Thursday, April 1, 2010
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
Depression and Methods to Cure it
Contrary to what most people think, major depressive disorder (MDD) is a very common condition. Depression is the condition that causes certain people to feel sad and less interested in things they previously were. It tends to be diagnosed in primary care settings, which are usually used for physical health issues rather than mental health issues like depression. It occurs in around 6% to 14% of all people. For these cases usually just over half of those with depression are prescribed medications (usually antidepressants). There are usually three different ways that behavioral/mental health providers work with primary care providers to treat the patients in primary care with depression. These are coordinated, collocated, and integrated. Coordinated care is when there is simple communication between the mental health and primary care providers. Collocated is when mental health and primary care providers are located in the same office area, with frequent communication. Integrated is when there is team effort and both actually develop a plan to help treat the patient. Scientists have found proof that collocated and integrated mental health care works best for those with depression. Let’s find out why!
Collocated works well because there is clear and efficient communication between the two types of health providers. This is much better than calling, e-mailing, or faxing information, because this is sluggish and time is usually an issue. Integrated works well because both branches actually work together to design a treatment plan for those in need. Since physical health issues usually cause more immediate stress than mental ones, a patient can come to the doctor and also speak about his or her mental health issues and be diagnosed for that on the spot as well!
To find this out, scientists conducted studies on 12 participants that have shown signs of depression, even though they already are on antidepressants. These participants were receiving treatment from a basic family medicine clinic but reported little or no success. All were diagnosed using the coordinated method and were receiving no type of therapy. Through experimenting with collocated and integrated methods and providing ten therapy sessions over four months, 75% of participants reported at least a 50% improvement of symptoms!
This is proof that different ways of diagnosis can actually change the outcome of the treatment, and also that medication is not always enough. Through being diagnosed through a more efficient way and attending therapy sessions, the majority of the participants were successfully treated for their depression!
-Jake
Monday, March 15, 2010
The Behavior Modification of PTSD Victims by Devin Cooney
This week, we are shifting gears from Natural Sciences to Social Sciences. To start this transition, I wanted to talk about something in social sciences that interests me. My father works as a psychologist for the government. A psychologist studies behavior provides help people how need to change negative behaviors. Since my dad works for the government, he specializes in the area that I want to talk about today, posttraumatic stress disorder.
Posttraumatic stress disorder, or PTSD, deals with a constant remembrance of a certain negative event or events, such as war. These recollections can be in the form of dreams. This disorder has a big impact on the people it affects. Their ability to connect with the outside world decreases a lot. Relationships between these soldiers and their loved ones have decreased because of this disorder. Other symptoms include trouble sleeping and memory trouble.
Most of research done concerning PTSD focuses on war veterans. Researchers have argued on the exact number, but some studies say PTSD affects 25% of war veterans while some have estimates as high as 40-60%. Scientists hypothesize that the level of combat time increases the likelihood of PTSD. Social support, or comfort from a friend or loved one, helps this disorder occur less frequently.
A study conducted by Barrett and Mizes sought to prove this hypothesis with veterans of the Vietnam War. They hypothesized that those with high combat time would have more PTSD symptoms than low-combat veterans. In addition, they thought that veterans with higher levels of social support would show fewer symptoms than veterans with low levels.
They tested this hypothesis by interviewing 13 veterans from four different experimental groups. They sorted them by High Combat- Low Support, High Combat-High Support, Low Combat-Low Support, and Low Combat-High Support. They questions that they asked fit into four different scales. The Figley’s Combat Severity Scale is the most commonly used scale to measure PTSD. The researchers also developed two scales, the social support scale, which measures how much support the veteran received during his trip home, and the Premorbid Adjustment Scale, which measured if they were involved in other activities that could have triggered the PTSD. The last scale they used was the Hopkins Symptom Checklist, which also helps to measure levels of PTSD. Some questions they asked the veterans included:
Do you sometimes feel that you should have died in Vietnam?
Do loud noises irritate you or do sudden movements or noises make you jump?
Do you have dreams of specific war-related experiences?
They used these questions, and others, combined with their levels of support to see whether social support led to lowered levels of PTSD.
