Gene Doping

Every two years, the best athletes in the world gather to compete in the modern Olympic Games. Against a backdrop of sand or snow, these seemingly superhuman competitors push their bodies to perform feats that would be impossible for the average person. Yet in the past few decades, concerns have mounted over whether some participants have gone beyond what the human body is truly capable of, relying instead on performance enhancers to reach new heights. In the 2004 Summer Olympics, 24 athletes—a record number—tested positive for banned substances, leading to several disqualifications and stripped medals [1]. But in the 2010 Winter Olympics in Vancouver, only two athletes, to date, have tested positive for performance-enhancing drugs [2].

Despite this low number, experts are skeptical that athletes have stopped looking for illegal ways to gain a competitive edge. Instead, many suspect that would-be cheaters have found ways around the current doping tests. At present, the biggest suspect is an enhancement that is not yet reliably detectable, or even proven to be scientifically possible: gene doping, a new and dangerous frontier in performance enhancement. An offshoot of gene therapy, gene doping may allow athletes to produce extra copies of genes that provide a competitive advantage such as increased muscle mass or endurance [3]. Currently, however, both gene doping and gene therapy remain largely untested in humans. Although some animal studies have shown promising results, others have demonstrated deadly side effects, leaving the effects of such treatments questionable at best [4,5].

Natural Enhancement?

When research into gene therapy began, it was intended to treat debilitating or deadly medical conditions—a far cry from performance-enhancing technology. But the theory behind gene therapy—that the insertion of a corrective gene can treat genetic defects—also indicates that if the right gene were to be spliced into a healthy person’s DNA, a competitive edge could be gained, as the gene would cause or increase production of, for example, a hormone that produces a beneficial byproduct.  The hormone initially targeted for this purpose was erythropoietin, more commonly known as “Epo.” First purified in the late 1960’s by University of Chicago researcher Eugene Goldwasser, Epo promotes the production of oxygen-carrying red blood cells [6, 5].

In 1997, a group of University of Chicago scientists led by Dr. Jeffrey Leiden experimented with Epo gene therapy as a treatment for Epo-responsive anemia, a debilitating condition caused by chronic renal failure [5]. The study focused on the safety and efficacy of injecting a virus carrying the gene into the muscles of mice and non-human primates. The experiments proved successful, as researchers were able to establish a threshold dose required for long-term Epo expression. The elevated hematocrit, or red blood cell volume, in the animals that underwent the treatment also led to increased aerobic ability. More importantly, no adverse reactions to the treatment were observed [5].

In the wake of this and other Epo studies, the potential benefit for athletes became clear: inject Epo, improve athletic performance. The first major Epo-doping scandal hit in 1998, when the Festina-sponsored team in the Tour de France was disqualified after being caught with large quantities of Epo and other banned substances [7]. Other athletes followed in their footsteps, and throughout the late 1990’s and early 2000’s several were caught exploiting Epo in an attempt to enhance endurance and aerobic performance, despite the fact that Epo’s benefits remain unproven in humans.

Epo is not the only therapy-turned-doping target in the past decade. A study published in 1998 by researcher H. Lee Sweeney from the University of Pennsylvania grabbed headlines with reports of the “super mice” that resulted from injecting normal mice with a virus containing the gene for insulin growth factor 1 (IGF-1), a protein that interacts with cells on the outside of muscle fibers and makes them grow larger [4, 8]. Just as Epo is crucial to aerobic endurance, IGF-1 could give athletes an edge in sports that depend on large muscle mass and explosive anaerobic ability. Although Sweeney’s research goal was to develop a treatment for muscle-wasting diseases, it was not long before he was deluged with requests from healthy athletes longing for larger muscles. He quickly developed a “stock response,” telling anyone who asked that gene therapy is still experimental, and there is no proof that it would be safe for humans—a warning that has proven to be all too true.

The Dangers of Doping

In 1999, Jesse Gelsinger, a nineteen-year-old from Tucson, AZ, entered a clinical trial at the University of Pennsylvania. Jesse suffered from ornithine transcarbamylase deficiency, a rare X-linked genetic disease of the liver that prevents the body from metabolizing ammonia, a byproduct of protein breakdown. The disease is usually fatal at birth, but Jesse had survived because his condition was the result of a genetic mutation instead of inheritance. This important difference allowed him to manage the disease with medication and a restrictive diet. Although there was no hope of a cure for him, Jesse entered the clinical trial in the hopes that a new type of gene therapy would help infants born with the disorder. On September 13, 1999, Jesse was injected with a virus vector carrying a corrected copy of the gene mediating ammonia breakdown. The theory was that the gene would incorporate itself into Jesse’s DNA, replacing his mutated copy and allowing his body to begin metabolizing ammonia. Instead, Jesse suffered a massive immune response, leading to multiple organ failure. He died four days later [4].

Jesse’s case represents the danger inherent to gene therapy, and underscores the perils of gene doping. The fact is, scientists simply do not know enough about how the body will react to these substances to safely inject them into humans. While IGF-1 might give one person stronger muscles, it could easily kill another. And Jesse Gelsinger is not the only fatality linked to gene therapy. In 2000, a study about nine French infants with severe combined immune deficiency—or “bubble-boy syndrome”—who had undergone gene therapy reported that all nine were cured by the treatment. However, this initial success was overshadowed when two of the patients developed leukemia only two years later—a side effect that researchers are still unable to explain [9, 10].

Risk Versus Reward

When studies on the efficacy of Epo injections originally appeared, the positive results intrigued many. But these studies were eclipsed by the publication of a University of Pennsylvania study performed in 2004 testing the efficacy of Epo therapy in macaque monkeys [11]. After researchers injected several monkeys with virus vectors carrying the gene for Epo, the therapy initially proceeded as expected, increasing oxygen transport. However, the high concentrations of Epo soon produced so many red blood cells that the monkeys’ blood became sludge-like, and the researchers were forced to thin it at regular intervals. What came next was entirely unexpected: the monkeys’ Epo concentrations plummeted, leading to severe anemia. After the animals were euthanized and autopsied, researchers discovered that the immune response to the high Epo concentrations cleared out not only the inserted gene, but the macaques’ natural Epo as well [11].

It is this kind of unpredictable outcome, says Eugene Goldwasser, now Professor Emeritus of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, that make any sort of gene doping foolhardy. “It would be the height of stupidity. If you want to get your hematocrit up, you go to Mexico City, go the Andes, and train at high altitudes. Then you’re not getting some [gene] you didn’t make” [12].

After watching athletes compete in the Olympics, though, one begins to understand the lure of gene doping. Even though scientists have yet to prove that is even possible for humans to benefit from injecting a substance like the gene for Epo, the possibility of gaining an edge that translates into a gold medal will certainly tempt some. But the risks related to gene doping are undeniable in the face of the gene therapy-related deaths reported in both animals and humans.

Sports officials are not counting on common sense to keep athletes from attempting to gene dope, however. In 2003, the World Anti-Doping Agency, which oversees Olympic drug testing, formally banned gene doping, despite the fact that there was little evidence that it was occurring [5, 13]. Since then, gene therapy research has continued, making it ever more likely that some athletes are exploiting it in an attempt to gain a competitive advantage. Because detection techniques remain unreliable, however, it is difficult to conclusively prove that an athlete is gene doping [14]. But the International Olympic Committee isn’t taking any chances. Officials have collected samples from athletes at the 2010 Winter Olympics, and will store them until detection tests are refined enough to be trustworthy. Until then, there is little to do other than warn of the dangers and appeal to the athletes’ integrity.

Even with full knowledge of the risks, Goldwasser admits that he is not surprised that athletes are trying to capitalize on experimental gene therapies to gain a competitive edge. “People do all sorts of dopey things. The problem is, the reward isn’t worth the danger of what could happen.”

Bibliography

1. Weir, Tom. “Doping Cases Hit Record.” USATODAY.com. USA Today, 29 Aug. 2004.
2. Canadian Press, The. “Anti-doping Lab Still Processing Samples.” CBCSports.ca. 1 Mar. 2010.
3. Friedmann, Theodore, Oliver Rabin, Mark S. Frankel. “Gene Doping and Sport.” Science 327 (2010): 647-48.
4. Brownlee, Christen. “Gene Doping.” Science News 166.18 (2004): 280-81. JSTOR. 02 Nov. 2010.
5. Svensson, Eric C., Hugh B. Black, Debra L. Duggar, Sandeep K. Tripathy, Eugene Goldwasser, Zengping Hao, Lien Chu, and Jeffrey M. Leiden. “Long-Term Erythropoietin Expression in Rodents and Non-Human Primates Following Intramuscular Injection of a Replication-Defective Adenoviral Vector.” Human Gene Therapy 8 (1997): 1797-806.
6. Easton, John. “Eugene Goldwasser to Receive the 2005 Prince Mahidol Award.” 2005 Press Releases. University of Chicago Medical Center, 1 Dec. 2005.
7. “Drugs in Sport-Who Will Win the Drug Race?” Home – Australian Academy of Science. Web. 02 Feb. 2010. <http://www.science.org.au/nova/055/055key.htm>.
8. Barton-Davis, Elisabeth R., Daria I. Shoturma, Antonia Musaro, Nadia Rosenthal, and H. Lee Sweeney. “Viral Mediated Expression of Insulin-like Growth Factor I Blocks the Aging-related Loss of Skeletal Muscle Function.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 95 (1998): 15603-5607.
9. Juengst, Eric T. “What Next For Human Gene Therapy? Gene Transfer Often Has Multiple and Unpredictable Effects on Cells.” British Medical Journal 326.7404 (2003): 1410-411. JSTOR. Web. 02 Nov. 2010.
10. Lyford, Jo. “Gene Therapy ’caused T-cell Leukemia’” The Scientist. 20 Oct. 2003. Web.
11. Gao, Guangping, Corinna Lebherz, Daniel J. Weiner, Rebecca Grant, Roberto Calcedo, Beth McCullough, Adam Bagg, Yi Zhang, and James M. Wilson. “Erythropoietin Gene Therapy Leads to Autoimmune Anemia in Macaques.” Blood 103.9 (2004): 3300-302. Print.
12. Goldwasser, Eugene. Personal interview. 18 Feb. 2010.
13. Keim, Brandom. “Athletes Beware, Scientists Hot on Gene Doping Trail.” Wired.com. 4 Feb. 2010.
14. Saey, Tina Hesman. “Foul Play.” Science News 173 (2008): 195. JSTOR.

