SFU genomics students are taking a closer look at their DNA than they’ve ever been able to before.

As part of MBB 462, students can opt to send in their DNA in the form of cheek cells in their spit to 23andMe, a private American company that offers genetic testing for $199.

The tests reveal genetic predispositions to certain diseases and the ancestry of the client, as well as statistics on the amount of their DNA that may have come from Neanderthals.

Ryan Morin, an assistant professor of MBB who has taught the course since Spring 2014, said that “in the context of a course like human genomics, it’s a good opportunity to offer [the 23andMe testing].” As part of the course, students learn about the complexity of human DNA as it relates to the immune system and diseases like cancer.

This isn’t the first time SFU students have investigated their own genes. This semester, students in HSCI 442 analyzed the part of their DNA that interacts with their immune response. They have been studying how forms of a certain gene, HLA, affect immune cells’ reactions to other cells that are infected with a virus. Zabrina Brumme in the Faculty of Health Science is researching how that variability affects people with HIV.

The use of genetic testing for treatment has been making headlines in provincial news. Recently, a BC woman named Trish Keating received treatment for her cancer with consideration paid to the specific genetic makeup of her tumour. She was treated with a drug normally used for treating high blood pressure and it proved to be effective, rendering her cancer undetectable.

This type of tailored approach to treatment is referred to as ‘personalized medicine,’ and has been a long-standing goal of genomics research.

However, the results of 23andMe testing aren’t meant for diagnostic use, leading critics to question the results’ accuracy. Morin acknowledged that in any test like this, “We usually can only capture a small fraction of where the genetics are in the genome [. . .] we are missing part of the story.”

There are also other hurdles that genetic testing must go through in order to become widespread practice. In 2013, 23andMe did not receive approval from the American Food and Drug Administration (FDA) due to the fact that their test would count as a “medical device.” As such, it was warned to stop offering their test in the United States.

Despite these setbacks, the potential for 23andMe looks promising. In February of this year, the FDA changed its position and granted approval for a test to detect whether a patient was the carrier for the gene that leads to Bloom syndrome. The gene is very rare in the normal population, but has a much higher incidence in Ashkenazi Jews.

As genetic testing is already a typical part of checking an infant’s health, more widespread applications may be the next logical step. Morin agreed that the future of medicine lies in part with genetic testing, adding that “in some patients, this is going to be the only way we can treat them.”

An SFU archaeology class has been given a one of a kind opportunity this semester to oversee a project of over 900 stone artifacts collected from a farm near Fort St. John.

Under the guidance of Barbara Winter, a class of 18 students identified, catalogued, and photographed artifacts dating back 7,000 to 10,000 years.

The collection is being curated by students through the resources of the Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, and will be returned to the Treaty 8 Tse’K’wa Interpretive Centre, which is being built to house this collection.

The artifacts come to SFU courtesy of Len Donaldson. Donaldson collected these artifacts whenever he found them scattered over the land he owns and manages, gradually developing an impressive collection.

The artifacts in the collection provide influential information can be gained, from an area where archaeological evidence is scarce and migration theories are still hotly debated.

“A wonderful opportunity presented itself when Len Donaldson offered the collection to SFU last year,” said Winter. “It is both a hands-on project in museum curation for the students, giving them experience in the development of a collection, and a wonderful way to support First Nations communities in the north.”

Jan Anderson, a research assistant with the SFU Archaeology Department and member of the class, says that this collection means a lot to her and to the other students in the class.

“To be able to get hands on with all these super cool lithic tools [. . .] ties together all the things that I’ve worked on,” said Anderson. “I love archaeology because I like knowing that somebody else used these.”

These tools led Anderson to hypothesize as to the life of early humans: “What would someone have done with this? Would they have been butchering an animal, tanning a hide, woodworking? I wonder what their life was like. That’s a neat connection with people who were just going about their daily lives like we were,” she said.

According to Anderson, this collection provides a physical connection to the Treaty 8 First Nations’ important ancestral heritage. This collection allows these peoples to hold objects originally used by their ancestors.

“Here’s something that is a teaching collection, and you can connect with the people that were your ancestors and have something that is known that they held in their hand,” stated Anderson. “That’s kind of what I’d like us to give back to the Treaty 8 People.”

Winter is also advising the Treaty 8 First Nations in their plans for Tse’K’wa, a centre to be built at the site of Charlie Lake Cave. The cave was excavated years ago by SFU professors of archaeology Knut Fladmark and Jon Driver, the latter of whom is SFU’s current VP Academic.

In 2014, the Treaty 8 bands purchased the site, which has since yielded information on early people and animals in BC at the end of the last Ice Age.

Winters and Anderson hope that the return of this collection will assist the Treaty 8 First Nations communities to gain material from their cultural heritage, building on and solidifying the narration of their own history as well as that of British Columbia as a whole.

Anthony Janolino, a blind SFU student who has been navigating the university’s campus for years, recently suffered a fall that left him with a severe concussion.

The incident occurred on January 26 at the Burnaby campus, on an outdoor staircase between the West Gym and Shell House residence.

This area has a number of staircases in different directions and the set in question was without a railing.

Janolino has long been an advocate for accessibility at SFU, sitting on the Simon Fraser Student Society (SFSS) council as a representative for Students United for Disability Support (SUDS) as well as serving on the society’s Accessibility Fund Advisory Committee (AFAC).

SFU’s 50-year-old flagship campus has proven on more than one occasion to be an accessibility challenge for students with disabilities.

Last summer, SUDS led an accessibility walk across Burnaby campus with the help of the SFSS. Participants were blindfolded, given a few strategies, and led across campus in the dark to demonstrate the dangers visually impaired students encounter on a daily basis.

The reflection pond bridge in the AQ gardens posed a great challenge for the blindfolded walkers. Janolino told The Peak that he himself has fallen off the bridge twice in his post-secondary career. He added that each time he sustains an injury, he files a report, but rarely hears back from the university.

Following the walk, the student groups filed a report with recommendations to make the campus safer, which was presented to SFU president Andrew Petter. In a letter to the university, Janolino referred to the meeting with Petter, saying, “We even went as far as discussing ideas of making non-obtrusive modifications so as the safety measures would not disrupt the design of the buildings and landscape.”

Since then, Janolino noted that he has yet to see sufficient improvements to campus accessibility. “I am disappointed in the lack of change on campus regarding the elimination of hazards at SFU,” he wrote.

In light of Janolino’s most recent accident, which has necessitated his withdrawal from a course, the SFSS has written a letter to reiterate its concerns around the issue of accessibility.

The letter states, “We, the Simon Fraser Student Society, are worried about the recurrence of such an incident. We therefore repeat our request submitted in September 2014 that the University endeavour to increase campus accessibility for all students.”

SFU administration issued a statement on April 3, with the assurance that accessibility issues are important to the university. SFU stated, “the safety and well-being of all students on campus is a top priority. The University is looking into this matter.”

At the latest SFSS board of directors meeting on April 1, board members approved the creation of a temporary accessibility projects assistant position. The hired assistant would work in conjunction with AFAC to assess need and implement improvements to society accessibility.

SFSS president Chardaye Bueckert motivated in favour of the motion to approve the position, saying that AFAC members feel “quite maxed out” and would benefit from additional aid.

Bueckert emphasized a serious need for assessing society accessibility: “We don’t even know in what ways [students with disabilities] are inhibited from participating in the student society.”

She concluded, “I think our job as a board of directors is to support those students and to address the needs that they are articulating to us.”

With the end of the spring semester in sight, the Simon Fraser Student Society’s (SFSS) 56th president, Chardaye Bueckert, is preparing to make way for number 57.

