Barreleye Fish

The mysteries of the depths of the ocean never cease to amaze me. With so much unknown, imagination tends to take over. The species that could be living so far under the water’s surface are still only beginning to be discovered. One of these unique and mysterious fish is the Macropinna microstoma, also known as the Barreleye.

About 2,000 feet below the surface, it lives in almost complete darkness over in the Pacific Ocean. However, there is something different about this fish than most others (of the ones we know of): its head is transparent. This fish, small with a black body, has a completely see-through head region.

Looking at it, there are 2 black circles right above its mouth that appear to be eyes; surprisingly, they are not. Those are the olfactory organs, or organs used for the sense of smell. The 2 barrel-like structures (gray with green half-spheres on top) within the head are the actual eyes of this fish. Being as the eyes are inside of the head, this would explain why the fish’s head is transparent and not the rest of the body. The gray part is the actual color, while the green is a protective cover. Being so far deep into the ocean, where little light reaches, the eyes of the barreleye fish are very sensitive to even the smallest amount of light.

Another interesting fact: the eyes of this fish move together, like binoculars, unlike most other fish. Most often, the eyes point upward, but when it locates food it rotates its eyes to face the same direction as its mouth, to make capturing the food much easier.

This unique creature of the deep has been known of since 1939; however the only known specimens had been mangled up remains after being captured by fish nets in the ocean. When those remains were taken out of the nets, the heads of the fish were often found to have collapsed on themselves. Not until 2004 was any video footage of this fish captured, and this was not released until 2009 by the Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute. To see the video of the barreleye fish that was released by the research institute, click here.

Not much else is known about this strange species of fish, considering how difficult it is to study. At such far depths, with little light, and with the fragility of the structures to change in pressure, it may be long before we know more about this mysterious fish.

But what could be the reason for the way this fish’s head has formed? After all, there had to have been some evolutionary benefit for the original placement of the eyes within the head, and from that the transparency of the head, right? It seems having the eyes located there allows more protection, especially in a place where there is very little light. Also, having the eyes located in the head allows for a wider range of rotation for the eyes, and makes it easier to go from looking above to straight forward.

With so much still unknown, so much is still only assumed. Can you just imagine what other creatures exist that we know nothing about? I guess we will just have to wait and see.

Stem Cell Research

Can The Pope
Contribute to Stem Cell Success?
Stem Cell research has been a very controversial issue, not only in this country, but around the world. People have had countless arguments and debates over the possible success versus the debatably unethical harvesting. People who are fighting to use stem cells are confident that stem cells will be able to cure many diseases, disabilities such as paralysis (right), and degenerative illnesses. These scientists say that stem cells can open worlds of new possibilities in medicine but they need funding and permission to obtain cells to experiment with. There have even been reports demonstrating success of these cells in constructing prosthetic organs such as livers, lungs and even functional human hearts. People are opposing stem cell research because of the way stem cells are harvested for experimentation in the lab. There are many types of stem cells that can be used for these experiments, including adult stem cells and embryonic stem cells. Stem cell research is not being fully funded by the government as many people oppose the harvesting methods and uses of embryonic stem cells. In some cases cells are harvested from dead embryos so an embryo must die which is where human rights and ethics come into play.

Throughout the world stem cell research is not as fully funded as other scientific ventures because of this ethical boundary that is debatably being crossed with the use of embryonic stem cells. Many different rules and institutions from religion to government have deeply affected this success. But, some of these institutions are finding a middle ground in the never ending search for medicine. Just this past week of November 20, 2011 a conference at the Vatican revealed the Catholic Church’s stand on this controversial issue. Pope Benedict XVI (below) has stated in the recent conference that the church cannot condone the use of embryonic stem cells for research due to the possible loss of human life.(Pope Benedict XVI Announces Catholic Support For Adult Stem Cell Research « CBS New York) This is against church doctrine and is forbidden. But, the use of adult stem cells is condoned and is not frowned upon but is actually supported in order to discover medicine to treat such illnesses.

With this newly found support from the Catholic Church this research could be moving in a very positive direction. This conference, in the Pope's eyes, helped people see that they do not have to choose between science and faith about this issue. This debate has been the heart of the problem and has crippled success in this field of science for years. This conference could be a door opening to a world of possibilities for stem cell success, not just in this country but for scientists throughout the world. What do you think? Do you agree with the Pope? Is Stem cell research still unethical if adult stem cells are used? Do you think the government will fund research after the Pope's statement and do you think it should fund research for stem cells due to this conference?

