Reaction Paper Series - Paper 5

It Wasn’t Big And It Wasn’t A Bang 

            Imagine empty space, space so empty that it doesn’t even contain space as we know it. Then a large explosion fills it with our universe. This is The Big Bang. Well, not quite. According to The Big Bang Theory, the universe didn’t actually begin with an explosion but instead it all started with an expansion and it wasn’t even a big expansion at first.

            So, where did this expansion come from? In this empty space there was a singularity, an infinitely hot, infinitely dense, infinitesimally small object. Apparently, this singularity at some point expanded. According to calculations by Steven Hawking, George Ellis, and Roger Penrose, this expansion was the origin of space, time, matter, and energy. Everything that exists in our universe began as a singularity.

            What began as something very, very small and very, very hot expanded into the size and temperature of our current universe and continues to expand. The idea that our universe, something that seems infinitely large, was once the size of an atom (or even smaller) is difficult to comprehend. As difficult as it is to comprehend, however, it does have a lot of support. Discoveries in astronomy and physics going back as far as the ancient Greeks have led to the development of The Big Bang Theory. In the context of the evidence, it is reasonable for The Big Bang Theory to be broadly accepted as the explanation for the beginning of the universe. Although it is a plausible explanation, many questions also arise from this theory.

             

            What about the First Law of Thermodynamics? This law states that energy cannot be created nor destroyed. It can only change forms. If Hawking, Ellis, and Penrose’s calculations are correct then the Big Bang, or rather the big expansion, was a violation of this law. Does one have to be right and the other wrong? Or does the First Law of Thermodynamics really mean that energy cannot be created nor destroyed after its initial creation?

            What about Newton’s Third Law of Motion? This law basically states that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. What was the equal and opposite force associated the expansion force of the singularity? It is likely that a very large force would result from the expansion of a singularity. Therefore, if Newton’s third law applies to the big expansion, there must have also been an equal and opposite force to the expansion.

Space, time, matter, and energy originated with The Big Bang, but where did life originate? At what point did energy and matter combine to form life? A complete theory of the beginning of the universe should have an explanation for one of the most important beginnings. Most importantly, where did the singularity come from? Why did it appear? These final questions seem out of reach for science to answer. To fully understand the beginning of the universe, either a better understanding of The Big Bang Theory or a belief in deity seem necessary. The idea of the universe beginning from a big explosion in space is a misunderstanding of The Big Bang Theory, but it is easier on the brain.  

Reaction Paper Series - Paper 4

Publish or Perish

            It is amazing to think how rapidly science is able to progress. With the opportunity to publish their work, scientists can share their findings with colleagues throughout the world. The information is spread quickly, especially since most prominent journals can be accessed online. Arguably the advent of scientific journals was one of the greatest historical events for scientific communication and advancement. However, ScienceDaily reported on April 22, 2010 that a study suggests that, “The quality of scientific research may be suffering because academics are being increasingly pressured to produce 'publishable' results.”

            According to the article, scientists’ careers are increasingly being evaluated by the number of papers they publish and the number of citations they receive. This creates a need for researchers to publish continuously in order to receive jobs and funding. The problem that arises is that journals are being accused of accepting papers depending on the results the scientists report. Daniele Fanelli, the man who conducted the study, says that, "Scientists face an increasing conflict of interest, torn between the need to be accurate and objective and the need to keep their careers alive.”   

           

             In the study, 1300 papers from all disciplines written by principal authors who were based in the United States were analyzed. Dr Fanelli checked to see if the conclusions in the papers were linked to the number of papers published on average by each scientist. He argues that his findings show that papers from states with higher averages of published papers per scientist were more likely to support the tested hypothesis. His conclusion suggests that in more competitive environments scientists are more likely to make their results look positive (some states had between 95% and 100% positive results). The article doesn’t speculate though whether the papers are being written with a positive spin or if the scientists are tweaking and selecting their data.

            Whether or not this study supports the idea that because of heavy demands to publish the quality of science is being lowered, it does raise some good questions. Is the number of published papers or citations received an accurate evaluation of a scientists’ career?  It seems obvious that quality should be better than quantity. Is there a trend in journals in which positive papers are more likely to be accepted? If so, there is a discouraging chance that something that has served to advance science has lost sight of the important principle that in science an unsupported hypothesis, that can be termed a negative result, can be just as important as a positive result. Hopefully, the current condition of science hasn’t really become publish or perish.             

Reaction Paper Series - Paper 3

A Biologist Needs To Learn Chemistry?

In The Double Helix, James D. Watson speaks of his time in graduate school at Indiana University stating, “It was my hope that the gene might be solved without my learning any chemistry.” The Double Helix portrays other scientists having hesitancies to branch out of their desired field of science as well. In subsequent chapters, however, it is clear that Watson’s hope was quickly dashed in his pursuit to better understand and model DNA.

