Really, Really, Really, Really, Really Far Away

Astronomers recently (April 23rd) identified a gamma ray burst that has captured the record for the most distant object in the universe. How distant, you ask? 13.035 billion light-years from Earth. Or perhaps you prefer miles? In that case, 76,254,048,000,000 miles. Sure, the burst's afterglow will aid in probing some of the earliest galaxies in the universe due to the burst's remote location, but mostly this discovery is just really cool. It's kind of just a reminder of how unimaginably humongous our universe is. There is so much unexplored territory, so many things to see, surely so many wonders that the human mind hasn't even conceived of. Whenever I see things in the news like this, a certain part of my imagination twinkles with wonderment at the infinite possibilities that dwell beyond our Earth. My dad has always talked about how he's going to be on the moon (or at least in space) before he dies, and he also reminds me every time I see him what requirements I need to fulfill in order to be the first on Mars. It's funny to think of a place like Mars as being far away though when its distance of 35 million miles is only 1/217,8687th the distance to this gamma ray burst. Gosh, we have a ways to go to see the deepest beauties of our universe.

Still, we lack a little bit of perspective, too. Carl Sagan provided deep insight upon seeing the below photo, which was taken in 1990 by the Voyager 1 of Earth at a record distance of (nearly) 4 billion miles. 

"Look again at that dot. That's here. That's home. That's us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every "superstar," every "supreme leader," every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there – on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam."

This quote inspired me when I was much younger and gave me some crazy, altered perspective on our place in the universe. When you see this picture and process the notion that we exist on an infinitesimal dot in the vast space of the universe, it's very humbling, maybe even discouraging for some. But for me, it is inspirational. It conveys to me how much beyond there is, and inspires me to try and reach for it all. Science has a sort of way of doing this; revealing to us how many unknowns there are beyond both the realm of our Earth and and of our minds, thereby inciting further questioning, further exploration. Science is the almighty reaffirmer. I am humbled by the journey ahead, indeed, but I feel it is my duty to plod on. Cheers to the journey ahead!

If you're interested in seeing some other really cool objects in outer space, check out this really cool, nifty website.

Nano Ain't Nothin'

I always get slightly giddy when I stumble upon any discoveries that contradict old theories, laws, beliefs, and the like. I think such revelations are the greatest strides, the greatest progressions, y'know? It signifies to me, anyways, the notion that we are willing to consider that our convictions are wrong, that the truth of reality is perhaps something we had either never conceived of before or that violates all that we had once conceived.

So what's the meaning of this ramble? Well, if my corny title served its job at all, then you may have figured out that we're dealing with some pretty small stuff. Incidentally, however, this small stuff is actually huge (not just what I'm dealing with in this entry, but things pertaining to its field in general, which I intend to explore more thoroughly in a future post). Okay, so enough suspense! Nanoparticles. Teeny tiny clusters of atoms. How teeny tiny? Let's just say no larger than 2,500 nanometers. And a nanometer...how big is that you ask? One billionth of a meter! I once heard a professor say hair grows at a nanometer per second. We're really talking teeny here. A marble compared to the size of the Earth teeny. So what's so special about these nanoparticles other the fact that they're extraordinarily (and almost uncomprehendingly) small?

Well, there are a lot of reasons, the most important of which having to do with nanotechnology (the thing I said I intend to explore more thoroughly in a future post—sorry for taunting you so), but beyond that, nanoparticles are of particular interest because they reveal to scientists how physics work at an unimaginably small level. That is to say, the normal laws of physics do (or 'can' is perhaps a better choice), indeed, break down at teeny levels of matter. This was seen recently by researchers who were colliding nanoclusters composed of several hundred atoms just under 12 miles per hour.

When collided, these nanoclusters usually clung together. Riveting, no? But approximately five percent of the time, these nanoclusters actually sped up after colliding, exhibiting what's been dubbed a super rebound. If it doesn't sound crazy or mean anything, let me present to you the second law of thermodynamics—one of the most fundamental laws of nature—which our lovely little nanoclusters defy. It says, in short, that the universe will increase in entropy as time passes. That is, the universe has a tendency to become more disordered or less ordered, which means, further, that the universe has the tendency to move towards a state of less energy. Perhaps the image below will demonstrate the law better...

Image Courtesy 'o' http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/therm/entrop.html

So, back to the nanoclusters, the research performed showed nanoclusters actually losing entropy (gaining order/losing disorder) contrary to the second law five percent of the time. Frankly it is not the biggest deal considering that the nanoclusters go against the second law almost solely on a statistical technicality (the general behavior of the nanoclusters fall in line with the second law), but it is, in some senses, very meaningful to me.

To me, discoveries like this demand further questioning, further introspection, further research, and, most especially, greater doubts. For when we become thoroughly convinced that our laws, theories, and ideas are inarguably and unwaveringly right, we ensure ourselves of halted progress. As we plunge deeper into the questions that probe the meanings and workings of the universe, we must remain humble in our convictions, else we might forget the times when the Earth was flat and in the center of the universe. The point is to proceed with constant scrutiny. I said I get giddy every time I see something like the article that informed me of those mad lawless nanoclusters because it compels me to take a step back and reconsider the things I think I know, whether scientific or personal. There are so many questions to be answered, so many answers to be reconsidered, and, even greater than both of these, so many questions still to be asked. We are becoming masters of the world around us, more and more in tune with the tenets of our universe, but we must be cautious and always leave room for other possibilities, else our assumptions might lead us to fall right off the face of Earth.

