Good morning, this is UniScoops! We run you through university-level topics in the time it takes to drink your morning coffee ☕️
Before we get started, we’d like to send a quick message to you teachers out there. Are you finding UniScoops useful? Would you like to get the most out of UniScoops? We’re already working with 80+ schools nationwide by providing resources to teachers to help them make effective use of UniScoops in and out of the classroom. If this sounds like a sweet deal, we’d love it if you could share our newsletter with Subject Leaders and SLT and encourage them to email us at [email protected] to find out more about how we can best help you and your students. Merci beaucoup!
So, without further ado…
Here’s a taste of what we’re serving today:
Law: Is it ever okay to run a red light? 🚦
Medicine: Are cancer cells smarter than healthy body cells? 🤓
Biology: Apoptosis 🧬
[LAW] Is It Ever Okay to Run a Red Light? Navigating the Legal and Ethical Crossroads 🚦
Crossroads. Get it hehe. Okay, enough chuckling at my own jokes. Today, we’re going to look into whether individuals should legally be allowed to run a red light.
Every single driver understands the disappointment of getting so close to the traffic lights only for them to change to amber and then red. Whilst it can be tempting to floor it and just run the red light, there are good reasons not to. Firstly, it’s illegal. But why is it illegal in the first place? Well, it’s because it’s very dangerous and can cause harm to other motorists around you. But… are there any scenarios where we could/should run a red light?
💡 Things to consider
Balancing Necessity and Regulation: There might be instances where the imperative of the moment clashes with the rigidity of traffic rules. Is a driver ever justified in breaching a red light to swiftly respond to an emergency? If so, when? Is someone ‘allowed’ to run a red light to rush their child to hospital? Is a doctor ‘allowed’ to run a red light because they overslept but need to get to the hospital in time?
The Greater Good Dilemma: We can agree that traffic laws are generally good for society as a whole. They ensure that people are kept as safe as possible on the roads. However, it might be necessary to reflect on the ethical calculus involved when considering the welfare of society as a whole. Could bypassing a red light be justified if it prevents a more serious harm or aids a person in dire need? It might be helpful to look into the philosophical dimensions of utilitarianism and ethical decision-making.
Wider Consequences and Civic Responsibility: Consider the wider implications of running a red light. What happens when people start to think that others are not following the rules? How does this relate to the countries in which it is considered considerably harder/more dangerous to drive?
🔎 Find out more
[BIOLOGY] Apoptosis 🧬
Cells are very complex, with many biochemical processes that make up their metabolism proceeding constantly and with remarkable accuracy, yet sometimes things can go wrong. When this happens, the consequences can be lethal. Thankfully, cells have evolved a process to stop their division before things get out of hand; apoptosis. There are two types of apoptosis: extrinsic (where proteins bind to receptors on the cell surface membrane to activate the cell death pathway), or intrinsic (where apoptosis is initiated within the cell due to DNA damage, faulty replication or through a developmental pathway). After apoptosis is triggered, the inner membrane of the mitochondrion is damaged and pores form, through which cytochrome c (part of the electron transport chain) is released. At this point, the cell is committed to apoptosis. In the cytoplasm, cytochrome c binds to other proteins to form the apoptosome, causing the activation of the apoptosis cascade. The nucleus and cytoplasm can be broken down into small vesicles and packaged off to be phagocytosed by nearby cells. The protein p53 can trigger apoptosis and act as a tumour suppressor gene.
💡 Things to consider
Dire consequences: As you have read, one of the purposes of apoptosis is to prevent the continued replication of cells with dangerously mutated DNA, which the cellular proofreading mechanisms in place cannot fix. Why is this important? What might be the consequences of not having this mechanism for a unicellular and multicellular organism respectively?
Extrinsic apoptosis: Extrinsic apoptosis is usually triggered by the immune system in multicellular organisms. During this process, T cells analyse proteins (or parts of proteins) being displayed in MHC Class 1 proteins located on the cell surface, so that cells can be monitored to ensure correct proteins are being synthesised. In what context(s) might it be beneficial to induce extrinsic apoptosis?
Necrosis: There is another way cells can die, known as necrosis. This can happen as a result of direct trauma including mechanical damage, heat or cold, pH changes etc. When cells die this way, their contents are not packaged up into easily phagocytosed packages, but sometimes spill out of the cell as it ruptures, which can activate an immune response. Knowing this, why do you think it’s important that cell contents are phagocytosed rather than simply released? What might be the consequences of an immune response being triggered?
🗳️ Poll
How was today's email?
👀 Keep your eyes peeled for…
That’s it for this week! We’d like to thank this week’s writers: Gabriel Pang (Law), and Oliver Eyre (Biology).
As always, if you want to get in touch, hit the REPLY button - we love hearing from you! Have a wonderful rest of the week 😎
