Recently, there has been much speculation surrounding the colonisation of other planets. From SpaceX to NASA, there have been an array of meetings, plans and discussions surrounding the future of Mars, and whether it should one day be colonised.

One argument for the colonisation of Mars is presented by futurist Michio Kaku, who points out that 99.9% of life forms on Earth have gone extinct. On this planet, he claims, we either adapt or die. With the multitude of problems facing our planet, and a growing private sector in space exploration, the frequent discussion of Mars is understandable. Issues such as global warming, antibiotic resistance, and nuclear disaster threaten the planet, as do the countless asteroids that may hit Earth at any given moment. In the case of our planet’s destruction, many argue that a ‘backup planet’ is a viable solution. Such an argument was also supported by the late Stephen Hawking, who conjectured that we needed to colonise the planet in the next 100 years to avoid extinction.

Although such a topic undoubtedly stirs excitement among the population, the reality is that the colonisation of Mars is highly impractical. Ideas such as home-building robots, genetically modified plants that can survive on Mars and other necessary technologies are, in many respects, a huge challenge to attain. Whilst easy to succumb to the fantasy of life on Mars, one must not forget the many dangers associated with space travel. Life on a planet with little gravity, high doses of radiation, and micrometeorites is hardly appealing.

Of course, with sufficient research and investment, these issues could be tackled. But why should the government and the taxpayer invest such large sums of money in another planet, as opposed to their own? Even in the event of large- scale disasters such as global warming, or an atomic bomb, the Earth would be far more habitable than Mars. Many have concerns over polluted water, and yet the only water on Mars is in the frozen ice caps. Many have concerns over the volume of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, and yet the atmosphere of Mars is 96% carbon dioxide. It is certainly hard to envision a scenario in which Mars is more habitable than Earth. Then why spend so much money, time and resources fixing these problems, instead of focusing on rebuilding our own planet?

The issue of asteroids still remains. Many theorize that the potential for asteroids to destroy Earth is a valid reason to seek shelter elsewhere, and colonise another planet as potential backup. However, if an asteroid was on course to Earth, surely instead of relocating the population, it would be far simpler to build asteroid deflecting technology? In the unlikely case that no area on Earth was safe, one could invest in constructing deep sea colonies in bio domes. Although this sounds challenging, it is still more feasible than relocating a population to a planet nine months away.

To summarise, although the idea of travelling to Mars is both exciting and tempting, one needs to look at the practical implications of this. Spending billions on robots, housing, GMO food and all the necessary technology to achieve such a feat is far less reasonable than focusing on renewable technologies, and our own planet. In times of great uncertainty, we should not be focusing on the colonisation of space, but rather the current state of Earth, and tackling our climate crisis.

The technology involved in genetic editing has made huge breakthroughs in the past few years. What began as an unrealistically difficult and ambitious endeavour in the increasingly complex world of medicine has now manifested into a reality through technology such as CRISPR. Genetic editing holds the power to not only treat but prevent countless diseases, transforming the world of medicine and possibly even diverging the path of human evolution itself.

The debate as to whether genetic editing is justified has been fiercely battled for years. The first genetically edited babies were born in China in November 2018. The scientist responsible for this, He Jiankui, was found guilty of “illegal medical practices”. He served three years in prison and was fined a huge 3 million yuan (£327,360). The Chinese court even insisted Jiankui “crossed the bottom line of ethics in scientific research and medical ethics.” Large numbers of people agree with this claim, arguing genetic editing can never be justified.

The main reasons supporting this argument include how genetic editing involves humans ‘playing God’. Religious believers often insist that only God should have the right to edit such a crucial element of our individuality, and humans should be happy with their genetic identity as it is ‘God’s gift’, even if this genetic identity involves a disease.

The misuse of genetic editing has been a cause of much concern. Its potential use to enhance characteristics such as physical strength, looks, or even intelligence would be unfair to ‘unedited humans’ and possibly biased to the wealthy- the poor will likely be unable to afford genetic editing. A ‘black market’ related to gene editing - much like ‘back alley ’abortions - may develop, where those who cannot afford gene editing will choose unauthorised and unregulated facilities with likely higher complication rates due to the lack of sanitation and doctors able to preform the procedure.

