Genetics Unit Reflection

Click to enlarge image

Genetics is one of the most intriguing and important areas of science, in the past, present, and certainly the future. Our DNA holds the key to saving lives, preventing disease, and understanding more about ourselves, as well as the world around us. By knowing more about our genetic makeup, we can save lives by finding cures, preventing disease, or simply diagnosing illness. When we study DNA we learn more about our individual selves. We learn why we have certain traits and how we inherited them. Genetics is one of the most fascinating fields of science that can teach us a lot about ourselves.

In this unit, everyone in class gave presentations on different categories of genetics. I gave mine on stem cells and talked about their function and what they could mean for the future of medicine. In addition, I also learned a lot about the process of cloning and what side effects it has on they new clone, as well as the different methods there are for cloning. I also learned about how commonly food has been genetically modified as well as the controversy and why some people are against it. Also, I leaned about how scientists extract certain genes to transplant into other organisms to make them better. Forensics is another field where genetics are commonly used to help solve crimes. The scientists are able to test any cell to find out to which human it belongs. These methods are used to find out who both the criminal or the victim is. Also, there were presentations on Down Syndrome and Alzheimer's Disease. Down syndrome is caused by an extra copy of chromosome 21 and leads to mental and physical development problems. Alzheimer's is caused by cells making harmful proteins when a person gets older that destroy their brain and cause them to forget everything. Both of these diseases have no cure or prevention. Another presentation I found interesting was blood typing. I learned that when getting a blood transfusion you can only get blood from certain blood types and that O is the universal donor and 0+ is the most common blood type in the world. In class we learned a lot heredity and how traits are passed down. Also, we learned about how cancer forms and harms the body. One thing I was really interested in was Angeogenisis and how it relates to the cancerous growth and how mutated stem
cells may be the cause of cancer. Overall, I learned a lot about how genetics are used in modern day science.

How are the changes in DNA giving us expected and unexpected results?   

Changing DNA can lead to both positive and negetive results. For instance, changing DNA can help lead to curing serious diseases and help farmers grow better food at a more rapid rate. On the other hand, some people believe that changing DNA is wrong since it is basically playing god. One good example is genetically modified food. Many people believe its good because it grows faster and in different climates or soil. Others are opposed to it because we don't know the side effects and some companies don't label their products to let consumers know that their food has been modified. Also, in the study of heredity we learned about the randomness and probability of parents passing down genes to their offspring. This may have unexpected results, especially if two heterozygous parents have a child with two recessive genes, instead of any dominant ones. Also cloning is another scientific process with unforeseen difficulties and complications. Since the genes are taken from an older organism, the clone can have serious medical problems. Overall, manipulating DNA can be very useful, but it might also have unexpected complications.

How is science influencing the way society looks?
In my opinion, science has influenced society in both the way it looks and the way it thinks. First of all, Genetics influences the way society looks because now they are able to select certain traits to give to their offspring. These "designer babies" cause parents to isolate desirable genes and eliminate the others from their child. This influences they way science makes society look in two ways. The first being the physical characteristics of people and the new ideal vision of perfection. The second being the desperate desire for complete perfection in creating a child that has no flaws, which is basically saying that some people with "superior" are better than others who have  "normal" DNA , which is untrue and creates a negative image of the scientific community because of the ability to create the parents versions of "perfection". The other way science changes the way society looks in the ability to think and solve problems. With more knowledge of the world around us we can use science to do almost anything, from cure diseases to exploring space. New medical developments show how society has progressed and the advancement of medicine as well as its effect on saving lives. Science is the main study that causes society to become more advanced. While other academic subjects are extremely important, science creates more inventions, more discoveries, and is about the advancement of society into the future with more advanced and complex achievements and discoveries. Science is what makes society advance, and science is one of the subjects that show how society looks in comparison to the past and where we have gone since then. Overall, Science shows just how advanced society is and what we can do because of it.

