Blog Entry #11: In-Vitro Fertilization

"Designer babies" is the term being used by the media to describe the future of modifying or selecting our children's genes for desirable characteristics (medical and cosmetic). Are things getting out of hand with our research into genetic processes?


Genetic research have gone quite far. To designer babies and manipulation of DNA from the discovery of cloning, humanity is really going all out. I, myself, do not think that research into genetic process is getting out of hand at all. I think that as long as there are new things to learn, go ahead and discover it.


An example of genetic advancements would be IVF (In Vitro Fertilization). "In Vitro" means outside of the body. In Vitro Fertilization is a procedure that enables couples who cannot conceive normally to have a child. During the process of IVF, this is what happens....

Pros of In Vitro Fertilization

• It is a possible solution for those couples who are unable to have children naturally.
• You can have more than one egg gathered if you want to have more than one child.
• If you are interested in having twins or triplets, you have a good chance of having them.

Cons of In Vitro Fertilization

• The procedure is quite pricey.
• It does not always work. 
• Babies born through this method are twice as likely to be born with defects.
• It is considered as playing God.

Ovarian cancers caused by IVF infertility treatments

Thursday, October 27, 2011 by S.L. Baker

In vitro (which means "outside the body") fertilization, better known as IVF, is the joining of a woman's egg and a man's sperm in a laboratory dish. The fertilized egg is placed in the lining of the woman's womb, and if the fetus continues to grow, a baby is born in about 9 months. Although a huge money making part of the infertility industry, IVF has many downsides including the fact it is enormously expensive. A single IVF cycle treatment can cost over $12, 000 and it can take many IVF treatments to achieve a pregnancy.

What's more, the success rate after spending all this money is only about 13 to 42 percent, depending on the age of the would-be mother, with older moms having less chance of a successful pregnancy. On top of these drawbacks, the drugs given for ovarian stimulation have a host of side effects, according to the National Institutes of Health (NIH), including bloating, abdominal pain, mood swings and headaches.

Now there's evidence of an even more potentially horrendous side effect to this baby making technology--ovarian cancer. Researchers from the Netherlands have discovered that women whose ovaries are stimulated into producing extra eggs for IVF double their risk of having ovarian malignancies later in life, compared to women who never undergo IVF The study was just published in Europe's leading reproductive medicine journal Human Reproduction.

The specific type of ovarian growths found that are most likely spurred by IVF are known as borderline ovarian tumors. While far less deadly than invasive ovarian malignancies, they are nothing that can be ignored. The researchers found that of the 25, 152 women with fertility problems included in their study, 77 developed ovarian cancers. Surprisingly, of the 61 women who had ovarian malignancies in the group that had been treated with IVF, 31 had borderline ovarian cancer and 30 had invasive ovarian cancer. 

Unusually high number of ovarian tumors in later years
In a statement to the media, lead researcher, Professor Flora van Leeuwen, who heads the Department of Epidemiology in The Netherlands Cancer Institute in Amsterdam, noted this proportion of ovarian borderline tumors was unusually high. She wamed that although borderline ovarian tumors have a low potential to be fatal, they "would require extensive surgery and cause substantial morbidity."

Even after the research team adjusted for factors that could confound the results such as the age of the women, if they had already given birth and the cause of their fertility problems, the long-term risks for ovarian malignancies and borderline ovarian tumors were significantly higher in the IVF treatment group compared with the group of women not treated with IVF. For all ovarian malignancies and for borderline ovarian cancer, there was a two and four-fold higher risk, respectively, in the IVF treatment group. In addition, although not seen as "statistically significant" the bottom line is that invasive ovarian cancer was also increased somewhat in the IVF treatment group.

"Our date show that ovarian stimulation for IVF is associated with an increased risk of borderline ovarian tumors and this risk remains elevated up to more than 15 year after the first cycle of treatment," Professor van Leeuwen in the media statement.

The scientists are currently expanding their study population to include an additional 8, 800 women who started their IVF ovarian stimulation treatment between 1995 and 2000, with an emphasis on those who have had three or more treatment cycles. They are also adding a 4, 200 women with fertility problems (dubbed "subfertile") who were not treated with IVF in the years 1980 to 2000.

"If we find out that women who receive several IVF cycles or large doses of ovarian stimulation drugs are at a greater risk of ovarian cancer, then these women would need to be informed about these risks when continuing IVF treatment and possibly advised to discontinue treatment after three to six cycles (depending on which number of cycles would be associated with the high risk of ovarian malignancies)," Professor van Leeuwen concluded

Sources for this article include:

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/007279.htm

http://www.eshre.eu/ESHRE/English/Press-Room/Press-Releases/2011-Press-Releases/Ovarian-stimulation/page.aspx/1507

So...
S.L. Baker may just be a writer but I think his or her article is accurate enough to be believed. S.L. Baker's sources were from other articles related to his or her topic. The sources of S.L. Baker's article was researched by medical registries, was provided with a follow-up cancer data by the Netherlands Cancer Registry, and was published by the Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology. The article talks mainly about the down sides of IVF (In Vitro Fertilization): "bloating, abdominal pain, mood swings and headaches" and "an even more potentially horrendous side effect to this baby making technology -- ovarian cancer." The author's bias is against IVF procedures. S.L. Baker's article is an attempt to discourage and dissuade people who plan on going through this type of procedure. Yes, in vitro fertilization gives hope to those couples who cannot have children, yes, you can customize your child/children and make them as elite as possible, but for higher costs: for $12,000 and you being at risk of ovarian cancer.

