Autumn's Thoughts on Defining Death

According to a US law passed in 1981, after one's condition remains irreversible after six hours, their physician can legally declare them dead. Also included in the law, a group of experts appointed by the President determined this definition of death: "An individual who has sustained either (1) irreversible cessation of circulatory and respiratory functions, or (2) irreversible cessation of all functions of the entire brain, including the brain stem, is dead." Many physicians feel uncertainty with the phrases "irreversible" and "entire brain". The fact that death holds no clear definition halts the progress of the organ transplantation system. Although many countries use this law as a model for their legal definition of death, one must ask how this group of "experts" could have successfully defined death for millions of people. In reality, death holds a different meaning for many people. The author of Delimiting Death, an editorial in Nature Magazine, believes that death needs a realistic and set definition in order to keep up with the fast-paced organ transplantation system. Attaching a definition to death for the sake of this system seems insensitive and harsh.

Many physicians often follow “the spirit” when declaring someone dead instead of following the law definition. The author feels this poses a major problem and calls it unfortunate. On the contrary, I believe that following a spirit or having emotion when practicing your job, whatever it may be, is a necessity. We are humans! We have feelings and emotions and we should use them. These actions are what allow people to be so passionate about their jobs. Yes, guidelines carry essential roles, but the serious topic of death requires and deserves much more considerations than guidelines. A family is not going to understand any law or guideline when they see their loved one with vital signs of life, however minuscule they may be.

Another point the author makes claims that physicians struggle with how long one should wait before declaring the patient’s condition “irreversible”. The law recommends six hours! This seems much too short to give someone a chance to save their life. Even the author shares that some physicians who were required to wait up to 36 hours under given circumstances, have observed brainstem-mediated reflexes, such as a cough. Respecting the law, the "entire brain" must be non-functional to declare one dead. It seems to me that the patient and family should at least be given 48 hours to accept death. Although organ transplantation system carries a time restraint, the declaration of death should not be rushed for the system's sake. Why is the life of a person in need of a transplant deemed more significant than a person nearing death? Physicians also struggle with determining when the "entire brain is irreversible." According to a statement opposing death, signed by 120 professionals of 19 different nations, "'brain death' is not death, and death ought not to be declared unless the entire brain, including the brain stem, and the respiratory and circulatory systems have been destroyed." The 1981 US law lacks this crucial and straight-forward statement.

The author does make a valid point: “The problem is that death is not a phase transition whereby a person stops being alive and becomes dead in an instant.” The 1981 US law does not support this statement, making it unclear and ineffective. In response to this statement, the author feels a clear definition of death is needed. However, it is with this statement that I believe a clear definition of death can never be determined. There does come a point in which a person is clearly dead and will never return to life again. This point varies between doctors, especially when looking at their experience levels. A doctor who has been in practice for thirty years will feel more comfortable with declaring death and sharing the news with the family, or be more successful in explaining to the family that the time has come to take the patient off life support. On the other hand, a first-year doctor most likely does not acquire enough confidence and certainty to declare their patient dead, especially with a family not ready to depart from their loved one. What needs to be determined is not the definition of death, but at what point death is a better option than life. Although organ transplants obtain importance and carry a time-restraint, they should not be a deciding factor in declaring death.

The last statement the author argues really upsets me. He claims, “Few things are as sensitive as death. But concerns about the legal details of declaring death in someone who will never again be the person he or she was should be weighed against the value of giving a full and healthy life to someone who will die without a transplant.” I am sure many other people, me included, have had experiences that change who they are forever. This does not mean that the person can no longer live. In almost all cases of illness survivors, they do become different people at the end of the process. Whether they miraculously become healthy again or spend the rest of their lives in the hospital, they are just thankful to be alive. In my opinion, a person willing to fight for their life should have the chance to do so.

Kevin's Thoughts On Embryonic Stem Cell Research

No alternative stem cells have matched the potential achievements that embryonic stem cells anticipate to accomplish. Adult stem cells lack the ability to form the full range of types of cells. Reprogrammed cells still remain at an infancy state and may leave behind genes that could trigger cancer. Only embryonic stem cells possess the unique characteristic of full differentiability. This trait allows them to discover possible cure for diseases through developing human organs, advancing drug testing and investigating organ development. All of these potentials will lead into a tremendously beneficial revolution in human medical industry, too valuable to be constrained by its opponents' elusive ethical objections. An article titled “Alternative Energy For Embryonic Stem Cell Research”, however, demonstrates clear oppositions to embryo-derived stem cells. The author argues that despite the to-be-proven benefits that the embryonic stem cell research might have, the ethical concerns regarding the destruction of human souls will outweigh the potentials, and therefore, it is necessary to seek for alternative researches that do not cause such moral concerns. I immediately disagree.

The author overstates the ethic concerns and his logic is naive. He states that human embryonic stem cell research violates the “dignity and inviolability of human life” because it destroys human embryos which, he believes, have souls. The existence of soul itself carries a very controversial assumption. Science should not compromise to such an elusive ideology. Looking back into human history, many of the most respected and praised findings have once been in the position of today’s embryonic stem cell research. In facing those controversies and challenges, our science pioneers did not compromise. Their dedication and responsibility towards science, and their unyielding desire to advance the world have kept them pursing new coals. Had they conceded, the world would have been a different place. Morever, the author is unaware of the various sources of embryonic stem cells. The majority of embryonic stem cells used in the research comes from discarded embryos. There are around 400,000 discarded human embryos stored in the freezers of the fertilization clinics. Those embryos no longer possess the ability to naturally grow to human; it would be unethical not to study them to cure people’s diseases. Embryonic stem cells can also be deviated from aborted embryos. Since abortions are legal in many countries, making full use of these embryos seems mature and rational. However, discarded embryos are smaller than naturally embryo-derived cells and “they have no identifying features or hints of a nervous system”. Therefore, opening new embryonic stem cells lines is still necessary. The author also argues scientists should stop embryonic research because they are not 100 percent certain it will yield any great results. This reasoning is weak. Seeking for the answers to the uncertainty is the exact purpose of scientific research. Newton was not sure about the existence of the gravitational force before getting hit by the apple. He researched into it and finally proved it. Thomas Edison was not certain which type of filament to use in a light bulb. He tried 1000 times and finally discovered.

