Ecstasy and Brain Damage

Ecstasy is a popular party drug, however recent studies show that it may be incredibly damaging to the brain. Will this information prevent teens from trying this drug, or cause others to stop using it?

After tests testing ecstasy on monkeys, scientists have discovered that your could become more at risk of parkinsonism after only a few doses, according the article, “Party Drug Ecstasy May Cause More Widespread Brain Damage Than Previously Thought,” by Kate Wong. The substance killed dopamine neurons after three doses. Dopamine helps controlling movement, and the ability to feel pleasure. Once Ecstasy destroys the stratum 80% to 90% of the dopamine is destroyed. Parkinsonism is likely to occur.

This article provides evidence that Ecstasy is not as harmless as teens may have originally though. Parkinsonism can change lifestyles because those victims have to adapt to the new condition. So, will this information prevent teens from trying ecstasy? I don’t think so. Methamphetamine, an incredibly damaging and dangerous drug, is still abused by people who are aware of its damaging effects. Even though I don’t think this will prevent all uses, perhaps some people will think twice. 

Science of Genetics

There are two sides toe the topic of genetic engineering. One is that it is unnatural and unsafe. The other is that it is f=very beneficial to our society.

In this topic some of the benefits include, efficiency, and more food. In the article "The Growing Pains of a selectively bred chicken," it describes how chickens are unnaturally large. This gives the farmers more money quicker. It also means more food in the grocery stores. However this article's message is that these chickens are suffering. It is describe that these chickens are equal to a 250 lb. child. This creates much  misery for the chicken. These chickens were selectively breed this way. Selective breeding is when the two parents are chosen to mate to make the offspring have superior genetics. Scientists also work with genetic modification which is were genes are isolated and given to another organism for the same reason as selective breading. In genetic modification genes can be transferred from completely different organisms. You would get outcomes that could not be accomplished with selective breeding. With genetic modification many of the outcomes are unknown, as said in layout of benefits and controversies. This could be very dangerous.

I believe that that we should be careful with both these methods of genetic science. Both are dangerous especially genetic modification. In many cases this type of experimentation is unnecessary and abused. If we keep this up we could create something extremely harmful to the environment. I believe the founder of genetics, Gregor Mendel, would be fascinated by what we have accomplished, But even he would be frightened of what may happen.

Ecosystem Services

Allot of the time we take the ecosystem for granted, but what would we do without it. In the podcast "Why Ecosystem Services Matter," the importance of ecosystem services are explained.

Ecosystem services are the processes that give us clean water, flower pollination, and fish in bodies of water. These examples listed are benefiting humans. There is a lack of credit given to ecosystem system. The articles brings up the point that most decisions are made finically, usually nature is never taken accounted for. The products that the ecosystem provide are priceless.

I agree with this article. I often find myself taking nature for granted and would like to try consider the ecosystem more often. The ecosystem provides necessities that can't be replaced, therefore I completely agree with this article.

If Mosquitoes Went Extinct

Mosquitoes are not only pesky and irritating insects, but they also carry many deadly diseases, so what if they were wiped off the planet entirely. Would it cause an imbalance ecosystem, or a world without risk of disease from tiny, but deadly insects. In the article "A World Without Mosquitoes," both perspectives are explained.

Jittawadee Murphy is a expert on mosquitoes, and in here professional opinion she thinks mosquitoes should be completely wiped from existence. Her main reasoning is that they can cary diseases such as malaria, and West Nile virus. Another scientist names Strickman says that the only economical change in killing these mosquitoes is an increase of the human population.
On the other end of the argument, some animals depend on the mosquitoes. For instance the mosquito fish depend on the mosquito for food. If the mosquito no longer existed, than the mosquito fish would die, and another organism  that is dependent on that fish would die of as well.

From what I have read in this article, I agree that there would be little to no ecological disturbance if mosquitoes were to become extinct. There are thousands of different species of mosquitoes, however only one actually feeds from humans. If only these species were targeted animals such as the mosquito fish could survive. From the evidence in this article I think that mosquitoes should be gotten rid off.

Animal Testing

Animal testing is a very controversial topic. In the article "Chips' Fate Ignites Debate," by Heidi Ledford, brings up this issue, and more specifically, Chimp testing. The article is about a chimp testing facility in New Mexico that is bringing back retired primates, who have been tested on many times before, for more testing. The Governor of New Mexico, Bill Richardson, has started a movement against the testing. He is arguing for the retirement of the animals."Most of these chimpanzees are older and have been subjected to years of invasive research," wrote Jane Goodall, a well known primatologist, in the article.

My stance of animal testing is that testing on more intelligent animals should be avoided. If testing must be done, it should be done on less intelligent animal such as rats. Since chimps are very much like humans sometimes testing must be done. If it comes to this whatever is being tested must be for a very important purpose like a life saving vaccine, and all possible consequences and outcomes should be considered before testing. If shampoo or another harmless product is being tested then I think that it's fine as long it has been tested on a less inteligent animal first.

Over Hydration

Many people think that drinking an excessive amount of water is healthy, when actually, according to this article, "Strange but True: Drinking Too Much Water Can Kill," by Cocoo Ballantyne, too much water is dangerous. This is called hyponatremia, or dilution of the blood. This is when your blood sodium is too low.

A woman from California was killed by hyponatremia in a water drinking contest. She was trying to win a Nintedo Wii video game console. Her Blood sodium fell below135 millimeters, when it should have been between 135 and 145. This was a result of drinking too much water.

Based on personal experience I believe that would be difficult to drink too much water. If you stop drinking once you feel uncomfortable then stop. It is easier to become dehydrated than over hydrated, and much more dangerous too. Most doctors would recommend plenty of water.

What Determins If You Are Able To Recive An Organ Transplant?

In the article, "Should Violent Felons Receive Organ Transplants?" by David L. Perry, Ph.D., the controversial issue of who should receive an organ when so many people need it is brought up. His belief is expressed in this quote from the article, "...Organs should be distributed according to 1) degree of need and 2)probability the transplant will be successful." and his final guideline, "...3)a history of violent crime." The quote suggests that if you need the organ more than the other patients, then you are the most eligible for the organ. It also says that if the other patient will most likely die, again, you have a better chance of getting the transplant. Finally, it say that the other patient has a history of violence you will certainly receive the organ.

The author talks about a specific incident where a convicted felon received a hear transplant. He received the transfer at the Stanford Medical Center. The court of law says that inmates have equal right to health care. The author disagrees.

Personally, I believe that as long as the inmate will be released within four to five years he should have equal rights. However, whether you are a felon or not, shouldn't be taken accounted for. I agree degree of need is important in the decision, and so is probability that the transplant will be successful. Age should also be a large part of the decision. An eighty year old man may not use his organ for as long as a young boy or even or middle aged adult. Another thing I would consider, is if they need the transplant because of an alcohol or drug addiction than they should not have the organ replaced only to destroy it again. They should be clean and be able to show that they can stay clean for the remainder of their life.

Also, the author says that we should all be organ donors. This problem decreases drastically if everyone became an organ donor. I strongly agree. If you had a problem with the felon receiving the heart instead of the innocent civilian, than become an organ donor. If everyone did so, then most likely that would not have been a problem.