Category: Genetics

Genetic variation in humans plays a key role in the heterogeneity of resultant body responses to exercises. Some genomes support the exercise-mediated improvement of high blood pressure, alleviation of diabetes type 2, muscle development and the metabolism of excess body fat. For example, some classifier genes contain DNA variants that contribute to the variation of VO2max responses in people undertaking physical exercises (Timmons, et al. 2010). However, some people are of the view that the effect of genetic variation on exercise-mediated body responses is dismal. This argument is usually based on the idea that several other factors such as diet, lifestyle, disease and the effect of certain medicines override any possible effects of genetic variation on exercise. This has led to the general dismissal of most genetic tests provided by many exercise programs. As a result, genetic testing and genetic counseling can only be administered by physicians. These only benefit victims of severe cases or prominent genetic disorders such as diabetes and cancer (Herring et al., 2012). Genetic testing, however, may reveal very important information about ones ability to respond to exercises. A genetic test should be provided over-the-counter so that people can get an overview of their genetic potential for certain exercise responses.

People who have certain genes exhibit slower responses to exercises. The ability of some people to withstand strenuous activities is limited by the structure of vital tissues, cellular organelles and functionality of various body systems. For instance, defective red blood cells, as seen in bearers of the sickle cell gene, fail to take up adequate oxygen necessary for one to sustain long exercise sessions. Various heritable congenital heart disorders also impair the ability of ones cardiovascular system to supply adequate oxygen and energy to various body parts during exercise. Variations in such genes as peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor-coactivator-1 (PGC-1)and AMP-activated protein kinase (AMPK) are thought to play a role in the regulation of muscle adaptation to exercise (Timmons et al., 2010). Even though they do not play a significant role in exercise endurance, they coordinate how starters muscles adapt to trained movements during specific exercise programs.

VO₂ max is the highest rate of oxygen consumption attainable during a maximal or exhaustive exercise session. Any increase in exercise intensity beyond this point relies on ones cardio-respiratory capacities (Timmons et al., 2010). Genetic constitution affects ones VO₂ max through its influence on the nature and structure of ones cardiovascular system and respiratory structures and this, in turn, affects the persons overall aerobic power (Timmons et al., 2010). Certain gene sequences influence complex biological networks that mediate the persons response to an aerobic exercise-training stimulus. Some of these networks facilitate signaling pathways while others facilitate the secretion and utilization of hormones such as insulin. They also facilitate the burning of fat and other energy sources (Redinger, 2009). Genetic information in the DNA of a cell controls these networks.

The relationship has also been established between certain essential sex-specific fat stores and major metabolic differences between people of different sexes (Cureton and Sparling 289). This makes sex-determining genes play a role in determining the amount of reserved energy available to a person depending on his/her gender. The issue of gender becomes broader and more complex whenever sex-related disorders are singled and investigated at a genetic level. The amount of such sex-specific fat stored in victims of contentious sex may add to the contention if it does not tally with other factors such as estrogen levels.

Important arguments have been raised against the effects that genes have on exercise response. They mainly revolve around the idea that lifestyle, disease and diet override the effect of genetic variation. Dealing with these factors is inevitable when making predictions about exercise-related responses. Lifestyle influences the exercise response because it dictates the amount and types of substances that are taken by a person. It also influences ones perception of exercise and determines his/her ability to keep up with schedule during exercise therapy or other programs. This, however, is a secondary or social factor that does not affect the genetically related causes of inability or ability to exhibit a certain level of exercise response. Genetic effects on the body system and organs structure also commence at the initial stages of growth. As opposed to this, lifestyle is an adapted set of habits that are changeable under appropriate conditions. Disease and diet are also variable factors that affect ones response to exercises. The two, however, do not predispose anyone to an inability to respond to exercise ideally, because different exercise programs can always be made to suit a given disease or diet. Genetically related diseases, however, predispose one to a state of being unable to respond to exercise ideally. This has been evidenced by some diseases whereby exercise therapy is a major part of the treatment. For example, genetically-related obesity that stems from certain cancers has been seen to lead to higher obesity-related mortalities as compared to deaths from cardiovascular diseases (Frisoli et al., 2011). Genetically related health problems, as a result, may be tougher to alleviate as compared to several other health problems. Genetic testing is therefore necessary for people who seek to make certain changes to their bodies through exercise in order to clear uncertainties about the outcomes of exercises. Such tests will also prevent frustration for those who have cancer-related obesity.

Given that no solid facts have been provided to prove that genetic testing is irrelevant in exercise programs, and most importantly, that the testing may reveal whether ones genetics suit certain exercise programs, it is important that genetic tests be offered over-the-counter. This will facilitate access to them by people who want to engage in exercise programs to find out how their genetics may affect their response to the programs. Such tests will also enable exercise therapists to create personalized exercise programs for people with varying genetics. This will assure all parties involved of the expected exercise response. It will also enable people whose genetics bar them from exhibiting such change to seek appropriate alternatives. These alternatives may include gene therapy, drugs, and other medical procedures. In addition, these measures can be combined with physical exercises which probably will have better effects. (Frisoli et al., 2011). Scientific evidence has guarded the fact that ones allelic make-up guarantees certain patterns in his or her physiology. Over-the-counter genetic testing and genetic counseling should therefore be introduced, but first, relevant professionals who are proficient in the field of genetics will have to be availed. This will ensure that only scientifically relevant information is given to the general public.

References

Cureton KJ, Sparling PB. Distance running performance and metabolic responses to running in men and women with excess weight experimentally equated. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1980; 12(4): 288-94

Frisoli TM, Schmieder RE, Grodzicki T, Messerli FH. Beyond salt: Lifestyle modifications and blood pressure. Eur Heart J 2011; 32(24): 3081-3087.

Herring MP, Puetz TW, OConnor PJ, Dishman RK. Effect of exercise training on depressive symptoms among patients with a chronic illness: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Arch Intern Med. 2012; 172(2): 101-11.

Redinger RN. Fat storage and the biology of energy expenditure. Transl Res. 2009; 154(2): 52-60.

Timmons JA, et al. Using molecular classification to predict gains in maximal aerobic capacity following endurance exercise training in humans. J Appl Physiol. 2010; 108(6): 1487-1496.