The pros and cons of using preformance inhancement drugs (Steroids)

      

       Steroids also known as performance enhancement drugs have many names for them. They are referred to as roids, juice, hype, weight trainers, gym candy, arnolds, stackers, or pumpers. According to http://www.justice.gov steroids are man-made drugs close to sex hormones. Some pros of this drug are an increase in muscle mass, and development of sexual characteristics. Steroids are illegal and are only available with a prescription to improve conditions such as delayed puberty, impotence, and body-wasting in patients suffering from AIDS. Although they are illegal people still use them on a regular basis. For example, they are used by athletes to enhance athletic performance and to improve physical appearance. It is said from the National Drug Intelligence Center that steroids are mostly abused. Generally, people that use the drug normally ingest orally, inject them into the muscle, or rub them on their skin. It’s also said that abusers of the drug can take anywhere from 10 to 100 times over the limit than those using for medical reasons. The side effects also vary on how long someone is using the drug. It is said by heraldtribune that steroids “tend to cause fewer complications when applied to the skin or when inhaled for days or weeks for an allergic reaction or asthma. Injected steroids or oral doses taken for months or years are far more likely to cause serious side effects, as are injected steroids.” People taking over the counter steroids display little side effects as well. Children may show signs of delayed growth, but eventually achieve their normal height. It also helps cases of poison ivy or eczema. There are many negative effects to steroids. There are effects on guys and on girls using this drug. There are some serious long term effects for both men and women. These effects can be things like premature balding or hair loss, dizziness, mood swings, including anger, aggression, and depression. Also other things like, believing things that aren't true (delusion), extreme feelings of mistrust or fear (paranoia), problems sleeping, nausea and vomiting, trembling, high blood pressure, increased chance of injuring muscles and tendons, and yellowing of the skin. Lastly other effects can be liver damage, urinary problems, shortening of permanent adult height, and increasing risk of developing heart disease, such as stroke, and types of cancer. Cons for men are shrinking of the testicles, urination pain, development of breasts, unable to get an erection, and lastly unable to have children. These are not always things that occur but risks of using the drug. Furthermore, the risks for girls can be things such as excessive facial hair growth, developing masculine traits, like deeper voice. Also loss of female body characteristics, like shrinking of the breasts, and enlargement of the clitoris. Steroids in women can cause changes in menstrual cycle. To sum it up steroids can make people aggressive and combative; these effects are usually from long term use of steroids. After hearing the pros and cons about steroids the question is… Would you use steroids, or performance enhancement drugs aside from using them medically?

These are pictures from using anabolic steroids.

      

      

      

Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

It is safe to say that everyone who is reading this blog has heard about, thought about and/or perhaps formed their own theories about this question. If one analyzed this question from an evolutionary stand point, as most of my fellow AP peers will probably do, you will find that the egg seems to have come first. Evolution, as supported by Neil Shubin in Your Inner Fish, is the foundation of biology. Life’s main goal is to procreate itself, suiting the next generation with more efficient genes. Evidence supporting this lies in the Theory of Natural Selection. Darwin stated, and this is not verbatim, that because of the existence of natural variation within a species the environment chooses the organisms with the better traits to survive and reproduce. Now, this brief background on evolution was intended to explain why many biologists believe the egg came first; evolution occurs not in a specific organism, but to the species as a whole. More specifically it occurs in the embryo that proceeds the next generation. Therefore, according to this theory the egg must have come first because the animal that preceded the chicken laid an “evolutionary egg” which hatched into a chicken (I’m
using the term “evolutionary egg” to describe the egg that came after a non-chicken organism). The evolutionary theory’s chronology is: non-chicken organism -> evolutionary egg -> chicken. Because the evolutionary egg formed a chicken from a non-chicken parent, then it must have come first, right? Recent evidence supports the contrary. I personally have thought about this question a great deal and prior to entering AP Biology this year I hypothesized that the chicken actually came first. I concluded that if the egg came first then how exactly would it have survived without the aid of a parent figure. If we take a step back and look at the world around us, we will notice that animals, mostly mammals, rear their offspring. This is not simply to protect the fragile offspring, it is also necessary to ensure that the offspring develop knowledge on how to behave like their species. The parents teach the offspring through her actions, how to survive and live efficiently. Therefore in order for the egg to survive, it must need a parent figure to watch over it and nurture it; an egg that is not kept warm will not survive and hatch into a chicken. I believe that the chicken must have come first because the egg needed a role model to learn from. The chicken will always produce an egg, which needs the warm of the parent to survive and form another chicken. If the first chicken is taken out of the equation, then there will be an egg with no proceeding chicken to nurture it. This would result in the death of the egg and the opposite of what life is intended for. Now this may be a bit confusing, however keep in mind that if the egg came first it must have been able to survive on its own. This couldn’t have worked. Scientists in Britain have concluded that the chicken indeed came first. They discovered that a crucial protein needed to synthesize the shell of the egg was found in the chicken and not the egg. Simply put, the egg could not have been formed without the DNA of a proceeding chicken. This topic I know is very controversial and my explanation may be insufficient to some. What are your thoughts?

Useful Source: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38238685/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/which-came-first-chicken-or-egg/