The gut feeling about caffeine

 Following from my previous caffeine post: What are the effects of caffeine on our bodies? I thought it's time to round off my investigation into the intriguing substance of caffeine.

Not the best way to find out the effects of caffeine on the body

Do you ever get that gut feeling when drinking coffee?-Coffee and the gastrointestinal system

There is strong evidence that coffee increases gastric acid secretion. Interestingly experiments have shown that it's the other constituents in coffee that contribute to this increase in gastric acid secretion.
This was shown by  measuring the dose response of caffeine, regular coffee and decaffeinated coffee for gastric acid secretion in normal subjects. Both regular coffee and decaffeinated coffee gave a similar response in gastric acid secretion which was higher than that of caffeine alone (on a cup equivalent basis) (Cohen and Booth, 1975).

The dose response? what??

Measuring the dose-response enables scientists to observe the change in an effect (in this case:gastric acid secretion) caused by varying the levels of dose of a substance (in this case: dosage of caffeine, regular coffee and decaffeinated) after a certain length of time.

Kidney function

The kidneys play an important role in filtering the blood. The kidneys remove waste products (such as urea) and extra water from the blood which form urine. Any drinker of caffeine beverages is well aware that caffeine tends to stimulate an increased flow of urine.

Anatomy of Kidney

Caffeine was traditionally used to increase urine output until more potent diuretics became available. The diuretic effects of caffeine appear to be due to an increased rate in blood flow to the kidneys and increased rate of blood filtration. These affects are due to antagonism of circulating adenosine (see previous post) having a regulatory role in the formation of urine  (Fredholm 1984).

So will my cup of coffee cause a fluid imbalance?
A dose of 300mg of caffeine (approximately 4-5 cups) can cause acute diuresis- this has been shown by several studies (Oswald and Schnermann., 2011). Caffeine will only cause a significant increases in the volume of urine excretion and a negative fluid imbalance in a large dose. A study in which caffeine was given (6mg/kg) for 11 days showed no effect in daily urine volume (Armstrong et.al 2005).

Time for a breather-Respiratory system

Caffeine is a respiratory stimulant (Braun 1996). However based on the average person's caffeine consumption has little effect on the respiratory system. Larger doses of caffeine has proven to be effective in the treatment of neonatal apnea-the cessation of breathing in newborns.

Upcoming posts

How about  I keep it a surprise this time?

References

Armstrong LE, Pumerantz AC, Roti MW, Judelson DA, Watson G, Dias JC, Sokmen B, Casa DJ, Maresh CM, Lieberman H, Kellogg M. 2005., Fluid, electrolyte, and renal indices of hydration during 11 days of controlled caffeine consumption. Int J Nutr Exerc Metab. 15

Braun S., 1996., Buzz: The Science and Lore of Alcohol and Caffeine., Cary., NC., USA., Oxford University Press
., 252-265. Cohen, S., and Booth, G. H. 1975., Gastric acid secretion and lower-esophageal-sphincter pressure in response to coffee and caffeine., New England Journal of Medicine., 293,897-899.

Fredholm, B. B., 1984.,Cardiovascular and renal actions of methylxanthines., New York:Alan R.Liss

Oswald H and Schnermann J., 2011., Methylxanthines and the Kidney., Handbook of experimental pharmacology., 200., 391-412.

Why can't the traffic on our roads be more like the traffic in cells?

Time to take a short break from caffeine. After all it's a special occasion with the announcement of the Nobel Prize 2013 winners! (It's about time I did a post about it)

I see science being a bit like a mystery to be solved: all the clues have to be gathered together to see the overall picture. However like scooby doo and his gang it is much easier solving the mystery together!

Likewise this years noble prize in medicine was awarded to three scientists: Randy Schekman, James Rothman and Thomas Südhof. Who uncovered how the cell organizes the transport of substances around the cell.

Cells have traffic?

So you're probably thinking how do cells have traffic?

