Since the beginning of time, humans have sought to perfect their population. During the Spartan age it was infanticide, in the 1920s it was the sterilization of “undesirables” in the United States and in the 1940s the desire of a “perfect race” led to the atrocities we now know as the Holocaust. The goal of perfection although a simple one, can take unspeakable twists and turns that many choose to avoid. However,  now with the introduction of CRISPR humanity has a new possible way to pass-on the desirable traits on children. Gene editing on embryos has become a trending topic in the scientific community, bringing into question whether humans have a right to play with nature. The fact of the matter is that when properly regulated this new technology offers a chance to have healthier children and happier parents. The following topics will be mentioned throughout this paper; what exactly gene editing is, the advantages and disadvantages gene editing presents and what designed babies mean for our future, and most importantly if one was to have the chance to “design” a baby, should they?

Sci-fi books about a perfect society with perfect people seemed far away and unrealistic. Most people regard it as such: fiction. Gene editing makes this no longer a “what if” scenario, science now has the ability to allow parents to choose what genetic factors they would like their offspring to have, what diseases they would like to make their children less vulnerable to, making the embryos immune system stronger. According to the NIH “Genome editing” (also called gene editing) is a group of technologies that give scientists the ability to change an organism’s DNA. These technologies allow genetic material to be added, removed, or altered at particular locations in the genome.” Variations of this technology are known as CRISPR CAS9 which has generated a lot of excitement because it is faster, more accurate, cost effective and overall more efficient than other methods. The CRISPR CAS9 was adapted from a naturally occurring genome editing system in bacteria. The NIH states that, “The bacteria captures  snippets of DNA from invading viruses and use them to create DNA segments known as CRISPR arrays. The CRISPR arrays allow the bacteria to ‘remember’ the viruses (or closely related ones). If the viruses attack again, the bacteria produce RNA segments from the CRISPR arrays to target the viruses’ DNA. The bacteria then use Cas9 or a similar enzyme to cut the DNA apart, which disables the virus. CRISPR-Cas9 system works similarly in the lab. Researchers create a small piece of RNA with a short ‘guide’ sequence that attaches (binds) to a specific target sequence of DNA in a genome. The RNA also binds to the Cas9 enzyme. As in bacteria, the modified RNA is used to recognize the DNA sequence, and the Cas9 enzyme cuts the DNA at the targeted location. Although Cas9 is the enzyme that is used most often, other enzymes (for example Cpf1) can also be used. Once the DNA is cut, researchers use the cell’s own DNA repair machinery to add or delete pieces of genetic material, or to make changes to the DNA by replacing an existing segment with a customized DNA sequence.” As it is made evident, gene editing was inspired off of another living organism who already has a version of “gene editing” as part of their survival. As the NIH and other scientific institutions keep doing more research and experiments, the safer and more reliable it will be to perform this procedure on human embryos.

In spite of these proven advancements, the scientific community is still on the fence about moving forward with this technology. The question that remains is not whether the procedure can be done but whether it should be done. It is a bit unnerving that the power to produce  human beings the way the parents want them to be, not the way the genes decide to be arranged is at our disposal. Humans who have no traces of diseases that once riddled their parents or the gene is there but it is not expressed (meaning the children does not present any symptoms and therefore the offspring does not suffer the effects the disease presents itself with when the gene is expressed). Children who are born healthier than their siblings who probably were not “designed babies” and might suffer from a weak immune system and get sick often. That is exactly the dilemma, to know those options are within the reach of our hands is nerve wracking, because as people the question that plagues us is whether we have the right to change other people, even if it is for what is considered “beneficial”. When earlier technologies such as PGS and PGD, two techniques used by physicians during in-vitro-fertilization was able to screen embryos for genetic predispositions, disorders and treatable diseases, it opened the door for CRISPR. It also opened the door for doubt, with the introduction of these technologies parents now had the means to “prepare” for their children, to know what to expect. If their children was to have Down syndrome or any other detectable genetic disease the parents were able to somehow get ready for their coming child who will need special care-take. Parents “get what they get” but now they can get “ready” for they “get”. At the time when these technologies were new (about 20-30 years ago), the world asked the same question they are asking now about gene editing: we know we can do this but does that mean we should?

