William Hargett Unit 3 Mid Unit Post

In sixth grade, I received an Xbox 360 for Christmas. From that moment on, I definitely considered myself a gamer. Each day, I would go home after school and play a few hours online with my friends. My weekends were also dominated with Xbox, specifically Call of Duty. When I asked the members of my group in ENG 101 to say some qualities of a gamer, I received many responses, most being negative. Most answers involved describing gamers as lazy couch potatoes that never leave their house. My research has reinforced my belief that this stereotype is not true. Countless studies have been made regarding this topic and the evidence consistently shows how the video game industry is growing and that they can increase both hand eye coordination and the ability to track objectives. First person shooter video games also increase reaction time, as a player has to react and aim to his target moving across the screen. Most research cites the cognitive benefits of video games, with few citing the social benefits. The main benefit I received from video games was the social benefits of constantly being able to talk with my friends. Running home each day after school, I was pretty excited to play the game itself, but I really just wanted to hang out with my friends. Typically, I would only play if my friends were also online. Today, I definitely still enjoy playing good video games. However, I would not classify myself anywhere near the gamer status that I was a part of in middle school.

Hunter's Autoethnography Research

I have identified with being a christian since I was around the age of five, and it is one of the main pieces of my life that defines who I am. When asking what assumptions people have toward christians I received some interesting answers. I would ask first off if they identified as christians, and the ones who did not belong to my group were very kind and sensitive when referring to the christian group as a whole. Out of convenience on my part I asked a few people around me, I knew had a christian background, about their assumptions. It was their responses that led me to my topic in my autoethnogragphy. One person gave me adjectives for christians such as religious and scared. Others in general told me that they were christians but they don't go to church or anything like that. From outsiders looking into this group they might see christians on what they have become rather than what they should be. Through my research I have found there are various studies regarding christians and their behavior in the work place or in the field of sports. Using these behavioral conclusions will help me to distinguish the line that constitutes what it means to be a christian. I will also look at the effects that the culture has on beliefs as we grow up and also how we form our definition of a christian. From my personal experience within the group I hope to give an insider perspective on the beliefs that christians hold as well as emphasizing that perfection is not required to be in the group.

Auto-Ethnographical Podcast Preview

Photo Credit: Jason Devaun (Flickr.com)

The group I will be introspecting on in a podcast that will be listenable here on creatively decisive next week will be one I’m very familiar with. I’m person who loves creating and being exposed to music. More specifically I’m a male guitarist. The “male” part of that sentence becomes relevant when you’re talking about the sexism that exists in the guitar world and, more importantly, in music as a whole. I originally wasn’t going to cover this topic at all until I asked a friend what adjectives came to mind when talking about guitarists and she replied with “sexist” among other things. The entertainment industry is the subject of much controversy over sexism and, in some cases it’s justified. I feel as if its almost my duty as a musician to clarify that even though sexism in the music industry is a real issue that needs to be addressed, saying that all male musicians or music professionals are inherently sexists is unfair. Most of my research is comprised of music professionals talking about their experiences witnessing or even acting in a sexist manner towards female music professionals. I represent the vast majority of the music subculture who does everything in their power to treat all fellow musicians with respect regardless of race, religion, sex, gender, or anything at all. An example of someone who shares this mentality is Nick Jaffe, a session musician out of Minneapolis, who maintains a blog about all things music. In a recent post, he discussed the exact issue I mentioned above. His, mine, and most music fans’ argument was that the way to combat the problem of sexism in music was that all musicians should go out of there way to make sure women and all people are included in the same conversations, given the same voice, and treated the same way. Many academic studies have discussed this same issue in the context of business in general. In short, any discrimination that women could experience in any traditional business setting could happen just as easily in music. These parallels will be further explained in the auto-ethnographical podcast coming next week.

Gene Drives Are Not Worth The Risk

Basic illustration of the gene orientation in DNA 

A gene drive is the process of altering the genetic makeup of an organism by adding, modifying, or disrupting genes to impact future generations of that species. The first proposal of this idea was in 2003, however it was unknown at the time what the best method to use in making this idea a reality. In 2013 The Cas9/CRISPR gene-editing technique (altering genomes through cutting) was introduced as a relatively simple answer for the proposed question of “How do we alter genes to affect the future population of a species?” It is documented that as of 2014 there
have been successfully tested cells in over 20 species (which includes humans). It would appear that this quick advancement in gene alteration is safe and reliable if there has been all this success with a respectable amount of test subjects. These test subjects have only been tested to a degree, and the main purpose behind the gene drives has not been executed yet. The purpose for the development of these gene drives is to significantly alter a species to better mankind and the surrounding ecosystem. Gene drives are very fascinating when considering the possible diseases eradicated or species saved, however the thought of an accidental exposure within an ecosystem or using them as a malicious tool should halt the pursuit of making gene drives an acceptable practice through restrictions agreed upon by the scientific community and the government.

