Science

[War Pig Killer]

On the topic of kids’ science....did you guys ever get to watch cool science shows when you were little? I loved ‘Bill Nye the Science Guy’ and ‘The Magic School Bus’. Seriously, some of the stuff I learned from that I’m only just learning in class, and I go off to start a bio undergrad in less than a year.

Those are the main ones I saw.

 

Also, MRS. FRIZZLE IS A TIME LADY!

[Voxezi]

Three-horns never play with long-necks.

Apparently three-horns are the juvenile stage of another dinosaur.

[LadyNightshade]

Apparently three-horns are the juvenile stage of another dinosaur.

I mentioned that on the page before

 

juvenile of torosaurus. However, torosaurus is void now because triceratops was named first, thus they are keeping triceratops as a species name.

[Completely Different]

I mentioned that on the page before

 

juvenile of torosaurus. However, torosaurus is void now because triceratops was named first, thus they are keeping triceratops as a species name.

*cheers*

 

My childhood has been restored.

[LadyNightshade]

I know right. It just wouldn't feel the same replacing a name practically everyone knows with something else.

 

Yay for science having "first" rules

[Kestra15]

MRS. FRIZZLE IS A TIME LADY!

Agreed - I had a discussion about this with my other half and she thinks the same.

 

Although her TARDIS isn't quite as cool, even if it is a bit psychedelic.

[LadyNightshade]

On a biology topic,

 

any of you good with identifying snakes?

 

I've got a mystery species snake skull on my hands.

 

the ebay seller didn't mention what it was other than it came from a zoo freezer.

 

 

It's approximately (excluding the spine) one inch long, and at the widest point it is half an inch wide.

 

there is a "second" set of teeth along the upper jaw on the roof of the mouth. It is non venomous snake as it has no fangs or spot where fangs would have existed.

 

Here is the picture from the ebay sell (I have it, I just can't find my camera)

 

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v603/Nig.../snakeskull.png

 

 

(linked for people who are afraid of snakes, well, snake skulls)

[RheaZen]

Those are the main ones I saw.

 

Also, MRS. FRIZZLE IS A TIME LADY!

asdf';lk

 

Magic School Bus seems so much cooler now.

 

I don't recall watching many, just a few. I remember the books better. Same with Bill Nye - I remember a book I'd read but I don't recall ever watching anything with him in it.

[LadyNightshade]

I love thinkgeek's geek points, I had enough so when I got some more giant microbe plushes I got a radiometer for free yay!

 

 

(My room is turning into half way science and half way art)

[RheaZen]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/25/health/p...5stem.html?_r=1

 

FFFFFF-

 

But really, this is bad news. Thoughts?

[Kaynight]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/25/health/p...5stem.html?_r=1

 

FFFFFF-

 

But really, this is bad news. Thoughts?

I think its bad news, if they stop funding (dare I say it) this ground breaking research it will set medical research further back than it should be. When these people who are so against it get some type of disease which may have been cured or helped by stem cell research believe me that they'll be the first to cry foul that "doctors" didn't do enough to save them, it's all fun and games until "you" need those cures or medications that this type of research may provide.

 

EDIT: I spelt it fowl instead of foul, lol I can't spell.

Edited August 26, 2010 by Kaynight

[Kamak]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/25/health/p...5stem.html?_r=1

 

FFFFFF-

 

But really, this is bad news. Thoughts?

... Why are we still using embryonic stem cells? We can make stem cells easily from dedifferentiating skin cells...

 

I have nothing against using embryonic stem cells, but if it'll shut up the people who keep bawwing about "killing children" and stop distracting/suspending scientists from their work, then we should be changing to skin-based stem cells... >_>

 

-K-

[LadyNightshade]

A lot of those cells can actually be harvested from the umbilical cord after birth.

 

I think if people are so opposed to "killing children", they should go about promoting giving the umbilical cords to science, because then it's something from life, no one is "killed", and science gets to do science.

