Why Can't We All Get Along?

Although we have had Separation of Church and State for about two hundred years, there is still some cross-contamination between the two. Science and religion are like oil and water; two things that no matter how hard you try will never mix. Though there have been attempts to have the two topics co-exist peacefully, I have come to realize that will never happen.

In How to Teach Science to the Pope by Michael Mason, the topic of religion versus science is discussed. In his article, Mason talks about the history, members and purpose of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences. In my opinion, this “independent and remarkably influential body” (Mason), is not as independent as it may seem. It sounds to me as if they aren’t allowed to publish everything they find just in case it will upset the Pope, or anyone else for that matter.

For instance, the topic of stem cell research has been a controversial one for many years. Recently there has been some talk about the Vatican asking science to “protect human dignity.” What about protecting human lives? Isn’t a person’s life more important than a person’s dignity? At least that’s how I feel about it.

This video, entitled Vatican Calls on Science to Protect Human Dignity discusses the creation of a new document that states, "The dignity of a person must be recognized in every human being from conception to natural death. This fundamental principle expresses a great yes to human life and must be at the center of ethical reflection on biomedical research" (Vatican).



On a more positive note, there have been many pieces of satire written about religion and science. One that really caught my interest was Genesis Revisited: A Scientific Creation Story by Michael Shermer. Shermer re-writes the Creation story with a little “science-y” twist. He adds many scientific terms and describes the creation of different kinds of scientists and ends it on a humorous note (Shermer). I found this particularly interesting, religion was taking the hit; something you don’t see very often.

So while there have been strides made in the fight of religion versus science, I feel as though the two will never be in cahoots with one another and they will always be fighting for who is right.





Mason, Michael. "How to Teach Science to the Pope." Discover Magazine. August 18, 2008. http://discovermagazine.com/2008/sep/18-how-to-teach-science-to-the-pope

Shermer, Michael. "Genesis Revisited: A Scientific Creation Story." in Darwin. 3rd ed. Philip Appleman, ed. New York: W.W. Norton, 2001.

Vatican Calls on Science to Protect Human Dignity. YouTube. Rome Reports, 1 Apr. 2009. Web. 28 Nov. 2009. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b9-KtF0z25g.

Last Thoughts

I have seen these advertisements before and finally got the urge to look them up and I have to say I love it. I think these two commercials are good examples that the human race can head to a better future as long as we keep our curiosity and respect for the world and everything on it. These have some aesthetics but are mostly cultural and scientific. These are the new Discovery commercials, I love the World (Boom de yada)

http://dsc.discovery.com/videos/discovery-promos-the-world-is-just-awesome.html

http://dsc.discovery.com/videos/musical-mashes-boom-de-yada.html

Darwin Revelation

At the beginning of this course, my knowledge of Charles Darwin—his work, personal life, and views—was fairly minimal. I could only recall bits and pieces from my 8th grade science and 10th grade biology classes. Being largely indifferent to him (and a few science-related subjects in general), I haven’t devoted a lot of thought to something directly pertaining to Darwin until now.

I try to maintain a fairly impartial approach when it comes to his famous theory of evolution, and its ongoing argument with creationism. Like I’ve mentioned before, I believe anything is possible: because I was raised with and learned both views, I respect and see validity in both sides of the argument, finding it difficult to choose a “side.” Despite my admitted apathy towards this subject, I feel it is impossible to be objective to it, which is my “revelation” —that we cannot completely observe our own species without some sort of bias or influence from our culture/society.

Okay, but this is pretty obvious, right? How is this a “revelation?” I’ve understood for a while that the influence of one’s culture can play a role in his or her beliefs, opinions, and view of the world. I had to argue with myself the day we discussed gender (and race) in Darwin’s The Descent of Man; I saw the blatant sexist observations of a man—but a man of his time.

Being a female myself, the role of women throughout history and in context of cultures around the world has always fascinated me. I am a proud alumna of Catherine McAuley High School, a Catholic girls’ school in Portland, Maine. My senior English teacher considered a feminist by her students, though she claimed otherwise (a “womanist”). I learned a lot in my four years about the places in the world my gender has been, and where I/we can now go, and how far we’ve come.

