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.
The news capitalizes off of spreading fear -- which gathers 'eyeballs' and clicks. A few years ago, Author David Altheide wrote a book titled "Creating Fear" - about the news and the control which is created by the atmosphere of fear surrounding society. With that being known, how does the public receive a 'fear' or 'crisis'? What is the correct course of action (for the public) given that the media (news) organizations are living off of perpetuating the notion of 'fear' or 'crisis'? These are all credible questions.
There are more than a single side to each issue. In the current issue of perpetuating "fear" or "crisis," those in positions (government, state, and local officials) can actually make a large difference by being more open and transparent into the state of a situation. An 'disease' or 'outbreak' is a perfect example to use as shown below. A few years ago, Director Anthony Fauci of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) wrote a short piece 'Op-Ed' titled : Zika and Beyond: Communicating about Crises for the NIH website. The piece is shown below in full:
During the Ebola outbreak, we admitted two patients infected with the virus to the NIH Clinical Center. People would ask me, “My goodness, are you putting us at great risk?” So I would ask them, “How did you get to work this morning?” They would answer by saying something to the effect of, “Well, I got on the Beltway and drove to the NIH.” This is a high-speed road that encircles Washington, DC, and carries more than 200,000 vehicles per day. I would point out, “Well, your commute posed a greater risk to you than an Ebola patient at the Clinical Center.”
We live in a world where we take risks every day. When you have been taking a risk every day, for the last 20 or 30 years, you may be fully aware of the risk, but you have learned to live with it and it does not bother you.
However, it is very interesting to me how people react when they are confronted with a new risk. When a new risk emerges, especially if it is highly publicized, people often start to consider the new risk to be more significant than others that, in reality, pose a greater threat. This is human nature. We saw it with Ebola, we saw it here in Washington, D.C., with the anthrax attacks, and we are starting to see it now with Zika.
Zika virus is not actually new. It was first recognized in 1947 in a monkey in the Zika forest of Uganda. It was not known to infect humans until 1952, and it stayed under the radar screen for a long time. That was understandable. The virus circulated relatively unnoticed in areas of Africa and Southeast Asia until 2007, when it caused an outbreak on the Yap Islands in Micronesia. In 2013, the virus caused a much larger outbreak in French Polynesia. Despite this spread, few people paid much attention to the virus because the disease it caused was thought to be mild.
Many people are now hearing or reading that Zika is in their state. By the end of April, the CDC had identified Zika cases in 43 states. Some people are starting to ask whether they should travel to certain states that have reported cases of Zika. In that regard, it is important to note that none of these infections was acquired locally through infected mosquitoes.* So far, all of these cases have been acquired through travel (or sexual contact with someone who has traveled) to countries or territories where Zika is circulating locally.
While we have not yet seen locally acquired cases of Zika in the continental United States, this almost certainly will occur. It is unlikely that these locally acquired cases will become sustained and widespread. However, we must be prepared to deal with them. Certainly, there is no reason to panic. We are going to have to do a lot to educate the public about what the risk is and what the risk is not, and to help people keep the risk in perspective. We should all recall what happened in the United States not so long ago, when an individual came from Liberia and was hospitalized with Ebola in Texas, and then two nurses became infected when caring for him. This sad situation sparked a panic that there was going to be a major outbreak of Ebola in the United States. In reality, there was virtually no chance that would happen.
As concerning as the Zika virus is, we must remember and remind people that it is just the latest disease in a perpetual series of emerging and reemerging infectious disease threats. The timeless threat of new diseases—or old diseases that start to appear in new places or new ways—is now amplified by factors such as urban crowding, international travel, and other human behaviors.
An evolving situation such as the current Zika outbreak, in which there are still unknowns, will create a lot of concern and even panic on the part of some people. We in the public health sector must be crystal clear in articulating exactly what we know and what we still need to know about the threat, and in helping people understand how this new risk compares to risks they willingly assume every day. With that perspective, people will be better able to understand what rational steps they can take to protect themselves.
As I mentioned above, there are more than a single side to every story. Further, in the introductory paragraph, I asked the question regarding what the public could do to receive a 'fear' or 'crisis' story. Yes, I am asking what the responsibility is of the public. That might seem counter intuitive to the normal flow of information. Although, to a sizable percentage of the U.S. citizens, the question is not out of the ordinary.
We, as Americans need to to change -- when reading or hearing news from either media organizations or government (including state, regional, and local) -- the way that the news permeates our minds and further travels into our lives. Fact checking on all of our parts could clarify a large amount of controversy and lead to less emotion and more logical conclusions. Last but not least, reading can serve as a wonderful conduit through which to educate ourselves about issues. Too few of us read. Which is concerning. I understand that not all of American citizens' are 'readers', but reading different forms of news could help clarify misunderstandings. Additionally, coherent discussions can go a long way to resolve differences. Mediation is an important field which is fueled by our inability to sit or stand in each others' presence and have coherent discussions.
