Biochemistry 101
Posts & Replies (on WebCT)
September-December 2005
An explanation of what follows:
In the Fall '05 term, I took Biochemistry 101, Impact of Science and Technology on Society. Each week, students were asked to log on to the course Web site and participate in some of the the discussions on the message board. Students were asked to post at least one question (regarding that week's topic and/or reading) for others to discuss, and then post an answer to at least one other question that had been posed by someone else.
Under the sections titled "(#) Questions I Asked to Others," I have listed each question that I wrote for that week.
Under the sections titled "(#) Replies I Wrote to Others," I have included the question to which I'm replying ("Question Posed") and my response to it ("How I Replied"). The questions written by other students have not been edited for content, grammar, etc.
Sept. 8: Edward Tenner, Ch. 2 (Medical)
Two Questions I Asked to Others
(Question 1) From tonics (claimed to restore balance to the body's humors) to leeches and bloodletting, Tenner cites a variety of examples of now-archaic medical treatments that today are considered ineffective and have been replaced with better, more modern methods. But do you think that there are some instances when medicine might benefit / have something to gain from studying such outdated methods and approaches? Especially when it comes to the countless illnesses that have not yet succeeded in discovering a cure?
(Question 2) Tenner seems to feel that, by and large, the scientific community gives little to no credence to most methods of alternative medicine and treatments. And he says that it is important that medicine has shifted from treating the individual as a whole to giving localized treatment.
However, do you suppose there is the possibility that some alternative methods might be effective in some other way … for example, as psychologically beneficial, or even as having a placebo effect?
Two Replies I Wrote to Others
Question Posed:
[Tenner points out that with all the new generations of instruments, people expect a precise diagnosis of their conditions and an precise remedy for it. So don't you think that nowadays, thanks to the new technologies, everyone has become too demanding and less tolerant towards doctors?]
How I Replied:
Maybe, to a degree. Some people think that they have to know everything about
what might be wrong, and as soon as possible. People do have a right to know
what's wrong, and they have the right to find out in a timely manner. But yes,
some people (in different ways) have a very self-centered, demanding attitude
that is not appropriate.
Question Posed:
[Do you think medicine is always the best way to fight against an illness or in some cases could it be better to use other kinds of treatment?]
How I Replied:
Good
question, but I'm not sure if you mean medicine specifically as in "prescribed
medications or drugs" or "medical treatment in general." Either way, there are
probably some times when alternative cures or treatments may be helpful -- even
if they might be more of a psychological cure than a physical one.
Sept. 8: “The Coming Plague”
Two Questions I Asked to Others
(Question 1) Laurie Garrett devotes a good amount of time to discussing the ways in which bacterial organisms manage to guard against / 'survive' our attacks. At one point (431), she cites one man's quote: "'Bacteria are cleverer than men,' concluded Columbia University's Dr. Harold Neu."
What's your take on Dr. Neu's comment? Does it sound like he was just speaking out of frustration and using hyperbole, or could he have intended it literally in some manner? Is it possible that there could be some element of truth to what he's saying?
(Question 2) On 433, Garrett mentions the topic of cross-resistance. Cross-resistance is "tolerance to a normally toxic substance (as an insecticide) that is acquired not as a result of direct exposure but by exposure to a related substance." Would the threat of cross-resistance make a compelling argument (or part of an argument) that suggested looking for entirely new approaches to drugs/medicines that have gradually become less effective?
Two Replies I Wrote to Others
Question Posed:
[Does the government have the right to add chemicals to the water supply?]
How I Replied:
I
think so, as long as they are doing it correctly, carefully and with highly
qualified people. If the government is doing what it can to help keep the water
safe for use, and especially if we are able to know what steps they are taking
(e.g., what chemicals are actually going in), I don't think there is a problem.
Question Posed:
[Should pharmaceutical companies make antibiotics specificly for third world countries even though they would lose some money?]
How I Replied:
This
is a very difficult question, partly because it's not all that specific. In a
very general / overall sense, I'd be inclined to say yes. It may not be the most
profitable thing to do (for example, if you have to sell drugs at some fraction
of the price they'd get elsewhere), but it's morally commendable. A company that
would do something good even if it meant taking a financial loss sounds like a
company I'd like to do business with. The world doesn’t revolve just around
money.
Sept. 15: Tenner, Ch. 6 (Acclimatization)
One Question I Asked to Others
On page 17, Tenner says that one of the characteristics of animal pests is "adaptability to changes brought about by human activity." On 18, he says, "When people are the invaders, pests may even be allies." (For example, he says, the sleeping sickness carried by the tsetse fly saved the African savanna from human interference.)
Are we, in a sense, becoming pests ourselves -- to the point that the animals and insects *we* consider pests occasionally wind up saving (something in) nature from *us*? Who's become the bigger pest -- them or us?
One Reply I Wrote to Another
Question Posed:
[the article talked about the negative effects of acclimitazation. No dramatic problem was cosed to the human population or society due to the introduction of new species into an area. DO you think that the negative effects of it are insignificant compared to the possible benefits.]