 

 

Most of the people crying foul about it haven't done any research regarding it. It amazes me how much the ignorant (ignorant, not stupid) dictate the world, especially when so much can be learned from stem cell and other new research in science and medicine.

[Kaynight]

Most of the people crying foul about it haven't done any research regarding it. It amazes me how much the ignorant (ignorant, not stupid) dictate the world, especially when so much can be learned from stem cell and other new research in science and medicine.

Totally agree, people who don't know much about a subject shouldn't be the ones yelling their opinions the loudest, however this is usually the case.

[scratcher_cat]

I do not claim to be someone who has studied stem cells, I don't know as much as a bunch of people on this thread do. But if a woman is going to get an abortion anyway, why not let the unborn child's death have more meaning?

 

I support stem cell research, there, I said it.

 

As for all sciences...

Science is my favorite class, I loved it so much. (It helped that my teacher was awesome too.) I especially loved the chemistry and biology units.

[Kamak]

Like I said, all that scientists need at this point is living skin cells. They expose them to compounds that cause the cells to revert back to stem cells (a process called dedifferentiation), and from there can allow them to mass divide to get a sizable amount, whereafter they can expose the cells to other compounds, signaling the cells to transform into whatever type of cells you want (cardiac muscle, brain , nerve, etc.), in the process known as differentiation (which is how stem cells become certain cells to begin with).

 

Though upon looking back on it, there are still kinks in the process, so I guess embryonic cells/adult stem cells from fat deposits are the best source for now...

 

Along the same train of thought, I have a growing (lol) love of teratomas. Teratomas are what happens when stem cells make mistakes. basically, you get a stem cell changing into a cell you don't need at that particular location (heart cells in your leg). They're believed to be there from birth (they're considered a form of tumor, though they grow really slowly and VERY rarely are malignant.

 

Some people estimate that the average person has around 100 in their body at a given time.

 

Why is this interesting? Well, this next part might gross you out.

 

It has been seen that these masses sometimes try to form what they were originally meant for, like eye cells will try to develop a very tiny eye (it generally doesn't look like an eye, more a pinkish ball smaller than a marble), or you can see a tooth forming (these are generally the ones that get removed... for obvious reasons), or even HAIR. These "single cell misfits" are actively trying to make organs by themselves, unassisted by the body.

 

It's really quite amazing when you think about it...

 

Also:

 

In light of the ethical issues surrounding the source of human stem cells, teratomas are being looked at as an alternative source for research since they lack the potential to grow into functional human beings.

 

Also, when I was 8, I had a "strange mass" removed from the outside lining of my small intestine, which may very well have been a teratoma, since it seemed to appear out of nowhere for no reason, and it isn't a widely discussed medical condition because of the rarity of it.

 

-K-

Edited August 26, 2010 by Kamak

[Kestra15]

In light of the whole 'ignorance shouts loudest' I thought I'd post this little gem from Dara O'Briain that I have used before. It does have bad language in it.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIaV8swc-fo

[LadyNightshade]

 

Along the same train of thought, I have a growing (lol) love of teratomas. Teratomas are what happens when stem cells make mistakes. basically, you get a stem cell changing into a cell you don't need at that particular location (heart cells in your leg). They're believed to be there from birth (they're considered a form of tumor, though they grow really slowly and VERY rarely are malignant.

 

Interestingly enough, my friend recently had a 5 pound benign teratoma tumor removed from her ovary.

 

She's got a pretty nice scar on her stomach now.

 

 

 

Still though, on the U-cord stem cells. those are often used to treat bone marrow problems. So I don't see why anyone would be opposed to giving those away after birth. If they don't they generally get incinerated or some really different people keep them...

[Kamak]

Still though, on the U-cord stem cells. those are often used to treat bone marrow problems. So I don't see why anyone would be opposed to giving those away after birth. If they don't they generally get incinerated or some really different people keep them...

