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 US, however, has too many human rights activists to condone torture. Those activists even tried to argue that adjusting the temperature of the interrogation room is unethical. The temperature thing is kind of a dumb idea in the first place though. No derision or racism intended here: today we are dealing with people who live in the desert their whole lives. America is rather more temperate (and, coincidently, is where most of our army’s interrogators come from), and they expect the prisoners to get uncomfortable with a hotter room first? Please. You might think, “In that case why not drop the room temperature?” Sorry, it’s been thought of, and shot down, because we have learned that contrary to heat, (as moronic as it sounds) cold is unethical.

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.

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.

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.

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 United States, United Kingdom, and Australia: Arousal and Avoidance Delays among Adults” they established that there were two types of chronic procrastination. They labeled the first type arousal procrastination, which was where the subject procrastinates for the purpose of getting a thrill or rush out of the last minute frantic work. The second was avoidant procrastination, where the subject procrastinated due to fear of either failure or success (Ferrari 2, p1). In all honesty, I have no idea which category I would fall under, if any, but their most recent study consisted entirely of university students, so this concerns all of us here at UNC as well as any other college-attending student.

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 United States, United Kingdom, and Australia: Arousal and Avoidance Delays Among Adults." North American Journal of Psychology 7.1 (2005): 2-6.

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.

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>.