Science in Society Review - Fall 2015 by The Triple Helix at UChicago

Fall 2015 | University of Chicago A Production of The Triple Helix

The Science in Society Review

ISSN 2164-431

The International Journal of Science, Society, and Law

ASU - Berkeley - Brown - Cambridge - CMU - Cornell - Georgia Tech - Georgetown - GWU - Harker - Harvard - JHU - NUS - OSU - UC Davis - UCSD - UChicago - Melbourne - Yale

THE TRIPLE HELIX A global forum for science in society

The Triple Helix, Inc. is the world’s largest completely student-run organization dedicated to taking an interdisciplinary approach toward evaluating the true impact of historical and modern advances in science. Work with tomorrow’s leaders Our international operations unite talented undergraduates with a drive for excellence at over 25 top universities around the world. Imagine your readership Bring fresh perspectives and your own analysis to our academic journal, The Science in Society Review, which publishes International Features across all of our chapters. Reach our global audience The E-publishing division showcases the latest in scientific breakthroughs and policy developments through editorials and multimedia presentations. Catalyze change and shape the future Our new Science Policy Division will engage students, academic institutions, public leaders, and the community in discussion and debate about the most pressing and complex issues that face our world today. All of the students involved in The Triple Helix understand that the fast pace of scientific innovation only further underscores the importance of examining the ethical, economic, social, and legal implications of new ideas and technologies — only then can we completely understand how they will change our everyday lives, and perhaps even the norms of our society. Come join us!

TRIPLE HELIX CHAPTERS North America Chapters Arizona State University Brown University Cornell University Carnegie Mellon University Georgia Institute of Technology George Washington University Georgetown University The Harker School Harvard University Johns Hopkins University The Ohio State University University of California, Berkeley University of California, Davis University of California, San Diego University of Chicago Yale University Europe Chapter Cambridge University Asia Chapter National University of Singapore Australia Chapter University of Melbourne

TABLE OF CONTENTS

How Much is Sending Someone into Space Worth?

Experience

Quang Tran..........................................................................................

Erin Fuller............................................................................................

A Stem Cell Education

Evan Eschliman..............................................................................

A Journey Back in Time: Return to the Paleolithic Diet

Isabella Pan.....................................................................................

12 15

STAFF AT UCHICAGO President Stephen Yu Vice President Salman Arif Editor in Chief, SISR Annie Albright Managing Editors, SISR Jacqueline Wang Erin Fuller Associate Editors, SISR Sumer Vaid Aya Nimer Shyam Vasudevan Writers, SISR Quang Tran Evan Eschliman Isabella Pan Erin Fuller Production Director Irene Zhang Production Editors Ariel Goldszmidt Irene Feng Rebecca Chen Events Director Jonathan Chuang Events Coordinators Angela Li Peter Ryffel Franklin Rodriguez

Message from Chapter Leadership Dear Reader, It is with great excitement that we bring to you the 2015 Fall Issue of The Science in Society Review.A new year has introduced new directions to consider in some of the most pressing issues of science in society and at The Triple Helix, Inc. we understand the need to investigate these questions in aninterdisciplinary manner. In this vein, our writers, aided by a strong support system of undergraduate editors and faculty mentors, strive to incorporate the perspectives of multiple fields in their articles. For this reason and others, we at The Triple Helix, Inc. pride ourselves on the fact that we bring our writers together with eminent University professors and field professionals for one-on-one collaboration.

E-Publishing Directors Katherine Oosterbaan Aliya Moreira

We are proud to encourage our future leaders in heir rigorous exploration for the key issues in society today. It is our hope that the articles presented herein will stimulate and challenge you to join our dialogue.

Editors in Chief, Scientia Luizetta Navrazhnykh Jake Russell

Stephen Yu President, The Triple Helix

Managing Editors, Scientia Amanuel Kibrom Michael Cervia Webmaster Tima Karginov

THE TRIPLE HELIX Fall 2015

How Much is Sending Someone into Space Worth? Quang Tran

he public’s perception of NASA as an irrelevant government agency has led to a recent call to cut NASA’s budget. This demand lacks insight into NASA’s impacts that exceed space exploration. During the 2016 presidential elections, it is likely that candidates will talk of cutting government-wide spending. According to the public perception, NASA and space exploration as a whole exist in a fundamentally esoteric space in everyday life and should have their fundng scrapped. NASA’s fiscal year 2014 budget was 17.6 billion dollars, a grand total of half of one percent of the annual budget (United States). While NASA’s research focuses on projects outside of the realm of everyday life, NASA scientists generate ripples that reach across the scientific community. In this article I will attempt to ascertain the economic and symbolic worth of NASA, and then specifically of sending a person into space. A detailed cost-benefit analysis should achieve this goal; however, it sacrafices clarity when examining nonmaterial payoffs. A cost-benefit analysis of NASA’s space exploration programs (of which only 4 out of the 17.6 billion is allocated) includes a qualitative measurements of educational inspiration and the propensity for exploration. These benefits

