From Earlham Cluster Department
Science Matters, Chapter Questions
This is a place to post all questions over the chapters we read in Science Matters.
- Questions #1: Energy and the Universe: 23/1/2011
The second law of thermodynamics states that “energy always goes from more useful to less useful forms” (27). Hazen also defines useful as concentrated. If energy is more concentrated it is more useful and vice versa. From what I understand, energy that can be used is energy that can be made to do a desired work, such as pushing down a pistol. The lost energy due to friction and waste heat are unusable and therefore un-useful. Is this correct? Could you clarify this?
On pages 30-31 Hazen maintains that mass is another form of energy. Einstein’s very well-known equation is E = mc2 . Could you give an explanation of how mass is related to energy. I know it’s well known but a more thorough explanation would help a lot.
Do batteries use a form of convection? How do batteries work to store energy and release it over time? Are batteries efficient?
Could a car be double powered with two engines, one that runs on higher heat and the other that runs on cooler?
Could you do a refresher on the equation force = mass X acceleration. Basically, what units are those measurements in and how does the answer help scientists?
On page 5 there is a diagram of Stonehenge. Could you explain where the light goes and what indicates the passing of time more thoroughly? (Also, may we go there?)
How is it true that the Universe regular and predictable and systems move towards disorder at the same time? Are those two concepts separate?
- Questions #2:
How do you express latitude with only the degree and a decimal? (i.e. What is the calculation?)
What do the letters used in the global reference frame denote?
- Questions #3: The Atom: 07/02/2011
All matter is made of atoms that are indivisible. Is the age-old tale that splitting an atom causes an atomic explosion really true? If so, how does it work? If not, how is an atomic explosion generated? Are atomic explosions only man-made events or could they happen on their own in the natural world?
There was a mention about exciting electrons to push them to outer valence shells. Could you illustrate how this happens? How can an electron be excited with energy and moved to an outer layer if each valence shell must be filled with a set level of atoms?
Does each electron have a unique path even if it is with another electron in the same electron shell?
What is antimatter? Is antimatter composed of things that are not atoms, but anti-atoms? What happens when matter and antimatter meet?
The Future of Science and Technology for Society
- In your view what are the three most important challenges facing society in the near term (say 50 years)? Why are each of these so important? What does science have to offer for each? What does technology have to offer for each? Your entry should clearly address which are science based and which are technology based. You can describe both science and technology approaches for each of the problems you identify.
It goes without saying that the next fifty years will encompass a plethora of new advances in science and applications in technology. The three most important challenges facing society in the near term will be ones that prevent instabilities. To be more specific, it is in the interests of the prevailing systems of power to finance and encourage researchers to come up with solutions to problems that have the potential to generate civil war and political unrest. The three most important challenges will be concentrated on manipulating the natural world to relieve or eliminate the dependence of all nations on oil, to create ways to make and bring fresh water to all portions of the world population, and to create more efficient, safer methods of mass transportation.
The first challenge is important because governments are investing a lot of money and risking countless lives in wars whose central importance is to have access to the oil that is used to create the majority of electrical power in their respective countries. Lives will be saved because those individuals will not be sent into a war. Human rights will be upheld because tyrannical dictators will not be installed who have agreements with the US to not jeopardize the US’s access to oil. Furthermore, turning from a non-renewable resource and investing in the technology to draw energy from a renewable resource will sustain itself. For this problem, science is concerned with researching the creation of energy, focusing on the reactions of atoms they had not studied with that prerogative in mind. Technology uses the discoveries of science to create efficient, low-cost machines that harvest the new forms of energy scientists have studied and proposed engineers should and could harvest.
The second challenge is important because of the real fear of water wars. With growing populations, hoarding of fresh water by countries, and the problem of distribution, water wars could turn desperate people into perpetrators and victims of widespread violence. Science could investigate the natural process to desalinize water present in the water cycle and research how desert plants gain and store water. Technology could use the information uncovered from science to come up with machines to cheaply and efficiently extract the salt from sea water and therefore make more drinkable water available in general and in places where it usually is not available. As well, technology could improve and create new ways to transport fresh water. They would use the laws of the natural universe - such as gravity, physics, and thermodynamics - to do so.
The third challenge is important because public transportation is not being used efficiently and cities, specifically in the US, are not laid out in an efficient nor compact manner to make them accessible to everyone regardless of income. Science could discover new ways to get energy from alternative sources or gain more information on the current system to more efficiently continue to use it. Science could examine the migration patterns of animals, specifically ants and birds, to question whether their systems of movement work to organize masses of people efficiently. Scientists could also investigate where most people go on a regular basis and traffic patterns to give the information to technology makers. Technology could then come up with viable routes and use enough vehicles to transport the correct amount of people. Technology could also refine transport to accommodate the change from oil energy to alternative energy
- Which specific aspects of climate change did the designers of atmosphere choose to focus on?
Today, climate change is synonymous with global warming. If scientists talk about solutions to climate change, they are talking about ways to reduce the rate at which the planet is warming. To make something clear, climate is different than weather; weather is unpredictable and varies daily while climate is used to describe the measure of an entire atmospheric system over a large period of time. A colder winter is therefore possible when world temperatures collectively rise. Due to the proliferation of global warming literature, some individuals forget that climate change can also describe trends in global cooling. The majority of the Atmosphere Exhibit at the Science Museum kept with the concerns of today by focusing on aspects of global warming. There were interactive displays that described how an excess of carbon dioxide can accumulate in the atmosphere. There was an interactive game that introduced a viewer to the technologies that help decrease carbon dioxide output, increase efficiency, utilize alternative sources of energy and increase awareness of energy usage.