Living things are known to have varying characteristics, even when they belong to the same species. Climatic conditions are not the same in every part of the world. Therefore, animals and plants are known to exhibit different characteristics in different regions. On the same note, adaptations to different requirements for survival have been known to bring about different physical characteristics in organisms. In this regard, it is not unique to see animals or plants of the same species having completely different physical characteristics, yet they are in the same locality. It should however be noted that genetic diversity is enhanced by several factors, mutation migration and sexual reproduction being among them.

Genetic diversity is a term that is used to refer to the difference in characteristics that occurs among members of the same species. Usually, members of the same species do not always have the same genetic makeup due to uncontrollable factors and will therefore exhibit some differences. Majorly, this occurs due to the fact that living things have to adapt to their external environment in order to survive. Arguably, those living things that are best adapted to the environment increase their chances of survival. It is paramount to note that genetic diversity is dynamic and changes over time and region.

Among the factors that influence genetic diversity is mutation. Mutation refers to the spontaneous but continuous and permanent changes in DNA replication. These changes can cause alteration in protein sequence, thus making organisms have some observable differences. It should however be noted that though mutation has negative effects on organisms, there are some positive effects associated with it. Mutation can either happen naturally or due to influence from external factors like radiation. All in all, mutation serves to increase the difference in genetic characteristics of members of the same species.

On the same note, sexual reproduction has been cited as a factor influencing genetic diversity. Sexual reproduction is the process by which organisms reproduce through a combination of gametes from the male and female members of a species. Usually, there occurs gene transfer both from the male and from the female organism to the offspring. Therefore, this process produces offspring with slightly different characteristics from its parents. As the process continues, the genetic variation also increases.

Migration is another factor that contributes to genetic diversity. When organisms migrate from one ecological niche to the other, they mix with other organisms with different genetic compositions. As a result, the flow of genes takes place causing genetic variation, thus enhancing genetic diversity. Similarly, the population can determine the degree of adaptation required and hence the genetic diversity. A small population will exhibit lesser genetic diversity because of reduced competition. However, as the population increases the struggle for survival increases. Consequently, various organisms devise different ways of adaptation leading to genetic changes. As a result, genetic diversity is propelled because each organism fights to be the best.

Moreover, nature plays a very important role in influencing genetic diversity. Due to limited resource supply, living things usually compete of survival. As a result, each organism tries to increases its chances for survival. Unfortunately, nature has no leniency and it is all about survival for the fittest. Consequently, nature selects the fittest to continue surviving or living longer than the others. Not only does this lead to increased genetic diversity, but also makes genetic diversity dynamic with time.

Completing the sequencing of the nucleic acid sequence of the human genome led to the mass patenting of genes in the United States. The phrase What can be patented is purified DNA containing the sequence of the gene and techniques that allow the study of the genes. has a rather specific meaning. The object of patenting can be a sequence of nucleotides isolated from one or another organism, as well as particular methods or technologies for isolating and purifying this DNA (Sampat & Williams, 2019). Ownership of a patent and ownership of the object of the patent as property should be separated. A patent on a gene does not grant ownership rights to organisms containing that gene. Not only because the patented object is different from what is found in nature but also because patent rights do not provide positive ownership rights.

A gene patent is an exclusive right to a particular biological sequence granted to a person directly related to the identification of this sequence or work on its transformation. Depending on the patent legislation of a specific country, the patent owner is given the right to determine who and under what conditions can use the patented object (Sampat & Williams, 2019). As a rule, patents on genes related to the development of various diseases were issued (Sampat & Williams, 2019). It should be noted that the patented DNA fragments were unevenly distributed throughout the genome. Many patents fell on studied areas, for example, targets of any drugs or marker areas studied in disease diagnosis, while interest was weaker in areas with less obvious functionality.

One of the most famous examples of gene patenting is Myriad Genetics patents on the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes, tumor suppressors whose various mutations increase the risk of developing breast and ovarian cancer. These patents gave Myriad Genetics exclusive rights to create and conduct diagnostic tests based on locus data. This companys monopoly on conducting such tests has led to heated debates on patents legal and ethical status on parts of the human genome (Aboy et al., 2017). Now the sequences are patented less often, but patents are issued for their use in the industry while creating new methods and technologies.

When evaluating the novelty of an invention related to biological sequences, the question may arise about the number of changes made in the process of identification and extraction. The argument here can be that it is not the DNA inside the cells being patented. Still, the isolated and purified molecules, which include the areas necessary for specific purposes, such as markers of any diseases, have no such molecules (Aboy et al., 2017). They are based on new methods that can be considered an invention. Isolated and modified DNA may have new or altered functions and some improved properties different from those found in DNA alone in the body. Therefore, taking into account the work involved in the isolation and identification of a gene and the changes made to it, the patented DNA regions should be separated from the DNA in living organisms. In addition, the definition of the boundaries of the sequence, at which it can, for example, perform its function more effectively, can be considered an invention.

On the one hand, gene patenting can give companies with patented sequence data time to explore the subject of the patent without competition. These companies do not have to worry about other companies competing with them to make discoveries. With the help of patenting, small organizations with limited financial support can gain competitiveness. Obtaining patents on biological sequences in the next 30 years can contribute to developing the research direction in entrepreneurship and increase investments in this industry. Legislations of several countries include the possibility of scientific research of patented objects and the impossibility of only their commercial use (Nicol et al., 2019). In some countries, special agreements are concluded during patenting, thanks to which researchers can study proprietary genes.

On the other hand, obtaining patents on genes can inhibit research in potentially essential areas of science and hinder its development. Such patents give owners exclusive intellectual property rights over the patented sequences for decades, which is unethical. This can lead to the monopolization of genetic constructs and increase secrecy in the scientific environment, leading to a slowdown in scientific progress (Sampat & Williams, 2019). Other companies will not be allowed to work with the patented genes, because of which opportunities to make important discoveries may be lost. Due to overlapping patents, companies may overlook essential research topics and may lack the incentive to invest in discoveries unless they are guaranteed patent protection. In addition, the exclusivity of the right to biological sequences can lead to delays in obtaining practical diagnostic tools. This will happen due to the unwillingness or inability of other companies to pay deductions and work on new methods only for the patent owner. It is much less effective in the absence of possible competition and collaboration. Due to a financial factor associated with gene patenting, studying areas that do not lead to direct economic benefit, such as basic research, can be slowed down.

