Belief influences biology

Written for Communication Studies class

Ever since the discovery of the genetic code it has been purported that these instructions that build our body was what determined our health and behavior. It is also why so much time and money was put into mapping the human genome. Scientists were expecting to find instructions for things like cancer, Alzheimer’s, multiple sclerosis, so that they can perhaps one day eliminate these genes as a means to prevent such detrimental diseases. But it turned out that they didn’t find quite what they were looking for. Improving ones health wasn’t going to be as simple as pulling out the “bad genes” and replacing them with good ones.

It turns out that our genes aren’t influencing our health as much as we initially thought. Not only do our perceptions influence our behavior, but they also influence our health.

This illustration demonstrates how a response to stimuli can result in a reaction. This one specifically shows how the people’s interpretation of their environment lead them to respond violently, when all the squid wanted to do was return some guys wallet. This happens on the cellular level as well. A person may have an allergic reaction to cats even when there is no real threat present, and when the body reacts this way to too many things the immune system becomes overactive, which is referred to as the disease Lupus.

So far what is currently known as a result of scientific research on the subject, is that the perception of one’s environment impacts our tendency for illness, and our perceptions are influenced by our beliefs, which are influenced by who and what we are exposed to, which is our environment.

-We are controlled by our perception of our environment.-

There's this book called 'The Biology of Belief' by Bruce Lipton. He is a former medical school professor and a research scientist studying cells and looking for what controls whether or not a cell becomes pathogenic. His research at Stanford University’s School of Medicine lead him to some new insights into behavior that can be directly translated from the cellular experience to the human experience. This is because for every function that your body has, every cell in your body has a system that is functionally equivalent. His research revealed that the environment that a cell lives in is what controls its behavior and its health, which is contrary to the commonly accepted view that our genetic code determines our fate. On the level of a cell, its environment is known to the cell by its perception of it. On the human level, our perceptions of our environment sometimes turn out to not be true, so in this way perception is belief.

-The environment impacts gene expression.-

Dr Dana Dolinoy studies epigenetic gene regulation as a post doctoral researcher under Randy Journal at Duke University. She observes how exposure to disease and the environment interacts with the epigenome in Aguti mice. This exposure affects their long term health.

Here is a photo of two identical twin mice that she exposed to two different kinds of environments. The fat yellow mouse will likely develop diabetes and cancer, where the brown mouse is much less likely to do so. This example shows that there is something more than just genes that make us who we are. The difference is a fairly new field of study called epigenetics. Without getting too technical let me explain epigenetics as the changes in appearance or behavior of an organism due to being influenced by its environment, which can determine whether or not certain genes will be expressed. So basically, your environment influences your genes.

-Our perceptions can make the difference between life and death.-

In Howard P Greenwald’s book, ‘Who Survives Cancer?’ he explains how the emotional health of the patient makes a substantial impact on their survival rate. As an example, a doctor tells his patient that she has cancer and is expected to live only three months. One way she may react is by thinking that the doctor has authority because he has been through years of intensive schooling and training. She remembers hearing from her parents about how doctors know what they are doing and that she should trust them. If her piers support this ideology, it only makes her belief stronger that she will indeed be dead in three months. This belief increases her likelihood of not surviving past the expiration date which her doctor has prescribed her. If she was aware of the idea of beliefs controlling our health, she could have responded differently to her doctor. She could have refused to believe that a doctor could put an expiration date on a person and instead perceive that it is possible to survive such a potentially detrimental diagnosis.

So our beliefs influence our behavior and health, on the cellular level and the personal level.

My final thought on all of this is, be aware of what you believe and how your beliefs, and the environment you live in affects you. We are all self-conscious and as a result we can choose what to believe and what we want to expose ourselves to. I think this is empowering information that we can all use to improve ourselves by living happier and healthier lives.

........

