Space Exploration

           Science is filled with legendary discoveries and monumental research, with a long list of Nobel Prize winners to document these findings. Arguably one of the most amazing moments in science was in 1957, when Sputnik 1 was launched into the Earth’s orbit. It seemed, and still does seem, amazing that scientists were able to create such amazing technology that could perhaps lead the way to hundreds or thousands more discoveries in the future. Unfortunately, like many other scientific fields, space travel, astronomical discoveries, and astrobiology come at a cost.

            Space travel is simply amazing. To think that 45 years ago, when technology was nowhere near as advanced as it is today, there were still people walking the moon for the first time. NASA truly didn’t know if the space craft would even reach the moon safely, and they had no idea if it would all work out for the best. But the thirst for scientific knowledge prevailed, and they launched the mission anyways. Not only is this extremely significant to the field of science, but the sheer bravery displayed by the three astronauts involved is extremely admirable. The possibilities of this field of science are endless; the discovery of new planets, new life forms, and possibly future homes for human beings are all on the line right now. One of the current projects being worked on by biologists is determining if plants could be a sufficient source of oxygen for human beings on other planets, and if so, how many plants would be required to keep large numbers of people alive. Space exploration and astrobiology are definitely areas of science worth pursuing.

            On the other hand, space travel comes with its controversies. The risk of contaminating other planets and life forms or of returning contaminants into the Earth’s atmosphere are ever-present. Since astrobiology is primarily a field of discovery at this point, with no huge databases to refer to, much of these explorations are left to chance. Biologists are working towards finding ways to completely disinfect astronauts’ suits when they leave and enter the space craft, and that will be necessary until some questions about space travel are answered.  

            In short, there have been a lot of interesting points of discovery in the field of space exploration in the past, and I’m sure there will be many more amazing findings in the future. However, I just hope NASA and other organizations take care not to disturb ecosystems (if they exist) on other planets and also not to bring back alien pathogens to Earth. Time will tell if exploring extraterrestrial life will be a friendly, E.T. type of experience, or more of a Signs situation.  

The Whole Foods Industry

In any fact-based field of study, there are most definitely some arguments that are not based on fact. Science has so many of these opinions that they have a name for them: pseudoscience. Pseudoscience is essentially claims made about scientific fields that contain no scientific reasoning whatsoever.

One good example of pseudoscience is the whole foods industry. Whole foods are supposedly foods that are ‘organic’, meaning they are toxin-free, nutrient-rich, and simply healthier for you than regular foods. However, these claims about whole foods don’t hold water, and they have no scientific background to support them.

The whole foods industry is yet another gold-digging industry. Yes, it’s important to eat healthy, and yes, we should be supporting our local farmer’s markets and stores. Despite the fact that these are some of the whole food industry’s values, they don’t even follow through on them.

Take the term ‘organic’, for instance. From a chemistry standpoint, a molecule simply has to contain carbon and hydrogen atoms in order to be considered organic. Therefore, scientifically, lipids, which are fats, are organic molecules because they contain carbon and hydrogen atoms. Some toxic acids are also considered organic for the same reason. In a sense, the whole foods industry is promoting eating a lot of fat and poisonous substances when they say, “Eat organic.”. This is just one of the many examples of this industry making scientific claims without scientific facts to back them up.

The whole foods industry also blatantly goes against science, simply with the magazines and journals that it sells. These journals are all about how doctors are constantly wrong, and how herbal and naturally made medicines are more effective than the pharmaceutical variety. While it may be true that some of these all-natural medications can be effective, it is in no way true that we should disregard the field of medicine altogether. Whoever is writing these articles is certainly not doing their research.

The scariest part of this whole situation is not eating whole foods. In theory, there is nothing wrong with this type of food, it just probably won’t supply you with the desired effects that it advertises. The real frightening situation here is how people believe everything being said by these types of industries. People flock by the hundreds into these whole foods markets every day, simply because they believe what they are reading. It’s so reassuring to consumers to see scientific facts on labels, that they don’t even stop to ponder if it’s really true or not. The average Joe isn’t going to research about these things, they’re simply going to believe what they hear, and a monkey-see-monkey-do phenomena occurs. People need to stop relying so heavily on what others say, and actually look into things themselves.

