The Fear Of Science :: essays research papers

The Fear of Science To live in the today's world is to be surrounded by the products of science. For it is science that gave our society color television, the bottle of aspirin, and the polyester shirt. Thus, science has greatly enhanced our society; yet, our society are still afraid of the effect of science. This fear of science can be traced back to the nineteenth century where scientist had to be secretative in experimenting with science. Although science did wonders in the nineteenth century, many people feared science and its effects because of the uncertainty results of science. Our thrist for science can be traced back through many decades. However, the nineteenth century society felt that science was a great investment towards a better life. This investment in science gave the nineteenth century society the discovery of light waves and radio waves, the electric motors, the first photograph and telephone, and the first publication of the periodic table. Science also caused an uproar in society when Charles Darwin published The Origin of Species, which became the scientific basis for the study of the evolution of humans. Many people in the nineteenth century detested Darwin's theory of the evolution of man because it went against their religion, which believed that God created the world. Science, soon, developed the big bang theory, which states that earth was created by the attraction of atoms. The nineteenth century society was afraid of science because it contradicted their beliefs, and was afraid that the results of science would lead to the destruction of mankind. Thus, the study of science was limited because of fear of its effects. The fear of the effects of science was expressed in literature. Novels like Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, the Time Machine, and Frankenstein showed the dangers of science and that science would soon lead to the destruction of mankind. The novel Frankenstein is about a man name Victor Frankenstein who wanted to tamper with life and death by "exploring unknown powers, and unfold to the world the deepest mysteries of creation." (Frankenstein, pg.40) He acquired the knowledge of science when he attended the university of Ingolstadt, and once the knowledge of science was gained, Frankenstein went to his secret laboratory to create a creature with gigantic stature. At first, Frankenstein had doubts about creating a human being; however, with "the improvement which every day takes place in science and mechanics, [he] was encouraged to hope [his] present attempts would at least lay the foundation of future success." (Frankenstein, pg.47) Once Frankenstein created his human being, his dream was vanished because he had accomplished his dream.

Joint Problems Patellofemoral Pain Syndrome Health And Social Care Essay

Patellofemoral articulation jobs are the most common overuse hurt of the lower appendage, and altered femoral or hep rotary motion may plays a major function in patellofemoral hurting Patellofemoral hurting syndrome ( PFPS ) is the 2nd most common musculoskeletal ailment presented to physical therapists ( Witvrouw et al, 1996. Hilyard, 1990 ) . Studies has shown Patello Femoral Pain Syndrome to be the most common individual diagnosing among smugglers and in athleticss medical specialty centres. Eleven per centum of musculoskeletal ailments in the office scenes are caused by anterior articulatio genus hurting ( which most normally consequences from PFPS, constitutes 16-25 % of all hurts in smugglers ) . The term PFPS is frequently used interchangeably with â€Å" anterior articulatio genus hurting † or â€Å" smuggler ‘s articulatio genus † . Patellofemoral hurting syndrome can be defined as retropatellar or peripatellar hurting ensuing from physical and biomechanical alterations in the patellofemoral articulation. It should be distinguished from chondromalacia, which is existent fraying and harm to the underlying patellar gristle. Patients with patellofemoral hurting syndrome have anterior articulatio genus hurting that typically occurs with activity and frequently worsens when they are falling stairss or hills. It can besides be exacerbated by activities such as go uping stepss, crouching, kneeling, drawn-out posing ( Doucette and Goble, 1992 ) . The oncoming of the symptom is normally insidious ( Arroll et al, 1997: Hilyard, 1990 ) . One or both articulatio genuss can be affected. Many factors are involved in complex interactions that influence the patellofemoral articulation and the exact aetiology and pathophysiology of PFPS is frequently puzzling ( Fulkerson and Hungerford, 1990 ; Finestone et Al, 1993 ) . Many theories have been proposed to explicate the etiology of the patellofemoral hurting. These include mechanical, muscular and over use theories. There is consensus that malalignment and maltracking of the kneecap are major characteristics of PFPS ( Maclntyre and Robertson,1992: Gerrard, 1989 ) . The patellar maltracking consequences in unnatural joint emphasis and subsequent articular gristle ware ( Powers: 1998 ) . Lateral trailing of the kneecap has been listed as a major subscriber to malalignment which consequences in unnatural joint compaction and later patellar hurting. It is normally theorized that maltracking is the consequence of vastus medialis ( VM ) weakening comparative to the vastus lateralis ( VL ) , ensuing in sidelong trailing of kneecap ( Mc Conell, 1986 ) . Weak hip muscular structure is besides thought to lend to unnatural trailing of kneecap. Ireland et Al found that adult females with PFPS are 26 % weaker hip abduction and 36 % weaker in hip internal rotary motion compared with healthy controls. Such failing may do an addition in both varus force vector at the articulatio genus a combination that may farther ease median trailing of kneecap. Lower appendage malalignment ( caused by abnormalcies such as an increased standing ‘Q ‘ angle, pes planus or subtalar pronation ) frequently has been implicated as a cause of PFPS. Most patients with PFPS respond favorably to conservative intercession. These include quadriceps beef uping, patellar tape, patellar brace, stretching, soft tissue mobilisation. With the most common intervention being quadriceps beef uping utilizing weight bearing and non weight bearing exercisings, weight bearing exercisings are more functional than non weight bearing exercisings because they require multijoint motion, easing a functional form of musculus enlisting and stimulate proprioceptors. In an attempt to supply immediate decrease to trouble, Mc Conell proposed utilizing tape to modify patellar orientation and normalise patellar trailing. When handling patients with patellofemoral hurting who demonstrate deficiency of control of hip