New Annotated Sources!

This past.. day actually, my fantastic group of four (Diana, Luke, Paul and I) met for the first time to really pan out our ideas for our senior project. Keeping an eye on the medical field of study and sciences has been really important to me so far in this class because I want to be able to use everything I learn in a way that will benefit me for the rest of my life. By that I mean I want to learn Environmental Science in a way that will make me a much better and more well rounded person, so I have been trying to attach it to things I am already really passionate about. Ok this is coming out wrong but moving on... I am letting go of my absolute NEED to have my senior project and research paper be ONLY about medicine, instead I am going to integrate the information I learned about the bacteria evolution and anti-biotic resistance and put it toward our video's new theme of a bacteria that solves the world's energy and oxygen needs (complete details on what this magnificent bacteria are still to be determined.)

Finding information has definitely been a problem since we clarified our ideas yesterday at lunch and I did my other citations for my previous idea Tuesday. With that stated please bear with me as I am using sources more to form ideas and learn current processes than directly support that our society is heading in this bacterial energy direction. I am also still a bit stuck in my ways with the medicine web sites, they just seem to have all the good articles.


Article 1: Engineering hybrid genes without the use of restriction enzymes: gene splicing by overlap extension.

"Gene splicing by overlap extension is a new approach for recombining DNA molecules at precise junctions..."

"Extension of this overlap by DNA polymerase produces a molecule in which the original sequences are 'spliced' together."

"This technique is used to construct a gene encoding a mosaic fusion protein comprised of parts of two different class-I major histocompatibility genes."

Annotations:
This article is really informative about the exact process of gene splicing, which is when then genetically engineer DNA by adding, subtracting or mutating the DNA. This article was really really helpful in the way of showing me what professional scientists in industry do to splice and what they are doing it for. Our video is going to be a commercial glorifying the new genetically engineered bacteria in a similar fashion to how petroleum and tobacco companies advertise their projects and do 'damage control' when people are opposing them, so we are considering having small sections of scientists actually creating the bacteria. I think it's taking science a little too far when they start to create their own creatures and things but I think that will add to the satirical aspect of our video. Plus who really cares about the well being of bacteria? (Rhetorical question) That could be another part to our video.

Citation:
Horton, R. M. "Engineering hybrid genes without the use of restriction enzymes: gene splicing by overlap extension." Engineering hybrid genes without the use of restriction enzymes: gene splicing by overlap extension. (1989). Pub Med Centeral. 1989. Web. 26 Feb. 2010. .

*another source I will be using for learning about gene/DNA reading, splicing, mapping, etc. will be the Human Genome Project


Article 2: Principles of Gene Manipulation. An Introduction to Genetic Engineering

"Genetic manipulation or genetic engineering is a technology which is becoming widely used in biological research and industry. It has therefore become difficult for scientists not directly involved in the field to keep pace with the literature.

"Other worthwhile contributions are on sickle cell disease, cystinosis, and the muco-
polysaccharidoses, by Lehmann, Schulman, and Leroy, respectively.

"..expression of cloned DNA sequences is also covered in this book and the development of vectors resulting in enhanced expression and in the production of proteins from cloned sequences are described with examples."

Annotations:
So this source is actually from a peer-reviewed text book type thing for a college course. It is a dated piece of work but now that I realize that maybe college textbooks or lesson plans could be really helpful, I am much more confident in my ability to get my hands on real solid evidence and thoughtful writings about the practices of gene splicing and genetic engineering. These materials may also give me a feel for the past's projections for today's science ability so I can make reasonably ridiculous expectations for our bacteria that could possibly be believable to scientist today. Only if we go that route though. I did realize that going the text book route could be either just as or more dry than reading journal articles... both are peer reviewed though! At this point I think that the science part from here on out could possibly be an easier part for me since I am genuinely interested in genetic engineering. It could also be interesting to explore the ethics side... but I guess I really need to do some more serious planning and idea consolidating sessions with my whole group specifically about what we are wanting out bacteria to DO. I think our project will be great because we have a topic that we can theoretically get small hints of all four of our initial researched topics in.



Citation:
Generet, Med J. "Principles of Gene Manipulation. An Introduction to Genetic Engineering." Principles of Gene Manipulation. An Introduction to Genetic Engineering (1981). Pub Med Centeral. 18 Apr. 1981. Web. 26 Feb. 2010. .


