Better Think Twice About That Facebook 'Like'

Facebook is a global phenomenon, almost a billion users worldwide can be connected at the click of a mouse. To differentiate ourselves from the masses, we "like" pages on the site. For example, sports-loving John would "like" the Red Sox page, while country-music-fan Sharon would "like" Kenny Chesney's fan page. These likes give our friends a sense of who we are and help us to describe who we are. However, Facebook users will notice that mysteriously relevant advertisements seem to pop up on the side of the screen while visiting the site. According to the article on Science Daily, "New research, published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, shows that surprisingly accurate estimates of Facebook users' race, age, IQ, sexuality, personality, substance use and political views can be inferred from automated analysis of only their Facebook Likes -- information currently publicly available by default." Companies and businesses have access to this data, and are able to advertise products and services to each person based on who they are as an individual. But this is just the beginning.

 "Facebook Likes were fed into algorithms and corroborated with information from profiles and personality tests. Researchers created statistical models able to predict personal details using Facebook Likes alone.Models proved 88% accurate for determining male sexuality, 95% accurate distinguishing African-American from Caucasian American and 85% accurate differentiating Republican from Democrat. Christians and Muslims were correctly classified in 82% of cases, and good prediction accuracy was achieved for relationship status and substance abuse -- between 65 and 73%." It is unsettling to know that our Facebook likes, merely simple absent-minded Internet shenanigans, have the ability to allow companies to know who we are. I would certainly like for my Internet usage to be semi private, in terms of who can see it. This problem is especially relevant for people like me, a teenager that has grown up in a Facebook society. For years, people my age have been using Facebook- some of us began to use the site when we were around 12-13 years old. Needless to say, 13 year olds sometimes do dumb things.  I know that I certainly "liked" a few things in my day that I would never "like" now. I don't want those  in the hands of companies, who might then be able to sell the data to future employers and/or colleges. It all just seems like bad news waiting to happen, in my opinion. 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/03/130311151110.htm

A New Understanding of Why Females Outlive Males

It is commonly known that women tend to outlive men, but do we know why? This is the question that Patricia Wright of Stony Brook University set out to find the answer to. In 1986, Wright and her team ventured out to Madagascar to study a whopping 70 individual Milne-Edwards' sifaka lemurs inhabiting Ranomafana National Park. The team recorded births, deaths, and behavior of the lemurs. These lemurs are especially unique in that both sexes are essentially the same in terms of habits and patterns. With the Milne-Edwards' sifaka, both males and females have the same amount of testosterone and grow to be the same height and weight. Both sexes are equally likely to pick a fight, and are equally aggressive. Their coloring- orange eyes and dark brown fur- is the same. And, above all, both sexes routinely leave their original group and venture out on their own. However, despite all these similarities, males on average only live until their late teens, while females live until their early thirties.
So, what's going on? Why do males meet their ends dramatically sooner than females? Wright and her team analyzed their data, searching and searching for the answer. Finally, they noticed an odd pattern in the dispersal data. Their data says that males and females venture out equally frequently and go just as far, but there was one major difference that could be the answer to it all. While females stopped dispersing after reaching age 11, males dispersed their entire lives. Due to this risky behavior, males often die earlier than females. "'When you're a social animal and you go off on your own into unfamiliar territory, finding food can be more of a challenge. Plus you don't have the extra protection of other group members who can help look out for predators. Even when you find a new group to join, you may have to fight your way in and there's a chance of getting injured in a fight,' said co-author Jennifer Verdolin of the National Evolutionary Synthesis Center in Durham, North Carolina."

Of course, this doesnt explain this phenomenon in humans. However, it might just give a clue. In humans, risk-taking behavior is typically done at different ages, as with the Milne-Edwards' sifaka. This "reveals age-specific mortality risk factors" that have not been considered as of yet.
I think this article is exteremely interesting. As a female, I've always noticed that males are much more prone to risk-taking behaviors, such as dirtbiking and crazy stunts. That's not to say that all females stay away from behavior like that, but there is no denying that males participate much more often, even into their adulthood. Many injuries can occur, often leading to an untimely death, thus the average early male deaths compared to women.

Genes Affected by Sleep Loss

 We all know that sleep-loss causes a plethora of different problems, from mere tiredness to driving accidents. But, could a sleepless night also affect our genes? Scientists are now saying yes, it can.
In a study of 26 people that suffer from insomnia, Derk-Jan Dijk and colleagues at the University of Surrey in England set out to understand the affects of sleep-loss on a molecular level.
For one week, the 26 volunteers were allowed 8 hours of sleep each night. They noted that they felt good and rested. The next week, the volunteers were given just 6 hours of sleep a night, noting that they felt "sleepy and sluggish", as to be expected. However, here's the kicker: as the volunteers got less sleep, their genes actually changed. Each volunteer was given a blood test, and, according to reasearchers, the activity in 711 of their genes had changed. Among these affected genes were those that control the immune system, which helps to prevent sickness and colds. As always, scientists have concluded that sleep-loss can lead to health problems and are recommending at least 8 hours of sleep per night.
This study, though, had one big fault. There are 7 billion human beings on Earth, and only 26 of them were monitored. For a more definitive conclusion, researchers would have done better in using a larger test pool.

