There are two major avenues by which to promote large scale change in societies. The first is through government action. While the second is through private sector investment. At any given moment in time, advances in technology are driven by either one. One (i.e. government) will drive change followed by the private sector once the confidence in the market has been established. Or the private sector is driving change which then encourages the government to jump on board through establishing the same bar of confidence in the market. Does this work for the transition toward renewable energy? Yes.
In the present situation, the government (i.e. Trump Administration) is unwilling to promote renewable energy -- to deal with the growing concern about climate change. Therefore, the private sector is being charged through consumer demand to transition toward a renewable, more sustainable, society. This includes the manufacturing/supply chain too. Amazon announced recently that 50% of all shipments will be made by carbon neutral sources on its blog site:
Amazon has a history of commitment to sustainability, through innovative programs such as Frustration Free Packaging, Ship in Own Container, our network of solar and wind farms, solar on our fulfillment center rooftops, investments in the circular economy with the Closed Loop Fund, and numerous other initiatives happening every day by teams across Amazon. In operations alone, we have over 200 scientists, engineers, and product designers dedicated exclusively to inventing new ways to leverage our scale for the good of customers and the planet.
Amazon has a long-term goal to power our global infrastructure using 100% renewable energy, and we are making solid progress. With improvements in electric vehicles, aviation bio fuels, reusable packaging, and renewable energy, for the first time we can now see a path to net zero carbon delivery of shipments to customers, and we are setting an ambitious goal for ourselves to reach 50% of all Amazon shipments with net zero carbon by 2030. We are calling this project "Shipment Zero” – it won’t be easy to achieve this goal, but it’s worth being focused and stubborn on this vision and we’re committed to seeing it through.
Amazon is in a perfect position to implement this change. First, Jeff Bezos has built this company up to a fortune (now worth $255 billion). Second, he started the company out of his garage -- sending off packages in bulk (at the end of every day) to customers. He has been thinking about sustainability for quite a while. Also, the public is in a position to demand change on the part of corporations through purchasing power.
Currently, the transition toward renewable (sustainable, clean) energy is being driven by the private sector. Which is a result of consumer demand. Consumers are tired of corporations choosing cost-saving measures which potentially damage the environment while boosting their shareholders bottom line. The time has come where consumers have taken control through social media to demand more environmentally friendly (sustainable) products.
Here in America, we look toward our European consumers and notice that the same corporations are making changes for the European marketplace based on consumer demand. Why should we be using unsafe/unhealthy second rate products? When our European counterparts are forcing companies to make changes? This revelation is nothing new. Look at the ingredients which McDonald's uses overseas to replace unhealthy ingredients which are still infused in Americans meals. More will be written about this later.
The point is that the private sector has the unique opportunity to lead the transition toward a future where renewable energy plays a dominant role in our society (and world). Government is slowly catching on. With the recent 3 hearings in Congress over the last month with a bipartisan admission that climate change is not only real but caused by us (humans), the change is on the horizon. The private sector should be confident in trail-blazing the pathway forward. Trust me. Consumers will remember your lead. Keep up the great work private corporations in not only taking ownership for the pollution, but transitioning toward cleaner - renewable energy.
Why is communicating science to the public so difficult? At least that is a major perception by the science community. There is a 'disconnect' between the public and science community when any topic of science is raised in a public forum. Regardless, science communication to the public seems rather difficult. I believe that should not be the case. In fact, inside each of us is a scientist at heart. But the world does not revolve around my belief's now does it. Thank goodness for that.
With that being said, scientists much continually reach out to the community and demystify science for the public. I have tried through writing on this blog to do my part. Recently, I read about another distinct avenue by which science is being disseminated -- through art. I was fascinated by the scope of the project and want to introduce this avenue to you (the reader). Enjoy!
Science and Art Merge?
Over the last few years, the fields of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics have been seen expanding to incorporate the Arts too. Meaning that the recent acronym "STEM" is changing to "STEAM" to include the arts. Why? According to a recent article from the website 'ScienceMagazine' titled "Tuning into the channel" the addition of the arts is becoming more prominent and is in the experimental phase already. Last December, graduate student Kelsey Bisson (at University of California at Santa Barbara), received a grant to document the daily rhythm of the plankton life in the Santa Barbara channel -- which is rich with marine life.
The only caveat with the award of the grant was to incorporate the findings with four artists who will join the trip to contribute to an interdisciplinary project called -- ROAM: Rendering Ocean in Artistic Mediums. While on the exploration, the four artists will have the following goal:
Four artists — a creative writer, a videographer, an illustrator and a musician — will join the expedition to collaborate with one other and the scientists aboard. The goal? To translate scientific efforts in ways that are compelling and relatable, including the production of a documentary, an illustrated novella and a public art science installation.
Remember, these four artists will be working along side scientists collecting data to publish in research journals. The original intent of the ROAM project is:
"ROAM was designed to leverage the strengths of art and science to motivate a love for the deep ocean across a range of communities," Bisson said. "By translating the science experience through art, ROAM will build empathy and wonder for our ocean — and ultimately spark a commitment to marine stewardship."
Huynh and Bisson will be joined by 14 students and five faculty members from three universities, including UCSB biogeochemist David Valentine. The team will characterize how marine microbes influence and are influenced by their geochemical environment on hourly time scales by employing a wide range of oceanographic methodologies and technologies from water incubations to autonomous underwater vehicle surveys to remote sensing.
"We will look at processes such as rates of photosynthesis, herbivory, decomposition and infection, zooplankton migration up and down the water column and water mass circulation," Bisson explained.
The scientists plan to make their data publicly available after publishing their results in peer-reviewed journals. All members of the expedition will blog about their experiences during the voyage. The online efforts, according to Bisson, will make the ocean more accessible to people who live far from it, which in turn will breed concern for ocean health, stimulate interest in the deep ocean and perhaps inspire careers in oceanography.
Aside from a deep love of the ocean emerging from this exploration, the participants on the journey will be able to express their work in terms of creativity. This is a major avenue through which we can connect distinctly different disciplines together in a project. That is right -- through the shared love for 'creativity' -- which is an underlying factor in any endeavor. Some might argue against this realization, but I would counter by asking them to take time to think deeply about 'creativity' and the educational process. Especially here in the United States of America.
International Students Learn U.S. Students are very creative?
Creativity is the distinct quality of United States students compared to students from other countries. I have mentioned this briefly in previous posts -- talking about the benefits of integrating graduate students from different countries.
Through numerous hours of discussion during my graduate and post-doctoral years with international students, one overarching quality which students from the United States express freely is their creative energy. Students have told me this time and time again from other countries -- which to me is disappointing to say the least.
With this being said, the merging of two seemingly different fields through a common project as described above will come rather naturally. At first sight, this might not be the predicted conclusion from either participants. Just wait. The blog posts along with the documentary will reveal a fruitful learning adventure from both sides. Especially, through the communication channel which is formed between scientists and artists who must work together to achieve a common goal -- track the beauty and rhythm of the marine life in the Santa Barbara channel.
The study results will be sought after along with the documentary, blog posts, and other documentation. This could be a start to a new way of conducting science -- that is -- humanizing science. Which is much needed at this time in our history. Additionally, the outcome will inevitably be artists with a much richer understanding and respect for science and scientists with a much deeper respect for visual instruction along with different perspectives from which to view science and the world around themselves. Overall, the expedition is a win win for society. Stay tuned for the results.
Conclusion....
Art is not separate but intertwined with science. They are indistinguishable. Even though there exists two different fields of study, the love for each is a love for one and the same -- the inner workings of the world around us. How do we view the world around us? How do we study the world around us? More often than not, scientists are thought of a 'rigid people' in lab coats. When in reality, scientists are creative and curious people. Adding art will only enlighten the scientists more and make society a better place as a result.
According to the image above, the reader asks the following question: How far would 291 billion Goodyear Blimps reach end to end? In the blog post below, the answer will be revealed in comparison to three distances:
1) Would the distance be enough to travel around planet Earth?
2) Would the distance reach from the Earth to the Moon?
3) Would the distance reach from the Earth to Mars?
The answers are outlined and solutions shown below. Enjoy!
