Click here for the Drawings.
Read about the history behind the drawings and Van Allsburg's involvement.
Once you have found a drawing that especially intrigues you, write a story that informs us of what happens before and after the image. Think beyond the image: do not limit yourself to that scene or to those characters. In fact, the most interesting stories will be those that reach beyond the face value of the image and create a meaningful, well developed, and creative plot.
What might be tempting is to write a story that is simply full of crazy things and happenings for no particular reason or purpose, since the drawings themselves are extraordinary and capture the supernatural. However, our goal is to create stories that couch the extraordinary into ordinary, everyday life; to capture bizarre happenings within the world we live in.
Remember your audience: children. This is not to say to dumb down the plot or oversimplify the story - children's stories can be wonderfully complex and resonate with people of all ages. Rather, remember that children sometimes have the best imaginations of anyone around. What is impossible in our "grown up" world is completely viable in theirs: write your story with the mind and expectation of a child that is waiting for nuns to fly around in chairs or for pumpkins to suddenly set aglow. To them, the supernatural is completely possible.
This style of writing, where fantastical elements are presented as expected, or even normal, is called "magical realism." In these stories, "magical elements blend to create a realistic atmosphere that accesses a deeper understanding of reality. The story explains these magical elements as normal occurrences, presented in a straightforward manner that places the 'real' and the 'fantastic' in the same stream of thought."
Expectations
Length: 1.5 - 2 pages typed, double spaced, size 12 font
Audience: appropriate for young children
Due: Tuesday, April 19th
Monday, April 18, 2011
Wednesday, January 5, 2011
In Class Writing Assignment
In class writing activity for Independent Novel Unit (Thursday and Friday)
Choose one of the following writing options:
- Write a letter to a major character, questioning their actions and thoughts. Include the character’s reaction and justification to your inquiries.
- Write a mock interview of one of the characters.
- Rewrite a scene from another character’s point of view.
- Rewrite the ending of the book.
- Place the book in a completely different setting (time period, location) and rewrite the beginning of the narrative. Consider how influences such as culture, technology, and gender would alter the course of the story.
- Have another idea? See me for approval.
Any option you choose must be at least 2 pages in length, following standard MLA format. For the purposes of this paper, if including dialogue, do not start a new line for it; simply integrate within each paragraph.
Friday, December 3, 2010
MLA Citations
Books:
Gleick, James. Chaos: Making a New Science. New York: Penguin, 1987. Print.
Lastname, Firstname. Title of Book. Place of Publication: Publisher, Year of Publication. Medium of Publication.
Online Journals:
Langhamer, Claire. “Love and Courtship in Mid-Twentieth-Century England.” Historical Journal 50.1 (2007): 173-96. EbsoHost. Web. 27 May 2009.
Lastname, Firstname. "Title of Article." Title of Journal. Volume.Edition (Year): Pages. Research Database. Web. Date of Access.
For complete MLA 2009 information: http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/747/1/
Gleick, James. Chaos: Making a New Science. New York: Penguin, 1987. Print.
Lastname, Firstname. Title of Book. Place of Publication: Publisher, Year of Publication. Medium of Publication.
Online Journals:
Langhamer, Claire. “Love and Courtship in Mid-Twentieth-Century England.” Historical Journal 50.1 (2007): 173-96. EbsoHost. Web. 27 May 2009.
Lastname, Firstname. "Title of Article." Title of Journal. Volume.Edition (Year): Pages. Research Database. Web. Date of Access.
For complete MLA 2009 information: http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/747/1/
Thursday, December 2, 2010
How to access LNHS research database
- From district website, click on "Lakeville North High School."
- Click on "Resources"
- Select "Media Center"
- Select "LNHS & Dakota Co. Library Research Databases"
Just in case, here's the link:
Annotated Bibliography Information
See the following links for detailed explanations about writing your annotated bibliography for Academic Writing.
What is an annotated bibliography and how do I write my own?
http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/614/01/
Where can I see an example of an annotated source?
http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/614/03/
- You must have 8 sources for your annotated bibliography.
- Each annotation for each source must be at least 5-6 sentences in length.
- Follow exact MLA format.
- This is due on Wednesday, December 8th.
What is an annotated bibliography and how do I write my own?
http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/614/01/
A bibliography is a list of sources (books, journals, websites, periodicals, etc.) one has used for researching a topic. Bibliographies are sometimes called "references" or "works cited" depending on the style format you are using. A bibliography usually just includes the bibliographic information (i.e., the author, title, publisher, etc.).
An annotation is a summary and/or evaluation.
Therefore, an annotated bibliography includes a summary and/or evaluation of each of the sources. Depending on your project or the assignment, your annotations may do one or more of the following:
- Summarize: Some annotations merely summarize the source. What are the main arguments? What is the point of this book or article? What topics are covered? If someone asked what this article/book is about, what would you say? The length of your annotations will determine how detailed your summary is.For more help, see our handout on paraphrasing sources.
- Assess: After summarizing a source, it may be helpful to evaluate it. Is it a useful source? How does it compare with other sources in your bibliography? Is the information reliable? Is this source biased or objective? What is the goal of this source?For more help, see our handouts on evaluating resources.
- Reflect: Once you've summarized and assessed a source, you need to ask how it fits into your research. Was this source helpful to you? How does it help you shape your argument? How can you use this source in your research project? Has it changed how you think about your topic?Your annotated bibliography may include some of these, all of these, or even others. If you're doing this for a class, you should get specific guidelines from your instructor.
(Taken from Purdue OWL, http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/614/01/)
Where can I see an example of an annotated source?
http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/614/03/
Sample MLA Annotation
Lamott, Anne. Bird by Bird: Some Instructions on Writing and Life. New York: Anchor Books, 1995. Print.
Lamott's book offers honest advice on the nature of a writing life, complete with its insecurities and failures. Taking a humorous approach to the realities of being a writer, the chapters in Lamott's book are wry and anecdotal and offer advice on everything from plot development to jealousy, from perfectionism to struggling with one's own internal critic. In the process, Lamott includes writing exercises designed to be both productive and fun. Lamott offers sane advice for those struggling with the anxieties of writing, but her main project seems to be offering the reader a reality check regarding writing, publishing, and struggling with one's own imperfect humanity in the process. Rather than a practical handbook to producing and/or publishing, this text is indispensable because of its honest perspective, its down-to-earth humor, and its encouraging approach.
Monday, November 29, 2010
Critique Form
Name:
Paper:
1: Okay 2: Pretty Good 3: Wow!
Objectives
1. The topic is limited and specific.
2. The paper is well developed. Interesting or informative details are used. Kept your attention the entire time.
3. The purpose of the paper is clearly stated in the thesis.
4. The introduction identifies the composition topic and grabs the reader’s interest.
5. Each paragraph in the body of the composition develops the topic of composition (stays on track, related to thesis).
6. The writing is well organized; the paragraphs in the body follow a logical order.
7. Each paragraph has a clear topic sentence or topic and restriction sentences.
8. The research is introduced effectively.
9. The research is explained effectively.
10. The writer uses transitional words to make the composition coherent.
11. The paper flows well (not choppy or awkward).
12. The conclusion of the composition brings the paper to a close, restates the paper’s central idea, and keeps the reader’s interest.
Total Score: _____/36
Paper:
1: Okay 2: Pretty Good 3: Wow!
Objectives
1. The topic is limited and specific.
2. The paper is well developed. Interesting or informative details are used. Kept your attention the entire time.
3. The purpose of the paper is clearly stated in the thesis.
4. The introduction identifies the composition topic and grabs the reader’s interest.
5. Each paragraph in the body of the composition develops the topic of composition (stays on track, related to thesis).
6. The writing is well organized; the paragraphs in the body follow a logical order.
7. Each paragraph has a clear topic sentence or topic and restriction sentences.
8. The research is introduced effectively.
9. The research is explained effectively.
10. The writer uses transitional words to make the composition coherent.
11. The paper flows well (not choppy or awkward).
12. The conclusion of the composition brings the paper to a close, restates the paper’s central idea, and keeps the reader’s interest.
