Make the Right Call

Data Table 1:

Trial	Allele from Bag 1 (female)	Allele from Bag 2 (male)	Offspring’s alleles
1	B	b	Bb
2	B	b	Bb
3	B	b	Bb
4	B	b	Bb
5	B	b	Bb
6	B	b	Bb
7	B	b	Bb
8	B	b	Bb
9	B	b	Bb
10	B	b	Bb

Data Table 2:

Trial	Allele from Bag 1 (female)	Allele from Bag 2 (male)	Offspring’s alleles
1	B	B	BB
2	B	b	Bb
3	B	b	Bb
4	B	B	BB
5	B	b	Bb
6	B	B	BB
7	B	B	BB
8	B	b	Bb
9	B	B	BB
10	B	B	BB

Data Table 3:

Trial	Allele from Bag 1 (female)	Allele from Bag 2 (male)	Offspring’s alleles
1	B	B	BB
2	B	B	BB
3	B	B	BB
4	B	B	BB
5	b	b	bb
6	B	B	BB
7	B	b	Bb
8	B	B	BB
9	B	B	BB
10	b	b	bb

1.

	B	B
b	Bb	Bb
b	Bb	Bb

	B	B
B	BB	BB
b	Bb	Bb

	B	b
B	BB	Bb
b	Bb	bb

2. According to your results in Part 1, how many different kinds of offspring are possible when the homozygous parents(BB and bb) are crossed? Do the results you obtained using the marble model agree with the results shown by a Punnet square?

According to the result, If there are two homozygous parents, one that has the alleles BB and one with bb the child will always show the dominant trait. However if two children are hetrozygous then their offspring will have a 25% chance of showing the recessive allele. This means that there is only one possible offspring, which is an offspring with the alleles Bb. Both the Punnet square and the marbles had the same result which was a consistent 100% chance of the child showing the dominant trait.

3) According to your results in Part 2, what percentage of offspring are likely to be homozygous when a homozygous parent (BB) and a heterozygous parent (Bb) are crossed? What percentage of offspring are likely to be heterozygous? Does the model agree with the results shown by a Punnet square? 

According to our marble experiment there was a 60% chance of the offspring being homozygous and a 40% chance of the offspring being hetrozygous. I think that this result is a lot less accurate than the punnet square, which showed that 50% would be hetrozygous and 50% would be homozygous. I think that it is a lot less accurate because the marbles are chance where as the punnet square always has the same result and it never changes.

4) According to your results in Part 3, what diffrent kinds of offspring are possible when two heterozygous parents (BbxBb) are crossed? What percentage of each type of offspring are likely to be produced? Does the model agree with the results of a Punnett square? 

According to the results we obtained in part 3 when two heterozgous parents are crossed there are 3 possible outcomes, Bb, BB, and bb. That means that there is a 50/50 chance of being heterozygous or homozygous meaning there is a 50% chance for both. The marble experiment and the punnet square had very different results. In the marble experiment there was a 70% chance of having the alleles BB, a 20% chance of having the alleles bb, and a 10% chance of Bb. This is completely different from the punnet square which had a 25% chance of BB and bb, and a 50% chance of Bb.

5) For Part 3, if you did 100 trails instead of 10 trails, would your results be closer to the results shown in a punnett square? Explain. 
In my opinion there isn't really any way to know since it is all chance. I think that it might be closer to the results in the punnet square but you could do it a million times and it still might not get any closer. I think that its the same if two parents had 10 kids or a hundred kids. It is all chance, even the punnet square isn't completely accurate it just shows what the most probable chances are.

6) In a paragraph, explain how the marble model compares with a Punnett square. How are the two methods alike? How are they different? 
In my opinion the marble model and the punnet square are both very alike but also very different. The marble model is, in my opinion, a more accurate representation of the chances of a child having certain alleles. I think this because although the punnet square is scientifically accurate, the marble experiment represents reality better. The two methods are alike though because both are used to predict the probability of the alleles of a child. One bad thing about the marble method is that every time it will chage and there will never be a constant answere meaning that one time there could be a 90% chance of being hetrozygous and another there could be a 10%. In this way they are both alike and different.