Advantages of embryonic stem cells themselves could also outweigh the absurd ethic claims. These stem cells are crucial to develop organisms because they have the potential to create all other specific cells in human body, such as blood, brain and tissue cells. Scientists can use these stem cells to generate healthy organs in the laboratory and transplant into patients to replace the damaged ones. The stem-cell-developed organs have two major advantages over the traditional donated organs. First, it is able to produce at a large scale. Second, the organs could be “exact DNA matches which would make the transplant process more efficient” and help reduce the rejection of transplantation; this has been proved successful in animals. One study shows that the stem-cell derived heart cells, which have been injected into mice and pigs with heart disease, demonstrate incredible results as they quickly filled in for the damaged cells and sped recovery. It is believed that embryonic stem cells have the same developmental potentials in humans as their counterparts in animal bodies. Thus, if we eventually use them in humans, we will have the opportunities to save thousands of patients. Reprogrammed stem cells, which the author suggests, could indeed grow to human organs; however, it would leave behind genes that develop into cancer cells, which disable it for human transplantation. In addition, embryonic stem cells can be used in drug testing. Scientists can observe real responses and reactions of the stem-cell grown organs and tissues to the new drugs. The results will be more accurate than animal testing. Furthermore, because the embryonic stem cell is the most fundamental form of stem cell, it can play a significant role in investigating the development of early human embryos, through which scientists hope to answer questions about the origins of the diseases due to developmental abnormalities, such as cancer. Other cells, such as adult stem cells, lack the developmental ability for such studies.

The author does make a valid suggestion: to conduct researches of other types of stem cells as well. Because state funded embryonic stem cell research of large scale is yet to be permitted and new embryonic research lines are still not legalized in many countries, it is essential to explore other types of stem cells. But let’s be clear. Embryonic stem cells are superior to other stem cells. Therefore, the alternative researches should only be performed in conjunction with the embryonic stem cell research. The main purpose is to explore various types of stem cells, advance the technology and speed up the progress of cell biology, as opposed to finding substitutes for embryonic stem cells due to its ethic concerns.

Out life is composed of all types of tradeoffs. Sometimes we will have to focus on the greater picture and do what would maximize the benefits. Would being ethical help cure the diseases that are making millions of millions of people suffer? No! Would it create various and sufficient organs for those who need them? No! Then, here is a question you should consider: do you want to be ethically right or would you rather challenge the conservative ideology and save real people? You don’t have to make a decision now. But if you chose to support a potential life-saving science research over some elusive ethics nonsense, you should not feel guilty! In fact, with the compelling evidence, it is my deepest belief that the research of embryonic stem cells will soon be recognized as a milestone in medical history and it definitely needs to keep advancing with full speed.

Suzie's Thoughts on Embryonic Stem Cells.

Adult stem cells and embryonic stem cells possess the same ability to multiply. So, exploiting embryonic stem cells for their multiplication capability should not be prohibited. The research on embryonic stem cells carries no compelling effects compared to research on adult stem cells. Each human life deserves the complete respect and security that we can give it. Basically, embryonic stem cell research withdraws the choice of life for these itty-bitty human beings. This research and experimentation should no longer take place because post-natal stem cells have many of the same characteristics as pre-natal stem cells, and perhaps more importantly, because using pre-natal stem cells is simply immoral. Taking away these little lives for the sake of science is unethical and corrupt, and the public should think twice before giving their consent for the research.

The editorial article, By Common Consent (12 March 2009), found in the online journal of science website, Nature, argues that science and medicine need embryonic stem-cell research to advance medical knowledge. The author believes that scientists need the public's support to further their ability to study embryos, which is likely true, and we therefore cannot lend our approval. Embryonic stem cell usage was advocated in the article in order to attempt to find cures for different diseases. However, scientists remain uncertain that killing innocent human lives will yield any tangible cures, yet they still encourage it! John Wyatt (Royal Free Hospital, London) put it perfectly when he stated, "The creation and manipulation of living human embryos for the sole purpose of generating therapeutic tissue seems incompatible with respect for vulnerable human life”. Now I know you fellow ladies understand that it is absolutely essential that we, as strong, independent and educated women, take a stand against this unborn baby stem cell research support and defend those who cannot yet defend themselves.

Scientists argue that research done on embryonic cells will lead to more knowledge in the medical world because they can multiply quicker and have a longer existence than adult stem cells. The ability for stem cells to replenish themselves is critical because large quantities of stem cells are needed in order to effectively treat diseases. However, adult stem cells have recently proven to meet this criteria, without taking the life of unborn person. Post-natal stem cells were previously thought to have a shorter life span than pre-natal stem cells, but now that does not seem to be the case. Researchers in Pittsburg have been able to multiply adult stem cells to a number comparable to that reached by embryonic stem cells. For example, a group of muscle stem cells were able to endure more than 200 population doublings while preserving their ability to produce new muscle cells. This discovery signified to scientists that these post-natal stem cells are likely able to maintain their treatment potential because of their ability to multiply while managing their structure, etc. Advocates of embryonic stem cell research need to realize that experimenting on these cells is taking the process of experimentation too far. Are we really allowing science to overpower God’s most precious gift? If we aren’t willing to stop with embryonic research, are there any boundaries in the scientific world at all? Scientists aren’t even 100% convinced that studying embryonic stem cells will even lead to any cures, so executing these innocent lives is obviously not worth the risk when post-natal stem cells have proven to be just as useful.