Rules of the road: Cell style

Substances are transported around the cell in membrane bubbles called vesicles (these are a bit like taxis transporting passengers from A to B). Vesicles bud and pinch-off from specialised structures in cells called organelles. Vesicles travel along the cytoskeleton of the cell like taxis travel along roads. The cytoskeleton of the cell is a network of protein filaments and tubules in the cytoplasm of many cells. As well as its role in transport the cytoskeleton gives the cell shape.

Red showing cells actin cytoskeleton

Randy Schekman's contribution

He discovered a set of genes that were required for vesicle transport.
How did he do this?
He studied the genetic basis of how a cell organises its transport system by using yeast as a model. (Yeast  are often used experimentally as they can be grown quickly and have a eukaryotic cell structure-they have membrane bound organelles like human cells, we also share many genes with yeast cells). Sometimes the best way to discover how something works is to look at what happens when that system goes wrong. That's exactly what Schekman did. He studied yeast with defective transport systems, identified the cause of congestions and identified the mutated genes. So he had solved one aspect of cellular transport.

James Rothman's contribution

He revealed the proteins involved in the fusing of vesicles (the transporters of cellular cargo)  with their targets (their desired destination in the cell) enabling the vesicles to deliver their cargo. Through his experiments he showed that these proteins bind in specific combinations to ensure that cargo is delivered to a specific location.

Thomas Südhof

He was interested in how nerve cells communicate with each other in the brain. He showed how vesicular contents can be released as a result of a cell signal.

In nerve cells signals come in the form of neurotransmitters (chemicals such as acetylcholine and noradrenaline). Nerve signals pass from nerve cell to nerve cell at junctions called synapses. Südhof found how nerve cells release neurotransmitter into the synaptic cleft upon a signal.

When an action potential (a electrical signal) arrives at a nerve terminal, calcium ions enter the cell through a channel that is temporarily open due to the arrival of the action potential. The entry of calcium  causes vesicles containing neurotransmitters to be released into the synaptic cleft where the signal is communicated to the neighbouring nerve cell. Südhof discovered the calcium sensing proteins in the pre-synaptic nerve terminal which direct and dock vesicles containing neurotransmitter to the cell membrane where the neurotransmitter is released into the synapse (using the mechanisms discovered by Schekman and Rothman). See home-made diagram below (apologies I am no artist).

Synapse- Signalling between two nerve cells

Cells are incredible at transporting substances. It's interesting to see how the work of a few scientists have uncovered the mechanism of transport of substances. Hats off to them! I hope next time you're travelling you'll think about the trillions of cells in your body transporting substances to and fro.

Upcoming posts
More posts on caffeine are inevitable. Will hopefully be looking into reviewing scientific papers in the future-Watch this space.

What are the effects of caffeine on our bodies?

An advertisement in a London newspaper in 1657 described coffee as: "A very wholesome and physical drink that helpeth digestion, quickeneth the spirits and maketh the heart lightsom, is good against eye-sores,coughs, colds, rhumes, dropsie, gout and scurvy." (Braun S., 1996)

Obviously today we do not view coffee and caffeinated substances to be this marvellous medical elixir.

So what are the effects of caffeine on the different systems in our bodies?

I'll be starting with the nervous and cardiovascular systems

Nervous and cardiovascular systems

Caffeine and the nervous system

Caffeine is a central nervous system stimulant-It increases brain and spinal cord activity, speeding up physical and mental processes.

Caffeine also affects the autonomic nervous system -A branch of the peripheral nervous system which controls smooth muscle, internal organs and glands (click for more information on the nervous system).
There has been reports that caffeine increases skin conductance (sweat gland activity). A 500 mg anhydrous (dry weight) caffeine dose can produce behaviour similar to General Anxiety Disorder also referred to as 'caffeinism' (Bruce et al., 1986). Caffeinism is a condition resulting from ingestion of a large dose of caffeine shown by diarrhoea, elevated blood pressure, restlessness and insomnia.