However, I guess for this particular experiment the small group was not too damaging on the results because the conclusion that sleep-loss leads to health problems is one that everybody already knows.
Well, what about people that cannot get 8 solid hours of sleep each night? Life can get pretty hectic, and it gets even more so as we get older (to a certain point, eventually we just retire and can sleep as much as we want to). As a high school student in my senior year, I know firsthand how it is sometimes literally impossible to get 8 hours of sleep, and most of the time even 5 hours! Between school, homework, sports, clubs, jobs, and other engagements, hitting the sack at a decent hour is next to impossible. It is almost hypocritical, how everybody says to get 8 hours of sleep, yet we have to wake up at 6 for school and have loads of homework each night, and are expected to have jobs to start contributing to society. Where will it end? Are we all in for major health problems by the time we can retire? It is all just something to think about. I sure as heck know that I want my genes to be in tip-top shape, but apparently that wont happen for a long, long time.

Lobster for Dinner!...Or Not?

 Do lobsters, crabs, and other crustaceans feel pain? And, if so, would you stop eating them altogether?  
New research suggests that, contrary to previous belief, the popular summertime dinners do in fact feel it when we toss them into boiling water. During a Queen's University study by Robert Elwood and Barry Magee, ninety shore crabs were placed into a bright tank with dark shelters on either side (as shore crabs [and most other crustaceans] enjoy dark, shadowy hiding spots). The crabs under one of the dark spots were given a series of small electric shocks, and this was repeated twice. After a second round of shocks, the crabs were returned to the tank and were yet again given the choice between the two shelters. This time, a vast majority of the shocked crabs went to the other dark spot, avoiding the spot where they'd been electrocuted. 
However, many argue that this phenomenon is due to nociception, or a reflex reaction to being touched. But Magee and Elwood counter with the fact that the shore crabs felt the unpleasant effects of the shock and could recall where they received it and try to avoid the experience again proves that it was pain that the crabs felt.  “I don’t know what goes on in a crab’s mind … but what I can say is the whole behavior goes beyond a straightforward reflex response and it fits all the criteria of pain,” said Elwood. 
The question is, how will this new information affect society? There are, essentially, whole cultures built on the consumption of lobsters and crabs- for example, "Maine Lobsters" are sought after by tourists during the warm summer months. However, many people took solace in the fact that their lobster dinners couldn't feel the excruciating pain of being submerged in boiling water. Now, it might be too much for some people to handle morally. For others, they might consider the fact that other animals commonly consumed by humans such as pigs, cows, and chickens are often painfully killed to be our food, yet we still eat them everyday. The big difference between the two is that lobsters and crabs are purchased while still alive and we have to do the killing. 
I don't eat seafood, but I still would not object to the consumption of lobsters and crabs because in my view they are meat just like pigs and cows and chickens. I just could never, ever be the one to drop them into the pot. I think that most people won't be able to give up the favorite summer dinner, no matter how much they know that it hurts the animal. But, next time you're about to cook up some crustacean dinner, maybe you'll think twice about tossing the lobster into the scalding water. 

Read more: http://science.time.com/2013/01/18/do-crabs-feel-pain-maybe-and-maybe-we-should-rethink-eating-them/#ixzz2KpfVgREb

Is a World Like 'Gattaca' Inevitable?

Every year, advances in both science and biotechnology promise a world in the future that may not be all that different than that portrayed in 'Gattaca'. Science is an ever-growing field, scientists and society are always yearning for the next best scientific advance. The latest trend, it seems, has been in the biotechnology category. Biotechnology is currently one of the most controversial topics dividing people, much the way political parties do. While biotechnology certainly has many pros, it also has many cons. I, like most people, cannot choose a side which I favor over the other, but I simply recognize the many pros and cons and will decide for myself how I feel about individual instances. Many problems we as humans face today can be easily eliminated by the discoveries and advances in biotechnology. World hunger could be virtually nonexistent due to genetically-engineered crops, noteably corn. Illnesses will be easily cured and even prevented by new pills and genetic techniques.

Genetically-engineered bugs have even been created that will be genetically altered to do different helpful tasks. "Each of the bugs will have a mission. Some will be designed to devour things, like pollution. Others will generate food and fuel. There will be bugs to fight global warming, bugs to clean up toxic waste, bugs to manufacture medicine and diagnose disease, and they will all be driven to complete these tasks by the very fibers of their synthetic DNA." (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/03/magazine/craig-venters-bugs-might-save-the-world.html?ref=biotechnology) Bugs or not,the most important thing is that biotechnology would make and is making the world a better, safer, and easier place to live for everyone.

However impressive biotechnology is, the moral viewpoint remains. Is it morally right to pre-determine what a baby will look like? Is it morally right to clone animals, and, in the future, humans? I don't think so. While I recognize the perks of these things, I think that part of the beauty of life is how natural it is. A baby is born naturally, an animal is born naturally. Aside from this point, if too many advances in biotechnology are made, it will completely disrupt the system of life and death and natural selection that has been naturally formed. Our population relies on the knowledge that people will die, as harsh as it sounds. We need people to die of diseases such as cancer and Alzheimer's to ensure that the population does not inflate. With biotechnology preventing fatal illnesses and diseases, too many people will be on this Earth. Biotechnology is and forever be a fascinating topic, one of controversy, and one that does both good and bad.