Regardless of where any one of us stand on an issue, each of us could be served well to put 'crisis' or 'fear' in society into perspective. In the future, watch to see how these organizations create 'fear' or 'crisis' and come up with your own solutions. Feel free to share those solutions below. Have a great day!
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!!
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.
Well, it appears that the New Year of 2017 is upon us. Since that is the case, I thought that a look back at the first full year of "Mike Thinks Blog" would be useful to those readers just joining us. The adventure on the blog is multifaceted in theory:
1) Deal with large numbers reported in the popular news which are easily overlooked.
2) Untangle difficult concepts in science which are unfolding as research is being performed.
3) Demystify the life of a scientist.
Pretty simple right?
In the paragraphs below, I discuss how the blog posts on the site over the last year relate to or are categorized under the three categories above. Click on any of the highlighted words (or underlined text) to access the original posts. Enjoy!
2016 Here We Come!
About this time last year (in December), I had just returned from celebrating Christmas with my family. As I mentioned in a recent post on rainfall, I was celebrating Christmas and heard of a large volume which remained in my mind for a few days to simmer. I had been contemplating writing on a blog site -- since the current blog site that I had been writing for was recently shut down.
Anyways, the statistic that I heard was that Lake Tahoe had received a terrible storm which dropped a large amount of snow (great for skiers). The rainfall totaled 65 billion gallons of rainfall? Upon hearing this, I was taken back. In fact, for the remainder of the vacation -- in the back of my mind was the number 65 billion gallons of rain.
While this number stuck in the back of my head, I read in the news that a village in Brazil experienced a large volume of 'mine waste water' from a reservoir and decided to look into the accident. I am always astounded that regulators allow large corporations to put villages or surrounding regions in jeopardy while building up tremendous volumes of waste water. Of course, the result of 'not regulating' properly is floods and contaminated drinking and bathing water. The total amount of waste water spilled turned out to be 15.9 billion gallons of waste water which is equivalent to 78 Deepwater Horizon Oil spills!!!!!! WOW!!! Looking at the number reported -- 15.9 billion gallons of waste water begs the following question:
How does one caste the enormous number into perspective?
A large part of being a scientist is deconstructing numbers and statements in comparison to what is known about the world (through science). The deconstruction process usually involves 'dimensional analysis'. Dimensional analysis allows us to take a number like 15.9 billion gallons and put that number into perspective. How?
The Deepwater Horizon Oil spill which dumped nearly 210 million gallons of oil into the Gulf of Mexico can serve as a metric by which to compare other large volume spills. A metric serve to put the value or magnitude of a given number into perspective. Of course, one can easily choose a metric which is too large or too small. In that event, performing dimensional analysis with either of these metrics return an answer which is still confusing.
Why would we want to understand the enormous numbers reported?
The main reason is to have the ability to understand the magnitude of the volume which is correlated with the tremendous damage that can be done to a geographic area. Over the course of the year, unexpected rainfall has occurred in the following regions which I have written blog posts with dimensional analysis included:(1) China, (2) Elliot City, (3) Huauchinango, (4) Macedonia, (5) Louisiana (6) Haiti (Hurricane Matthew), (7) East Coast, USA (Hurricane Matthew).
The storm season of 2016 was unprecedented to say the least. Rainfall hit enormous numbers in known and unknown parts of the world. The culprit is still unknown. Science is heavily skewed toward climate change. Although skeptics exist and are in powerful positions. Chances are that the same skeptics are proponents of 'man-made disasters' too -- which 2016 brought on plenty of.
On this blog site, stories started to emerge following the devastating release of huge amounts of methane gas in a storage facility in Southern California. The Aliso Canyon Gas Storage facility with its 114 gas wells serves as the largest reservoir in California. Therefore, when a well was found to be leaking, unknown amounts leaked out -- in the beginning. I wrote a first blog post when I read about the enormous amount of gas being stored underneath ground -- 87 billion cubic feet of natural gas was stored at the facility. WOW!!
By carrying out dimensional analysis, the amount of 87 billion cubic feet of natural gas amounts to roughly filling 2351 Empire State Buildings or 696 Super Domes. These numbers are hard to grasp. Further, the length of the line that tapped into the well underground was equivalent to stacking 5 Empire State Buildings on top of one another. Oh My. Try to find a leak in that line.
