Thursday Take-Off: ‘Sup South Campus?

The New York Times recently published an article featuring UCLA statistics regarding the inevitable South to North Campus switch that many students experience.  This trend is particularly disconcerting in that the US is facing a labor shortage in technical/science fields, meaning that, while unemployment remains high, we must recruit scientists from other countries to do science-related jobs.

Did you switch from South to North Campus?  North to South?  Why?  What could be done to retain more South Campus majors? Share your story in the comments!

Short Essay: “Can There Be a Feminist Science?”

In the paper “Can There Be A Feminist Science?”, Helen E. Longino explores the various interpretations of feminist science and discusses what she identifies as problems with the current state of scientific inquiry.  To many, including myself, science has remained void of cultural interaction.  Our quests for universal truths seem to fail to indicate any clear connections between the scientific method and the world’s social conditions. However, Longino argues that this is not the case.  While Longino makes some strong assertions about science and its interactions between cultural values and ideologies, there is room for argument especially in regards to her claim that we are “passive onlookers” or slaves to knowledge.

Before Longino discusses how “good” science fails to incorporate values, ideologies, and emotion, she first describes two kinds of values she believes is relevant to the sciences–constitutive values and contextual values.  Constitutive values are the rules that determine what is acceptable scientific practice or scientific method, whereas contextual values indicate to what social and cultural context the science in question particularly belong.  Many believe that these two values are exclusive; Longino believes that the distinction between the two should not be maintained if we are to foster “good” science.  As confusing and arbitrary as it sounds, what Longino ultimately means is that science cannot be completely objective.  Even within the physical and biological sciences which are founded upon strict universal methods of hypothesis-making, educated predictions, logical procedure development, control group distinctions, and scientific validity, feminist scientists argue that it is impossible to make science completely objective.  Since males dominate the sciences, deviations from objectivity are thus resultant of the male impact on constitutive and contextual values.  This inherently is “bad” science.

Why is all this important?  From a feminist’s standpoint, this is of the utmost importance.  From a politically neutral scientist’s standpoint, gender bias in the sciences probably does not hold any true relevance.  They would probably just note it and return to their studies.  So if science brings about truths, correctly answers questions, and minimizes ambiguity, why should the origins of scientific values matter?  Here, Longino makes a good point.  While we can greatly appreciate science’s advances and ends to enlightenment, one should always question the means to those ends.  While this is not an argument about ethics, gender bias in the sciences and its effects on scientific outcomes should be held up to the same importance as ethical issues in science, such as how there is still laboratory animal abuse and how that has affected scientific outcomes.  If all we care about is the end to each scientific experiment, founding, or study, then what does that say about our values?

Longino, however, makes a very odd argument about passivity of science.  Reading any research publication exemplifies this well.  Novels and newspapers oppositely utilize active voice, while it is quite clear that science papers utilize passive voice.  An example of passive voice can be seen in “it is concluded that…” or “it has been discovered that…” or “no such effects were found…”  Longino makes the argument that because of this passive voice, we have become “passive onlookers, helpless to affect the course of knowledge.”  Her argument here is rather odd in that I believe that it holds little relevance.  So what if we are passive onlookers?  Just because scientists happen to use passive voice, they are subordinate to the knowledge that they generate?  And if it were accepted that scientists are in fact subordinate to knowledge, is it not the knowledge we should be glorifying rather than one particular person who discovered such knowledge anyway?  Longino’s position reveals a rather narcissist view of our species in that it shows how we must always be in control, that being subordinate is always a bad thing.  My position simply states that being passive or active onlookers in the realm of science really doesn’t matter.

Overall, Longino makes some strong arguments on the subject of feminist science.  Since science is not wholly objective, that it does reflect contextual values, we must change what those contextual values are in order to move towards a “better” or less biased science.

Post submitted by: Crystal Maranan

Free Speech Friday: Harvey Fineberg: Are we ready for neo-evolution?

About this talk: Medical ethicist Harvey Fineberg shows us three paths forward for the ever-evolving human species: to stop evolving completely, to evolve naturally — or to control the next steps of human evolution, using genetic modification, to make ourselves smarter, faster, better. Neo-evolution is within our grasp. What will we do with it?

As I browsed the front page of TED.com this morning, the nerd inside of me immediately had me drawn to this talk by Harvey Fineberg, the president of the Institute of Medicine.  As summarized above, Fineberg discusses three evolutionary pathways the human species can possibly take in the future.  Neo-evolution seems to be what Fineberg is biased towards.