-Sources-

Lipton, Bruce H. The Biology of Belief. Hay House Inc. may 2005 http://www.brucelipton.com/biology-of-belief-overview

Dolinoy, Dana. Epigenetics, a tale of two mice. Nova. ScienceNOW. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sciencenow/3411/02.html

Greenwald, Howard P. Who Survives Cancer?. Berkeley: University of California Press, c1992 1992. http://ark.cdlib.org/ark:/13030/ft9b69p365/

‘Misunderstanding’ by Kristin Hogan.jpg

http://squid.us/wp-content/uploads/misunderstanding-kristin-hogan.jpg

Longer lives: where medicine and technology are heading

This was one of the papers I wrote for Research and Persuasive Writing class. ....................................................

Whats happening

Life expectancy has almost doubled in the past century with help by landmark breakthroughs in medical science. New technology continues to develop that will continue to prevent and/or cure life threatening diseases. It has gotten to the point where the question can be asked; if we cure all diseases, what will there be left to die of? Aubrey de Grey, a biomedical gerontologist, co-founder and Chief Science Officer of the Strategies for Engineered Negligible Senescence Foundation(SENS) believes that aging can not only be cured, but prevented and reversed. The idea of people not having to die being a real possibility does have strong cultural and moral implications however. In this paper I will explain the main issues people have with the idea of living indefinite lives, and point to ways this can be possible.

Also, an article in the New York Times Science section by Nicholas Wade discusses that a “research group at the Massachusetts General Hospital led by Sean P. Curran and Gary Ruvkun” concluded that the cells in eggs and sperm are biologically immortal, which explains why the age of the parents cells do not effect the age of the cells that will become the baby; they are born with new cells regardless of their parents age. When the genes in the insulin signaling-pathway are disrupted by turning off one of the genes used, it results in a longer life. While they were working on round worms, they discovered that there is a genetic link between aging and the body’s ability to metabolize fats and sugars, and the immune system(Wade 2009).

What the future holds

The future of life-extension technology looks promising. In a periodical called The Futurist, journalist David Gelles talks about what lies in the future for the human race with the idea that technology will advance our evolutionary rate of change. He explains that, to Transhumanists, the body is a machine, the brain the computer, where parts can be replaced, repaired, improved, and upgraded, to an indefinite length of time. And that the technology that will make this happen will result in allowing people to live as long as they want. But there are  negative implications this too, that permanent damage may occur within the human genome as a result of tampering with it. But Transhumanists diligently remain optimistic, saying that finite energy and global warming will be solved as well as the problem with there not being enough food to feed everyone(Gelles 209).

Additionally, advancements in science will one day make immortality possible. Frank R. Zindler, a teacher of twenty years “and professor of biology, psychobiology, and geology”1 questions the need for death and explains that substantial progress has been made regarding how the aging process can be halted by activating or deactivating certain genes. There are also studies being done with regards to chemicals found to be able to reverse the effects of aging altogether. He explains some examples in different species how certain genes are turned on during certain parts of their life which causes them to start to die, and what purpose these genes have from an evolutionary perspective. These genes can be prevented from turning off which would halt the aging process which leads to death(Zindler 2003).

A computer rendering of a nanomachine.

Furthermore De Grey explains how he views regenerative medicine as having the most promise for the pursuit to defeat aging. He lists some primary speakers on the subject who worked toward sharing an understanding of the importance of achieving these goals(de Grey 2008). Radical life-extension technology will happen sooner or later, more likely sooner than most might imagine. Ray Kurtzweil, an inventor, author and technologist looks forward to it happening. Information technologies are increasing exponentially, which have made mapping the human genome possible, when in 1990 it was deemed impossible to do with the speed of computers at that time. Messenger RNA can be blocked that express certain genes that may be unwanted. Advancements in gene therapy techniques can fix errors in DNA sequences. DNA is the genetic code passed down to all life by their progenitors. Enzymes can be created or blocked, which perform the majority of the work on the cellular level. Reverse-engineering and the reprogramming of DNA is becoming more feasible with the exponential increase of information technology. Kurtzweil estimates that people will have the capability to live multiple times longer than currently possible in a few decades. Nanotechnology will soon become feasible in application to the medical field(2007).