Here are some of the claims and observations Charles Darwin makes in his work, The Descent of Man: “Woman seems to differ from man in mental disposition…of a past and lower state of civilization” (Darwin, 234), “Man is more powerful in body and mind than woman…therefore it is not surprising that he should have gained the power of selection” (242), and finally, “Man is more courageous, pugnacious and energetic than woman, and has a more inventive genius. His brain is absolutely larger, but whether or not proportionately to his larger body, has not, I believe, been fully ascertained” (233). Now, from reading those statements, one would conclude that he was sexist. However, science historian Evelleen Richards argues, “To label him as a sexist may be technically correct…but it is mere rhetoric in the context of a society in which almost everyone was a sexist—who held discriminatory views of woman’s nature and social rôle” (443).

I certainly agree with what she’s saying, which is my “revelation,” but I was still finding myself at another point. Being the progressive thinker Darwin was, shouldn’t he have seen that within his society women were not allowed to become “powerful in body and mind?” Men are typically built bigger than women, so I will cut a little slack for the “powerful in body” aspect. But the mind? Female authors had to be published under male pseudonyms to even be considered! Women couldn’t really train to become doctors or scientists until around his time, so how could they prove that they were just as powerful in mind as men? I guess I just can’t completely, 100% agree that he wasn’t a little bit sexist.

This just proves that Darwin can’t be taken as an objective source to our species. Well, duh! Of course, he’s human too. So when I say my revelation is “that we cannot completely observe our own species without some sort of bias or influence from our culture/society,” I mean I didn’t understand it completely until I got to know Darwin’s work a little better; I didn’t realize how much of an effect an outside source can have on even scientific observations. I would like to think we are as close to being objective as we can today, but who knows? Maybe one hundred years from now, another college student will be writing about the same thing…

Darwin, Charles. “Selections from Darwin’s Work.” pp 67-254 in Darwin. 3rd ed. Philip Appleman, ed . New York: W.W.Norton, 2001.

Richards, Evelleen. “Darwin and the Descent of Women.” in Darwin. 3rd ed. Philip Appleman, ed . New York: W.W.Norton, 2001.

The Bionic Contact Lens

Still in development, the bionic contact lens (would be) a contact lens that gives the sensor the perception of augmented reality.

What is "augmented reality?" A gizmag.com article explains: “Unlike Virtual Reality, where the user’s field of view is completely replaced with an artificial visual environment, Augmented Reality uses head tracking in conjunction with augmented vision to overlay complimentary information on the user’s view.” Basically, augmented reality is when our vision is enanced, adding elements to what we already see, as opposed to replacing it. Below is a video from National Geographic:



Within the past couple of years, a team of engineers at the University of Washington have been working on making bionic contact lenses a reality. The project is being lead by Babak Parviz, an assistant professor of electrical engineering. The research was formally introduced to the public in early 2008. See the YouTube video below:



To see a concept of the lens, click here.

Parvitz and his team were able to build a display into the lens based on an array of LED (light-emitting didode) pixels. Laser beams have also been considered as a light source, because it diverges less than LED light, which could make images sharper.

The lens’ LEDs can be powered wirelessly with radio frequency. (There would have to be some sort of external device to power the lens.) It would have integrated control circuits, communication circuits, and miniature antennas.

The LEDs would create an image on the back of the retina (the light-sensitive tissue lining the inner surface of the eye), which the viewer would see overlaid onto their natural view of the world.

Reported as of spring 2009, the team has only been able to develop a lens with
 one pixel.

One of the problems the team has run into is getting the weight and size small enough for the human eye, while also being biocompatible and safe. They are grateful for nanotechnology, which helps resolve the issue of size. The tiny LEDS are reported to fit a possible 100 in an inch (resembling the look of powder!). They were able to coat the toxic materials with a biocompatable substance. Prototypes have been tested on lab rabbits, which, within a 20-minute period of wear, did not show any adverse effects.

Another issue was being able to design a surface where the electronic components wouldn’t block vision. Parvitz says the solution to this is to “place most of the minute components in areas over the eye’s natural blind spots.”

They also need/ed to figure out how to push the image away from the cornea (powerful part of the eye that works with the lens to refract light). The normal focal distance for seeing objects clearly is about 25 centimeters in front of a person’s eye. Parvitz claims that a way to work around this would be to “employ an array of even smaller lenses placed on the surface of the contact lens.” Also, the angle of incoming light could be adjusted to make up for the cornea not being able to focus.