abduction and external rotary motion during weight bearing activities such as walking and falling stepss, one end may to be to optimise musculus map to command these gestures, as such motion can ensue in knee varus, an addition in dynamic ‘Q ‘ angle and greater median forces moving on the kneecap. Hence, it would look sensible to endeavor for optimum map of hip muscular structure.1.2 BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE OF THE STUDYDespite its prevalence, nevertheless the etiology and specific intervention of this hurting syndrome remain obscure and controversial. The premiss behind most intervention attacks is that Patellofemoral hurting syndromes is the consequence of malalignment and/or unnatural patellar trailing. Interventions are frequently focused locally and typically include quadriceps beef uping, patellar tape, patellar brace and soft tissue mobilisation. Based on the old researches, we theorized that the exercisings stressing neuromuscular control of both the quadriceps and hip median rotators may profit patients diagnosed with PFPS. Therefore, the intent of this survey was to look into the effects of hip median rotators and quadriceps beef uping plan in patients with patellofemoral hurting syndrome.Need AND SIGNIFICANCE OF STUDY:Need of the survey:To cut down hurting To better scope of gesture To better functional activityAims:To find the effectivity of median rotator musle and quadriceps beef uping in patellofemoral hurting To find the effectivity of quadriceps beef uping in patellofemoral hurting To compare the effectivity of quadriceps beef uping and median rotator musculus beef uping exercising in patellofemoral hurting1.3 HYPOTHESISThe void hypothesis for this survey could be stated as â€Å" There Is No Significant Difference In Reduction Of Pain between the group having Hip Medial Rotator and Quadriceps Muscle Strengthening when compared with Quadriceps Muscle Strengthening entirely in Patients With Patellofemoral Pain † .REVIEW OF LITERATURECibulka MT, Threlkeld-Watkins J. , 2005 has reported that patellofemoral hurting is the commonest of all the overexploitation hurts of the lower limb. Major cause for this is considered to be altered femoral rotary motion. Powers CM. , 2003 has demonstrated that patellar maltracking and malalignment are the commonest triggering factors for kneecap femoral hurting. Mascal CL, Landel R, Powers C 2003 has concluded in their survey that musces of hip, bole and pelvic girdle are affected in patellofemoral hurting syndrome and hence intercessions directed towards these muscular structure should be included in the rehabilitation protocol. Bellamy N, Buchanan WW, Goldsmith CH, Campbell J, Stitt LW 1988 has published a survey on WOMAC graduated table reasoning that WOMAC is the most dependable and valid graduated table for measuring arthritis. Braten M, Terjesen T, Rossvoll I 1992 has demonstrated that ultrasound analysis of hip in anterior articulatio genus hurting reveals femoral rotary motion in most of the patients. i Sameer A.Dixit, M.D. , et al Management of patellofemoral hurting syndrome shown that physical therapy is effectual in handling PFPS. i La Brier K, O ‘ Neill D.B, Patellofemoral syndrome, current constructs. This survey indicate that patellofemoral hurting syndrome is normally treated cautiously, surveies indicate that 60 % to 89 % of articulatio genuss will react favorably to conservative intervention. The exercising plan include Iliotibial set, hamstring and gastrocnemius stretching, progressive opposition straight leg elevation and hip adduction beef uping performed 2 times/ twenty-four hours until symptoms subside and the 3 times /week, thenceforth. i Heintjes, Berger MY, Bierma- Zeinstra SM, Exercise therapy for patellofemoral hurting syndrome stated that the exercising therapy is more effectual in handling PFPS. There is strong grounds that unfastened and closed kinetic concatenation exercising are every bit effectual. i Hudson Z, Daruthy E. Iliotibial set stringency and patellofemoral hurting syndrome. A instance – control survey show that the topics showing with PFPS do hold a tighter ITB. i Fagan V, Delahunt E, Patellofemoral pain syndrome- a reappraisal of the associated neuromuscular shortages and current intervention options stated that â€Å" Physiotherapy intervention programmes look to be an efficacious method of bettering quads instability. i Power et, Al, ( 1997 ) , patient performed free walking, fast walking, go uping and falling walking with and without patellar taping. Taping determined patient ‘s hurting reduced ( VAS ) 50 % during exacerbating activity. i Ernst GP, Kawaguchi. J, Saliba E. Effect of Patellar Taping on articulatio genus dynamicss of patients with patellofemoral hurting syndrome, suggests that patellar taping compared with no tape may better the articulatio genus extensor minute and power during weight bearing activities such as sidelong measure – up exercising and perpendicular leap. i Cristina mare Nunes cabral, Amellia Pasqual Marques, Effect of a closed kinetic concatenation exercising protocol on patellofemoral syndrome rehabilitation. The consequences of T he study allow the suggestion that the proposed quadriceps femoris beef uping exercisings with ROM control should be prescribed for PFPS patients since they improve knee functional degree. i Avraham.F, Aviv.S et al. , The efficaciousness of intervention of different intercession plans for patellofemoral hurting syndrome. The survey with a sum of 30 back-to-back patients ( average age 35 old ages ) diagnosed with PFPS indiscriminately allocated into 3 groups. Group I – Conventional Rehabilitation plan included quadriceps beef uping and TENS, Group II- Hip oriented rehabilitation plan included stretching, hip external rotator strengthening and TENS. Group III-A combination of 2 plans. At terminal of test all groups show important betterment in VAS and PFJES ( P & lt ; 0.0001 ) ; these betterment did non vary significantly between the 3 groups. All the groups show a similar good consequence. i Tyler TF, Nicholas SJ, Mullaney MJ. The function of hip musculus map in the intervention of patellofemoral hurting syndrome. This survey concluded that betterments in hip flexure strength combined with increased iliotibial set and iliopsoas flexibleness were associated with first-class consequences in patients with patellofemoral hurting syndrome. i Harmonizing to Muir KR ( 1999 ) . a individual plan of place quadriceps can significantly better ego reported articulatio genus hurting and map. i Cheng GL et Al in their survey conducted for four hebdomads intervention period, concluded that both TENS and isometric groups had important decrease in articulatio genus hurting. i Sheila O ‘ Reilly made a survey on 192 work forces and adult females with