Allowing parents to have a choice whether they want a chance to stop diseases that plagued their loved ones from doing the same thing to their children or not, is not what is being put to question. In an article published on November 26, 2018 by the New York Times titled “Chinese Scientist Claims to Use Crispr to Make First Genetically Edited Babies” by Pam Bullock, Gina Kolata and Sui-Lee Wee, they mention that “If human embryos can be routinely edited, many scientists, ethicists and policymakers fear a slippery slope to a future in which babies are genetically engineered for traits — like athletic or intellectual prowess — that have nothing to do with preventing devastating medical conditions.” CRISPR should not be considered as an option to parents who their children to have certain physical traits such as height, hair or eye color, it should be considered an option to parents who want to avoid having a child with a disease that would negatively impact the life they imagined for their children, a disease such as sickle cell anemia (there is research being done about treating sickle cell anemia with gene editing). In the article “‘Designer Babies’ Almost Thirty Years on” by Alan Handyside, Handyside recalls the limitations that were placed in the 1990s when PGS and PGD were introduced. The same fear that parents would use this PGS/PGD to create their desired offspring led to many regulations of the technology, restricting its use to detecting diseases and nothing more. Handyside who worked closely with PGS/PGD understood that it was not easy to create “desired” traits in offspring despite the public’s seeming over reaction, writes: “Beyond sex selection, the ability to ‘design’ a baby with one or more desired traits such as hair and eye colour, intelligence, sporting or musical ability etc. by PGT and embryo selection is extremely limited. Despite knowing much more about the genetic basis of these traits and having the technical ability to track their inheritance, the right combination of genes still has to be present in the parents and their embryos at sufficiently high frequency to make it feasible to select an appropriate embryo”.  Gene editing is an intricate and complex process because of the incalculable nature of genes themselves .When one gene is changed, every single cell in your body is altered because every cell is an exact replica of the other (they carry different functions because in each cell specific genes are activated to carry on their mandated role), due to this intricate connection the minimal of changes will affect the entire genetic composition of the embryo. As Marcy Darnovsky writes “By all accounts, far too much is unknown about issues including off-target mutations (unintentional edits to the genome), persistent editing effects, genetic mechanisms in embryonic and fetal development, and longer-term health and safety consequences.” One drop of sweat, saliva or absolutely anything to make a mistake that could negatively affect the child. Due to the amount meticulous details that go into the procedure, it should only be done by reliable, trusted, recognized and experienced professionals in the matter.

CRISPR gives parents a chance to actually change things. In the previously mentioned article published in the NYT by Pam Bullock, Gina Kolata and Sui-Lee Wee it is spoken about a Chinese scientist named He Jinauki who announced to the world that he had successfully edited a pair of twins, in the article it is stated that “On Monday, a scientist in China announced that he had created the world’s first genetically edited babies, twin girls who were born this month. The researcher, He Jiankui, said that he had altered a gene in the embryos, before having them implanted in the mother’s womb, with the goal of making the babies resistant to infection with H.I.V. ” As it has been stated, Dr. He was immediately condemned because his actions were thought to be self serving: he put the livelihood of the babies at risk for fame, it can be perceived as if the Chinese scientist rushed the procedure and standards to be able to do such delicate procedure just to be the “first one” to do it. The true issue is that  gene editing has not been done on enough human embryos for the world to understand the long-term effects of such alterations. The opportunity to perfect our genes is present but there are obstacles to make it a viable and real choice. The downsides to CRISPR are quite clear: the lack of studies done on human embryos and the uncertainty of what happens after it is done. In order to make use of this technology the right way we should enforce strict regulations and boundaries, giving limitations on what we can do with CRISPR as we learn more about it, maybe limit it to using it exclusively when the parents desire for their children to not have a congenital disease to be activated or present. Such boundaries can safely have trials and test the true limits of this technology. The fact of the matter is we have quite some time before CRISPR is used to actually “design” babies, there are still experiments to be done to be sure that its’ use on human embryos is safe and that the benefits outweigh the disadvantages of the procedure.

In order to move forward in science we must do just that: move forward. CRISPR presents many possibilities for parents and children, although the long-term effects are still unknown one must still be open to the possibility, that way when gene editing is modified to make it safe for humans, society is not skeptical about its benefits. Afterall, changes are scary, doing new things are scary but humans have not found cure to the chicken pox, or that chemotherapy gives cancer patients a fighting chance to battle their disease by being scared of the outcomes. Science has gotten to where it is right now in-spite the fear of every new technology that is brought forth. Completely restricting this technology only restricts what the human race can do for the future, one can only imagine the many doors that will open once gene editing is allowed to be performed on humans.

