Collaborative Space

Collaborative Space
Katie McCabe



Picture taken by the U.S. Army

The history of America is marked by amazing feats across the globe, including those that expand outside of our planet’s atmosphere. The U.S. space program once united a country in a time of need. However, as the economic recession alters the face of NASA, the U.S. people wonder what will become of the U.S. space program. The Nature article, “Desirable Partners” supports the collaboration of the U.S. and China concerning the advancement of space science and exploration. The author argues that not only would a collaboration between the two parties contribute to the success of the U.S. disappearing space program, but would also encourage international space collaboration between other countries as well. However, by refusing to cooperate with Chinese space program the U.S. will save countless dollars. As well, the goals and political agenda of the Chinese space programs disagree with the democratic principles that the U.S. has set precedent for other countries.


The current U.S. space effort has been stripped of its once renowned reputation that once put man on the moon during the Space Race. The strong public support for NASA during the Cold War created a goal-oriented atmosphere. Since 1974, the goals of the space program have been described as being “technology-driven” instead of “destination-driven”. The goals of the U.S. space program focus on satellite technology and the highly developmental devices. These goals change each year according to the current President. However, the goals of the Chinese space program center on international recognition of its military and political presence.


Whereas the objectives of the Chinese space program have remained the same for the past several decades, the U.S. space policy recently has altered to the preferences of the current Commander in the Chief. President Barack Obama cancelled the space initiative Constellation that was previously developed under the Bush Administration. Instead, under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, five American companies were given fifty million dollars in order to design and develop space technology and concepts. As NASA continues to disintegrate, an organized and successful international space collaboration will almost become impossible. The dwindling budget and disappearance of NASA will erase any opportunities for the U.S. to collaborate effectively.


According to today’s dollars, the budget of the space program is the same as it was from 1961 to 1973. The progress and development of the U.S. space program can only be described as stagnant. However, China was able to develope an operative space program with a lack of funding and support. In the year 2003, China became the third country in space when astronaut, Yang Liwei broke through the atmosphere. The main objectives of these missions were to claim international recognition and political power. Roger Handberg, author of Chinese Space Policy, writes, “The true political value of space does not come from the successful launch of humans but from the political and other implications drawn from that act.” These allegations differ from the goals of the U.S. which have recently focused on scientific discovery and advances in technology.


The primary objectives of the U.S. space program are not only determined by the President and NASA but also by Congress and the U.S. State Department. Congress must approve of all large-scale NASA projects. It is the responsibility of the U.S. State Department to coordinate all international collaborations. The hierarchy of power involved when determining international collaborations is a very slow and inefficient system that would prohibit or slow the success of space collaboration with China. The government and public attitude towards China seem to evoke feelings produced during the Korean War, feelings that are mainly due to the lack of democracy present in the Chinese government. These differences in the government structures of China and the U.S. would only slow and complicate collaboration.


Space collaboration would only continue to stretch the American budget and ideals, causing strife amongst government officials and the public. Instead, the resources and man power should be first used for today’s environmental and economic turmoil, then the public support and funding would again increase for the U.S. space program.



Works Cited

"Desirable Partners." Nature. 479.7373 (2011): n. page. Web. 28 Feb. 2012. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v479/n7373/full/479267a.html.

Handberg, Roger, and Zhen Li. Chinese Space Policy: A Study in domestic and International Politics. London: Routledge, 2007.

Hirsch, Richard, and Joseph John Trento. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration. New York: Praeger Publishers, 1973.

Kay, W.D. Can Democracies Fly in Space? The Challenge of Revitalizing the U.S. Space Program. London: Praeger Publishers, 1995.

Mari, Christopher. "U.S. national debate topic 2011-2012: American space exploration and development." The Reference Shelf. 83. New York: The H.W. Wilson Company, 2011.

Climate Change, Big Whoop

“Results confirming climate change are welcome, even when released before peer review.”(1) A recent Nature article deceivingly titled, “Scientific Climate,” talks about four papers released by the BEST the University of California, Berkeley team, “confirm” that global warming should be reported now and not after tedious peer review. I am going to discuss three main issues found in this article. First, the author does not seem to recognize peer review’s importance, though peer review remains a crucial aspect in the scientific community that enforces quality control and allows the scientific community to self-correct. Then, the author discusses climate change as a fact that is to be accepted as he disregards any other viewpoints and research. Lastly, the author assumes that journalists would anticipate reporting this news. However, the papers merely repeat what people already know regarding climate change. A more accurate thesis would read “any significant news regarding climate change is welcome after peer review, because otherwise both arguments contain validity. Though global warming fears tend to be mainstream, the argument for why climate change is not an issue is as if not more plausible.”

Any acceptable paper in the scientific community undergoes peer review so that it avoids fallacies and corrections can be made. Though not without flaws, the history of peer review is a pretty good history. Invented in the late 1600s, peer review became standard practice in the twentieth century. It helps regulate research and keep the scientific community’s quality. By undergoing scrutiny by top authorities in the same field, a researcher’s work establishes credibility. If the BEST papers have not undergone peer review, their accuracy is not ensured. Peer review’s main problems arise when it aids in “suppressing valid or innovative concepts.”(2) However, the BEST papers have no innovative concepts on which scientists are ready to pounce. The papers present nothing original; they only “confirm” what has already been found. Whether or not the concept of global warming is valid, it is nothing ground-breaking that needs to be announced to the scientific community or to the public.

No one loves the public more than the media, and when it comes to public opinion, journalists want to present accurate, trustworthy facts, but they also want to keep it fresh and new. When it comes to journalism, we use the adage, “old news is not news!” Apparently, the Nature author thinks otherwise.  The findings at Berkley – findings that show the same things that other research has already shown overly excite the author. He or she seems to think that journalists will be chomping at the bit to report this news. But, journalists only want new, exciting pertinent information. The author says the papers are “sexy,” but frankly, no journalist would want to touch this – it arouse some scientist’s interest if he or she needs it to do a report or research doing some sort of research or report, but the “news” carries no relevance for journalists.