articulatio genus hurting. They were enrolled in a plan consisting of isometric and isosmotic exercisings of the quadriceps or thigh, utilizing a opposition set and they had important lessening in hurting ( 22.5 % ) and betterment in physical map ( 17.4 % ) . She besides stated that beef uping musculuss around an creaky articulation could back up the joint and cut down hurting. i Lam PL, NG QY, Activation of the quadriceps musculus during semi crouching with different hip and knee place in patients with anterior articulatio genus hurting, the survey shows that there was comparatively more activation of vastus medialis oblique than vastus lateralis at 40A ° of semi knee bend with hip medially rotated by 30A ° . i Herrington L. AL – Sherhi.A, A controlled test of weight bearing versus non weight bearing exercisings for patellofemoral hurting. This survey demonstrates that both weight – bearing and non weight bearing exercisings can significantly better subjective and clinical results in patients with PFPS. i Ng GY, Cheng JM, The effects of patellar taping on hurting and neuromuscular public presentation in topics with patellofemoral hurting syndrome. This survey states that there was a important lessening in anterior articulatio genus hurting ( P & lt ; 0.001 ) and vastus medialis obliques to vastus lateralis activity ratio ( P – 0.05 ) during individual legged standing after patellar tape. i Mark overington, BHSc ( Physio ) , Damain Gooddard, BhSc ( Physio ) . , A Critical assessment and literature review on the consequence of patellar tape, is patellar taping effectual in the patellofemoral hurting syndrome? This critical analysis has shown that patellar taping lessenings pain in the short term, may be utile as an adjunct to physiotherapy in long term i T.K. Amell, J.P. Stothart, S. Kumar, The effectivity of functional pes orthoses as a intervention for patellofemoral emphasis syndrome: A clients position. The consequences shows that orthotic usage is believed to be effectual in commanding the symptoms of PFPS. i Michael T. Gross, PT. Ph.D. , Jody L. Foxworth, PT, MS, OCS, The Role of pes orthoses as an intercession for patellofemoral hurting. The mechanism for pes orthoses holding a positive consequence on hurting and map for these patients. i Dr. Robert Topp assessed the hurting, map, abilities, knee joint proprioception, pace features and quadriceps strength of 135 participants utilizing randomized isometric strength preparation group and a dynamic strength preparation group for 16 hebdomad regimen and concluded that regular strength preparation could detain the oncoming of this painful disease and demand for surgery i Van Berr et Al, ( 1999 ) found that aerophilic exercising was more effectual than opposition exercising in cut downing hurting. There was modest betterment in disablement degree for patients randomized to aerobic exercising. i Michelle C. Boilig, MS, ATC. , et al. , Outcomes of a weight bearing rehabilitation plan for patients diagnosed with patellofemoral hurting syndrome. Subjects diagnosed with PFPS responded favorably and rapidly to a curative exercising plan that incorporated quadriceps and his muscular structure strengthening. i Catherine L. Mascal PT, B.Sc. , Robert Landel, DPT, OSC, Christopher power, PT, Ph..D. Management of Patellofemoral hurting Targeting the Hip, Pelvis and Trunk Muscle map: instance study. This instance study present 2 patients with PFP who demonstrated unnatural kinematics at the hip and who respond favourably to an exercising plan specifically aiming to Hip, Pelvis and trunk muscular structure.3.MATERIALS AND METHODOLOGY3.1 METHODOLOGY3.1.1.STUDY DesignThe survey was conducted in the format of experimental pre-test, station trial survey design.3.1.2STUDY SettingThe survey was conducted in the section of physical medical specialty and rehabilitation, Ramakrishna Hospital, Coimbatore-641044 under the supervising of usher incharge, College Of Physiotherapy, SRIPMS, Coimbatore.3.1.3SAMPLING20 Subject who fulfilled the undermentioned criterias were selected through simple random sampling and assigned to two groups of 10 each.CRITERIA FOR SAMPLE SELECTION.I ) Inclusion standardsi Age be tween 25-35 old ages i Both males and females i Unilateral patellofemoral hurting syndrome and median rotator musculus weekness. i Anterior or retropatellar articulatio genus hurting reported during at least two of the undermentioned activities: rise and falling step, skiping and running, crouching, kneeling, and prolonged posing. i Insidious oncoming of symptoms non related to injuries. i Pain with compaction of kneecap. i Pain on tactual exploration of patellar aspects.two ) Exclusion CriteriaSymptoms nowadays for less than two months No history of old articulatio genus hurting Metallic element implants Fleshiness Diabetess Peripheral vascular disease Self reported clinical grounds of other articulatio genus pathology. Such as intra articular pathology, peripatellar tendonitis or bursitis, fold, disruptions or subluxations etc. Current important hurt impacting other lower appendage articulations. Subjects with any of the above said conditions were excluded from survey.Procedure:1. Group A:Subjects were treated with Hip median rotator and quadriceps beef uping exercisings and stretching.2. Group B:Subjects were treated with lone quadriceps beef uping exercisings and stretching. Both group received the place programme of stretching and beef uping exercisings ( SEE APPENDIX – Four )STUDY DURATIONThis survey is proposed to be carried out for the period of 6 monthsTREATMENT DURATIONGroup A:5 sets of 12 repeats per twenty-four hours 3 yearss per hebdomad for 4 hebdomadsGroup B:5 sets of 12 repeats per twenty-four hours 3 yearss per hebdomad for 4 hebdomadsParametersSubjective hurting strength during activities of day-to-day life measured with ocular parallel graduated table ( VAS ) . Functional activities measured with western Lake Ontario andmcmaster universities osteoarthritis index ( womac )3.2MATERIALS USEDOrthopedic rating chart Thera set Strengthening sofa Inch tape3.3 Statistical ToolThe consequences of the survey were analysed utilizing independent ‘t ‘ trial T = S = = Mean difference of the first group = Mean difference of the 2nd group = Number of samples in first group = Number of samples in 2nd group S = Combined criterion divergenceTREATMENT TECHNIQUESExercise FOR PATELLOFEMORAL PAIN SYNDROMEStrengthening Exercises:1 ] Hip internal rotators beef upingthis exercising is performed with the patient standing in the exercising machine. Initially 5 sets of 12 repeats get downing with 9kg is done and later opposition is increased harmonizing to musculus weariness and hurting.2 ] Quadriceps Strengthening:A ] Isometricss: Position yourself as shown above. Keep your right