In Watson’s process of becoming the co-discoverer of the structure of DNA, he was required to delve into many more sciences disciplines and procedures than he initially wanted. In order to solve such a complex problem he needed to learn important scientific laws and theories from outside his field (especially chemistry) and to study the work of prominent scientists in various fields. His mosaic of knowledge that he acquired combined with that of Crick led to the identity of the fundamental genetic material.

It is interesting that Watson was able to obtain a PhD. while avoiding “any chemistry or physics courses which looked of even medium difficulty.” It seems now that though the resistance to learn other sciences than the desired field persists among students, they cannot graduate without taking al least some courses in other disciplines. This academic requirement likely stems from the fact that most scientific advancements require at least some interdisciplinary science knowledge. During a course it is not always apparent, but in retrospective it is obvious that every field of science has something to offer every scientist in some way. Each field has laws, theories, procedures, or viewpoints that could be applied to other fields to aid in discovery and understanding of the natural world.

At least in Watson’s case, even a renowned scientist was once a griping science student. That’s something that science students can appreciate. When taking a course (often a difficult one) that may seem pointless for future scientific plans, although it is not enjoyable it is necessary. Clearly, the current science curriculum reflects the need for science students to have at least some understanding of many scientific fields, not just the ones they like.  

Reaction Paper Series - Paper 2

An Educated Guess

            When the term hypothesis is entered into a Google image search many cartoons pop up along with various other images. Among these cartoons is one that, due to what is taught in many science courses, could be humorous even to the average person. Two ancient Greeks (a male and a female) are depicted planning a party. Their party list consists of several ancient Greek names. The female says to the male, “Why don’t we invite Hypothesis? It’s always a good idea to have an educated guest.” The average person gets the joke in the cartoon because it is likely that in at least one science class they have taken, they were taught that a hypothesis is an educated guess. For a scientist, the cartoon could be found comical because of the play on the overused, fallacious definition of such an important scientific term.

            For those who have developed a strong hypothesis, calling it an educated guess would be quite offensive. Would you tell Newton that he had a good educated guess when he started his work on gravity? An educated guess is something that is used while playing a trivia game and a player is unsure of the correct answer. It is something that can be done with little forethought in a very short amount of time. To the contrary, a hypothesis is often complex in its design and takes a good deal of forethought and time.

            McComas argues that the term hypothesis has at least three meanings. He suggests that the word could mean a generalizing hypothesis, which might become a law (like in Newton’s case), an explanatory hypothesis, which might become a theory, or a prediction. Regardless of which type a scientist is striving for, constructing a strong hypothesis is a process that takes development. Although there is no set method to formulating a hypothesis (like there isn’t really a set scientific method), hypotheses do seem to go through phases of development until they mature into something very refined. Here three phases of hypothesis development are proposed: the twinkle in the eye hypothesis, the fetus hypothesis, and the baby hypothesis. 

Twinkle in the eye hypothesis: Just as the phrase “When you were just a twinkle in your father's eye” means before you were born, this phase of the hypothesis occurs well before it is developed into anything a scientist would really consider a hypothesis. Instead, the hypothesis starts off as just an intriguing thought or idea that comes to mind while making an observation, reading about another’s work, or just pondering previous scientific knowledge. In order to further develop, this thought must prompt the scientist to consider correlations or want to look for patterns. In this phase, the hypothesis is a broad concept.   

Fetus Hypothesis: As the scientist considers their twinkle in the eye hypothesis, it often leads them to research the concept. They research to further their understanding of the concept, see what evidence has already been found, and most importantly check to see if someone else has tested the idea. As the scientist researches and considers how they might gather data for the hypothesis, the concept narrows and further develops into an exploratory force.

Baby Hypothesis: If a scientist has gone through the time and effort of really thinking through an idea and researching it, it must be something that they are really interested in. By this time, the hypothesis is born and is now a very specific possible explanation or prediction that can be tested. The hypothesis is the scientist’s baby. They have worked hard on developing it exactly how they want it. They will then strive to provide the best possible experiment, field study, or other method to test the hypothesis, knowing that regardless of whether the hypothesis is supported or not, their efforts have advanced scientific knowledge.  

Reaction Paper Series - Paper 1

McComas’ Myth 7: Science Is Procedural More Than Creative

            The lecture portion of science has always been enjoyable for me. I haven’t had a science course yet in which there wasn’t at least some portion of the subject matter that I found thoroughly fascinating. However, for me science has also been a pleasure-pain experience. While I looked forward to the lectures, I dreaded the mandatory laboratory sessions. The worst part about being a science major was knowing that with most classes I would take, I would also have to take a co requisite laboratory.