Recent developments in personalized genomics and ubiquitous computing have created new opportunities in the current healthcare system. Especially with an increasing number of elders and patients in constant needs, a new breed of wellness models is necessary. We believe that the full potential of biomedical and computational advances can be achieved through an integrative approach, combining diverse solutions from genome-wide association studies, continuous health monitoring, large-scale statistical analysis, embodied interface, and intuitive virtual reality. Lifeomics is a proof of concept to lay a concrete foundation for an immediate development of health monitoring hardware and graphic user interface. In this report, we present how different concepts are augmented together to create a cohesive platform.

Figure# 1

I. Introduction

Lifeomics is a visionary healthcare system to promote continuous health awareness, participatory learning, and wholesome living. This holistic approach to the quality of life, which aims to personalize our experience with and expectations of healthcare, employs a wearable interface (LifeomicsWEAR), a wellness prediction algorithm (Lifeomics Engine), and a cross-platform virtual reality environment (Lifeomics World). The Lifeomics’ back-end simulation algorithm, the Lifeomics Engine, generates a wellbeing status report of a participant based on evolving datasets from the Web 2.0 applications, intimate health measurements from the LifeomicsWEAR, and human-avatar activities in the Lifeomics World. This simulation will incorporate user-specific medical information, possibility of time and location manipulation, and systematic probabilistic modeling.

With an increased understanding of human biology, the current medical system leans toward prediction and prevention of diseases. The current trend of biomedicine involves many system-level studies of entities in aggregate such as genomics, proteomics, and predictomics. To provide a glimpse into this future world, we propose an integrated package of hardware and software, the Lifeomics, which simulates a futuristic healthcare model. Participants become aware and knowledgeable of their health as well as ethical implications of new diagnosis, treatment, and drugs. Furthermore with this kind of overall picture, the public can demand and drive advancement of life science technologies. Overall, Lifeomics could serve as a doctor, a teacher, and a research collaborator without overwhelming its participants.

Figure #2: Application Flowchart of the Lifeomics Healthcare Model

II. LifeomicsWEAR: embodied interface for vital signs

Figure #3: Modeling of the LifeomicsWEAR; external overview

The LifeomicsWEAR is a wearable computing device whose unobtrusive sensor and communication interface will generate and streamline continuous health measurements. This novel interface presented in the form of a watch will continuously sense heart rate, temperature, perspiration, body movement, and other critical body signs of a user. Furthermore, the LifeomicsWEAR communicates with the Lifeomics backend server through mobile telecommunications and wireless networks to acquire simulated health indication as well as personal and local information. The complete tracking of a patient’s vital statistics is not possible without this type of ubiquitous interface, which is socially integrative, functionally unobtrusive, and aesthetically pleasing.

The LifeomicsWEAR consists of four major components; one 2.5” x 3” [w x h] flexible organic light emitting diode (OLED) touch screen, a pair of two 2” x 3.5” ergonomic straps made of ductile skin-like polymer, one 2.5” x 1.5” multi-touch pad, and three micro-sensors (pressure and velocity, temperature and perspiration, and wireless communication). Its OLED screen delivers a visual health indicator as well as a cross-platform personal information manager and subjective wellness questionnaires. Micro-sensors embedded alongside of the strap continuously monitors and transmits vital health measurements to the Lifeomics Engine via wireless communication. To encourage continuous wearing of the device, its strap and associated casing are to be made of ductile polymers. A multi-touch pad embedded in the LifeomicsWEAR will allow a user to employ natural finger movements and signature gestures to interact with digital information. For example, swiping and pinching a touch pad on a strap, which would be located in an opposite side of the screen on a user’s wrist, translates into scrolling and zooming, while placing two fingers on a touch pad and one finger on the opposing screen (a conventional gesture to measure one’s heart rate) will bring up her health profile with behavior suggestions.

Figure #4: Visualization of the LifeomicsWEAR

A) The front view; B) The side view; C) Graphic User Interface

The LifeomicsWEAR’s graphic interface and functionalities are an integrated approach to manage personal information, including a health indicator and a daily scheduler. The center of the LifeomicsWEAR screen is occupied by a health indicator whose heart, lung, and brain icons symbolizing health conditions of a user. Its shape, color, and tone morph according to measured and simulated data. Thus a user can quickly learn her/his short- and long-term health status. Detailed analysis is available upon clicking into the health indicator. Below the health indicator is the subjective health survey, which aids intrinsic information in assessing health conditions. Stress-free and swift questionnaires, visualized in a graphic form of fade controls, expedite a discrete acquisition of user’s psychological state. As a wearable computing device, the LifeomicsWEAR also provides a cross-platform personal information manager, including an integrated personal communication tool (VoIP, email, and social networks), individualized calendar, and locality information (weather, traffic, and businesses). With multi-touch pads, a user will be able to navigate through various forms of data without the use of traditional input sources. Importantly, the LifeomicsWEAR’s wireless connectivity will allow further manipulation of data via larger computing, displaying, and inputting devices.

III. Lifeomics World: virtual reality social platform

The Lifeomics World is essentially the social network platform for every type of Lifeomics user, including customers, health professionals, and service providers. This virtual reality platform allows diverse commercial and non-commercial activities, to collectively promote wholesome ways to improve wellness through personal, social, and medical means. Participants will have opportunities to examine their medical condition, family wellness, social interactions, and daily lifestyle. A range of health services, independent of the Lifeomics, is allowed to operate within the Lifeomics World. In addition, users will be able to converse with each other online to share and contribute opinions on biomedical studies, ethical issues, and scientific endeavors. Overall, while seamlessly interacting with intrinsic and extrinsic personal data, participants will create new ideas, concepts, and awareness on holistic wellbeing, medical advancements, and associated ethical issues.

At the core of the Lifeomics World is the Lifeomics Engine, which facilitate the core simulation using personal data from LifeomicsWEAR and social activities on the Lifeomics World. An initial framework is summarized in Figure 7. The user starts with a fixed amount of “wellness points”. With user inputs, such as health monitoring and Web 2.0 application updates, the points will be calculated using a point assignment chart.  Each sub factor will be assigned a number of points, and each meta-analysis study will be related to a set of sub factor points. Meta-analysis of biomedical studies will be associated with a number of predictions through a Bayesian network. Each prediction will be set to a number of points, that can be obtained through a combination of sub factor points, including, but not limited to, amount of exercise, healthy choice in shopping, and self-education. This chart will be used along with the user profile to determine the avatars development in the virtual reality environment.

Figure #5: Organizing and Operating Principles of the Lifeomics Engine

While the Lifeomics Engine symbolizes the server-side operation underlying the Lifeomics World, users are provided with the Lifeomics Client, a software to be connected to the Lifeomics World. Users can dynamically and visually interact with the Lifeomics Engine, other participants, health professionals, and a synthetic world. Besides intimate health measurements, user inputs would include genomic association studies, personal medical history, family tree, geographical information, socioeconomic status, and lifestyles. We propose to construct the essence of a personal genome, dubbed the Lifeome, based on user inputs, standard models, and systematic distributions in order to mimic a future when an affordable genomic technology allows everyone to have a genomic record. To ease the registration process and enhance the user’s experience, the Lifeomics Client will demonstrate connections to applications such as Facebook, Google Apps, and mobile phones. As users become more familiar with the Lifeomics Client, every participant will be able to contribute opinions and health information, which will influence the outcome of the simulation.

Figure #6: Implementation of the Lifeomics Client to view the Lifeomics World (Virtual reality from Second Life)

Figure #7: Electronic health record connected through the Lifeomics Client

Figure #8: Customizable settings in the Lifeomics Client

Furthermore, the Lifeomics World implements visual simulation of health conditions onto avatars of its participants. Of course, an avatar is completely customizable by its user. At any given time, users can change almost every aspect of their avatars; from its shape to cloths. However the Lifeomics World will put translucent 3D surfaces on avatars, that are only apparent as one’s health conditions get worsen. A normal avatar acquires an extra layer on its skin, which can temporarily change a skin tone, add visual scars, or deform body parts (i.e. eyebrow). This visual simulation, in addition to a profile, would create immediate impressions and subtle psychological environments that provoke questions of wellbeing in the virtual reality and in the real life.

This kind of visual simulation, which reflects one’s wellness rather than one’s desired appearance, is to increase a fundamental awareness of our own body and mind. Its underlying philosophical inquiry as well as practical user adaptation would be a study of its own. Overall, a novel integrated approach to how we construct our online self and how we are actually “constructing” ourselves offline would be an interesting social project.

IV. Lifeomics Professional: population health monitor

The Lifeomics Professional is a specialized digital interface for health professionals and service providers. Based on the Lifeomics Client, the Lifeomics Professional will provide large-scale monitoring tools as well as an encrypted communication system to interact with users online. The Lifeomics Professional includes a split-screen patient tracking tool, a real-time visualizer, and a computational analyzer. Current health professionals, such as family doctors, local clinics, and regional hospitals, will use this system to aid in serving patients online and offline. Health professionals will be free to carry out both traditional and non-traditional health service tasks in the Lifeomics World, including online consultations and offline appointments.

Figure #9: Implementation of the Lifeomics Professional with live feeds from Second Life, Google Apps, and various statistical visualizations

Furthermore, the Lifeomics Professional is to be utilized by specialized service providers whose main goal is to oversee a large amount of customers: including both patients in critical condition and health-conscious consumers. Similar to a security company, those companies will set up either distributed or centralized monitoring centers, where nurses and medical doctors keep track of their customers, with the aid of computer predictions and suggestions. Direct textual, visual, and audio feedbacks will enhance experience of consumers. While largely independent of the Lifeomics model, exemplary services could include emergency management and lifestyle improvement programs.