leg straight for 10-20 seconds and so loosen up. Make the exercisings 5-10 times. B ] Straight Leg Raising: Position yourself as shown above. Raise your right leg several inches and keep it up for 5-10 seconds. Then lower your leg to the floor easy over a few seconds. Do the exercisings 5-10 times.3 ] Partial Knee bends:Stand with pess, shoulder width apart and toes somewhat turned out. Bend articulatio genuss from traveling in forepart toes. Squat every bit low as tolerable, intermission at lowest deepness and raise to get downing place. It can besides be done with back support on wall and with ball between 2 articulatio genuss.4 ] Step Up:Stand sideways with involved leg next to 3-6 † measure. Place involved pes on measure and easy raise organic structure weight with involved leg. Slowly lower organic structure back to get down place gently touching heel on land, so repetition by easy raising organic structure with involved leg. Repeat as by increasing repeat. Increase measure 2-3 † with repeat.Stretching Exercise1a ) Iliotibial Band Buttock Stretch: ( Right side ) .Position yourself as shown in the image. Writhe your bole to the right and utilize your left arm to â€Å" force † your right leg. You should experience the stretch in your right thigh. ( Hold the stretch for 10 to 20 seconds. Do the exercising 5 to 10 times ) .B ) Iliotibial Band Stretch: ( Left Side )Position yourself as shown below, with your right leg crossed in forepart of your left leg. Keep your custodies together and travel them toward the floor. You should experience a stretch in the outer portion of your left thigh. ( Hold the stretch for 10 to 20 seconds. Do the exercising 5 to 10 times. )2 ) . Hamstrings stretch:Liing in back and back uping thigh behind articulatio genus, easy straighten articulatio genus until a stretch is felt in the dorsum of the thigh. Keep it for 5 to 10 seconds. Repeat it for 5 to 10 times. The thigh may besides be supported on a wall.3 ) Quadriceps Stretch:Position with one manus on the wall and the other on the pes of the side to be stretched and the articulatio genus is flexed. Keep it for 5 to 10 seconds. Repeat it for 5 to 10 times. Can be performed with hip flexure and extension.4 ) Calf Stretch:Position against a wall with heel on the land to experience back of the leg stretch. Keep for 10 to 20 seconds. Do the exercisings 6 to 10 times.5 ) Hip And Buttock Stretch: ( Left Side )Position left over right leg and manus is placed over left articulatio genus draw the articulatio genus somewhat towards the patient while sitting up directly. Keep the place for 20 seconds and so rest for several seconds. Do the exercising for 6 times.6 ] Hip Adductor Stretch:Position in supine prevarication, with hip and articulatio genus flexure, and inquire the patient to kidnap the leg until the stretch felt. Keep it fo r 10-20 seconds, repetition it for 5-10 times.7 ] Hip external rotators Stretch:Gentle stretching of the hip in the way of median rotary motion is done with the patient in prone prevarication. Stretching is done with the hip in impersonal and knee flexed to 90 grade. The stretch force is held for 30 seconds and repeated for 3 times.4. DATA PRESENTATION AND ANALYSISGROUP – A ( VAS )S.NoPRE – TrialPOST -TESTDifference7 2 5 6 1 5 5 2 3 8 3 5 4 1 3 5 1 4 7 2 5 8 3 5 5 1 4 6 1 5 Mean 6.1 1.7 4.4GROUP – B ( VAS )S.NoPRE – TrialPOST -TESTDifference7 3 4 5 2 3 7 4 3 8 4 4 6 3 3 5 2 3 7 3 4 7 3 4 5 3 2 5 1 4 Mean 6.2 2.8 3.4VesselGroupMEAN VALUECALULATED â€Å" T † ValueTable â€Å" T † ValuePRE – TrialPOST -TESTSouth dakotaA 6.1 1.7 1.46 2.888 0.01 Bacillus 6.2 2.8 1.33GROUP – A ( WOMAC )S.NoPRE – TrialPOST -TESTDifference35 27 8 37 27 10 41 31 10 39 30 9 42 33 9 35 28 7 43 35 8 40 31 11 35 26 9 38 31 7Mean38.6 29.9 8.8GROUP – B ( WOMAC )S.NoPRE – TrialPOST -TESTDifference38 29 9 40 32 8 38 31 7 40 33 7 42 35 7 36 30 6 40 31 9 30 22 8 35 28 7 40 34 6Mean37.9 30.5 7.4WOMACGroupMEAN VALUECALWLATD â€Å" T † ValueTable â€Å" T † ValuePRE – TrialPOST -TESTSouth dakotaA38.6 29.9 1.32 2.606 0.05Bacillus37.9 30.5 1.07DiscussionThis survey was done to happen out the effectivity of hip median rotator and quadriceps musculus beef uping in patients with patello femoral hurting syndrome. Twenty patients who had PFPS for continuance of atleast two months participated in this survey. They were indiscriminately allocated to one of the two intervention groups. Group I received hep median rotator and quadriceps musculus beef uping plan and Group II received merely Knee quadriceps musculus beef uping plan. Patients were evaluated after two months of intervention and all patients completed the survey. The statistical analysis performed between Group I and Group II showed the undermentioned result. VAS mark showed the average betterment of 3.4 and 4.4 of hip median rotator and quadriceps musculus beef uping group severally. The statistical analysis performed between Group I and Group II showed the undermentioned result. WOMAC mark showed the average betterment of 7.4 and 8.8 of median rotator and quadriceps musculus beef uping group severally. The independent ‘t ‘ trial was performed to analyze the consequences. For VAS the deliberate ‘t ‘ value is 5.84 which is more than the table value of 2.101 in conformity to the degree of significance of 0.05, at 18 grades of freedom. The result is considered to be important prefering the rejection of void hypothesis. For WOMAC the calculated't ‘ value is 2.606 which is more than the table value 2.101. The result is considered to be important prefering the rejection of void hypothesis Therefore, â€Å" There is a important difference in decrease of hurting on utilizing hep median rotator and quadriceps musculus beef uping patients with PFPS. The consequences showed important decrease in hurting degree with both rehabilitation plan but the hip median rotator and quadriceps musculus beef uping showed greater diagnostic recovery than the knee quadriceps beef uping. Hence, based on the ‘t ‘ value, it is clear that there is a important difference between two beef uping programmes. A restriction of our survey is that merely one-sided patello fermoral hurting syndrome was taken for the survey.DecisionBased on the consequences of our survey, it is clear that hip median rotator and quadriceps musculus beef uping howed greater diagnostic recovery than the knee quadriceps beef uping plan entirely. This suggests that the implicit in cause of patellofemoral hurting in certain persons may non be restricted to the patellofemoral articulation. From this survey it is suggested that hip median rotator and quadriceps musculus strengthening is more good to patients with patellofemoral hurting syndrome. Since it is a clip edge survey, survey with the larger sample size and long term follow- up can be done in hereafter.