So what are the benefits of this crazy eyepiece? A bionic contact lens could allow someone to see better than he or she does already, meaning even a person with good/“perfect” vision would see things differently. Biosensors on the lens could be designed to send a signal when a particular molecule is detected, providing an easier and non-invasive way to monitor health. The lens could inlfluence the gaming industry, creating new experiences for players. It could also affect the tourism industry, providing access to information.

Sources

Eisenberg, Anne. “Inside These Lenses, a Digital Dimension.” The New York Times - Breaking News, World News & Multimedia. 25 Apr. 2009. Web. 06 Dec. 2009. .

Hanlon, Mike. “Electronic Contact Lens promises bionic capabilities for everyone.” Gizmag Emerging Technology Magazine. 21 Jan. 2008. Web. 06 Dec. 2009. .

Jackson, Joab. “”Bionic” Contact Lens May Create Tiny Personal Displays.” National Geographic News. 29 Jan. 2008. Web. 06 Dec. 2009. .

Nelson, Bryn. “The vision of the future seen in bionic contact lens.” Msnbc.com. 21 Jan. 2008. Web. 06 Dec. 2009. .

Parviz, Babak A. “Augmented Reality in a Contact Lens.” IEEE Spectrum Online: Technology, Engineering, and Science News. Sept. 2009. Web. 06 Dec. 2009. .

Would You Eat The "Meat"?

Have you ever wondered what it would be like to eat a piece of meat that was grown, SANS THE ANIMAL? Recent discoveries by some of today’s most cutting edge scientists have granted this far-fetched idea some form of reality. Dutch businessman, Willem van Eelen, first initiated the idea while spending time in a Japanese prison camp during the 1950s. Since then scientists have been working hard to generate meat products in alternative ways. One party in particular that has led the way in this field are the Universities of Eindhoven, Utrecht and Amsterdam in the Netherlands who have been “working to cultivate muscles out of the stem cells of a pig.” (Heselmans).
The initial process of growing meat can be simply described as placing cells on a petri-dish where they would then grow into who tissues. Seems easy. The hard part is being able to grow muscle on a large scale, one that might actually satisfy someone’s hunger. In order to do so researchers need to use thin sheets of membranes that would be combined with a correct combination of muscle and fat cells in order to create an appealing texture and taste. Another factor that would need to be assessed is that, “like any muscle, during this process the muscles cells would have to be ‘exercised’ so that they would grow and stretch and not turn mushy.” (Pilkington). So I guess it’s not so easy after all!


If This Doesn't Work Try The Link Provided Below. My Apologies.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sciencenow/video/3302/q05-220.html

This isn’t the first time an idea of cultivating meat without livestock has been discussed. In 1932 Winston Churchill predicted in an essay that, “Fifty years hence we shall escape the absurdity of growing a whole chicken in order to eat the breast or wing by growing these parts separately under a suitable medium.” Churchill’s optimistic attitude seems to have been correct!

http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2009-11/dutch-scientists-grow-first-vitro-pork

There are many different sides and feelings to this phenomenon. Some positive aspects that could arise from this is that there could be eliminating contamination problems in some meats, “avoiding animal suffering by reducing the farming and killing of livestock,” and “dramatically cutting down on food-borne ailments such as mad cow disease and salmonella or germs such as swine flu, by monitoring the growth of meat in labs.” Also, livestock is responsible for taking up 70% of all agricultural land, in the event that labs become more prominent that land could be put to other used. (Choi). Another positive aspect of growing meat that I find the most promising is the idea that it could aid in eliminating world hunger!
On the other hand many ethical and moral dilemmas are being faced as this field of study. One of the main concerns I have with practice is that many jobs could be lost as a result of eliminating the need to farm animals. Other jobs that would be affected by this would include those involved in the trucking and transportation industry that consistently rely on the fact that meat needs to be transported! But I guess this study could be the way of the future, and if done correctly the pros may very well outweigh the cons!

So the question is would you eat the “meat”?







Sources
Adams, Paul. "Dutch Scientists Grow First Pork Meat In Lab". Popular Science . 12.8.09 .

Choi , Charles Q. . "Mad Science? Growing Meat Without Animals ". Live Science . 12.8.09 .

Heselmans, Marianne . "Cultivated Meat ". New Harvest. 12.8.09 .

