Podcasts and Ponderings

The most important part of Mr. Bott's podcast training is probably the fact that it must tell a story. One where I can tie in different aspects, perspectives, and of course, the "so-what." I've been thinking about this and I recently realized that the first step towards creating a not-boring podcast is establishing that framework. If you're someone like me and having trouble with the speaking part of it, you probably want at least the story structure to be working out for you. That said, right now I'm working on a plan that encompasses the concept of argument in science (this part will most likely be about amyloid hypothesis vs. oxidative stress theory) but I also want to somehow bring it back to the importance of C. elegans and why these small worms are so valuable in the research world. In doing this though, I anticipate that most of the audience is not informed on the nature and function, or even the existence of C. elegans so I want to carefully consider the amount of background I should provide but I also don't want to drag out all of the worm talk because I feel like people would care less about their life cycle than they would about the worms' use/purpose.

The other important thing to think about when creating this story is essentially, which side am I on? And realizing that I have to pick one of the two hypothesis was kind of stressful. I don't really feel as though I am knowledgeable enough about either theory in order to make a call about which one is more correct. Although, is it possible to use the podcast as a demonstration of scientific argument? Or does my lack of position take away from my credibility and/or purpose of the podcast? Not sure about that one.

So a plan for this podcast is in the works. I don't think I will use it as my next official SDA only because I'm not sure how much progress I can show with it since it's tapping into different aspects of my project but it isn't exactly moving anything forward or working towards a new mini-goal. But I think for the next month and a half or so, this podcast endeavor will help me keep creativity a constant part of my process.

Something else I was thinking about today is the oxidative stress theory concerning Alzheimer's pathogenesis. So I was kind of laying out what I know about diabetic pathways and how cells reject the insulin and therefore the glucose cannot enter the cell (be it for genetic reasons or too much glucose such as in obesity). But the one part that really struck me was the thought that if Alzheimer's is like diabetes in the brain, wouldn't that mean patients with Alzheimer's should also have higher blood-glucose levels? Because although the Blood Brain Barrier separates the brain itself from the rest of the body, the same blood is being circulated through an entire human being, from head to toe. If brain cells are not properly utilizing the glucose being carried by the blood, where would those excess glucose deposits go? There would have to be a significant increase in blood-glucose levels because the brain is the organ that utilizes the most glucose throughout the entire human body. I don't know the truth in this train of thought but I think for me, a conclusive study with relatively small margin of error proving would this would push me in the direction of oxidative stress theory over amyloid-hypothesis. I only say that because the oxidative stress theory does not rule out the existence of plaques, rather it theorizes their origin beyond spontaneous proteotoxicity. I mean, obviously something will have to cause the toxic protein folding before it begins to accumulate. There isn't a clear threshold where a brain begins to produce toxic Amyloid - it isn't that systematic. Something has to go wrong, homeostasis must be disrupted, and some kind of resource must be limited. Now, we just have to figure out what all those things are.