Thus, the permission to patent genes can lead to the monopolization of this industry and the ban  to a reduction in the number of companies interested in its development. Only by carefully considering all aspects of gene patent policy can a societal agreement that promotes scientific progress and considers all possible dangers. Governments must maintain an optimal balance between the use of patents to protect and encourage genuine inventions and the value of genetic information. It must be openly available so that scientists can widely use it in research and innovation for the benefit of humanity as a whole.

References

Aboy, M., Liddicoat, J., Liddell, K., Jordan, M., & Crespo, C. (2017). After Myriad, what makes a gene patent claim markedly different from nature?Nature Biotechnology, 35(9), 820-825. Web.

Nicol, D., Dreyfuss, R. C., Gold, E. R., Li, W., Liddicoat, J., & Van Overwalle, G. (2019). International Divergence in Gene Patenting. Annual review of genomics and human genetics, 20, 519541. Web.

Sampat, B., & Williams, H. L. (2019). How do patents affect follow-on innovation? Evidence from the human genome. American Economic Review, 109(1), 203-36. Web.

Introduction

Genetic enhancement means using genetic editing technologies to introduce changes into the genome of the fetus to achieve improvements in the physical or mental health of the future child. This process raises bioethical debates: both scientists and the community still cannot come to a conclusion about whether genetic enhancement is morally justified. This paper will discuss this process in terms of standards of normalcy, childrens right to an open future, and the difference between biological and social concepts of health. I will argue that I would use genetic enhancement for my child and would make it permissible if I were a healthcare provider or a policymaker, even though it would reinforce negative societal attitudes toward disability.

Discussion

If I could modify the fetus that would become my child, I would use this chance. So far, society has not evolved to the point where all people would have genuinely equal opportunities. Currently, standards of normalcy stipulate that normalcy is freedom from disability and physical and mental illnesses, although these attitudes can vary depending on the culture (Scull, 2022). Therefore, I would like my child to fit these standards because, this way, it will be easier for this child to live in this world. If I used this technology, I would find it morally acceptable to modify only health-related characteristics, such as the predisposition to serious illnesses, including Down syndrome and cancer. It would be morally unjustifiable to alter the childs gender, eye color, and other health-related characteristics. As Scull (2022) notes, people often want to have children like themselves, which is why deaf people may want to have deaf children. I think that I am driven by the same logic when choosing to use genetic enhancement: since I do not have a physical or mental disability, I would like my child not to have it as well.

If I were a healthcare provider or a policymaker, I would feel slightly different. I would admit that some people want to leave the birth of their child to a chance, so I would not make genetic enhancement mandatory. Obliging individuals to genetically modify their children to prevent disability may strengthen negative societal attitudes toward disability (Scull, 2022). This is because there is a difference between the biological and social concepts of health. In biology, health is a lack of illness; in contrast, in sociology, health refers to individual and societal perceptions of health and illness. In other words, from a social perspective, individuals health focuses more on how society views individuals with a certain condition rather than on how these individuals feel. For example, even if an individual using a wheelchair can have a happy life, society may see this person as disabled and ill. In order to mitigate this societal disapproval of disability, policymakers should not make genetic enhancement mandatory.

There is another important aspect of genetic enhancement that I would need to address as a policymaker, namely, editing the genome to turn a healthy embryo into one with a disability. According to Scull (2022), this situation is morally distinct from leaving the birth of a child with a disability to a chance. The reason for this is that parents are morally prohibited from making their children worse off (Scull, 2022). Furthermore, the childs right to an open future is involved in the issue of genetic enhancement. It is generally considered that children without disabilities have more life possibilities in the future. However, Scull (2022) argues that all people are constrained in some way, for example, by place, time, family, and other factors. Nevertheless, all other things being equal, people without disabilities have fewer opportunities than their counterparts without disabilities.

Conclusion

To sum up, attitudes toward genetic enhancement may vary depending on the social concept of health. If people view disability as a deviation from the standards of normalcy, they will prefer to use genetic enhancement to prevent disability in their children. As a healthcare provider or a policymaker, I would permit genetic enhancement to avoid disabilities but prohibit using it to add a disability to a healthy child.

Reference

Scully, J. L. (2022). Being disabled and contemplating disabled children. In J. M. Reynolds & C. Wieseler (Eds.), The disability bioethics reader (pp. 116-124). Routledge.

Introduction

Improving the quality and duration of human life are the key priorities of the worlds developed economies and countries. For more effective prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of socially significant diseases, along with the rehabilitation of patients, technological breakthroughs in the field of biomedicine are necessary. They are primarily associated with the creation of fundamentally new drugs, products for cell and gene therapy, and tools for precise molecular diagnostics. Human genetic engineering is one such method, formulating a significant breakthrough in the field of medicine. However, it is a controversial aspect in terms of ethical issues, as genetic changes can lead to unforeseen consequences. At the same time, it makes it possible to cure complex diseases or correct some problems for a person.

Discussion

Genetic engineering is a recent breakthrough in humanity in the field of medicine, formulating one of the most complex processes. Genetic engineering technologies include the construction of functionally active genetic structures, their introduction into the human body, and integration into the genome (Wheale & Schomber, 2019). It allows one to develop new, in some cases, unique genetic, biochemical, and physiological properties. The creation of new biopharmaceuticals and cell cultures producing biologically active molecules in the future will provide the medical market with affordable, innovative drugs and diagnostic tools. However, there is a possibility that genetic engineering procedures will have a significant price, and only some people will be able to afford such treatment.

Point effects are required for the effective treatment of many diseases, primarily of an immune nature, sometimes at the level of individual cells. The creation of target-oriented drugs, including conjugated and DNA vaccines, will increase the effectiveness of treating oncological, rheumatic, and infectious diseases, as well as disorders of the nervous system (Wheale & Schomber, 2019). The first direction in the development of the trend is associated with the use of recombinant DNA to obtain biological products with desired therapeutic properties and high rates of bioavailability and specificity of action (Wheale & Schomber, 2019). As a result, new drugs will appear that are effective in diseases caused by immune system disorders. The creation of diagnostic biosensors formulates another direction for therapeutic cellular products, and specific molecular fragments obtained based on genetic engineering technologies. These solutions could increase the diagnostic value of portable tests being brought to the medical device market.

