, and most of modern day society would rather it not. It doesn’t just occur out in the streets, assault of this nature occurs in homes, businesses, and schools. In academia, sexual assault isn’t nearly as talked about. However it is prevalent, and its usually committed by someone higher in the field. In the sciences, where students are in labs and different sites all across campus and the world. It happens so frequently with such low rate of report that its astounding. What does that say about the sciences? That theres a serious and dangerous power imbalance allowing this to occur repeatedly.

 

In a study called Survey of Academic Field Experiences (SAFE), only 13 percent reported the harassment and only 7 percent formally came forward (Webley, 212).  That’s out of 666 responses. The main reason for never coming forward tends to be fear.  Speaking up about their assaults means speaking out against the very people who writes their recommendations and have control their careers. Making it the whole process unsavory and not worth the trouble to them. Speaking out could cost working in the field that they dedicated their academic life’s to.

 

Except its not easy to stay in the field where a traumatic event happens. Most women who were assaulted tend to leave their fields to get away from the trauma. Those who don’t don’t move on go stagnant, as shown by Webley in a first hand account “ the woman had yet to finish her Ph.D…. When asked what was holding her up ‘every time I look at my dissertation data it reminds me of when I was sexually assaulted in the field’” (211). This stagnation lessens the amount of women working in the field and leading the research. Thus letting the same men who assault them keep their positions.

 

Along side stagnation and leaving, theres something equally as bad. Being passed over for raises and job opportunities, as brought up in a briefing Elyse Shaw “sexual harassment may limit or discourage women from advancing into higher paid careers…” (1). Not only are they passed over, they’re not even credited in for their own ideas and research (Aschwanden, 1). Which help further the lack of higher paid jobs these women are being picked for.

 

With all this going on, there would be an assumption that there are policies in place to prevent this. Well there are, theres Title IX that outlawed sex based discrimination in public education (Aschwanden, 2). However that hasn’t stopped the discrimination Webley brought this up with another first hand account “ she went from working 20 hours each week putting in five hours or less. Soon, ‘it was like “‘ well, we started this project, but you’re not a part of it. We are writing up this paper, but we didn’t put you on it because you haven’t been here,’” … by the end of her time she had only been listed as an author on four papers, while her male counter parts had been cited on twenty” (214). Exclusion for work that these women have been desperately wanting to do

 

The exclusion along side the stagnation and the loss of higher ranked and paying jobs lead to a power imbalance. Men: who are less likely to be sexually assaulted in the field, less likely to excluded from their work, and less likely to be passed over for. Now that’s not to say it doesn’t happen at all, but it certainly happens less. In 2017 the EEOC received 26,978 claims of workplace harassment, more then half were sex-based and twenty percent were made by men (Shaw, 2). But those men can still progress in the field and grab higher positions. The men who have committed any of these assaults stay in positions of power. Thus letting them continue to pray upon any young scientist who comes into their labs or onto their sites.

 

 

 

 

 

This perpetuates a cycle of assault. The more men in the field that will commit such acts will drive out anyone they pray upon. Letting them advance unstopped and letting the culture they created continue. However some may say that there is no cycle because most assaults are more he said she said.

 

Those who tend to say such things tend to not back up beyond the he said she said. However, even with how few women report such assaults. Those who’ve assaulted more then one women have at least one rumor or report against them “‘ I’ve Heard too many stories about the professor who isn’t allowed to be in the room with X, Y and Z anymore,’” (Aschwanden, 2). Rumors of that nature don’t spawn from nothing.

 

So on goes the cycle, unless theres a way to break it. Fortunately there is. Self policing amongst coworkers and peers. Pointing out lewd jokes, calling out inappropriate comments. No, the women in the field shouldn’t have to be the only ones calling out such behavior. They already have to look out for that behavior in every day places. Work should be one less place to have to be worried about.

 

But why is this issue prevalent? What does this matter? Well, think about any article that’s been brought into public eye. Very few have a female as it authors however women have certainly put fourth the research in those papers. The cost of it was their safety and their bodies.  These women so desperately want to be able to just work and study in their fields without risk of any form of assault.

 

It would only be fair to let these hard working women have a chance. To be free of stagnation, and being passed over for higher positions. To not have to leave their dream field to get away from trauma. To not feel dread to look at certain  research, to go into a lab alone with a male coworker. The very least these women deserve a small bit of justice.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Works Cited

Aschwanden, Christie. “Harassment in Science, Replicated.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 11 Aug. 2014, http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/12/science/harassment-in-science-replicated.html?emc=eta1&_r=0

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine 2018. Sexual Harassment of Women: Climate, Culture, and Consequences in Academic Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/24994

Jones, Jeffrey S., et al. “Why Women Dont Report Sexual Assault to the Police: The Influence of Psychosocial Variables and Traumatic Injury.” The Journal of Emergency Medicine, vol. 36, no. 4, 2009, pp. 417–424., doi:10.1016/j.jemermed.2007.10.077.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0736467908000358

Shaw, Elyse, et al. “Sexual Harassment and Assault at Work: Understanding the

Costs.” Institute for Women’s Policy Research, 15 Oct. 2018,

https://iwpr.org/publications/sexual-harassment-work-cost/

 

 

Post 1

With the growing amount of violence there has to be studies and reports, much like the article
“The Science of Gun Violence” by Russ Juskalian. Which highlights the study -or lack there of- of gun violence. Gun violence is an epidemic and a public health issue, that has started a call for studies of the violence. However there is an astounding lack of research. Due to two bills that had been passed, The Dickey amendment the Tiahrt amendment. those nearly stopped researching its tracks. Juskalian describes the way that research can help this public health issues with the help of David Hemenway the director of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center, using the CDCs steps to a science driven health approach. It goes, define the problems, identify the risks, then develop and test prevention strategies, finally insure wide spread adoption. Which is how vehicle deaths, baby poisonings, and carbon monoxide poisonings were all decreased. The conclusion to all this is that as people are injured. The government says that any research would support and advocate for gun control. However, Juskalian says that even with such an effect it would be better then leaving people with no idea of the odds that they’ll be faced with gun violence, or a clue as to how to prevent it. However to do such feats, there would need to be more funding. Current funding is spread thinly, hard to access, and rather hap-hazardous. Seeing as it’s a public health crisis and as those who had once advocated against it now advocates for it. Hopefully, more funding will become available for such research and studies.

To me, the most interesting idea of this piece is Juskalian’s point that other studies show a significant data on the enforcement strict gun policies in other countries. Like Switzerland and Israel, which had gun violence and suicide rates drop continuously every year since they were enforced.

I agree. In my views the types of solutions the author recommends are surprisingly easy to apply to such a crisis. For instance, the CDC’s steps to a science driven health approach could easily be applied to gun violence. In addition, the fact that similar gun violence studies were done with success gives hope for such in the US. Some might object, of course, on the grounds that such research would advocate for gun control.
Yet I would argue that it would help people safely own more guns. Overall, then, I believe that these studies are necessary to help the people and the government— an important point to make given that the government despises the idea of gun control and the studies.