Total Score: _____/36
Sample 3
Smith 1
John Smith
Miss Morreim
Academic Writing
5 May 2009
Therapeutic Cloning: A Pressing Issue
Over half of the people in need of a transplant die before receiving a life saving organ. In
fact, Americans bury or cremate 20,000 transplantable organs each year (Undis). Many people
have proposals to end this issue, however, legalizing therapeutic cloning for the purpose of organ
transplants and disease research is the most plausible solution, due to the research’s potential to
save countless lives and encourage further breakthroughs in disease research.
According to dictionary.com, therapeutic cloning is defined as nuclear transplantation of
a patient's own cells to make an oocyte from which immune-compatible cells (especially stem
cells) can be derived for transplant. Therapeutic cloning is a controversial topic, both in the
scientific world and in the eyes of the public. Therapeutic cloning comes with many strings
attached but also a great expansion to our scientific intellect that could greatly benefit our world.
Numerous developments in the field of human cloning have occurred since the field of
cloning arose in 5000 B.C (ProQuest). Three large developments between the years 1944-2003
include: the discovery of DNA, the creation of the sheep Dolly, and the completion of the human
genome project. Human cloning remains a controversial topic across the globe. Many states and
countries have enacted restrictions on cloning research. According to Gina Kolata, writer for the
New York Times, therapeutic cloning has become a major topic of debate among the United
Nations (Kolata). With the understanding of cloning comes an expansion of knowledge along
with numerous moral issues most of the public is not ready to face (Kass).
The discovery of deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) is the backbone of human cloning
(Lamb). Discovered by James Watson, a biologist from Indiana University, and Francis Crick, a
physicist, DNA, “the secret of life,” would explain heredity (McLachlan). However, as stated by
Leon Kass, writer for the Weekly Standard, they were unaware it would lead to such practical
applications, including: DNA forensics in law enforcement, testing for genetic diseases, and the
development of an entire biotechnology industry (Wilmut). The impacts of their findings were
astronomical to scientific research. Linus Pauling, a Caltech chemist, discovered the alpha
helical nature of protein structure, in 1951 (Alexander), and Erwin Chargaff, a professor of
biochemistry at Columbia University, discovered that the molar base ratios of A equal T and G
equal C (Anderson). These discoveries heightened our understanding of the structure of DNA
(Wilkins). Watson and Crick modeled the structure of DNA after thoroughly analyzing pictures
they had exchanged. They then coined the double-helix model. Later, Oswald Avery found that
DNA carries a cell's genetic information. Until this discovery, scientists had speculated that a
cell's proteins carried this information (Sandel). Since then, DNA has been a part of all cloning
research. DNA also expanded the field of forensics enormously. Now, most criminals are found
guilty due to DNA evidence recovered by police.
The next development is the first successful cloning of an adult mammal from an adult
stem cell. Dolly was cloned by Ian Wilmut and his colleagues, at the Roslin Institute in Scotland,
using adult cells and the somatic cell nuclear transfer technique (Wilmut). Dolly lived for six
years and died of lung cancer (Cohen). It is speculated whether the death was related to Dolly
being cloned from a six-year-old ewe. Due to the lenient regulations on cloning research, most
mammal cloning attempts occur in South Korea (Demick). According to Dr. Zinder, Dr.
Wilmut's success rate was 1 in about 400 tries; which makes it facile to question his technique
(Zinder). Although the process by which Dolly was created hasn’t yet been perfected, this
incredible breakthrough proved to the world cloning can be accomplished (Wilmut). Dr Wilmut,
of the Roslin Institute, plans to research human cloning to revolutionize and expand areas of
biomedical research. He feels with more knowledge, researchers will be able to develop and test
new prescription drugs more effectively (Wilmut). Dr. Wilmut also said, "It will enable us to
study genetic diseases for which there is presently no cure and track down the mechanisms
involved." This means scientists would be able to research how certain diseases develop and how
they are cured. With this knowledge, scientists can more accurately follow the progression of
diseased cells (Wilmut). Understanding this process enables researchers to search for cures more
accurately.
The final development in the field of human cloning is the completion of the Human
Genome Project by the International Human Genome Sequencing Project. This development
opened the door to profound breakthroughs in medicine and research (Eberatadt). The ultimate
goal of the human genome project was to use this information to develop new ways to treat, cure,
or even prevent the thousands of diseases afflicting mankind (ProQuest). According to expresident
Bill Clinton, with these medical advances come new ways to prevent, diagnose, treat
and even cure disease will arise based on knowledge contained in the 3 billion chemical building
blocks in the genome. What he is saying is, with this development come many resources
available to doctors to assist them in the search for the cures of many different diseases. With an
increasing variety of gene tests becoming open to the public, people are aware of the new
opportunities. Some of these tests have greatly improved the patient’s health and even saved
lives (Spotts). However, scientists remain unsure of how to interpret many of them (ProQuest).
While legalization of therapeutic cloning is considered moral, the idea of cloning people
in order to harvest their organs it not (Eberstadt). Therapeutic cloning requires the destruction of
an embryo in order to extract its stem cells. However, some believe human personhood begins at
conception. They also believe the pre-embryo produced is a human person and that destroying
the pre-embryo is murder and, therefore, immoral. According to Pope John Paul II,
"...[medical] methods that fail to respect the dignity and value of the person must always be
avoided. I am thinking in particular of attempts at human cloning with a view to obtaining organs
for transplants: these techniques, insofar as they involve the manipulation and destruction of
human embryos, are not morally acceptable, even when their proposed goal is good in itself."
Pope John Paul II and others against the legalization of therapeutic cloning feel desecrating an
embryo for use of its stem cells is immoral and should not be practiced.
The organ donation system has a serious flaw; there simply aren’t enough donor organs
to supply all the patients in need of a transplant. However, therapeutic cloning has the potential
to solve the organ transplantation system’s problem (McLachlan). According to Thomas H
Maugh II, a writer for the Los Angeles Times, scientists have demonstrated for the first time that
cloned tissues and organs can be implanted and function normally without being rejected, an
achievement that brings therapeutic cloning one step closer to fruition (Maugh II). Working with
cloned cow cells, the scientists produced small replacement kidneys that filtered toxic materials
from the bloodstream of a cow and produced urine (Maugh II). They also created beating heart
tissue that eventually might be used to repair damaged hearts in much the same manner that
patches are used to repair bicycle inner tubes (Maugh II). As stated by researcher Dr. Anthony
Atala of Children's Hospital Boston, these studies provide an important "proof of principle" that
cloned organs can survive and thrive in recipients (qtd in Maugh II). Some critics of therapeutic
cloning speculate that cloned tissues would be rejected because they contain foreign DNA from a
donated egg used in the cloning process. Critics also believe that small amount of foreign DNA
could be enough to stimulate an immune response leading to rejection, but the new study shows
that this does not necessarily happen. According to Dr. Robert Lanza of Advanced Cell
Technology Inc., before this discovery therapeutic cloning as a means of preventing rejection
was criticized by some as being purely theoretical (qtd. in Maugh II). New discoveries have
enabled scientists to create new lines of embryonic stem cells using human embryos that were
not destroyed (ProQuest). With this discovery, therapeutic cloning no longer requires the
desecration of the human embryo, in turn eliminating the moral issue of manipulation and
destruction of human embryos. By using this research scientists can create organs for
transplantation and eliminate the process by which recipients are chosen. It is hoped, using this
ability will improve the odds of a person receiving a compatible organ and in turn, increasing the
success rate of organ transplants. Considering this discovery, therapeutic cloning can no longer
be seen as immoral. Therefore, an obvious answer to the organ transplants system’s shortages.
