Skip to main content

Home/ Groups/ Science with Spence
danielle k

SIRS: Creating Fido's Twin - 0 views

  •   Commercial pet cloning--currently cats only--is now available from the firm Genetic Savings and Clone for the small price of $30,000. In December 2004, a nine-week-old cat clone was delivered to its owner, the first of six customers waiting for the identical twin of a beloved pet.1 "Little Nicky," as he's known, has stirred up a great deal of ethical controversy, with more to come as the firm expands to dog cloning sometime in 2005.
    • danielle k
       
      one way of cloning
    • danielle k
       
      they can be used as companion animals
  • cloning of companion animals seems morally suspect in a way that the cloning of animals for agricultural purposes or for biomedical research does not.
  • ...31 more annotations...
  • ethics of cloning animals that will be healthier to eat or will advance science or medicine, there is a natural argument to be made that the technique will serve the greater human good.
  • pet cloning, there is really no analogous argument, however wonderful the original "Missy," the mixed-breed dog whose owner funded the now-famous Missyplicity Project at Texas A&M to make pet cloning possible.
  • enhance general human well-being.
  • balancing the cost to animals against the possible benefit to humans, the ethics of pet cloning seems to be a simple equation: a concern for animal welfare equals an anticloning stance.
    • danielle k
       
      being able to clone animals came from the Missyplicity Project at Texas A&M 
  • benefits to animals, and what if these benefits outweighed the pain and suffering they endure from cloning research and procedures? Then there would be an argument in favor of pet cloning at least as strong as those offered for cloning conducted for agriculture or medical research. The idea of animals suffering for animal benefit makes a tidy moral case that just might justify the practice.
  • cloning critics. But the benefit to animals that I will consider is this: the practice of pet cloning--like advanced veterinary care such as transplants, neurosurgery, orthopedics, and psychopharmaceuticals--might improve the public's perception of the moral status of companion animals because it puts an
  • imals in the category of being worthy of a very high level of expense and concern. Something that warrants this level of commitment and investment seems valuable intrinsically, not merely instrumentally, and this change in the public's perception could have far-reaching benefits for all animals.
  • controversial claim is true--that pet cloning might contribute to an increase in the public's esteem for companion animals-
  • it can justify pet cloning only for those who already find some forms of animal cloning morally acceptable.
  • premise that some types of cloning are morally justified by the benefits that will result from them. People opposed in principle to all forms of animal cloning--for example, because this type of biotechnology is "playing God"
  • animals should never be used in research--will not accept this consequentialist starting point. The most straightforward way to make the point is this: we can talk about justifying pet cloning only on the assumption that animal cloning for dearly important ends--like medical or pharmaceutical advances--is morally permissible. If one rejects those types of cloning, the argument about pet cloning cannot get off the ground.
  •   Critics of pet cloning typically offer three objections: (1) the cloning process causes animals to suffer; (2) widely available pet cloning could have bad consequences for the overwhelming numbers of unwanted companion animals; and, (3) companies that offer pet cloning are deceiving and exploiting grieving pet owners.
  •  Animal Suffering
  • cost of animal cloning
  • science is called "efficiency,
  • 1 to 2 percent, meaning that of every one hundred embryos implanted in surrogate animals, ninety-eight or ninety-nine fail to produce live offspring.3
  • of suffering on the part of the donor animals:
  • one or two live animals, one hundred eggs must be harvested and one hundred embryos implanted. In the experiments conducted to clone "CC" the calico cat, one hundred and eighty-eight eggs were harvested, eighty-seven cloned embryos were transferred into eight female cats, two of the females became pregnant, and one live kitten was born.4
  • 50% mortality rate for the live offspring,
  • five out of ten dying between three and one hundred and thirty days of age from ailments including chronic diarrhea, congestive heart failure, and decreased growth rate.5 A study published last year showed that cloned mice experience early death due to liv
  • er failure and lung problems.6 Another study showed that cloned mice had a high tendency to morbid obesity.7
  • the cloning process and better health status for the clones that are born.8 Although the process that produced "CC" was inefficient, there were no kittens born with compromised health status. Research on cloned cattle published last year showed that once the animals survived infancy, they had no health problems when compared with non-clones.9 Genetics Savings and Clone claims that it has pioneered a
  • new cloning technique that not only improves the health status of clones but greatly increases cloning efficiency, achieving pregnancy loss rates on par with those of breeders.10 Although information is limited, the company claims that six healthy kittens have been born with no deformities. If this proves to be true, then the animal suffering caused by the process is limited to that of the surrogate mothers. There aren't even any donor animals involved, since the company uses eggs harvested from ovaries purchased from spay clinics. And the suffering of the surrogates is surely not greater than that of cats who "donate" kidneys for feline kidney transplants, a practice that has not received widespread criticism on grounds of inordinate feline suffering.11
  •  Unwanted Pets.
  • is that there are millions of unwanted pets in the United States.
  • justify the creation of designer companion animals when so many wonderful animals languish in shelters?
  • The Humane Society of the United States opposes pet cloning because it is dangerous for the animals involved, it serves no compelling social purpose, and it threatens to add to the pet overpopulation problem. It doesn't sit well with us to create animals
  • animals desperate for homes."12 To be sure, the data on the number of companion animals euthanized in American shelters are sobering. The 2001 Human Society report on the state of animals in the United States found that four to six million dogs and cats were euthanized in shelters in 2001.13 These figures do not include the millions of stray animals in the country: the ASPCA estimates that 70 million stray dogs and cats live in the United States.14
  • Taken at face value, pet cloning may seem at best a frivolous practice, costly both to the cloned pet's health and its owner's pocket. At worst, its critics say, it is misguided and unhealthy--a way of exploiting grief to the detriment of the animal, its owner, and perhaps even animal welfare in general.
  • clone Fido raise the status of companion animals in the public eye, then the practice might be defensible.
mrs. b.