Putting things into perspective: a 500 mg dose all at once is a large amount considering  an average cup of instant (heaped tea spoon) coffee contains 60 mg (Center for science in the public interest., 2012). A large dosage of caffeine can produce extreme symptoms due to the rapid rate at which  caffeine is absorbed. So do not fear drinking your morning cup of coffee as 500 mg is a high dose and was used for experimental purposes.

Note how some of the effects caffeine has on the nervous system appear anxiety reducing (i.e increasing concentration and reducing tiredness) and some effects similar to anxiety (insomnia and restlessness).

Cardiovascular system

 Caffeine has an interesting effect on blood flow. In moderate amounts caffeine can increase blood pressure-the effect is more significant in those who do not regularly consume caffeine (Bruce., 1986: James 1997). But surprisingly has little effect on heart rate (France and Ditto 1992).

How does this change in blood flow come about?
Caffeine molecules compete with adenosine for adensosine receptors on cardiovascular cells (See previous post on receptors). In the cardiovascular system adenosine causes dilatation of coronary and cerebral blood vessels. Caffeine inhibits this process, meaning the blood vessels remain constricted. The narrower diameter of the blood vessels result in higher blood pressure (James 1997).

Time for a little analogy......
Imagine you have gone shopping for a new garden hose. Your standing in the aisle looking at the different diameters of garden hoses you can buy. Whilst you do this you imagine watering your garden with your new hose. The pressure of the stream of water coming out of the end of the hose depends on the diameter of the hose. Logically the narrower the diameter of hose the higher the pressure.

Hoses varying in diameter

Like hoses our blood vessels are the same. The narrower the vessel the higher the blood pressure in that vessel. But blood vessels (unlike your garden hose) are clever and can change diameter.

When adenosine is present in the blood, this causes the smooth muscle in the blood vessels to relax- the vessel wall gets thinner and the space where blood flows in the vessel gets wider: this is vasodilatation. When caffeine is present and binds to adenosine receptors instead of adenosine; it has the opposite effect. The smooth muscle in the vessel wall contracts and gets thicker so the space where blood flows gets narrower resulting in a higher pressure in that vessel: this is vasoconstriction.

Upcoming posts....

I'll be looking at the physiological effects of caffeine on the gastrointestinal and respiratory systems and also the effect on renal function (think peeing!). I also hope to do a bit about caffeine and health.

References

Braun S., 1996., Buzz: The Science and Lore of Alcohol and Caffeine., Cary., NC., USA., Oxford University Press

Bruce M, Scott N, Lader M, Marks V., 1986., The psychopharmacoloical and electrophysiological effects of a single dose of caffeine in healthy human subjects., British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology., 22, 81-87., [Online]., Available at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1401080/?page=1 ., [Accessed: 02/10/2013].

Center for science in the public interest., 2012., Caffeine content of food & drugs (online)., (Updated 2012)., Available at: http://www.cspinet.org/new/cafchart.htm., [Accessed: 03/10/2013].

France C and Ditto., 1992., cardiovascular reponses to the combination of caffeine and mental arithmetic, cold pressor and static exercise stressors., Phychophysiology., 29., 272-282.

James J., 1997., Understanding Caffeine., California., USA., SAGE Publications Inc

Puzzling over caffeine and adenosine-it's time to talk about receptors (please don't be antagonistic!)

Heading back to university for the start of the academic year it'll be inevitable that my coffee consumption will increase exponentially. So I'm back again and thinking about what happens in my body when I consume my daily caffeine fix.

After looking at caffeine metabolism and whether caffeine is addictive and causes insomnia in my previous posts. I thought it was time to start looking at HOW caffeine changes our body's functioning.

So time to start fitting the pieces together of the physiological effects of caffeine. This starts with receptors.

What are receptors?

Receptors are proteins which can be found on cell membranes. They bind to specific chemicals (these could be hormones, drugs, neurotransmitters etc). The binding of these chemicals can cause a change to occur in the cell.

