The Shrinking Ozone Hole

Doesn't look too good, but the hole was bigger in the '90s.

 

               Good news for those of you that do not wear sun screen! Recent measurements show that the hole in the ozone layer is slowly filling back in, and it is not just a natural process that is causing this, it is a change in human action. Through a combination of international cooperation and internal regulation that is rarely seen in politics, the world banded together to combat an issue that very well could have led to the end of life as we know it. So what is ozone and why was it in danger? How did we stop it and why did we bother? For the sake of simplicity, I am going to focus on the actions of the United States and how they contributed to saving the ozone layer. The simplicity, however, does not save you from a short chemistry lesson that is integrally important in understanding this issue.

               Most people know that the chemical formula of the oxygen we breathe is O₂. In the upper atmosphere of the earth, these ordinary oxygen molecules are hit with ultraviolet (UV) rays from the sun. This energy can break the bonds of the normal oxygen and cause it to link with another oxygen molecule to form ozone, the chemical formula of which is O₃. The ozone is also hit by the radiation and a bond breaks, turning it back into normal a normal oxygen molecule. This process happens back and forth repeatedly in the upper atmosphere, largely shielding humans, and all other life forms for that matter, from harmful levels of cancer causing UV rays.

                From the 60’s onward, humans were finding creative and productive uses for nifty little compounds called chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). These gaseous chemicals, composed of chlorine, fluorine, and carbon, were used in everything from aerosol sprays to refrigeration to insulation during this time. Two decades later in the early 80’s, scientists realized that the levels of ozone in the upper atmosphere were rapidly declining. They rushed to find what was causing the depletion and found that it was the CFCs that were creating this issue. The CFC gas often leaked into the atmosphere during production and out of products that were not well maintained. When this gas reached the upper atmosphere, it encountered the UV rays and some of its chlorine bonds broke. As chorine is very reactive, it can easily strip oxygen off of surrounding ozone molecules. The free oxygen atoms that help create ozone in the first place then link with the chlorine atoms or other free oxygens instead of to an oxygen molecule. This throws the balance of ozone creation and depletion off, eventually leading to an area around the South Pole where there is not enough ozone to shield the planet from UV rays.

                After discovering this alarming trend, scientists were quick to let the public know what the problem was and what was creating it. Public fear and outrage over this and other environmental catastrophes led to the green movement and ultimately two important pieces of legislation that decreased worldwide use of CFCs and ozone depleting products (ODPs). The first was the Montreal Protocols. Alarmed that the ozone layer was thinning, concerned delegates from most UN member countries gathered in Helsinki to do something about it. The plan they eventually came up with in 1987 was the Montreal Protocols which outlined the plans and timetables of decreasing and eliminating use of ODPs and CFCs. Eventually this plan was ratified by all UN member states. This led to a significant increase into ODP alternatives and a gradual decrease in CFC usage.

A chart showing the projected atmospheric concentration of ODPs with and without the Montreal Protocol.

As is the case with many environmental laws in the United States, there was stiff opposition to the plan by some chemical companies and businesses. This is where the second piece of legislation, the Clean Air Act (which had just been strengthened in 1990), comes into play. This law give the EPA the ability to investigate, fine, and shut down violators of the Clean Air Act, as well as lists prohibited chemicals due to their ozone depleting properties. These actions ensured the gradual yet significant drop in the usage of CFCs.

                With the major contributors of CFCs in check, the ozone layer has started to rebound. With time, the chemicals that deplete the ozone eventually are broken apart by the sun’s UV rays and become less dangerous and reactive gasses which no longer mess with ozone. Current estimates of the restoration of the ozone layer to pre-1980 levels range from 2050 to 2070. Either way, it is great to know that if the threat is dire enough, the world can come together to fix an aspect of the environment.

