Ever met someone who referred to themselves as a “perfectionist”? Well according to this article from Behavior Modification, that might indicate a potential psychological imbalance. That’s not to say that you should rush them to the nearest psych ward or hospital for evaluation, because this is a widely contested and hotly debated issue. The reigning belief in popular psychology is that there are two types of perfectionism, positive and negative. In fact the existing measure for judging perfectionism is called the PANPS, the Positive and Negative Perfectionism Scale. One of the most often used examples of negative perfectionism is in people with eating disorders. High levels of “positive” perfectionism are commonly found in elite athletes, suggesting benefits with some levels of perfectionism that cannot therefore be deemed negative. However, the authors believe perfectionism is inherently unhealthy because it is characterized by “avoidance orientation and fear of failure”. Due to the inherently unattainable nature of perfection, any person who spends their time striving for such a thing will ultimately live a life full of disappointments, which if chronic could develop into a situation similar to that of a psychological disorder.
Positive perfectionism is characterized by high levels of organization, high personal standards, and being extremely driven to succeed. This type of perfectionism is considered healthy, normal and beneficial to the individual. These positively driven perfectionists are motivated by positive reinforcement and desire for success. These people are considered healthy because they don’t avoid situations where they feel they will encounter failure. Instead they will devote immense amounts of time to making sure that they do not fail. For these people, failure is not an option. They thrive and find happiness and fulfillment through their successes which, since they are practically guaranteed, are often. Thus while they may find stress in working hard to accomplish their goals, the payoffs make it worth the work for them.
Negative perfectionism is defined by being disadvantageous to the individual and is regarded as being unhealthy and pathological. People who fall into this category will constantly avoid situations where failure is likely. They are driven by negative reinforcement and a strong fear of failure. Negative reinforcement occurs when an action removes a negative stimulus (aka when the thing you want to stop finally does). However, constant thoughts of failure make it even less likely for these negatively minded perfectionists to succeed. These are the perfectionists who really aren’t. While they strive for nothing else, they are too preoccupied to perform at their optimal levels and are haunted by their repeated failures. There is a kind of cycle associated with negative perfectionism. Repeated failures lead to feelings of worthlessness which prohibit individuals from finding accomplishments in future endeavors, because they remain too focused on their past failures. Patients who suffer from eating disorders such as anorexia and bulimia commonly report such feelings of worthlessness, supporting the negative nature of perfectionism.
The question that is really raised in this article is whether any kind of perfectionism is actually healthy. According to these authors, there have been plenty of studies preformed (the details of which make up the majority of the article), which show a correlation between perfectionism and overall unhappiness. With initial successes, comes increased pressure for additional triumphs. This creates an endless cycle of pressure and demand for continued improvement with higher and higher expectations. Perfectionists tend to have low self acceptance, self esteem, and to feel that they have to meet high standards. All perfectionists have a fear or aversion to failure, and in many cases, the avoidance of failure is the main motivation behind their actions. All of these conditions lead to lower levels of satisfaction. People with eating disorders such as anorexia and bulimia are often perfectionists as well. They see their bodies as another challenge in which they must be victorious. Imperfections, such as fat, are not tolerated so they do whatever necessary to eliminate them. Depression can also arise from perfectionism, if the person is in fact constantly plagued by failures. Because perfectionists are not able to deal with failure in a rational way, depression may develop.
The other most important aspect when considering the possible positive effects of perfectionism comes with treating perfectionists afflicted with the aforementioned conditions. If a therapist and the psychological community as a whole agree that there is an actual positive form of perfectionism, therapists will likely try to convert negative perfectionism into positive perfectionism. However, if it is believed that there is no such thing as positive perfectionism, then attempts will be made to eliminate perfectionist tendencies all together. Obviously if the tests and studies are correct and there is no such thing as positive perfectionism, then any attempt to create positive perfectionism will ultimately fail at improving the lives of troubled perfectionists.
I think that Edith Schaefer illustrated the point I’m trying to make, “People throw away what they could have by insisting on perfection, which they cannot have, and looking for it where they will never find it”. So perfectionists, beware. Stop and smell the flowers and try to let a few things slide.
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
I'm feeling lucky...
Everybody knows about gambling right? Where you can risk it all to win big or lose everything. It’s a bit of a thrill not knowing whether the next roll, or the next hand, or the next race is going to be the one that sends you packing (assuming you didn’t bet everything you had to pack) or makes you the big winner. Gambling is what Vegas is known for after all. Some people even see it as a quick way to win a few bucks here and there. For some people, though, it isn’t just an occasional and fun (albeit expensive) pastime. These people are what we call pathological gamblers, or problem gamblers. In short, they are addicted to gambling the way Tyrone Biggums is addicted to crack. There have been support programs started for these gambling addicts. However, pathological gambling is a serious addiction and problem that has had a very low success rate for treatment and recovery. Part of it is because the gamblers don’t have the desire to quit. With every addiction, one has to truly want to stop in order to do so. In light of the high relapse rate of problem gamblers new methods are being tried to aid in their recovery. Among these methods are a number of different behavior modification exercises. Some have had a relatively high success rate, while others prove just as ineffective as a slap on the wrist is to a belligerent child.
In these exercises, different types of gamblers were used. For a number of them, the gamblers are horse race betters, while some are slots players, and others still are video poker addicts (video poker? I mean seriously, who has the patience to be addicted to that? You only use like, a quarter each time!). One of the best determinants of the success of the treatment was whether the participants could be contacted after a twelve month period. The first number of tests conducted give little detail other than saying the treatment included desensitization, behavior modification, psychoanalysis, and support and group therapy sessions. In general, those conducting the study noted that there was a low success rate when the numbers were compared to the number of people who started treatment. In reality, there was a high success rate among those that remained in therapy, but the problem was so many people dropped out of therapy.
One of the more specific treatments that seemed effective was a form of motivational interviewing. These interviews were based on Prochaska and DiClemente’s transtheoretical model of change. This model theorized that addicts go through different stages of readiness to change from “precontemplation (I don’t have a problem) to contemplation (Maybe I do have a problem); preparation (I am going to change); action (I am quitting); and maintenance or relapse.” The idea behind the motivational interviewing therapy was to try to give greater problem awareness to the addicts in hopes that this understanding would cause them to change. Of course treatment was only initiated when they were in the contemplation, preparation, and action stages of their addiction cycle. The therapy seemed to have an immediate positive effect on the problem gamblers, but the effect faded over the regular twelve month follow up period that follows all of these recovery treatments (to make sure it was effective, and that the addicts are clean).
The next study, the one this article focused on, was one that involved motivational interviewing as a compliment to gambling-specific cognitive behavior therapy. The cognitive behavior therapy was used for patients retained in treatment for a longer period of time. It dealt largely with the way of thinking that pathological gamblers had, one of which was that they had the ability to control random events (slots). Those conducting the experiment figured they may get better results if they combined the cognitive behavior therapy with the motivational interviewing and gave it the abbreviation CMBT. “The motivational techniques might help clients to resolve their ambivalence about treatment, and the cognitive behavioral techniques would then give them the necessary tools to combat their gambling addiction.” The potential patients were screened, asking them to recount their gambling episodes of the last three months and the amount of money won or lost each time (this is a much easier part of the procedure to go through with for gamblers then with drug addicts, gamblers are at least conscious during their gambling episodes).
During the treatment patients kept records of their daily gambling escapades and their monetary gains and losses. During the first two weeks, there was a treatment session twice a week, but then once a week following that. Also, each session was held individually (a huge difference from group therapy). The first part of treatment was the motivational enhancement, which made them less defensive and more aware of their problem. The goal here was to make them ready to change. Part two’s main idea was to get patients to realize risky situations (getting money in some form) and triggers for their habit ( I’m feeling lucky today), and how to avoid that mindset. This again gets at the fact that they think they can control random events. Part three was all about prevention of relapse and the recognition of things that can lead to it (seeing an old gambling buddy, for example, is a bad idea).
All nine of the people that started in this program saw it through to the end, and each also saw significant positive life changes and managed to seriously reduce their gambling behavior. Remember, these guys were all hardcore gamblers and had been for upwards of ten to fifteen years. The treatment proved successful over the twelve month follow up period and seemed to genuinely work. The result is that this more personal and intensive recovery method is effective and that no matter how long a person has been in a state of mind or way of thinking, it can be changed with the right process.
Monday, February 26, 2007
No More Nico-teen
You have seen television commercials about smoking and its health risks by The Truth. You may even remember a slogan that read, “Tobacco is whacko if you’re a teen.” These marketing campaigns are one of many attempts to reduce youth smoking. A promising campaign to deter youth smoking involves police interventions (writing tickets to minors possessing or using tobacco) with young smokers. Increased tobacco law enforcement will reduce youth smoking rates. If youth smokers worry about tickets, they will have one more thing to ponder before lighting a cigarette.
Researchers recently tested the efficacy of law enforcement interventions to deter youth smoking. Psychologists Jason A. Leonard, Steven B. Pokorny, Julia R. Sanem, and Monica L. Adams from DePaul University created a youth smoking research study in community settings. The experiment’s summary appeared in the September 2006 issue of Behavior Modification in an article titled, “Monitoring and Decreasing Public Smoking Among Youth.” They observed popular youth hangouts in towns around the Chicago area during August 2004, right after school resumed. The researchers wanted to discover how effective law enforcement interventions are at stopping youth smoking.
Before summarizing on their findings, the researchers elaborated on youth smoking trends. They report that around 5,500 youth try cigarettes for the first time every day (681). In addition, around 3,000 become daily smokers. They estimate around 21.9% of high school students in the year 2003 smoked (682). The United States Department of Health and Human Services aims to have youth smoking rates below 17% by 2010. To accomplish this, high school anti-smoking campaigns will need help from additional sources. Leonard et al report that law enforcement interventions combined with efforts to keep merchants from selling to minors promise to reduce youth smoking rates below the current level.
In order to prove their claims, Leonard et al observed several popular locations where youth smoking occurred after school. These locations were shopping mall and fast food restaurant parking lots (684). The researchers designated two sites for police intervention, and designated two as controls. They observed the sites and recorded the number of youth smokers per day. After establishing a baseline number of average youth smokers, the police intervened at the designated sites. The offenders received a ticket, their tobacco was confiscated, parents were notified, and they were required to make a court appearance (686). Following the interventions, researchers continued to observe cases of youth smoking at the locations. Unsurprisingly, cases of youth smoking decreased significantly. However, the control sites showed little change in youth smoking rates (686-687).
Following the study, the researchers discussed their findings. They revealed that following intervention, the days with highest smoking rates were days with little or no police presence (687). However, youth smoking rates at an observed fast food restaurant remained low, regardless of police presence. The researchers attribute this to the fast food parking lot’s layout. If a police car were to drive by, anyone smoking in the parking lot could be easily seen (687).
The researchers also acknowledge the fact that youth smokers may have found a more secluded area to replace the former public hangouts (687). However, the researchers consider this as progress. Applying the social learning theory, they conclude that making smoking less observable in society conveys that it is not socially acceptable and potentially harmful (688). This will lead to a decrease in youth smoking in the future. The researchers also conclude that increased law enforcement interventions against youth smoking will “modify norms regarding the acceptability of smoking,” (688). In addition, they argue that fewer law enforcement interventions will create social norms promoting smoking, making it appear socially acceptable and harmless. Leonard et al write that adults are expected to protect youth from harmful behavior. Adults failing to intervene with youth smoking will send a message of “acceptance and indifference,” (688).
