Science Forward

Today was the last day of class in Medieval History. The lecture was a debate over its relevance. Medieval history has been only recently deemed worthwhile to study. For a very long time, the Middle Ages have been written off as barbaric and uncivilised, or completely alien and fantastical. People today consider it the same, as what we mainly know about it (if we’re not studying it) is King Arthur, men in tights, some Crusades, a plague, and Game of Thrones.

I could go into a multitude of reasons why medieval history is relevant to today. But as we don’t have a vast written record off which to work or much statistical data on the events that occurred in the Middle Ages, like we do with other, more recent eras, there are some that consider medieval history a waste of study. It’s not quantifiable. It’s not documented. We can’t pinpoint, exactly, what happened and why and put things into numbers and boxes and wrap it up all neat and tidy.

It is, in every way, the complete antithesis of everything lauded about scientific study. And it raised a question for me. If this field’s worth to study is hotly debated due to its unscientific nature, what makes science worthwhile to study? Why is science relevant and important?

Science is progress. Humans like progress. We don’t like to be reminded of where we’ve come from, especially if the past is less than flattering. But science is about looking forward, about bettering ourselves. It takes concepts from the past and endeavours to deepen our understanding of them, or reinvent how we view the world. And that view is that of objectivity and quantification. It’s a very appealing process of study, science: do something, get results. It’s humbling in that the results you receive might not be the ones you expect, but there is a gratification in having gains for your work. That these gains are deeply relevant to the modern world and clarify mysteries about how nature operates make them even better. In science, we learn to see the world as it is, not as we want it to be. Science cares little for how we think or feel something should be. Opinions don’t matter. What is just is.

It’s remarkably similar to history, in that both teach us about the way the world works. But where history concerns itself with interpersonal relations, science discusses our relationship with nature. The breadth of discovered information is so great, and so much remains to be discovered.

We spent the last few classes talking about fracking, so I thought I’d summarize what fracking is and provide a quick summary for each side of the current tracking debate. Fracking (hydraulic fracturing) is a process that is now sweeping across the United States. It is the process of drilling for natural gas. Frackers drill between the shale rock layers using high pressure water, sand, and chemical mixtures to form cracks for the natural gases to seep through. Fracking has become more widespread in the last ten years because we have depleted many of our natural natural gas sources. Many states in the United States have created fracking wells, recently in upstate NY and Long Island (a little closer to home). The government offers to buy land off of landowners (for a good price) in order to create these fracking wells. They then start the process by drilling over hundreds of meters into the ground. Then, a horizontal hole is created leading to the natural gas deposit. Then, the water mixture is forced through, creating the necessary cracks to release the natural gas. The mixture is then pumped out, and then poured into a deeper layer of rock so that it does not harm our water sources. The natural gas is collected, and the hole is sealed.

Fracking allows us access to natural gas that we would otherwise be unable to obtain. It is also the cheapest way to collect the gas. Almost everything we use in this day and age requires natural gas, and since we are running out and prices are going up, we need fracking. Fracking makes prices a bit cheaper and gas a bit more available. The water, chemical, and sand mixture is disposed of properly (in most cases), so people believe that it is a viable method for obtaining the natural gas we need.

The other side of the debate states that fracking is dangerous. If the mixture gets into our drinking water (which is a pretty big possibility because of spills and not drilling it deep enough), it can be extremely dangerous. The water becomes toxic. There is no way to purify or filter it. We’ve all seen the video of the home near a fracking plant where all of their water turns black and can actually light on fire (attaching that video if you have not seen it). The chemicals used for fracking are carcinogens, and poisonous. The mixture also contains methane, which is a greenhouse gas. If this chemical is released, it adds to the destruction of our environment. Fracking spills have already occurred in various places in the U.S.

video on fracking: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uti2niW2BRA
water on fire video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LBjSXWQRV8

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/14/world/africa/an-ebola-orphans-plea-in-africa-do-you-want-me.html?ref=science

Ebola frightened the world for about a week, and then disappeared from most people’s news feeds as its impact in the West was minimal. From a strictly scientific standpoint, we can be relieved to know that its threat to our society is nearly nonexistent and our healthcare infrastructure is quite sufficient to deal with controlling single cases. As a poster at the Macaulay Seminar 3 Poster Session showed, our number of cases of Ebola is invisible on a graph when compared to African nations. Sparsely placed infographics on the subway tell us that if someone has no symptoms, we won’t catch Ebola from them. Buzzfeed posts mocked the scare that occured after an individual with symptoms took the subway.