IV. Conclusion

The complete Lifeomics healthcare model, which involves the virtual reality platform and the wearable interface, may disrupt the healthcare system and transform how people are medically served in the society. The empowerment of users, whether called participants, patients, or consumers, is critical in the healthcare industry, whose passive suppliers have been dominating and controlling. This framework is to decentralize and demystify healthcare and associated enterprises. By promoting preventive and holistic medicine, the Lifeomics program’s mission is to improve the healthcare standard. Unobtrusive sensors and communication tools of the LifeomicsWEAR, combined with the Lifeomics World, will help people in their pursuit of wellness and effective living. The Lifeomics World will generate new online and offline networks where the demands and needs of individuals will be met by user generated resources as well as an open market place. The Lifeomics will demonstrate that when new medicine is fused with new media, people will be able to realize the full potential of new media medicine.

Acknowledgments

This project would not have been possible without encouragement from Dr. Collee Monahan and Daniela Atanasova. Neo Christopher Chung was supported by the 2009 Visual Studies Initiative Summer Research Fellowship.

Latest developments of the Lifeomics is available at The Lifeomics Website

Guantanamo Bay

Even before his inauguration, President Barack Obama made it clear that he believed torture was morally reprehensible and promised that under his administration the U.S. would no longer practice torture.1 Accordingly, on April 16th, 2009 Mr. Obama and the U.S. Department of Justice authorized the release of C.I.A memos detailing the methods of torture that were authorized under the George W. Bush administration.2 The release of the C.I.A. memos elicited an almost immediate reaction from former Vice President Richard Bruce Cheney, who in an interview with Fox News on April 21st, 2009 criticized Mr. Obama for failing to disclose documents detailing the “success” of torture in garnering intelligence that was vital to the U.S. War on Terrorism.3 Mr. Obama’s efforts to discredit torture as a justifiable tool for preserving U.S. national security and Mr. Cheney’s rebuke of those efforts attest to the importance and contentious nature of the debate about whether torture is in the U.S national interest.

Using this debate as motivation, I answer the question of whether or not the use of torture is in the U.S. national interest. To do this, I first chronicle the history of U.S. torture practices since the Cold War to provide a reference point for the rest of the paper. Second, I empirically demonstrate the negative impact of these practices on international U.S. credibility, the War on Terrorism and U.S. presidential approval ratings. Third, I consider the theoretical value of torture in context to its empirical utility as an intelligence-gathering tool, and vis-à-vis possible alternatives, to ultimately make a qualitative assessment of torture’s actual utility for preserving U.S. national security. Finally, I compare the international and domestic consequences of U.S. torture (section 2) to its actual utility (section 3) to ultimately conclude that torture is not in the U.S. national interest.

U.S. Torture: Establishing a Reference Point

Today’s brand of U.S. torture originated from a twelve-year CIA research effort initiated in 1950 whose primary goal was to “crack the code of human consciousness.” As part of this effort, called MKUltra, the CIA conducted chemical experiments with drugs like LSD and behavioral studies on the psychosis inducing potential of sensory restriction and physical constraint.4 The results of these efforts were codified in the CIA’s 1963 Kubark Counterintelligence Interrogation handbook, which claims to teach a CIA officer “what he must learn in order to become a good interrogator” and asserts that “sound interrogation…rests upon knowledge of the subject matter and on certain broad principles, chiefly psychological.”5 Over the next thirty years the C.I.A. promulgated the Kubark methods of torture and those of the 1983 Human Resources Exploitation Manual within the U.S. intelligence community and among anti-communist allies in Asia and Latin America.6 Even after the end of the Cold War and U.S. ratification of the UN Convention Against Torture, the U.S. continued to torture under the 1996 War Crimes Act and through programs like “extraordinary rendition.”7

After the September 11, 2001 President George W. Bush swiftly expanded the CIA’s torture authority beyond even Cold War and Vietnam War levels.8 As part of this expansion Bush “suspended” the Geneva Conventions as they applied to the War on Terror and authorized the indiscriminate rendition of High-Value Detainees (HVD)9 to at least 8 nations in Northern Africa, Eastern Europe and Asia that were notorious for torture.10 The impetus for expanding the rendition program and creating a network of secret prisons or “black sites” came in the wake of fear that followed the 9/11 attacks and from the CIA’s desperation to detain HVDs without legal constraints.11 As the 2004 Background Paper on CIA’s Combined Use of Interrogation Techniques describes in general, HVDs were subjected to nudity, sleep deprivation, psychological and physical duress through insult slaps to the face and abdomen, slamming of the face against walls, and other actions reminiscent of the Kubark methods of torture.

The experiences of Abu Zubayada and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, some of the CIA’s highest-value detainees, provide a more detailed exposition of torture under the Bush administration. Zubayada was electrically shocked and locked in a small coffin that was “too small…to stand or stretch out” and required him to “double up his limbs in a fetal position.”12 Zubayada, along with Mohammed and other HVDs, was also water-boarded, forced to stand naked in frigid temperatures for extended periods of time, deprived of sleep, and forced to listen to panic-inducing American music from artists like Eminem.13 Additionally, according to a U.S. Justice Department memo released in 2005, Mohammed was water boarded 183 times, while Zubayada was water boarded 83 times.14 Other atrocities resulting from U.S. torture include the deaths of two Afghan prisoners at Bagram Air Base in December 2002 who were “short-shackled. . . for days on end” and officially died, according to a military report, of “blunt force injuries to the lower extremities.”15 Unfortunately, despite this episode the Afghan “black site” at Bagram remains open today with no prospects of being shut down.16

Additionally, the brutal interrogation methods that were initially used only against HVDs at CIA “black sites” made their way into detention centers like Abu Ghraib.17 Former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, impressed by the results of the extreme interrogation rules used at Guantanamo Bay, ordered the “Gitmoiz[ation]” of Iraq. Additionally, despite being required to abide by the Geneva Conventions, Major General Geoffrey Miller was committed to applying his Guantanamo Bay experience at Abu Ghraib. Even Lieutenant General Ricardo Sanchez, the senior commander of the U.S. forces in Iraq, willingly authorized harsh interrogation methods such as sleep deprivation, military dog attacks, and uncomfortable temperature exposure.18 Finally, mysterious CIA operatives, to whom U.S. Brigadier General Janis Karpinski referred to as “disappearing ghosts,” introduced psychological torture, as well as forced nudity and explicit photography to Abu Ghraib.19 U.S. adoption of Cold War style interrogation practices akin to torture in Iraq ultimately resulted in significant human rights violations and even unintended death.20

Torturing America: The Consequences of Using Torture

In order to determine if the use of torture is in the U.S. national interest, it is important to assess its costs. The 9/11 terrorist attacks lead the Bush Administration to revitalize Cold War U.S. torture policies, which has had several negative international and domestic consequences for the U.S. Specifically, U.S. torture since the 9/11 attacks has decreased international U.S. credibility, increased global terrorism and harmed U.S. presidential approval ratings.

International Credibility

First, using torture undermines international U.S. credibility because U.S. insistence on international adherence to human rights norms and simultaneous use of illegal torture practices casts the U.S. as a hypocrite in the eyes of the international community. Dr. Joseph S. Nye, Jr. and Richard L. Armitage agree when they argue “[America] cannot denounce torture and waterboarding in other countries and condone it home.”21 To be sure, a report released by China in 2008 used U.S. secret prisons and illegal U.S. torture practices to accuse the U.S. of hypocrisy in condemning China’s human rights record.22 Moreover, in 2006 Vladimir Putin accused the U.S. of hypocrisy in criticizing Russia’s human rights record with veiled references to illegal U.S. interrogation methods and use of force.23 Indeed, in maintaining a hypocritical policy of torture the U.S. not only undermines international human rights norms, but also subsequently harms its national interest when those norms become necessary for preserving U.S. national interests (e.g. when American soldiers are captured by other nations).24

Moreover, many nations use U.S. use of torture to justify their own policies. For example, when questioned by the UN in 2007 about its widespread and illegal torture practices, Sri Lanka defended itself by citing U.S. torture at Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay and CIA “black sites.”25 Additionally, President Hosni Mubarak defended Egypt’s use of military tribunals for trying suspected terrorists by claiming that U.S. suspension of international human rights laws and use of military tribunals in cases of suspected terrorism vindicated Egypt of all criticism by international human rights groups.26 Indeed, then UN special rapporteur on torture Manfred Nowak agrees that U.S. use of torture has increased the global prominence of torture, as many nations view the U.S. as a model, or at the very least a justification, for their own policies.27 Similarly, Oxford University’s Henry Shue argues that use of torture by a superpower like the U.S. in particular sets an irresistible precedent for weaker nations who may not have alternative counterintelligence resources (i.e. if torture is universally outlawed weaker nations are forced not to use it, but if world leaders break torture laws weaker nations find it irresistible not to follow suit).28

Finally, U.S. use of torture undermines U.S. soft power leadership because it diminishes international opinion about the U.S.29 To be sure, a January 2007 World Public Opinion Poll of 26,000 people across 25 countries revealed that 67% of respondents disapproved of the way in which the U.S. treated Guantanamo Bay detainees and 49% of respondents (the largest plurality) felt the U.S. had an overall negative impact on the world.30 The implications of this are significant. For one thing, the U.S. relies on its soft power to gain the support of nations like Germany and Malaysia in the fight against terrorism. If public sentiment about the U.S. among the citizens of key U.S. allies is sufficiently negative, the U.S. may not be able to cooperate with those allies to confront a national security threat. For example, the U.S. may not be able to get permission to bomb an al-Qaeda terrorist cell in Malaysia, or it may not receive German political and military support in starting a campaign against terrorist groups. Moreover, soft power losses become self-perpetuating, as negative international opinion of the U.S. elicits isolationist responses from U.S. citizens that subsequently embolden U.S. enemies like al-Qaeda. Finally, winning the War on Terror necessitates moderate Muslim leadership in the Islamic world. For this, U.S. soft power diplomacy is crucial as it creates linkages between the U.S. and moderate Muslims that can subvert the influence of Muslim extremists.31 Indeed, without the support of our allies and those living in the Middle East, the U.S. will have a hard time winning the War on Terrorism.32

Read the rest of the article at The Cornell International Affairs Review

Creationism vs. Evolution

I, like any number of people raised in the era of field trips, have visited many museums in my life. Some were devoted to art, others to history, and still others to science. Until a short time ago, however, I had never been to a museum that taught a literal translation of the Bible as science. The Creation Museum, located in the outskirts of Hebron, Kentucky, teaches that the Earth was created in seven days, that the Universe is roughly 6000 years old, and that dinosaurs and humans lived side by side. Despite my total disagreement with the museum’s teachings and my objections to several aspects of the museum, I surprisingly found my experience there to be one of the best I’d had in years.

