Adaptation

  Almost all animals at some point or another learn how to adapt. I've decided to take a look at why this is and how we are able to do it. Some animals are better than others at this, but we all do it. It may be to the temperature, protection, food, the bottom line is that it is for survival. 
                       Survival is an amazing thing. It can be something that saves our lives. Simply the will to live can compel somebody to do something that they may not be able to do otherwise. It is for the same reason that humans, and all animals alike, adapt to our surroundings. We don't just stop there either, we eventually improve our chances for survival, we do it with technology, but other animals do it too. It's fascinating that the will to live could be this motivational.
                        There are 8.74 million species of plants, animals, and insects on this planet. Each one has found a way to survive that works for them. Some mimic others, but in general there is a unique style to each one. The incredible part is that these animals do it with just their physical attributes, they don't have all the technology we have. Whether it is to simply defend themselves, or to hide, or to hunt. They are born with what they have, and they learn to live and survive with it. If they can't find food, or use what they have, they adapt and use it in a different way, or move to a different place. This is all based on instinct and it really is awesome if you think about it.
                        I want to talk about one of the characters from a book I am reading. His name is Bobby. He was faced with a fight between him and an opponent which he had no chance of beating, but he had no other choice but to accept the fight. He was getting pummeled, and then he realized his opponent was trying to kill him. His instinct to survive kicked in, and he started to defend himself, to fight back. He was still defeated in the end, he ended up spending a month in the hospital, however the bottom line is that he went into survival mode, and he survived. When on the brink of death he had to adapt to fight, and ultimately it saved his life. Of course this is a fictional scenario, but it still highlights the point I am trying to make. 
                     The bottom line is that when push comes to shove, all animals choose to survive. It is our very fundamental instinct. Adapting is just part of this instinct, so while it is an art, and it is fascinating, it really isn't hard for animals. It is simply what they are doing to survive and this is their only concern, because it is always survival of the fittest, and that is what every animal is trying to be.

Snakes in Iowa

There are five species of venomous snakes that inhabit Iowa. Anyone who lives in or visits Iowa should make themselves aware of these snakes, and learn how to identify them. Children especially, whom snakes often fascinate, should be made aware of these 5 species. A lot of snakebites occur because people are uninformed about the venomous snakes that inhabit Iowa, and mistakenly think them harmless. The best rule of thumb is, if you don't know what kind of snake it is leave it alone. The species are: Western Massasauga (rattle snake), Eastern Massasauga (rattle snake), Prairie Rattlesnake, Timber Rattlesnake, and Northern Copperhead.
                     The spring thaw is the best time to find most of the snakes out here, since they're coming out of hibernation. Right now would be a great time to go looking actually, because a lot of them are in their mating season if not wrapping it up. Some are nocturnal, some are up at both night and day, so if you're looking for a certain species look into that. A few are only nocturnal in the summer. All the snakes here love hiding so you'll have a good chance of finding some by tipping over logs or looking under rocks and in crevices. I have heard people have good  luck when just cruising along country roads, where you can find snakes just basking on the warm pavement, or under debris nearby. Forests with ponds and marshes are good places to look too. Morning is probably a good time to catch things like garter snakes basking since they're warming up for the day. Some snakes like ribbon snakes also go dormant when things get too dry, so going out a day or two after some rain might also be a good idea. However take precaution, Don't go digging under dry leaves and branches, as you will be tempted to do. If you do so, you will be putting yourself in extreme danger. You won't know if there is a snake in the leaves you just pushed aside, or if there is one right under the leaf that you are about to shove over, and you won't know what kind it is, either. By the time you see the snake, it could very well already have assessed you as a danger, and have attacked.

Dog Discipline

 Disciplining Bad Behavior:
            I think a better kind of negative reinforcement is just being cold to your dog. Make it clear you're disappointed with him.
            Dogs are emotional animals, they respond to emotion better than anything. If a dog knows you, and has gotten to know your body language and everything, just make it clear how you feel - like not looking at him, low tone of voice, ignoring him, cold looks, telling him he's a bad dog, etc. Unless your dog has some developmental problems or is really hyperactive, he should pick up on it and feel all terrible.
           Just think to when you were a kid - what you hated more than anything was when your parents let you know they were disappointed in you. It made you feel stupid and guilty and wrong, and you'd swear to yourself you'd never mess it up again. But if they started yelling or getting physical, you'd be confused and angry and rebellious. You'd feel antagonized by them. You wouldn't care about what you did wrong, you'd just be angry at your parents, and would likely defend/repeat your actions out of spite and stubbornness. These are basic emotional reactions, and dogs are basic emotional animals. Their emotional capacity grew from social interaction, like us, and they even adapted to us specifically through millenia. We're both social animals and they're no strangers to human behavior. Just like family members who hit each other instead of communicating, a dog-owner relationship that works largely on physical dominance is wrong and dysfunctional.