Furthermore, if everyone decides to genetically edit themselves there would be a reduction in genetic variation in the human species. Further concern is that eradicating genetic diseases would result in overpopulation, thus greatly contributing to the ever worsening issues of global warming and depletion of essential natural resources.

There is also a strong ethical issue associated with all types of gene editing – is it really correct for people to use the system to ‘customise’ their own children? Surely only the child should have the right to alter their appearance and should do it when they are old enough to understand the significance of this irreversible decision.

Genetic editing may gives rise to eugenics in dictatorship countries - where political or government groups forcefully try to modify the gene pool of some of their subjects. This may be to ensure mental and physical advantage in warfare or scientific careers.

In addition to ethical issues and the potential misuse of genome editing, there are concerns over safety and possible complications. Germline therapy (a type of genetic editing where DNA is transferred into the cells that produce reproductive cells) poses a potential infection risk through the use of viral vectors that enable DNA to be transferred into these cells. No one can truly predict how these resulting genes may interact during fertilisation and what genetic defects may arise.

On the other hand, one can argue that genetic editing can easily be justified. After all, a long time ago surgery would have been considered as a human taking the opportunity to ‘play God’. Surgery was previously extremely risky due poor hygiene, little access to powerful anaesthetic and sub-optimal techniques with high complication rates. However, surgery is currently much safer- millions of people undergo it and change their lives for the better. Many people predict this future for gene editing – there is nothing wrong with people wanting to rid themselves of a disease to empower themselves and become healthy again- we all have the right to be as healthy as possible. Nature can be very cruel to us- people cannot choose whether they end up with genetically inherited diseases such as haemophilia which completely destroy one’s life and damage their mental health as well as their physical health. If research in genetic editing continues we will have the power to live long and happy lives. Couples can be reassured that their unborn children can too since germline therapy ensures the disease will not be inherited in the family again.

If gene editing becomes widespread and advanced enough it will be the key to controlling human evolution – humans will eventually be much more intelligent creatures who are more mentally and physically resilient to the variety of challenges life brings in our day to day lives. In fact, instead of waiting hundreds of thousands of years for beneficial mutations to arise (as with natural selection), we could start to see beneficial changes every year. Many people regard gene therapy as unsafe, however, as with all new therapies, medicine, and vaccinations, genetic editing will be vigorously tested and researched before it is released to the public as a standard procedure, certifying its safety.

In conclusion, genetic editing could greatly benefit people, increase longevity, and change the scale of human happiness and productivity by multiple orders of magnitude. It could eliminate thousands of diseases and many forms of pain and anxiety arising from them. There are only a handful of areas of research in the world with this much potential. However, whilst it may be a wonderful addition to medical science, there needs to be firm monitoring to ensure genetic editing is as risk free as possible. Furthermore, it must be strictly controlled to avoid misuse. Genetic editing has risks- we must proceed with caution, but many new technologies have risks and we are eventually able to use them to greatly benefit people throughout the world. We should not let fear hold back progress on this extremely promising new area of research.

Einstein’s theories of special and general relativity were singularly revolutionary and radical at their time of conception; established laws of physics and previous understandings of reality itself were uprooted. Albert Einstein, one of the most famous scientists of all time, proposed his theory of special relativity in 1905, and the theory of general relativity in 1910, contributing fundamental ideas, forming the basis of modern physics. By combining the ideas of Isaac Newton and John Clerk Maxwell, Einstein conceptualised a new reality. The seemingly inexplicable discrepancy between Maxwell’s finding that the speed of light (c) was constant regardless of motion, with Newton’s laws of motion, was reconciled through Einstein’s proposal of spacetime. Einstein challenged Newton’s understanding of the universe as a ‘clockwork universe,’ where a metre is always a metre and one second is the same anywhere in the universe – Einstein’s spacetime stated that space and time are not two separate dimensions, they are not separate from each other, but are unified in a dynamic, 4-dimensionsal continuum. This fabric of the universe is sensitive and respondent to the presence of mass and energy and dictates how mass and light moves through the universe. Time and time again, different phenomena such as the Eddington solar eclipse in 1919, has proven Einstein’s theory right.