            The majority of the laboratory sessions I have had were as McComas described, verification activities. There were never any new scientific discoveries; instead the students were all expected to arrive at the same conclusions based on known scientific laws and theories. Arriving at any other conclusions meant that you did not properly follow the lab procedure and subsequently would receive a grade reduction. Laboratory sessions were often boring and very time consuming (they seemed to get longer and longer with more and more work to be done outside of class with each progressive course). They hardly seemed worth the credit they earned.

            The laboratory classes that did seem worthwhile were those that seemed to supplement the co requisite lecture course by providing another way of understanding the material. Some material can be very difficult to understand without practical application or experimental evidence. For this reason, I see why these verification activities are important enough to be mandatory. As useful as they are, however, they are the main perpetrators of the idea that science is procedural more than creative.

            Until just last semester, I admit that I had the view that science was in fact very procedural with little room for creativity. Ironically, it was during a procedural laboratory that I began to understand the creative element of science. Terri Hildebrand’s Plant Anatomy and Diversity Laboratory sessions mostly consisted of drawing microscope slides and labeling them. This was a necessary way to learn plant anatomy since it involved being able to correctly identify plant structures and cell types, but like other laboratory classes it was very procedural.

            With each of these procedural labs included a section that would really bother McComas, it was called the scientific method section. In this section, the students were required to develop three questions based on observations from the laboratory session, select one of the questions and generate a hypothesis, and finally write a prediction of the expected outcome from an experiment testing the hypothesis. Even though I would put off doing the scientific method sections until the day before the laboratory journal was due, I began to enjoy doing them. As I thought of questions and how I would design experiments to test my hypotheses, I realized that there was in fact a very creative part of science and I really enjoyed that aspect.            

            On top of my newfound enjoyment of the creative possibilities of science, my professor praised me for my curiosity and imaginative experimental designs. Before this experience, I thought of myself as someone who enjoyed learning science but was a bad scientist. Since I didn’t enjoy my previous procedural laboratory sessions, I felt like I couldn’t have been a good scientist. Now, knowing that creativity is an important part of being a good scientist, I have gained an even greater appreciation for science and want to actively take part in better understanding the world around me.  

                  

Reaction Paper Series

Last semester (Spring 2011) I took History and Literature of Biology taught by Professor John Taylor. I thoroughly enjoyed the class. It was a different format than any other biology course I have taken. We had assigned readings to read before class, then we would discuss whatever topics came up. Those who know me know that I really like discussions (and debates). In addition, we wrote ten reaction papers (based on the readings or what was discussed in class), two book reviews, and did two presentations. The class really gave me a greater understanding and appreciation of science. 


My only complaint about the class was that sometimes we got full credit just for writing a reaction paper. That means that sometimes Professor Taylor didn't always read them. I don't like putting time into writing then not having it read. So, I decided that I will post them here in hopes that someone might take the time to read them and make comments. Whether you agree or not, I would like to hear about it. If you don't want to read them, I understand. I take comfort in the fact that that my Mom will read them and be proud of me no matter what. 


Also, I have chosen to go with a color coded system to help those reading decide right from the start if they would care what I have to say or not about a particular post. This series will fall under science and religion. These two topics go hand in hand for me since they both work to explain the world and define truth. Many argue that they should remain separate, which they should in many instances. However, for me, most often when applied together they provide a harmonious explanation of many truths. I have decided that blue will be the science and religion color. Posts like my first post that have to do with what is going on in Juliann's and my life or don't really fit into another category will be white. Other colors will be introduced as new categories are introduced. 

New Powerade Flavor

Introducing the newest Powerade flavor...

 Bloody Urine!

On Thursday (May 12th 2011), this was the color of my urine. I have had some dark urine in my lifetime, but this is the darkest I have ever seen it. I have to admit it was a little disturbing when what looked like cranberry juice began to flow from my urethra, but I am calm and doing alright. For some reason, every time I have kidney pain that is severe enough that I am pressured enough to seek medical attention, when I am giving a sample it is fairly clear. Apparently, my urine gets a little shy when it is time for it to be tested. Then, the doctors treat me like I am faking it or don't have any idea what I am talking about. This time I wanted to be prepared. When I got the next urge, I grabbed a nearby Powerade bottle to collect a sample. I know it can't be tested (it would probably contain some extra electrolytes if it were), but at least when I am explaining what has been going on I will have an example. Not to worry though, I have an appointment at the community clinic for Monday. Plus, I did some internet research (the internet is always accurate, right?). Interestingly, there is actually a website called bloodinpee.com. It is very informative and mentioned that "most of the time hematuria is not caused by a serious issue." "Believe it or not, one of the most common causes is strenuous exercise." I guess lawn mowing is more strenuous than I thought.  

It is very important to note that I didn't post this to make anyone concerned or feel bad for me. I am doing ok. I know that a post on my urine isn't the best way to begin a blog, but I figured it was somewhere to start.