The most striking aspect of the Creation Museum at first glance was its sheer size. Its all-glass facade rose dozens of feet above the surrounding landscape, dwarfing the gardens, lakes, and petting zoo that comprise the museum’s grounds. The large number of cars, representing states from Michigan to Tennessee, indicated that even on a rainy weekday, plenty of visitors came from all over to visit the museum. Built at great cost by Answers in Genesis, an organization that promotes young earth creationism, the museum is filled with exhibits, theaters, animatronic dinosaurs, and even houses a planetarium. While these are things that typify an average museum, the content itself is what separates this museum from most others.

The museum illustrates the creation of life as the Bible tells it, starting with two humans and a few hundred “kinds” of animals, birds and fish, along with the planets, moon, stars, etc. There is even a walk-through Eden exhibit, showing Adam naming each creature, from cat to pachycephalosaurus. Not every species we see today is represented though, and this is where the term “kind” mentioned earlier comes into play. The museum states repeatedly that animals were created “after their kind” as written in Genesis, and that today’s diverse species are descended from these original kinds. This aspect of the museum was the most surprising to me. The museum actually supported natural selection, claiming that rats and capybaras came from the same original creatures, but adapted over time into their present forms. Despite this seeming acquiescence to evolution, the museum makes it quite clear that it in no way supports claims of billion-year time scales or the slow march of life from complex organic molecules to humans.

The museum is just as much an indictment of evolutionary science as it is an argument for creationism. It scoffs at such ideas as mutations adding genetic information and planets forming by accretion around stars. However, in doing so, it tends to step too far and chooses to mislead or speak blatant untruth. The museum includes statements that there are no examples of expanded supernovae (Kepler’s Supernova is a good example), that antibiotic-resistant bacteria are not fit in an environment without drugs (if this were true, multi-drug resistant staph could not spread) and that scientists have never observed stars being formed (the Orion Nebula is a well known center of such formation). Deceptions like these have no place in a museum, and call into question the legitimacy of many other statements made throughout the building. So how, even after being disgusted by the inclusion of such inaccuracies in the museum, did I find the experience to be quite enjoyable?

Simply put, I learned more from this museum than most others I have been to because I went in with a skeptical mind. I took mental notes of claims made in exhibits or presentations and researched them later. I looked into the criticisms the museum had made on evolutionary theory and researched answers that scientists had for these criticisms. I even researched scientists who have made contradictory claims to certain tenets of evolutionary biology. The thing about such criticisms and contradictions is that science welcomes them. Whether a criticism of established ideas is proven or disproven, it strengthens our knowledge of what we are trying to understand. This is why I hope that visitors of every museum, be it the Smithsonian or the Creation Museum, come out asking questions.

One reason Chile was less damaged, which had less to do with preparedness than pure chance, was the location of the actual quake.  The Chilean earthquake, while over 500 times stronger than the one in Haiti, was about twice as deep and four miles offshore rather than onshore [iii] It was even further from the nearest urban area, Concepción, about 70 miles from the epicenter, while Port-Au-Prince bore the brunt of the shaking in Haiti.

Beyond the actual shaking caused by the quakes, however, Chile was better prepared overall to endure high magnitude seismic activity.  This is due to an organized government, money and building regulations, all of which Haiti has historically lacked.  About 80% of Haitian citizens live below the poverty line as opposed to 20% of Chileans, who were the hardest hit by the disaster.[iv] Apart from this, the Chilean government has had a strict Seismic Code since 1972, so that all high-risk buildings are made from seismically sound materials such as concrete, steel and reinforced concrete.[v] They are made to move with the earthquakes rather than against them.  Even low-income housing complexes in Chile are subject to strict government codes to the point where the builders of one such complex are being sued for earthquake damage.[vi] Haiti has no such codes or infrastructure.  Thus, while most of the damage to buildings in Chile was limited to historic centers, colonial architecture and churches, damage in Haiti was much more widespread.

Finally, Chile was much better prepared by experience. Chile has a lot of seismic activity, as does the entire Andean region.  It was home to the strongest earthquake ever recorded—a 9.5 magnitude quake that hit Valdivia in 1960—and this is its third recorded quake over 8.7.  They even have a local drink called the terremoto, the Spanish word for earthquake. Most of the population has experienced a major earthquake in their lifetime,  in contrast to Haiti, which hasn’t had a major quake in about 250 years. [vii] The children in Chile have earthquake training in schools, and that training allowed many people to escape to the hills and avoid the tsunamis that followed, but Haiti had no such luck.[viii]

In the end, however, both earthquakes were devastating to the areas hardest hit.

Although the Chilean government’s response was quick and well-organized, it was insufficient to help all of the displaced.  Chile had even sent some of its relief supplies to Haiti, so it was even more unprepared to deal with the aftermath. As one Chilean student said of the aftermath, “How does it occur to someone to burn supermarkets when there isn’t even enough water for the houses?” In the wake of any disaster, there is a period of disorder, no matter how well-prepared you are, but that period has been much shorter in Chile than in Haiti.  Hardly anyone was incredulous of looting in Haiti, while Chileans were horrified. In Haiti, a local man was quoted as saying, “‘Chile has a responsible government,’ he said, waving his hand in disgust. ‘Our government is incompetent.’” [ix] These incidents highlight the importance of government response and strict building codes in seismically active areas, as well as how wealth disparity affects disaster relief and damage.

[ii] Ibid

[iii] Ibid

[iv] John Feffer, «Haiti vs Chile: The Earthquake Olympics,» The Huffington Post , March 30, 2010, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-feffer/haiti-vs-chile-the-earthq_b_518639.html(accessed April 1, 2010)

[v] «Strict Building Code May Explain Lower Chile Toll,» NPR, March 1, 2010, http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=124210386 (accessed April 1, 2010)

[vi] Frank Bajak, «Chile-Haiti Earthquake Comparison: Chile Was More Prepared,» The Huffington Post, February 27, 2010, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/27/chile-haiti-earthquake-co_n_479705.html (accessed April 1, 2010)

[vii] Ibid

[viii] Alexei Barrionuevo and Marc Lacey, «Chile Officials Call for Aid As Devestation Sinks In,» The New York Times, March 1, 2010, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/02/world/americas/02chile.html (accessed April 1, 2010)

[ix] Frank Bajak, «Chile-Haiti Earthquake Comparison: Chile Was More Prepared,» The Huffington Post, February 27, 2010, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/27/chile-haiti-earthquake-co_n_479705.html (accessed April 1, 2010)

Inside representation of a vertical farm

The Bible features Jesus feeding a hungry crowd of five thousand with only two fish and five loaves of bread. A professor of environmental sciences and microbiology at Columbia University claims he can feed 50,000 through a new form of farming [1].

Founding Father

Dr. Dickson Despommier is the main figure in advocating vertical farming as the future of food production. The professor formed the idea when he and his graduate students realized from a calculation that rooftop gardening would not successfully feed a certain quota of New York City dwellers. He then mused if stacking gardens in levels could help increase production [2]. That seed was planted eleven years ago. Now Despommier’s idea has germinated into an informative website (www.verticalfarm.com) and attracted several expressions of interest from international countries, engineering firms, and governmental organizations [3].

Farmscraper – What Is That?

A vertical farm is essentially a greenhouse located within an urban area. Before Despommier’s proposal, people had already considered the idea of introducing independent food production into cities, as evident in small and scattered appearances of rooftop gardening [4]. But transplanting a mere home garden into the city did not solve the problem for the professor. He envisioned relocating entire greenhouses with base areas that span a city block. Better yet, stack thirty greenhouses on top of each other; construct about 150 of these vertical farms; and then, Despommier estimates, everybody in New York City will have fresh produce to eat [5].

The Professor’s Dream Farm

Despommier envisions the ideal vertical farm to not only sustain its own processes, but also produce clean water and energy. In order to provide water for the crops, a vertical farm will be able to recycle municipal wastewater by filtration and collect rainwater [6]. Dehumidifying the inside air recollects water from plant-produced moisture, which can distribute as much as 60 million gallons of bottled water each year [7]. With respect to energy consumption, solar panels and wind spires power the heating and lighting for each floor [8]. Additional energy needs can be met with a 50% efficient process called plasma-gasification, which combusts any waste food product, such as the leaves and stalks from corn [9]. Lastly, nitrogen and other fertile nutrients can be derived from animal waste or the city sewage water [10].

Why Farm Vertically?

The professor’s design certainly sounds nifty and futuristic, but at the same time, it does appear to require heavy costs in construction and operation. Building 150 of thirty-story skyscrapers is not as simple as creating civilization with Legos. So why bother switching to vertical farming? After all, the world has survived so far without it. Furthermore, some societies center their lifestyles around conventional, outdoor agriculture on soil.

Dr. Despommier reminds skeptics to consider future circumstances. A United Nations demographic study predicts that by the year 2050 three billion more people will have added to our current population of six billion [11]. 80% of available arable land is already in use; the remaining 20% will clearly be insufficient to feed an additional three billion mouths [12]. Consequences of changing weather patterns, such as rising sea levels and accelerated desertification, will only take away more potential farmland [13].

In addition, Despommier emphasizes the currently increasing trend of people moving into the cities. An issue with urban areas is that virtually all food has to be grown elsewhere and transported in [14]. Adding three billion more city residents will overstrain the dependence on arable land that has already been statistically proven to be inadequate and waning in sustainability. Consequently, shifting the center of food production to where most people will be living is more efficient. Building upwards rather than outwards minimizes the usage of scarce urban space.

Benefits from Stacked-Indoor Design

The immediate benefit of growing food indoors is an environment that can be controlled all day and year-round. Temperature, humidity, and lighting can all be customized for specific crops, yielding optimal growth [15]. Year-round harvests will certainly help curb global hunger.

