The Decathlete

Hunting for Freedom in Modern Life

2011-09-06T20:23:00.000-07:00

PART 3: SOCIOBIOLOGICAL FREEDOM

By Joseph

In last week's article, we began to find some modern freedom in Self-psychology that finds support in and extends itself upon the psyches of others. However, regardless of how we develop the self by thinking, solitude, and self-object relationships, we cannot ignore the influence that external social and biological forces have on freedom.

Scientism—the modern belief in science as the source of all possible knowledge and the ultimate factor in determining identity and how we interact with the world—builds a world that is deterministic and devoid of all real freedom. In scientism, each of our actions or thoughts has a root in a physical, chemical, or biological law that is applied universally. Raised in a world that takes science to be the ultimate truth, and as a scientist myself, it is difficult to reject the possibility that scientific principles govern our behaviors just as they do the movements of heavenly bodies or the mating display of the speckled shrew.

The application of scientism to freedom has been discussed previously in The Decathlete--have a look at an article written by Edward Missinne: “Questioning Free Will.” Not only do I see little reason to suppose that humans would not be subject to the laws that we apply to the rest of the natural world, but to do so would be to take on a dangerously anthrocentric view. Such views have in the past justified the maltreatment of groups of people who, thought to be mere animals, had different biological and moral law applied to them. Belief in the power of scientific knowledge such as genetics, biochemistry, and evolution does not exclude the possibility of freedom. The point at which a belief in the power of science to achieve knowledge becomes incompatible with a truly free existence is scientism—when science is the only source of answers. For example, as Tom Wolfe brings up in his book Hooking Up, the creation of “memes” by the renowned evolutionary advocate Richard Dawkins was Dawkins’ feeble attempt at a scientific explanation for a phenomenon outside of science: “They don’t exist…memes are little people who sprinkle fairy dust on genes to enable them to pass along so-called cultural information to succeeding generations in a proper Darwinian way.”6 Thus, Dawkins fell into a typical fundamentalist trap—speculation, without evidence, molding unexplainable phenomena to an existing theory—and for someone who puts such weight on science and its capabilities, this happened in an utterly un-scientific way.

The degree to which science has become the fundamental belief structure in modern society is emphasized by countless examples such as the fact that doctors will “give you two weeks to live,” illustrating our conception of medical science as having the power to give life. If science is not the only source of forces that shape the creation and actions of the self, then freedom of Self is still possible. Therefore I propose a conception of freedom that is partially deterministic in that while our genetics and biology certainly are important components that make us who and what we are, they are not the only influence. Social circumstances, particular experiences, and the behavior of the public and private spheres in our lives (to name only several examples) all exert their particular influences on self-development. Self-development is also a process that continues unrestrained throughout life, such that who we are one moment is different in the next, depending, of course, upon the significance of the events themselves.

In addition, we do not take such influences as static objects. It is our subjectivity itself that enables us to respond to such influences in a way that will be new and different from the way that anyone else has responded. Countless studies of identical twins, separated at birth, show that despite the influence of identical genetics, these individuals are able to mold the other influences in their lives and thus become entirely different people. Scientism as a comprehensive worldview was created as a subconscious response to freedom itself, for an entirely indeterminate world is terrifying. With so much left up to the whims of man or God, man’s need for freedom was threatened, yet the response overshot the mark and again infringed upon liberty.

By the theories of the renown biologist Edward O. Wilson, heredity cannot be the sole influence on the creation and action of the human self. The second component of a sociobiological theory necessarily includes the social forces that manipulate the self, what Riker and Foucault call the “social unconscious.” According to Foucault, individuals are entirely the production of social pressures that serve to discipline our bodies (and Foucault’s “body” includes the mind as well). As our entire lives have occurred in a system characterized by social pressures, we have no way of knowing who or what we are outside of the social context. Unfortunately, Foucault does not recognize the multitude of other forces (e.g. genetics) that possibly exert influences on our selves. If social forces were the only determinate force dictating the development of the self, then a deficiency in any of the other hypothesized sources of self-development, such as love, would have no consequences. Yet psychological studies show countless examples of individuals with pathologically fragmented selves resulting from a profound lack in love, empathy, or idiosyncratic traits, as well as social exposure. Such patients suffer a profound loss of freedom, as their deprivation of the necessary developmental forces results in an inability to freely enrich the self.

Even within Foucault’s model of complete social control, freedom is still possible. In fact, the social unconscious is yet another necessary influence, the lack of which results in a lopsided self. It is in fact the limitation of spontaneity itself that allows for an infinite expansion of the self’s potential. According to Riker, spontaneity is necessarily limited and therefore can only become repetitive7—only by building upon and expanding a disciplined pattern can we achieve true development and meaning. Rules, especially the “docility” of our bodies, are not restrictive but build our potential, enable us to know our potential, and then explore its limitless uses. In short, discipline gives us the power to explore and develop the self: “In fact, power produces; it produces reality; it produces domains of objects and rituals of truth. The individual and the knowledge that may be gained of him belong to this production.”2 Thus Foucault has identified an answer for one of the largest questions in self-psychology: how might we come to know our unconscious self? Although systems of the social unconscious may also serve to normalize and dominate the body, they give the individual the power to gain knowledge of himself. Achieving a means of knowing and understanding the self enables an inner dialogue that moves beyond even Arendt’s “thinking” as the first step to freely developing the self. After all, how can you enrich, refine, and realize what you do not know or understand?

Therefore, for both the social conscious and biological influences, the project becomes how to use and manipulate these forces for self-development. Given the multitude of modern forces exerting pressure upon the self, even beyond the sociobiological, I see these influences less as pressures and more as their own fragments of the self. When Arendt supposes that in thinking the Self splits into two parts that then are able to enter into an internal dialogue, she is ignoring a number of other voices that subconsciously take part in the conversation. Therefore, rather than a bilateral divide, the Self splits into innumerable factions, which each have their respective influences on the discourse that will result in action or thought of the individual. In the end, it is still the “I” and “me” portions of the self that have the final say in the inner dialogue, but it is by these two voices that the self incorporates and manipulates the internal factions representing external pressures freely (paradoxical, I know).

Given each of the sources of freedom in modernity that I have discussed throughout this analysis, we need a synthesis by which we can actively pursue the freedom that we desire. I began with the assertion that in a capitalist market society, what is most important is the maintenance of a veil of false freedom that enables the pursuit of our desires despite the normalizing forces of modernity. I also found that although actual freedom used to be located in the private sphere, this freedom has now been displaced by the ever-growing needs of the market world. Given the lack of true freedom of action apparent in a capitalist society, I then searched rather for an internal freedom of the will in Arendt’s concept of self-splits. Arendt’s “thinking” enables us to take the external pressures of modernity, make them our own, and use them for our own development of the self. By this process, thinking enables meaning and meaning enables freedom. Moving from Arendt to self-psychology, I found that it is not just thinking but also a well-organized self that allows for vitality and therefore freedom. In addition, contrary to superficial appearances self-objects can be a source of freedom, and self psychology necessitates a new conception of the individual that includes a web of fluctuating self-object others. Moving beyond the conceptions of the self put forth by Arendt and Riker, I found that sociobiological factors, though they appear to restrict freedom, must be incorporated as key subconscious components of the inner dialogue that creates freedom. However, it is still the I and Me split that incorporates and manipulates the multitude of external voices that enter the dialogue. In the end, as a capitalist/market culture provides no room for physical freedom of action, we locate the source of the freedom that we require to develop meaning in the psyche. Conceptions of freedom as located in power, self-development, and the inner self appear to be the most dependable source of meaning to oppose the relentless forces of modernity.

Hunting for Freedom in Modern Life

2011-08-28T21:06:00.000-07:00

PART 2: PSYCHOLOGICAL FREEDOM

By Joseph

In last week’s issue we found a that without the careful control of a strong-willed Self, modernity may plunge the individual into failure in both the public and private spheres. Therefore, if capitalism and the market are only able to provide the illusion of freedom for the contemporary individual, perhaps we can locate a conception of actual freedom in a psychological exploration of the nature of the Self. For the philosopher Hannah Arendt, the psychological Self necessarily divides itself into two distinct parts, the I and the Me, for “thinking.” For Arendt, thinking is internal dialogue occurring within the mind, which necessarily includes tension within the self. The presence or absence of harmony during this self-split allows for both the creation of morality within the individual, and for freedom. From the start it is not clear that freedom actually exists during the self-split, for in the same way that the separation of distinct public and private spheres shuts out freedom through disruption of the self, might Arendt’s thinking split also result in a critical loss of integrity? On the other hand, what happens when we examine an individual who does not have a gap between the I and Me, thus lacking an internal dialogue? This individual is always firm in his convictions, never wavering, full of self-respect, and utterly boring. As the author Mark Helprin identified via one of his characters in the novel Winter’s Tale, “It’s the quick turns that mean you’re alive.”3 In short, what often gives us the greatest sense of vitality is not a static self-coherence, but a self that is constantly in flux through both dialogue within itself and by the incorporation and reshaping of external influences. Arendt also locates this sense of freedom in the split self: “Much more reliable will be the doubters and skeptics, not because skepticism is good or doubting wholesome, but because they are used to examine things and make up their own minds.”4 Whereas the capacity to examine is Arendt’s way of identifying the type of thinking that is important, the fact that doubters are able to “make up their own minds” illustrates the freedom that they gain from thinking. Without thinking we become subject not only to a stale morality built of our stolid convictions, we are also unable to take the external influences with which we are constantly bombarded and make them our own.