How I Replied:
Overall, in response to the question ("Do you think that the negative effects of it are insignificant compared to the possible benefits"), I am going to answer with a qualified no.
It is hard to define what constitutes a 'dramatic' problem. Tenner doesn't think that any catastrophic consequences have come about as a result of the introduction of new species -- but the practice *has* brought about some various problems, even if they're not particularly serious. (Individually, none of the consequences / problems have been particularly devastating.)
I do think there is the potential for some of the problems to become unmanageable, in the sense that they could become larger or more serious than they are now. (Said another way, what may not be a big problem now could at some point turn serious.) Maybe these minor problems and annoyances -- and the new solutions we might try to find -- could spawn new and bigger 'secondhand' problems.
Maybe I'll be dead wrong. Maybe there will be few, if any, negative consequences
to this practice, and the positive (benefits) will completely outweigh those
negatives. But I think there are few times when we can safely guess that the
negative effects will be insignificant. As times change, both new problems and
new solutions inevitably arise.
Sept. 15: NRC Ch. 15 (Extinction)
One Question I Asked to Others
This wasn't specifically mentioned in the Chiras reading, but it relates to some of the related topics regarding extinction.
I read an article about one prominent scientist who advocates what she calls "planned [that is, intentional] extinction" to get rid of a number of species of mosquito that have been blamed for many deaths by the disease they carry.
Anyway, this person's reasoning is that species go extinct all the time, and so the disappearance of a few more won't harm / destroy the ecosystem. (There's more to it than that, but this is the reasoning in a nutshell.)
What do you think of the above reasoning?
One Reply I Wrote to Another
Question Posed:
[Based on the two readings, What would you consider worse, extinction or acclimatization for the earth as a whole and why?]
How I Replied:
It
is a very interesting question. I'm not sure if there's a good answer to it. It
seems to me that acclimatization is the more problematic as a short-term
problem, and that extinction is the bigger long-term problem. This is not to say
that both acclimatization and extinction don't have short- and long-term
consequences, though.
Sept. 22: “Non-renewable Energy Resources”
One Question I Asked to Others
Some countries, including Sweden, Italy, Belgium and Germany, have initiated what's called a nuclear power phase-out. This means the discontinuation of usage of nuclear power as a form of energy production, and the phase-out includes closing down nuclear power plants. Obviously, there are both advantages and disadvantages associated with nuclear power as an energy source. What might be some of the problems with such a plan, either for the United States or for other countries?
One Reply I Wrote to Another
Question Posed:
[Since nuclear rectors get extremely hot, how important is it to follow the safty procedures when working with them?]
How I Replied:
It's REALLY important. Human error (read "stupidity") is pretty much what caused the Chernobyl disaster. In a nutshell, this is how the events unfolded -- all due to some people not following the safety procedures.
1 -- Some plant engineers decide to initiate an unauthorized test of one of the plant's reactors. (They want to see how long the turbine-generators will continue to produce electricity to run the water pumps -- necessary to cool the reactor -- after the normal electrical supply is interrupted.)
2 -- The resident Einsteins lower the power level and disconnect power regulation and emergency cooling systems.
3 -- Seconds later, the flow of steam is halted.
4 -- An enormous heat buildup occurs in the reactor core. Result? Chain reaction.
5 -- Two massive explosions result from the power surge.
6 -- Radioactive debris gets carried over most of northern Europe. The total fallout eventually reaches a level TEN TIMES that of the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima.
And *that* is what can happen.
Sept. 22: “Creating a Sustainable System of Energy”
One Question I Asked to Others
After doing some additional reading, I found discussions of what is called the "soft energy path." It is a strategy for energy usage and development. It is based upon energy conservation.
It is compared to what one person calls today's "hard energy path." This "hard energy path" involves large, centralized facilities for electricity generation, burning [of] fossil fuels, "inefficient liquid-fuel automotive transport" and waste/loss of "common, directly usable forms of energy."
By comparison, the proposed "soft energy path" involves increased efficiency of energy usage, "diversity of energy production methods," cogeneration (using a power station to generate electricity and heat at the same time) and alternative energy sources (including most of the ones discussed in the chapter).
Other than the obvious ones (those that are clearly stated above), what could be some of the potential positives and/or negatives to such a proposed concept?
One Reply I Wrote to Another
Question Posed:
[Some 141 countries, accounting for 55% of greenhouse gas emissions, have ratified the treaty, which pledges to cut these emissions by 5.2% by 2012. But the world's top polluter - the US - has not signed up to the treaty. why do you believe the US has not signed up for the treaty, and if they did do you think that it would make other countries want to sign up for the kyoto protocol treaty as well?]
How I Replied:
Actually, the United States *did* sign the treaty but *does not* currently intend to ratify it. I understand that George W. Bush has some reservations about it – not that he doesn't support the basic idea of the treaty, but he feels it would put stress on the economy. He doesn't like that some countries (such as China) are exempted from the Protocol's requirements.
Furthermore, he doesn't feel that the treaty is scientifically sound (that it is not based upon science), and some scientists actually agree with this.