Implementing new genes into a microorganism, plant, animal, or human body opens new possibilities to gain new body characteristics. These treats have never been enjoyed by the object before and could promote better living or treatment. One can reorganize these genotypes by transforming DNA, a molecule that is responsible for transfer, custody, and pass from one breed to another descent, and execution of the genetic program for the evolving and performing of living entities (Wheale & Schomber, 2019). Moreover, transformations occur in ribonucleic acid, one of the key molecules in all living entities cells.

The key aspects of standard genetics were founded in the middle of the 19th century due to the tests of the Czech-Austrian scientist and biologist Gregor Mendel (Wheale & Schomber, 2019). The foundations of transferring of ancestral features from parental entities to their scions, outlined by him based on the experiments on plants in 1865, unfortunately, were not significantly popular among the cotemporaries (Wheale & Schomber, 2019). After several decades, the followers of this trend returned to focus on the aspect of genetic engineering, and the issue began to be studied more carefully. Therefore, nowadays, genetic engineering is applied in many areas, and on its basis, an independent area of healthcare area has been formed, which is one of the contemporary parts of biotechnology.

The medicines that are currently under clinical experiments are remedies that potentially can cure cardiovascular disease, arthrosis, AIDS, and oncology. Several hundred companies engaged in genetic design are promoting the manufacturing of medicines and diagnostics. Nowadays, human insulin obtained by means of retransmitted DNA is actively utilized by many healthcare providers. Human insulin-cloned genes were implemented into a bacterial cell (Wheale & Schomber, 2019). Since 1982, various companies in developed countries have been producing genetically designed insulin (Wheale & Schomber, 2019). In addition, many new diagnostic drugs have already been implemented into healthcare practice.

Despite the apparent positive effects of these discoveries and the possibility of improving the level of a cure for diseases and the quality of life of people, genetic engineering has other aspects. Speaking from an ethical point of view, it can have negative consequences as genetic changes can be used for devastating effects. Thus, organizations have introduced various restrictions and moratoriums on experiments, introducing more humane principles. In addition, genetic engineering brings humanity closer to the possibility of cloning, which opens up many options. For example, one could grow a clone for later organ transplantation or use it as a donor. However, whether such a procedure is ethically acceptable remains an open question as opinions differ.

There are many options for the development of events in the field of genetic engineering, and not all of them have been studied. Therefore, they must be consistently fixed and regulated, as bad scenarios of the development of events cause most fears. As a rule, it all starts with helping people and inventing new drugs, and then a person may come to desire to change his childs hair or eyes or to create an army of universal soldiers who are not afraid of pain and do not know fear. Modern society is so heterogeneous culturally and economically that any methods that can significantly change the genome can create conditions for class and species stratification (Wheale & Schomber, 2019). For example, representatives of the rich world will be able to significantly prolong their lives and not be afraid of any diseases, unlike less wealthy people, and this is a serious ground for conflicts and clashes.

However, many incurable diseases occur due to pathological changes in the cell genome. Traditional drugs are not effective enough in their treatment due to low specificity and, in some cases, significant toxic effects on the body. Moreover, they do not act on the very cause of such diseases, namely somatic mutations of the genome. It is expected that one will be able to target gene expression, interrupting the sequence of pathological changes in the cell (Wheale & Schomber, 2019). In addition, the person will be able to control the critical mechanisms of development, and treatment of oncological diseases will become possible with the help of technologies for the therapeutic use of RNA interference.

Conclusion

To conclude, human genetic engineering is one of the major medical breakthroughs, giving many opportunities for healing and improving life. Genetic engineering is a new direction in the field of molecular biology, which has become widespread in many areas of medicine and biology relatively recently. However, despite the positive effects, it has some controversial ethical aspects. Genetic engineering provides limitless opportunities for humans, including creating their own fearless army, which can be used for crimes. In addition, errors during surgery at the gene level can lead to irreversible negative consequences.

Reference

Wheale, P., & Schomberg, R. (2019). The social management of genetic engineering. Routledge.

Summary

The article Multi-Ethnic Minority Nurses Knowledge and Practice of Genetics and Genomics is the documentation of a research study conducted within the boundaries of genomics in clinical practice. The purpose of this study was to establish the integration of genomics into nursing. This concerned the extent of such integration by minority nurses. Specifically, it involved the study of beliefs and traditions that are primary in the integration of genomics information. The article acknowledged the contribution of exploratory studies that have gone a long way in providing information concerning this subject. The study research sought to solve the problem of understanding the educational gaps that exist within minority nurse populations.

The study involved a cross-sectional survey that concerned nurses operating under the mandates of the (NCEMNO) National Coalition of Ethnic Minority Nurse Organizations. About the investigation, two phases were employed in data collection. An online survey tool was used to manipulate the study sample. Twenty-seven nurses were featured in the first stage of the survey while three hundred and eighty-nine respondents participated in the Sixty-three survey. The first phase was used to determine the suitability of the survey tool while the main survey led to the collection of the desired data. The survey was specific to the subject of genomics. The determinants studied in this matter included information, beliefs, and traditions that characterize the practice of minority nurses. An important consideration was the fact that these participants hailed from diverse ethnic backgrounds. Frequencies and percentages were used to analyze the results of this study. Nevertheless, chi-square tests were used to manipulate data surrounding comparative responses.

Through this study, interesting findings were made concerning the aspect of genomics in nursing practice. First, a large number of respondents were well educated. Forty percent of the participants had postgraduate degrees. Additionally, forty-two percent of the respondents were active nursing practitioners. Most of the respondents were favorably disposed to genomics education (Coleman, 2014). About this, they believed in the significance of the subject to the application of nursing principles. More than ninety percent of the respondents linked family health history to the identification of potential risks along the lines of personal health. Sixty-three percent of these respondents acknowledged the importance of family history within the context of nursing practice. Eighty-five of the study participants were competent on matters about the tracing of individual family histories. On the other hand, fifty percent of the respondents believed that they had a weak grip on the aspect of genomic education. Finally, eighty-four percent of the respondents were connected to the facet of genomics in respect of the educative role of their various ethnic minority organizations.

To conclude, many respondents valued the importance of genomics. However, this occurred in the face of limited knowledge concerning the discipline. The study revealed the deep interest that existed among the minority nurses about genomics education. This was surrounded by the important role played by ethnic minority organizations in the empowerment of nurses within the context of genomics education. The study gave evidence that highlighted the importance of advancing genomics knowledge to improve nursing practice.

