• Imprint on the Future by Gerell Malazarte
    It has been a pleasure working with you all!

  • Imprint on the Future by Gerell Malazarte

    It has been a pleasure working with you all!

  • The large paragraph definitely reflects your voice. I have heard your voice in your other writings due to the fact that I read a lot of them and that just reassures my thoughts. Your voice is very straight forward […]

  • I chose these two paragraphs because they closely reflect my voice in my writing. I also chose them because they are both very important for my over all paper. The first paragraph is part of my introduction that I […]

  • I chose these two paragraphs because they closely reflect my voice in my writing. I also chose them because they are both very important for my over all paper. The first paragraph is part of my introduction that I […]

  • ThumbnailHunting for a “home” website was harder than I thought. Well it was probably because I am very indecisive and picky. Half of the time spent looking for the website was used searching for the right layout and theme […]

  • ThumbnailHunting for a “home” website was harder than I thought. Well it was probably because I am very indecisive and picky. Half of the time spent looking for the website was used searching for the right layout and theme […]

  • What was most interesting about your Inquiry Project was the fact that you stated, “But however, some of the authors chimed in by saying that AI technology continues to advance mankind will slowly stop advancing […]

  • Over the course of human existence there have been many pivotal inventions that change the way humans live. These life changing inventions comprise of the wheel, compass, printing press, combustion engine, light bulb, telephone, penicillin, internet, etc. and many more to come. The next invention that has the potential to be added to that list is 3D printing. 3D printing, also called additive manufacturing, is the process of making a three-dimensional object by successive layers of various materials laid down under computer control. Throughout 3D printing’s years of operation and alteration, it has become quite an innovative machine. Today 3D printers can print many things such as toys, tools, prosthetics, food, instruments, and molds. Recently scientists, engineers, and doctors integrated the 3D printer to be capable of printing organs, tissue, cartilage, body aiding contraptions, etc. 3D printing with its versatility and revolutionary effect on the medical field will undoubtedly earn its spot in the worlds most important inventions.
    The method of printing organs and bodily tissues, derived from 3D printing, is called bioprinting. bioprinting is a computer-aided bioadditive manufacturing process that deposits living cells together with hydrogel-base scaffolds for 3D tissue and organ fabrication. Although the organs printed from bioprinters are far from actually being transplanted into patients, the invention has come a long way. Bioprinting is just a toe deep in its development, but has already made major breakthroughs with functional organs, tissues and contraptions.
    If you take a second to notice many of your friends, family or acquaintances that have ever suffered from an illness or even have passed away, you will come to your attention that it was probably because of a failing organ. Luckily the organ transplant system was created or the number of fatalities would be even higher. But the system is not flawless; patients have to undergo immunosuppressive therapies, which can lower the recipients’ quality of life. Matter of fact the number of organ donors is significantly lower than the number of patients that are in need of an organ transplant. 120,000 patients are waiting for transplants and about some 18 people pass away each day waiting in vain for an organ transplant. Bioprinting might just be the solution for the shortage of organs and the countless number of other illnesses or injuries because in the process of Bioprinting they use your own cells or cells that were grown the be identical to yours so that your body does not reject them. The idea seems far fetch but future ramifications are already being thought up.
    You will notice many articles listed out there that state the success stories, future implications, ethical issues, obstacles it will encounter, and possible problems this technology could give rise to. But most of them do not state that the successes are not out weighing the possible problems this technology could cause. They also do not address, solutions to those problems, or the fact that it will change the meaning of life, as we know it.
    In addition, if bioprinting does not show any signs of slowing down or halting at a certain goal. Research will continue to drive onward; it won’t just stop at fully functioning organs. Effects toward the future are detrimental and if bioprinting really works, we may draw that much closer to reinventing the very definition of life itself and testing the sustainability limits of our planet. Bioprinting must have serious regulations set upon it or research must come to a complete stop.
    I claim that bioprinting will negatively alter life, as we know it
    Because it will cause too many moral concerns on top of the many doctors already have to deal with on a daily basis.
    Because bioprinting gives rise to too many ethical problems in the future such as the use of stem cells in their research, mixing cells with animal cells, etc.
    Because bioprinting will change the meaning of healthcare, insurance, and liability.
    Because the social concerns will change the way life goes one from here on out, this technology likes others could soon be abused, etc.
    Because before biopriniting continues there are many regulations it must comply with, the major one being the code of ethics by the Biomedical Engineering Society.