Line up 291 billion Goodyear blimps
In order to start the analysis above up, we need to refer to the 'data' page for the Goodyear Blimps which I provided from the last post -- which can be found here. If the overall length is searched for on the web page, the answer is the length of a Goodyear Blimp is 264.4 feet long or 81% of the length of a football field. Wow! That is shown below:
With this number representing a single blimp, the total distance asked by the reader above can be found by simply multiplying two values together. The first is the total amount of Goodyear Blimps by the length of a single Blimp (the second value) as shown below:
Obviously, the resulting distance is very long considering that a single blimp is around 80% of the length of a football field. That is, the total length expressed in units of 'feet' is 71,300,000,000,000-feet. Or 71.3 trillion feet long. For distances that are expressed in units of feet that are so enormous, converting the unit into a larger unit (say a mile) makes sense for dimensional analysis. Especially when the metric will most likely be expressed in units of 'mile'.
To do so, we need to know the amount of feet which are in a mile. The answer can be found by asking a search engine like 'Google.com' the following question: How many feet are in a mile? The answer is shown below:
The answer indicates that for every mile, there are 5,280 feet. With that conversion value in mind, the following unit conversion from feet to miles can be accomplished as shown below:
The number of total miles which would be reached if 291 billion Goodyear Blimps were lined up end to end would be around 13.6 billion miles in total distance. That number is shown below:
The only remaining question is how to make sense of such a large number? What is an appropriate metric to use for comparison? How about if we choose the following three distances:
1) Trips around planet Earth
2) Trips from planet Earth to the Moon
3) Trips from planet Earth to the planet Mars
Lets see how these distances compare to 13.6 billion miles.
1) Trips around planet Earth:
To find out how 13.6 billion miles compares to the number of possible trips around Earth, the circumference of Earth needs to be known. The fastest way to obtain the circumference is to ask Google the following question: What is the distance around Earth? The answer is shown below:
Once we have an answer -- which is 24,901 miles around Earth, a quick inspection is performed to make sure units of measurement are the same. Yes, both values, 13.6 billion miles and 24,901 miles are both expressed in units of 'mile'. Therefore, dividing the total number of miles which equates to lining up end to end 291 Goodyear Blimps by the distance around Earth will yield the number of trips that would be made possible as shown below:
Wow! The answer indicates that with 13.6 billion miles, we could travel around Earth 546,000 times. Wow!
2) Distance from Earth to the Moon:
The last analysis of distances -- using the circumference around the Earth -- gave us a large number: 546,000 trips around the Earth. I do not know about you, but trying to imagine that number is too difficult for me. Therefore, a new metric needs to be created in order to make sense of this enormous number -- 13.6 billion miles -- with which we are left with to untangle.
Another possible metric would be to use the distance between Earth and the moon. If Google is consulted by asking the following question: How far is the moon from earth? -- then the answer below appears:
From the last analysis, the remainder of the calculation is straightforward as shown below:
According to the calculation above using the numbers mentioned, the total number of trips from Earth to the Moon would be approximately 56,900 one way trips. Wow! Looking at the answer, the number of trips is still quite large. Lets consider a larger metric -- the distance to Mars for a final analysis.
3) Distance between Earth and Mars:
As a final analysis, a yet larger metric is chosen -- which is the distance between Earth and Mars -- to cast the enormous distance of 13.6 billion miles into perspective. Again, to start the analysis, the distance from Earth to Mars needs to be obtained. Using the handy search engine Google with the following question: How far is Mars from Earth? -- will yield an answer:
The answer gives us a slight problem. Following a quick inspection of 'units of measurement', the answer is given in units of 'kilometers' whereas the distance which is used in the above analysis is expressed in units of 'miles'. Therefore, Google needs to be consulted with the following question: 54.6 million kilometers in miles -- which yields the following conversion shown below:
Notice how usually the inquiry for unit conversion entails getting a conversion factor. In this case, the distance of concern was in question to save time. Now, the final analysis can be carried out -- which is to find the number of trips from Earth to Mars that would be made possible using the distance of 13.6 billion miles. The analysis is shown below:
The calculation indicates that 401 trips would be possible between Earth and Mars. Wow!
Conclusion...
In the analysis above, the question from a reader was entertained: how far would 291 billion Goodyear Blimps reach end to end? The answer was astounding. Much longer than I even imagined. Although, using dimensional analysis allowed us to cast the value (i.e. total distance) into a manageable perspective. The metrics chosen were distances within our galaxy. If larger metrics were needed for an extremely larger number, the a 'light-year' could have been chosen to which compare astronomically large numbers too. In the future post, there will be such large numbers which require truly long distances.
For the time being, I am thankful to the reader Mike Martino for asking such a great question. I have had a wonderful time making sense of the distance calculated along with walking readers through the analysis. Now, powered with the ability to perform similar analysis, choose different metric and arrive at different answers. Use the numbers above to explore different analyses. Feel free to comment on different analyses in the comment section below.
I have written about trade before on this site. First, about the potential benefits of 'global free trade' which can be found here. Second, how the trade tariffs set to hit in recent weeks will affect a whole range of commodities (i.e. products, crops, etc.) which can be found here. Recently, in the journal 'The Scientist' in an article titled "New US-China Tariffs Could Affect Science" written by Diana Kwon, the potential negative impacts to international science is laid out succinctly. In the excerpt below, I include the entire article (not too long) to avoid butchering the piece with my own opinion.
Without further ado, here is the article shown below:
On June 15, the Office of the United States Trade Representative released a list of 818 Chinese imports that would be subject to an additional 25 percent tariff starting on July 6. These include products used in scientific research, such as microscopes and parts used in X-rays, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scanners, and other imaging devices. While the effect that these tariffs will have on researchers is still unclear, some policy experts worry that President Donald Trump’s policies may impede scientific collaboration and talent flow between the two countries.
Brian Xu, a toxicologist with The Acta Group, a scientific and regulatory consulting firm, says that because China exports relatively few high-quality scientific instruments, the tariffs on those products are unlikely to have a large effect on researchers in the U.S. However, he notes that Chinese companies produce many synthetic chemicals used by pharmaceutical and biotech companies in the U.S. “If there are tariffs [placed] on those, that’s certainly going to increase costs,” Xu says.
According to the Trade Representative office (USTR), Trump’s administration is implementing the new tariffs to address the results of an agency investigation, which found China guilty of unfair trade practices. “China’s acts, policies and practices related to technology transfer, intellectual property, and innovation are unreasonable and discriminatory, and burden U.S. commerce,” USTR says in a June 15 statement.
China immediately retaliated to the US government’s announcement with a list of 545 US exports that it would slap additional taxes on starting next week, along with an additional 114 products—including chemicals and medical equipment—under consideration for additional tariffs.
Some scientists in the U.S. have expressed concerns to Nature about the potential increase in research equipment costs as a result of the tariffs. But whether the tariffs will have noticeable effects for researchers remains to be seen.
Scientific organization in the U.S. do not yet see cause for alarm. “At this point, it is unclear what impact this may have on the research ecosystem here in the US, and to date, we have not heard from any ACS [American Chemical Society] members or their respective organizations on this topic,” Glenn Ruskin, the director of ACS External Affairs and Communications, writes in an email to The Scientist. “It is a developing situation and one that we will be watching.”
Likewise, Tom Wang, the chief international officer at the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), says that “it’s hard to say right now what the direct impact [of the tariffs] will be.” Wang adds that while it will be important to keep an eye on the products used the research community, at this point, the full extent of the tariffs that the U.S. will place on foreign products—and the retaliatory tariffs that may come as a result—is still unknown.
On the other side of the tariffs, in China, worries are also reserved. Yibing Duan, a science and technology policy researcher at the Chinese Academy of Sciences, tells The Scientist in an email that the potential for the tariffs to increase the cost of research in China is not a big concern, because products bought from the U.S. for scientific purposes “could be imported from the E.U., Japan, and other developed nations.”
There is, however, fear that the economic dispute between the U.S. and China may intensify. USTR has also released a second set including 284 products that may be subject to additional tariffs. (The agency declined The Scientist’s request for comment.) “Contrary to what the Trump administration has said, trade wars are not easy to win,” says William Hauk, a professor of economics at the University of South Carolina. “They have a tendency to escalate with tit-or-tat measures, and this could start affecting a broader range of products.”