Review

The article had clinical relevance concerning the subject of genomics. Genomics is an important issue that affects the quality and efficiency of nursing practice (Simpson, 2006). Through this, the application of clinical principles is used to establish the risk factors that are attributable to the development of health conditions in patients. In nursing, genomics applies to the study of individual health histories in treating chronic diseases (Burton, 2007). Such records are usually traceable along family lines. The improvement of nursing rests upon the professional concern to educate nurses about genomics and its application to their career practice (Guttmacher, 2001). The basis of this understanding lies with the ability to address issues attributable to the nursing deficits that currently exist. The upside of enhancing genomics education is the possible improvement of patient outcomes in the field of nursing.

The article presented interesting facts. It provided adequate evidence to substantiate its claims. The effectiveness of nursing practice is contingent on various determinants. First, genomics education is a confounding factor affecting the pursuit of nursing goals. Genomic education is still in its infancy. Many nurses are interested in genomics education. However, approaching this goal is difficult because of the limited availability of necessary resources. Beliefs are also relevant to nursing practice (Leninger, 1994). Concerning this, personal convictions shape the attitudes of nurses. The fact that many respondents favored the aspect of genomics education meant that this subject was relevant to clinical practice. The integration of genetics into nursing is critical to the establishment of disease prevention programs. The outcomes of such involvement would mean better health care in modern clinical practice. Nevertheless, the downside presented by this integration concerns the aspect of patient insurance. Insurance discrimination is an imminent threat presented by the advancement of genomics in clinical practice (Ellerin, 2005). Additionally, the article expressed the correlation that exists between higher education and prolonged periods of nursing practice. Most highly experienced nurses are well educated within the confines of nursing principles.

Based on my personal evaluation of this article, I would recommend it to other students. The specificity of the information is notable. This concerns the significance of genomics in health care. Information was presented in an organized manner and implicated important participants in modern health care systems. Nurses play a big role in the advancement of medical interests among human populations. In my clinical practice, I would acknowledge the significance of genomic knowledge in the establishment of preventive medical programs. Critically, the article stimulates knowledge-based curiosity concerning the subject of genomics education.

References

Burton, P. R., Clayton, D. G., Cardon, L. R., Craddock, N., Deloukas, P., Duncanson, A.,&& Todd, J. A. (2007). Genome-wide association study of 14,000 cases of seven common diseases and 3,000 shared controls. Nature,447(7145), 661-678.

Coleman, B., Calzone, K. A., Jenkins, J., Paniagua, C., Rivera, R., Hong, O. S.,&& Bonham, V. (2014). MultiEthnic Minority Nurses Knowledge and Practice of Genetics and Genomics. Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 46(4), 235-244.

Ellerin, B. E., Schneider, R. J., Stern, A., Toniolo, P. G., &Formenti, S. C. (2005). Ethical, legal, and social issues related to genomics and cancer research: the impending crisis. Journal of the American College of Radiology, 2(11), 919-926.

Guttmacher, A. E., Jenkins, J., &Uhlmann, W. R. (2001). Genomic medicine: who will practice it? A call to open arms. American journal of medical genetics, 106(3), 216-222.

Leninger, M. (1994). Transcultural nursing. Nursing Education: An International Perspective, 207.

Simpson, R. L. (2006). Genomics meets nursing practice. Nursing Management, 37(12), 31-33.

Brain development and the growth of the neural system is an extremely complex mechanism, one that requires human body to perform a variety of processes over a short period of time. Genetics are said to play the largest role in the process, being responsible for determining the brain structure and early development patterns of the neural system. At the same time, the persons environment seems to be integral to their ability to properly develop further and grow into a fully realized individual. It is impossible to consider, evaluate or discuss the questions of human neural development without taking into consideration both matter of genetics and outside influences. Studies on twins have shown that placing children in differing environments leads to their brains developing in unique ways, despite the similar genetic makeup. A persons brain can recognize the effects of negative and positive surroundings, learn from them, form associations and responses that in turn cause a person to grow up in a specific manner. Specifically, children before the age of 1 quickly develop, their brains forming neural connections at an extremely rapid pace.

The development proceeds at a quick rate, up to the point where a part of the synapses formed must be gotten rid of. In the process of determining the connections worth keeping, a persons brain takes into account their lived experiences and daily life, which in turn shape the direction of a persons neural growth. Since each person comes to live in a particular manner, and their neural connection is made in a manner specific to them, their ability to accomplish specific tasks may be developed differently from their peers. Language, motor skill, and comprehension are each learned individually depending on the person and their environment. The tendency indicates that a childs external influences, including such considerations as the financial state of their family, have a profound impact on how their brain comes to develop. The ability of parents to care for their children also impacts the process, with better levels of nourishment and care being crucial to a persons mental growth and stability. Support from ones relatives and close ones is positively correlated with the emotional wellbeing of a person. Negative experiences of a child, as a part of the outside influences affecting them, can also bring detriment to their neural growth. In particular, impulsive behaviours were said to lead to peoples neocortex region growing less rapidly, while subcortical, in turn, grew quicker. Similarly, childhood challenges and hardships are told to be responsible for worse brain development.

The studies held and reviewed throughout the years suggest that the maturity of an individuals brain is a complicated process and has to be considered from both genetic and environmental perspectives. In terms of genetics, a childs genes help them grow in a specific manner during earlier stages of their development. Most interestingly, the external factors determine how a persons neural system interprets genetic information and how it applies it, allowing the brain to be versatile and flexible. Before their birth, genes shape a childs future brain structure in accordance with the state of their mother. Because a persons neural system using a combination of both external and internal facilitators for growth, it comes to both fulfil its basic functions and have the ability to adapt to its environment. A child living surrounded by a particular set of circumstances can be best prepared for them and have the ability to quickly further grow within them.

Summary of background

Mating yeasts possess well-orchestrated molecular machinery to ensure the smooth appearance of phenotype by functional complementation. This strategy has been well exploited by various researchers for their laboratory investigations. However, there are certain pitfalls that have made certain areas of the complementation unexplored with regard to pigment formation. These are pathways of the Adenine biosynthesis system. This pathway is essential for carrying out functions like ATP production and energy metabolism. Yeast genes that produce Adenine require Adenine in their growth medium when they were subjected to mutation. This process would lead to the development of phenotypic characters like pink or red-colored colonies. The mutants required are ade1 and ade 2.