Another practical use of therapeutic cloning emanates with the ability to grow organs for
research. Scientists can infect the organ with a disease and observe the development of the
disease. According to Gregory M. Lamb, a researcher for the Christian Science Monitor,
scientists would have the ability to view the effects the disease inflicts on a person’s tissue
firsthand and more precisely search for cures to common diseases such as type-1 diabetes,
Parkinson's disease, hemophilia (Lamb). According to the National Diabetes
Information Clearinghouse (NDIH), it is estimated that, in the United States, 23.6 million people,
or 7.8 percent of the population have diabetes. Also, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention, as many as 3,000 Americans die every day from diseases that could
possibly be treated by therapeutic cloning (Maugh II). Also, much larger numbers could have a
greatly improved quality of life if they received replacement tissues and organs produced by
therapeutic cloning techniques. By 2010, for example, it is estimated that at least 2 million
Americans will suffer from end-stage kidney disease that could be treated with artificial kidneys
produced by therapeutic cloning techniques (Alexander). Considering these facts, the potential
to impact millions of lives in a dramatic way is now tangible. Therapeutic cloning also is a major
field of research among foreign countries and it is vital to research this field in the United States.
In fact, Donald Kennedy, editor in chief of Science, said "I think there is no question that the
degree of restriction imposed now on therapeutic cloning in the U.S. has in fact given other
nations some significant advantages (qtd in Pollack)." Therapeutic cloning is vital to disease
research and prevention.
In conclusion, the legalization of therapeutic cloning for research and organ transplants
brings countless opportunities for medical advancement. These advancements include: more
precise disease research, and an accurate solution to the present organ shortage. Millions of lives
can be saved implementing therapeutic cloning research in the medical field today. Legalizing
therapeutic cloning should be strongly supported by both medical professionals and the general
population.
John Smith
Miss Morreim
Academic Writing
5 May 2009
Therapeutic Cloning: A Pressing Issue
Over half of the people in need of a transplant die before receiving a life saving organ. In
fact, Americans bury or cremate 20,000 transplantable organs each year (Undis). Many people
have proposals to end this issue, however, legalizing therapeutic cloning for the purpose of organ
transplants and disease research is the most plausible solution, due to the research’s potential to
save countless lives and encourage further breakthroughs in disease research.
According to dictionary.com, therapeutic cloning is defined as nuclear transplantation of
a patient's own cells to make an oocyte from which immune-compatible cells (especially stem
cells) can be derived for transplant. Therapeutic cloning is a controversial topic, both in the
scientific world and in the eyes of the public. Therapeutic cloning comes with many strings
attached but also a great expansion to our scientific intellect that could greatly benefit our world.
Numerous developments in the field of human cloning have occurred since the field of
cloning arose in 5000 B.C (ProQuest). Three large developments between the years 1944-2003
include: the discovery of DNA, the creation of the sheep Dolly, and the completion of the human
genome project. Human cloning remains a controversial topic across the globe. Many states and
countries have enacted restrictions on cloning research. According to Gina Kolata, writer for the
New York Times, therapeutic cloning has become a major topic of debate among the United
Nations (Kolata). With the understanding of cloning comes an expansion of knowledge along
with numerous moral issues most of the public is not ready to face (Kass).
The discovery of deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) is the backbone of human cloning
(Lamb). Discovered by James Watson, a biologist from Indiana University, and Francis Crick, a
physicist, DNA, “the secret of life,” would explain heredity (McLachlan). However, as stated by
Leon Kass, writer for the Weekly Standard, they were unaware it would lead to such practical
applications, including: DNA forensics in law enforcement, testing for genetic diseases, and the
development of an entire biotechnology industry (Wilmut). The impacts of their findings were
astronomical to scientific research. Linus Pauling, a Caltech chemist, discovered the alpha
helical nature of protein structure, in 1951 (Alexander), and Erwin Chargaff, a professor of
biochemistry at Columbia University, discovered that the molar base ratios of A equal T and G
equal C (Anderson). These discoveries heightened our understanding of the structure of DNA
(Wilkins). Watson and Crick modeled the structure of DNA after thoroughly analyzing pictures
they had exchanged. They then coined the double-helix model. Later, Oswald Avery found that
DNA carries a cell's genetic information. Until this discovery, scientists had speculated that a
cell's proteins carried this information (Sandel). Since then, DNA has been a part of all cloning
research. DNA also expanded the field of forensics enormously. Now, most criminals are found
guilty due to DNA evidence recovered by police.
The next development is the first successful cloning of an adult mammal from an adult
stem cell. Dolly was cloned by Ian Wilmut and his colleagues, at the Roslin Institute in Scotland,
using adult cells and the somatic cell nuclear transfer technique (Wilmut). Dolly lived for six
years and died of lung cancer (Cohen). It is speculated whether the death was related to Dolly
being cloned from a six-year-old ewe. Due to the lenient regulations on cloning research, most
mammal cloning attempts occur in South Korea (Demick). According to Dr. Zinder, Dr.
Wilmut's success rate was 1 in about 400 tries; which makes it facile to question his technique
(Zinder). Although the process by which Dolly was created hasn’t yet been perfected, this
incredible breakthrough proved to the world cloning can be accomplished (Wilmut). Dr Wilmut,
of the Roslin Institute, plans to research human cloning to revolutionize and expand areas of
biomedical research. He feels with more knowledge, researchers will be able to develop and test
new prescription drugs more effectively (Wilmut). Dr. Wilmut also said, "It will enable us to
study genetic diseases for which there is presently no cure and track down the mechanisms
involved." This means scientists would be able to research how certain diseases develop and how
they are cured. With this knowledge, scientists can more accurately follow the progression of
diseased cells (Wilmut). Understanding this process enables researchers to search for cures more
accurately.
The final development in the field of human cloning is the completion of the Human
Genome Project by the International Human Genome Sequencing Project. This development
opened the door to profound breakthroughs in medicine and research (Eberatadt). The ultimate
goal of the human genome project was to use this information to develop new ways to treat, cure,
or even prevent the thousands of diseases afflicting mankind (ProQuest). According to expresident
Bill Clinton, with these medical advances come new ways to prevent, diagnose, treat
and even cure disease will arise based on knowledge contained in the 3 billion chemical building
blocks in the genome. What he is saying is, with this development come many resources
available to doctors to assist them in the search for the cures of many different diseases. With an
increasing variety of gene tests becoming open to the public, people are aware of the new
opportunities. Some of these tests have greatly improved the patient’s health and even saved
lives (Spotts). However, scientists remain unsure of how to interpret many of them (ProQuest).
While legalization of therapeutic cloning is considered moral, the idea of cloning people
in order to harvest their organs it not (Eberstadt). Therapeutic cloning requires the destruction of
an embryo in order to extract its stem cells. However, some believe human personhood begins at
conception. They also believe the pre-embryo produced is a human person and that destroying
the pre-embryo is murder and, therefore, immoral. According to Pope John Paul II,
"...[medical] methods that fail to respect the dignity and value of the person must always be
avoided. I am thinking in particular of attempts at human cloning with a view to obtaining organs
for transplants: these techniques, insofar as they involve the manipulation and destruction of
human embryos, are not morally acceptable, even when their proposed goal is good in itself."
Pope John Paul II and others against the legalization of therapeutic cloning feel desecrating an
embryo for use of its stem cells is immoral and should not be practiced.