If I were a journalist, I certainly would not want to report unverifiable research. The facts show that global warming is still not a proven fact like the author claims. Several points can be argued against global warming or against it being an alarming, panic-worthy issue. A third of the data reports cooling. The monitoring stations cover relatively little land area and are not well spread out. The US’s monitoring stations, which make up the majority of stations, do not even meet government standards, so the rest of the world probably isn’t better. Problems with climate change go on and on. The atmosphere is not what is showing a warming trend, only the land surface. However, climate models require that atmosphere must warm faster. Therefore, the measurements cannot be fully trusted.

Fred Singer, a Professor of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia and the founder and president of The Science and Environmental Policy Protection, writes about the issue, or lack of issue, in his testimony before the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation on Climate Change. In it, he states that there is no appreciable warming. To prevent misinterpretation and confusion his reasons are stated here:

a) Satellite data show no appreciable warming of the global atmosphere since 1979. In fact, if one ignores the unusual El Nino year of 1998, one sees a cooling trend.

b) Radiosonde data from balloons released regularly around the world confirm the satellite data in every respect. This fact has been confirmed in a recent report of the National Research Council/National Academy of Sciences.

c) The well-controlled and reliable thermometer record of surface temperatures for the continental United States shows no appreciable warming since about 1940. The same is true for Western Europe. These results are in sharp contrast to the GLOBAL instrumental surface record, which shows substantial warming, mainly in NW Siberia and subpolar Alaska and Canada.

d) But tree-ring records for Siberia and Alaska and published ice-core records that I have examined show NO warming since 1940. In fact, many show a cooling trend.

The author should check the facts before promoting a viewpoint so biased. There are arguments for both sides of every point, but this point is still largely debated and the BEST papers added little, if anything, to that debate. My points again – peer review is important, journalism requires news, and global warming is not a fact.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v478/n7370/full/478428a.html

http://www.ehow.com/about_4696702_history-peer-review.html

http://www.nationalcenter.org/KyotoSingerTestimony2000.html

The Press is Pressing

Photo by: John S.

Journalists, a group often heralded for promoting democratic ideals, are being slapped on the wrist by science. A recent article in Nature magazine, “The Press Under Pressure”, claims that journalists, by spreading the findings of scientific works, are hindering the scientific community. However easy this claim may be to believe, it is not, however, the case. The article claims that by publishing findings in scientific study without a proper scientific background or understanding, the public is being underserved. The author argues that scientists must be left alone to solve societal problems without the interference of journalists or society. While such scientific solitude might be helpful to scientists, it’s important to remember that the name of science doesn’t have a pristine track record. Cases upon cases of unethical scientific experiments have plagued the last century. Rules have been broken, and there is no foolproof plan to prevent such rule breaking in the future.  Society needs journalists to call out such rule breaking before it becomes problematic. Democratically speaking, a schism between science and journalism could do more harm than go. While scientists beg for a scientific and journalistic divide, the first amendment and a journalist's duty to inform the public prove the two fields should not be separated.

                First and foremost, a journalist must inform and protect the public. They seek out practices that are immoral and unjust and report them. While in a perfect scientific community, these practices would not occur, they unfortunately do take place in the real one. Another recent article in Nature, “Hypocritical Oaths,” highlights a slew of unethical scientific experiments and trials that plagued the twentieth century. It details a clinical trial in the 1940’s where scientists unleashed a venereal disease into Latin American communities. A small population of people was chosen to be infected by the disease to measure the effectiveness of a new drug.  Scientists, while claiming to do good, put the lives of a frighteningly large group of people in danger.  If journalists had gotten wind of these tests there would no doubt have been uproar and the scientists could have easily been stopped. Some may argue that this experiment was decades ago and could never happen now, but they would be ignoring current debates over animal testing and other seemingly unethical practices.

The practices of previous decades, though judged as immoral now, were not uniformly seen that way when they took place. The “Hypocritical Oaths” article highlights upon this point and explains that there are current scientific practices like animal testing that are widely considered unethical. Scientists are experimenting on living creatures, and while they may not equal humans in intelligence, they experience pain and suffering in the same ways.  When subjected to experimental medicines, animals often suffer pain and even die. If journalists are to be kept completely separate from science, such practices will never be reported or stopped. There is no school of morality and ethics that scientists must graduate from before becoming scientists. They are supposed to adhere to governmental regulations, but as history has proven, people often disregard rules.  This is where journalists come in. With journalists’ investigative skills, these practices could be reported and prevented before they become dangerous. However, scientists want the very opposite to happen.

Scientists are outraged that journalists are sticking their noses into their business. They want to be left alone to run tests and hypothesize without interrupting phone calls and interviews. This is understandable. However, their comfort and independence should not prevail over what the United States grants as the freedom of the press. As long as no published article is considered libel or has infringed on any legal right, a journalist has done no wrong. Accurate reporting is a hallmark of modern journalism, and if it is adhered to, scientists have little room to complain. Journalists investigate nearly every facet of society and science should not be exempt. If anything, such an important and often controversial field of study should be more heavily monitored. Not to say that the military’s technological advancements should be on the front page of the New York Times, but journalists should not be bridled by science.

The author of “The Press Under Pressure” claims that journalists have done the public more harm than good over the past several years by publishing misinformed articles about autism and other subjects. Through these claims, journalists are demonized for inaccurately reporting a few stories that gained media attention. Yes, they should be reprimanded for any inaccuracies, but they should not be barred from scientific involvement altogether. If anything a closer relationship between the scientific and journalistic communities would prevent this problem from happening in the first place. If scientists would coordinate their efforts, even if only minutely, with journalists, both parties would be served. Scientists would be able to accurately promote and represent their findings and journalists would be absolved from potential demonization.

Though the scientific community calls for an iron curtain between their work and the press, the exact opposite must persist. Scientist must be held accountable for their work and the only way for that to happen is if journalists are allowed to do their job. Both parties seek success on their own accords, but neither will succeed, be it morally or fiscally, if journalists are held back. Legally, journalists have no restraints on their investigations unless they in process break a law or are explicitly dictated by the government. Scientists call for solitutde may work well for themselves, but in the long run its not only harmful, but unlikely to ever happen. They must realize that constitutionally, their desire to be left alone won’t be realized so they must bite the bullet and accept journalistic involvement.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v480/n7376/full/480151a.html
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v482/n7384/full/482132a.html

No Animal Rights. Many Animal Wrongs.