It is important to understand the possible benefits of gene drives in order to make an informed decision on whether we should proceed with them or not. There are a few main intentions to benefit ecology which are stated here in an eLIFE article “ RNA-guided gene drives could potentially prevent the spread of disease, support agriculture by reversing pesticide and herbicide resistance in insects and weeds, and control damaging invasive species”(Esvelt, Smidler, Catteruccia, Church, 2014).

Possible disease eliminated by gene drives

Malaria transmitted via mosquitoes is the best example proposed so far on how a gene drive can affect human health. There are over 650,000 deaths a year caused by malaria and over 200 million plagued by the fever that comes along with malaria. To relieve the world of this widespread disease would be a huge advancement by mankind and could be compared to the elimination of smallpox. It should be noted however that the methods used to eradicate these diseases are different and therefore cannot be approached in the same manner. Whereas smallpox was eliminated through vaccination, malaria would be approached by altering the genetic makeup of mosquitoes and having to wait years to see any progress through reproduction. In researching this topic it is commonly stated that “gene drives main benefit would be demolishing animal transmitted diseases such as the ones carried by mosquitoes.” When looking further, mosquitoes are the sole example researchers have provided for gene drives solving disease transmission. Not to take away from the impact of ridding mosquito transmitted diseases, but when considering the potential power of this technique it should have a greater imprint in the medical field than the current proposals.

Another benefit stemming from a gene drive that is currently in the early stages of evaluation is agriculture sustainability. New concepts are in the workings in attempt to take advantage of something potentially revolutionary in the agriculture field. The focal point so far in using the technique in agriculture is to alter populations to be more susceptible to pesticides and herbicides. As time elapses, crops evolve to become less impacted by these chemicals. The concept of sensitizing drives “might replace resistant alleles with their ancestral equivalents to restore vulnerability”(Esvelt et al, 2014). Because of the rate of reproduction in crops and the utilization of the sterile insect techniques it would be dangerous to release these drives in a current pesticide enforced population due to the possibility of rendering the pesticides ineffective. The approach that would then have to be taken is to release sensitizing drives in fields that are untreated by pesticides or herbicides and for them to spread to adjacent fields. From a different approach, instead of restoring genes to their original vulnerability, a gene could be replaced with one that is more sensitive to a compound in a pesticide, resulting in an increase of crop growth.

An issue that has been at hand throughout history is the preservation of endangered species. Explanations for extinctions include: climate change, hunting/fishing, invasive species, etc. An invasive species is a species that is not native to a particular area and is subject to cause harm to the environment. Rats are the largest invasive species that cause monetary damages and extinctions in the US.(Esvelt et al,2014) A solution to this problem could be achieved when looking at gene drives for the answer. Theories have proposed that native species could be the recipients of an immunization drive or on the other hand invasive species can be eradicated in the area through a local drive. The thought of this particular implication is innovative and delights the ears of conservationist (who have a powerful voice).

With all of the hype behind gene drives it easy to get carried away with all of the useful implications of the circulating topic. With any decision it is important to weigh the pros and cons, so with that being said I propose this scenario:

If gene drives became an accredited practice there would be mass use for various drives which would require the process to be available for distribution. Regulations would obviously be enforced on businesses and nations on their intent, but unfortunately not everyone is looking to help others. There will be a way that this technique, designed to better society, falls into the wrong hands, and at that point anything good that has come to fruition could easily be countered, begging the question: Is it worth it?

No it is not, and for a few reasons. The time it takes for a particular gene drive to permeate throughout a population is dependent on that species reproduction rate. It may take numerous years for a drive to show impact on a long living species and if the drive itself proves to be harmful ecologically there is little that can be done immediately. There are immunization drives that provide a reversal of the original drive, but within the interim the effects caused unto the ecosystem may be be irreversible.