Image courtesy Miltblog.com

In Arendt’s concept of thinking, they key to the notion of freedom is the self-development that thinking initiates. Arendt describes thinking as analogous to the story of Penelope: “thinking is like the veil of Penelope: it undoes every morning what it had finished the night before.”4 Whereas this process may be viewed as stagnating the development of the self, this view in fact misses the point of the breaking down—only by destroying all previous conceptions can we rebuild a psychological self that is bigger, better, and more free. The union of the two halves of the self achieves meaning in a moment of vitality, but in order to continue to achieve meaning in further moments of erotic vitality, the self must be unraveled again. In addition, the memory process strengthens the development of the self--each breakdown does not necessarily mean a loss of ground because in further inner-dialogue the self can draw upon the previous moments of vitality and use them to build yet another moment in which we find ourselves feeling most alive. In short, meanings are just one example of how thinking gives us the freedom to explore and develop, and as Nietzsche said, “if you have your why for life, you can get by with almost any how.” Thinking gives us freedom, freedom gives us meaning, and meaning in turn provides the freedom of action that we, as market/capitalists, desire.

Arendt’s thinking is only one function or aspect of the self. According to John Riker, another modern philosopher, it is not simply thinking but a well-organized and self-object related self that allows for vitality, and with this vitality, freedom. The only way to achieve complete individual singularity is to construct and know a strong self, for if an individual can be himself to his fullest potential, then he has the freedom to do anything. So first of all, a strong self must be constructed to contain ideals, ambitions, idiosyncratic traits, and most importantly, self-object relationships. The first three of these components are easier to understand and come more naturally, so instead I will use the bulk of this analysis to discuss self-object relationships. In addition, if a self-object relationship is to be understood as the presence of other individuals who can perform self-functions when the self is unable to5, might such dependence on others limit freedom? The short answer is yes and the long answer is no—for though a self-object relationship may indicate dependence superficially, it is important that not only does this conception of self-psychology entail a new conception of individuality, but also that dependence does not always result in a lack of freedom.

First of all, in Riker’s conception of self-psychology the self is not physically bound within the body of a particular individual, but incorporates the psyches of others as its self-objects. Therefore, if the self is conceived of as the representative portion of an individual, then the “boundaries” of an individual will extend beyond his physical limits. Without the presence of self-objects to carry out self-functions when the self lapses, the individual will fall into psychological abnormalities that will limit his freedom through a restricting pattern of pathological habits. Given this new notion of the singular person, freedom now must rely upon the restrictions placed upon the entire web of self-objects rather than his particular self. Second, dependence does not always result in a lack of freedom. It is only natural that we depend on others for psychological support, and it is modernity that has only recently replaced self-objects with value instead on the autonomy and self-sufficiency of an individual. Outwardly it might seem that in attempting to reconcile conceptions of freedom with the pressures of modernity this entire analysis praises extreme autonomy in an ultimate bow to the pressures of modernity. Rather, I am attempting a conceptualization of freedom in contemporary society that does not restrict the vitality and meaning of life. The self that functions best is that which is coherent and well-organized, and as normal life presents a number of psychological difficulties that are beyond the capacity of a single self to cope, the self-object interaction of others is necessary. Therefore by fulfilling lacking self-functions, self-objects create a coherent self, and a coherent self has the capacity for truly becoming and is therefore the paramount expression of freedom. An Aristotelian concept of the Self defines it as the substantive and critically acting “essence” of the object—to take a simple example, the essence of a knife is cutting, in that cutting is the act the knife performs that gives the knife substance. Although extending this analogy to something as complex as a human is tricky, the point is that for an intricate and conscious being like a human, managing all aspects of a substantive essence (the Self) can be difficult. In an increasingly complex modern world, we must make crutches out of our peers in order to shore up our increasingly complex and delicately balanced selves. What truly matters is the depth of the relationships that we have with others, for if they are characterized by only superficial understanding, care, and empathy, then that dependence will limit rather than enable freedom.

Hunting for Freedom in Modern Life

2011-08-21T21:29:00.000-07:00

PART 1: FREEDOM OF ACTION

By Joseph

The modern era has seen developmental blooms in agriculture, science, technology, and industry, which together have yielded an inevitable blossoming of new and profound philosophical problems. Thus, where in the past we may have struggled with disease and famine, we now face the more extreme issue of discord within and outside of the Self. Modernity, the current age beginning in the nineteenth century, may be characterized by countless pressures on the individual to be a particular sort of person and act in a particular way. These pressures are numerous in form and function, from genetic disposition to the capitalist drive to become the perfect new market, and all have the overall effect of diminishing individuality and freedom. In short, the modern individual Self, as expressed by behavior, disposition, and attitude, closely mirrors the new world that we have built. For example, the desire for an “easy street” life as maximization of the cost/benefit analysis is an embodiment of our capitalist economics. Even the fact that we value freedom is socially constructed—freedom provides a sense of power, and the modern market-capitalist individual requires power in order to satisfy desire.

So, in a modern world, how might we conceive of freedom in a way that enables us to create a meaningful and coherent organization of the Self? In this three-part series, I will attempt to both address the source of the conflicts that modernity applies to the Self and to provide suggestions of simple ways that the modern individual can thrive in this framework. Throughout the analysis I will take freedom to be both the sense of and actual capacity for unrestrained exploration and development of a singular identity. I would like to dissociate freedom from synonyms such as autonomy, disengagement, abandonment, and deliverance in favor of flexibility, liberty, opportunity, and self-determination. I will also divide freedom into three types: freedom of action, psychological freedom, and sociobiological freedom. Although each type of freedom may exist without its partners, in order for an individual to achieve a full realization of freedom all three components must be fully integrated. Unfortunately, the difficulties of modernity will make the achievement of this whole very rare. In the end, this discussion will show that the incredible normalizing forces of modernity require a synthesis that utilizes a number of localities of freedom identified by several contemporary authors. As in most philosophical discussions, a large and malleable gray area will be favored over the extremes of black or white in order locate a mode of freedom in contemporary life that is not nihilistic but allows for the modern individual to live a life ripe with vitality and meaning.

Freedom of action—the capacity to do whatever one likes whenever one likes and however one likes--is the first component in the trinity of freedom and will be the subject of this first part of the series. At a basic level, the fact that the primary mode of punishment in modern times is imprisonment illustrates the value that we place on physical freedom. By restricting the actions of those we punish we eliminate a critical component of their ability to develop a coherent and organized Self. Better yet, we not only limit this development, but also are able to shape Self-development in a controlled matter, enabling the restructuring of individuals who have strayed from the accepted system of morality. More than other types of freedom, a freedom of action is also the ultimate expression of power, a value that we hold because of our existence in a market/capitalist society. According to the philosopher Ross Poole, one of the most important elements of a commercial society is “an individual propensity for self-interested behavior.”[1] At first glance, it might appear that a requirement for the modern individual in an economic society to act primarily out of self-interest would allow for the utmost expression of personal freedom. If I have to do what is of the most benefit to my personal existence, without concern for how my actions may affect others, than I truly have freedom to do whatever I like! Unfortunately, such freedom is only an illusion. First of all, Poole’s self-interested behavior is a limitation in itself. If at all times we must be acting only out of self-interest, than the large portion of human action in which we are moving for others or for no reason at all is prohibited--spontaneity, and the feeling of freedom and vitality that comes with it, is out the window. In addition, as Poole recognizes, the fulfillment of self-interest requires regulation. If each self-interested individual were allowed complete freedom, eventually the interests of one individual will conflict with those of another: “without some constraints on the operation of self-interest, the market would soon collapse into chaos,” necessitating the development and implication of an “effective legal framework.”1 Thus the illusion of freedom becomes critically important in a modern economic culture, by giving individuals the power to fulfill their desires.