No Animal Rights. Many Animal Wrongs.

By: Sarah Miller

                    Photo by Josh Henderson

They called him Rodney. Rodney was a stray Shepard mix with a thin body and large head. He was sent from the dog pound to a veterinary school, where he would be experimented on to benefit the students’ knowledge. The students would walk with Rodney around campus and he was always happy to see them. They started with a simple procedure, by neutering him. Then the students did an amateur abdominal exploratory that reopened two weeks after the procedure. They sewed him back up and Rodney still managed to wag his tail when he saw them. The next week, the students put him under anesthesia and broke his leg— repairing it with a steel pin. Rodney could no longer take his walks and the shine from his brown eyes was gone. Rodney’s days were numbered and he was put to sleep. Rodney was never given a choice, but these researchers were. The Nature article, “Animal rights and wrongs”, attempts to illustrate the harmful actions of animal-rights activists and their effect on scientific researchers. The article claims that “researchers have suffered fire bombings, physical attacks, destruction of personal property and campaigns of harassment. But the statistics do not necessarily reflect the current prevalence of violent activist behavior — rather, they reveal how such activity instills a lingering fear that is difficult to forget”. The author appeals to the readers’ fear, but fails to mention the counter-argument that presents a long-standing history of animal abuse, neglect, cruelty, etc. for the sake of science. The other side of the argument should be considered, especially when animal testing has been proven to have unreliable results, faulty regulations, unethical treatment to animals, and alternate testing methods are available. While animal experimentation is still commonly used in the scientific community, the detrimental results of harming innocent animals still exceeds the few advances in knowledge that animal testing has found.

The article, “Animal rights and wrongs”, claims that the researchers who are involved in animal experimentation are being pestered, physically threatened, and are living in fear due to the acts of animal activists. The author includes a survey that shows that this threat has forced many scientists to change their research's direction or has drove them to not revealing their research to the public, whatsoever. The article claims that “Non-disclosure, even in the scientific literature, is common.” Even if they are exposing their research, many scientists are becoming more careful with what they share about their experiments. The article includes information about new laws that remind animal activists about the seriousness that their acts of vandalism towards scientists. These laws were made for the animal activists that “bully” scientists who use animal research. The author’s strategy was to win over the readers by appealing to their pathos, using statements like “such activity instills a lingering fear that is difficult to forget”. However, the argument committed one of the main logical fallacies: presenting a one-sided argument. Not presenting both sides of an argument and trying to persuade readers, primarily through their emotions, makes this article extremely biased.

Animal experimentation is often used in trying to aid research that benefits humans but it is mostly unreliable. Many people believe that animal research is necessary to help boost medical progress. However, this is not the case. According to PETA, the harsh reality is that most animal experiments do not contribute to improving human health and the role of animal experimentation in helping gain medical knowledge is uncertain. Frankie Trull, president of the non-profit Foundation of Biomedical Research, simply stated that animals are the surrogates for humans. This aspect shows that scientists consider animals merely as backup for humans. Researchers, according to an article published in The Journal of the American Medical Association, stated that “patients and physicians should remain cautious about extrapolating the finding of prominent animal research to the care of human disease… poor replication of even high-quality animal studies should be expected by those who conduct clinical research”. These inaccuracies come from the simple fact that an animal’s body systems are different from humans body systems. Many tested medicines, that society assumes are safe, are recalled due to the fact that they worked on an animal and not on humans. This harmful effect also happens vice versa. Aspirin, according to Buzzle.com, has proven to be toxic for mice. However, humans use it daily for fever, pain, inflammation, etc. PETA claimed that “Ninety-two percent of drugs—those that have been tested on animals and in vitro—do not make it through Phase 1 of human clinical trials (the initial studies that determine reaction, effectiveness, and side effects of doses of a potential drug)”. This percentage concludes that most animals in research die only after Phase 1, which is alarming.

Animal testing is being overlooked and significantly inadequate regulatory measures are in place. The regulations that are in effect do not protect animals from suffering and distress. According to PETA, the United States considers “commonly used species in laboratory experiments (mice, rats, birds, reptiles, and amphibians)” excluded from the protections of the federal Animal Welfare Act (AWA). This means that many animals do not have to be counted, if they are killed. PETA stated that “as many as 800 U.S. laboratories are not subject to federal laws and inspections because they experiment exclusively on mice, rats, and other animals whose use is unregulated”. Laws are not withheld for animal rights in many of these laboratories. Also, no law requires scientists to use alternate methods if available. This ultimately results in a never-ending cycle of unregulated animal cruelty for the sake of science.

Imagine living in a prison and being tortured for doing absolutely nothing. Animals may not have the capability to fight for their rights, but they feel the same pain that any human would feel if the tables were turned. Most animals are deprived of food, water, and sleep. As humans, we consider these daily necessities. According to PETA, “U.S. law allows animals to be burned, shocked, poisoned, isolated, starved, drowned, addicted to drugs, and brain-damaged”. These things can be done to animals and painkillers are not required. There have been many cases where extreme brutality was involved. Buzzle.com stated that dogs have been locked in gas chambers to test whether a particular insecticide is safe for human beings to inhale. PETA claimed that “Animals are infected with diseases that they would never normally contract, tiny mice grow tumors as large as their own bodies, kittens are purposely blinded, rats are made to suffer seizures, and primates’ skulls are cut open and electrodes are implanted in them”. Sadly, all of these things have happened. Just because animals cannot sign consent forms, does not give researchers the right to experiment on them.

