Too Soon for US Enterprise

President Obama pronounced the Constellation Program dead when he released his proposal for the 2010 federal budget (Nature)*. Funding for Constellation, NASA's plan to reunite man and the moon in 2020, has been pulled entirely. Instead, the money is now allocated for incentives for commercial space companies to develop cheaper launch programs for humans and cargo to reach orbit. Placing faith in commercial space corporations will run up costs, will create ethical issues, and will bring about difficult legal considerations in the long run. The space race is not over, and this decision could take us out of the lead.

To date, $9 billion have been spent on NASA’s Constellation project, which was supposed to develop an updated rocket system (Wikipedia.org) capable of carrying cargo and astronauts into space. The project was meant to replace the aging space shuttle that costs more to send into space every time it is launched. Constellation is effectively canceled though because instead of receiving the prescribed increase in funding, NASA is being allotted a billion dollars less this year. The money that was previously tagged for NASA has been reallocated as incentives, approximately $6 billion over the next five years, for commercial space companies to develop cheaper rockets with load-bearing capabilities. The government is picking the pocket of its personal team of rocket scientists and giving it to a bunch of businessmen in hopes that they can conjure a method of saving money. It is unknown whether or not a market for space flight even exists beyond NASA. In addition to the $9 Billion that has basically been wasted already, use of the International Space Station (Nature, Eric Hand)* that was supposed to end in 2016 will be extended to 2020, which will devour even more funding in the future. As if that wasn't enough of an insult, all deep space programs are being indefinitely canceled to free up more of NASA’s budget for Earth monitoring systems, such as a satellite that measures atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. Global warming strikes again.

You are a menace.

Assuming commercial space companies are successful in producing cheaper, cargo-bearing rockets that are capable of orbital flight, the next steps are virtually unknown and unpredictable. These businesses will take what the government has given them and run into outer space as if it were the next gold rush. The idea of commercializing space is curtailed by a growing number of ethical concerns. To begin with, whose ethical standards even apply in space? The American government’s? Religious leaders’? The Federation from Star Trek’s? It is hard enough to think of determining an ethical code between different countries, let alone separate businesses. Next we will need to decide whether free enterprise should be allowed in space. The reigning economic system in the world may not be the most suited for outer space. Will countries and companies seek to claim different orbits? If facilities are established on the moon, will that land be the property of that company or nation? Manifest destiny was a perfectly feasible idea when people set out to explore the West because there was a limit to how far they could go. Once we set out to conquer the solar system and beyond, where do we stop? The point here is that privatizing space presents far more questions than answers (David M. Livingston), and in this day and age, questions have to be answered with law.

Current international space law is, in a word, inadequate, especially when you consider the fact that space travel may now be sponsored by a business instead of a government. Existing Space treaties (Sarah Coffey, 6)* employ vague phrases such as “free for exploration and use by all states” and that “the exploration and use of outer space … shall be the province of all mankind” to try and establish order in orbit. These treaties were written during the Cold War to prevent space from becoming another battlefield, and they were not widely ratified. Furthermore, it is obvious just by looking at the language that they do not account for separate companies entering into the usage of space, only separate countries. Once again, more problems arise than solutions. The issue of space law is not entirely without similar precedent. Sarah Coffey likens the situation to maritime law and to laws governing Antarctica (10)*. These are areas of the world that were uncharted for long periods of history and that were lacking in adequate legal oversight. Governments have since negotiated effective treaties that keep these regions from being lawless. If similar laws are written to govern space with individual corporations in mind, then maybe the fever will pass and businesses will not simply run wild in the final frontier.

By denying NASA the funds it needs to continue its space program, the president is creating a powder keg of issues that will be ignited by the volatile practices of commercial businesses. He is taking money out of the hands of people that we have trusted it with since they took us to the moon the first time forty years ago and instead giving it to people that can only give us projections and rough estimates of their capabilities to even accomplish the mission. NASA has done it before. They have the game plan written up already. Why then are we letting someone else reinvent the wheel to run ourselves over with it? The only way to salvage the situation will be to make sure adequate regulations are in place before stellar syndicates are established. Otherwise, this decision makes very little sense.

About as much sense as this picture.

*Subscriptions necessary to view.

A Decade for those who may only have A Decade Left

For those who knew Abraham Lincoln well, it came as no surprise to find him weeping in private or reciting maudlin poetry to express his many melancholies. Nowadays, we accept the theory that our sixteenth president suffered Major Depressive episodes. Though despite his unwavering personal woes, honest Abe persevered and led our nation through what was perhaps the most trying time in our history. But it wasn’t the civil discord that made him blue—blue as in sad, not blue as in the colors of the Union—it was the fate of his dear children, who died at early ages due to physical illnesses such as tuberculosis and typhoid fever. I present this instance for two reasons. One, to prove that those with depression can still do great things, and two, to point out that Lincoln’s depression primarily stemmed from his children’s uncontrollable deaths. Bearing this in mind, I’d be willing to bet that if Lincoln was in control of allocating medical research funds, he’d give less toward understanding psychiatric disorders such as depression, and more toward understanding the deadly diseases that claimed the lives of his children.

Yes, psychiatric disorders are hard to live with. Yes, learning to prevent them will make the world a better place, not only for the afflicted individuals, but for the individuals’ families and friends. On these facts, I agree with the article from I read from Nature entitled “A Decade for Psychiatric Disorders.” But then the author of the article makes a call to action. He argues that psychiatric disorders deserve a bigger slice of the research funds and that this coming decade is the time to focus more on curing and understanding these mental illnesses. This would be nice, I thought, but is it practical? In light of the millions dying from more-immediate afflictions such as heart disease, Cancer, AIDS, Malaria, and countless other conditions (not to mention tuberculosis and typhoid fever in their day), I am not convinced that now is the time. Yes, snapping a girl’s daddy out of depression would make the world a better place, but I argue that removing Cancer cells from his prostate and saving his life would be even better.