The isolation of crops from external factors reduces disease transfer caused by untreated animal waste and eliminates weather-related damages [16]. Consequently, food production increases and becomes more reliable. Even if a disease were to destroy all crops, the controlled indoor conditions allow for an immediate replanting the next day, whereas the same situation with outdoor agriculture may require waiting until the next season. Moving farming inside a greenhouse does not remove all problems, but it does make them easier to manage.

Outdoor soil farming significantly damages the environment through a process called agricultural runoff. Excess water in the fields mixes with the herbicides, pesticides, and chemical fertilizers in the soil. Then, erosion moves this contaminated water into rivers and lakes, often poisoning ecosystems [17]. On the other hand, indoor farming eliminates the issue of invasive weeds or insects; thus, food is produced organically. Additionally, water in the greenhouse remains within and does not become toxic agricultural runoff.

Because Despommier’s vertical farm designs only require an area of a city block, the need to clear forests for farmland drops sharply. Although several years are needed to return to the natural state, Despommier estimates that one acre of indoor farming reforests ten to twenty acres [18]. The professor strongly believes reforestation is the only permanent solution to stabilizing climate change. A more obvious advantage of the stacked design is that the same output from hundreds of acres can be achieved from the area of a city block, depending on the number of stories built. For instance, twenty-one stories can be as efficient as 588 acres with respect to lettuce production [19].

Benefits from Urban Location

In accordance with today’s consumers consciously seeking out locally grown foods, vertical farming makes the city its own provider of fresh produce. Food no longer needs to be shipped in, saving fossil fuel emissions and transportation costs [20]. Also, schools, restaurants, and hospitals in cities will readily have access to fresh fruits and vegetables, increasing the presence of quality foods in people’s diets. As a long-term benefit, cities can expect to see fewer cases of childhood obesity and type-II diabetes [21].

The construction and operation of new vertical farms open up numerous job opportunities, such as managers, research scientists, and control room analysts [22]. Once completely finished, vertical farmscrapers add an aesthetically pleasing touch to the city’s appearance with transparent windows exhibiting the lush green color of various plants [23]. In addition to attracting tourism, vertical farms filter out pollutants from the city air and release oxygen for easier breathing and better health [24].

Benefits from Technologies Used

Vertical farming capitalizes on NASA-developed watering techniques called hydroponics and aeroponics [25]. Both methods do not require soil for nutrients. While hydroponics grows plants in a nutrient-enriched water bath, aeroponics sprays plants with a mist containing necessary minerals. Not only does indoor farming eliminate agricultural runoff, but also hydroponics uses 70% less water than conventional outdoor farming in soil [26]. Aeroponics epitomizes conservation by shaving off another 70% from the water usage in hydroponics [27]. Countries, in particular where water is scarce, may benefit from the low water consumption and recycling of water in vertical farms.

Opposing Opinions

In general, the arguments of critics share two main concerns. Vertical farms are too expensive to build, and with current technology, the energy cost of operation exceeds that of traditional farming [28]. Analysts have calculated that the construction of a twenty-one story farm costs $84 million, in addition to annual operation costs of $5 million [29]. A relatively small $18 million in annual revenue does not offset the exorbitant price tag [30]. If vertical farms ever begin production, urban-grown produce will be much more expensive than imports from conventional farms until construction and operation costs drop significantly. Critics mention lighting, water delivery systems, thermostat and humidity controls, and waste recycling in particular as components to be improved [31].

Ted Caplow, executive director of a New York firm that builds urban greenhouses, cautions that not all crops save resources when grown indoors, listing wheat, corn, and rice as examples [32]. In addition, Professor Bruce Bugbee of Utah State University’s crop physiology department reveals that the vertical structure of the farmscraper requires more energy than advertised. Plants on lower floors do not have adequate access to sunlight and would need artificial lighting and conveyor belts to raise them to upper levels [33]. Also, Bugbee points out that during the winter in a typical Northern city the sunlight is only five to ten percent as intense as summer levels [34]. Artificial lighting will again be needed, which generates a hefty electric bill.

The Next Step

Despommier foresees the first vertical farm within fifteen years [35]. He insists that conditions are ripe and that all necessary technology exist already to implement a vertical farm in New York City. Money and political support are all that remain, both of which may be easier to acquire once vertical farms have been publicly shown to work as advertised [36]. Thus, Despommier views a $20 million prototype of a five-story farmscraper with one-eighth the area of a city block as the best place to start [37].

The professor also feels strongly about the source of funding. He states that most aid should come from entrepreneurs and clean energy investors who see that urban, indoor farming can be profitable [38]. Despommier continues that city governments should also contribute since vertical farms would help cities meet green goals, attract revenue, and market produce [39].

Conclusion

Critics are correct in pointing out that a vertical farm with today’s technology costs too much to construct and operate. Efficiency improvements in various components, such as watering and lighting, are certainly needed. The truth and merit in the opposition’s position is exactly the reason why Dr. Despommier’s goal to use a small-scale prototype as a research facility is so urgent. Experimenting with new techniques to achieve vertical farming’s advertised benefits is worth the anticipated $20 million. Once vertical farming can jump into full production in cities all around the world, we will avoid future starvation and slow down disastrous climate change. Peter Head, director of greenhouse design company Arup, voices the nature of this debate perfectly, “It isn’t a matter of whether we think it would be nice to do urban farming or not. It’s a matter of whether we are going to survive” [40].

References

1. Vogel, Gretchen. “Upending the Traditional Farm.” Science, February 2008: 752-3.
2. Walsh, Bryan. Vertical Farming. December 11, 2008. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1865974,00.html (accessed April 1, 2010).
3. Despommier, Dickson D., interview by Jim Lapides. Interview With Dickson Despommier American Society of Landscape Architects, (April 2009).
4. Vogel, “Upending the Traditional Farm,” 752.
5. Walsh, Vertical Farming.
6. Chamberlain, Lisa. Skyfarming. New York Magazine. April 1, 2007. http://nymag.com/news/features/30020/ (accessed April 2, 2010).
7. Ibid.
8. Ibid.
9. Despommier, Interview with Dickson Despommier.
10. Chamberlain, Skyfarming.
11. Ibid.
12. Woolley, Hillary. Farming goes vertical. Business 2.0 Magazine. September 11, 2007. http://money.cnn.com/2007/09/10/technology/farming_vertical.biz2/index.htm (accessed April 2, 2010).
13. Chamberlain, Skyfarming.
14. Cooke, Jeremy. Vertical Farming in the Big Apple. June 19, 2007. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6752795.stm (accessed April 1, 2010).
15. Nelson, Bryn. Could Vertical Farming Be The Future? December 12, 2007. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21154137/ (accessed April 1, 2010).
16. Despommier, Interview with Dickson Despommier.
17. Walsh, Vertical Farming.
18. Despommier, Dickson D. “A Farm on Every Floor.” New York Times, August 24, 2009, New York ed.: A19.
19. Woolley, Farming goes vertical.
20. Cooke, Vertical Farming in the Big Apple.
21. Despommier, “A Farm on Every Floor,” A19.
22. Ibid.
23. Ibid.
24. Ibid.
25. Nelson, Could Vertical Farming Be The Future?
26. Despommier, Interview with Dickson Despommier.
27. Ibid.
28. Chamberlain, Skyfarming.
29. Woolley, Farming goes vertical.
30. Ibid.
31. Nelson, Could Vertical Farming Be The Future?
32. Vogel, “Upending the Traditional Farm,” 752.
33. Nelson, Could Vertical Farming Be The Future?
34. Ibid.
35. Despommier, Interview with Dickson Despommier.
36. Ibid.
37. Despommier, “A Farm on Every Floor,” A19.
38. Ibid.
39. Ibid.
40. Vogel, “Upending the Traditional Farm,” 753.

Attorney generals claim that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act encroaches on the sovereignty of states. Because the Constitution does not contain a mandate that requires citizens to have health coverage, the power to decide should be reserved to the states, as explained by the Tenth Amendment. [3] Virginia is also filing its independent lawsuit, based on the Virginia Health Care Freedom Act passed with bipartisan support earlier this month, which states “no individual, with several specific exceptions, can be required to purchase health insurance coverage.” [4] Clearly, momentum is growing to block the changes as the reform continues to be challenged on legal grounds.

Unfortunately, legal issues are not the only ones that surround the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Ethical questions must also be taken into consideration. Let us suppose that people do not consider mandatory healthcare an issue — that they are willing to have the government mandate health coverage for every citizen. In fact, it is probable that the majority of the 32 million uninsured Americans will support such a plan. But does wanting healthcare entail a moral and legal right to it? It does not, especially if the bill is estimated to cost taxpayers $938 billion over the next ten years. Nevertheless, many may make the argument that the tax increases only impact the wealthier population, namely individuals who earn at or above the $200,000 threshold and couples who collectively earn at or above the $250,000 threshold. [5]

Certainly, people with incomes in these ranges may not be significantly impacted by these tax increases to help the poor. Nonetheless, they should not be required by the government to do so. Consider a simple example. Two kids are eating lunch at school. One child finds to his delight several pieces of candy in his lunchbox while the other finds no such treats. While the less fortunate child longingly looks at the candies, the lucky child needs to decide whether to share. In this case, one can certainly say that it is better if the child shares. However, it is absurd to claim that the child is morally obligated to share because while sharing is good, the act is supererogatory and thus not morally required to be done. Still, supporters of the new healthcare reform may resort to the argument that only the wealthiest of individuals will be impact by the tax increases, and that these increases will truly be only trivially impactful, if at all. Though such an assumption may be true, it is nonetheless irrelevant to the argument. Consider again the previous example. If one child finds ten pieces of candies instead of a mere several, he would still not be morally required to share with the other child because the candies belong to him; he is entitled to and have a right to them. Similarly, people have a right to their income, given that it is obtained through just means. There is no logical reason to believe that this right diminishes as the magnitude of one’s earnings increases. It is also important to make a distinction between increased taxation on the affluent in order to make healthcare more affordable to everyone and other types of taxation such as those that help maintain public works including roads and bridges. The latter kind need not be scrutinized because it is not redistributive in nature and thus does not impact people with varied incomes differently to give anyone an unearned advantage.

