Posts

Post 4

  1. Army Kills Emporer
  2. Genes to tattoos
  3. Cancer to human life
  4. Lasker DeBakey Clinical Medical Research Award to Winged Victory statue
  5. “Killer Cells” (T-cells)
  6. Immune checkpoint therapy is a platform
  7. Checkpoints to brakes
  8. Enhance responses to the holy grail
  9. Devil’s Advocate
  10. Take-no-prisoners
  11. Toxic treatments
  12. Treatments to flu-like symptoms
  13. Molecular engineers insert “key” into white blood cells
  14. Cancer is a foe
  15. Pills to “activate” cells
  16. Cell machines
  17. “Behind the fence”
  18. “Milk” daughter isotopes to assist in medical scans
  19. Uranium-233 not being made
  20. Cancer researchers to thousands of ships crossing the ocean
  21. Cancer researchers to navigators
  22. Parker Institute is the future of medicine
  23. Breasts that were removed because of cancer to a pancake
  24. Obama to a monster
  25. HIV to a cap

5 Favorites

  1. T-cells are known as killer cells because they are so powerful and eliminate infected cells.
  2. Genes have different functions and patterns, Newman describes that a bad gene would not make a good tattoo.
  3. Checkpoints are compared to brakes on a car, the cell goes through a process and it has to stop to check and make sure the DNA is okay, just like a car has to stop at a 4-way stop to make sure traffic isn’t coming.
  4. Enhance responses from the gut microbiome would be the holy grail to curing cancer if changed.
  5. Treatments such as CAR-T Cell therapy cause flu-like symptoms, but eventually make the patient feel better after a period of time.

Post 3

In the piece “Wealthier People Produce More Carbon Pollution – Even the ‘Green’ Ones” by David Roberts, he argues that the wealthier people in a population are one of the main reasons many greenhouse gases are emitted into the atmosphere. Roberts uses rhetoric to explain his argument, his first point is made by using ethos. He appeals to the audience by explaining how being green brings a positive outcome in life. He then uses logos to prove his point that the wealthier pollute the environment more, even if they recycle and eat organic vegetables. The ecological footprint is mainly based on income, more income typically means larger household size, and larger household size leads to larger land. All of this research is wrapped up with the rhetorical device, pathos. Roberts uses this passion to give an example of an average upper-middle-class woman that would drastically change her lifestyle to improve the environment.

Roberts argues that wealthier people are the reason for more carbon pollution, but with this argument, I am of two minds. I agree that wealthier people cause some of the damage to the environment, even if they are green, but I disagree that the wealthy are not every reason why the environment is damaged. Everyone is accounted for in the environment, everyone has a role in destroying a piece of the environment. By focusing on the wealthy, Roberts overlooks the deeper problem of every human that is involved in destroying the environment. Although I disagree with much that Roberts says, I fully endorse his final conclusion that action should be taken place to save the environment.

Post 2

Greetings, E.T. (Please Don’t Murder Us)” by Steven Johnson informs the public about a message known as the Arecibo message. This message is 168 seconds of noise that was sent into space to prove if there has been a sign of any extraterrestrial life outside of Earth. SETI is a non-profit institute that is in search of extraterrestrial intelligence, this institute pledges to increase the human ability to be able to detect signs of intelligence. METI, another non-profit institute, often tries to message extraterrestrial life which began in 2018. Both these groups want to prove that extraterrestrial life is out in the galaxy, while non-supporters often argue that aliens could try and take over Earth if they have a chance. Which is supported by past history, such as Columbus finding the Americas and taking over the land that was once the Native American’s land.

Post 1

In the article, “The Science of Gun Violence” by Russ Juskalian, it explains that many researchers want to study gun violence since the number of fatalities is similar between shootings and car accidents. Although the numbers are similar, more money is spent on researching motor vehicle deaths. One of the problems with fatalities related to gun violence is where to start on research. One common result of gun violence deaths is suicide: “…but roughly 60 percent of firearm deaths in 2017 were suicides” which is over half the death rate according to the statistics taken in 2017 (Jaskalian 33). Another problem with gun violence data is “how little the public knows about shootings that do not result in death” which is not included in the statistics since it was not fatal (Jaskalian 34). A bigger takeaway is this, in other countries, there were many reforms that took place to reduce the amount of gun violence. In Isreal, soldiers were once allowed to take their guns home with them for the weekend. After implementing a rule instructing them to leave their guns and other weapons on base for their weekend leave, suicide rates went down by 40 percent. Reforms have happened all over the world with guns and in the U.S. with driving laws. According to the article, the second-best time to reform would be now.

I agree that the second-best time to reform United States gun laws would be now. In my views, the types of solutions the author recommends would ultimately improve gun violence fatalities. For instance, the Swiss army halved the number of soldiers, which reduced the number of deadly weapons kept in homes and ultimately reduced suicide numbers. Some might object, of course, on the grounds that the second amendment gives every citizen a right to bear arms. Yet I would argue that this amendment was written more than two-hundred years ago and was written at a time in need. Overall then, I believe, gun laws should be reformed as of now.