Summary of the experiment

This study was undertaken to highlight the functional complementation keeping in view of mating behavior in yeasts. Here, haploid mating types specific to the Mata type of Saccharomyces cerevisiae were chosen. Adenine-requiring mutants ade1 and ade2 were selected and grown on a medium requiring adenine which led to the development of pink or red colors. The phenotypic traits, such as red or cream colony colors were produced because the two mutants have complementary genotypes.

Summary of results

In this study, the crossing of two mutants led to the development of phenotypic traits which are nothing but the colors, red or cream. The strain having a mutation in one of the red adenine genes like ADE1 ade2) was crossed with the strain possessing a mutation in the other red adenine gene (ade1 ADE2). The phenotypic appearance is due to the presence of complimentary genotypes. The diploid mutant is possessing a normal cream-colored, adenine-independent phenotype.

Evaluation of Hypothesis: The hypothesis was evaluated by testing the reliability of complimentary genotypes where mutant strains coding for red color were crossed. This was determined by assessing the negative feedback mechanism and enzyme levels involved in the adenine biosynthesis pathway

Living organisms exhibit diversity in various facets of the life cycle. The biology that is strongly driving the organisms to evolve while withstanding the natural barriers of survival has opened up a new gateway for researchers to explore various pathways. These are nothing but important stages such as habitat, nutrition, mode of physiology, reproduction, and offspring generation. The consistent interest shown in the biology of living organisms has made them model organisms. Studies focusing on model organisms have great potential to address the issues with regard to the life of human beings (www.systemsbiology.org). The biological processes found in several organisms were reported to be common in the most simple and the most complicated organisms (www.systemsbiology.org). These may be the Krebs cycle, hemoglobin function, etc

As such, researchers have chosen model organisms in order to obtain a trouble-free case for the beginning stages of the study of the biological systems (www.systemsbiology.org). The present description is intended to highlight the biology of yeast keeping in view the events explored by the scientists. Yeasts are scientifically known as Saccharomyces cerevisiae exhibit complicated genetic systems with their DNA content 3.5 times greater than Escherichia coli cells. Its properties such as fast growth, scattered cells, simple replica plating, and mutant isolation, multipurpose DNA transformation system ultimately make this organism a well-chosen model for biological investigations.

In a study, researchers have dissected the relationship between functional complementation and mating behavior by selecting the mutant strains responsible for adenine biosynthesis (www.phys.ksu.edu). Here, the key events that were tested were complementation pathways where two genotypes with recessive alleles are combined by a cross to test whether the genotype of one parent could provide the function not present in the genotype of the other strain

Although there are various models that were studied to demonstrate the key mating pathways and their associated mechanisms, S. cerevisiae offers a reliable model to study and gain insights on functional complementation related to mating in eukaryotes. In addition, other models were falling short of strategies that inter-connect the well-known important characteristics with a broad assessment of the mating properties (Danying Shao et al., 2006). Further, biochemical relationships, gene expressions were induced by the feedback mechanism and, were not previously documented well (Danying Shao et al., 2006).

Therefore, this study was chosen to better address the events that remained unanswered earlier. The results were tested because two alternative alleles of the MAT gene  MATa and MAT alpha specific to yeast, determine the two opposite mating types (www.phys.ksu.edu). This is because these genes are considered easier for studying mutation with regard to the biosynthesis of purines and pyrimidines that form the backbone of nucleic acids (www.phys.ksu.edu). Here, adenine biosynthesis was tested by selecting ade1 and ade2 which were reported to be the first discovered two adenine-requiring mutants (www.phys.ksu.edu). It is not known well whether the crossing of two mutant strains could induce the subsequent changes in Adenine biosynthesis by feedback mechanism and phenotypic appearance of red or cream-colored colonies. The hypothesis was based on the fact that cells heterozygous for red adenine mutations like ADE1/ade1 or ADE2/ade2) produce white-colored colonies and cells homozygous for recessive alleles (ade1/ade1 or ade2/ade2) produce red colored colonies (www.phys.ksu.edu). During the process of mitotic segregation of red plaques develop in white colonies. This strategy was better exploited by the functional complementation test. It was reported that the haploid cells of several mating types when crossed together would produce a diploid cell (www.phys.ksu.edu). This diploid cell contains the genotype enough to provide the alleles required for the adenine synthesis that are missing in the other counterpart (www.phys.ksu.edu). Hence, two strains ade 1 and ade 2 were selected and crossed in order to produce adenine which was better assessed by the phenotypic appearance.

References

Danying Shao, Wen Zheng, Wenjun Qiu,Qi Ouyang, Chao Tang. Dynamic Studies of Scaffold-Dependent Mating Pathway in Yeast. Biophys J. 91.11 (2006): 39864001.

Fred Sherman. An Introduction to Genetics and Molecular Biology of Yeast. 2000. Web.

Genetics of Bakers Yeast. Web.

Using Model Organisms. 2008. Institute for Systems Biology. Web.

Introduction

In the course of studying crime, both scientists and criminologists have enlisted scientific methods. These methods have given rise to several hypotheses, some of which have become proven theories. In the study of criminology, the questions of why, how, and when are important to the understanding of the causation factors of crime. Another key element within theories of crime causation is gaining an understanding of the factors that differentiate law-abiding citizens from criminals. Consequently, there are several theories of crime causation, and they are often categorized as economic, political, or biological in nature. Some of the most common theories include Strain Theory, Control Theory, and Labeling Theory. This paper addresses two theories of crime causation, namely Social Bond Theory and Genetic Theory. The essay offers an in-depth look into the two theories and also their similarities and differences.

Overview of the Theories

The Social Bond theory was first forwarded in 1969 by Travis Hirschi, but later contributors have changed it into social control theory. The Social Bond theory has been applied to various social issues and their manifestation as a crime. This theory of crime causation addresses elements of social bonding including attachment to families, commitment to social norms, involvement in activities, and the belief that these things are important (Akers, 2013, p. 43). The defining factor in the Social Bond theory is the element of connection between peers and peer groups in a manner that suggests involvement, attachment, and commitment. However, the Social Bond theory posits that the same bonds that result in socially acceptable behaviors are also inspiring criminal activities. Another prominent element of this theory is the common value-system within a certain group of individuals. Social bonds are important to Hirschis theory, including parental figures, school-formed bonds, and other types of social attachments. The combination of the social bonds that are outlined in this theory contributes to shaping peoples behaviors. These pro-social attachments have the ability to control an individuals behavior even when they are not active. For example, some people will feel overly self-conscious about littering even if no one can see them.