  • Over the course of human existence there have been many pivotal inventions that change the way humans live. These life changing inventions comprise of the wheel, compass, printing press, combustion engine, light bulb, telephone, penicillin, internet, etc. and many more to come. The next invention that has the potential to be added to that list is 3D printing. 3D printing, also called additive manufacturing, is the process of making a three-dimensional object by successive layers of various materials laid down under computer control. Throughout 3D printing’s years of operation and alteration, it has become quite an innovative machine. Today 3D printers can print many things such as toys, tools, prosthetics, food, instruments, and molds. Recently scientists, engineers, and doctors integrated the 3D printer to be capable of printing organs, tissue, cartilage, body aiding contraptions, etc. 3D printing with its versatility and revolutionary effect on the medical field will undoubtedly earn its spot in the worlds most important inventions.

    The method of printing organs and bodily tissues, derived from 3D printing, is called bioprinting. bioprinting is a computer-aided bioadditive manufacturing process that deposits living cells together with hydrogel-base scaffolds for 3D tissue and organ fabrication. Although the organs printed from bioprinters are far from actually being transplanted into patients, the invention has come a long way. Bioprinting is just a toe deep in its development, but has already made major breakthroughs with functional organs, tissues and contraptions.

    If you take a second to notice many of your friends, family or acquaintances that have ever suffered from an illness or even have passed away, you will come to your attention that it was probably because of a failing organ. Luckily the organ transplant system was created or the number of fatalities would be even higher. But the system is not flawless; patients have to undergo immunosuppressive therapies, which can lower the recipients’ quality of life. Matter of fact the number of organ donors is significantly lower than the number of patients that are in need of an organ transplant. 120,000 patients are waiting for transplants and about some 18 people pass away each day waiting in vain for an organ transplant. Bioprinting might just be the solution for the shortage of organs and the countless number of other illnesses or injuries because in the process of Bioprinting they use your own cells or cells that were grown the be identical to yours so that your body does not reject them. The idea seems far fetch but future ramifications are already being thought up.

    You will notice many articles listed out there that state the success stories, future implications, ethical issues, obstacles it will encounter, and possible problems this technology could give rise to. But most of them do not state that the successes are not out weighing the possible problems this technology could cause. They also do not address, solutions to those problems, or the fact that it will change the meaning of life, as we know it.

    In addition, if bioprinting does not show any signs of slowing down or halting at a certain goal. Research will continue to drive onward; it won’t just stop at fully functioning organs. Effects toward the future are detrimental and if bioprinting really works, we may draw that much closer to reinventing the very definition of life itself and testing the sustainability limits of our planet. Bioprinting must have serious regulations set upon it or research must come to a complete stop.

    I claim that bioprinting will negatively alter life, as we know it

    Because it will cause too many moral concerns on top of the many doctors already have to deal with on a daily basis.

    Because bioprinting gives rise to too many ethical problems in the future such as the use of stem cells in their research, mixing cells with animal cells, etc.

    Because bioprinting will change the meaning of healthcare, insurance, and liability.

    Because the social concerns will change the way life goes one from here on out, this technology likes others could soon be abused, etc.

    Because before biopriniting continues there are many regulations it must comply with, the major one being the code of ethics by the Biomedical Engineering Society.

  • APA Citation: Adhikari, R. (2014, March 27). Bioprinting, Part 2 – The Ethical Conundrum. . Retrieved July 25, 2014, from http://www.technewsworld.com/story/80205.html
    Live Link to Article: Bioprinting, Part 2 – The Ethical Conundrum
    Richard Adhikari continues, from his first article Bioprinting, Part 1 – The Promise and the Pitfalls, in this article to express the ethical side of Bioprinting. Adhikari Initially states the problem that resides in the United States which is the long wait forpill organ transplants. 3D printing is the best alternative because even organ transplants have to undergo immunosuppressive therapies, which can lower the recipients quality of life.
    He then moves to the moral and ethical questions Bioprinting generates. He mentions that money, insurance, moral decisions of who will get treatment, initial patients being guinea pigs, rules and regulations that have to be followed, and the use of 3D printing for athletes and for people that want to change appearance, will all be issues that will come about.