As they predicted, veterans who had high combat levels reported more PTSD symptoms than veterans with low levels of combat did. In addition, as predicted, veterans who had high levels of social support reported fewer PTSD symptoms than those with low levels of social support. Their study confirms other studies previously done. These researchers entered a debate that to me seems pretty one sided. The evidence that they used to back up their study all seemed to show the same information that they concluded from their study. The backward search of his resources seems to confirm these researchers original prediction.
I am glad I can share with you something that really interests me. PTSD is something that affects many veterans as well as their families and loved ones. However, using this study as an example, it looks like social support can lead to lowered chances of PTSD showing up in veterans.
Fun Links:
Combat Level and Social Support in the Development of Posttraumatic Stress Disorder in Vietnam Veterans by Terence W. Barrett and J. Scott Mizes. http://bmo.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/12/1/100
Posttraumatic stress disorder, or PTSD, deals with a constant remembrance of a certain negative event or events, such as war. These recollections can be in the form of dreams. This disorder has a big impact on the people it affects. Their ability to connect with the outside world decreases a lot. Relationships between these soldiers and their loved ones have decreased because of this disorder. Other symptoms include trouble sleeping and memory trouble.
Most of research done concerning PTSD focuses on war veterans. Researchers have argued on the exact number, but some studies say PTSD affects 25% of war veterans while some have estimates as high as 40-60%. Scientists hypothesize that the level of combat time increases the likelihood of PTSD. Social support, or comfort from a friend or loved one, helps this disorder occur less frequently.
A study conducted by Barrett and Mizes sought to prove this hypothesis with veterans of the Vietnam War. They hypothesized that those with high combat time would have more PTSD symptoms than low-combat veterans. In addition, they thought that veterans with higher levels of social support would show fewer symptoms than veterans with low levels.
They tested this hypothesis by interviewing 13 veterans from four different experimental groups. They sorted them by High Combat- Low Support, High Combat-High Support, Low Combat-Low Support, and Low Combat-High Support. They questions that they asked fit into four different scales. The Figley’s Combat Severity Scale is the most commonly used scale to measure PTSD. The researchers also developed two scales, the social support scale, which measures how much support the veteran received during his trip home, and the Premorbid Adjustment Scale, which measured if they were involved in other activities that could have triggered the PTSD. The last scale they used was the Hopkins Symptom Checklist, which also helps to measure levels of PTSD. Some questions they asked the veterans included:
Do you sometimes feel that you should have died in Vietnam?
Do loud noises irritate you or do sudden movements or noises make you jump?
Do you have dreams of specific war-related experiences?
They used these questions, and others, combined with their levels of support to see whether social support led to lowered levels of PTSD.
As they predicted, veterans who had high combat levels reported more PTSD symptoms than veterans with low levels of combat did. In addition, as predicted, veterans who had high levels of social support reported fewer PTSD symptoms than those with low levels of social support. Their study confirms other studies previously done. These researchers entered a debate that to me seems pretty one sided. The evidence that they used to back up their study all seemed to show the same information that they concluded from their study. The backward search of his resources seems to confirm these researchers original prediction.
I am glad I can share with you something that really interests me. PTSD is something that affects many veterans as well as their families and loved ones. However, using this study as an example, it looks like social support can lead to lowered chances of PTSD showing up in veterans.
Fun Links:
Combat Level and Social Support in the Development of Posttraumatic Stress Disorder in Vietnam Veterans by Terence W. Barrett and J. Scott Mizes. http://bmo.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/12/1/100
Sunday, March 14, 2010
How Parents Affected Our Eating Habits
As kids we often refuse to eat certain foods. Is it because we did not enjoy eating food? Were we stubborn? Bored? This problem varies among different children. Some are even diagnosed by doctors as having a feeding disorder. This causes them not to be able to gain weight, lose weight, or gain nutritional needs. Some of these children just turn down solid foods and have to get all of their nutritional needs met through various liquids. Others are just picky on what they eat. For example, they only consume soft foods, which could cause them not to get the right vitamins and minerals needed for a healthy diet.
It is believed that this food refusal is due to the actions of the parent or caregiver. The author believes that when the parent or caregiver stops asking their child to eat when they start disruptive behavior they continue this bad behavior. The way the caregiver gives attention are used to determine why a child has inappropriate mealtime behavior and why parents respond to this inappropriate mealtime behavior as they day.
