"God or Gorilla"

I was sick last week and missed the class where we were assigned to write a blog about the reading "God or Gorilla." Although this entry is late, I still wanted to submit some of my thoughts about this essay.

The article “God of Gorilla” presents the topic of creationism versus evolution. This debate has been a topic of many media stories recently. I think that most Americans are aware of the two sides (creationism and evolution) and the arguments presented by supporters of either side. I think that most readers of this article probably have some knowledge of the subject. I feel that the author tries to report “God versus Gorilla” by telling a story, so that it is more than just reiterating facts that many people are probably already aware of. The author uses his unique firsthand experiences to tell this story. He relies on his characters to tell the story. I think that this article is a good example of writing about a common subject in a slightly different way; I think it is a good example of developing characters.
“God or Gorilla” tells the opinions of the two sides through what the different characters think. However, the portrayal of the characters does more than present the different sides of the argument; it also conveys the author’s opinion of the subject matter. The author supports his opinion in support of evolution through the depiction of the characters. The characters whom he selects supporting creationism are portrayed negatively. His negative depiction of these characters reflects negatively on the supportive opinions of creationism that they hold. There is the disorganized or absent legal defense. There is the Oxy-Contin addict. There is the blindly faithful and stupid woman who doesn’t even care to understand what she is supporting. The author describes these characters as foolish and their ideas, by association, as also foolish.
I think that the author’s use of characters creates an interesting article. He is talking about a subject that I already know about, but I still found this article interesting because he told his story in a different way. For me, this is more of an opinion piece than an informative piece, with his opinion clearly stated in the very beginning. I like the way the author presented his argument because it told a story about people, rather than just presenting the arguments and facts.

Integrating Formal Verification and Conformance Testing for Reactive Systems

Integrating Formal Verification and Conformance Testing for Reactive Systems: Nice boring title, huh? Well, if it's one thing that I don't like, it is boring the hell out of people. That is why I have been trying to think of the least obvious publications to write my translation in. The first thoughts that came to my mind were either a fitness magazine like Men's Health or a reputable magazine like Playboy. Unfortunately, I soon realized that I couldn't write well enough to pull that one off. So I needed a fitness/naked women hybrid that allowed me a little more leeway in the technologial/software engineering field. Then I was hit with the spirit of inspiration and plagarism:

Esquire!

It's the perfect audience for my style of writing: People who like to keep themselves well informed about the world around them, but simple enough to be easily distracted by half-naked women. It's like shooting fish in a barrel! Although I may not be able to pull this one off. In that case, I'll probably repost in this blog saying that I've switched to an IEEE publication. But for now I want to test myself and see if I can do this. I have all weekend to rework the translation if I can't do it.

My article may be styled after something like this, the difference being that this article is about bioengineering instead of computers/software: http://www.esquire.com/features/ESQ1204-DEC_B&B_SCIENCE_rev_2_1?click=main_sr


What I would like people to get out of this article is that there is more to software then sitting in front of a computer frantically typing out code. I also want to prove that real coding isn't random button mashing and looking at pretty visuals on a screen like the movie Swordfish (although there was a naked Halle Berry, which brings me full circle to my Esquire audience). I want to show that it takes a lot of planning and mental work to figure out if a software system is secure and complete. I want to also explain that just because a software system does what it is supposed to do does not mean it is a good system. Testing a software system is a very extensive series of events and should not be taken lately or a critical error may occur that could have been prevented.

Search Engine Encryption for Wired

I'm choosing to write for Wired News, which is a popular science/technology magazine, covering a lot of bases. Wired has a fairly diverse range of readers - it contains articles written in a conversational, sometimes humorous tone about subjects that are often technical and always geeky. The typical Wired reader is young and male, made up largely of geeky college students who want to know more about technology, games, and other things in a similar culture. However, Wired's audience also encompasses professors, CEOs, independent web designers, and a whole range of others. Essentially, Wired is geared toward anyone who wants to know more about technology but wants their tech in a digestible, conversational format.

An example of Wired's reporting is here: http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/01/anonymous-hac-1.html. It is evident through the use of the phrase "the wrong guy" that the magazine isn't as academic as some of its competition, but still is plenty technical to satiate the average geek's appetite for technology.

I'm writing a translation on an article about encryption algorithms used in search engines, which is exactly the kind of thing a Wired reader might be interested in. It is a topic that is very technical, almost too much so (which is ideal for most Wired readers), but is also something which any technology fan interacts with on a daily if not hourly basis. This makes it an easy subject to relate to, and so Wired seems like the ideal place for such an article.

I'm expecting my audience to get a general overview of the topic from my article, without having to delve too deeply into the semantics of it. This means that the reader will not completely understand the topic, but will receive just the smattering of information that a Wired reader lives for - enough to be interesting, not enough to get boring.

Translation of "The Obstacle Course: A Tool for the Assessment of Functional Balance and Mobility In the Elderly"

1. I will be writing for the magazine Life Extension http://www.lef.org/ . Its main audience is an elder population which can relate more to the need of balance and mobility rehabilitation. I will try to mimic my translation to read similarly as this article: http://www.lef.org/featured-articles/consumer_alert_042707.htm . I think this article does a good job of breaking down the major points into subsections.

2. My target audience would be elderly people who have difficulty walking or navigating themselves or anyone who is in contact with such a person. This type of information would be 'interesting' to anyone who is willing to add more to their common knowledge. However, those who will find it useful and can actual apply what they learn are the above middle age people.

3. My article will hopefully showcase a relatively new method and procedure for rehabilitation in the elderly community. Mobility and balance training are two things which are very crucial for the independence and safety of the elderly. Currently generic methods for rehabilitation, testing, and progress tracking are very limited and mundane; this new approach is very robust and actually produces meaningful rehabilitation.

Translation Article: Human-Oriented Interaction With an Anthropomorphic Robot

Audience: The readers of the New York Times' Science and Technology section. These readers have an interest in the research going on, and have a viewpoint of the technology from popular culture, but may not understand the amount of work that still needs to be done because of the individuals giving an estimate of 5-10 years since the birth of AI and the yearly tech demos different researchers do before the mainstream media.

I'd like to show the technology that goes into these systems, and how studying people's interactions with humanoid robots also feeds back into other systems humans use on a regular basis.


Examples:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/18/science/18tier.html
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B04E0D9123FF935A35750C0A9659C8B63

Translation Article : "Compaction of a granular material under cyclic shear"

1. NY Times Home and Garden section. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/24/garden/24garden.html?ref=garden
I want to first give the reader something they can relate to, something they know quite a bit about, then relate it to the science behind what I am trying to teach them, and then finish by going back to what they know, and how they can apply what they read.

2. I think my audience would be anyone who cooks every once in a while, or anyone curious about cooking methods. They would begin the article with at least basic knowledge of cooking and little else would be necessary to get the point of the article.

3. The ultimate goal of my article is to show the reader how the work that is being done in the field of soft condensed matter has some relevance to their lives and can be related to something that they readily know. I would want them to walk away from the article with the idea that there are different methods that can be used while cooking, and that even though they may be in no way connected to science, it doesn't mean science is not connected to them. The biggest wish of mine would be for the readers to try the method the next time they cooked and to see for themselves whether or not they get similar results and the researchers.

Gay Rights

A link to a good example:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/19/magazine/19fathering.html?scp=9&sq=gay&st=nyt

Audience:
I found a well-done topic from New York Times about gay donor similar to my article. My intentions are to educate people to give some respect for kindness gay people who adopt children. So many children out there need loving homes to go to instead of adoption houses and foster care, or even living on the streets by themselves. Not many people are aware about policy adoption and gay rights.

The part of peer reviewed article I am going to translate, “Understanding Policy Adoption and Gay Rights: The role of the media and other factors” from The Public Sector Innovation Journal. This study considers on the adoption or innovation of state-level gay rights laws. Using an event history analysis of data, twenty-one years of gay rights law innovation, and media attention. Generally, I hope that I will enjoy my article and increase the audience’s reaction will only be interested. When you have a chance to learn about policy adoption and gay rights the ideas are reality.

