The Great Stem Cell Debate

One of the biggest scientific debates of our age is stem cells. A stem cell is a simple cell that can develop into any one of various kinds of cells. A stem cell could turn into a blood cell, a skin cell, or any other type of specialized cell found in the body. These sound great, right? Shouldn’t we just order up a bunch? Why should anyone have anything against these? Stem cells are found in embryos. And in the process of getting the stem cell out kills the embryo. Some people believe that this isn’t right and that we are killing humans. But if a woman and a man fertilize five embryos in a lab and only want two, what should happen to the rest? Since they would just get thrown out, why not use them for stem cells? Here in this lies the great stem cell debate.

I read the article, “Study Says New Method Could Be a Quicker Source of Stem Cells” by Andrew Pollack of The New York Times, which talks about how there be another way to create stem cells. A study was conducted and found that an acid bath might be able to turn other cells in the body into stem cells. These stem cells could be used for tissue repair, and other types of medical treatment. The study conducted has only used this technique on mice cells so far, but this technique may be quicker and easier than techniques used today on embryotic stem cells. One very good thing about this technique is that it could get rid of many ethical issues because it won’t be considered as killing something. But the one problem with created these stem cells with specialized body cells is that there are genetic changes that have to be applied. These genetic changes might affect whether they could be used for medical therapy. That’s why the new technique puts the specialized cells “to stress.” This means putting the cells in an acid bath. Cells were taken from mice and engineered so that if Oct_4, a gene found in many stem cells, is present, then the cells would turn green. Some cells died because of the acid exposure, but many did survive and they turned green. Scientists put these cells into mice embryos to prove that they are actually stem cells. They worked, and the embryos grown we made primarily from these cells. If we wanted to make stem cells using this method, we would take the cells from humans, not mice.

In my opinion, this method is good for creating stem cells. But even if it doesn’t work, embryotic stem cells are still good. Yes they are taken from embryos, and yes it could be considered killing a baby. But if the embryos aren’t going to be put back into the woman, than why not just use them? Why throw them out? Stem cells could cure many medical ailments. What happens if someone gets into a car accident and is paralyzed because of spinal damage, and the fact that neurons are the only cells in the body that can’t reproduce? Stem cells can regrow neurons. What if the spinal cord is so badly damaged that the person if at risk of dying? Shouldn’t we just use stem cells to regrow the neurons and save a life? Stem cells could also cure cancer. If a child has leukemia, stem cells could be used to regrow healthy bone marrow. I understand why people might think that stem cells shouldn’t be taken, resulting in the death of an embryo. I understand why people might think it is killing something. The embryo could turn into a baby. But all I can say to those people is that if the parents don’t want the embryo, then why throw out something that could save lives?

In conclusion, the article, “Study Says New Method Could Be a Quicker Source of Stem Cells” raises a really good point about stem cells. The article explains how there is a way to get stem cells that some people don't consider ethnically wrong. Andrew Pollack seems to think that this new method is a good thing. I agree with him, and I also think embryotic stem cells are good too. I'm not sure what Pollack thinks of embryotic stem cells, but he most certainly brings up a good point about new methods. But what if these methods don't end up working? What if we can only use stem cells derived from embryos? What will happen if someone really needs a stem cell because they are about to die? Will they be denied one? 

Sources:

• Pollack, Andrew. "Study Says New Method Could Be a Quicker Source of Stem Cells." The New York Times 29 Jan. 2014, Business Day sec.: n. pag. The New York Times. The New York Times Company, 29 Jan. 2014. Web. 1 Feb. 2014. <http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/30/business/study-says-new-method-could-be-a-quicker-source-of-stem-cells.html?_r=0>.\
• "Stem Cell." Merriam-Webster. Merriam-Webster, n.d. Web. 02 Feb. 2014. <http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/stem%2520cell>.
• "Pluripotent." Merriam-Webster. Merriam-Webster, n.d. Web. 02 Feb. 2014. <http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pluripotent>.