One way to characterize how these interactions encourage inappropriate mealtime behavior is through a descriptive examination of the interactions between the parent and child during mealtimes. This is when meal schedules are changed and then the researcher studies the changes in their behavior.
Another type of study is called descriptive observation. This is when observers just watch parents feeding their children. In this study six children and their parent participated. Parents would first give the children attention during their meals and then would give them escape, by not asking them to eat anymore. In 2 out of the 6 cases, giving the children attention resulted in inappropriate behavior.
An important part of this study was the different types of attention and escape. For example a form of attention could be asking the child “why did you stop eating” or “are you okay you are not eating any of your food.” Examples of escape include taking away their spoon. These different forms of attention and escape change the intensity of the child’s good or behavior.
Fisher found that escape was a reinforcer for bad mealtime behavior most frequently (9 out of 15 cases in his experiment). But positive reinforcement in the form of attention was a reinforcer in almost as many cases (8 out of 15 cases in his experiment). This further proves the statement that different forms of attention change the effect of the parents’ actions on the child.
Do you remember the forms of attention that your parents gave you when you were at the kitchen table as a child? Did they change your eating habits? According to the Behavior Modifications article, they most certainly did.
Fun Links
Behavior Modifications by Julia N. Woods, John C. Borrero, Rinita B. Laud and Carrie S. W. Borrero http://bmo.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/34/1/35
Anna Perez
It is believed that this food refusal is due to the actions of the parent or caregiver. The author believes that when the parent or caregiver stops asking their child to eat when they start disruptive behavior they continue this bad behavior. The way the caregiver gives attention are used to determine why a child has inappropriate mealtime behavior and why parents respond to this inappropriate mealtime behavior as they day.
One way to characterize how these interactions encourage inappropriate mealtime behavior is through a descriptive examination of the interactions between the parent and child during mealtimes. This is when meal schedules are changed and then the researcher studies the changes in their behavior.
Another type of study is called descriptive observation. This is when observers just watch parents feeding their children. In this study six children and their parent participated. Parents would first give the children attention during their meals and then would give them escape, by not asking them to eat anymore. In 2 out of the 6 cases, giving the children attention resulted in inappropriate behavior.
An important part of this study was the different types of attention and escape. For example a form of attention could be asking the child “why did you stop eating” or “are you okay you are not eating any of your food.” Examples of escape include taking away their spoon. These different forms of attention and escape change the intensity of the child’s good or behavior.
Fisher found that escape was a reinforcer for bad mealtime behavior most frequently (9 out of 15 cases in his experiment). But positive reinforcement in the form of attention was a reinforcer in almost as many cases (8 out of 15 cases in his experiment). This further proves the statement that different forms of attention change the effect of the parents’ actions on the child.
Do you remember the forms of attention that your parents gave you when you were at the kitchen table as a child? Did they change your eating habits? According to the Behavior Modifications article, they most certainly did.
Fun Links
Behavior Modifications by Julia N. Woods, John C. Borrero, Rinita B. Laud and Carrie S. W. Borrero http://bmo.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/34/1/35
Anna Perez
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
Do Humans and Primates Have the Same Mental Process? by Devin Cooney
When mammals first came into existence, we were herbivores. This means that we only ate plants. Don’t you think that something had to change for mammals to start eating meat? Well, this change can be explained by the theory of evolution. You see, evolution explains why we have changed over the years into more complex animals. The theory revolves around natural selection. Natural selection means that we have kept the traits that help us survive and thrown away the ones that do not. However, Charles Darwin, the scientist responsible for the theory of evolution, has tried to show how related species have like mental traits as well as physical ones. Frans B.M de Waal agrees with Darwin’s theory in his article “Darwin’s Last Laugh.” He states that since monkeys and other similar animals kiss, hug, or groom their opponents after a fight, they must see the world and communicate much as humans do. However, studies have also shown that closely related animals cannot perform the same tasks that humans can. Humans display traits that other similarly structured animals do not, including a sense of fairness, the ability to imitate complex sounds, and the skill to interpret non-verbal cues. These traits highlight a downside in de Wall’s argument: similar physical traits do not always imply similar mental traits.