There are other reasons the president / the United States have reservations about ratifying. The above examples, though, represents some of those concerns/criticisms.
Then
there's the question of “If we *did* ratify the treaty, would it make other
countries want to do the same?” Frankly, I don't know. If we decided to ratify
and provided a solid rationale for our decision, other countries might choose to
follow suit. But beyond that, who can tell?
Sept. 29: “Beyond Engineering,” Ch. 1
One Question I Asked to Others
Edison has many colorful quotations and sayings attributed to him, such as "Opportunity is missed by most people because it is dressed in overalls and looks like work" and "Restless is discontent, and discontent is the first necessity of progress."
His quotes seem based on the feeling that we don't do all that we're capable of / we're afraid to think. And what others saw as a failure or a "pile of junk," Edison saw as a possibility.
Is it possible that "we" (not necessarily as individuals, but more as "society in general") are often afraid to do something differently for fear of failure? Would we say Edison was a great inventor? Or would we more accurately say that he was a great thinker and innovator?
One Reply I Wrote to Another
Question Posed:
[what is the dynamo, who revolutionized it, and what was its impact on electricity?]
How I Replied:
Dynamo is short for dynamoelectric. One dictionary defines that as "Having to do with the production of electrical energy from mechanical energy, or of mechanical energy from electrical energy."
Basically, it was important because it was the first electric generator that had the capacity/capability to deliver power for industry.
From
what I understand, although
Edison
did receive some patents for some of his dynamo designs, it was really Nikola
Tesla who made the most significant / revolutionary advances.
Sept. 29: “Beyond Engineering,” Ch. 3
One Question I Asked to Others
If we could learn one lesson, either from Apple, IBM or the many companies that gradually faded into the background, what might be the most important thing we could learn from them? Or perhaps, for each of the three 'categories' (Apple / IBM / failed competition), what might be the most significant thing each of them could teach?
One Reply I Wrote to Another
Question Posed:
[What are the advantages to being a small start-up company (i.e. Apple in the late 1970s) as opposed to a large business in terms of creating a new product?]
How I Replied:
It
seems that when you're a small company, the whole atmosphere is different from
that of a big business. For one, there's less formality and more room
(creatively speaking) for individuals. In Apple's case, being small and
relatively independent allowed them to focus on more than just the traditional
questions that most people ask when designing a computer.
Oct. 6: “Beyond Engineering,” Ch. 5
Three Questions I Asked to Others
(Question 1) On page 158, Pool says that "consumers often find that it pays to belong to a large community of users of a particular product." There are good reasons for "jumping on the bandwagon," of course; however, are there some instances in which it may be advantageous [for consumers] to be in the minority? What might be a benefit?
(Question 2) If what Pool says [on 172-3] is any indication, the PIUS reactor had a lot of potential. But it was unceremoniously shoved aside because the AEC felt like focusing solely on fast-breeder reactors -- and because the PIUS was "too different." Now, some 35 years later, have we [either as a country or as a society] really gotten any better, or do we still have the unfortunate tendency to snub that which is different?
(Question 3) On 176, Pool says, "If a locked-in technology is 'good enough,' people don't care whether it's the absolute best.'" Is the standard of "good enough" too low of a standard? Or is it necessary to sometimes have to accept things as less-than-ideal?
Three Replies I Wrote to Others
Question Posed:
[Do you think that technological and technical improvements and inventions have always been a good thing for humanity ?]
How I Replied:
Good question. If I (or anyone) gave it the full answer it deserved, it would take up a book. The answer I'm going to give is more of a borderline philosophical one than a scientifically minded one, but this time, that is OK. I wrote this about four years ago:
Life
moves by us at a hectic pace, but slow down for a moment. Consider this: an
early-20th-century life of simplicity. Computers haven’t been invented yet, so
you spend the cool summer evening talking to neighbors. But gradually neighbors
become strangers and community becomes a dim memory. First someone invents
window screens, then air conditioning, and then television. The advance in
technology has caused a rapid decline in the number of people getting together
to do things – and a large increase in the time in which our only companion is a
machine. The world may be becoming technologically advanced, but we forget our
common humanity.
Question Posed:
[In this chapter the author discusses one of the problems NASA encountered by not taking the engineeres facts that something will go wrong. Since then, does NASA and other companies that have a risk of danger still carry out goals when they should, or did it finally come to the point where they need to listen to the experts?]
How I Replied:
I
think I understand what you're asking, but correct me if I am wrong. This is a
little of a generic answer, here, but it seems to me that NASA (and other
agencies) have worked to improve in many ways. They do listen to the experts
more, and they should have done so from the start. There is room for
improvement, and there's still a lot more that could be done – there's always a
risk of danger, but I for one sure hope they'll continue to try to improve and
to lessen those risks. It shouldn't have taken a disaster the first time to show
that change was needed, and I hope it won't take another disaster to show that
more changes are still necessary.
Question Posed:
[In the chapter, it talks about how economists have paid very little attention to questions such as how do we make a choice between competing technologies?...They go on saying that people will make their choice depending on whatever technology gives them more bang for their buck...what is your position on this matter? Suppose you have an endless supply of money and buy whatever you want, you have taken this course and you know that there are revenge effects of choosing certain technologies over others, will you still purchase that super fast car that will give you the feeling of power even though you know that natural gases are a scarcity in the world today?]