Leonard et al conclude their research summarizing the potential variables that could have affected their results. Since the researchers performed the study outside of the laboratory, controlled tests cannot be performed. However, given the nature of the study, Leonard et al believe “there might need to be a certain appreciation of the hurdles that investigators implementing this type of work encounter, (690). Yes, there will be some potential answer to any result of the experiment, but one should not attribute their findings to pure coincidence. The police interventions showed significant progress in deterring youth smoking. Therefore, police efforts should be increased to deter youth smoking.
Leonard A. Jason, Steven B. Pokorny, Julia R. Sanem, and Monica L. Adams
"Monitoring and Decreasing Public Smoking Among Youth." Behavior Modification 30 (2006): 681-692.
Researchers recently tested the efficacy of law enforcement interventions to deter youth smoking. Psychologists Jason A. Leonard, Steven B. Pokorny, Julia R. Sanem, and Monica L. Adams from DePaul University created a youth smoking research study in community settings. The experiment’s summary appeared in the September 2006 issue of Behavior Modification in an article titled, “Monitoring and Decreasing Public Smoking Among Youth.” They observed popular youth hangouts in towns around the Chicago area during August 2004, right after school resumed. The researchers wanted to discover how effective law enforcement interventions are at stopping youth smoking.
Before summarizing on their findings, the researchers elaborated on youth smoking trends. They report that around 5,500 youth try cigarettes for the first time every day (681). In addition, around 3,000 become daily smokers. They estimate around 21.9% of high school students in the year 2003 smoked (682). The United States Department of Health and Human Services aims to have youth smoking rates below 17% by 2010. To accomplish this, high school anti-smoking campaigns will need help from additional sources. Leonard et al report that law enforcement interventions combined with efforts to keep merchants from selling to minors promise to reduce youth smoking rates below the current level.
In order to prove their claims, Leonard et al observed several popular locations where youth smoking occurred after school. These locations were shopping mall and fast food restaurant parking lots (684). The researchers designated two sites for police intervention, and designated two as controls. They observed the sites and recorded the number of youth smokers per day. After establishing a baseline number of average youth smokers, the police intervened at the designated sites. The offenders received a ticket, their tobacco was confiscated, parents were notified, and they were required to make a court appearance (686). Following the interventions, researchers continued to observe cases of youth smoking at the locations. Unsurprisingly, cases of youth smoking decreased significantly. However, the control sites showed little change in youth smoking rates (686-687).
Following the study, the researchers discussed their findings. They revealed that following intervention, the days with highest smoking rates were days with little or no police presence (687). However, youth smoking rates at an observed fast food restaurant remained low, regardless of police presence. The researchers attribute this to the fast food parking lot’s layout. If a police car were to drive by, anyone smoking in the parking lot could be easily seen (687).
The researchers also acknowledge the fact that youth smokers may have found a more secluded area to replace the former public hangouts (687). However, the researchers consider this as progress. Applying the social learning theory, they conclude that making smoking less observable in society conveys that it is not socially acceptable and potentially harmful (688). This will lead to a decrease in youth smoking in the future. The researchers also conclude that increased law enforcement interventions against youth smoking will “modify norms regarding the acceptability of smoking,” (688). In addition, they argue that fewer law enforcement interventions will create social norms promoting smoking, making it appear socially acceptable and harmless. Leonard et al write that adults are expected to protect youth from harmful behavior. Adults failing to intervene with youth smoking will send a message of “acceptance and indifference,” (688).
Leonard et al conclude their research summarizing the potential variables that could have affected their results. Since the researchers performed the study outside of the laboratory, controlled tests cannot be performed. However, given the nature of the study, Leonard et al believe “there might need to be a certain appreciation of the hurdles that investigators implementing this type of work encounter, (690). Yes, there will be some potential answer to any result of the experiment, but one should not attribute their findings to pure coincidence. The police interventions showed significant progress in deterring youth smoking. Therefore, police efforts should be increased to deter youth smoking.
Leonard A. Jason, Steven B. Pokorny, Julia R. Sanem, and Monica L. Adams
"Monitoring and Decreasing Public Smoking Among Youth." Behavior Modification 30 (2006): 681-692.
Get a Hold of Yourself
It’s becoming a common disorder affecting 3% to 7% of the school-age population. Teachers already have a hard time coping with all their students’ needs through lack of funding and enthusiasm. Early signs can be seen when children are in preschool but the effects can still run rampant even on college campuses. When children aren’t taught how to deal with this disorder, their entire lives can be impacted by this one tiny detail in their genetic make-up. They sit in their offices getting work done and all of a sudden, out of no where…OOO! What a pretty color!
Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder or ADHD is becoming widespread among school-age youths and it is a challenge that many will face continually in their lives. Be it parents, teachers, but most importantly ADHD individuals themselves, something has to be done to help maintain focus and sustain normal moods that don’t consist of jitters and jumps at the slightest hint of excitement.
In a Behavior Modification article, “The Effects of Self-Management in General Education Classrooms on the Organizational Skills of Adolescents with ADHD,” three researchers of Lehigh University compiled a study requiring students suspected or diagnosed with ADHD that could derive ways for youths to cope with their short attention spans and overly energetic personalities. Because males are twice as likely to be affected with ADHD as females, the study consisted of 3 seventh grade boys in regular classroom settings.
All 12-year-olds, they were selected based on teachers’ evaluations of consistency in assignments and attitude in class (e.g. turning in homework, participating effectively in discussion rather than gossiping, being on time) in a Northeastern Pennsylvania public school. The diagnoses of ADHD were confirmed by ratings of hyperactivity, inattention, and impulsivity through Inattention and Hyperactivity-Impulsivity sub-scores based from home and school tested versions of the ADHD-IV Rating Scale. Each of the students was also interviewed by the authors of the article and experiment.
To narrow their experiment tactics, the researchers focused on using self-management as a tool to help the 3 boys concentrate on their studies and conduct in their classrooms. The boys were required to make a list of six goals they wanted to accomplish at least four of per day. They participated in self-management training sessions beginning in homeroom period of the school day and then each boy was observed in a targeted academic setting (two in Language Arts, one in mathematics). In addition, the students were given doses of me methylphenidate, also known as Ritalin, to alleviate the symptoms of ADHD in hopes of successful results of self-management.
Results were accumulated by a checklist completely by both the students and the teachers. The students didn’t know the teachers were completely the same checklist they were to be using for self-progression and the teachers didn’t know that the boys had been diagnosed with ADHD, creating a completely dependent variable. To ensure results and prevent possible biases, interobserver sessions were held 26 of 83 class periods so that the researchers weren’t relying solely on teachers and students.
Self-management of ADHD consists of 2 components: training to acquire skills and monitoring use of newly acquired skills. The study defined training as each student meeting alone with one of the authors in his homeroom period to learn what self-management meant for his individual situation, focusing on the academic side. Students discussed problems they regularly found themselves in with teachers’ angst. After recognizing areas in which they needed to handle themselves better, students used the goals set and self-evaluated themselves every school day. Monitoring in the study included regular meetings for critiquing of the students’ performance within their six goals. Each week smaller, less overlying goals were set so that a short-term and daily basis monitoring technique could be useful. Peer observation by randomly selected classmates was also used on occasion in the study to give another side of the experiment for comparison. This helped with targeting ADHD students in an atmosphere surrounded by average students, where average students no doubt have an easier time cooperating with education’s demands.
At the conclusion of the experiment, students and teachers were given an evaluation form testing the effectiveness of the intervention of self-management training. “A difference in the level of functioning was evidenced immediately following the change from the training phase into the monitoring phase,” (“Effects” 172). While one student’s baseline data was variable, all the students noticed immediate changes in focus and conduct when training sessions began. The treatment of self-management involving training and monitoring of acquired skills to cope with ADHD had worked!
As with all treatments for any health factor or disorder, there are limitations. But, the experiment shows that there is help in sight for individuals faced with ADHD. It just takes patience, and clearly patience can be taught. However, because Ritalin was used in this experiment it is unclear if self-management can work alone for those with ADHD and the article suggests that someone conduct the same test without the aid of Ritalin. That is something that studies and drug companies would have to work out on their own. It may be possible however that after obtaining excellent self-management skills, that the use of drugs like Ritalin would not be necessary. All in all, students near the same ages of the boys tested with and without ADHD are undergoing dramatic changes where self-management needs to be taught and practiced. For those with ADHD the process is harder, but there is hope and available help.
Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder or ADHD is becoming widespread among school-age youths and it is a challenge that many will face continually in their lives. Be it parents, teachers, but most importantly ADHD individuals themselves, something has to be done to help maintain focus and sustain normal moods that don’t consist of jitters and jumps at the slightest hint of excitement.
In a Behavior Modification article, “The Effects of Self-Management in General Education Classrooms on the Organizational Skills of Adolescents with ADHD,” three researchers of Lehigh University compiled a study requiring students suspected or diagnosed with ADHD that could derive ways for youths to cope with their short attention spans and overly energetic personalities. Because males are twice as likely to be affected with ADHD as females, the study consisted of 3 seventh grade boys in regular classroom settings.
All 12-year-olds, they were selected based on teachers’ evaluations of consistency in assignments and attitude in class (e.g. turning in homework, participating effectively in discussion rather than gossiping, being on time) in a Northeastern Pennsylvania public school. The diagnoses of ADHD were confirmed by ratings of hyperactivity, inattention, and impulsivity through Inattention and Hyperactivity-Impulsivity sub-scores based from home and school tested versions of the ADHD-IV Rating Scale. Each of the students was also interviewed by the authors of the article and experiment.
To narrow their experiment tactics, the researchers focused on using self-management as a tool to help the 3 boys concentrate on their studies and conduct in their classrooms. The boys were required to make a list of six goals they wanted to accomplish at least four of per day. They participated in self-management training sessions beginning in homeroom period of the school day and then each boy was observed in a targeted academic setting (two in Language Arts, one in mathematics). In addition, the students were given doses of me methylphenidate, also known as Ritalin, to alleviate the symptoms of ADHD in hopes of successful results of self-management.
Results were accumulated by a checklist completely by both the students and the teachers. The students didn’t know the teachers were completely the same checklist they were to be using for self-progression and the teachers didn’t know that the boys had been diagnosed with ADHD, creating a completely dependent variable. To ensure results and prevent possible biases, interobserver sessions were held 26 of 83 class periods so that the researchers weren’t relying solely on teachers and students.
Self-management of ADHD consists of 2 components: training to acquire skills and monitoring use of newly acquired skills. The study defined training as each student meeting alone with one of the authors in his homeroom period to learn what self-management meant for his individual situation, focusing on the academic side. Students discussed problems they regularly found themselves in with teachers’ angst. After recognizing areas in which they needed to handle themselves better, students used the goals set and self-evaluated themselves every school day. Monitoring in the study included regular meetings for critiquing of the students’ performance within their six goals. Each week smaller, less overlying goals were set so that a short-term and daily basis monitoring technique could be useful. Peer observation by randomly selected classmates was also used on occasion in the study to give another side of the experiment for comparison. This helped with targeting ADHD students in an atmosphere surrounded by average students, where average students no doubt have an easier time cooperating with education’s demands.