- How well sourced was the science and technology discussed in the kiosks?
I was not explicitly made aware of research sources the kiosks got their information from. However, I could have been distracted by the wealth of information I did not know and the high level of engagement with each kiosk to pay attention to any small print or spoken references by the automated speaker when the game ended.
- What was the most surprising thing you learned?
All the information was interesting. There is no clear winner for most surprising though. The journey through the history of climate change interested me. I learned that La Nina and El Nino account for extremes in weather in cycles. I read about the Little Ice Age that took place from 1350 to 1850. Not that far ago, the Thames completely froze in the winter and people could ice skate on its surface with relative safety. I wonder how cold that had to be. I am really happy it does not snow here that much any longer, especially since it is winter right now. Other interesting facts have to do with later dates. The Ice Age caused the Norse peoples to migrate South to warmer climates. I also learned that dragon flies the size of seagulls and three-foot long scorpions evolved because of high levels of oxygen in the air. Because the air was less humid, large reptiles were able to dominate the Earth.
- Which of the interactive kiosks did you find most engaging? Why?
The interactive kiosk I found most engaging was the game about Thames river level rising. Based on a lot of studies, the water levels of the River Thames were expected to rise between two different estimates. Entire housing districts were at risk along the river. The object of the game was to build up protective barriers to protect the most amount of houses with a set building budget. The game had a time limit. It was engaging because it was limited by time, restricted by budget, and was based upon varying sets of conflicting data about climate change, which I think is the basic formula for development that combats the effects of climate change. I felt like I had to account for many factors. The pace was quick.
- Which of the interactive kiosks did you find least engaging? Why?
I found the carbon cycle interactive kiosk to be least engaging. Users were supposed to place a block on a point on the grid to learn how different aspects of the carbon cycle worked. However, one of the blocks did not work. The animation was slow as well. I was bored with the speed and how elementary the animations were. I guess I am attracted to flashy, quick paced, and exhibits that mentally engage me.
In the United Kingdom, part of each citizen's taxes goes toward funding the arts. This is problematic because the people who allocate all this funding may channel more funds to art with messages they support. It would make sense if plays that challenge the existing power structures received little if any funding from this arena at all. Furthermore, It would make sense that some plays change their endings and original writing to appear less challenging to the prevailing hegemony. Greenland was a play that had the potential to present a lot of problems to the audience. It could increase the scope of the problem to cause a sense of helplessness. It could present different arguments that would need different strategies of action to assure the continuance of humanity and other living creatures on this planet. It could confuse the audience. It could empower the audience. As a viewer who was not used to the government-funded arts, I was doubly skeptical because the play itself was being performed at a government building as well. The Royal National Theatre had the potential to be class-exclusive, artistically stagnant, and full of unbearable snobbery. Greenland itself, I thought, would work present an argument to work around the existing oil-powered infrastructure because today government is concerned with business and the biggest business is oil.
I am ambivalent after seeing the production. I feel the theatre went out of its way to foster intelligent debate and continuing research, which indicated a government-led imperative to increasing the education of its citizens. A positive feature was the refutation of the element of 'belief'. As a quote at the beginning of the play stated, scientists disagree about when and how much warming will occur, not whether it is happening at all. Despite all this good, I feel the play was disheartening because it illuminated how large a scope the problem is and illuminated that there is not one solution. We are unable to predict the future and are presented with challenges, although few, to decrease our impact on this Earth. So, although it was very intelligently written and impressively performed I left the theatre feeling helpless and unsure of what to do. This is not the mindset of an individual who will go out of her or his way to decrease their impact and encourage others to do the same.
I felt that if there was a list of sources the play used available for purchase, it would be more accurate. I felt that if the audience was assured that the massive amounts of paper, plastic, water, and electricity came from environmentally friendly sources, the plays message would have been taken to heart. For example, the paper could have been paper that was recycled from other sources, the plastic could have been twice used plastic, the water could have been reused for each production, and the electricity could have been provided from solar panels or wind turbines. In that way the medium would have been effective to convey the theme.
Overall, it was a visually impressive production that presented the bleak picture many of us succumb to either through how seemingly powerless we as individuals are or how much work science and technology must do to present more of the patchwork solutions that are needed in this various world.
Reflections on Climate Change
Recently, we as a class have done readings to increase our scientific literacy, have explored an interactive exhibit about climate change, have gone to the theatre to see a new play about global warming, have listened to a podcast about young people ambivalent and confused about climate change, have travelled to famous places where scientific discovery took place, and have explored different areas of science. These methods - readings, museums, theatre, radio, and travel - cover a vast majority of methods through which individuals not in science careers receive their information. Another method of information gathering is television. The masses elect representatives that express the views they have formed after being bombarded with all this information, some of it misleading and many of it confusing. A scientifically illiterate society will be damaging to our future as funding is cut for programs the public does not know much about to form a logical opinion about.
- What do you believe the take-away message to be?