It is easy to condemn scientists that are using animal research without giving them an alternate solution, but there is new technology that is and could gradually replace animal experimentation. Blinkness.com mentioned testing alternatives such as cell culture, computer stimulation, human-based testing, and scanning techniques. Cell culture can be conducted for “chemical absorption by skin, phytotoxicity, skin corrosion, etc.”. Computer stimulation is where researchers use crash test dummies or computer operated mannequins, that are installed with internal sensors, for crash testing. Human-based testing is when scientists use human donated cells, instead of animal cells, to find out information about pyrogenicity, skin irritation, etc. Humans volunteer for the cause. Scanning techniques, like the MRI, are even considered an alternative to animal experimentation. These scans of the human brain give us extensive information. Human autopsy is also used for biomedical research, which has helped to lower animal testing. Scientists that are against animal testing are researching even more methods to create alternative solutions that find information, without hurting animals.

The article, “Animal rights and wrongs”, raises awareness about violence and threats against scientists that are involved with animal experimentation. While this is important to promote non-violence, the article fails to mention cruelty against the animals that are involved in animal testing. I believe that both of these issues are worthy of being addressed. The ethics of animal experimentation definitely deserve a thorough assessment, even if it was not shown in this article. Ultimately, research needs to get rid of animal testing and make a turn towards alternative methods of acquiring knowledge.


"Animal Experiments: Overview." PETA.org. Web. 15 Feb. 2012. <http://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-experimentation/animal-experiments-overview.aspx>.
"Animal Rights and Wrongs." Nature.com. Nature Publishing Group, 23 Feb. 2011. Web. 15 Feb. 2012. <http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v470/n7335/full/470435a.html>.
Blue, Laura. "How Much Does Animal Testing Tell Us?" Time. Time, 17 June 2008. Web. 15 Feb. 2012. <http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1815241,00.html>.
Nakate, Shashank. "Alternatives to Animal Testing." Buzzle.com. Buzzle.com, 28 Sept. 2011. Web. 15 Feb. 2012. <http://www.buzzle.com/articles/alternatives-to-animal-testing.html>.
Nakate, Shashank. "Why Should Animal Testing Be Banned." Buzzle.com. Buzzle.com, 20 Sept. 2011. Web. 15 Feb. 2012. <http://www.buzzle.com/articles/why-should-animal-testing-be-banned.html>.
Henricksen, Peter M. "What We Did To Rodney." Web. 24 Feb. 2012. <http://pink73.tripod.com/RODNEY.html>.

Ain't No Party Like A Fruit Fly Party

Photo by: Dan Foy

               It’s party time, fruit fly style. Kyung-An Han and a group of researchers at Pennsylvania State University studied the mating patterns of intoxicated fruit flies and learned that like humans, fruit flies also show poor judgment under the influence.  The purpose of the study was to discover whether or not, alcohol, or ethanol in the case study, would sexually disinhibit drosphilic fruit flies. While the fruit flies did partake in blatant sexual disinhibition, they did so a little differently than way humans typically do.  The researchers learned that when intoxicated, fruit flies stop distinguishing between male and females and try to mate with whatever fly is closest. Males were the primary subject of the study, but the researchers also learned that females also lost their guard when in the aptly named “fly pub.”
        The study begins with an explanation of the various strands of drosophilic fruit flies that were used in the experiment. The researchers used three different male strands of flies, one more sexually disinhibited naturally, one unaffected, and one less sexually active. Each strand of fly acted as a control against the others to compare and monitor the levels of sexual disinhibition in relation to one another. Each of these flies, in natural circumstances does not typically try to mate with flies of their own sex.  Only in rare occurrences do male fruit flies try to copulate with other male fruit flies and it is even rarer for females to engage in such behavior. All of this changed though when the flies entered “fly pub.”
        After injecting a fruit fly sized dose of ethanol into the container of fruit flies, the scientists began monitoring the fruit flies behavior. At first, there was little difference as the flies merely flew around and occasionally attempted to mate with a member with the opposite sex. However, as the ethanol sank in and the fruit flies became subject to its effects, their sexual interactions increased and so did their disinhibition. DA, a neurochemical that influences fruit fly sexual behavior played a major role.  The scientists learned that after ingesting high levels of ethanol, DA production increased exponentially within the fruit flies’ brains. This increase they discovered, led the flies to seek sexual intercourse at higher rates.  Scientists also learned that with the increase of DA production, the ability of the flies to distinguish between male and female counterparts also decreased.  The fruit flies didn’t just try to mate more frequently, they tried to mate with anything around them. The study concluded that the male-male interactions were caused mainly by a decrease in sensory perception.  The flies literally couldn’t tell if their mates were male or female.
        While the fruit flies’ sexual disinhibition may have been a little more intense than what normally happens in human bars and night clubs, it definitely shows that humans aren’t the only subjects of alcohol’s wrath.  Fruit flies and humans alike lose the ability to accurately perceive their potential mates after drinking.

To Drink or Not to Drink?

 
                                         Photo by: Arvind Grover

To Drink or Not to Drink? That is the Question.
By: Sarah Miller

When you see the classic college movies like Animal House and Old School, the “school” part of college does not even seem present. Realistically, students are not drinking all the time but when the weekend rolls around.. it’s party time. According to Kiattisak Batsungnoen and Nareelux Suwannobol, who’s experiment was published in the World Academy of Science, Engineering & Technology, consuming alcohol will decrease physical responses such as vision, hearing, and touch between both men and women. With these responses lowered due to drinking, we could possibly hurt ourselves and others.

The study had two objectives. The first was to examine the correspondence between blood alcohol level and how effective certain physical responses were before and after drinking alcohol. These physical responses included vision, hearing, and touch. The second objective was to examine the correlation between blood alcohol level and the same physical responses, but between a drinker group and non-drinker group. What better group to analyze than the “pros of drinking”, college students. They choose 120 university students, ages 18 to 25, who had been purposely selected. The drinker group included 30 men and 30 women. The non-drinker group included 30 men and 30 women, also. The three main instruments that would test the physical responses of the students were a Reaction Timer, Flicker Test, and a BCC Tying Tutor Program. Don’t worry, I did not know what any of these things did either. The Reaction Timer is a device used to measure visual response. The Flicker test is used to measure physical response to stress and fatigue, which also has to do with the brain’s functions. The BCC Typing Tutor Program is a mechanism used to measure touch response.