The Genetic theory of crime causation proposes that there is an active link between a persons genes and his/her criminal tendencies. The Genetic Theory of crime has been a subject of debate since its inception, with most of this debate happened in in the 1980s and the 1990s. Other scientists have also proposed that there is a connection between a persons physical traits and his/her susceptibility to criminal activities (Cheung & Heine, 2015). Although the Genetic Theory of crime is not socially popular, various studies have successfully proved its hypothesis. Opponents of this theory argue that criminality is not the trait that is carried in the genes, but it is the other accompanying traits such as substance abuse. Therefore, other criminal causal factors are responsible for genetic crime factors, and they are also more likely to be manifested when other socio-economic crime factors are present. The genetic theory was inspired by eugenic trials of the Nazi regime, and this fact has contributed to its unpopularity. However, advancements in the study of genetics have renewed interest in this theory of criminology and social behaviors. Eventually, the initial resistance to Genetic Theory has been replaced with a healthy curiosity towards its main hypothesis. In modern times, the media, lawyers, and other criminology stakeholders have developed some interest in the genetic factors in crime, including known genetic disorders.

Similarities Between Theoretical Proposals

The basis of Genetic Theory is biological, but the basis for Social Bond theory is social psychology. However, even though these theories have a different basis, they also bear striking similarities. One similarity between the two theories has something to do with their element of attachment. Social Bond theory proposes that the earliest form of attachment for human beings is often parental, where a childs worldview is modeled around that of the parents (McShane, 2013). On the other hand, the Genetic Theory proposes that humans can explicitly inherit criminal tendencies from their parents. The parental connection might take different forms in both theories, but they are present. Therefore, the concept of attachment is evident in the two theories.

The Genetic Theory proposes a crime connection that cannot be influenced by external factors. On the other hand, the Social Bond Theory proposes a crime connection that can be easily manipulated by external forces. According to Genetic Theory, children inherit criminal tendencies from their biological parents, and nothing can change this dynamic. However, it is important to note that biological tendencies are a permanent development, while the four elements of Social Bond Theory are mostly temporary factors. Moreover, as an extension of this difference, when considering criminality, both socially bonded and genetic criminals are subject to a certain level of empathy from the criminal justice system. However, the rectification process of genetic criminals would be quite different from that of socially influenced offenders. It would be up to the criminology stakeholders to interpret how to deal with genetic criminals without misinterpretations.

One striking difference between the two theories is that while they all allude to a sense of belonging, only one makes social accommodations. Hirschis theory suggests that social bonds can be the source of a persons strengths or weaknesses. On the other hand, the genetic theory proposes that a persons social accommodations are of little significance to his overall behavioral wellbeing. Critics of Social Bond Theory have pointed out that the theory has oversimplified social engagements and their contribution to social behavior. On the other hand, Genetic Theory has been criticized for oversimplifying the element of genetics in relation to criminal behavior. According to critics, criminal behavior has a genetic basis, but many other factors that are not necessarily considered when theorists are making their conclusions (Gajos, Beaver, Gertz, & Bratton, 2014, p. 369).

Although the two theories are considered simplistic, their levels and manifestations of simplicity are different. Eventually, the two theories stand in stark contrast to each other, whereby they create a nature versus nurture debate. Social Bond Theory supports the idea that crime is caused by nurture, while Genetic theory proposes that negative human behavior is a result of nature. Nevertheless, research dictates that most stakeholders explicitly favor the element of nurture in their consideration of criminal behavior (Gottfredson & Hirschi, 2016). Interestingly, the infrastructure of the criminal justice system does not favor any of these theories in an exclusive manner. For example, jails are places where criminals enjoy strong social bonds, although they are taken there to reform their behaviors. On the other hand, genetic aspects cannot serve as a basis for setting criminals free.

Theoretical Improvements

One theoretical improvement that applies to Social Bond Theory is the fact that it does not accommodate a variety of social settings. The research for this study was conducted in the society that existed in America between 1950 and 1960s. Therefore, the theory fails to accommodate modern American society with its various familial lifestyles (Jones, Lynam, & Piquero, 2015). New research should focus on bonds as opposed to blueprinted social structures. This approach will eliminate the different outcomes that are occasioned from one case to another.

It is important for Genetic Theory Researchers to focus on the intricate relationships between social and economic factors. However, a comprehensive research study on the relationship between genetics and criminal behavior would be logistically challenging. Therefore, researchers can take a case-by-case approach before identifying recurring or emerging patterns. This research design would also incorporate modern literature on biological studies. It is important to note that the element of genes in the causation of crime might be more or less significant than it was earlier thought.

Conclusion

Both genetic and social bond theories are active components of criminology scholarships. Furthermore, there are elements of parental involvement in both theories, although one of these instances is voluntary, while the other is involuntary. The two theories differ in their different nature versus nurture stances and how they contribute towards criminal behaviors in society. Both of these theories are subject to additional research that matches scientific and social developments.

References

Akers, R. L. (2013). Criminological theories: Introduction and evaluation. London, UK: Routledge.

Cheung, B. Y., & Heine, S. J. (2015). The double-edged sword of genetic accounts of criminality causal attributions from genetic ascriptions affects legal decision making. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 41(12), 1723-1738.

Gajos, J. M., Beaver, K. M., Gertz, M., & Bratton, J. (2014). Public opinion of genetic and neuropsychological contributors to criminal involvement. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 25(3), 368-385.

Gottfredson, M. R., & Hirschi, T. (2016). The criminal career perspective as an explanation of crime and a guide to crime control policy: The view from general theories of crime. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 53(3), 406-419.

Jones, S., Lynam, D. R., & Piquero, A. R. (2015). Substance use, personality, and inhibitors were testing Hirschis predictions about the reconceptualization of self-control. Crime & Delinquency, 61(4), 538-558.

McShane, M. (2013). An introduction to criminological theory. London, UK: Routledge.

