Reflections From the Garden: Toma'to and Topa'to

This year has been a new experience for me; Juliann and I have started a garden. Well, two gardens actually: one that consists of two large pots from Walmart with strawberries (left over from my aphid experiment), a jalapeno plant, a serrano pepper plant, and two tomato plants which we call our patio garden, and another that we planted at one of the houses that SUU owns which for convenience I will refer to as el jardin magnifico. In el jardin magnifico we, along with three other people from the SUU Grounds, have planted pumpkins, cucumber, zucchini, lemon squash, butternut squash,  cantaloupe, corn, green beans, carrots, beets, radishes, onions, tomatoes, and a wide array of peppers. So far I have really enjoyed the gardening experience. There is a sort of thrill that comes with watching the plants grow.

As a part of this new experience, I have decided to post about thoughts that come to me while thinking about our gardens. These posts will be titled Reflections From the Garden.

When we began our patio garden, we chose one of our tomato plants because it already had a fairly large tomato growing on it. As we have been nurturing our little tomato buddy, it hasn't been growing very tall  or adding many more leaves. Instead, it has been focusing all of its effort on growing that tomato. That tomato will be used as its means of reproduction. By a loose comparison, that tomato could be considered its offspring or child. Some scientists would say that it is focusing on that means of reproduction in order to pass on its genes into the next generation. For me, however, it was a reminder of my parents. That little tomato plant was devoting nearly all of its energy into providing for its child. Rather than trying to grow and increase its chance of survival, it was trying to increase the chance that its offspring would be successful. Thinking of the devotion that this plant had toward its offspring brought me feelings of gratitude for my amazing Mom and Dad. They always put the needs and wants of my siblings and me above their own. They did a wonderful job nurturing us to be successful. They were our Toma'to and Topa'to. Thank you Mom and Dad. I LOVE YOU!      

The last of the History and Literature of Biology Posts

Using the website www.xtranormal.com, I made this video for my historical figure presentation.

Reaction Paper Series - Paper 10

Sexism in Science

 “It is complicated because they did not think of her as a thinker, but they did not think of her as a woman either. Because a woman must not think and a thinker must not be a woman!” This commentary by Paris University Physics Professor, Francoise Balibar, describes the society in which the most famous female scientist, Marie Curie, lived. Obviously, Marie Curie was in fact a woman, but almost as apparent as her gender was her brilliant mind.

Marie Curie is quite deserving of the recognition she received for her scientific advancements, but to consider her an oddity would perpetuate the same fallacious thinking that existed throughout her lifetime. Likely, there are equally as many brilliant female scientists as there are male scientists. Quite possibly, other women would have made important scientific advancements had there not been a prevailing sexism in science.

Besides her brilliance and determination, Marie Curie had another advantage: she was married. She wasn’t just married to any man; she was married to a renowned physicist, Pierre Curie. Pierre recognized the brilliance and persistence possessed by his wife. The 1903 Nobel Prize for Physics was originally proposed for Pierre Curie and Henri Becquerel only. It was Pierre who stood up for Marie to have her recognized for her vital work in the isolation of radium. The work was done regardless of who received credit, but because of her husband, Marie Curie was recognized for her abilities. This recognition allowed her to receive a second Nobel Prize on her own after Pierre’s tragic death.            

Hopefully, sexism no longer persists among the science community, if it does, the fact that scientific journals are filled with the work of great female scientists along with their male colleagues at least supports that sexism in science is waning. If it persists in the least, for the sake of scientific advancement, the world needs men like Pierre Curie who will fight sexism and give proper recognition to those who deserve it. Even more so the world needs women like Marie Curie who will overcome the odds and make their work known. The combined force of brilliant men and women makes the future of science full of possibilities.

Reaction Paper Series - Paper 9

Courage For Progress

            Whether or not they can tell you what the equation means or even what the variables stand for, if you mention E=mc² just about any moderately educated person could tell you that it came from Albert Einstein. Arguably, The Theory of Relativity is Albert Einstein’s greatest legacy. However, in the science community it is debated that Jules Henri Poincare almost developed the special theory of relativity at the same time as Einstein. Regardless of the debate, the fact remains that Einstein’s name is forever attached to this marvelous theory. According to Warwick University Professor of Mathematics, Ian Stewart, Poincare had similar ideas about special relativity on his mind and had written down pertinent equations, but he lacked something that Einstein had: courage. Stewart says, “Einstein was courageous enough to risk his reputation.” In Einstein’s case his courage really paid off.