If I am late tomorrow John I am so sorry. I was having the darndest time deciding on sources, ideas and really trying to make these annotated sources effective no matter what. I will most likely be there on time. GOODNIGHT

Nate Lewis Video

Video Recap:
We need roughly 10 Terra-watts of energy to sustain us.
Oil, Gas and Coal make up 85% of our current energy.
USA uses 1/4 of the worlds energy.
Renewable energy sources cost more money to build and run making them less desirable, we need cheap energy.
We have roughly 40 years of oil, 60 years of natural gas and 2,000 years of coal left on earth (based on current consumption amount.)

Renewable energies will ONLY have a chance to be used more often IF:
-There is a technology/cost break through
-Outside forces make us stop using oil (government interference)
-Climate change becomes more dramatic/more of a priority

Sources of Carbon-Free Power:
-Nuclear (Fusion/Fission) (capacity to produce 10 TW if we build 1 new plant a day for 50 years)
-Hydroelectric
-Geothermal
-Solar (active, passive, photosynthesis)
-Biomass
-Wind


I would like to start by saying that I really hate coal. Coal is bad in every way possible. I may be over simplifying but our entire global warming and air pollution problem could have been avoided if people stuck with a rule similar to you are what you eat, our air is what we burn. All the thick black petroleum and chary black coal burned up and put in our atmosphere, OBVIOUSLY we were going to have problems.

I think Nate Lewis is a really intelligent guy. Besides the obvious that he teaches at Cal Tech and such, I really like how he presented his ideas first stating that everything he was going to say was based on scientific fact, not personal preference or outside influence. He began by talking about how much energy we need and that stayed the constant theme through out the entire presentation which gave the presentation more structure and strength in my opinion. Mr. Lewis then proceeded to discuss what energy sources are currently used and how much each contributes to our total energy used. I can not believe coal is 50%. That is jaw dropping. Everything I hear is always about oil, solar, nuclear etc., and because of that I sort of forgot about coal as an energy source and seeing that it contributes that heavily to everything I do is rather discouraging. Like I stated earlier, I am not a fan of coal, so that added insult to the miss-informed injury.

Moving on to the renewable portion of the presentation, I am really bummed that renewables are not a larger percentage of our energy sources. Nuclear, probably the worst idea for energy ever because of the waste, is a MUCH larger percentage (19.9) and that SUCKS. I loose more respect for politicians and government every day that nuclear power is the topic for 'alternative' energy. We have NO idea what to do with the waste NOTHING can contain it long enough and there is NOTHING we can do (yet) to change the composition of the RADIO ACTIVE waste. There is so much wrong with nuclear power and our way of containing it (Barring it in a mountain? Seriously?) that I am convinced who ever thought it up just half thought it out and decided to not think it the rest of the way out period because he/she would be dead before it would be a problem. This out-of-sight, out-of-mind attitude is getting more and more apparent and annoying as I get older and learn more about the things we (human race) have done. I would like to formally apologize to my future family and the future families of everyone in my generation if we don't figure this out, because you guys might all have cancer just for being alive on this planet we are pumping full of radio-active waste.

Meat, Disease and Climate Change?

Humans are not your average mammal. Not only are we the only species that drinks another animal's milk, we also have the ability and tendency to manipulate nature, resources and instincts. In the past hundred years we have made leaps in education and technology but we have also begun to see the repercussions of our out of sight, out of mind life styles in the form of disease and climate change. How does the meat we eat for dinner correlate to disease and climate change? That is what I sought to find out.

Article 1: Global Farm Animal Production and Global Warming: Impacting and Mitigating Climate Change
By: Gowri Koneswaran and Danielle Nierenberg

Abstract:
Background
The farm animal sector is the single largest anthropogenic user of land, contributing to many environmental problems, including global warming and climate change.

Objectives
The aim of this study was to synthesize and expand upon existing data on the contribution of farm animal production to climate change.

Methods
We analyzed the scientific literature on farm animal production and documented greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, as well as various mitigation strategies.

Discussions
An analysis of meat, egg, and milk production encompasses not only the direct rearing and slaughtering of animals, but also grain and fertilizer production for animal feed, waste storage and disposal, water use, and energy expenditures on farms and in transporting feed and finished animal products, among other key impacts of the production process as a whole.

Conclusions
Immediate and far-reaching changes in current animal agriculture practices and consumption patterns are both critical and timely if GHGs from the farm animal sector are to be mitigated.

Citation:
Koneswaran, Gowri, and Danielle Nierenberg. "Global Farm Animal Production and Global Warming: Impacting and Mitigating Climate Change." Environ Health Perspectives (2008). Pub Med Centeral. Enviornmental Protection Agency, 31 Jan. 2008. Web. 10 Feb. 2010. .

Connection:
The practice of meat farming directly contributes to global warming because the practices are proven to emit abundant amounts of green house gasses(proven to aid climate change and global warming).