At the conclusion of the experiment, students and teachers were given an evaluation form testing the effectiveness of the intervention of self-management training. “A difference in the level of functioning was evidenced immediately following the change from the training phase into the monitoring phase,” (“Effects” 172). While one student’s baseline data was variable, all the students noticed immediate changes in focus and conduct when training sessions began. The treatment of self-management involving training and monitoring of acquired skills to cope with ADHD had worked!
As with all treatments for any health factor or disorder, there are limitations. But, the experiment shows that there is help in sight for individuals faced with ADHD. It just takes patience, and clearly patience can be taught. However, because Ritalin was used in this experiment it is unclear if self-management can work alone for those with ADHD and the article suggests that someone conduct the same test without the aid of Ritalin. That is something that studies and drug companies would have to work out on their own. It may be possible however that after obtaining excellent self-management skills, that the use of drugs like Ritalin would not be necessary. All in all, students near the same ages of the boys tested with and without ADHD are undergoing dramatic changes where self-management needs to be taught and practiced. For those with ADHD the process is harder, but there is hope and available help.
Thursday, February 15, 2007
Pshhh... thats not science!
Interrogation is a science, a technique all its own, but a US government funded study done by the Intelligence Science Board claims that there is no science involved as well as brings the question of ethics to the fore. Again. This article is about a study that claims “There is no scientific basis for current interrogation techniques.” That’s one of the stupidest things I’ve heard in about two weeks. Science is the observation of things and learning what works and doesn’t work is it not? So how is interrogation any different from that?
One of the definitions of science is “systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.” That’s how we learn to question people and get the answers we need from them. The prisoner is asked a question, and depending on the response the method of questioning is adjusted to try to elicit a better response. Of course, the issue of ethics makes this infinitely more difficult, as it limits us to mainly verbal communication and no physical, shall we say, incentive for the prisoner to give the information. Anyhow, this is what scientists like to call “experimentation.” Yes, that’s right I said it. Each interrogation is like an experiment because each person will respond to a certain stimulus in a different manner. Interrogators are constantly learning what does and doesn’t work, which is exactly what scientists do. They have an idea (a.k.a. hypothesis, see where I’m going with this?) of a technique or simulation that will get a desired response and they try it. If that doesn’t work then they try again after tweaking their experiment a bit.
Interrogation is a science in itself. It doesn’t exactly follow the general concept of what science is, such as studying biology or physics, but if you think about it interrogation is like a field of psychology. That is exactly what interrogators deal with after all, you know, the mind. In some countries they use some biology too. The
While there may be a number of things that we aren’t allowed to do because of ethical issues, such as physical torture, direct insult and derision, and convincing the prisoner of harm to him and his family, we are allowed a number of practices that have proved to be effective, and less physically and mentally scarring. Psychologists learn about the brain and its functions yes? That is exactly what our interrogators do. They observe their lab rat and how it reacts to different forms of provocation. The experimenter observes the lab rat’s emotions and responds with further provocation or a different form of it in order to get the desired result: the yielding of information. Of course, the desired result isn’t always quite what was expected. Scientists perform experiments all the time and learn things completely unexpected from their efforts. Don’t think interrogators are much different, but their experiments garner information on which the lives of their friends and squad may depend in the immediate future. This is an area of science that has dire consequences if experiments go awry. That’s why the range of methods, while limited by the standards of ethics, is rather extensive.
The techniques interrogators use can be something as simple as a reward for cooperation or removal of a privilege for being a pain in the a- I mean, for being difficult. Instilling fear is generally effective as is making the prisoner feel comfortable or feel a sense of camaraderie with the interrogator. Even the classic “good cop, bad cop” scenario is still effective, as well as the silent treatment for raising the prisoner’s apprehension. A lot of interrogation involves playing with the prisoner’s emotions and asking the right questions when you get to the core of it all. My question is why aren’t more women in these interrogation roles? They’re perfectly suited for it (insert rim-shot).
In all seriousness though, sometimes all this isn’t enough, and they have to be made genuinely afraid. That’s why sometimes interrogators use a technique called “flag-switching” where the prisoner is questioned by someone they believe to be affiliated with a different country (namely one that condones torture). While actually turning a non-talkative person over to countries that believe in torture is unethical and not allowed (although technically it isn’t the Americans doing the torturing, so it is kind of a loophole), that doesn’t mean we haven’t done it before, and it also doesn’t necessarily mean that we don’t do it today (we probably just never tell anyone). The flag switching isn’t about really turning someone over to another country for questioning, but making the prisoner think we are going to, which is usually frightening enough to get them talking. The article states that the “belief that torture breaks down a subject's resistance is without technical merit.” I’m sorry what was it that the flag switching proved? Oh that’s right: that the very implication of torture is often enough to get prisoners to talk, let alone the practice of it. This has been observed in numerous cases, and therefore our specialists have theorized (there’s another science-y word for you) that torture, or at least the threat of torture, is an effective interrogation technique.
In science, doctors and professors who are experts in their fields generally lead or design experiments using methods they know will work. They need to do their procedures correctly or else the experiment will either yield incorrect or misleading data or just fail altogether. How are these doctors and professors experts? Experience. That’s what interrogators have to have: experience to know what will work and how to apply it. They understand their field of practice and can effectively negotiate it. They have to be able to tell when they are given misleading or false information and be able to know how to get the right information. Interrogation is indeed a science. In all honesty it should be considered a field of psychology. After all, don’t therapists use a mild form of interrogation to help their client? That’s exactly what they do. Therapists ask their clients a series of questions in order to get answers and information the therapist can use to help them. This study done by the Intelligence Science Board is a load of crap, saying that there is no scientific basis for interrogation. If you believe that, then you must not believe in psychology as a field of science either. Remember, just because an authority figure says something, that doesn’t make it true (that goes for professors too, they don’t know everything, and don’t let them tell you so). Logic and experience are some of the best tools one can use to determine truth, so figure it out for yourself and don’t let others tell you what is and isn’t.
Quick, grab your gas mask!
I have never been a big fan of the Bush Administration. I despised the decision to hastily enter Iraq, and I still maintain that view. The administration’s national security obsession made hearing those words trigger my gag reflex. Therefore, it surprises me to find some recent government action acceptable. Recent attempts to stop building biodefense laboratories trigger a debate about protecting the country from biological attacks. The United States currently lacks the technology to prevent or handle a large-scale biological attack. With no arms buildup to threaten world peace, biodefense research can upgrade the United States’ defense capabilities.
However, not everyone shares the same views towards biodefense. A recent editorial in Nature proposed a different opinion towards biodefense research. “Enough Biodefence,” first appeared on November 2, 2006. The editorial board at Nature challenges building biodefense laboratories for the sake of natural interest. The article cites several examples of biodefense laboratories being constructed in the United States. Local residents have protested and legally challenged the biodefense labs’ constructions near their homes. The article does not take a stance on these issues, but does being to ponder the underlying issue. The writer states, “The proliferation of such labs begs the broader question of how much biodefense is too much.” Biodefense’s importance became more evident following the anthrax-infested mail circulating after September 11, 2001. The threat of biological warfare was never more threatening. The United States feared terrorists would use similar agents to wreak havoc on society. It wouldn’t be the first time that happened in the world. In 1995, a Japanese terrorist group known as Aum Shinrikyo (now known as Aleph) carried out a nerve gas attack on the Tokyo subway system. The attack killed 12 people and injured thousands. The threat of similar attacks caused the United States to increase it’s biodefense research funding ($36 billion total).
Nature argues that the public needs to know the importance of biodefense. They believe the administration got a free pass back in 2001 when the government originally implemented biodefense research. The political climate at the time was much less speculative on government decisions, assuming that all were made to solely protect the country. Five years later, Nature asks the White House to explain how the proliferation of biodefense knowledge pertains to national interest. In short, if you build the biodefense labs, for what reason are you building them?
They have a valid point. Is there some threat of which the public is unaware? The government wouldn’t spend $178 million for a biodefense laboratory at the Boston University Medical Center unless they needed it, would they? But what Nature ignores is the importance of analyzing current and future bioterrorism and biological warfare threats. Bioterrorism could very well be improbable science fiction today, but it could be a reality in the near future.
Bioterrorism is not as passive as someone releasing a rhinovirus (common cold) into a populated area. Government agencies worry about more potent viruses and diseases that often cause death quickly. The American Medical Association (AMA) lists inhalational anthrax as a potential bioterrorism threat. Inhalational anthrax (more serious than cutaneous anthrax that circulated in the mail in 2001) results from inhaling anthrax bacterial spores. Upon inhalation, the spores release toxins into the respiratory system. Inhalational anthrax symptoms are similar to influenza, but often the infected subjects die within two or three days of showing symptoms. Vaccines against anthrax do exist, but are not readily available to the public. Military personnel and other at-risk individuals can receive the shot, but the AMA reports that it requires six shots over an eighteen-month period, plus yearly booster shots. Biodefense research can discover more effective vaccines and preventative measures, to deter a large-scale bioterrorist attack.
Airborne anthrax outbreaks are not fictitious or theoretical. “Anthrax as a Biological Weapon,” by Thomas V. Inglesby, Donald A. Henderson, John G. Barlett, Michael S. Ascher, et al., appeared in the May 12, 1999 issue of The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA). The article reports that a Soviet “military microbiology” facility’s accidental release of airborne anthrax spores caused 68 deaths from 79 reported infections (1736). Aum Shinrikyo, the Tokyo sarin gas attack perpetrators, attempted to release airborne anthrax in Tokyo at least eight times, but did not cause any infections. The reasons the attack failed are unknown. Additional problems exist since an airborne outbreak of anthrax is invisible and odorless. Tracking an inhalational anthrax outbreak would be nearly impossible given current technology. Biodefense research could create the proper technology to trace potential outbreaks.
Doctors and health professionals need additional knowledge to diagnose anthrax infections. Inglesby et al. write, “early diagnosis of inhilational anthrax would be difficult and require a high index of suspicion,” (1737). Only 18 cases have occurred in the United States in the past 100 years, and clinical reports from the Soviet Union outbreak are vague (thank you, Stalin). Early diagnosis of dangerous diseases will improve the United States’ biological warfare and bioterrorism defenses
Thanks to the Freedom of Information Act, government documents are easily available to the public (that is, unless they are classified). The Congressional Research Service (CRS) report outlining the National Biodefense Analysis and Countermeasures Center (NBACC) provides support for the “proliferation of knowledge” regarding biodefense that Nature challenged. The CRS report claims that the NBACC would “assess vulnerabilities and determine potential consequences” of biological threats. In addition, the research center could conduct “forensic analysis of evidence from bio-crimes and terrorism” in case of an attack.
International agreements, like the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention, demand that the United States restrains from developing biological weapons. Because of this, the NBACC would require significant oversight, both domestic and international. I wrote about a previous Nature editorial, “Enough Warheads, Already,” that protested replacing the United State’s nuclear stockpile with modern warheads. I agreed with the editor’s stance. However, defending ourselves from biological warfare is much more noble, and provides very little threat to world peace. In contrast to the Reliable Replacement Warhead program, the NBACC would not create and stockpile weapons.
The editors from Nature may still have concern over classified research that the CRS report outlines will occur at the NBACC. Classified research is necessary to protect our interests. Providing a full disclosure of research from the laboratory would explicitly state where our interests are focused. In turn, this would give opportunists a chance to take advantage of our weaknesses. Once strategies for defending against a certain biological agent are finalized, the information can be declassified, as it is likely that agent would be rendered obsolete. What good is a biological agent that poses no threat to the citizens of the United States?
The fact that biodefense laboratories are being built close to residential settlements is an important debate. While it makes sense to build biodefense laboratories away from heavily populated areas as a precaution, there is nothing else that should obstruct the research they perform. We do not need three or four biodefense laboratories in every state, but around a half-dozen biodefense laboratories nationwide will be sufficient. It is unknown whether or not biological warfare will ever occur. To ensure such warfare is ineffective against the United States, the government is researching current vulnerabilities to create strong countermeasures.
The editors at Nature wondered how the “proliferation of knowledge” pertained to national interest. As you can see, biodefense research is essential to guaranteeing the United States’ future safety and security.
1. “Enough Biodefense.” Nature 444 (2006): 2.
2. Inglesby, Thomas V. et al. "Anthrax as a Biological Weapon." The Journal of the American Medical Association 281 (1999): 1735-1745.
However, not everyone shares the same views towards biodefense. A recent editorial in Nature proposed a different opinion towards biodefense research. “Enough Biodefence,” first appeared on November 2, 2006. The editorial board at Nature challenges building biodefense laboratories for the sake of natural interest. The article cites several examples of biodefense laboratories being constructed in the United States. Local residents have protested and legally challenged the biodefense labs’ constructions near their homes. The article does not take a stance on these issues, but does being to ponder the underlying issue. The writer states, “The proliferation of such labs begs the broader question of how much biodefense is too much.” Biodefense’s importance became more evident following the anthrax-infested mail circulating after September 11, 2001. The threat of biological warfare was never more threatening. The United States feared terrorists would use similar agents to wreak havoc on society. It wouldn’t be the first time that happened in the world. In 1995, a Japanese terrorist group known as Aum Shinrikyo (now known as Aleph) carried out a nerve gas attack on the Tokyo subway system. The attack killed 12 people and injured thousands. The threat of similar attacks caused the United States to increase it’s biodefense research funding ($36 billion total).
Nature argues that the public needs to know the importance of biodefense. They believe the administration got a free pass back in 2001 when the government originally implemented biodefense research. The political climate at the time was much less speculative on government decisions, assuming that all were made to solely protect the country. Five years later, Nature asks the White House to explain how the proliferation of biodefense knowledge pertains to national interest. In short, if you build the biodefense labs, for what reason are you building them?
They have a valid point. Is there some threat of which the public is unaware? The government wouldn’t spend $178 million for a biodefense laboratory at the Boston University Medical Center unless they needed it, would they? But what Nature ignores is the importance of analyzing current and future bioterrorism and biological warfare threats. Bioterrorism could very well be improbable science fiction today, but it could be a reality in the near future.
Bioterrorism is not as passive as someone releasing a rhinovirus (common cold) into a populated area. Government agencies worry about more potent viruses and diseases that often cause death quickly. The American Medical Association (AMA) lists inhalational anthrax as a potential bioterrorism threat. Inhalational anthrax (more serious than cutaneous anthrax that circulated in the mail in 2001) results from inhaling anthrax bacterial spores. Upon inhalation, the spores release toxins into the respiratory system. Inhalational anthrax symptoms are similar to influenza, but often the infected subjects die within two or three days of showing symptoms. Vaccines against anthrax do exist, but are not readily available to the public. Military personnel and other at-risk individuals can receive the shot, but the AMA reports that it requires six shots over an eighteen-month period, plus yearly booster shots. Biodefense research can discover more effective vaccines and preventative measures, to deter a large-scale bioterrorist attack.
Airborne anthrax outbreaks are not fictitious or theoretical. “Anthrax as a Biological Weapon,” by Thomas V. Inglesby, Donald A. Henderson, John G. Barlett, Michael S. Ascher, et al., appeared in the May 12, 1999 issue of The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA). The article reports that a Soviet “military microbiology” facility’s accidental release of airborne anthrax spores caused 68 deaths from 79 reported infections (1736). Aum Shinrikyo, the Tokyo sarin gas attack perpetrators, attempted to release airborne anthrax in Tokyo at least eight times, but did not cause any infections. The reasons the attack failed are unknown. Additional problems exist since an airborne outbreak of anthrax is invisible and odorless. Tracking an inhalational anthrax outbreak would be nearly impossible given current technology. Biodefense research could create the proper technology to trace potential outbreaks.
Doctors and health professionals need additional knowledge to diagnose anthrax infections. Inglesby et al. write, “early diagnosis of inhilational anthrax would be difficult and require a high index of suspicion,” (1737). Only 18 cases have occurred in the United States in the past 100 years, and clinical reports from the Soviet Union outbreak are vague (thank you, Stalin). Early diagnosis of dangerous diseases will improve the United States’ biological warfare and bioterrorism defenses
Thanks to the Freedom of Information Act, government documents are easily available to the public (that is, unless they are classified). The Congressional Research Service (CRS) report outlining the National Biodefense Analysis and Countermeasures Center (NBACC) provides support for the “proliferation of knowledge” regarding biodefense that Nature challenged. The CRS report claims that the NBACC would “assess vulnerabilities and determine potential consequences” of biological threats. In addition, the research center could conduct “forensic analysis of evidence from bio-crimes and terrorism” in case of an attack.
International agreements, like the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention, demand that the United States restrains from developing biological weapons. Because of this, the NBACC would require significant oversight, both domestic and international. I wrote about a previous Nature editorial, “Enough Warheads, Already,” that protested replacing the United State’s nuclear stockpile with modern warheads. I agreed with the editor’s stance. However, defending ourselves from biological warfare is much more noble, and provides very little threat to world peace. In contrast to the Reliable Replacement Warhead program, the NBACC would not create and stockpile weapons.
The editors from Nature may still have concern over classified research that the CRS report outlines will occur at the NBACC. Classified research is necessary to protect our interests. Providing a full disclosure of research from the laboratory would explicitly state where our interests are focused. In turn, this would give opportunists a chance to take advantage of our weaknesses. Once strategies for defending against a certain biological agent are finalized, the information can be declassified, as it is likely that agent would be rendered obsolete. What good is a biological agent that poses no threat to the citizens of the United States?
The fact that biodefense laboratories are being built close to residential settlements is an important debate. While it makes sense to build biodefense laboratories away from heavily populated areas as a precaution, there is nothing else that should obstruct the research they perform. We do not need three or four biodefense laboratories in every state, but around a half-dozen biodefense laboratories nationwide will be sufficient. It is unknown whether or not biological warfare will ever occur. To ensure such warfare is ineffective against the United States, the government is researching current vulnerabilities to create strong countermeasures.
The editors at Nature wondered how the “proliferation of knowledge” pertained to national interest. As you can see, biodefense research is essential to guaranteeing the United States’ future safety and security.
1. “Enough Biodefense.” Nature 444 (2006): 2.
2. Inglesby, Thomas V. et al. "Anthrax as a Biological Weapon." The Journal of the American Medical Association 281 (1999): 1735-1745.
NOT a Fair Share
I think that psychology is an important and interesting science. You use psychology everyday, and it changes and makes people’s lives. The Nature editorial, “A Fair Share” does not support this view. The author states, “Their (psychologists’) discipline is ‘softer’ than some others” (par 1.) He believes that all psychological research should be revealed to the general public. However, he also makes several valid points on why a psychologist would not want to all reveal their research. The article contains its own opposing view. Because psychology is inherently different from other scientific disciplines, a point readily made by this article, it makes sense that research done by psychologists ought to be treated differently than a chemist’s or physicist’s findings. Sigmund Freud is the most famous and in many ways influential psychologist that has ever lived. Many of his theories and terms of phrase have superseded the psychological and scientific communities (such as Freudian slip, defense mechanism, and the oedipal complex). Part of what made him and psychology so successful was that he was not constantly questioned about every little detail of the methodology behind his findings. That is largely because psychology is not meant to operate that way. This article is pushing for something that would ultimately hurt psychological research. Because it is such a variable science it would be wrong to treat it like the concrete predictable laboratory sciences. If anything, these forms of scrutiny and interrogation would just lead psychologists to keep their findings to themselves, even though the sharing of their ideas could be very beneficial to other psychologists working on the same types of problems.
In this article, the first argument that a psychologist might use to defend the privacy of their results is that because all of their research is based on actual people and their experiences, they would want to preserve the rights of privacy to their patients. Psychologists take oaths similar to the ones that doctors and lawyers to take, to protect patient or client confidentiality. Imagine if your deepest and darkest secrets were revealed to anyone other than the one person you intended to know? Anyone who has ever been betrayed by a confidant can understand why patients would certainly want their private information protected. These are secrets that may not only be embarrassing if revealed, but could cost people their jobs, status, and most important relationships. It is against their code of ethics for psychologists to reveal the information that is told to them in secrecy without compelling legal reasons, such as threats of a violent assault on another person. This is actually a crucial part of many psychological treatments. If a patient is concerned that their personal lives, thoughts, beliefs, or actions may be revealed to others, they will lose faith in their therapist and any progress they might have been able to make would be gone. A psychologist’s first goal is to help their clients, not to justify theories to the scientific community.
The second legitimate argument presented lies with the interpretation of the data collected by a psychologist. Since psychology is such a broad field filled with so many approaches, a member of a different school would obviously not agree with another psychologist’s findings, because the fundamentals of their schools of thoughts are so dramatically different. For example, a Behaviorist psychologist who believes that all human behavior can be broken down to raw scientific cause and effect would have no use for a humanist psychologist’s research about the consequences of people’s choices. In many cases there is no point in psychologists from another field or school reviewing a contrarily minded psychologist’s work. All that would result would be continuing problems between the schools and a reduction in everyone’s reputability. This would essentially be like having a fundamentalist believer in intelligent design review the work of scientist regarding evidence of evolution. It wouldn’t matter what data was presented, the fundamentalist would never agree with or believe what was in the report. It would be a useless waste of everyone’s time.
The final argument is another good one. In many cases, psychology is unlike a controlled biology experiment. Since the human mind and human actions and thoughts are what are being studied, research comes less predictably and in a less controlled manner in many cases. While some specific tests are preformed to draw conclusions, many insights come through simple patient interviews with a noticeable trend that emerges. There is no set scientific methodology, so it is very difficult to report in a way that would satisfy other scientists. There are no specific values to place on each reaction that a person would have in a certain situation. There are no calculations to come up with a concrete answer to a specific question. In psychology there are few hard and fast rules that can be applied to every scenario. This is what makes psychology such a special science. Instead of relying on rules with no exceptions, there are guidelines that can be generally used and insight to be evaluated, but it should be not be subject to the same kind of scrutiny that those other, colder sciences deal with.
While some people might argue that research ought to be revealed in order to make sure that the experiments and findings are ethical and legitimate; it is more important that psychologists are able to carry out their treatments in the manner that is best for their clients. This is the ultimate ethical concern. The average psychologist is not meant to treat the entire country, but rather the individual patients who come to them for help. It is to those individuals the psychologists are responsible, to those that they take an oath to help to the best of their ability and to protect their privacy. Once again, many psychological findings do not come from planned, coordinated experiments but rather through the observations of psychologists as they work. In many cases, findings or theories are based on hundreds of sessions with several patients that can not be reproduced in a laboratory setting. Therefore, this “data” is the only support to their findings, but it would be unethical for these therapists to betray their clients’ trust by revealing the specifics of their findings. Ultimately, while it may seem that it is for the greater good for psychologists to reveal the specifics of their work, that isn’t the case. If patients don’t feel that they can trust their psychologists, the field itself will disappear, because nobody wants their secrets told.
In this article, the first argument that a psychologist might use to defend the privacy of their results is that because all of their research is based on actual people and their experiences, they would want to preserve the rights of privacy to their patients. Psychologists take oaths similar to the ones that doctors and lawyers to take, to protect patient or client confidentiality. Imagine if your deepest and darkest secrets were revealed to anyone other than the one person you intended to know? Anyone who has ever been betrayed by a confidant can understand why patients would certainly want their private information protected. These are secrets that may not only be embarrassing if revealed, but could cost people their jobs, status, and most important relationships. It is against their code of ethics for psychologists to reveal the information that is told to them in secrecy without compelling legal reasons, such as threats of a violent assault on another person. This is actually a crucial part of many psychological treatments. If a patient is concerned that their personal lives, thoughts, beliefs, or actions may be revealed to others, they will lose faith in their therapist and any progress they might have been able to make would be gone. A psychologist’s first goal is to help their clients, not to justify theories to the scientific community.
The second legitimate argument presented lies with the interpretation of the data collected by a psychologist. Since psychology is such a broad field filled with so many approaches, a member of a different school would obviously not agree with another psychologist’s findings, because the fundamentals of their schools of thoughts are so dramatically different. For example, a Behaviorist psychologist who believes that all human behavior can be broken down to raw scientific cause and effect would have no use for a humanist psychologist’s research about the consequences of people’s choices. In many cases there is no point in psychologists from another field or school reviewing a contrarily minded psychologist’s work. All that would result would be continuing problems between the schools and a reduction in everyone’s reputability. This would essentially be like having a fundamentalist believer in intelligent design review the work of scientist regarding evidence of evolution. It wouldn’t matter what data was presented, the fundamentalist would never agree with or believe what was in the report. It would be a useless waste of everyone’s time.
The final argument is another good one. In many cases, psychology is unlike a controlled biology experiment. Since the human mind and human actions and thoughts are what are being studied, research comes less predictably and in a less controlled manner in many cases. While some specific tests are preformed to draw conclusions, many insights come through simple patient interviews with a noticeable trend that emerges. There is no set scientific methodology, so it is very difficult to report in a way that would satisfy other scientists. There are no specific values to place on each reaction that a person would have in a certain situation. There are no calculations to come up with a concrete answer to a specific question. In psychology there are few hard and fast rules that can be applied to every scenario. This is what makes psychology such a special science. Instead of relying on rules with no exceptions, there are guidelines that can be generally used and insight to be evaluated, but it should be not be subject to the same kind of scrutiny that those other, colder sciences deal with.
While some people might argue that research ought to be revealed in order to make sure that the experiments and findings are ethical and legitimate; it is more important that psychologists are able to carry out their treatments in the manner that is best for their clients. This is the ultimate ethical concern. The average psychologist is not meant to treat the entire country, but rather the individual patients who come to them for help. It is to those individuals the psychologists are responsible, to those that they take an oath to help to the best of their ability and to protect their privacy. Once again, many psychological findings do not come from planned, coordinated experiments but rather through the observations of psychologists as they work. In many cases, findings or theories are based on hundreds of sessions with several patients that can not be reproduced in a laboratory setting. Therefore, this “data” is the only support to their findings, but it would be unethical for these therapists to betray their clients’ trust by revealing the specifics of their findings. Ultimately, while it may seem that it is for the greater good for psychologists to reveal the specifics of their work, that isn’t the case. If patients don’t feel that they can trust their psychologists, the field itself will disappear, because nobody wants their secrets told.
God, it's HOT in here
I found it really quite hard to find something for this final scientific entry. Because honestly, there is little in science that I don’t believe has some backing – and I mean the real, Research and Development grant program science, not what Hollywood has made it out as. So, what contradicts science and always seems to throw punches with accusations?
You got it: religion. In the United States particularly, Christians tussle with scientists time and again about scientific theories versus the word of God in the Bible. In the March 9, 2006 issue of Nature, there was an editorial printed that implied these Christian versus scientist quarrels may take a rest because of global warming. Titled “A Warm Welcome,” the author tells that many evangelicals are beginning to accept the existence of global warming and suggests the scientists should be thankful for this coming around, so to speak.
Well, it’s wonderful that some hardcore Christian believers are warming up to the idea of global warming, however, there is still so much that they haven’t accepted as natural law that science throughout the world has proven. For instance, evangelicals have been sited as saying gravity to be false and that “Intelligent Falling” is more accurate, as if God were pushing objects downward. But asking for a cooling of the tensions between these two groups shouldn’t be based solely upon one commonality, especially one that the evangelicals have just so recently begun to accept as a globular truth.
There are a lot of posts on our blog about global warming; as you can see, we as students are pretty serious about this. I refer readers to those posts and resources to know more scientific knowledge and background about global warming. The state of the world is our future too, but I think in order for solutions to be met, perhaps starting off on more than simply accepting the problem must come first. There are just some basic principles that are factual about the world we live in and there is only some point that humans could understand what the “greater meaning of life” that we all search for is. I’m not preaching science and I don’t want to bash religion, but there is a fine line in what we know is real…and what we simply have faith in.
Evangelicals are those who take religion to a conservative level which is often extreme to those who don’t necessarily completely believe in what they preach, and in our country that just so happens to be many Protestant Christians. Because of this exuberant level of faith in the Bible, many evangelicals feel like they are indeed the ones looked down upon, not the scientists. This editorial feels that this should be enough common ground for the two factions to unite.
With websites like http://www.faithalone.org/, it might seem pretty obvious that evangelicals believe 100 percent in their God, down to considering humans created as intelligent design and that differing (or conflicting) religions are on the attack of your own. Evangelicals believe that it is upon their duties to spread their beliefs, often making their non-believer targets feel that their own freedom of speech and religion are being jeopardized.
As fundamentalist Christians within evangelicalism, it is believed that every word of the Bible is the direct word of God, despite the numerous versions of the Bible and the fact that it has been reprinted and reissued throughout its history to almost untraceable copies. Evangelicals also believe that having faith is enough to save one’s soul on judgment day and that Jesus Christ was born from the Virgin Mary, was himself a deity whom created miracles before the people, and was resurrected.
As an organized religion, there is a complete network of communication between factions on strategies to conversion and spreading the word, defense for themselves, using politics to reshape the world in the foundations of the Bible, etc. many of which use modern technology like the Internet to connect with one another. The Christian Apologetics Journal, for example, provides textual backing for the aid to “the defense of the historic Christian Faith.”
“Every major religion has a moral mandate to take care of the Earth,” stated by an opinion columnist for the Christian Science Monitor. This is true because in many religious texts, it is one of the first or at least basic principles that man must abide by to be a good member of that particular religion. This moral obligation to take care of the Earth, our home, is the basis for evangelicals’ acceptance of global warming as a scientific fact. But, shouldn’t taking care of the Earth be a part of our coexistence as living organisms?
Consider this: parrotfish maintain the coral reefs by “cleaning” them with their grinding incisors, which the algae and chunks of coral are then digested and ground into sand, thus restoring our oceans and coral reefs. Granted, we as humans consciously have a stronger sense of purpose and/or meaning to this world because we can logically think and create complex systems (e.g. calculus); however, as beings living on this planet, shouldn’t we automatically feel a need to take care of the planet? Therefore why should a religion be entirely essential to either tell us or makes us believe that having a healthy, clean planet is the best way to survive? It should just be an accepted fact.
Most of the world has already accepted the truth of global warming. Even our own conservative White House administration has admitted that global warming is real and that we must do something about it. It seems as though evangelicals are accepting global warming because of their backing of President Bush due to his conservative demeanor and born-again Christianity. I don’t want to make assumptions, but the connection is there especially since a lot of the Bush White House’s support comes from evangelicals and other devout Christians. For us to really be able to do something about global warming, everyone must accept it as a truth.
However, despite accepting this, I think that other natural laws of science should be accepted too. The editorial in Nature points out a good thing in evangelicals realizing global warming, but that’s not enough and scientists shouldn’t be jumping for joy about it. There is more to it than that, because basing an occurrence on science versus God’s will may only hurt the process when it comes to agreeing on a solution. Praying may work if one has faith; but scientific action will show direct results.
Thursday, February 8, 2007
Meh... I'll Do It Later
Interestingly enough, it is entirely possible to procrastinate while researching procrastination and trying to write a large blog post about it. Finding a topic that interested me and related to the university in any way seemed quite the daunting task at first. Then I thought to myself, “I really need to stop procrastinating and just… wait, that’s it!” Yeah, inspiration kind of struck like a two-by-four to the back of the head, which in turn led to further procrastination and self-congratulation after having finally completed step one of the blog-writing process. Like they always say, “I’ll do it later.” Or maybe that’s just me.
Believe it or not, there is such a disorder known as chronic procrastination. That doesn’t mean that it will work as an excuse for late papers or homework. No, that’s not the case at all; however it does mean that it has been recognized as a legitimate disorder and, therefore, it had piqued the interest of three psychology researchers. Their names were Joseph Ferrari, Christopher Mason, and Corey Hammer. In their study, entitled “Procrastination as a Predictor of Task Perceptions: Examining Delayed and Non-delayed Tasks Across Varied Deadlines,” they defined procrastination as reporting “frequent rates of task delays or incompletion across many situations in [one’s] life,” and this is the real kicker, “The frequency of procrastination has been estimated to be as high as 70% for academic-specific tasks among college students” (Ferrari 1, p1). That’s more than half of college students that don’t want to get started on their work. Go figure, right?
Seriously, though, there are definitely large differences in the level of severity of procrastination as well as different causes and reasons for it. In an earlier study done by Ferrari and two other colleagues, Jean O’Callaghan and Ian Newbegin, entitled “Prevalence of Procrastination in the
What is called a “convenient sample” was used for this experiment. This pretty much means that they used volunteers for this program without trying to evenly select different ethnicities or genders. They just used the rabble that showed up (most of them were first or second year students participating in order to get credit for their introductory psychology class). Here’s a quick synopsis of the experiment. The guinea pigs participants filled out a generic questionnaire first, then they were given a folder describing two different tasks (these were everyday tasks, not something particularly difficult or monumental; also they were told on one of these tasks that they had to assume they had delayed starting or finishing and on the other, they assumed they had started on time), each task came with a deadline concerning one of three time periods (they didn’t do the tasks, but they were to assume they did or were supposed to).
The deadlines were either in the past (with a deadline that was over a week before), the present (with a deadline in a couple of days or so), or the future (with a deadline in a few weeks).After seeing the contents, participants were told to write about their given tasks for three minutes describing their worries, annoyances, and pretty much how they went about, or would go about, performing it (that’s three minutes per task, just to clarify). Those of us who are procrastinators probably already know the outcome for each of these scenarios to the letter.
After the writing they were given a second questionnaire. These questions went along the lines of satisfaction, clarity, difficulty, and impact (positive/negative) on the individual in regards to the tasks they wrote about. It turned out that procrastinators found the past tasks more difficult, less enjoyable, and needing more effort to complete, as well as being unclear. Interestingly enough, the procrastinators found that the task had a positive personal impact if they had completed it (Ferrari 1, p6). I found it interesting that people who procrastinated felt that way about incomplete or delayed tasks, but when I looked at some of my own past experiences I realized I felt the same way in some cases. Like that one time I actually started and finished an English paper prior to the night before it was due. I felt good and accomplished about that one, but I normally feel exhausted and on the cusp of life and death after finishing a paper. I blame that on the fact that I normally start the paper around 11pm the night before it’s due… yeap, that’s me. Alright, back to the experiment.