Works cited

• Handyside, Alan H. “’Designer Babies’ Almost Thirty Years on in: Reproduction Volume 156 Issue 1 Year 2018.” Reproduction, Bioscientifica Ltd, 25 Aug. 2018, rep.bioscientifica.com/view/journals/rep/156/1/REP-18-0157.xml.
• Harris, John, and Marcy Darnovsky. “Pro and Con: Should Gene Editing Be Performed on Human Embryos?” National Geographic, 26 Nov. 2018, www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2016/08/human-gene-editing-pro-con-opinions/.
• Kolata, Gina, and Pam Belluck. “Why Are Scientists So Upset About the First Crispr Babies?” The New York Times, The New York Times, 5 Dec. 2018, www.nytimes.com/2018/12/05/health/crispr-gene-editing-embryos.html.
• Hussain, Wajid, et al. “CRISPR/Cas System: A Game Changing Genome Editing Technology, to Treat Human Genetic Diseases.” Www, 26 Oct. 2018,www-sciencedirect-com.ccny-proxy1.libr.ccny.cuny.edu/science/article/pii/S0378111918311168?via%3Dihub#s0025.
• “What Are Genome Editing and CRISPR-Cas9? – Genetics Home Reference – NIH.” U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health, 30 Apr. 2019, ghr.nlm.nih.gov/primer/genomicresearch/genomeediting.
• Kolata, Gina, et al. “Chinese Scientist Claims to Use Crispr to Make First Genetically Edited Babies.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 26 Nov. 2018, www.nytimes.com/2018/11/26/health/gene-editing-babies-china.html.

Have you ever questioned if global warming was real? With this essay I will be showing that global warming is real using references and I will also be explaining the negative effects that global warming brings to the world. First of all, what is global warming? Global warming is the global rise in temperature that is caused by pollution and other factors that are mostly caused because of us, humans. For example, we are the main reason why there is excess carbon dioxide in the world which has a direct effect on global warming and also causing a greenhouse effect which increases temperature significantly every year leading to intensified climate events like “El nino”. There has been a debate over the years related to global warming over whether it is real, it’s effects, and whether we should take action against it. The climate event called “El nino” is a perfect example of how global warming affects the world since throughout the years many studies have shown that “El nino” is intensified by global warming. “El nino” is not the only climate event that goes through severe changes each year due to global warming, there are many other natural disasters that have no famous name that get intensified yearly due to global warming. Global warming is a clear threat to our planet and to humanity. It is affecting certain ecosystems and wildlife in various ways.

    The main controversy to global warming is whether it is real and the severity of its effects on the planet. Many articles actually explain the effects that global warming can have each year when it comes to intensifying climate events and raising global ocean levels. In the article “Does Global Warming Amplify Interannual Climate Variability?” by Tim Li and others, they talk about Global warming actually intensifies Climate events by the years. One of the best examples they bring to the table is the climate event that goes by the name of “El nino”, they talk about how is “Widely accepted that El Nino Southern-Oscillation(ENSO) is the strongest signal of interannual climate variability in the tropics”. According to this article and many others that I have read ENSO has been gradually getting worse by the years. Global warming affects natural equilibrium in our planet which can cause more precipitation, which is one of the leading factors that intensify ENSO each year. Additionally, Global warming is well known for increasing temperature globally each year due to the greenhouse effect which leads to a rise in ocean levels. According to the article “El Niño Events Will Intensify under Global Warming.” ENSO is also a factor that increases ocean levels each year apart from global warming. They state when ENSO takes place each year it causes the chances and severity of precipitation to be higher leading to increased ocean levels. This connects to one of the other but important effects that global warming has on our planet, which is damaging our wildlife and ecosystems. On the website www.nationalgeographic.com They discuss the effects of global warming on our planet and one of the topics discussed is the effects it has on wildlife. They discussed how due to the rise in temperature cold areas are becoming significantly warmer which affects the animals in that habitat. For instance, cold-adapted animals like polar bears would eventually not be able to adapt to the warmer areas which can lead to these type of animals to become extinct. This does not only affect the life of polar bears but also affects the life of many other animals. It will affect the whole ecosystem in which they live in since there will be one less animal present in the food chain which would definitely lead to disruption in the equilibrium of the ecosystem. This has a domino effect since after removing one animal from a food chain can easily lead to extinction in other groups of animals. With that being said, Global warming has very clear negative effects on our planet. The controversy that has been going on for years that questions whether global warming is real or not is useless to have since global warming clearly affects the way we live, wildlife in our planet and well-being of our planet.