The study made sure the population of the experiment was not biased by figuring out the mean age, weight, height, and BMI. They did this with both the sample and control groups, finding that their population was a good range. After letting the sample group drink, they tested their blood alcohol levels. They calculated their percentages a little different than what most of us are accustomed to. For example, I would recognize .08% blood alcohol level. Their equivalent was 80 mg%. The study calculated that out of the men, one guy’s blood alcohol level was less than 30 mg% or less than .03%. Six guys were between 30-50 mg %, or .03-.05%. The rest of the twenty-three men were more than 50 mg% or more than .05%. The mean was 81.31 mg% or .08131% for the men. This mean blood alcohol level would make a person illegal to drive in all fifty states. The study then recognized that out of the women, two of their blood alcohol levels were less than 30 mg%. Eight women were between 30-50 mg%. The twenty remaining women were more than 50 mg%. The mean blood alcohol level for the women was 71.46 mg%, which is right below the limit of not being able to drive legally in the United States.

The sample group (AKA- the drunk people) used the Reaction Timer before and after drinking. The mean response time of the male drinkers before drinking was 0.19 seconds, while the mean response after drinking was 0.25 seconds. This was a significant difference, which showed that the alcohol was obviously impairing their vision. Then it is the women’s turn. The mean response time of the females before drinking was 0.19 seconds, while the mean response after drinking was 0.33 seconds. While the experiment already had proven that were was a significant increase in the amount of seconds taken during the Reaction Timer for the men, there was a even bigger increase for the women! Imagine having bad vision and not wearing your contacts (or glasses). Not cool. Next, the sample group was measured by the Flicker Test. The study concluded that the mean response time of the male drinkers was taken at 42.21 Hz before drinking, while the response time was taken at 43.69 Hz after drinking. Shockingly, there was no substantial change for the men when it came to stress and fatigue. On the other hand, the mean response time for the females before drinking was taken at 41.56 Hz, while the response time after drinking was taken at 45.64 Hz. This was a significant difference that concluded that the women had more stress and fatigue after drinking. Last but not least, the sample group had to use the BCC Typing Tutor Program. Prior to drinking, the mean response time for the men was 0.96 seconds. After drinking, the mean response time for the guys was 0.99 seconds. Come to find out, there was not a significant difference. The mean response time for the women was 0.71 seconds before drinking and a whopping 1.04 seconds after drinking! It turns out that women had considerably difficult time using the typing program when drunk.

After recognizing the means of each test for the sample group, the control group was given the same tests. The control group remained completely sober throughout the entire experiment. Throughout each test (Reaction Timer, Flicker Test, and a BCC Tying Tutor Program), the control group’s mean was significantly different than the sample group. While there were differences within the subject groups, it is safe to say that the people that were sober did significantly better on the tests than the people that were drunk. The drunk people, both male and female, showed a significant decrease in their physical responses, particularly vision, hearing, and touch. The decrease in physical responses was only shown in the subject group and not in control the group. The authors proposed that this decrease might have “happened due to acute effect of alcohol on the central nervous system”. This being said, the subject group was definitely impaired. The people experienced slow responses, slurred speech, staggering when walking, incoordination between their vision and brain, impaired cognition, muscular incoordination, loss of good judgement, etc.

This concludes that these symptoms could lead to accidents while working, meaning that people should avoid doing “high-risk activity” or driving any type of vehicle to prevent accidents from occurring. This being said, be a good pal and do not let your friends drink and drive. Good judgement and normal physical responses can only decrease the more you drink. Are college students going to stop partying? Probably not. Either way, the effects of drinking are clear and you should always be responsible.


Batsungnoen, Kiattisak, and Nareelux Suwannobol. "The Study Of Correlation Between Blood Alcohol Level And Effectiveness Of Physical Responses." World Academy Of Science, Engineering & Technology 80.(2011): 271-275. Academic Search Complete. Web. 19 Feb. 2012.

Save the Whales = Combat Global Warming

Frankie Stiles


Reducing carbon and replenishing the whale population plays an important role in helping
our environment. Though it may not be common knowledge, the two are actually linked.
What does saving the whales have to do with reducing CO2 in the atmosphere? “The
Impact of Whaling on the Ocean Carbon Cycle: Why Bigger was Better” answers the
question of why it is important to increase and maintain the whale population in order to
reduce CO2. Experts in the field conducted research and found that though the amount of
carbon that would be replaced by increasing the whale and other large fish population to
what it has been in the past.

Whales – in this study baleen whales because of their significant size – help to bring carbon
from shallow sea levels to the deep sea. They do this by accumulating and storing the
carbon during their lifetime. “The carbon accumulated in the body of a long-lived
vertebrate will remain out of the atmosphere for the animal's life. In terms of their size and
potential to store carbon for years or decades, marine vertebrates are the only organisms in
the ocean comparable to large trees.” When the whales die, their carcasses, which naturally
store CO2, float to the bottom of the ocean and the carbon releases and dissipates
throughout the water. “Carbon is removed from the euphotic zone by the sinking of organic
matter.”

The oceans’ ecosystem is vital to facilitating essential cycles that keep our planet in motion.
Keeping the carbon amounts balanced in the ocean is an issue according to many scientists.
According to the journal, it is estimated “that whaling removed 1.7×10^7 tons of carbon
from marine ecosystems” and that “populations of large baleen whales now store 9.1×10^6
tons less carbon than before whaling.”

If we say that every bit counts, then we need to act on that and actually make an effort to
putting every bit towards the effort. Replenishing the whale population is not an easy task.
Though whale hunting has almost ceased, the whale face other problems. Issues include
“mortality due to ship strikes and potentially reduced food supplies due to climate
variability or competition with humans.” The suggested increase for the whales in our
oceans is equivalent to that of other efforts that have been suggested and are being put into
place, such as ocean iron fertilization.

Maintaining and promoting the carbon cycle is important because in theory, carbon
amounts are increasing and some scientists fear that this will result in global warming and
will affect life as we know it. Theoretically, the more we can reduce the carbon, the slower
the effects of global warming will rise. Implementing new ways, such as increasing whale
populations, though small, is extremely important say some scientists. Every little bit
counts.