SIRS: Coalition Urges Tighter Controls on 'Extreme Genetic Engineering' - 0 views

    • mrs. b.
       
      genetic engineering has existed for 40 years
Katie S

The Six Kingdoms - 0 views

  •  
    What a great visual summary of the kingdoms
Gabriela R

Kingdom Fungi - Types, Characteristics, Examples, Pictures of Fungi | Healthhype.com - 0 views

  • multicellular molds and mushrooms.
  • unicellular yeasts
  • beneficial: they decompose dead organisms, they can be used in production of food, they are part of normal human flora. Other fungi are pathogenic, meaning they may cause diseases (mycoses) in plants, animals and human. Certain fungi, like Candida albicans, can be beneficial when present in small amounts in body tissues, but can overgrow in certain circumstances, like low immunity and become harmful (opportunistic fungi).
  • ...16 more annotations...
  • Types of Fungi
  • 3. Mushrooms
  • 2. Molds
  • 1. Yeasts
  • tubular threads called hyphae through which they absorb nutrients. Hyphae may branch and form mycelium.
  • Examples:
  • Saccharomyces cerevisiae
  • Saccharomyces boulardii
  • Pityrosporum ovale
  • Candida albican
  • Cryptococcus neoformans
  • Common genera are:
  • Penicillium
  • Aspergillus
  • Rhizopus
  • Mucor
Katie S

NOVA | Classifying Life - 2 views

  • Scientists organize all of Earth's life forms into a hierarchy that begins with kingdom and works down into phylum, class, order, family, genus, and species. (To remember these categories, think "King Philip Crossed Over For Gold and Silver—a mnemonic referring to 16th-century Spanish exploration.) In this feature, step into the shoes of a taxonomist and classify three forms of life: a plant, an animal, and a...well, you'll need to figure that one out for yourself. Launch Interactive Try your hand at classifying three life forms and learn about taxonomy.
    • Katie S
       
      Click on Launch the Interactive to try the Classification Game. Be careful it gets difficult! :)
Katie S