Mass Market 1000 Genome Business Essay - Free Essay Example

Sample details Pages: 15 Words: 4456 Downloads: 1 Date added: 2017/06/26 Category Science Essay Type Analytical essay Did you like this example? Last time this market had a major wave of innovation was over a decade ago which started with big technological advances due to new funding for new ventures, but resulted in the rise of a sole technologies provider who dominated the market and stunted technological advancement. Now, the emergence of a new wave, the Next Generation Systems wave, has seen major investment and hyper technological growth, and this technological growth has left everything wide open. Now with the price of sequencing a genome falling rapidly and with mass commercialisation in the near future brings the question, will history end up repeating itself; will this current wave of start-ups be picked off and will a sole key player emerge who will dominate the market? And furthermore, what sort of affect will this have on commercialisation off sequencing technologies? These questions are complex in a way that it infers the ability to effectively envisage how companies will react to rapidly chan ging market settings when they only have a very short, but fast evolving history to count on. Being able to predict how industries will react to rapidly evolving technology is hard enough, but it becomes even more difficult if they are relatively new industries as well. This dissertation has been inspired by a desire to conduct a novel assessment on this market. What is Genome Sequencing? The Genome Sequencing Industry: Boom or Bust? An expositary look at the current state and future potential of the genome sequencing industry and an analysis of potential barriers. What is the genome and what is the technology behind the industry? What is the current state of the industry?(industry lifecycle) Where is the industry going?(industry lifecycle stages) What are the potential barriers to industry sucess? How important are theese potential barriers? The Vision A Brief History of Genome Sequencing The Human Genome Project The Technology The Differen tiators The Rate of Advancement The XPrize Background Market Data Key Players Key Markets Key Issues Theory What is Genome Sequencing? The genome is the complete set of genes or genetic material present in a cell or organism (Cambridge, 2008). This genetic material is contained within Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) and holds all of the biological information this is needed to build and maintain a living example of that organism (National Center for Biotechnology Information, 2004). The genome is built up of over 3.4 Billion base pairs with each base pair consisting of a nucleobase of either Adenine(A), Guanine(G), Cytosine(C) and Thymine(T) (J.D Watson, 1953) (Nobelprize.org, 2011) By working out the sequence in which these nucleobases are arranged it is possible to gather information relating to the organism. This information currently has its main uses in Molecular Medicine where it can be used for; Improved diagnosis of disease Earlier detection o f genetic predispositions to disease Rational drug design Gene therapy and control systems for drugs Pharmacogenomics custom drugs It also has other uses in the fields of DNA Forensics, agriculture, energy, risk assessment and evolution. (Oak Ridge National Laboratory, 2009) (National Human Genome Research Institute, 2011). The Vision The current ultimate goal of genome sequencing is Personalised Medicine. This is where a consumer would be able to directly walk into his physicians and review information relating to his genetics. This information could then be used by his physician to advise him on particular preventable medicines for conditions that they are not even showing symptoms for yet, but has shown susceptibility towards in there genome results. This could potentially revolutionise healthcare by providing a new level of diagnosis (XPrize, 2011). To achieve this goal; firstly the cost of sequencing must be reduced enough for it to be attainable by the mas s market, once this has happened direct to consumer sequencing will take off. From this point it is dependent on the advancement of bioinformatics to process the genome and deliver an accurate diagnosis (Trust Sanger Institute, 2011). A Brief History of Genome Sequencing The first ever method to fully sequence an organisms genome was discovered by Frederick Sanger in 1977 which earned him a Nobel Prize. Sanger managed to sequence a bacteriophage that had 5386 bases (single stranded) using biochemical methods which are still widely used today (Sanger, 1977) (454 Life Sciences, 2009). After this discovery there were various new breakthroughs with new methods and improvements made from scientists all across the globe, most notably; Maxam and Gilberts 1977 paper called A new method for sequencing DNA Mulliss 1983 discovery of Polymerase Chain Reactions. Hoods 1986 announcement of the first semi-automated DNA sequencing Machine. Applied Biosystems in 1987 markets the fi rst automated sequencing machine. It would take a further 20 years from Sangers original discovery until sequencing technology had advanced enough in quality and speed before the scientific community where able to confront their biggest challenge. (AM Maxam, 1977) (454 Life Sciences, 2009) (Bartlett, 2003) The Human Genome Project The human genome project began in 1989 as an ambitious multinational $3 Billion dollar research program funded by the US Department of Energy and the US National Institute for Health to completely sequence the first whole human genome. The project successfully released a first draft in 2000 and completed the final draft in 2003 (Internation Human Genome Sequencing Consortium, 2004). Before the completion of the first draft of the human genome in 2000 an announcement made jointly by then President Bill Clinton and then Prime Minister Tony Blair stating that the genome sequence would not be allowed to be patented and would be made freely availabl e to all researchers (National Human Genome Research Institute, 2000). This announcement is estimated to have cut over $50 billion in market capitalization from the biotechnology industry in less than 2 days (Marshall, 2000) (Berenson, 2000) (Bastin, 2002). It is notable that the first 10 percent of the genome took over half of the project to complete and that the last 90% was done after, this is due to the rapid improvement of technology driven by competition. (Internation Human Genome Sequencing Consortium, 2004). The Technology Since the completion of the human genome project and the respective research that has been made available to researchers globally, there has been an expanding market for machines that can sequence a genome within the confines of a laboratory (Metzker, 2010). The systems themselves can be generalised to First Generation Sequencing (FGS), Second Generation Sequencing (SGS) and Third/Next Generation Sequencing (NGS) (Morozovaa, 2008) (Mardis, 2008) (Met zker, 2010). First Generation Systems, also called Sanger Sequencing machines were first made available in the 1987 originally with the launch of Applied Biosystems ABI 370 sequencer, this machine was able to sequence a up to a thousand base pairs per day (National Human Genome Research Institute, 2011). The advent of second generation sequencing machines in 2000 saw a price/performance growth of approximately 6 magnitudes (Mardis, 2008). The first NGS was made available by Illumina