The notion of "taking a drug that's guaranteed to kill you in 40 years" on page 4 with the logic that you'll still survive tomorrow came across as a little odd to me at first. However, as the chapter progressed, Dr. Moalem was able to discuss the logic of such a phenomenon as something that actually benefits someone's ability to survive and ultimately reproduce which connects with the ideas expressed in Big Idea #1 (The process of evolution drives the diversity and unity of life). By doing so, he was actually able to justify the benefits of having a genetic mutation, something that is commonly fought against, and prove that in certain cases we should be fighting for it.
On pages 14 and 15, instances can be found that connect back to this comparison of taking this "deadly drug." So according to scientific evidence, how does something deadly in fact allow one to still survive at the same time? Do you think this is more beneficial in the long-run rather than being considered healthy, or does it matter more given the specific, special cases? And if so, what overall conclusion can you make about having "too much" or something versus nothing of something at all in regards to taking the drug versus not taking it? Ultimately, what is your overall opinion, would you rather "take the drug" or not?
(Lois Kim, lokim3@students.d125.org)
Big Idea 1 states that the process of evolution drives the diversity and unity of life. This statement relates to the idea of organisms surviving in order to reproduce and pass along their traits to their offspring. Life is precious, and time is of the essence. Anything an organism to do to survive just a little bit longer, it will do. This leads to the notion of having a disease or taking a drug that can eventually kill you. Dr. Moalem talks about the benefits of having hemochromatosis to survive the plague and prevented anemia in women. The disease is resistant to infection of the plague due to iron-starved macrophages, and excess iron absorbed in the people’s diet prevented them from getting anemia. Hemochromatosis allowed the population it affected to survive many different obstacles, although it is a harmful disease itself.
ReplyDeleteWhat does ‘healthy’ consist of? Why is it so important? Throughout history and even today, it is all about surviving for as long as possible. People stay ‘healthy’ in order to increase their probability in surviving more years. Although if being sick allowed people to survive, then sick would be the more beneficial option. Overall being healthy is better to survive if there is no selection pressure that cause a change in the environment. During the plague, people that had hemochromatosis were considered ‘healthy’ because they survived one of the greatest onslaughts of their populations.
Everything must be taken in moderation. For example, eating salty foods everyday can be very bad for a person’s blood pressure as it elevates it, but eating them in small amounts is needed to “regulate fluid balance and nerve cell function” (65). Drugs are a necessity in today’s society because they have become so beneficial in maintaining a stable, healthy body. Although America is an overdosed country, many people rely on drugs to keep them functioning. A now common drug that is treated for ADHD is used on a daily basis by about 6% of the population; this can be overused due to parents that overreact with a child’s basic energetic level (http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Wellness/prescription-drug-soars-us/story?id=11547284). Overall, I would take the drug if I believed that I really needed it and it would benefit my overall health. Sometimes the risk of harmful side effects from drugs can be more than it is actually worth taking the drug. But, in the case of hemochromatosis, I would have rather had the disease and survived for a few more decades than died along with infected populations.
Sigal Sasson (ssasson3@students.d125.org)