The theory of special relativity also concluded that simultaneity, things happening at the same time, is relative to motion, which Einstein explained through a simple thought experiment: suppose one person is standing still, equidistant from two trees, and two bolts of lightening strike both trees at the same time. A second person who was also equidistant from the two trees, but was instead in a moving train, would have seen one tree struck before the other. This led to the conclusion that both time and distance are relative to motion. Such is the genius of Einstein – his musings, questioning, and inherent curiously led to such revolutionary ideas, explained through equally enlightening and simple terms.

What is particularly striking is the use of thought experiments themselves, as oppose to the empirical and experimental methods we are accustomed to today. For all of these theories were derived from sparse evidence, considering how revolutionary they were; evidence which even now, continues to arise, repeatedly proves Einstein’s genius. For he did not experience these things before formulating his theories – they were predictions, and this required immense creativity, intellect and imagination.

A decade after special relativity, Einstein had introduced acceleration into his theory, which resulted in the theory of general relativity. Einstein completely changed the Newtonian notion of gravity as a force, into the idea that gravity is the distortion of the fabric of spacetime, caused by massive objects. Understanding of this distortion has led to much scientific discovery, including the study of stars and galaxies that are behind massive objects, using gravitational lensing! This is when the light around a massive object, such as a black hole, becomes bent, which then acts as a lens to see things behind it.

Einstein’s genius has enlightened and enriched our understanding of the reality of the universe. His theories continue to guide us, more than a century later. His genius stretches into the future, inspiring infinite discoveries.
Research sources:
https://www.space.com/36273-theory-special-relativity.html
https://www.space.com/17661-theory-general-relativity.html
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/314050/will-moving-observer-see-time-dilation
https://www.gresham.ac.uk/lectures-and-events/einstein
https://www.gresham.ac.uk/lectures-and-events/was-einstein-right
http://www.physics.org/article-questions.asp?id=55

The mystery of our universe and its end has left scientists baffled since it was discovered that our solar system was the smallest part of a cosmos larger than was every previously thought possible. While the earth is predicted to vaporize in about 6 billion years, the universe will continue long after that. The issue with finding an answer to how our universe will eventually end is that with such a large part of our universe being made up of the elusive dark matter, and the potential ‘end’ of the universe being trillions of years into the future, it is difficult to come up with one definitive theory. So far, there are three major competing theories hypothesizing potential ways that the universe will end.

The Big Freeze theory grounds itself in the field of thermodynamics, the study of heat. In the universe, events, processes and more generally, everything, occurs due to a heat difference between different sources. This theory suggests that since heat always moves, eventually heat will be evenly distributed throughout the entire universe. At this point, also referred to as ‘heat death’, all stars will run out of fuel and die, all matter will decay and the only thing remaining would be a few particles that would also over time be shifted away by the expansion of the universe. Even the largest stars that collapse into black holes would eventually give off Hawking radiation, eventually evaporating these too. A rather bleak theory, this suggests that the universe will eventually end up cold and empty.

In many ways the Big Crunch theory is a direct opposite to the Big Freeze. Thanks to the theory of relativity, and the consequent discovery of cosmic microwave background radiation, it was discovered that the universe is expanding. As a result of this discovery it has been speculated that although the universe is expanding right now, it will eventually reach a threshold where there is so much matter in the universe that gravity becomes the dominant force, causing the universe’s expansion to slow down, stop and then to contract. The universe would contract faster and faster, becoming denser and hotter as it does so, until all matter finally implodes in on itself in a final singularity. This is often though to be in effect a reverse big bang. However, this theory is less widely though because of a more recent discovery that makes this theory improbable, the rate at which the universe is expanding is increasing.

The Big Rip is the final major theory entirely grounds itself in the activity of dark matter. Dark matter is thought to be responsible for the universe’s expansion, and since its density remains constant despite the universe growing, it is thought that more and more dark matter ‘pops’ into existence in order to keep up the rate of expansion. Oddly enough, this does not contradict the fundamental law of conservation of energy. This law states that in an isolated system, the total amount of energy will remain constant. This law is conserved because as energy and momentum are dependent on spacetime, if spacetime stays the same, total amount of energy remains the same but since spacetime changes, so does total energy. It is suggested that eventually, so much dark energy will have popped into existence, that its density would be above that of ordinary matter so the forces of expansion from the dark matter will overcome the gravitational forces of ordinary matter. This will essentially rip the universe apart, with larger objects of a lower density like planets and stars being ripped apart first, then humans and other living creatures and finally atoms will be destroyed before the universe will finally be entirely ripped apart.