Other proponents of embryonic stem cell research, like the author of the article, assert that any damage done in this case has long-term potential benefits that outweigh harmful effects of the process. I cannot believe that some scientists don’t consider killing embryos a malicious act. Like I stated, before, adult stem cells that are used for research have greatly helped and progressed the scientific world. The progress of biomedical science is encouraged, Pope Benedict XVI affirms, but “true service to humanity begins with respect for each and every human life”. This issue will remain controversial as long as there are people who believe that God’s natural and beautiful gifts of human life should not be tampered with. By Common Consent states that scientists still need as much public support as possible to further their cause of embryonic stem cell research.

I am happy to report that everyone, scientists included, can relax because I have the solution: IPS. IPS stands for Induced Pluripotent System. Pluripotent cells are what I was talking about earlier when I mentioned the ability to multiply. If a stem cell is pluripotent, it means the cell can essentially become any cell in the adult human body (and therefore have a great ability to multiply). Embryonic stem cells are pluripotent, and adult stem cells are not, giving embryonic stem cells a leg up (this is all the about why scientists are so ga-ga over embryonic stem cells). However, these IPS cells ARE pluripotent as well, and obtaining them does not include destroying an embryo. They are differentiated ADULT cells! The studies that have been done on animals show great promise with these cells, and there is NO ethical dilemma! However, studies using these cells are still new, so more research must be done in order to ensure that IPS cells are safe and can be effectively used in regenerative medicine. But when I learned about this alternative to embryonic stem cells in my Biology 101 class, I knew I had to tell you all about it! It is a very promising compromise for those embryonic stem cell advocates and the anti-stem cell believers out there.

After being in a sorority, I can first handedly affirm that any group of people with similar values and interests can truly make a difference if they fight for something they believe in. That is what sorority philanthropic events are all about. We join sororities, in large part, to make a difference in our communities by volunteering and working for a cause we are passionate about. Believing that stem cells from embryos should not be used for science is a cause we can get involved in. It is a current event that is scarily shaping up to lead to more complicated and dangerous outcomes. I urge you, as educated students, to join together in the fight to end the funding for embryonic stem cell research. We’re in college, one of the best times in our lives. The world is our oyster and we need to be proactive young adults who stand up for what we believe in. Marilyn Monroe (my idol) once famously stated, “Everyone is a star and deserves the chance to shine.” Embryos, just like anyone else, deserve the chance to grow, mature, and live their lives to the fullest. We have no right to take that opportunity away from them, so let us stop the experimentation today. 

Tyler's Thoughts on Obesity

Fat cells of obese men produce estrogen, a hormone that decreases sex drive. Making a man's obesity the ultimate cock blocker. Numerous heated debates in the scientific community, sort of like whose better Coby or Lebron, have taken place to establish the cause of this disease. Many geneticists, including Elena G. Bochukova, Ni Huang, Julia Keogh and 9 other co authors of the Nature Article Large, rare chromosomal deletions associated with sever early onset obesity, believe inheritance determines obesity. However many people, including myself, argue that while chromosomes in the body play a role in how we store and digest food they do not solely decide our weight. Other factors such as environment, a person’s calorie intake scale and exercise level directly determine a person’s BMI or body mass index (mine is stellar in case you were wondering).

I would first like to state that chromosomes do play a role in our digestive functions and can influence our body’s ability to metabolize food. The Nature article explains a laboratory test preformed done on rats. The test relates chromosome 16p11.2 to BMI when nothing is done to prevent it or retard this natural progress.Another test prerformed on 300 obese white males showed deletions significantly developed or became present when compared to the controls (skinny people). While the test's outcome did favor the scientists I don’t believe the group being tested encompassed a large enough subject diversity. Therefore the test skewed the date and the public’s perception; because the test only used white males and no other race or ethnicity. The article also mentioned that patients with this rare chromosomal deletion showed signs of mental retardation or autism. This additional factor I believe limits a child’s ability to sustain a healthy physical lifestyle and again proves that an adolescent’s environment is the key to maintaining a normal BMI reading.

Your environment and how you grow up affects your lifestyle, including weight. The Nature article argues early onset obesity, or younger children who are very overweight for their age and body size. I believe the reason for this is the habits you pick up as a young child, which become building blocks for your whole life. For example if your parents are vegetarians and teach you how to eat a balanced meal you are more likely to eat healthy because this is what you regard as normal. Or take for another example, me. My father was a collegiate athlete so at a young age he taught me an active lifestyle. Iate meat to keep protein readily available in my body, so that I could build the big beautiful muscles I have today. Socioeconomics also play a major role in a child’s weight developments. If a child has available to them parks and nice outdoor recreation centers they are more likely to forfill their recommended physical activity for the day. If a child however lives in an underdeveloped and unsafe neighborhood he or she is more likely to stay inside, forming a sedentary lifestyle. Purchasing food also becomes an issue; most of the cheaper food available is unhealthy and high in calories, for example McDonalds. If this is all that is available to a lower class family nothing can be done to get their eating habits in check; being healthy is not as important as keeping their children from starvation.