The major take home was that different figures emerged and incomprehensible numbers were thrown around in hope of the public glossing over such a terrible disaster. Luckily, a few advocates have stuck with the pressing issue and the storage facility remains closed until all wells have been inspected.
Moving onto other disasters that were caused by 'man-made' feats to improve our quality of life. Earlier in the year, I was amazed to learn that underneath Los Angeles (California, USA) are nearly 5000 oil wells. Los Angeles was literally built on top of oil -- as I write about here. Of course, the amount of oil produced in Los Angeles on an annual basis is nearly zero compared to the global daily demand of oil -- of which I was surprised to read and write about. 94 million barrels of oil is required on a daily basis to drive our world. This might not seem like a lot in thinking about the daily demand of the entire world.
Although, when you experience the 'fall-out' of such demand, you might think twice.
The future will be fascinating depending on how the President-elect decides to treat science and fund renewable energy. Especially, with the fact that such a large amount of top CEO's like Bill Gates and Sir Richard Branson are motivating a move toward a renewable energy based market with an environmentally friendlier footprint. This is not to say that our Nation is still not heavily dependent on oil. Our foreign policy is heavily influenced by the dependence on oil.
Over the course of the year, we learned from the popular news that these 'man-made disasters' are not restricted to the United States soil. In fact, there were a number of disasters that were not reported or I could not cover -- yes, I am only one person writing. This does not mean that we as a Nation are not affected nor need to ignore potential threats to us. Furthermore, our Nations foreign policy is affected by disasters.
For instance, earlier this year a news article surfaced which stated that if the Mosul dam in Iraq was taken over by ISIS, a flood could occur which would drown the city of Mosul in 65 feet (depth) of water. The result of my calculations was that 65 feet would be the depth if the dam was filled only 66%. Therefore, if the Mosul dam is filled higher, then more damage would result. Just this week, another story about the dangers of the Mosul dam appeared in an article in 'The New Yorker' titled "A Bigger Problem Than ISIS?". As you can see, understanding the magnitude of the problem can help you understand the problem at hand.
Furthermore, the amount of oil that is underneath the ground in countries like Iraq along with our presence (military and civilian) reinforces that dependence. According to an assessment on one of my blog's is that the amount of oil underneath Iraq is around 140 billion barrels -- which is enough to meet the global daily oil demand for 4 years!!!
That is it - 4 years worth?
What happens after that?
The answer should involve building upon renewable energy technologies and investing in clean energy. This is where science and technology companies can step in and offer help.
Scientists Are Human?
Yes, believe it or not, scientists are human. One motivation of this blog is to demystify science/life of a scientist. In order to move toward more highly skilled labor jobs, science and technology industries and universities will have to step up and highlight the importance of Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM). Furthermore, we must motivate minorities and women to engage in pursuing science degrees. Science knows no race or gender or wealth disparity. Any bright mind can contribute to science. In order to accomplish this, the life of scientists must be demystified -- i.e., made human.
Early in the year, I posted a blog post from 2014. The topic was the lack of elevation of STEM. In the particular case, the White House Science day celebration story ran on page A14. Why not put the story front page? If we want people to pay attention to the importance of science, then the story and importance of the story should be front page with a huge picture. Science is actually fun. Despite the popular images on television which are fictional -- of a scientist in her/his lab researching all alone and serious. At the same time, science is competitive and can seem at times 'cut throat' in nature.
This raises another desperate need in science. To bring back the joy and fun in science. In January, I got a chance to be a science judge at an elementary school. I was quite surprised that the level of sophistication of the projects was matched with an adult. We need to remember to let children be children and perform science projects that match their skill level -- which I wrote about here. Subjecting children to science projects that are more difficult than their skill level could result in the child either not being interested in science or believing that they are performing science with their parents -- i.e., through someone else's action not your own.
The importance of working hard by solving problems in science cannot be stressed. In chemistry, solving problems is critical to developing reasoning that is needed to grasp abstract concepts. Part of this work might be done in isolation. Other parts might be done in a group (tutor or group) study. The ironic aspect of science is that hard work and reasoning will get you 99% there. Being able to perform dimensional analysis is critical to casting large numbers into perspective. I wrote a blog about estimating the amount of paint required to cover a movie screen. One can easily extend this analysis to a real situation -- painting your house. Further, working to educate others is critical too. Helping other students reinforces the science analysis to a large degree -- which I write about here.
Blogging on this site has given me the chance to show others how to set up an approximation to solve a problem. The answer could be far off, but the methodology is critical toward reaching a better solution which approximates the true situation. Even if you (the reader) do not go into science as a profession, the opportunity still exists that a person can grasp a great part of science and contribute to science as a citizen -- citizen scientist which I highlight here.