From all of these venues of information, I think the take-away message is to gather as much information as possible, to strive to understand that information, and to decrease one's carbon footprint now in ways one can until more research yields even more patchwork solutions or until the oil infrastructure is overturned by a global coalition of nations and individuals. With the price of disheartening depression about finding any positive in the future at all, the underlying message is to not subscribe to positive ideology because as much as we would like to think there was one giant solution to it all it currently does not exist yet and there will need to be many different solution in many different regions of society.
- Which of the modalities did you find most effective at communicating that message: reading, museum, or theatre? Why?
I, personally, felt the theatre was the most effective means of communicating that message to myself. I was entertained by the acting and special effects and I was engaged with heavy ideas. I feel that a short, compact, entertaining mode of communication is effective at getting the majority of the points across to individuals (who have the money for theatre tickets, of course). Reading and going to the museum give you the information at a slower pace and you may not read or see everything you need to in order to get a wide picture of the situation. In addition, the scientific jargon may be a bit heavy to wade through for the average individual who is, by definition, scientifically illiterate.
- What's different about the message here in England than what you hear in your home country about climate change? Different than at Earlham?
In England, I was surprised to find a society so engaged with alleviating the negative environmental consequences that come with today's industrialized society. I suppose it is because the area, being an island, is so small that negative effects on the environment are immediately felt. In addition, the nation is invested in improving the health of its citizens. Therefore, chemical emissions are a negative financial burden to tax payers in the country and governmental policy reflects that. My host mum told me that recycling is a norm here and if she does not recycle, the recycling employees will go through her trash to sort it and tell her about it. This proactive environment that puts environmental concerns near the front of policy objectives directly conflicts with that of my home country, the United States of America. There, we have politicians who deny that the planet is warming outright. These representatives are negative to any environmental policy if it causes a financial burden to businesses, increases governmental expenditure, or creates new bureaucracies. It would be unfair to say they are adverse to the welfare of citizens because they do not protect the environment their constituents live in and therefore everyone's health. Instead, they are concerned with the welfare of individuals because companies may have to cut jobs to account for the added expenses of being less detrimental to the environment. Therefore, there are more individuals and families without the means to procure the basic necessities of life. In the United States, keeping the economy afloat and managing to not accrue governmental debt are the two main imperatives. There are two parties in direct opposition who advocate different methods to achieve generally the same end. Within the party whose central objective is to keep the economy afloat and decrease the financial debt for running the government, there are a small faction of ill-informed individuals who refute all scientific findings about the reality of global warming and the ensuing threats to humanity and other living things. Due to the enormity of the United States, there is not as massive of a movement for recycling, composting, and household technology powered by alternative forms of energy as in the United Kingdom. At Earlham, the majority of the students have the intention and motivation to enact real change that will decrease their footprint on the environment and this objective is reflected in a campus-wide recycling program and environmentally friendly technologies in academic buildings. The difference between the UK and Earlham is that the UK is burdened with the enormity of their domain whereas the smaller scale of Earlham allows more discussion and policies. All three environments - the UK, the US, and Earlham - are subjected to financial limitations and the obscurity and very early environmental technologies.
- What science do they do at Kew?
The Royal Botanical Gardens at Kew is a vast organization with researchers stationed around the world. Around 700 scientists are employed by the organisation in total. The work is organized into research teams with certain objectives. For example, the Millennium Seed Bank Project team works to conserve endangered plant and fungal species, to promote educational awareness about the issue, to understand the potential values of plants, and to implement the sustainable agriculture of plants in areas that depend on them for their socio-economic well-being. Other teams include Madagascar, UK Overseas Territories, Mycology, Monocots III: Orchids, and Large-scale Syntheses to name a few. Kew scientists are a major part of new plant discoveries and plant research. One major task they undertake is sequencing plant DNA. In the Independent, Jonathan Owen wrote "Kew Scientists Lead Fight to Save Orchids from Extinction: Global Team to Freeze Seeds from 2,000 Species". If we lose plant species, we also potentially lose vast arrays of medicine, food, and a more stable environment. In the nursery at Kew, workers pollinate and preserve many plant species.
- What evidence of scientific underpinnings did you find in the displays?
The Order Garden displays plants by their order. All displays of plants and fungi listed their respective scientific names and their common names. Several displays had panels with a paragraph or two of information. These organized displays and educational panels provided evidence of the science behind the beautiful displays.
- Why is it important to society, that is why should society support the work Kew does?
Plant science is important to society for a variety of reasons. Some plants have natural healing properties. Other plants provide the missing information and properties that can help to cure chronic diseases such as cancer and HIV/AIDS. Flora and fungi are vitally important to the natural balance of Earth systems. Losing species could be disastrous to humanity, other living beings, and to the maintenance of an environment with the ability to maintain life. Kew also informs the public through their educational programs, tours, displays, and events. This fosters an appreciation for science, increases the amount of individuals who are scientifically literate and therefore more adept to support viable policy plans, and inspires further generations to become plant, fungi, and environmental scientists. A society that supports botanical research and conservation projects is a society that puts education at its forefront and gives itself the tools for further medical and environmental research.
- What are the principle near-term and long-term benefits that are likely to accrue from their work? Another way to ask this question is who benefits from their research and why?