Calorie intake also directly affects a person’s weight. The measure for proper ingestion relies on a person's caloric balance. This imaginary equation for a healthy weight is to expend more calories than you ingest; adopted from the U.S. Surgeon General's Call to Action to Prevent and Decrease Overweight and Obesity, 2001. In other words when it comes to maintaining a fit lifestyle, calories count. Officially a calorie is a unit of energy supplied by food. Contrary to popular belief a calorie counts the same regardless of where it came from. Whether it be carbohydrates, fats, sugars, or proteins a calorie is still a calorie. It is recommended that a person have 5 servings of fruits and vegetables per day and keep meals in portioned sizes to prevent over eating. While the article mentions studies previously done linking genetics to your rate of metabolism, or how quickly you burn off food, genes do not affect how much you stuff in your face or your motivation to get up off your lazy ass and go workout, which leads me to my next favorite point-exercise.

Exercise is the last major factor in determining a person weight or BMI. As you work out you body goes through aerobic respiration and makes energy for you cells, in doing this it burns off calories. This is why exercising leads to weight loss, and why lame shows like The Biggest Loser have so many viewers, because it really works- shocker. However if you choose not to work out your body will take those calories you eat and store them as fat. Once this fat builds up it is increasing hard to get rid of, thankfully I wouldn’t know.

When comparing the US with the rest of the world, statistically over 2/3rds of all Americans are by some standards over weight, according to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Resources. When compared to other countries in the world this is a very alarming number. Many countries such as Korea blame the US for their recent increase in overweight individuals because of Americans cheap food exports and developments in technology. Since the internet developed people spend up to 4 more hours a day in a sedentary position. Jobs have become less strenuous and focus less on manual labor and more on technology and machines. Recreational activities have also taken a turn towards video games, facebook, chat roulette and web surfing rather than playing catch on the front lawn. This shift in lifestyle has only occurred in the last decade, while genes have been around since humans were in existence. So I ask why are we getting fat all of a sudden? …the answer could include genetics but it is by far not the main reason you can’t fit into that skirt, it’s our environment, our caloric intake and our level or exercise, all which have been changing rapidly in the past years.

Autumn's Thoughts on New Global Warming Research...

Thanks to ridiculous CO2 emitting Hummers and pollution from industries, the greatest environmental challenge our nation faces is global warming. As rising temperatures are too significant to ignore, it is urgent for our government, researchers, and communities to unite and combat global warming together. Those (mostly conservatives of course) who remain skeptical or simply deny the issue of global warming must stop their ignorance and start contributing to a solution. There is an abundance of evidence, such as the melting of glaciers and rising sea levels, to prove that global warming will be a massive problem in the future if it is not controlled now. Scientists, Mihai Dima and Gerrit Lohmann, of the Alfred Wegener Institute of Polar and Marine Research in Bremerhaven, Germany have presented another approach to global warming that seeks for the reasons behind the many climate changes over the last century.

They have investigated the involvement of thermohaline circulation (THC) in abrupt climate changes. THC, or the global ocean circulation system, is controlled by density differences in sea water, which is dependent on temperature (thermal) and salinity (haline). The damaged THC is essential in connecting ocean circulation changes to climate changes. Dima and Lohmann have investigated two separate global sea surface temperature datasets and created corresponding THC-related modes. These modes demonstrate “that the global conveyor has been weakening since the late 1930s and that the North Atlantic overturning cell suffered an abrupt shift around 1970.” The authors' development of these two modes offers a new and exciting approach to exploring past rapid climate changes.

One dataset studied by Dima and Lohmann is the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration extended reconstructed SST version 3 (ERSST.v3). This database is an updated version from Smith and Reynolds’, with improved low-frequency (LF) tuning and infrared data from Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer (AVHRR) Pathfinder day and night satellite SST observations.

The second dataset analyzed is the Hadley Centre Sea Ice and Sea Surface Temperature (HadISST) dataset, replacing the global sea ice and sea surface temperature (GISST) dataset. The Met Office Marine Data Bank (MDB), who receives information through the Global Telecommunications System, provides HadISST with monthly fields of SST and sea ice concentration on a 1° x 1° grid including data over the 1870-2006. I'm sure the innocent polar bears and penguins of Antarctica would appreciate some answers from this data!

From these two datasets, Dima and Lohmann created two distinct modes; the global mode (G) and the Atlantic mode (A). The G mode has localized centers while the A mode has extended regions. Forcing for THC is used to determine which mode is excited. A pulsing force indicates mode A is excited. While a persistent force indicates mode A in NA THC is first excited, and then the force extends to the entire conveyor and the G mode is exciting. With these implications, Dima and Lohann infer that mode A represents rapid climate change while mode G represents long-term forcing. This is great news for researchers looking for ways to reduce human contributions to global warming. They can compare our greenhouse emission figures to the extent of damage caused, and get a better idea of how much of a pressing and serious issue global warming is. Maybe then our world will become inspired to treat our environment with respect.

Dima and Lohann conclude that mode A and G explain the THC weakening trend due to global warming and the NA THC shift of the 1970s. They also believe that the modes can be used to investigate current THC trends and predict climate changes of the future. Their research has been a fundamental step in the study of climate change and will most certainly be beneficial for future generations.

The truth is that global warming is happening. For those who are as concerned about global warming as I am, this study has provided another method of investigating the climate. We all should be hopeful that with the help of these observations, our government and communities can work together to make the right decisions and end the war on global warming; after all, we have enough war to worry about as it is!