Cosmetics

In this day and age, a huge amount of emphasis is placed upon physical appearance. Young people in particular are subjected to the need to look ‘good’ by society’s standards, and girls are often more scrutinized than boys. Striving for beauty is the main reason why the cosmetics industry is huge right now; looking good is something very important in North American society.

Another important issue in today’s world is environmental problems, namely pollution. Many scientists believe that human activity is causing global climate change, and I tend to agree with them. Our overconsumption and use of pollutants, like plastic, are not helping the environment at all.

Unfortunately, big companies and factories are the main sources of pollution, either directly or indirectly. Directly, they cause a lot of air pollution with their huge chimneys, but they also supply the world with non-biodegradable items that are a huge source of worry for environmentalists.

Take the cosmetics industry, for example. Many products on the market today have extremely detrimental properties to the environment. For instance, the main component in a lot of exfoliators is microbeads. Microbeads are tiny balls of plastic, with a diameter of five millimeters or smaller. Their small size may make them appear inconsequential, but they are causing more and more pollution to lakes.

There are two main reasons that I find this situation kind of dumb. The first would be that there are clear and easy alternatives to microbeads (and other environmental issues caused by cosmetics, for that matter) that does not do any damage. People can either opt for products that do not use microbeads, or they can make their own exfoliator using rice or other natural products. The other reason is that products containing microbeads are not even the most effective exfoliators. The more natural products do a better job because they have rougher edges.

The fact that people are still using microbeads when the other alternatives are more efficient and safer for the environment means that people are simply not aware of the consequences of microbeads, or perhaps are not even aware that their products contain microbeads. Big cosmetics companies need to make the switch to cleaner products, which in turn are healthier for the human body as well. If they do that, then it will cause the general population to be more conscious of what their products are made of, and we can reduce our carbon footprint. As with global climate change, each individual can make a difference simply by making small changes in their everyday lifestyle, such as switching to a better cosmetics brand.

Bigfoot

           

          One of the biggest and most important things in the fields of science and technology is discovery. Scientists can theorize all they want, and come up with intelligent hypothesizes to explain certain phenomena. But if scientists never venture out into the world in an attempt to prove these findings, their hypothesizes can certainly not be taken seriously or regarded in a professional scientific manner. Their theories will remain just that: theories, never proven to be fact.

            One of the biggest supernatural theories that has rocked the scientific world is the Bigfoot phenomena. This is a controversial topic, as scientists are basically split 50-50 about the truthfulness of this theory. The existence of Bigfoot in present-day society would not be entirely outrageous or difficult to envision if it weren’t for the many people who claim to have seen Bigfoot and later have been unable to provide substantial evidence or scientific fact to prove what they supposedly saw.

            A new race of primates would not be completely impossible to imagine. After all, scientists are discovering new species of plants, animals, and fungi everyday as the technologies used for doing so advance. However, their search and discovery of these new species are based entirely on facts, facts that are tangible and that they are capable of proving. Any sightings that they hear of are accompanied by some sort of evidence, be it a photograph or a detailed description of the organism.

            This is where the flaw in the Bigfoot theory comes in. We’ve all seen the specials on the Discovery or History Channel that are all about groups of people collecting facts and testimonies and heading out into a forest in search of our large, furry friend. This is all well and good, until we see their ‘evidence’. Most photographs of Bigfoot are grainy, blurry, and difficult to see in general. People who claim to have seen it have fuzzy memories when asked to describe it in detail. This all being said, the groups of people who head out into the world in search of Bigfoot are kind of going at it blindly.

          They don’t know exactly what they’re looking for, and yet they still announce to the world that they have ‘big important news concerning Bigfoot’. Take Rick Dyer, for example. Even with his history of false testimonies about Bigfoot, people still freaked out and got excited when he announced that he had shot and killed a Bigfoot, and intended to put it on display at a convention for all to see, once he had finished testing its DNA. When the time came, though, Dyer didn’t come through, and the questions the world had about Bigfoot remained unanswered.