People suffering from illnesses that do not yet have a complete cure or any cure at all benefit from the research on plants and fungi at Kew because certain plants have unknown beneficial properties. The plants and fungi lost that are threatened with extinction can be saved for future research. Knowledge itself is increased due to the lengths scientists go to understanding these living beings and researching the family connections they fall under. The general public increase their knowledge after attending the workshops, talks, and tours Kew holds regularly. Student groups benefit from learning new things, from seeing plants and fungi from around the world, and from gaining inspiration to undertake their own work in this field of science. Mirroring our architecture on the natural shapes and properties of plants and creating cities populated with many plants, fungi, humans, and other living things together helps create a healthier and longer-lasting biosphere for all.
Fibonacci at Kew
The Xstrata Treetop Walkway at Kew Gardens follows the Fibonacci sequence, a mathematical phenomenon that describes many natural growth patterns in nature. Basically, the numbers in the Fibonacci sequence is the sum of the two previous numbers. The sequence looks like this: 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, 55, 89, 144 and so on. There is a Fibonnacci grid along each walkway truss. The spacing of the diagonals on the truss is dictated by the sequence. Therefore, there is a higher construction density at the ends that carry the most weight. [IMG]http://i103.photobucket.com/albums/m148/mckayla34/Study%20Abroad%20in%20London%202011/DSCI02522.jpg[/IMG]
Technology and Sustainability Talk
On the 15th of February, I attended a lecture by Charlie Peck entitled "Technology and Sustainability, Oxymoron or Synergy?". The talk focused on the relationship between technology and environmental sustainability. Two main questions arose. First, does the further evolution of technology have an adverse effect on the health of the environment? Some examples of this include electronic waste, energy technology that pollutes the environment further, inefficient and fossil-fuel powered transportation, more complex and disjointed technologies, increased human dependency on technology and subsequent skill loss, an increased gap between the rich and the poor, more narcotics that cause more health harm and are more addictive than the current ones, a standard of living that takes more energy to sustain, and energy intensive technologies that become symbols of wealth and status. Second, can new technological developments serve to reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, clean and create fresh water without putting deadly chemicals in the environment, devise ways of transportation that do not rely on fossil fuels and are efficient, produce energy from sources that do not rely on fossil fuels, and increase the ability for people to communicate and organize. The talk was efficient in that it did not get caught up in the whether or not global warming is occurring debate. It focused on discussing the technologies that respond to changes in the environment and the technologies that can be adapted to human societies to make them more efficient. While organized in a logical manner, the strongest parts of the presentation were the graphs and illustrations of the main concepts. In particular, the graph that represented the disjointed way society adopts new technological developments such as the radio and the mobile phone was illuminating. It made me think about the relative speed of technological evolution and the time lapse society takes to adopt those developments. I also enjoyed the model of the electric car with regenerative braking. More diagrams would have served the lecture better. Also, adding animations to the power point would have helped. For example, many slides had a lot of text that the speaker talked about one-after-the-other. If the power point had only listed the point he was talking about when he was talking about it, I think people would have paid more attention because they would not have read ahead and then lost attention in what was a very informative talk. The hand-models the speaker used were very great at explaining main points. Overall, this was a talk that hit a lot of points, made me aware of new technologies that are working to move towards an environmentally sustainable urban society, alerted me to the problems of some technologies, and fit into the reduce-reuse-recycle model for environmental sustainability.
Perhaps there is room for a part two that addresses the feasibility of substantial change within a very limited infrastructure. For example, "Who Killed the Electric Car" is a film that questions why we have the technology to make this fantastic technology available to all but suddenly stopped hearing information about it. Because oil companies have the most profits and have the most lobbyists in government, it makes sense for them to not fund, not give television coverage to, and pay off scientists to not release new information. How far can we use the market to enact beneficial environmental change for all? Two other films of interest are "Zeitgeist" and "Zeitgeist: Addendum". This may get into a conspiracy talk, but we have to wake up and call on these companies to let go if we want the millions of people that are going to perish from decreased food yields in desert climates, intense storms, and extensive flooding to survive. Does economic profit trump communal human health and survival? This is another talk for another day.
Astronomy and the Cosmos
A star's ultimate defeat and, it could be argued, its final death occurs when the anti-gravitational force of its electrons can no longer sustain the strong gravitational pull of the star's center. The area then becomes a black hole. Because matter can neither be created nor destroyed, what, then, is a black hole?
Is there an animation that illustrates the birth and death of a star?
When the male feminist slam poet came to Earlham to perform, he told his audience about a new form of energy called nuclear fisson (or fusion) that he was studying at MIT. What is this and can we use this process to extract energy without damaging the environment?
If the moon were to crash into the Earth (say we were developing expensive flats on its surface and the moon had structural failure) would the Earth decrease in size? This question comes from the statement that the moon was formed from an asteroid crashing onto its surface and getting rid of a lot of its material to form the moon.
Are the properties of anti-matter misrepresented by science fiction and new movies such as 'AstroBoy'? Mainly, these tales maintain that if matter and anti-matter come into contact, an atomic explosion capable of destroying our entire planet will occur. That seems silly if dark matter is more abundant in the universe than baryonic matter and both exist simultaneously. Are anti-matter and dark matter the same thing?
Why did Einstein withdraw his cosmological constant theory? Does it not keep with the cosmological expansion finding by Hubble? If not, why? If so, how?