cannot be represented by hard numbers. As a result, the reader must keep in mind the intangible socio-cultural impacts that are not accounted for, and that this analysis does have limits in measuring NASA’s actual influence. In a study from Nature, the estimated cost for a single space shuttle launch is around $1 billion. The new estimated Space Launch System (SLS) is the next launch vehicle for NASA astronauts and has been estimated to cost $500 million for a launch every year, but would require a total of $18 billion in developmental costs from 2011 to 2017, or $3 billion a year (Smith, Wall). These numbers are daunting, especially given that Congress only annually allocates $17 billion, $4 billion of which is already being used to fund the development of exploration technology. Furthermore, we see the costs of the International Space Station, from 1985 to 2015, at over $60 billion for the United States’ contribution, with the fiscal year 2015 budget asking for more each year, starting $3 billion in 2015 and ending at nearly $4 billion in 2019 (United States). Thus, when we consider that NASA appears unrelated to commonplace life, the cost of any type of transportation into space, seems prodigal. However, the indirect benefits that NASA brings to the table far outweigh the costs. In 1971, 1976, and 1988, three separate studies were conducted to measure the economic and technological impacts derived from NASA’s research. The results were varied, but the studies found, on average, a return of $7 to $9 on every dollar invested, and discounted rates of returns that ranged from 19% to 43%. THE TRIPLE HELIX Fall 2015

These measurements were taken from NASA’s magazine Spinoff. The magazine details technological inventions originating from NASA research dubbed “spin-offs”, where each “spin-off” has added to the productivity of an industry, or created an entirely new one. Further examination of the spinoff stories and the partner companies that operated with NASA in 1989, 1993, and 2011, that an examination of over 700 published Spinoff stories estimates billions of NASA contributions in sales and millions in cost savings for those partner companies (Lockney). ___But these numbers still do not account for all spinoffs. Essentially, if NASA were a company and not a nonprofit governmental agency, the amount of revenue generated from the spinoff products would be able to pay for all of a governmental space agency’s funding- and more. Having answered the first part of our question (how much is NASA worth?) we see a dichotomy emerging. NASA indirectly generates huge profits on a global scale and in multiple industries through innovation. On the other hand, NASA spends seemingly extravagant funds on one single project- extra-terrestrial exploration. The juxtaposition of these two conditions sheds light on the debate between manned versus unmanned space exploration. The primary question is: which generates more benefits and fewer costs? Is sending a person into space more profitable than sending a machine? The standalone and maintenance costs of manned space instruments, which include expendable or reusable launch systems, far outweigh the costs of unmanned robotics, which include more telescopes, satellites, and rovers. Unfortunately, cost-benefit analysis in this case does little good, for while there lies a clear distinction between the costs of manned and unmanned exploration, the benefit gained from one over the other is unclear. Instead, I will attempt to compare the research onducted aboard manned 6

THE TRIPLE HELIX Fall 2015

and unmanned ships. Needless to say, the span of NASA’s scientific endeavors rank among the most impressive and important research conducted in the fields of biophysics, astronomy, astrophysics, material sciences, etc. Everyone knows the named of famous rovers and probes: Pathfinder, Curiosity, and Hubble Space Telescope. and he names of the names of famous shuttles, rockets and astronauts: Armstrong, Apollo, and the International Space Station. The utility derived from unmanned probes, telescopes and rovers greatly exceeds that of manned crafts (Slakey). Of course, robots do not currently make field researchers of the same caliber as human scientists. But who will contest the results of the Curiosity mission on Mars, in terms of discovery and science? Even the experiments on the International Space Station, many of which can be conducted on Earth, seem eclipsed by the data provided by the probes sent to the distant ends of the solar system. The data that these robots offer are the first of their kind, unseen and completely new. While the International Space Station also generates important research, the research generated by unmanned spacecraft is literally more far-reaching. I have reached the conclusion that while space travel can be profitable, robotic and human exploration pose a different set of economic advantages. Spinoff products generated from NASA’s research and development programs make space science a potentiall lucrative business. However, any CFO would recognize that sending robots into space is a significantly more lucrative endeavor than sending their human counterparts. Robotics and electronics require much less safety than human space travel. The necessary development for safe space travel fit for human use often requires an exponential increase in cost. On the other hand, robots do not require such stringent safety requirements, and can be sent to space less expensively. Still, there remains the intangible benefit generated from human space trav© 2015, The Triple Helix, Inc. All rights reserved.

el. From a political perspective, I believe that a presidential candidate would not hesitate to lower NASA’s budget, but would never directly state that they would allow other countries like the EU, China, Japan, or Russia to gain dominance in space. Looking at the problem from a socio-cultural perspective, there exists an entire generation of scientists from a broad range of fields who would say that they decided to become scientists when America landed on the moon (Hubbard). It is obvious, then, how the culture of space exploration which NASA emobodies is deeply engrained in the American psyche. However, it is difficult to reason that landing a human on Mars will improve the daily lives of Americans, who might instead chose to see the government spend its money on more immediate-impact programs. When in 1966 NASA’s budget hit an all-time high of 4% of the national budget, the Cold War began to hit a pitch and the Space Race was in the midst of its throes. Now, however, there exists no such national fervor. We have lost sight of the intangible benefits of human exploration. As a result, human space exploration will only become viable when the public sees © 2015, The Triple Helix, Inc. All rights reserved.

it as a necessity for discovery and not an extravagance. Returning to the second part of our question; how much is sending a human into space worth? The value can only be decided by the public. Unfortunately, this value is most likely to rise only after a sensational human accomplishment in space, which requires the funding in the first place. For those wanting to see NASA’s funding increase sooner, the best plan seems to be to educate the public. Science communication, or the task of disseminating technical scientific achievements, becomes more important each day. It seems possible that a movement spanning new platforms such as social media and dedicated to communicating NASA’s research may eventually make space travel a priority.

