Lab Report

Ana Rosa Rodriguez      Maliha Shaheed       Luis Salazar       Alma Vazquez

English 21003 – P

Prof. Brian Brennan

December 2016

Are Fingerprint Patterns Inherited?

Introduction: Ana Rosa Rodriguez

The complexity of the human anatomy is quite evident in the distinctive qualities of fingerprints. Fingerprints consist of unique patterns of ridges. While there is not a sole agreement as to how fingerprints form, a widely accepted belief is that these ridges are formed during gestation. “It is observed in embryos of the 10th to 13th week that the basal layer of the epidermis becomes undulated. These undulations quickly become more prominent and form folds of the epidermis into the dermis. These folds are called primary ridges” (Kucken, et al. 72). It has been estimated that “the mathematical probability of two different individuals making exactly the same print is about one in two quadrillion” (O’Neill, 933).

A study conducted by Anil K. Jain claims that if two fingerprints were chosen at random from a large database, the probability of the two particular fingerprints having the same types of ridges is equal to 0.2718. That is to say “there is only 0.2718 chance that two randomly chosen index fingers will have the same type.” Given these unique qualities pertaining to human fingertip patterns, the inference that fingertip patterns are not subjective to genetic origins is compelling.

The burden of this experiment is to investigate the inheritance of fingerprint patterns. In order to effectively determine if classes of fingerprint patterns are genetically correlated, we will explore the links derived from the fingerprint patterns of twenty sets of siblings. These correlations will indicate whether or not there is a substantial link between fingerprint patterns and heritable influences. We expect to discover no noteworthy connection between the acquired fingerprint patterns of siblings. Essentially, the consistency in sibling fingertip patterns should not be significantly different than that of the fingertip patterns of a set of unrelated individuals.

 

Materials and Methods: Maliha Shaheed

• Paper towel
• Moist towelettes for cleaning hands
• Pencil
• Clear Tape
• White paper
• 20 Sibling pairs
• Journal

 

• First we started to practice taking clear fingerprints and asked others for trials.
• To make an ink pad variation, we rubbed a pencil on a piece of printer paper until it turned to complete grey.
• Then, we cleaned the right index finger using the moist towelettes for each person.
• We then thoroughly dried the finger with a paper towel for clean finger prints.
• Then fingers were pressed and slided over the grey area
• We rolled the fingers on the sticky side of the clear tape.
• Then using sciossors , we did cut that part of the tape and did stick to a white paper
• Another towlette was used to clean that finger
• We did try to perfect our technique until we very clear fingerprints came out.
• At the end, we made consent forms for everyone who did participate giving their fingerprints in this experiment.
• All 20 pairs of fingerprints were labelled from 1 to 20 and siblings were labelled as A and B.
• As a group, all of our did participate examining each fingerprints and did characterize as a whorl, arch, or loop pattern. We made a data table as well for better recordings.

 

Results: Luis Salazar

 

Pt1)out of 20 pairs of siblings (consisting of 40 individuals) 15 of the pairs were of the same fingerprint pattern.

 

We then crossed 20 pairs of strangers.Pt2) The unrelated individuals were matched together randomly and

the results were that they matched only 30% of the time.

Random finger prints were selected to identify whether or not were a match to each other. On this chart we can see that 70% were a match to each other, and 30% were not.

 

 

 

Discussion and Conclusion: Alma Vazquez

Our results demonstrate that the chance of a sibling pair matching fingerprint patterns is a higher rate than that of a set of unrelated individuals. These results indicate that our original hypothesis is not supported and fingerprint patterns are hereditary. In more in depth research, “dermatoglyphics studies have suggested that there is high class similarity in the fingerprints of identical twins” (Jain, et al. 4). This is an ideal example of how genetics play a role in the characteristics of fingerprint patterns. Once our experiment was completed, our results have inspired a more in depth experiment in showing how genetics affects the specific subcategories of fingerprint classes. For example, instead of categorizing a set of siblings with an arch fingerprint in the arch class, one might categorize the individuals in question in the subcategories. That is, plain arch or tented arch. This new research would include more sibling pairs and study each fingerprint thoroughly. This experiment has helped us gain more knowledge about the heavy influence genetics has on unique fingerprints.

