Sunday, October 30, 2011

Marking Period 2 Week 4

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/17/opinion/17judson.html
In this column, Olivia Judson presents her opinion that although a great deal of research has gone into and data has been collected about genetic testing, it has not been able to solve many problems. Differently than other columnists on the subject of genetic testing, Judson does actually see validity in both sides of the argument, seeing both hope from new improvements and the great amount still unknown to us, but still has her own opinion. She feels that everyone thought increased genetic testing would mean more answers, but instead it has generally made things more complicated. For example, there has been a great amount of genetic research and collection of data, but she explains genes cannot do something simple like give us a connection to any physical appearance as hoped for. Judson explains more complication is added because one gene does not control a trait, a trait is a product of many genes, so even though a great amount of data has been collected, it is not helpful unless all the pieces are found. She feels there are two possibilities for genetic testing: either enough data will never be collected or a new approach must be taken, and while this may be interesting in science, realistically it is useless to solve any genetic issues so far.

Sunday, October 23, 2011

Marking Period 2 Week 3


This image presents a unique point of view on genetic testing by not looking directly at what current opportunities or issues it causes but instead predicting what this new emphasis on genetic testing will mean for the future. The person who created this image understands the discoveries being made and the abilities scientists now possess in many cases to manipulate genes to create a desired outcome, such as reversing a disease. Their worry, however, is depicted in this image of a baby with various logos covering his or her skin, which shows the worry that sooner or later babies will become a product of gene manipulation and genetic testing by making the baby with whatever characteristics are wanted. This is often connected to the idea of "designer babies", meaning their characteristics are no longer naturally selected but instead pre-chosen to make the baby.

Saturday, October 15, 2011

Marking Period 2 Week 2

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/genetic-testing-21st-century-version-of-palm-reading

In "Genetic Testing: 21st Century Version of Palm Reading?", a blogger expresses her views on genetic testing in general and how people should actually take the results. A current issue in genetic testing is the longevity gene, which "predisposes" people to live to be 100 years old, but realistically, anything could cause anyone to die tomorrow - just as anyone without the gene could also live to be 100. Genetic testing is making predictions about how things might turn out, not guaranteeing that outcome, trying to prepare us for what might happen in the future. There are no absolutes or guarantees involved. Personally, she'd rather take life one day at a time and not pay attention to what genetic testing says "might be" her future.

Monday, October 10, 2011

Marking Period 2 Week 1

A book summary on "Your Genes, Your Choices" explains this book's connection to AAAS (American Association for the Advancement of Science) and tries to show how science can actually influence your everyday decisions and help you to understand the basic ideas in science so you are aware. Although it is often thought that science research has nothing to do with our everyday lives or what decisions we make, this is far from how it really is. Science directly relates to our health and everyday life because being aware about science effects how we make decisions and understand the possible consequences of these decisions. It often seems that science can be too hard to understand, but this is only because information on science is often written in scientific language on topics many of us don't understand.

http://ehrweb.aaas.org/ehr/books/index.html