THE TRIPLE HELIX Fall 2015

References Hubbard, G. Scott, Joan Vernikos, Kathleen M. Connell, Keith Cowing, David M. Livingston, and John M. Logsdon. “Is Space Exploration Worth the Cost? A Freakonomics Quorum.” Interview by Stephen J. Dubner. Web log post. Freakonomics. Freakonomics, LLC, 11 Jan. 2008. Web. 29 Oct. 2015. <http://freakonomics.com/2008/01/11/is-space-explorationworth-the-cost-a-freakonomics-quorum/>. Lockney, Daniel, and Coleman Glass. “A Sustainable Method for Quantifying the Benefits of NASA Technology Transfer.” AIAA SPACE 2011 Conference & Exposition (2011): n. pag. AIAA. Web. 29 Oct. 2015. <http://spinoff.nasa.gov/pdf/AIAA%202011%20 Quantifying%20Spinoff%20Benefits.pdf>. Pielke, Roger, and Radford Byerly. “Shuttle Programme Lifetime Cost.” Nature 472.7341 (2011): 38. Web. 29 Oct. 2015. <http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/ v472/n7341/pdf/472038d.pdf>. Slakey, Francis, and Paul D. Spudis. “Robots vs. Humans: Who Should Explore Space?” Sci Am Scientific American Sp 18.1 (2008): 26-33. Web. 29 Oct. 2015. Smith, Marcia S. “New NASA Crew Transportation System to Cost $18 Billion Through 2017.” Space Policy Online. Space and Technology Policy Group, 14 Sept. 2011. Web. 29 Oct. 2015. <http://www.spacepolicyonline.com/news/new-nasa-crew-transportationsystem-to-cost-18-billion-through-2017>. Strickland, John. “Revisiting SLS/Orion Launch Costs.” The Space Review. SpaceNews, 15 July 2013. Web. 29 Oct. 2015. <http://www.thespacereview. com/article/2330/1>. United States. National Aeronautics and Space Administration. FY 2016 Budget Request Executive Summary. By Charles F. Bolden. N.p.: n.p., n.d. Web. 29 Oct. 2015. <http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/ files/files/NASA_FY_2016_Budget_Estimates.pdf>. Wall, Mike. “NASA’s Huge New Rocket May Cost $500 Million per Launch.” NBC News. N.p., 13 Sept. 2012. Web. 29 Oct. 2015. <http://www.nbcnews.com/ id/49019843/ns/technology_and_science-space/#. Vl0U6b_1_Ca>.

THE TRIPLE HELIX Fall 2015

Experience Erin Fuller

xperience is the name of the game when it comes to field research for ecology students. For students in ecology, field experience is valuable because it grounds the ecologist’s studies in real world conditions and provides them with a glimpse of what a research career in ecology entails beyond the lab and office. The latter point is important to recognize, because ecology is about complex organismal connections that can’t be entirely replicated in the lab environment. Field research is a fundamental aspect of ecology studies. I was one of the twenty odd students who formed group projects for research in the desert, at Organ Pipe National Monument in Arizona as part of the Ecology and Evolution in the Southwest field trip (or BIOS 23233). The optional field trip was designed to test students on their ability to craft and implement a research plan and obtain results. The experience was both the highlight of my year and a slap in the face; it was frustrating, difficult, and sometimes frightening, and forced me to consider my career path at all levels. In the end it redoubled my conviction to pursue a career in ecology. What truly convinced me was the object of my group’s research: a tiny grey bird called the verdin. Before taking the class, I had never heard about verdin. Verdin are the only members of the penduline tit family in North America, Auriparus flaviceps. They are peanut-sized grey birds with a splash of yellow around their beaks. They live primarily in the Sonoran Desert, which spans Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, Cali© 2015, The Triple Helix, Inc. All rights reserved.

fornia, and Mexico. Verdin are not social birds and live independently or with a partner, preferring to nest in palo verde or cholla species (a type of cacti) for protection. Most research about verdin was conducted in the 1970s, thus our group had trouble finding recent articles about the birds. Luckily, we learned that our project