It’s easy for us to now sit back and feel able to relax after taking notice of the disease for a few days. But Ebola’s impact in countries like Sierra Leone reaches even beyond its casualties.

This NYT article examines the case of an Ebola orphan, named “Sweetie Sweetie” because her mother was delirious when she entered the clinic, and died before anyone could find out where the child’s relatives could be. Sweetie got her name when nurses witnessed her, though only four, trying to help her mother by feeding her, urging her to take her medicine, and even washing her mother’s dirty clothes. But now Sweetie is alone. She lives in a social care home, orphaned and alone, arguably in worse straights than even AIDS orphans, who are often claimed by relatives. In populations undereducated about Ebola and stricken by fear through its visible gruesome effects, there are few who are willing to take in children whose parents died from the disease. Children are seen as more likely carriers as they are less hygienic and aware of hazards than adults.

This case study shows the intersections of science, education, and society. It is easy to class Ebola and other diseases as easily controlled and minimized with scientific developments and proper healthcare infrastructure. But the emotional and social impacts cannot be overlooked. Even after the Ebola epidemic is quelled, orphans like Sweetie will be left behind, stigmatized for their ties to the disease that people would much rather forget. We should be reminded that even while medicine can save lives,  it takes education and human empathy to really heal the scars left behind.

Fortunately, it seems that a healthcare worker from the clinic where her mother died would like to adopt Sweetie, whose beautiful heart attracted the worker’s affection. But this case is atypical. Before we class Ebola as simply another disease of the undeveloped world, we should remember that it has an impact reaching beyond its deaths. It poses a problem far greater than a strictly scientific one, as do most issues labelled “scientific.” To isolate issues tied to a multitude of factors in this way is to never truly approach solving them with humanity, or even finality.

A few years ago, I worked as a canvasser for an environmental protection non-profit organization called Environment NY. Its mission was simple— to spread awareness of the dangers of hydraulic fracturing, aka “fracking,” to the people of New York City and have them petition Governor Cuomo to ban fracking in the state. This was done by reciting what was called a “rap,” or a memorized speech describing the “evils” committed by large oil corporations like Halliburton or ExxonMobil. We would describe, in detail, the contamination of drinking water and desecration of fertile soil in Pennsylvania by these companies, and how it was only a matter of time before they came to New York. After thoroughly convincing the listening parties of these atrocities, we would politely ask for a monetary donation— usually a regular monthly donation for 10 months— in order to fund our nonprofit.

I had only worked for Environment NY for a few days before I quit. It was a tough job; I was ignored over 90% of the time which, although understandable under the premise of the New York lifestyle, left me feeling feeble in the effort to inform the masses. The other 10% of the time was usually met with disinterest, shallow sympathy, or even violence. I remember I was once approached by an older looking “gentleman” who, upon learning my cause, proceeded to explode in an unrelenting rage— he pushed me against a wall and started to scream (and spit) in my face about how fracking was “safe,” “saving the US economy” and that I was “undermining the future of our country” by canvassing. Needless to say, I quit that job then and there and I haven’t looked back since.

After that episode, I had realized the true impact of marketing and false advertising; that major corporations would go to any length to boost profits, even at the expense of the general public. It made me fear for the future of our country as well as the consequences of a society built upon the conquest for monetary superiority and therefore, inequality.

I attended the Saturday 10AM-12PM poster presentation session at the Macaulay building and was actually really surprised by the variety of projects I found as I went around to “judge” the different qualities of each poster. In reality, I was stopping myself from nominating all of them. I can’t remember specific titles, but I would like to discuss a few of the posters I’ve seen and their presenters.

One of them, about the differences between males and females in their altruistic tendencies/attitudes, was the first one I visited. They began by telling me of a study conducted by professors in which it was found that, on average, men were more likely to “donate” or “be altruistic” toward complete strangers or organizations than women. However, while having their group members take turns being the observers and the confederates, they quickly found that women were much more likely to contribute $0.75 toward a bus fair than men. I was surprised to find myself asking questions to delve deeper into their research, and was equally surprised when they actively and enthusiastically engaged in return. The group even suggested future ideas/expansions of their project.