Blog Entry #10 (I think...): Biodiversity

"They believe the greatest lie ever told: that humans are not part of the web of life. That they can survive apart from it. But they cannot." ~ Lee (the panda)


Well first of all, how did the Science Department ever find this? http://www.countdown2010.net/daversity
Second, yeah so the title is a quote from the video. If you've never seen it before or you're not even bothering to click on the link, it's actually a pretty funny presentation with talking animals with french accents teaching each other about the importance of The Web of Life. 

OKAY. SO. Like what these talking animals said in the video, when humans take away natural habitats, it causes animals or plant species to become endangered or extinct because our actions alter The Web of Life. We could simply affect, for example, sharks, just by capturing and maybe, possibly...by killing them. Well SOME people in Asia don't kill them right away; they cut off their fins and leave them to die.


http://www.cleanfish.com/blog/saving-sharks-preserving-culture

Shark Finning Endangers Marine Ecosystems

Sharks Face Extinction due to Criminal Fin Trade

• Apr 24, 2009
Jennifer Copley



Shark - Rosevita, Morguefile

Desperately endangered, sharks may become extinct in the near future if current fishing practices persist, and their loss would be devastating to marine ecosystems.
Despite their reputation as man eaters, the reality is that approximately 10 people worldwide die from shark attacks on average each year according to Barry Tobin of the Australian Institute of Marine Science. In fact, more people die in vending-machine-related mishaps than are killed by sharks.



Shark Products

Shark finning is a multi-billion dollar industry, with a single pound of dried fin retailing for more than $300. The fins are used to make shark fin soup and traditional medicines. In some cases sharks are also killed to make shark’s tooth jewellery, belts, wallets, and cosmetic products. In addition, shark cartilage has been sold as an ineffective cure for cancer. There is absolutely no scientific evidence that shark products provide any medicinal benefits to humans.
Shark fin soup can cost up to $400 per bowl. The shark fin doesn’t even add any flavour to the soup; it is actually flavoured with other types of meat. Although shark fin soup is sold widely in Asia where it is considered a prestige product, the name translates to “fish wing soup” and so many consumers don’t know that it contains shark, or that the industry supports cruel and ecologically dangerous practices.

Shark Finning

Each year 100-200 million sharks of all species and ages are killed for their fins. After their fins have been sliced off, live sharks are tossed back into the ocean where, unable to swim, they sink to the bottom. A finned shark can take days to die and will either bleed to death or be eaten alive by other animals.
Sharks are not the only victims of the finning industry. Some shark finners cut up dolphins to use as shark bait, and dolphins, whales, albatrosses, and turtles are caught in the longline nets used for shark fishing.
Because of finning, experts have estimated that the majority of shark species, which have been around for more than 400 million years, will become extinct within a decade. Removal of a top predator could destabilize marine ecosystems, as well as removing a needed food staple for those in developing countries.

The Effects of Removing Sharks With finning, nearly all of the shark is thrown back into the ocean, while people who rely on shark meat for sustenance are deprived of needed protein. In addition, the finning industry is controlled by criminal interests and threatens sustainable, traditional fishing operations.
Sharks are vitally important to marine ecosystems because they remove diseased animals and maintain the ocean’s balance of predators and prey. Marine ecosystems are critical to human life, and it is not yet known what the full impact of the loss of sharks might be for humans, but there are some early indications of impending widespread disaster.
Some shark species have had their populations reduced by up to 95%, and in certain places this imbalance is already threatening sustainable industry. For example, the loss of sharks has led to an explosion in the octopus population, and because octopuses prey on lobsters, Tasmania’s lobster fishery has collapsed. Other such trickle-down effects are being felt in a variety of locations, endangering the livelihoods of those in many sustainable fishing communities.