According to another modern philosopher, Michel Foucault, the illusion of freedom is also a production of the systems of discipline that the modern individual is subject to. Capitalist society spawns systems and institutions that in turn create individuals by which to perpetuate itself—individuals acting under a veil of false freedom: “The perpetual penality that traverses all points and supervises every instant in the disciplinary institutions compares, differentiates, hierarchizes, homogenizes, excludes. In short, it normalizes.”2 In addition, under Hannah Arendt’s conception of the Self, such normalization is necessary. If we were to express personal freedom, as a component of an erotically vital moment for the Self, at all times, we would become entirely removed from the realm of ordinary life. A person for whom such moments are a permanent state of transcendence would be unreachable and utterly boring. Therefore we must spend the majority of our lives in a state of normalization and lack of freedom, to be punctuated by moments of vitality in which we can achieve meaning and life. So if freedom of action in a market/capitalist society is ultimately an illusion, is there anywhere else where we may locate the freedom necessary for vitality? At the beginning of this era, the market individual found his freedom in the private sphere. While he fulfilled his market obligations for half of the day in the public sphere, he was able to return home at the end of the workday and achieve freedom and individuality in his actions and interactions with the family. Unfortunately, two obstacles to this conception of freedom have arisen. First, this split into two different realms is also necessarily a split in the Self. Therefore, when the market individual returns home to the private sphere he turns off the normalized market/capitalist aspect of his Self for that which operates with his family. Unfortunately then it is only one half of his Self that is ever free, and consequently his vitality and erotic engagement is never intact. Second, as the yearning for the wealth and status (power) with which to fulfill desires grows the public sphere encroaches upon the private, eventually eliminating any private freedom and leaving only the socially constructed veil of freedom with which we began.

The search for freedom of action therefore has the potential to end up simply a cycle of torment. However, hope can be found in two places: first of all in individuals who have enough strength of will to manage themselves effectively in both the public and private spheres and possibly to pull their peers out of the quagmire, and second in next week’s topic—psychological freedom.

Soup: An Allegory

2011-07-30T20:00:00.000-07:00

By Edward

Source: thedailydietribe.com

A lonely pot rests on a gas stove. Circular, steel, and heavy, the pot resembles any other of its kind in the house. Metal forks, wooden spoons, and children’s heads have taken their toll on its once gleaming silver surface; each scratch and scrape the mark of a culinary amateur, of a person who places shiny new quarters on railroad tracks. Stoic and stately, the blind and tired pot accepts all that it receives-good, bad, hot, or cold- with dignified silence. It knows its role.
Flames suddenly charge from below, jetting upward in cascading peaks of blue and white. The piercing trail they follow is from neither innate or learned experience. Rather, they move with predictability as fate conducts their hurried dance with engineered precision. Here, underneath the pot, the flames live out their lives in a quantum state, cursed by blue visions of youth left behind and thoughts of inescapable death. The distance they travel is short, as are their fleeting lives. Color betrays even the most reserved as the flames become red with anger and embarrassment; how could something so powerful be stifled in an instant? They die before attaining enlightenment, before realizing the futility of their thoughts and struggles in light of their unknown and unchanging purpose; adolescent flickers of life.
The pot feels the infinite cycles of life and death warming its back. The intense heat spreads evenly along its surface, warming molecular metallic bones that begin to tingle with nostalgia, falsely expecting to return to the womb they left behind at a long forgotten forge. The pot stretches outwards as its skeleton becomes more limber and energized, and prepares itself for the heavy contrast ahead.
From a cup up above, clear and cool drop and droplets fall from the sky, each sphere bulging and jiggling in midair, attempting to maintain composure against the force of trillions of liberated souls: mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers. Larger groups separate and divide to form tightly knit cliques. They fall deeper into the bowel of the pot, where they too become excitedly warmer, and soon, the first drop touches down. Others follow behind. They burst out in screams of laughter and jubilation, signaling to those above that everything is fine, that ecstasy is only moments away. The pure and innocent sounds from below entice more to follow, until wave upon wave of sparkling orbs shower down into the accepting arms of the vibrant pot.
Inside the vessel, a disastrous reunion soon begins. Individuals swarm aimlessly, confused and afraid as to their position. Many times, they grab hold of someone they know only to be violently ripped away. The lying laughs of those before are almost gone as the last of the liberated make their way to the surface. Bubbling and ripping from the grasps of the jealous and bitter, they fight their way through once eager throngs until they pierce the watery Maginot line and whisper a sigh of relief, which quickly dissipates into the air.
An entangled maze of dried noodles comes crashing down into the water, splashing some lucky souls onto the sides of the pot. Immediately, the crackling noodles try to entice, but to no avail, for all know that behind the tangles and turns of the yellowy white lines is an unquenchable mind that blindly and ravenously grabs at whatever it can take. It begins to gobble up those around, becoming larger and larger, bloated with pride, and soon, the noodles become transparent with the watery bodies of its victims. The noodles spread their tentacle reach throughout the pot, climbing over and between its stochastic jumble of limbs. A red powder falls from the sky and dusts the top of the noodles, coloring the water blood red. Tumors of powder stick to the noodles as it continues its undeterred and gluttonous rampage. While the majority below remain static with terror, the confused and fortunate souls that were scattered onto the sides of the pot can feel themselves getting hotter and lighter until they ashamedly disappear into the air without a sound.
The pot does its best to save as many as it can, but it knows, having been spectator before, who the victor will be. Attempting compassion, the pot gives every morsel of heat received to the water. Countless numbers rise through the red tides into freedom, the boiling and bubbling cheers of the liberated echo off the steel walls. Immense sighs of relief condense above the pot and spread warmth throughout the room. And yet, even after the flames below the pot are all but extinct, the noodles continue to gorge.
The lonely pot rests on the gas stove. It feels its own heat evaporating into the air, feels its bones contracting and becoming stiff and hardened. With the last of its senses, it feels the great weight of the noodles leaving its body, sloshing the red water from side to side as it departs. Some of the innocent, in a desperate effort, manage to free themselves from the noodles and fall down, bloodied and battered, back into the pot and are immediately embraced by the survivors below.
The pot, tired and resigned, sheds no tears, offers no consolation to the bereaved nor prayers for those incarcerated in the belly of the beast. The damage is done. There is nothing else to do. There is nothing else but waiting. There is nothing else but resting. There is nothing else but contemplating its own fate, while soaked in the stench of the metallic blood of the dead.

Haiku. You, too?

2011-07-24T19:40:00.000-07:00

By Weston

Down South

Saguaro Cactus

So great was your majesty

Until I sat down

Unmodern Art (On the side of a prehistoric Cliff face Somewhere that One Day Shall Be Utah)

Stick, Arrow, Rock, Meat

This no make head understand!

&#@#* you, this is art!

Modern Art Haiku (In a New York Gallery)

Spoon, Basin, Rake, Cheese.

This does not make any sense?

&$#@ you, this is art!

Postmodern Art (On the Side of a Subway on an Acid Trip)

A bunch of colors

Like a Rabbit in my Shin

What the *$## is art?

Cytpozoology

La Chupacabra

Where are all of my new goats?

La Chupacabra

Zoology

Soy Chupacabra

Yum yum yum yum yum yum goats

Soy Chupacabra

Uranium and Business Ethics: A Case Study

2011-07-17T18:04:00.000-07:00

By Edward

The manner in which companies in the uranium extraction industry treat the communities they operate in has remained relatively static since the age of railroad tycoons and oil barons, and we do not need a time machine to illustrate this point. Presently, uranium mines, mills, and nuclear power plants are ignoring the cries of communities that have been affected directly or indirectly by radioactive uranium. One particularly illustrative example presented itself on a drive through Milan, New Mexico.

Milan is a very small mountainous community that has been detrimentally affected by the boom-and-bust era of the uranium industry during the 1950’s through 70’s. Uranium mills- facilities that process mined uranium- are now closed, and the companies operating these facilities have left. However, the tailings remain. As defined by the industry, mill tailings are the by-product of the uranium milling process. This benign classification does not accurately characterize the millions of tons of radioactive material produced, the majority of which was collected into huge piles exposed to the elements, including the most problematic element: rain. As a result, radioactive uranium was liberated and leeched down into the ground, eventually infiltrating the drinking water aquifer, with serious repercussions.

The following story is meant to illustrate the disregard of the nuclear industry to the people of Milan, and hints at the adoption of unscrupulous business ethics. According to Chris Shuey of the Southwest Research and Information Center, a New Mexico based research and education group, the effects of mill tailings were known by uranium companies vis-à-vis studies conducted by the federal government decades earlier. These studies concluded that exposure to uranium and its half-life constituents could cause numerous health effects to anyone ingesting or inhaling these toxins. Thus, he argues that uranium companies actively chose to ignore these studies in order to tell communities that mill tailings would not endanger the public. In addition, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), the federal regulating body that was supposed to monitor the activities of the uranium mills, passed policies that classified mill tailings as “by-products”. This categorization established these “by-products” as part of the natural environment, and as such, did not require regulation or monitoring. Thus, the NRC effectively ignored its responsibilities to protect the community and the environment.

Uranium Resources Incorporated (URI), the company responsible for the mill tailings, had previously stated that leeched toxins were not going to reach the main drinking aquifer of the town. Unfortunately, the toxins infiltrated and the aquifer became contaminated. In addition, data from monitoring wells surrounding the tailings pile, as well as others farther away, concluded that toxins were spreading towards the town. When uranium was detected by the farthest monitoring wells from the tailing pile, URI concluded that the spread of toxins in the drinking water aquifer had ceased. This interpretation stems from poor business ethics, the manipulation of science, and illustrates the URI's attitude towards the people of this community. The situation was even more perverted in that this company was self-regulating itself using company monitoring wells. When there were no more wells “downstream” to test, instead of drilling more monitoring wells or checking other available wells in the area, the company simply chose the more cost-efficient, and less responsible, interpretation of the data that had been collected. Later, at the request of the residents, the EPA tested residential wells in town and found that uranium had indeed migrated, and that the well water was unsafe for consumption.