Suzie's Thoughts on Stars

Every girl loves to see a shooting star or a meteor shower. It brings us luck and symbolizes something special, like a sisterhood bond. Well what about seeing a pulsing star? The “Photometric Observations of Cepheids” article explains, in depth, the exploration to find new Cepheids. Cepheids, (I had to look up, because unless you are an astronomy major, I’m guessing you did not know it either!) are large, hot stars that have masses of five to twenty times greater than that of the Sun and are up to 30,000 times more luminous! Because they are so bright, Cepheids can be seen from very far distances. One-hundred light years far away to be exact, which was the distance a Cepheid was viewed from the Hubble Space Telescope!

Observations have been performed by a telescope from the South African Astronomical Observatory (SAAO) from December 2006 to January 2008, to monitor thirty-three classical Cepheids. Because these pulsating stars are so visible, astronomers use Cepheids as distance indicators and have learned that photometric observations must be conducted using “normal” telescopes to be the most accurate. Now, this is what I found out about photometry: it is is a technique used by astronomers to measure the intensity of an object’s electromagnetic radiation. And since Cepheids are incredibly bright stars, photometry works very well to measure their radiation.

The authors made observations based on many of these stars and showed their findings in a series of confusing graphs depicting light and color curves for the thirty-three Cepheids. They told other scientists to make sure the measurement errors were close to 0.01 (pretty close if you ask me!) to give them more creditability. In normal human terms, the scientists constructed reliable curves of what the light was doing and improved the components of the light variations for the Cepheids. The data they collected allows them to posses the correct number of distance indicators needed for studying the inner Galactic arms to be increased by 10%, which is HUGE when you are talking about distances in the galaxy.

New knowledge is constantly being discovered in science and all of the ‘what if’ questions get me thinking about how many things can still be learned. I hope this article about the Milky Way and these new Cepheid stars will inspire girls and students everywhere to appreciate the remarkable galaxy we live in and push themselves to learn more! Because, much like the universe, the quest for knowledge, like constant need to shop, is never-ending!

Kevin's Thoughts on the Large Hadron Collider

Will it destroy our world eventually? The famous Large Hadron Collider (LHC) is what I am referring to here. The LHC has always been a controversial project; concerns raised from media, science community and general public regarding the possible dangers and destructions associated with its operation continue to heat up.

You may have already had a little acquaintance with the LHC, but in case you haven’t, here is a little introduction. The LHC is the world’s most expensive and complicated machine that is a 17-mile underground tunnel which lies near Geneva, Switzerland. It is designed to accelerate protons and collide them at high energies. Basing on quantum physics and mathematics, it is anticipated that the collision will create a situation that is similar to when the universe starts - the Big Bang - and it will demonstrate the existence of the hypothesized particle Higgs Bosons, whose existence, if proven, can be used to solve some of the most fundamental questions about physics, such as why matter has mass.

But ever since its constructions, the LHC has had many unexpected troubles and accidents: explosions, sced on suspicions of terrorism, magnetic failure, and, of course, that famous “time traveling” bird. Many people have expressed concerns about the possible catastrophic results that the LHC may lead to - some are bizarre, some seem reasonable. The bizarre side of the concerns targets at the mysterious Higgs Boson. You must remember Tom Hanks’ movie “Angels and Demons”, in which the extremists use a super-powerful matter called “the antimatter”, produced from a large tunnel-looking accelerator, to blow up the Vatican City. That resembles case here; people suspect that Higgs Boson may have destructive potential. This concern reaches its climax when physicists, Holger Bech Nielsen of Denmark and Masao Ninomiya of Japan, argue that the frequency of the problems is not a coincidence, it’s signs of the collider being sabotaged by its own future. They suggest that the Higgs Boson might be “so abhorrent to nature that its creation would ripple backward through time and stop the collider before it could make one, like a time traveler who goes back in time to kill his grandfather”. That bird - which drops a piece of bread onto the electrical section above the accelerator and causes a power cut - is thus referred to as a “time traveling bird”. The time travel idea may or may not seem fictional to you, it certainly does to me. No science is even needed to rule out such a logically distorted argument. This is when the “grandfather paradox” comes to play. Consider this scenario: “you travel back in time and cause the death of your grandfather. Therefore you cannot be born and, in turn, you cannot go back in time ... so your grandfather lives. So, you are actually born and go back in time and ... so on and so forth” . Therefore, this concern is simply absurd.

Feel your head overheated? Bear with me; interested? More is coming up.

The majority of the opponents of LHC has a much more scientific reasonable approach. One supposed danger of the LHC is based on the theory that high-energy particle collisions could lead into creating mini black holes; people are worried that these mini black-holes have the potential to grow and evolve dangerously to a level where it will eat up the world. So, back to the very first question, will it finally destroy our planet? No - says Physicists Benjamin Koch, Marcus Bleicher and Horst Stöcker. Intending to answer these concerns, these scientists analyze the nature and evolution paths of mini black-holes, and examine the outcomes associated with each path in their paper “Exclusion of black hole disaster scenarios at the LHC”*; they conclude that there are no evidences that the black holes from the LHC would trigger a catastrophic doomsday to earth.

They acknowledge the possibilities of creating black holes, stating that in the extra dimensions of the the universe, the they could be produced through the collapse of charged particles that collide. They state that if mini black holes are produced that way, many would have already been produced the high-energy cosmic rays that “strikes” the earth everyday, which are much more energetic and powerful than the charged protons in the LHC. Since none of those hypothetical black hole created by the cosmic rays have damaged the earth as we can see, the much weaker ones from the LHC would not cause a bit danger. They then study the evolution paths that the mini black holes follow during their development. Each path would raise mini black holes to ones that emit different level of radiation: high radiation, negligible radiation and weak radiation. Lower emitting radiation means more consumption by black holes (the lower the radiation is, the faster the black holes will grow). Scientists show that even the lowest radiation-emitting mini black holes at the LHC would emit more matter than they gain. In other worlds the mini-black holes would be so weak that it would quickly shrink and decay. Therefore, the doomsday scenario is very likely impossible.