How I Replied:
No,
I wouldn't. The faster, more powerful car may well be both of those things, but
it's also got the greater potential to cause a deadly accident. That may sound
like over-generalizing (and it kind of is), but think of it as a sort of
metaphor – the more powerful you make something, and the more power the person
(using it) feels they have, the more dangerous both become. A wonderfully
crafted automotive triumph though it may be (I can appreciate a nice car), I
don't personally have a need for it. I'd go for a practical, safe,
environmentally minded one. Limitless money isn't going to do me much good if
I'm killed in a crash. What's more, if I really did have infinite money, then
morally speaking, I'd have that much more of an already great responsibility to
make the best possible use of it – not just for my own benefit.
Oct. 6: “Beyond Engineering,” Ch. 8
Three Questions I Asked to Others
(Question 1) The 1986 Challenger disaster was a horrific example of failure to communicate and take the proverbial "ounce of prevention." Richard Feynman, a famous physicist, was part of the investigation. When someone requires nothing more than a clamp, ice water and a piece of the rubber O-ring material to show how an entire space shuttle failed, you know something was fundamentally flawed.
(Question 2) Feynman famously said, "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." What do you make of this; what significance does it have to you?
(Question 3) On 267, Pool says, "An organization that emphasizes constant learning will have to put up with a certain amount of ambiguity." He also says that a little ambiguity isn't what should be worrisome, but beware any person or any group who thinks they know all the answers. How can people work to prevent "a little ambiguity" from becoming "too much"?
And broadly speaking, which has the greater potential to be dangerous -- technologies and innovations, or the people who are given control of them? Or to put it another way, what has the greater potential to cause disaster -- technological or human failure?
(Perhaps the imperfect nature of *human* nature can be its own sort of a 'revenge effect,' both positive and negative…)
Three Replies I Wrote to Others
Question Posed:
[Do you think that sometimes that the "Risk" is worth it? Or is it better safe than sorry? For example in the spaceship Challanger explosion the book states that the danger of such an O-Ring malfunction had been well known to the engineers who worked on the shuttle. On the night before the launch they recomended postponing the take off to a warmer date because of the O-Rings performance. The shuttle was launched anyways. Some say that NASA met alot of pressures to get the shuttle in the air ASAP.]
How I Replied:
There are certainly times when doing something is worth the risk – if no one
ever took a risk, can you imagine what the world would be like today? We
wouldn't even recognize it. It's often hard to decide if the risk *will* have
been worth it. Sometimes the best we can do (and often the best way to begin
deciding) is to consider “what's being risked” versus “what can be gained” – and
decide if the potential is there for the gain to outweigh what may be
sacrificed. If it's a big risk for only a small potential reward, then play it
safe.
Question Posed:
[With accidents like Chernobyl and NASA and more that were mentioned in the book. Do you think they occured due to human neglect or that not all things will run smoothly, as they mention the US Air Force does?]
How I Replied:
Everyone here has a good answer. I agree with both people who have responded: Sometimes the problem is out of our control and we'll only be able to do so much; when it's man versus machine (particularly the really big and powerful ones), it's not always man who wins the battle. Sometimes human error causes the problem, sometimes it's just the machine itself that malfunctions "without assistance," and sometimes it's a combination of both.
When
problems do come up, we should have people who are competent enough to be able
to both (ideally) solve the problem – and to have not been responsible for it in
the first place! And even if the person can't rectify things himself, he should
at least be prepared to (as they say in law) 'mitigate damages.'
Question Posed:
[It is easy to see what caused an accident after it has occured. For example, after the deck of a home falls, it is easy to recognize that the wood had been weak for a year or two now. Or when there is a fire, it is easily stated that the gas had been leaking for a while. Whatever the outcome may be, it is easy to see what caused it after it happens. However, it is a bit harder to see these things before they occur. The Challenger explosion is sort of the same thing. Everyone knew what caused the accident after it happened. Some knew it before too. But how do you know what risk is too high? Had the suspicion of the O-rings failing been false, the costs of stopping the mission would have been very high. On the other hand, seeing what happened by continuing the mission, the price of that was very high as well. How do you know where to draw the line? How do you know what risk is too high?]
How I Replied:
The
risk is too high when you can't justify your actions / what you’re doing
*before* you do it, much less after.
Oct. 13: Yucca Mountain (Questions for Guest Speaker)
(Question 1) One Web site's discussion of the project states that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has not tested the shipping casks to be used. Instead, computer-simulated have been used, but that NRC declared the results safe. Further, NRC has no immediate plans to test the shipping containers' durability against fire, sabotage, water immersion, puncture and impact.
Is it correct that the casks themselves have not been tested? How do the computer-simulated models show what would happen under such adverse conditions?