To make-concrete his claim that health-related research is unjustly disproportional, the author manipulates his reader’s sense of logic by drawing a comparison. In Britain, he states, the public donates a staggering £500 million (US$800 million) every year to charities for cancer research alone, but for mental-health research the figure is just a very few million. This would be an affective point, were it not for the fact that the money was publically donated. I believe that the collective concerns of the people should represent the collective aims of our research. Simply put, in our struggling global economy, we have to prioritize. As Newton put it, for every action there is an equal but opposite reaction. Similarly, if we distribute more funds towards researching psychiatric disorders, we would consequently have to pull funds from researching the most serious, life-threatening, and widespread ailments on Earth.

In fact, my psychology book from last semester makes a case that psychiatric disorders (such as depression) may primarily be environmental. It describes growing trends over the years, and suggests that as the world becomes more media-driven and materialistic rates of depression have steadily increased. If this is the case, then the sickness is based within the sufferer’s subjective view of the world. Theoretically, he could suck it up, exercise free will, and change his circumstances. He could quit feeling sorry for himself and adopt a more cheerful view of the world. But easier said than done, right?

I did a little research of my own, and found an article from the Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy entitled “Self-Administered Optimism Training: Mechanisms of Change in a Minimally Supervised Psychoeducational Intervention.” The article asserts right off the bad that a “Pessimistic explanatory style is a robust predictor of future depressive symptoms.” It then details an experiment in which 112 college students with a pessimistic explanatory style identified from a larger screening sample were randomly assigned to either Self-Administered Optimism Training or a no-treatment control group. The students who practiced optimism demonstrated a significant drop in pessimism in three separate but related assessments. The article concludes by suggesting that although the tests were preliminary in nature, the findings “demonstrate the feasibility and preliminary efficacy of an inexpensive, prophylactic treatment for depression that utilizes a minimum of therapist contact.” Easier said than done, right? Perhaps so, but it might be easier than people think.

By including this research, I am trying to make several points. One is that there is research being done, and it appears to be doing just fine. The next is that based on this study, improvements can be made by simple methods of self-motivation and a willingness to change, not dishing out millions. And finally, non-psychiatric disorders such as cancer are primarily genetic, not environmental, and cannot be cured simply by administering short sessions of optimism training. Cancer patients possess less control over their fate, and the research needed to understand and ultimately cure the condition is, by nature, more expensive.

I found additional evidence to suggest that depression lies primarily in the eye of the beholder in an article from Science entitled “Can Placebo Be the Cure?” You see, drug companies had eagerly been anticipating a highly-touted product to ward off depression, but when the company sat down and analyzed the data from the clinical trial, it found that patients who had received the dummy pill had done unexpectedly well. Those on the placebo did almost as well, in fact, as those on the actual drug, thereby wiping out the rationale for the new antidepressant. These results offer further proof that depression may not be as hopeless and harmful as is often thought. Neither optimism training, nor a placebo cost very much, so why restrict funding for deadly diseases and give more to those with psychiatric issues? After all, there is no placebo for Cancer.

And maybe I am going a little overboard here, but perhaps if there were less terminally ill people in the world, those prone to depression would have less to be depressed about; sort of a two-birds-with-one-stone type scenario. It’s easy to be passionate about a cause, as I believe the author of the article from Nature is, but it is harder to be logical in considering the consequences. In this case, allocating more funds towards research on psychiatric disorders would remove funding from research being done on deadly diseases. The title of the author’s article is “A Decade for Psychiatric Disorders.” I say, how about a decade for those that may only have a decade, or less, left?

Animal Testing: Science or Torture?

Allergan researchers frequently commit murder by Botox. In a test known as 'lethal dose 50', researchers kill mice in high numbers (the exact number is not known because laboratories do not count individual mice) to assess potential harm to humans from Botox injections. Mice receive injections until a dose is found that 'only' causes half the population to die. Why do these innocent mice have to die? So that later some vain person can try to defy wrinkles and old age? Animals used in scientific research experience horrific pain, abuse, or even death, when forced to endure various testing methods like 'lethal dose 50'. For this reason, scientific researchers should abandon inhumane, costly, and inefficient animal testing processes, and instead favor alternative methods.

Truly understanding animal testing requires knowing some background information. Numerous laboratories all over the country use animal testing methods. Personal care and household products makers, colleges and universities, drug and chemical manufacturers, and state and federal regulatory agencies own and operate these torture facilities, er, i mean laboratories. These labs usually acquire the animals by two ways, either through USDA licensed Class A or Class B dealers. Class A dealers sell "purpose-bred" animals. This means the sole purpose for the animals' life is experimentation. Afterwards, they face termination. Class B dealers supply “random source” animals. Class B dealers obtain these animals through auctions, “adopting” them from shelters, or even stealing them from backyards while their unsuspecting owners aren’t home. Class B dealers sell animals to researchers by word of mouth, or even publications like Lab Animal magazine. Seriously. A whole magazine is dedicated to this. After the animals reach the labs, researchers subject them to various experiments. Animals are cloned, bred for organs, addicted to drugs and alcohol, purposely deafened or blinded, made to suffer strokes, and many other horrible abuses. Who funds this glorified animal abuse? Funding can come from private individuals and foundations, donations solicited from the public, industry money, and the biggest contributor: the federal government.

