http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/17/health/17tumor.html?_r=1&ref=science

This article is about doctors finding a better way to treat cancer patients, especially ones with brain cancer. They now figured out how to more directly attack the tumor, rather than use chemotherapy throughout the whole body. It limits the side effects and allows them to use more potent poisons to kill the cancer. Doctors will now use extremely small tubes, called microcatheters, this allows them to directly spray the chemotherapy onto the tumor allowing for a more effective treatment of the cancer. I thought this was a really cool idea in that they're using older techniques for modern medicine. Microcatheters were originally used for people who had strokes, but now they can use them for chemotherapy. I think this is a major breakthrough for cancer treatment. This could also be a bad thing, as more people will survive and this will mean more population problems. This is a great break through though and many people will be saved because of it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/11/business/energy-environment/11oil.html?ref=science

This article is about how the world's countries are finally getting a wake-up call. A major forecasting agency predicted that our current energy policy is not sustainable and that in 2030 global demand for electricity will have increased by 73 %. Our reliance on coal would grow by 44 %, half of that coming from china. They also said that no matter what the world is going to have to pay for cleaner energy, so we should do it now. If we continue how we are now there will be a dramatic effect on the global climate, temperatures will also rise dramatically. I think this article is ridiculous, scientists have been saying this for years; it's about time we're going to do something about our energy crisis. We should have started this years ago, now it will cost even more.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/06/business/06corn.html?ref=science

This article is about how more and more farmers growing genetically engineered corn are not following the rules set up by EPA. When farmers grow genetically engineered corn they put bacterial genes into the corn DNA, which makes the corn produce a toxin that kills the insects that would eat the corn. The problem with this is that EPA is worried that some insects will become resistant to it. This would have a huge impact on the organically grown corn farmers, who use the same toxins produced by the genetically engineered corn on their organic corn. EPA set up rules for the farmers who genetically alter their crop. These farmers have to also grow regular corn in a close proximity to the genetically altered corn. The idea of this is so the insects will tend to go to the regular corn instead of the resistant corn and also so that if there is a resistant insect, it will have a high probability of mating with an insect that is not resistant, resulting in non-resistant offspring. I thought this was a really good example of how humans should not tamper with certain things in nature. It seems way to risky to me if there was a resistant insect that was to reproduce, it would totally ruin organic farming of corn.