Java Obfuscation Methods

Publication: Software Magazine
http://www.softwaremag.com/L.cfm?Doc=1067-7/2007

My intended audience is well versed in the software fields and are probably programmers themselves. This article gives them ways to protect their own code from thieves. I want my audience to do their best to protect their work, and I hope they can use this to help the integrity of the industry. After all, if decompilers don't work, they won't be used.

Archimedes Palimpsest Article for WIRED

My article is entitled "Digital Transcription of the Archimedes Palimpsest" by Derek Walvoord and Roger Easton Jr. As we discussed in class, the Archimedes Palimpsest is an ancient text originally written by Archimedes and overwritten with a prayerbook in the middle ages. Since then, it has been further degraded and overwritten, and it has a fascinating history. If you want to find out more, visit:

http://www.archimedespalimpsest.org/

Over the past decade, scientists have been trying to uncover the original writing of Archimedes using imaging techniques. Greek scholars can then analyze the images. One of the scientists working on the project is Roger Easton Jr., a professor in the Imaging Science department here at RIT. His grad student, Derek Walvoord, developed a character recognition system to assist the scholars in transcribing the text for his Ph.D. thesis (he defends on Feb. 22).

Because there is already a lot published about the imaging of the Archimedes Palimpsest, I don't plan to go into too much detail about this topic. Instead, I am going to focus on the development of the character recognition system and how the scholars interact with it. Some of the themes in my article will be:

-Humans and computers working together to solve hard problems. Humans only use their own contextual knowledge to solve problems, but a computer can store data about how others tried to solve the same problem. It can also use algorithms to try to solve the problem automatically. The character recognition system that Derek built uses a Bayesian Network that incorporates all three of these types of knowledge. It then combines them and presents them in a simple way that is useful for the scholars.

-The "digital divide" between different professional fields (classics scholars vs. imaging scientists). Classics scholars don't usually do much work on the computer, and in general, they are more comfortable using a print and a magnifying glass than zooming in on an image on a computer screen.

-Reconciling the above two themes: How do you create an interface between computers and humans who are relatively inexperienced with computers so that they can work together efficiently?

For this assignment, I interviewed Derek about his experiences working with the scholars and with building the interface.

I am going to write for WIRED Magazine, which I would describe as a news magazine for geeks. WIRED explores science, technology, gadgets, electronic gaming, software, geek culture, and politics (usually in a humorous way, with an obvious liberal slant). The average reader is a student, professor, or young professional in a technical field. Although the magazine is not explicitly directed at either gender, the gender distribution among readers is probably similar to that of RIT, with more male readers than female readers. They have features like an entire section devoted to the technology of cars, which I'm guessing more men than women read. The articles are fairly informal. Reading them is like having a conversation, and the authors assume that their readers are "conversational" in the topics discussed--they aren't scared of a little technical jargon, even if they only have a general idea of what it means. Here is an example article, a response to the recent news that the Craig Venter Institute created an artificial genome:

http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/commentary/dissection/2008/01/dissection_0125

Here is a quote from the article: "I get the impression that I am supposed to be tingling, my heart racing with exaltation or terror or ... something. And yet I feel like I have a lesion in my amygdala, unable to respond to the threat of an electric shock."

They article doesn't discuss amygdalas or electric shocks--the author just uses this analogy to describe his lack of excitement about the announcement. Clearly, this type of analogy works for the WIRED audience but wouldn't work for readers of other publications.

Audience/Purpose of my Translation Paper

Publication: Time Magazine
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1705901,00.html
I chose the article above as a model and Time as a magazine to possibly publish my article because I am writing about a subject that I hope Time readers might find interesting. I am assuming that my readers know nothing about quorum sensing, but I assuming that they have an interest in health, as well as an interest in learning new things about science. I am trying to write in a manner that is not overly detailed as far as the science goes. I am trying to write an article that would be of interest to a wide range of average American adults (as the readers of Time Magazine would be).
With my article, I am trying to relate this new topic of science with the possibility that is presented to develop new cures to bacterial infection. I am assuming that my readers are aware of and hopefully concerned about the increasing number of antibiotic resistant strains of bacteria. I am hoping to write an article that is interesting in teaching readers about science that is unfamiliar to them, and i hoping to raise interest and allow readers to relate this science to their lives by approaching my article through a health perspective.

Preconception Care for Women paper

Publicaton:
New York Time

Example:
http://www.nytimes.com/ref/health/healthguide/esn-infertilitywomen-ess.html

Audience:
New York Time tends to include well-informed relate to pregnancy. The audience I am attempting to trigger is of any woman who is between the age that they can concieve children (16 to 40 years old). My purpose is to promote awareness and education to women who are planning pregnancy to apply preconception care (pcc).

Reaction:
An article I'm rewriting is called "What Obstetrician-Gynecologists Think of Preconception Care. My intentions are only to educate women about pcc. Not many women are aware about pcc and it's a public health concern. I'm trying to maintain this paper to be a quite interesting with common issues.

Translation

Publication:
Esquire Magazine

Example:
http://www.esquire.com/features/chuck-klostermans-america/klosterman0108?click=main_sr

The peer reviewed article I am going to translate is called "Vaccination Against Weight Gain" and was published on the website for the proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (pnas.org). The article outlines new research on a vaccine that has reduced weight gain in lab rats.

The audience I am writing for is educated and aware of the widespread obesity in America and the world. They may not be scientifically savvy but they probably have a basic understanding of scientific principles and a general concern for the health of others, if not themselves. They are likely reading the article for pleasure so I will try to make the topic as entertaining and relevant as possible. I will focus on the state of will power and how the weight gain vaccine is just another step toward total scientific and technological dependence. The vaccine doesn't address the root of the problem, it seeks to forgive the patient. In extreme cases this may be a lifesaving treatment, but I fear that for many it will be just another easy way out in our shortcut society.

Translation Paper

Publication: New York Times

Example:

THE YEAR IN IDEAS: A TO Z.; Attaching Good Genes to Bad Viruses

I am rewriting about an article, Is Gene Therapy a Good Therapeutic Approach for HIV-Positive Patients?, published in BioMed Central of Genetic Vaccines and Therapy. It discusses how gene therapy approaches against HIV-1 infection and the application of these treatment options in current and ongoing clinical trials.

My purpose of rewriting this article is to educate them some about gene therapy and its effectives toward HIV infection. Because not many of us know about the gene therapy itself and how that can change scientific facts. And to propose some facts that have been found from the long-term research and clinical trials, which arise advances and options available in gene therapy for HIV-1 infection. I mostly am targeting at an audience, who have relatives or know someone who is HIV infected. I also want them to be more open-minded about other options that possibly save lives. I would like to see their reactions as being shocked, surprised and concerned. I also want to see how much they are willing to take steps that may change everything forever by thinking what matters the most. It may be challenging to have them ask themselves in regarding of gene therapy and HIV infection.

Air traffic control paper

Publication:

Time Magazine

Example:

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1705585,00.html

Audience:

People who read time span a large and diverse demographic. They tend to truly represent the ‘general public’ in that they hold a wide range of viewpoints. They tend to use Time as a source of news that goes beyond your basic newspaper and provides commentary and a wider ranging group of facts with more in-depth articles. The classic news magazine (basically having defined the genre), Time often covers scientific advances presenting them in a level appropriate for a general topic magazine, just enough detail to understand the importance. It is also one of the most widely distributed magazines in the US with over 4million copies distributed weekly. The politics of Time are very centrist. The y believe in science as a way of moving our society forward but may not be a technical person by education or trade. They are concerned about my topic (air traffic control) because they fly to visit relatives or go on vacation and here the regular horror stories that come out of air travel today.

Reaction:

I am writing about an article published in the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics Journal of Controls and Guidance. It discusses a possible new model for handling air traffic control in an ever-clogging system. I want them to understand what really causes delays across the country due to a small backup in a region (or sometimes even a single airport). I would like their reaction to be of curiosity and surprise that our skies still use a system as blind and antiquated as is in use today. But, I want them to see hope in a new approach, and see that progress is being made. I would also like them to appreciate an interesting use of math and increased computing power that allows for uses of computers and computer optimization that may not have been possible in the past.