Much Ado About Division

This decade has seen much hype, hope, and debate about a particular thing—stem cells—which prospectively will serve to cure numerous afflictions. Stem cells are undifferentiated cells—that is, they have no cellular type, whether it is as a nervous cell, as a muscle cell, or whatever else—and can, as such, undergo differentiation to become any type. When differentiated, they can be transplanted into an organism—say, a mouse, as in typical stem cell research, or into a human, given research goes successfully in the next years—and replace injured cells and tissues. Researchers believe they have the potential to treat cancers, Parkinson’s disease, Alzheimer's, spinal cord damage, and beyond. Frankly, it would not be too extreme to say that stem cells come very close to a panacea for serious medical problems.

Note: click above picture to see enlarged image which demonstrates the process of culturing embryonic cells, and for a further, more technical explanation of stem cells (i.e., if you're interested in all this mumbo jumbo about differentiation, totipotency, and the like, see the video at the bottom)
Source: http://seedmagazine.com/

So then, why aren’t stem cells used as common medical treatment for conditions like leukemia? Partial answer: the research isn’t entirely there. Fuller answer: the research is not there yet because there had been a federal ban on stem cell research. In order to understand this, one must understand that there are two general types of stem cells: embryonic stem cells and adult stem cells, the former of which has been the subject of much debate over the morality of research in this area. Those who stand against embryonic stem cell research—generally conflated into the pro-life group—contend that such research can only occur at the expense of human lives. Those responding hold, meanwhile, that the embryos are so early in development as to not really be so human yet. And, even withstanding this necessary line drawing, scientists are firm in their convictions that both adult and embryonic stem cells need to be aggressively pursued.

My opinion: stem cell research, embryonic and adult, are both acceptable and necessary (by virtue of their immense potential offerings). Specifically, I subscribe to the utilitarian point of view—that is, the costs, in my opinion, outweigh the benefits. Chiefly, I do not equate embryos to human life (blastocysts, as they are technically called, possess no human features), and beyond that I have to say that the cost of one embryo is not nearly as great as the possibility of many diseases and conditions being treated by stem cells. If I had to equate an embryo to anything, I would equate it to the potential for life, so when I become no less rational but slightly more ridiculous, I go as far as to say that if a person (say, someone pro-life) values human life so much, he or she should mate with the first female or male, respectively, in sight. Again and again, too. You value the potential for life, eh? So do I! One really cannot deny that the coupling of a male and a female is potential for life, too, but alas, the reductio ad absurdum probably is nary so appeasing or adequate (even if it true—more or less) as it is...well, absurd.

Fortunately, however, the argument no longer needs to be made! Long ago (July 19, 2006) George W. Bush made the first usage of his vetoing power to veto the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act on July 19, 2006. Bear in mind, too, that Bush authorized federal funding from August of 2001 on for only 15 lines of stem cells. August 2001. However, on March 9th—last month—Barack Obama finally lifted this federal ban, stating in his speech: "I believe we have been given the capacity and will to pursue this research — and the humanity and conscience to do so responsibly."




What does this mean? Well, researchers no longer have to rely on private funding for stem cell research, so now that federal resources will be allocated to this research, a greater number of studies and research groups are sure to pop up. And what does that mean? That means we are sure to now get closer to the prize at the end of the road (curing diseases, remedying conditions) faster. In fact, important strides have already been made since Obama's lifting of this federal ban. A recent study revealed that stem cells may literally free diabetics from insulin. Stem cells are extracted from a person, and the person's own stem cells are re-injected into them, generating a new immune system that no longer attacks and kills the insulin-producing cells. The patients in the study were free from insulin injections for years, and yet this research is still entirely preliminary. With such promise so early on, it is crazy when one hears researchers and scientists saying the maximum benefits of stem cells won't likely be achieved for ten years.

Still, while the ban on federal funding has been lifted, adequate funding is not necessarily ensured. The necessary funds must be allocated to intensive research on the grounds that millions have the potential to be saved each year. And, for those who still have the moral conflict, rest assured that actions are being taken to get the embryos (but not the embryonic cells) out of the picture. What I'm getting at is the ability for reserachers to actually revert adult cells to embryonic stem cells (yes, this is possible—isn't science wonderful?). The problem (until recently), however, is that the methods mainly employed relied on viruses which alter the DNA (the genetic material that determines what type of a cell one is, what the cell does, etc.) of the adult cells, potentially causing them to grow out of control and become tumors. New research, however, has revealed safer ways to create these stem cells (ways that don't involve messing with adult cell's DNA, so no risk of uncontrollable growth). So, what's this mean? No more embryos eventually. Once these methods are perfected, there will be no more need for moral quibbling—and then, goodbye to social debates and uncertainty!

It really is wonderful, though, and hugely important that Obama has lifted the ban on federal funding. It shocks me to some extent that the needs of the few (the embryos) were concluded to outweigh the needs of the many (the millions with diseases that could be treated with stem cells). Moral and ethical quandaries shouldn't, in my opinion, occupy such a huge place in policy-making when it comes to saving lives.

I must acknowledge, however, that when further advancements are made in the area of stem cells, there may be some issues that arise: since stem cells have the potential to replace old and/or injured cells, stem cells could potentially be used to extend one's life. Just think of it: there is the potential to, for example, replace your heart with a new one, thereby extending your life, and beyond the extension of one's life, it's possible to merely use stem cells for beauty/youth treatment. Stem cells may very well be a real fountain of youth.

Who can say what will happen though? Only time will tell where research takes stem cells. The potential of stem cells are immense - coincidentally so because of the literal potential of the cells to differentiate into any specialized cell. May all expectations and more be exceeded, and may no one's sensibilities or creeds feel impeded.

If you're interested in the technical madness of stem cells, I suggest you watch this video: