Author: Jacqueline Butler

Here are some of my thoughts about this course. Overall, it was a great experience watching Professor Greer (and some of my classmates) do hands-on experiments. And the labs were interesting and brought what we learned about to life.

I was kind of surprised how much I enjoyed the STEAM Fest. What I imagined would be a waste of time, a precious commodity on the weekend, was actually a lot of fun. Not only did I learn about the projects Macaulay students researched, I also got to see some acquaintances I have met through various Macaulay events. Everyone who came by to hear about our 3-D design was impressed, which made me realize that our project design may have manufacturing potential.

The 3-D printing experience I really did not enjoy. Design is not at all my forté (I do content, not format) and I found it stressful even just playing around on the tinkercad website. It was really nice to work in a group because that way each member was able to contribute to the poster what s/he does best.

I really liked how the website was used because it was easy to navigate and had a similar format as IDC classes I have taken in the past. Also, it was great to receive emails letting me know when to check the website because otherwise I might not have known to check my grades or remembered important due dates.

Thank you for a great semester!

I think we should do a lab in school to become familiar with the scientific process. It’s one thing to learn about what science is from a detached, academic perspective – and quite another to experience it hands on. Even though when we do entry-level experiments in the lab we are following a rigid procedure which we expect to yield pre-determined results, this is useful firsthand experience. Only after doing “repeat” experiments will we understand how to design and carry out new experiments.

Personally, I’m hoping to actually visit and try out the equipment in the Baruch science department for the first time. Since I got credit for AP Bio and AP Psychology in high school I don’t need to take science in college. Although this is a timesaver, I feel like I am missing out on the authentic lab experience which most of my peers will have. Visiting the lab this week may make up for what I have been missing.

Of course, lab is a component to the course meant to prove kinesthetically that the information being taught is true and relevant. I think that a trip to an art museum, stock exchange, or historical site would fill the same role in another course.

Naturally, the style of writing for a lab report will differ from the style of writing used to write an English paper or history essay. Because science is fact and theory based, there is no room for the experimenter’s opinions and feelings. However, since English and history are more open to the individual’s interpretation of literature and/or events, the author should insert the “I” into his/her writing.

When Eric Garner was choked to death by a policeman and the video of him crying out: “I can’t breathe, I can’t breathe” went viral, I felt vindicated. It took this man’s violent death for America to understand the pain of running out of oxygen and that feeling helplessness when nobody understands and nobody bothers to do anything. Personally, I’ve had exercise induced asthma for many years. Most healthy high schoolers can play basketball for more than 3 minutes without gasping for breath and struggling to even hold their breath long enough to take an inhaler. Although I’ve been going to an allergist and taking quick relief inhalers as needed and twice daily asthma medication, it’s not enough. I can’t run up a few flights of stairs without getting winded. I can’t run on the treadmill (even jogging) for nearly as long as I would like to – and which I know my body could handle if I could breathe properly.

I’m not blaming my healthcare provider – this competent doctor provided me with all available treatment possibilities. On the contrary: what I would love to see is improvements in asthma treatment to help those of us silently screaming (because when you can’t breathe – it hurts too much to talk) “I can’t breathe.”

For starters, I think this article is quite interesting. It seems that in December of 1971 prostaglandins was an up-and-coming field of research with potential for breakthroughs in the treatment of various diseases. The author, Lawrence Galton, does a nice job of clarifying complex scientific concepts for the lay reader. However, I think that basic high school knowledge of biology and chemistry is required to understand even the simplified version presented in this article. Additionally, the article is rather long and would probably not hold the attention of today’s readers since we live in a generation where people expect information on demand, at their fingertips, and very very quickly. I doubt most people trying to stay abreast of the news will take the time (for me it was over an hour) to read an in-depth article on some hormones which may be used in the future of medicine. We hire unpaid interns for that kind of work.

Anyhow, as I was reading through the article I had a few questions and comments about the content. Firstly, the article notes that “…easily available abortion became legal in July 1970…” – a crucial point to focus on because this article was written only a little over a year after this law was implemented! Logically during the early 1970’s the public would have been embroiled in the ethics of abortion (and the author does bring down differing opinions of scientists) which would make this article particularly important at the time.

Another point of interest is that the article mentions “…a Welsh psychologist…who discovered a substance which caused powerful contractions of the uterus during menstruation…” Although the article merely breezes past this earlier usage of prostaglandins, I wonder if science in the 70’s and science today has utilized further research on this topic. How would society be changed in women could take a substance speeding up menstruation to a few hours instead of up to a week? This concept is mind blowing and even more surprising is that nobody seems to be discussing it.

When discussing the use of prostaglandins to induce labor, the article notes that oxytocin “failed to induce labor in 44” out of 100 patients. I was thinking it’s a failure on the author’s part that he didn’t declare what the time constraints for labor induction are. Obviously, eventually every pregnant woman will give birth. The question in my mind is how short after the drug was delivered would a birth be considered “medically induced” as opposed to naturally occurring.

Lastly, the article notes that in addition to inducing abortion, prostaglandins can be added to semen so that sperm travel faster through the fallopian tubes to arrive at the egg. In both processes, the prostaglandins cause the uterine lining to contract. I was particularly fascinated that the same hormone group known as prostaglandins may play a role in opposite fertility processes.