It is natural when looking at the biological effect of caffeine in the body to start looking at what happens when caffeine binds to a receptor.

The caffeine-adenosine relationship

Everybody has two friends which are uncannily similar to each other. Caffeine and adenosine are those uncannily similar friends-they have a similar molecular structure.

Spot the difference for the chemists!

These similarities in structure mean that caffeine can bind to adenosine receptors and block their function. Adenosine on binding to its receptor generally inhibits physiological activity (it makes us feel more tired). Due to adenosine and its half brother caffeine having a similar molecular structure caffeine blocks adenosine receptors (mainly  A1 and A2 types of adenosine receptors) preventing their activation resulting in caffeine having a stimulant effect. Hence caffeine is an antagonist (It interferes with the binding and physiological affect of adenosine).

Still puzzled?

So if that’s perhaps gone over your head a little......

 Imagine you are putting together pieces of a puzzle. You are looking for a piece of the puzzle that joins to the piece you have in your hand (the adenosine receptor). You can see two similar looking pieces on the floor (an adenosine and caffeine molecule) that look like they'll both join onto the piece you are holding. You try piece A (the caffeine molecule) and find that it pretty much fits onto the piece you are holding (the receptor) but the fit is not perfect. Despite this you decide to continue putting the puzzle together. However you find that you cannot fit the rest of the puzzle together and complete it (receptor has not been activated so the physiological effect is inhibited-completing the puzzle) as the two pieces you first joined together are not the correct pieces to join to complete the puzzle (the physiological effect is inhibited).

You go back to the original piece you had in your hand (receptor) and this time you join piece B (the adenosine molecule) onto it and find that these two pieces fit perfectly together. This time you find you are easily able to complete the puzzle (the receptor is activated resulting in the full physiological effect-the puzzle is completed) as all the other pieces fit around the two you first joined together (the receptor and adenosine molecule).

Let’s put the puzzle together....

The binding of caffeine to adenosine receptors prevents adenosine from binding to the receptor causing a change in the cell's behaviour. Caffeine inhibits the effect of adenosine. This is how caffeine can make us feel more awake. As adenosine decreases neurotransmitter release, dilates blood vessel and inhibits lipolysis (break down of fats)-these effects make us feel more tired. Caffeine preventing this in turn makes us feel more awake.

Upcoming posts....

Caffeine and its effect on the physiological processes in our body- how this stimulant takes its effect on the nervous, gastrointestinal, respiratory systems and renal function.

Lets try and resolve some caffeine confusion

As I settled down to read the newspaper with (yes) a cup of coffee! An article about coffee caught my eye. "More than four cups of coffee a day increases risk of early death" (check it out and leave your comments).

Again the mysterious cup of coffee causes a stir. 

Drinking coffee is such a prominent part of the modern lifestyle with coffee shops clustering in every high street and our supermarket shelves stacked with all kind of coffee. It surprises me how variant
peoples views are on the effects of this seemingly everyday essential to our health is.


Caffeine is mainly found in coffee, tea, energy drinks, chocolate, cold and flu medicines and surprisingly some caffeine is still found in a cup of decaffeinated coffee (approximately 3.5% of the caffeine found in an non-decaffeinated coffee of the same strength and volume).

Sources of caffeine

Can caffeine be addictive?

Firstly I must define what I am referring to as an 'addictive' substance: a substance which an individual becomes physically and psychologically dependant and has the compulsion to increase the dose of said substance.
Scientists don't class caffeine as an abusive addictive drug. Regular caffeine users may experience a mild physical dependence. Withdrawal symptoms include: headache, fatigue and lack of concentration. However these symptoms may only last a day or so. These symptoms can be reduced is caffeine intake is reduced gradually.
But this still hasn't answered my question as to whether caffeine is addictive?
Well caffeine does not cause severe withdrawal symptoms or the user to exhibit compulsive behaviours as with other drugs. So caffeine is generally not considered addictive, certainly  medically speaking and according to my definition of 'addictive substance'.