Who’s criticizing the movement and why

Kennedy2 briefly goes over Ray Kurtzweils idea of humans having the ability to become immortal in the near future, that death will no longer be inevitable, and that Kurtzweil has a clear idea of how it will come about through individual techniques to stay healthy, and soon through biotechnological advancements like nanotechnology and artificial intelligence. Then he discusses Aubrey de Greys moral grounds for why he is working on curing death. De Grey feels that death is repugnant, that everyone has a right make their own decisions about their life, and that everyone has a right to a healthy life and continue living. Kennedy expresses problems with de Greys moral bases and argues that de Grey doesn’t distinguish between killing someone and simply allowing them to die, that the only way they could be the same if intent was in the equation. Kennedy also criticizes what de Grey claims to be natural; de Grey feels that since it’s a good thing to save lives, then allowing people to succumb to disease, frailty and death is unnatural. But one could argue that seeing something happen repeatedly over a long period of time is natural, which would cause a contradiction within the definition. Kennedy also criticizes how de Grey feels that old age and death is repugnant, and wonders if this is a result of some sort of conditioning he endured when he was younger. De Grey states that aging is the result of decay from pathogens and unwanted changes in the cells which can potentially be repaired (Kennedy 2009).

Further criticism of  life-extension technology continues by a journalist for the periodical Nature. The book Merchants of Immortality is reviewed and the intentions and ability make on the promises given by those working in the field of life extension are questioned. Olshansky proposes they have monetary aims and that giving such hope for defeating death is no different from that of selling a fake cure-all. Halls book explains the intertwining of ethics, politics, and science, regarding the quest for immortality(Olchansky 2003).

Lillian B. Rubin, an 83 year old sociologist and psychotherapist, has written a book about how the "golden age" is not so golden. She criticizes the community of doctors and scientists who are working towards defeating death, claiming that basically this technology will not cure death, since death is not a disease and it is perfectly natural. She also questions the idea of extended life from her short-sighted view that frail 100-something-year-olds will eventually have to take care of their parents and grandparents, that social security and inheritances will dry up and the young will end up having to not only support their children, but their surviving ancestors as well. She is failing to take into account that it is medical technological advancements that has allowed her to live as long as she already has, and yet she criticizes future advancements in these fields that will also extend the quality of our lives, help us maintain our vigor and our ability to live an active life, not just keep us from dying. She claims that the anti-aging community has a capitalistic agenda, that their only in it for the money, yet they are non-profit organizations, and when you look into the motivations that people have in this field, most feel that getting old is unnecessary and simply do not want to die. She believes that aging is not a disease, yet Progeria has been confirmed to be not only a disease of aging, but genetic in origin. The Mayo Clinic defines Progeria as, “a progressive genetic disorder that causes children to age rapidly, beginning in their first two years of life.”(2009) She may have a clear knowledge of the social aspects of aging, but she fails to demonstrate any understanding of the aging process from a biological and cellular level(Rubin 2007).

Projected Population Growth

There is a concern that if people have the ability to live forever, it will cause overpopulation, but so far overpopulation has been the result of poor countries procreating. And since they are not likely to have access to anti-aging technology, life-extension doesn’t look like it will have much of an effect on the population increasing anyways, since the age span of procreatabiliy wont necessarily increase. Are people going to want to have more children just because they are able to live longer?

Top ten longest life expectancy countries; Japan, Swizerland, Sweden, Austrailia, France, Iceland, Austria, Italy, Spain, Norway. Top ten countries spending the most money on health; United States, Swizerland, Norway, Denmark, Luxemburg, Iceland, Germany, France, Japan, Netherlands. Bottom ten countries with the lowest birth rates; Hong Kong, Japan, Germany, Italy, Guernsey, Austria, Macau, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Jersey, Czech Republic(nationmaster.com). The countries with the longest life expectancy are also the richest countries and also have better access to medical, as well as have the lowest birth rates, in general.

Top ten countries who have the highest percentage below the poverty line;  Liberia, Gaza Strip, Haiti, Zimbabwe, Chad, Sierra Leone, Suriname, Mozambique, Angola, Nigeria. Top ten countries with the highest birth rates; Niger, Mali, Uganda, Afghanistan, Sierra Leone, Burkina Faso, Somalia, Angola, Ethiopia, Democratic Republic of the Congo(nationmaster.com). The majority of countries that are the poorest also have the highest birth rates.

