Week 1 forum post responses

User Generated

arffnip

Humanities

Description


In need of a 250 word response/discussion to each of the following forum posts. Agreement/disagreement/and/or continuing the discussion.

Original forum discussion/topic post is as follows:

  • Nature vs. Nurture. As we move through this course, the question of heredity versus the environment will arise as it relates to biological bases of behavior. Before beginning this course, did you believe that the majority of psychological disorders are a function of heredity or environment? Discuss the role the epigenetics in science and why the old argument of Nature vs. Nurture is Dead. Provide an example from the research study Lifestyle, pregnancy and epigenetic effects or the research from Epigenetics of Lifestyleto support the opinion you are presenting.
  • Central Nervous System. Recent research indicates that more extensive neurogenesis may be possible in the central nervous system through the use of stem cells. Examine one biological implication of this line of research in terms of the ethical implications that make it controversial.



Forum post response #1

Physiological Psychology is a branch of psychology dedicated to studying all of the physiological processes involved in psychological processes (King, 2018). The Central Nervous System (or CNS) is highlighted in Physiological Psychology. The CNS is essentially made up of the brain and spinal cord. According to King (2018), this psychology branch is changing at a breakneck speed. In fact, evolving technologies seemingly introduce new discoveries daily (King, 2018), thereby enhancing a better understanding of the brain, with all of its enigmas (2018).

Recent scientific studies indicated that considerable neurogenesis in the CNS may be stimulated via stem cells. The term neurogenesis simply refers to active generation or re-formation of nerve cells within the brain. The term, in its most fundamental form, means nervous system (neuro) new beginning (genesis). Furthermore, the term stem cells can also be confusing to most. These are cells at their most basic. These unspecialized cells divide and then have the ability to become very specialized cells with adaptable utility. Ultimately, stem cells can be transformed into any cell within the human body. Most important, there are different sorts of stem cells; and these can be found in both human embryos and adults. The latter category is most important, for it had been formerly and wrongfully held that adult mammals (such as humans) do not ever produce new neurons (Emsley, Mitchell, Kempermann, & Macklis, 2005). Scientists have been heartened that future stem cell research will lead doctors in inducing a healthy re-population of the cells in diseased brains and spinal cords (Emsley, et al., 2005), thus restoring functionality. Other stem cell research hopes to find a cure for cancer by determining the origin of the cancer stem cell (Bjerkvig, Tysnes, Aboody, Najbauer, & Terzis, 2005). The reasons for stem cell research are endless.

Nevertheless, there are a number of controversies associated with this line of research. The first ethical challenge presented is the usual source of “fresh” stem cells. Although researchers have discovered stem cells within the adult human body (Emsley, et al., 2005), (bone marrow and other sources), the primary source is from human embryo sourcing. This sourcing is achieved by harvesting stem cells from IVF embryos. Prior research reportedly used aborted fetuses. However, many states have made this practice illegal. Even so, the idea that scientists are using embryos deliberately grown in a test tube purposed for stem cell extraction has launched a perpetual debate as to the practice’s ethics. At the heart of the controversy is the viewed status of the embryo. Another ethical controversy rages about the injection of human stem cells harvested from embryos into test animals. Pundits suggest that the research practice creates deplorable hybrid chimeras, which are notionally part human, part pig, and part sheep. Because of these ethical implications, the usage of stem cells for regenerative or correctable therapies remains controversial.

Forum post response #2

Before taking this class, I had a moderate level of knowledge on how psychological disorders can be heredity or environmental. In biology, we learn about the anatomy and physiological traits of an individual that can impact one's life (health, behaviors, society conformity, decision-making, etc.). For example, I know someone who was diagnosed four years ago with Attention Deficit Disorder as an adult. The trigger was this person’s child was displaying signs of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, which seemed to be somewhat similar to the parent’s behaviors. The adult's condition was discussed as a child, but the parents didn't want to do anything about it that could ruin image. So the condition went unnoticed throughout the years and it was just "chalked up" to personality and strict mannerisms developed as leader in the military. They both were diagnosed around the same time. Being in the military, I’ve encountered those (and have close friends) that suffer from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder from combat in military, which was predicated on severe environmental conditions that was indicative for way of life and traumatizing experiences like imminent threats, weapon attacks, IEDs, and death. Certain environmental effects can trigger their trauma and significantly impact their behavioral disposition.

The examples I’ve given above are common disorders that have been biological and environmentally linked to impacting behaviors, which can hinder psychological progression. Epigenetics are biological factors that do not manipulate one’s DNA. The role of epigenetics in science is a significant one. It may not alter one’s DNA, but it can alter other biological effects of an individual, which can have a permanent effect. For example, a woman’s pregnancy can alter her behavior due to various reasons such as hormones, weight gain, stress, pregnancy-developed diseases (i.e. gestational diabetes, preeclampsia, etc.), and the environment. Barua and Junaid (2015) stated significant research shows metabolic disorders within pregnant women have exponentially increased. My aunt’s friend developed gestational diabetes during her pregnancy and after birth, still has diabetes. I don’t know if it’s a different type, considering she’s no longer pregnant. In Lifespan and Development, we discussed the theoretical paradigms of nature vs. nurture. The controversial debate is centralized on how both ideals inherently affects human behavior (Rettew, 2017). Because there is still argument about whether biological or environmental factors influence behavior makes this issue a dead issue. We know now, with science and research, that both do significantly impact one’s behavior.

Forum post response #3

In response to Nature vs. Nurture topic, the question, “Before beginning this course, did you believe that the majority of psychological disorders are a function of heredity or environment?” In response to the above question, I believe that the majority of psychological disorders are a combination of both heredity and environment. Moreover, I believe that the human body inherently has a propensity that may be provoked or triggered by countless factors within their environment.

According to Barua and Junaid (2015), “epigenetic mechanisms such as alteration of DNA methylation, chromatin modifications and modulation of gene expression during gestation are believed to possibly account for various types of plasticity such as neural tube defects, autism spectrum disorder, congenital heart defects, oral clefts, allergies and cancer” (p.85) It is these findings and the like that are grounded in both authors research that I believe establishes the importance of epigenetic findings in the area of science both biologically and psychologically. Additionally, I would venture to assert that the “old argument Nature vs. Nurture is Dead,” in that I don’t see that there is a choice between one or the other, based upon new science, but that they coexist. In fact, “Nature vs. Nurture,” (2001), contends “...it seems reasonable to think that many personality and behavioral traits will not be exclusively the province of nature or nurture, but rather an inextricable combination of both (p.2).” Additionally, according to Barua and Junaid (2015), “Etiologically, factors such as different environmental conditions may modulate the developmental origin of adult disease. Epigenetic alterations of the fetal genome during specific windows of gestational development are emerging as one of the hidden mechanisms for such effects beyond the underlying changes in DNA sequences” (p.85), which collectively purports that one’s life is not dictated by virtue of one’s genetic makeup and traits alone, but that their environment plays a significant part in the shaping and molding of the person internally and externally.

User generated content is uploaded by users for the purposes of learning and should be used following Studypool's honor code & terms of service.

Explanation & Answer


Anonymous
Really useful study material!

Studypool
4.7
Trustpilot
4.5
Sitejabber
4.4

Similar Content

Related Tags