Rewarding Good Behavior:
           Rewarding based dog training is about rewarding good behavior while deterring bad behavior. When a dog performs a desired action like sitting when asked to do so, he should be rewarded. Try giving your dog a treat immediately after it follows a command, then this behavior will become linked in the dogs brain with a positive action. Praising them with an enthusiastic "Good boy/girl!" is also a simple reward that'll strengthen your bond as your dog learns right from wrong.
           One hard thing to judge is when to reward your dog, one common time is when your pet is learning a new behavior, reward him every time he does the behavior. This is called continuous reinforcement. Slowly overtime you can decrease how often you give your dog a treat for a certain behavior. Eventually you will be able to decrease the treat down to a simple vocal reinforcement. By understanding positive reinforcement, you'll see that you're not forever bound to carry a pocketful of goodies. Your dog will soon be working for your verbal praise, because he wants to please you and knows that, occasionally, he'll get a treat, too.

Alternative to Animal Testing

For my argument paper last term I wrote about animal testing. I wrote about hot it was wrong and how it was actually inaccurate because of the differences in the genetic makeup of humans and the animals tested. Well thanks to scientists at the King's College London and San Francisco Veteran Affairs Medical Center, along with other members of this international team, a great alternative has been invented. This breakthrough could lead to the end of animal testing all together, which is the goal that I personally want achieved.
                      The team developed the first lab-grown epidermis (the outermost layer of skin). This means that something that is genuinely human can test certain drugs or creams and see how an actual human would react. Before we tested animals, such as cats or mice, and we had to get a rough estimate of whether or not a product  would work for humans. Many times they did not work, which was just a waste of time and effort. While this is a great breakthrough and it will certainly allow reduction of animal testing, I want to press scientists to continue this type of work.
                       While this lab-grown skin is awesome for testing some products, others simply need more to go on than just skin. For example skin cancer could be tested, but there are several other forms that wouldn't be able to be tested without animals, which is what we don't want. However with the type of research these scientists are doing it is plausible that we will soon be able to produce any part of the human body that we want to. This would be a huge step forward in the fight against major diseases, and in the effort to end animal testing. We would be able to get better results more efficiently, and animals wouldn't have to suffer any longer. 
                       I understand that some people will argue that stem cell research is wrong (this is the type of research being used to produce this lab-grown skin) but I encourage you to look at all the benefits that can come out of it. If we have the resources, the people, and the technology to produce something that could prevent both the deaths of many humans (by providing cures for many diseases) and that could stop all animal testing, which is a cruel and unjust practice, why would we not do it? I feel that if we don't utilize this new research we are doing more harm than good, I just ask you to do some research of the pros, as opposed to only looking at the cons. 
                       I am very excited that this type of research has surfaced so soon after I had voiced my concerns of the animal testing situation. This alternative could really be a solution to that problem, and to many others as well. It will definitely speed up the process of making new disease cures, and maybe one day this technology could lead to a disease free world. 