(Question 2) In 1983, the Department of Energy chose nine locations in six
states as potential repository sites. This was based on data from some 10 years
of study. The results of preliminary studies of the sites were reported in
1985. Based on these reports, President Reagan approved three sites for
intensive scientific study called site characterization. The three sites were
Hanford,
Washington;
Deaf Smith County,
Texas; and Yucca Mountain, Nevada. How would you define site characterization,
and why was Yucca Mountain finally decided on (over the other two locations)?
Oct. 20: “The Prize: John D. Rockefeller”
Two Questions I Asked to Others
(Question 1) According to the reading, Rockefeller is credited with originating the style of ownership and control known as vertical integration. Often, companies are united through a hierarchy, sharing a common owner. Each member of that hierarchy produces a different product, and the products combine to satisfy a common need.
One problem with this strategy is that it could hurt a company, because when new technologies become available, the company is forced to reinvest in its infrastructures (equipment, technologies) to keep up with competition.
In today's society, especially in light of the rapidly changing and evolving technologies, would a vertically integrated corporation be effective? Or would the frequent reinvestments (from one new technology to a newer one) put an unnecessary financial burden on the company?
(Question 2) The author points out that Rockefeller was the sort of person who was quite secretive when it came to his business life and the company he owned. In some ways, this policy of silence may be seen as having some clear advantages, but it certainly also added to the extremely negative image that practically everyone had of Rockefeller and his company. Was it wise for Rockefeller to remain as 'enigmatic' as he did, or would he possibly have had much to gain from a little bit of openness? (That is, would he and his company have benefited from being more honest and straightforward?)
One Reply I Wrote to Another
Question Posed:
[By 1910, Rockefeller had contributed $550 million to universities as well as other
causes. When thinking about how much money this actually was back in this time, with the amount of money he made overall, can you consider him the most successful buisnessman of all time? If not, who are some that are better?]
How I Replied:
In 1901, Rockefeller was worth some $900 million. Adjusted for inflation and for the size of the U.S. economy in his day, his net worth (in contemporary money) would be over $200 billion! However, I don't think that net worth is the best measure of what makes a businessman the best or most successful. In terms of money, he's way up there, and he was a great businessman, but I think that the idea of (deciding on a) "most successful businessman in history" is so subjective that there's really no clear-cut "winner."
For example, what if one of the factors was ethics/morals? In my opinion, at least, Rockefeller may have given away a lot of money late in life, but I don't think that necessarily earns him the title of philanthropist -- philanthropy means "goodwill to fellowmen; especially: active effort to promote human welfare." I won't go into it any more here, but I, for one, don't exactly hold his morals in the highest regard. And many would disagree with this. See how things gets kind of confusing when attempting to decide on a "best businessman"?
Oct. 20: “Nanotechnology,” Ch. 1-4
One Question I Asked to Others
Early on, the authors talk about what is known as Moore's law. It says that the device density of modern computer electronics has grown exponentially (for example, the diminishing amount of space required to put a transistor on a computer chip), and that the trend is expected to continue for some time.
Of course, both economics and fundamental electronic limitations prevent the trend from continuing indefinitely. But which one might have the greater potential to slow or halt the trend? Technological limitations or economic factors?
One Reply I Wrote to Another
Question Posed:
[In the first chapter, nano is compared to Neil Armstrong's famous citation when he
stepped onto the moon : "a small step for man and a giant leap for mankind". We also understand that nano is seen as a great improvement for science. But if we look to nano with a different view, don't you think that nanoscience could have terrible effects on humans ?]
How I Replied:
This reply might get nominated for the "Most Likely to Over-Generalize Itself Out Onto a Limb" award...
Yes. In a way, I think, virtually every technology that's ever been developed has come with both great potential and great risks. That's a double-edged sword, too: The more we try to improve technology, the more complex we're making it. And the more complex something is, the more likely that something unforeseen can go wrong, and the more ways in which it can happen.
With
regard to nanotechnology, many people are in agreement with you. The Center for
Responsible Nanotechnology cites some examples, including economic oppression
from artificially inflated prices, personal risk from criminal or terrorist use,
personal or social risk from abusive restrictions, an unstable arms race and the
potential toxicity of new classes of nanosubstances. That sure alleviates any
concerns, doesn't it? Still, I'm convinced of nanotechnology's potential.
Nov. 3: “Nanotechnology,” Ch. 5-8
Two Questions I Asked to Others
(Question 1) The book talks about lab-on-a-chip devices, also abbreviated µTAS (for micro-total-analysis-systems). What advantages can we see from using lab-on-a-chip technology?
(Question 2) This one is a pretty tough question; I am actually directing this one at Dr. Gades, unless someone else would like to comment on it:
The authors talk about quantum computing. It uses such (quantum mechanical) phenomena as entanglement and superposition in executing operations on data. But there is the problem—not discussed in the book, as this problem is a bit technical—of quantum decoherence ("the process by which quantum systems in complex environments exhibit classical behavior"; the problem "occurs when a system interacts with its environment in such a way that different portions of its wavefunction can no longer interfere with each other").
This seems to be a really big problem so far. Are we making progress in overcoming it? How so, or perhaps, why not?
Three Replies I Wrote to Others
Question Posed:
[What could be the impact of nanotechnologies in the military field?]