An example of a delicately balanced ecosystem

Invasive species are the next group with an underlying problem. It is stated in the eLIFE article Concerning RNA-guided gene drives for the alteration of wild populations that there are two essential blockades in treating invasive species with drives which are: (1) There could be a rare mating event where a gene could endanger a similar species unqualified to take it. OR (2) A drive intended to control a foreign species could travel back to that species native habitat and cause problems such as: thriving environmentally, successful reproduction, foodchain balance, etc.

Human ramifications are interesting. Researchers have come to confident conclusions that humans will be unaffected by direct gene drives due to our long generations and medical technology to recognize the presence of gene drives. Yet as mentioned in Regulating Gene Drives “Rare individuals might experience an allergic reaction to peptides in the Cas9 protein if exposed to an affected organism”. It is also worth mentioning that society impacts science in what we deem fit to explore based on morals, ethics, and religion. It may seem trivial but what people view as ethically good or bad can determine how far gene drives progress.

In conclusion gene drives offer the world potential solutions in various areas of concern. The alteration of a gene in any organism can easily be viewed as unethical and will be met with criticism. Advancement should always be welcomed when proper research and outcomes are reviewed. It is because the unpredictability of gene drives in why they cannot be firmly pursued. From here the government will need to create new policies pertaining to testing for this unique technique which does not fall under current ones (ex. The Dual Use Research of Concern policy). The subject at hand should be pushed to the forefront of established powers such as the USDA, the NAS (National Academy of Sciences), and foreign nations. The drive technique should be widely discussed, but specific configuration for these genes should be not be publicized. Within these discussions the issue of containment for drives is important. It is evident that every scenario needs to be thought out before we proceed further on the topic, and even with seemingly flawless plans for a drive, there is always the possibility of an unforeseen variable. Ecology is not something that we can afford to experiment with arbitrarily and is why gene drives should be kept strictly in discussion for now.



Works Cited


"Driving Test." Nature 524, no. 7563 (2015): 5. Accessed September 24, 2015. doi:10.1038/524005b.


"Safeguarding Gene Drive Experiments in the Laboratory." Science AAAS349, no. 6251 (2015): 927-29. Accessed September 23, 2015. doi:10.1126/science.aac7932.


Gurwitz, D. "Gene Drives Raise Dual-use Concerns." Science 345, no. 6200 (2014): 1010. Accessed September 24, 2015. doi:10.1126/science.345.6200.1010-b.


Oliver, Keith, and Greene Wayne. "Jumping Genes Drive Evolution." ProQuest. September 29, 2009. Accessed September 24, 2015.


Esvelt, K. M., A. L. Smidler, F. Catteruccia, and G. M. Church. "Concerning RNA-Guided Gene Drives for the Alteration of Wild Populations." ELife 3 (2014): 21. Accessed September 24, 2015. doi:10.7554/eLife.03401.


Oye, K. A., K. Esvelt, E. Appleton, F. Catteruccia, G. Church, T. Kuiken, S. B.-Y. Lightfoot, J. Mcnamara, A. Smidler, and J. P. Collins. "Regulating Gene Drives." Science 345, no. 6197 (2014): 626-28. Accessed September 24, 2015. doi:10.1126/science.1254287.

Exploring New Horizons No Matter what that Horizon is

An Expanded Image of Pluto's Surface Taken by New Horizons.
Courtesy of NASA.

In January, 2006, on the third attempt that week, the New Horizons space probe was successfully launched from Cape Canaveral, Florida, hitching a ride aboard an Atlas V rocket until it punched through the Earth’s atmosphere. The probe separated and began speeding away at over 36,000 miles an hour towards the 9th planet of Pluto. The New Horizons probe would reach its destination 9 years later and provide more information than we’ve ever known before on the outer reaches of our solar system. But, after the initial reflexive celebration of the launch, the mission posed a controversy. In August, 2006, just shy of 7 months after the New Horizons mission was launched, the International Astronomer’s Union (IAU) met during their annual assembly to revise the definition of a planet. Pluto was the celestial body in question, having its planetary status up for debate for quite some time. The astronomer’s board came to a conclusion that under the new definition of a planet, Pluto no longer fit the bill. Now classified as a dwarf planet, the decision sparked a vexed debate over the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s (NASA) and US Government’s decision to pour over 700 million dollars and countless other resources into exploring an object that we don’t even consider significant enough to be a planet, less than a year prior. The scientific community knows so much more about the Kuiper Belt and the outer solar system than they did at the time of the launch, that even though Pluto has been classified as a dwarf planet since the New Horizons Space mission launched towards the icy rock in 2006, the mission is no less significant and is in many ways more useful as a platform for the world to learn more about the outer reaches of our solar system, the next step in mankind's exploration of space.