 

 

Works Cited

O’Neill, M. Edwin. “Fingerprints in Criminal Investigation.” Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology (1931-1951), vol. 30, no. 6, 1940, pp. 929–940. www.jstor.org/stable/1137319.

Jain, Anil K., Prabhakar and Sharath Pankanti., “Twin Test: On Discriminability of Fingerprints.” Visgraph. http://visgraph.cs.ust.hk/biometrics/Papers/FingerPrints/icavpa-02.pdf

Kucken, Michael, Newell, Alan C., “Fingerprint Formation.”Journal of Theoretical Biology. 235 (2005) 71-83 http://math.arizona.edu/~anewell/publications/Fingerprint_Formation.pdf

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Profile of a Science Professional

Massimo Pigliucci is a former Biologist who has worked in the field of genotype-environment interactions for the majority of his career. He currently works at the City College of New York as a philosophy professor. Pigliucci’s present profession is mainly concerned with the Philosophy of Science. This particular field in philosophy is arguably tightly linked with the natural sciences.

Pigliucci spent close to twenty-five years as a Biologist. “I published a good number of papers, my lab was funded pretty continuously by national science foundations. I spent a lot of time in the lab. I loved doing statistical analysis on large data sets; that was one of my specialties. There was nothing to complain about.” While Pigliucci’s career was well suited to his passions he gradually discovered that his research was no longer tackling the issues and topics that were of interest to him. That is to say, he was becoming interested in the theoretical aspects of biology as opposed to the empirical ones; Pigliucci was spending more and more time thinking about conceptual issues in evolution and biology rather than doing actual experiments. In light of this, Pigliucci obtained his second Ph.D. in the field of philosophy and decided to combine his two passions.

While some argue that the theoretical qualities studied in biology are in fact not interconnected with the field of philosophy, scientists and other intellectuals like Massimo Pigliucci, think otherwise. Let us briefly consider an example of such intellectuals. Ralph B. Winn held that “there are still scholars who deny the urgency of making a clear differentiation between philosophy and science—for the sake of effective collaboration—either because they believe that the function of philosophy consists in mediating between and integrating, the sciences, or because they insist that philosophy is an older and already obsolescent form of investigation” (Winn, 2). Massimo Pigliucci challenges the latter view by stating “once one starts discussing conceptual issues, the distinction between genetic science and the philosophy of science becomes relatively vague.”

There are numerous matters that demonstrate the similarities between these two fields of education. For instance, Pigliucci states that while working as a Biology professor at the University of Tennessee, he met a newly hired assistant professor of philosophy named Jonathan Coupler. “Coupler had recently defended his dissertation in philosophy at Stanford University and his thesis was on what philosophers call the nature nurture issues, which is what biologists call genotype-environment interactions,” says Pigliucci. As it turns out, this particular philosophical focus was the scientific field in which Pigliucci specialized. In order to broaden the similarities of these two subjects, consider the following: Genotype-environment interactions, as stated by the Experiment Institute of Vegetable Crops, influence the performance of varieties over a range of environments. By the same token, nature nurture issues tackle matters similar to this, such as “whether an attribute or idea is a product of human ‘nature’ or whether ‘nurture’ has a long, interdisciplinary history” (Ariew, 1). The principal point being, these two instructors where members of distinct academic fields, yet studied matters on analogous grounds.

While Pigliucci’s change in career path may be seen as a drastically unusual adjustment, as we see from Pigliucci’s previously stated example, this is not the case. Science involves critical thinking, observation, among other things, all of which are required in philosophy. Today in the field of science, one proposes a hypothesis and puts together evidence to support the given theory and then produces a coherent conclusion. One could say that this is, in essence, indistinguishable from philosophic inquiry. I say this because in philosophical inquiry one generates new ideas, and while these ideas may or may not be factual, they are driven by investigation or observation of our reality. Similarly, in the past, the branch of philosophy was, in many ways, closely related to the natural sciences. For instance V. F. Lenzen states, “While the formation of new concepts requires creative activity, the new usually is introduced as an extension or modification of the old. Creation must be founded on reflective analysis of the old…science and philosophy participate in a common task” (Lenzen, 449.)