Does caffeine cause insomnia? 

It's all about timings....

As mentioned in my previous post caffeine is rapidly absorbed and processed by the body (in about 45 minutes it is distributed to tissues in the body). It takes about 5-7 hours for half of the caffeine to be eliminated from the body (based on dosage from an average cup of coffee). It takes up to 10 hours for 3/4 of caffeine to be eliminated.

So what has this timing got to do with insomnia?

Caffeine is a stimulant so it keeps parts of your brain overactive preventing you from sleeping .

This means that a cup of coffee or two in the morning is unlikely to affect the average persons sleeping habits or consuming caffeine 6 hours before going to bed. However this depends of the individuals sensitivity to caffeine. People who are more sensitive to caffeine may experience insomnia, nervousness and gastrointestinal upset.

Caffeine is known to be a diuretic (it makes us need to pee), consuming a product containing caffeine late at night can mean we won't sleep properly as we keep needing the toilet.

What about increased risk of death?

Caffeine is just a small part of our diet and certainly in small doses it won't impact our health (although a large dose would mean drinking about 100 cups of coffee in a short space of time). Excessive coffee drinking is often linked to other unhealthy habits which may account for the statistics displayed in the article. But remain calm. You're not going to drop dead from drinking another cup of coffee.

Thanks for reading!

Next posts?

I'd like to investigate more of the biological effects of caffeine. And start asking how and why :)

Why does coffee make us pee? How does it mask symptoms of tiredness?

What is it about my morning cup of coffee?

I was watching Britain's favourite supermarket food. It inspired me to find out more about the science behind some of my favourites foods. It certainly brightens up my day finding out the exciting science behind our everyday essentials.

My home town Bristol buys more supermarket coffee than anywhere else in the country (perhaps this has influenced my love of coffee).

So what about my morning cup of coffee? 

Everyone knows that coffee contains caffeine. I want to uncover the effect of my morning caffeine fix/ essay fuel on the body and to decipher truth from myth. 

So caffeine....

Caffeine is a drug- its sounds strange to use this word,but is true by definition, as caffeine has a physiological effect on the body when ingested.

Caffeine is classed as a stimulant as it raises nervous activity in the body. As you drink an energy drink or a coffee. From the first sip the caffeine in the coffee is being absorbed by the lining of the mouth throat and stomach. Caffeine absorbed in the small intestine, metabolised in the liver and is distributed throughout the tissues in the body within 45 minutes of ingestion. Caffeine is broken down into Paraxanthine, theobromine and theophylline.

The Biochemistry bit (in brief).....

Paraxanthine increases lipolysis (the breakdown of fats). Theobromine dilates blood vessels which allow an increased supply of oxygen and nutrients to the brain and muscles. So perhaps try a cup of coffee before you exercise and it may help improve your performance. Theophylline is only produced in small amounts so its effects are not obvious, but it does relax smooth muscle.

Caffeine acts as an antagonist  (it inhibits the action of phosphodiesterase  -an enzyme which breaks down cyclic adenosine monophosphate (cAMP)). This results in increased levels of cAMP in the blood, this is what contributes to the feeling of alertness and energy of the consumption of caffeine.

What next?

So this is a lot to think about when you drink your next cup of coffee! It's interesting to note that caffeine will not replace your bodies need for sleep. It effectively masks the symptoms of feeling tired.

Thank you for reading :) I hope to do a bit more exploration of the effects of caffeine in future posts.

Can our ethical reasoning keep up with current research and technologies?

Reading about the first baby born after full genetic screening of embryos really got me thinking about the relationship between science and our ethic and moral views.

Embryo

Yes of course advancing science is for our benefit and trying to solve some of the most challenging world problems.But do you ever think that beneficial advancements could potentially breach our moral boundaries?
For example the genetic screening of embryos?