The research estimates “that rebuilding whale populations would remove 1.6×10^5 tons of
carbon each year through sinking whale carcasses.” Rebuilding the population of whales is
key to keeping our carbon levels low. If you’re worried about global warming and humans
increasing carbon levels, you should be saying “Save the whales.” It will be beneficial in a
multitude of ways.

Works Cited

Peter B. Stetson, et al. "The Impact Of Whaling On The Ocean Carbon Cycle: Why Bigger Was Better." Plos ONE 5.8 (2010): 1-9. Academic Search Complete. Web. 6 Feb. 2012.

Corruption and the Disappearance of the Rainforests

Corruption and the Disappearance of the Rainforests
Katie McCabe

Picture by Roberto Arias

A beloved wonderland of exotic trees and plants are words often used to illustrate the majestic rainforests of the world. A unique and remote area classified by its dense tropical forests and varying species, the rainforests have slowly been disappearing. Scenes from popular movies such as Avatar and Fern Gully faults man for the destruction of rainforests while often portraying bulldozers clear-cutting trees and destroying animals’ homes. Even though this petrifying scene is often accurate, currently several federal governments have implemented laws and punishments for those that participate in illegal deforestation.

Fourteen percent of the Earth’s surface was once covered by rainforests. Today, only six percent remains and is rapidly vanishing. Characterized by dense tree layers and high rainfall, rainforests contain a wide variety of plants and animals that are found nowhere else on the planet. As well, the oxygen turnover manufactured by the flora of the forest makes respiration possible for the animal-life on the globe. The deforestation of these ecosystems not only destroys local habitats, but release carbon dioxide which contribute to climate change. Government-implemented organizations such as The Brazilian Institute of Environment and Renewable Natural Resources (IBAMA) have been created in order to manage the preservation of the rainforests and prevent illegal deforestation.

However, a recent study conducted by Cassandro Maria da Veiga Mendes examined the economic, political, and scientific variables that contribute to illegal deforestation in the Amazon Forest specifically. Contrary to popular belief, “the main culprits of deforestation are cattle ranchers (60 – 70%), and then followed by squatters (30 – 40%). Timber extraction and civil engineering projects are responsible for fewer than 5% of total deforestation.” The mainstream response of the government has been to increase surveillance and create harsher punishments and fines. However, Mendes questions that this “may not result in less deforestation, because surveillance and dispensing fines are not directly controlled by the central government, but low rank, low salaries officials.”

Mendes created a game theory model to test her hypothesis. The three players of her model included three players: the landowner, the government official and the government. She concluded that a collusion, defined as a secret agreement for fraudulent purposes, between the landowner and the government official would results in the elimination of punishment for the landowner. Mendes also found that “imposing penalties is a necessary but not sufficient condition to eliminate collusion. Thus, It is necessary to harden the punishment of the corrupt official or, alternatively to increase surveillance on the officials.”

The preservation and conservation of the rainforests is an essential role in the protection of the Earth’s biodiversity. As an alternative, Mendes suggests, “that the actual relationship between government and IBAMA officials should be modified in order to prevent collusive practices. Internal auditing must be implemented to discourage opportunist behavior, made possible by information asymmetry.”


Works Cited

Mendes, Cassandro Maria da Veiga. "How does corruption drive illegal deforestation in Amazon Forest?." Brazilian Journal of Business Economics. 9.2 (2009): 55-65. Print.

Global Warming: Fact or Fiction?

Global Warming: Fact or Fiction?
Zach Freshwater

Tired of the same old same old? Ready for a change of pace? Well, if you’re lucky and climate change follows through, you might get your change! Thanks climate change! After angering republicans and SUV drivers for almost a decade, the climate change debate is nowhere near over. Both groups claim to have incontrovertible truth that climate change either exists or doesn’t exist and with such seemingly factual arguments, it’s hard to tell who’s right. Two recent articles, one in Nature magazine and one in the Wall Street Journal pretty successfully sum up the debate. The Nature article calls for a government action plan to inform the public of climate change’s dangers while the Wall Street Journal piece denies the validity of the entire issue. While I definitely align more closely with the arguments in the Nature article, the Wall Street Journal piece is far more convincing. The writer in the Nature piece could have been more convincing if they would have used more hard facts and examples. Yes climate change is a major issue and it needs our attention, but if you don’t adequate express it’s danger no one will take it seriously.

The editorial piece in Nature, “Reach out about climate” explains that the US government needs to take an active role in changing public perception of climate change. The article explains that “2011 was a bad year for political progress in tackling climate change,” and as such, move improvements must be made. After showing that the government provided more definitive statements about argon gas than climate change, the piece tries to press the need for more government activism. The central issue in the article is that public awareness and sentiment towards climate change is diminishing. Comparing the climate change issue to radon gas again, the author explains that the “risks risks are not immediately apparent and they are easily ignored.” The public is not forced to face the effects of climate change immediately, so it ignores it. The author argues that a campaign to express risk is essential. They claim that by informing the public of climate change’s dangers, change and activism would be more easily spurned. The primary function of the piece is to call together and action plan that would change perception and action towards climate change. The author calls on government, citizens, scientists, and organizations to pull together for change. Communication, according to the author, is a major issue and must be opened up between these groups to make any headway. I thought it was a little ironic that the author was calling for a greater understanding of the climate change issue, but provided almost no facts or backing for their argument. They primarily clung to the assumption that climate change was real, and attempted to create no argument otherwise. If there was no debate over the existence of climate change, there would be no need for such support, but as the article explicitly states, such debate is massive.





While the Nature editorial acts as a proponent of climate change action, a recent Wall Street Journal op-ed piece argues contrarily. The article, signed by over a dozen scientists claims that climate change is not real and does not deserve governmental attention. The piece points out multiple holes in the logic of climate change. Citing the benign nature of carbon dioxide, the scientists argue that if anything, the worlds current CO2 output will actually help productivity and life on Earth. The scientists claim that, “exhaled at high concentrations by each of us, and a key component of the biosphere's life cycle.” They explain that human and plant evolution occurred under high levels of carbon dioxide. The article’s primary goal is to dissuade readers from buying into climate change. While the Nature article claims the majority of scientist believe in climate change, this piece does not. The authors of the Wall Street Journal argue that a large body of scientists currently disagrees with climate change. The article explains that young scientists “furtively say that while they also have serious doubts about the global-warming message, they are afraid to speak up for fear of not being promoted—or worse.” They believe that climate change is an irrational response to dated climate information. Unlike the Nature author, the Wall Street Journal scientists argue against government involvement in climate change action.