Another project that I noticed was about the effects of SO2(g) emissions and water pollution on avian birds. When I walked up and skimmed the poster, and before the presenter even began his spiel, the first question I asked was whether plastics pollution and albatrosses were part of his research project. And, although the research he did came entirely from public domain (I asked if he had done on-site research mid-way), his main conclusion was that the only real direct correlation (-1 to +1) was seen with SO2(g) which had a -0.58 correlation, approximately, and Ozone, which had something along the lines of -0.83–0.85 correlation to their effect on avian bird species. He said that, although the data was largely flawed and incomplete, he would like to have seen more government-funded studies.

In my opinion, one of the more original ideas was the Geophysics of wine production/grape growth poster. I haven’t really engaged in physics ever since I finished competing in physics national science olympiad competitions in high school. To see young college students presenting a project on how electricity in the soil affects grape crop production was definitely something new.

Furthermore, I had enjoyed presenting when my project partners and I switched off to give each other a chance to look around. We had practiced presenting prior to the start of the event. While people came up to us to view our project, and as more ideas flowed as a result of the questions asked, it became easier  to present and the audience (the people looking at our poster at that moment) became interested in our topic. We got a lot of positive feedback, and the people who viewed our poster said that they liked how we presented our data, as well as the geographical pictures of Plumb Beach. Overall, I think this day was a success because we were able to inform many on the hazards and future outcomes of plastic pollution.

Today I attended the 10AM-12PM poster presentation at the Macaulay building. It was really interesting to see the different topics that each group decide to make a poster on.  It was nice to get a little insight into what each Macaulay class within each different school has been discussing for the entire semester.

To my surprise, no two posters were the same. Every group had something unique to say and had a different way to present their ideas. While listening to people’s pitches, I used my science senses to analyze the information and data they gave. This helped me to better understand what a group’s poster was about, and it also enabled me to ask the right questions and dig further into their research.

There was one poster that stuck out the most in my mind. It was titled The Entropy of Madonna’s Music Over Time. This group analyzed the entropy, measure of uncertainty, of Madonna’s music over time. I don’t know much about music, so I didn’t really understand the technical terms, but their results and then their explanation of the results, really intrigued me. In the beginning on her career, Madonna’s songs had a higher measure of entropy, then began to decrease and then after increased again (current career). This can be understood because at the start of Madonna’s music career, she wrote songs that she liked, that had a lot of randomness to it. As her career took off, she wanted to please her fans and wrote more songs with less random lyrics (more repeated choruses), and when entropy started to increase again, it was because she wanted to do what she liked instead of following everyone else, and went back to writing more random songs. My science senses high, I asked a lot of questions to fully understand how this result was proven. All of their data and numbers added up. It was really cool to use my science sense to better understand thing.

Lastly, what I enjoyed the most though was actually explaining my group’s poster to other people. Before the presentation, we tried to perfect our pitch and make sure that we covered all of the bases. However, as people came up to our poster and asked us questions about our research, it became easier to say what we wanted to say. I realized that I learned a lot about plastic accumulation over this course. One professor asked me a question that I really liked- what do you do with all this information now, what’s your next course of action with this problem. My first response was to help spread awareness to recycle, which was exactly what our group PSA video is about. Actually discussing the details of the poster research to someone other than members of our class really brought the topic alive for me.

As many people noticed last Tuesday, the 18th of November, either by personal experience or through social media, the weather experienced in most, if not all, of the United States was far below the average for this time of year. Some cities received snowfall unseen in years (around the Great Lakes area) and some tropic states had temperatures below freezing (Hawaii for example). It comes as no surprise that people would claim “Global Warming is not happening.” Yet some people who commented on one social media site failed to note that in one of the images, the average temperatures in world was 0.35^oC warmer than the average of 1979-2000 temperatures.  So while North America is literally a cold block at this time, the rest of the world is far warmer so much so that the net difference is a warmer planet.