Spill-over effects
Duan tells The Scientist that although he does not currently see the new tariffs as a serious concern for research, a trade war between the U.S. and China could create a distrustful environment that may stifle intercountry relationships in the areas of science and technology.
Wang adds that other moves by the Trump administration, such as the tougher restrictions on visas for Chinese students studying in the U.S., may also reduce scientific cooperation between the two countries. Together, these kinds of policies could have a “chilling effect on collaboration, access to technology, and access to knowledge and talent,” Wang says.
Hauk notes that, if the US-China trade war escalates, there could be additional restrictions placed on student visas, as well as H1B visas, which allow US companies to hire foreign workers.
“The argument made by some in this administration is that somehow the U.S. is not the beneficiary of the talent, the knowledge, or the technology from other places, but that the U.S. is giving this away to other countries,” Wang tells The Scientist. “But I think that’s not reflective of how the US scientific system works, in which we do benefit from working with [foreign] people, technologies, and companies.”
There is more at risk than just products. Additional risk can be classified as 'services' which I discussed briefly in the previous blog post on trade. Furthermore, students from China travel abroad to the United States to receive a graduate education mostly to return to China for future work. Although, the United States pharmaceutical industry along with the technology sector do hire and hold onto a large portion of these visiting scholars. I was in a research lab with international students during graduate school and wrote briefly about the benefit to U.S. science of having diversity in the research lab setting - which can be found here.
Last week, after Independence Day, returning to work, I encountered a colleague who returned back home to visit to China after the end of last semester. She was frustrated with her travel back to the U.S. on the China side. Her visa was scrutinized by customs which held up the process for a couple of weeks. Which translates into a hold on her research here in the United States. This is normal for visiting scholars in the United States. But for professors here trying to earn tenure at an academic institution, the delay is critical toward professional advancement.
She remarked that there were much fewer applications to travel abroad - which is a result of harsher immigration laws by the Trump administration (read here). Still, the process was held up on China's side. The exact reason still remains unknown to this day.
Conclusion...
Overall, trade with China is important. As I mentioned, more than products are traded and at risk with current negotiations. The international political scene seems to be interfering with the field of science along with many others. The potential negative fall out or adverse impact is that the United States could fall behind in output at the research level and technology transfer level. If China holds potential imports to the United States such as vital chemicals used in research, this in turn directly impacts researchers ability to further advance the U.S. science arena -- which is bad.
Can you remember the name of the last book that you read recently? Alright, how about the last book in 'hard copy' or 'soft copy' -- yes, a physical book? Are those two answers different? As the world seems to increasing move toward the digital world, so has our preferences to access data. Which brings me to the point of this short blog post -- has the 'art of reading' been lost among us?
In my opinion, the answer is no. Yes, more people are moving toward accessing books in digital form. Although, I am open to being challenged on this assertion. Recently, I ran across a TED talk from February of this year titled "The Dying Art of Reading Books" by Ms. Arrushi Agarwal with an introduction in the comments section shown below - which captivated my attention:
Research suggests that children who read for enjoyment every day perform better, develop a broader vocabulary, increased general knowledge and an enhanced understanding of cultures. Reading for pleasure is a better indicator of whether a child does well at school rather than their social or economic background. In this age when multi media is encroaching our households and educational institutions and the number of avid readers is progressively getting endangered Ms.Arushi Agarwal reminds us of the benefits and the joy of reading.
Ms.Arushi Agarwal is a student of Grade Eleven. She has a brilliant academic record and a well stocked personal library. Arrushi is a self professed bibliophile. Research suggests that children who read for enjoyment every day not only perform better, but also develop a broader vocabulary, increased general knowledge and a better understanding of other cultures. In fact, reading for pleasure is more likely to determine whether a child does well at school than their social or economic background. In this age when multi media is encroaching our households and educational institutions and the number of avid readers is progressively getting endangered we have with us a young lady who will be reminding us of the importance and the art of reading. This talk was given at a TEDx event using the TED conference format but independently organized by a local community. Learn more at https://www.ted.com/tedx
Wow. The pleasure of reading is a subjective experience. Reading allows a person to explore places in the world which are unreachable. As pointed out in the video below, each person creates their own version of the places, events, and occurrences as described by an author in a given book. Which means that there are billions of creative (subjectively created by each person) which are entertained as a result of books which are published. This is astonishing to consider.
Reading allows a person to familiarize or leave their comfort zone and explore another world. The benefits of reading are numerous as pointed out in the excerpt above. The joy of opening a book cannot be properly described in the written word. A whole new world/dialogue is created when a person opens up a book. Books speak to us in an unusual way. Creativity and imagination is required to read a book. These factors contribute to the benefits of reading.
What is the last book that you read? Feel free to leave the title and a short description in the comments below. For those interested in watching the short presentation -- 6 1/2 minutes in length, the video is shown below:
When was the last time that you found yourself lost in a book? Each of us should read a book of significant length and outside our natural comfort zone. This experience 'kick starts' our imagination as pointed out by Ms. Arrushi Agarwal -- who has made quite a journey through reading in a short span. I hope that you will be inspired by the post and the content of the post to pick up a book and dive into a whole new world for a while. The effort is worth the journey. Happy Father's Day!!
Storms are inevitable in the world. How various countries and nations prepare for them is a unique trait. Here in the United States the main agency is Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The United States is a 'reactionary' nation rather than a 'proactive' nation. Instead of preparing for a disaster, the disaster occurs and then an evaluation happens after which a political sparring match occurs and finally funding arrives. Yes, I am being negative.
On top of all of that negativity is that there are dangers posed by corporations which have chemicals that need to be regulated and inspected before a storm occurs. That agency is is the Environmental Protection Agency which has been lacking to say the least. Therefore, the 'reactionary' method will employ the Chemical Safety Board. Recently, the head of which has resigned leaving the direction uncertain -- which is not good -- while entering storm season.
Chemical Safety Board
In order to understand the importance of the Chemical Safety Board, here is a short introduction from Wikipedia:
The U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board, generally referred to[1] as the Chemical Safety Board or CSB, is an independent U.S. federal agency charged with investigating industrial chemical accidents. Headquartered in Washington, D.C., the agency's board members are appointed by the president and confirmed by the United States Senate. The CSB conducts root cause investigations of chemical accidents at fixed industrial facilities.[2]
The U.S. Chemical Safety Board is authorized by the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 and became operational in January 1998. The Senate legislative history states: "The principal role of the new chemical safety board is to investigate accidents to determine the conditions and circumstances which led up to the event and to identify the cause or causes so that similar events might be prevented." Congress gave the CSB a unique statutory mission and provided in law that no other agency or executive branch official may direct the activities of the Board. Following the successful model of the National Transportation Safety Board and the Department of Transportation, Congress directed that the CSB's investigative function be completely independent of the rulemaking, inspection, and enforcement authorities of the Environmental Protection Agency and Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Congress recognized that Board investigations would identify chemical hazards that were not addressed by those agencies.[3]
As I mentioned above, the Chemical Safety Board is a 'reactionary' step in the process of solving problems. The Environmental Protection Agency is charged with implementing regulations for keeping safe track (including storage) of chemicals used in industry. Although, over the last year and a half, EPA director Scott Pruitt has carried out 'historical' cuts as discussed in a previous post on this site. The dismissals at the EPA has put the safety of the citizens of this nation at greater risk due to the inability to regulate industries and their safe keeping of chemicals along with dangerous practices in the pursuit of saving money for shareholders. This should be concerning.
Now, according to recent reporting by Politico Energy, heading into hurricane season (or storm season), the nation is in greater danger as shown below:
CSB FAULTS HURRICANE PREP AT CHEMICAL PLANTS: The U.S. Chemical Safety Board said Thursday that chemical plants need to better prepare for hurricanes and potential floods after releasing findings from its investigation into an explosion at the Arkema chemical plant during Hurricane Harvey last summer. "Our investigation found that there is a significant lack of guidance in planning for flooding or other severe weather events," CSB Chairperson Vanessa Allen Sutherland said. "... As we prepare for this year's hurricane season, it is critical that industry better understand the safety hazards posed by extreme weather events."
— Speaking of hurricane season: This year's hurricane season is not expected to be quite as bad as last year, Pro's Ben Lefebvre reports. NOAA forecast a 75 percent chance that this year's hurricane season will be at-or-above normal levels for major storms. The likelihood is that 10-16 named storms will form, with up to four of those liable to become major hurricanes. Read more.