Could you explain how the book explains time using minutes and seconds?
Cells and DNA
Could you go over the different types of chemical bonds? Covalent, Ionic, Hydrogen, etc.
Explain the electron hook model. What shapes does carbon take when hooked together with lots of other carbon molecules?
Are enzymes proteins only? What is the difference between an enzyme and a catalyst? Do enzymes speed up, slow down, prevent, begin, and control the rate of reactions in the cell?
Where are nucleotides produced??
I am still unsure about what, exactly, a protein is. Could you clarify how using matching pairs of nucleotides (A, T, G, C, U) with mRNA and tRNA produces proteins? The illustration on page 283 is confusing. Does the tRNA attract amino acids floating around in the cell in a specific chain? Then does the entire structure fold to create a protein? I guess just explain that picture. I want to know what tRNA does.
The book mentioned a lot of contraversial topics, but neglected to talk about stem cell research. Is the stem cell the first cell created when a mother and father (meiosis) cell join? Can the cell then be trained to make different body parts?
The Code and Evolution
Due to recent developments in science and technology, the relationships between creatures have been verified. An often quoted statement for the support of evolution is that human beings and chimpanzees have DNA that is 98% similar to each other. This confirms that our closest relative on the tree of life is the chimpanzee. Can there ever be any DNA research on creatures that existed at an earlier time in Earth's history? This question is about the viability of the molecular clock.
On page 320, there is an illustration of different trilobites throughout history. Is the more complex trilobite the one with more body segments? Are trilobites born with a set amount of body segments? Do trilobites accumulate body segments as they age? Are males different from females?
Do species evolve over time to go from simpler forms to more complex forms suitable for the environment or have species stayed the same?
Science, Technology, and Depression
According to an article in the New York Times, 5 to 10 percent of Americans experience depression every year and around 15 percent will suffer from it during their lifetimes. The CDC released a report in 2006 and 2008 by analysing their Behavioural Risk Factor Surveillance System survey data from 2006 and 2008. According to the report by the CDC, 9.0 percent of the 235,067 adults were depressed. This included 3.4 percent who met the criteria for major depression. States varied in their rates of depression. 4.8 percent of the North Dakota population were depressed and 14.8 percent of the population of Mississippi were depressed.
There has been a lot of controversy whenever a mental health condition is medicalized. Some have argued that finding scientific solutions to depression, such as drugs, does not allow the depressed individual to confront his or her own emotions. The patient merely becomes dependent on the medicine or treatment until he or she needs to take a higher dose and/or the medicine becomes ineffective. A high rate of suicide has been attributed to some anti-depressant medications because once off the dosage the individual must confront the past/current history/circumstances OR must live with the chemical imbalance that resulted in the depression. Since he or she has bottled up the feelings OR has become unable to deal with the negative feelings, he or she becomes more unable to deal with reality and suicide is a large risk. Some medicines do not work for some individuals. In a recent article in the metro, brain implants that deliver electric shocks to a specific part of the brain when the machine senses something is wrong have been used on chronic individuals with a large rate of success. Depression can be caused by an imbalance of neurotransmitters, have its root in a psychological reason, and/or crop up, seemingly, without any cause whatsoever. This wide spread condition has not yet been figured out.
The problem is linked to psychology and science in a way that is confusing for many people. Throughout my research, I hope to present the science of depression in a clear manner and introduce/explain new technologies such as medicines and brain implants that are being used to treat this condition. Hopefully, the paper will clarify the chemistry, biology, and genetics that lead to depression to present a clearer view of the technologies that have been used, are being used now, and may be used in the future. I hope I (and other readers) will benefit from a clearer view of the science and technology of depression.
I think this is a good topic with lots of interesting material in the areas of science, technology and society; carry on!
DNA "fingerprinting" [without the finger prints?] : Variable number tandem repeats, or VNTR, are sequences of nonsense DNA located at specific places in the genome. The amount of VNTRs at a specific location in the DNA varies from person to person. There can be any from a few to about 250. Scientists take an individual's DNA, split it down the middle by using restriction enzymes, then place the strands in a gel where they then pass an electric current through it. The shorter pieces more more quickly through the gel while the longer pieces move more slowly. Radioactive molecules tag each half (or segment) of DNA. At the end after the current is turned off, a photographic film is placed on top and as the molecules decay a picture is generated. In an ideal situation where there is one individual's DNA, the lines will be the same length because the double helix was cut down the middle and both sides are the same length. When the lines are different, there is more than one set of DNA. This seems awfully complicated, time consuming, and expensive to do. Do scientists compare these line lengths to the defendant to determine whether or not he or she committed the act he or she is accused of committing? I just don't see how this is very accurate. Also, could you draw a picture to illustrate this process?
What does the image produced by using electrolysis on STRs look like?
For same-sex marriage, could the DNA of an ova be extracted and replaced with the DNA of a spermatozoa? Then could the other male's spermatozoa be used to fertilize the egg? Could the DNA in sperm be extracted and replaced with the DNA from an ova? Then could that sperm be used to fertilize that egg? Could we do that and has it ever been done?
First STC Question
Page 35, Question #1
Technological advance has often undermined established businesses. Most recently, the growth of Internet-based e-commerce has posed a threat to conventional retail firms. Can you think of other business enterprises that the Internet may damage or even destroy? Should anything be done to prevent this from happening?