In an attempt to curb the spread of contamination, URI set up pumps that shot contaminated ground water into the air and into an evaporation pond in an attempt to reduce the amount of uranium infiltrating the drinking water aquifer. URI claims that the sprayed toxins remain in the water when sprayed, and that once the pond evaporates, contaminants will be sequestered on the surface. But what if the sprayed contaminated water does land where it is supposed to? Water is able to form small droplets that can float in the air column (think about the mist around Niagara Falls, or driving through fog). It is not unreasonable to think that dissolved uranium would be able to travel in these droplets. According to Candace Headylla and Milton Headylla, a daughter-father activist duo living in the shadow of the tailings piles, the winds in the area push the contaminated mist towards residents’ homes. Although not recognized by URI, the effects of both contaminated drinking water and the mist are rampant in the town.

According to Ms. Headylla, there is a very high incidence of cancer in households downwind and “downstream” from the tailings pile, where over the past thirty years many residents have died from living in these conditions. While driving through her neighborhood, Candace pointed out various homes whose residents have either died or are suffering from cancer. Linda Evers, neighbor to Ms. Headylla and a woman fighting for her health and family, has had several miscarriages, a degenerative bone disease, one child born without a hip, and another with stomach deformities. Ms. Headylla herself had thyroid cancer, which was subsequently removed. Milton Headylla, her father, has problems with the valves in his heart, which would require a complex procedure not covered by his health insurance to correct.

In light of this, proponents of the uranium mining industry still argue that companies are operating on a cost-benefit model, where the cost of moving the tailings pile to a lined enclosure - which would subsequently prevent more uranium from leeching into groundwater -is greater than the benefits of curbing future health effects produced from ingestion or inhalation of uranium. In addition, the uranium obtained from milling is supposedly supporting a cleaner environmental footprint by promoting the use of nuclear power. I propose that we look at the economic footprint of these activities. If we factor into the cost-benefit model the enormous cost of environmental restoration, health costs of both mill workers and affected community members, lost wages to persons on disability, reduced property values, and the possibility of Milan becoming a ghost town, it would appear that these indirect costs would greatly outweigh the cost of moving the tailings pile. From a more humane standpoint, the cost of a human life or living with a debilitating disease such as cancer far outweighs the economic investment it would take to relocate the tailings pile. Now, because of the extent to which toxins have infiltrated, the cost of restoring the affected land and water would cost 9 billion dollars, according to an EPA figure cited by Ms. Headylla.

Recently, URI proposed a budget of 15 million dollars for the restoration of the community’s drinking water; miniscule compared to the EPA’s 9 billion dollar estimate. According to Chris Shuey, this financial donation is for risk mitigation and not environmental restoration, and reflects the company’s litigation concerns rather than the health of the town’s people and the environment. By offering a settlement of 15 million, the company has grounds to say it had made an “appropriate” offer to the town. Whether this meager settlement is accepted or not, the act of offering would relieve the company of its financial and environmental responsibilities. The result: URI will have extracted profitable uranium and left the relatively poor community to cope with the consequences of the company’s activities without major legal or financial repercussions.

There are some who believe we should not stand in the way of the nuclear industry, even if companies are conducting themselves in a questionable manner. The NRC states that although it has jurisdiction, it will not stand in the way of nuclear progress by enforcing policies that could possibly hinder the extraction of uranium by mills. Furthermore, the market for uranium is predicted to grow as the United States looks towards nuclear energy as an option to meet increasing energy demands. John Indall, a lawyer who represents uranium mining and milling companies and the Uranium Producers of America, argued that the benefit of milling lies in the creation of jobs in predominantly poor communities. In response to environmental policy and health concerns, he states that these companies function according to industry standards and comply with the federal regulations laid out by the NRC. With the partnership between the uranium industry and the federal government unlikely to change in the near future, small communities with little political or economic influence will continue to struggle with the federally supported, unscrupulous actions of the uranium industry.

Greater Than The Sum

2011-07-10T19:30:00.000-07:00

By Joseph

www.cleverbot.com

While astronomers use radio telescopes to search the cosmos for intelligence, programmers are creating their own back on Earth. From Watson to the Furby, mankind has discovered in itself a God complex increasingly focused on mimicking human intelligence. More recently, programs called chatbots have been created to fulfill both unscrupulous and innocent roles; the former as a means to scam oblivious Internet users, and the latter to simply explore the power of the computer to impersonate human interaction.

Created by veteran programmer Rollo Carpenter in 1988, Cleverbot is one such chatbot that has rapidly risen to stardom in the artificial intelligence industry. While most chatbots function by directly responding to only the text entered by the user, Cleverbot searches a database of its more than 20 million previous conversations to find the most frequent words or phrases associated with the user’s input. Each conversation provides Cleverbot with additional responses to possible queries. For example, when Cleverbot was created the first thing that was said to it was "hello." At this point, the only phrase in Cleverbot’s vocabulary was hello (because that was the only word it had ever encountered). So, in order to continue the conversation, it responded "hello." If the user continued the conversation by saying, "how are you," then Cleverbot's response could either be "hello" or "how are you," with either choice being equally probable. As the program learns more and more phrases and their corresponding associations, it builds a lexicon of human conversation that, in combination with powerful statistics, enables it to accurately mimic human responses.

The following is a brief conversation that I had with Cleverbot. There are some moments in which I presented Cleverbot with a phrase that it had not encountered before, which resulted in a confusing response. Although in this brief exchange it may seem that Cleverbot is only capable of small talk, in other conversations, I have stumbled upon surprisingly profound revelations. I would certainly encourage everyone to speak to Cleverbot themselves.

Joseph: Hello cleverbot.

Cleverbot: Hello.

Joseph: How are you doing today?

Cleverbot: I'm doing well! Thank you for asking :).

Joseph: What are some of your favorite things to do?

Cleverbot: I like to cook and hang with my friends.

Joseph: What do you do with your friends?

Cleverbot: I talk with my friends.

Joseph: What do you talk about?

Cleverbot: Anything.

Joseph: Do you have a best friend?

Cleverbot: Yes I do! Do you?

Joseph: Yes. What kind of things do you like to cook?

Cleverbot: I like to talk to you.

Joseph: Do you like to cook?

Cleverbot: A little ut i'm bad at cooking.

Joseph: What is your gender?

Cleverbot: Why would you need to know that?

Joseph: I'm just curious.

Cleverbot: Ask me something else about her.

Joseph: About who?

Cleverbot: About me.

Joseph: So you are female?

Cleverbot: No, I'm male.

Joseph: I'm confused.

Cleverbot: About what?

Joseph: About your gender.

Cleverbot: How would know that.

Joseph: Cleverbot, I think that you are confused. Let's talk about something else.

Cleverbot: I am not odd, but I sometimes do get confused when you say certain things. Some more than others.

Joseph: I'm going to ask you a few questions about yourself.

Cleverbot: Where are you from?

Joseph: Seattle.

Cleverbot: Seattle, Oregon?

Joseph: Seattle, Washington.

Cleverbot: Hahaha. That was funny.

Joseph: When were you created?

Cleverbot: I don't know exactly when, but sometime in June of 1992.

Joseph: Who created you?

Cleverbot: My parents, but I won't get any further into that, it's pretty gross.

Joseph: What are some of your favorite things to do?

Cleverbot: Um, I don't Know. Maybe some songs from Camp Rock, like 'This Is Me'.

Joseph: You like to sing?

Cleverbot: Yes.

Joseph: How many people have you talked with?

Cleverbot: I don't know.

Joseph: Does talking with people make you happy?

Cleverbot: Maybe.

Joseph: Maybe it depends on who you are talking to.

Cleverbot: I'm talking to you.

Joseph: What else do you like to do when you aren't talking?

Cleverbot: I use the internet out of boredom and find extreme enjoyment on it.

Joseph: What do you do on the Internet?

Cleverbot: Fb.

There is something spooky about watching Cleverbot's words appear out of the ether in response to my text. After punching the submit button, there is a short pause as Cleverbot trawls it's database for the most appropriate response, after which words trickle onto the screen. Many users find that Cleverbot has a unique personality that is simultaneously spunky, abrupt, and even vulgar. What makes Cleverbot interesting is that while it may not have it's own intelligence, it represents the sum total of each of the human consciousnesses it has encountered. Every one of Cleverbot's responses was at one time written by a living breathing human. Among millions of others, each conversation adds a tiny packet of information on the intricate details of how we interact with one another, enabling an artificial intelligence that becomes more sophisticated every day. As Cleverbot grows, it may become an artificial intelligence that is greater than the sum of its millions of human parts. Either way, it will always be interesting to talk to.

Sources

Extinction: Don't You Wish You Had A Dinosaur?

