important
They are mostly about issues in the world, interesting research, or a controversial topic.
Just remember that I do not mean to offend anyone if their opinion is different, I'm just expressing mine.
The Articles
World War I: Why is it called the "unnecessary war"?
Autism and the MMR Vaccine
Should the Government Fund Stem Cell Research?
World War I: The unnecessary war
Nationalism, or the proud devotion to one's country, Imperialism, or when a strong nation seeks to control or colonize a weaker one and Militarism, or keeping an army prepared and ready for war, all contribute to the causes of the war. Due to nationalism, competition to be the "best" country in Europe began to rise with the coming times. Between France, Italy, Russia, Britain, Germany and Austria-Hungary (the Great Powers), Europe's most powerful countries, competition has deeply risen and tensions had also jumped in size. Unfortunately, right from the start due to Imperialism, Africa and Asia have been draw into the competition. As Europe's Great Powers fought to control the colonies, their rivalries had intensified. And lastly, because of Militarism, the armies of the Great Powers have grown and gotten stronger, which had frightened people. It was as if one little upset could cause the nation to go into a full-out fight to the death; tensions were at their deepest.
These three things, Nationalism, Imperialism, and Militarism, prove to be one of the reasons why WWI was known as an "unnecessary war." The beginning causes of the war were only based on competition between nations.. It sounds as if it were only mere childs' play! If the nations weren't so focused on being the best, the intensity between them would have never been there; so one tip of the iceberg would not cause a powerful, destructive world war.
By 1887, the Triple Alliance of Italy, Austria-Hungary and Germany had gained Russia on their side. Otto von Bismarck, the chancellor of Prussia, created the goal of the Triple Alliance.. He believed that France was the biggest threat to peace in Europe; therefore, he allied countries together in order to isolate France. But Germany, becoming more and more power-hungry, had broke off the treaty with Russia and Russia reacted by allying with France, which was Germany's greatest fear. As show by this history, it seemed as if war was getting closer and closer. This, also, stands to be another reason why WWI was an "unnecessary war," because alliances were formed out of nothing, bringing countries more and more to the edge of war. Assumptions were made about France, which caused Otto von Bismarck to act out of nothing, which promoted warfare.
Kaiser Wilhelm II, the ruler of Germany at the time, had then directed his attention to Britain and their fleet. Competition once again rose, as Germany strengthened their navy to meet Britain's. However, Britain had improved their navy and formed the Triple Entente in 1907, which allied them with Russia and France, strengthening the tensions between the two allied forces, The Triple Entente and the Triple Alliance. This was the perfect setup for war; one thing could set the two sides straight into war. This, once again, was caused only by competition and jealousy; both were unnecessary. The final acts causing the war arose within the Balkans. The Balkans is a region was known as the "powder keg" of Europe due to the many ethnic groups clashing together often and nationalist rebellions; so naturally, nationalism was a strong aspect of the countries. Serbia, a country in the Balkans, was a key component for the start of WWI. Like the other countries of the Balkans, Serbia had much nationalism and wanted to expand their borders. Russia and Austria-Hungary were not only on different sides of Serbian nationalism, but they were also on different sides of Great Power alliances. Austria took over Bosnia and Herzegovina in 1908, triggering much anger and rage with Serbia, which brought about war ideas. Russia, who favored Serbian nationalism, offered to stand by Serbia, but Germany stood firmly behind Austria and because Russia was ill prepared for war, both Russia and Serbia had to back down, but that didn't stop the rage of the Serbians.
On June 28, 1914, both Archduke Franz Ferdinand, the heir to the Austria-Hungarian throne and his wife Sophie were murdered by Gavrilo Princip, a Serbian man who was a member of a secret society devoted to freeing Bosnia from Austrian rule. Dispute between Serbia and Austria had already escalated to the highest point possible, so this was all Austria needed to "punish" Serbia. Austria created an ultimatum for Serbia, but the demands proved to be too harsh and because Austria would not negotiate, war had emerged quickly between the two countries. It was only a matter of time before Europe and the rest of the world countries were dragged into the First World War.