systems in 2008 and is called the HiSeq 2000 and is capable of sequencing two genomes for less than $10,000. This is a further magnitude increase of approximately 5 (Illumina, 2008). (do actual bases growth instead) Jonathan Rothberg (how ref?) who runs two of the industrys key players and has been instrumental in the development of sequencing technologies has drawn parallels to the current development of genome sequencing and the semiconductor industry of the 1970s, He suggests that genome sequenc ing systems of today can be compared to the systems of the 1970s with FGS as mainframes, SGS as mini computers and NGS as Personal Computers (PCs) (Rothberg, 2009). He even goes on to state that sequencing is evolving in parallel with computing more than I ever imagined. What Differentiates? Quality The quality of a DNA sequence is in respect to the amount of errant bases that are reported in the sequence. Quality is usually measured in the form of a percentage of accurate reads and generally the lower the quality, the more times the genome must be sequenced (run) to gather an accurate read. The more amounts of runs that have to be done the more costly the process becomes. (National Human Genome Research Institute, 2011) (Jeremy Schmutz, 2004) Complexity of Sample Preparation Prior to Sequencing, a sample must be prepared in a manner that is dependent on the method of sequencing used. This preparation is usually to generate multiple copies of the sample and has variou s error rates associated with different methods. The more complex the sample preparation is, the less cost effective it becomes. (Mardis, 2008) Readlength The readlength of a Genome sequencing platform is a representative of how many bases can be read in once. The higher the readlength the more accurate the results, this is because with shorter readlengths it is allot harder to pinpoint where the read has taken place along a genome sequence, therefore requiring more runs to produce an accurate result. For example, if there is 3 billion bases to be read and there is a readlength of only 10 then due to the amount of duplicates in a genome, it would be increasingly hard to pinpoint the location of the read because of the sheer amount of duplicates. With larger readlengths this becomes less of a problem because there are less duplicates. (Oak Ridge National Laboratory, 2009) Throughput The throughput is respective to how many parallel reads can be done at once. For example, a throughput of 10 would be able to produce 10 reads instead of the usual 1 in the same time. High-throughput sequencing is a main factor in the development of next generation sequencing technologies and is seen as the best way to bring down costs (Hall, 2007) (Church, 2006). The Rate of Advancement (trends) Numerous researchers have made parallels between the price/performance improvements in genome sequencing platforms and Moores law (Rothberg, 2009) (Mardis, 2008) (Shendure, 2004) (Pettersson, 2009). Moores law was developed by Gordon Moore and states that the number of transistors in a chip will double about every two years (Intel, 2011). While Moores law is applicable to nearly all integrated electronic devices (Moore, 2006) recent figures released by the National Human Genome Research Institute(need ref) show a price performance increase much greater than Moores law (National Human Genome Research Institute, 2011). This price performance improvement has seen compan ies like Applied Bioscience achieve a 6 fold increase in price performance in the last 12 months; this increase has also been shown by Complete Genomics who sequenced 1000 genomes in 2009 and over 10 times that in 2010. (Applied Bioscience, 2010) (Complete Genomics, 2010) The Archon XPrize The Archon X Prize for Genomics was started in 2006 and offers a $10 million dollar reward for the first team to successfully build a device and use it to sequence 100 human genomes within 10 days or less, with an accuracy of no more than one error in every 100,000 bases sequenced, with sequences accurately covering at least 98% of the genome, and at a recurring cost of no more than $10,000 per genome (XPrize, 2011). While the monetary benefit for winning the XPrize is negligible compared to the cost of developing an improved system (Rothberg, 2009) , The XPrize requirements are seen by key researchers as the best direction for advancement in sequencing technology, the benchmark for mass commercialization and the most likely successor to NGS (Venter, 2010). There are currently 9 teams entered into the XPrize (XPrize, 2011), and while the prize has not been claimed yet, it is believed by some researchers that the breakthrough will be within the next 2 years (Kedes, 2010) (Venter, 2010). Background Market Data The worldwide market for sequencing products will grow from an estimated $1.3 billion in 2010 to more than $3.3 billion by 2015, a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 20.5% over the next 5 years. Life-science research and drug discovery and development applications represent the two largest markets for DNA sequencing revenues, accounting for an estimated $920.1 million in 2010.ÂÂ   These markets are forecast to grow at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 13% to reach nearly $1.7 billion in 2015.ÂÂ  https://www.bccresearch.com/public/images_trend/BIO045C.gif Emerging applications, including personal genomics and clinical diagnostics , are forecast to account for $541.4 million by the year 2015, an increase from $15.5 million in 2010 representing a 103.5% compound annual growth rate (CAGR). (BCC Research, 2010) Sales(2005) Sales(2006) Sales(2007) Sales(2008) Sales(2009) Sales(2010) Illumina 73,501 184,586 366,799 573,225 666,324 902,741 Life Technologies 1,620,323 3,280,344 3,588,094 Complete Genomics n/a 623 9,389 Helios 36 2325 1301 Key Players Profit(2005 Profit(2006 Profit(2007 Profit(2008 Profit(2009 Profit(2010) Illumina (20,874) 39,968 (278,359) 39,419 72,281 124,891 Life Technologies 940,752 1,824,725 2,106,141 Complete Genomics (28,394) (33,585) (57,387) Helios (43,764) (28,950) (18,768) Illumina Illumina was founded in 1998 and started out by offering genotyping services until 2002 when it released the Illumina BeadLab, the companys first geno me sequencing system (Illumina, 2006). It took illumina over 8 years to make it first profit but that hasnt stopped it from becoming one of the industrys biggest players after the acquisition of Solexa in 2006 (NYTimes, 2006). Illuminas currently the supplier of some of the worlds biggest institutes (Beijing Genomics Institute, 2011) (National Human Genome Research Institute, 2011) (Investors Business Daily, 2011) and holds the record for the most cost effective full genome sequence, it is also the market leader in next generation sequencing systems that are paving the way for future commercialisation (Forbes, 2010). Illumina believes the future of the market is in smaller devices that can operate in a physicians office and has recently tied an exclusive licencing agreement with Oxford Nanopore Technologies, an industry start-up with allot of potential (Illumina, 2009). Illumina has also been called the the apple of the biotech industry by an analyst because of its constant up grade of its product line before its old product line is out-dated (Investors Business Daily, 2011). Life Technologies Life technologies was once the biggest and almost the sole provider of genome sequencing systems until the release of next generation systems that has seen its market