Temperature Deviation of October 18 to 1979-2000 average

Then there are the commenters with misconceptions of global warming, or in a more neutral term, climate change.  Take for example these two comments: “global warming is man-made, climate change is natural” and “climate change and global warming are completely separate things”.  Both comments were made by the same person, and both statements are flawed.  Climate change and global warming are not separate things; climate change includes global warming as well as global cooling.  And there is no anthropogenic distinction between global warming and climate change, humans can cause climate change just as nature can cause global warming.  Also, another misconception is that humans are causing climate change.  Humans are not causing climate change; climate does change due to macroscopic effects caused by changes in Earth’s properties: changes in orbital path, axial tilt (wobbling), and changes in the position of the poles.  But by no means does this mean humans aren’t having an effect.  Anthropogenic actions have increased the amount of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases that would have entered the atmosphere otherwise.  Carbon dioxide does not cause global warming either, but it does affect the amount of heat that is distributed on Earth.  Rather, the carbon dioxide exacerbates the warm period of the cycle that we are currently living in by trapping heat and distributing it globally.  Greater carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere means greater amounts of heat are trapped and distributed.  So humans are affecting the climate indirectly through our consumption of fossil fuel which causes the increase in carbon dioxide levels.  To state otherwise is to ignore the effects of carbon dioxide and the logical reasoning that follows: greater carbon dioxide levels lead to more heat being trapped on Earth which lead to increases in global temperatures.  Also for those that claim we are in a global cooling stage, its true that temperatures should be decreasing yet temperatures over the last hundred years have remained the same if not increased, which shows that there humans are playing a role in affecting climate change.

Earlier this year, Leonardo DiCaprio addressed the United Nations Climate Summit as the UN Messenger of Peace. The actor, known for his dedication to preservation of the environment, was well received by summit attendees. But honestly, I had to ask why, of all people to speak at a global summit regarding the climate, they chose a man known for his body of work published in Hollywood, not PLOS One.

Celebrity advocacy and endorsement is definitely not a new strategy, and it’s a great way to get the message out about a cause. Celebrities can reach a wider audience, and for some inexplicable reason – their fame, or the fact that generally celebrities are attractive, perhaps – people listen to them and legitimately care about their opinions. They can do incredible good with their fame. But on the flip side of this, we have an issue that I like to call Modern McCarthyism.

Jenny McCarthy, Playboy Playmate, film and television star, and former co-host of talk-show The View, is arguably now more famous for her opinion on vaccines than her actual career. Although she claims she is not anti-vaccine, since 2009 she has gone on the record multiple times asserting that vaccines caused her son’s autism.

Many of us scoffed at it initially, shaking our heads. Once again, a celebrity was promoting something completely ridiculous. No one could possibly believe this, we thought. Medical experts agree that vaccines are safe, and the large body of scientific evidence available is highly in their favour. And yet measles, a disease that had been eradicated in the United States in 2000, broke out across the nation in 2010. Pertussis, commonly known as whooping cough, killed ten in California just that year. The main victims of these diseases were infants and children. And the cause of these outbreaks? Parents who opted out of vaccinating their children and sent them off to school.

In California, like in many other areas of the United States, vaccinations are a requirement to attend school, but parents can opt-out of vaccinations for religious or medical reasons. Unfortunately, in practice, this operates as a catchall for any concern or excuse a parent might have against vaccines, however unfounded they may be. Like McCarthy said in an interview with Time in April 2009, they decided that if it came down to measles or autism, they’d “stand in line for the f­––king measles.”

And, to be sure, they got their wish. Measles made a return and has remained an issue since 2010, because parents are terrified by the threat of an autism diagnosis. It’s understandable. No parent would ever wish that on his or her child. However, autism is currently one of the most misdiagnosed conditions in children, in part because it’s not as well understood as other conditions, but also because the definition is so broad.

In modern McCarthyism, autism is the threat, and the list of names is vaccines. Parents blindly trust herd immunity – the idea that if enough individuals in a population become immune or resistant to a disease, those who are not immune will not get infected due to reduced spreading of it – to keep their children safe. The issue here is with how herd immunity works. If enough individuals decide to not immunise, the system fails, the disease spreads, and infants too young to get the vaccines and children who have weaker immune systems than adults suffer for it.

It’s a struggle for scientists to combat the scientific untruths propagated by celebrities, especially in this age of instant communication. Even if they have all the facts, scientists just can’t reach the same audience that a celebrity can, and that may be a fault with the American media. Unless it’s about hover-boards or a cool “sciency” viral video, it’s not going to sell. People don’t generally read scientific papers because the language is dense and the subject isn’t immediately interesting, but people like entertainment, attractive people, and human drama – everything a celebrity provides. The more people see a person or hear a name, the more likely they are to pay attention to them in the future. Incumbent politicians win elections not necessarily over political beliefs, but name recognition. I know who you are; therefore I will hear what you have to say.