If you’re trying to understand the controversy over New Horizons, it’s crucial to understand the core issue - Is Pluto a planet or not? Ask NASA or the IAU if Pluto is a planet or not and you might get different answers. Furthermore, you might receive the same variation in responses if you asked different representatives within each organization. Pluto’s planetary demotion from planet to dwarf planet, courtesy of the IAU, was a calculated decision. The Astronomer’s Union defines a planet as follows: An object must (a) be in orbit around the sun, (b) have a sufficient mass to hold an astronomically sized spherical shape, and (c) have cleared its trajectory. Pluto fulfills all those requisites, with the exception of the last one. Previously unknown until the mid-90s, Pluto occupies a space in the middle of the Kuiper Belt, an asteroid region past Neptune of 100,000 plus celestial bodies that never formed into planets and might be billions of years away from doing so. Frasier Cain explains part (c) of the planetary requirement checklist in his editorial well - That the object must have a clear pathway of which it orbits the sun, and Pluto’s path is pretty far from clear. The IAU essentially decided that because Pluto is in such an astronomically tight vicinity with other objects in the Kuiper Belt and its physical mass isn’t significant enough to ignore that fact, Pluto could not be considered a full fledged planet. Critics of this rule cite planets such as Jupiter or Saturn, neither of which have a “completely clear” trajectory. Jupiter has 67 moons and sits in the middle of an asteroid field as large as the Kuiper Belt. Saturn has millions of projectiles of dust, ice, and rock in its rings, so it doesn’t necessarily fit the definition of a “clear trajectory”. The difference is that Jupiter and Saturn are 150,000 times and 43,000 times more massive than Pluto, respectively. Both gas giants are so massive that it ceases to matter what’s around them. Jupiter and Saturn don’t need to clear their orbital path because they overwhelm their orbital path. Pluto is the largest known entity in the Kuiper Belt, but not by much. If Pluto were to be given full planetary status then other Kuiper objects would need the same consideration, such as Eris, a dwarf planet more massive than Pluto. The dwarf planets that we know are in the Kuiper Belt are correctly classified, seeing as their orbital path is too crowded to be considered anything else.

An Image of Pluto Taken by New Horizons
 as it Approaches.
Courtesy of NASA.

As we left 2006, the divisiveness began to grow in the space exploration world over what exactly the mission was going to accomplish, now that Pluto was no longer a planet. New Horizons continued to speed towards the outer edge of the solar system. In 2007, the probe did a flyby of Jupiter to collect photos, atmospheric details, and to map the geology of some of Jupiter’s moons. The gravity of the Jupiter flyby slingshotted the probe, as planned, and New Horizons’ travel time was reduced by 3 years. New Horizons continued to take photos of asteroids and trojans of Neptune as it passed them. In early 2015, New Horizons began its 6 month pass of its ultimate objective - Pluto and its satellites. It was an incredibly productive half a year of data collection. New Horizons captured long exposure shots of Pluto and all 4 of its moons, mapped both Charon (Pluto’s largest moon) and Pluto itself down to a 25 mile radius, and took readings of Pluto’s atmosphere. The data transfer will most likely take another year, but all photos and scientific readings so far have come back at an accuracy estimated to be 5,000 times greater than Mariner ever recorded of Mars. There is no question that New Horizons accomplished its original mission in providing more information on the dwarf system of Pluto. In August, NASA approved the funds to keep the probe operational to continue on through, past Pluto, further into the Kuiper Belt. It’s remarkably convenient that now that we know so much more about the Kuiper region than we did in 2006, that we happen to have a probe in that region, finishing a mission, that is essentially looking for something to explore. Since the probe is equipped with so many devices (atmospheric sensors, cameras, plasma ion sensors, etc.), New Horizons can accomplish the same tasks it accomplished with the Pluto and apply them to Kuiper objects.