VIRUSES - 0 views

  •  
    A virus will replicate many times when it invades a host cell. There are 4 stages involved in this process:   1.                Attachment: The virus attaches to a host cell. In the case of the bacteriophage it will attach to a bacterium. 2.                Entry: The virus forms a hole in the membrane or cell wall of the host. The nucleic acid of the virus enters the host cell. 3.                Synthesis: The virus' nucleic acid is used to make new viral nucleic acid and proteins for the new viruses being produced. (The host cells' DNA becomes deactivated.( 4.                Assembly: New viruses are made inside the host cell. 5.                Release: The host cell bursts to release the new viruses. The bursting is called lysis.
Katie S

Biology4Kids.com: Microorganisms: Bacteria - 2 views

  • there are three basic shapes.
  • Spherical bacteria
  • little spheres or balls. They usually form chains of cells like a row of circles.
  • ...10 more annotations...
  • look like the E. coli
  • Rod shaped bacteria
  • hot dogs.
  • Spiral shaped bacteria twist
  • corkscrew.
  • WHAT DO THEY LOOK LIKE?
  • Bacteria are the simplest of creatures that are considered alive.
  • very simple cells that fall under the heading prokaryotic. That word means they do not have an organized nucleus. Bacteria are small single cells whose whole purpose in life is to replicate.
  • They do have DNA. It is grouped in an area called the nucleoid. They have cell membranes like other cells and even a protective cell wall. Mind you, their cell wall is not like the one in a plant. It's a special kind that bacteria have for protection. They don't have any organelles, just ribosomes.
  • Some help plants absorb nitrogen (N) from the soil. Some cause diseases like botulism. Some bacteria even live inside the stomachs of cows to help them break down cellulose.
Katie S

Classification of Living Things - 9 views

  • Scientists have found and described approximately 1.75 million species on Earth. Plus, new species are being discovered every day. From tiny bacteria to yeasts to starfish to blue whales, life's diversity is truly impressive! With such a diversity of life on Earth, how does one go about making sense of it all?
    • Katie S
       
      This website allows you to change the reading level. Choose the level that fits you and that you can understand.
  • One way to make sense of it is by classification. Scientists put similar species into groups so that those millions of species do not seem so overwhelming. People rely on their knowledge of classification to understand what different species are like.
  • The figure at the left shows the three domains of life. The distance between groups indicates how closely related they are. Groups that are close together, like plants and animals, are much more closely related than groups that are far apart, like plants and bacteria. Do you see how the two types of microbes, Archaea and Eubacteria, are about as similar to one another as they are to animals? Recent studies have found that microbes are far more diverse than anyone had suspected.
  • ...3 more annotations...
  • Living things are divided into three groups based on their genetic similarity. The three groups are: Archaea: very ancient prokaryotic microbes. Eubacteria: More advanced prokaryotic microbes. Eukaryota: All life forms with eukaryotic cells including plants and animals These three groups are called domains
  • The Eukaryota domain is divided into several groups called kingdoms. Kingdom Protista – Organisms with just one eukaryotic cell Kingdom Fungi – Including mushrooms and other fungus Kingdom Plantae – Including trees, grass and flowers Kingdom Animalia – From snails to birds to mammals like you!
  • Within each kingdom, species are further classified into groups based on similarities. For example, the full classification of a human is: Domain Eukarya Kingdom Animalia Phylum Chordata Subphylum Vertebrata Class Mammalia Order Primates Family Hominidae Genus Homo Species sapiens
  •  
    Explanation of how living things are classified
Katie S

Classification of Living Things - 1 views

  • Beginner Intermediate Advanced
    • Katie S
       
      You can change the reading level on this website. Change to the level you are comfortable with and understand.
Katie S