Another argument proponents of the healthcare reform may find appealing is the idea that as members of a functioning society, people have a right to be healthy as it is strongly correlated to less controversial rights including those to life and happiness. Although this premise may be supportable, the conclusion that people have a right to healthcare is unsound because the right to be healthy does not entail the right to healthcare. The distinction is essentially one between a negative and a positive right. The former right is negative because it requires others to refrain from interfering with the right. For instance, a healthy individual has the right to remain healthy; others must respect this right by refraining from causing the individual bodily harm.

Healthcare, however, is a positive right, if it is a right at all, because it requires others to act in order to uphold the right. In this case, higher taxes are required of individuals who earn above certain threshold salaries. The following problem then arises: In protecting certain people’s positive right to healthcare, others’ negative right to their own property, in this case earnings, is compromised. Despite this seemingly irresolvable conflict, there is reason to believe that negative rights outweigh positive rights, mainly for the reason that refraining from violating others’ rights is a basic moral obligation while actively doing good deeds to protect others’ positive rights appears beyond the call of one’ moral duty. Certainly, society may advance to become more virtuous and less calloused in the future, and what we deem supererogatory deeds currently may one day be considered morally obligated ones. As for now, the President should value public opinion more and idealize complex situations less; perhaps then would he realize the impracticality and ill-suited nature of universal healthcare in the US at the present time.

References:

[1]. Nicholas, Peter and Michael Muskal. 2010. “Obama Still Stumping for Healthcare” Los Angeles Times. http://articles.latimes.com/2010/apr/01/nation/la-na-obama-maine2-2010apr02

[2], [3]. CNN Wire Staff. 2010. “14 States Sue to Block Health Care Law” CNN. http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/03/23/health.care.lawsuit/index.html

[4]. McDonnell, Bob. 2010. “Governor McDonnell Signs Virginia Healthcare Freedom Act Legislation” Virginia.gov. http://www.governor.virginia.gov/news/viewRelease.cfm?id=88

[5]. Khan, Huma. 2010. “Health Care Bill: What Does it Mean for You?” ABC News. http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/HealthCare/health-care-bill-obama-sign-bill-tuesday/story?id=10169801&page=1

Nuclear Proliferation

“So to day, I state clearly and with conviction America’s commitment to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons.”

-President Barack Obama, April 2009

During an address in Prague on April 2009, President Obama reiterated Ronald Reagan’s vision of a nuclear free world by committing to do everything in his power to shore up the nonproliferation regime and rid the world of nuclear weapons. A few months later, in June 2009, Senator John McCain also expressed his belief in President Regan’s vision.

“The time has come to take further measures to reduce dramatically the number of nuclear weapons in the world’s arsenals”  -Senator John McCain, June 2009

Unfortunately such rhetoric isn’t particularly useful unless it is translated into policy action by the United States. The prior question however, is whether such policy should even be created. Our nations’ leaders seem to think there is a potent and universal United States demonstration effect that will mitigate any risks associated with a nuclear free United States, but they fail to see the attendant dangers of United States denuclearization.

The world is coming to a nuclear cross-road, as the 1995 START agreement expired in December and a new Nonproliferation Regime could be advanced at the 2010 NPT Review Conference. These next few months are a defining period in the history of nuclear weapons and will shape the world’s nuclear trajectory for years to come. At the same time the security dilemma in East Asia has become even more intense due to an increasingly likely nuclear North Korea, while U.S. allies like South Korea and Japan remain nuclear virgins because of their NPT obligations, as well as domestic political factors. Furthermore, the Middle East is festering with conventional warfare and faces an emerging Iranian nuclear threat which, if realized, promises to severely destabilize an already volatile region.

These intensified security risks and the simultaneous deterioration of the nonproliferation regime may at first glance demand a solution that promises to rid the world of nuclear weapons. Unfortunately, this hasty and rather shallow approach guarantees more problems than it can ever hope to solve. Why? Because this approach disregards the changing face of the international order, one which now entertains non-state actors and rogue states as key influences on world politics. Can liberal institutions like the NPT or Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) compel nations like North Korea and Iran to relinquish their pursuit of nuclear weapons? Analysis of these nations’ motivations would suggest not, which means denuclearization poses even more danger.

To be fair, President Obama has said that the U.S. will maintain its nuclear deterrent as long as there are nuclear weapons in the world.  When understood in context to rogue states, this statement has two implications: 1) The U.S. will never relinquish its nuclear weapons because nations like Iran and North Korea will continue to pursue them and 2) Iran and North Korea effectively determine the fate of global nuclear non-proliferation.  Furthermore, the second statement illuminates a persistent problem for liberal non-proliferation–namely hold out. Indeed, if Iran and North Korea have such enormous influence on global non-proliferation, they have significant incentives to hold out as long as possible.  If taken to its extreme, other nations would then also have incentives to do the same, which by backwards induction means the world will remain nuclear in perpetuity.

Moreover, the way in which regimes like the NPT incentivize denuclearization is through provision of (regulated) nuclear technology for “peaceful purposes,” which means nations like North Korea could have access to enrichment plants and uranium supplies simply by ratifying the treaty. Such incentives may actually increase the risk of proliferation because it is difficult to assess the credibility of each nation’s commitment to non-proliferation. Giving a nation like Iran access to uranium enrichment plants, nuclear power plants, reactors, and most importantly the indigenous knowledge to develop fissile material provides the necessary ingredients to develop a nuclear weapons program. Indeed, the biggest obstacle for a nation pursuing nuclear weapons is the ability to create weapons grade fuel; it would no longer remain an obstacle post-NPT ratification. Moreover, as Fuhrmann notes, the IAEA currently does not have the financial resources to guarantee that recipients of NPT support are not exploiting it for military purposes.

In addition to the risks of a non-nuclear world facing nuclear rogues, the United States must think about its nuclear umbrella and the impact of nuclear withdrawal on the sanctity of the nations that depend on it. Under the model of extended deterrence, the United States guarantees the security of nations like South Korea and Japan in exchange for non-proliferation commitments from those nations. Although the U.S. umbrella has never been tested, it has sufficed to prevent proliferation among U.S. allies.

However, imagine a world in which the United States withdraws from the nuclear order and consequently loses the ability to provide a nuclear umbrella. For a nation like Japan, who is now facing a credible North Korean nuclear threat and a rapidly modernizing-already nuclear Chinese military, there may be no choice but to pursue nuclear weapons. The historical record shows that Japanese policy makers have always been skeptical of the model of extended deterrence but popular support for the United States in conjunction with the post-Hiroshima stigma surrounding nuclear weapons have prevented Japanese proliferation. Today, a new generation of Japanese elites, one that did not experience the turmoil of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, exhibits an increasing desire for Japanese nuclear weapons; it is only faith in the U.S. nuclear umbrella and desire to maintain good US-Japan relations that is preventing Japanese proliferation. If the United States withdraws from the nuclear club, relations will no longer be an issue, and Japanese politicians will have the firepower they need to catalyze Japanese nuclear development. This situation is not unique to Japan or even East Asia, other U.S. allies with the latent capacity to develop nuclear weapons could nuclearize in the face of U.S. nuclear reductions.

President Obama agrees that we cannot expect the world to become nuclear free within his presidency or even during his lifetime. Yet he still believes we should strive for a world without nuclear weapons, which is something I disagree with. Even if in the long term Obama’s assumptions are true that gradual change will conduce most nations to implement reciprocal nuclear reductions, we can never be sure that our short term reductions regardless of their size would not lead to more proliferation. Moreover, in light of new existential security threats such as Iran and North Korea our allies are walking on tightropes and will not withstand even the smallest of vibrations. Finally, there will always be uncertainty when we operate under anarchy, and thus there will always be a need and more importantly, a desire, for nuclear weapons. Obviously a nuclear United States is necessary not only for American security, but for the security of the rest of the world. Hopefully, President Obama and Senator McCain realize this sooner rather than later.

Mars rover

Technological progress is prevalent in society. Every year, newer models of cell phones, televisions, and computers are released. The reasoning behind the release of new machinery is that it is more efficient than the previous model and thus can greatly facilitate the activities it was designed for. The invention of the cotton gin in 1793 and the steel plow in 1837 greatly improved farming methods [1]. Prior to these inventions cotton was picked by hand and land was plowed by fragile wooden plows. As a result, the same amount of physical input can produce more units of clothing and harvest. These technological advances enhanced global living standards because it made the production of food and clothing much more efficient. Likewise, the advent of computers and the Internet has allowed information exchange at much faster rates. To further capitalize on the positive effects of technological progress, scientists are trying to develop technology with artificial intelligence. Artificial intelligence is the design of a system of independently thinking agents that are capable of interacting with their environment [2]. With artificially intelligent technology, many scientists hypothesize that the efficient nature of machines can then be applied to an extended range of activities, such as space exploration and crime patrol. Although artificial intelligence may greatly improve life, it also poses economic, social, and ethical challenges.

Development and Applications of Artificial Intelligence

The exact threshold of when a program displays artificial intelligence is hard to define. However, using the human brain as a basis for artificial intelligence, all artificially intelligent programs should be able to display perception, analysis, and action [3]. The human brain perceives the surrounding environment through the interaction of the five senses and neurons [4]. Similarly, through the use of equipment such as cameras, motion sensors, thermometers, and microphones, programs can take in information about the environment. The analysis portion is the differentiation factor between computer programs and the human brain. Typical programs take in input and mechanically process them in a series of defined steps [5]. Programs treat all types of inputs alike and only deal with problems once they occur in the course of the execution. A program does not deviate from its coding, no matter how absurd following through with the lines of coding may be. For example, a program designed to print out the first ten multiples of a number the user inputs will take a non-numerical input and then produce an error when it tries to use that input in the subsequent lines of coding. It does not immediately recognize the problem before it acts on the input.