On the other hand, Many people refuse to believe that global warming is significantly consequential and that it has any important effects we should be worrying about. The website article “Is Global Warming Real? Top 5 Arguments in Favor and Against It.” claims that there is evidence pointing towards the side of global warming not being real. One of the things they mention to back up their claim is that there has not been any significant prolonged rise in temperature since 1997. However, this is something that is debunked time after time even by the articles I have previously presented in this paper which claim that due to the rise in temperature there has been increased ocean levels throughout the years due to more precipitation and icebergs melting in the arctic and other places. Also, they claim that there is not enough historical data that backs the fact that global warming is real. This is something that is also proven wrong time after time since the articles I have presented in this paper have had some sort of research or studies done to support their arguments. There has been way too many studies arguing that global warming is real by showing their work and studies. Moving on, after proving that global warming is real in this paper and showing many of its negative effects on the planet, there is one thing that global warming does good. You might ask, how can something that is so bad be beneficial in any way, shape, or form? Well global warming is actually good at eliminating droughts by increasing precipitation in certain places. According to the article “Influence of Internal Variability and Global Warming on Multidecadal Changes in Regional Drought Severity over the Continental United States.” global warming increases precipitation and eliminates droughts in certain areas which is certainly beneficial to the landscapes that need the water. However, for those regions that are not in drought global warming increases precipitation which can lead to floods and damage to properties and landscape.

In conclusion, global warming has clear harmful effects to our planets such as intensifying climate events and rising ocean levels which leads to significant damage to wildlife as discussed previously in this paper. Some claim that global warming is not real and state many things that are always debunked by studies and research. The global warming debate or controversy in my opinion is a useless controversy since it is clearly real and humans, as the residents of this planet, should start to take action for a better stable tomorrow and for the other life this planet has.

S-Citation: He, Chao, and Tim Li. “Does Global Warming Amplify Interannual Climate Variability?” Climate Dynamics, vol. 52, no. 5-6, 2018, pp. 2667–2684., doi:10.1007/s00382-018-4286-0.

Summary: In this article the global warming effects are discussed and are also tested to see if they change the way climate works every year. Again, the article goes in to the effects of climate change and those are disastrous climate events as well as droughts and floods which are affecting the human population at an alarming rate for the past years. Additionally, the article talks about one of the most known climate events due to global warming which is “El nino”. Although it was a brief talk about the climate event, “El nino” is explained to be a cause of global warming in the article and it is also a climate event that affects the caribbean every year causing deaths, and expensive costs for the countries in danger. The article explains the research and data that they used to explain the positive correlation between climate variability and global warming. Their research and data mainly focuses on precipitation and vertical velocity to explain climate variability.

S-Citation: Ham, Yoo-Geun. “El Niño Events Will Intensify under Global Warming.” Nature, vol. 564, no. 7735, 2018, pp. 192–193., doi:10.1038/d41586-018-07638-w.

Summary: In this article “El nino” is talked about. “El nino” is a climate event that started due to global warming and as global warming worsens so will the climate event called “El nino”. The climate event is an event of natural climate disasters that happen around the same time of the year in the caribbean causing deaths and expenses to the countries at risk. The article goes on to state the effects of “El nino” which are increased ocean surface levels that overtime can cause floods and many other negative effects on the wild life that is in the ocean. The article uses references to support their research and to convey their idea that the climate event called “El nino” is intensified by global warming. They come to a conclusion that it does intensify it.

P-Citation: “Global Warming Effects.” Global Warming and Climate Change Effects: Information and Facts, 4 Feb. 2019, www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/global-warming-effects/.

Summary: In this website for the general public the main effects of global warming are explained showing that global warming is real and it is currently affecting humanity. The website states that the average global temperature has increased significantly, and it has increased especial in sensitive polar areas which can radically affect wildlife. The effects they mentioned of global warming were temperature rises, sea level increasing, and increased precipitation which are things that affect wildlife and world equilibrium in general.

P-Citation: “Global Warming Controversy.” ScienceDaily, ScienceDaily, www.sciencedaily.com/terms/global_warming_controversy.htm.”

Summary: In this website the controversy of Global warming is discussed. It explains how much of the problems related to global warming are human-induced. Also, they talked about how global warming is affecting the world by the year.

P-Citation: “Is Global Warming Real? Top 5 Arguments in Favor and Against It.” Conserve Energy Future, 25 Dec. 2016, www.conserve-energy-future.com/is-global-warming-real.php.

Summary: In this website we look at the things people say that are debunking global warming or are not in favor for global warming. The statements made to support that global warming is not real such as no significant temperature rise since 1997 are constantly debunked by other articles in this Paper.