Technical Article Rewrite

Publication: Time
Ex: http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1707629,00.html

Audience: Time readers tend to be moderately well informed, though their grasp of sciences is usually lacking. Still, for the most Time reports new scientific ideas and advancements in a positive way, so readers are usually receptive to them.

The piece I’m rewriting is a Journal of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology article called “Direct Evidence for Nitric Oxide Production by a Nitric-oxide Synthase-Like Protein from Bacillus subtilis,” and yes it’s as dry as it sounds. Since it’s basically a lab report, I’ll try to increase the reader’s interest by applying the work to antibiotic resistances and the recent MRSA issue. Overall, I’m hoping the audience’s reaction will simply be to express interest. Once you get past some of the more grating biochemistry the ideas they’re talking about are actually pretty cool.

to recap

Before Wednesday's class, please post here (briefly and informally):

-the publication you are writing your "translation" paper for, plus a link to a good example of the kind of thing you're trying to do

-an analysis of your audience: what do they know, believe and value about your topic?

-a note about what you are trying to do with your article; what kind of reaction do you want your audience to have upon having read it?

ALSO, use Joseph Williams' instructions on page 173, exercise 9.1, to write three sentences for your draft.

Workshop is Wednesday.

God or Gorilla

Matthew Chapman appears to be toying with his audience in his article “God or Gorilla” from Harper’s. The article covers a court case in Pennsylvania that is rehashing the old evolution debate. He begins the article with a rather arrogant tone, and emphasizes this by ending the first paragraph with a blunt fact. He also explains his bias on the subject, being a direct descendent of Charles Darwin. Chapman does an excellent job of depicting the court case and breaking down the argument for his readers. It appears for a while that he believes as most other educated people, and is merely a proponent of evolution.

Throughout the article Chapman portrays the pro-evolutionists as educated, logical, professionals, while the intelligent designers are not treated so well. He hints at his real opinion during his conversation with the Reverend Groves. When the Reverend asks if he is an atheist, Chapman says he doesn’t have enough faith to say there is no God. I believe it is this sense of agnosticism that he is trying to bring to the evolution debate. Because most people beliefs about where they came from are so closely tied to who they are, they are not willing the change these beliefs no matter how much evidence they are confronted with. Chapman sums up the article very nicely by providing a quote from some sort of mechanic. It contrasts very nicely against all the experts and opinions by pointing out the futility of the whole debate.

Biases and Scariness in "God or Gorilla"

The Harper’s article "God or Gorilla" by Matthew Chapman was an interesting article that focused on the two sides of a specific trial regarding the evolution versus intelligent design debate. The article was indeed biased in favor of the sides of the evolutionists, but I do not think that it hindered the article the way that bias tends to hinder articles. Right away, the reader learns that Chapman is a descendant of Charles Darwin, so the reader knows that the author is going to take the side of the evolutionists. Furthermore, even though the language and tone of the article make it seem like Chapman is bashing the intelligent design people, he provides enough evidence to justify his biased position. Chapman also makes it clear that he holds no disregard for the people themselves if they are good honest people that just happen to side with the intelligent design theory.

The scariest part of this article to me was the lengths that some people would go to get intelligent design taught in the school. As Chapman said, “an auto repairman appointed an OxyContin-addicted biblical literalists without a shred of knowledge to decide which books the kids should learn from, and a woman who had no curiosity about anything, even her own most deeply held beliefs, seconded the whole idea.” These people had no scientific reason to want intelligent design taught. They couldn’t even answer the questions that they themselves brought up, such as “what were the gaps left in evolutionary theory?” It ‘s a very scary thought to me that people who do not believe in small details like facts, research, and evidence are the ones in charge with teaching children.

Individual Salvation

Reading this article, I began to realize how many more interesting stories must be out there, waiting to be told, and how the work of scientific discovery proliferate eternally, in ways we are only now starting to imagine.

Matthew Chapman managed to attend Pennsylvania’s recent Dover Panda Trail which resulted in a ruling that deeply tossed intelligent design from biology classrooms. That explained, it is not actually the evolution “debate” I want to get into here. To a certain extent, there’s a small piece of Chapman’s article which I want to pull out of context.

Somewhere in the middle of the article give details filming for an interview with a local preacher, being videotaped while doing so and having part of that video where Chapman explains being an atheist played the priest’s church-going public.

“When I upbraided Groves about this –he had not told me I was to be used in this way -he shrugged off my objections and told me it had been “educational.” He and his flock concluded that I had a different understanding of Christianity. Coming from Europe, mine was “more socialistic,” while his was more concerned with “individual salvation.” (p.170)

Emphasis added there because it sent me off on something of a mental departure from the subject after I read it. Other than to say that I have been pondering the piece that any system which proves to focus on individual salvation is a system ripe for abuse by those seeking power over people’s lives. It is not to say that everyone who is concerned with their individual salvation also entirely disregards the social contract.

I think that if the main concern is with getting an official stamp of approval on one’s soul in order to pass through the mythical gates one day, understanding anything about the way our world in the here and now actually functions, siding in other words, with the importance of scientific principles and the method that comes with them.

God or Gorilla

By reading God or Gorilla I was able to further investigate my thoughts to look at a broader aspect of evolution and religion. As I have noticed, Reverend Groves tries to maintain the audience in undertstanding and thinking that evolution is false and ridiculous. It became very clear that in our world today we continuously have debates and concerns with regards to evolution (science) and religion. As I have understood, Reverand Groves was predominantly raised by the church, yet he as well learned the study of science. This captures my thought of thinking that Reverent Groves is entirely against evolution and yet he still had the oppurtunity to really fight against the study of science.

Having this read, I can understand Jooliyah's explanation of what seemed to be interesting in its way. As she discussed about the blood filled dolls, the book entirely did a very detailed graphical picture that allows the readers to have a good vision of the context being explained. However, the aspect of using dead babies to conclude his understanding of evolution is rather astonishing and schocking.

From what I am grasping from this reading, Groves makes clearly makes his point about darwin and from that we have elevated to deeper and broader studies of science. It is evident the scientific breakthroughs have brought great findings, but if I look at my friends for example, many of them are not really religious and for that we are continuously losing our ways to practice our religion and move forward in the right direction. I am a scientist myself and I understand how important and significant it can be on our lives yet I still maintain my bounderies and follow my religion as well. I entirely believe that we need scientists to favor both sides of the battle with reasonings for the respect of religion, and both should be taken accounted for, not the selection of one desire, Science or Religon.

Interesting character + background + conversation = engaging writing

I agree with pixelfishfood that the most engaging part of Michael Chapman's article was his conversation with the hard partyin 48 year old. There were many characters in the story but this street philosopher with a "Rod Stewart" haircut was by far the most interesting. Chapman should have used this foolproof formula with other colorful characters in the article. Instead he used redundant descriptors to validate his self-acknowledged bias (Buckingham's name doesn't appear without the words "oxycontin addicted" before it). Perhaps some background or conversation with Mr. Buckingham would have been more engaging and maybe even supportive of his point. Instead, all we know about Mr. Buckingham is that he is a lying drug addicted fundamentalist. I agree with Chapman's position, but his message is dulled by his bias and insult laced writing. Chapman is so preoccupied with vilifying the creationists that he misses an opportunity to better understand his own views. If he could have focused more on understanding the position of the defense, the article would seem less like propaganda and more like an unbiased pro-evolution piece. I agree with Mr. Chapman's support of evolution but he lost me and I suspect anyone else who is not fiercely pro-evolution or related to Darwin with his clearly biased illustration of the trial.
Chapman's sharply pointed opinions would have likely benefited from a fair depiction the cast of characters on both sides of the argument, but he missed this opportunity. Chapman's article would have also been more engaging had he followed the formula he used at the end of the article. The class blog consensus seems to be that his conversation with the auto mechanic was the most engaging part, and I agree.