Now that you know the back story you probably already recognize the inhumanity of animal experiments. However, many problems associated with animal testing most people don’t even consider. For one thing, animal testing methods are outdated. Some tests used today are as much as eighty years old. Despite their age, these tests were never formally validated in multiple labs. So basically, scientists keep using these tests, even though there is no precedent that says they actually work. Actually, results from animal testing do not necessarily predict similar results in humans. Scientific evidence shows that even the most common animal tests poorly indicate human effects. For example, in two hundred and eighty one cases of accidental human exposure to household products, investigators with the US Food and Drug administration discovered that rabbit test results predicted human responses correctly less than half of the time. This means that for more than fifty percent of the time, rabbit test results were not similar to that of human results. Excuse me if I'm wrong, but that's not exactly trustworthy research, is it?

Other options do exist. Alternatives to animal testing cost less, and have more efficient outcomes. Just one example is testing non-genotoxic cancer risks. The animal test assessing cancer risks cost $700, 000. The in-vitro test cost $22,000. I may not be a rocket scientist, but even I know that the animal test costs almost 35 times more than the in-vitro test. Also, since most toxicity tests were first put to use long ago, a number of advances in biology and biotechnology have occured. Advances include those in tissue engineering and robotics, which have introduced the ability for in vitro testing. Computer-based engineering technologies include in silico testing. One example of an alternative method available for use involves human skin, leftover from surgeries or donated cadavers, which can be used to measure the rate at which a chemical will penetrate the skin. This option is not detrimental to animals, or living humans. This is just an example of one alternative that could generate more relevant data, and reduce the amount of time, money, and animals involved in scientific testing.

Luckily, someone out there noticed the numerous disadvantages of experimenting on animals. After recognizing the need for alternatives to animal testing, the cosmetics industry now experiments with different methods. Previously, a ‘rabbit Draize test’ was used to evaluate eye irritation of cosmetic ingredients. Research by the industry, as reported in the article "A tiered approach to the use of alternatives to animal testing", led to the development of several alternatives. Bonus! These alternatives were approved via formal validation. So far, no single in vitro alternative has completely replaced the rabbit Draize eye test, but the cosmetics industry is working on it, as they have done for the past decade. These alternatives provide valuable evidence that animal testing is not the only option for assessing the safety of ingredients and finished products. The cosmetics industry demonstrates a prime example of how some manufacturers are working to introduce alternative testing methods. So, here's some advice for those aforementioned Botox users: get some wrinkle-cream.

Ultimately, the fact that animal testing is costly and often produces wrong results is reason enough to use other methods in scientific research. Technological advances will surely keep introducing newer and better alternative testing methods. The cosmetics industry is one example of how it is possible to use alternative methods to correctly predict products’ safety. The only obstacle now is to clear animal testing completely out of laboratories. Many people show their support for non-animal testing by only buying products that are cruelty-free, or giving only to charities that do not experiment on animals. Hopefully, reading this has made you aware of the inhumanity of experimenting on animals, if you weren't before. Perhaps the animal lover in you will choose a career path that will allow you to research alternative methods, or maybe you will lobby for animal rights. Or, maybe you’ll just look at the label before you buy your next household product, just to make sure it wasn’t tested on a defenseless animal.

Hope for the Hawksbills

The Tasmanian Tiger, the Passenger Pigeon, the Caribbean Monk Seal. What do these three animals have in common? They have all become extinct within the past one hundred years. The list doesn’t end there though. Many species have lost the battle with extinction, and many more are currently listed as endangered or critically endangered. You may be wondering what this has to do with you. Well, how would you feel if you were edging closer and closer to extinction every day, and nobody seemed to care? The fact that numerous animals are dying out is very disturbing, especially because human destruction is a direct cause. But, not to fear! Scientists are constantly researching strategies for saving earth’s amazing creatures. For example, the article “Hawksbill sea turtles in sea grass pastures:success in a peripheral habitat” (Bjorndal and Bolten) was recently published in a Marine Biology academic journal. This article contains information concerning a thirty year study on Hawksbill sea turtles, known to scientists as Eretmochelys imbricate. If you’re like me, you’ve never heard of this particular turtle being on the verge of extinction, but they are currently listed as a Critically Endangered species. Lucky for them, this study may unlock the key to keeping them alive.

Normally,Hawksbill sea turtles thrive in coral reef and other hard-bottom habitats. Unfortunately for these turtles, coral reefs are on the decline. A substitute habitat for Hawksbills in the Caribbean is sea grass pastures. Marine biologists conducting the research reported in the article were trying to determine if sea grass pastures would provide an alternative, yet good quality, habitat for Hawksbill sea turtles. Data was collected over a thirty year period in the Southern Bahamas to assess the quality of sea grass habitats for Hawksbills. The marine biologists collected data on many factors including body size, body mass, and isotope analyses of the Hawksbill turtles. They found that the size distribution, residence times, and body condition index for sea grass Hawksbills are actually higher than those of the Hawksbill populations over Caribbean reefs! This means that the Hawksbill population was able to thrive and grow while living in the sea grass pastures.

Following this study, the biologists determined that sea grass habitats can not only support healthy and productive Hawksbill populations, they are actually more beneficial. Based on these results, scientists concluded that conservation efforts shouldn’t be limited to core habitats. One optimistic option for endangered animals is that secondary habitats could supply conditions that are just as good, if not better, for survival. Although this particular area shows strong favor for providing a substitute habitat for Hawksbills, additional studies are needed. Structure and attributes of sea grass pastures vary throughout the Caribbean, and scientists still need to assess other areas to determine if the results would be the same. Despite this disclaimer, the results of this study are very promising. One small step for marine biologists, one giant leap for Hawksbill sea turtles!

Now, you may read this and brush it off. It’s not like a Hawksbill sea turtle is just what you wanted for your birthday. If this is the case, I’m not sure how you sleep at night. On the other hand, maybe you may found this to be inspirational. Those who major in Marine Biology often conduct studies such as this in the field. As a marine biologist, you could choose for your life’s work to be researching and reporting on strategies for saving aquatic endangered species. Just something to keep in mind as you continue on your journey toward picking a major. Even if this article didn’t magically shine the light on what career path is right for you, hopefully it did make you aware of one special endangered animal.

