Why the embryonic stem cell debate has created positive results

A little over nine years ago, privately-funded scientists found a way to harvest embryonic stem-cells, after the Congress decided to prohibit federal funding of such research. As far back as November of 1998, embryonic stem cell research was already gaining criticism, yet certainly few Americans had heard of it then.

These days, everybody seems to have an opinion about stem cell research, a heated topic among political debates. While Americans who are in support of stem cell research have been constantly disappointed, even angered by the country's decision to hinder what could be one of the greatest medical breakthroughs in history to date, Congress's prohibition on federal funded research may be the most important catalyst in bringing about research in other ways to obtain stem cells... ways that would not involve the embryos of unborn children.

In November of 2007, Japanese scientists at the University of Wisconsin published a report in the November 22nd edition of the journal Science Magazine stating that they had discovered a way to easily revert adult skin cells back to stem cells, thus making them able to reproduce as any type of cell found in the human body. Not weeks later, Harvard researchers released a similar report having accomplished the same goal simultaneously and published the results in the December 21st edition of Nature. Then, on January 11, 2008, the Wall Street Journal reported that researchers discovered a way to take one stem-cell from an embryo and turn it into a master stem-cell line.

So what does this mean for the medical field? It means that finally the ethical concerns that have stunted stem cell research for over a decade can now be overcome. No longer does a human embryo need to be destroyed to harvest stem cells. Because of the findings of the researchers at these institutions, doctors should be able to harvest skin cells directly from patients and re-introduce the stem cells that they become.

This kind of discovery is the kind that could make Star Trek-like medical procedures a thing of the near-future, instead of mere science fiction, and for that I am hopeful.

FBI to store iris and fingerprint information in upcoming database

Wired.com has just reported on a Washington Post article about the FBI's new initiative to begin storing Iris, Fingerprint, and other biometric data to allow them to pick criminals out of a crowd.

Though I may have spent years denying the idea that the government really was turning "Big Brother" on us, I guess I am slowly being proven wrong. Though this effort may take some time, who knows when the next "Patriot Act" will be passed, allowing officials to begin placing cameras in every public place and recording all actions of every individual in the country?

At the same time, the people could be against this initiative enough to force lawmakers to limit the power of the FBI in this regard. For those of you strongly (or even moderately) opposed to this new database, contact your congress person and make your voices heard.

Write your US Representative.

Write your Senator

Apple wants you to place your orders from your wireless device.

Forbes.com is reporting that Apple has placed a few last minute patent applications before the new year, one of which would allow you to make an order without having to stand in line. Once the order is ready, your wireless device would blink or chime to let you know to pick it up.

Potential users of this technology should ask themselves if this is Apple's way of competing with Google Checkout. As most people know by know, Google wants to get involved in every aspect of your life so that they can learn as much about you and therefore deliver ads to you that you might actually consider looking at, instead of ads that have no interest to you whatsoever. Some complain about privacy, other complain about relevence.

Apple's patent does bear a resemblance to Google's Checkout because it claims systems would be able to store information where customers like to shop (physically, instead of online) about what they like to purchase. Consumers will likely be interested in ordering a cup of coffee or a value meal from their iPhone, cellphone, blackberry, or even laptop, though some might consider watching what purchases they attach their digital foot/fingerprint to.

Disparity between crack and cocaine sentencing alleviated.

In October, the United States Supreme Court began its 2007-2008 session. One of the issues at hand this year was the major disparity (100 to 1) between the sentencing guidelines for being caught with crack cocaine versus that of powder cocaine. It seems that for a while, the mandatory minimum sentence guidelines that Judges had to follow when sentencing offenders required much harsher punishment for those cases involving crack cocaine, of which 86% involved black defendants, were MUCH higher than those mandatory guidelines for powdered cocaine convictions, which has a higher percentage of white offenders.

The case came to issue when a Judge in Norfolk, VA refused to give defendant Derrick Kimbrough at least the minimum sentence for being found with both powder and crack cocaine. With the two cocaine offenses added to a handgun offense, Kimbrough would have been required to serve a mandatory minimum of 19 to 22 years, but Judge Raymond A. Jackson decided this was a ridiculous sentence and sentenced him to 15 years in total.

The main issue at question was the guidelines for sentencing crack cocaine offenders. The federal sentencing guidelines calls for a prison term of 10 years for a crime involving 50 grams or more of crack. To get the same sentence for powder cocaine, one would have to have over 5,000 grams (100 times the amount of crack cocaine).

After sentencing, though, the 4th circuit court rejected Judge Jackson's decision stating that "had no right to ignore the tougher guidelines simply because he disagreed with the policy decision made by Congress to punish crack offenses more harshly."

Well, the issue came before the Supreme Court and while they could not change the sentencing guidelines for various offenses, they were able to deem that such Federal sentencing guidelines could only be viewed as only "advisory", allowing judges to give lighter sentences for any crime, should they see fit. The greatest benefit of the decision is that it applies retroactively, allowing all offenders to appeal their sentences again before a judge.

The 7-2 decision can be viewed online at the Supreme Court's website (PDF).