All of these theories have their merits and provide good explanations for what will one day happen to our universe, but none yet provide conclusive evidence. What we can be sure of, is that by the time that these doomsday scenarios might happen, after trillions of years humans will be so far evolved that we probably will not still be able to call those living at that time humans anymore, if life still continues to exist for that long.

Sources
http://www.bbc.co.uk/earth/story/20150602-how-will-the-universe-end
www.wired.co.uk/article/how-will-universe-end
https://www.sciencedaily.com/terms/supercooling.htm http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2010/02/22/energy-is-not-conserved/

There is ‘liminal space’ between cellular life and death. Despite the fact that they are often thought of as oxymoronic, it is not as straightforward. Many have grappled to denote the moment of death for humans: Is it when the beating of the heart no longer occurs? When breathing stops? A lack of detectable activity? Divergent answers arise as death is a process, and by definition, not an irreversible one.
In regard to cells, predominantly it is assumed that once the cells pass critical checkpoints, the death process is irrevocable. Such checkpoints include condensation of nucleus, collapse of DNA, disintegration of the mitochondria and cell shrinkage. Moreover, these events are often intentional. An essential component of life is programmed cell death, with over 20 forms proposed. Among these, apoptosis is the most notable and well-studied due to its regulatory mechanisms in cell suicide, and crucial roles in embryonic development, maintaining a balance of cellular multiplication and regulating internal conditions (homeostasis) by eradicating the undesired, faulty or dangerous cells in the body.
Apoptosis in Greek is defined as ‘falling’ and it expedites the habitual turnover of cells, analogous to leaves falling from a tree in autumn. A number of triggers are involved in apoptosis, but at length they activate a decisive group of ‘executioner’ proteins named caspases. These enzymes, by cleaving hundreds of various types of proteins within a cell, inflict destruction in cellular targets, attack structural proteins and deconstruct the cytoskeleton, resulting in cell shrinkage to blebs and die.
With all this, dubiety also follows. The fence which segregates life and death is porous even at the degree of cells (the rudimentary units of life). A growing body of evidence have recently demonstrated that cells that are believed to be dead or terminal are able to revive themselves, or somewhat revive, hence reverse apoptosis when under the right conditions. This phenomenon is referred to as anastasis (Greek for ‘rising to life’) and can occur in vitro and in vivo.
A significant role that anastasis plays involves the maintenance of differentiated cells that are difficult to recoup, such as neurons and cardiomyocytes. In this way, anastasis can counter many of the complications resulted by apoptosis. A variety of degenerative diseases, such as Alzheimer and Parkinson, are associated with apoptosis not functioning correctly. This is because protein aggregation can activate an enzyme that triggers apoptosis, resulting in the death of neurons and loss of brain function.
However, if we rival apoptosis to the demolition of buildings, the detrimental effects that arise when anastasis takes place can be also understood. The caspases involved in the breakdown of cellular structures are somewhat like demolition workers destroying buildings. If someone decides after: “I don’t want it to be destroyed, please rebuild it.” Then, the damage has to be repaired, but this process of restoring may go wrong. You won’t have a complete replica of the original. Therefore, when anastasis takes place, the resurrected cells may bear chromosomal abnormalities and acquire mutations. This will engender a multiplier effect where particular mutations will cause unchecked cell growth and proliferation. Henceforth, this revival process may trigger normal cells to become carcinogenic, by gaining new mutations and transmuting into more hostile and metastatic cancers. In this way, cancer cells are said to employ anastasis as a way to ‘cheat death’ and use it as an escape tactic to survive cell- death- inducing anti-cancer therapy (e.g. chemotherapy and radiotherapy).
The correlation between anastasis and cell regeneration, rise of disorders and cell death decision is yet to be elucidated, as additional research is required to confirm a direct link. Ultimately, if there truly is a correlation, the resurrection of cells could increase awareness into multidisciplinary fields of science that supplement our understanding in the control of cell survival and destruction. Furthermore, it could provide insight into identifying novel analeptic approaches for brain damage, cancer, injury to tissue and moreover regeneration medicine by meditating the reversibility of apoptosis.