The organ donation system has a serious flaw; there simply aren’t enough donor organs
to supply all the patients in need of a transplant. However, therapeutic cloning has the potential
to solve the organ transplantation system’s problem (McLachlan). According to Thomas H
Maugh II, a writer for the Los Angeles Times, scientists have demonstrated for the first time that
cloned tissues and organs can be implanted and function normally without being rejected, an
achievement that brings therapeutic cloning one step closer to fruition (Maugh II). Working with
cloned cow cells, the scientists produced small replacement kidneys that filtered toxic materials
from the bloodstream of a cow and produced urine (Maugh II). They also created beating heart
tissue that eventually might be used to repair damaged hearts in much the same manner that
patches are used to repair bicycle inner tubes (Maugh II). As stated by researcher Dr. Anthony
Atala of Children's Hospital Boston, these studies provide an important "proof of principle" that
cloned organs can survive and thrive in recipients (qtd in Maugh II). Some critics of therapeutic
cloning speculate that cloned tissues would be rejected because they contain foreign DNA from a
donated egg used in the cloning process. Critics also believe that small amount of foreign DNA
could be enough to stimulate an immune response leading to rejection, but the new study shows
that this does not necessarily happen. According to Dr. Robert Lanza of Advanced Cell
Technology Inc., before this discovery therapeutic cloning as a means of preventing rejection
was criticized by some as being purely theoretical (qtd. in Maugh II). New discoveries have
enabled scientists to create new lines of embryonic stem cells using human embryos that were
not destroyed (ProQuest). With this discovery, therapeutic cloning no longer requires the
desecration of the human embryo, in turn eliminating the moral issue of manipulation and
destruction of human embryos. By using this research scientists can create organs for
transplantation and eliminate the process by which recipients are chosen. It is hoped, using this
ability will improve the odds of a person receiving a compatible organ and in turn, increasing the
success rate of organ transplants. Considering this discovery, therapeutic cloning can no longer
be seen as immoral. Therefore, an obvious answer to the organ transplants system’s shortages.
Another practical use of therapeutic cloning emanates with the ability to grow organs for
research. Scientists can infect the organ with a disease and observe the development of the
disease. According to Gregory M. Lamb, a researcher for the Christian Science Monitor,
scientists would have the ability to view the effects the disease inflicts on a person’s tissue
firsthand and more precisely search for cures to common diseases such as type-1 diabetes,
Parkinson's disease, hemophilia (Lamb). According to the National Diabetes
Information Clearinghouse (NDIH), it is estimated that, in the United States, 23.6 million people,
or 7.8 percent of the population have diabetes. Also, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention, as many as 3,000 Americans die every day from diseases that could
possibly be treated by therapeutic cloning (Maugh II). Also, much larger numbers could have a
greatly improved quality of life if they received replacement tissues and organs produced by
therapeutic cloning techniques. By 2010, for example, it is estimated that at least 2 million
Americans will suffer from end-stage kidney disease that could be treated with artificial kidneys
produced by therapeutic cloning techniques (Alexander). Considering these facts, the potential
to impact millions of lives in a dramatic way is now tangible. Therapeutic cloning also is a major
field of research among foreign countries and it is vital to research this field in the United States.
In fact, Donald Kennedy, editor in chief of Science, said "I think there is no question that the
degree of restriction imposed now on therapeutic cloning in the U.S. has in fact given other
nations some significant advantages (qtd in Pollack)." Therapeutic cloning is vital to disease
research and prevention.
In conclusion, the legalization of therapeutic cloning for research and organ transplants
brings countless opportunities for medical advancement. These advancements include: more
precise disease research, and an accurate solution to the present organ shortage. Millions of lives
can be saved implementing therapeutic cloning research in the medical field today. Legalizing
therapeutic cloning should be strongly supported by both medical professionals and the general
population.
Sample 2
Delvecchio 1
Pauly “D” Delvecchio
Miss Morreim
Academic Writing
20 December 2010
Stem cell Research: The Key to Medical Evolution
Stem cell research captures much of the attention focused in biotechnology.
Stem cells may hold the key to medical advancements, which have intrigued scientist for
over a century (“History Transplant”). These advancements have the capabilities to
benefit the lives of millions. However, an aura of conflict surrounds the ethnicity of stem
cell research creating an obstacle for researchers to overcome. Stem cell research is
ethical. The benefits of stem cell research in curing and preventing disease are
incalculable. Stem cell research findings, today and in the future, have the best interests
of our society in mind (Perry 3). The outcome of stem cell research will save and
improve the quality of lives.
Stem cells originate from an embryo that was fertilized in vitro, meaning
conception took place in a petri dish or a test tube, not in a womb (“Stem Cell”). From
the point of conception to fourteen days a stem cell forms a zygote. After two weeks the
zygote is known as an embryo, but after two months the embryo becomes a fetus. Four
or five days into the embryonic stage, inner cell mass is isolated from the blastocyst, the
hollow microscopic ball of cells in an embryo. This inner cell mass has pluripotent stem
cells in it. These stem cells have not taken the form of any specific type of cell. After
being isolated the stem cells divide in another petri dish (Brettelheim 8). Certain signals
given to the cells can trigger them to grow into specific cells, which can be used in
therapy (Amen).
There are two types of stem cells: adult stem cells and embryonic stem cells.
Adult stem cells originate from adult tissue or biological waste such as umbilical cord
blood or bone marrow. These cells are differentiated, meaning they are already specific
to the type of cell they originate from (Brettelheim 1). Their uses have limits in therapies
because not all types of stem cells are created in the body (Brettelheim 19). Embryonic
stem cells come from the embryos fertilized in vitro. They are pluripotent,
(undifferentiated) or have not formed into specific cell types. They have more uses in
therapy than adult stem cells because they can specify into the desired cell needed for
therapy (“Stem Cells”).
The main use of stem cells is to provide cell based therapies. Certain cells would
treat different diseases. For instance, insulin cells could treat diabetes, nerve cells could
help those with spinal cord injuries, and brain cells could be synthesized for people
suffering from Alzheimer’s or Parkinson’s (Brettelhein 6). The stem cells may also be
used to test new drugs on so humans do not risk their health (“Stem Cell”). In addition to
medical therapies, anti-aging products and procedures may become available from stem
cell research, which intrigues some biotech firms (Brettelheim 2). Furthermore, stem cell
research offers a view of early genetic problems that cause birth defects and disease.
This may help researchers understand and prevent them (“Stem Cell”).
The government’s poses a main threat to stem cell research by regulating how the
research will be funded, either publicly or privately. In 1994 President Clinton
announced that public taxes will not fund research with human embryos (Brettelheim 9).
To add to Clinton’s announcement, in 1995 congress decided a bill that funds the
National Institute of Health (NIH) excludes the funding of stem cell research regardless
of their source (Brettelheim 10). This ban forces the NIH to find alternative private
suppliers and clinics (Brettelheim 3).Without enough support from public funding stem
cell research will become limited and hurt scientific advancements. (“Ethical Issues”).
From 1988 to1998 several critical developments occurred concerning stem cell
research. First, an experimental transplant of stem cells became a success. Second, the
controversy over publicly funding stem cell research surfaced. Finally, two medical
research facilities isolated the first embryonic stem cells.
According to the “New England Journal of Medicine,” in a study preformed in
Colorado in 1988, researchers successfully transplanted stem cells into patients with
Parkinson’s. Victims of Parkinson’s suffer from rapid degeneration of dopamine cells in
the mid-brain. The goal of the transplants was to see if stem cells could successfully aid
in slowing the regression. Each patient received stem cell tissue, containing dopamine,
from a fetus between the ages of seven to eleven weeks old. For six months the cells
were injected into the mid brain of the patient. The overall result showed a tolerance of
the foreign cells and a decrease in the patient’s symptoms. Test performed on the mid
brain before and after the injections also drew the same conclusion. Although the
patient’s symptoms decreased the disease still remained (“Unilateral Transplant”).
As stem cell research gained momentum it also attracted controversy, especially
over who should fund the expensive research (Brettelheim 9). In 1995 congress decided
a bill that funds the NIH, excludes the funding of stem cell research regardless of their
source (Brettelheim 10). This ban forces the NIH to find alternative private suppliers
and clinics (Brettelheim 3). If stem cell research does not receive enough support it will
become limited and progress in the field will stop (“Ethical Issues” 11).
For over 20 years researchers have tried to isolate human embryonic stem cells
because they remain undifferentiated and have more potential than differentiated stem
cells. In 1998 two teams of researchers finally achieved their dreams. The John Hopkins
University team, lead by John Gearhart, artificially created fetuses and extracted and
cultured stem cells (“Hopkins Research”). Simultaneously, James Thomson led the
researching team at the University of Wisconsin and used the same procedure to extract
the stem cells; however, he went a step further and cultured them into heart tissue
(Henahan).