Science has always been a field of study that has attracted unwanted ethical issues. The classical friction between religion and science, for example, has been around for centuries (go get ‘em, Galileo). Using and abusing animals for the name of science has also been an issue. So, we can assume the same for the study of genetics. *cough* Eugenics movement in Germany *cough* Hitler *cough cough* The Immigration Restriction Act *cough*

Watch the video and pay special attention to the third evolutionary pathway Fineberg discusses. Does what Fineberg suggest scare you or inspire you? Does this “neo-evolution” theory smell of an unsavory contemporary version of eugenics? Or is the technological modification of our gene pool our best bet for the survival of our species?

Post submitted by: Crystal Maranan

Monday Money: How to Write a Science Abstract (Basics)

First off, what is an abstract?  An abstract is a short, powerful statement outlining a larger work such as a research paper.  Abstracts are used in a variety of disciplines ranging from the sciences to the humanities.  Here, I will focus on abstracts for scientific research papers.  Most scientific research papers require research teams to write an abstract that includes the significance of the what is being researched, what knowledge gap the research is filling, the hypothesis, the materials and methods, results, and a concluding statement.

The main purpose of an abstract is therefore to brief the reader about what the research paper contains.  Many online journals require research teams to put together abstracts so that readers can see whether the research papers are relevant to their own interests or research.  Abstracts thus make it easier for researchers and students to narrow down searches on databases which may contain thousands of various research articles.  I recently submitted an abstract to apply to be a participant of a poster day conference at UCLA, and so abstracts can be used in that way as well.

A science abstract has a basic, nearly universal structure. It contains four main parts:

1. A statement introducing your purpose of the study
2. Your materials, methods, procedure, or approach
3. What results you found after your procedure
4. A concluding statement explaining the larger implications of your findings

A science abstract should include all of the above components in a short concise paragraph, perhaps with no more than 1600 characters (with spaces).  A good abstract highlights the best of your research paper, so remember to keep your reader engaged and interested in moving on to reading your entire research paper.  If you’re an undergraduate, seek help from your faculty mentor or your fellow research associates.  Seeking help from them early on in the writing process can help prevent you from submitting an abstract that lacks that “scientific air” and the correct terminology pertaining to your area of study.

For more help and access to sample research abstracts, visit here: HOW TO WRITE AN ABSTRACT: Links and Tips

Good luck!

Post submitted by: Crystal Maranan

Review: Arte/Scienza – Using Your Whole Brain

Many of us understand and recognize that the brain is the most evolved and complex organ within the human body.  It has given Homo sapiens the ability to make conscious decisions, to ponder and contemplate, to create and destroy, to write, to draw, to feel pleasure, to feel pain, to build cities, to send people into space, and to dream.  The list is infinite.

On that list we also see “to create art” and “to advance in science”.  Art and science are two of the most fascinating and influential creations of the human brain, and although they come from the same organ, the brain processes art and science in two separate hemispheres–the right and left.  Research tells us that our creative, big-picture thinking is processed by our right brain, while the left hemisphere processes our logical thinking.  In this chapter of How to Think Like Leonardo Da Vinci entitled “Arte/Scienza”, we learn how to use these two hemispheres with balance.

Many students tend to exercise their left-brain thinking so much that it becomes exhausting.  We always seek to arrive at the right answers in the most logical way, and we are rewarded for doing so time and time again.  Our thinking has become so systematic that it stifles our ability to express our thoughts creatively and to see things through a more holistic lens.

Not sure which side of the brain you utilize the most?  Here’s a fun self-assessment included in this chapter of the book that you can do on your own.

Scienza/Left-brained Thinking

• I like details
• I am almost always on time.
• I am skilled at math.
• I rely on logic.
• I write clearly.
• Friends describe me as very articulate.
• Analysis is one of my strengths.
• I am organized and disciplined.
• I like lists.
• I read a book starting on page one and go through in order.

Arte/Right-brained Thinking

• I am highly imaginative.
• I am good at brainstorming.
• I often say or do the unexpected.
• I love to doodle.
• In school I was better at geometry than algebra.
• I read a book by skipping around.
• I prefer to look at the big picture and leave the details to someone else.
• I often lost  track of time.
• I rely on intuition.

So which side of the brain did Leonardo seem to exercise the most?  As you can guess, Da Vinci used both.  He would teach his students–artists and scientists alike–to go out in nature to seek out the answers to their questions.  He suggested them to examine trees and other flora to understand the way in which life was like a huge network, extending like roots into the ground. He became such a prolific artist and inventor because he found ways to fuse his critical, analytical thinking with his imagination.