References:
• AdoptaShark.com. (2009). “FAQ.” Iemanya Oceanica.
• BBCNews.co.uk. (22 May 2008). “Sharks Swim Closer to Extinction.”
• Benchley, Peter. (1995). “Misunderstood Monsters.” Smithsonian Institute, SharkFriends.com.
• Burgess, George H., International Shark Attack File, Florida Museum of Natural History, University of Florida. (n.d.). “Reducing the Risk of a Shark Encounter: Advice to Aquatic Recreationists” and “How, When, & Where Sharks Attack.” FLMNH.UFL.edu.
• Florida Museum of Natural History, University of Florida, Shark Attack File. (1991). “Shark Attacks in Perspective.” [Reprinted, with emendations, from: Burgess, G.H. 1991. Shark attack and the International Shark Attack File, pp. 101-105. In: Gruber, S.H. (ed.). 1990. Discovering Sharks, American Littoral Society, Highlands, New Jersey]. FLMNH.UFL.edu.
• IRIN, Humanitarian News and Analysis, a project of the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs. (4 December 2008). “Madagascar: Too Few Sharks is a Bad Thing.” IRINNews.org.
• Sea Shepherd Conservation Society. (2009). “Defending Sharks.” SeaShepherd.org.
• Sharkwater.com. (2009). “Shark Education.”
• Tobin, Barry, Australian Institute of Marine Science (2008). “Dangerous Marine Mammals of Northern Australia: Sharks.” AIMS.gov.au.

Source: http://jennifercopley.suite101.com/shark-finning-endangers-marine-ecosystems-a112178 

In my opinion, I think that this article is pretty accurate considering Jennifer Copley, the writer, is  part of the Infodemons Information Consultancy, a Vancouver-based information consultancy that specializes in providing the highest quality research, writing, and editing services to Fortune 500 companies, IT industry leaders, local corporate clients, national and international magazines, Web publishers, and many individual Webmasters, authors, and students.

•  Alright. So the writer, Jennifer Copley, a freelance writer, researcher, and editor with 20 years of experience, did show a lot of bias within the article. She mainly just talked about the negative impacts of shark finning. The article evokes an emotion of being against shark finning from beginning to end. This article was written by the writer to provide awareness to the readers that sharks will be extinct in the near future if current fishing practices persist. The writer was also trying to say that fin trades are really not necessary. Sharks, despite being known as "man eaters," only an average of 10 people die from shark attacks annually. The fact that the writer requests the immediate attention of the public demonstrates her concerns for the issue.
  
  

Mmm....SHARKS!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XaZjmT8mHbU&feature=related

In China, shark fin soup, or Emperor's soup, is a special delicacy thought to be a source of good health... How terribly wrong they are. Eating shark fin soup can actually cause health problems. If people would just watch the Discovery Channel once in a while, or read or something, maybe they'd know that some fish have poisonous mercury in them. They swim in polluted bodies of water and the mercury is absorbed in their bodies. As fish eat other fish, the mercury accumulates and concentrates further up the food chain. So since sharks are at the top of the food chain, no doubt they have more mercury in their bodies than any other fish. They also keep the populations of other fish healthy and in proper proportion for their ecosystem. Populations of sharks are already down by 95% or more in just the last 20 years in large parts of the oceans. What's making this problem worse is that sharks reproduce very slowly. They take years to reach sexual maturity and reproduce just a few young. The population of any species should increase and decrease over years as nature would balance itself every time. But since our bad actions interferes with all this balancing thing, it is becoming more and more difficult for nature to do this on its own. 

Sources:
http://sharkangels.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=97&Itemid=165
http://jennifercopley.suite101.com/shark-finning-endangers-marine-ecosystems-a112178
http://articles.cnn.com/2008-12-10/world/pip.shark.finning_1_shark-fin-shark-populations-top-predator?_s=PM:WORLD

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shark_fin_soup

http://www.stopsharkfinning.net/

"We Are Who We Are"

Now, if it isn't so obvious enough, humans are, well... Selfish. We only centre our attention to what nature can do for us and we don't ever bother thinking how we can reciprocate the situation for the sake of the environment and all other living things in the world. We don't THINK before we DO so the rest have to suffer from the consequences. I know everyone at this point would be thinking about trying to prevent these consequences from happening: recycling so we don't create more landfills, preserving endangered animals so they don't become extinct... But hey, guess what? It's already begun and I think the best thing we can do is try and not make it worse. 

Blog Entry #9: Digital Actors

1. Is this acting or is this animation?


I think that it is both acting and animation. First, it's acting. The director worked with the actors and told them what to do for the movie. After, whatever the actors and director have done, they left the animators "to use the actors' performance as an absolute template without variance for what comes out the other end."

2. Do you think that animated character should be eligible for acting awards?


I think that animated characters should be eligible for acting awards. Because the actors still are acting; only the slight difference is, they're animated. The way they acted out their parts, the emotions in their voices, and their facial expressions are supposed to be the things they should look for when giving out the acting awards and not the fact that it's animated.

3. Do you think that human actors will ever become obsolete? Why or why not?


I think the human actors will become obsolete. Because nowadays, they make animated movies and whatnots. But if human actors become obsolete, people won't feel as connected to whatever they're watching. Also because it's animated, the stories will always be fiction. Another thing that they can do if actors do become obsolete is use CGI on them. Like what they've done in the movie Tron.