Everyone has heard about Down syndrome and met at least one person with this condition. There are some common characteristics of people with Down syndrome. They have a flat face with slanted eyes and a wide mouth. Their heads are round; foreheads are narrow; hair is soft and rare. Hands and feet are short and wide. According to Hartley et al. (2014), Down syndrome is the most common genetic condition in the United States, currently affecting approximately one in 700 live births (p. 2).

It means that almost 6,000 babies are born with this condition every year only in the United States of America. Although there are a lot of children and adults with Down syndrome, there are still a lot of misconceptions about this disorder. For instance, when people hear about Down syndrome they often think of people who are not smart or not able to learn. Indeed, Down syndrome is a genetic disorder that is associated with some level of learning disability and physical and mental developmental delays. Nevertheless, it does not mean that people with Down syndrome cannot read, write, and live life to the fullest.

Firstly, to describe Down syndrome and the life of people with this disorder, it is necessary to give a scientific definition to this condition and underline the causes. According to Stanford Childrens Health (n.d.), Down syndrome is a genetic disorder that involves birth defects, intellectual disabilities, characteristic facial features; it often involves heart defects, visual and hearing impairments, and other health problems (para. 2).

The main cause of Down syndrome is a gene problem that refers to an error in cell division. This problem happens before birth and results in an extra 21st chromosome. Thus, this extra chromosome is the reason for physical and mental developmental problems. Potter (2016) underlines that there are different genetic variations related to the problems with the 21st chromosome. The most common variation is called Trisomy 21. It is normal when the child has two copies of the 21st chromosome in every cell. In the case of Trisomy 21, the baby has three copies. Besides, there is another form of Down syndrome, so-called Mosaic Down syndrome. It is also caused by an extra copy of the 21st chromosome. However, not all cells have this copy. Translocation Down syndrome is the third genetic variation. It happens when a part of the 21st chromosome moves and becomes connected with another chromosome. It is worth mentioning that all scientists agree that environmental and behavioral factors do not cause Dawn syndrome.

The question of how to take care of people with Down syndrome arises. It is important to understand that these people need special health care. Therapy plays a key role in caring. Skotko, Davidson, and Weintraub (2013) state that only 29.7% of children with Down syndrome have an established medical home and are more than two times more likely to have unmet needs for care and family support than children with other special health care needs (p. 430).

It is recommended for parents to find caring health care providers and therapists. Rudolph and Mohler (2014) state that to develop muscle tone, physical therapy should be provided every week. Speech therapy is also important. It helps children with Down syndrome to acquire social skills and develop their speech. Moreover, educational therapy is to be taken into account as soon as possible. Apart from this, it is necessary to emphasize that every child with Down syndrome should have his or her own Individualized Educational Program at school. However, the most important thing in caring is the atmosphere. It cannot be denied that children with Down syndrome need more love and attention than ordinary children. It is essential not to forget that children with this disorder are not weird. People with Down syndrome are also people, and it is the first thing to remember. All in all, an appropriate environment and atmosphere that suit a child with special needs is to be created.

Unfortunately, the majority of people do not know enough about Down syndrome. That is why they tend to have some misconceptions. There are some common myths related to people with Down syndrome. Probably, the most common myth is the statement that people with Down syndrome are not smart. To be quite honest, I used to think so too. However, five years ago my mother gave birth to my sister who had Down syndrome. Looking at her, I understand that the belief that people with Down syndrome cannot learn has nothing to do with reality. Although it is hard for my sister to learn and speak, the progress is obvious.

Moreover, most people think that children get Down syndrome because of old parents. De Graaf, Buckley, and Skotko (2015) state that about 80 percent of children with Down syndrome are born to women whose age is under 35. Besides, many people are sure that children with this disorder cannot integrate into society. However, it is not true. People with Down syndrome live life to the fullest. They are involved in all educational and social activities. For instance, children with Down syndrome go to ordinary schools and universities, play some sports, and have friends. What is more, contrary to popular belief, adults with Down syndrome are employable?

In conclusion, having thought of it twice, I would like to emphasize that Down syndrome is a very common disorder. There are three genetic variations that cause Down syndrome: Trisomy 21, Mosaic Down syndrome, and Translocation Down syndrome. The treatment of children with Down syndrome includes physical, speech, and educational therapies and social support. The main purpose of caring is social adaptation. Children with Down syndrome have the same needs as ordinary children  they need a family, attention, and love. There is no doubt that children with Down syndrome can develop like healthy children.

If a child with special needs lives in an appropriate environment, he or she does not feel like an outsider. On the contrary, such a child develops quickly, learns, and lives a normal childs life  plays with other children, reads books, and goes to the cinema. However, there are a lot of myths about Down syndrome. For instance, a lot of people think that people with Down syndrome cannot live a full life because their abilities are limited. It is not true. Some of such people can achieve success. There are examples of people with Down syndrome who have become famous and successful. For instance, Pablo Pineda is a well-known writer, speaker, and actor; Michael Johnson is a famous painter; Sujeet Desai is a musician who has received a lot of awards.

References

De Graaf, G., Buckley, F., & Skotko, B. G. (2015). Estimates of the live births, natural losses, and elective terminations with Down syndrome in the United States. American Journal of Medical Genetics Part A, 167(4), 756-767.

Hartley, D., Blumenthal, T., Carrillo, M., DiPaolo, G., Esralew, L., Gardiner, K.,& Lott, I. (2015). Down syndrome and Alzheimers disease: Common pathways, common goals. Alzheimers & Dementia, 11(6), 700-709.

Potter, H. (2016). Beyond trisomy 21: Phenotypic variability in people with Down syndrome explained by further chromosome missegregation and mosaic aneuploidy. J Down Syndr Chr Abnorm, 2(109), 2.

Rudolph, U., & Mohler, H. (2014). GABAA receptor subtypes: Therapeutic potential in Down syndrome, affective disorders, schizophrenia, and autism. Annual Review of Pharmacology and Toxicology, 54, 483-507.

Skotko, B. G., Davidson, E. J., & Weintraub, G. S. (2013). Contributions of a specialty clinic for children and adolescents with Down syndrome. American Journal of Medical Genetics Part A, 161(3), 430-437.

Stanford Childrens Health (n.d.). Down Syndrome (Trisomy 21). Web.