Science in the Future

There is all kinds of research going on right now in science, as there always has been. However recently, like in the past five to six years, I feel there has been much more progress made in the science community. Never have we had multiple groups have multiple breakthroughs year after year. So it makes me wonder where we go from here. This post will simply be what I think the future of science will look like. 
                  Some may say that the answer is simple, we just keep improving the technology we already have. I'm not so sure though, eventually it has to stop. For example, if we get to a disease free society, which I think we will, that will take out a huge portion of jobs for many scientists. We are constantly researching cures for diseases such as cancer and Alzheimer's. If we come up with these cures there will be many more people looking for jobs in other areas. I feel like  once this happens the competition in the science community will be so high, it may force people into other areas instead of science. This is something that I don't really want to happen. I enjoy the fact that science is so diverse, I have even blogged about it many times. 
                   Now that was a lot of negative, and I do think there are some good things that will happen in the future. To start I think that science in the future is going to get a lot more complex, and it will be much harder to actually get qualified for it. This is a good thing because right now I think, while it my be a small percentage, there are a few people who I feel get by without really being super qualified for their said position. Also I think while there will be more competition, and less people will get jobs, there will be much more opportunity for higher paying positions. This makes sense since the job security won't be as standard for a science related position. 
                Now this is obviously just my look at science today, and how I think it will progress into the future. Overall, since I don't think competition is a bad thing, I would say it is going in a good direction. There will be no reason to go into the field if you are not going to be committed. Jobs will be tight and there won't be any handouts. This will lead to better scientists than we have ever had in the past. There should be new technology and improvements. Of course this may be completely wrong, it could take much longer to discover cures for these diseases, or maybe new diseases will be discovered. There is really no way to know.

Tamiflu Bust

              Governments have spent billions of dollars stockpiling the antiviral medication Tamiflu. Earlier reviews of the drug called into question just how effective it was, and the latest analysis, published today (April 10) in the British Medical Journal (BMJ), concludes that the money has been going “down the drain.”
An international team found that while Tamiflu might reduce the duration of flu symptoms by half a day, there’s no evidence that it reduces hospital admissions or complications of an infection. On top of that, the antiviral’s side effects include nausea and vomiting. “There is no credible way these drugs could prevent a pandemic,” Carl Heneghan, one of authors of the review and a professor at Oxford University, told reporters.
              The data for this most recent review came from full study reports—data generated by clinical trials that are usually not open for scrutiny by independent researchers. Efforts by the BMJ and the research team convinced drugmaker Roche, which markets Tamiflu, to release the reports.
Fiona Godlee, an editor at BMJ, said that the picture of Tamiflu was previously much more positive than after the full study reports were disclosed. “Why did no one else demand this level of scrutiny before spending such huge sums on one drug?” she said at a press briefing. “The whole story gives an extraordinary picture of the entrenched flaws in the current system of drug regulation and drug evaluation.”
               Roche stands by the utility of Tamiflu. “We fundamentally disagree with the overall conclusions” of the review, the company told MedPage Today. And others have said that the results don’t necessitate an end to stockpiling the drug. Sabrina Spinosa of the European Medicines Agency (EMA), which approved the use of Tamiflu in 2002, told Nature that the agency had reviewed the same clinical trial reports. “The review does not raise any new concerns,” she said, adding that the EMA maintains its position on the risks and benefits of Tamiflu.

Controlling Weather

                      Researchers at the University of Central Florida are working on a laser that could possibly induce some rain and put to rest the idea that we cannot control the weather. At first this sounds like a great idea, and I think overall it would be. However I think there could be some downside to this kind of technology.
                      Predicting the weather is something that turns out to be nearly impossible. I think that this kind of technology can be a big weight off of many people's shoulders. Farmers for example would not need to worry about losing their crops to extended drought. Also right now they are working purely on rain and lightning. There is no telling what else they could produce or maybe even prevent with this kind of technology. If we could prevent major storms like tornadoes or hurricanes, we could prevent major devastation that these storms can produce. However along with all those positives, there are some possible negative I can think of.
                  Of course if you have the ability to produce all of these things , there is bound to be someone who wants to use the technology in a negative way. We could easily deal with someone who used it to terrorize a city or even an entire nation if it was on a large enough scale. Even if the technology managed only to produce rain, it could still be used to negatively effect a certain area through flooding. This is something that would also be hard to stop or keep track of, so it would be the major downside to this kind of technology.
                  Another downside to this might be the cost and the effectiveness. Of course if it can prevent major natural disasters it would be worth it, but if it can't it may be a huge loss in both time and money. Another thing to consider is whether or not we are supposed to experience these things from mother nature, this is a more philosophical question, but still one that deserves an answer. There is really no way to know all of this.
                 I guess we would just have to try to weigh both sides. Since we don't know exactly how it would work, there is no way to now if we would be able to prevent it. However we don't really know all of the good it could bring either. We would have to ultimately know all of this to determine if the benefits would outweigh to downside. We just have to wait for more research and advance further with the technology, hopefully we will find some of these answers along the way.