Darwin’s theory of evolution leads to scientists looking for similar mental abilities that end up not existing. An example, found in Johan J Bohuis and Clive D.L Wynne’s article “Can Evolution Explain How Minds Work?, centers around monkeys being able to see what people consider fair and unfair. The way scientists tested it interested me. Scientists thought that since one monkey showed sadness when not given an equally nice reward for doing the same task, they could sense fairness. The sad monkey received a cucumber instead of a grape. However, when the better reward was placed in a cage without a monkey, it was still upset. This shows that the scientists cannot automatically assume that monkeys have a sense of fairness.
Humans and primates do not share many mental processes. Language, for instance, separates humans and primates a lot. Language, as you know, helps humans complete most every task. Being able to communicate with other humans makes everything that much easier. The same article I mentioned before, “Can Evolution Explain How Minds Work?”, highlights this difference. The article argues that in order to have language, you need to mimic, or recreate, sounds that come from someone else. Primates cannot do the task that humans depend so much on. However, many parrots and songbirds can mimic others very well. The fact that unrelated species have similar skills as humans, but closely related animals do not, further shows the wide difference between the mental processes of men and primates.
Another example that shows humans and primates differ revolves around the “object choice” task. The object choice task concluded that chimpanzees could not use communication to complete a task. The object choice task starts by a person placing food under cups so that the chimpanzee does not know underneath which cup the food is located. The person then uses a social cue, like pointing, to lead the chimpanzee to the correct cup. While a human could perform this task, the chimpanzee cannot use these clues to find the hidden food.
As long as we try to assume mental abilities between humans and other related animals, I feel we will be making too many conclusions based on assumptions. I think that making these assumptions leads to humans not being able to fully understand or appreciate what makes humans and primates different. I think if we took the time to study both animals separately and see what each are capable of, rather than just assuming they are similar in mental ability because similar structure exists, we will be more successful in understanding what makes each animal special.
Fun Links:
Darwin's last laugh by Frans B. M. de Waal http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v460/n7252/full/460175a.html
Can evolution explain how minds work? By Johan J. Bolhuis1 & Clive D. L. Wynne
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v458/n7240/full/458832a.html
From Nonhuman to Human Mind: What Changed and Why? By Brian Hare
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/118000095/PDFSTART
Darwin’s theory of evolution leads to scientists looking for similar mental abilities that end up not existing. An example, found in Johan J Bohuis and Clive D.L Wynne’s article “Can Evolution Explain How Minds Work?, centers around monkeys being able to see what people consider fair and unfair. The way scientists tested it interested me. Scientists thought that since one monkey showed sadness when not given an equally nice reward for doing the same task, they could sense fairness. The sad monkey received a cucumber instead of a grape. However, when the better reward was placed in a cage without a monkey, it was still upset. This shows that the scientists cannot automatically assume that monkeys have a sense of fairness.
Humans and primates do not share many mental processes. Language, for instance, separates humans and primates a lot. Language, as you know, helps humans complete most every task. Being able to communicate with other humans makes everything that much easier. The same article I mentioned before, “Can Evolution Explain How Minds Work?”, highlights this difference. The article argues that in order to have language, you need to mimic, or recreate, sounds that come from someone else. Primates cannot do the task that humans depend so much on. However, many parrots and songbirds can mimic others very well. The fact that unrelated species have similar skills as humans, but closely related animals do not, further shows the wide difference between the mental processes of men and primates.
Another example that shows humans and primates differ revolves around the “object choice” task. The object choice task concluded that chimpanzees could not use communication to complete a task. The object choice task starts by a person placing food under cups so that the chimpanzee does not know underneath which cup the food is located. The person then uses a social cue, like pointing, to lead the chimpanzee to the correct cup. While a human could perform this task, the chimpanzee cannot use these clues to find the hidden food.
As long as we try to assume mental abilities between humans and other related animals, I feel we will be making too many conclusions based on assumptions. I think that making these assumptions leads to humans not being able to fully understand or appreciate what makes humans and primates different. I think if we took the time to study both animals separately and see what each are capable of, rather than just assuming they are similar in mental ability because similar structure exists, we will be more successful in understanding what makes each animal special.
Fun Links:
Darwin's last laugh by Frans B. M. de Waal http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v460/n7252/full/460175a.html
Can evolution explain how minds work? By Johan J. Bolhuis1 & Clive D. L. Wynne
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v458/n7240/full/458832a.html
From Nonhuman to Human Mind: What Changed and Why? By Brian Hare
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/118000095/PDFSTART
Is Animal Testing Truly Beneficial?