Pro-Life activists and some religious leaders suggest that stem cell research holds
no ethical foundations because the cells originate from aborted fetuses. They believe a
fetus begins at conception (not after two months), and can not be determined by how
many weeks the fetus existed (Brettelheim 8). Also, some support the thought that stem
cells are members of the Human species and did not give consent to be experimented
with. However, the stem cells researchers use come from donated eggs and sperm where
the donor has consented to the research, and the stem cells are extracted from eggs
unsuitable for implantation into the womb (“Stem Cell”). These embryos have not
developed individuation. They lack other qualities considered relevant to moral status
and have high rate of natural mortality (Holland). Pro-Life activists have proposed to
congress alternative methods to extracting stem cells, such as using adult stem cells
(Doerflinger 11). But, adult stem cells have limited potential in medicine, where as
embryonic stem cells have unlimited uses in therapies (“Stem Cells”). Another concern
for some consists of whether the exploration of human cloning will surface from stem
cell research. Although advanced technology makes human cloning possible, it has not
been the intention of the researchers (Brettelheim 12).
Some consider stem cell research unethical, however, present and future society
would benefit from stem cell research findings. With the medical therapies that stem cell
research findings may offer, the quality of life will improve (Brettelheim 2). More
people will have healthy and productive aging because of a decrease in age related health
problems such as Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s (Perry 2). A ban on stem cell research
would conflict with the goals of medicine, to heal and prevent (“Ethical Issues”). The
cost society pays to treat age related diseases cost millions of dollars and burdens
millions physically and financially. In 2020, the U.S. population over sixty-five will
double, and quadruple for people over eighty- five (Perry 3). The need for Medicare and
social security support will rapidly increase as the aging population burdens the U.S. with
health care cost (Holland). If the population continues to age as it does now, Medicare
and insurance cost will total over $26 billion (Perry 3). Findings from stem cell research
may prevent many age related diseases and keep the cost of Medicare down.
As stem cell research holds the potential to help society, it has sundry uses in the
medical field as well. The main use of stem cell research outcomes would be for
therapies, where cells are triggered into a specific type of cell, which can be transplanted
into the desired area (Amen). This process could treat millions of people especially since
the supply of donated organs and tissues are far under the needed demand (“Stem Cell”).
For example, an estimated 1 million people suffer from Parkinson’s in the U.S
(“Parkinson’s”). According to the Alzheimer Association National Office 4.5 million
Americans are diagnosed with the devastating disease yearly (“Statistics”). More than
13 million U.S. victims are diagnosed with diabetes per year and an estimated 5 million
people go undiagnosed (“Diabetes”). Many others with medical complications such as:
cardiovascular disease, autoimmune disease, osteoporosis, cancer, sever burns, spinal
cord injuries, bone marrow transplants, and birth defects could benefit from stem cell
research outcomes (“Bone Marrow”). An estimated total of almost 130 million people in
the U. S. would benefit from the findings of stem cell research. Imagine the effect on the
entire world, the amount is unsurpassable. Stem cells may present themselves in other
fields of medicine other than therapy. Stem cells give researchers an opportunity to see
life form in its earliest stages, where many genetic defects occur (Brettelheim 9). By
studying the creation of fetuses, scientists hope to uncover the process that leads to
genetic defects and eventually prevent them (Stem Cells). Stem Cells also offer an
excellent test subject for new drugs. Instead of testing on patients certain drugs could be
tested on stem cells to reduce the number of test subjects that suffer from side effects
(“Stem Cell”). This process ultimately makes drug testing safer and more controlled.
Stem cell research findings may offer new technology and information about anti-aging
to biotech firms (Brettelheim 2). Other than the wide range of therapy stem cells offer,
they can also help make drug testing safer and possibly teach scientists how to treat
genetic defects in the earliest form.
Stem cell research ignites a flame of controversy over the ethnicity or the practice.
It is one of the few areas in biotechnology that attracts public and political attention.
The disruption creates barriers for researcher to overcome. Stem cell research is ethical.
Stem cell research findings may lead to cures, treatments, and prevention of many
diseases. This would improve the quality of life for over 130 million people in the U.S,
alone. Other medical advancement unrelated to therapy, such as the earliest view of life,
and safer ways to test drugs would also benefit peoples’ life. Researchers would try to
learn more about genetic disorders and how to prevent them and people wouldn’t have to
sacrifice their health to test new prescriptions. Current and future society would face less
Medicare problems and people would live a more productive life, even while aging. The
benefits of stem cell research findings out weigh the opinionated belief that stem cell
research is unethical.
Pauly “D” Delvecchio
Miss Morreim
Academic Writing
20 December 2010
Stem cell Research: The Key to Medical Evolution
Stem cell research captures much of the attention focused in biotechnology.
Stem cells may hold the key to medical advancements, which have intrigued scientist for
over a century (“History Transplant”). These advancements have the capabilities to
benefit the lives of millions. However, an aura of conflict surrounds the ethnicity of stem
cell research creating an obstacle for researchers to overcome. Stem cell research is
ethical. The benefits of stem cell research in curing and preventing disease are
incalculable. Stem cell research findings, today and in the future, have the best interests
of our society in mind (Perry 3). The outcome of stem cell research will save and
improve the quality of lives.
Stem cells originate from an embryo that was fertilized in vitro, meaning
conception took place in a petri dish or a test tube, not in a womb (“Stem Cell”). From
the point of conception to fourteen days a stem cell forms a zygote. After two weeks the
zygote is known as an embryo, but after two months the embryo becomes a fetus. Four
or five days into the embryonic stage, inner cell mass is isolated from the blastocyst, the
hollow microscopic ball of cells in an embryo. This inner cell mass has pluripotent stem
cells in it. These stem cells have not taken the form of any specific type of cell. After
being isolated the stem cells divide in another petri dish (Brettelheim 8). Certain signals
given to the cells can trigger them to grow into specific cells, which can be used in
therapy (Amen).
There are two types of stem cells: adult stem cells and embryonic stem cells.
Adult stem cells originate from adult tissue or biological waste such as umbilical cord
blood or bone marrow. These cells are differentiated, meaning they are already specific
to the type of cell they originate from (Brettelheim 1). Their uses have limits in therapies
because not all types of stem cells are created in the body (Brettelheim 19). Embryonic
stem cells come from the embryos fertilized in vitro. They are pluripotent,
(undifferentiated) or have not formed into specific cell types. They have more uses in
therapy than adult stem cells because they can specify into the desired cell needed for
therapy (“Stem Cells”).
The main use of stem cells is to provide cell based therapies. Certain cells would
treat different diseases. For instance, insulin cells could treat diabetes, nerve cells could
help those with spinal cord injuries, and brain cells could be synthesized for people
suffering from Alzheimer’s or Parkinson’s (Brettelhein 6). The stem cells may also be
used to test new drugs on so humans do not risk their health (“Stem Cell”). In addition to
medical therapies, anti-aging products and procedures may become available from stem
cell research, which intrigues some biotech firms (Brettelheim 2). Furthermore, stem cell
research offers a view of early genetic problems that cause birth defects and disease.
This may help researchers understand and prevent them (“Stem Cell”).
The government’s poses a main threat to stem cell research by regulating how the
research will be funded, either publicly or privately. In 1994 President Clinton
announced that public taxes will not fund research with human embryos (Brettelheim 9).
To add to Clinton’s announcement, in 1995 congress decided a bill that funds the
National Institute of Health (NIH) excludes the funding of stem cell research regardless
of their source (Brettelheim 10). This ban forces the NIH to find alternative private
suppliers and clinics (Brettelheim 3).Without enough support from public funding stem
cell research will become limited and hurt scientific advancements. (“Ethical Issues”).
From 1988 to1998 several critical developments occurred concerning stem cell
research. First, an experimental transplant of stem cells became a success. Second, the
controversy over publicly funding stem cell research surfaced. Finally, two medical
research facilities isolated the first embryonic stem cells.
