She Was Born Without an Immune System. Gene Therapy Saved Her Life.

The article explains how gene therapy saved the life of a young girl, Cora Oakley, who was born with severe combined immunodeficiency (SCID). SCID is a rare genetic disorder that leaves babies without a functioning immune system. SCID is often referred to as "bubble boy disease," and it used to be considered a death sentence. Patients with this condition traditionally receive a bone-marrow transplant, but that carries serious risks, including graft vs host disease, long hospitalizations, infertility, and long-term organ damage.

The young child had ADA-SCID, which is one of the few variants of SCID that is targeted by a new form of a gene therapy trial from 2017. Instead of trying to replace her immune system, her doctors decided to collect her stem cells, insert a healthy ADA gene using a modified HIV virus, and return the corrected cells to her body. 

A study done recently that followed 62 babies found that every child was alive after eight years, and 95% had a fully restored immune system. The treatment for this condition is now much less dangerous for patients, and families are overall happier with this treatment. Although this treatment is costly for families.

This type of gene therapy saved Cora's life, as well as many other patients. She and many others can now live a healthy, normal life due to gene therapy. This article was refreshing to read to see good news occurring because of gene therapy.

References:

Bajaj, S. (2025, December 1). Gene therapy offer a cure for babies with the deadly ‘bubble boy disease’ - the new york times. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/11/27/well/bubble-boy-disease-gene-therapy.html

Wadbudhe, A. M., Meshram, R. J., & Tidke, S. C. (2023, October 26). Severe combined immunodeficiency (SCID) and its new treatment modalities. Cureus. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10676291/

The DNA Helix Changed How We Thought About Ourselves

The discovery of DNA was one of the most groundbreaking discoveries in science to date. There were many scientists who played crucial roles in the development of the discovery. Rosalind Franklin who did work on X-ray crystallography, Francis Crick a physicist, and James Watson, who was a geneticist. The discovery of DNA led to the question of how people thought about life before it was discovered. Before the discovery, many people would think of a “mysterious vital force” inside cells. It was apparent that traits were being passed down through generations, but it was not clear how that occurred. Darwin hypothesized that particles came from cells through the body into the sperm and eggs and created the next generation. Gregor Mendel then hypothesized that plants inherit colors and traits in a pretty clear, abundant ratio. Later, scientists envisioned these passed-on traits as genes; some saw genes as merely mathematical, while others thought they were physical molecules. It was also not agreed upon what exactly in the cell was the genetic code. 

    This is when James Watson discovered the shape of DNA. His work showed that DNA was a molecule that was made of two strands around each other, and was made of four molecular units called bases, which were used as a code for writing genes. He also discovered exactly how the DNA splits, and then it was later found by Crick that the code that cells use the encode genes in their DNA to build proteins. From there, it was discovered by other scientists that there are sometimes mistakes in the sequencing of DNA. These mistakes in the sequencing could lead to genetic disorders, and also lead to a molecular basis for evolution from natural selection.

Shortly after, Watson began working as the leader in the US government’s first attempts to sequence the human genome. Watson worked the job for only two years, but his work lives on and served as a brilliant beginning of scientists being able to sequence the human genome much quickly. This was important, and now doctors regularly check the genomes of patients to check for the presence of inherited diseases.

Watson, however, took his public platform to a controversial stance when he included his racial beliefs. He claimed publicly that there were genetic differences that made African American people less intelligent than white people. This was not supported by any study of the genome, but Watson claimed it was. Genetics today proves that race is not a good predictor of genetic variation in human populations.

The complexity and brilliance behind the discovery of DNA are groundbreaking. The breakthrough not only changed science but also how we as humans understand ourselves, and it was important for healthcare as well. It is so important to be able to use the analytics of the human genome to predict patterns of inheritance.

References:

Alberts, B. (1970, January 1). The structure and function of DNA. Molecular Biology of the Cell. 4th edition. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK26821/

Zimmer, C. (2025, November 7). The DNA helix changed how we thought about ourselves - The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/11/07/science/watson-dna-humanity.html

Is Laziness Genetic or a Choice? Unraveling the Nature vs. Nurture Debate

In the ongoing debate about whether laziness is a genetic trait or a matter of personal choice, recent research sheds light on the complex interplay between genetics, behavior, and environmental factors. While laziness may seem like a simple concept, its origins and underlying causes are far from straightforward.

A study conducted by the University of Missouri identified a specific gene, the Protein Kinase Inhibitor Alpha gene, that correlates with physical inactivity in rats. According to Frank Booth, a professor at the MU College of Veterinary Medicine, "genes play some role in physical inactivity," and the discovery of this gene opens doors for understanding sedentary behavior in humans as well. This research suggests that laziness may indeed have a genetic component, with certain genes predisposing individuals to a tendency for inactivity.

On the other hand, an article from ProactivityLab.com delves into the broader question of whether laziness is a learned behavior or a genetic trait. While acknowledging the influence of genetics on personality traits and behaviors, the article emphasizes the role of environmental factors and lifestyle choices in shaping laziness. It highlights the concept of epigenetics, where genes are influenced by external factors and can be turned "on" or "off" based on lifestyle and environment.

The University of Missouri study provides compelling evidence for a genetic basis of laziness, pointing to specific genes that may influence physical activity levels. However, it's essential to consider the broader context of genetic research and its implications for understanding human behavior. As the ProactivityLab.com article suggests, laziness is likely a complex interplay between genetic predisposition and environmental influences.

In analyzing these two sources, it's evident that laziness cannot be attributed solely to genetics or personal choice. Rather, it is a multifaceted phenomenon shaped by a combination of genetic factors, environmental influences, and individual decisions. While genetic research offers valuable insights into the biological basis of behavior, it's essential to consider the broader context of human experience and the complex interplay of nature and nurture.

Ultimately, the question of whether laziness is genetic or a choice may not have a definitive answer. Instead, it invites us to explore the intricate relationship between our genetic makeup, environment, and personal agency in shaping our behaviors and tendencies. By understanding these factors, we can better navigate the complexities of human behavior and strive towards a healthier, more balanced lifestyle.

In conclusion, laziness is a nuanced phenomenon that defies simplistic explanations. While genetics may play a role, it's essential to consider the broader context of environmental influences and individual choices. By acknowledging the complexity of laziness, we can approach it with empathy, understanding, and a commitment to holistic well-being.

Sources:

https://proactivitylab.com/is-laziness-genetic/#:~:text=Genes%20do%20influence%20personality%20traits,researchers%20as%20a%20learned%20response.

https://neurosciencenews.com/laziness-genetic-choice-14876/