The US Food and Drug Administration states that during the year 1952, 3,145 people died due to polio disease in the United States. About two-thirds of these deaths included children. Scientist found the treatment for polio in 1955, but before they distributed this cure they ensured that it was safe by testing it on animals. Scientists and researchers still frequently use animals to complete research and test objects such as soaps and medicines to ensure their safety for human use. But some scientists are still questioning the ethics of animal testing. The magazine called Nature recently published an article arguing that the United States needs to strengthen their policies on animal testing and that the government should reduce and possibly do away with animal testing completely. However, animal testing ensures the safety of humans as well as animals. Since we cannot reproduce the accuracy and benefits of this research, animal testing will remain necessary.
Animal testing is accurate form of study due to the fact that animals are so similar to humans. In fact, Thomas Dixon states that “human beings share about 99% of their genes with chimpanzees.” This means that these animals’ bodies will most likely react the same way as ours would. Due to this fact, animal testing is a very accurate way to learn the effects of substances on the human body. According the American Medical Association, 99% of all active physicians in the United States believe that animal research has improved medical procedures.
Almost everyone around you has benefited from animal testing in some way. Without animal testing and research, people who have survived many illnesses would probably not be alive today. The length of a person’s life in the United States has improved greatly. In 1900 the average age of a human was 49 years, but in 2001 the average age was 67.6 years. The medicines responsible for extending people’s lives could not have been developed without animal testing.
As mentioned in the previously, these illnesses include polio. Through animal testing scientists discovered a vaccine that cured the polio disease. Other vaccines that were discovered from animal testing include mumps, measles, rabies and hepatitis. In addition, the treatment for diabetes was discovered through animal testing. This treatment is called insulin. Insulin makes sure that there is enough sugar in the body. Without the discovery of insulin through the use of animal research, many people would not be able survive this disease today.
Humans are not the only ones who benefit from animal testing. Animals also benefit from the testing. The research completed can also improve the lives of animals through the discovery of treatments and cures just like with humans. Animals and humans have similar health problems. Some of these problems include allergies, cancer, heart disease, measles, and much more! Have you ever heard your mom talk about heartworm medicine for your dog? This medicine was discovered through animal testing. Without animal testing this medicine that has saved many dogs’ lives would not be available.
The author of the Nature article above argues that animal testing is painful and uncomfortable for animals. Although this is true, the benefits of animal testing outweigh these drawbacks. These animals help scientists make discoveries that could possibly change human lives. Thus, they need to be treated with as much care and respect as possible. Scientists and researchers are striving to make the experimenting safe and just as well as causing little pain and discomfort as possible.
In order to make sure that the testing is, in fact, as safe as possible for the animals, there are many rules and regulations set by the government. The people that are in charge of these rules and regulations often complete surprise inspections on the facilities where the testing takes place. Even veterinarians are used in order to inspect and make sure the proper actions are completed in order to ensure the animals’ safety. Some of these numerous laws and regulations include Animal Welfare Act, Public Health Service Policy on Humane Care and Use of Laboratory Animals, and State Certification for Animal Research. For example the Animal Welfare Act sets standards of care and treatment to be provided to animals that are used in research. The Public Health Service Policy on Humane Care and Use of Laboratory Animals is responsible for providing training to investigators who inspect the facilities where animal testing takes place. State Certification for Animal Research requires companies to have certification in order to practice their research.
While the author of the Nature article is right to point out the safety of animals subjected to these tests, we should not stop these tests altogether. Animal testing benefits our lives as well as the lives of animals greatly. We need animal testing as a part of our country’s scientific research in order to ensure our safety as well as animals’ safety! After reading about all of the facts and benefits of animal testing, do you think the benefits of animal testing outweigh the drawbacks?