According to the “New England Journal of Medicine,” in a study preformed in
Colorado in 1988, researchers successfully transplanted stem cells into patients with
Parkinson’s. Victims of Parkinson’s suffer from rapid degeneration of dopamine cells in
the mid-brain. The goal of the transplants was to see if stem cells could successfully aid
in slowing the regression. Each patient received stem cell tissue, containing dopamine,
from a fetus between the ages of seven to eleven weeks old. For six months the cells
were injected into the mid brain of the patient. The overall result showed a tolerance of
the foreign cells and a decrease in the patient’s symptoms. Test performed on the mid
brain before and after the injections also drew the same conclusion. Although the
patient’s symptoms decreased the disease still remained (“Unilateral Transplant”).
As stem cell research gained momentum it also attracted controversy, especially
over who should fund the expensive research (Brettelheim 9). In 1995 congress decided
a bill that funds the NIH, excludes the funding of stem cell research regardless of their
source (Brettelheim 10). This ban forces the NIH to find alternative private suppliers
and clinics (Brettelheim 3). If stem cell research does not receive enough support it will
become limited and progress in the field will stop (“Ethical Issues” 11).
For over 20 years researchers have tried to isolate human embryonic stem cells
because they remain undifferentiated and have more potential than differentiated stem
cells. In 1998 two teams of researchers finally achieved their dreams. The John Hopkins
University team, lead by John Gearhart, artificially created fetuses and extracted and
cultured stem cells (“Hopkins Research”). Simultaneously, James Thomson led the
researching team at the University of Wisconsin and used the same procedure to extract
the stem cells; however, he went a step further and cultured them into heart tissue
(Henahan).
Pro-Life activists and some religious leaders suggest that stem cell research holds
no ethical foundations because the cells originate from aborted fetuses. They believe a
fetus begins at conception (not after two months), and can not be determined by how
many weeks the fetus existed (Brettelheim 8). Also, some support the thought that stem
cells are members of the Human species and did not give consent to be experimented
with. However, the stem cells researchers use come from donated eggs and sperm where
the donor has consented to the research, and the stem cells are extracted from eggs
unsuitable for implantation into the womb (“Stem Cell”). These embryos have not
developed individuation. They lack other qualities considered relevant to moral status
and have high rate of natural mortality (Holland). Pro-Life activists have proposed to
congress alternative methods to extracting stem cells, such as using adult stem cells
(Doerflinger 11). But, adult stem cells have limited potential in medicine, where as
embryonic stem cells have unlimited uses in therapies (“Stem Cells”). Another concern
for some consists of whether the exploration of human cloning will surface from stem
cell research. Although advanced technology makes human cloning possible, it has not
been the intention of the researchers (Brettelheim 12).
Some consider stem cell research unethical, however, present and future society
would benefit from stem cell research findings. With the medical therapies that stem cell
research findings may offer, the quality of life will improve (Brettelheim 2). More
people will have healthy and productive aging because of a decrease in age related health
problems such as Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s (Perry 2). A ban on stem cell research
would conflict with the goals of medicine, to heal and prevent (“Ethical Issues”). The
cost society pays to treat age related diseases cost millions of dollars and burdens
millions physically and financially. In 2020, the U.S. population over sixty-five will
double, and quadruple for people over eighty- five (Perry 3). The need for Medicare and
social security support will rapidly increase as the aging population burdens the U.S. with
health care cost (Holland). If the population continues to age as it does now, Medicare
and insurance cost will total over $26 billion (Perry 3). Findings from stem cell research
may prevent many age related diseases and keep the cost of Medicare down.
As stem cell research holds the potential to help society, it has sundry uses in the
medical field as well. The main use of stem cell research outcomes would be for
therapies, where cells are triggered into a specific type of cell, which can be transplanted
into the desired area (Amen). This process could treat millions of people especially since
the supply of donated organs and tissues are far under the needed demand (“Stem Cell”).
For example, an estimated 1 million people suffer from Parkinson’s in the U.S
(“Parkinson’s”). According to the Alzheimer Association National Office 4.5 million
Americans are diagnosed with the devastating disease yearly (“Statistics”). More than
13 million U.S. victims are diagnosed with diabetes per year and an estimated 5 million
people go undiagnosed (“Diabetes”). Many others with medical complications such as:
cardiovascular disease, autoimmune disease, osteoporosis, cancer, sever burns, spinal
cord injuries, bone marrow transplants, and birth defects could benefit from stem cell
research outcomes (“Bone Marrow”). An estimated total of almost 130 million people in
the U. S. would benefit from the findings of stem cell research. Imagine the effect on the
entire world, the amount is unsurpassable. Stem cells may present themselves in other
fields of medicine other than therapy. Stem cells give researchers an opportunity to see
life form in its earliest stages, where many genetic defects occur (Brettelheim 9). By
studying the creation of fetuses, scientists hope to uncover the process that leads to
genetic defects and eventually prevent them (Stem Cells). Stem Cells also offer an
excellent test subject for new drugs. Instead of testing on patients certain drugs could be
tested on stem cells to reduce the number of test subjects that suffer from side effects
(“Stem Cell”). This process ultimately makes drug testing safer and more controlled.
Stem cell research findings may offer new technology and information about anti-aging
to biotech firms (Brettelheim 2). Other than the wide range of therapy stem cells offer,
they can also help make drug testing safer and possibly teach scientists how to treat
genetic defects in the earliest form.
Stem cell research ignites a flame of controversy over the ethnicity or the practice.
It is one of the few areas in biotechnology that attracts public and political attention.
The disruption creates barriers for researcher to overcome. Stem cell research is ethical.
Stem cell research findings may lead to cures, treatments, and prevention of many
diseases. This would improve the quality of life for over 130 million people in the U.S,
alone. Other medical advancement unrelated to therapy, such as the earliest view of life,
and safer ways to test drugs would also benefit peoples’ life. Researchers would try to
learn more about genetic disorders and how to prevent them and people wouldn’t have to
sacrifice their health to test new prescriptions. Current and future society would face less
Medicare problems and people would live a more productive life, even while aging. The
benefits of stem cell research findings out weigh the opinionated belief that stem cell
research is unethical.
Sample 1
Smith
Jane Smith
Miss Morreim
Academic Writing
20 December 2010
High Fructose Corn Syrup: A Deadly Substance
The use of high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) in foods is a highly debated issue between
scientists and doctors. This issue deserves attention because HFCS currently reigns as the main
sugar in all processed foods and sweetened soft drinks consumed by Americans (Bray 538).
Some experts view HFCS as a safe sugar while others disagree and consider it a product harmful
to the body. Reasons for the inclusion of HFCS in food will be considered. However, because
of its detrimental effects on the body, food manufacturers must eliminate HFCS from their
products.
Surprisingly, many consume large amounts of HFCS without knowing. People are
unaware that HFCS makes up more than 40 percent of the caloric sweeteners found in foods and
beverages in the United States (Flavin). Unbeknown to most, salad dressings, jams, jellies,
cookies, cakes, cereals, breads, all processed foods, sodas, and energy drinks contain HFCS
(Flavin). Allan Walker, a professor in the Department of Nutrition at the Harvard School of
Public Health, describes the amount of HFCS people absorb through the intake of these food
products. “Americans consume between 100 and 300 calories per day in the form of HFCS”
(Walker). Looking at it in another way, the average American ingests 65 pounds of HFCS each
year (Fatness). Walker emphasizes that the amount of HFCS taken in by Americans today is
immense.
To begin with, perfecting the formation of HFCS took a considerable amount of planning
and time. Before the 1970s, America mainly consumed sugar from beets or cane in the form of
sucrose. Then the Japanese discovered a way to turn cornstarch into a substance sweet enough to
replace sucrose in foods and beverages. Scientists later named this product, comprised of 55
percent fructose and 45 percent glucose, HFCS (Fulgoni). At this same time, America owned an
excessive amount of corn. As a result, HFCS production exploded in America from 1980 to
2000 (Fatness). Researchers discovered that besides containing more flavor than sucrose, HFCS
posessed other advantages. It was cheaper to produce, gave foods a better texture, allowed the
edible product to last longer without spoiling, and lowered the odds of freezer burn (Tweed). In
1982, yet another factor added to the popularity of HFCS. That year, the government initiated
import quotas on foreign supplies of cane and beet sugar, the main sources of sugar for the
United States, in order to make sugar a more domestically stable product throughout the world
(Fatness and Skully). As a result, this made other forms of sugar more expensive than normal
and further opened the door for HFCS.