That reporting was over a week ago. Last Tuesday, reporting from "The Scientist" followed up with more bad news regarding the last safety net -- Chemical Safety Board:
Vanessa Allen Sutherland will resign next month as chair of the US Chemical Safety & Hazard Investigation Board. With the vacancy, the board will drop to having only three members—two short of the standard five, C&EN reported earlier this week (May 22).
“The remaining board members will be required to vote on an interim executive, unless and until the White House nominates and the Senate confirms a new Chairperson,” the board, usually referred to as the Chemical Safety Board (CSB), says in a statement. However, that nomination is in doubt, C&EN notes, as the Trump administration has twice tried to shut down the CSB altogether.
This is not great news for the fate of the Chemical Safety Board. Especially, heading into hurricane season. The Chemical Safety Board is an agency which each of us should watch closely since the fate of the organization directly impacts our well-being. Below, a video and excerpt will serve as evidence of the importance of the last chance (reactionary) organization for ensuring safety among industries.
Hurricane Season Approaches
Hurricane season is upon us according to some accounts. The question naturally arise as to whether we (as a nation) have improved our disaster preparedness from last Hurricane Season -- when Hurricane Harvey, Hurricane Irma, and Hurricane Maria ripped through some states. According to Politico Energy, Hurricane season is not going to go well for FEMA as shown below:
THE STORY OF THE HURRICANES: With just days until the June 1st start to hurricane season, a POLITICO investigation into FEMA found numerous low-income families were denied funding from the agency because they lived within a flood zone and failed to carry flood insurance — a legal requirement that many of them were unaware of.
POLITICO’s Danny Vinik reports this morning from Texas’ Kashmere Gardens — a historically African-American neighborhood in Houston that is still trying to recover from Hurricane Harvey — and the hodgepodge of programs that help middle-class neighborhoods bounce back, but leave many poor and minority areas behind. He found that many families struggle with language issues and are inexperienced in dealing with the federal bureaucracy, leaving them to navigate a system that even FEMA officials agree is overly complicated.
And while more federal money is on the way to Texas, it may take a year or more after Harvey struck to reach communities like Kashmere Gardens, which are desperately trying to rebuild, Danny writes. Yet, the problems in Houston aren’t surprising to FEMA experts and others familiar with the complicated quilt of programs designed to help those in need of disaster assistance. “This is a recurring and systemic problem that we find with the delivery of federal recovery dollars,” said Fred Tombar, the senior adviser for disaster recovery at the Department of Housing and Urban Development from 2009 to 2013. Read more here.
Hurricane Harvey ripped through the Houston area to produce massive problems for the area. People have the impression that the area has recovered completely - which is anything but the truth. Although, even during a good economic time in Houston, problems were widespread within the real estate industry. News accounts after the devastation caused by Hurricane Harvey detailed house buyers experience and the added costs of 'flood insurance.' Here is the page (index) for the coverage of Hurricane Harvey by NPR.
Wow. The video above drives home the importance of the Chemical Safety Board. Investigating a disaster after the occurrence is super important for the prevention of future disasters. If the government is short on resources, then who is going to investigate the problem? Furthermore, who is going to make recommendations on future practices which can be funded by Congress and passed on to regulatory agencies for future prevention of such disasters?
The importance of chemical safety regulation cannot be overstated. Chemical safety is saddled on each of us. Which sounds rather discouraging. Although, the safety of the public is at risk. Therefore, if you encounter a dangerous situation in any industry which handles chemicals, say something. Here is a minute long video which demonstrates the simplicity of chemical safety:
Chemical safety impacts all of us at some fundamental level.
Conclusion...
The uncertainty surrounding the Chemical Safety Board should be unsettling to each of us. Any attempt to dismantle this extremely important organization is a threat to each of us. Therefore, the status of the organization is important to track. If the government attempts to shut this down, as the public, we should ensure that there is an equivalent resource in place to investigate disasters and generate future reports on prevention of future disasters.
How does a teacher deal with a difficult student? Throw the student out of class? Let them continue to be disruptive and focus on the students who are being attentive? I often wonder what parents think appropriate answers are to the questions above and below (in the post below). The reason why I bring the subject up was due to an e-mail which caught my eye with the following "key findings" from a study done by the Government Accountability Office regarding discipline in our education. Below are some findings and thoughts. Feel free to share any comments/suggestions that you may have after reading the following excerpts.
Boys overall were more often disciplined than girls, but the pattern of disproportionate discipline affected both black boys and black girls - the only racial group for which both sexes were disproportionately disciplined in every way: In-school and out-of-school suspensions, expulsion, corporal punishment, referral to law enforcement and school-related arrests.
- Minority students with disabilities are hit especially hard. Nearly a quarter - 23 percent - of black students with disabilities were suspended from school. More than 20 percent of American Indian and Alaskan Native students with disabilities were suspended from school. More than 25 percent of students who identify as two or more races and have disabilities were suspended.
- Poverty is a factor: The GAO found that when there were greater percentages of low-income students in a school, there were generally significantly higher rates of all types of discipline. But black students, boys and students with disabilities were still disciplined disproportionately, regardless of the level of school poverty. And, as was the case in every type of school, black students bore the brunt of it. In high-poverty schools, they were overrepresented by nearly 25 percentage points in suspensions from school, according to the report.
- The disparities can be a drag on the economy . The GAO report notes that research has shown that students who are suspended from school are less likely to graduate on time and more likely to drop out and become involved in the juvenile justice system. "The effects of certain discipline events, such as dropping out, can linger throughout an individual's lifetime and lead to individual and societal costs," the report said. It pointed to one study of California youth that estimated that students who dropped out of high school because of suspensions would cost the state about $2.7 billion. Another study the GAO referenced estimated that Florida high school students who drop out earn about $200,000 less over their lifetimes.
Wow! All children and adults (in college) deserve to be treated equally. That includes discipline as well. Why are there differences in discipline rates? Part of that might be attributed to 'implicit bias' from the faculty to students. At the university level, there are programs which have begun to address these longstanding issues which have been ignored for so long. What about at the K-12 level? I do not know personally. If any reader does, please feel free to comment in the box below.
I have said this time and time again on this blog site that our educational system is great need of a 'reform.' In fact, at my own university (of employment), I have spoken with the department chair of education and asked how to achieve 'true reform'. His answer at the time was that the process is similar to 'optimizing a manufacturing process.' That is, make a change and test the result. Follow the first change by a second and so on -- continuously optimizing the educational system in the process.
If that is what has been occurring for the last few decades, then why do we find ourselves in this predicament? With the lowest test grades on an international average? With extremely high and disproportionate discipline rates? When is true improvement going to occur? I do not pretend to have the answer. And I have a large amount of respect for those teachers who find themselves on the front lines -- battling for the change -- positive change.
Suspension
School suspension does not work. Why? I was suspended and I found myself sitting in my room in Junior high school with a mother who had to take the day off of work to deal with me.
At the time, my mother was able to take the time off from work. Imagine those parents who do not have the option to do so? Their child roams free in the streets (potentially) and enjoys the day off from school. As a result, what is intended as a day of 'self reflection' for the student seems to be a day of relaxation -- quite the opposite effect.
What is the answer? I wish that I knew.
Conclusion...
One possibility is that all of us work together to find one. Regardless of whether you are a school official or a member of society, take part (interest) in each child's educational process. How is that achieved? That is still a question which is being answered. Although, if you know of any children who are missing school or neglected due to discipline issues, get involved in improving their chances to attend school.
Last week, I received an email from the trade magazine "Laboratory Equipment" with the daily e-mail alerts to the most recent research being released. Usually, scientists will only read the top science journals like "Nature" and "Science". I like reading those journals too and receive their emails also. Anyways, in this particular e-mail was an article that almost knocked me off my seat behind my desk. The article was titled "Trump Administration Bringing Federal Agencies, Science and Funds to Heel" and contained the following introduction shown below:
The new directives from various federal agencies have started to centralize the message and mission of the various agencies – including the Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
The USDA’s Agricultural Research Service and its employees are all banned from sharing information with the press and public, according to a Monday email acquired and published online by BuzzFeed.