A Situation That'll Have You Crabby...

Do you like seafood? I sure do – crab legs, crab dip. It’s all good. Some of these crabs that I love to dine upon come from the Chesapeake Bay. However, there’s a problem with this, these little things called phytoplankton are threatening to destroy the crab population from which I get my seafood dinners. Simply as microscopic water organisms, phytoplankton aren't much of a threat, but a study by William Reay, published in the Journal of Coastal Research, shows that phytoplankton are amassing in such great concentrations within the York River estuary that they are becoming a danger for the entire ecosystem. This accumulation of phytoplankton is due to several factors.

In order to deal with any problem, there must be research. Beginning his study by taking measurements on the sediment levels within the estuary, Reay’s team determined that most of the sediment in the York River came from agricultural runoff, with some also coming from erosion of the shoreline. Sediment is merely particles of rock, dirt, and sand that have been weathered off of the mainland by water and carried into the estuary. The source of this estuary’s sediment is significant because the source of the sediment determines which nutrients are being introduced into the estuary. With most of the sediment coming from farm runoff, most of the nutrients are as well. Nutrients from farm run off stem largely from chemical fertilizers and manure. Farmers generally use phosphorous and nitrogen based fertilizers to stimulate crop production, so it makes sense that those are the two most prevalent nutrients found within the York River estuary.

After determining the river’s nutrient composition levels, Reay studied their trend overtime, comparing them to phytoplankton levels. As you might have guessed, phytoplankton levels were at their highest when the levels of phosphorus and nitrogen were at their highest. For you math people, they had a high correlation. With more nutrients to thrive on, the growth of the phytoplankton population rapidly increased. This is not a good thing because extreme concentrations of phytoplankton cause a number of issues that lower the overall water quality of the estuary. These microorganisms bring with them large algal blooms that are harmful to the environment. The algae absorb all of the oxygen in the estuary, starving the other inhabitants of the river of oxygen that they depend on. Fish effectively drown because they lack oxygen necessary to breathe. Algae dramatically reduce water clarity and prevent sunlight from reaching vegetation on the riverbed. Without light, those plants die because they are unable to perform photosynthesis. In death, their detritus (dead remains) further contaminates the water, and the food source for shell fish, such as those delicious crabs, disappears. Add to this chain reaction the actual harmful chemicals that Reay’s study detected, such as mercury and various pesticides, and you become fully aware of how threatened this ecosystem has become. Additionally, this study only focuses on one of many estuaries within the Chesapeake Bay. There is a high probability that similar conditions would be found in others too.

Reay’s study does not suggest any solutions to this problem. It simply points out that there is a problem and that a solution must be found before it is too late. However, there is no easy fix. It cannot be illegal for farmers to fertilize their crops, for fertilization is necessary for production, though it’s runoff may be hurting surrounding ecosystems. It certainly is a dilemma. Reay does propose additional studies to be conducted, mostly in regard to how exactly runoff and the flow of nutrients into the river is affected by topography, landscape conditions, and weather. With greater understanding of these mechanisms that Reay has earmarked, perhaps a viable solution to the problem can be developed. But, in the mean time – while an answer is searched for - I don’t know about you, but I’m going to try and get my hands on as many of those crabs just in case (Reay).

Go With the Flow

We are usually pretty short-sighted about the world that we live in. To many of us, this planet is the ground we stand upon at this very moment. It is the bricks on the sidewalk and the grass spanning the quad. It is the asphalt under our cars, winding from city to city and coast to coast. However, at those coasts the Earth stops being so rigidly defined and transitions into a more fluid, variable state of matter: water. Over seventy percent of the globe is covered with it, which is something we tend to forget in our concrete jungles. Water is everywhere, and even what we do not drink has an enormous impact on the flow of nature.

Beneath the surface of the great, blue expanses that dominate the globe, there is more to consider, ever churning in the weaving underwater currents that lace among the ocean deep. These currents are so numerous and so intricate that their complexity is similar to that of the threaded strings used to make that itchy sweater your grandma gave you when you were a kid; over and under and in different directions. For most of us, it doesn't occur to ask her how she made it, but scientists always have to ask questions.

The team of researchers in this article* (Sutyrin et al.) are looking to get a better grasp of how ocean currents operate. They decided that instead of looking at the big picture all at once, it would perhaps be more insightful to place a metaphorical magnifying glass onto a small, yet puzzling ocean current that had drawn their attention off the coast of Libya. They hoped that by doing this, they could learn about the basic mechanistic behaviors of this specific current and, if successful, apply their understanding of this miniscule example to the much larger diagram of the entire ocean.

To examine the mini-current up close and personal, the team studied the paths of buoys that were caught in the current over a period of five months. After tracking these buoys, running complicated simulations and collecting hordes of data, they eventually came up with a theory, which they explained primarily with a legion of nightmarish mathematical equations, on how to predict the path, duration, and intensity of the current.

According to their conclusion, the current was the result of the massive quantity of swirling water resulting from its contact with the steep continental shelf. Because the oceans are in perpetual flux, the flow of water becomes agitated when suddenly confronted by a steep shoreline. This creates a phenomenon the scientists labeled as a “large mesoscale anti-cyclone,” which Google says is nothing more than a cyclone of a certain size that turns opposite the normal direction (clockwise in the Northern Hemisphere and counterclockwise in the Southern Hemisphere). Using this information, they were finally able to define the mathematical properties at work.