The experience was both the highlight of my year and a slap in the face; it was frustrating, difficult, and sometimes frightening, and forced me to consider my career path at all levels. was an extension of one being done at Cornell University, and that the principle investigator (PI) would be joining us on the trip. Knowing this, we put together a proposal that we hoped would help round out a larger project. Our original project involved analyzing the verdin’s contact calls. Contact calls are the verdins way of keeping in touch with other birds while they are out in their territory, a Marco-Polo-like game. When analyzing the calls, we hoped to find regional differences (accents). We prepared well for our presentation. Over the course of the quarter, we met in lab to build our project, refined our hypothesis with supporting literature, and presented to the other groups... little did we know THE TRIPLE HELIX Fall 2015

that when we arrived on site, we would be doing something completely different. The night we arrived at the campsite, we met our PI, Emma Greig. In the spring, she had discovered a correlation between elevation and egg lay date in her larger data set. Since our project was meant to supplement her research, we changed our proposal: using the maps of verdin nests our PI had created, we were to take transects on either side of the arroyo where a nest was found. Then, we would survey the vegetation within the transects in order to quantify what resources the verdin would have in the growth season. Our PI hypothesized that verdin born earlier in the year would have earlier access to the abundant resources from the growing season, such as saguaro fruit, a major food source for Sonoran wildlife, giving these birds a competitive edge over verdin who were born later. Theoretically, early-births would establish territories earlier and snare mates earlier. They would be able to choose the best of everything and they would have a better chance of survival.

THE TRIPLE HELIX Fall 2015

The next morning, we got to work. Due to the intense heat of midday, we could only work as soon as it was light out until 10am and from 6pm until sundown. As soon as it was light we packed as much water as we could carry and hiked out into the desert to the nest locations. Verdin nests are typically in palo verde overhanging the arroyo, a dry stream bed that fills seasonally, which made them easy to locate. Once we found a verdin nest, we took our measuring tapes and unwound them perpendicular to the arroyo on each side, 50 meters east and 50 meters west, and took surveys of the vegetation in 5 meter intervals. These surveys took note of what species and how many individuals lived there, and took special notes of the saguaro, organ pipe, and ocotillo, since these three species produced the majority of the verdinâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s diet of fruit. Taking transects was tedious work. Methodically moving away from the arroyo, we combed through the plants, counted the arms of ocotillo, saguaro, and organ pipe, argued over the number of flowers and arms, and tried to keep

each other’s spirits up with spritzes of water. We were forced to be creative; we had not brought meter sticks and needed to estimate the height of the three main species. One TA Joe was about 2 meters tall, and so we estimated height in units of Joes. Before the heat became unbearable, all of the groups convened at camp to chat, read, nap, play games, and complain about the heat. Our professor took us on day trips to fill the time. We visited Quitobaquito Springs, a beautiful oasis and the greenest thing in the desert, the Pinacates, a group of ancient volcanoes, the town of Ajo, caught a lecture at the Center for the Studies of Deserts and Oceans, and visited the ocean itself. When we finished the transects, we helped our PI place colored bands on verdin legs to track their migratory movements, and entered the data into the old laptop we brought along. When we analyzed the data, we found a correlation between the number of ocotillo and the lay date of the verdin, which suggested that verdin prefer ocotillo as a food source. More generally, we did find a correlation between altitude and egg lay date, though further analysis was needed to prove statistical significance. The research was grueling, and yet I came out of the trip with a deeper appreciation of the work involved in research and of the world which we sought to understand. My least favorite part of the trip was data entry and analysis. This was our work--days in the sun, scraped knees and hands, dust and sand, sunburn, dehydration, cactus spines--in numbers, cool and clean. The data seemed like a removal from the experience, a result, not a process. Though when we ran the data through a statistical computing program, I felt suspended. Had we found something? When the data had processed and the program threw up charts and graphs, the answer was yes; just a hint, but a genuine discovery. This is discovery--drudgery for a hint. The Ecology and Evolution Southwest field trip showed me what a research © 2015, The Triple Helix, Inc. All rights reserved.

career in ecology looks like. At the end, I did decide to pursue a career in ecology research. I am grateful I had the opportunity to participate in a lite-version of research first. If I hadn’t, would my choice still be the same? After all, the small scale of the project could have fooled me into thinking that I had an idea of what real research is like. Since our research was for class, the project’s informality allowed us to sidestep problems professional researchers must address. For example, we told the professor we were going to change our proposal to match our PI’s. He said, “Cool.” This would not fly with research funded by a university or through a grant; we would have needed to present our changes and the reasons behind them. Funding was not a problem either. Each student paid a flat $300 fee to go on the trip, the equipment was provided by the ecology department (and it was not new equipment), and the rest was provided by the university. The only problem was that of time, and that we didn’t have enough of it to draw our project to a satisfactory conclusion. If I participated in a larger project, would I still want to pursue a career in ecology? Other students went on the trip and came to an opposite conclusion. They already knew what career they wanted to pursue, or didn’t know and yet knew that they wouldn’t pursue ecology. This decision was possibly influenced by the knowledge that discovery involves drudgery. Cleaning cages, feeding hundreds of cell plates, or counting plants in the desert are foundations of raw data which are necessary for research. Understanding and experiencing ecology’s brand of labor is the first step to deciding whether research is personally worth it. Why do it? Offices are air conditioned, after all. I don’t know why I do it myself. Maybe I’m a masochist. Ultimately, students must make their decision, as I did, but first they must be given the chance to get up from their desks and go outside. Just give them sunscreen when they do. THE TRIPLE HELIX Fall 2015