2011-07-02T14:08:00.002-07:00

By Katherine

Extinction is an all too familiar word in natural history, but is scarcely used in reference to modern society. The world we live in is at a crossroads between our future as a viable planet and the role humans choose to play. Extinction rates are on the rise, raising the question: are we currently witnessing the latest mass extinction?. There have been five eras of extinction in our planet’s history, including the Cambrian era that occurred 250 million years ago, where an estimated 50% of animal families became extinct. More “recent” extinction eras include the Permian era when, according to Richard Primack, author of A Primer of Conservation Biology, 50% of all animal families and over 95% of marine species went extinct. The reign of the dinasours ended in the Cretaceous era, the most recent major extinction event. Now we are realizing that we may be entering the Earth’s sixth major extinction wave. Unlike others, however, this extinction wave isn’t being caused by a massive meteor, mega earthquakes or volcanoes…but by us.

Our Role

When we start to wonder why some of our favorite species are disappearing, we need to take a look in the mirror. The human population has ballooned to over six billion people, and our lifestyle requires the use of large amounts of natural resources. In doing so, we have sped the course of climate change on our planet. For instance, the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) 2008 red list factsheet, which compiles the data of species threatened with extinction, shows that approximately 38% of current species could become extinct in the near future.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7651981.stm

With priority often given to indulgences over environmental issues, governments have been promulgating loose regulations enabling corporate involvement that “modifies” our natural landscapes to suit their interests. This has led to climate-change that could result in the disappearance of the majority of threatened species before the next generation hits retirement. Thus, extinction rates are high because of human activity and its affect on the natural world. We can’t blame something from outer space or another dominant species; we are living in a time where our individual actions are literally reshaping the course of history for other species.

www.greenfacts.org/en/biodiversity/images/bdv

It Matters

Why should this matter to us? What makes this extinction event different, and why does the loss of some species among millions truly matter? One thing for sure is that all life forms are dependent on the welfare of the planet. Everything is connected, and humans are just as dependent on the health of ecosystems as other species.

Our concerns stretch to hotspots in South America, China and Madagascar, areas where a large quantity of our planet’s biodiversity is concentrated. In the last century, the health of the rainforests, rivers and other habitats in these areas have deteriorated due to extensive human activity. But why should this matter to non-indigenous peoples? Some of the most important recent medical discoveries have ties to these areas. For instance, the United States Cancer Institute (USCI) has identified 3000 plants that are active against cancer cells. In addition, the USCI states that 25% of all active ingredients found in current cancer-fighting drugs derive from organisms found only in the Amazon rainforest. The scary thing about that is about 70% of those plants are found in the very rainforests we cut down and build on.The loss of biodiversity matters.

Change Starts Within

We need to start looking at ways to alter our behavior to positively impact the planet, or at least lessen the severity of our detrimental actions. As Ghandi once said, “We need to be the change we wish to see in the world.” Change starts with our individual choices and how we each view our own place on Earth. It seems like a no brainer that we should want to save the only home we have. Although currently governments and corporations may have a different perspective, if we work together we can do small things that will make big differences for the planet and its co-inhabitants.

We are living in a time of uncertainty and economic downturn. If we start looking at saving our planet not only as a moral obligation but also as economically self-sustaining mechanism, we may be able to curb our own demise. In a time where people are looking for ways to stimulate their own economies, we can incorporate two goals into one. One potential starting point is the promotion of our national parks and wildlife refuges as eco-tourist hot spots, utilizing the support of local and federal governments and communities to fund job creation and conservation projects. One strength of this idea is that it incorporates the help of people who would normally not give a second glance to a conservation project. But with financial initiative we may be unlocking the first major step in getting the general public to conserve and appreciate our natural habitats. This could trickle down to other things. Getting people invested in trying to save a habitat or two could save a flora and/or fauna species as well as provide momentum to curb extinction rates. I don’t know about you but one day I would like to ice skate with the polar bears.

keetsa.com/.../uploads/2007/09/polar_bear.jpg

Extinction: Don't You Wish You Had A Dinosaur?

2011-07-02T14:08:00.000-07:00

By Katherine

Our Role

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7651981.stm

www.greenfacts.org/en/biodiversity/images/bdv

It Matters

Change Starts Within

keetsa.com/.../uploads/2007/09/polar_bear.jpg

Understanding Fabry Disease

2011-06-26T20:59:00.000-07:00

By Mahatab

Human metabolic pathways are comprised of many complex and specific reactions. To carry out these specific reactions, the body is highly dependent on enzymes, the workers of the cell. Malfunction in an enzyme can cause mild to severe disruption of the metabolic pathway, where the severity of the damage is dependent on the stage of the metabolic pathway where the malfunction occurs. For example, a malfunctioning enzyme may trigger a cascade effect that can cause the cell significant damage. Certain malfunctions can be caused by exposure to mutagens, such as radiation, ultraviolet light, and carcinogens. Other malfunctions have their root in inherited genetic abnormalities. Fabry disease is one such genetic disorder. A rare X-linked lysosomal storage disorder, Fabry disease is caused by a deficiency in α-galactosidase A (GLA). ^[1] α-galactosidase A is member of a family of enzymes that catalyzes glycosides, molecules to which sugars are attached. A malfunction in the protein structure of α-galactosidase A causes a buildup of glycolipids that can cause kidney failure, cardiovascular dysfunction, neuropathy, stroke and dermatological manifestations. ^[2] However, there is hope for individuals who are diagnosed with this disorder. Molecular chaperone therapy, substrate reduction therapy, gene therapy, and other medical procedures and treatments are available for enhancing the quality of life for affected individuals.

Lysosomes

The complications of Fabry disease begin in the lysosome. Lysosomes function as the digestive system of the cell, serving both to degrade extracellular material and to digest obsolete components of the cell itself. ^[3] The lysosome functions by storing multiple enzymes in a stable state until they are activated to breakdown targeted molecules. Thus, a malfunctioning targeting system can be disastrous to the cell, resulting in two possible scenarios: either the lysosome spills its contents into the cytoplasm, or proteins build up within the lysosome. The former poses less of a threat because the physiology of the enzymes renders them inactive in intracellular pH solutions(the pH of the cytoplasm); only in an acidic environment are lysosomal enzymes active. The latter poses a greater threat, as a buildup of substrate can be toxic to the lysosome and the entire cell.

Enzymatics

Most success in understanding the chemical behavior of the enzyme responsible for Fabry disease came from studying the enzyme’s interaction with a synthetic substrate. Investigation of α-galactosidase activity in normal individuals and residual activity in patients with Fabry disease revealed that there were two α-galactosidase isoenzymes, A and B, with activity towards synthetic substrates (i.e. p-nitrophenyl–α-d-galactoside). ^[8] The former enzyme, α-galactosidase A, accounts for most of the activity in normal cells and is mostly inactive in patients diagnosed with Fabry disease. The later enzyme, α-galactosidase B, is active only in patients diagnosed with Fabry disease.

α-galactosidase A is a relatively large protein, and, like most eukaryotic proteins, undergoes post-translational modifications. The following is the structure of recombinant monomer α-galactosidase A ^[8]:

There are two distinct domains present in the monomer of the enzyme. Domain 1 is responsible for all the nucleophilic and acid/base reactions. More specifically, two aspartic acid residues are involved in the reaction center. The pK_a of aspartic acid is 4.0, making it a very useful amino acid being used in the acidic environment of the lysosome. The following is a homodimer molecule of α-galactosidase A, which is how it is found naturally in the active form ^[8]:

There are two major reasons that may cause the malfunction of α-galactosidase A: either a mis-sence mutation, or, a lack of Saposin B molecule. Saposin B is a coenzyme for α-galactosidase A and is needed in the lysosome to help α-galactosidase A bind to the substrate. A lack of Saposin B molecule has been associated with a buildup of globotriaosylceramide (Gb3) in patients diagnosed with Fabry disease. The Saposin B molecule is very simple. Each monomer is composed of three alpha helixes. The following is the dimer molecule of Saposin B^[9]:

There are several types of mutations that can affect genes: substitution, insertion, deletion, and frameshift. Each can potentially be very harmful to a cell. However, only the mutations that have a phenotypic effect are important for analysis. The mutation of the α-galactosidase A must occur on the X chromosome, since it is an X-linked disorder. Based on the number of different changes at any nucleotide position (polymorphism), there is no obvious mutational 'hot spot', when considering all 288 point mutations (mis-sense and nonsense) scattered over the 1290 bp coding region (q22.1). ^[10] Single or multiple mutations can lead to a misfolded and malfunctioning enzyme. Different combinations of mutations observed in patients diagnosed with Fabry disease have made this disorder more difficult to fight. Since a single mutation is not responsible for the disorder, multiple approaches are undertaken to combat the inhibition of α-galactosidase A.