The popularity of HFCS surged before the detrimental side effects of it materialized. A
study published in 2004 supports the theory that HFCS leads to a life-threatening side effect,
obesity (Bray 537). Dr. George A. Bray at Louisiana State University and Dr. Samara Joy
Nielsen and Dr. Barry M. Popkin at the University of North Carolina researched the effects of
HFCS on the human body. In their study, Bray, Nielsen, and Popkin discovered that calories and
carbohydrates seem unrecognizable when consumed in the form of liquids. In one section of the
study, a group of healthy individuals drank a calorically sweetened pop for an extended amount
of time. On the other hand, during the same period of time, another group of healthy people
consumed the same amount of carbohydrates, but in a solid form of jellybeans. Eventually, the
pop group gained a much more substantial amount of weight than the jellybean group. This
happened because the group that consumed the pop felt the need to consume other calories in the
form of a solid in order to satisfy their hunger (Bray 539). Bray and his colleagues found the
brain registers carbohydrates and calories from solid foods, but it suppresses the recognition of
these same calories and carbohydrates obtained through liquids. For example, when one drinks a
can of pop, he or she most likely considers it as a drink instead of thinking of it as a hunger
satisfying snack. Scientists constantly study this situation and develop theories to explain this
finding. The main theory states that human ancestors only owned water and mother’s milk to
drink. Because of this, humans lack the ability to learn and to recognize the calories and
carbohydrates in liquids and therefore, still feel hungry after consuming them (Wolf 161).
Next, another study completed in 2007 explored the differences between fructose and
glucose and found fructose more harmful. Over a period of 10 weeks, a group of volunteers
drank fructose-sweetened beverages. Another group of volunteers consumed the same amount
of calories through glucose-sweetened drinks. As time went on, the fructose group started to
exhibit signs of early astherosclerosis, a condition in which plaque builds up inside of the
arteries. At the end of the study, the fructose group showed increases of bad cholesterol (lowdensity
lipoprotein) and the glucose group failed to display this symptom. Moreover, the
fructose group’s triglycerides, or fats, increased by 212 percent (New). This study demonstrates
that even though HFCS includes both fructose and glucose, fructose stands out as the more
detrimental ingredient. By ingesting HFCS, people consume unnecessary fructose, which causes
conditions like obesity. In fact, drinking one can of soda daily increases a child’s body mass
index (BMI) by 0.18 points (Crister). Unfortunately, some people still do not grasp this concept
and attempt to deny it.
Advocates argue for HFCS as a natural product and consider it a better alternative
sweetener than regular table sugar. HFCS gives food products better texture and flavor, allows
the product to last longer, and lowers the odds of freezer burn (Tweed). They also contend that
HFCS comes from corn, a natural ingredient, and that both HFCS and table sugar contain the
same amount of calories, four per gram (Flavin). Although HFCS originates from corn, the
process from start to finish seems far from natural. First, corn soaks in sulfur dioxide. Then
high-speed centrifuges allow for the separation of the cornstarch particles and added enzymes
filter out the sugar molecules. Next, the addition of magnesium occurs as the substance
continues through more filtering (High). Obviously, the term “natural” deceives most
consumers.
Other proponents of HFCS point out that it and table sugar contain an equal amount of
calories per gram. Actually, calories are not the main concern with HFCS. Rather, the way in
which the body metabolizes HFCS emerges as the key problem (Flavin). Jacqueline Jacques, a
Naturopathic Doctor with more than ten years of experience, explains that, “Fructose is
metabolized differently in the body than glucose and sucrose are” (Jacques). In other words,
fructose takes a different route in the body and breaks down in a way more harmful to the body.
Insulin, a hormone, transports glucose into different cells of the body. On the other hand, insulin
lacks the responsibility for the transportation of fructose, the main ingredient in HFCS (Jacques).
Therefore, fructose travels directly to the liver (Critser). Consequently, as one consumes
fructose, insulin is not given off and as a result, there is no insulin-induced increase in leptin, a
hormone that plays a role in fat metabolism. Leptin creates a feeling of fullness and since the
body lacks an increase in leptin, the person falls short of satisfaction. According to Jacques, the
lack of satisfaction, or emptiness, “leads people to consume more calories because they do not
get the right signals to feel full” (Jacques). Extra calories taken in mean consumers, in return,
digest more HFCS. Dr. Jacques also proves that HFCS ultimately leads to obesity (Jacques).
Others also argue that fruits, a healthy food, contain the sugar fructose, the same
ingredient in HFCS. They believe that since a healthy product contains fructose, it is fine to
consume fructose in the form of HFCS in other unhealthy foods (Sanda). However, these people
are mistaken. Bill Sanda, a specialist in the nutrition and healing field, explains why this
common misconception proves to be false. Fiber in fruit, such as apples and oranges, slows the
metabolism of fructose. Since HFCS lacks this fiber, the body absorbs the fructose in HFCS
much more quickly than the fructose in fruits (Sanda). The quick absorption interferes with the
metabolic process and harms the body (Sanda).
Naturally occurring fructose also differs from HFCS in another sense. Natural sugars,
like fructose, are bound to other sugars. On the other hand, HFCS contains some fructose bound
to other sugars, but mainly consists of free fructose, or fructose not bound to other sugars. This
free fructose causes multiple conditions to result. First, it tampers with the way the heart
processes important minerals such as magnesium, copper, and chromium. Without these
minerals, the body cannot function properly. Second, it elevates blood cholesterol levels, and
thus creates blood clots. Lastly, the free fructose hinders the activity of white blood cells, which
fight against infections and viruses (Sanda).
In addition to malfunctions in the body, HFCS leads to countless diseases including
cardiovascular disease and diabetes (Flavin and Weise). Harvard graduate, Gary Taubes,
explains why excess consumption of HFCS results in these diseases. To begin with, the human
body transports glucose directly to the bloodstream and uses it to make energy. On the other
hand, the liver metabolizes fructose quickly and directly. Since the liver needs to break down a
large amount of fructose so rapidly, it responds by converting it into triglycerides, or fat. The
higher level of triglycerides leads to an increased risk of cardiovascular disease (Taubes 200).
Moreover, the sudden influx of fructose to the liver disrupts the normal breakdown of glucose
and results in insulin resistance. Subsequently, diabetic complications occur (Taubes 200).
In conclusion, food manufacturers must ban HFCS from food products. Besides
requiring different and more detrimental metabolic processes than other sugars, HFCS also
causes undesirable medical conditions and terminal diseases. Americans need to educate
themselves about the harmful effects of HFCS, and agree with the statement that the deadly
sugar, HFCS, ruins lives. They must avoid the consumption of HFCS and spread the truth about
HFCS before time runs out for themselves and for future generations.
Jane Smith
Miss Morreim
Academic Writing
20 December 2010
High Fructose Corn Syrup: A Deadly Substance
The use of high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) in foods is a highly debated issue between
scientists and doctors. This issue deserves attention because HFCS currently reigns as the main
sugar in all processed foods and sweetened soft drinks consumed by Americans (Bray 538).
Some experts view HFCS as a safe sugar while others disagree and consider it a product harmful
to the body. Reasons for the inclusion of HFCS in food will be considered. However, because
of its detrimental effects on the body, food manufacturers must eliminate HFCS from their
products.
Surprisingly, many consume large amounts of HFCS without knowing. People are
unaware that HFCS makes up more than 40 percent of the caloric sweeteners found in foods and
beverages in the United States (Flavin). Unbeknown to most, salad dressings, jams, jellies,
cookies, cakes, cereals, breads, all processed foods, sodas, and energy drinks contain HFCS
(Flavin). Allan Walker, a professor in the Department of Nutrition at the Harvard School of
Public Health, describes the amount of HFCS people absorb through the intake of these food
products. “Americans consume between 100 and 300 calories per day in the form of HFCS”
(Walker). Looking at it in another way, the average American ingests 65 pounds of HFCS each
year (Fatness). Walker emphasizes that the amount of HFCS taken in by Americans today is
immense.