The experimenters reached the surprising conclusion that it didn’t matter how inclined the person was to procrastinate that affected the person’s perception of the task at all. They only viewed the task as more difficult, boring, taxing, or what-have-you if the task had been delayed in its beginning or completion and whether or not the deadline had passed or was nearing. It is rather funny how it came as a surprise to the experimenters that there was no change in the task perception for the future tasks by the procrastinators. They speculated as to why this was, and reached the proper conclusion that procrastinators don’t worry about the future task because “the notion of a deadline might not have affected how procrastinators viewed the task because the deadline date was considered in a distant future. The procrastinator might have considered he/she could still complete the task and work well under the time pressure” (Ferrari 1, p7). While those that do procrastinate know these things without a doubt, it may help those that want to try and change their postponing ways to see it spelled out as plainly as the experimenters did at the end of this experiment. “Procrastinators are more likely to see tasks that they postpone as being more difficult, less enjoyable, and requiring more effort; as well as stating that they lacked clarity on how to do the task, but had they completed the task, it would have impacted on them positively” (Ferrari 1, p7)
1) Ferrari, Joseph R., Christopher P. Mason, and Corey Hammer. "Procrastination as a Predictor of Task Perceptions: Examining Delayed and Non-delayed Tasks Across Varied Deadlines." Individual Differences Research 4.1 (2006): 28-36.
2) Ferrari, Joseph R., Jean O'Callaghan, and Ian Newbegin. "Prevalence of Procrastination in the
Global warming, what should we expect?
Global warming, once regarded as a theory, now receives attention from governments and supranational institutions (European Union or United Nations). Still, there is no consensus on the long-term effects of global warming. The lack of a consensus leaves people wondering if there is actually anything wrong with global warming. What is wrong with a few extra weeks at the beach? In the movie The Day After Tomorrow, global warming sent the world into another ice age. The idea is somewhat farfetched. Let me get this straight, global warming will back the wooly mammoth and saber-toothed tiger? I’m not buying it. A more probable result of climate change can be seen in the southeastern Asian country of Indonesia.
Halfway across the globe, Indonesia is no stranger to severe weather, suffering from flooding, droughts, tsunamis, earthquakes, and the occasional volcano. The country depends heavily on the Asian monsoon (seasonal winds that bring distinct weather conditions) to drive its weather patterns. The monsoons blow in certain directions depending on the time of year, which creates intense wet and dry seasons. Unfortunately, monsoon patterns are expected to intensify with global warming. In the January 18, 2006 edition of Nature, Jonathan T. Overpeck and Julia E. Cole write about changes in monsoon patterns affecting Indonesia. The article, “Climate Change, Lessons from a distant monsoon,” reports the shifting of monsoons over the island nation.
Indonesia, a country of 245 million people, relies on rainfall brought by the monsoon to support its agricultural industry. Reliance on crops like rice, rubber, cocoa, and coffee (the three latter all come from rainforest trees) give rainfall an important role in sustaining the nation’s economy. Given the fact that 43.3% of its labor force is concentrated in agriculture, shifts in monsoon patterns could be devastating for the island nation. Overpeck and Cole report that Indonesian weather patterns (and most of South East Asia) are affected by the El Niño/ Southern Oscillation (ENSO) system. El Niño (a rise in ocean temperatures in the central Pacific Ocean, concentrated off the coast of Ecuador and Peru) moves rainfall east of the islands, leaving Indonesia in a drought. The Indian Ocean Dipole, slightly less famous than El Niño, creates drought on the western side of the nation. The Indian Ocean Dipole results in cooler sea temperatures off the coast of Sumatra (Indonesia’s most westerly island).
Overpeck and Cole mention Asian monsoons are expected to increase in intensity with global warming. They do not entertain how and why this will happen, but monsoon intensification will cause an increase in drought conditions. Scientists have studied historical evidence in coral reefs to predict future climate conditions. The chemical composition of coral reflects the climate at the time of its formation, therefore providing scientists with a natural climate record. The historical evidence shows that Indonesia had stronger monsoons and longer periods of drought 5,000 years ago. According to Overpeck and Cole, “a stronger Asian monsoon generates anomalies in the easterly winds that would cool the eastern Indian Ocean.” In short, the anomalies in the wind keep the ocean temperatures in the eastern Indian Ocean cooler, creating the aforementioned drought conditions on the islands. As mentioned before, nearly half of Indonesia’s labor force is involved in agriculture. Challenges to the agriculture industry could hurt the nation’s economy.
Historical evidence from coral reefs also shows that monsoon patterns have undergone rather abrupt changes in the past. It would be naïve to exclude this as a possibility for the future. The abrupt changes are difficult to predict, which adds an additional variable to the equation. An abrupt change could bring seasons of intense rain, causing flooding through out the nation, or extreme drought, harming the agriculture industry. Since this is unpredictable, the nation would have very little - if any – time to adapt.
Post-industrial nations in Europe and North America do not face the same threats that changing monsoons will bring to Indonesia. Our agriculture is much less susceptible to climate changes, thanks to technologically advanced equipment and crops that require less water. It is likely that less developed nations will suffer more from the effects of global warming than developed ones. While we will not wake up one day and find that we are in another ice age, average temperatures will change. Rainfall amounts will, too. The effects in developed nations could be rather small. Will we be able to swim in December? Will we need umbrellas every day?
Who knows?
For the original text of “Climate Change, Lessons From a Distant Monsoon”:
Overpeck, Jonathan T. and Julia E. Cole. “Climate Change, Lessons From a Distant Monsoon.” Nature 445 (2007): 270-271.
Halfway across the globe, Indonesia is no stranger to severe weather, suffering from flooding, droughts, tsunamis, earthquakes, and the occasional volcano. The country depends heavily on the Asian monsoon (seasonal winds that bring distinct weather conditions) to drive its weather patterns. The monsoons blow in certain directions depending on the time of year, which creates intense wet and dry seasons. Unfortunately, monsoon patterns are expected to intensify with global warming. In the January 18, 2006 edition of Nature, Jonathan T. Overpeck and Julia E. Cole write about changes in monsoon patterns affecting Indonesia. The article, “Climate Change, Lessons from a distant monsoon,” reports the shifting of monsoons over the island nation.
Indonesia, a country of 245 million people, relies on rainfall brought by the monsoon to support its agricultural industry. Reliance on crops like rice, rubber, cocoa, and coffee (the three latter all come from rainforest trees) give rainfall an important role in sustaining the nation’s economy. Given the fact that 43.3% of its labor force is concentrated in agriculture, shifts in monsoon patterns could be devastating for the island nation. Overpeck and Cole report that Indonesian weather patterns (and most of South East Asia) are affected by the El Niño/ Southern Oscillation (ENSO) system. El Niño (a rise in ocean temperatures in the central Pacific Ocean, concentrated off the coast of Ecuador and Peru) moves rainfall east of the islands, leaving Indonesia in a drought. The Indian Ocean Dipole, slightly less famous than El Niño, creates drought on the western side of the nation. The Indian Ocean Dipole results in cooler sea temperatures off the coast of Sumatra (Indonesia’s most westerly island).
Overpeck and Cole mention Asian monsoons are expected to increase in intensity with global warming. They do not entertain how and why this will happen, but monsoon intensification will cause an increase in drought conditions. Scientists have studied historical evidence in coral reefs to predict future climate conditions. The chemical composition of coral reflects the climate at the time of its formation, therefore providing scientists with a natural climate record. The historical evidence shows that Indonesia had stronger monsoons and longer periods of drought 5,000 years ago. According to Overpeck and Cole, “a stronger Asian monsoon generates anomalies in the easterly winds that would cool the eastern Indian Ocean.” In short, the anomalies in the wind keep the ocean temperatures in the eastern Indian Ocean cooler, creating the aforementioned drought conditions on the islands. As mentioned before, nearly half of Indonesia’s labor force is involved in agriculture. Challenges to the agriculture industry could hurt the nation’s economy.
Historical evidence from coral reefs also shows that monsoon patterns have undergone rather abrupt changes in the past. It would be naïve to exclude this as a possibility for the future. The abrupt changes are difficult to predict, which adds an additional variable to the equation. An abrupt change could bring seasons of intense rain, causing flooding through out the nation, or extreme drought, harming the agriculture industry. Since this is unpredictable, the nation would have very little - if any – time to adapt.
Post-industrial nations in Europe and North America do not face the same threats that changing monsoons will bring to Indonesia. Our agriculture is much less susceptible to climate changes, thanks to technologically advanced equipment and crops that require less water. It is likely that less developed nations will suffer more from the effects of global warming than developed ones. While we will not wake up one day and find that we are in another ice age, average temperatures will change. Rainfall amounts will, too. The effects in developed nations could be rather small. Will we be able to swim in December? Will we need umbrellas every day?
Who knows?
For the original text of “Climate Change, Lessons From a Distant Monsoon”:
Overpeck, Jonathan T. and Julia E. Cole. “Climate Change, Lessons From a Distant Monsoon.” Nature 445 (2007): 270-271.
Think Twice, Ladies
If humans knew everything, a whole lot of people would be out of a job right about now. The basis for research, experiments, and trial and error are what makes science an evolving field. In an editorial “What We Think and What We Know,” conveyed by John Buse, MD, PhD, CDE and Laura Raftery, this ongoing idea of hopeful treatments but not quite consistent results is embodied through hormone replacement therapy (HRT) for postmenopausal women, particularly those diagnosed with diabetes. Menopause occurs when a woman stops menstruating which is accompanied by hormonal, physical, and psychological changes. Basically, not everything works for everyone, and the newest treatments are so experimental and so dependent on different variables and situations that not everyone can expect them to work consistently with every case. However, we as consumers and patients don’t always realize that simply because something is out there, that doesn’t mean it will automatically cater to our individual needs. Buse and Raftery state is perfectly: “We hope it serves as a reminder that there is actually very little that we ‘know’ in medicine, whereas there is a great deal that we ‘think’ that we know,” (Buse 1877).
The trials covered by this editorial only tested conjugated equine estrogen and medroxyprogesterone acetate. Conjugated equine estrogen in HRT is derived from a pregnant mare’s urine to work as a substitute and takes over where estrogen levels drop after menopause. Estrogen is the primary group of female sex hormones which promotes female organ, tissue, and bone well-being throughout a woman’s life. When estrogen levels fall off during menopause, women can experience hot flashes and vaginal dryness, itching, or burning. Medroxyprogesterone acetate, on the other hand, is a progestin synthetic progesterone) used to strengthen the lining of the uterine wall. It has also been found to help maintain skin elasticity and bone strength. Dosages for this experiment were limited to 0.625 mg/day of conjugated equine estrogen and 2.5 mg/day of medroxyprogesterone acetate, but it is to be reminded that lower dosages of these same HRT drugs may not be applicable to results found. At these levels of intake, HRT may still be a good short-term option for menopause symptoms like hot flashes, night sweats, disrupted sleep patterns, and mood swings, but probably not for longer than a year or two (Buse 1876). Other options for postmenopausal women mentioned include raloxifene or bisphosphonates to reduce possible fractures in the hips and spine primarily. Raloxifene seems desirable because it could presumably be connected to a reduction of probability of breast cancer and/or cardiovascular disease (CVD) (Buse 1876-7).
