Cell Biology and TCM
I think there is a relationship between cell biology and TCM in the are of metabolism. The metabolic process is one of breaking down compunds known as food into smaller compounds. These compounds are then put to use by our bodies, entering into biochemical reactions that make our life functions possible. This is the western view of metabolism.
It could also be looked at from an eastern perspective. The process of metabolism isn't a mechanistic one where each molecule must be tracked through a string of reactions from entry to exit from the body. Rather, it can be viewed more holistically. Metabolism is the process of releasing the chi stored within each food that we consume. This chi is then made part of our chi, which in turn fuels our living functions.
NOVA link on Mitosis and Meiosis
I found this interesting and a useful visual tool to understand the two processes.
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
Monday, March 17, 2008
Week 10: Diversity
Diversity of Species
As I look around my house, here's what I see, or see evidence of:
Four humans
one dog
hopefully no rats under the house, but we used to have them
house plants
daddy long legs in the tub
fish
yeast in the fridge
hopefully solely beneficial bacteria in our bodies
dust mites (my husband is allergic so I know they are here)
Outside the window, there are:
monterey pine tree
various bushes, all evergreen
blossoming tree (don't know what kind)
blossoming fruit trees: apples, nectarines, oranges, grape vine, lemon
ivy everywhere (ugh)
flowers
myrtle, which has another name here
rolie polie bugs
squirrels
birds
at night, I hear an owl
no bees right now
bacteria in the pool (probably, as I learned below)
spider web
Cell Links
I really learned a lot from the one entitled Bacterial cell structure. I liked the graphic and the narrative that goes along with it. I thought it was particulalry interesting that some bacteria live in super salty pools, and in boiling water!!! I thought it was practically a God-given tenet that boiling water had no bacteria in it. I guess it doesn't hurt you.
I recently read an article about microbes and their incredible diversity. There are so many more of them than there are of all other species combined. Here's a beautiful quote:
In the poetic conclusion to his 1994 autobiography, Naturalist, the great sociobiologist and Pellegrino University Professor emeritus E.O. Wilson mused on what he would do, “[i]f I could do it all over again and relive my vision in the twenty-first century. I would be a microbial ecologist...,” he wrote. “Into that world I would go with the aid of modern microscopy and molecular analysis. I would cut my way through clonal forests sprawled across grains of sand, travel in an imagined submarine through drops of water proportionately the size of lakes, and track predators and prey in order to discover new life ways and alien food webs. All this, and I need venture no farther than ten paces outside my laboratory building. The jaguars, ants, and orchids would still occupy distant forests in all their splendor, but now they would be joined by an even stranger and vastly more complex living world virtually without end.”
If you want to read more, here's the link:
http://harvardmagazine.com/2007/11/the-undiscovered-planet.html
As I look around my house, here's what I see, or see evidence of:
Four humans
one dog
hopefully no rats under the house, but we used to have them
house plants
daddy long legs in the tub
fish
yeast in the fridge
hopefully solely beneficial bacteria in our bodies
dust mites (my husband is allergic so I know they are here)
Outside the window, there are:
monterey pine tree
various bushes, all evergreen
blossoming tree (don't know what kind)
blossoming fruit trees: apples, nectarines, oranges, grape vine, lemon
ivy everywhere (ugh)
flowers
myrtle, which has another name here
rolie polie bugs
squirrels
birds
at night, I hear an owl
no bees right now
bacteria in the pool (probably, as I learned below)
spider web
Cell Links
I really learned a lot from the one entitled Bacterial cell structure. I liked the graphic and the narrative that goes along with it. I thought it was particulalry interesting that some bacteria live in super salty pools, and in boiling water!!! I thought it was practically a God-given tenet that boiling water had no bacteria in it. I guess it doesn't hurt you.