This was the best reason to describe why this war was so unnecessary. Just because Princip was Serbian, did not give Austria the right to attack Serbia with such harsh demands, since Princip was only one man, as opposed to a whole country. The argument between the two was pointless and the act of Austria was most definitely a selfish one. Yet somehow, the war had started and because nations were faithful to their allies, other countries got dragged in, including America. Nationalism proved to be the leading cause of WWI, and also the most unnecessary cause. It was that and many other causes, including Militarism and Imperialism, which drove Austria-Hungary and Serbia to war, dragging down the leading World Powers with them. If the countries of Europe wasn't so power-hungry, selfish, and perhaps even childish, this war would have never occurred. Because of these reasons, World War I has been described as an "unnecessary war," which is entirely correct.
Autism and the MMR Vaccine
Autism can be scientifically described as "a group of developmental disabilities defined by significant impairments in social interaction and communication and the presence of unusual behaviors and interests" (Autism Information). In other words, autism causes distinctive characteristics and odd behaviors that can cause a person to stand apart from the rest of their peers. These behaviors are often uncontrollable for the person with an ASD and can make living their life difficult.
Not every child with autism has the same characteristics as another autistic child. There are a wide variety of symptoms regarding communication and social interaction. Because there are so many different ways to describe autism, doctors now see the mental disease as the "autistic spectrum disorders", hence the name ASDs. No matter how old or young, a person with autism could have trouble making eye contact when talking to another person. They may do certain things numbers of times, such as saying the same sentence or phrase over and over again, or making sure that their pencils are lined up just right. One other symptom is that the autistic individual may over react to something, whether it is good or bad. They can get overly exited and wave their arms in the air, or harm themselves when they feel they did something wrong. However, since ASDs are known as the spectrum disorders, there are quite a wide variety of different behaviors that can diagnose a child to be autistic (Autism Research). Diagnosis of an autistic child is not something that can be done by just a simple medical test. To diagnose a person as being autistic, it takes many observations and research about the child's development history. The main way to tell if a child has autism is by the behavioral characteristics, or the spectrum. There must also be interviews with the parents of the child to figure out how the child has behaved while growing up. Doctors may also run language and speaking tests if necessary (Autism Information). Once a child is diagnosed with autism, they are affected for the rest of their lives, since there is no cure. However, there are treatments which can help the child live to their fullest.
Just like no two children with autism have the same symptoms, no two children with autism get the same treatments. It all depends on the schedule of the family and what works best for them. The earlier the person diagnosed with autism starts treatment, the better. In order to help control the exaggerated behaviors by an autistic child, there are different treatments or therapies that are effective. Occupational therapy, sensory integration therapy or speech therapy are examples of treatments that may be recommended. Other treatments, however, are not practiced much by doctors and are a bit more drastic. These types of treatments include mind-body interventions such as dance therapy or medication, biologically based therapies like using certain herbs or vitamins in food and even a special treatment called chelation, which can remove certain metals from the body. Those types of treatments belong in a certain group of autistic medicine called Complementary and Alternative treatments, otherwise known as CAM. CAM treatments have been known to be effective for some specific children, however, not enough research has been done, and so many doctors are not recommending them to patients. Treatments within CAM can be potentially be dangerous as well, so it is important to make sure that the person with autism who is getting the treatment will be safe (Autism Information). Although there are treatments for autism that are effective and help make things easier for the autistic child and their family, there is no real cure for autism and the causes of autism are not known for certain.
Scientists still are not sure what the leading causes of autism are; however, they feel that it may have something to do with the environment or genetics. The risk of getting ASDs can increase depending on if the person diagnosed with autism has other medical issues and some drugs used while a woman is pregnant can also contribute to a higher rate of autism, but the actual cause of ASDs is currently unknown (Autism Information Center). However, over the past decade, some parents have linked autism with the MMR Vaccine.