Ultimately, the team was able to extract an applicable law regarding deep-flow feedback from their data. The slope of the incline of the continental shelf is proportional to the basic drift speed of the current, suggesting that as one increases at a constant rate, the other does also. In an ideal world, the results from this study would be able to accurately predict any and all current behavior throughout the whole ocean, but I suspect that countless more studies will be required before such modeling will be possible. The good thing about scientists is that while they ask so many questions, they also do whatever it takes to find answers, and I am confident that they will keep studying buoy numbers until they no all of the secrets of our blue planet.

*Subscription may be necessary to view.

How the Ocean Affects Climate Change

Don’t turn away just yet because of the title! I promise I have something relatively interesting to tell you about. I understand many people are tired of hearing about global warming, but I hate to break it to ya, this junk ain’t just going away. I won’t lecture you too much on what should be done, but I do want to provide you with a little information about it. My info came from this super scientific-y article from Current Biology entitled Impacts of Climate Change on Marine Organisms and Ecosystems. I’ll let you know how to access this scholarly journal at the bottom, but let me warn you its not so fun to read. I’ll do my best to save you the trouble and try to summarize it here.

Believe it or not, life under the sea is much more pertinent to yours than you think. Life forms in the ocean actually make huge contributions to planetary function. They cycle carbon, nitrogen, and other key elements. If those chemistry terms mean nothing to you, essentially it means they keep the atmosphere in check. Bottom line: you don’t want to mess up what these guys are doing. Yet you are! Silly little humans, always messin’ with the world. The oceans are also huge reservoirs for nutrients and gases. Ocean currents redistribute heat around the planet. So basically, oceans make the world go ‘round and keep all the different climates in check and the way they need to be.

Apparently we cause global warming, and global warming is bullying those helpful organisms in the big blue. It increases ocean temperature and acidity levels. These changes definitely aren’t good for the current ecosystems that thrive in the environment they are already adapted to. How would you feel if someone dropped you in a bucket of acid when you are so used to just regular ol’ water? I’ll tell you how: not so good. Ouch. As carbon dioxide levels increase, so do the acidity levels in the ocean. Those fish scales aren’t that thick. As you know, almost everything we do realizes CO2 into the atmosphere. Some other direct consequences of major CO2 emissions are increasing global temperature, construed weather patterns, and rising sea levels along with the acidifying of oceans which I’ve already talked about.

As for temperature, as it increases the oxygen levels decrease. Ocean ecosystems NEED oxygen in order to survive. Actually, almost everything does. I don’t care if you are Superman, you’re gunna need a little O2 every once in awhile. Rising temps also melt those giant glaciers up near Santa, leaving the current coastal communities ruined by an increase in water level. I come from Wilmington, so lord knows I’ve been on enough informative field trips about estuaries and sounds. They are the areas between fresh and salt water and sort of serve as the ocean’s nursery. These environments are quite fragile and any change in sea level could throw the entire ocean out of whack. Scientists project that if carbon emissions are not reduced, the global temperature could rise as much as 5.5 degrees Celsius in the next hundred years. This would cause many species to go extinct, and as I said in the first paragraph, they are vital to cycling all the gases in the atmosphere.

Despite the disappointing options for direct intervention, scientists do have one win on their side. The improvement of scientific ocean models has made it increasingly easier to predict physical changes in the ocean. Knowledge=the power to change and make a difference when it comes to science. Scientists are still working to move beyond prediction to actually stopping degradation of the marine ecosystems. But they can’t do it on their own!

Now comes the obligatory lecture. You may exit out if you please, I understand we’ve all heard it before. I won’t break out the High School Musical and say something cheesy like “we’re all in this together!” (yes, it has been done), but I will say that everyone does need to do something to make a difference. There is a possibility it may be too late to undo these negative effects on the earth’s oceans. These changes in the ocean could have major consequences on the planet and us. As scientists continue to work on strategies for improvement, there are a number of things we can do in our everyday lives. Most of us own at least one environmentally friendly item, either something as small as a reusable Target shopping bag, or as large as a hybrid car. Keep it up! Use ‘em! I could describe all the different options, but you know what to do. Reduce, Reuse, Recycle. So the bottom line of this article is that the oceans could, in fact, be helpful in our climate change plight. All we have to do now is make sure we don’t destroy the oceans before they can make a difference.

To view the actual article, go to this link and then click the PDF option.

Clusters of Galaxies in Deep Space

Are you the romantic sort that feels a deeply personal sense of self-awareness when you spend a moment alone staring up at the stars? Ever since I was a wee lad I’ve looked through my grandpa’s high-powered telescope at his mountain cabin. The stars are beautiful up there away from the light pollution of the city. Through the lens of the telescope I could see craters on the moon, the rings of Saturn, and even the giant red spot on Jupiter. I felt like my gaze had no limit back then, but I was dead wrong. The Solar System is only the beginning.

In the deepest, darkest and densest regions of the universe (far from the eye of my simple store-bought telescope), groups of impossibly-huge galaxies have been observed pulling each other inward by the sheer force of their own gravitational pulls. Eventually, these galaxies merge into one giant super-structure known as a galaxy cluster. The world’s top cosmologists can observe pictures of these galaxy clusters, but that’s about it. As of now, we know very little about their astrophysical properties and scientists are forced to guess based on what they see through the lens of their telescopes. This conundrum is what motivated the scientists in the scientific journal I chose to read.

Inspired by recent innovations in what the team called “cosmological hydrodynamical simulations” the team in the journal were attempting to simulate the formation of a galaxy cluster using “protoclusters” (little man-made galaxies made to resemble the pictures we see of the actual galaxy clusters millions of light years away). They hoped that by doing this they could learn two things. One, the wanted to see exactly how accurate such simulations are when compared to real observations from a formation known as the Spider Web galaxy cluster. And two, they hoped to obtain valuable insight about all galaxy clusters’ formation and evolution. Using water as a model for the curvature of space time, they got to work.