A lot of people worry about the doctors/scientists using the cells in testing and reaping royalties and copyrights in what essentially belongs to their child (it's the whole rights of donors issues), plus there's been talk of dirtyhanded deals where samples are given to insurance companies so they can determine what diseases could get later in to (and thus can deny coverage for "predisposed" conditions).

 

So these cause people to be less willing to give out the tissue...

 

-K-

Edited August 27, 2010 by Kamak

[LadyNightshade]

It's always unfortunate that greed, politics and the such get in the way of science...

[Kamak]

It's always unfortunate that greed, politics and the such get in the way of science...

Well, I don't personally see it being right that doctors/scientists can patent MY mutant genes and proteins without giving some form of compensation, or at the very least I'd want them to get little or no money out of doing it, with the majority of the profit going back into research or to charities. The whole HeLa incident (where the cells were taken and had research done on them without consent or knowledge by the donor (and afterwards they kept wanting to take more samples)) has soured a lot of people to donating tissue for research, as the HeLa cells generated BILLIONS of dollars just for the distribution of the cells, not to mention all of the vaccines, drugs, and experiments that were made possible by these cells, and meanwhile, Henrietta Lacks' family can't even afford HEALTH CARE. If that isn't the ultimate irony, I don't know what could top it.

 

However, if Henrietta were to say no to giving her cells to research, we may have never found immortal cell lines and all of these advances in technology (and in cancer research, the very thing the cells were spawned from) may not have been made with regular cell cultures.

 

It's a very fine line, as scientists and doctors since HeLa have often done dubious things to get samples so they can be the next George Gey (the man who did the research on HeLa (I don't think he was ultimately the one who got rich off of it though... I'll have to look back on that)) and strike it rich by patenting someone else's cells/DNA/proteins as THEIR cell line/gene/protein. The rights of ownership for organs/tissue samples/etc. have been heavily contested recently, and many have been decided by comparing the issue to transplants. If you donated a kidney to someone, is it still your kidney, and can you ask for it back if you change your mind/suddenly need a kidney yourself?

 

I've had things taken out of me, and as far as I know, they could be sitting in the lab helping find a cure for cancer. While I'd be happy to know that my "donation" is helping others, I wouldn't exactly want people to profit off of it when they were obtained without my consent (or since I was 9, my parents' consent).

 

On the flip side, many people are donating tissue to doctors and scientists now with the idea of getting royalties (which I think was contested in a case in California). Many however become furious when doctors or scientists tell them that their cells are "useless" as they don't contain anything "new". This practice irritates me a bit because they EXPECT their cells to be the next HeLa, which is a bit arrogant, considering how exceedingly rare it is to find an immortal cell line or a new mutation.

 

-K-

[LadyNightshade]

And that's what I'm saying about the greed.

 

It's unfortunate that research groups kind of get in the holier-than-thou attitude and don't pay dues to the people who helped them get that information.

 

And you know, people who expect to get money off of donating something.

 

 

Which, all donations should be by choice. Even if it's something that might highly influence science and learning, it shouldn't be taken without the consent of the person.

 

 

 

 

For all I know I just donated my wisdom teeth to science haha. they really don't give you a chance to look at the fine print, which is also a nasty thing they do.

[Kestra15]

I do believe that when it comes to donating bodies to medical science it should be an opt-out, not opt-in, system. We're at the point in the UK where there are not enough cadavers to teach medical students about the body, organs are rare as rocking-horse poo...I do think people should be a little more pro-active and supportive of the human race after all :~P

[LadyNightshade]

I'm certainly all for donating my body when I die.

 

I'd much rather it be put to use and then later cremated.

 

No need to just pollute up the ground with a chemical injected body in treated wood that won't decay for several decades.

[Kestra15]

Of course, religion stands in the way as usual.

 

Well, not just religion. I can understand how non-religious may also want their dead to be left untouched rather than chopped to bits, prodded and poked. Then again as the Klingons say, a dead body is simply a shell - it's spirit has long gone.