          Scientific discoveries are extremely important, but they need to be performed under the basis of fact, not speculation. Society is nervous enough about scientific advancement, without the possibility of false statements to mix everyone up. The Bigfoot myth needs to be proven once and for all, and put all these rumors and supposed sightings to rest.

Genetic Privacy

           

           In general, most people worldwide would agree that one’s body is one’s personal property. Despite the fact that each culture has their own definition of personal space, it is generally universally known that a person’s body is owned by no one but that specific person.

            The question being asked by scientists as of late is whether or not one’s DNA is personal property, or if it is accessible to all, in a finder’s keeper’s kind of fashion. Human beings essentially leave tons of DNA behind every day, and most people would pin this as trash. For example, hair is a DNA carrier, and the average human loses 100 hairs per day, so most people are leaving hundreds of DNA strands behind just by losing hair. DNA is indeed a very personal and unique part of the human body, yet people don’t tend to be upset if someone takes a loose hair off their shirt.

          This shift in views is largely based on the advances in DNA technology. Now, someone could fundamentally take the trails of DNA that we leave behind, and genetically manipulate it to produce their desired results. For example, a terrorist could take an important politician’s DNA, and plant it in order to fake that the politician is having an affair, or that the politician committed a crime. The possibilities for these kinds of manipulations are endless, and they could permanently alter the image portrayed by politicians, celebrities, and other important public figures.

          I think that DNA is a very important molecule, and that each person’s DNA is their own personal property. I do not believe that governments, or anyone for that matter, should have the right to manipulate or use a person’s DNA without their consent, or use it in any sort of experimentation at all. In order to make sure this doesn’t happen, courts need to find a way to include DNA in the fourth amendment, in order to be able to legally protect a person’s DNA. It may not seem like anything scary or worth worrying about now, but at the rate that science is advancing, DNA sequencing and testing could evolve into an extremely dangerous practice where the victim’s DNA could be used to create children, without the victim’s consent, and many more ‘genetic crimes’ could be invented and performed.

          At the same time, I don’t think people should be crazy worried about their DNA being stolen. I don’t think we need to be retracing our steps every day in search of loose hairs, nail clippings, or any little skin cells we could have left behind just to protect the ownership of our own DNA. People simply need to be aware that there is one day a possibility of our DNA being stolen and manipulated. The important thing would be for court’s to begin planning ahead, and make stealing DNA a crime, even if the victim merely left it behind on accident, as we do every day.

Genetically Modified Organisms

          Genetically Modified Organisms, otherwise abbreviated as GMOs, are organisms that have been genetically altered, through splicing. These organisms’ genes are changed in order to suit a particular purpose. For example, many crops are being modified to become resistant to herbicides and pesticides. This is beneficial, since farmers could spray as much chemicals on their crops as they want, in order to simultaneously protect against insects and weeds and the damages pesticides and herbicides usually cause to crops.

            The goal of manufacturing such crops was essentially to end world hunger. Scientists hoped that by improving the quality of life of crops in their growth stage, they would be able to mass produce these crops for relatively low costs. They could then provide them to third world countries. The only problem with this is that farmers have begun to use excess amounts of pesticides and herbicides, and consequently bugs and weeds have become increasingly resistant to these chemicals. It is safe to say that GMOs, as beneficial as they may seem, have their downsides as well.

            Genetically modified organisms have been tampered with in a lab. Someone has introduced molecules into these plants or animals that are not natural. There are obvious risks associated with this practice. For one thing, by introducing foreign products into an organism, toxins and other contaminants are also initiated into the organism. This is where the controversy of GMOs stem from.

            I think that there are healthier alternatives to GMOs. I understand why they are necessary, because without them, Canadians would not have fresh produce in the wintertime. However, there have been new discoveries in the field of genetics that could completely revolutionize the practice of genetically modifying produce. Biologists have found that by mating certain parent organisms containing particularly good traits with other organisms containing equally favorable traits, they can get results that rival the effects of GMOs. This is a much healthier alternative, since nothing new is being introduced into the organisms, therefore eliminating the possibility of contamination. All that is lacking is funding. What the world of crops needs is the big name seed companies to fund this kind of genetics, which will provide healthier alternatives to consumers worldwide.