“Starting immediately and until further notice, ARS will not release any public-facing documents,” wrote Sharon Drumm, chief of staff for the Service. “This includes, but is not limited to, news releases, photos, fact sheets, news feeds, and social media content.”
All requests for public information are now going through the agency’s office of communications in Washington, D.C., the site reported.
The Environmental Protection Agency has frozen all its grant programs – and also prohibited any contact with the press and the public through releases, statements, social media blasts, and other forms of communication, according to another internal message obtained by The Huffington Post.
The EPA freeze also includes honoring existing contracts, according to ProPublica. The grants and expenditures include research funding, air quality monitoring, pollution cleanups, and other ongoing endeavors. The freeze was unveiled by an anonymous EPA staffer – considered unusual for a transition move of the sort. Myron Ebell, who led Trump’s EPA transition but who has since returned to the Competitive Enterprise Institute, told ProPublica the extent of the Trump administration’s actions to review all policies and expenditures is more extreme than in previous presidential transitions.
After reading the above excerpt from the article, I was shocked. The following questions arose immediately:
1) Can the President restrict the research that the public sees that is 'tax-payer' funded? 2) How will the public access science that is released through federal agencies"? 3) What are the implications of such measures for the public at large?
The questions above are the result of the news. I am still shocked to see that this occurs. Although, in the article, the author did state through interviews that the process is normal with the transition of each incoming Presidential administration. In the paragraphs below, I show through examples of the scope and implications of such measures implemented by President Trump.
An Open Letter to President-Elect Trump and the 115th Congress
Scientific knowledge has played a critical role in making the United States a powerful and prosperous nation and improving the health and well-being of Americans and people around the world. From disease outbreaks to climate change to national security to technology innovation, people benefit when our nation’s policies are informed by science unfettered by inappropriate political or corporate influence.
To build on this legacy and extend the benefits of science to all people, including Americans who have been left behind, the federal government must support and rely on science as a key input for crafting public policy. Policy makers and the public alike require access to high-quality scientific information to serve the public interest. There are several actions Congress and the Trump administration should take to strengthen the role that science plays in policy making.
First, creating a strong and open culture of science begins at the top. Federal agencies should be led by officials with demonstrated track records of respecting science as a critical component of decision making. Further, recognizing that diversity makes science stronger, administration officials should welcome and encourage all scientists regardless of religious background, race, gender, or sexual orientation.
Second, Congress and the Trump administration should ensure our nation’s bedrock public health and environmental laws—such as the Clean Air Act and the Endangered Species Act—retain a strong scientific foundation, and that agencies are able to freely collect and draw upon scientific data to effectively carry out statutory responsibilities established by these laws. They should also safeguard the independence of those outside the government who provide scientific advice.
Third, Congress and the Trump administration should adhere to high standards of scientific integrity and independence in responding to current and emerging public health and environmental threats. Decision makers and the public need to know what the best-available scientific evidence is, not what vested interests might wish it to be. Federally funded scientists must be able to develop and share their findings free from censorship or manipulation based on politics or ideology. These scientists should, without fear of reprisal or retaliation, have the freedom and responsibility to:
1) conduct their work without political or private-sector interference
2) candidly communicate their findings to Congress, the public, and their scientific peers
3) publish their work and participate meaningfully in the scientific community
4) disclose misrepresentation, censorship, and other abuses of science
5) ensure that scientific and technical information coming from the government is accurate
Finally, Congress and the Trump administration should provide adequate resources to enable scientists to conduct research in the public interest and effectively and transparently carry out their agencies’ missions. The consequences are real: without this investment, children will be more vulnerable to lead poisoning, more people will be exposed to unsafe drugs and medical devices, and we will be less prepared to limit the impacts of increasing extreme weather and rising seas.
These steps are necessary to create a thriving scientific enterprise that will strengthen our democracy and bring the full fruits of science to all Americans and the world. The scientific community is fully prepared to constructively engage with and closely monitor the actions of the Trump administration and Congress. We will continue to champion efforts that strengthen the role of science in policy making and stand ready to hold accountable any who might seek to undermine it.
The letter was signed by over 5,500 scientists. The take-home message to President Trump is that scientists are watching made under your guidance to make sure that politics is not interfering with the natural progression of science. Meaning, that science research grants funded by federal agencies are not in any way hindered by the political process. The President can decide which research has priority over other research -- which is a direct interference of politics in science.
In past administrations, there has been varying degree of political interference. Which is why the issue is brought up by scientists at the beginning of every administration. Here is another excerpt from the Union of Concerned Scientists website in an article titled "2300 Scientists from All Fifty States Pen Open Letter to Incoming Trump Administration" which was a precursor to the actual letter above:
The letter lays out several expectations from the science community for the Trump administration, including that he appoint a cabinet with a track record of supporting independent science and diversity; independence for federal science advisors; and sufficient funding for scientific data collection. It also outlines basic standards to ensure that federal policy is fully informed by the best available science.
For example, federal scientists should be able to: conduct their work without political or private-sector interference; freely communicate their findings to Congress, the public and their scientific peers; and expose and challenge misrepresentation, censorship or other abuses of science without fear of retaliation.
There are many gears to the motor which drives science funding. An incoming administration is the master part of the motor -- the circuit board. The various gears are driven by both houses of congress -- which ultimately delivers the funds to the federal agencies to disperse. The houses of congress are driven by elected representatives -- who respond to their constituents who elect them. Therefore, science is funded by the people of the United States. Which leads me to the next point regarding science funding.
To be fair, the lack of funding for science cannot all be laid on the shoulders of government. Scientists themselves are part of the problem. Scientists need to get out of their labs and communicate the work (and its) importance to the public. Further, scientists could point out to the general public that the results of their "tax-payer" funded research is available for free online. I will show you very shortly what I mean by that.
Science outreach is critical to engage the young in pursuing future careers in science. Just a couple of weeks ago, I participated in a science fair contest as a judge. The experience was very meaningful for me along with the 3rd graders with whom I got to engage with (through interviews) regarding their projects. I wrote a blog on the experience which came out recently.
As a disclaimer, I thought that I needed to distribute the blame for lack of funding throughout the science community and government. Part of the issue is how we (scientists) disseminate the work of experimental observation. The results are usually typed up into academic journals which are set up high on a pedestal and unavailable to the general public except through a high paywall. Yes, the dissemination of science is too complicated and out of control as far as cost. Most of the cost goes to the publishers which make scientists more angry.
Try to access an article from a premier journal like "Science" or "Nature" and look at the cost associated with a given article. You will find that an article can run as low as $18 for a copy. Remember, the results of the article were funded by 'tax-payer' dollars.You (the public) funded the research -- should the results not be freely available to you? This is a topic for debate and also a reason for the continuing emergence of "open-access" journals publishing science. The argument against "open-access" journals is the lack of quality. Although, with the audience reading the journals, mistakes are found more readily than before. Especially with the competition among researchers for grant funding. Competition is driving innovation and error detection.
In the paragraphs below, I will show you how to access the published results of our 'tax-payer' funded research from a few regulatory sites. My methodology in searching can be extended to any regulatory agency. Meaning, you can go on any regulatory agency site (FDA, USDA, NIH, NSF, EPA, DARPA, DOE, DOD, etc.) and look for press releases that give a short description of the research and the results along with a reference to the journal in which the work was published.
Where To Find Scientific Results?
As I just mentioned, each regulatory agency (those I just mentioned above) has a website and offers press releases which give the public an idea of the research that was funded by the public and the results along with a reference to the original publication. The dissemination of science funded research is critical for the public. Why?
What if you had a rare type of cancer in which there was an ongoing trial to test a treatment? Would you like to pay money to find out the results which you pre-paid for through your taxes? What about if your town just received a small grant to improve the drinking water? Would you be interested in the amount of the grant and the scope of the project (how the money can be spent)?
Questions like these might be answered by various regulatory agencies sites through their respective 'news room' which offers press releases. Below are a few images (screenshots) of federal agencies websites. I took a screenshot highlighting the press releases.
Regulatory Websites
As I mentioned above in the introduction and elaborated in the first section, restricting the publics ability to view science research which has been published is a serious threat. In this section, I will show you some of the websites from various government regulatory agencies. After viewing and reading this section, the potential threat of shutting down the communication of science to the public will become vary apparent. And remember, the research, grants, and news press releases are all paid by our (the U.S. public) tax-dollars. We own fund the research, we own the results of the research!