The Big Purple Elephant

Mathew Chapman's "God or Gorilla" took a very opinionated approach to the topic of evolution. Though Chapman seems to be very comfortable with having a biased point of view, he does do a good job of representing both sides of the topic. Unfortunately, the Christian side of the case seems to have been outlandish enough not to provide him with much material, but it seems that an attempt was made. What I really enjoyed about the article was not the facts involved, though, or even the stance on the topic that Chapman takes, but the moral underpinnings of the debate in general.
The argument over evolution has been going on for a long time, though recently it has seen a resurgence. While the vast majority of US citizens believe in evolution, the few who oppose the theory are vehement enough that they manage to get heard often, if not taken seriously. Unfortunately for them, the legal system of the United States requires hard as the basis for making decisions, which is much more the science side's expertise. Even so, theory's opposition has strengths as well. For example, it is easy to find places in Darwin's theory where not everything is explained. Scientists hate this fact, and spend hundreds of hours attempting to explain the holes in the theory. On the religion side, however, it is common for those at the forefront of knowledge on the subject to simply shrug, give an excuse as to why they don't know. This is a common practice of religion and is one of the fundamental reasons that religion exists, which is that if something can't be explained, religion will be confused for you.
Chapman spends a bit of time talking about this phenomenon. For example, while interviewing Rev. Groves, Chapman puts a bit of emphasis on the fact that though science admits that it doesn't know things, religion usually also can't explain the chinks in its armor. This is what I find to be most interesting about the debate, and about the article as well. Neither side of the debate is really fundamentally right, as both have their flaws, but while the science side of the argument is focused on itself, the religion side is focused on bringing down the science side. All of this results in a very messy debate, and one never can tell what outlandish claim will happen next.

Can too much evolution cloud creation?

I find that the documentary of Reverend Groves to be the most engaging aspect of our readings of God or Gorilla mainly because this individual unlike many has experienced his educated life on both sides of the battle. This preacher puts on a show by showing his audience how ignorant Evolution is with his DVD "More reasons Evolution is stupid" among other very illustrated presentations. He was raised by the church and on the contrast learned Science as well. Reverend Groves perspective is supporting creation while having firm knowledge in evolution. I appreciate this because after all how many Christian Scientists do we have roaming this earth today? We are becoming an endangered species.

By technically using views of science Groves proves his points out many presentations to support his viewpoints. My favorite, smashing blood filled dolls and displaying very detailed pictures of dead babies to support his anti-view of evolution. Groves believed that Darwin marks a point in history that is a pioneer to what america is today. America is losing its culture, we are losing our views, and beliefs in religion, creation and worse our faith in god. Now that we don't believe in miracles we are slowly forced be brain washed in college with beliefs of evolution and man made facts. We need to have a clear understanding of both sides. Without doing so science becomes boring and lifeless. This insight makes me stop and think putting forth genuine effort in our knowledge for science is critical but we should never forget that we were created and that we are all gods children.

Matthew Chapman

I thought that Matthew Chapman was the most engaging part of the article. I found his involvement in the trial refreshing. He provided his objective view of the components of the trial, analyzing the individuals based on demeanor, and in some cases interviews. He provided an interesting connection to the trial that neither plaintiffs nor defendants could mimic. His relation to Darwin makes his view on the topic distinct from any other, and it was nice to see that he could view the trial as dissociated as he seemed. He was able to observe the trial without his genetic tie to Darwin interfering with his observations on the constituents. He seemed to be a pleasant, polite person that was more interested in writing about the trial than defending his name. Chapman tried to get the views of as many people as he could on the subject, and in the process, finding some very interesting people. I would find it hard to believe that his view on the issue wasn’t shaped by each of the interviews he performed. Most notably would be the talk he had with Scott Mehring. Fortunately, Chapman doesn’t openly state his opinion on the matter, but rather expresses it through his views of the interviewees, and his observations of the trial. He seems to have a view most like that of Mehring, and furthest from advocates of intellectual design. I find it unfortunate that Chapman had to see this side of Americans, and really disappointed in my fellows for letting him down.

Expressing my opinion

I am wondering if we, Americans, still avoid talking about the topic between god and gorilla. Do we actually feel comfortable to talk about evolution and the god itself? Does that matter what we believe in? Is it possible to believe in both evolution and creationism at same time?

I am a student majoring in biotechnology, but I grow up to practice Christianity as my religion. But I have hard time to believe which exists, because both of these sides have strong hard evidence. That amazes me that 99 percent of scientists believe in the theory of evolution. Sometimes things happen without any explanation given. And we live with mystery that may shift our beliefs from one to another.

Some of us practice our religions, should we be encouraged to know something about evolution? We often don’t feel comfortable to talk about this topic, because this lead to another thing that rises up another discussion of other things. Consequently, whatsoever what we believe, our humanity always question us.

According to the article, complication couldn’t be explained. For example, who created everything? Where did the God come from? Who created him? And who created the God who created God? Mystery and complication are endless loop. Truths may not reveal or are hidden somewhere here in the Earth.

"If you think about it too much, you can go insane"

While so far I've found the readings from "Best Science Writing" to be quite good, I have to admit I read through most of "God or Gorilla" feeling annoyed. Between high school and today I have read dozens of articles ultimately saying the same thing. Yes, evolution is more than a theory and yes, the religious argument against it is at best misinterpretation and at worst absurd, but how many times is this worth saying? The fact has been clear for decades that the evolution argument is futile simply because the two sides operate on two fully incompatible wavelengths: evolution supporters rely on observations, opponents rely on faith. From either side, the other's way of thinking is absurd, and so is their argument.
Throughout the article Mathew Chapman plodded along the common path, providing a blow-by-blow of the ideas behind evolution overwhelming those of creationism, often resorting to showing off hypocrisies such as creationists lying under oath or blindly ignoring facts. Put simply, the argument his paper seemed to make was a redundant one: evolution is right, creationism is wrong, and people who say otherwise are uninformed.
Then along came 48 year old party-goer Scott Mehring from Mechanicsville PA, 27 pages in. A man having "...something to do with performance cars," Mehring is ill-informed to make any statement on the topic, and for this reason he is Chapman's most convincing argument. A pushing-50 car salesman can manufacture an entire theory combining evolution and creationism using nothing more than scientific tidbits and pot-smoke paradoxes, "Who created the God who created God?"
At this point I realized Chapman's whole cookie-cutter evolution/creationism article was a lure leading up to a slap in the face. Chapman's opinion of the argument is that it is irrelevant, and at this point his entire article almost transforms. All of his caricatures of trial members and highlighted absurdities of "creationist" logic are just examples of "intelligent design bashing," an activity born of a 50 year old argument between a biologist and a bible-thumper that has become almost a religion of its own. Little hints to this show up during the bulk of the article, as with Chapman's claim that "faith even in nothing [is] too much faith," and when he responds to the Judge's ruling with "Amen." Perhaps even more convincing is the fact that the article has been identified as some of the "best science writing of 2007." All things considered, its pretty hard to convince anyone remotely well-read that another evolution/creationism piece is even worth reading (hence my initial annoyance). But it's Chapman's concluding quote, that by "[thinking] about it too much, you can go insane," that drives home this point. For all of his rantings, a car salesman at least understood what may in fact be the most important part of the entire debate: its absurdity.

Best Part was the Ending

I found the ending to be the most engaging part of this article. After reading 15 pages about a legal discussion concerning textbooks and curricula, the ending was a great juxtaposition. To me, it made a fantastic case for actually caring what we choose to teach in our schools. It also said to me that currently, as a society, we are failing our children.

Clearly, Scott Mehring was a man who was deeply fascinated by theories of God and the universe. Of the people that Chapman attempted to interview, he was the only one who cared. At some point, Mehring had learned about string theory, the Big Bang, spontaneous generation, particles like protons and neutrons, and programming. He assimilated all this information and constructed his own creative theory. Admittedly, his theory was slightly crazy (maybe the locals really were affected by Three Mile Island?). But maybe if Mehring’s life had gone differently, he would have channeled his passion into studying science instead of partying.

