I apologize for the inappropriately lengthy hiatus. I submitted, presented and got accepted my thesis proposal, so I am now officially a master's candidate in my program. And then many other fun and awesome personal things happened that kept me busy and away from the blogosphere. But now I'm here to catch up and tell you about all the interesting articles I've been reading lately.
Firstly, I did an interview with Courtney Hilden at Under the Microscope, a blog by the Feminist Press about women in science. It was a fun experience, and Courtney drew my attention to something I hadn't really given a lot of thought: although I meant this to be primarily a science blog, I end up writing about gender issues quite a bit. It just happens to be a topic that interests me, and was in no way intentional. But anyway, cool! Check out the interview if you want to learn a little more about my Masters research.
Speaking of mitochondrial research, there was also an exciting article about the possible applications of cybridization in IVF (in-vitro fertilization) techniques, as a therapy for mitochondrially inherited diseases. This technology is much further along than I had originally realized, and it's a very exciting prospect for IVF technologies. The snag is that it creates a potential for babies with three parents, which is a major ethical issue. It's not as severe as it sounds, and if there's an interest, I can go deeper into the specifics of this topic in another post. But in any case it's a fascinating article and definitely worth a read.
As for gender issues, my attention was brought to an article written by Dr. Ben Barres, a prof at Stanford with whom I've had some limited contact. Dr. Barres studies glial cells, and when I originally got my bachelor's degree, I contacted him about joining his lab, should I be accepted to Stanford. His research is fascinating, but the article is more about his professional presence in the field. You see, Dr. Barres used to be a woman. And as a transgendered individual, he's had a chance to see the sciences from both sides of the gender fence. As such, he's been able to shed a lot of light on gender discrimination in the sciences. It's a super cool article and I highly recommend it, especially if you work in the sciences.
I'm still reading up on women's issues quite a bit, and as contraception has been kind of a big deal in politics lately, I've been trying to keep up on any new and interesting news in that area. I found out from this fascinating article on the history of the IUD that I had fallen victim to some very common misconceptions about how IUDs work, and under what circumstances they're used in the United States (as opposed to the circumstances under which they would be the most impactful). As it turns out, the IUD is mainly recommended for women who already have children only in the United States, but it is honestly a better first choice for teenagers and young women who: 1) plan on not having children for years at a time and 2) are more likely to forget their pills or otherwise not use conventional birth control correctly. But this technology is not marketed toward that group in the US at all, for purely circumstantial reasons.
And this one's just for funsies. Turns out, in a stroke of pure poetry on the part of the universe, Barack Obama might be descended from the first American slave. It's not 100%, but the people who did the research used solid techniques and the study seems to check out with professional genealogists. If it's true, it makes a tidy and beautiful story about the perseverance of the African American community.
Alright, that's it for now. I've got a few blog posts brewing in my brain. I'll try to check back regularly. Thanks for your patience. ^_^
While the impact of religion on culture is a topic of interest for me, I personally find little use in arguments that use the Bible as evidence, since I personally don't consider the contents of the Bible to be fact. I browsed your blog and it would appear that the Bible is your primary source of evidence for supporting your arguments. I'm not saying your wrong, I'm just saying that I personally don't agree with Christianity as a paradigm.
ReplyDeleteBut thanks for the invite.
*you're
ReplyDeleteFascinating! Especially the article on mitochondria donors. I had a question. The article quotes a scientist saying the following:
ReplyDelete"In Newcastle, Turnbull is working on ways to eliminate the risk of disease by replacing the mother's faulty mitochondria wholesale with those from a healthy donor. The use of this extra genetic material has led to headlines about "three-parent babies", a label Turnbull and many others in the field frown on. "It's very misleading because it assumes you're getting character from these genes. The makeup of our mitochondria has nothing to do with our characteristics. What makes you you and me me is not our mitochondria," he says."
If mitochondria can cause serious health problems, including in this case a fatal disease, how can Turnbull say that they have "nothing to do with our characteristics."? Aren't those two claims mutually inconsistent?
So, when he says "characteristics" he means physical traits. He's not talking about phenotype in the strictest sense. So, the mitochondrial DNA only contains genes for 14 proteins, all of which play a part in the electron transport chain OR in the maintenance of the mtDNA itself. So the only traits that are altered are related to bioenergetic functions.
ReplyDeleteThis is tricky, though! Because on the one hand we want to say that you'll look the same, you'll just have less mitochondrial dysfunction... welllll we don't know 100% of everything that the mitochondria do. They have their hands in a lot of different pies, so to speak. They play a central role in initiating apoptosis, so would this also affect your chances of developing cancer? They interact differently in different tissues, too, so would other new traits emerge? They are also how we trace haplotypes, so a person resulting from this type of IVF would not have a clearly traceable lineage.... It's sticky at best, catastrophic at worst. BUT! It's also extremely, extremely shiny and as they said, it provides a massive ray of hope for women who carry mitochondrial disease.