Alzheimer’s disease (AD) devastates individuals and governments both emotionally and financially; the disease robs patients of their memory, and caring for AD and other dementias will cost the U.S. $277 billion this year alone. [1] Despite this, treatment options only slow its progression, giving rise to a push among some neurologists to emphasize lifestyle changes as preventive measures against AD. In a 2018 study by Dr. Emma Anderson and colleagues, the conversation regarding lifestyle changes as AD prevention is moved from diet and exercise to the centuries old debate of nature versus nurture – of education level versus baseline intelligence and whether or not one is protective against AD. [2]

The average human heart pumps 100,000 times per day. [1] In doing so, it circulates 2,000 gallons of blood throughout an intricate network of vessels that distribute it to various organs and back to the heart, which requires a constant supply of oxygen and nutrients in order to function. Over time, however, cholesterol and fatty deposits can build up in the vessels leading to the heart – the coronary arteries – impeding blood flow. [2] If an artery becomes entirely blocked and blood flow to the heart is fully restricted, permanent damage and death of heart muscle tissue (known as “myocardium”) occurs: a heart attack. 
​
Scar tissue then forms over the damaged area, impairing the heart’s ability to contract and pump effectively. Scientists have spent years exploring methods by which to counteract the long-lasting consequences of this tissue death, posing a game-changing question: can hearts regenerate their myocardium via stem cells after damage has occurred?

              In discussing cancer, we often refer to it as a singular disease, much like we would talk about the Spanish Influenza, or meningitis. This gives rise to the common misconception, that there is a single cure to cancer. Of course, if we invented nano-bots that could perfectly repair our DNA in every cell, then a lot of our problems would be solved, including cancer. But for the most part, the faltering and bounding progress we have made asymmetrically affects different types of cancer, leaving some types of cancers with much worse prognosis than others. To give a sense for this, prognosis ranges from 99% 5 year survival for prostate cancer, to as low as 7% 5 year survival for pancreatic cancer.

     What we can say definitively about objects is that they take up space and, if experiencing forces, can move. To that extent, it may seem obvious the way that a ball will behave if dropped from the Eiffel Tower. What happens if there are strong winds? You might reply, of course, the ball will move in the direction of the wind. But more challenging questions persist. Is wind on a snowy hill enough to cause an avalanche? How does the heroin market take shape in cities? The answers to those questions – avalanche, heroin markets– can be answered through computer simulations. Inherent in patterns of movement are variations, complications, nuances which make stagnant models and sets of statistics inadequate for understanding the inner workings of complicated events. The advent of visualization technology in the recent years not only illuminates the workings of dynamic items but serves an aesthetic, artistic purpose that simplifies itself for those outside the field.

          While it is widely accepted germline stem continuously regenerate sperm populations in mammalian males, the existence of ovarian stem cells (OSCs), or lack thereof, was long viewed as a closed book within the world of mammalian research. Since 1951, the prevailing dogma, set by Dr. Solly Zuckerman, has asserted that neo-oogenesis (egg formation) in mammals occurs neither postnatally beyond a few days nor after damage to the existing egg population. [1] That is to say, women are born with a set number of germline cells that will only decline over their lifetimes. Indeed, this data would be corroborated by later studies showing that DNA synthesis does not occur in adult ovaries. [2] However, this dogma was seriously challenged for the first time in 2004, when Tilly’s group published a paper blatantly refuting previous claims, arguing that oocyte regeneration occurs in mice. This controversial study marked the beginning a new, promising line of research surrounding female germline regeneration and reproductive health.