I firmly believe that if you want an educated public, you have to live in a society where science education is important. I think it’s wonderful that people are passionate about religion, but terrible that they are not equally passionate about science. It’s sad that people know so little about science that they mistakenly believe that it is in conflict with religion. It’s important to remember that legal battles about textbooks don’t stop in the classroom. They have lasting implications for the next generation.

A logical portrayal of illogical people

I rather enjoyed our latest reading. I found it amusing, however depressing a viewpoint of the American population it presented. I read with great enjoyment the buffoonery of a group of people who fancied themselves smarter than the world’s scientific community. I found myself completely engaged by his description of a clueless group of people. And I left the article with a profound sadness that these people are allowed to drive or vote, much less make decisions regarding education in this country.

As a resident of Virginia, where I went to high school, I have significant experience with the undue influence of blind faith (and it is TRULY blind as this article portrays). The type of person that believes in these farcical ideas and claims them to be science does a disservice to not only science as a whole, but to their own point of view. I found myself very comfortable and placated by the author’s tone and style throughout. His dismissive depiction of these people as lying , deceitful, incompetent, and often times drug addicted was the exact thing I found most engaging. A similar debate was ongoing during my senior year of high school, and perhaps this is part of why this article was so engaging. The community in which I live was clearly divided and many people sharing my view point went significantly out of their way to address this ‘science’ on its merits. Mr. Chapman however takes on a viewpoint much more in line with my own. It is a complete waste of time to argue with someone who has such a root misunderstanding of the premise of scientific fact and is willing to distort it (or be told to distort it) due to it not matching their own blind faith. I read his portrayal with great interest and greatly enjoyed the lampooning of people who’s blind faith extends not only to the mythical Christian god in which they believe, but even further, onto anyone who tells them they represent their point of view.

As for the local cancer our community suffered from if anyone is interested, they call themselves Patrick Henry College (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Henry_College).

“The Mission of Patrick Henry College is to prepare Christian men and women who will lead our nation and shape our culture with timeless biblical values and fidelity to the spirit of the American founding. Educating students according to a classical liberal arts curriculum, and training them with apprenticeship methodology, the College provides academically excellent baccalaureate level higher education with a biblical world view.”

God or Gorilla

I've never been particularly vocal on this topic, though I am a firm believer in the theory of evolution, as I know it tends to be a rather divisive area of discussion (that, and I don't have many friends who believe in creationism). I do enjoy reading debates, however, since I'm terrible at debating adn it makes me feel smart by hearing others present evidence that supports my viewpoint. I remembered hearing about this trial a few years ago, but I never looked too far into it, which is a shame because as debates go, this was quite an interesting one.

I think the most engaging part of this article was the discussion about Maldonado's life. The way he supplemented the income lost from teaching his son by writing freelance articles was quite inspiring. This reality made his story seem all the more believable, since he was freelancing to support his family, not just for extra money. He believed Darwin not because evolution was "science", but because Darwin gathered evidence for 20 years before presenting the idea. He even wrote in the author's copy of his book a line decrying creationism for that very reason: the lack of evidence. It's always comforting to know that there are people of faith out there that do not follow their holy books to the letter.

Power Generation

Power generation is a crucial issue that has ramifications that affect society on many different levels. Every energy source has its proponents and its detractors, all whom have their own agendas. Power production impacts all fields of human endeavor, ranging from the political to the scientific.
The political dimension to power production come from the fact that large amounts of energy are required to keep modern societies running smoothly, so access to energy sources and even the construction of power generation facilities are often topics in diplomatic discussion. For example, hydroelectric dams built on rivers that flow through multiple countries often spark conflict over water usage rights. Another example is oil, which is used by many different countries as a political tool.
Since energy is needed in large quantities, economics is heavily affected by power production. For example, the companies that transport, refine, and sell oil are some of the most profitable in the world. Changes in the price of oil affects the economy significantly.
Social issues also come into play, with different groups objecting to different forms of energy production for many different reasons. There are a large number of people who object to nuclear power, due to fears about radiation, and cite the two well-known accidents at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl as indicative of the safety of these facilities. Objects against oil and coal are raised by groups concerned about pollution, the negative impacts on health, and political issues. Other groups object to wind power because of concern for the safety of local wildlife. Almost all forms of power generation face opposition from local groups who don't want these facilities having a negative impact on the aesthetics of their towns.
Power production also affects scientific and industrial issues, because these two fields need large amounts of energy to function. There is a lot of research and development on systems that use less power, and methods of power generation that are safer and more efficiently use rare resources. For example, oil is needed not only for energy production, but heating, transportation, plastics production, making fertilizer, as well as making many other chemicals. Another example is silicon, which is needed for the production of solar cells, as well as the production of almost all electronics.
Power production is intimately tied to modern life, and the effects can cause major changes throughout all aspects of life.

How much do we know about cancer?

By reading "The Family That Couldn't Sleep" I have learned once again about Prions yet in a different perspective. I have studied Prions before and many of us know that it can be very uncontrollable. A not so called "protein" can hinder the body as well know from the reading and it has been very difficult to find a cure ad treatment to this matter. Does this sound in any way like cancer?

Cancer has proven to be worth fighting for, a battle that we all wish to win. Uncontrolled rapidly growing cells is often difficult to manouver. I have also known the some times of cancer can be hereditary in some ways. For example, breast cancer is believed to be extremely elevated by individuals who encounter 2 genes, BRCA1 and BRCA2. It has always been believed that the chance of increase has about an 80% life time effect. It is now occurring that by investigating several woman, it appears to be the case that it is untrue. Hereditary does not entirely play a huge role in cancer, but it does in some ways. Also the mutations of the above genes hinder this aspect with respect to age as well. Studies show that older women who become diagnosed with breast cancer, the relatives chances of acquiring cancer is much less than a woman who will be diagnosed at a young age.

This adds to the question about how much we understand cancer, likewise to the point of how much we understand about prions. Many defects out there pose high risks, but some are explainable. Seems to me that prions and cancer are alike in the same way that take a huge chunk of the cake. Can life be driven to victory by battling the above diseases? Really who knows, certain things in life are sometimes meant to be unexplained, but with an issue like prions and cancer, with the amount of technology we have today, I sure would hope we become one step closer to the solution.

Further reading if wanted (From NY Times) --> http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/08/breast-cancer-gene-risk-may-be-overstated/

Sex Toys and That New Car Smell

I titled my post Sex Toys and That New Car Smell because if I called it Phthalates in Plastics, nobody would read this. Phthalates are class of chemicals used to soften plastics, often plastics that need to be soft because they are used near our soft tissues (most notably children's toys and sex toys). Unfortunately, some phthalates are toxic. They have been linked to organ damage and genital defects in lab animals, and there is evidence that they can function as hormones, possibly interfering with normal sexual development. One urban legend about phthalates is that they give cars "that new car smell", but this has been disputed (although phthalates are present in new cars, they apparently don't have much odor. Fumes from other chemicals are more responsible for the smell). Starting in 2009, phthalates in baby toys will be illegal in the U.S. They are already illegal in Europe. If you are curious about the sex toys, read:

http://wweek.com/editorial/3323/8848

The Angry Toxocologist, linked off our own blog, has a post about phthalates:

http://angrytoxicologist.com/?p=86

A defender of phthalates has a blog here:

http://blog.phthalates.org/

Take note that this lady has worked in the chemical industry for years, and lives with her 8 cats, so you may want to read with a grain of salt.