Wildlife Online - How We Classify Organisms - 2 views

  • Generally-speaking, we humans have a desire to label and categorize things
  • We name objects because it makes our life easier. Let’s say you’re sitting on the sofa and you want your friend to pass the remote so you can see what else is on the TV – this process is rather difficult without names. A request like, “Please pass the thing on the thingy. I want to see what’s on the whats-am-a-jig”, is likely to meet with confusion. The request is easier for the other person to follow if things have names: “Please pass the remote on the coffee table. I want to see what’s on the TV”. Now, it’s true that you might be able to gesticulate at your friend until he or she either gets the idea, or misinterprets and takes offence, but what if you can’t see the person you need help from – charades doesn’t help then. Imagine that you’re sitting on the train going to work when you remember you forgot to get the pie out of the freezer to defrost in time for dinner; fortunately your partner has the day off and is at home. So, you phone up and ask “Can you get the thing out of the thingy so it’s thingy-ed in time for what’s-its-name?” 
  • So, the act of naming is a matter of convenience – whether the objects are pieces or furniture, bits of machinery, or animals we assign them names because it makes life a heck of a lot easier for us. We, for example, call a ‘fish’ with a cartilaginous skeleton and between five and seven pairs of gills a “shark”. This allows us to tell another person what animal we’re looking at or talking about. The use of a name certainly helps, but not without problems. Telling someone that you went diving with sharks while on holiday is kinda like saying you went out for dinner with some primates; it’s not quite as specific as we might want because there are lots of different ‘types’ of primates (and sharks). Consequently, to make our meaning as clear as possible, objects (be they animals, plants, bacteria, furniture, tools, etc.) are split into as narrow groups as possible and each group is given a name. So, for example, the group of ‘fish’ we call sharks gets further split up into different types of sharks based largely on how they look (their “morphology”), both internally (i.e. their skeleton, internal organs etc.) and externally (i.e. fins, gills, skin, colour etc.). Large groups are then split into smaller (i.e. more specific) ones and so on down the line until you have a group containing all the animals considered to be exactly the same in terms of the features we’re looking at (these can be morphological, genetic, ecological, biochemical, even behavioural): this is the species level (we’ll look at this in more detail later). Humans, chimpanzees, great white sharks, blackbirds, palmate newts and red squirrels are all examples of species. Some taxonomists opt to take the splitting below the species level and group animals into subspecies, infraspecies and forms (among others). Perhaps the extreme of this splitting is found in the human species, where every individual of the species is given his/her own name at birth. The problem is that this gets very complicated very quickly as the list of viable names soon runs out and leads to the confusing situation of several individuals with the same name – think how confusing it can be if there are two or three people in the office with the same name. Consequently, the branch of Science known as “Taxonomy” (from the Greek word taxis, meaning “order” or “rank” and –nomia, meaning “law”) is largely concerned with the grouping of organisms down to the species level.
  • ...6 more annotations...
  • This process of giving each species a name is all well and good (it certainly makes it easier to be precise in our communications), but there’s a snag. In order for the system to work, everyone must call that “something” by the same (universally agreed) name – if the process isn’t regulated we can run into problems. Such problems are rife with “common names”. Here in the UK, we have an awesome bird of prey called a Peregrine falcon (the fastest bird in the world, clocked at speeds of 87mph / 140kmph during a dive - left). In North America, however, the same bird is more commonly known as the Duck hawk, after its impressive ability to nab ducks in mid-air. Anyone who wasn’t aware of this ‘double identity’ could reasonably assume that we were talking about two different species. The problem gets exponentially more complicated when local names, different languages and different dialects are taken into account. So, how do we get around this? Well, we do it by giving most species known to Science two names: a vernacular (common) and a scientific (often referred to as Latin, but more accurately a Latinized-Greek) one. While it’s true that not all species have a vernacular name (e.g. many bacteria, mosses, lichens etc.), this isn’t a major issue because it is the Latin name that’s the important one; it’s designed to remove confusion caused by dual identities.
  • Carl von Linné (also variously referred to as Carl Linnaeus, Carolus Linnaeus and, more colloquially, the ‘Father of Taxonomy’), is largely responsible for the way we classify creatures today.
  • The system comprises a series of levels, or categories, called taxa (singular being taxon) and assigns each species a binominal name. All scientific names ascribed to species are initially binomial (i.e. they are composed of two parts), consisting of a generic (i.e. genus-related) and a specific (i.e. species-related) epithet
  • We now recognize six kingdoms: Plantae (plants), Animalia (animals), Fungi (fungi and moulds), Eubacteria (the bacteria – sometimes called Monera); Archaea (microbes similar to bacteria); and the Protista (something of a dumping ground for all multi-cellular organisms that don’t fit into any of the aforementioned groups – sometimes called Protoctista). Despite some quite apparent differences between the two, a few textbooks merge the Eubacteria and Archaea into a single kingdom: the Prokaryota.
  • Depending on the scheme you choose to follow (and they’re changing all the time!), the kingdoms break down roughly as follows: * Plantae is divided into about 12 phyla and comprise about 270,000 species. * Animalia is split into about 33 phyla and contains about 800,000 species (although this is probably a drastic underestimate of the true figure). * Fungi have five phyla and about 100,000 species. * Eubacteria have three phyla and a number of species that is difficult even to estimate – some authors suggest 1,000,000,000 (a billion) but even this could be a considerable underestimate! * Archaea are poorly known and there are currently three main (and five tentative) phyla that have been created based largely on laboratory cultures (estimates of total phyla range from 18 to 23). The most recent list I can find (1999) contains 209 species. * Protista comprise some 20 to 50 phyla and about 23,000+ species.
  • Great White (right). Kingdom: Animalia (mobile critters; have many cells; can’t make their own food) Phylum: Chordata (flexible skeletal rod with accompanying nerves) Class: Chondrichthyes (‘fish’ with a cartilaginous skeleton) Order: Lamniformes (‘Mackerel’ sharks) Family: Lamnidae (‘Mackerel’ sharks) Genus: Carcharodon (from the Greek carcharos meaning “ragged” or “pointed” and odon meaning “tooth”) Species: carcharias (Greek for “shark”)
  •  
    How and Why do we Classify?
Katie S