S-Citation: Apurv, Tushar, et al. “Influence of Internal Variability and Global Warming on Multidecadal Changes in Regional Drought Severity over the Continental United States.” Journal of Hydrometeorology, vol. 20, no. 3, 2019, pp. 411–429., doi:10.1175/jhm-d-18-0167.1.

Summary: This article goes over one of the most overlooked but troublesome natural disasters ever which are droughts. Droughts occur in places where there is little to no precipitation and that leads to scarcity and dry lands. This can go on for several seasons or for several years as stated by the article which can affect wildlife in the respective ecosystems. This article looks at the relationship between global warming and the severity of these droughts. The article comes to a conclusion after observing global warming and its effects and sees that global warming can actually lower the negative effects of droughts in certain regions by causing more precipitation in those areas. This, however, does not take away from the other natural disasters that global warming can bring.

Audience: The audience for this article is people who are concerned with their health and how the environment around them affects their health. Also,  people who are researching on the health implications that using 5g network which consist of electromagnetic fields can bring to people. The people reading this article would be a scholarly audience looking to learn more about the subjects since this article goes in depth about the subject. Everything mentioned in the article is thoroughly explained along with complex vocabulary to help the reader learn more about the subject.

Genre: Non-fiction/ Science

Article: Towards 5G communication systems: Are there health implications?

Year of publication: 2018

link:https://www-sciencedirect-com.ccny-proxy1.libr.ccny.cuny.edu/science/article/pii/S1438463917308143

    The article “Towards 5G communication systems: Are there health implications?” by Agostino Di Ciaula dives into the possible health effects that 5g communication systems can have on humans at cellular levels and other ways. Agostino Di Ciaula, the author, is an internist and medical doctor who works in a department of medicine in Italy. The author focuses on talking about EMF( Electromagnetic fields), how it is rapidly growing in our environment, how it is part of our everyday lives whether you want to or not, and how there is little research done surrounding the possible effects that it has on humans. Adding on, the article mentions the possible health effects that EMF can have on humans such as oxidative stress, cancer onset, vascular homeostasis and neurological effects. Throughout the article the author uses many rhetorical devices to get his point and credibility across to the reader. The different rhetorical devices that the author uses are tone, ethos, logos and more. The sole purpose of this article is to inform the audience on the health effects that electromagnetic radiation can have on people and to teach the audience that “underrating the problem could lead to a further rise in noncommunicable diseases” as stated by the article.

    Throughout the article many of the health effects that EMF’s can have on people are mentioned, one of them being onset cancer and brain tumors. In the article the author talks about a study that led to evidence that mobile phone users, which are being frequently exposed to electromagnetic radiation because of the wireless function, have an increased risk of  developing glioma(type of brain cancer) and developing other brain tumors. The author uses logos to convey this idea, since the author is using many facts and evidence to show the correlation between wireless communication and cancer as shown in the following citation: “After the IARC statement, a case-control study has documented an increased risk of brain tumor in mobile phone users or after cordless phone use” (Di Ciaula). The author is using logos by referring to studies using evidence to prove his point, making his point more credible. Also, while talking about how EMF’s can cause cancer the author keeps a very serious tone to appeal to the audience a lot more, For example the author says “a significant positive association (glioma, meningioma) was evident in the heaviest users when considering life-long cumulative duration and number of calls” (Di ciaula), by using vocabulary that it’s related to the topic and using evidence from certain studies the author is able to get his point across in a precise manner. Also, the author mentions oxidative stress as one of the other health implications that come with the use of electromagnetic fields around you. Oxidative stress is the stress that is put on your body cells that negatively affect your antioxidants balance which can speed up the aging process and damage DNA. The author says “A number of studies with positive findings in humans have been paralleled by recent animal studies documenting, following RF-EMF exposure, oxidative and nitrosative stress-mediated DNA damage resulting in cell cycle arrest and apoptosis in spermatogenic cell lines, reduced testosterone levels with shrinkage of testicular size and an increased loss of cell viability in experimental blastocysts” (Di ciaula) again using many ethos with a serious tone to convey his point and the correlation between EMF’s and oxidative stress which can lead to many other health implications.