Naturally produced human hormone effective as anti-depressant

Since the original release of Prozac in 1986 by Eli Lilly and Company, one of the largest pharmaceutical companies in the world, the world--or at least America--seems to have gotten itself into an antidepressent movement. Simply by comparing the number of people whom I now know are on antidepressents to the number of those I knew years ago, I am lead to believe that many more have decided that they, too, are depressed, anxious, moody, or all of the above.

It seems to me that human beings survived for a long while before the existence of antidepressents, but apparently we can no longer live without them. Due to the body's natural ability to grow a tolerance to medications, people tend to notice that their antidepressents aren't quite effective as they once were. That being the case, those of us who are (or may be) antidepressent users for life, will have to gradually increase dosage every few months until whichever drug is being taken will have to be replaced by the newer model, which our body has not had the pleasure of getting to know quite yet.

First came Prozac, then came Zoloft in 1991 from drug manufacturer Pfizer (of late 90s Viagra fame), and then the December 1992 approval of Paxil from SmithKline Beecham, who in 1998 merged with Glaxo Wellcome to form today's GlaxoSmithKline.

These days, antidepressants are likely the most prescribed mood-altering drugs in the country. Many find this amazing simply due to possibility of users to begin having suicidal thoughts or tendencies. As early as 1990, before it even had a competitor, Prozac was "facing multi-million dollar suits" over Prozac because it could "spark violent or suicidal behavior in a fraction of patients". Since then Zoloft and Paxil have had the same such luck, and now contain warnings similar to that of Prozac, stating the possibility of such side effects.

Well the good news is that Oxford University researchers discovered that a naturally occuring hormone produced by the human body, erythropoietin (a.k.a Epo), "regulated the emotional responses of those volunteers that received it, similar to the effects of current antidepressants".

While the development of antidepressant drugs from this hormone, produced by the kidneys and commonly used to treat anaemia, may be years off (yet hopefully sooner), the finding reveals that Prozac, Zoloft, and Paxil (as well as other SSRI antidepressants) are no longer the only option to those struggling with anxiety and depression. Perhaps I can soon find myself in less of a danger of "suicidal thoughts" than I am supposed to be in right now.

Rip your CDs to MP3s and face fines up to $10,000 per song.

Ever since the Recording Industry Artists of America (RIAA) filed suit against Napster, the original music-sharing program on the Internet, in December of 1999, Americans interested in sharing and downloading music have had to look to new and more privacy-conscious programs to do their trading. Shortly after winning their suit against Napster, the RIAA began targeting individuals, many of whom weren't even aware of the sheer volume of downloads that were coming from their computer, and didn't realize the illegality of the situation.

Since then music sharers, deemed "pirates" by those opposed to the idea of freely shared music online, have had to constantly update the tools of their "trade". KaZaa, Limewire, Gnutella, and eventually Bit Torrent each came into existence before the destruction of its predecessor, always leaving the trading public with options on how to get, and give, more of the music they loved.

Over the past 8 years, the RIAA has closed down many of these platforms, and according to the Wall Street Journal, has filed suit against over 20,000 individuals in the same period. Individuals have been slapped with fines in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, even though some of them could never have a way to pay such exorbitant fines.

In 2003, some users who had not yet been caught sharing their music, and some of whom decided it wasn't worth the risk, discovered a new addition to Apple's iTunes. Apple opened the iTunes music store on April 28, 2003 and quickly became the teenager's and college student's way to get music at very affordable prices and in an absolutely legal way. For 99 cents, Internet users could immediately download a song and enjoy the right of ownership, listening, copying to their iPods or burning to CDs with absolutely no danger of getting in any trouble.

Now, I decided a few years ago that, although I don't believe it likely that the RIAA would ever single me out, perhaps it would just feel better to not have to worry about it. I systematically either deleted songs from albums I did not own, or decided to purchase the album instead (usually in the original vinyl LP format). I had thousands of songs in my music database store on my computer, and over a period of time, found that I still had thousands.

I own over 500 record albums (LPs and 45s) and a couple dozen CDs. I found that ripping the CDs to my computer and downloading versions (through KaZaa, Limewire, and Bit Torrent) of the songs I had on LP, I had enough music to listen for over a week without hearing a repeat.

From time to time, I did come across a song or album that I absolutely could not help but enter into my database, and I admit to that. Most of the time, I eventually stopped listening and removed it from my computer or purchased the album legitimately, through eBay, a music store, or iTunes. I actually enjoy the iTunes music store, especially since it allows me to find all new songs and artists that I had never heard of and now could not live without.

So for a few years now, all has been well and good and I have had a good feeling about my vast music collection. Today, however, I came across an article that sent all of that tumbling to the ground.

The Washington Post has reported today that the RIAA has filed suit against a student and claimed "that it is illegal for someone who has legally purchased a CD to transfer that music into his computer. "

Now I am certain that this applies to my 500 albums as well, which really puts a damper on the situation. The RIAA claims that ripping CDs to your "computer from legally bought CDs are 'unauthorized copies' of copyrighted recordings. "

At any rate, read the article and let us all know what you think. Comments go below.