Having done much research to write this post, I notice that the majority arguments of the skeptics are not published in a a peer-reviewed publication, in stead, many of them are through popular media. That makes it more convincing that the end-of-worlders are wolf-criers. More importantly, the rejections to the skeptics have conveyed to us the following massage: the mini black holes are harmless and the LHC is safe! There is no reason for concerns. We should feel assuring and should fully embrace this majestic experiment. The next operation of the LHC is scheduled on February 20, this year, which is less than 2 weeks away. I can’t wait to see what revolutionary discoveries this powerful machine would lead us into.

Tyler's Thoughts on Dark Matter

So there are a few things I have learned about girls (and by a few I mean I've learned almost everything about women). They love flowers, chocolate, sweet little notes, and one other thing they love is looking at the sky. Who knows why staring at a blank looking canvas with little white dots is so fascinating and romantic, but to them it is (so men take note). There are many different types of articles written on these supposed spots of dark matter, however some are more reliable and science oriented than others. N. G. Kogoshvili, G. A. Malasidze, and T. M. Borchkhadze have written an academic paper titled POSSIBLE DARK MATTER IN SPIRAL GALAXIES OF THE COMA CLUSTER in which they explore dark matter in galaxies. And while i'm not trying to be girly, the shit is kinda cool.

Dark matter is basically a hypothetical form of matter that is detected by its gravitational effects on other matter you can see, it actually makes up the majority of universe that is visible to us. The reason for this is due to its gravitational pull, it almost makes it seem like the space does not exist but in reality it is in an almost 3-D form. To calculate exactly how much of this dark matter there is in each galaxy scientists looked at the maximum rotation velocity, luminosity (how much that stuff glows) which is emitted in the form of energy photons, and its total angular momentum, or at what angle it rotates. All these variables are compounded and many long complicated calculations are done. Scientists can come to the conclusion that galaxies with the lowest luminosities have higher mass to luminosity ratios, or more stuff for how much it glows. Therefore it has also been shown that galaxies with these higher ratios have way more dark matter that fill them up, compared to how big we think they are. All this is based off how much light they give off and in what way you can see the photons of light. This also proves that the majority of the dark matter is contained in the middle of the spiral galaxy, where the ratio is the highest. For those of you who dont know what a spiral galaxy is, it exists in the shape of a flat rotating disk with a bulge in the center containing the most stars followed by a halo of dimmer stars around the outside. Finally the angle and momentum of the galaxy play a role in determining how much matter to space ratio the galaxy has; verifying something must fill up the skies.

So for all of you who didn't quite grasp that all the scientists are trying to figure out is how much of the awesomely strange dark matter is in the universe by doing complicated math equations; which no socially acceptable human being should understand. What you should take from this article is that a first edition journal was recently written proving the amounts of dark matter in galaxies based on its rotation, momentum and luminosity. These dark regions are still constantly being studied and recalculated, for the universe is always in continuous motion and every so slightly changing its course.

So whenever you’re taking talking to a girl (or if you need a smooth conversation starter) just pull this little fact out. It is guaranteed to get you started on a long conversation about space and its dimensions, which hopefully ends all the way back at your door.

Kevin's Thoughts on global warming

It is hard nowadays to open a newspaper or turn on a TV without hearing about global warming. Whether you are a science geek or not, I'd all like to share with you a debate regarding global warming by presenting different views from two articles that I find absolutely fascinating in a less technical way. Hopefully, it would help you gain better understanding of one of the hotest topics in the 21 century and become more interested in science.

The global warming controversy includes two major levels. First, whether global warming is real and how bad it could be. That is, if the rising temperature is unprecedented or within normal climatic variations and if it is necessary to take actions to control it. Second, if the warming trend does exist, then is it mainly human-caused or simply a combined form of effects of natural activities? In the opinion piece “Time to Act” *, published on April 30th, 2009 in Nature Journal, the author conveys his opinions and solutions to global warming. The author sees the possible dangers and effects of global warming and argues that, in order to prevent our planet from being pushed into the “danger zone” due to the excessive emission of greenhouse-gases that drives up the global temperature, countries all over the world need to reach and commit to an international climate agreement that regulates the emission of carbon. In the mean time, they need to conduct researches and develop technologies to cool Earth; and they need to do it right now. The author acknowledges human contribution to global warming, pointing out that if the current emission rate continues, humankind will “have emitted a trillion tons of carbon into the atmosphere well before 2050”, which may destabilize the Earth system and bring catastrophic results. A recent study shows that even a substantial reduce of carbon may not significantly decrease the temperature; the author suggests, if that is the case, nations should, besides simply cutting the emission of CO2, start “actively removing CO2 from the atmosphere”. In addition, global leaders need to develop necessary technologies that can “provide an escape hatch if the climate ever does reach a tipping point.” In other words, if the cut of greenhouse gas could not effectively slow down the warming trend, countries need to at least have the techonology, to reduce the temperature. Shading the earth from the sunlight would be an example. Now matter what methods could be effective, there is no question that it is the time for human interventions to keep our planet earth from heating up.