This phenomenon is immediately visible in every climate change “debate” on every news channel. Invariably, who is their scientific expert? Bill Nye, the Science Guy. And why do they have him? Not because he is an expert in environmental studies, but because he is a celebrity associated with science. People listen to him because he’s recognisable and he’s the Science Guy. He knows science.

I am not attempting to disparage Mr. Nye here. He does, in fact, have a degree in a scientific field ­– a B.S. from Cornell in mechanical engineering. He’s worked for NASA, he lectures at Cornell, and he has extensive experience in teaching scientific concepts to the general public. What I am saying is that there are definitely more qualified people, such as environmental scientists who have worked on climate models and have a degree in this field, that would be just as qualified, if not more so, to speak about climate change on the news.

Americans have more respect for celebrities than scientists. We’re more inclined to believe a doctor in a commercial if they wear scrubs and a lab coat à la daytime television. The mere fact that the phrase “I’m not a doctor, but I play one on TV” has become so instantly recognisable is telling. We might like House (or Doogie Howser, if we’re going old-school), but we’d be crazy to consult Hugh Laurie or Neil Patrick Harris for medical advice. And while it might be cool to have Bryan Cranston as my chemistry teacher, the novelty would wear off as soon as midterms rolled around.

But expertise doesn’t sell. Celebrity does. And while science is for everyone, a mistake made publicly by a celebrity is difficult to rectify. We’re still having issues with parents and vaccinations. So long as we prefer to hear what the famous person says instead of the expert, we must be willing to face the threat that celebrities will say something wrong – and people will believe them.

Visiting Plumb Beach on Halloween wasn’t entirely what I expected. First of all, I thought we would find more plastic than we did. Although we found a considerable amount of plastic, I thought it would be more of an issue. Secondly, I expected the act of searching to be less structured. Actively participating in the search pattern was much more efficient. I also, for some reason, expected the plastic we found to contain a recycling number and a label for identification, but most of the pieces were fragments or lacked labels. Overall though, the experience shed light on the amount and obscurity of plastic discarded and washed up on beaches.

We also got some great footage for our video!

My group consisted of Nicole, Julia, and I. Nicole recorded the data while Julia and I scanned the beach for plastic. We got a little extra help because Julia’s brother and mother joined the effort! The most surprising thing that we found was this huge piece of plastic that was eroded and sticking out of the sand. It looked like a piece from a refrigerator or oven. We had to break it up to fit it in our bag. At the end of the day you never realize how many obscure things you see at the beach. And while I go to the beach a lot, I never recognize the huge problem of plastic that is prevalent on many beaches. I guess that is why raising awareness to the issue of plastic is necessary and important!

I felt quite lucky after finding out that we were the only class that had had a background discussion pertaining to plastics and their influence on our ecosystems. Not only did it help me be more aware of the importance of the activity that I was about to complete, but it also allowed me to share some information with the people from the other classes.

Once the group was complete, we were given directions as to what to do and which areas of the survey to fill out. Then once we were assigned specific parts of the shoreline, we commenced our job of not only cleaning up the beach and throwing out in the trash any garbage found, but also classifying them and seeking any patterns with any possible brands/companies which plastic materials could be commonly found along the beach.

I want to thank professor Branco and his graduate student for organizing the plastic collection project so well. Everything went smooth and the method of picking up the plastic and analyzing it was definitely efficient and easy to understand.

After about an hour and a half, we had completed our survey which consisted of tallying up the plastic residues found and putting them into categories. We covered over 1000 ft² of the beach and collected more than half of plastic bag worth of plastic along with glass and lots and lots of Styrofoam.

At the end of the activity, it was evident for me that the beach had been built to protect the highway from storms such as Sandy and it saddens me to realize that not only does the beach have to deal with the erosion it undergoes due to natural causes, but also the lack of human care for it. After taking into consideration all of the plastic found by all of the groups, it proved once again that we are an obvious cause of the decaying health of our home, Earth.

Horseshoe crab found while cleaning