What's up with Klaus???

  

Imagine if you were the most powerful creature on the planet. Would you think you should have control of everyone and everything because of who you were? If you say yes, you're most like Klaus. If you say no, then you think like Davina.

For my close reading inquiry, I decided to watch an episode of the CW’s The Originals. My reading inquiry question was: How is Power and Resistance portrayed [in The Originals]?  The Originals tells the story of the original vampires Klaus, Rebekah, and Elijah while they are in New Orleans. It was really interesting to look at Originals through a lens. Usually while I watch it, I don’t closely read it at all. I just watch it to see what will happen next. What I noticed was that Klaus usually had the power, and a young witch named Davina was usually the resistance.

Klaus is the original vampire and a vampire-wolf hybrid. He is the most powerful creature on the planet. He is immortal and cannot be killed. Because of this, he thinks he is the best and the most powerful. He believes that everyone should serve him. When Davina escapes from the compound, Klaus lures her back in by capturing her friend, Tim. Klaus didn’t think about how Davina would be furious if he did that. He only thought about how he needed Davina to be his “weapon.” Klaus had the power over Davina when he had Tim.

          But Davina was the resistance. Davina is the only person who can stand up to Klaus in the entire world. She has the power of four witches. One witch is powerful, but four is crazy. She is the only person who can actually take him on. Davina resisted against Klaus instead of letting him get his way. She did return to the compound, but she tortured Klaus instead of handing herself over. Then, she left again. Davina showed Klaus that he isn’t the “all-mighty” and that he doesn’t have all the cards. But she primarily showed him that he can’t control her.          

          In conclusion, Klaus had the power in most scenes, and Davina was the resistance. Klaus tried to make Davina do what he wanted, by hurting her. He does this to everyone he wants something from. But unlike everyone else, Davina actually stands up to him. Unfortunately, Davina dies because of Klaus at the end of episode eleven. If there is no Davina, who will stand up to Klaus? He is still getting everything he wants. If there will never be an all-powerful witch just like Davina again, what will happen when Klaus wants to do something so unthinkably horrible? Who will stop him then?

Synthesis Page--The Stolen Party by Liliana Heker

People in power usually help their supporters and those who they like. The US Government had to create Civil Service to stop Patronage, when people in power give government jobs to their supporters. As you can probably tell, this isn’t fair. In the story, The Stolen Party by Liliana Heker, there is elements of power, but a different type of power.

The main character, Rosaura, helps out at the birthday party of her friend Luciana because she wants to. Rosaura got to pass out the cake. She gave the big pieces to Luciana and the boys because she liked them. But, she gave small pieces to the girls who she didn’t like. In this scene, Rosaura had the “power.” It even said in the story, “Rosaura remembered a story in which there was a queen who the power over life and death over her subjects. She had always loved that, having the power of life or death.” Rosaura liked being able to control everyone. Then, when there was a magician, he was kind to Rosaura, but mean to a young boy all because the magician didn't like the boy. The magician even called the boy a "sissy." Because the magician liked Rosaura, he was kind to her and called her "my little countess." In this scene, the magician  had the power because he had the authority in the room. He got to pick the person to hold the monkey, and he got to make the boy sit down. All in all, people who have power reward those whom they like.

When I read part 4 of the stolen party, I took notes on word choice. I made two columns. One consisted of delightful, Golden Birthday Crown, Fine Red Cape, Wonderful, Most amusing party in the whole entire world, and "my little countess." The second column contained of immensely enjoyed [passing out the cake], and power of life and death. The first column contained details of Rosaura's descriptions of the party before she learned she was being used. This made me think that Rosaura may have not used such words if she knew she was going to be offered money for her help. Would she have even attended? The second column contained Rosaura's descriptions of helping out. These descriptions show how pleased Rosaura was to help out. She loved it so much even if she was getting used. Would Rosaura have gone if Luciana's mom had asked her to help? Or would she have said no?