Everyone can tell the difference between recommended and required, but what happens when the recommended course of action is uncertain as it regularly is in the medical industry? For instance, physicians recommend to their postmenopausal diabetic patients to consider HRT because there are implications of HRT to decrease CVD risk, prevent osteoporosis, preserve memory, slow dementia, maintain skin elasticity, and promote sexual well-being, vitality, and overall health (Buse 1876). BUT at the same time, there are increased risks for any woman on HRT including stroke, coronary heart disease, pulmonary embolism, and breast cancer (Buse 1876). For a woman to continue on HRT for the benefits to carry on, she would also have to go on other regiments to counteract the side effects. This creates what seems to be an endless cycle of pumping a body with every drug imaginable. So many of you would ask: what is too much and what is too little?
I’m no doctor, but that is the first place to start: go to the doctor. Take care of yourself, exercise, and eat healthy according to your lifestyle’s needs. Be conscious to stress and avoid unnecessary complications in all aspects of your life. You’ve been hearing these same comments since you were a child, but it is still good, reliable advice. John Buse, unlike me, is a doctor here at UNC-Chapel Hill School of Medicine, Divisions of Endocrinology and of General Medicine and Clinical Epidemiology. Buse is a collaborator for the UNC Diabetes Interest Group. He wants it to be clear that everyone is “vulnerable to bias,” (Buse 1877). In the editorial, Buse goes on to describe some of the satisfying reports in advancements in diabetic treatments, ending with a metaphorical poem by John Godfrey Saxe. In short, the poem describes how every man can look at a single aspect of a greater being and make a connection to another being, when really, there could be no connection at all. Therefore, the title fits for we think we know, but perhaps we only know how to think. Most importantly, from the editorial, is not necessarily the information about HRT presented but rather to remember: there will always be stipulations and every case is different. Just because one treatment works for someone presumably identical to you doesn’t mean that it will react in the same manner toward your body.
Buse (MD, PhD, CDE), John, and Laura Raftery "What We Think and What We Know."
Diabetes Care 25.10 (2002): 1876-1878. American Diabetes Association. 31 Jan.
2007 <http://http://care.diabetesjournals.org/cgi/content/full/25/10/1876?maxtoshow=&HITS=&hits=&RESULTFORMAT=&author1=Buse%2C+John&title=What+We+Think+and+What+We+Know&andorexacttitle=phrase&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&volume=25&firstpage=1876&resourcetype=HWCIT>.
The trials covered by this editorial only tested conjugated equine estrogen and medroxyprogesterone acetate. Conjugated equine estrogen in HRT is derived from a pregnant mare’s urine to work as a substitute and takes over where estrogen levels drop after menopause. Estrogen is the primary group of female sex hormones which promotes female organ, tissue, and bone well-being throughout a woman’s life. When estrogen levels fall off during menopause, women can experience hot flashes and vaginal dryness, itching, or burning. Medroxyprogesterone acetate, on the other hand, is a progestin synthetic progesterone) used to strengthen the lining of the uterine wall. It has also been found to help maintain skin elasticity and bone strength. Dosages for this experiment were limited to 0.625 mg/day of conjugated equine estrogen and 2.5 mg/day of medroxyprogesterone acetate, but it is to be reminded that lower dosages of these same HRT drugs may not be applicable to results found. At these levels of intake, HRT may still be a good short-term option for menopause symptoms like hot flashes, night sweats, disrupted sleep patterns, and mood swings, but probably not for longer than a year or two (Buse 1876). Other options for postmenopausal women mentioned include raloxifene or bisphosphonates to reduce possible fractures in the hips and spine primarily. Raloxifene seems desirable because it could presumably be connected to a reduction of probability of breast cancer and/or cardiovascular disease (CVD) (Buse 1876-7).
Everyone can tell the difference between recommended and required, but what happens when the recommended course of action is uncertain as it regularly is in the medical industry? For instance, physicians recommend to their postmenopausal diabetic patients to consider HRT because there are implications of HRT to decrease CVD risk, prevent osteoporosis, preserve memory, slow dementia, maintain skin elasticity, and promote sexual well-being, vitality, and overall health (Buse 1876). BUT at the same time, there are increased risks for any woman on HRT including stroke, coronary heart disease, pulmonary embolism, and breast cancer (Buse 1876). For a woman to continue on HRT for the benefits to carry on, she would also have to go on other regiments to counteract the side effects. This creates what seems to be an endless cycle of pumping a body with every drug imaginable. So many of you would ask: what is too much and what is too little?
I’m no doctor, but that is the first place to start: go to the doctor. Take care of yourself, exercise, and eat healthy according to your lifestyle’s needs. Be conscious to stress and avoid unnecessary complications in all aspects of your life. You’ve been hearing these same comments since you were a child, but it is still good, reliable advice. John Buse, unlike me, is a doctor here at UNC-Chapel Hill School of Medicine, Divisions of Endocrinology and of General Medicine and Clinical Epidemiology. Buse is a collaborator for the UNC Diabetes Interest Group. He wants it to be clear that everyone is “vulnerable to bias,” (Buse 1877). In the editorial, Buse goes on to describe some of the satisfying reports in advancements in diabetic treatments, ending with a metaphorical poem by John Godfrey Saxe. In short, the poem describes how every man can look at a single aspect of a greater being and make a connection to another being, when really, there could be no connection at all. Therefore, the title fits for we think we know, but perhaps we only know how to think. Most importantly, from the editorial, is not necessarily the information about HRT presented but rather to remember: there will always be stipulations and every case is different. Just because one treatment works for someone presumably identical to you doesn’t mean that it will react in the same manner toward your body.
Buse (MD, PhD, CDE), John, and Laura Raftery "What We Think and What We Know."
Diabetes Care 25.10 (2002): 1876-1878. American Diabetes Association. 31 Jan.
2007 <http://http://care.diabetesjournals.org/cgi/content/full/25/10/1876?maxtoshow=&HITS=&hits=&RESULTFORMAT=&author1=Buse%2C+John&title=What+We+Think+and+What+We+Know&andorexacttitle=phrase&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&volume=25&firstpage=1876&resourcetype=HWCIT>.
Race and Medicine: Where can we draw the line?
If you are a student here at UNC Chapel Hill and were in the
The FDA recently approved a medication, BiDil, for heart failure with a race qualification that it was only to be used by self identified African Americans. Genetic profiling is a very valuable tool in many fields, including identifying trends in disease occurrence. It is well known that certain diseases and conditions (such as sickle cell anemia and hypertension) are more prevalent in people of certain races. But the debate comes when doctors and scientists have to decide whether these trends are due to genetics or environment. In many cases there is not a single gene that can be linked to a specific disease, so one would wonder how medications could be made specifically for one race or another based on genetics.
It might surprise you that the FDA would even be presented with a medication that was only to be used by a certain race, but in many ways the federal government has created the market for race specific medicine. With all of the gains our country has made with civil rights in the last 50 years or so, policy for everything from education to medical testing had to change. It used to be that in experimental groups to test how effective medicines were was made up of only white males. At first you might not think that that would have anything to do with anything, but now with all of the advents in medical information, there is now a better understanding that different sexes and races may respond to medications differently. Thus it became mandated by government that all test groups contain members of different sexes and races. There have been variations with how inclusive the tests must be in regards to race, some with only six racial groups included (North America/Caribbean, South America, Europe, Asia/Pacific, Africa, and Middle East), while some groups have pushed for broader inclusion, with more specific racial identities (such as Africans South of the Sahara, Ashkenazi Jews, Czechoslovakian people, and even Mexican American residents of Los Angeles).
I think one concern that the public might have, although it is not explicitly discussed in the article since it is not scientific in nature, is that this could slowly become a new form of discrimination. If your medicines are proscribed based on your race, who is to say that we might not relapse into conditions like our past, where everything seemed to be separate and almost nothing was equal. It cannot be denied that there are still racist, prejudiced people in our country, and it might not be crazy to be worried that if racial divisions became prominent and accepted again that some people might take it way too far.
In many ways, this development of medicine shows how far we have come. We can now realize exactly how certain types of people can react to specific medicines and with that knowledge we are working to make each medication as safe and effective as possible. However it also raises the controversy concerning genetics and its full understanding. There are still many people who are alarmed by the held belief that race is actually determined genetically. Some of those people feel that science could be used as support for racist attitudes and eventually action. Like the problems that have risen with morality issues and birth control in pharmacies, one could imagine that if a certain pharmacist or group of pharmacists decided not to carry a medicine meant for one race or another that it could evolve into a very serious national problem. This is a situation that will probably be much more thoroughly investigated before anything goes to the general public. Based on my understanding, most people are still unaware that this drug even exists, much less that it has been approved by the FDA. And while I’m not sure where all of this debate will lead, I can admit that I never thought I would see the day when I was not permitted to take a medication based on my race, even if it was designed with everyone’s medical safety in mind.
Genes, Race, and Population: Avoiding a Collision of Categories, Kahn, Jonathan: American Journal of Public Health; Nov2006, Vol. 96 Issue 11, p1965-1970, 6p
Thursday, February 1, 2007
Putting an end to nukes?
Before our time, a global arms race between the United States and Soviet Union ensued. About the time most of the students on campus were born, the Cold War was coming to an end. While our campus can feel like our own separate world, nuclear weapons remain an important issue in international politics. Nations like the United States, Russia, France, and Israel stockpile nukes for defensive purposes. At the same time, the international community gives both foreign nations – such as North Korea and Iran – and terrorists much attention to prevent nuclear weapons from falling into the wrong hands. The potential destruction by these weapons calls for an end to their use.
The December 7, 2006 edition of Nature contains an editorial titled “Enough Warheads, Already,” that challenges a proposal to refurbish the United States’ aging nuclear arsenal with modern warheads. The proposed Reliable Replacement Warhead (RRW) program would modernize the United States’ weapons without violating the 1968 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Instead of building new warheads, which would violate the treaty, the RRW will replace the aging plutonium triggers that have an expected life of 40-60 years. RRW supporters claim that many of the United States’ nukes are outdated, which could render them useless at their jobs.
The editorial board at Nature cites no strong reason for the United States to replace the warheads. While the proponents of the RRW program reported the 40-60 year lifespan on the triggers, the US National Nuclear Security Administration released reports stating that plutonium triggers last at least one century before losing their potency. In addition to that evidence, Nature reports that the White House showed no signs of support either, as President Bush, “like his predecessors, wishes to continue a voluntary moratorium on nuclear testing.”
It is evident that Nature does not support the use of nuclear weapons, clearly stated by “making the case for brand new nuclear weapons has, thankfully, been a tough sell,” and “its existing nuclear weapons stockpile…that with luck, will become obsolete before it needs to be replaced.” The strong stance does not come without warrant. The power of these weapons is devastating (see Hiroshima). However, the stance taken by Nature ignores the strategic defensive importance of nuclear weapons.
The Congressional Research Service (CRS) provided a report, titled “Nuclear Weapons: The Reliable Replacement Warhead Program,” to Congress. The report analyzes the benefits of the RRW program. Proponents of the RRW state that warheads must be maintained over time because different components deteriorate at different rates, and allies and enemies of the United States must respect the ability of US military forces. Apparently, the United States has the wrong type of warheads for today’s warfare, which is another reason for replacement. The RRW reports that military commanders now want smaller yield (explosive power), but more accurate bombs. The current stockpile was built in the Cold War, mainly to combat the Soviet Union. The current warheads are high yield, meant to maximize damage to strategic targets such as bases or missile silos. Interestingly, the CRS Report disputed one of Nature’s claims. The voluntary moratorium on nuclear testing was actually imposed by Congress in October of 1992.