Many skeptics, on the other hand, find the global warming theory doubtful. In the article “Does CO2 really drive global warming”, Ohio State professor Robert Essenhigh argues that human-caused emissions only account for a comparatively small amount (less than 5%) of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, and carbon dioxide is not the cause of global warming; he states that it is the rising temperature that increases the amount of carbon dioxide -- not the other way around -- and argues that global warming is just a natural oscillating cycle, in which the temperature may reach a peak and begin to decrease in 10 years. Essenhigh uses many scientific statistics and researches to support his views. He cites a report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and concludes that the 5-6 billion tons of carbon dioxide emitted each year by human are only a small proportion of the 90 billion tons of carbon in the atmosphere. Thus, he doesn’t believe that “man-made carbon dioxide can be driving the rising temperature”, which, I think, makes perfect sense. He also employs evidences from historical data and models. For example, he examines a data and finds that “global temperature has been oscillating steadily, with an average rising gradually, over the last one million years -- long before human industry began to release carbon dioxide into the atmosphere”. Moreover, after calculating the concentration of water and carbon dioxide, he finds that water（another “heat” absorbing gas), on average, is 25–30 denser than CO2. This result leads him to believe that carbon dioxide is too insignificant to result in global warming.

Although it depends on your personal values which argument you support, I find, as far as convincing and effectiveness is concerned, Essenhigh’s arguments is much more compelling. I think the best way to present a science argument is to employ sufficient facts, numbers and respectful documents. As Essenhigh says himself, "If there are flaws in these propositions, I'm listening. But if there are objections, let's have them with the numbers.” Being a science geek myself, I know that our planet did survive periods when the average temperatures were much higher that it is today and oscillating is very likely the overall pattern of temperature. In the mean time, however, I’d rather wish that global warming is human-caused, because that means we would at least have opportunities to change it for good. If it is a simply natural process, that implies that there is nothing we can do but waiting for itself to change. But what if it doesn’t change? What if it is just our destiny?

* subscription to view Nature required.

Suzie's Thoughts on Our Planet's Struggles

Ladies, why use the tanning bed when we’ve got the Sun’s rays!? They seem to be getting hotter and stronger every summer, leaving us with better tans! Although the scorching rays seem like they help us women, global warming is hurting the rest of the planet, yet some people still deny it’s a problem. What’s up with that!? Let’s take a look at what global warming is costing us, environmentally and economically.

In the first editorial article, “A Force to Fight Global Warming”*, published November 19, 2009, this decade’s hot topic (pun intended) about the warming of our planet, is explored. The authors argue that Earth’s natural ecosystems and habitats must be saved and not disappear due to climate change and global warming. They also point out that by saving these environments, it will save countries vast amounts of money in the long run. Two controversial issues are discussed: the fact that global warming exists and the idea that saving natural ecosystems will save money. The authors believe that maintaining and restoring habitats are two of the cheapest ways to deal with the climate change problem. New technology would not be needed to sustain forests, etc, since the materials are already there for us! The example was discussed that coastal wetlands in the US provide people and homes protection and without them, the US could spend an extra $23.2 billion dollars! JUST THINK about how much money that is. Thousands of pairs of Steve Madden stilettos, Gucci purses, sorority dues, and not to mention rent for houses! We all know how expensive THAT can get! Now, global warming is still a controversial topic, and there are many fervent supporters on both sides of the issue. Critics of this article claim that, in fact, it is the climate change ‘hysteria’ that is costing billions of dollars.

The second author, Bob Carter, is skeptical about whether or not global warming exists at all, and definitely does not consider the idea that it could be caused my human kind. In his article, "Global Change Hysteria Costing Billions", (2007)Carter states that there are studies that indicate Earth will experience a cooling trend over the next few decades. Some studies show that no ground-based warming has even occurred since 1998! Now girls, I don’t know about you, but to me, the summers are feeling warmer and warmer, and I definitely seem to be getting more burned than I did a few years ago! So it’s a little difficult for me to think that temperatures have not increased in over ten years, but hey, I’m no scientist! It’s still freezing here on campus. I’m constantly wearing my Northface and Uggs, so maybe it hasn’t gotten any warmer after all! Carter also points out that $60 billion dollars have been spent since 1990 towards global warming research and evidence is lacking to conclude that it is a dangerous problem. The results especially do not prove that any increase in temperatures is human-caused.

After reading both articles, the first one seems a little bit more convincing. More statistics were shown and details were drawn out. Although it was lengthier than the second, the authors gave more evidence to back up their claims, leading me to believe them more than Carter’s assertions. Like I stated in my biography, science is not my forte, but I’ve seen those heartbreaking commercials where the mother Polar Bear is separated from her cub because of the melting ice. I don’t think that preserving our natural ecosystems is at all a bad idea, and it might in fact prevent negative trends from affecting our planet. My sorority has actually organized fundraisers to collect and donate money to WWF and other wildlife rescue organizations, so I must somewhat agree with the first articles purpose. With the global population booming and continuing to grow, I don’t see how the extra pollution and construction COULDN’T negatively affect our planet. So, my main point? Preserving ecosystems won’t hurt anyone, and it’s a great outlet to provide our sisterly volunteer services!

*subscription to view Nature may be required

Autumn's Thoughts on the Never-ending Science vs. God Controversy...

In his article "How much reason do you want?"* published in Nature News, Philip Ball argues that science and religion do coexist in the world, and that simply recognizing that there is a controversy between the two, but not constantly making it an issue, can result in more successful research and discovery. He explains that religious people feel that some science theories challenge or undermine their religious beliefs, while scientists who are not religious look at religion as just another theory that cannot be proven. Therefore, he sees no need for religious beliefs to interfere with science. Ball sees the controversy as an “empty argument” and suggests that debaters just accept that there will always be a conflict and move on. He expresses how the feud comes out of human nature and its tendency to disagree on all that exists. His deepest wish is to put all the petty arguing aside and get back to the "wonders of the science bench."