The MMR vaccine is a combination of three vaccines that are for measles, mumps, and rubella. The measles disease, which is also known as rubeola, is a highly infectious disease. Measles was one of the more common diseases in the United States up until the 1970s, which explains how contagious it really is. Some symptoms of the measles include a sore throat, coughing and a continuously high fever (Cave 179-185). The mumps is also, like the measles, a contagious disease, but it is not as contagious as the measles. This disease has most commonly occurred in children, or young infants. The symptoms of this disease can include puffy cheeks from a special gland in the mouth called the salivary gland, but more often the symptoms are a high fever and fatigue (Cave 182). Lastly, rubella (also known as German measles) is also a disease that can spread rapidly. With this disease, not only infants are likely to get it, but young adults and adults can get it too. There are normally no signs for diagnosing rubella, however, some symptoms can include a rash or common cold-like symptoms (Cave 184). Therefore, all together, the measles, mumps, and rubella make up the MMR Vaccine. Although the three vaccines did not come out at the same time, they can be taken together. However, parents of a child can ask if the vaccines can be taken separately, which is more efficient (Cave 185). There is evidence that the measles virus may be starting to mutate, which can cause it to become immune to the vaccine. In 1998, when there was a measles outbreak in Alaska, studies showed that 51 percent of the children who had gotten the measles during that outbreak has also received the MMR Vaccine, proving that the effectiveness of the measles vaccine itself is decreasing. The mumps vaccine is proven to be more effective than the measles vaccine. Field studies have found that the mumps vaccine is 75-95 percent effective. Data also indicated that the vaccine could cause immunity of the mumps for at least 30 years (Cave 186-189).
The rubella vaccine, however, has a bit of a different story. It is effective, but some experts, until recently, believed that this is the main thing in the MMR Vaccine that could cause ASDs. This is causing parents with autistic children, or parents of newborn infants that have yet to get the MMR Vaccine to believe that there is a connection. There is some evidence that proved this to be true during the 20th century, however, there is plenty more research that states otherwise.
The MMR Vaccine has been given to children once the infant is twelve to fifteen months old since it was first introduced to the child vaccination schedule in 1979. Before the vaccine was added, the rise in autism was not great, however, in the late 1980s, the number of young children who had begun growing up healthy the first year or year and a half and then started to show symptoms of autism had doubled and continued to increase right into the 1990s (Cave 60-61). This started the controversy of the relation between autism and the MMR Vaccine.
The actual case that lead to the MMR and autism controversy happened in 1997, when a British M. D. Andrew Wakefield, published an article stating how autistic symptoms had arisen after the MMR Vaccine was given to a few children he used for his experiment (Clements) (Cave 65). Wakefield's article mentioned his theory on the subject; how the vaccine had inflamed the gut, which caused the MMR vaccine "toxic substance" (which was not specified) to move to the bloodstream, causing the autism. With the help of the British media, the MMR controversy was able to reach across to the United States and in other places around the world, which brought about the controversy between the MMR vaccine and autism (Clements). Some parents, having read about the Wakefield study, started to believe that the MMR vaccine caused autism, which, now has been shown by plenty of studies to be entirely false. The event of the Wakefield study was followed by more research over the years, which helped to end the debate.
There were many research studies following the published article that expanded the idea of this controversy. For example in 2000, the Institute of Medicine had created a group of experts called the Immunization Safety Review Committee, who worked together to figure out if autism and the MMR vaccine were linked. The National Institute of Allergy and Infections Diseases put together a report in April of 2001, which addressed the connection between autism and the MMR vaccine (Autism Information). Over the past decade or so, the amount of research being developed in order to figure out if the MMR vaccine and autism are related has increased continuously. However, almost all evidence today leads to the conclusion that the MMR vaccine does not cause autism, even though many parents still believe it does. Many cases were made after the Wakefield study, which led to the belief that autism was not caused by the MMR vaccine. The study by Wakefield itself was not completely accurate, because the study was very small, involving only 12 children, so making an assumption regarding what causes autism would be imprecise. Also, some of the children tested had shown symptoms of autism even before receiving the vaccine. In 2004, the majority of authors who contributed to the Wakefield study concluded that there was not enough research to conclude that there was a link between autism and the MMR vaccine, so after that, more studies began to unfold to help end the controversy (Vaccine).