Fun Links
Against Vicious Activism, by Anonymous http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v457/n7230/full/457636a.html
Animal Testing Pros, by Ranjan Shandilya. http://www.buzzle.com/articles/animal-testing-pros.html
Animal Experimentation, by Dr. Thomas Dixon. http://www.idebate.org/debatabase/topic_details.php?topicID=7
Development of Polio Vaccines, by Bonnie Maybury Okonek and Linda Morganstein http://www.accessexcellence.org/AE/AEC/CC/polio.php
Identification of irritation and corrosion hazards to skin: an alternative strategy to animal testing, by D. A. Basketter, E. Whittle and M. Chamberlain http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6T6P-478BY2W-82&_user=130907&_coverDate=06%2F30%2F1994&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_acct=C000004198&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=130907&md5=50780acdcd4eeb434ed1edefd5ab7056
Kids 4 Research, by Anonymous http://www.kids4research.org/kids/
Life Expectancy in the United States, by Laura Shrestha. http://aging.senate.gov/crs/aging1.pdf
Tireless polio research effort bears fruit and indignation, by Byron Spice http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05094/482468.stm#ixzz0h2sldhgK
Animal testing is accurate form of study due to the fact that animals are so similar to humans. In fact, Thomas Dixon states that “human beings share about 99% of their genes with chimpanzees.” This means that these animals’ bodies will most likely react the same way as ours would. Due to this fact, animal testing is a very accurate way to learn the effects of substances on the human body. According the American Medical Association, 99% of all active physicians in the United States believe that animal research has improved medical procedures.
Almost everyone around you has benefited from animal testing in some way. Without animal testing and research, people who have survived many illnesses would probably not be alive today. The length of a person’s life in the United States has improved greatly. In 1900 the average age of a human was 49 years, but in 2001 the average age was 67.6 years. The medicines responsible for extending people’s lives could not have been developed without animal testing.
As mentioned in the previously, these illnesses include polio. Through animal testing scientists discovered a vaccine that cured the polio disease. Other vaccines that were discovered from animal testing include mumps, measles, rabies and hepatitis. In addition, the treatment for diabetes was discovered through animal testing. This treatment is called insulin. Insulin makes sure that there is enough sugar in the body. Without the discovery of insulin through the use of animal research, many people would not be able survive this disease today.
Humans are not the only ones who benefit from animal testing. Animals also benefit from the testing. The research completed can also improve the lives of animals through the discovery of treatments and cures just like with humans. Animals and humans have similar health problems. Some of these problems include allergies, cancer, heart disease, measles, and much more! Have you ever heard your mom talk about heartworm medicine for your dog? This medicine was discovered through animal testing. Without animal testing this medicine that has saved many dogs’ lives would not be available.
The author of the Nature article above argues that animal testing is painful and uncomfortable for animals. Although this is true, the benefits of animal testing outweigh these drawbacks. These animals help scientists make discoveries that could possibly change human lives. Thus, they need to be treated with as much care and respect as possible. Scientists and researchers are striving to make the experimenting safe and just as well as causing little pain and discomfort as possible.
In order to make sure that the testing is, in fact, as safe as possible for the animals, there are many rules and regulations set by the government. The people that are in charge of these rules and regulations often complete surprise inspections on the facilities where the testing takes place. Even veterinarians are used in order to inspect and make sure the proper actions are completed in order to ensure the animals’ safety. Some of these numerous laws and regulations include Animal Welfare Act, Public Health Service Policy on Humane Care and Use of Laboratory Animals, and State Certification for Animal Research. For example the Animal Welfare Act sets standards of care and treatment to be provided to animals that are used in research. The Public Health Service Policy on Humane Care and Use of Laboratory Animals is responsible for providing training to investigators who inspect the facilities where animal testing takes place. State Certification for Animal Research requires companies to have certification in order to practice their research.
While the author of the Nature article is right to point out the safety of animals subjected to these tests, we should not stop these tests altogether. Animal testing benefits our lives as well as the lives of animals greatly. We need animal testing as a part of our country’s scientific research in order to ensure our safety as well as animals’ safety! After reading about all of the facts and benefits of animal testing, do you think the benefits of animal testing outweigh the drawbacks?