In the end, their results were mixed. Both protocluster simulations showed evidence of an ongoing assembly of a dominating central galaxy, but in protocluster one (C1) they found that the projected velocities were too low compared with the actual observations of the Spider Web Galaxy. The results of protocluster two (C2) were a bit more optimistic, as they were relatively consistent with the empirical observations. So in conclusion there was one flop and one success. Looks like they’re going in the right direction, but aren’t quite there yet.

So if you feel a gravitational pull toward this field (excuse the pun), you should definitely check it out. Who knows, maybe with a few more pounds of information in your brain, you could be the next scientist to successfully re-create a galaxy cluster. After all, every step closer to galactic understanding is another step closer to a slimy green guy asking you to “take me to your leader.”

A Road of Controversy: Embryonic Stem Cell Research

As we begin to explore the different roads that we may take in life, we come upon several paths. The first pathway that we will begin to venture down is that of the natural sciences. Down this pathway exists many twists and turns, many roadblocks as well. Looking down this road, there are many controversies. There are no direct answers, no easy outs. You must search for what you think to be correct. If you choose to travel this pathway, you must make tough decisions and know what you believe. It will be rewarding, but you must be willing to accept this pathway - twists, turns, and all. Hopefully, this glimpse down the road of the natural sciences will give you a quick peak of what it could entail if you were to journey down it.

As mentioned, down the road of the natural sciences, there are lots of twists and turns, many controversies. One controversy you will encounter down this road is the debate of stem cell research. To catch you up to the level of those already on this road in life, there are two, no three, sides to this debate: those for stem cell research, those against it, and those who don’t know where they stand. For what we will be talking about, the stem cells we are concerned with are called embryonic stem cells. Embryonic stem cells “come from the inner cell mass of a blastocyst, the term for a fertilized egg four days after conception (Time).” Those against embryonic stem cell research see these cells as a life. They do not support them being used for research or “killing this life.” On the other side, there are those who see the possibilities that using embryonic stem cell research could bring. It would help cure diseases, and people see that as a logical reason for their use. Then, there are people who stand in the middle, not knowing what they believe. If you choose to venture down the road of the natural sciences, you have to choose, you must not stand in the middle (Time). The two articles that I will be presenting to you show two opposing sides in this debate. The first believes that not enough funding is being given to embryonic stem cell research, while the other wishes for it to be banned.

The first article* notes that within the past year, President Barrack Obama lifted the funding ban on embryonic stem cell research. However, this article also says Obama needs to take it a step further, for he did not lift the mandate coming from the Dickey-Wicker amendment, an amendment saying government money may not go to research in which embryos are created or destroyed. Though Obama has made it feasible for cell lines to be created from donated embryos, research is still limited due to the restrictions stemming from the Dickey-Wicker amendment. This author wants more to be done for there he believes that with more funding, more results may be found from experimentation (Nature).

A second, older article * presents congress people attempting to block stem cell research, with the author backing these protesters. Instead of pressing the President for more freedom concerning the use of embryos for stem cell research, this article illustrates a scene in which people are pressing the Secretary of Health and Human services to recall a decision that allowed research using human embryonic cells. These congress people are calling for the precedent to be returned (Wadman).

The first article utilizes logic in that an example of how the Dickey-Wicker amendment is being worked around. It shows that this amendment is merely making it harder for scientists, but that research will still go on regardless of whether this amendment is still law. It infers that with this amendment lifted, much more progress could be made quicker. On the other hand, the second article is based more off of personal belief. There is no justification or benefit from restricting the research on embryonic stem cells. The backing the second article lies upon ethical belief.

Down the road of the natural sciences, you will have to make a choice. What do you believe is right? What is your stand? You must be willing to answer these questions to venture down this road. Choosing a stance on embryonic stem cell research is just one hurdle you will come upon down this road. Get ready!

*in order to access these articles, a subscription to Nature is required

Global Warming Wars

Somewhere back in the stash of my flighty childhood memories, I remember watching a TV drama where a divorced-couple-to-be was arguing against each other in court about the nature of their daughter’s death. Their stories didn’t add up when cross-referenced. Each kept blaming the other. Finally the fed up judge said something that’s stuck with me: “There are three sides to every story: his side, her side, and the truth.”

So too it seems for the debate I chose to explore. No, no, everybody’s daughters are still breathing as far as I know, but the truth—the ever-elusive truth about climate change—could only be deduced, it appeared, by venturing into the flagless no man’s land between the two warring camps and adopting a less fiery opinion.

You may have already heard about the latest onslaught of scandalous slander, but in case you haven’t, here’s the skinny. Jerk number one eavesdrops on a suspicious email conversation between idiot two and three from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia (UEA) in the United Kingdom. Soon after, jerk number one publically accuses idiot two and three of systematically conspiring to hide contradictory evidence against their claim that man-made carbon emissions are indeed warming the globe. Predictably, our hyena-like mainstream media (will call them jerks two through one hundred) pounced on the fresh meat and sunk their teeth into the decade-old debate of global warming with renewed hunger.

Now that you’re caught up to speed, here’s what people from both camps are saying about it. The author of the first article, entitled “Climatologist Under Pressure,” believes that the stolen emails reveal no such cover-up, but do, however, highlight ways in which climate researchers could behave more responsibly (Psst…Duh!). Reporting as fact that a number of organizations independent of UEA have come to the same conclusions about our impact on the environment, the author is confident enough to state that “Nothing in the e-mails undermines the scientific case that global warming is real — or that human activities are almost certainly the cause.” He goes on to suggest that such an accusation would be laughable were it not for the fact that the incident will likely provide brutal argumentative ammunition to political obstructionists who want to stand in the way of passing a climate bill in the near future. If anything, he concludes, the emails show that scientist are as human as the rest of us, and are therefore subject to occasional temptation that may cause them to undermine core values that are essential to the spirit of objective science.

