ASU Electronic Theses and Dissertations
This collection includes most of the ASU Theses and Dissertations from 2011 to present. ASU Theses and Dissertations are available in downloadable PDF format; however, a small percentage of items are under embargo. Information about the dissertations/theses includes degree information, committee members, an abstract, supporting data or media.
In addition to the electronic theses found in the ASU Digital Repository, ASU Theses and Dissertations can be found in the ASU Library Catalog.
Dissertations and Theses granted by Arizona State University are archived and made available through a joint effort of the ASU Graduate College and the ASU Libraries. For more information or questions about this collection contact or visit the Digital Repository ETD Library Guide or contact the ASU Graduate College at gradformat@asu.edu.
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4
Filtering by
- All Subjects: Biology
Description
Endocrine disruptors are chemicals that interact with the hormone system to negative effect. They ‘disrupt’ normal processes to cause diseases like vaginal cancer and obesity, reproductive issues like t-shaped uteri and infertility, and developmental abnormalities like spina bifida and cleft palate. These chemicals are ubiquitous in our daily lives, components in everything from toothpaste to microwave popcorn to plastic water bottles. My dissertation looks at the history, science, and regulation of these impactful substances in order to answer the question of how endocrine disruptors appeared, got interpreted by different groups, and what role science played in the process. My analysis reveals that endocrine disruptors followed a unique science policy trajectory in the US, rapidly going from their proposal in 1991 to their federal regulation in 1996, even amid intense and majority scientific disagreement over whether the substances existed at all. That trajectory resulted from the work of a small number of scientist-activists who constructed a concept and category as scientific, social, and regulatory. By playing actors from each sphere against each other and advancing a very specific scientific narrative that fit into a regulatory and social window of opportunity in the 1990s, those scientist-activists made endocrine disruptors a national issue that few could ignore. Those actions resulted in the Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program, a heavily-criticized and ineffective regulatory program. My dissertation tells a story of the past that informs the present. In 2018, the work of researchers, public media, and policymakers in the 1990s continues to play out, evident in the deep scientific division over endocrine disrupting effects and the inability of the European Union to settle on even a definition of endocrine disruptors for regulation purposes.
ContributorsAbboud, Alexis J (Author) / Maienschein, Jane A (Thesis advisor) / Crow, Michael M. (Committee member) / Hurlbut, J. Benjamin (Committee member) / Marchant, Gary E (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2018
Description
The purpose of this paper is to create awareness around breast cancer risk factorsand screening methods. Five overarching intrinsic risk factors, including: the patient’s
age at the time of diagnosis, race, familial susceptibility, and the role of natural hormone
changes, and one extrinsic risk factor, dietary habits, were selected for consideration.
Along with risk factors, four screening methods were taken into consideration. These
included self-breast exams, mammograms, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and
ultrasound. The recommendation of screening methods was then determined in relation to
a women’s risk for breast cancer. Two categories of risk (average and high risk) were
defined and the recommended screening methods were determined based on the risk.
Overall, mammography was found to be a useful tool in both average and high risk
women. For high risk women, mammography with MRI had a greater sensitivity and was
able to detect more breast cancers. More research needs to be conducted on the efficacy
of Breast MRI, Ultrasound, and breast self-exams as supplemental tools to
mammography in both average and high-risk women
ContributorsTodd, Julia M (Author) / Compton, Carolyn (Thesis advisor) / Pepin, Susan (Committee member) / Anderson, Karen (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2023
Description
Adaptive therapy utilizes competitive interactions between resistant and sensitive cells by keeping some sensitive cells to control tumor burden with the aim of increasing overall survival and time to progression. The use of adaptive therapy to treat breast cancer, ovarian cancer, and pancreatic cancer in preclinical models has shown significant results in controlling tumor growth. The adaptive therapy model comes from the integrated pest management agricultural strategy, predator prey model, and the unique intra- and inter-tumor heterogeneity of tumors. The purpose of this thesis is to analyze and compare gemcitabine dose response on hormone refractory breast cancer cells retrieved from mice using an adaptive therapy strategy with standard therapy treatment. In this study, we compared intermittent (drug holiday) adaptive therapy with maximum tolerated dose therapy. The MCF7 resistant cell lines to both fulvestrant and palbociclib were injected into the mammary fat pads of 8 weeks old NOD/SCID gamma (NSG) mice which were then treated with gemcitabine. Tumor burden graphs were made to track tumor growth/decline during different treatments while Drug Dose Response (DDR) curves were made to test the sensitivity of the cell lines to the drug gemcitabine. The tumor burden graphs showed success in controlling the tumor burden with intermittent treatment. The DDR curves showed a positive result in using the adaptive therapy treatment method to treat mice with gemcitabine. Due to some fluctuating DDR results, the sensitivity of the cell lines to gemcitabine needs to be further studied by repeating the DDR experiment on the other mice cell lines for stronger results.
ContributorsConti, Aviona Christina (Author) / Maley, Carlo (Thesis advisor) / Blattman, Joseph (Committee member) / Anderson, Karen (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2022
Description
This dissertation investigates how ideas of the right relationships among science, the public, and collective decision-making about science and technology come to be envisioned in constructions of public engagement. In particular, it explores how public engagement has come to be constructed in discourse around gene editing to better understand how it holds together with visions for good, democratic governance of those technologies and with what effects. Using a conceptual idiom of the co-production of science and the social order, I investigate the mutual formation of scientific expertise, responsibility, and democracy through constructions of public engagement. I begin by tracing dominant historical narratives of contemporary public engagement as a continuation of public understanding of science’s projects of social ordering for democratic society. I then analyze collections of prominent expert meetings, publications, discussions, and interventions about development, governance, and societal implications human heritable germline gene editing and gene drives that developed in tandem with commitments to public engagement around those technologies. Synthesizing the evidence from across gene editing discourse, I offer a constructive critique of constructions of public engagement as expressions and evidence of scientific responsibility as ultimately reasserting and reinforcing of scientific experts' authority in gene editing decision-making, despite intentions for public engagement to extend decision-making participation and power to publics. Such constructions of public engagement go unrecognized in gene editing discourse and thereby subtly reinforce broader visions of scientific expertise as essential to good governance by underwriting the legitimacy and authority of scientific experts to act on behalf of public interests. I further argue that the reinforcement of scientific expert authority in gene editing discourse through public engagement also centers scientific experts in a sociotechnical imaginary that I call “not for science alone.” This sociotechnical imaginary envisions scientific experts as guardians and guarantors of good, democratic governance. I then propose a possible alternatives to public engagement alone to improve gene editing governance by orienting discourse around notions of public accountability for potential shared benefits and collective harms of gene editing.
ContributorsRoss, Christian (Author) / Hurlbut, James B. (Thesis advisor) / Maienschein, Jane (Thesis advisor) / Collins, James P. (Committee member) / Crow, Michael M. (Committee member) / Sarewitz, Daniel R. (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2021