share slide to a mere 17% (Herper, 2010). Its inability to compete with the newer providers from a technological standpoint has seen most of its institutional buyers switch to newer machines (Metzker, 2010). This hasnt stopped Life Technologies though; they have recently acquired Ion Torrent, one of the industrys most promising start-ups for $375 million, with an increase to $725 million on the achievement of certain technical and time-based milestones through 2012 (Life Technologies, 2010). This acquisition will see Life Technologies take a different approach from its usual mainframe style systems to small inexpensive systems for smaller organisations (Genomeweb, 2010) (Life Technologies, 2010). This market while showing huge potential for the future (BCC Research, 2010), is a very small share compared to the institutions that it used to serve and is seen as a very risky venture that could potentially put it on a collision course with its biggest rival illumina (Genomeweb, 2010). Complete Genomics Complete Genomics was founded in 2006 and like many biotech start-ups is yet to make a profit. Complete genomics has taken a different approach to DNA Sequencing and has used its platform to provide an outsourcing service where organisations mail in there samples to its huge mega complex in Mountain View, California (Complete Genomics, 2011). Complete Genomics has gone from producing only 1 genome a year in 2006 to being able to produce over 1000 a month by the end of 2011 (bio-itworld, 2011). It sees the future of the industry with organisations outsourcing there sequencing needs to companys like Complete Genomics and has managed to pick up customers such as Genen tech, Pfizer and Lilly along the way (Complete Genomics, 2011). It is also claimed in an interview with a leading Biotech magazine that will drop its prices for a full genome to sub $10,000 in 2011 (bio-itworld, 2011). Helicos Biosciences Helicos Biosciences came into the market with the first single-molecule, next generation sequencing platform (Helicos Biosciences, 2011). Unfortunately, it has been unable to capitalize on its first movers advantage as it is rapidly burning through its cash reserves as it struggles to boost sales. Helicos issues range from its technology producing too high of an error rate to its market selection, where it has attempted to target the high end of the research market, a segment where its technology does not offer good value for money at a 100% premium to its competitors (Gerson Lehrman Group, 2010). Helicos has had to do some serious restructuring to stay alive (Helicos Biosciences, 2011) and is now deviating its strategy away from the hi gh-end market and refocusing on smaller markets such as the clinical diagnostics market (Genomeweb, 2010). Even with the change it strategy, the arrival of more competitors to the market will only make it harder for Helicos to achieve any form of competitive advantage. Helicos has announced that it needs to raise a substantial amount of capital in 2011 to continue to operate and could well be one of the first major start-up failures of genome sequencing (Gerson Lehrman Group, 2010). Key Markets Life Sciences Research The Life Sciences research market consists of laboratories usually associated with universities, medical research centres, government institutions and pharmaceutical companies that are involved in the scientific study of living organisms (Illumina, 2011). These laboratories are currently the largest set of buyers for next generation sequencing technologies and also make up the largest of the markets available (BCC Research, 2010). Clinical Diagnostics Mar kets The Clinical Diagnostics markets represent institutions that are involved in the research of the genome for benefit of medical diagnosis. This market is heavily legislated and represents enormous social and ethical challenges for the future (Illumina, 2011). The key segment in this market is molecular diagnostics which aims to pave the way for future personal medicines (Trust Sanger Institute, 2011). Consumer Genomics A relatively new market, Consumer Genomics is the market for smaller more efficient products for use in physicians or hospitals or even direct to consumer sequencing. Consumer Genomics is a nascent market, but one that is believed to have extremely high growth potential as the cost per genome continues to fall (Illumina, 2011). The consumer genomics market is also another market that is slowly becoming very heavily regulated due once again to serious ethical and social concerns from governments (Genomeweb, 2010). Current potential? From article? Abo ut 60 billion Applied Markets Applied markets consist of markets that are not directly related to genomics, these markets see applications in industries such as DNA Forensics, energy, risk assessment and evolution (National Human Genome Research Institute, 2011). While this is the smallest market it is notable that its biggest segment is agbio markets which relates to the enhancement of agricultural research (Illumina, 2011). The Issues Ethical and Social Genetic Discrimination is where an individual is treated differently due to the outcome of their genetic results. For example, an individual may be refused life insurance if the outcomes of his test results showed he was likely to die soon, or, if an employer would refuse to employ someone because there was an indicator in their genetic results that they might have to take allot of sick leave (National Institute of Health, 2011). While there have been numerous pieces of legislation put in place to prevent this from h appening (National Human Genome Research Institute, 2011), there are clearly legislative gaps that will be blown open as more people have their genomes sequenced and more organisations look for novel ways to use this genomic information (National Institute of Health, 2011). There is no doubt that legislators will try and fill these gaps, but to what extent is unknown. Another key issue is that of the psychological impact and stigmatization resulting from people with genetic differences (Oak Ridge National Laboratory, 2011). These issues arise from how a persons genetic results would affect the individual and also how societys perceptions of that individual might change. For example, if an individual found out that they were very likely to obtain a life threatening disease when they were older this might significantly change them as a person; this may also change the attitudes of people towards this person. While some abuses of this would fall under the genetic discrimination legi slation, it will be nearly impossible for society to prevent the psychological impact the results could have on individuals and people around them. This could lead to a large number of people refusing to have their genome sequenced by taking the attitude of ignorance is bliss. Another major issue is that of data privacy (Oak Ridge National Laboratory, 2011). With genetic information potentially being the ultimate form of identification a key problem arises with how organisations will handle this information and how individuals want their information shared. A number of research institutes are pleading with individuals to make their genomic information anonymous, but public, for the betterment of analysis and for the study of population genomics. The main issue arises because even if a genome sequence is made anonymous, advents in forensic technologies can identify a genomic sequence with their respective individual (Homer N, 