Sources:

http://www.bloomberg.com/slideshow/2012-09-18/world-s-top-environmental-success-stories.html#slide2

http://www.epa.gov/ozone/mbr/index.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreal_Protocol
http://www.epa.gov/ozone/strathome.html

http://www.epa.gov/ozone/intpol/index.html

http://www.epa.gov/air/caa/requirements.html

Genetic Patents: Who Owns the Genetic Material in Your Body?

Congratulations. For the time being, you are not owned by anyone. Are you surprised that you were before? If so, you aren’t the only one. You may be horrified to find out that until the recent Supreme Court decision of ACLU v. Myriad Genetics, a whopping 20 percent of the genetic material that is inside each one of our cells was patented by a host of pharmaceutical companies, labs, and individuals.

                All of this started in the 1980’s with the birth of DNA sequencing, bioengineering, and genetic manipulation. Until then, humans had found it difficult to manipulate or record the exact order and placement of the nucleotides that make up every organisms genetic material. As this became possible due to, at the time, earthshattering advances in science, companies began to seek ownership of this information and rights to all research concerning it. At that point, as is often the case with new technology, people did not grasp the gravity of the discovery or clearly see its potential for the future. The Supreme Court case Diamond v. Chakrabarty, came along and the justices ruled that though full and exclusive ownership of a natural gene was illegal, ownership of all processes concerning a natural gene in addition to any “man-made” gene was legal. With the relatively small amount of genes that were sequenced, not to mention lack of practical uses for them once they were isolated, the issue simply melted away.

                This all changed in the next 30 years. During this time, the human genome project had been begun and completed and scientist now knew how to manipulate, isolate, and find the function of most any gene in humans or other organisms. What had started as a slow trickle of patents concerning genetics had erupted into a deluge of patents all vying for the right to exclusively study a section of DNA. Not only was it animal and plant genes that were on the table, but human ones. There is great promise in companies that isolate and study these genes. For instance, a gene that contributes to a person developing diabetes may be able to be silenced if researched enough. However, most people disagree with this, arguing that exclusive rights to a gene bar all other institutions from researching as well. This is in addition to arguments against ownership to a part of the human, saying it makes no more ethical sense than being able to patent an organ like the heart or lungs.

                The Supreme Court upheld this sentiment recently in the case ACLU v. Myriad Genetics. The company Myriad Genetics had applied for a patent of two genes linked to breast cancer. This would give them exclusive rights to research and develop anything having to do with these genetic markers. Of course, this is mainly for financial gain. They had recently discovered that through testing with these genes, an extraordinarily accurate gene tests could predict the likelihood that a person would develop breast cancer. This meant that they could inflate prices of the test and make significantly more money. Though it sounds cutthroat, it is standard practice in business to do this to defend discoveries. The difference, the justices said, was that these were unaltered genes being copyrighted, not a process concerning them. They argued that they were made naturally meaning that they were no ones to exclusively own. With this, the copyrights of many companies were deemed void, opening research opportunities to anyone involved.

                This brings us to the next issue. Pharmaceutical companies can patent a lot that has to do with a gene. They can patent a method of finding the gene, isolating it, silencing it, or activating it. In addition, any change to a gene accomplished through any method makes that gene “man-made” and therefor eligible for a patent. This area of law is still relatively new and the boundaries have yet to be established. Depending on the direction the collective argument goes, we could one day live in a world in which certain genes found in peoples bodies naturally, but were “made” generations ago, are the intellectual property of a company. Are you scared yet? Excited? Only time will tell which side of the argument is right. Either way, this quiet court decision will go down as one of the most important in medical or scientific history.


For more information on this issue (or a better explanation that I have given), visit the link below and listen to the NPR discussion of the topic. There is also an embedded video outlining the basics of the subject.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=125361332


 

Sources:

http://venturebeat.com/2013/06/13/supreme-court-no-you-may-not-copyright-human-genes/

http://www.dailytech.com/Federal+Court+Rules+it+is+Illegal+to+Patent+Unaltered+Human+Genes/article18033.htm

http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/151686-do-you-own-your-own-genes-or-can-big-pharma-patent-them