While the Nature article clearly supports a governmental intervention promoting climate change awareness, the Wall Street Journal article piece denies climate change altogether. I disagree with the Wall Street Journal article over several issues, but it’s argument are undeniably stronger. The Nature article offered nearly no factual backing to its claims and seemed a bit speculative. The intentions behind the Nature article were to call for an increased awareness of climate change, but it did exactly the opposite. It provided a nearly textbook example of what the Wall Street Journal article disapproved of. The Nature argument was based not on facts, but a predisposition to believe that the readers aligned with the author’s arguments.

Works Cited:
Allegre, Claude. "No Need to Panic about Global Warming." Wall Street Journal Jan. 2012: 1. Web. .. <http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204301404577171531838421366.html>.

Editorial. "Reach out about climate" Nature.com. 4 January. 2012. 2012 Nature Publishing Group.

Save the Whales!

Save the Whales!
Frankie Stiles

For a long time we’ve heard the phrase "save the whales" from conservationists and environmentalists. But pro-whalers see the industrial and scientific values of whaling and don’t want to give it up. Both groups strongly advocate their causes. Neither of them will ever forfeit the battle, so there will never be an end to the dispute. However, there is a way to lessen the animosity between the two.

Anti-whaling groups have been in controversy over the subject for a very long time. They will go to great lengths and put themselves in great danger to fight for their arguments. Nature, a science journal that targets an audience broader than just über-smart scientists has an interesting editorial entitled “Whales for Sale” that proposes a compromise between the two groups. The article asks if there is a better way to deal with the controversy going on now. Today, whalers and anti-whalers continue to battle over the issue, literally. Anti-whaling ships pursue the large whaling vessels and the vessels fight back with water cannons. There is a never-ending dispute between the two.

The Nature article talks about a proposal in which organizations against the whale hunting and slaughtering would buy the whales from the whalers so that both parties would benefit. In buying the whales from the whale hunters, the conservationists save the whales and the whalers still make money. However, several problems arise with this plan. The article does note that those devoted to saving the whales would “have to put aside moral objections and accept such a scheme’s tacit legitimization of whaling as an enterprise to be rewarded.” Something the article does not note is that, though the Japanese claim to be killing whales for “scientific purposes,” it is commonly presumed that they also are in the business of whaling to sell meat for consumption.

Who is to condemn a nation for it’s cultural consumption choices, or an industry for providing that food? That would be like saying Americans shouldn’t kill cows. Yes, there are issues with the way we do it, but that is an entirely different argument. An article titled “Why do the Japanese Hunt Whales” from Animal Planet’s website discusses the history of Japanese whaling and the importance of whale meat in Japanese culture. Whaling can be traced back hundreds of years in Japan and has whale meat has been a major food source in the past during Japan’s hardships. In around 1987, “whales continued to make up nearly one-quarter of the Japanese diet.” The article leaves the reader with the question of whether or not whale hunting is an acceptable practice in today’s society.

If used for food and science, you might say that whaling is okay so long as the species is not endangered. According to the Animal Planet article, “Minke whales, though not at historic levels, remain plentiful.” Sustainability, if whaling is monitored and managed, is not an issue. Research done by the Japanese does not support evidence for any endangerment.

Whales are majestic and beautiful does not merit a reason to not use them for research and consumption. I think cows are majestic and beautiful, but I eat them (sorry, vegans and vegetarians.) I do think that the disputes in the middle of the ocean should stop – to me it seems barbaric and childish. I’m with the writer in the Nature article when s/he asks, “Surely there is a better way?” Looking from both sides, there are valid concerns. I am left asking if there is any reason to altogether stop the whale killing. I don’t see why that is necessary. If the anti-whaling side wants to buy the whales, I don’t see why not either. I think the proposal is worth a shot. If the ones who want to save the whales can save some whales and the whalers and the Japanese can stay happy, why don’t they give it a shot?


Works Cited

Editorial. “Whales For Sale.” Nature.com. 11 January 2012. 2012 Nature Publishing Group. 24 January 2012.


Article. “Why do the Japanese Hunt Whales?” Animalplanet.com. No date of publication. Animal Planet. 24 January 2012. Here's a link.

Obama: Economy or Environment?

Obama: Economy or Environment?
By: Sarah Miller


Breathe in. Ah, oxygen. What are you drinking? I hope it’s water or it completely ruins my example. There is nothing like drinking some refreshing H2O. These are things that we take for granted every day but would not be possible without a healthy environment. Shockingly, the environment cannot just stay this way without the support of our government. Who knew? It is up to our current administration to keep our environmental programs running, search for problems, find ways to aid these problems, and put these grand ideas into action. Recently, the United States has been in an economic crisis that could possibly hinder the amount of funding that goes towards environmental protection, which could ultimately delay our progress towards a more environmentally friendly world. Is our President, Barack Obama, keeping us “green”? According to the editorial, “A pale shade of green”, Obama is letting the failing economy dictate the amount of funding that goes toward the environment, ultimately hurting our environment from the lack of progress. On the other hand, an article on Democrats.Org suggests that Obama is instilling programs that help the environment, while boosting the economy.