Bionic Hand

Medicine and technology are both important realms that scientists study, research, and experiment with in great detail on a daily basis. Sometimes, these two fields coincide, and this is when the real ‘magic’ occurs. Scientists, doctors, and other health practitioners have begun to collaborate and produce some amazing discoveries and results. Take the field of prosthetics, for example. The knowledge of prosthetic arms, legs, and other body parts has come a long way since the days of Terry Fox, when he had to hobble along on a leg that barely fit and didn’t easily bend when he was running. Prosthetics nowadays are easily bent and move much the same way as an actual body part would. There is still room for improvement, however. People who require a prosthetic hand, for instance, have trouble adjusting their grip on objects they wish to pick up or hold, often having to visually assess how hardly or how softly to grasp something rather than allowing their sense of touch to do that for them. Creating a link between prosthetics and a sense of touch is the current project among scientists and medical consultants. Recently, a synthetic hand has been manufactured that allows the wearer to actually feel how firm or yielding an object is, and allowing them to adjust their grasp accordingly. This discovery has been tested on a couple of different subjects, either amputees or accident victims, and have produced encouraging results. All of the subjects gave positive feedback, insisting that this new prosthetic hand makes them feel like they have their own hand back. This will not be the end, either; the scientists who developed this particular hand hope to improve it so the user could also feel both textures and temperatures. In this way, a person wearing this artificial hand will be able to feel pain either from a sharp object or from a burn. This could eventually prevent wear and tear of these prosthetics since the user will be able to assess the potential risks when holding objects, much like a real hand. These results are revolutionary. If scientists can truly produce prosthetics that allow their wearers to actually feel things like normal body parts would, it could change the lives of many amputees worldwide. It would simplify the daily lives of many, and improve the quality of life for people with missing limbs. The particular story of this new prosthetic hand is truly inspirational to me, since it shows just what the worlds of medicine and technology are capable of when they collide. It just solidifies to me that science, when used by the right brains and hands, can be amazingly beneficial to our world as a whole.

Assisted Suicide

          Assisted suicide is a huge and controversial topic in medicine today. The ethical issues can be discussed and debated for hours and hours, and it’s difficult to choose which side should be the winner here. For one thing, I believe doctors should do everything in their power in order to save their patients. It is, after all, what they have been educated and trained to do. On the other hand, a doctor’s primary role is to help people, and if a person doesn’t wish to live any longer with a chronic illness or injury, then the doctor is not exactly improving their lives by providing care for them.

            Many people nowadays are beginning to plan how and where they would like to spend their final days. People are beginning to document if they would want their loved ones to pull the plug should they ever be put on life support, or how long to wait before pulling it. People are mentioning whether or not they’d like to die in a hospital, with trained professionals working around the clock to save them, or at home, in comfort and surrounded by their families.

            While I personally would have a difficult time not bringing a sick or dying loved one to the hospital, I still believe assisted suicide should be legal to a certain extent. This being said, if a patient has a good chance of surviving a chronic illness, I don’t think assisted suicide should be available to them. Every person should at least try the available treatments for the disease. If they are responding well to these treatments, then assisted suicide is not for them. Assisted suicide should be a human right if a person with a degenerating illness has reached a terminal point in their ailment, and they simply cannot physically, mentally, and emotionally take it anymore. They are clearly not happy despite the fact that doctors are working tirelessly to treat them. Nothing in life is worth it if a person is no longer happy.

            I also believe people should have the right to die at home if they so wish. No one wants to spend the remainder of their days in a stuffy, boring hospital room where family and friends only feel comfortable visiting for a short time. People should have the right to die in comfort, in their own bed or on their own couch, in the presence of loved ones. In the end, everyone should consider planning and documenting their wants and needs for if ever they get ill. That way, loved ones will know how to react to any situation and will know that they will not make the wrong decision when it comes to ending a life. Assisted suicide should only be legal if it is planned and understood by all.