There was a rather large study in the United Kingdom, with 498 children who were born between 1979 and 1998. The researchers on the case looked at the childrens' records and found many things to help end the rumored link between autism and the MMR vaccine. They found that autism occurred in children around the same age, whether they had the vaccine or not and that the noticeable symptoms of autism did not occur until it had been roughly two to six months since the vaccine was given to the child. One last thing that researchers found was that out of all of the children who received the MMR vaccine, about half of them either were or became autistic and half of them did not become autistic (Vaccine). This helps to conclude that the MMR vaccine does not cause autism and suggests that it might just be a matter of timing. There were more studies following this one, which helped clear things up even more within the argument.
In March of 2005, Andy Coghlan, a reporter for New Scientist, wrote an article about how autism continued to rise in Japan even tough the MMR vaccine was banned. It was an even larger study than the one in the United Kingdom, including more than 30,000 children in Yokohama, Japan. The article explained how the MMR vaccine was switched to single vaccines; meaning you could take them separately and yet the number of children with autism continued to rise each year. "The findings are resoundingly negative," Hideo Honda concluded, from the Yokohama Rehabilitation Center. What he concluded was the link between autism and the MMR vaccine. Honda meant that it was not true that the MMR vaccine caused autism, as shown by data created by him and other researchers working on the study (Coghlan). Although this could have been the end of the argument, there was one more recent study that hit the nail on the head, concluding the debate once and for all.
Recently, in September of 2008, a study was published that confirmed that the MMR Vaccine does not cause Autism. The study was performed by a number of different scientists who knew about the controversy (Horning). The researchers re-created the Wakefield study, but changed it up and made it more accurate. The study involved 38 children, as opposed to 12 in the Wakefield study, and the scientists looked for evidence of digestive (gastrointestinal/GI) problems in the stomach and also the possible connection with autism and the MMR vaccine in autistic children. W. Ian Lipkin is a professor of epidemiology at Columbia University, who was part of the study. Lipkin had explained to reporters that in order for there to be a link between the MMR vaccine and autism, there are certain events that need to take place. If there was a link between the MMR vaccine and autism, there should be traces of the MMR vaccine found in RNA. To figure this out, Lipkin and his fellow researchers took bowel biopsies of children. The scientists looked at their biopsies and discovered that a trace of the MMR vaccine was only found in two children: one child who was autistic and one who was not autistic. In order for there to be a link between the MMR vaccine and autism, the majority of the children tested should have had a trace of the MMR vaccine in their biopsies, however, research concluded that there was only a small trace in two children. "There was no evidence," W. Ian Lipkin stated, "MMR preceded either autism or GI problems" (Vedantam).
The controversy concerning the MMR vaccine was that it caused autism, which came about due to the Wakefield study in 1997 (Clements). This rumor had circulated the globe, from Japan to America and got most parents thinking that the MMR vaccine definitely caused autism. However, the recent studies have shown that is not the case. There are 560,000 children each year who are diagnosed with autism and that number is still growing (Autism Information). Unfortunately, there is still no known cure for autism today and the causes are also unknown. The MMR vaccine can be ruled out for being the cause of autism; the rumor can finally be put to rest. Now, researchers and scientists should turn to finding the real causes of autism.
"Autism Information Center." Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 30 Apr.
2008. Department of Health and Human Services. 7 Oct. 2008.
"Autism Research at the NICHD." 1 Mar. 2007. National Institute of Child Health and
Human Development. 20 Oct. 2008.
Cave, Stephanie and Mitchell, Deborah. "What Your Doctor May Not Tell You About
Children’s Vaccinations." New York: Warner Books, 2001.
Clements, Dennis and Baker, Jeffery P. "Does the MMR Vaccine Cause Autism?" 3
May 2007. Duke Medicine. 20 Oct. 2008.
_autism>.
Coghlan, Andy. "Autism Rises Despite MMR Ban in Japan." New Scientist. Mar. 2005.
20 Oct. 2008
Horning M., et al. "Lack of Association Between Measles Virus Vaccine and Autism
with Enteropathy: A Case-Control Study." PLoS ONE. 7 Nov. 2008.
"Vaccine Safety." Center for Disease Control and Prevention. 22 Aug. 2008. Department
of Health and Human Services. 13 Nov. 2008.