The second article is a much more vicious article with bigger teeth. Published in National Review, this article never refers to the incident as anything but a downright “scandal.” His tone is much more offensive, as opposed to the defensive tone of the first article. “The emails show climate researchers from a handful of universities and think tanks engaged in unscrupulous and thuggish behavior,” he writes before going on to describe “statistical tricks” he claims have been used for years by the researchers he is condemning . In essence, the point he is trying to get across is that these emails are not only blatant examples of scientific misconduct, but that the entire global warming argument as a whole is based off a pile of spurious assumptions that cannot be trusted. Hmm, I thought to myself, he sounds like the “political obstructionist” the first guy warned us about.

As you may well imagine, after reading such polarized articles I didn’t know what to believe. Hell, I still don’t! I do, however, have an opinion as to which article was more convincing. Personally, I don’t respond too well to the whole fire and brimstone appeal. I’m much more swayed by the calmly logical and holistic sort. Because of this, I found myself gravitating to the first article in lieu second. Whether we’re drowning baby polar bears or rallying behind a non-existent cause I don’t pretend to know, but I do know that the natural sciences are full of such unknowns. It is this sense of quest curiosity about the world around us that defines the natural sciences, and a student majoring in this broad field would be well-advised to share this passion. After all, the thrill of piecing together the puzzle is what makes them interesting. Every entity is a piece.

Crazy Controversy on Psychiatric Disorders

So, you can call me morbid or macabre, but I have always been fascinated by serial killers. I’ve seen tons of documentaries on Ted Bundy and David Berkowitz (Son of Sam). Check out my DVR. It’s filled with episodes of Criminal Minds. Why am I so obsessed with sociopaths? For whatever reason, I find their stories horrific and intriguing at the same time. This is why I pounced on an article about schizophrenia, entitled “A decade for psychiatric disorders”* when I came across it in the journal Nature. Because the article was about schizophrenia, I thought it would be all about the disorder and how it is a characteristic of serial killers. It turns out that the media (i.e. where I get all my cultural knowledge) plays up schizophrenia a lot. In the minds of serial killers is where schizophrenia is in its most severe case, and this represents an extremely small percentage of the population. Although this article wasn’t what I had in mind for my cryptic interest, it did introduce me to an interesting controversy in the science world: In the Nature article the author argues that ongoing research is necessary in order to understand and prevent psychiatric disorders. A different author writing about psychiatric disorders argues that disorders like schizophrenia are natural and only viewed as ‘disorders’ because of society stereotypes.

Initially, the Nature article, “A decade for psychiatric disorders”, is about the importance of researching psychiatric disorders, especially schizophrenia. The author of this article argues that psychiatric disorders are not given a high enough precedent in scientific research. Whereas cancer research receives over five hundred million dollars a year in some countries, mental-health related research only receives a few million, and most of that is concentrated on degenerative diseases, like Alzheimer’s. The author argues that progress is needed to be able to identify those at risk earlier in order to prevent or slow the development of the disorder. While schizophrenia is controllable by medication, the drugs address a late stage in the development of the disease. The problem lies in environmental research, because too little research is devoted to environmental factors that can influence psychiatric disorders. The author states a better understanding of effects of schizophrenia are needed as well, like delusions and their persistence. Basically, the author is saying that the time has come for additional research in the development of psychiatric disorders in order to better treat or prevent them.

While the author of the Nature article argues that there is not enough research of psychiatric disorders going on, I found an abundance of articles reporting ongoing biomedical research on disorders like autism and schizophrenia. One article from sciencemag.org called “Two Sides of the Same Coin?” showcases an evolutionary approach to researching psychiatric disorders. A letter in response to the sciencemag.com article contrasts the Nature author’s argument that psychiatric disorders need to be treated and prevented. The author of this opinion letter, Joao Oliveira, believes that neuropsychiatry is dependent upon cultural perspectives and norms that change over time. An example of this is that homosexuality was once considered a ‘disorder’, because the behavior was interpreted as incompatible with reproduction. Oliveira argues that expecting that a devastating condition, such as schizophrenia, should be bred out of the gene pool is ridiculous. In his opinion, schizophrenia can remain in the population given that only a small percentage of the population suffers from it, while the majority exhibits healthy and productive behavior. Psychiatric disorders will also stay in the population as long as the afflicted reproduce before reaching incapacitation. This author’s take is somewhat disturbing, because he argues that schizophrenia and other psychiatric disorders do not need to be prevented, so long as those who suffer from it are able to produce offspring to keep the species alive.

As you can see, the differences between the Nature article and the opinion letter are vast. On one hand you have an author arguing how important research into psychiatric disorders is in order to understand and treat those who are afflicted. On the other hand, the author of the opinion letter believes that psychiatric disorders are natural, and are only viewed as disorders because of the culture and society we live in. The Nature article advocating research for psychiatric disorders appears as very scholarly to the reader, and cites various quotations from experts in the field. To me, this makes this article more appealing and believable. The opinion letter does not contain specific quotes from scientists and researchers, even though the author works in the Department of Neuropsychiatry at a university in Brazil. So which side of the controversy am I on?

Overall, I agree with the author of the Nature article. Schizophrenia and other psychiatric disorders are serious and debilitating. They should be given precedent in research to understand and prevent them. Although these articles weren’t what I had in mind when I began reading, I now feel like I can appreciate the work and research that goes into understanding psychiatric disorders. I also feel like I have a better understanding of how serious psychiatric disorders can be. They aren’t just part of a television show. Psychiatric disorders can affect many people in harmful ways. These people deserve a chance at living a normal life, which is why psychiatric disorders should be given a higher precedent in scientific research.