A Stem Cell Education Evan Eschliman

ast summer, a Parkinson’s disease patient received a transplant of fetal-derived dopamine cells for treatment of the motor deficit symptoms of the disorder. This procedure marked the first human trial of a new wave of stem cell research targeted at treating Parkinson’s. WHAT IS A STEM CELL? Think of a stem cell as an elementary school aged child at their school’s Career Day. Ask the children what they want to be when they grow up, and their responses will be diverse, ranging from “firefighter” to “princess” to the ever-practical “lawyer” or “doctor”. Just like these ambitious youths, stem cells can ‘grow up’ to be anything. They are pluripotent, meaning they can alter their gene expression and become highly specialized. A stem cell can differentiate (follow its ‘career path’) and become one of any number of different specific cell types. But it is important to note that when a stem cell differentiates, it must persist in that role for the rest of its life. These differentiated stem cells divide to produce only more cells of the same cell type; skin cells divide to create additional skin cells, liver cells divide to create a more liver cells. FROM STEM CELLS TO TREATMENT Sometimes, though, cells are not able to divide once they are too far differentiated. Such is the case for almost all of the neurons (nerve cells) in the brain. This incapacity for division is why brain damage is so harmful and particularly 12

THE TRIPLE HELIX Fall 2015

hard to reverse. Once damaged, there is limited, if any, potential for regrowth. An injection of ‘fresh’ stem cells to the impaired region of the brain would seem to be a simple and elegant treatment, since providing the potential of regrowth of the lost neurons from newly introduced stem cells could restore brain function. A technique such as this would have huge implications for neurological diseases or conditions caused by damage to neurons. Unfortunately, treating these diseases is not as simple as injecting stem cells into patients’ brains. Researchers have indeed attempted to reestablish neuron populations in the brains of patients with Parkinson’s disease (PD). PD is a neurological disorder characterized primarily by loss of movement control resulting in tremors and rigidity. Cognitive and sensory processes such as memory, risk-reward pathways, and smell are also commonly impaired [2,4]. PD is a prime candidate for stem cell treatment because it is primarily caused by loss of a particular type of neuron-- specifically, the loss of dopamine neurons in the substantia nigra (a region in the midbrain responsible for much of the brain’s dopamine production). Dopamine is one of the many signalling chemicals used by the brain and is essential for motor control. As dopamine levels in the brain decrease and the disease progresses, patients lose control over movement. The current most common treatment for PD is the drug pill levodopa, which increases dopamine levels in the brain [1]. A pill is only temporary, however, and often the patient becomes desensitized to the drug after long-term © 2015, The Triple Helix, Inc. All rights reserved.

use [6]. Long-term treatment of PD, then, needs to teach the brain to produce more dopamine, instead of supplementing it with a short term dose. FIRST ATTEMPTS The first trials to establish new populations of dopamine-producing neurons in human Parkinsonâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s patients used cells from aborted fetuses. These cells are not exactly stem cells per se, because they had already differentiated to dopamine producing neurons when they were injected. First performed in Sweden, these replacement-therapy procedures were carried out from 1987 to the early 1990s, but the treatment achieved mixed results [2]. Two trials carried out in the United States reported no significant improvements in patient mobility after two years, and further research into the treatment was abandoned in 2003 to focus on deep-brain stimulation, another putative PD treatment [1,3]. Recently, however,

scientists are realizing that many of the treatments carried out in Sweden and the United States were more successful than initially thought; the effects were simply not apparent until several years post-treatment [3]. In some cases, these patients had completely or near-completely restored motor function, and many were no longer taking medication. One issue causing mixed results from prior treatments is that there was no standard protocol for injecting the cells. For example, injecting the cells via a sort of liquid dopamine cell soup seemed to provide superior results to injecting larger cell chunks using a larger needle [2]. These and other new insights into these previously conducted trials has prompted a rapid push to develop the best possible methods for cell implants [4]. SETBACKS AND ALTERNATIVES Major obstacles preventing further trials on fetal cell implant treatment are

THE TRIPLE HELIX Fall 2015

not only the source of the fetal cells, but also the amount of fetal cells needed as well. Each half of the brain treated requires the cells gathered from three fetuses [4]. Obviously, this raises major ethical concerns, but ones scientists hope to circumvent through use of stem cells, both embryonic stem cells and regular cells that have been returned to their pluripotent states (called induced pluripotent stem cells, or iPSCs) [3]. The difficulty comes in coaxing either type of these stem cells into becoming dopamine neurons. Fortunately, methods of approximating conditions of a developing brain have been discovered, which allows the creation of dopamine neurons from stem cells in petri dishes instead of fetuses. Trials implanting dopamine neurons derived from human embryonic stem cells (hESCs) have proven as effective as the implantation of fetal cells in mouse models of PD [7]. However, there are dangers in simply injecting stem cells into human tissue. These cells may begin to behave abnormally, divide uncontrollably, and create tumors [7]. Moreover, telling a cell to become what one wants is no easy task, and the process will have to become much more efficient in order to produce the amount of neurons necessary to treat a whole human brain.