Asimo Robot

This structured response to the environment is different from human responses. Just like a basic computer program, the brain does process inputs from the environment. However, the human brain is not limited to reacting in the exact same way to all environmental cues, even if they are very similar. When other people are speaking to someone, the individual’s brain perceives the sounds and mentally processes it into meaningful thoughts. Based on the content of the message, the person speaks back in an appropriate manner. This method of handling sounds is broken when the sound is alarmingly loud, such as a gunshot, because it usually throws people into a panic and they stop trying to understand the sound as they run. Likewise, different individuals may react differently to the same exact words spoken to them. Racial comments may anger some but not affect others. The fact that the human brain can have unique reactions associated with the same input highlights the independent-thinking nature of the brain. Nothing is absolutely set in stone. Instead, the brain evolves over time and is able to learn from past encounters. Whereas earlier, the sound of thunder may have startled an individual, it can now have no effect on the same person. Current programs cannot rewrite themselves without human help.

A truly artificially intelligent program would be able to mimic the human brain and react uniquely to inputs. To endow current facial recognition programs with artificial intelligence, the program must be able to assess what the best way to identify an individual is before taking any action. If a person is wearing a mask, the program must realize that and not bother conducting facial scans. Instead, it should use voice recognition to identify the person. Furthermore, the program must be able to rewrite its lines of coding so that next time if a person is wearing a mask, it will go directly to voice recognition [6]. An artificially intelligent program need not be able to solve all problems but it needs to display trouble-shooting abilities.

Significant examples of artificial intelligence include video games and aeronautical equipment [7]. In video games, non-playable characters display artificial intelligence when they react to the movements of the human player. Even though there are certain lines of coding programmed into the game, the characters are still dynamic and react in a logical manner. Characters will actually seek cover when they are being shot at instead of blindly running towards gunfire. Some of them might try to flank the player or generally outmaneuver him in different patterns. As the game progresses, the non-playable characters become more familiar with the player’s strategy and thus react accordingly. Despite the unique strategies that each human player might develop throughout the course of the game, the artificially intelligent characters will adapt to each strategy.

NASA’s Mars Rover is capable of holding dialogues with scientists when issued a command. Even though a scientist could tell the Rover to execute an action, such as examining a rock, the Mars Rover does not need to immediately comply because it first assesses the environment and then determines whether or not it is safe to do so [8]. The Rover’s refusal to mindlessly obey the commands demonstrates its independent-thinking capabilities Its analytical abilities mirrors a human’s abilities because it takes into consideration factors in the environment, such as rough terrain, and does not only follow the scientist’s input command. After analysis, the Rover executes the action it deems best and informs the scientist. By ultimately making its own decisions, the Rover is displaying artificial intelligence.

Ethical Implications

There is a mixed reaction in the scientific community about the potential effects of artificial intelligence. Advocates of artificial intelligence cite the increased productivity and efficiency that can be obtained by replacing humans with machines in certain jobs [9]. A contemporary example of the increased efficiency includes American Express’s “Authorization Assistant” that uses a dynamic algorithm to flag unusual credit card activity for each cardholder [9]. By recognizing inconsistent purchases of an individual based on their previous history, the program is able to greatly reduce credit card fraud. It would take a human being a much longer time to keep track of all of these purchases and be able to differentiate between legitimate purchases and unusual ones. An extrapolation of the positive effects of this program seems to indicate that with further development of artificial intelligence, the rate of producing goods or rendering services will drastically increase because there will be a reduction in human error. Furthermore, due to the lack of physical limitations, such as sickness and the necessity for sleep, artificial intelligent agents would be more efficient workers than humans [10]. Robots could be operating manufacturing plants twenty-four hours a day and not need to stop. Also, the durability of artificially intelligent robots makes them ideal candidates for dangerous tasks, such as defusing bombs or exploring underwater regions, because their usage can save human lives [10].

Topio Robot

There are potential negative aspects to the benefits offered by artificial intelligence. Bill Joy, chief engineer at Sun Microsystems, believes that when artificially intelligent agents are created, it is inevitable that they will take control of society because of their efficiency [11]. Even though this view is extreme, it is not unreasonable to conclude that as technology becomes more efficient, the need for human workers will decline and unemployment rates will rise in certain sectors [9]. Historically, this trend is demonstrated in the manufacturing industry as the introduction of machinery led to the displacement of unskilled laborers [12]. Similarly, as the functions of robots increase and they become more prevalent, humanity runs the risk of becoming dependent upon them [6]. Excessive reliance on calculators in math courses has been linked with the decrease in mental math abilities in American students [13]. If excessive technological dependence does occur, then humanity will be at the mercy of the machines [6]. Joy referred to this situation as the “New Luddite Challenge” and said that the only way to combat this is to keep the usage of robots in check [6]. It is understandable to be dependent on technology to a certain degree, such as being dependent on a car in order to get to work, but to become helpless without technology would most likely be devastating. Before the implementation of artificially intelligent agents in certain sectors, it should be mandatory to notify employees early on so they have time to gain new skills in order to remain employed.

Along with this dependence and usage of artificially intelligent comes the issue about the status of robots [14]. If machines were to be equipped with artificial intelligence, then they can be considered as conscious beings [10]. Society would have to decide whether or not to allow these independently thinking entities to have the same rights as human beings or any rights at all. Moral rights, such as the right to life and the right not to be manipulated for another person’s gain, are granted to all independent consciousness beings [14]. These rights may negate the original intent for the development of artificial intelligence if the robot refused to carry out tasks that it was designed for. Financial and political rights for the robots may intimidate humans as the rapidly reproducing robots assume greater roles in society [6]. Most importantly, it would be necessary to ensure that the robots acted as moral agents and did not arbitrarily hurt human beings [14]. As the world gets closer to developing human-like artificial intelligence, scientists and politicians should decide how to treat these entities in order to prevent future problems.

The dual nature of the advancement of artificial intelligence makes it a controversial case. Currently scientists are far from perfecting artificial intelligence to the level of the human brain and thus the debate over implications is unresolved and speculative.

1. Nosotro R. Technological Advances of American Agriculture [Online Article]. Hyperhistory.Net. [Cited 2010 Jan 20] Available from: http://www.hyperhistory.net/apwh/essays/cot/t4w24agricultural-technology.htm

1. Poole D, Mackworth A, Goebel R. Computational Intelligence: A Logical Approach. New York: Oxford University Press; 1998.

1. Russell SJ. Artificial intelligence a modern approach. Englewood Cliffs, N.J: Prentice Hall; 1995.

1. University of Leicester. “How Does The Human Brain Work? New Ways To Better Understand How Our Brain Processes Information.” ScienceDaily [online] 26 May 2009. [cited 2009 October 13 ] Available from: http://www.sciencedaily.com­ /releases/2009/05/090519152559.htm

1. Eck D. Introduction to Programming Using JAVA, Fifth Edition (Internet). David Eck; 2009 June [Cited 2010 Jan. 20]. Available from: http://math.hws.edu/javanotes/index.html

1. Dunnuck NS. The Effect of Emerging Artificial Intelligence Techniques on the Ethical Role of Computer Scientists [BS thesis Online]. Virginia: University of Virginia; 2002 [cited 2009 Oct 13]. Available from: http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~evans/theses/dunnuck.pdf

1. Russel SJ, Norvig P. Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach (2nd ed.), Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall; 2003

1. Bluck J. “NASA Artificial Intelligence Could Help Astronauts Work More Efficiently in Space” [Online article]. NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, Calif. [Cited 2009 Nov 8] Available from: http://www.nasa.gov/centers/ames/research/exploringtheuniverse/spiffy.html

1. Cattaneo T. The Surge of Artificial Intelligence: Time To Re-examine Ourselves [Online article]. Miami University. [Cited 2009 Nov 29] Available from: http://www.units.muohio.edu/psybersite/cyberspace/aisurge/implications.shtml

1. Oak M. The Pros and Cons of Artificial Intelligence. Buzzle.com [Online article] [Cited 2009 Nov 8] Available from: http://www.buzzle.com/articles/pros-and-cons-of-artificial-intelligence.html

1. Joy B. Why The Future Doesn’t Need Us. Wired (Internet). 2000 April. [Cited 2010 Jan 20]; 8 (04). Available from: http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.04/joy.html?pg=1&topic=&topic_set=

1. Princeton University. Technology and Structural Unemployment Reemploying Displaced Workers [Online Article]. Princeton University, NJ. [Cited 2010 Jan 20] Available from: http://www.princeton.edu/~ota/disk2/1986/8632/863203.PDF

1. McNamara D, Danielle S. Effects of Prior Knowledge on the Generation Advantage: Calculators Versus Calculation to Learn Simple Multiplication. Journal of Educational Psychology. 1995. 87: 307-318.

1. Torrance S. The Ethical Status of Artificial Agents – With and Without Consciousness [Online Article]. Middle Sex University, UK. [Cited 2010 Jan. 20] Available from: http://ethicbots.na.infn.it/meetings/firstworkshop/abstracts/torrance.htm

Taskin Rahman is a sophomore economics major at Cornell University. He is interested in the interactions between business operations and computer programming.

Apple Ipad that also serves as an ebook reader

With the release of Apple Inc.’s iPad, another chapter is being written in the history of digitized media.  Specifically, the iPad continues the work done by products such as the Amazon Kindle and Barnes & Noble Nook, in furthering the development  of the eBook market.

By definition, eBooks, also known as digital books, are e-texts that form the digital media equivalent of a conventional printed book, analogous to the mp3 in the digital music realm.  First developed in 1971 by Michael S. Hart’s “Project Gutenberg”, eBooks have recently recaptured the attention of consumers and technological gurus alike, with the huge retail success of the Kindle in particular.  However, the technology has received an equal magnitude of attention from critics and publishers, who fear the same events that threatened to cripple the music industry as a result of digitized media will occur once more, this time at the expense of the physical book industry.  However, after a quick review of how the mp3 and downloadable music has changed the music industry forever, it seems quite apparent that putting eBooks into the mainstream stands to improve revenue from books, rather than to cripple the industry.