Vedantam, Shankar. "Study Finds no Autism Link in Vaccine." Washington Post. 4
Sep. 2008: A02.
Should the Government Fund Stem Cell Research?
The stem cell is actually a "generic" cell, which is able to create replicas of itself open-endedly. These cells are able to reproduce multiple cells that can develop into new, different types of cells such as heart cells, kidney cells, and even nerve cells. There are two basic types of stem cells, both being used for stem cell research today. One kind is called the embryonic stem cell that is received from either fertilized eggs that are left from fertilization or by aborted unborn offspring. Those types of cells can produce more cells for almost every tissue in the body. The second type of cell is called an adult stem cell, which is specific to certain cell types like blood, skin, and muscle cells. That makes these cells not as resourceful for research purposes. Both children and adults have them, despite the fact that it is called the "adult stem cell".
Stem cells are used in a process known as a stem cell transplant, which takes out unhealthy cells inside the tissue and replaces it with new ones. This process can be used to help treat many diseases that were not treatable before, such as genetic disorders (frequent changes in the gene randomly) and autoimmune disorders (A bowel condition which affects the preoccupation of food).
Scientists today are attempting to harvest cells before they have differentiated, then they might possibly be able to persuade the cells into becoming a specific type of another cell. That way, they could replace the unhealthy cells with healthy cells. For example, if they could figure out how to grow nerve cells, it is possible that scientists could be able to put brain cells back together that have been damaged by Parkinson's or Alzheimer's disease. To do this, however, scientists need money.
When harvesting to obtain stem cells, scientists have to get the cells from fertilized eggs and aborted unborn offspring that have been left over from vitro fertilization (the process in which the egg is fertilized outside the body of a female by the adding sperm). This has become a debate in society today, because an embryo is the first stage of an infant. Therefore, by harvesting the stem cells, you are actually said to be killing a newborn child.
Those who are against stem cell research do it mainly, because of their strong religious faith. They say that by continuing process that destroys the embryo, they are murdering a human being who has not only rights, but also well-being and needs to be protected. They do not want fertilized eggs and fetuses (unborn offspring). Those who are for stem cell research argues that there will be no potential for the fertilized eggs to actually become human beings, since the "nourished" eggs are donated and that they would end up being discarded anyhow. Although most who oppose stem cell research oppose it because it would be "murdering" a human being, some believe that the government shouldn’t fund stem cell research, because the government is "subject to political whim." As in one case, roughly two years ago in California, there were a few policymakers who passed legislation which funded three billion dollars to stem cell research. However, that money seems to only be spent on training scientists and building infrastructure. The money did not actually go to the research that needed to be done with stem cells.
President George Bush vetoed a bill that would fund [embryonic] stem cell research on June 20, 2007. At a press conference the same day of that veto, he stated his opinion in saying that "destroying human life in hopes of saving human life is not ethical." This statement, his certainty, and the others, who agree with him, show that they have a very high religious belief in that human life indeed does start at the moment of conception (the actual creation of the embryo). Followers of the president also state that research with embryonic stem cells has not provided any therapies, so they feel that funding it even more would have no effect.
To those who are strongly for stem cell research, there are many reasons that the government should fund the issue. Many areas in medicine could use stem cell research to its full potential, for there are quite a few diseases and even injuries where a patients tissue or cells could get a stem cell transplant, which would help cure the patients. Some of these diseases include Parkinson's disease, diabetes, Alzheimer's, and even cancer or arthritis.
Stem cells can not only do that, but it can help scientists come to better understand how genetics will work in the early stages of development in the cell. This research may be able to tell why some cells will form abnormally or lead to medical issues namely, birth defects. Not only could funding by the government help towards future research, but advocates and researchers who are for stem cells declare that it can also speed therapy development.
Since the discovery of antibiotics, stem cells have the potential to become the most significant biological devise in the hands of doctors, since they can form into any kind of cell. It can change the way science works all together, in a good way of course, and it could cause many suffering individuals to become better, if the government would just fund cells.