NEXT STEPS As steps are taken to produce dopamine neurons from hESCs and iPSCs, the Parkinson’s research community will be awaiting the results of a recent fetal cell implant done in the United Kingdom last summer [3]. Although only half his brain was treated, his doctors hope to treat the other half soon. This treatment is part of the recent TRANSNEURO initiative, a multinational project to increase research on cell transplant therapies for PD [8]. Unfortunately, despite the advances in dopamine cell transplant methodology, reestablishing normal dopamine levels in the brain only provides treatment for the motor deficiency symptoms of PD. The cognitive deficiencies that arise will need other therapies altogether [6]. As breakthroughs regarding stem cells and the methods that can be used to guide their differentiation are becoming more and more frequent, we see a new era of treatment of not only PD, but also other brain-related and non-brain-related disorders arise. From Alzheimer’s to depression, celiac to diabetes, these advances in cell therapies, have great potential in future medicine.

References Abbot, A. Fetal-cell revival for Parkinson’s. Nature [Internet]. Available from: http://www.nature.com/ news/fetal-cell-revival-for-parkinson-s-1.15387 [Accessed 27th November 2015]

Kefalopoulou, Z. Long-term clinical outcome of fetal cell transplantation for Parkinson disease: two case reports. JAMA Neurol. 2014 Jan;71(1):83-7. doi: 10.1001/ jamaneurol.2013.4749.

Brown, J. Harvard researchers see promise in transplanted fetal stem cells for Parkinson’s. Harvard Stem Cell Institute. Available from: http://hsci.harvard. edu/news/harvard-researchers-see-promise-transplanted-fetal-stem-cells-parkinsons [Accessed 27th November 2015]

Stoessl, AJ. Gene therapy for Parkinson’s disease: a step closer? Lancet. 2014 Mar 29;383(9923):1107-9. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(13)62108-X.

Coghland, A. Fetal cells injected into a man’s brain to cure his Parkinson’s. New Scientist. 2015;3023. May 30. Available from: https://www.newscientist. com/article/dn27593-fetal-cells-injected-into-a-mansbrain-to-cure-his-parkinsons/ Lindvall O, Björklund A. Cell Therapy in Parkinson’s Disease. NeuroRx. 2004;1(4):382-393.

THE TRIPLE HELIX Fall 2015

Grealish, S, et al. Human ESC-Derived Dopamine Neurons Show Similar Preclinical Efficacy and Potency to Fetal Neurons when Grafted in a Rat Model of Parkinson’s Disease. Cell Stem Cell. Volume 15, Issue 5, p653–665, 6 November 2014. doi: /10.1016/j. stem.2014.09.017 Transeuro. Transeuro: Innovative Approach for the Treatment of Parkinson’s Disease. November 2014. http://www.transeuro.org.uk.

A Journey Back in Time: Return to the Paleolithic Diet

Isabella Pan

n recent years, healthcare systems across the globe have been placed under increasing strain due to skyrocketing rates of chronic illnesses such as diabetes, heart disease, and obesity. This is particularly the case in developed nations such as the United States, where over a third of the population is obese, and the number of diabetes diagnoses has nearly doubled from 1980 to 2011, reaching an astonishing rate of 9.3% [1]. The prevalence of these diseases is believed to stem from modern dietary habits, and has led to the prediction that the children growing up in today’s society will live shorter lives than their parents and be more at risk for developing nutritional-based diseases such as diabetes or high blood sugar [2]. These diseases can, in

Beginning in 2013, the Paleo diet, also widely popularized as the “Caveman’s diet,” took the country by storm, quickly becoming the number-one most Googled diet of the year. turn, contribute to the development of cancers, arthritis, and Alzheimer’s disease, raising concerns about adverse effects of the modern diet. Modern health-conscious individuals have begun to increasingly follow various dietary regimens in hopes © 2015, The Triple Helix, Inc. All rights reserved.

of raising their quality of life, health and longetivity. One diet called the Paleolithic, or “Paleo” diet has become particularly popular, embraced as a solution to these modern “diseases of civilization”. Beginning in 2013, the Paleo diet, also widely popularized as the “Caveman’s diet”, took the country by storm, quickly becoming the number-one most Googled diet of the year [3]. Inspired by the dietary practices of our hunter-and-gatherer ancestors, the Paleo diet was founded upon the belief that modern-day people should abandon their current eating habits in favor of those of our predecessors. Their diet was believed to be centered around meat, nuts and seeds, berries, fish, fruits, eggs, and natural vegetable oils, excluding many of the foods that are popular in today’s diet, such as grains, legumes (including peanuts), dairy products, refined sugar or oil, potatoes, and table salt. Upon its inception, the Paleo diet rapidly gained popularity, becoming the subject of numerous online food blogs and receiving high praise from many celebrity adherents. Many critics of the modern diet, regardless of their stance on the Paleo diet, generally agree that while the health issues of today may appear to be relatively new, they are in fact deeply rooted in history. Approximately ten thousand years ago, our early hunter-and-gatherer ancestors transitioned into sedentary lifestyles centered around farming—a turning point in history popularly known as the Agricultural Revolution [4]. Upon doing so, they began to develop various new crops, no longer being limited in choice and scope by the food that they THE TRIPLE HELIX Fall 2015