I recently read an article about microbes and their incredible diversity. There are so many more of them than there are of all other species combined. Here's a beautiful quote:
In the poetic conclusion to his 1994 autobiography, Naturalist, the great sociobiologist and Pellegrino University Professor emeritus E.O. Wilson mused on what he would do, “[i]f I could do it all over again and relive my vision in the twenty-first century. I would be a microbial ecologist...,” he wrote. “Into that world I would go with the aid of modern microscopy and molecular analysis. I would cut my way through clonal forests sprawled across grains of sand, travel in an imagined submarine through drops of water proportionately the size of lakes, and track predators and prey in order to discover new life ways and alien food webs. All this, and I need venture no farther than ten paces outside my laboratory building. The jaguars, ants, and orchids would still occupy distant forests in all their splendor, but now they would be joined by an even stranger and vastly more complex living world virtually without end.”
If you want to read more, here's the link:
http://harvardmagazine.com/2007/11/the-undiscovered-planet.html
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
Week 9: Biochemistry
Gene Therapy
Frankly, I think the essence of the morality of gene therapy argument is lost on me. I don't understand why there is a stark dividing line between drug therapies and gene therapies. Both seek to alter the biochemical basis for disease.
I guess you could say that we don't know where gene therapy is taking us. But the same can be said for most new pharmaceutical therapies. There are no guarantees that they will not have some unforseen consequence, and the same is true for gene therapy.
I see the issue as a continuum. The question is how much do we want to intervene to improve or prolong the human condition called life. I don't see gene therapy as anything other than a point on that continuum. Very good questions can be raised about the wisdom of intervention of many kinds: what will the effect be on the planet, on the health of others? Will the therapy be available to everyone or only the affluent? But I don't think that the discussion of gene therapy requires a separate conversation.
Definitions
The interesting one was:
"Biochemistry is the study of molecules (e.g. proteins) in the absence of the rest of the organism"
Obviously, this is a fairly offensive characteristic of a scientific pursuit. If not offensive, at least stupid. It reflects a small-minded, mechanistic approach to investigating life and the nature of it. It's silly to think that you can study molecules in isolation and not take into account the effect of the larger and enormously complex systems they exist in.
I will say though that I clicked through to the website from which this was quoted, and I don't think it was really as idiotic as it sounds. It was trying to draw a distinction between different life sciences that look at cells. I think those sciences so necessarily overlap that this distinction was contrived to create boundaries that don't really exist.
Animations
As usual, my computer wasn't happy with these animations. I did manage to see one which illustrated an electron circling an atom. If I remember correctly, though, I think it was wrong. I though electrons move in and out of certain paths; that an orbital is not a defined path but that it actually represents a route that varies quite a bit. So, what I did see was a bit misleading (I think?...)
Frankly, I think the essence of the morality of gene therapy argument is lost on me. I don't understand why there is a stark dividing line between drug therapies and gene therapies. Both seek to alter the biochemical basis for disease.
I guess you could say that we don't know where gene therapy is taking us. But the same can be said for most new pharmaceutical therapies. There are no guarantees that they will not have some unforseen consequence, and the same is true for gene therapy.
I see the issue as a continuum. The question is how much do we want to intervene to improve or prolong the human condition called life. I don't see gene therapy as anything other than a point on that continuum. Very good questions can be raised about the wisdom of intervention of many kinds: what will the effect be on the planet, on the health of others? Will the therapy be available to everyone or only the affluent? But I don't think that the discussion of gene therapy requires a separate conversation.
Definitions
The interesting one was:
"Biochemistry is the study of molecules (e.g. proteins) in the absence of the rest of the organism"
Obviously, this is a fairly offensive characteristic of a scientific pursuit. If not offensive, at least stupid. It reflects a small-minded, mechanistic approach to investigating life and the nature of it. It's silly to think that you can study molecules in isolation and not take into account the effect of the larger and enormously complex systems they exist in.
I will say though that I clicked through to the website from which this was quoted, and I don't think it was really as idiotic as it sounds. It was trying to draw a distinction between different life sciences that look at cells. I think those sciences so necessarily overlap that this distinction was contrived to create boundaries that don't really exist.
Animations
As usual, my computer wasn't happy with these animations. I did manage to see one which illustrated an electron circling an atom. If I remember correctly, though, I think it was wrong. I though electrons move in and out of certain paths; that an orbital is not a defined path but that it actually represents a route that varies quite a bit. So, what I did see was a bit misleading (I think?...)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)