Current Event: Robotic Animals, and Limbs

Recently DARPA's robotic cheetah has set a speed record for robots. Although it only ran at 18 miles per hour which is not even close to real cheetahs which can run at 70 miles per hour, it is still a huge achievement. One of the spectacular things about the robotic cheetah is that the flexing and un-flexing along with the realistic spine moves makes it move faster and more realistically. This shows that we are getting close and close to having robots that could possibly be pets, or even human robots. This has been a topic for lots of poular culture for 60 years. We are always striving forward in technology so this might not even be far away. This is something that is a lot like GATTACA in my opinion. Like how in GATTACA the society is based entirely on humans being genetically modified to do specific things. This could also be done with robots. Imagine in a world where there are robots to do everything for us. In my opinion this is a lot like GATTACA. I think that advances in robots are bad as this could also transition into humans being systematically turned into machines. If we can make human robots why wouldn't we be able to have robotic body parts? This is something that scared me and which I was very surprised when I watched a short documentary about robotic body parts. In the short film it shows the most advanced robotic arms, legs, and eyes. It is scary too see that already there are robotic legs that seem to function exactly like normal legs, and arms that have different kinds of attachments like paddles, tennis rackets, and much more. In the documentary some of the largest producers of robotic limbs are asked whether or not we could have a future where lots of people have robotic limbs by the year 2025. What frightened me was that they actually said that it is very possible. Overall I think that we are advancing in robotic body parts too quickly and they might actually start replacing normal ones which will create a very bad society in my opinion. I hope that advances stop and we stay content with having organic body parts, and animals.

DARPA Robotic Cheetah:
http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2012-03/video-darpas-cheetah-robot-sets-land-speed-record-robotic-big-cats

The Human Eyeborg Documentary:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FxiCI8l4qhI 

GATTACA Reflection

Questions


5. Compare Anton and Vincent, the two brothers. How was Vincent able to beat Anton in swimming despite Vincent's weak heart?
I think that the largest difference between the two of them, and the reason that Vincent won, is that Vincent was always striving to be better despite knowing that he wasn't meant to be. Anton had always thought that he was better because he had a better genetic structure but as the movie shows that even if you are great at something you still need hard work. Throughout the movie it constantly shows Vincent working hard and sacrificing his entire identity just to achieve his life goal. It never shows Anton as working hard or being really dedicated and that's why he lost in swimming.

7. What do you think is wrong with the society portrayed in GATTACA?
I personally think that the society in GATTACA isn't that bad. One of the major points of the movie is that people discriminate against Vincent because he wasn't made to be an astronaut which once you think about it makes sense. He says at one point that his heart condition is preventing him from going into space, this makes COMPLETE sense. Why would they allow someone with a heart condition to go into space and potentially endanger the entire mission? If people discriminate against people who are not genetically modified then why bring this upon your child? Just make them genetically modified to give them a better life. One thing that I do think is wrong with the society is that your entire life is planned out for you, you don't really have much of a choice as to what you are going to be when you grow up. For example, if your parents try to make you really balanced and pretty good at a lot of things then you won't be able to get a job because other people are designed specifically for that job. Other than that I think that the society isn't that bad.

13. Soon, life insurance companies, health insurance companies, employers, and the government will have the tools to predict our future health. Is this too much information for them to have? Is there a way to stop it?
If this is in our future then it is terrible and we will have a horrible future. The entire point for health and life insurance companies is to pay your medical bills if you are sick but they don't give it to people who are already sick. That means that if they gave you a 70% chance for cancer then there is no way you will be getting health or life insurance which means that since you'll probably get cancer you better be rich. This is already bad in the United States and free healthcare has been a huge debate for a long time. Imagine what it would be like in this kind of a future without free healthcare. That basically means that the only people health insurance companies would be giving health insurance to would be people who don't really need it that much. It is ridiculous to think that someone with a 70% chance for cancer won't get health insurance but somebody with a 1% chance will get health insurance. This is a good example of why this is too much information for them to have. Already they deny people with histories of diseases so imagine how much worse it would get. I don't really know if there is a way to stop it but I think that this could be considered an invasion of privacy for them to know that.

