Searching For A Cure :: essays research papers

People say the only things that are inevitable in life are death and taxes. I beg to differ. I believe that another inevitability is soon coming – the cure for spinal cord injuries. Scientists have made many breakthroughs in the last 25 years in terms of spinal cord injuries. In past years when a person would get a spinal cord injury, there was pretty much no hope for them to regain any function or movement that was lost, unless some sort of miracle took place. Today, there is still no cure; however, experiments are being done that have shown promising results.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Stem cell research looks to be one of the most promising treatments for spinal cord injuries. Stem cells are special because they are the primitive cells that give rise to different kinds of tissues in the body, and because they are self renewing in the body and in the laboratory so that large quantities can be produced for medical purposes (The Promise of Stem Cells, 2002). Another great quality of stem cells is that they have the potential to develop into many different cells in the body. When a stem cell divides, it can either remain a stem cell or develop into another type of cell. Today, donated organs and tissues are often used to replace ailing or destroyed tissue, but the need for transplantable tissues and organs far outweighs the available supply. Stem cells, directed to differentiate into specific cell types, offer the possibility of a renewable source of replacement cells and tissues to treat things such as spinal cord injuries (Stem Cell Basics). In a study conducted by the Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, rats were induced with a spinal cord injury. Nine days after injury, the rats were treated with embryonic stem cells. Two to five weeks later, the rats showed improvement in weight bearing and coordination. Another study was conducted where fifteen mice with spinal cord injuries were studied. Eight of those mice were treated with transplants to their spinal cords of stem cells. The remaining seven mice were used as controls. Seven days later, the mice that had received stem cells showed greater functional recovery than the control mice (Stem Cells Information Center).   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Another possible cure for spinal cord injuries is functional electrical stimulation. Functional eletrical stimulation uses implanted electrodes to stimulate paralyzed nerves so that arms and legs can be used for improved function (Spinal Cord Injury Treatment and Cure Research).

Cash Flow Statement vs. Fund Flow Statement Essay

There are some basic differences between the two statements as mentioned below: Meaning: Cash flow statement is a statement which reflects sources and uses of cash whereas fund flow statement is a statement that reflects changes in the working capital or fund. Scope: The scope of cash flow is limited and it is based on the narrow concept of fund. i.e. cash alone whereas funds flow statement is a broader term and it is a wider concept of fund. Component: Under cash flow statement, cash is an important factor and it is the part of working capital whereas funds flow statement is the working capital which includes cash, stock, debtors, bills and receivables, temporary investments etc. Object: Cash flow statement is prepared to disclose only changes in cash position whereas funds flow statement is prepared to depict the changes in working capital between two balance sheet dates. Conversion or adjustments of data: Adjustments for prepaid and outstanding expenses and incomes are made in preparation of cash flow statement in order to convert the data from accrual basis to cash basis whereas while preparing funds flow statement, there is no need for such conversion as this statement gives recognition to the accrual basis. Number of statements: Under cash flow statement, only one statement is prepared whereas in the case of funds flow statement, two statements are prepared and they are: 1) schedule of working capital changes and 2) statement of sources and uses of fund. Opening and closing balance of cash: In the case of cash flow statement, the opening cash balance and closing cash balance are shown whereas in the case of funds flow statement, there is no place for showing the opening and closing balance of cash and funds flow statement. Uses: The use of cash flow statement is in financial analysis and cash planning whereas in mid-term and long-term planning, funds flow statement is useful. Cash flow statement may be worked as an indicator of improved working capital whereas in the case of funds flow statement it is not necessary that an improved funds position will be an indicator for sound cash position. Impact of changes on cash; Increase in current liability or decrease in current assets brings increase in cash and vice versa whereas in the cash of funds flow statement, working capital increase in current liabilities or decrease in current assets brings decrease in working capital and vice versa. References: http://classof1.com/homework-help/accounting-homework-help/

Provenience vs. Provenance What Is the Difference

Provenience and provenance are two words that have similar meanings and similar etymologies according to Merriam Websters dictionary  but have very different meanings as they are used by scholars working in the fields of archaeology  and art history. Provenance, according to the online version of Merriam Websters dictionary, means the history of ownership of a valued object and it is the oldest (or parent) of the two words. Provenance is derived from the French word provenir, meaning to come forth, and it has been in use in English since the 1780s.Provenience, according to the same source, is the younger (or child) of the two forms. It is a synonym for provenance, and it also derives from the French word provenir and it has been in use in English since the 1880s. However, amongst art historians and archaeologists, these two words are not synonyms, in fact, there is a nuanced meaning to each in our scholarly writings and discussions.   Artifact Context This discussion arises out of the interest of scholars and academics in verifying the authenticity (and thus value, whether monetary or scholarly) of an artifact or a piece of art. What art historians use to determine an objects authenticity is the chain of ownership: they typically know or can work out the likely maker, but who owned it first, and how did that painting or sculpture make its way to the present owner? If theres a gap in that chain during which time they dont know who owned a particular object for a decade or century, there is a possibility that the object was forged. Archaeologists, on the other hand, dont care who owned an object—they are more interested in the context of an object within the community of its (mostly original) users. For an archaeologist to maintain that an object has meaning and intrinsic value, she needs to know how it was used, what archaeological site it came from, and where it was deposited within that site. The context of the artifact is important information about an object, context which is often lost when an artifact is bought by a collector and passed down from hand to hand. Fighting Words These can be fighting words between these two groups of scholars. An art historian sees merit in a Minoan sculpture fragment in a museum no matter where it came from, they just want to know if its real; an archaeologist feels its just another Minoan sculpture unless they know it was found in a trash deposit in the back of a shrine at Knossos. So, we need two words. One to clarify the chain of ownership for art historians, and one to clarify the context of an object for archaeologists. Provenance: The detailed history of where an artifact has been since its creation.Provenience: The precise location where an artifact or archaeological sample was recovered archaeologically. An Example by Way of an Explanation Let us consider the meaning of a silver denarius, one of an estimated 22.5 million Roman coins minted for Julius Caesar between 49-45 BC. The provenance of that coin could include its creation in the mint in Italy, its loss in a shipwreck in the Adriatic sea, its recovery by shell divers, its purchase first by an antiquities dealer, then by a tourist who left it to her son who eventually sold it to the museum. The denariuss authenticity is established (in part) by its chain of ownership from the shipwreck. To an archaeologist, however, that denarius is one of millions of coins minted for Caesar and not very interesting, unless we know that the coin was found in the wreck of the Iulia Felix, a small cargo ship wrecked in the Adriatic while it  participated in the international glass trade of the third century AD. The Loss of Provenience When archaeologists lament the loss of provenience from a looted art object, what we really mean is that part of the provenance has been lost—we are interested in why  a Roman coin turned up in a shipwreck 400 years after it was made; while art historians dont really care, since they can generally figure out what mint a coin came from by the information stamped on its surface. Its a Roman coin, what else do we need to know? says an art historian; The shipping trade in the Mediterranean region during late Roman times says an archaeologist. It all comes down to a question of context. Because provenance for an art historian is important to establish ownership, but provenience is interesting to an archaeologist to establish meaning. In 2006, reader Eric P elegantly nailed the difference with a pair of apt metaphors: Provenience is an artifacts birthplace, while Provenance is an artifacts resume.