Health-Care

The issue of healthcare in the United States is unrelated to prion disease but still similar to it in both its scope and its range of implications. The system in place today has existed for decades and allows healthcare to operate within the realm of basic economy rather than under government funding and control. By this system, healthcare is viewed as a service to be provided only with compensation; an individual in need of a heart transplant pays for a heart transplant. Of course, with this idea an individual unable to pay for this treatment is refused, and it is exactly this scenario which is the system’s greatest flaw. Further, market forces reward hospitals and pharmaceutical companies that inflate costs, and as a result proper health care is pushed out of reach of lower income groups. Health insurance providers were intended to counter this problem by assisting those unable to afford treatment, but since these companies also operate from within the free market they too are subject to its profit-maximizing, cost-minimizing demands. As a result, basic market concepts are applied to transactions concerning not expendable products but human lives. This flaw shows healthcare to be fully incompatible with the free market, and most people see this; few would argue it immoral to refuse a man a TV he can’t pay for, but the idea of turning him down for a blood transfusion is considered deplorable, and rightly so. Yet not just hospitals and pharmaceuticals but even these insurance companies operate on exactly these principles – insurance providers literally search for reasons to refuse payment in the interest of maximizing profit by minimizing cost.
Proponents of health care reform desperately point to other national health care programs that operate separate from the national economy, funded by the state and providing cheap or free health care regardless of social or economic standing. Unfortunately, a conflict of interest arises not unlike that seen with mad cow in the UK and US; national welfare stands at odds with powerful economic interests. Federal movements toward reform are typically squashed by lobbyists and other internal members sympathetic to the needs of the associated economic parties, and are replaced with ineffective programs such as Medicare which fail but provide the illusion of progress towards a solution. Luckily public interest in this issue is at an all-time high, and it is unlikely that this system will be able to remain within a country no longer oblivious to its fundamental flaws.

Gay Marriage

Prion diseases, though not necessarily a well-known topic, are a pretty big deal in the world of modern medicine, especially because they seems to be able to happen at random, and without warning. The first thing that pops into my mind, though, which has a comparable impact on people despite being significantly less scientific, is the subject of gay marriage. Both topics have a huge impact on society, and gay marriage is regarded as equally dangerous by some members of the current government, as well as many in society on the whole.
Allowing gays to marry under the government would certainly affect society, though exactly how negative, or positive, of an effect it would have is a matter of ongoing debate. Same-sex couples being allowed to join in legally binding relationships would indicate a change in many things, as the effect of the new couples rippled farther and farther outward from them. For example, the politics of the country would change, as well as international politics. Internally, it would mean that a more liberal government was in power, and this would have other ramifications as well. Internationally, the Untied States might be more well-liked by certain other countries, such as those in Eastern Europe, because they resent the U.S. some for having more conservative politics. There are also those who would lose faith in our government if this were to happen, of course, and be very angry about the whole thing – namely the Christian right.
The economy of the country would also be affected, though perhaps not as much. This is due to the shifting demand which would be caused by more homosexual couples living together, and perhaps adopting children, leading to an increased demand for things like baby formula, for example, which the couples would need to purchase as they couldn't biologically produce it themselves. Socially, it would mean more children with same-sex parents, which means societal norms would shift significantly in schools around the country, or at least in certain parts of the country. The scientists of the world might not feel the effects of the change as much as the politicians, but even they would probably have shifting research agendas after the change.

Supplements

The past several months I've realized that conversations at the gym have diverged from talking about what workout routine someone is trying and has now lead to what supplement(s) they are trying. Over the past two decades going to they gym has become a common practice, however for a certain percentage of gym patrons so has taking supplements. These supplements range from protien, weight-gainer, kreatine, growth hormone, glutamine, meal replacements, fat burners, steroids, energy-boosters and the many more that I am forgetting. The use, availability, and advertisement of all these various products effects anyone who has thought of lifting weights or simply to lose a few pounds. The fact is that none, absolutely none of these supplements have been tested or regulated by the FDA. From the most simple protein all the way to your legal low-dosage growth hormone, none of these products have been scrutinized for their possible side effects both short-term and long-term. Getting any of these products is as easy as ever. Any local mall has a Vitamin Worl or GNC, both of which carry any of the above products. Online is even worse; you can go to any workout oriented website and find authors who endorse these products. At the same time these websites that widely regarded for the quality of information they provide (for free) also fall victim to showcasing some of these products. It all comes down to business; they provide a free service but at the same time want to make money off of the products they endorse and/or sell. The next 20-30 years will dictate on how our society will handle this issue, since that is when all the users and abusers of such products will come to light with all their medical issues.

Polar bears are in danger in wildlife reservation

“The Family That Couldn’t Sleep” was quite interesting and it included a lot of history way back in the 1800s until now. It’s amazing to see how a nonliving protein can do to our body and animals’ body as well. The researchers have been struggling to discover a cure for this particular disease. I hope they’ll keep trying to find a cure soon, especially with our modern technology.

A current issue that I could think of is polar bears crisis, which are in great danger right now. Unfortunately, our U.S. government has been strongly supporting the oil drill 46,000 square miles off Alaska’s coast -for oil next month. This situation brings many concerns from our American citizens. The biggest concern is that the industrial activity will clearly harm northern marine mammals. This includes polar bears, walrus, whales and other species that eventually harmed by oil drilling rigs or spills. This concerns me the most is that The Minerals Management Service ignored the dangers to animals and birds if an oil spill were to occur. Their main goal is to gain marketing profits and does not want to fully accountable for the mess due to cost purposes. So far, nobody has figured out who is mainly responsible to clean up the oil spilling. I believe our federal government and large corporations should always have appropriate plans this happens in the wildlife reservations. When the ice is melting, two-thirds of the world’s polar bears could be gone by 2050. Scientists have found numerous evidences that the polar bear populations will be heavily stressed when their environment is declining where they could not have a proper hunting platform due to climate change.

Would you want to protect the animals, specifically in Alaska? Do you also think it is a wise idea to have our government to support oil and gas industries to frequently drill more than 40,000 square miles off in order to market oversea?

Stemm Cell Research

The issue of stem cell research spans many different realms of public health, ethical and moral issues, and the most promising front for all biological research. Stem cell research actually has many similarities with prion diseases. In both cases the majority of people in charge and controlling the purse strings do not fully understand the science behind the issues. They rely on extremely simplified facts and analogies from people they assume are experts on the subject. Often they are forced to take an extreme position on the issue for religious reasons. Most of the theologies than American politician subscribe to assert that life begins at the moment of conception. I must admit I agree with the author Sam Harris who believes there is not enough criticism of these types of viewpoints. It is considered taboo in our cultured to criticize a persons viewpoints due to religious belief whether or not it has any factual basis. The most common concern with stem cell research is the idea that a life (or the potential therefore) must be ended to acquire the stem cells. This would be the short range stakes in the issue, as well as the part that receives the most attention. I am not an expert theologian, however it seems to me that these ‘lifes’ or ‘potential’ is being weighed against the millions suffering and dying from possibly curable ailments. These people would have the long-term stakes in the issue, with the possibility of cures being developed.

The issue of performance enhancing steroids and HGH

1) People always wonder if the use of these enhancers destroys the integrity of the game. In hindsight, it seems obvious that some baseball players in the late 1990s were gaining some sort of advantage since power numbers jumped across the board, but the fans, media, and baseball executives either were oblivious to the obvious (I was 13 so that includes me), or unofficially encouraged this usage to increase offense.

2) In recent years, the government has become more involved with steroids in sports. Steroids and HGH are illegal, and with an election year coming up, politicians are looking for some important public issue that they can take a hard stand against without harming their own public interests.

3) Players on steroids are setting a bad example for the children. Children see their role models on steroids and getting great short term results, money, and recognition, so the children think that if they take steroids then they will become rich and popular.

4) There is also a question of the morality of using performance enhancing drugs. Many people question how people can be proud of their accomplishments when they cheats to reach them.

5) It has been documented that steroids can be hazardous to your health. Moderate usage of these drugs can result in massive organ failure, testicular atrophy (always a fun one) and even death. The prime example is the number of professional wrestlers under fifty that have died due to a combination of steroids, pain killers, and illicit drugs.

6) In a legal sense, the case of the murder-suicide of Chris Benoit and his family because of a combination of head trauma and steroids which I cannot discuss without about 4000 words and a ton of profanity.