            However, in science courage to risk your reputation does not always pay off like it did for Einstein. The mention of Lamark in a biology classroom immediately brings to mind his discredited hypothesis of heredity involving the inheritance of acquired traits. Since the evidence brought forth from Darwin and others discredited Lamark’s hypothesis, he is merely known for what is sometimes considered a laughable idea. Jean-Baptiste Lamarck, like Einstein, had the courage to risk his reputation in order to introduce a hypothesis that could change the view of reality. Unlike Einstein, however, Lamarck’s hypothesis was discredited and he died in poverty and obscurity.

            Lamarck’s courage did not go completely unnoticed. He was recognized by some early evolutionists as a great zoologist and a forerunner of evolution. Charles Darwin himself said, “Lamarck was the first man whose conclusions on the subject excited much attention…he first did the eminent service of arousing attention to the probability of all changes in the organic, as well as in the inorganic world, being the result of law, and not of miraculous interposition.” Lamarck’s courage to risk his reputation led to a noteworthy contribution to the evolution of the Theory of Evolution.

            The risk of publishing hypotheses is that a scientist could potentially become publicly known as an Einstein or a Lamarck, either a prominent scientific genius or a laughable scientific failure. Despite the personal risk, there is a greater risk to scientific progress if the fear of a damaged reputation persists among scientists. Potentially the Theory of Relativity could have been discovered sooner had Poincare presented his ideas or, conversely, the Theory of Evolution could have been delayed had Lamarck withheld his ideas. Great leaps in scientific progress are made because of scientists like Einstein and Lamarck who have the courage to risk their reputation for scientific progress.  

Reaction Paper Series - Paper 8

Stirring Rationally

            Antoine Lavoisier was an 18^th century chemist sometimes referred to as the father of modern chemistry and the executioner of alchemy. According to Professor of Chemistry Peter Atkins, irrational stirrer might also be an appropriate title.  In the book, On Giants’ Shoulder’s, Professor Atkins contrasts modern chemistry with the chemistry of the18^th century, “Lavoisier really heated and stirred and splashed blindly and we today, when we look at our splashings and stirrings and heatings, see in our mind’s eye the changes in the positions of the atoms that we are stirring around. So he stirred irrationally but hopefully; we stir rationally.” Rather than showing disrespect towards the great Lavoisier, Atkins simply points out that chemistry, and all sciences for that matter, are now done based on scientific knowledge.

            The great and notable scientists build the foundation of scientific knowledge for their respective fields. On that foundation, other great scientists were able to use that scientific knowledge, experiment with it, and explore new ideas that further built onto and expanded scientific knowledge. In this way, science has been built as a progressive stairway to truth and understanding about the natural world.

            The previous work of remarkable scientists thus places a responsibility on current and future scientists. Scientists now have the great responsibility to learn as much as possible from the available scientific knowledge. Then, that knowledge, must applied to explore more ideas, develop further experimentation, and add to the stairway. The legacy of science and the pursuit of truth must go forward as each generation of scientists work to be rational stirrers.   

Reaction Paper Series - Paper 7

The Lone Genius vs. The Collective

Eureka! The famous word associated with history’s legendary naked epiphany. However, once the image of a streaking Sicilian leaves the mind’s stage, the meaning behind the word and the awe of the legend are present. Whether it is true or not that a law of buoyancy was discovered in a bath tub, the fact remains that in ancient times a law that still holds true today (and always will on the planet we inhabit) was recorded in very clear terms by Archimedes. Its discoverer is so obvious that his law of buoyancy is commonly known as Archimedes’ principle. 

Archimedes’s principle is ingenious, but whether or not he can be described as a scientific genius is debated. In Melvyn Bragg’s book, On Giants’ Shoulders, the argument of the “lone genius” versus “the collective” is presented. On one side of the argument is the idea that there are rare human beings that have such brilliance that they are able to see the world or a problem in a very unique way. They can have completely original thoughts that influence vast amounts of people. These are the “lone geniuses.” On the other side of the argument is the counter idea that all scientific development comes from a group. Along with this idea is the notion that if the credited scientist had not made the discovery or invention, someone else would have. In “the collective” view there are not a few geniuses, but instead, a series of brilliant men and women.