How I Replied:
This is a really interesting question, and it has at least one really interesting answer, too. I covered this (well, mentioned it) when I gave the in-class presentation.
The
U.S. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency is investing some $50 million to
develop an "exoskeleton suit"; it's like a wearable machine that gives the
wearer highly enhanced powers, like being able to lift hundreds of pounds easily
and running at twice the normal speed. These suits may have built-in computers
(for navigation, mostly), too. Amazing, isn't it?
Question Posed:
[What is the importance of Nanofiltration as mentioned in Chapter 6?]
How I Replied:
Nanofiltration is filtration of minute particles (often from water) using a
filter with extremely small pores (about 10 to the power of -3, I think).
Nanotechnology is used in purifying water and in removal of toxic chemicals /
materials. Also, the Air Products Corporation uses this method (of
nanofiltration) on gases, separating oxygen and nitrogen from the air. The pure
gases are sold for various uses. It constitutes a large portion of the APC's
income.
Question Posed:
[In Chapter 8, drugs are introduced. How can nanotechnology improve the advancement of different drugs?]
How I Replied:
(quoting another source) "Achieving a desired material structure and certain configurations of atoms brings the field of chemistry into play. In medicine, the specifically targeted deployment of nanoparticles promises to help in the treatment of certain diseases."
The “Nanotechnology” book more specifically says that some drugs are designed to interact with known biological targets. So development of drugs on the nanoscale can lead to more focused, accurate and efficient treatment.
Nov. 10:
“Nanotechnology,” Ch. 9-11
Two Questions I Asked to Others
(Question 1) The authors say that "DNA, quantum and swarm computing are very powerful, but they have limited applicability." Do you think this remark has the potential to be disproved—not necessarily in the short term, but farther down the road—or do you think those types of computing will permanently be limited by their very nature?
(Question 2) The authors talk about the dot-com era, as well as some of the failures ("dot bombs") that were common to many of the 'dot-commers' and their attempted businesses. But it seems (to me) like the discussion may have neglected to mention some of the other shortcomings of the dot-com era and its 'participants.' Can you think of some factors that may have contributed to some of the failures?
Two Replies I Wrote to Others
Question Posed:
[In chapter 10, the author talks the impact of nanotechnology upon the marketing and business aspects. Do you think there is a "race" between the companies to be the first to discover and patent the newest nanotechnology?]
How I Replied:
There is, but I think some companies are keeping in mind that the tortoise won
the race. And well they should, too. The hare was fast, but distraction and
pride caused it to lose momentum, whereas Contestant Number Two was going by the
"slow and steady" adage. And now that we've had a nice tribute to Aesop, the
reason for citing the fable: As the "Nanotechnology" authors point out, some
companies may not be first, but they learn from the imperfections or mistakes of
the front-runners. If you ask me, it seems better to start slowly than rush
headlong into things.
Question Posed:
[Do you think that the fact the nanoscience technology is being developed at and for the Ph.D level is going to impact the spread of this technology? Meaning, becuase only highly educated indivudals are going to be familiarized with it, it wont be as successful as a technology that a more generalized portion of our population can train into?]
How I Replied:
You
make a valid point. Because the technology is so complex, nanotechnology
certainly doesn't seem to be a field that many people can enter. But I will say
this: Remember, there was a time when even the most "simpleminded" computers --
dinosaurs by today's standards -- were just beginning to show up. The average
person back then probably couldn't tell you much about how those machines
worked. Now, 20-30+ years later, such is not the case. I think there's a good
chance that, over time, nanotechnology will be better understood and, possibly,
less difficult to design.
Dec. 1: “Human Population Challenge”
One Question I Asked to Others
The discussion of overpopulation reminded me of something I once read. The question I have is whether you agree with the answer / what is your reaction.
The question posed: "You, as the person you are now, are being sent back alone in time five hundred years. You will remain the same person with the same knowledge as today. You may bring one item with you. What would that be?"
The initial response: "I would take back a book that described how to provide the vaccine for plague, hoping to save the 25,000,000 people who died from the Black Death in the fourteenth century, nearly three-fourths of the population in some areas."
This caused dozens of letters to pour in, deploring the answer. The author's follow-up: "There'll be no retraction here, and *I'm* not afraid to stand up publicly and say that I'd save those people who died under Hitler. You'll just have to count me as one of those folks who prefers family planning to famine, pestilence and madmen."
Thoughts?
Four Replies I Wrote to Others
Question Posed:
[This reading suggests that the United States with its 280 million people is as damaging as the rest of the world combined, or even possibly doubly as bad (20 to 40 X 280 million = 5.6 billion to 11.2 billion (it's simple math)). What it doesn't seem to suggest or conveniently leaves out, is that with our huge consumption we are also supplying the rest of the world with food and products. Should we as the leading country of the world be bound by the constraints of other countries. Here's the question. If you divide up all the food, water etc. per capita throughout the world, should we only be allowed to consume our "fair" share? If it worked out to your family only got a half a loaf of bread a day because of the rest of your food had to go to other people in other countries, would you be happy with that?]