To begin my mind map, I drew some things that I thought best represented the game of golf: the flag of the 18th green, a golf ball, and a bag of clubs.

After I finished drawing, I drew lines stemming out from my central picture and wrote down my "key-words". This process helped me visualize my main thoughts and ideas.

Here's one of my branches entitled "Competition".

More branches. I included "Family" as one of my key-words because golf has been something that has brought my family together over the years.

MIND MAPPING

Finish the self-assessment? Learn anything new about yourself? Whether you found out you’re left-brained, right-brained, or a proud operator of both sides of the brain, try this activity from How to Think Like Leonardo Da Vinci for fun! You will need a blank sheet of paper, pens or colored pencils, and a simple idea/memory.

The point of this exercise is to free your mind of judgment and exercise both your critical thinking and your imagination. While most of us do outlines in basic bullet point form, this is a more creative way to begin papers or to generate theses.

To create a mind map, draw a picture in the center of the sheet of paper that best represents your idea or memory. In this case, I chose golf because it was something easy to brainstorm about. It’s recommended that you create your first mind map on a simple idea or memory.

Next, draw a few lines or branches stemming away from your center picture. On these lines, write key-words that best describe or relate to your subject. Remember to print your key-words, since this makes it easier for you to read and remember what you’re writing about.

After you’ve written down your key-words, draw more branches stemming from the branches you already established. On these branches you can write down more detailed connections to your central idea. Feel free to doodle other symbols along with these key-words. Remember, we are utilizing both sides of the brain so don’t be afraid of getting creative with this.

After you’re all done, you can draw arrows between any of your key-words if you see that connections can be made between them. Color any images you’ve drawn.

And that’s your mind map!  I hope you will have just as much fun with this activity as I have.

Post submitted by: Crystal Maranan

Wednesday Word: 10 Questions for Stephen Hawking

For this week’s Wednesday Word, I thought I’d do something a little different.  Choosing an article to respond to or discuss took a little time but Reddit eventually pulled through for me.  With just 4 up-votes, I found a link to TIME Magazine’s 10 Questions for Stephen Hawking, a recent article in which the famed theoretical physicist and cosmologist answers ten questions asked by people around the world.

You may ask why I decided to choose this particular “article” and not something headlining The New York Times or Yahoo.com.  The answer is very simple.

Stephen Hawking is just brilliant.  And even that is an understatement.

For those unfamiliar with his work, Professor Stephen W. Hawking primarily focused on the ways in which our universe operates and the laws which these operations follow.  He has greatly contributed to the fields of cosmology and quantum physics, especially to the research of black holes (see Hawking radiation), and has been given numerous prestigious awards from the Albert Einstein Medal (1979) to the Presidential Medal of Freedom (2009), which is the highest honor granted to a civilian in the United States.

Hawking has also published a number of popular books such as A Brief History in Time and The Grand Design in which Hawking argues that “God is not necessary to explain the origins of the universe, and that the Big Bang is a consequence of the laws of physics alone.”  Hawking later adds in response to the book’s criticism that “one can’t prove that God doesn’t exist, but science makes God unnecessary.”

TIME’s “10 Questions for Stephen Hawking” is, luckily, on a far more casual note than what Hawking deals with in his books.  Hawking’s responses to the questions, which include topics on the subject of God and life after death, are interesting and rather simple to understand–a simplicity that you won’t find in any other conversation about theoretical and quantum physics with Stephen Hawking.

Here are two of the most interesting Q&A’s I found in the interview:

If God doesn’t exist, why did the concept of his existence become almost universal? —Basanta Borah, BASEL, SWITZERLAND
I don’t claim that God doesn’t exist. God is the name people give to the reason we are here. But I think that reason is the laws of physics rather than someone with whom one can have a personal relationship. An impersonal God.

 

What do you believe happens to our consciousness after death? —Elliot Giberson, SEATTLE
I think the brain is essentially a computer and consciousness is like a computer program. It will cease to run when the computer is turned off. Theoretically, it could be re-created on a neural network, but that would be very difficult, as it would require all one’s memories.

 

Thanks for checking out Wednesday Word!  Also note that TIME Magazine has done “10 Questions” on a large number of people from a variety of fields such as movies, television, politics, religion, sports, and fiction.  You can check it out at: http://www.time.com/time/10questions.

Geeks rule.

 

Post submitted by Crystal Maranan