The Internet has provided a way for individuals and organizations to connect, network, discuss, learn, and conduct commerce. The last item, commerce, is sometimes in competition with store-front businesses. New companies and companies that serve as forums for individuals to list and sell items may replace conventional stores completely. Consumers prefer to purchase internet goods and services instead of buying from stores. However, the Internet can also be a tool for businesses faced with failure in the advent of the Internet. In response to the popularity of buying-on-line, many companies have set up websites complete with the address of the outlet, useful phone numbers, a list of the people in charge, a description of the business, details of sale promotions, and on-line buying catalogues. People from all over the world can search for products on-line and find stores in their local areas. This Internet visibility increases the profits of the business by increasing its consumer base and popularity. For businesses who do not use the Internet or are smaller establishments, the Internet has caused their business to go out of business.
Tourism agencies, hotel firms, and the auto industry also face losing their consumer base and their businesses with the advent of the Internet. Individuals now have the ability to use a search engine to find activities, learn about the area, and purchase tickets without contacting a travel agent. Individuals can book hotels with the click of a button and plan out their vacations independently. Tourism agencies have the potential to become obsolete to all but the most wealthy of consumers. Second, hotel firms are experiencing both an economic downturn and the replacement of their services by companies such as Airbnb and, to a smaller extent, Couch Surfing. Instead of constructing large hotels and employing maintenance staff, clerks, cooks, maids, pool cleaners, concierges, and hospitality staff, home-owners can now list their own property as a place to rent during peoples' vacations. Third, the auto industry is becoming less and less profitable as gas becomes more expensive and Internet companies such as Zimride, Zipcar, and Streetcar provide vehicle access for individuals without the need to actually buy a car or truck of their own.
Should anything be done to prevent this from happening? This is a very complicated question. In one arena, economic efficiency and environmental benefits are being derived from companies such as Zipcar and Airbnb. For example, less exhaust is emitted into the atmosphere when each person does not own their own car and using existing buildings for visitor lodgings does not require the costly and environmentally damaging construction of hotel facilities. However, jobs are lost. Entire towns that relied on industries such as the auto-mobile industry are suddenly without their main provider of income to sustain their local economy. The vast hotel staff also lose their jobs. The question of how to employ these skilled and unskilled individuals drastically needs to be addressed before technology such as the Internet is embraced with open arms. There are many aspects to the question that should be continually addressed by varying people and speciality areas to counter the negative outcomes of displaced and absent consumers.
Second STC Question
Page 56, Question #2
A person with a heart problem may need a pacemaker but be unable to pay for it. What, then, is the source of effective demand for this technology? Who ultimately pays for it and why?
There are many examples of the less able to "pay" in societies being shut off from innovations that could save and improve their lives. I will name two others.
One example concerns the current monetary economic system and ethical values when individuals do not have the monetary means to provide for their needs. Milton Friedman spoke at a forum entitled "On Self-Interest and the Profit Motive". Towards the end of the lecture, the floor was opened for questions and a young white male college student raised his hand. The student stated that an elderly man from Ohio was unable to pay his electric bill. Because of this, the electric company shut off his power and the elderly man died. Who, the student asked, was to be held responsible for the man's death? Friedman replied that the blame did not lie with the electric company. The blame rested with the man's friends and neighbours who did not help the old man pay his bill.
Another example concerns a health epidemic and the systematic denial of resources to those who most need it most because they are unable to "pay". The AIDS crisis in poorer countries on the African continent results in the death of countless individuals. They do not necessarily die due to the AIDS virus itself, but from health complications a decreased immune system brings with it. This death toll would not be at the rate it is if the people could afford the costly treatments that are now available for the disease. Furthermore, some academics have said that research into AIDS has not progressed at the rate necessary to save lives because AIDS is a problem in the lives of people who do not have the capital to fund the research efforts of scientists and researchers. Some academics have even stated that the social positions of the people affected by AIDS - gay men and black people - has hindered any progress.
The flow of money through the current economic system is supposed to sufficiently allocate the world's resources to the people that desire them most. Instead of equally and efficiently distributing the world's resources to all people, a monetary hierarchy forms. Those with the most monetary capital can afford the best medical treatment, the best food, the cleanest water, and, any material object they wish to possess while those unlucky enough to be without such capital starve to death. People are dying not because there is not enough food to feed every person, but because the current system denies such basic human rights to people. This individualistic society forces humans to exist as individuals responsible for their own well being. The poor are demonized, disrespected, and abandoned while the rich, who may be rich due to the transfer of stocks rather than any scientific, technological, artistic, or cultural benefit they help bring about in society, are rewarded with abundance.
Is it right for a person to be denied a life-saving pace-maker because he or she cannot afford it? Is it right for people to experience hunger while the world experiences a food surplus? Is it right for 1% of the population to own more than 40% of the world's wealth?
Some may respond that the current system rewards innovation and encourages competition. The best products are produced and the largest advances in science and technology come about. In the STC textbook, however, this optimistic simplistic view of the picture is derailed simply because it is the society the science and technology exist within that determines what these disciplines discover and do. A society that has a wealthy class will be interested in giving those people the most benefit because those scientists, engineers, and researchers will be able to support themselves off the salaries the wealthy purchasers supply to them. In the current system the source of effective demand for a product lies in the hands and interests of the wealthy class while the ones who most need the innovations lose because they are the least likely to afford it.