To begin with, perfecting the formation of HFCS took a considerable amount of planning
and time. Before the 1970s, America mainly consumed sugar from beets or cane in the form of
sucrose. Then the Japanese discovered a way to turn cornstarch into a substance sweet enough to
replace sucrose in foods and beverages. Scientists later named this product, comprised of 55
percent fructose and 45 percent glucose, HFCS (Fulgoni). At this same time, America owned an
excessive amount of corn. As a result, HFCS production exploded in America from 1980 to
2000 (Fatness). Researchers discovered that besides containing more flavor than sucrose, HFCS
posessed other advantages. It was cheaper to produce, gave foods a better texture, allowed the
edible product to last longer without spoiling, and lowered the odds of freezer burn (Tweed). In
1982, yet another factor added to the popularity of HFCS. That year, the government initiated
import quotas on foreign supplies of cane and beet sugar, the main sources of sugar for the
United States, in order to make sugar a more domestically stable product throughout the world
(Fatness and Skully). As a result, this made other forms of sugar more expensive than normal
and further opened the door for HFCS.
The popularity of HFCS surged before the detrimental side effects of it materialized. A
study published in 2004 supports the theory that HFCS leads to a life-threatening side effect,
obesity (Bray 537). Dr. George A. Bray at Louisiana State University and Dr. Samara Joy
Nielsen and Dr. Barry M. Popkin at the University of North Carolina researched the effects of
HFCS on the human body. In their study, Bray, Nielsen, and Popkin discovered that calories and
carbohydrates seem unrecognizable when consumed in the form of liquids. In one section of the
study, a group of healthy individuals drank a calorically sweetened pop for an extended amount
of time. On the other hand, during the same period of time, another group of healthy people
consumed the same amount of carbohydrates, but in a solid form of jellybeans. Eventually, the
pop group gained a much more substantial amount of weight than the jellybean group. This
happened because the group that consumed the pop felt the need to consume other calories in the
form of a solid in order to satisfy their hunger (Bray 539). Bray and his colleagues found the
brain registers carbohydrates and calories from solid foods, but it suppresses the recognition of
these same calories and carbohydrates obtained through liquids. For example, when one drinks a
can of pop, he or she most likely considers it as a drink instead of thinking of it as a hunger
satisfying snack. Scientists constantly study this situation and develop theories to explain this
finding. The main theory states that human ancestors only owned water and mother’s milk to
drink. Because of this, humans lack the ability to learn and to recognize the calories and
carbohydrates in liquids and therefore, still feel hungry after consuming them (Wolf 161).
Next, another study completed in 2007 explored the differences between fructose and
glucose and found fructose more harmful. Over a period of 10 weeks, a group of volunteers
drank fructose-sweetened beverages. Another group of volunteers consumed the same amount
of calories through glucose-sweetened drinks. As time went on, the fructose group started to
exhibit signs of early astherosclerosis, a condition in which plaque builds up inside of the
arteries. At the end of the study, the fructose group showed increases of bad cholesterol (lowdensity
lipoprotein) and the glucose group failed to display this symptom. Moreover, the
fructose group’s triglycerides, or fats, increased by 212 percent (New). This study demonstrates
that even though HFCS includes both fructose and glucose, fructose stands out as the more
detrimental ingredient. By ingesting HFCS, people consume unnecessary fructose, which causes
conditions like obesity. In fact, drinking one can of soda daily increases a child’s body mass
index (BMI) by 0.18 points (Crister). Unfortunately, some people still do not grasp this concept
and attempt to deny it.
Advocates argue for HFCS as a natural product and consider it a better alternative
sweetener than regular table sugar. HFCS gives food products better texture and flavor, allows
the product to last longer, and lowers the odds of freezer burn (Tweed). They also contend that
HFCS comes from corn, a natural ingredient, and that both HFCS and table sugar contain the
same amount of calories, four per gram (Flavin). Although HFCS originates from corn, the
process from start to finish seems far from natural. First, corn soaks in sulfur dioxide. Then
high-speed centrifuges allow for the separation of the cornstarch particles and added enzymes
filter out the sugar molecules. Next, the addition of magnesium occurs as the substance
continues through more filtering (High). Obviously, the term “natural” deceives most
consumers.
Other proponents of HFCS point out that it and table sugar contain an equal amount of
calories per gram. Actually, calories are not the main concern with HFCS. Rather, the way in
which the body metabolizes HFCS emerges as the key problem (Flavin). Jacqueline Jacques, a
Naturopathic Doctor with more than ten years of experience, explains that, “Fructose is
metabolized differently in the body than glucose and sucrose are” (Jacques). In other words,
fructose takes a different route in the body and breaks down in a way more harmful to the body.
Insulin, a hormone, transports glucose into different cells of the body. On the other hand, insulin
lacks the responsibility for the transportation of fructose, the main ingredient in HFCS (Jacques).
Therefore, fructose travels directly to the liver (Critser). Consequently, as one consumes
fructose, insulin is not given off and as a result, there is no insulin-induced increase in leptin, a
hormone that plays a role in fat metabolism. Leptin creates a feeling of fullness and since the
body lacks an increase in leptin, the person falls short of satisfaction. According to Jacques, the
lack of satisfaction, or emptiness, “leads people to consume more calories because they do not
get the right signals to feel full” (Jacques). Extra calories taken in mean consumers, in return,
digest more HFCS. Dr. Jacques also proves that HFCS ultimately leads to obesity (Jacques).
Others also argue that fruits, a healthy food, contain the sugar fructose, the same
ingredient in HFCS. They believe that since a healthy product contains fructose, it is fine to
consume fructose in the form of HFCS in other unhealthy foods (Sanda). However, these people
are mistaken. Bill Sanda, a specialist in the nutrition and healing field, explains why this
common misconception proves to be false. Fiber in fruit, such as apples and oranges, slows the
metabolism of fructose. Since HFCS lacks this fiber, the body absorbs the fructose in HFCS
much more quickly than the fructose in fruits (Sanda). The quick absorption interferes with the
metabolic process and harms the body (Sanda).
Naturally occurring fructose also differs from HFCS in another sense. Natural sugars,
like fructose, are bound to other sugars. On the other hand, HFCS contains some fructose bound
to other sugars, but mainly consists of free fructose, or fructose not bound to other sugars. This
free fructose causes multiple conditions to result. First, it tampers with the way the heart
processes important minerals such as magnesium, copper, and chromium. Without these
minerals, the body cannot function properly. Second, it elevates blood cholesterol levels, and
thus creates blood clots. Lastly, the free fructose hinders the activity of white blood cells, which
fight against infections and viruses (Sanda).
In addition to malfunctions in the body, HFCS leads to countless diseases including
cardiovascular disease and diabetes (Flavin and Weise). Harvard graduate, Gary Taubes,
explains why excess consumption of HFCS results in these diseases. To begin with, the human
body transports glucose directly to the bloodstream and uses it to make energy. On the other
hand, the liver metabolizes fructose quickly and directly. Since the liver needs to break down a
large amount of fructose so rapidly, it responds by converting it into triglycerides, or fat. The
higher level of triglycerides leads to an increased risk of cardiovascular disease (Taubes 200).
Moreover, the sudden influx of fructose to the liver disrupts the normal breakdown of glucose
and results in insulin resistance. Subsequently, diabetic complications occur (Taubes 200).
In conclusion, food manufacturers must ban HFCS from food products. Besides
requiring different and more detrimental metabolic processes than other sugars, HFCS also
causes undesirable medical conditions and terminal diseases. Americans need to educate
themselves about the harmful effects of HFCS, and agree with the statement that the deadly
sugar, HFCS, ruins lives. They must avoid the consumption of HFCS and spread the truth about
HFCS before time runs out for themselves and for future generations.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)