Do you believe that it is a right of the science and technology industry to engineer and manipulate genes? If not, is there ever a good time to do this?
 I 100&% agree that scientists should manitpulate and engineer genes, but only to remove diseases in humans and genetically modify food and other products.They manipulate the genes to make them better, for consuming and growing, so why shouldn't they be able to? In our rapidly growing society, we need to be able to produce food in order to feed everyone in it. Some may say it is not a matter of growing food but distribution is the real challenge. This is true, but if we suddenly stopped  using genetically modified food, then there would be a shortage. Also, scientists can modify food so it can grow in different terrains an climates, which could help with the distribution of food. In addition, manipulation of genes helps protect against crop failure with can be catastrophic for the farmers and the people they sell their food to. Also, I think they should be able to manipulate genes in people, but only to protect against diseases and not to change the person's traits. I think that manipulating genes is our future, a future that can help prevent disease and make sure there is enough food.

How is Human Ingenuity a positive and/or negative thing in the area of genetics? 

In my opinion, human ingenuity is both positive and negative in studying genetics. Mos of the time, it is great and leads to many advances in technology while both improving and saving lives. The desire to invent new technologies is what caused us human to  advance so far in society and make our lives better. In genetics, ingenuity causes cures to be found, discoveries to be made, and  modifications to help improve life. On the other hand, humans strive for absolute perfection can be aided with their ingenuity and hinder the ethics of science. As I have mentioned before, designer babies are a shot for a perfect child, which not only causes people to think they are better than the rest, but also puts a lot of pressure on the child to live up to his DNA code. While human ingenuity is our greatest defense against disease, it is also our strongest weapon against each other. Some day, scientists might be able to use genetic engineering to create a perfect army or deadly weapons. In conclusion, human ingenuity causes great, monumental achievements, but it can also be very dangerous.

 

Making the right call lab

In science class we did an experiment in which we pulled marbles out of a bag to model the probability that a punnet square shows.
1.) Use a punnet square to gather statistics for the possible traits of offsprings from 2 homozygous parents (one dominant and one recessive) one homozygous dominant and one heterozygous parent and two heterozygous parents. Then compare the results to your hypothesis and lab results.

To see posible genotypes and phenotypes of offspring you use a Punnet square to cross the traits. When two homozygous parents (one for the dominant trait and the other for the recessive)  the offspring are 100% heterozygous (meaning that the gene for the dominant trait shows, but they still carry the recessive alelle). When crossing one homozygous dominant parent with a heterozygous one, you get 50% heterozygous, and 50% homozygous dominant. Then, when crossing two heterozygous parents you get 50% heterozygous, 25% dominant homozygous, and 25% recessive homozygous offspring. These statistics closely resembled both my hypothesis for the experiment and the results I got.

2.) What are the possible genotypes of the offspring of one homozygous dominant and one homozygous recessive parent.

When crossing two homozygous parents, one for the dominant trait and one for the recessive, each parent can only pass on one type of alelle to their offspring. The dominant parent can only pass on the dominant gene and the recessive parent can only pass down the recessive gene. This means the only possible genotype for the offspring are the dominant trait and the recessive trait (example: Bb).

3.) Compare the ratio of heterozygous to homozygous offspring (both parents are heterozygous) and then compare it to your lab results.

In a cross with two heterozygous parents, it is 50% to 50% homozygous to heterozygous. We got about the same results in our testing and it matched my hypothesis.

4.) What is the genotypic ratio of the offspring of two heterozygous parents?

3:1(phenotype) three show dominant gene while one shows the recessive gene. 2:1:1 (genotypes in the order of heterozygous, homozygous dominant, and homozygous recessive).

5.) If there were 100 offsprings of two heterozygous parents, how many would have each genotype?

There would be 50 heterozygous offspring, 25 homozygous recessive offspring, and 25 homozygous dominant offsprings in total. This is just a guess since i did not take into account the probability and randomness of passing down genes.

6.) Write a paragraph comparing the model of taking marbles out of a bag (probability) and the exact estimations of the punnet squares.

For this lab we used marbles in bags to demonstrate the probability of Punnet squares. The punnet square only displays possibilities, while the marbles put the probability into action; consequently this causes you randomly select traits demonstrating both the probability and possibility of a real life situation. The punnet square shows the exact chances the offspring have of getting a trait, but it cannot compensate the randomness of a real situation. Overall the punnet squares show the statistics surrounding an offspring's possible genotypes, while the marbles showed what happens in real life situations.

The test results from the making the right call lab. 

 

 Test 1: two homozygous (one dominant, the other recessive) parents. Test 2: one homozygous (dominant) parent and one heterozygous parent. Test 3: Two heterozygous parents.