The United States Environmental Protection Agency[2] (EPA or sometimes USEPA) is an agency of the Federal government of the United States which was created for the purpose of protecting human health and the environment by writing and enforcing regulations based on laws passed by Congress.[3]....
The agency conducts environmental assessment, research, and education. It has the responsibility of maintaining and enforcing national standards under a variety of environmental laws, in consultation with state, tribal, and local governments. It delegates some permitting, monitoring, and enforcement responsibility to U.S. states and the federally recognized tribes. EPA enforcement powers include fines, sanctions, and other measures. The agency also works with industries and all levels of government in a wide variety of voluntary pollution prevention programs and energy conservation efforts.
Below I show an image of the webpage that you would encounter if you visited the site "www.epa.gov":
As you can see, the top of the page has a header with the following drop down menus under: "Environmental Topics", "Laws & Regulations", and "About EPA". The amount of information contained within the pages under these menus is absolutely amazing. For instance, under "Environmental Topics" a list includes the following topics to choose from:
1) Air
2) Bed bugs
3) Chemicals and Toxics
4) Environmental Information by Location
5) Greener living
6) Health
7) Land, Waste, and Cleanup
8) Lead
9) Mold
10) Pesticides
11) Radon
12) Water
13) A-Z Index
Imagine if you were wondering about dangerous chemicals like mercury, then proceeding the the 'Chemicals and Toxics' page would lead to a wealth of knowledge. Any new regulations and research into the toxicity of mercury could be found on this site.
Proceeding down the webpage, there are three subsections shown below: "Popular Topics", "News", and "Your Community".
If you were to 'click' on a highlighted news story such as "$12.7M for Small Drinking, Waste Water Systems," you would be directed to the webpage shown below:
This might be of interest to you if you had recently applied for a grant to overhaul your home 'well' and 'wastewater' systems as highlighted in the introduction:
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is awarding $12.7 million in grants to help small drinking and wastewater systems and private well owners. Water systems staff will receive training and technical assistance to improve operations and management practices, promote system sustainability, and better protect public health and the environment.
These grants sound very useful in providing safe drinking water. None of us need to be reminded of the disaster in Flint (Michigan) with their tainted water supply to know that investments into clean water is a good investment toward a healthy water system later down the line.
Although, grants and regulatory practices are not the only information contained on the EPA's website. There is a blog titled "Our Planet, Our Home" which details various actions taken and success stories by the EPA. Click on the blog page and stories like the one shown below will appear.
Who is not interested in learning about the actions taken by the EPA along with future plans to clean up communities that have been abandoned by factories which moved overseas with their jobs. The EPA site is amazing and paid for by us -- the U.S. Taxpayer dollars -- check it out.
Could you imagine not having access to the information above and relying solely on the words of politicians?
2) U.S. Food & Drug Administration:
The next regulatory agency is the United States Food & Drug Administration which regulates a wide range of topics from everything we eat to everything we inhale. Here is an excerpt from the 'Wikipedia' page for the U.S. FDA below:
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or USFDA) is a federal agency of the United States Department of Health and Human Services, one of the United States federal executive departments. The FDA is responsible for protecting and promoting public health through the control and supervision of food safety, tobacco products, dietary supplements, prescription and over-the-counter pharmaceutical drugs (medications), vaccines, biopharmaceuticals, blood transfusions, medical devices, electromagnetic radiation emitting devices (ERED), cosmetics, animal foods & feed[5] and veterinary products.
The webpage is shown below:
A few of the topics on the site with drop down menus are:
Pretty much all consumer products are covered by the FDA if they involve our body. Shown below is the bottom part of the webpage which is filled with important information.
For instance, if you were a patient who suffers from Chronic Idiopathic Constipation. Furthermore, you just heard about the possibility of the FDA approving a new treatment (drug) called Trulance. You could visit the FDA website and look under the subsection "News & Events" to find a story about the recent approval of the drug on January 19, 2017. How good is that?
Having access to the information contained on the FDA website is a matter of life and death in some cases. Additionally, being able to access critical information on hot topics like 'electronic cigarettes' can help clarify misconceptions and possibly reduce addiction to nicotine products. Understanding where the science is at a given point is the job of the FDA from a regulatory position.
But what about the science research that is ongoing? What if you are interested in basic research into a disease mechanism? Where do you find out information regarding a disease? Where would you find information on different forms of diabetes? Where do you look for that type of information?
The FDA has information regarding the regulatory procedures for treating the ailments listed above. Further, the FDA would approve a drug to be used to treat two different diseases (orphan drugs). But when you are looking for information into the state of government funded research into a disease, you would search on the next two regulatory sites -- which are also publicly funded by our tax-dollars.
3) National Institutes of Health:
The National Institutes of Health has a mission that is stated simply on the "Wikipedia" page shown below:
The National Institutes of Health (NIH) is a biomedical research facility primarily located in Bethesda, Maryland. An agency of the United States Department of Health and Human Services, it is the primary agency of the United States government responsible for biomedical and health-related research. The NIH both conducts its own scientific research through its Intramural Research Program (IRP) and provides major biomedical research funding to non-NIH research facilities through its Extramural Research Program.
With 1,200 principal investigators and more than 4,000 postdoctoral fellows in basic, translational, and clinical research, the IRP is the largest biomedical research institution in the world,[3] while, as of 2003, the extramural arm provided 28% of biomedical research funding spent annually in the U.S., or about US$26.4 billion.[4]
The NIH comprises 27 separate institutes and centers that conduct research in different disciplines of biomedical science. The IRP is responsible for many scientific accomplishments, including the discovery of fluoride to prevent tooth decay, the use of lithium to manage bipolar disorder, and the creation of vaccines against hepatitis, Haemophilus influenzae (HIB), and human papillomavirus (HPV).[5]
The webpage for the National Institutes of Health is shown below:
The header on the top of the website contains the following topics for 'drop down menus': .... Notice on the lower set of boxes are titles of diseases which have information and updates about the research behind them. If you clicked on the highlighted text for 'diabetes' the following webpage would pop up on your screen which is shown below:
Information regarding the nature of diabetes along with the various types of diabetes that exist.
What if you suffered from the debilitating disease of 'multiple sclerosis' and were searching for a new treatment? This page would interest you -- specifically the first topic titled "Stem cell transplants may induce long-term remission for multiple sclerosis."
The following introduction reads:
New clinical trial results provide evidence that high-dose immunosuppressive therapy followed by transplantation of a person's own blood-forming stem cells can induce sustained remission of relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (MS), an autoimmune disease in which the immune system attacks the central nervous system.
Five years after receiving the treatment, called high-dose immunosuppressive therapy and autologous hematopoietic cell transplant (HDIT/HCT), 69 percent of trial participants had survived without experiencing progression of disability, relapse of MS symptoms or new brain lesions. Notably, participants did not take any MS medications after receiving HDIT/HCT. Other studies have indicated that currently available MS drugs have lower success rates.
The rest of the brief article describes the study further in depth and gives the original journal where the research was published. Information like the results above are hope of life for a certain portion of the population who suffer from Multiple Sclerosis. The following question comes to mind when thinking of the value of the excerpt above:
Imagine if you had a form of Multiple Sclerosis that did not respond to any of the medication or treatment available on the market today?
Investing in the research performed through the funding by the National Institutes of Health is extremely important. We need to continue to support these agencies. The research above is steered toward the field of biomedicine. What about other areas of science? Physics? Chemistry? Who funds these areas of research? Read on below to find out.
4) National Science Foundation (NSF):
Next is the basic research counterpart to the NIH, the National Science Foundation. The mission of the National Science Foundation is shown below taken from the "Wikipedia" page:
The National Science Foundation (NSF) is a United States government agency that supports fundamental research and education in all the non-medical fields of science and engineering. Its medical counterpart is the National Institutes of Health. With an annual budget of about US$7.0 billion (fiscal year 2012), the NSF funds approximately 24% of all federally supported basic research conducted by the United States' colleges and universities.[2] In some fields, such as mathematics, computer science, economics, and the social sciences, the NSF is the major source of federal backing.