2008). , which in turn has now left some researchers to proclaim the limitations, if not the death of privacy in genomics. (Lunshof JE, 2008). This loophole is a serious issue for future researchers and the public. If the public know that there anonymity is not completely anonymous this could severely reduce the amount of data available to researchers and subsequently slow down research, it could also provide serious legal issues for companies who have made available a persons data on the agreement of anonymity to find that they have been identified. (Knoppers, 2010). Finally the accuracy of data and how it is presented to consumers is another major issue. All genomic results relating to disease susceptibility are probabilistic in nature (National Human Genome Research Institute, 2011), this coupled with a high number of false-positives caused by some sequencing technologies has caused legislators to heavily regulate how the first wave of direct to consumer genomic sequencing companies are attracting consumers and representing there genomics information (Shannon, 2009) (U.S Food and Drug Administration, 2010). Such regulation includes the requirement for only a physician to interpret the information to the consumer and for all services to require pre-market approval. This regulation has proved unsavoury for some companies such as Pathway Genomics, Navigenics and Counsyl who due to the new regulations have chosen to pull out of the market entirely (NewScientist, 2010) (Genomes Unzipped, 2010). This regulation is brought on by the increasing number of scam websites who claim the ability to do things that are currently not possible with current genome sequencing and informatics technologies. Unfortunately, a recent congressional hearing on direct to consumer genomics left congress to state that they were unable to distinguish from the scammers and the legitimate companies (Committee on Energy and Commerce, 2010), this mistrust will only fuel more legislation in an industry that is already under heavy scrutiny.myge neprofile.jpg Technology Push vs Market Pull There have been numerous pieces of research into what is more influential to the evolution of an industry; either the technology push or the market pull. The concept of technology push is that innovation begins when an employee (usually a scientist or an engineer) sees an opportunity for a technical possibility and tries to capitalize on it, in the hope that it will be desirable to consumers (Morris, 2008), while the market pull approach says that innovation should be motivated by the unmet needs of consumers (Martin, 2003). It is notable that the sheer amount of support for both sides is a good indicator that neither of these are exclusively the best methods to drive innovation in an industry, and that the best method is a combination of both. To what extent of the combination is reliant on a number of internal and external factors such as the intensity of competition, the stage the industry is at in its lifecycle and how much dema nd there is for the innovation. By finding out what is the primary force driving innovation in an industry it becomes easier to measure how influential certain issues will be to the development of the industry. Industry Lifecycle An industry lifecycle is a useful tool for analysing the effects of industry evolution on competitive forces and for assessing the different stages of growth industries go through (Hill, 2009). The industry lifecycle concept splits an industry into four different stages; Emergence, Growth, Maturity and Decline (Kotler, 2009). The concept is that every industry will follow these for stages from start to end over any period of time. An adaption by Hine and Kapeleris to the industry lifecycle model will also be useful; this adaption is an expansion of the emergence phase specific to the biotechnology industry (Damian Hine, 2006). This modification of the industry life cycle model shows that in the biotechnology industry each product/business lifecycle im pinges on the other and cant be considered constant and that change is dynamic and constant, as the external influences are potent. Hine and Kapeleris(2006) states that the key industry influences to this change are political/legal, social/cultural, technological, economical, intellectual property and competition while the key firm influences are collaboration, intellectual property, funding and there exit strategy. By working out the extent of these influences combined with the ability of organisations to combat this change will be a key indicator to assess whether the industry will be able to prosper in the future. STEEPLE STEEPLE, which is an acronym for Social, Technological, Environmental, Economical, Political, Legal and Ethical, is a framework of environmental factors to help in strategic planning to scan for specific environmental issues. Aguilar(1967*) was the first to discuss environmental scanning and defined it as the process that seeks information about events and relationships in a companys outside environment, the knowledge of which would assist top management in its task for charting the companys future course of action. The external environment can be split into the macro environment and the micro environment. The micro environment deals with suppliers, buyers and any other interest group that the firm operates with, while the macro environment focuses on the demographic, economic, physical, technological, political-legal, and social-cultural forces (Kotler, 2006). The STEEPLE framework will be addressing the macro environmental factors; this will help to provide an understanding of the wider issues impacting the industry by assigning each issue the specific sections of the framework to make them easier for analysis. Porters Five Forces Michael2011-04-21T06:36:00 For pic https://www.justice.gov/atr/public/hearings/single_firm/docs/219395.htm Porters Five Forces is a framework to conduct a micro environmental industry analysis . Porters five forces analysis can be used to identify the forces that affect the intensity of competition in an industry (Johnson and Scholes, 1999*). Porter (2004*) states the following five forces; the competitive rivalry, the threat of substitutes, the power of suppliers, the power of buyers and the threats of entry, is the basis for competition and also the main factors businesses need to take into account to gain a competitive advantage. It is also possible to combine all these factors by to make an adequate overall judgement on industries attractiveness. This tool will be useful as once each of the forces has been investigated, they can be cross examined against any macro environmental influences to assess the impact they will have upon the micro environment and the general attractiveness of the industry. Intellectual Property In every technology based industry intellectual property plays a key role in a companys success. It is necessary for an organisation to protect i s innovations with a solid foundation of intellectual property otherwise it could lose any competitive advantage created by innovation. It is also just as important that companies are aware of any existing intellectual property within its technology space as not to infringe upon any other companies rights and therefore not to waste time and money in research and development and hefty court cases. Synthesis(1000) questionaires(1000) Don’t waste time! Our writers will create an original "Mass Market 1000 Genome Business Essay" essay for you Create order