I am all for stem cell research one-hundred percent. The government should be funding stem cell research for many reasons. I understand religious beliefs, for I also have great faith. But, I believe that the soul of a person does not actually enter the human until the time it is out of the womb; why would it need to be there before then? And if a person has no soul, then to me, they are not living. The human is only developing; getting ready for that time it finally comes out into the daylight. It is only then when a person can come to life, can they be living.
Stem cell research can cure those who have been suffering for such a long time. In both cases whether it be destroying the embryos or not, people will be dying. It comes down to a matter that asks if the government if they would rather see a person who is already living die in pain even though there could have been a curable act completed, or would the government rather to kill something that might not even come to live? So many people are working hard to keep working on the research regarding stem cells and in all my research, the strong points for those who advocate stem cells have a stronger argument. This is such a strong discovery; a major breakthrough in science history. I know I don't want it to go to waste. If they need to research stem cells which can be obtained from the embryo, then they need to do so. There were fears by scientists in the past that there funding could disappear suddenly around the late 1990s, so they took a few steps back and tried to refrain from going too deep into research with this. In 2005, a poll was released which showed that 70% of Americans support federal legislation to promote more research and 63% back embryonic stem cell research. That's the majority of these people and I agree with the majority, that the government should fund stem cell research.
Maienschein, Jane. "Whose View of Life?". Ed. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard
University Press, 2003.
Sampsell, Kate. "The Cloning Debate: The Future is Burdened by its Past." History
Behind the Headlines: The Origins of Conflicts Worldwide .
Ed. Sonia G. Benson, Nancy Matuszak, and Meghan Appel O'Meara. Vol. 6.
Detroit: Gale, 2003. 76-85. Gale Virtual Reference Library. Gale. Upper Hudson Library System. 24 Jan. 2008
upperhud&tabID=T003&searchId=R1&resultListType=
RESULT_LIST&contentSegment=&searchType=
BasicSearchForm¤tPosition=2&contentSet=GALE
%7CCX3410600216&&docId=GALE|CX3410600216&docType=GALE >.
Odle, Teresa G. "Stem Cell Transplantation." Gale Encyclopedia of Medicine. Vol. 4. 3rd
ed. Detroit: Gale, 2006. 3527-3529. Gale Virtual Reference Library .
Gale. Upper Hudson Library System. 24 Jan. 2008
&userGroupName=nysl_ca_upperhud&tab
ID=T003&searchId=R2&resultListType=RESULT_
LIST&contentSegment=&search
Type=BasicSearchForm¤tPosition=1&contentSet=
GALE%7CCX3451601538&&docId=
GALE|CX3451601538&docType=GALE >.
"Stem Cell Research." Medline Plus . 25, July 2008. ADAM Inc. 24, Jan. 2008
Humphrey, Michael. "Advances don't quell stem-cell debate.(WORLD)." National
Catholic Reporter 44.10 (Jan 11, 2008): 13(2). Health Reference Center
Academic. Gale. Upper Hudson Library System. 24 Jan. 2008
Eleni Berger. "Research Avenue Adds Fuel to Stem Cell Controversy." CNN.com. July
18, 2001. WebMD. 24, Jan. 2008
Michelle Hoffman. "A Moral Decision, A Vital Consequence: by Vetoing Stem Cell
Research funding, the president is vetoing potentially life-saving treatments."
Health and Wellness Resource Center. August 2007. GALE. 24, Jan. 2008
ID=nysl_ca_upperhud&rlt=2&lrti=&
origSearch=false&t=RK&s=1&r=d&items=1_13
&lpi=1&secondary=false&o=&n=10&origSubj=
Stem+Cell+Research&l=dsd&sgPhrase=true&c=3&basicSearch
Option=KE&bucket=per&SU=government+finance >.
Sigrid Fry-Revere."No Government Funding, please!" Health and Wellness Resource
Center. August 2007. GALE. 24, Jan. 2008
upperhud&rlt=2&lrti=&origSearch=false&t=RK&s=1&r=d&items=1
_13&lpi=1&secondary=false&o=&n=10&origSubj=
Stem+Cell+Research&l=dsd&sgPhrase=true&c
=2&basicSearchOption=KE&bucke
t=per&SU=government+finance >.