Divergent: The book of 2013

               When I walked into ELA class on Thursday and saw the blog post topic, I knew my favorite book of 2013 was Divergent. Divergent by Veronica Roth tells the story of 16-year-old Tris Prior. Tris Prior lives in a futuristic world that is divided into five factions: Abnegation, Amity, Candor, Dauntless and Erudite. There is only one city left after long and hard wars in which most everyone died. Each of these factions blamed the destruction of the world for different reasons. Abnegation blamed selfishness, Dauntless blamed cowardice, Candor blamed lies, Amity blamed violence and Erudite blamed ignorance. Divergent was my favorite book of 2013 because I really loved the story and it made me notice remarks from the author on social behavior today.

               When I read Divergent for the first time, I read it in less than two days. I fell in love with the characters, their relationships, and the plot of the story. Divergent drew me in and that is why I read it so quickly in the first place. When I was reading it, I wanted to know what was going to happen so badly that I read as much as I could. Another reason I loved Divergent was because I really liked the remarks on social behavior in today’s society by Veronica Roth. For instance, my parents are usually friends with people like them: with similar interests, professions, and politics. Also, people with certain characteristics choose certain professions. For instance, the Dauntless become policemen and guards, while the Erudite become teachers and scientists. In today’s society, people who are interested in art engage in professions such as art historians. People who are interested in human anatomy might become doctors.

               In conclusion, Divergent by Veronica Roth was my favorite book of 2013 because it was a compelling read, and it made me think about society behaviors today. When I was in the process of reading it, I read it very quickly to get to the end and learn what would happen. But recently, I started listening to the audiobook with my mom, and we talked about connections to society today that were found in Divergent. In other books I have read, I have noticed that authors have connected the plots and actions of and in their stories to the real world. This made me think that possibly every book has connections to the real world, even books that we think never would.

What are some examples of social injustice in our books?

                Harry Potter became instantly famous once it was published by J.K Rowling, first in England and then in America. This series tells the story of Harry Potter, a young wizard who attends Hogwarts School for witchcraft and wizardry and befriends a wizard named Ron and a witch named Hermione. While this story is known by most teenagers our age, not many actually see that there is social injustice in these books. In the Harry Potter Books there are many examples of social injustice such as the treatment of “muggles” and distribution of power.

            The first example of social injustice in Harry Potter is the treatment of muggles. A “muggle” is a non-magic person. People who don’t believe muggle-born witches or wizards should attend Hogwarts, sometimes call muggles “mudblood” because supposedly their blood is dirty. People who have a witch and wizard for their parents are called “pureblood” because their heritage is supposedly better than muggle borns. The first mention of the phrase “mudblood” is in Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets. Another wizard named Draco Malfoy calls Hermione “mudblood” because she is a muggle born witch. There is nothing wrong with Hermione, she is smart and intuitive. Just because she is muggle born doesn’t mean she is any different from Harry or Ron. Also, when the series’ villain, Lord Voldemort comes back, his regime is all about putting the purebloods in control. In the last book, Voldemort has taken over and his ministry is interrogating muggles to see if they have any halfblood or pureblood relatives. The ministry asks a muggle born witch who she stole her wand from. She didn’t steal it from anyone because she is a witch. Just because she is muggle born doesn’t change the fact that she is a witch; it doesn’t make her any different. To conclude, this treatment of muggles is one example of social injustice in the Harry Potter Series.

            Another social injustice in Harry Potter is government power distribution. In Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets and Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban, Lucius Malfoy bullies people to get what he wants. In Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets, Lucius Malfoy bullies the school governors to sack Dumbledore when the other governors didn’t actually want to. He did this by threatening their families. This is unjust because he is being mean to get what he wants. He did the wrong thing and still got what he wanted. That was blackmail. In ­Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban, Lucius Malfoy uses blackmail and his power in the Ministry of Magic to attempt to execute an innocent Hippogriff. This clearly shows that the power distribution in Harry Potter is clearly unjust because Lucius Malfoy bullies people to get what he wants.