Scientists play a crucial role in society. Scientist create drugs for the treatment and prevention of diseases. Your taxpayer money funds research and development in a vast array of areas of science. Science plays a critical role in advancing technology. Just look at the works of Elon Musk and his pursuit to space from a commercial standpoint. The results of such pursuits trickle down into autonomous vehicles -- which I highlight here. Further, the CEO's of these large corporations have the ability to move science forward by providing 'private funding' -- which is very greatly needed and discussed here.
The most important role that scientists play in society is to motivate others through energizing the public about science. In a recent blog post, I discuss the need for outreach by scientists is critical. Get out of the lab and teach others about what you are doing and why your research is important. Explain and demystify science while encouraging politicians and the public at large the need for research into climate change, drug research, space research, along with other areas. Understanding science is critical toward conducting ourselves appropriately toward saving the planet (environment). Having a public that is educated in science can help the public understand the greatest threats to our existence.
For instance, earlier this year I wrote a blog post about the nuclear weapon testing of North Korea. These tests have real implications toward our destruction. I used dimensional analysis to put the enormous amount of energy into perspective. A couple of months later, I used a different parameter (force) to put the force of a nuclear weapon into perspective. Recent calls by an incoming administration for an upgraded nuclear arsenal are feared (and rightly so) for good reason. Nuclear weapons contain an enormous amount of energy which is nothing to mess around with. Read the blogs to see if I am joking around.
That is one end of the extreme of science research. The other is concerned with small end of the spectrum. Viewing the world that is invisible to the naked eye is truly amazing and worth reading about. In the middle of the spectrum lie issues that are more easily graspable. For instance, living in California, each resident is aware of an ongoing 'drought'. This begs the questions:
Science can further be of assistance in demystifying health issues too -- as most of us know. Two big issues that plague the world are diseases that can be prevented and treated with medicine available on the market. And secondly, diseases that arise out of bad habits like smoking, drinking, obesity, etc. I recently wrote about the cost of prescription medications and how the cost could be decreased. The process needs to be optimized in order to reduce overall cost.
Regarding lifestyle choices like smoking and drinking along with obesity. Science can reveal a tremendous amount. Although the research results are often controversial in the public eye. Take for instance, the continuing rise of 'electronic cigarettes' or 'e-cigarettes.' Many proponents of the new technology are pushing the product as a new method by which to stop traditional smoking of combustible paper and tobacco. Science has a tremendous amount to say already about the hidden dangers.
First, trading off the combustion of paper and tobacco for the 'vaporization of liquid tobacco' might seem less troublesome on the body. Although, as we have seen in the news over the last few years, the rise in use of e-liquids on the market has presented difficulties. I highlight some associated with the unknown quantities of tobacco contained in a jar of e-liquid here. This post along with a different post discussing the dangers associated with the mechanical operation of the e-cigarette device were reprints from a previous blog site that I blogged on. At this point, you might be tempted to think that science is out of date on the issue of e-cigarettes. Not so. Stay tuned in a future blog on the chemistry of the smoke based on recent research that has just emerged. e-cigarettes are dangerous just like any tobacco product. The question is the degree of the danger. Science will have more to say in the near future. Stay tuned!
Science is great, yet requires dedication and hard work to achieve. A large amount of people with whom I speak on a daily basis have wild ideas about what scientists do and think. One overarching motivation of this blog is to demystify this idea. Here are a few more blog posts throughout the year that caught my attention to write about:
The blog posts just numbered are posts that were based on articles that stood out and did not necessarily have any outrageous number or statistic cited. Science is a wide subject that touches every aspect of our lives. If you do not believe me, read (or click) on any of the underlined or hyperlinked text above and read to find out if I am wrong.
Conclusion...
The year of 2016 has been a very active year for scientists who write about current issues. There have been too many disasters that have occurred. In the year to come, President-elect will make decisions that have a global impact. I will try to highlight the science behind such decisions. Of course, I cannot get to every article or issue. Given the news already, there is inevitably going to be news worthy of analyzing by the method of dimensional analysis to come.
Remember that the overarching theme of this blog is to write through the eyes of a scientist. If at any time, you have a topic that you would like me to explore, just write the topic in the comment section. Science is truly amazing and worth exploring. I hope that I have given you a rough idea about the profession of a scientist. Additionally, I hope that by reading the blog posts on this site, you (the reader) has gained a little more insight into the importance of science on society and the world at large.
I will be on vacation the next week. I look forward to returning in the new year (late next week) to release more interesting articles.
Until next time, Have a great day and Happy New Year!!!!!