How I Replied:
A number of questions (though related) are being asked here. I'm going to take this in a slightly different direction for a minute. According to a book I've read, if it were decided to redistribute wealth evenly throughout the world, then "all the citizens of the United States—and all other wealthy countries--would be required to give up everything above a bare subsistence level, and that would then be redistributed among the poor people in the Third World countries in order to bring them up to that same subsistence level."
If such a situation (or a similar one) meant that every family wound up getting just half a loaf of bread each day, then no, I wouldn't be happy with that. But as unhappy as I'd be that I (and my family) was getting so little, I'd be even more unhappy with the knowledge that everyone else in the world was facing the same dilemma! But maybe it would motivate some people to work harder to solve the problem.
I
could say a bit more on all of this, but I'm going to hold off.
Second Reply to Posts I Made:
[George,
Boy, it really seems like your heart is in the right place, and I applaud your candor. I'm sure anyone who reads this will I think I'm one of the coldest heart of people they'll ever meet, but it seems to me that both now and many times through history, the human population is somewhat like the deer population is now (needing to be thinned down).
It's a genetic fact that at some point the human race was down to approximately 1000 people, that whether you attribute this as the Bible would say to a great flood, or is most scientists would say to some Ice Age, the fact is, something like 6 billion people descended from 1000!
[The
amazing part is this happened despite disease, famine, the Crusades, the Civil
War, World War I, World War II, and many other mass deaths, both natural and
man-made. As to the question posed, what one item would I take back 500 years to
the year 1505? I would probably take back some sort of huge reference book or
dictionary. This combined with what knowledge I already possessed hopefully a
deal to do some good. I'm sorry that my answer was not as eloquent as yours.]
Reply I Wrote to Second Post:
Don't give a second thought to eloquence; this is just an informal message board. What's important is the exchange of ideas and everyone being willing to think things through with an open mind. If we can understand what the other is saying, that's good enough.
I think I understand what your point is, but let me state that I don't necessarily agree. For one, I'm not sure I agree on the point of a thousand people. It would have more weight if you could point to the source you're referring to or citing. But more to the point, I don't see the reasoning as to why the population should be trimmed.
Now, if you're referring (by "thin down") to the practice of culling, then that changes things -- I honestly think THAT would be coldhearted. Let's play devil's advocate for a moment and suppose that is what you meant (not because I think you did mean this, but because it is an interesting tangent). In its extreme form, look at Margaret Sanger and Hitler / the Nazis. This belongs to the realm of eugenics. The number-one question might be, "Is it true -- IS there an overpopulation problem?" And the second question is, "Who gets to decide -- who gets to determine which people will be culled?"
I don't think there is a problem, either with overpopulation or lack of resources. I think it is sociological fiction popularized by those in power with a political agenda. Look at what's happening in Sudan, for example. That's from little more than political corruption. And if there really was such a terribly threatening problem of lack of resources or overpopulation, would we not have noticed a sharp decline (statistically) somewhere along the way?
Anyway, I'm optimistic about the population and the so-called problems associated with it. Some actually postulate that the world population will stabilize by the end of the 21st century. And in fact, some of your examples are good reasons to be optimistic. Even after such problems as the Black Plague, which claimed probably a fourth of Europe's population, it still recovered.
To
quote the same person I did the first time: "There have been difficulties
pressing people since ancient times--even the Romans living in 200 B.C. bemoaned
the polluting of the Tiber and complained about the crowding and the noise of
all those oxcarts, wagons and chariots clattering around the city—but things
have always gotten better *so far,* haven't they?" In other words, I still think
there's reason for optimism.
Question Posed:
[If tomorrow the government ask you to have no more than one child, like the Chinese control program, what will be your reaction?]
How I Replied:
If the government asked me to have no more than one child, I think my reaction would partly depend on what the consequences (if any) were. I think the most important question I'd ask is simply, "Why?" If the reason couldn't be justified, I don't know if I'd agree to it.
On
the other hand, though, I've thought for a long time that if I ever married, I
might like to adopt. It seems like I would accomplish much more good this way.
Question Posed:
[If the earth reaches its full carrying capacity, what are we going to do?]
How I Replied:
I don't have a sufficient answer to this question – at least not the answer you're probably looking for – because I can hardly imagine that this is realistically possible. Some estimates say that the earth could have a theoretical "maximum" of over 50 billion.
For
lack of a better answer, if the population ever reaches that point (or whatever
the "real" final capacity is), we're all going to have a lot more sympathy for
sardines.
Dec. 1: Stem Cell Research
One Question I Asked to Others
Using stem cell research as an example -- How do we discern whether a scientific argument is being advanced objectively (e.g., for or against harvesting stem cells from aborted fetuses), or if it is being intentionally framed and biased to advance a political / social / moral agenda? What should we look for, and what questions should we ask of those advancing an argument?
One Reply I Wrote to Another
Question Posed:
[Don't you think stem research debate should be taken from politicians and interest groups and left in the hands of scientists and researchers who would try to strike a balance between medicine and ethics?]