Massimo Pigliucci is an ideal example of how the sciences and philosophy exist in a comparable platform. He steered away from the dispute between the incompatibility of science and philosophy and instead chose to combine the two. Pigliucci shares some advise to fellow intellectuals looking to decide their career path in the sciences and elsewhere: “Do whatever the hell you like because if you really love something there’s is a good chance you’ll succeed and if you don’t succeed you can always do something you don’t like later. I would say that there’s one thing that has changed dramatically in the past 10 to 15 years: more and more colleges have become trade schools. The point of education used to be not just to prepare you for the working environment but also to prepare you for life in general.”

 

 

Works Cited

Ariew, André, and Shorey, Katy(Jul 2016) Nature/Nurture – A Philosophical Analysis. In: eLS. John Wiley & Sons Ltd, Chichester. http://www.els.net [doi: 10.1002/9780470015902.a0003458.pub2]

 

Lenzen, V. F. “Science and Philosophy.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, vol. 8, no. 3, 1948, pp. 448–455. www.jstor.org/stable/2103213.

Ranalli, P., and I. Giordano. “Genotype-Environment Interactions in «Pisum Sativum» L.” Rivista Di Ortoflorofrutticoltura Italiana, vol. 66, no. 5, 1982, pp. 347–352. http://www.jstor.org/stable/42878518.

Winn, Ralph B. “Philosophy and Science.” Philosophy of Science, vol. 9, no. 1, 1942, pp. 1–18. http://www.jstor.org/stable/184678.

Position Paper

The Necessity for Alternative Methods for the Draize Rabbit Eye Irritancy Test in the Cosmetic Industry

The use of animals in laboratories in the field of cosmetics is an unnecessary cruelty. There are ethical apprehensions concerning these animal experimentations, and a reasonable need for more effective and economical means in acquiring the necessary data. Replacing these animal-testing techniques with efficient alternatives could potentially be a step toward a humane scientific community within the cosmetic industry. The burdens of this paper are to bare emphasis on the disadvantages of conducting the Draize rabbit eye irritancy test for cosmetic purposes, examine the potential alternatives to this specific toxicity test, and briefly assess the benefits the alternatives may have on the cosmetic industry.

The tests conducted on animals by cosmetic companies serve as a means to assess the safety of the products in question. The evaluation is “performed for each product prior to marketing, taking into account the general toxicological profile of the ingredients, their chemical structure and level of exposure” (Illing, et al. 95). In order to test these ingredients cosmetic companies conduct experiments on animals. Let us consider some of the experiments performed by the cosmetic industry in the course of manufacturing a particular cosmetic product. According to the Humane Society these tests include “skin and eye irritation tests… repeated oral force-feeding studies, [and] lethal dose tests.”

In an effort to demonstrate the ethical issues evident in these studies, let us develop a better understanding of one of these tests, specifically the Draize rabbit eye irritation test. This method of testing is utilized as a means to assessing the ocular irritation/corrosion potential of a particular ingredient or substance. The experiment is carried out by applying the chemical in question into a conscious rabbit’s eye and monitoring the damages caused to the eye. It should be noted that in some cases, while rare, dogs might also be used to perform this particular test. In cases where the experiment ensued irreversible effects to the animal’s eye, the animal is then euthanized once the necessary analysis is complete.

It will be beneficial to the topic in question to note that there are numerous accounts portraying the failures exhibited by the Draize rabbit eye irritancy test. For instance, Stephen R. Kaufman, M.D. states that he strongly supports the use of alternatives to the Draize test to demonstrate ocular irritancy of cosmetic products. Dr. Kaufman maintains that relying “on this test is in fact dangerous, because the animal data cannot be reliable extrapolated to man. Substances ‘proven’ safe in lab animals may in fact be dangerous to people.” The fundamental point for present purposes is that there are largely significant variances between the structures of a human eye to that of a rabbit’s eye. Here is a more comprehensive concern illustrating the issue at hand. Freeberg reported “281 human ocular toxicity exposures to 14 household products, and compared the findings to Draize test results. The human experiences differed from the Draize results by a factor of up to 250. Furthermore, the severity of rabbit eye response predicted poorly the degree of human ocular injury.” That is, the Draize eye irritancy test is unreliable because it fails to give an accurate account of the human eye toxicity.