We have to reconsider our ethics.
Third STC Question
Page 92, Question #2
Most economically advanced countries have technical assistance programs that are used to upgrade the technological levels of poorer countries. Under what circumstances might these programs be harmful? How might these programs be shaped to better meet the needs of poor countries?
Volti makes an interesting and compelling point in the chapter entitled 'The Diffusion of Technology' when he discusses appropriate technology. "Unfortunately," he states, "many of the technologies that have been developed in the economically advanced nations have been designed to save labour, not to maximize its use" (Page 82). He then presents the story of small mills that maximized labour, but increased company costs and distorted the markets. If the aim of technology is to 'advance' a poorer nation, one must ask what the definition of an 'advance' is, why there is a necessity for 'advancement' and what repercussions will this 'advance' have on the poorer nation as a whole.
An 'advancement' could be the level of innovation and entrepreneurship in a country. This 'advanced' country, then, will increase the wealth of some of its individuals and establish its place in global markets.
Another 'advancement' could be to decrease the level of poverty. As mentioned in the quote above, many technologies are labour-saving devices rather than labour-utilizing devices. A labour saving device replaces human labour and therefore eliminates, rather than creates, jobs. With no way to accumulate money, the economy of a poorer country stagnates and many of its citizens are left without a way to provide for their basic needs. An 'advanced' country, in this way, would decrease poverty by providing jobs to increase the standard of living for its citizens.
From these two examples of 'advance', the circumstances for when these technical assistance programs may become harmful become apparent. Harmful technical assistance programs eliminate jobs, create further poverty, and decrease the vitality of the nation's local economy. Contrarily, not having technical assistance programs could keep the job sector and business diversity in the poorer country small and non-existent, not creating jobs in the first place. Technology and society interact in complex, non-simple forms and a prediction of what could happen can hardly be accurate.
An assessment of the complex interplay of the poorer country's economy and its larger population is essential to bring appropriate technologies where they are most needed. Working with natives of the poorer country would also be helpful. It is most often the citizens of the country who know what their country needs.
Fourth STC Question
Page 134, Question #2 When the demand for a new medical technology exceeds the supply, what should be used to determine who gets it? A lottery? The ability to pay? The "merit" of the recipient? Might it be better to limit the development of new technologies in order to forestall the need to make these choices?
Rudi Volti relays the historical events surrounding the emerging technological progress of kidney dialysis. Because demand for kidney dialysis greatly exceeded the supply of the machines, a committee was set up in Washington State to decide who would have access to the new life-saving technology. The Admissions and Policy Committee from the Seattle Artificial Kidney Center was composed of a lawyer, a minister, a housewife, a labour leader, a government official, a banker, and a surgeon, as well as two physician-advisors (122). The intent was to reflect the community as a whole. The committee then set up several criteria including not accepting children nor adults over the age of 45. According to one report on the criteria the patients were judge on, categories included "sex of patient, marital status and number of dependants, income; net worth; emotional stability, with regard to patient's ability to accept the treatment; educational background; nature of occupation; past performance and future potential, and names of people who could serve as references" (122). Critics of the committee rejected the fact that life-and-death decisions were being made based on the subjective worth of the individual and pointed out that criteria did not give good chances for poorer people nor many ethnic groups.
First, I want to say that I do not support life-and-death decisions being made that condemn an individual to death because of his or her identity and perceived worth to society. I would like to live in a world in which medical care is available to all regardless of cost or inability to pay.
If, like the committee in Washington State, I had to choose which method would need to be implemented to to restrict access to medical technologies because the demand of the patients greatly exceeded the supply of the treatment, the most random form, a lottery, is what I would support.
I do not support forestalling the development of these technologies because everybody cannot take advantage of them. There are expensive steps in technological advance until the machine/treatment becomes cheaper and more easily applicable to the entire public and those should not be hindered.
Fifth STC Question
Page 149, Question #5 For many people, the longstanding "nature vs. nurture" debate has tilted in the direction of the former. Why has this happened? Are you more inclined to give primacy to one over the other? Is this dichotomy even a useful way of evaluating the contributions of genetic endowments and environmental influences?
In the subsection entitled "Cloning, Present and Future", Rudi Volti mentions the possibility that wealthy private doners may contribute funds to have themselves cloned. Motivations could be varied; an unrestrained curiosity, a genetic twin human to serve as his or her own personal organ farm, a strong desire for recognition when a successful human cloning project succeeds due to their status as the sole sponsor, a desire to see what a copy of him or her self would look like, and an over-inflated ego are all possibilities. After talking about Dolly and the very real possibility for human cloning, Volti ends the subsection by warning that while clones are biologically identical they are not carbon copies of their single parent. For example, human identical twins are not always identical; one twin may be left handed while the other is right handed (145). "Animals cloned in laboratories often differ considerably in both appearance and behaviour from the animal from which they were cloned," he states (143). Volti reminds his audience that "these differences stem from biological processes that are still not well-understood, along with environmental influences that begin in the womb and continue to shape an organism throughout its life" (143). These statements about cloning along with evidence that the womb is the first environment a foetus is exposed to that shapes his or her identity, behaviours, and morphology, confirm a fallacy with the nature vs. nurture dichotomy present in dialogues that have important social and scientific repercussions today.