The relationship between the Recording Industry Association of America and the concept of digitized music certainly got off to a rocky start—I don’t think anyone will argue with that.  With the birth of Napster in 1999, music was able to be traded among individuals without any restrictions for the first time, with “consumers” able to collect arbitrarily large volumes of music and other digitized media without having to pay for it.  While the RIAA employed successful litigation to shut the service down, the concept that was the core of the service was carried on in the form of decentralized peer-to-peer file sharing programs—in a nutshell, services which allowed trading and communication between any two computers within the service.  The music and movie online piracy that emerged as a result of these programs sent the RIAA into an uproar, and commenced a campaign against the technology that has lasted for nearly a decade.  However, while the ability to transfer mp3s between computers started as a black market sinkhole for the industry, it led to arguably one of the most successful online purchasing models yet created: The Apple iTunes Store.

Opened on April 28, 2003, the iTunes store would eventually become the single largest vendor of music in the United States.  By incorporating both a pricing model that gave royalties to artists for their downloaded content, as well as built in Digital Rights Management (DRM) technology, the Store successfully bridged the gap between mass digitalization of media and legal means of distribution and downloading.  While the issue of piracy still remains, the monumental success of the service created an opportunity for artists and producers alike to market themselves and distribute their music in an entirely new fashion, as well as developing a new source of revenue.

The value in reviewing the successes and failures of digitized music lies in the fact that with some careful study, those who have their hands in the physical book industry can reach an equilibrium between digitized media and legal avenues for its distribution more quickly and less painfully.  As it turns out, certain niches of the industry have already begun to embrace the concept.

With the current generation of students fully equipped to thrive in a digital age, the relationship between student and academia has become increasingly more digital and liberal.  Services such as JSTOR, which license massive archives of academic literature and content to universities and libraries, including Cornell, allow students to have unprecedented access to academic journals and the valuable research that they contain.  Additionally, online education technology, such as those developed by Aplia and other like services, have begun to change the way students interact with course material, with online tests and problem sets being readily integrated into a student’s coursework.  Both examples demonstrate the potential of digitized literature to change the way information is acquired and shared.

Currently, overly restrictive DRM has been holding the eBook industry back, as a lack of technology standardization and limitations on distribution have created a stall in the mainstreaming of the technology.  Publishers, with good reason, are hesitant to let in digitized literature technology, as it certainly threatens to send an earthquake through the industry, just as digitized music did the same for the RIAA and the rest of the music industry.  However, I remain a firm believer that technological progress is an inevitable phenomenon. eBooks and the eReaders used to view them will continue to grow in their influence on the ways we interact with books.  If the industry’s constituents have any foresight whatsoever, they will eventually see the immense potential of the technology, to create new revenue streams for publishers and authors alike as well as increase the availability of and ease of access to academic and commercial literature to an increasingly tech-savvy consumer.  Only time will tell how soon and how rapidly that realization occurs, but I believe (and hope) that it is soon.

Adolescence

As a nation, we are very confused as to when one actually becomes an adult. Is it at age 18 when you can vote for the president, be sentenced to death, join the armed forces? Perhaps it is age 19 when in New York State you can buy tobacco, or for that matter 21 when you can buy alcohol. What does it say about a nation where you are old enough to go to war and die for your country but you are too young to sit down for a drink at the end of the day? In fact, it seems that today’s adolescent are experiencing stall in entering adulthood. Contemporary society sees the average woman marrying at age 26, while her counterpart from fifty years ago wore the ring at age 20. Furthermore, the percentage of American 30-year-olds who are married and living independently has dropped from 70% to 40% in the course of the last forty years [1].

Perhaps this lack of matriculation into adulthood on the part of today’s youth is due to a lack of a clear rite of passage. While ceremonies such as Bar mitzvah and Bat mitzvah, Quinceañera, Sweet-Sixteen, still remain part of our practice as a nation, they do not truly mark the entrance into adulthood and do not signify any changes recognized by the government. The United States, a modern, discontinuous society, has veered away from a traditional society. In a traditional society, children follow the professions of their parents and slowly and continuously make the transition into adulthood as they learn and work beside their parents.

Emerging Adolescence, a term coined by Jeffrey Arnett, describes the developmental stage between adolescence and adulthood that is applied to the 18-25 age group.  Traditionally this group would be perceived as adults but presently there is confusion as to where this age group fits into society.  According to Arnett there are five key elements of emerging adulthood: identity exploration, instability, self focused, feeling in-between, possibilities [2].  The first element, identity exploration, is about identifying morals and goals and ultimately becoming comfortable with the person you are. With regards to the second element, it is a time of constant movement, movement: moving out of the house and struggling to make a living. The third element, self focused, occurs in this age group as they are not married, do not have kids or other responsibilities that would detract being able to be self-focused. Feeling in-between, the fourth element, occurs as this age group does not know whether they are kids or adults. Finally, the 18-25 years age group faces many possibilities as these subjects are not yet committed to a career and recognizes the indeterminateness of the immediate future and how their choices can shape this future.

Now this description seems very similar to the typical college experience. According to the United States census, over 25% teenagers attend college [3]. Perhaps this increase in the number of students attending college is partly to blame for this extended adolescence. In college students must declare a major based on their interests and future career goals. In addition, many college students are financially unstable and dependent on their parents to foot the tuition bill exceeding tens of thousands of dollars. As far as “feeling in-between goes” over half of college students are underage when it comes to buying alcohol but at the same time are capable of voting. Finally, most college students are exploring possible career paths and not quite locked into future and therefore have their entire life ahead of them with innumerable paths to choose from.  College provides a delay in students entering the work force and some time to form an identity. Perhaps it is true that an average college student is not an adult but perhaps that’s a good thing.

[1] Schelhas-Miller, Christine. “Social Transitions.” HD 1170: Emergin Adolescence. Cornell University. Warren Hall, Ithaca. 2 Feb. 2010. Class lecture.

[2] Steinberg, Laurence. Adolescence. 8 ed. New York City: McGraw-Hill Humanities/Social Sciences/Languages, 2007. Print.

[3] “2010 Census.” 2010 Census. N.p., n.d. Web. 2 Mar. 2010. <http://2010.census.gov/2010census

In the previous paragraph I made a claim that we spend a large amount of money on NASA, and while this is true in that the 2011 budget for NASA consists of an investment on the order of 10¹⁰ dollars, strictly speaking, the actual slice of the budget pie that NASA receives is quite low. When numbers reach into the billions and trillions, it becomes very difficult to conceptualize the magnitude of spending. One way to look at it is this: if the national budget were 1000 dollars, NASA would receive about 5 dollars. This is around 15 times less than is being spent on interest from the national debt and over 40 times less than is being spent on defense or Social Security. This is not to discredit these very large important programs, so much as it is to highlight that NASA contributes to a little bit less than one half of one percent of the total national budget in 2011 [3,4]. Even so, is even this small an amount of the budget appropriate for an organization concerned primarily with matters beyond this world? Looking at real-world applications of NASA technology and the benefits of other curiosity-based research may help shed light on this question.

In the process of engineering vehicles that are meant to send astronauts and satellites safely to space, NASA has developed many new technologies, which have ended up in a diverse group of fields. For instance, the life rafts that Apollo astronauts sat in after splashdown in the ocean have been appropriated for use on many other boats due to their resistance to capsizing even in rough seas. In the field of medicine, microgravity bioreactors developed by NASA are being licensed to quickly grow cells three-dimensionally as opposed to in Petri dishes, an important step in accurately recreating cells as they appear in the human body. NASA has also funded and developed many advances in solar power technology, helping to create more efficient solar cells (unsurprising, considering the main energy source of many of NASA’s satellites and probes). These are just three examples of projects in which NASA has had a huge hand, and others include military robots based on lunar rover technology, heat-conductive pipes that allow portable electronics to stay cool, and the development of materials used in everything from architecture to prosthetic limbs [5]. When you realize that much of this technology is available today because of curiosity about what lies beyond the Earth, the strengths of curiosity-based research become more readily apparent. At the same time, the expected outcomes of research for scientists and the people who fund them may still differ.

The Orion Crew Vehicle

A prime example of this discrepancy of expectations is the aforementioned Constellation project. It proposed the design and construction of Ares I, IV, and V rockets, of roughly the same size as the Saturn V rocket that powered the Apollo missions. These rockets also incorporated solid booster technology from the Space Shuttle program. The second piece of the program involved the development of the Orion crew vehicle, a capsule similar to the one that astronauts used for moon orbit and Earth reentry. Scientifically, the project was meant to be a proof of concept and eventual means of visiting the Moon and Mars, with potential later on for a colony on one of these foreign bodies [2]. A much closer-to-home function of the project was to serve as a basis for jobs and income, especially in the state of Alabama, where NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center is located. It is no coincidence that one of the most outspoken opponents of the proposed cut of Constellation is Alabama’s senior senator, Richard Shelby. Other critics include more congressmen from Alabama, as well as those representing Florida and Texas, where other NASA centers are located [6]. Though these men eulogize on the future of spaceflight, at the center of their protests is something much more pragmatic: their constituents’ need for jobs. This very practical reasoning somehow brings us back to curiosity-based research.

People may wonder why it is that any government funds organizations that seek nothing more than learning more about the universe in which we live. On the surface, this is reasonable. Surely taxpayer dollars could be better spent on programs that will actually help those in need. What is often not realized is the true contributions to society such research can provide. NASA, over the course of just over 50 years, has created thousands of jobs, developed technologies that can change millions of lives, while at the same time contributing immensely to human understanding of the cosmos. Even if the average person doesn’t care too much about the composition of the universe or the most recently discovered exoplanet, tools developed from curiosity-based research continue to benefit us right here on Earth.

1. National Aeronautics and Space Administration. “NASA Science: Missions.” NASA, http://nasascience.nasa.gov/missions.

2. National Aeronautics and Space Administration. “Constellation.” NASA http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/constellation/main/.

3. The Office of Management and Budget. “National Aeronautics and Space Administration Budget.” OMB, http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2011/assets/nasa.pdf.

4. Office of Management and Budget. “Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2011.” OMB, http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Overview/.

5. National Aeronautics and Space Administration. “Innovative Partnerships Program.” NASA, http://www.sti.nasa.gov/spinoff/database.

6. The Huntsville Times. “Alabama lawmakers oppose shutdown.” Sean Reilly, http://www.al.com/news/huntsvilletimes/local.ssf?/base/news/1265105713324480.xml&coll=1