Biosolids

Biosolids, in case you didn't know (Blogger didn't have this term in its dictionary) are human waste products from places like sewage treatment plants. Now I know what you are thinking, but you must understand that most of what we believe is highly based on western influence.

Composting biosolids is quite possible. The feedstock industry would greatly benefit, as biosolids make great cold-weather composting, in addition to being high in nitrogen. Umm... Composting of biosolids has been rather successful in Canada, contrary to the initial bio-blog question. In particular, the city of Edmonton produces about 80,000 tonnes of compost a year using biosolids.
Biosolid compost has even been mixed with soil to produce "fabricated soil", which is supposedly supposed to help support plant growth, and improve the aesthetic qualities of the soil itself (haha).

However, as with many other things, old ways die hard. Many people depend on our view of human waste as a nuisance to be simply dumped away. And here`s another surprise -the root of it all is money. A garbage man working for 80$ an hour would never in his life trade in such a hefty income for such minimal labour (I wouldn`t either!) And if the people at the bottom can make so much, imagine the wealth of the heads of the sanitation departments! They are huge, and powerful. Also on their side is that the only way people will ever learn about Biosolids being used as compost is via an obscure reference in a biology unit. Since most people do not know what is happening, they could care less.

However.. I sincerely believe that as long as there are people who care about the world around them, mankind will find itself on the right path (eventually). After all, think about all we have
accomplished in the past!



Above: example of Soil infused with Biosolid Compost


References:
http://www.compost.org/Biosolids_Composting_FAQ.pdf
http://www.epa.gov/owm/mtb/combioman.pdf
http://www.mun.ca/research/2005report/results/sewer_mgmt.php

Picture References:
http://www.journalofcommerce.com/images/archivesid/22509/600.jpg

Viruses: The Ultimate Level of Biotechnology (Maybe...)

Hey, its me again. This next Bio Blog is about biotechnology. I know I COULD just talk about artificial hearts, computer chips inserted between people's eyebrows or even that Robocop movie from who knows how long ago, but where is the fun in that? I know i would probably get me a better mark if I kept to the norm, but its only so often that i get the urge to care about even a part of the tireless army of units I MUST complete (for some reason), and so I will not relent to common sense. All for the best, too. I hate that guy.

what?

Haha. hang out with me more often; I make up my own words sometimes too!

Anyway.. So let me first start by explaining a bit about what viruses are.
They are acellular (they don't have cells), NON-living particles. They are not considered to be living because they do not perform all of the life processes associated with other living beings, such as the ability to transform energy or undergo division. I know what you're thinking now, -"then how can they do so much and act so... lifelike!?"

Then how can the-

You uhh, don't have to repeat what I said.
Anyway, viruses basically attach themselves onto a living cell and deliver their viral genome. The host cell’s building blocks to copy viral genomes and synthesize viral proteins. These genomes and proteins then self-assemble and exit the host cell as new infected particles.

That's all very great information, but what does it have to do with Biotechnology?

Well, my first clue came when I saw a picture of a virus.



So, yea.. did anyone else notice that its a perfectly symmetrical geometric shape on stilts? It's hard enough to find straight corners in nature (all that I can think of is a spiderweb right now) let alone a plethora of dice from the Dungeons and Dragons Board Game bent on cellular destruction (which was probably the actual intent of the game in the first place). This actually leads me to my second point. What do viruses do? It seems like their only purpose to it destroy life. Furthermore, they aren't really alive themselves, so their multiplication does not seem balance out. With organisms like bacteria, other species are destroyed in order for them to multiply. They themselves are alive, however, so the balance of life is always maintained. To me (and, hopefully, you aswell) , this seems a lot like a force whose purpose is to counteract nature, as if apart from it. It also bears striking similarity to the computer virus. Computer viruses were made by humans using computers themselves. Couldn't the same be at least partly true for their namesake? Perhaps viruses were created using DNA from living organisms in order to (potentially) destroy all life?

Furthermore, the origin and evolution of viruses remains only at supposition, with almost nothing known about how they came to be.

Wow, there's certainly a lot of 'supposition' here aswell.

Well, its either this or I copy/paste from 20 articles about how cool fake hearts are, but then someone died after like a week but it was still considered a success and then an even better heart was made and somewhere along the line they realized that they should really operate outside because it's closer to the graveyard anyway but they still kept going because dead people aren't good at complaining, then after like fifty people they ironed out the process of giving people hearts but then realized viruses like HIV are a much bigger problem. (exhale)

Go Figure.

Well... i guess i can't argue with you there.

