A common experimental strategy in studying the effects of a specific protein in cells or organisms is to remove it. One can determine the physiological outcomes in the absence of that protein to ascertain its relative importance in maintaining normal functions, or in some cases, to note that it is dispensable or redundant and might have a backup within the cell to take up the slack. Some targeted techniques include RNA interference (RNAi) and CRISPR-based gene editing, and in many cases, it is possible to generate knockout cell lines or even organisms, like mice, that cannot express a specific protein. But when those strategies are not feasible for the experiment at hand, what is one to do?

My wife’s family has a rich and decorated military history, with her grandfathers, in particular, having served honorably in major combat. When I was in graduate school, I had a few acquaintances who had served in the Navy or Marine Corps prior to using their military college benefit to go into the sciences and eventually earn their doctorates. The military and those who serve are a key cog in our society to help protect the many freedoms we enjoy, and while they’re not as well-known as, for example, athletes like Ted Williams who served in combat, scientists have contributed greatly to efforts in war and in peace.

Oxidative stress is an imbalance between the production of reactive oxygen species (free radicals) and antioxidant defenses. [1] The body’s cells produce free radicals, which are nitrogen- or oxygen-containing molecules with an uneven number of electrons [2], during normal metabolic processes. [3] Meanwhile, cells also produce antioxidants that neutralize these free radicals to prevent excessive cell and tissue damage. In general, the body is able to maintain a balance between antioxidants and free radicals. [3] However, this balance could be disrupted under certain conditions or environmental stress or infection, and uncontrolled oxidative stress can accelerate the aging process.[3]

Slogging through another election cycle, you are probably deluged with dozens of political ads every day with candidates touting what they will vaguely do for your vote, and often, talking about how much their opponents suck. Don’t you wish they would have more concrete plans, or at least promise to delegate to true experts who want a better quality of life for the citizenry? As you determine which option to go with at the ballot box, perhaps it is time to consider what their position is on important science policy.

Throughout graduate school and even now, I’ve relied on Wikipedia as a valuable resource for quick information. My mentors and teachers have cautioned me against actually citing Wikipedia articles, but often these articles will show up as top searches on Google, and their listed references lead to published scientific articles so I could always go back to the original source and see the data and conclusions for myself. The fact that Wikipedia is free and freely edited makes it prone to fictionalization, which reminds us of the importance of corroborating whatever we read with third-party sources and our own experiences.

The term apoptosis was first used in 1972 to describe a morphologically distinct form of cell death. Since those early experiments and observations, apoptosis has become one of the focal points for biological research, with myriad laboratories and research groups continuing to work to further elucidate the components and pathways that drive this programmed cell death. As a fundamental biological pathway, apoptosis has benefits and adverse effects for the host organism. For example, many therapeutic strategies involve the activation of apoptosis to kill cancer cells, while other treatments seek to prevent apoptosis to preserve precious cells in key tissues.