Fun Links
Against Vicious Activism, by Anonymous http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v457/n7230/full/457636a.html
Animal Testing Pros, by Ranjan Shandilya. http://www.buzzle.com/articles/animal-testing-pros.html
Animal Experimentation, by Dr. Thomas Dixon. http://www.idebate.org/debatabase/topic_details.php?topicID=7
Development of Polio Vaccines, by Bonnie Maybury Okonek and Linda Morganstein http://www.accessexcellence.org/AE/AEC/CC/polio.php
Identification of irritation and corrosion hazards to skin: an alternative strategy to animal testing, by D. A. Basketter, E. Whittle and M. Chamberlain http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6T6P-478BY2W-82&_user=130907&_coverDate=06%2F30%2F1994&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_acct=C000004198&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=130907&md5=50780acdcd4eeb434ed1edefd5ab7056
Kids 4 Research, by Anonymous http://www.kids4research.org/kids/
Life Expectancy in the United States, by Laura Shrestha. http://aging.senate.gov/crs/aging1.pdf
Tireless polio research effort bears fruit and indignation, by Byron Spice http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05094/482468.stm#ixzz0h2sldhgK
Anna Perez
Censorship in Turkey
Did you know that censorship could protect peoples' privacy? If you don't know what censorship is, I'll explain it to you! But to start with, I’ll let you know how it relates to what I’m going to talk about today. A recent issue has occurred in Turkey (the country, not the animal!) that deals with this. The people of Turkey, a country located in a region far away called the Middle East, see religion as very important. The Turkish government recently censored an article in a science magazine dealing with Charles Darwin, the guy who came up with the theory of evolution. Evolution says that all living things evolve, but in more simple terms it differs from what one would learn in church about Jesus and God. By "censored" I mean that the government demanded the editors to take off the picture of Darwin and delete the article just before the issue went on sale. This is because, like I said earlier, Turkey is filled with lots of very religious people.
The article I read about the situation stated that the censorship isn’t right. It argued that scientists were outraged and that government interference shouldn’t be allowed. These two claims can be correct, but there are several points and details the author failed to mention.
Of course scientists were angry when they found out what happened. At first it does seem unfair that the government could do such a thing, but on second thought it doesn’t seem so unreasonable. Very few people believe in evolution compared to creation because of such a religious population. Another article I read stated that only one in four Turks believe in the theory of evolution. The problems that would have been caused if it were published wouldn’t have been worth the trouble. Extreme religious groups would have likely thrown a fit, and by this I don’t mean a hissy fit. In the Middle East, religious groups often riot when upset, damaging property and sometimes hurting and even killing people.
While the magazine is scientific, the editors must understand that the government reserves the right to alter it. They have the highest power in the country and, as unfortunate as it seems, the editors of the magazine have no say in the situation. The attempt to publish an article like that proved a mistake, especially with the very extreme religious views of the area.
Many would say that the Turkish government crossed the line, but since it pleased the majority of the population, the censoring is acceptable. The government isn’t trying to force any religion upon anyone; it is simply saving the population from chaos.
“Turkey Censors Evolution”, by anonymous. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v458/n7236/full/458259a.html March 19th, 2009
“Darwin in Turkey”, by Daniel Steinvorth http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,613768,00.html March 17th, 2009
The article I read about the situation stated that the censorship isn’t right. It argued that scientists were outraged and that government interference shouldn’t be allowed. These two claims can be correct, but there are several points and details the author failed to mention.
Of course scientists were angry when they found out what happened. At first it does seem unfair that the government could do such a thing, but on second thought it doesn’t seem so unreasonable. Very few people believe in evolution compared to creation because of such a religious population. Another article I read stated that only one in four Turks believe in the theory of evolution. The problems that would have been caused if it were published wouldn’t have been worth the trouble. Extreme religious groups would have likely thrown a fit, and by this I don’t mean a hissy fit. In the Middle East, religious groups often riot when upset, damaging property and sometimes hurting and even killing people.
While the magazine is scientific, the editors must understand that the government reserves the right to alter it. They have the highest power in the country and, as unfortunate as it seems, the editors of the magazine have no say in the situation. The attempt to publish an article like that proved a mistake, especially with the very extreme religious views of the area.
Many would say that the Turkish government crossed the line, but since it pleased the majority of the population, the censoring is acceptable. The government isn’t trying to force any religion upon anyone; it is simply saving the population from chaos.
“Turkey Censors Evolution”, by anonymous. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v458/n7236/full/458259a.html March 19th, 2009
“Darwin in Turkey”, by Daniel Steinvorth http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,613768,00.html March 17th, 2009
-Jake
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)