How I Replied:
I mostly agree. The people who are the most knowledgeable about stem cell research -- the scientists, obviously -- are also the ones who can probably look at the situation most objectively. I'd be surprised to see a politician -- *with no hidden agendas, political or otherwise* -- approach the topic. Everyone has his own views on morality, ethics, etc., but scientists (if you ask me) deal in hard facts and knowledge -- they understand their field to an infinitely greater depth than most anyone else.
Of
course, politicians / government have to play some role in science. I don't
think that's what people have a problem with. It's what those roles actually
ARE.
Dec. 8: “Flowers for Algernon”
Two Questions I Asked to Others
(Question 1) Daniel Keyes clearly condemns how people (both as a society and as individuals) act toward those who are mentally disabled. He also seems to understand at least some aspects of *why* mistreatment takes place. Why do *you* think it occurs? Why are people sometimes inclined to mistreat -- and, in the process, dehumanize -- those who are mentally disabled?
(Question 2) This is an odd question, but I'm going to try to get it phrased right anyway.
It seems to me that people with a disability – physical, mental, developmental, *any* kind – are often considered to be of less than average intelligence, and treated as such, too. I do acknowledge (to an extent) that in some aspects, certain disabilities may indeed result in severe mental impairment, but even so, I'm of the impression that all of these people are still quite intelligent – they just sometimes don't have the standard "outlets" for expression (e.g., they might suffer the inability to speak, or lack of cognitive development, and so on and so forth). We do know that Charlie is such a person and has his IQ artificially increased, and likewise, his language skills increase too, but it made me think. Is it possible that, the way communication has developed over the ages, that simply it is more often language and expression that fails us rather than intelligence and logic?
Four Replies I Wrote to Others
Question Posed:
[Not the Charlie was ever truly omniscient, but as far as the book is concerned, he was probably the closest that humans have ever been. My question is this, would you want that kind of intelligence and if so, what risks would you be willing to accept to get there?]
How I Replied:
Good question. You could probably spark a lengthy discussion in a philosophy class with a question like this. I don't think there is any "right" or "perfect" answer, so I will just comment, instead.
If I did have the opportunity to "receive" the sort of mental and intellectual capacity that Charlie did, I would probably only consider accepting if I knew that the change would *not* be permanent. Otherwise, the magnitude of the decision might be far too great -- I wouldn't enter into a situation from which I could not have the potential to escape (if at some point I wanted to).
It seems to me that Charlie in "Flowers for Algernon" got too much of a good thing. There was a very high price to pay for his newly acquired intellect -- look what it does to him emotionally! His mental capacity to understand the world increases, but the more he comprehends, the more he becomes cold, detached and feels isolated from others. Perhaps the worst part is that because he has gone from an "ignorant" man to a "wise" one, he sees more of reality; that reality is more negative than positive, so as a "wise" person he is less happy.
Look at Prof. Nemur. Like the new Charlie, he's a genius, but he has neither any apparent happiness nor any friends. And Fay Lillman is the opposite; she allows feelings to rule everything, and she acts illogically and without thinking. Why was Charlie ultimately happy in the end? For one reason, perhaps, because even he realized that intelligence doesn't [have to] eliminate emotions -- rather, it keeps us from relying on them unwisely.
The relationship between emotions and intellect is quite similar to the relationship between imagination and intellect: As Marilyn vos Savant once said, they might operate independently of one another, but only at their peril.
Having said all of this, I wouldn't take near-absolute knowledge any more than
I'd take a brain that operated almost completely on emotions. In fact, I would
much rather live as my own person, who I am. I know that I can say I am
intelligent, or imaginative, et cetera, without risk of sounding like I'm just
patting myself on the back. If I am happy with who I am, why would I risk it for
the chance to turn into something artificial? Especially if I knew *ahead* of
time what I'd be giving up. In other words, I like being human, imperfect and
not omniscient. For all the apparent drawbacks of our "flaws" [imperfect
nature], the alternative seems even worse.
Question Posed:
[In “Flowers” the doctors wanted progress science by “helping” Charlie. My question is simple. At what point does the progression of science go from helping to meddling?]
How I Replied:
I'm sure there are countless good answers to this question. Maybe one answer is that science has overstepped its bounds when there are either too many negatives or risks, or not enough positives or potential. I said it once before: The risk is too great when you can't justify your actions / what you’re doing *before* you do it, much less after.
Also, another part of a (different) answer: Remember, as Marilyn vos Savant once
said, facts are small, individual bits of truth that have to pieced together,
like a jigsaw puzzle, to see what the whole truth is. I add to this that science
is "meddling" when one or more of those facts is either left out, distorted or
overlooked altogether for the sake of justifying or masking the
less-than-perfect truth.
Question Posed:
[In Chapter 12, what are charlie's nightmares about?]
How I Replied:
Charlie dreams of a window of a bakery, and on the other side of the window pane, he sees his former self (his mentally disabled self) watching him. He also remembers a childhood memory involving Norma, his younger sister.
Question Posed:
[At the end of the book, what does Charlie see in the window as he runs away from his house?]
How I Replied:
He sees none other than himself!