    “Nearly 120,000 people in the United States are on the waiting list for an organ transplant that may save their lives, according to the American Transplant Foundation.
    “In the short term, we need many more people to register to be a potential organ donor,” Jordan Miller, assistant professor of bioengineering at Rice University, told TechNewsWorld.
    However, donor organs require immunosuppressive therapies, which can limit the recipient’s quality of life, so over the long term, the medical community is “extremely excited about focused research funding to help progress 3D-printed organoids and organs for treating human patients.”
    The present thinking is that it will take decades to clear up the many technical problems that still have to be resolved before 3D-printed organs can be used for transplants. However, given that improvements in technology tend to follow a logarithmic rather than a linear pattern, the wait might be shorter.”

    In this nugget from the article Adhikari answers Linda Federico-O’Murchu’s question, “Even if it technically works, should we be doing it?” on a medical standpoint. As stated in this article the amount of organ donors is too high compared to the amount of patients that need transplants. As a result Brandon Griggs in The next frontier in 3-D printing: Human organs states, “Some 18 people die in the United States each day waiting in vain for transplants because of a shortage of donated organs.” It seems like we should be doing it, but it just is not that easy.

    “There already are guidelines to handle patients being exposed to new medical technologies.
    Hospital oversight boards would regulate donor issues, cells and tissue for informed consent, Kevin E. Healy, who chairs the department of bioengineering at UC Berkeley, told TechNewsWorld.
    A magazine covering ethics in biology, engineering and medicine already exists.
    The Biomedical Engineering Society approved a code of ethics back in 2004.
    “Medical consent laws and medical ethics have come a long way since the days of Henrietta Lacks,” Rice University’s Miller said. “The FDA has strict safety and efficacy standards for implants made from a patient’s own cells.”

    logo3D printing or Bioprinting seems like the best solution to the organ problem, but in Adhikari’s article I learned about a new twist. Along with all the debatable questions there exists an actual code of ethics for the Biomedical Engineering Society. I generated my research around the ethics of Bioprinting but never actually knew there were codes for it. There is no doubt in my mind new rules will be set on this area of Biomedical Engineering. It could in fact lead officials “to ban the use of 3D printing for human and nonhuman use by 2016″ as Adhikari also asserts.
    imagesBioprinting again proves to constantly have loop holes in every advancement it accomplishes. As it continues to grow Bioprinting could either carry many rules and regulations on its back or seize to be permitted.

  • APA Citation: Adhikari, R. (2014, March 27). Bioprinting, Part 2 – The Ethical Conundrum. . Retrieved July 25, 2014, from http://www.technewsworld.com/story/80205.html

    Live Link to Article: Bioprinting, Part 2 – The Ethical Conundrum

    Richard Adhikari continues, from his first article Bioprinting, Part 1 – The Promise and the Pitfalls, in this article to express the ethical side of Bioprinting. Adhikari Initially states the problem that resides in the United States which is the long wait forpill organ transplants. 3D printing is the best alternative because even organ transplants have to undergo immunosuppressive therapies, which can lower the recipients quality of life.

    He then moves to the moral and ethical questions Bioprinting generates. He mentions that money, insurance, moral decisions of who will get treatment, initial patients being guinea pigs, rules and regulations that have to be followed, and the use of 3D printing for athletes and for people that want to change appearance, will all be issues that will come about.

    “Nearly 120,000 people in the United States are on the waiting list for an organ transplant that may save their lives, according to the American Transplant Foundation.

    “In the short term, we need many more people to register to be a potential organ donor,” Jordan Miller, assistant professor of bioengineering at Rice University, told TechNewsWorld.

    However, donor organs require immunosuppressive therapies, which can limit the recipient’s quality of life, so over the long term, the medical community is “extremely excited about focused research funding to help progress 3D-printed organoids and organs for treating human patients.”

    The present thinking is that it will take decades to clear up the many technical problems that still have to be resolved before 3D-printed organs can be used for transplants. However, given that improvements in technology tend to follow a logarithmic rather than a linear pattern, the wait might be shorter.”

    In this nugget from the article Adhikari answers Linda Federico-O’Murchu’s question, “Even if it technically works, should we be doing it?” on a medical standpoint. As stated in this article the amount of organ donors is too high compared to the amount of patients that need transplants. As a result Brandon Griggs in The next frontier in 3-D printing: Human organs states, “Some 18 people die in the United States each day waiting in vain for transplants because of a shortage of donated organs.” It seems like we should be doing it, but it just is not that easy.

    “There already are guidelines to handle patients being exposed to new medical technologies.