Historically, human society has embraced the schism between nature and nurture to reject a more holistic nature plus nurture pluralism due to social conditioning that encourages people to support the concept of human differentiation. In the last subsection of the chapter entitled "The Ethics of Genetic Intervention", Volti explains that eugenics moved from an emphasis on individual merits and traits to group merits and traits, a racist concept. "According to the majority of eugenicists," he retells, "the white race occupied the pinnacle of human development while all others were arrayed at lower places of the hierarchy" (147). Furthermore, "the sexes too could be divided according to their general abilities, with women on average presumed to have lower intellectual capabilities than men, although they were deemed to be superior in the lesser qualities of empathy and nurturance" (147). The groups supported "negative eugenics", a process that would prevent those "inferior" people from having children to eventually result in their final elimination from the human population as a whole, rather than "positive eugenics", which encouraged "superior" people to have more children to ensure merit genes were possessed by a majority of the population. Such practices resulted in mass genocide, one example being the Nazi Holocaust of 6 million Jews and the reproductive sterilization of 350,000 people (148).
The problem with discussions about nature and nurture have stemmed from our unwillingness to view the natural world as complex and still largely unknown, the difficulty and controversy to examine our own social, political, and economic structures that lead to many "problem" individuals, and our unconscious acceptance of the hegemonic forces that support hierarchy, dualism, and hostile group-vs-group mentalities. Hence, instead of looking at the entire problem, people are quick to blame individual faults on unchangeable genetic facts rather than changeable environmental forces. The simplicity with this move is that an individual whose criminal behaviour is in his or her genes cannot be changed and the problem is not addressed. In addition, science has become an accepted and trusted way of viewing the world and finding truth. In a young industry such as genetics and because the base of scientific knowledge is constantly changing as new things that were previously unknown are discovered, relying on an individuals genetic code is seen as the most logical manner to understand an individual when it is often not.
Personally, I support a more holistic approach where nature and nurture are interacting factors in the development of a human being. I would not place percentages on them to see which is "more" influential because I do not personally believe that is of the utmost necessity. The change in detrimental environments and the introduction of holistic, effective health care is important (not deciding which affects a person more or whether or not a person may become ill with a certain ailment at a later point in life).
For the final question, my answer would be no. A dichotomy is not the way to look at the entire picture. It is limiting and ill informed.
Sixth STC Question
Page 221, Question #3
Some social critics are of the opinion that the spread of the electronic media is destroying literacy. Standardized test scores of reading and writing ability have in fact gone down in recent years. Are the new media the main cause? If so, is the slow destruction of the printed media by the electronic media necessarily a bad thing?
Before the introduction of the printed word and wide-spread literacy, people used complex mneumonic devices to readily recall facts and concepts. Volti maintains that "it was not unusual to find people who could recite sacred texts and heroic sagas that might today occupy hundreds of pages of printed text" (210). It could be argued, therefore, that the introduction of easily-accessible printed word has virtually eliminated this mentally intensive practice. After the advent of printing, humans were less actively engaged with information because they did not need to store information mentally. Instead it was recorded as print that could be accessed when needed. The amount of information people, in essence, know has gone down with information storing technology. Volti optimistically points out that after the printing press students "did not need to spend vast amounts of time on rote memorization and the learning of elaborate mnemonic techniques" (213). Students could spend their energy moving forward with innovative ideas while referring back to text. Some other benefits of the printing press include the publicity of scientific discoveries due to documentation and circulation, the elimination of the necessity for scientists to copy tables and texts, more information available to more of the public over a wider area through the printed word, the success of religious movements over a wider geographical area, and more accurate map making. The amount of information available increased but the amount individual people knew decreased. I would argue that even though a growth in "literacy", the ability to read written word, resulted from the advent of printing, a decrease in "literacy", the amount a person memorizes, occurred. Today, social critics are arguing that the spread of the electronic media is destroying literacy and, to some extent, the new media is the main cause. The massive amount of information available and the information's ability to be accessed universally has virtually eliminated the need for people to know many things. Internet search engines provide quick answers to all inquires, even including the meaning of specific words. Bad is a relative term and calling the different ways to store information and the massive explosion of more information bad runs the risk of not completely examining the issue. Some would agree that having more information is a good thing. People are less geographically land-locked. More ideas allow for a more critical society that is more apt to progress and accept or engage with new ideas more readily. The loss in the recall memory and the abandonment of verbose acclaimed printed texts creates a society dependent on information sources that are not always accurate and a society loathe to engage with long, difficult printed works in favour of short, detail poor, uninformed opinion influenced electronic works. Personally, I think the new media technologies create the environment for an uninformed, biased, segmented citizenry but I also think it could open up doors to people who do not have access to printed works and other information due to a lack of printed works in their area. The quick publishing allows people to quickly publish their works without satisfying the interests of pressure groups, but could end up in false, uninformed information being distributed as truth around new media outlets. The communications sector is rapidly changing and it remains to be seen what the consequences of a society riddled with information but that find it difficult to memorize and engage with the information for long amounts of time. An information age may not always have an informed citizenry. It still remains to be seen.