If Archimedes was a “lone genius,” then he alone could have discovered this law of buoyancy during his time and it is rightly named after him. The recorded history of Archimedes illustrates that he was indeed a unique thinker. He made many more discoveries and invented many more things than just Archimedes’ principle. He seems that he does deserve the title of a genius. It doesn’t take a genius, however, to understand that history is often biased. The recorded history of Archimedes also shows that he was a man of prominence. “The collective” side of the argument presents the possibility that another unique thinker could have come up with the same buoyancy law. Imagine if instead a science student is taught Spandecles’ principle. There is the possibility that this imaginary Spandecles could have independently discovered the same buoyancy law before, at the same time, or after Archimedes. If Spandecles made his discovery before or at the same time as Archimedes his discovery could have gone unnoticed if he wasn’t as prominent as Archimedes. If he made his discovery after Archimedes, he could have realized that Archimedes had beaten him to the punch. As a side note, would Spandecles also have incorporated streaking into his publication of the buoyancy law?  The streaking could have contributed to Archimedes being known for this law of buoyancy discovery.

            There is strong support for both sides of the debate. Since the list of historical prominent scientists is fairly short (Bragg only discusses 12), it is reasonable to accept that there were “lone geniuses.” We have profound scientific developments because there were and still are today unique individuals who can think in a way that others cannot. Although, the existence of scientific journals and other means of communication of scientific knowledge demonstrate the power of “the collective” in scientific development as well. It is most likely that both sides of the debate are in harmony with each other. The discoveries made by ”lone geniuses” coupled with the work of other brilliant people working collectively can result in at least genius moments for any scientist. 

Reaction Paper Series - Paper 6

Roman Physicians

            Disease, sickness, and injury have surely been present in every society. The causes and treatments of such things in ancient societies often had a link to the beliefs within the culture. As history progressed, there seems to be a trend of belief slowly being replaced by knowledge-based practices. Although many Roman medical practices were still intertwined with superstition and mythology, A History of Science Volume 1 illustrates that Roman physicians through scientific principles also employed methods that are consistent with modern medicine. The Romans also had ideas about medical practice that could be useful in today’s society.

            Roman medical practices included the use of drugs by ophthalmic surgeons, which included some ingredients that still are used to treat certain eye problems, treating hemorrhage by ligatures and torsion, and the use of bandages. One of the most prominent Roman physicians, Claudius Galenus (Galen), understood that certain muscles were under the control of definite sets of nerves. He also understood that nerves conducted impulses to and from the brain. He was able to use this knowledge to help his patient’s recover from injury. The understanding of human anatomy and physiology and some of their medical practices are a result of their scientific study.

            Rather than just speculating some religious reason for how the body works or becomes injured or infected, the Roman physicians followed the example of the Greeks and investigated the body. During Galen’s time it was illegal to do human dissections (although Williams speculates that he might secretly have done so). This didn’t stop him from gaining understanding of the body. He used animal dissections to experiment with the nerves and try to understand the anatomy and physiology of the organs. It is amazing how Galen and other Roman physicians put such effort into understanding human health and how they were able to apply their understanding and develop effective methods to treat their patients.

            Physicians became necessary in Roman society. They gradually reached enough value in society that they were granted immunity from taxes and military services. The emperors even created city and district physicians, the archiatri populaires. These physicians treated and cared for the poor and gave medical instruction to students without compensation. Instead, they received their salary semi-annually and were allowed to receive fees and donations after medical problem was fully treated. There were also laws protecting physicians from insults. 

Physicians are equally if not even more necessary in modern society, yet modern society could benefit from some of the Roman ideas about medical practice. Although there is no need to grant immunity from taxes and military service, having more laws to protect well-intentioned physicians could change current health care costs. If there were less opportunities to sue a physician, malpractice insurance rates could be reduced and physicians wouldn’t have to charge so much for their services. Also, if physicians trained and instructed medical students for free or a low cost health care costs could also be reduced. Physicians would no longer need to be paid such high fees for their services in order to pay back very expensive student loans accrued from medical school. Although Galen recognized that even in his time there were physicians that were “lovers of money,” the Roman physicians’ desire to understand and effectively heal the human body and the Roman society’s later high esteem for their physicians produced quality physicians that were genuinely concerned for their patient’s well-being and practiced remarkable medicine for their time.