    Hospital oversight boards would regulate donor issues, cells and tissue for informed consent, Kevin E. Healy, who chairs the department of bioengineering at UC Berkeley, told TechNewsWorld.

    A magazine covering ethics in biology, engineering and medicine already exists.

    The Biomedical Engineering Society approved a code of ethics back in 2004.

    “Medical consent laws and medical ethics have come a long way since the days of Henrietta Lacks,” Rice University’s Miller said. “The FDA has strict safety and efficacy standards for implants made from a patient’s own cells.”

    logo3D printing or Bioprinting seems like the best solution to the organ problem, but in Adhikari’s article I learned about a new twist. Along with all the debatable questions there exists an actual code of ethics for the Biomedical Engineering Society. I generated my research around the ethics of Bioprinting but never actually knew there were codes for it. There is no doubt in my mind new rules will be set on this area of Biomedical Engineering. It could in fact lead officials “to ban the use of 3D printing for human and nonhuman use by 2016” as Adhikari also asserts.

    imagesBioprinting again proves to constantly have loop holes in every advancement it accomplishes. As it continues to grow Bioprinting could either carry many rules and regulations on its back or seize to be permitted.

  • ThumbnailCritique the in-text citations, signal phrases and links.
    1. It has been shown through research that feelings displayed on Facebook are contagious. If you see more positive posts than negative posts, then you […]

  • Critique the in-text citations, signal phrases and links.

    20081203_RedPens-11. It has been shown through research that feelings displayed on Facebook are contagious. If you see more positive posts than negative posts, then you start posting more positive posts as well.

    The first link about the emotions on Facebook affecting other users was very applicable in this situation. They also summarize the article with one condensed sentence that left out a few points like who wrote the article, credentials and other facts they could have included. They failed at including a signal phrase, in-text citation, and using a useful quote to add to “contagious” Although the link they used was a great definition the word “contagious” used in medical terms it was not relevant to the use of “contagious” in this article. In addition they could have used a better signal phrase and added some in-text citations, but since it was more of a summary it was not needed.

    2. There have been studies done on Facebook and all the emotions related to posts. “We have enough power in this data set to show that emotional expressions spread online and also that positive expressions spread more than negative.”

    This example had a general idea, displayed their point, and included an in-text citation. They also did not use effective signal phrases in their writing. First, they used a rudimentary link of the Facebook log in screen. Although this might be helpful if someone did not know what Facebook was, it should have been stated earlier in their overall writing. Second, like example 1, the positive expression link was a link that had to do with medical issues not psychological or social issues which would have been helpful in this example.

    3. Researchers in a new study have found that feelings displayed on Facebook are contagious. They found enough data to show that “emotional expressions spread online and also that positive expressions spread more than negative.”

    This example is a combined and better model of example 1 and example 2. They used a great in-text citation, a fairly good signal phrase, and a link to the article they were pulling information from. They did not necessarily fail, but could improve on using a better signal phrase, including credentials, and including more about the data that was found or elaborating on the in-text citation.

    4. In a new study, researchers from University of California, San Diego have found that feelings displayed on Facebook are contagious. Publishing a paper in the journal PLOS ONE, the team analyzed over a billion anonymous status updates from more than 100 million Facebook subscribers across the United States and found that positive posts beget positive posts and negative posts beget negative posts. They said that while both are common on the site, the positive posts are more influential. They concluded, “We have enough power in this data set to show that emotional expressions spread online and also that positive expressions spread more than negative.”

    The writer used great signal phrases to give credibility to who is speaking, where this article was physically published, and where online it was published. Unlike example 3, which was the best example until this one, example 4 includes statistics and a more elaborate explanation behind the in-text citation that was chosen.

    Giving the reader more information about the quote makes it easier to understand and less likely for you to have to find the answer. Lastly the link to the article was a good choice because in the article it detailed on the research as a whole and also offered visuals to their findings. Furthermore, this article also listed all of the other authors that were included in the experiment, essentially giving credit to them.

  • Thumbnail

    This “Personal Dynamic Media” by Alan Kay and Adele Goldberg was written by writers way past there time! They have descriptions of cursors. Programs like Word in which you can save, edit, delete, create […]

  • Thumbnail

    This “Personal Dynamic Media” by Alan Kay and Adele Goldberg was written by writers way past there time! They have descriptions of cursors. Programs like Word in which you can save, edit, delete, create […]

  • Load More