I recently read an editorial entitled, “A pale shade of green”, from the weekly journal Nature. This article claims, “The Obama administration should reject the false dichotomy between environmental protection and the economy”. The unnamed author believes that since our economy is failing, President Barack Obama is not regarding the environment as a prominent issue. The article states that Obama did not bring up global warming or clean energy in a recent speech about economic recovery. While these topics were not mentioned, I find it hard to believe that Obama does not consider these critical problems. The author also believes that the “world of US politics” perceives environmental protection as optional. I find that statement a little ridiculous. The United States government has put the environment on a pedestal for the past decade. “Going green”, recycling organic foods, clean air, etc., have been trending topics across the nation. The editorial brings up the issue of Obama opting out on the current operation to tighten standards for ozone pollution but then states that Obama promises it will be pushed back again in 2013. The author of the editorial finds this preposterous. The world is ending this year anyways, so it won’t matter. But seriously, will a year off from working on it hurt us detrimentally? You tell me.The author then comments about how we need a policy that will address the climate threat and how Obama is being cautious about extending his powers for the issue. The article concludes with a statement in an address to Congress from President Obama. Obama said, “We shouldn't be in a race to the bottom, where we try to offer the cheapest labor and the worst pollution standards”. After this quote, the author concludes the editorial by saying: “Obama and his administration still have the opportunity to live up to those words.” The author of “A pale shade of green” makes some interesting points and requests, but has Obama really lost focus on the environment?

I found an article written for Democrats.Org that would say otherwise. This article claims that the environment is something the Obama administration “stands for”. They begin their article with a quote by Franklin D. Roosevelt, “A nation that destroys its soils destroys itself. Forests are the lungs of our land, purifying the air and giving fresh strength to our people.” The quote has an intriguing font and was said by a President that was very appealing to the masses. Are they trying to sway the readers with their captivating presentation of the web page? Probably. But the information within the article is what convinces me that the “pale shade of green” editorial is not entirely true. The Democrat’s article on the environment begins by stating, “From protecting endangered species to restoring our ecosystems and investing in clean-energy solutions, the Obama Administration and Democrats are working to address our biggest environmental challenges”. Now, this claim is the polar opposite of what the other editorial suggested. This article then lists out a few of the accomplishments for the environment under the Obama administration thus far. These included the Department of Transportation issuing new fuel-economy standards, the first mandated increases in fuel economy for cars in decades, the EPA taking steps toward regulating carbon dioxide emissions from coal-fired power plants, and the U.S. sorting greenhouse gas emissions from large emission sources (for the first time ever). It doesn’t sound like the declining economy is making Obama cut too much from the environmental fund. This article even recognizes America’s faults by pointing our “our addiction to foreign oil and fossil fuels”. It claims that we are not only putting our environment at risk, but also our economy. This means that these programs are actually helping our economy. The article even mentions, “Democrats are working to develop comprehensive energy and climate legislation to protect our environment and grow our economy”. Obama is trying to instill programs that will result in a healthier environment and result in economic growth at the same time.

Each argument is put together well. While I agree more with the Democrat.Org article, I thought that the Nature editorial proposed a better argument. I found this to be the case due to the number of facts and the amount of emotion put into the editorial. However, I did find some of the emotion to be a little over dramatic. Clearly, the “pale shade of green” author believes that Obama is not considering the environment to be a prominent issue, especially during this bad economic crisis. On the other hand, the Democrats article claims that Obama has been doing numerous things to help the environment, in spite of the failing economy. Is Obama not paying enough attention to our environment? I don’t think so. Has the budget been lowered for the environment due to the bad economic situation in the United States? I would think to a small extent. Does our government think environmental protection is optional? I highly doubt it. You may believe that the Obama administration is slacking on environmental preservation or you may think that they are doing a substantial amount for the environment. Either way, most of us can agree that our environment keeps us alive and we must preserve it!

"What We Stand For: Environment." Democrats.org. Web. 04 Feb. 2012. <http://www.democrats.org/issues/environment>.

"A Pale Shade of Green" Nature Publishing Group. 15 Sept. 2011. Web. 07 Feb. 2012. <http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v477/n7364/full/477249a.html>.

Plan B: The Debate between Science and Politics

Plan B: The Debate between Science and Politics
 Katie McCabe

The oral-contraceptive, Plan B, was recently confirmed safe for a woman under the age of 18 to buy and consume as deemed by the FDA. However, the Health and Human Service Secretary as appointed by the Obama administration, decided to overrule the FDA’s decision. As a direct result, the government’s decision to prevent the distribution of Plan B conflicts with the progress and development of scientific research. Two articles recently published discuss the political, scientific, and social benefits of such a decision.

The recent editorial by the publication, Nature, titled “The Morning After” publicly criticized Obama’s support of the government’s decision to refuse women under the age of 18 to buy the over-the-counter contraceptive Plan B. The decision of Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius to overrule the FDA’s decision was one fueled by political interests rather than scientific evidence.The article continued to state that this decision directly contradicts Obama’s earlier promise to allow scientists certain freedoms without government interference.


Obama’s personal statement concerning the decision of Plan B included, “one could not be confident that a 10-year-old or an 11-year-old go into a drugstore, should be able — alongside bubble gum or batteries — be able to buy a medication that potentially, if not used properly, could end up having an adverse effect. And I think most parents would probably feel the same way.”

Yet, the author of “The Morning After” argues that these personal statements are based on false facts. The reality is that Plan B is actually located behind the pharmacy counter. It is almost impossible to consume incorrectly, considering there is only one pill to swallow.
Plan B offers a practical and safe solution to young women, one that was deemed safe by the FDA for all women even those under the age of 18.

However, another article entitled, “Science, Politics, and Over-the-Counter Emergency Contraceptive” supports Obama’s stance, while arguing that women under the age of 18 would not be able to properly and correctly take the pill. The author argued that a pill that includes many unintended side effects such as nausea and menstrual disruption should not be sold to women under the age of 18. The availability of such a pill may cause teenagers to think less about the consequences of sexual intercourse before engaging.


Both articles examine the scientific, political, and social aspects of the government’s decision. However, a decision based on political interests rather than scientific information would prohibit the advancement of science, an advancement that would provide beneficial options and possibilities for a young woman. As a direct result, the government’s decision to prevent the distribution of Plan B conflicts with the progress and development of scientific research.






Works Cited

Steinbrook, Robert. "Science, Politics, and Over-the-Counter Emergency Contraception." Journal of the American Medical Association. 19 Dec 2011: n. page. Print. http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/early/2011/12/16/jama.2011.1957.full.


 "The Morning After." Nature. 480. (2011): n. <http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v480/n7378/full/480413a.html>.