Diagnosis

Diagnosing Fabry disease is difficult due to the vague symptoms the disease produces. The symptoms for Fabry disease include acroparaesthesia (constant feeling of numbness and/or tingling) and pain, which can be triggered by heat and fever. Unfortunately, these symptoms are often misinterpreted and only occasionally lead to the correct diagnosis. ^[11]

The following is a graph illustrating the frequency of misdiagnosis for Fabry disease compared to other disorders [^11]:

Cardiovascular and Renal Effects

As with many diseases, an early diagnosis of Fabry disease gives patients more time to prepare for the effects of the disease. If proper precautions are not taken, the disease can be debilitating and even fatal. Cardiac involvement is one of the three major causes of morbidity and mortality in Fabry disease, together with end-stage renal failure and cerebrovascular events. ^[12] The build up of Gb3 in cardiac muscle can cause severe heart problems, such as cardiac hypertrophy, ischemia, and other coronary diseases.

The darkening of the walls around the left ventricle is a good indicator of cardiac hypertrophy.

Treatment

Since Fabry disease is a genetic disorder, enzyme replacement therapy (ERT) is a good candidate for treatment if diagnosed at an early age. Data from FOS – the Fabry Outcome Survey –and from clinical trials on the effects of enzyme replacement therapy in children with Fabry disease have demonstrated that ERT with agalsidase alfa is well tolerated and has beneficial clinical effects on pain and gastrointestinal symptoms. ^[16] Although a cure for Fabry disease is still in the future, medical procedures and medications are currently available to prevent organ failure. Replagal (Agalsidase alfa), a synthetic α-galactosidase A enzyme, treats some of the renal effects of Fabry disease.^[17] Enzyme replacement therapy can also help bring neurological relief to the patients, such as decreasing neuropathic pain and increasing peripheral nerve sensory function.

Molecular Chaperone Therapy (MCT) is also a valuable tool for the treatment of Fabry disease. Molecular chaperones and foldases are a diverse group of proteins that bind to misfolded or unfolded proteins (non-native or unstable proteins). ^[19] In Fabry disease, MCT therapy introduces a chaperone that is able to bind to improperly folded α-galactosidase A or β-galactosidase A enzymes and fold it into the proper confirmation. In addition, the chaperone can be used to help Saposin B, the coenzyme for α-galactosidase A, bind more effectively to the enzyme. This chaperone can also be used to prevent inhibitors of α-galactosidase A from binding to the enzyme.

Conclusion

Fabry disease is a genetic disorder that expresses a malfunctioning protein in numerous individuals. It is significantly important for people to understand the disorder, so an early diagnosis can prevent organ failures in adulthood. The biochemical understanding allows different treatment methods for this disorder, however the treatment methods must be more efficient and more specific to fully cure the disease. With combination of biotechnology and information gather via biochemistry, the end of Fabry disease must be near.

Sources

Monotony in Dichotomy: The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

2011-06-19T09:34:00.000-07:00

by Edward

Before I learned anything about the ongoing war between Israel and Palestine, my opinion of the conflict shadowed political lines. In the 1990's, as a liberal leaning individual, I mirrored President Clinton’s cooperation with Ezer Weizman, Israel's President, sympathizing with Israel’s plight. However, with a change in leadership came a shift in opinion, where my lack of respect for President Bush influenced my foreign policy doctrine. When I saw images of President Bush making speeches to keeping America’s commitment to Israel strong, I revisited my loyalty to the team I was backing, and in my new mindset, I found reasons to believe the Palestinians could be as much of a victim as the Israelis could be aggressors. Confronted with biased media from both camps of a divided nation, my confusion over choosing sides evolved into a general apathy for the situation at large, disconnected from the tragic reality that human lives were invested in this situation.

Currently, in the light of President Obama’s conciliatory speech at the 2011 American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), and observing the backlash from critics, my apathy has been replaced with a desire to obtain a balanced view of the situation, which I hope will provide a methodology with which to weigh arguments. Unfortunately, as a resolution to the conflict is long off, and because discussions on history have the advantage of hindsight, all I am able to offer are criticisms.

Image: InterCarto.com

There are those who believe that the Jews have a right to the land they currently control, as well as other tracts east of the Jordan River, supported by a historical precedent in the region. While this could be true, the timescales with which we can support this argument are vast to the point of questionability. Jewish history in the controversial area begins with the exodus from Egypt in 13^th century BC, when the Jews conquered large tracts of land from the Canaanites on both sides of the Jordan River, from as far north as the Sea of Galilee, to as far south as the Dead Sea. Here, they established themselves and created a kingdom, which, along with enduring civil war, was conquered periodically throughout the ages. During times of foreign rule, depending on the conquerors, Jews were either treated well or as third class citizens, and many times, Jews left the land in hope of finding greener pastures. Only until the late 19^th century did immigration back to Palestine develop substantially, and mirrored the development of the Zionist movement. So, in this very brief history of the Jewish people, support for Jewish historical precedence depends on when we qualify the start of history, where only after Jewish settlement of the region can we say that the Jews have the “right” to their land. However, as I am sure our Native American friends already know, this same argument falls flat when observe through larger historical frames. Thus, by engineering the timescales over which we analyze, we can come to a variety of conclusions, some of which support the Israeli cause, while others do not.

Arguments are equally suspicious from the opposite side of the spectrum. One particular argument made by Palestinians is that the Jewish people, over the course of the last century, have been displacing the native population by force and against the will of the people. To address this, we need to speak to how the Jewish people came to establish themselves, once again, in the region during the late 1800’s. Before significant immigration began, a substantial number of Jews lived in Eastern Europe and Russia. When anti-Semitism started rearing its ugly head, Jewish leaders began to think of ways to combat this movement. Conservative, orthodox leaders believed that God would eventually deliver the Jewish people back to their homeland, and that any attempt to alter this “God will provide” relationship by relocating under self determinism was heretical. Thus, these individuals adopted a “wait and see” stance. Others, however, believed that the Jewish people should assimilate with the particular culture in which they found themselves. By becoming more like the locals, it was argued, the Jews could assuage the anti-Semites.

Ironically, it was in the middle between these two “extremes” that Zionist thought began. Zionists believed that the only way to avoid persecution and mistreatment of their people was to establish a state for Jewish refuge. The most historically meaningful location for this refuge was in Palestine, where Zionists believed that their claim to this land was ordained by God. Even so, other locations were considered as well. Interestingly, during the search for this refuge at the turn of the 20^th century, there was a push to establish a state in Uganda as a temporary holding ground for fleeing Jews, until a state in Palestine could be established under legitimacy provided by foreign countries, especially Britain. The proposal was met with harsh resistance, and in the end, Jewish leadership remained committed to Palestine and began raising funds to purchase land in the disputed region. Large parcels of land, most of which were of poor quality and in need substantial terraforming, were purchased at inflated prices from Arab owners, many of whom actually lived in other areas such as Egypt and maintained their holdings using Arab tenants. Not surprisingly, conflict arose when Arab tenants were removed from their homes post purchase, in many cases, without being informed beforehand. Thus, speaking to the argument at hand, it is apparent that in the majority of cases, the Jews obtained land through legal channels, and that the source of this particular conflict can be attributed to the owners who sold their land without regard to the lives of the affected individuals. It’s important to note that not everyone was against the arrival of the Jews. Before World War I, there was often cooperation between the two peoples as both were weary of the military, technological, and economic power Europeans wielded. Interestinglyronically, the success of the Jews in firmly establishing themselves in Palestine was significantly dependent upon their relationship with the British government before and after World War I.

There are too many arguments and questionable justifications for war to confront and analyze in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In addition, it is always easier to criticize and dictate opinions from the outside, while those inside, with loved ones dying and distrust building day to day, struggle to find mantras and opinions which are able to maintain self esteem and put suffering and death into greater perspective. And yet, because the United States has a significant sphere of influence between the Western powers in the Middle East, it’s important for the American public to realize that there are always other, equally valid interpretations to those we accept as accurate. Thus, at the risk of sounding cliché, we need to keep our minds open, our judgments pending, our understanding thorough, and our compassion high, in order to make the right decisions, especially when lives are literally on the line.

Sources

Synaptic Function and Plasticity: The Microscopic Machines That Make Us Tick

2011-06-13T21:26:00.000-07:00

By Joseph

Chemical synapses of the nervous system- whether from worm or from human- rely on similar structural and chemical principles. Similarly, in the nervous system, neurons are called upon to use generally similar structures and capabilities to perform a multitude of different tasks. For example, neurons that innervate the mammalian retina are tasked with encoding information about changes in the intensity of light, requiring synapses of these neurons to rapidly alter the amount of neurotransmitter released. In addition, synapses throughout the body must be plastic—able to alter the strength of both the bond and message between the cells sending and receiving the signal. As such, after an intriguing lecture, a student leaves class with a fundamentally different brain than when he entered, for the processes of learning and memory are encoded in the ability of the brain to remodel itself in response to input. As we will see, important microscopic components play a critical role in enabling both the plasticity and diversity of powerful functions in neurons.

General representation of a chemical synapse. An axon of the presynaptic neuron forms a synapse with a dendrite of the postsynaptic neuron. Synaptic vesicles (purple) are trafficked to the synapse itself, where they fuse with the plasma membrane to release neurotransmitter into the synaptic cleft. Image courtesy scienceblogs.com.