Recent innovations in the science community have allowed for alternatives to the Draize eye irritancy test. These alternatives include in vitro eye irritation tests. That is, human hemoglobin denaturation, red blood cell tests, chorioallantoic membrane, isolated cornea, isolated eyes and cell cultures. A study conducted by Mitjans, Infante and Vinardell found that the red blood cell test, or RBC test, is a validated alternative to the Draize eye irritation test for the acute effects of typical surfactant-based formulations and ingredients. The method of the RBC test is clear and the process is simple. It also has the merit of being rapid and inexpensive (50). We can turn now to a different test that may serve as a substitute for the Draize eye irritation test. Mitjans, Infante and Vinardell also discovered that another alterative to the Draize rabbit eye irritancy test is using human hemoglobin in order to accurately test the protein denaturation produced by likely irritants. The study claims that “among the factors that affect eye irritation, protein denaturation has been reported as one of the most important factors that can result in corneal opacity” (Mitjans, et al.). As a result, the ends produced from this particular in vivo study had a better effect in regards to human hemoglobin absorbance. All in all, the study’s results demonstrate how the alternative method in question is easy to oversee, quick, cost-effective and provides sufficient information about the potential eye irritant action of diverse compounds.

It will be beneficial to the discussion at hand to reveal the flaws that might surface from these alternative methods. “Only a few in vitro assays actually attempt to model the entire eye. In fact, most in vitro tests that have been proposed…tend to model only one small part of the complex process of eye irritation” (Curren, et al. 487). While this may seem like a drastic flaw within the alternative approach, one must remember that in manufacturing a cosmetic product, companies have an abundance of previously accredited research to refer back to when choosing a potentially harmful element. Unless a new chemical is preferred, previous studies can be utilized to create a reliable ingredient list. There are, of course, ways to improve upon these alternative methods, just as there are ways to modify other relevant scientific experimentations. However, cosmetic companies would have to first steer away from the imprecise Draize rabbit eye irritancy test and move toward a more potentially effective process.

Aside from its poor reliability, there is another setback to the animal experimentation being discussed, which is potentially more troubling. That is, the Draize rabbit eye irritancy test is an unnecessary cruelty. Consider the alternatives to this cruel test. There is potential in these methods becoming the replacement for the Draize rabbit eye irritancy test. Given these dependable alternatives to the Draize rabbit eye irritancy test, certain cosmetic companies have implemented a ban on animal testing for their products. A few of these companies include Estée Lauder, Milani, and Kat Von D Beauty. Perhaps the United States should implement a complete ban of cosmetics with animal tested ingredients just as the European Union has employed since 2013. While there may be some misgivings about abolishing animal-testing entirely, there should at least be a serious consideration on eliminating the Draize eye irritancy test. This irritancy test can be substituted by all cosmetic industries just as some have already done. Why subject rabbits to this painful test if there are indeed cost-effective and time saving alternatives?

As demonstrated earlier, utilizing rabbits in examining eye irritants is not as effective as utilizing human derived elements such as red blood cells or hemoglobin. And so we see that there is a more effective way in promoting human health in the fabrication of cosmetic products, while also implementing a cruelty free means of production. It is safe to conclude that while there is no agreed upon way of testing for eye irritants within the cosmetic industry, it remains true that there are in fact alternatives available in the scientific community that does not exploit animals in its methods. The refusal of certain companies to change the deep-rooted practice of the Draize test creates a danger to the population and raises ethical concerns for the animal population. The cosmetic industry can make use of these alternatives and attempt to take a step toward a cruelty-free establishment, at least in the eye irritant assessment. In general, these successful alternatives are likely to be of valued significance in the anti-animal cruelty population. Additionally, reflection on the success rates of these alternative techniques suggests that there are prospects for a cruelty-free cosmetic industry and a broader population of satisfied consumers.