It is clear that the people who are less likely to have children have better access to health programs, if life-extension programs come in effect, they will most likely influence these countries, so it will not cause the population to increase, it is shown that a lack of money and access to health care are correlated with population growth, not access to medical technology.

What could happen

Aubrey de Greys solution to the problem of immortality leading to overpopulation is to establish a choice between medical life-extension treatments or be allowed to procreate. Would unintentional births void health insurance? Which procedures would be considered life-extending and what kind of treatments would be available to the procreators? There is a strong social norm at least in the U.S. that the ability to have children is a right, not only biologically, but socially. What if someone who chooses to have the life-extending treatments eventually ends up dying? (de Grey 2009)

Starving people hoard food, people with too much food will waste it. People strive to save lives because they are aware of the fleeting of life. Would these same people devalue life as they do food, if they were comfortable with the possibility that they didn’t have to die?3 It appears that the current popular morals will not work with this new paradigm of longevity. We must remember the old adage; “waste not, want not”.

If the rich have access to better medical care that could allow them to live for an indefinite time period, and the poor wont, it can increase the economic social gap between the two. So the rich will live longer and have less of a need to make children, and the poor will live lives much shorter than the rich, and continue making more children, if this continues and medical technology is not available to everyone regardless of economic power, the social gap can widen to the point that the species may divide after a long period of time. The only way to prevent this would be to have a reforming of a universal health care so everyone can have access to medical treatments regardless of money. But technology depends on capitalism, which is in direct defiance to the idea of universal health care. Doctors, health/life insurance companies, patent holders, drug companies are profiting from extending the human life span and will continue to profit from future breakthroughs.

People should allow life-extension technology to be available to everyone. We should all have the choice. People who argue that its wrong or immoral fail to see the bigger picture and might as well just not go to the hospital since the principal of medical technology is to extend the healthy years of life.
   
Works cited
Bostrom, Nick. “Human Genetic Enhancements: A Transhumanist Perspective” Journal of Value Inquiry, (2003) Vol. 37, No. 4, pp. 493-506. http://www.nickbostrom.com/ethics/genetic.html

de Grey, Aubrey D.N.J.  “quest for immortality” New Scientist 2007. YouTube  [another date goes here?] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XfTqXL0d9Ls

de Grey, Aubrey D.N.J. “Consolidating the mission to defeat aging: A big step forward” Rejuvenation Research. Volume 11, Number 6, 2008. Methuselah Foundation, Cambridge, UK.

Drexler, Eric K. Engines of Creation: The coming era of nanotechnology. New York: Anchor Books, 1986

Gelles, David. “Immortality 2.0” The Futurist, 43.1 (2009): 34-41. Research Library. ProQuest. Highline Community College Library, Des Moines WA. 23 Jun 2009 http://moe.ic.highline.edu:2096

Kennedy, Thomas. D. “Anti-aging, rights and Human Nature.” Ethics and Medicine 25.1 (2009): 21-29,3. Research Library. ProQuest. Highline Community College Library, Des Moines, WA. 23 Jun. 2009 http://moe.ic.highline.edu:2096/

Kurtzweil, Ray. “The near-term inevitability of radical life extension and expansion” pgs.215-217. In What is your dangerous idea? Brockman, John. New York: Harper Perennial. 2007

Olshansky, S. Jay. “Fountain of Hype” From Merchants of Immortality: Chasing the Dream of Human Life Extension. Hall, Stephen. Nature. Vol 424 Aug 21 2003

population statistics from www.nationmaster.com

Progeria, definition from http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/progeria/DS00936

Rubin, Lillian B. 60 on up, the truth about aging in America. Boston: Beacon Press, 2007

Wade, Nicholas. “In worms, genetic clues to extending longevity” New York Times. June 8, 2009

Zindler, Frank R. “Immortality is an achievable and worthy goal.” Opposing Viewpoints: Death and Dying Ed. James Haley, San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2003. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Gale. Highline Community College. 22. Jun 2009. http://moe.ic.highline.edu:2096

Zindler biography from http://www.secularstudents.org/node/225

A biased teacher

I don't care that my Anthropology teacher is a christian who believes in creationism.