"bird flu"

The book is somewhat interesting but pretty bored, and the most interesting part is how the prion itself affects many factors that cause many mysterious things happening.
The first relevant topic that relates to the prion research pops in my mind is the bird flu. The prion disease has passed on from years to years, which has too many research findings. And the research still is not comprehensive completely, because it cannot be identified. In addition, it is very mystery medical that killed thousands of people and animals.

The topic of bird flu is similar to the prion research, because both of these “influenza viruses” cause infections in humans and animals. But there are some antiviral medicines use to resist human illness for bird flu, while there is none for prion illness. The bird flu and prion illness happened unexpectedly without warnings, and these “influenza viruses” began spreading out widely from person to person. The numbers of cases increased after years.

Finding treatments for these viruses is not easy, and the researchers and scientists have to do the research from the beginning of the outbreak to find more mysterious clues in order to able to solve the issue.

The main concern may be how to secure people from being exposed to the illness. the population now decreases due to the illness attacks. We may have to focus on how to prevent trauma things happening, and create reliable emergency help, which helps taking control of things better.

"The War on Drugs"

One issue that spans across various realms in American society is the debate over government regulation of drugs. This debate includes a wide range of issues, including one’s right to their own body and how they decide to treat it. Many maintain that all drugs should be legal because one’s right to choose, as outlined in the constitution, should extend to drug use. Advocates of drug regulation counter that drugs corrupt individuals and in turn society, affecting not only the drug user, but also others around them. Economic issues are another dimension in this debate. Many claim that the government doesn’t want its citizens only on beneficial drugs; they want them on their drugs. These same people argue that the strict government regulation of drugs only exists for profit and support the massive pharmaceutical industry. There would also be many indirect consequences associated with drug legalization. There is an entire sector of workers and systems devoted to illegal drugs. The D.E.A would vanish and thousands would be out of work. Some maintain that the American drug regulation system is so deeply embedded in society that the government could never relinquish it's control even if government officials wanted to. In the debate over drug use there are so many voices from so many different directions it seems there will never be a consensus on what role, if any, the government should play. What is clear is that drug use will continue indefinitely, an outcome that is necessary to support not only drug users but also the systems and employees built around them.

I think that the issue of prion research is similar to the issue of stem cell research. Both of these subjects touch upon similar concerns about the health of the public, responsibilities of the government, and the trustworthiness of scientists and the scientific method. Such similarities to be found between prions and stem cell research result in comparable stakes for these two issues. Like the issue of prions, the issue of stem cell research has short- and long-term stakes as well as abstract and concrete stakes. It deals with providing a possible treatment to disease in the short term and developing a long term solution. It deals with developing cures for diseases and increasing our knowledge of biology. Both of these issues are new areas of scientific research that have received the attention of the media so that the public has been made aware of them. They are subjects that have a lot of stakes for the general public, and thus, they are interesting to the general public. Both of them are a health concern for the public and the government with many varied stakes. Stem cell research, in fact, may be better known by the public, and thus, it may be the bigger issue in the eye of the public. Stem cell research also contains an issue of moral controversy, and this introduces a whole new range of both short- and long-term stakes as well as absolute and concrete stakes. Stem cell research deals with short term outrage over moral debate and the adjustment of long term societal values. It deals with understanding the opinions formed by society and with developing appropriate laws. Both prion diseases and stem cell research touch upon similar concerns, and they both encompass a large range of stakes which makes them interesting and concerning to the public.

The Family that Couldn't Sleep Assignment

One issue that I feel reaches into so many realms is childhood obesity. Believe it or not, everyone at one point was a child and as a child, healthy habits are the key to living a full, healthy life. The rise in childhood obesity applies so well due to the large number of causes and factors. One of the most influential factors is that of the parents and their obligation to instilling healthy habits in their children, but due to laziness on the part of the parent leads to many kids snacking all the time, eating unhealthy meals, eating fast food, and starting an overall trend toward laziness. The parents probably play the most important role in the child’s life so their choices greatly affect how the child will turn out. Another factor, probably a bit more scrutinized is the school. When the child is not under control and supervision of the parents, they are at school. The schools have a significant impact on the child as well. Schools have to pick the food they want to serve wisely because they have to balance between satisfying their obligation to provide healthy food to the children and maintaining a budget. Unfortunately, unhealthy food has the advantage of being cheaper and tastier, which usually shifts the balance toward unhealthy. This leads to the parents blaming the schools, and the schools blaming the parents leaving the children to suffer. I do not know how much other nations are affected by childhood obesity, but it is causing a physical problems, social problems, and future problems for the children in our country.

Perhaps the most relevant topic I can think of that spans a similar number of ranges as prion diseases is media violence. From comic books to television to movies to video games, all popular media has had its share of negative publicity related to violence, sex, language, and poor behavior in general. Violence has been the most prominent, and is still being used today to further the agendas of political entities and other organizations. Media violence has been used to support gun control, media censorship, and even laws governing everyday life. Video games in particular, especially the Wii, have brought this issue up in recent months with their greater emphasis on interaction with a character as opposed to TV or movies where the viewer of the violence is just that: a viewer of violence rather than a participant.

Media violence has prompted public officials to create social programs to keep kids away from these "bad" influences (and for other purposes), as well as off the streets and away from gangs, where they believe those affected kids could act on their violent tendencies. Overall, though, it doesn't seem to cover quite as many areas as prion diseases.

“The Family That Couldn’t Sleep” was quite interesting! It is hard to believe to know this disease can die within months. Science writer D.T. Max discussion about a family had a disease called fatal familial insomnia. Onset of the disease's symptoms, on average around middle age, sufferers become unable to sleep. They also try their best efforts to find a cure.

Here’s another issue I can think of…

When people said that the prospect the main issue of global warming was "real", they were absolutely promising some level of reliability. The intergovernmental panel on climate change was pressed to be as clear as possible about that. When the panel announced in 2001 that the present rate of warming was "very likely" larger than any seen within the last decades years, they responded to criticism of earlier reports by adding an annotation to define "very likely." They said it meant that they determined that there was a 90-99 percent chance that the result was true. The panel further determined it "likely” by which they meant a 66-90 percent chance of being true. The warming was mainly due to the increase of greenhouse gases. What it might mean to call a result "true" remain open to debate, philosophers have faithful their lifetimes to thinking how a scientific concept might somehow correspond to an eventual reality. That question rarely concerned climate scientists, who took it for granted that the future climate is as real as a rock, even if their knowledge of this future thing could only be confirmed within a range of probabilities.
Our human understanding of climate goes beyond scientific reports into a wider realm of thinking. When I look at a snowless street in January I may see a natural weather difference, or I may see a human object caused by greenhouse gas emissions. Such perceptions are twisted not only by scientists, but by interest groups, politicians, and the media. With global warming the social influences run deeper still. Unlike, say the orbits of planets, the future climate actually does depend in part on what we think about it. For what we think will determine what we do.

post assignment--short (!) and to be done before class Monday

Hi everyone:

Hope you had a good break. Here's a blog post assignment, to be done before class tomorrow, to get your brain juices flowing:

In _The Family That Couldn't Sleep_, we learn about how prion diseases can have short- and long-ranging stakes (predicting one couple's likelihood of conceiving a child with FFI or protecting the health of the UK over decades). We also learn that the puzzles presented by prion diseases have both concrete and abstract stakes (such as curing a disease and theories of contagion). As it turns out, prion diseases also touch on many realms of personal and public life, economics, politics and nutrition; they also raise questions about a government's responsibility to protect its citizens' health and about the faith we place in our food industry and scientists.

Can you think of another issue, currently or recently on people's minds, that reaches into so many different realms and at so many different ranges? Explain, in about 250 words.

The Family That Couldn't Sleep

Note: I will be traveling this weekend, so although this post hasn't been officially assigned yet, I am going to write something that reflects my understanding of the assignment as discussed in class. I may edit this post once we get the "official" assignment notice.

Readers will have a variety of stakes in this book. I am going to start with "Abstract and Immediate" because I feel that it is one of the most important.