This still doesn't answer the question of why do we explore anything in the first place. The exploration of space has always been a controversial issue, even during NASA's formation in the late 50s and 60s when space discovery was, in the grand scheme of things, a social status symbol for superpower nations. Astronomy journalist Stuart Clark wrote in an editorial that "To deny Pluto [planetary status]... is to deny the cultural history of astronomy". Stuart Clark is a proponent of Pluto being reinstated as a planet, which makes him wrong for the right reasons. Denying that Pluto is a planet is to believe in modern science and the willingness to accept the fact that some previous ideas were incorrect, not to choose not to believe in research for the sake of glorifying the history of astronomy. What is offensive to the cultural history of astronomy is to no longer care to explore. After New Horizons completed its 6 month pass in July, professor Stephen Hawking created a video of him congratulating the New Horizons team for pushing the envelope of space exploration. He went on to say that the New Horizons mission might very well help us better understand how our solar system was formed as well as to explain the mysterious system of Pluto. Later in the video, on the topic of space exploration, he said simply "we explore because we are human and we want to know."

We continue on with our exploration because we want to know more. There are things beyond our known solar system waiting to discovered, even if they aren't currently tangible. We've established that Pluto is a planet and it shouldn't matter either way. New Horizons did its job, we just categorized the job it did differently. Now its hurdling through space further into the unknown, but because we explore, New Horizons overtime mission might help us know what's in the unknown. The idea that NASA arbitrarily spends resources to fund missions to anything they see fit holds no merit. For all we know, New Horizons could find objects beyond Pluto that telescopes on earth could never see.

Works Cited

(Op-Ed) "The Real Reasons We Explore Space," Air & Space Magazine, July 2007, accessed October 4th, 2015.
http://www.airspacemag.com/space/the-real-reasons-we-explore-space-18816871/?all

(Op-Ed) “NASA’s New horizons opens up a great future of space exploration,” Deseret News, August 1, 2015, accessed September 24, 2015
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865633652/NASAs-New-Horizons-opens-up-a-great-future-of-space-exploration.html?pg=all

(Info) Millie Dent. "Here’s What It Cost to Send NASA’s New Horizons to Pluto." thefiscaltime.com
http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2015/07/14/Here-s-What-It-Cost-Send-NASA-s-New-Horizons-Pluto (accessed October 4th, 2015).

(Info) International Astronomer's Union. "Pluto and the Developing Landscape of Our Solar System." iau.org. https://www.iau.org/public/themes/pluto/ (accessed October 4th, 2015).

(Op-Ed) Stuart Clark, “Of course Pluto Deserves to be a Planet. Size isn’t Everything,” The Guardian, July 15, 2015. (accessed September 24, 2015).
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jul/15/pluto-planet-size-nasa-new-horizons

(Op-Ed) “Professor Stephen Hawking Congratulates the NASA New Horizons Team" YouTube video, 1:04, posted by "NASA New Horizons," July 14, 2015 (accessed October 4th, 2015)
2011, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=makDyycHvmw&feature=fvhl.

(Op-Ed) "Pluto, here we come, whatever you are” The Los Angeles Daily News, January 29, 2015, accessed September 24, 2015
http://www.dailynews.com/opinion/20150129/pluto-here-we-come-whatever-you-are-editorial

(Op-Ed) “To Pluto,” Nature 522 (04 June 2015): 6, accessed September 24, 2015
doi: 10.1038/522006b

(Op-Ed) “Pluto, up close, will always be a planet,” cleveland.com, July 25,2015, accessed September 24, 2015 

http://www.cleveland.com/opinion/index.ssf/2015/07/pluto_will_always_be_a_planet.html

(Op-Ed) "Why Pluto is No Longer a Planet," universetoday.com, January 5th, 2012. Accessed October 4th, 2015. 

http://www.universetoday.com/13573/why-pluto-is-no-longer-a-planet/

HIV is Incurable

HIV Virus from Ajcann

HIV/AIDS

Unit 2 Project

By: William Hargett

Growing up, I barely even knew what HIV/AIDS was until I started following sports and saw Erwin “Magic” Johnson on television. Upon listening to him analyze and commentate basketball games I began to truly enjoy the hall of fame member’s basketball expertise. As I began to follow sports more in general, particularly Magic, I started to get a better idea of what his condition is, the symptoms it presents, and the monetary demands it requires to keep under wraps. From that point forward, Magic Johnson became the face that I always thought of when I heard HIV/AIDS mentioned. For this post, I will be discussing HIV/AIDS in detail, specifically why a cure for the virus is not plausible. Research methods and medications have developed tremendously over the last couple of decades to help minimize the effects of HIV. Unfortunately, a cure that will completely rid the virus from the body will never exist.