The research conducted that is funded by the National Science Foundation is wide in scope. Topics span from physical science through the life science along with engineering and computer science to name a few. For example, a recent blog post that I wrote regarding how chemists discover drugs has a short video which explains how funding for new drugs emerge from agencies like the NSF and NIH.
The webpage for the National Science Foundation is shown below:
Across the top of the page are the following drop down menus: "Research Areas," "Funding," "Awards," "Document Library," "News," and "About NSF." If you were to choose the first drop down menu the following image would appear as shown below:
With the following choices of subjects to choose from:
1) Biological Sciences (BIO)
2) Computer and Information Science and Engineering (CISE)
3) Education and Human Resources (EHR)
4) Engineering (ENG)
5) Environmental Research and Education (ERE)
6) Geosciences (GEO)
7) Integrative Activities (OIA)
8) International Science and Engineering (CISE)
9) Mathematical and Physical (MPS)
10)Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences (SBE)
If you were to choose the first subject "Biological Sciences" then the following webpage would appear below:
Notice that there is a section titled "News" in the lower right-hand corner of the image above. If you were to click on that story, the following webpage would appear with a development in the area of genetically modified tomatoes -- a breakthrough:
The story reported is brief and to the point regarding the funded research and its importance:
Some consumers crave tastier tomatoes than those available at the supermarket. Now, scientists at the University of Florida Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences (UF/IFAS) and their partners have found a way to get tomatoes to produce the compounds that make them more flavorful.
Their findings were published today in the journal Science.
"Around the world, the tomato is one of the most popular foods," says Gert de Couet, director of the National Science Foundation (NSF) Division of Integrative Organismal Systems, which supported the research. "This state-of-the-art analysis sets the stage to return it to the taste of decades ago by breeding informed by molecular genetics."
Step one for UF/IFAS horticultural scientist Harry Klee and his colleagues involved finding out which of the hundreds of chemicals in a tomato contribute the most to taste.
Next, Klee said, they asked: "What's wrong with modern tomatoes?" As it turned out, modern tomatoes lack sufficient sugars and volatile chemicals critical to better flavor. Those traits have been lost over the past 50 years, says Klee, the Science paper's lead author.
The researchers began looking at tomato alleles (one of two or more alternative forms of a gene that arise by mutation and are found at the same place on a chromosome). Alleles determine specific traits in organisms, whether tomatoes or people. Klee likened this to how different versions of genes in humans influence traits such as height, weight and hair color.
"We wanted to identify why modern tomato varieties are deficient in flavor chemicals," Klee said. "It's because they have lost the more desirable alleles of a number of genes."
The scientists then zeroed in on the locations of those alleles in the tomato genome. Using a technique called a genome-wide association study, they mapped genes that control synthesis of all the "tasty" chemicals. Informed by genetic analysis, they replaced undesirable alleles in modern tomato varieties with desirable alleles.
"We identified the important factors that have been lost and showed how to move them back into modern types of tomatoes," Klee said. "We're just fixing what has been damaged over the last half-century to push them back to where they were, taste-wise. We can make the supermarket tomato taste noticeably better."
Breeding a more flavorful tomato could benefit consumers as well as the tomato industry. According to the Department of Agriculture, the U.S. is second only to China in worldwide tomato production.
Florida and California account for up to three-quarters of all commercially produced fresh tomatoes in the U.S. As of 2014, Florida growers produced 33,000 acres of tomatoes worth $437 million annually, according to UF/IFAS research.
But breeding a better tomato will take time, Klee says. The genetic traits discovered in the study may take three or four years to produce new varieties.
Can you imagine if we were still stuck in the 'dark ages' of growing tomatoes without science?
There would be a significant amount of loss of crops due to infestation of insects to start with. Weathering would account for more loss. Additionally, not all crops survive the travel from farm to grocery store aisle. Genetically modifying our food has saved us a large amount of trouble in terms of loss of food in the super market.
The science outlined above is amazing. The fact that scientists were able to discover the genes associated with the production of chemicals which give tomatoes their flavor is awesome and a testament to the advancement that we have seen with science over the decades. That was just one section of the NSF website. Another part of the front webpage is shown below -- which states the awards of grant applications. If you wanted to research a basic science project, you could write the NSF:
Without the NSF and the NIH, there would be literally very few science research projects underway in the United States. These two agencies are responsible for a large component of our educational system. The grants that are awarded to universities around the country help educate students studying at the university and give them an opportunity to engage in research. The funding that comes out of these agencies creates the scientists and engineers of tomorrow!
5) United States Department of Agriculture (USDA):
The United States Department of Agriculture has a mission that is focused around food sources. Here is an excerpt from the introduction on the "Wikipedia" page for the agency:
The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), also known as the Agriculture Department, is the U.S. federal executive department responsible for developing and executing federal laws related to farming, agriculture, forestry, and food. It aims to meet the needs of farmers and ranchers, promote agricultural trade and production, work to assure food safety, protect natural resources, foster rural communities and end hunger in the United States and internationally.
In case, you are wondering how the work of the USDA differentiates from basic research by the NIH and NSF, here is the overview:
Many of the programs concerned with the distribution of food and nutrition to people of America and providing nourishment as well as nutrition education to those in need are run and operated under the USDA Food and Nutrition Service. Activities in this program include the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, which provides healthy food to over 40 million low-income and homeless people each month.[3] USDA is a member of the United States Interagency Council on Homelessness,[4] where it is committed to working with other agencies to ensure these mainstream benefits are accessed by those experiencing homelessness.
The USDA also is concerned with assisting farmers and food producers with the sale of crops and food on both the domestic and world markets. It plays a role in overseas aid programs by providing surplus foods to developing countries. This aid can go through USAID, foreign governments, international bodies such as World Food Program, or approved nonprofits. The Agricultural Act of 1949, section 416 (b) and Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance Act of 1954, also known as Food for Peace, provides the legal basis of such actions. The USDA is a partner of the World Cocoa Foundation.
The webpage for the U.S.D.A is shown below:
Across the top of the webpage are a few drop down menus with the following options: "Topics," "Programs and Services," "Newsroom," and "Blog." If you were to choose the option "Newsroom," the following list would appear as shown below:
With the following choices:
1) Agency News Releases
2) Agency Reports
3) Creative Media & Broadcast Center
4) Email Subscriptions
5) In Case You Missed It...
6) Latest Releases
7) New Media
8) Radio Newsline and Features
9) TV Feature Stories
10) Results
11) RSS Feeds
12) Transcripts and Speeches
13) USDA Live
If you were to choose the first option "Agency News Releases" the following webpage would appear as shown below:
The webpage is full of news releases which are up to date results of money spent by the USDA. If you were looking to see if the government was interested in investigating the problem of 'citrus greening' which plagues citrus farmer, this is the page where you would visit to find out. By clicking on the first story titled "USDA Invests $13.6 million in Citrus Greening Research" the following webpage would appear with the up to date news regarding the research that is being funded by the USDA.
For those who are not familiar with the problem of 'Citrus Greening' here is the first few paragraphs of the story above for an introduction:
WASHINGTON, Jan. 19, 2017 - The U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) today announced four grants totaling more than $13.6 million to combat a scourge on the nation's citrus industry, citrus greening disease, aka Huanglongbing. The funding is made possible through NIFA's Specialty Crop Research Initiative (SCRI) Citrus Disease Research and Extension Program, authorized by the 2014 Farm Bill.
"The economic impact of citrus greening disease is measured in the billions," said NIFA Director Sonny Ramaswamy. "NIFA investments in research are critical measures to help the citrus industry survive and thrive, and to encourage growers to replant with confidence."
Huanglongbing (HLB) is currently the most devastating citrus disease worldwide. HLB was first detected in Florida in 2005 and has since affected all of Florida's citrus-producing areas leading to a 75 percent decline in Florida's $9 billion citrus industry. Fifteen U.S. States or territories are under full or partial quarantine due to the presence of the Asian citrus psyllid (ACP), a vector for HLB.
Wow! I was not aware of the amount of money in losses that was due to the disease of HLB. The next time that you eat an orange or drink a glass of orange juice take a minute to think about the citrus disease of HLB. Further, about how the funding that your tax-payer dollar went toward is to find a cure to the disease. Enjoy that citrus!
What about food labeling? Would that be covered by the FDA? Or the USDA?