There is potential for misuse of using new generation sequencing techniques to predict hair colour, eye colour, facial features and complexion which are already to use already in forensics. Reading the article raised some interesting questions about the genetic screening of embryos across the world. Yes there are strict regulations regarding testing embryos in the UK, many countries may choose to ban new generation genetic screening and sequencing the genome of an embryo to select embryos based on certain traits. However one or two may  not enforce such a ban which could result in a commercial opportunities for the countries who decide against a ban.

Screening embryos for genetic abnormalities will increase the chances of successful IVF but how far can advances in science take embryo screening before it oversteps out ethical boundaries? Or will it become like boiling a frog? If you put the frog straight into the pan of hot water it will jump straight out, but if you put the frog in a cold pan of water and slowly bring it to boil it will result in boiled frog.

On the other hand it could be argued that ethical policies are restricting  the advancement of science. Researchers today are facing an increasing amount of ethical regulations that they must comply with along with extensive testing which means some of the worlds most cutting edge research can take time to impact our lives.

Ethical reasoning is important in science. It is there to protect us from ourselves. It is important that we use our scientific knowledge in an way that produces ethical research which to drive forward our current understanding of the world today. Most importantly scientists must communicate their work to the public so that the public have transparency about current research and to also to correct misconceptions that scientists are creating Frankenstein. Current research is well thought out and ethically reasoned. Also it is great to share the things your're passionate about!

The question is will ethical regulations be able to keep up with advancing science and technology which is changing our lifestyles?

Making Science Accessible: Fighting the Stereotype

If I asked you to draw a scientist, what would you draw? Something like this?

What does a stereotypical scientist look like in your mind? Like this?

This is perhaps the stereotype you might of perceived as a child or for some still the view held today. Scientists are also perceived as hard-working, eccentric and isolated individuals. Is this really the case?

Scientists play an important role in shaping societies views and their understanding of science today. It would be bold to say that they're even responsible for societies understanding of how the world works.

Technology is rapidly advancing and we are now in a time of exciting scientific discovery. Some of the brightest minds are innovatively trying to solve some of the worlds most challenging problems as you're reading this very sentence!
This means that communication is becoming an increasingly important aspect of primary research. Scientists should not shy away from communicating with the public. But embrace it!

Language is a huge barrier to people accessing science.
Often scientists use scientific jargon to give authority about their work. Jargon is perfectly acceptable to use when communicating research to an audience whom understand the jargon terms. Jargon terms give a concise and accurate way of definition. However, could a concise explanation still be given using the ten hundred most used words?  I challenge you to do this with the most technical thing you can think of: http://splasho.com/upgoer5/

There is the danger in clouding peoples understanding with cutting out the jargon and simplifying science. Particularly in defining scientific terms. For example when I was at school I learnt that the nucleus was the 'control centre' of the cell. But to what extent does that really describe what the nucleus of the cell ACTUALLY does?

I'll admit that it is sometimes easy to forget what is scientific jargon when it is so often used in my vocabulary.
With science rapidly changing everyday. It can be difficult to keep the public up to speed, but it is important to do so. For example, DNA sequencing: the public need to be informed about what DNA sequencing is and what it can and cannot tell us about ourselves.

This is why science needs to be made accessible for all! Science communication plays an important role into how science is represented in the media and the public's understanding of scientific research today.

Gene Patenting: Ownership over Genes

When I first came across the idea of patenting genes. I thought: "What a ridiculous idea, why on earth are scientists doing this??!How can a gene be patented? Especially naturally occurring genes?"

How does this relate to today?
Today's news: the US supreme court ruled that human DNA cannot be patented, but artificially coped DNA can be claimed as intellectual property.

So what is a biological patent some of you might ask: a patent which provides the owner with exclusivity to making,copying,using and selling the invention or discovery in question for a period of time.

The genes in question were the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes (which in their mutated forms can least to various cancers). The discovery of these genes (as important as they are/may be) cannot be patented in their natural form. After all what gives someone the right to have a patent over something that occurs naturally?
But what about invention of BRCA variants? Synthetically produced BRCA genes and and modified BRCA genes could potentially become patented (as they are not produced naturally- Complementary BRCA genes could also be patented on these grounds).