HIV/AIDS is an immune system related virus that targets T cells (Hill). Upon targeting the T cells, the immune system will slowly begin to stop working if medications are not used immediately. The body is left in a very fragile state in which even some of the smallest illnesses can be very damaging and sometimes even fatal. Worldwide, 35 million people are infected with the virus (Cummins). The most common ways in which HIV is transmitted is by sharing needles with an infected person or having unprotected sex with an infected person (HIV).

A main component of why HIV/AIDS is incurable is due to the sneakiness of the virus in the body. Cummins and Bradley report that “HIV is incurable because of the presence of a latent viral reservoir.” The source is referencing that a main part of why HIV is so tricky to cure is because it has late triggers that might seem dormant, but could become active at any time. US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Anthony Fauci stated that “It might not ever be possible to completely eradicate the virus from the body, even though people are doing well.” This unknown of when the virus could suddenly pop back up in a person’s body when they are thought to be cleared is a huge puzzler for researchers. Additionally, a more recent study depicts “that even in such non-infectious patients the virus is still lurking in gut tissues and still infecting other immune cells in the blood” (Hopkin). A prime example of the unknown and unpredictable capabilities of the virus is of a young infant in Mississippi. A toddler, who was infected at birth, was cleared of the virus by doctors. This story made a huge impact in the media and provided a lot of support and optimism for the HIV/AIDS cure movement. Unfortunately, the infant was found again positive for the disease just over two years later. A very similar instance occurred with two HIV positive men studied by researchers in Boston. In July 2013, the two previously HIV positive men were seen by doctors as no longer HIV positive. By December of that same year, the virus had reappeared in the two men (Hill). Hopkin also continually stresses the sneakiness of the disease when he states “Even the best drugs currently available cannot weed out HIV from all of its hiding places within the body, according to a new study of HIV patients in the United States.” He also points out that HIV is known to be “gut-associated lymphoid tissue,” which means that the gut is a typical place for the virus to hide and remain undetected by doctors. Overall, the HIV virus is just too sneaky to completely destroy as not all infected cells are always detected, as some tend to slip through and remain undetected, which means that they cannot be destroyed (Cummins).

For scientists to get the monetary support that they predict that they would need to find a cure, there would need to be a very significant infusion of funds made into HIV research. In the nature.com editorial, it is referenced that if the plan to cure HIV/AIDS by 2030 is to be reached, than major sums of money need to be allotted/donated for use on this research. Today, nineteen million dollars a year is used on this research. The scientist suggest that thirty-six million dollars a year is necessary for the 2030 goal to be even considered (HIV). Along similar lines monetarily speaking, quality HIV treatment is very expensive for individuals in general, as less than one-fourth of HIV/AIDS patients receive the cART treatments that they need (Cummins).

Scientists searching for a cure by: NIAID

Over the last 30 years, scientists have created over twenty-five drugs to be used against HIV, with AZT being the first (HIV). The most effective treatment for HIV, is for patients to use antiretroviral medications immediately upon diagnosis (HIV). According to Hopkin, the ART treatment “reduces viruses in blood plasma” (Hopkin). Part of why HIV is so hard to counteract and defeat is because of its genetic diversity. According to Desrosiers, the HIV virus has the ability “to replicate unrelentingly despite everything the immune system can throw at it.” Overall, there are two types of researchers that work with the HIV virus. There is a group that will continue to make trials on how to defeat HIV no matter how probable the success rate is, and there is a group that believes researchers should get back to the basics of the disease and have basic research completed before attempting new trials (Vaccines).

Works Cited

Cummins, Nathan W., and Andrew D. Badley. "Can HIV Be Cured and Should We Try?" ProQuest. June 1, 2015. Accessed September 22, 2015.

Hill, Alison. "Why There's No HIV Cure Yet." PBS. August 27, 2014. Accessed September 24, 2015.

"HIV Transmission." Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. January 16, 2015. Accessed October 4, 2015.

Hopkin, Michael. "HIV Can 'never Be Cured'" Nature.com. February 14, 2008. Accessed September 23, 2015.

"The HIV Epidemic Can Be Stopped." Nature.com. July 7, 2015. Accessed September 24, 2015.

"Vaccines - Why Is It so Hard to Make a Vaccine against HIV?" HIV & AIDS Information ::. Accessed September 24, 2015.