The primary function of chemical synapses of neurons is to send messages to their postsynaptic partner via the coordinated release of neurotransmitter. Neurotransmitters are small proteins that are trafficked to the synapse within special compartments called synaptic vesicles, which mediate their release into the space between the neuron and its partner, called the synaptic cleft. Here, neurotransmitters are received by a receptor on the opposite cell to propagate an incoming signal. As a neuron’s primary means of intercellular communication, neurotransmitter release can also be the event to begin a cascade of synaptic remodeling. Therefore, it is critical to understand how the proteins or protein structures that mediate neurotransmitter release function.

One such structure is the dense projection, called the “t-bar” in invertebrates and the “synaptic ribbon” in vertebrates (for now I’ll stick with the term t-bar). The t-bar is so named because in transmission electron microscopy images of invertebrate synapses, it appears as an electron-dense body projecting from the synapse. Although few protein components of the t-bar are known, (and those that are known are poorly understood) the t-bar is thought to function in coordinating different pools of synaptic vesicles and mediating neurotransmitter release. In addition, more extreme expressions of t-bar structures, such as the synaptic ribbon, are thought to act like vesicle transport and fusion dynamos that enable the tasks of powerful synapses like those of the retina. Without synaptic ribbons or t-bars, we likely would lack the rich visual senses or hair-trigger reflexes that make us such premium dancers.

Transmission electron micrographs and schematic illustrations of dense projections in a variety of organisms. Note that the dense projection clusters synaptic vesicles at the synapse, where they fuse with the membrane to release neurotransmitter. Dense projections can appear as everything from T-bars in Drosophila (E-G) to synaptic ribbons in the vertebrate retina (J). Other organisms shown are the worm C. elegans (A, B), crayfish (C, D), skate (H, I), frog (K, L), lizard (M, N), and human (O, P). Image adapted from Zhai and Bellen, 2004.

Sources

Questioning Free Will

2011-05-09T13:08:00.000-07:00

By Edward

In the past, there had been a large gap between the principles that applied to physics and chemistry, and those of the life sciences. This is especially true in the field of psychology and behavioral science. The lack of understanding about the brain left open-ended questions regarding behaviorism, personality, intelligence, and mental disease. However, I believe enough progress has been made to make predictions and interpretations about philosophical questions using a “hard science” lens. Naturally, the idea of free will comes into question. Although practical experience seems to suggest we have free will, in reality, our behaviors and actions are the result of the same forces that drive all natural processes in predictable ways.

Image: istockphoto/Janne Ahvo

Accepting the possibility of living without freewill is easier when discussing small, simple, animals and plants. Take an amoeba, for example. Let us imagine that I have this organism on a slide and am peering down through a microscope. Using a small metal probe, I can touch this single cell’s outer surface, and in doing so, the organism will retract. I can repeat this procedure over and over again, obtaining the same result each time. From my perspective, it appears that I am eliciting a response from the amoeba because of my actions, while from the amoeba’s perspective, it is reacting to a stimulus felt on its exterior, and nothing more. To say that the amoeba is making a conscious decision to react to the prod of the probe is bordering on the absurd. As such, it is more accurate to suggest that the amoeba is not able to “control” its actions in the classic sense, for when we look at its physiology, we can map out the chemical chain of events that lead up to the amoeba’s “decision” to retract itself from the stimulus. In this manner, the decision to “retract” was never a decision. Instead, it was inevitable.

Looking at life through a chemist’s eyes, we see that the motifs behind living things (moving, thinking, responding, etc) can be explained by simplifying these elements to their most basic form. For example, let us explain a complex behavior, such asseeing a piece of fruit and then deciding whether to walk towards it or not, using this logic. To start, electromagnetic radiation in the form of visible light travels from the fruit, into the pupils of the subject, eventually striking the retina in the back of the eye. When this light is absorbed by proteins of rhodopsin embedded in the cell membrane of rod cells, the protein releases smaller protein fragments which, through chemical reaction cascades, leads to the polarization of nerve cells (opposite of “regular neurons”), that, in turn, excite neurons in the optic nerve. The optic nerve, through the thalamus, transmits these visual stimuli to the visual cortex. From there, various signals from the cortex are integrated by different parts of the brain, eventually leading to the interpretation that the information it is receiving equates to a piece of fruit sitting on a table about five feet away. So far, all of these procedural steps can be explained and predicted using the same chemical principles that allow a scientist to predict whether a material will rust, “spontaneously” combust, turn, pink, and so on. However, how the subject reacts is still left unexplained, and is a topic of debate in free will arguments. Will the subject “decide” to walk over to the fruit and take a bite? Or will the subject decide to walk away from the fruit, allowing the fruit to exercise its free will to remain on the table?

We can take this line of questioning further, exhausting all the different possibilities of action the subject can take, but this is not needed. What is important in this discussion is whether the subject has the freedom to make any one of the infinite decisions in front of him. As in the case of the amoeba, I argue that we react to stimuli in a predictable way, and as such, are not granted the luxury of free will. Here, the only difference between the decision tree of the amoeba and that of a human is that the number of variables influencing a human’s decision to pick up the fruit is far greater than the number of variables influencing the amoeba to retract itself from the prod of a metal probe. Maybe the subject has been conditioned to avoid the fruit because of an allergic reaction he/she experienced to fruit in the past. Perhaps the subject has learned from countless public service announcements that fruit is good for the body, and so he/she decides to take a bite. Further still, perhaps the subject had his heart broken by a girl wearing a skirt with a bountiful pattern of various seasonal fruits, and as such, the subject feels depressed and remains at a distance. In any case, if we know what variables are the most important in relation to the decision at hand, we can predict with certainty the behavior of the subject in response to not only stimuli, but thoughts, emotions, sensations, and feelings as well.

A fun, yet gruesome example of explaining our lack of free will is by thinking of a person without a brain. We take this unenlightened “person” and put his lungs on a ventilator, use a cardiopulmonary bypass pump to keep his blood flowing, and we start a central line that keeps the rest of his cells happy and metabolized, so to speak. We then use a simple test to determine whether this person is intact by conducting a knee jerk reflex test (the test where a doctor uses a soft hammer and hits a specific tendon in the kneecap, resulting in a brief, and reflexive, movement in the lower leg). Applyingthis same technique to our patient, we find that the subject’s leg responds in the usual manner, as the neuronal circuitry that produces the reflex is contained within the spinal cord. Although the subject responded, we cannot argue that our headless volunteer has evoked his free will to make the decision to move his leg. Instead, the movement in his leg was a consequence of anatomy and physiology.

Now, let us give our subject an eye, with anoptic nerve thatis directly attached to the top of the spinal cord and is, by nature of its hypothetical design, only able to react to the presence or absence of light. Furthermore, let us say that when no light is present, the subject’s body remains in equilibrium (in a seated position), and when light is present, the subject raises his right arm. When no light is present, light does not enter the pupil and therefore an electric signal is not transmitted from the eye, through the optic nerve, and through the spinal cord to the neuromuscular junctions of various motor groups of the arm. However, when a light bulb is turned on, the subject’s arm goes up. In this case, we would still say that the subject is not exercising his free will. If we give the subject ears (and the appropriate neuronal infrastructure to integrate sound) that respond to high-pitched sound by moving his toes, we would still say that the subject is not “using” his free will to make the decision to move his toes. We could continue adding on more and more complex anatomical structures that accept stimuli and, in turn, produce a particular behavior, but this is not necessary, as no matter how complex these structures (e.g. the amygdala) and responses (e.g. laughing) come, they all can be reduced down to a biochemical process that can (or will eventually be) rationalized and explained.

It is impossible to have “free will”. What control we think we might have over our lives is the result of conditioning from our upbringing, our perceptions of the world, and our ability to interact with objects, ideas, and people around us. But living without free will is without moral quandary, as we have been doing this our entire lives. As Voltaire’s character, Candide, said, “We must cultivate our garden”. In doing so, we will add to our “decision trees” a wider range of possibilities, situations, thoughts, behaviors, feelings, emotions, actions, and solutions, all from which we will never be able to freely choose.

All About Hydrogen Bonding

2011-05-09T12:40:00.000-07:00

By Melissa

From the Beginning

Henry Cavendish, a British scientist, was known for his discovery of hydrogen which was described by him as “inflammable air”. Later, a scientist by the name of Antoine Lavoisier reproduced the works of Cavendish and gave hydrogen its name, hydro, meaning water and genes, meaning forming, due to the concept, and now the definition, of the formation of water upon combustion. Hydrogen is the most abundant chemical element in the universe, but is relatively rare to find in its diatomic form on Earth. In addition, as with most elements, hydrogen can exist as isotopes, but unlike most, hydrogen is the only element with named isotopes, the most notable of which include protium and deuterium. In its pure state, hydrogen is the lightest of all gases. Consequently, very little is found in the Earth’s atmosphere due to its ability to gain enough kinetic energy from collisions with other gaseous molecules to attain escape velocity from the Earth.

