General rules that must be followed:-
1- Remember to number the answers to each question.
2- Be kind to my eyeballs. You do NOT have to write pages and pages and pages.
Be CONCISE. However, there is sometimes a fine line between being concise, and
being incomplete. So, go directly to the point of the question – go DIRECTLY. Your
answers will always be evaluated on quality, rather than quantity, of information.
3- Please do not include the questions themselves in your submission. Either delete the
questions, or create a separate document.
4- For some question, there is no right or wrong answers. You should think critically and
answer with a good logic or science.
1. You are studying a drug that is supposed to cure disease “X”. In group “A” of mice, application of the drug “squeak-up” cures the disease. In group “B”, the drug does not work, but group “B” has a SNP not present in group “A”.
Dr. Jones says that the mutated protein caused by the group “B” SNP, directly interferes with proper squeak-up activity.
Dr, Smith says that the group “B” SNP doesn’t interfere directly with squeak-up, but rather with its binding site on the cell membrane.
Using OLA, how would you confirm one, and/or negate the other? I am not asking you to pick which of the two people is right – just set up a protocol to help make the decision.
2. Optogenetics is currently being studied to cure neurological disorders. Will this technology work better with spinal cord injuries, or with diseases associated with cerebral cortex neuron malfunction? Choose one, and support it with good optogenetic science.
3. The UMass Lowell debate team states that CRISPR cas-9 therapy can cure a Mendelian disease more efficiently than RNAi. The MIT debate team says that RNAi can cure a Mendelian disease more efficiently than CRISPR cas-9.
The two debate team captains, and the moderator/referee, all came down with laryngitis at the same time. So, YOU have been assigned to captain BOTH teams, AND be the referee. Therefore, you must (1) provide two scientifically valid reasons why the UMass Lowell team has a better argument, and (2) provide two scientifically valid reasons why the MIT team has a better argument, and (3) decide, as referee, which debate team wins, and why.