* subscription needed to access Nature online

Constant Vigilance

Do you remember the beginning of Independence Day when that R.E.M. song is playing, and then you see the guy not paying attention to the feedback from those huge satellite dishes? That guy works for a research group known as SETI, the Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence, which has been scanning the stars for communications from aliens for the past fifty years. If you have never heard of them or any of their accomplishments, it’s because their search has only produced results in movies like the aforementioned. While some might call for the plug to be pulled, the author of an editorial* in Nature says that any funding the project receives will be worth it considering what will happen if it succeeds. The impact of actually discovering an alien transmission, proof of other intelligent life in the universe, would be monumental enough to change science and life as we know it. It would be like Dan Brown’s Deception Pointexcept the evidence isn’t fabricated by some obscure government agency, or at least not as obscure.The author also points out that SETI has an advantage because their study cannot generate truly negative results. When scanning an infinite expanse such as space, not finding anything is far from unexpected, and there are always more places to look.

While SETI is not receiving a substantial amount of government funding at this point, a small group of private donors are allowing it to upgrade its technology in order to better conduct its research. One example of the generosity of SETI’s private benefactors is the Allen Telescope Array, which is named for Microsoft’s Paul Allen, a considerable donor to the cause. The Allen array can monitor hundreds of millions of radio channels at once, and considering SETI started out with one dish in 1960, this shows just how far the project has come. Advances like the ATA are helping researchers to solve immense computing challenges associated with large, multi-dish arrays. This will benefit all of radio astronomy as innovations in technology call for the building of larger arrays in the future. With the advent of advances like the ATA, the amount of space SETI is capable of searching, and thus its chances for success, are increasing exponentially.

Despite what the author from Nature may think, SETI’s failure to generate conclusive results has some people skeptical about its continuing operation, including those who believe their search is not in vain. R.R. Stark of Strange Reports of Zones Unknown believes that SETI is part of a cover up by the government to mislead people into thinking that Extra-Terrestrials are beyond our vision and reach, when in reality ETs have already made contact with Earth and are simply concealing themselves from us. Stark believes that the government purposefully funnels factual stories of alien sightings and abductions into media such as tabloids and movies while SETI conducts what is meant to be seen as legitimate research into matters of ETI. According to Stark, it is possible that SETI is not even listening for signals at all, or that they have been cut off from actual top-secret research about the alien presence observing our planet.

Considering SETI has barely any connection to the government at this point and that Stark does not provide any factual evidence to support his argument other than the testimony of an unheard of author, who is probably just as crazy as he is, I am going to side with the author from Nature. Any chance that SETI has of succeeding is worth any contribution to the cause, and while I will not be the one to make that contribution, I have faith that there are plenty of xenophiles out there who are willing to chip in for me. Besides, the government is supposed to be too busy with health care reform and fixing the economy to worry about alien cover-ups these days. Stark would probably say that’s what they want us to think.

*Only available via subscription.

Fertilizing the Ocean With Iron?

Iron + Phytoplankton + Algal Blooms = Atmosphere – CO2 = We can all still drive hummers! Yayyyy for science! I’m not quite sure if that’s what these guys were going for, but whilst perusing the editorials/opinions in Nature magazine (those are always the most fun anyways), I came upon this* opinion about the prospect of putting iron in the ocean to absorb all of the carbon and reverse climate change. Whew, that sounds like a pretty far stretch, but I decided to bite.

According to these fellas, the process of geoengineering is not a good one. When coming upon the word geoengineering, I broke down the word like they taught us to do in kindergarten. Geo=earth/land. Engineering=scary stuff that only the crazy smart people on my mom’s side of the family somehow know everything about. Earth seems like a place that should be left natural, why would we want to engineer the land? But yet again, Emalyn’s mind is just going off on a tangent. In fact, geoengineering is the process of intentionally altering the planet’s physical or biological systems to counteract global warming. The guys who wrote the Nature editorial are against this process, so the (very, very small) scientist inside of me knew that I needed to get both opinions about the topic.

Although it was quite difficult to find, this blogger promotes the process of ocean fertilization. The author from Marginal Revolution essentially suggests that we should increase our ocean dumping in order to catalyze the growth of what are essentially ocean weeds that make all the carbon sink to the floor. If you have been wondering what in the world this mysterious process entails, be patient grasshopper. I was just about to get there, jeez.

1. We dump iron into the ocean (that sounds REALLY safe AND healthy)
2. This iron stimulates phytoplankton blooms
3. They absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere
4. This CO2 just sinks down to the bottom of the ocean for millions of years so only our great^27 grandchildren and that scary fish from Finding Nemo will have to be the ones to deal with it.



If you can’t sense my immense sarcasm, I have already started to side with the guys who wrote the Nature editorial. Their thesis (very simply) states that “adding iron to the ocean is not an effective way to fight climate change, and we don’t need further research to establish that”. Unlike the guy who was pro-ocean-fertilization, the people who are against it provide evidence as to why. Even to an unscientific eye such as my own, it is easy to see why dumping iron into the ocean ain’t such a good idea. Think of the long-term effects, or how it will affect the marine life. And, I know we all learned in Bio 101 that all life is connected and even the little fishies make a difference (don’t even PRETEND like you were asleep that day. You know I’m right). If you’re planning to be a scientist, this is a good article to take pointers from. They use evidence and quotes from reputable sources such as The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and even the United Nations. If the fact that the United Nations banned large-scale ocean fertilizations doesn’t get you on our team, clearly you are loco, irrational, and should not become a scientist. Keep an eye out for the facts fellow explorers, and the case verdict for this one is pretty obvious. Don't drive those Hummers just yet; the end is still much farther away than we hoped.


* Sorry kids! Looks like you may encounter some difficulty looking at my first article unless you have a Nature subscription. ¡Lo ciento!