 

 

Works Cited

“About Cosmetics Animal Testing.” Humane Society International, 13 Oct. 2016, http://www.hsi.org/issues/becrueltyfree/facts/about_cosmetics_animal_testing.html.

Curren, Rodger D., John W. Harbell. “In Vitro Alternatives for Ocular Irritation.” Environmental Health Perspectives. 106.2 (1998): 485-492. JSTOR. Web. 13 Oct. 2016.

Illing, Paul, R E Hester and Michael Balls. Issues in Environmental Science and Technology: Alternatives To Animal Testing. Royal Society of Chemistry, 2007.

Kufman, MD, Stephen. “Problems with the Draize Test.” Safer Medicines, http://www.safermedicines.org/reports/Perspectives/vol_1_1989/Problems%20with%20the%20Draize.html. Accessed 13 October 2016.

Mitjans, Montserrat, M. Rosa Infante, M. Pilar Vinardell., “Human Hemoglobin Denaturation as an Alternative to the Draize Test for Predicting Eye Irritancy of Surfactants.” Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology. 52.2 (2008): 89-93. PubMed. Web. 15 Oct. 2016.

Abstract

Study: Pediatricians’ Experience with and Response to Parental Vaccine Safety Concerns and Vaccine Refusals; A survey of Connecticut Pediatricians

Link: http://www.jstor.org.ccny-proxy1.libr.ccny.cuny.edu/stable/pdf/41639281.pdf

 

Vaccination rates have significantly declined over the past few years; various parents are questioning the safety of these vaccinations, while others are refusing to vaccinate their children all together. The aim of this study is to inspect the response and experience of pediatricians, specifically in Connecticut, to parental vaccination concerns and refusals. 133 pediatricians from the state of Connecticut completed a questionnaire. It should be noted that participation was anonymous and voluntary. The given questionnaire examined the total number of vaccination concerns reported by each participating pediatrician, the economic status of the individuals seen by these physicians, and the personal impact of these vaccination related concerns. The results of the study supports the inclination that there is an increase in parental vaccine related issues and concerns. Compared to circumstances 10 years ago, 62% of pediatricians reported an increase in parental vaccination refusals and vaccination concerns. Over 30% of these pediatricians dismissed parents due to their refusal to immunize. In addition, the results demonstrate that those pediatricians living in suburban areas, who care for high socioeconomic status families, deal with a higher rate of vaccine refusals and concerns. These refusals have a negative impact on pediatricians. While the number of participants was small, the relevant conclusions support the escalation of vaccine related concerns amongst wealthier families. In turn, these increases in concerns and refusals have had a negative impact on practicing pediatricians in the state of Connecticut. The outcome of this study reveal that there is indeed an increase in vaccine safety concerns in Connecticut-based pediatricians.

Self-Assessment

This course has substantially enhanced the way in which I approach my writing. Professor Brennan’s lectures and feedback have made me more aware of the way in which I integrate outside scholarly material to my work. By this I mean that I am currently capable of better incorporating outside information into relevant topics in my paper.

The topics tackled in this class were out of my comfort zone, allowing my writing to take new shape. That is, I was able to engage in genres that were not related to my undergraduate field of study: philosophy. While I had previously worked with formulating ideas and arguments in an unbiased way through my projects, this course has further enhanced this skill. For instance, by discussing our stance on a particular controversial topic in the scientific community for our Position Paper, I was able to merge my unbiased writing skills from philosophical inquiry with my developing skills in scientific examination.

I especially grew in terms of incorporating new resources, specifically featuring interview dialogue. In doing so I strengthened my paraphrasing and quoting techniques. This raw material, obtained by the writer rather than from usual sources like scholarly sites or other online databases, serves as a great model for constructive writing. Obtaining information firsthand created a newfound respect for the art of research and scientific inquiry.