    The article also talks about the negative neurological effects that exposure to electromagnetic radiation can bring to the human body. The article states that “Animals showed reduced long-term memory as a consequence of the RF-EMF-induced astrogliosis” (Di ciaula). These animal studies were done with white lab rats which are done because these animals are similar to us genetically. With that being said, these studies show how EMF’s can impair the human brain. There were also other studies mentioned in the article that showed a positive correlation between exposure to electromagnetic radiation and different behaviour in rats which are genetically similar to humans, meaning that there is a positive correlation between EMR and different human behaviour. When the author is talking about these studies and facts, he is constantly using the serious and formal tone to convey his point. The author is also using ethos to thoroughly convey his point.

    In conclusion, the author concludes in his concluding paragraph that there are correlations between EMF’s exposure and many health effects that negatively impact us. However, he makes it clear that there are still many studies to be done since there are more controversial points that are not clear to us yet. Additionally, the way the author presented information about the studies was very clear, he backed everything he talked about with clear evidence from the studies or outside sources which made his word credible and even more credible with the rhetorical devices that he used to get his point across to the audience. Also, in the conclusion of the article the author starts giving suggestions about how knowledge on RF-EMF exposure to health risks can be useful in current clinical practice. The purpose of this article was to alarm people about the health risks we are all facing due to electromagnetic radiation and with that being said the article’s main message throughout the whole article is to not underrate the problem, since in the future it can get so big that it would be beyond fixing.

Work Cited

• Ciaula, Agostino Di. “Towards 5G Communication Systems: Are There Health Implications?” International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health, vol. 221, no. 3, 2018, pp. 367–375., doi:10.1016/j.ijheh.2018.01.011.

Have you ever wondered how the process of digestion truly works and where does it start? In this technical description assignment I would be explaining what digestion is, where does it start to where it ends, and the different processes within Digestion. To start off, Digestion is the process that your body starts to break down food into useful substances that your body can use. These useful substances can be used to keep your body working at its most efficient form; your body is kept hydrated and is able to use proteins for muscles or substances like fiber for the performance of some of your organs. Additionally, according to Cephalic Vein who is the author of “Chemical digestion definition”, digestion is broken down into two parts which are the processes of breaking food mechanically and chemically. Digestion is a process that happens inside of us everyday of our lives subconsciously and helps us power our bodies so they can keep working the way it should. Without digestion our muscles would be massless, our bodies wouldn’t stay hydrated, our energy levels would be disrupted, and our cells would deteriorate.

    The process of the digestion of foods that takes place daily in our bodies starts in the mouth in a process called mastication according to Cephalic Vein. Mastication is the process of breaking the food that initially enters your mouth into smaller fragments by chewing them to make them absorbable by the body. While chewing, the food is mixed with saliva to ensure that it is ready to enter the stomach. This process of mastication is considered to be mechanical since it is mostly done mechanically by your body. The process of mastication also includes chemical digestion since your saliva is helping break down the food with special enzymes to make digestible.  Moving on, after the food enters your mouth and is swallowed, it goes through the esophagus by being pushed in by the tongue. Through the esophagus the food makes its way into the stomach where another process starts. This other process is the breaking of food in the sack-like organ that we have that is called the “stomach”. This is considered a chemical process of breaking down food because the acids that are naturally in the stomach are used to break down the food with special enzymes and acids to take the important substances and nutrients from the foods. From this point on the foods leave the stomach and go to the large intestine where your body starts absorbing the substances that were broken down in the stomach.

Picture taken from: “http://tenderness.co/chemical-digestion-definition/”

The large intestine is responsible for absorbing any water left in the and electrolytes to keep the body hydrated. It is also responsible for absorbing important vitamins like vitamins K and B12. Once the absorption in the large intestine is finished the absorption in the small intestine begins. In the stomach, a lot of the breaking of the food goes down, but in the small intestine the most important part happens. In the small intestine most of the absorption of the nutrients that were broken down takes place. Also, the small intestine is where the absorption of things like water, salt and other nutrients takes place. After the small intestine is done with its job the food is turned into dry waste and travels through the rectum and anus. This is a general description of the digestion process that takes place in the human body.

Picture taken from “http://tenderness.co/chemical-digestion-definition/”

In conclusion, the body’s digestion process is composed of many different parts and processes. The mechanical and chemical process are the processes that break down food in the different parts of the digestion. At the end, absorption of nutrients and water take place in the small and large intestine, and this is where the digestion of foods ends. This technical description will help college students understand how the general process of digestion works.

Work Cited Page

• “What Does the Large Intestine Do in the Digestive System?” Reference, IAC Publishing, www.reference.com/science/large-intestine-digestive-system-7fbd9fc742735ece.
• Vein, Cephalic. “Chemical Digestion Definition.” Tenderness.co, 2016, tenderness.co/chemical-digestion-definition/.