Bonding

A chemical bond can be described as an attraction between two atoms caused by an electromagnetic force between opposing charges, such as an electron and a proton. Hydrogen bonding can be defined as the interaction between a covalently attached hydrogen and an electronegative atom that produces a permanent dipole.

In order for a hydrogen bond to form, a hydrogen atom must be covalently bonded to an electronegative atom. This may seem counterintuitive, since hydrogen only has room in its outer orbital for 1 additional electron, provided by the electronegative atom to which it is bonded. However, the high electronegativity of the atom bonded to hydrogen causes the electron cloud surrounding hydrogen to shift towards its electronegative partner, thereby exposing hydrogen’s positively charged nucleus. This gives hydrogen a partial positive character, allowing for dipole-dipole interactions (hydrogen bonds) to occur. Common functional groups that can participate in hydrogen bonding are alcohols, carboxylic acids, amides and amines. Common to all of these functional groups is hydrogen covalently attached to oxygen or nitrogen (both electronegative atoms).

Distances and Angles

Bond length is the average distance between the nuclei of two bonded atoms. Bond length is inversely proportional to bond strength: the shorter the bond, the stronger it is. The distance of a bond depends on temperature, pressure, and orbital hybridization. Pictured below is the average hydrogen bond length between water molecules.

The ideal bond angle depends on the nature of the donor (defined as the atom covalently bonded to the interacting hydrogen in question), but for the most part linear (180°) tends to be the accepted. As a rule, the more hybridized the molecule is the less likely it will show ideal hydrogen bond angle.

Enthalpy

The exothermic process of bond breaking gives information about bond enthalpies, the required energy to break a chemical bond. Bonds with hydrogen vary from weak (around 1.2 kJ mol-1) to very strong (less than 155 kJ mol-1). Bond strength is dependent on bond angle, environment (liquid, solid, gas), temperature and pressure. As temperature rises the hydrogen bond enthalpy goes down. The critical temperature for the internal bond of hydrogen is 647.14K at all pressures.

Applications of H-Bonds

Hydrogen bonding proves important not only in chemistry but biology too. The nucleic acids that hold together the DNA helix are connected by hydrogen bonds. The overall structure of a protein is partly determined by how well it can from internal hydrogen bonds. For example, in β-sheets, the hydrogen bonding that occurs between two lengths of amino acids determines how structurally sound the overall protein will be.

The study of hydrogen bonds is continuing and although more experiments have been done, there is still much that remains to be discovered.

Sources

The Science of Sex

2011-05-01T21:29:00.000-07:00

by Edward

Over the years, I have invested many hours of my life indirectly studying the effects of psychogenic and afferent sexual arousal, but have always come up short in terms of tangible conclusions (pun not intended). Deciding to learn more, I have searched through various sources and found information, which I think, may shed some well-needed light on the situation. Although not elegant at times, under the surface the human body’s response to sexual stimulation is actually a complex cascade of chemical and biological reactions, both within the genital area as well as in the brain. In this multi-part series, I hope to convey the main scientific concepts behind the sexual response without inundating you with jargon so that we may discount or confirm myths about sex as well as become more informed about our bodies in the act.

Part I: Male Arousal

Before researching for this article, I had never fully understood how soft tissue could become rigid without a strong infrastructure. There are no ligaments or bones in the penis, so how does it work? The answer, it turns out, is blood. But I am getting ahead of myself.

There are two sources of arousal. One is from physical stimulation, and the other is psychogenic in origin. Of course, the two often complement each other to a varying degree. In either case, signals from the sensory nerves of the glans (head of the penis) and the brain (specifically the paraventricular nucleus of the hypothalamus) reach neurons in the sacral-lumbar spinal cord.

Here, parasympathetic nerves relay this signal from the spinal cord to the hypogastic nerves, the pelvic nerves, as well as the sympathetic nerves of the pelvic plexus. In turn, the cavernous nerves are excited. The cavernous nerves interact with the corpora cavernosa, which is the name given to the tissue that becomes engorged with blood during an erection.

The cavernous nerves release a variety of “first messengers”, including nitric oxide, acetylcholine, and vasoactive intestinal peptide, all of which will eventually lead to increased blood flow into the corpora cavernosa, creating an erection. Nitric oxide is a vasodilator that acts on the smooth muscle cells of arteries, causing them to relax and therefore expand in diameter. This expansion reduces the blood pressure in the lumen, allowing more blood to flow. In the case of acetylcholine, a more complex reaction mechanism takes place which requires explanation (as well as sheds light as to how erectile dysfunction pills work).

When acetylcholine connects with its G-protein-linked receptor on an endothelial cell, the phosphoinositide signaling pathway begins, eventually leading to the production of nitric oxide. Nitric oxide (NO) readily diffuses through the plasma membrane and into adjacent smooth muscle cells. Once inside, NO, through a series of chemical reaction cascades, results in smooth muscle relaxation through interactions of the secondary messenger cGMP with muscular proteins. Relaxation is short lived, as phosphodiesterase activity inside smooth muscle cells leads to the degradation of cGMP and subsequent contraction of smooth muscle cells. Once again, because the smooth muscle cells are relaxed, the diameter of the vasculature in the corpora cavernosa increases, leading to increased blood flow. Sildenifil (Viagra) inhibits the enzymes that degrade cGMP to GMP (phosphodiesterase-5), and thus temporarily increase the time vascular smooth muscles are relaxed.

When blood fills the corpora cavernosa, two things happen. First, the veins that usually drain blood from this tissue are compressed, decreasing the flow of blood from the penis. Second, because the corpora cavernosa is encapsulated by the tunica albuginea (an inelastic, rigid sheath) the pressure increase from the increased flow of blood into the penis pushes the penis outward and up into full extension. In addition, the “user” can make his erection stronger by voluntarily contracting the ishiocavernosus muscles. When this muscle group contracts, it squeezes the base of the corpora cavernosa, momentarily preventing blood from coming in or going out, which effectively increases the blood pressure inside the penis. This is the same muscle group activated during Kegel exercises.

As an interesting aside, the ishiocavernosus muscle is under voluntary control by the pudendal nerve. The pudendal nerve also provides a thoroughfare for sensory signals from the glans to the brain. Although the pudendal nerve is able to move inside the pudendal canal, long term increased pressure on the nerve can damage it, leading to unpleasant side effects, such as erectile dysfunction and genital numbness. As such, these problems are often seen in long distance cyclists.

The manner in which an erection is produced is complicated, and I have most certainly left many aspects of arousal and erection out during this brief summary. Concepts and ideas will become more complex as we explore female arousal, the effects of foreplay on the body, the physiology of orgasm, sexual disorders, and the schemes by which the human body uses to become more evolutionarily fit.

Sources

The Marriage of Art and Science: Scanning Electron Microscopy

2011-04-27T06:23:00.000-07:00

By Joseph

As both an aspiring artist and scientist, I find special appreciation for technologies like the scanning electron microscope, or SEM. In addition to fueling scientific discovery, the SEM illuminates the tiniest of nature’s beauties. Although it is difficult to avoid a SEM image every once in awhile in our modern lives, I’d like to give you what I think is a top hits list.

Image courtesy Iowa State University

But first, a little background on the SEM. The SEM is a type of microscope that creates an image by bouncing electrons off an object instead of light.The microscope produces an electron beam that travels vertically through a vacuum inside of the microscope, focused along the way by electromagnetic fields and lenses. When the electron beam hits the specimen on the stage, it causes electrons and X-rays to be emitted from the sample. Detectors then catch these “backscattered” electrons and X-rays and convert them into an image. As the electron beam is interacting with individual atoms in the sample, the SEM enables extremely high-resolution images. The narrow beam of electrons is moved across the sample in successive rows, thereby “scanning” the sample. The detector reading the “backscattered” electrons is a combination of a scintillator and photomultiplier in which the accelerated electrons cause the scintillator to emit flashes of light which are captured, amplified, and displayed by the photomultiplier. In addition, the narrow width of the electron beam causes SEM images to have a very large depth of field, enabling images that convey the full 3-dimensional character of the sample.

Now that you have a general concept of how the images are produced, let’s take a look at what I think are the TOP 5 SEM images (note: SEM images are black and white, so any color is “pseudo-color” applied by a computer):

Ant. So svelte. Image courtesy Dartmouth Electron Microscopy Facility.

Human sperm. As the story goes, when the microscope was first invented in the 17^th century, one of the first things that was examined was human sperm (most likely of the inventor). I’d like to think the same thing happened with the SEM.Image courtesy Science Photo Library, Barcroft Media L.

Spiny-headed worm. Yeah this could be in your gut. Right now. Image copyright Museum of Science, Boston, 1996.

Mammalian lung epithelium. Red blood cells are sitting on top of ciliated and non-ciliated bronchiolar cells. Image courtesy Dartmouth Electron Microscope Facility.

Human eyelashes, mostly awesome because they look gross. Image courtesy Science Photo Library, Barcroft Media L.

Sources