Tim & Moby on Bacteria - 0 views

  •  
    Tim and Moby discuss bacteria.
Katie S

Tim & Moby Classify living things - 4 views

  •  
    Tim and Moby Discuss Classifying Living Things
Erica G

Electronic skin | Science News for Kids - 0 views

  • Electronic skin
  • John Rogers
  • Rogers and his collaborators have built an electronic device that’s smaller than a postage stamp and sticks to the skin like a temporary tattoo. The device’s possible users — patients, athletes, doctors, secret agents, you — are limited only by their imaginations.
  • ...3 more annotations...
  • Placed on a forehead, the device can record brainwaves; on the wrist, blood flow and muscle movement. On the skin of sick patients, it can track vital signs and watch for problems, replacing the bulky equipment usually found in hospitals. And stuck to the throat, it can function as a secret cell phone, activated by the movements of a person’s voice box.
  • Temporary tattoos use a simple and inexpensive way to adhere, or stick, to skin: a good sticky backing that stretches and flexes with skin’s natural motion
  • Todd Coleman
  •  
    This article is about electronic skin, is interesting, and is an easy read
Olivia A

Ice on Mercury | Science News for Kids - 0 views

  • In November,
  • Fresh data from the satellite offer the best evidence yet that frozen water lies exposed in dark craters near the north and south poles of the sun’s nearest neighbor. Even more ice might lie buried out of sight.
  • The new evidence for ice on Mercury comes from a NASA spacecraft that has been orbiting the planet since March 2011. The satellite is named MESSENGER, which stands for MErcury Surface, Space ENvironment, GEochemistry and Ranging.
  • ...4 more annotations...
  • Scientists first detected the bright spots near Mercury’s poles in the 1990s,
  • MESSENGER called a laser altimeter. This machine fires a laser beam at the planet’s surface and then measures how much of the light reflects back — and how long it takes.
  • They also reveal the brightest spots on the planet. Ice appears especially reflective and bright to the instrument.
  • Data collected by another instrument aboard MESSENGER, called a neutron spectrometer, provided additional evidence for the buried ice, which is blanketed by a mysterious dark material. MESSENGER’s photos show that the south pole has similar features — and probably also harbors ice.
  •  
    Science Article Ice on Mercury
1 - 20 of 72 Next › Last »
Showing 20 items per page