Dan Cray sets up a debate between Richard Dawkins, an atheist professor at Oxford University, and Francis Collins, a Christian genome scientist in his article "God vs. Science " published in Time magazine. The conclusion of the debate, and Cray’s claim, is that science and religion will never coexist because of the pure stubbornness of scientists and theologians. They are not able to accept any other opinion besides their own. In reality, both science and religion are a set of theories. Cray introduces that both are subjective and cannot be proven, which is why the debate between science and religion will be never-ending.

Ball supports his thesis by providing examples of debates about science and religion in the last past and within recent years. With these examples, he proves that there will never be an agreement between science and religion. Ball feels that the controversy is not so much as one cannot practice both science and religion, but that the scientific ideas that challenge religious ones are being rejected. The study of science is a set of theories, and scientists work to challenge those theories every day. Ball believes that if all scientists view religion as merely another theory, then there should be no further debate between the two.

Cray defends his thesis by conducting his own debate between science and religion. He asks two main questions: “Can Darwinian evolution withstand the criticisms of Christians who believe that it contradicts the creation account in the Book of Genesis?” and, “Can religion stand up to the progress of science?” The debate concerning these two questions between Richard Dawkins and Francis Collins proves how science and religion will never coexist. Dawkins' main argument is that religion is a scientific question, and in his perspective, no “higher power” exists. Collins argument is the exact opposite, claiming that God’s existence cannot be proven by science, and that religion is mainly based on faith. The debate concludes that there are simply too many opposing opinions for science and religion to coexist.

Personally, I feel that Cray’s argument is stronger and better supported. Although he gives little of his own ideas and opinions, he presents a debate that lets the reader experience first-hand how controversial the debate between science and religion are. The debate between Dawkins and Collins offers a broader span of examples to prove Cray’s thesis. Ball does introduce the controversy and offer a solution, but he does not provide evidence of how his solution will work. Also, his suggest undermines the right of people to have their own opinions. If religious people want to be non-accepting about scientific theories that are against their beliefs, than they definitely have the right to. It is true that progress in science could suffer, but they should not feel obligated to test hypotheses that they believe to be false, according to their religion. The same concept applies to those scientists who are not religious. If they want to test a theory that makes no sense “religiously,” then they should also have the right to do so. Cray’s argument that science and religion will never coexist is most believable because of, ironically, human nature. Ball blames the controversy on human nature and he is exactly right! He is only wrong about the fact that scientist should resist human nature and compromise on such a serious issue. We should always stay true to our beliefs, and if science and religion are always going to be at war, so be it!

*Subscription may be required for Nature to view complete article.

Article published May 14, 2009.

Tyler's Thoughts on the Antartic Treaty

What if I told you there was a continent that completely prohibited any military action involvement what so ever. Well it has happened, in Antartica. The meat of the article, International Spaces Promote Peace* published November 25th 2009, is the Antartic Treaty and its monumental leap towards World cooperation on the foundation of science and environmental exploration. In the first paragraph of the article the author revels very clearly what side of the argument he is on and he sticks to his opinion throughout the entire piece; actually never addressing the counter argument. He’s being loyal to his team, as my coach would say. His writing on this section of Nature is actually celebratory, remembering the anniversary of the signing (mine was February 13th 2008 in case you were wondering).He then goes on to praise the political concurrence and explain a little of the history behind the agreement for those who didn’t know what it was.

He presents the Cold War Era, which is a really cool time if you like missiles and stuff, as the frightful occasion before the treaty was signed. He reminds his audience that nuclear tensions were high and important decisions needed to be made; in other terms it was either drive hard left or shot the three and hope for the best. He also mentions the failed agreement between the US and theSoviet Union, or the “open skies” proposal that would allow cooperation between the nations. Consequently the treaty was introduced and all was better in the world; or so the article goes. He talks about how the Treaty, signed in1959, banned any military action on the continent of Antarctica, as well as any mining and should be used for environmental reasons only. It demonstrates to the whole world how “common interests could be used to overcome distrust.” By the way if you’re having trouble with the ladies pull that line about overcoming distrust; girls eat that shit up! Anyway, he ends the article on a strong personal note reinforcing the idea that the Antarctic Treaty has used science as a tool of diplomacy; one of the first documents like itself in the history of the World, like Michael Jordan was to the NBA. His last sentence reads “reflecting on the lasting legacy and lessons of the Antarctic Treaty during its first fifty years, 1 December deserves to be celebrated as a day of peace for all mankind,” so clearly the dudes into it.

Due to the magnitude of the previous article it is quite hard to find a dissenting argument, however I being Tyler Johnson have managed to pull it off. The article, Japanese Whaling Supply Ship Found, tells its audience that the Japanese have recently been in violation of the treaty due to whaling off the coast of Antarctica as well as refueling ships at sea in restricted areas, and they are sorta angry about it. Now I know breaking the law is kinda cool but come on man you don’t f with the environment. The author states that the ship, The Oriental Bluebird, is currently docked at Shimonoseki and is set to depart next week on a "so-called" scientific whale hunt back into the same oceans. Reports have also said that the Japanese government will invest 8 million dollars to sending a Coast Guard fleet to protect these whaling ships, did you know Julius Peppers makes double that at 16 million per year. Anyway these actions are in direct violation of the treaty, as those military units are prohibited within the area; come on even I got that one. The author makes it clear that despite signing the treaty the Asian government believes that these whalers are vital to their economy and are doing everything “legal” in their power to continue their crooked business and choose to overlook the inspirational treaty. It has not yet been said what will be done to stop this endangerment of the polar environment but the US government is making a game plan.

*Subscribtion to view Nature may be required