Reflection

I thought that GATTACA was a really great movie and had a clear illustration of a world that may not be too far off. I think that of all dystopian universes this one is probably closest and in my opinion is already happening to us. I think that the first step towards this was mapping the human genome. Once we understood the human genome and we started to understand genetic diseases and where there were errors it opened up huge possibilities. This could mean anything from preventing diseases, finding diseases, and who knows even intentionally giving babies diseases. If you think about it this would make a terrible world. Although I think that the GATTACA world wasn't that bad I think that they left out lots of things that are in the world. All that GATTACA shows is one man's quest to become something he wasn't supposed to be against insurmountable odds.

Comparing GATTACA and Cracking the Code of Life


I think that GATTACA and cracking the code of life weren't very similar at all. Yes there are the obvious reasons like one is real and one is fiction but I think that there is a deeper reason. I think that they are different because the two movies use genetics for two totally different things. In cracking the code of life genetics are being used to find and cure diseases while genetics in GATTACA are used to trim the edges of society to make sure that all the pieces fit together to create a perfect society. GATTACA really made me think about the problems in a society like that as in the potential problems that are created and if old ones remain or if they're solved. In cracking the code of life the whole time I was thinking about how it could lead to a GATTACA society. Even though I hadn't seen GATTACA yet I was sort of thinking about it during Cracking the Code of Life.

Cracking the Code of Life Reflection

1.  Sequencing the human genome may bring to light a number of genes that are the basis for known genetic diseases or that predispose a person to a condition such as heart disease, cancer, or Alzheimer’s disease.  Yet finding a gene for an illness may not lead to an immediate cure.  Would you want to be tested to learn whether they had a genetic disease or predisposition if no cure was available?  Why or why not?  
 If I had the opprotunity to learn if I would hvae any genetic disorders or diseases I would take it. Even though it might not immedeatly bring a cure it would enlighten me on what might happen and I could take certain preocautionary measures to maybe prevent these diseases and be ready for them when I get them. I think it might not be perfect though because I might then spend the rest of my life worrying about getting certain diseases. I think that in general it would be good if they could do that because then people that would want to know could get tested and people who wouldn't want to know wouldn't get tested.

2.  Consider a scenario in which a lab needs DNA samples for use in genetic testing studies.  Researchers are searching for a variant of a gene that provides resistance to specific bacterial diseases.  If the company finds this gene, it may be able to produce a drug to sell to people who have these diseases.  Would you agree to have your DNA be part of the study?  Why or why not?  Would you want royalties for your part in finding the gene?  What if during the testing, the company discovered you had a gene that might result in a health problem later in life?  Would you want to be informed?  Why or why not?  
 I would agree to have my DNA tested but I would also want to be paid royalties. I think that this would be good because I would be helping people but I should be payed for it. If some very important part of my gene was used to cure cancer or something I think that I would deserve some sort of compensation. I would also do it without getting paid if the results could be very positive but I would try to get some sort of compensation. I think htat this would be good for humans in general and that everybody should give DNA since it would be for a good cause and its not like we have DNA identification anyway. Since there isn't anything to do whith DNA except testing it at the moment I think it would be safe.

3.  As more is learned about genes, there is a risk that the information will be used to define certain members of society by their genetic makeup.  Identify the meaning of the terms genetic discrimination and genetic privacy.  What are some ways to protect against this type of genetic discrimination? 
I don't think that this would be good because engineering babies to the extent that non-engineered babies are considered inferior would make the world horrible and unnatural. We were created/evolved not to be the perfect animal but just to survive and live. If this happened I don't think there would be any way to stop it because it would already be happening. The discrimination would also kinda make sense in most cases since people are specificaly modified to be good at something while others aren't makes the ones that are much better for the job. Overall I think that this sort of a scenario would be very bad.