ES201 Pre-discussion Stem Cell Research 2/19/09

Stem cell research to me is a no brainer.We should pursue this research with a hope of one day effectively healing individuals with physical disabilities and permanent brain damage through the use of stem cells.I think when many people hear the phrase "stem cell research" they automatically assume that all stem cells are taken from developing human embryos and claiming that it's the same as murder.Individuals who believe that life begins at conception are against obtaining stem cells from developing human embryos claiming the human life has already began.I would have to agree in this particular case that a "blastocyst" or early human embryo in development is in fact a human life and to me destroying a blastocyst would be comprable to murder.But I also believe that stem cell research should occur because of the amazing ability of stem cells to grow into and fit into any cells in the human body healing areas with many dead cells.But stem cells should not be obtained through early human embryos but instead through adult bone marrow and umbilical cords at birth.These are both practical and safe ways to obtain stem cells for research and use without harming anyone or having any accusations of ending possible human life.I believe these methods should be pursued immediately in hope of learning more about stem cells and their healing capabilities and using them in a successful manner in the future.

ES201 Pre-discussion Socialized Health Care 2/19/09

The global map that you see above represents the different types of health care coverage that can be found throughout the world. The color orange represents Iraq and Afghanistan's health care that is funded by the American military/government. The countries shaded in gray represent nations that do not have socialized health care. The countries shaded in blue do have a socialized health care system. And the countries shaded in green are attempting to implement a socialized health care plan.I only know the bare minimum when it comes to the idea of socialized health care and all of its different components.And based off what i've heard I don't think it's a bad idea totally i'm just not sure if it's "the American way".I believe that our country being so young but also growing very fast has a lot to do with competition that's created within our society in which people who work really hard are eventually rewarded with nice things and a fairly comfortable lifestyle.So the idea of everyone receiving the same level of treatment kind of throws me for a loop, I mean where's the competition in that?If that's the case in socialized health care then what incentive would someone have to work hard in life if they were already guaranteed the same level of health care that a millionaire would receive but they could receive it by simply sitting on a couch and collecting welfare checks.I'm not saying in any way that all people on welfare are abusing the system but instead just providing a possible example.I don't fully understand all the policies on socialized health care and how it differs from our current health care system but to me giving everyone the same quality of care regardless of income and social status is no doubt a socialist idea and maybe even bordering on the beliefs and practices of communism.Health care is known to be a very valuable thing to be in possession of.But why would anybody work hard their entire lives to just receive standard health care just as no one in their right mind would study their entire lives to become a brain surgeon so they could make the same annual salary as a janitor.Competition and reward is what drives our nation and is the "American way".If health care is socialized then what will be socialized next in American life?It would leave a potential for the values and beliefs that this country was built on to just be thrown away forever.

ES201 Post-discussion Performance-Enhancing Drugs 2/16/09

The topic of performance-enhancing drugs in professional sports is a very complex issue.Before our class discussions on this issue and the debate I had a pre-conceived notion that the issue itself was much simpler.But after much thought and discussion on the subject both in and out of class I realize there is no right or wrong answer.Both sides have their pros and cons to a certain extent.After researching theories and ideas for the debate that supported the legalization of performance-enhancing drugs in professional sports my initial opinion on the subject quickly changed.I now find myself kind of caught in the middle because I like and dislike certain ideas on both sides.
I believe the first thought that comes to mind when someone hears the term performance-enhancing drugs is "aren't they bad for you".And while that is a very important question it is also a very difficult one to answer.Through this class I have learned some of the initial negative side effects of using certain performance-enhancers such as anabolic steroids and HGH (Human Growth Hormone).But I have also realized through research that no one really seems to know the side effects that are produced from long-term usage of these currently illegal performance-enhancing drugs that have been banned from most professional sports.I was extremely suprised when through research for the debate I practically found a laundry list of legal (over-the-counter) supplements that were not banned in professional sports and were also sold in local stores like GNC and Vitamin Shop to the general public.It was alarming how much information I found from very reliable sources such as the FDA with plenty of research and information stating that these "legal" alternative performance-enhancers were just as bad for an individual when taken in large doses.


And I thought to myself "wait a second...i've seen tons of individuals take more than the recommended dosage on a GNC bought supplement container".This was done numerous times in an attempt to gain an edge on the competition without testing positive for a banned substance.Through research I realized that actions like these showed the same level of stupidity as using a banned substance due to the fact that not many studies have been done to find out what happens when an individual takes a supplement in higher doses than what is recommended on the label.An example of one of these cases with legal supplements that can become dangerous can be read on the FDA's website on their page description of the substance Androstenedione (http://www.fda.gov/oc/whitepapers/andro.html) they also have an entire page of just warning letters they have sent to companies manufacturing Androstenedione or similar products containing Androstenedione (http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/andrlist.html). This struck me by surprise while doing my research because I found numerous accounts of the general public and professional athletes using Androstenedione as a performance-enhancer before it was banned by the FDA and the International Olympics Committee.The biggest case I found pertaining to use in professional sports was a significant one because it revealed that Mark McGwire used Androstenedione during his record breaking season in which he hit the most home runs in a season in baseball history.

I believe that more research needs to be done on the long-term effects that come from usage of currently banned substances in sports.Because it would be much safer to regulate professional athletes for example on cycles of anabolic steroids than to find out how many containers of powder they are guzzling a week from GNC or how many "andro" pills they have popped and what damage they may or may not be doing to themselves.There is also an issue with communication between professional athletes and their doctors and trainers concerning the usage of currently banned performance-enhancing drugs due to the fact that no smart athlete would knowingly admit to using banned substances for the obvious fear of prosecution and investigation by the government and the tarnishing of their careers.If these banned substances were made legal so called "clean" players would stop overdosing on "legal" supplements and could at least be properly watched over by expert physicians while taking doses of currently banned substances.Not only would this option be safer but it would help to level the playing field between former cheaters and non-cheaters.I believe this is the only practical option for professional sports if they cannot gaurantee that no supplements legal or illegal are used by any of their players because all supplements are performance-enhancers, if they didn't enhance athletic performance then no one would buy them.So until all performance-enhancers are eliminated from the professional sports scene all players should be administered the same "cocktail" of performance-enhancing drugs in order to level out the playing field to a certain extent.