Good. i cant argue with me either. Too many fistfights.
Finally, while this isn't exactly on topic, I did uncover a lot about viruses NOT REALLY EXISTING! Yea, I know, right? Sounds crazy, and I couldn't really understand it enough to reference it, but here's the link http://www.neue-medizin.com/lanka2.htm

Interesting stuff, so what's your summary?

Summary?
Sorry, my good (wo)man. Only an idea I had in my head. If I had any more, I'd write it down. What can I say? -Words happened.


Hmm.. alright. i guess you've given me a lot to think about.

Oh, and by the way... incase you didn't catch the salt of all of that, i was insinuating that viruses were a product of biotechnology gone wrong, or something.

Ah.

http://www.neue-medizin.com/lanka2.htm
http://human-infections.suite101.com/article.cfm/what_is_a_virus
http://people.ku.edu/~jbrown/virus.html
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_do_viruses_exist

Picture Sources:
http://www.fallingpixel.com/products/6024/mains/virus01.JPG

Artificial Selection

“Artificial Selection has resulted in plants that are more disease-resistant, cows that produce more milk, and racehorses that run faster (REALLY!?). One must wonder what will come next. In the blog entry, answer the following question: under what circumstances should humans be artificially selecting plants or animals, if any.”

What an unexpected surprise; It seems as if I have a problem with this question as well. Another unexpected surprise is that the internet is rife with humor related to the subject. I intend to utilise such a precious resource. Wait, is "utilise" spelled with an 'S' or a 'Z'? The dictionary says that both are correct...

(rolls eyes)

Firstly, I need to clarify the term “artificial selection”. To me, natural selection is when species are selected based on traits which are seen as beneficial. Whether they are selected due to the process of survival or because of human intervention is irrelevant. For thousands of years, species have been chosen for desired traits. Reproduction has always depended on the display of positive traits, such as good hunting skills or signs of fertility. This is no different with humans. We select each other, and various plants and animals based on specific traits: Horses for strength, pigs for plumpness, or otherwise. To put it simply, I believe natural selection to be the method by which species are selected based on positive traits. Artificial selection, in my opinion, is when selection is carried out at random, with no specific traits in mind. Like that big wheel in “The Price is Right” – you never know what you’re going to get. The fact that we now use genetic engineering to proliferate traits which we want in plants and animals simply means we have less of a genetic “cornucopia” to choose from (which is a good thing). This isn’t REALLY a problem: I just have a pet peeve with the term “artificial selection”. I feel it to be inaccurate.


Does that.. really change anything at all?

Nope. Not a thing -but here's another picture!

Anyway, let’s move on to the actual blog topic, shall we? Under what circumstances should humans be selecting plants and animals? Aside from the fact that they have already been doing this for as long as there have been humans (and maybe before), I believe that if it helps humanity, and has no repercussions, then why not do it? If God didn’t want us messing with genes, there’d be an eleventh commandment. I know that’s not really a good excuse, but it’s religious enough to stop overzealous pious types. And really... aren’t those the only people that have a problem with any good idea. Although I must say I understand their way of thinking: “This is way too good to not be bad”.

Hey, that’s a little bit offensive there, bud.

Hard to defend myself and present my opinion without speaking my mind. Sorry. Also hard, when given a prime opportunity, to not show another picture.


....

Oh, this just in. It appears I was right about artificial selection. “It should be emphasized that there is no real difference in the genetic processes underlying artificial and natural selection, and that the concept of artificial selection was used by Charles Darwin as an illustration of the wider process of natural selection” (Statemaster Encyclopedia > Natural Selection) We now have the term “unnatural selection” to better describe this phenomenon. WHAM. BAM. ALAKAZAM!

Alright, I’ll give you that one. Are we done?

Almost. I just want to summarise, and say that humans should (continue to) select plants and animals, because doing so is a natural human process, and because it is for the benefit of mankind. And I would like to continue eating orange carrots. Yea. Look it up. Natural, human selection at work, baby.

Oh, wow. Can you tell me more about it?

No. I’m trying to keep this short, and more importantly I am not here to teach you. Opinion presented = Done.

Seems like you're just lazy.

Lazy is not responding to that claim. Lazy is not posting the best pic of all

No im not.

And here you go.

whatever.

Yea. Well I know you SEEM angry, but you'll be back. I think it's Unit 12 or something

-see ya

Sources:

http://www.anthro.polomar.edu/
http://library.thinkquest.org/C0118084/Gene/Genetic_variation/artificialselection.html

excerpts of charles darwin's works

http://www.geneticsandsociety.org/

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/

Picture Sources:

http://www.freethunk.net/

http://www.gatheringmagic.com/

http://www.media.canada.com/

www.inquisitr.com

Designer Babies

“’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 or cosmetic). Are things getting out of hand with our research into genetic processes? In this blog, investigate social and ethical implications of this research and technologies that have been developed from it. “

Alrighty, well it appears that I’m back. Not because I enjoy the soft murmuring hum of the computer, or the pale light of my LCD screen, or even because I feel that the world cannot do without my dry, cynical point of view. No –the only reason that I’m back is because Unit 5 Biology has been mocking me relentlessly. It haunts my dreams, and must be put to rest.




All right, just try not to make this one too long, would you?

Ehh... I guess. Anyway, before I get started, let me just clarify part of the question. I don’t think that gene research is “out of hand”, nor will it be in the near future. I’m not really sure what the term means exactly, but I do know that research into this field is not carried out on live test subjects, does not require an excess of money, and does not break any laws or regulations. It is also perfectly sustainable. Furthermore, I don’t believe that gene research will be “out of hand” in the future either. There are no indications of an increase in back-alley gene replicators, gene bandits, clone slavers, gene-specific biological warfare agents, genetically modified super-humans, or even failed attempts at genetically modified super-humans (zombies, to the lay person).

Okay. I think I’m with you so far.

Well first of all, as with all things there are two sides to this argument; both surprisingly valid. Let’s let first things be first, shall we? The blog only asked about the social and ethical implications of the research and technology that has already been created, so I will focus on that.

As far as social implications go, we can all be fairly sure that there will never be a consensus on anything. Ever. There are always two sides to the story. Should we stop meddling in things which we have no business in, or continue to push the boundaries of human ingenuity? One prevalent point of view which confuses me is our belief that “playing god” is wrong -that we all have too much power over our world. Who decides just how much is too much, however? Who among us has enough wisdom and knowledge to step up onto a pedestal and tell us what is and isn’t good for the well being of the human race? Hippies. That’s right. Who else but hippies to tell the rest of the world that they are wrong? And it’s not like they have to explain themselves either! There’s no need for any reasoning for why it’s wrong or what the repercussions are.

Why? BECAUSE THEY’RE HIPPIES!! Sorry, got a little off topic there.

No problem . I say things that I’m going to regret later too.

Yea.. no, I stand by that. Anyway, as I said, there will always be two points of view. Gene research has the ability to give people a lot of power, whether good or bad. Depending on the nature of any advancement, this could even cause a segregation of people depending on their beliefs. This is nothing new. In fact, I am going to address social and ethical implications together, since they are kind of the same thing. Societies usually get together based on similar views, ethical or otherwise.

Social implications should really have nothing to do with gene research at its current stage. Maybe when all the biologically augmented supermen start showing up, then we should all start wondering about segregation and prejudice. Right now, however, the best we’ve got is a few solutions to various human ailments. I think we’ll all find that it’s usually the same people who are always complaining. Take any online game, for instance. You could go around having a lot of fun in the game, not really noticing any problems. Then there are the forums. As soon as you start to leaf through the endless threads, you start to see a pattern: people complaining. There’s always a majority of people who say that the character mechanics are hopelessly broken, or that their class is always getting the short end of the stick. This is true with all online games, oddly enough. To put it bluntly –you can spend time enjoying the game, or simply complaining about it. Apparently, both have their own appeal. You also get points for guessing the specific online game I’m talking about, just so you know.

Ohh, I get it. Uhh... Runescape?

No; good try. Alrighty, almost done! I’m trying to keep it short, so as not to waste precious time. Time that could be spent buying a pennywhistle at the market or learning how to play the washboard. Lastly, I want to take a look at the various technologies that were made possible by gene research.

( I was going to put a little runescape screenshot in here,but that would be incredibly cheesy. So instead, here is one of similar value)

What?

It would seem that the field of genetic engineering has been spawned by the all the research into genetics. We can now change the genetic structure of organisms for the better, such as increasing disease resistance. Even medicines can be genetically engineered; one famous example being insulin. Genetically modified foods also seem to be the best application of this field of study (and not super-humans, apparently). Also, a new type of art form is being created; in which people create living art forms. I’m not even going to touch that one.

Wierd. I also have a few questions, if you don’t mind.

Well I do mind. Anyway. There you have it. That thing that you asked for, in words and spaces. I think I’ll get started on the next bio blog now.

But... my questions! How am I supposed to know thing now?

Tough bananas; go read my sources; wikipedia is also good.

-'till next time.

Picture Sources:

Myself

http://www.wordpress.com/

http://www.photobucket.com/

http://www.scrapetv.com/

Sources:

http://www.accessexcellence.org/

http://www.gtglabs.com/

excerpts of Charles Darwin's works