What bothers me is how he treats evolution like its a belief and doesn't even discuss how people came to develop the concept. I suppose I'd be asking too much of most people to put their own beliefs aside to try to understand someone elses perspective. I think that the reason why people can be so against the idea of evolution is because it was explained to them by people who themselves actively disbelieved it, as well as didn't understand why those studying the history of life on earth have come to the conclusions they have. Polarizing issues like this is also how people justify rejecting ideas that are not what they were trained to believe.

I don't identify with my beliefs. If I discover something in reality that goes against something I had previously believed, I discard that belief for what is more useful; a way of understanding reality by means of analyzing my experience.

I'm not referring to Evolution vs. Creationism from a philosophical perspective. I'm referring to a way of practicing and systematically knowing an aspect of what we can gather information about.

Comparing evolution to creationism is like comparing apples to oranges. Creationism is a spiritual matter, where Evolution is a scientific matter. As far as traditional science is concerned, the two are independent of each other, and are not necessarily mutually exclusive. The argument begins when it is assumed that they are. Now the reason why I say 'as far as traditional science is concerned', is because there are developing theories in quantum mechanics that start to give room to ask questions about matters of spirituality, but lets not get ahead of ourselves here.

This urge that humans have to believe in something without proving whether or not it’s true is dangerous. It seems to me to border psychosis; instead of trying to figure out what is real, one prefers to simply look for something to believe in that makes them feel good. If Joe blow wants to believe that in order to keep the Easter bunny from killing him in his sleep he must leave jellybeans out on his porch, that’s fine, just don't go telling other people that cause they will think that Joe blow is nuts. But that would only be because Joe blow was the minority in his belief. If he managed to get others to believe this and eventually got most people believing this, then those who didn’t would then look crazy. This is why beliefs are not reliable; they are dependent on the proportion of individuals who believe in them.

I think that the reason why there is confusion about evolution is because the definitions that scientists use are not the same as what everyone else uses. In order for something to be considered a science, the scientific method must be able to be applied to it (it needs to be testable within the system of physical reality).

It has been common knowledge within the scientific community that evolution has occurred. This is proven by the evidence within the fossil record. Fossils can be compared and contrasted with each other. Their age can be determined through carbon dating and cross analyzed with which rock layer it was found in. The "theory of evolution" that people cling on to is actually the theory of HOW it occurred. A theory in science is something that has been tested and shown to work thus far, and has not yet been disproven. The reason why evolution is such a hard concept to swallow is because in order to really see descent with modification causing different species to occur, you have to look over substantially long periods of time, which are incomprehensible to the average intellect.

In order for creationism to even be considered a science it has to stand up to the scientific method. Can the scientific method be applied to the idea of creationism? The scientific method requires that the question posed can be tested with an experiment. What kind of experiment could be devised that would prove whether or not a deity created all the creatures of earth at the same time? Before we could even touch that one, we would have to prove that such a deity exists to begin with, since the question is assuming that one does exist. It’s like asking, "Do three-legged twagmuples poop in the forest?" Of course they don't because there’s no such thing; I just made them up. But one could find poop in the forest and say that it came from a three-legged twagmuple, and claim that as proof of their existence. That of course, would follow along the lines of psychosis.

Even if we do assume the existence of a deity that could create life, and work on the other part of the question; all creatures are immutable, we would then have to come up with an explanation for what we have already found in the fossil record, as well as why viruses are able to change to no longer be effected by the drugs we use to kill them, or why, if you look at the DNA of living organisms, you see that there are pieces that are identical when the DNA of two creatures are compared to each other, as if they were related. There are many other things to consider as well.

Maybe you didn’t even get this far to read this, but if you have, then maybe you are actually open minded. I'm not trying to tell people it’s wrong to believe in something. What I have included in this are things that I have concluded as a result of my own research on the subject. My original thought was how I was disappointed in my teacher for not being pragmatic about what he was teaching, and identifying with a belief that he believed to be against evolution. He preferred his own emotions over reasoning. The vast majority of humans do this. I work on not doing this. I wonder if this makes me less human.