were able to find in nature. Additionally, advancements in farming techniques and technologies allowed humans to produce more food with less time and labor than ever before, spawning the creation of a modern-day society in which food has become abundant, affordable and diverse. Unlike their Paleolithic ancestors, who were often unable to catch enough prey or find enough wild berries to consistently fill their stomachs, modern-day humans living in a developed, industrialized society are generally able to indulge their appetites, often to the point of excess. The advent of modern technologies has also allowed modern-day man to continue to be productive while exerting less physical labor than was possible before. However, this combination of higher consumption and lower energy utilization led to an imbalance between calorie intake and output, a key contributing factor to obesity, diabetes and heart disease. Modern proponents of the Paleolithic diet believe that the prevalence of these diseases in todayâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s society is because

THE TRIPLE HELIX Fall 2015

the modern human still retains most of the physiology of his ancestors and thus is poorly adapted for the modern diet that has been cultivated. They argue that because of this discrepancy, modern humans currently produce and consume foods for which they are not biologically well-adapted. The Paleolithic era lasted about 2.5 million years, a very lengthy amount of time in comparison to the modern era, which spans a mere ten thousand years. Thus, it is plausible that modern humans are still fundamentally similar to the Paleolithic people, and thus naturally disposed towards their dietary habits. Compared to their ancestors, modern-day humans consume nutrients in vastly different proportions, and many of these digressions have been shown to be harmful. Recent research has shown that the modern diet contributes to a much higher sodium/potassium intake ratio than favored by the ancestral diet, as it tends to be deficient in potassium-based salts while instead favoring copious amounts of sodium-based salts such as

common table salt, sodium chloride [5]. This imbalance increases the net systemic acid load in the diet, which in turn contributes to the decrease in bone and muscle mass, as well as in growth hormone secretion, which has been linked to obesity. These physiological changes are known to naturally occur with age, suggesting that the nutritional imbalance in the modern diet may in fact lead to premature aging. Additionally, the modern humanâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s diet is shown to consist of far too little fiber, which was prevalent in the plant-based foods consumed by their ancestors, a habit that commonly contributes to stroke and heart failure [6]. Although there has been much debate over the merits of this new diet in popular culture, it has garnered sparingly little attention from the scientific community. Several books have published both its support and its opposition, and the diet widely featured in healthy-living magazines and on talk shows. However, despite the high amount of interest in the Paleo diet, there has been little scientific investigation to determine whether the diet indeed confers significant health benefits upon its followers. Most of these studies that were done were small-scale, with modestly sized populations, and span less than a year. However, scientists have nonetheless gathered evidence from their experiments to conclude that the diet does indeed have merit. In one case, scientists studied whether following the Paleo diet regimen could decrease the chance of developing cardiovascular diseases in patients with type II diabetes [7]. Several risk factors of cardiovascular disease, such as waist circumference, weight, blood pressure, highand low-density lipids, and triglycerides, were measured over the course of nine months. Results indicated that the patients consuming the Paleo diet were healthier in nearly every category compared to those who consumed a normal diet that was commonly recommended for diabetes patients. The Paleo diet has also been ÂŠ 2015, The Triple Helix, Inc. All rights reserved.

proven to lead to health benefits for healthy subjects: a different study concluded that even healthy participants ended up seeing positive changes in their blood pressures, insulin, cholesterol levels, low- density lipids and triglycerides [8]. Thus, despite the fact that there have not been many studies done on the effectiveness of Paleo diet, the data that has been collected seem to be largely in its favor. Critics of the Paleo diet have raised a number of concerns, one of them being that several nutritious foods currently comprising much of the modern day diet are excluded. Dairy products such as milk, for example, are highly fortified in both calcium and vitamin D, but are excluded from the diet. Thus, followers of the diet could fall short on consuming the recommended amounts of both essential nutrients. In her book, The Paleo Diet, author Loren Cordain brings up the fact that the original Paleolithic population received much of their vitamin D from high levels of exposure of sunlight. However, this source of vitamin D may not be applicable to many modern people who live and work indoors [9]. Cordain suggests that to compensate for this, modern followers of the diet should take supplementary tablets. However, this discrepancy raises the question of whether the Paleo diet is indeed a natural fit for the modern population. Another point of controversy is whether humans are actually as nutritionally inflexible as claimed by the advocates of the Paleo diet. Many believe that they could have adapted their metabolisms to better match their evolving diets [10]. If so, humans would actually be more well-suited towards the modern diet than the Paleo diet. Researchers found that the gut microbiota that are responsible for digestion and absorption of nutrients are easily influenced by dietary changes [11]. It is possible that these microbes have evolved in response to changes in the human diet over time; if this is the case, then a transition to the Paleo diet may THE TRIPLE HELIX Fall 2015