Abstract & Immediate: for those wondering what else is wrong

A major theme of this book is the failure of our health care system when faced with novel problems (now and throughout the ages). By health care system, I mean both the doctors who are supposed to cure us and the government which is supposed to protect us. We are all conditioned to trust systems: our public school system was originally designed to turn us into obedient factory workers, and its design hasn't changed much since the Industrial Revolution (See: http://www.spinninglobe.net/gattopage.htm). Systems are useful and necessary for societies with large populations to function. They allow us to quickly and consistently fix well-understood problems. Although novel problems, by definition, resist conventional classification and treatment, systems will always try to treat the FFI patients of the world for alcoholism.

Treatment for microbial infection was pretty useless until the discovery of antibiotics and sterilization. Countless people died from now-preventable viral diseases before vaccines were invented. We are still in the dark ages when it comes to prion disesases. When a public health crisis as poorly understood as a prion disease emerges, it becomes almost impossible for a system as rigid as a law-making body to get a handle on it. I am a big believer in conspiracy theories, or, more accurately, government cover ups--but not because I think that Pinky and the Brain are really out there trying to take over the world.

Systems are comprised of people and paperwork. My general experience with people as system cogs is that they are mainly concerned with covering their own asses, they know much less than they say they do (and are generally content with their ignorance), and they are highly influenced by groupthink. I think we all have enough experience with paperwork that I need not comment about that. Once a public health crisis is discovered, the first thought of most organizations is "let's not alarm the public." The second thought is, "let's make up a committee to investigate this." After the committee spends awhile arguing about something they don't really understand, the issue might get passed along to the politicians.

Now, my general understanding of politicians is that they need to be practiced in the following arts to succeed:

1. Putting on a dog and pony show for their voters (i.e. special interest lobbyists), which mainly entails pretending to have "moral values"
   
2. Financially appeasing their bosses (i.e. corporate lobbyists and party organizers)
3. Circumlocution
   
4. Preventing their sex scandals from leaking onto the Internet

I know a lot of highly educated people who have very sound and logical political opinions, but none of them would touch career politics with a 50 foot pole. The fact that these kinds of people are smart enough to avoid the job might explain why the politicians we DO have are so fundamentally ineffectual.

Most politicians aren't doctors, scientists, or IT specialists, so passing on issues to them is like playing a game of telephone where the receiving party has bad reception. However, politicians also understand that they need to appear to know what they are talking about (See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Series_of_tubes). Eventually, the issue is bound to be mangled. The worst thing that can happen to an issue is for it to get spun into the religious or corporate agenda of some politician. Once a public health crisis runs the risk of being a red mark on some politician's report card (politicians must perform an economic balancing act of lowering risk to the public while maintaining friendships with the industries who paid for their campaigns), the issue gets buried in a slurry of committees, sham investigations, red vs. blue, bureaucracy, theocracy, idiocracy, whatever.

As an aside, the scariest part about "government cover ups" is that even if the issue isn't a big secret, most people aren't likely to care. Or, even if they do care, it will only be until Britney Spears dies tragically young. A big problem is the way the ad-sponsored TV news (or, as I prefer to call it, non-news) decides to do its entertainment non-journalism (See: http://www.technologyreview.com/Infotech/19845/page1/).

So, what's my point? I think everyone knows that politicians are crooks and liars, and that Fox News (Fair and Balanced!) just wants your Nielsen ratings. My point is that systems are fallible, and if a system has always failed you in the past, you really have no reason to trust it in the future. We shouldn't find it so strange that the Italian family with FFI from mistrusts doctors and the media. We shouldn't laugh at the "Creutzfeldt-Jakobians"--actually, I found this term rather derogatory--for their skepticism.

If you want safety, it is your personal responsibility to educate yourself about the best practices for safety. If you want privacy, it is your personal responsibility not to share personal information with those who might expose it to the public. Relying on clunky government machinery or the questionable opinion of a single doctor increases your risk of personal injury. This isn't to say that doctors and the government should be exculpated for any potential harm they directly or inadvertently cause you, but wouldn't most people prefer to avoid injury or illness in the first place?

I think there are a lot of potentially dangerous things out there that have been "covered up": phthalates in our plastics, hormones and chemicals in our food, mercury preservatives, lead in our cosmetics, toys imported from China. Some people pay attention to these things and try to change their behavior to lower their risk of exposure. That leads me to concrete and long term stakes:

Concrete & Long Term Stakes: for those interested in observing and/or modifying their behavior

Readers may become more conscious of their intake of certain types of animal proteins after reading about how mad cow disease probably exists in some form, under the radar, in the U.S.. Readers may be less likely to eat hamburger, venison, or T-bone steak. Beef brains are also a specialty item sold in some parts of the U.S.

The story of the vegetarian who died of mad cow disease was particularly interesting to me. I read this story in the news when it came out, and I have never forgotten it. Although I have been a vegetarian for most of my life, I still ingest (or risk ingesting) some animal proteins:

• Most pills are made with gelatin, which is extracted from animal bones by boiling them. Although I don't eat Jello or gelatin marshmellows, I have occasionally needed to take antibiotics with gelatin capsules.
  
• Many restaurants add meat in unexpected places. For example, most Italian restaurants add beef stock to their maranara sauce to give it a richer, fuller taste. I probably eat some small amount of meat every year without ever realizing it.
  
• I share pots, pans, dishes, and utensils with others who do eat meat. I know that my roommates sometimes use our shared pots and pans to cook venison or ground beef. Prions survive heat and stick to metal, so if I were really, really unlucky, I could potentially contract prion disease from one of these pans.
  
• I eat eggs and dairy. Prions might be passed on in these forms.
  
• My boyfriend sometimes eats meat and then kisses me.
  
• Some cosmetics and toiletries are make with animal proteins.
  
• I know that at one point, it was possible to get prion diseases from blood transfusions. It also might be possible to get prion diseases from surgical implements that are reused. I'm not sure what the current policy is regarding these things.
  

Why care? Why worry about these seemingly insignificant risks? I can't really avoid them, so I just have to accept them...but death by prion certainly seems like quite a terrible death.

Concrete & Immediate Stakes: for those touched by prion and similar diseases

Some readers will have concrete stakes in this book. Naturally, the book will be very important to the Italian family suffering from FFI. Other readers may be suffering from another prion disease (or know someone who is). They may also belong to families that suffer from other genetic diseases that strike later in life, such as Huntington's.

Most readers will be able to empathize with the members of the family with FFI on some level. Although very few people will ever understand the full extent of Fatal Familial Insomia, there are many terrible diseases about which we know very little and for which we have no cure. As a child, I saw one of my great aunts wither away from Alzheimer's disease and eventually die. The changes in her thought processes and behavior were very disturbing to witness. As I was reading, I could imagine myself as the young relative of one of the FFI patients.

Along with most of the population, I've also experienced insomnia (if only for a few hours at a time), so I know how it can impact the daily life and thought processes of a person.

Some readers will be doctors or medical researchers studying prion diseases. They may know or know of some of the researchers mentioned in the article.

Other readers will just be interested in the theory of prion disease. I grew up in Wisconsin and Minnesota, and I knew that chronic wasting disease was a big problem for the deer population. I was interested in the theories about how it originated and the hunting policy changes meant to curtail it.

Abstract & Long Term Stakes:

After reading this book, the reader is left with many questions to ponder, such as:

• How did we come to know the medical knowledge that we now have? Textbooks often present scientific history in a simple, linear fashion, bleaching out details like Carleton Gajdusek's pedophilia. However, studying the motivations and personalities of scientists provides an important context for understanding why we know what we do.
  
• What else don't we know about mechanisms of disease? No one thought that proteins without viruses could spread scrapie or vCJD. Maybe scientists will discover the mechanims behind almost-related diseases, like Alzheimer's and Huntington's. Maybe we will discover something even stranger than prions, and there will be another paradigm shift..
  
• Will we find a cause of or cure for our obscure diseases? Must we rely on scientists who hunger for a Nobel prize to care?
  

Another important theme of this book is that human intervention in natural processes (breeding, animal growth, the food chain) can have serious unforeseen consequences.