Pilkington, Nicky . "Where's The Beef". FoodEditorials.com. 12.8.09 .

Ternes, Ellen . "Paper Says Edible Meat Can be Grown in a Lab on Industrial Scale". University Of Maryland. 12.8.09 .

N/A, "Meat Farms- The 50 Best Inventions of 2009". Time Magazine . 12.8.09 .

Accident Avoidance Features

It is safe to say that most of us rely on cars for transportation from one place to another. Many of us have also experienced a car accident at one point, and if not, it is always a concern for many drivers and passengers. What if the technology in your vehicle can help alert you of a accident before it happens? Even though many cars don’t take control away from the driver, would our lives be safer if the car’s computer was aware of something that the driver was not?

Emerging in many new cars today are various kinds of accident avoidance systems. These are systems that are integrated into your vehicle and aid your driving to help prevent accidents. Even though some safety features exist today, many of these are subtle and the driver is usually unaware they exist. These new systems interact with the driver and even control the speed of the vehicle.

One of the first systems worth noting, is the Collision Warning System. This is basically a system that alerts the driver if a collision is predicted if no significant changes are made to alter the current route. Even though this system doesn’t stop the car, it prepares the brakes for maximum performance.


Next, adaptive cruise control can actually speed up and slow down the car depending on the speed of other drivers around. Like the Collision Warning System, this uses radar to sense the speed of the surrounding cars.


Last, the Blind Spot Information system alerts the driver if there is a vehicle in your blind spot. It lights up LED’s on the side view mirror and shows the driver whether there is a vehicle in that spot. It also can alert the driver if there are approaching vehicles that are blocked from view while backing up. I didn’t embed this video because the video is annoying and the guy has bad hair. Here is the link. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wiWhCL1vS4s

Finally, this shows what could potentially be in store for the future of accident avoidance on vehicles. Because many accidents happen due to human error, if the computers in the vehicle could recognize these before the driver, many crashes may be completely avoided.

Brain Waves and Movies

For some reason this never posted...

In today's society, movies are a big deal. People spend more money on going to the movies than they have in recent years(Cieply). Naturally, producers and directors want their movies to be better. One way to accomplish this is with Neurocinema. The basis of neurocinema is to look at someone's brain while they are watching a movie to see what they actually think of it.

Neurocinema isn't popular among all genres as of yet; it's main "client" is the Horror film genre. Producers will bring in their horror films to be viewed by someone while they are getting an MRI. Looking at the brain while the movie is being viewed will give the producer an idea of what the test subjects feelings actually are. The reason I say this is most people tend to bend the truth when confronted about whether or not they liked a movie. They may say they enjoyed or were scared by certain parts, but when you look at the MRI, you get a different story. *When referring to the MRI: when the brain lights up in red the subject is scared, when the brain lights up in blue the subject is calm or at ease.*

One major reason neurocinema is being used is because people can't accurately remember how they felt about certain parts of a movie. If someone was asked, right after the movie ended, what their favorite part was, or which part had the most impact on them, they may not be able to accurately describe it. With the assistance of the MRI, moviegoers will be able to see what there favorite part, or the part that scared them the most was.



This video helps to give a better understanding of how it is done. The second part of the video shows the same subject watching a different part of the movie. Another great source I found was this article going into further detail about Neurocinema and what exactly happens and what it is doing for the industry.

As we discussed in class, this is a great way of combining the aesthetic with science; movie producers and directors are using science as a way to enhance a visual experience. I think this is an interesting way to make horror films scarier and I look forward to seeing this practice branch out to other movie genres.



Sources:

Cieply, Micheal, and Brooks Barnes. "The New York Times Log In." The New York Times - Breaking News, World News & Multimedia. 28 Feb. 2009. Web. 29 Oct. 2009. <http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/01/movies/01films.html?_r=2&hp>.

Hasson, Uri, Ohad Landesman, Barbara Knappmeyer, Ignacio Vallines, Nava Rubin, and David J. Heeger. Vol. 2. Ser. 1. Neurocinematics: The Neuroscience of Film. Projections, Summer 2008. Web. 29 Oct. 2009. .

Silver, Curtis. "Neurocinema Aims to Change the Way Movies are Made | GeekDad | Wired.com." Wired News. 23 Sept. 2009. Web. 29 Oct. 2009. .