The "Food Safety and Inspection Services" operates underneath the USDA. By navigating the USDA site in search of food labeling, the following webpage would appear as shown below:
Clicking on the first story titled "USDA Revises Guidance on Date Labeling to Reduce Food Waste" will take you to the webpage below with the story:
The news release is of a law that will go into effect soon to ensure all food products contain the label "best if used by":
WASHINGTON, Dec. 14, 2016 – The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) today issued updated information on food product labeling, including new guidance aimed at reducing food waste through encouraging food manufacturers and retailers that apply product dating to use a “Best if Used By” date label.
“In an effort to reduce food loss and waste, these changes will give consumers clear and consistent information when it comes to date labeling on the food they buy,” said Al Almanza, USDA Deputy Under Secretary for Food Safety. “This new guidance can help consumers save money and curb the amount of wholesome food going in the trash.”
Except for infant formula, product dating is not required by Federal regulations. Food manufacturers frequently use a variety of phrases, such as “Sell-by” and “Use-by” on product labels to describe quality dates on a voluntary basis. The use of different phrases to describe quality dates has caused consumer confusion and has led to the disposal of food that is otherwise wholesome and safe because it is past the date printed on the package.
FSIS is changing its guidance to recommend the use of “Best if Used By” because research shows that this phrase is easily understood by consumers as an indicator of quality, rather than safety.
USDA estimates that 30 percent of food is lost or wasted at the retail and consumer level. This new guidance builds on other recent changes FSIS has made to facilitate food donation and reduce food waste. In January 2016, FSIS issued Directive 7020.1, which made it easier for companies to donate products that have minor labeling errors, such as an incorrect net weight. FSIS has also begun recognizing food banks as “retail-type” establishments, which allows food banks (under certain circumstances) to break down bulk shipments of federally-inspected meat or poultry products, wrap or rewrap those products, and label the products for distribution to consumers. In 2016, FSIS enabled 2.6 million pounds of manufacturer donations.
Comments on this revised guidance may be submitted through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at www.regulations.gov or by mail to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, FSIS, Docket Clerk, Patriots Plaza III, 355 E St. S.W., 8-163A, Mailstop 3782, Washington, DC 20250-3700. All comments submitted must include docket number FSIS-2016-0044. FSIS will accept comments for 60 days.
Reducing food loss and waste is core to USDA’s mission. Since 2009, USDA has launched new and ongoing initiatives to reduce food waste. In 2013, USDA the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) launched the U.S. Food Waste Challenge, creating a platform for leaders and organizations across the food chain to share best practices on ways to reduce, recover, and recycle food loss and waste. In 2015, USDA and EPA set the first-ever national food waste reduction goal of 50 percent by 2030 to reduce the amount of wasted food in landfills.
Food waste is a major issue plaguing the world. In 2015, the amount of food waste added up to $165 billion which equates to a total of 35 million tons of food. If we had a better idea of when the food would actually "spoil" by then more food would end up nourishing us rather than in our landfills. Information regarding rules and regulations are put on the site for the consumers to ensure the maximum use of food for nourishment. Additionally, if a vendor does not have the proper labeling, you can report the manufacturer to the USDA.
6) Department of Energy (DOE):
The Department of Energy is primarily concerned with all aspects of energy as highlighted in the introduction offered on the "Wikipedia" page for the agency:
The United States Department of Energy (DOE) is a Cabinet-level department of the United States Government concerned with the United States' policies regarding energy and safety in handling nuclear material. Its responsibilities include the nation's nuclear weapons program, nuclear reactor production for the United States Navy, energy conservation, energy-related research, radioactive waste disposal, and domestic energy production. It also directs research in genomics; the Human Genome Project originated in a DOE initiative.[3] DOE sponsors more research in the physical sciences than any other U.S. federal agency, the majority of which is conducted through its system of National Laboratories.[4]
By the description in the excerpt above, one might be tempted to think that the primary goal of the DOE is to control nuclear material. The agency is tasked with the energy production for the United States and energy security as well. These two tasks alone are a huge feat if you think about providing electricity for the entire nation and secure energy too (a potential national security issue).
Below is an image of the webpage for the Department of Energy:
The information available on the site is accessible through the drop down menus above: "Public Services," "Science & Innovation," "Energy Star," "About ENERGY.GOV," and "Office." If you were to choose the drop down menu labeled "Public Services" would appear shown below:
The following options are:
1) Public Services Home
2) Vehicles
3) Manufacturing
4) Energy Economy
5) State & Local Government
6) Home
7) Commercial Buildings
8) National Security & Safety
9 ) Funding & Financing
Upon choosing the option "Vehicles" the webpage below appears:
The image above is of a video made by the DOE to educate the public on the subject of "Electric Vehicles." The video is shown below -- less than 3 minutes in length:
Remember that in each of these agencies, education is a major component. There is no use introducing a new technology to the public if the public is not informed on the use of the technology. Often the public will instantly want to cut funding to these agencies forgetting that grant funding is only part of the expense. Others are education, regulation, and national security along with administration costs.
The debate over how much electric vehicles should play a role in our society is based on their efficiency and reliability. If the vehicle cannot get us to our destination, then the car is useless (no really, some people think this). Electric vehicles are improving at an unprecedented rate and playing a greater role in today's society. And information regarding the energy developments in the United States are held for FREE on this site. How lucky are we? Super lucky.
To put this wealth of information and resources into context, lets briefly look at another country. In a recent article from the website "Issues" titled "Of Sun Gods and Solar Energy" India is profiled for the emergence of solar energy. The author studies the diffusion of solar energy technology across the nation. Here is an excerpt to think about:
The impact of the availability of lighting was so great that even children’s test scores were improved. “When I first started teaching here five years ago, most of the children couldn’t even write their names properly, and they would fail their tests even with only 50%-60% required for passing,” stated the village school teacher. “It took me one and a half years to just get them to memorize the prayer we do in the morning before starting school.” According to some accounts, the extended hours of study provided by the lighting systems has led to a 70% improvement in retention of knowledge, and, on average, students in Dabkan are studying one to three hours longer than they did before. The introduction of solar energy into an energy-starved community is not a mere convenience but can contribute to improved literacy rates and workforce skills for a new economy in geographies otherwise dominated by agriculture.
American citizens take for granted the ability to 'flip a switch' to draw light from any number of sources. The excerpt above brings up the following questions regarding funding agencies in the United States:
What happens if the government chose not to invest in energy or other federal agencies highlighted in the above paragraphs? What happens if we did not have research into cures for diseases? What happens if we did not invest in research for clean water?
I think that you get the point that investment in research agencies is an investment in your well-being!
Conclusion...
The agencies introduced above contain a vast resource of our tax-payer money. Money that was spent to advance the health of the planet and its inhabitants. Additionally, the funds push the boundary of science to produce technology which was unthinkable just decades ago. A super computer in the sixties is not too far off from the tablet which you hold in your hand today. The emergence of exciting fields such as nanotechnology which is beginning to offer cures (for diseases) and device miniaturization continues to astound the world with its realization. The momentum of science funding needs support from you and I --- everybody.
As I mentioned above, the available content on various agencies sites (FDA, EPA, NIH, etc) affects the well-being of each of us. Science impacts every aspect of the world around us -- whether we choose to believe this fact or not. We must continually try to hold politicians accountable when the facts are on the wall in support of science. Additionally, we must not let politicians restrict our access to the content that has been paid for by our hard earned dollars. We fund the science, we own the results.
In closing, I was reading an editorial from the journal 'Nature' titled "Stand Up For Science" recently and the closing of the article was pertinent to the conclusion of this blog post. Therefore, I will end with the excerpt from the article shown below:
Although the Trump team reportedly repudiated its own request for the DOE list, scientists must be wary in the years to come of attempts to prevent scientific information from reaching the press and the US public. We have seen such attempts before, during the George W. Bush administration. They will not necessarily be obvious; as in Canada, they may come in the form of draconian procedures that delay communication with the press for so long that such communication becomes worthless. Or they may come in the form of intimidating researchers, as in the recent furor over work that requires fetal tissue.
If the US wants to remain a leader in biomedical research, the incoming government will need to keep funding it (including basic research) over the long term. And in all fields, scientists must be able to speak freely about their work if science is to be vigorous, the public informed, and policy decisions based on knowledge rather than ideology. The scientific community is watching and waiting.