From the successful negotiation of two collective agreement contracts to the failure to pass the Build SFU debenture question at the January Special General Meeting to the Freedom Square plaque being returned to its rightful home, Bueckert’s term has been punctuated with highs and lows.

We spoke to the outgoing SFSS president about her time in office and what she plans to do next.

If you had to describe your term in one word, what would it be and why?

“Accomplished? For two reasons. I think for one, our board has really accomplished a lot this year. And then, for myself, I’m quite proud to say I’ve fulfilled almost all my campaign platform promises, and [for] the two that are outstanding, substantial work has gone towards, and I’m confident that in the next year they’ll be fulfilled.”

What specific campaign promises are you proud of?

“The expansion of the food bank. We now have long-term sustained funding for the program, it’s been expanded to the Vancouver campus, it’s soon to be ready for the Surrey campus, and that was a big thing in my platform. Another thing that I’m proud of is we completely changed the society’s child care policies, so now there’s a lot more funding for students who have children, if they wish to participate in the society as a councillor, as a member of a committee, or as a member of the board of directors.”

When you were elected, you came into a board where the majority of members were from the opposing slate. Did that affect how the board functioned?

“I think definitely at the beginning it did. There were some tensions there. But as the year progressed, we kind of came to see that our areas of agreements and mutual interests certainly outweighed any differences in priorities that we had. I think [. . .] we all really realised that we’re all here for the same reason, which is to make SFU a better place for students, and while we had different ideas about how to exactly go about doing that, it’s also not a zero-sum game.”

How does your experience on this board compare to your experience on the 2013/2014 board as the External Relations Officer?

“I felt this year a lot more engaged with the board itself, simply because I was on campus a lot more and I was doing more of the internal work [. . .] I just felt a lot more cohesion with this board, particularly with the at-large and faculty representatives. You look out at our office, they’ve become really good friends, and there’s a lot of camaraderie there, which is really unique and not something I saw to the same extent in the last board.”

Was there any one moment this year that made you think, ‘This has all been worth it’?

“There’s been a lot of them. It’s been a really great year. But I think my kind of moment [. . .] was this year at the debates when, throughout, people were talking about the BC Open Textbook Program, supporting students from Louis Riel House who have been displaced, issues of transit and student loan interest rates; these are issues that, less than a year ago, weren’t really salient. These were not the big topics of conversation. And for me, to have all of that advocacy work that I’m so passionate about and got involved to do, become this valence issue that everyone gets on board with [is] very exciting.”

Moving forward to this year’s election results, most students elected were members of the REAL slate; however, the student elected to President was the only independent presidential candidate, and someone who has not previously worked on board. Do you think this has any meaning behind it?

“I think that Enoch had a very well-researched platform and he clearly knew what he was talking about, even though he wasn’t a quote-un-quote ‘insider;’ so I think that, my hope anyways, was that it was at least partially the quality of his platform that contributed to his electoral victory. [. . .] I think that the fact that he was an outsider and not as experienced as others was mitigated by the fact that he had such a knowledge of what the priorities for the next year should be.”

How does it feel to be moving on?

“Good. I’m really excited to just be able to take my elected official hat off for a while and focus on some other stuff. But it’s also scary! I’ve been doing this for two years, so it will be a very big change of pace.”

What are you doing this summer?

“I’m hoping to take the summer to learn French — I’ve applied for the Explore program — and then I’m going to be going on to graduate studies in political science. I don’t know where yet; I’m also going to be taking the summer to apply to grad schools. And then I also was accepted into the BC Legislative Internship program, starting in January 2016, so I’ll be in Victoria doing that for six months.”

What advice do you have for the incoming board of directors?

“Always come with your listening ears on, because even if you disagree with someone, everyone has got into this and has taken the time and effort to run for a position because they care. And so, I think listening to those different perspectives and trying to amalgamate them into something better than your own individual position is really valuable, [. . .] that’s why we have 16 people elected and not just one.”