Article 2: Social and environmental risk factors in the emergence of infectious diseases
By: Robin A Weiss & Anthony J McMichael

Abstract:
Fifty years ago, the age-old scourge of infectious disease was receding in the developed world in response to improved public health measures, while the advent of antibiotics, better vaccines, insecticides and improved surveillance held the promise of eradicating residual problems. By the late twentieth century, however, an increase in the emergence and re-emergence of infectious diseases was evident in many parts of the world. This upturn looms as the fourth major transition in human–microbe relationships since the advent of agriculture around 10,000 years ago. About 30 new diseases have been identified, including Legionnaires' disease, human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)/acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS), hepatitis C, bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE)/variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (vCJD), Nipah virus, several viral hemorrhagic fevers and, most recently, severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) and avian influenza. The emergence of these diseases, and resurgence of old ones like tuberculosis and cholera, reflects various changes in human ecology: rural-to-urban migration resulting in high-density peri-urban slums; increasing long-distance mobility and trade; the social disruption of war and conflict; changes in personal behavior; and, increasingly, human-induced global changes, including widespread forest clearance and climate change. Political ignorance, denial and obduracy (as with HIV/AIDS) further compound the risks. The use and misuse of medical technology also pose risks, such as drug-resistant microbes and contaminated equipment or biological medicines. A better understanding of the evolving social dynamics of emerging infectious diseases ought to help us to anticipate and hopefully ameliorate current and future risks.

Citation:
Weiss, Robin A., and Anthony J. McMichael. "Social and environmental risk factors in the emergence of infectious diseases." Nature Medice Magazine (2004). Nature Medicine. Web. 10 Feb. 2010. .

Connection:
The act and process of farming animals for meat is an unnatural process that alters not only the animals and land causing global warming but has lead to the generation of bacterias un-effected by antibiotics leading to currently incurable diseases. Global warming and climate change is its self a new atmospheric combination that is causing a chain reaction of ecosystem alterations that has presented humans with new diseases and viruses that are also currently incurable.

Article 3:
Environmental Systems Analysis of Pig Production
By: Ingrid Strid Eriksson (Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences)

Abstract:
The aim of this thesis was to develop the SALSA models (Systems AnaLysis for Sustainable Agriculture), and to apply them to studies for the benefit of more sustainable pig production.
Within the framework of environmental systems analysis, the SALSA models were constructed as substance and energy flow models using life cycle assessment methodology for impact assessment and scope definition. The pig production system studied included rearing of growing-finishing pigs (SALSA-pig model) and production of feed (SALSA-arable and SALSA-soybean models).
For energy use, global warming potential and eutrophication, the feed production sub- system had the largest environmental impact, whereas for acidification the pig sub-system was the dominant source.
Results from simulations using the SALSA-arable model showed that energy use, global warming potential and acidification increased with increasing nitrogen fertiliser rate, whereas eutrophication had a minimum around the current recommended rate.
When the pig production system was optimised regarding diet composition for different environmental targets, different diets were obtained. For acidification and eutrophication, a low protein diet was prioritised, which was achieved by high inclusion of synthetic amino acids. For energy use and global warming potential high levels of peas and rapeseed cake (a by-product from rapeseed oil production) were prioritised. The environmental optimiser almost entirely avoided soybean meal, due to its poor environmental record.
A main conclusion of the work was that feed choice had an impact on the environmental performance of pig meat production, not only via the features of the feed as fed to the pigs, such as the crude protein content, but also via the raw materials used, since the environmental impact from the production of these differed and since feed production generally had a large impact on the system as a whole

Citation:
Eriksson, Ingrid. "Environmental Systems Analysis of Pig Production." Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences 15 Jan. 2004: 1-37. Print.


Connection:
The enviornmental impact of a meat farm can be dramatically reduced by changing the animal's diet. Animals packed full of enriched foods and hormones produce more CO2 and other GHG's than an animal that is given real feed and left to nature for size and strength. Organic meat means less GHG's and no genetically enhanced bacteria.




Reflection:
I thought it was sort of common knowledge that meat farming is a big contributor to global warming and climate change just because of what I already know about carbon cycle emission, however I was extremely surprised that the types of food given to an animal weigh heavily on their individual carbon foot print. Meat farming to me sticks out of the already unnatural practices humans use to make our lives easier, like a sore thumb just because of how morally and environmentally wrong it seems to me. I do know that I do not want to have to go hunt a cow every time I want a hamburger, but having a million cows in small area strung out on hormones and sedatives seems just as if not more inconvenient. I don't really want to focus exactly on the effects of the meat industry on climate change, the bacterial evolution is a tad bit easier to find information on and interesting to me.