 What would be the cost to society had these genes been patented in their natural form?
It would mean that biotechnology companies would have the ball in their court for genetic testing and risk screening. Which would have a huge impact on cancer patients with respect to BRCA genes.

What would a ban of genetic patenting mean to biotechnology companies?
It could affect investment into gene research and gene therapies. The isolation of genes is mainly used in research to develop screening techniques and gene therapy.

This got me thinking about my previous post on the power on information. It made me realise just how much power scientists potentially have. Especially in cutting edge research. Billions of pounds and the welfare of many patients rests on these patents (as patents can increase the costs of treatment).

I understand the need for patents to protect peoples work and to give them ownership. But I can't help think of underlying selfish motives behind many patents in place today. Particularly in the pharmaceutical industry, patents can increase the cost of life saving drugs putting them out of reach to some of the worlds poorest countries. Yet probably the countries which need the medication the most!

Patenting shows how people can have ownership over information. Yes it protects how the information can be used. But does it perhaps restrict its potential?

What do you think about gene patenting? To what extent is it reasonable?

BBC news article: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-22895161

The Power of Information

 "Knowledge is knowing that a tomato is a fruit, but wisdom is not putting it in the fruit bowl".

Today it's mind boggling how much information is accessible at our finger tips. But there is a difference in having information and how you choose to use it. It is all very well studying for a degree and hopefully gaining knowledge. But what are you going to do with that knowledge?

I like to share much of what I learn, especially if it's something I'm fascinated by. Another key point is sharing  knowledge and information. Sharing can inspire and influence other peoples views and generate further questions to be answered. A single question can have a domino effect (Unless you find yourself in a 'Which came first, the chicken or the egg?' scenario).

Hopefully I've made my point: sharing information and how you use your finding is important in any kind of research.

So what got me thinking about this?
I was reading the Association of Medical Charities (AMRC) blog. One particular post: How Data saves lives. If researchers had access to patients data, could it help to speed up the research process? It's clear the public want to get involved in research. But lack of communication about the research to the patients is resulting in the lack of public awareness. Would you give your medical details to researchers?

It would be a huge task to open up NHS patient data to researchers. But the question is would the public trust the security of sharing such information? Imagine being able to use your medical information to help move research along! It has already been done in research into bowel cancer treatment-which has made leaps and bounds in recently! This truly emphasises the power of information!

Another ARMC blog post that caught my attention: Clearing the Path to the cure for Type 1
This post excited me! It showed me how researchers are aware of the barriers that are holding back research. The need for more research in type 1 diabetes is being taken to the Government. Awareness is being raised. Scientists are collaborating to give an overall picture of the UK research into Type 1 diabetes.

The only way forward with this research is to raise awareness, work together and SHARE information. Then the challenges could be overcome!

Just think when you next find out a new piece of information.....are you going to keep it to yourself? Share it? What are you going to do with it? Will you change someone's view with it? Change the world perhaps?


Links to the blogs if you're interested.

AMRC- How Data Saves Lives: http://policyblog.amrc.org.uk/2012/07/16/how-data-saves-lives/?blogsub=confirming#blog_subscription-2
2

AMRC-Clearing the Path to the cure for Type 1: http://policyblog.amrc.org.uk/2013/06/12/clearing-the-path-to-the-cure-for-type-1/

Something Ticked off the Bucket List

It's one of those things on the bucket list: To start a blog. I am certainly not a natural writer or blogger by any means. But I love to try new things! So here it goes.......

Hello all you lovely people reading this blog!
I hope to excite you about all the wonderful things there is to find out in biosciences and share my thoughts and also my confusions on this matter. Or I may just be sending my words into empty space. Who knows!
I wonder if in a years time I'll look back at this post and cringe at my first attempt at a post.
But nevertheless I am student so I guess this is just going to be another learning curve.

Watch this space