The United States keeps nuclear weapons for security purposes, rather than decommissioning them. But would the United States need all these nukes if other nations had nukes? However, the other nations are not the sole offenders. They are only protecting their interests. If the United States begins revamping all of its nuclear weapons, it would be arrogant to assume foreign nations will not feel threatened. There would be no reason to update the weapons unless you plan on using them.
The CRS Report relies heavily on factual evidence, but fails to appeal to readers’ emotions. The Nature article takes advantage of readers’ charged up attitudes towards nuclear weapons and the threat of mass-destruction. Nature goes as far as telling readers imposing their views on nuclear weapons, making the article heavy on emotional appeals.
It is important to realize the arguments made by both articles. While the editorial board from Nature expresses concerns over nuclear warfare, the strategic importance of the weapons to the United States deserves consideration. What the CRS Report overlooks is that nuclear weapons protect against other nuclear weapons. Instead of replacing the entire nuclear arsenal, the United States should concentrate its efforts towards worldwide nuclear disarmament. Nature had it right, “Enough warheads, already.”
The original text of “Enough Warheads, Already” can be found in:
“Enough Warheads, Already.” Nature 444 (December 7, 2006): 653
The December 7, 2006 edition of Nature contains an editorial titled “Enough Warheads, Already,” that challenges a proposal to refurbish the United States’ aging nuclear arsenal with modern warheads. The proposed Reliable Replacement Warhead (RRW) program would modernize the United States’ weapons without violating the 1968 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Instead of building new warheads, which would violate the treaty, the RRW will replace the aging plutonium triggers that have an expected life of 40-60 years. RRW supporters claim that many of the United States’ nukes are outdated, which could render them useless at their jobs.
The editorial board at Nature cites no strong reason for the United States to replace the warheads. While the proponents of the RRW program reported the 40-60 year lifespan on the triggers, the US National Nuclear Security Administration released reports stating that plutonium triggers last at least one century before losing their potency. In addition to that evidence, Nature reports that the White House showed no signs of support either, as President Bush, “like his predecessors, wishes to continue a voluntary moratorium on nuclear testing.”
It is evident that Nature does not support the use of nuclear weapons, clearly stated by “making the case for brand new nuclear weapons has, thankfully, been a tough sell,” and “its existing nuclear weapons stockpile…that with luck, will become obsolete before it needs to be replaced.” The strong stance does not come without warrant. The power of these weapons is devastating (see Hiroshima). However, the stance taken by Nature ignores the strategic defensive importance of nuclear weapons.
The Congressional Research Service (CRS) provided a report, titled “Nuclear Weapons: The Reliable Replacement Warhead Program,” to Congress. The report analyzes the benefits of the RRW program. Proponents of the RRW state that warheads must be maintained over time because different components deteriorate at different rates, and allies and enemies of the United States must respect the ability of US military forces. Apparently, the United States has the wrong type of warheads for today’s warfare, which is another reason for replacement. The RRW reports that military commanders now want smaller yield (explosive power), but more accurate bombs. The current stockpile was built in the Cold War, mainly to combat the Soviet Union. The current warheads are high yield, meant to maximize damage to strategic targets such as bases or missile silos. Interestingly, the CRS Report disputed one of Nature’s claims. The voluntary moratorium on nuclear testing was actually imposed by Congress in October of 1992.
The United States keeps nuclear weapons for security purposes, rather than decommissioning them. But would the United States need all these nukes if other nations had nukes? However, the other nations are not the sole offenders. They are only protecting their interests. If the United States begins revamping all of its nuclear weapons, it would be arrogant to assume foreign nations will not feel threatened. There would be no reason to update the weapons unless you plan on using them.
The CRS Report relies heavily on factual evidence, but fails to appeal to readers’ emotions. The Nature article takes advantage of readers’ charged up attitudes towards nuclear weapons and the threat of mass-destruction. Nature goes as far as telling readers imposing their views on nuclear weapons, making the article heavy on emotional appeals.
It is important to realize the arguments made by both articles. While the editorial board from Nature expresses concerns over nuclear warfare, the strategic importance of the weapons to the United States deserves consideration. What the CRS Report overlooks is that nuclear weapons protect against other nuclear weapons. Instead of replacing the entire nuclear arsenal, the United States should concentrate its efforts towards worldwide nuclear disarmament. Nature had it right, “Enough warheads, already.”
The original text of “Enough Warheads, Already” can be found in:
“Enough Warheads, Already.” Nature 444 (December 7, 2006): 653
Nanobots are going to eat us all! (ok not really)
Nanotechnology has been a growing industry of late. No, it’s not quite the nanobots that you see in science-fiction movies and old Superman cartoons, but it is entirely possible that a few stupid people will be afraid that is exactly the case. More sensible people, however, are taking an earnest look at the potential of this new technology.
An article in the November 29, 2006 edition of Nature talks about how the development of nanotechnology is a testy subject with many people. The concern of many parties, though, is of a positive note. A number of fields, aside from the scientists that are interested in developing the technology, are becoming curious about the feasibility of such a market and whether or not it could become a profitable industry. This article displays a positive outlook for nanotechnology with regulations being passed regarding products containing it.
This may not seem like that positive of a start for this new technology, but in truth it is. Because the EPA (that’s Environmental Protection Agency in case you didn’t know) has decided on the need for these safety measures to be taken, it proves that they are willing to embrace this upcoming revolution in technology. It proves that they are going to allow it with supervision, which is better than putting their foot down altogether.
Earlier in April of 2003, however, House Committees were hearing the concerns for the development of nanotechnology. Many are worried about the potential unaccounted for side-effects that could result from the mass production of something that is on such a small scale. “’We have the opportunity to consider the possible social, legal, ethical, and philosophical issues that might arise…’” Not only are those in charge of developing the technology and those in charge of regulating it afraid of what it could potentially do, they are also afraid that the general public will share this fear (or harbor greater fear of it). If that were to happen then the entire developing industry would collapse. Quickly. Remember that this is new stuff and it will cost lots of money (up in the trillions perhaps).
While more recent actions are more optimistic and seem slightly less paranoid, the developers would do well to heed the caution of the dubious. It’s not like the technology to have nanobots spying on every household in
But seriously, these are all possibilities to think about, but keep in mind that it’s all a very long way off in the future (or is it?). The most advanced thing we have so far is nanotechnology in washing machines. These things should definitely proceed slowly, especially since something as small and advanced as nanotechnology has so much potential for both greatness and disaster at the same time. It’s funny how that seems to be the case with almost all technology.
Funding the Scientific Community Through Universities
If a country streams money into the science departments of its major universities, would that in turn be enough to reach a new peak in the scientific community both economically and credibly? In the October 18, 2006 online issue of Nature, an editorial titled “Striving for Excellence,” was posted concerning the recent allocation of funds by Germany in an attempt to revive a “scientific renaissance,” (par. 1). In short, the author discusses adding more funding to select German universities, in hopes to rival other universities globally as a notable cause, however that this new step is almost futile because the resources won’t be sufficient to put the Germans at the top of the biotechnological and molecular science community. It seems as though the author has little faith in the German competition. Perhaps because this science resurgence is in such an early stage, is it too hard to conceivably aspire for a bright future? The author presents the argument that no amount of money (and frankly time) could put the German university system near the top of the global science community. But who is to say where and when the next innovations in science will be made? One of the few things that can aid in determining such situations are the resources put into a research/development program, and funding is a definite necessity when getting anything done, especially if economic prosperity could follow suit.
The RAND Corporation sponsored a 2004 portfolio titled “Vital Assets,” outlining the federal funding in Research and Development (R&D) programs in the United States’ universities and colleges. Contributors to the report included Donna Fossum, Lawrence S. Painter, Elisa Eiseman, Emile Ettedgui, and David M. Adamson. The portfolio stated that funds from 1996 to 2002 for R&D programs jumped from $12.8 billion to $21.4 billion, a 45.7% increase. Think of all the latest advancements in health care industry alone – don’t even imagine novelties such as camera cell phones, iPods, or cars running on hydrogen fuel. R&D funds helped universities sustain programs while expanding collective knowledge throughout the scientific community. In addition, universities conducting these experiments with federal money fulfill many missions of federal agencies. Most of the research done at universities provides graduate, and many undergraduate, students with real-life experience in the field expanding their knowledge base. With the need for professors comes the demand for jobs and a highly educated population, as well as training for professionals. This newly educated generation is what will be the expertise in the next technologies to be presented on the market in the future – we must consider facts like this.
No one can predict exactly how things will turn out in the future, but progressions will occur in the universities when given the proper resources and funding. So who is to say that those advances will be in American, German, or other nationalities’ universities? North Carolina ranks 7th in the nation as a state in receiving federal funding for R&D programs, this includes medical schools, totaling $858 million (“Vital Assets” 13). The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill is 18th overall in the United States as a recipient for funding, including medical schools (“Vital Assets” 30). Without funding to the UNC Medical School, UNC-CH is 17th overall, ahead of universities like Duke and Wake Forest (“Vital Assets” 30). These statistics are outstanding, and it is completely unfair for someone to assume that Germany couldn’t have successful science departments in their universities even with proper funding. Just give it time. Competition of the capitalistic nature is emerging throughout the world, even among universities looking for funding. Things simply have to play out in Germany, and with the new younger professors leading classes in Germany with a more progressive idea about science, revival is very possible.
The RAND Corporation sponsored a 2004 portfolio titled “Vital Assets,” outlining the federal funding in Research and Development (R&D) programs in the United States’ universities and colleges. Contributors to the report included Donna Fossum, Lawrence S. Painter, Elisa Eiseman, Emile Ettedgui, and David M. Adamson. The portfolio stated that funds from 1996 to 2002 for R&D programs jumped from $12.8 billion to $21.4 billion, a 45.7% increase. Think of all the latest advancements in health care industry alone – don’t even imagine novelties such as camera cell phones, iPods, or cars running on hydrogen fuel. R&D funds helped universities sustain programs while expanding collective knowledge throughout the scientific community. In addition, universities conducting these experiments with federal money fulfill many missions of federal agencies. Most of the research done at universities provides graduate, and many undergraduate, students with real-life experience in the field expanding their knowledge base. With the need for professors comes the demand for jobs and a highly educated population, as well as training for professionals. This newly educated generation is what will be the expertise in the next technologies to be presented on the market in the future – we must consider facts like this.
No one can predict exactly how things will turn out in the future, but progressions will occur in the universities when given the proper resources and funding. So who is to say that those advances will be in American, German, or other nationalities’ universities? North Carolina ranks 7th in the nation as a state in receiving federal funding for R&D programs, this includes medical schools, totaling $858 million (“Vital Assets” 13). The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill is 18th overall in the United States as a recipient for funding, including medical schools (“Vital Assets” 30). Without funding to the UNC Medical School, UNC-CH is 17th overall, ahead of universities like Duke and Wake Forest (“Vital Assets” 30). These statistics are outstanding, and it is completely unfair for someone to assume that Germany couldn’t have successful science departments in their universities even with proper funding. Just give it time. Competition of the capitalistic nature is emerging throughout the world, even among universities looking for funding. Things simply have to play out in Germany, and with the new younger professors leading classes in Germany with a more progressive idea about science, revival is very possible.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)