be counterproductive. Although consuming a diet native to our ancestors has been scientifically shown to be beneficial, there still exist concerns as to whether the theories upon which the diet was developed have merit. It may not be appropriate to define the various foods in modern-day society as being either strictly Paleolithic or non-Paleolithic. Humans living in the Paleolithic era were widespread geographically, and thus were likely to have consumed a variety of foods that were diverse in their nutritional content. Because of their nomadic hunting and gathering lifestyles, it is possible that humans did not ever genetically adapt to specific local diets, instead being flexible to the various nutrients that they had access to during different times and at different locations. Thus, although there is no doubt that humans today must seek solutions to combat the modern-day diseases stemming from nutritional imbalances, it is unclear whether embracing the Paleolithic diet is truly the key towards better health and well-being [12]. This creates a situation that may leave the modern human race straddling two dietary cultures – one of the past and one of the present – neither of which they can fully embrace, neither under which they can truly thrive.

References 1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2015, May 15). 2014 National Diabetes Statistics Report. Retrieved November 27, 2015, from http://www.cdc. gov/diabetes/data/statistics/2014statisticsreport.html 2. American Heart Association. (2015, August 17). Overweight in Children. Retrieved November 29, 2015, from http://www.heart.org/HEARTORG/GettingHealthy/Overweight-in-Children_UCM_304054_Article.jsp#.VkZc9Lzw9sM 3. Melnick, M. (2014, January 23). Paleo Diet Tops Most Googled Diets of 2013. Retrieved November 26, 2015, from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/17/ most-googled-diets-of-2013_n_4426726.html 4. Cordain, L. (2011). The Paleo diet: Lose weight and get healthy by eating the foods you were designed to eat. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. 5. Cordon, L., Eaton, S. B., Sebastian, A., Mann, N., Lindeberg, S., Watkins, B. A., . . . Brand-Miller, J. (2005, February). The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. Retrieved November 30, 2015, from http:// ajcn.nutrition.org/content/81/2/341.full 6, 9. Frasetto, L., Morris, L., Sellmeyer, D., & Sebastian, A. (2001, October). Result Filters. Retrieved November 21, 2015, from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih. gov/pubmed/11842945 7. Jonsson, T., Granfeldt, Y., Ahren, B., Branell, U., Pålsson, G., Hansson, A., . . . Lindeberg, S. (2009, July 16). Beneficial effects of a Paleolithic diet on cardiovascular risk factors in type 2 diabetes: A randomized cross-over pilot study. Retrieved November 12, 2015, from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/ PMC2724493/pdf/1475-2840-8-35.pdf 8. Frasetto, L., Schloetter, M., Mites-Snyder, M., Morris, R., & Sebastian, A. (2009, February 11). Metabolic and physiologic improvements from consuming a paleolithic, hunter-gatherer type diet. Retrieved November 04, 2015, from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih. gov/pubmed/19209185 10, 12. Zuk, M. (2013). Paleofantasy: What evolution really tells us about sex, diet, and how we live (1st ed.). W. W. Norton & Company. 11. Ley, R., Hamady, M., Lozupone, C., Turnbaugh, P., Ramay, R., Bircher, J., . . . Gordon, J. (2008, November 21). Evolution of Mammals and Their Gut Microbes. Retrieved November 12, 2015, from https://www. sciencemag.org/content/320/5883/1647.short

THE TRIPLE HELIX Fall 2015

The Triple Helix at the University of Chicago

Literary Divisions The Print Division, led by its Editor in Chief, publishes the Science in Society Review (SiSR) and Scientia, our journal of original student research. Print Associate Editors work one-on-one with a writer, under the supervision of a Managing Editor. AE’s maintain the quality of their writer’s article throughout the literary cycle. SiSR writers compose 2500-word exposés on the impact of science on society. Scientia writers publish findings from their original research projects in a professional format similar to that of respected academic journals. To have your questions about the Print Division answered, please email us at: uchicago.print@thetriplehelix.org

Marketing

The E-Publishing Division, led by its own Editor in Chief, produces the TTH Online blog, at triplehelixblog.com. E-Publishing AE’s work with one or two writers under the supervision of a Manager Editor, helping to shape content, style and presentation. E-Pub Writers compose blog posts of diverse formats that are no longer than 1500 words. Writers explore current events in the world of science from a range of academic perspectives. To have your questions about E-Publishing answered, please email us at: uchicago.epub@thetriplehelix.org

Production

Events

Contact: Contact: Contact: uchicago@thetriplehelix.org uchicago@thetriplehelix.org uchicago.events@ thetriplehelix.org TTH-newcomers can apply TTH-newcomers can apply to be an Associate Director to be a Production Editor. TTH-newcomers can apply of Marketing. The ADoM’s, Together with their division to be an Events Coordinator. as we call them, are trained leaders, Production An Events Coordinator (EC) in all areas involved in Editors create the layout presents his or her event being the Director of and design of both of our idea and then works with Marketing: recruiting, Chapter’s printed journals. the rest of the division to networking with an eye Though some design plan and host the event. towards fundraising experience is preferred, all efforts, and advertising. editors are trained to use Each of the ADoM’s the appropriate programs. spearhead a project to expand the chapter, under the Director’s supervision.