Not out of the solar system yet

It is 1977 and big things are happening for those interested in space. “Star Wars” has been released, but more importantly, Voyager 1 is being sent off to explore the universe. The technology on the spacecraft included an 8-track tape recorder (if anyone still remembers what that is) and computers with not even a thousandth of the memory found on even a dated flip phone.

It is 2013 and we are now 36 years past the launch of Voyager 1. The technology on the spacecraft was only designed for a 4-year mission to Saturn, but the “Little Spacecraft That Could” is now reaching new lengths within our universe.

Voyager 1 has recently entered interstellar space, the space between the stars. This is the farthest a spacecraft has ever gone! With such meager technology, this spacecraft has achieved some incomprehensible lengths, making it a feat for physicists and space-buffs alike. 

The Higgs Particle Finally Makes Some Sense

Brian Greene's article, How the Higgs Boson was Found is the most demystifying article I have read on the Higgs Boson. Prior to reading this article I was aware that it was a big deal and helped explain mass, but that was about it. After reading this article I feel that I have a much better understanding and deeper appreciation for this discovery.

Story Ideas

1. Drug use at festivals. 

I think this is an interesting topic because we are still close to summer where multiple people died from overdose or unsafe drugs at festivals. The drug culture is huge at festivals and I personally know people who have been seriously affected by the aftermath of such drug use.

2. Adderall on campus.

This is one of the most widely used substances in colleges but I am not fully aware (nor are most people) of the scientific effects of using the drug for enhancement.

3. Gulf Spill aftermath

As was mentioned in class, the news hasn't covered much about the longer term effects on the ecosystems.

4. Birth Control and Fish

In Bio 101 we read about birth control and the negative effects it has on fish populations, I would try to write this in layman's terms and ultimately call to action that the substances be regulated in water waste treatment facilities (also look into if that is possible).

Is Telemedicine the Way to Universal Healthcare?

On Tuesday afternoon a group of students at Ursinus College came together to discuss quintessential liberal arts questions: “What is a human right?”, “Is healthcare a human right?”, and “If it is, how do we make healthcare accessible to all?” However, this was no ordinary liberal arts discussion. This discussion was arranged because an astronaut/physician/entrepreneur was visiting Ursinus College as part of a lecture series hosted by the college’s Center for Science and the Common Good (CSCG). Dr. Bernard Harris Jr., MD, MBA, FACP, President and CEO of Versalius Ventures, has quite the credentials and many students were eager to hear about why he believes healthcare is a human right. As Dr. Harris puts it, healthcare should be accessible for all is because “We have the best healthcare in the world, but the poorest medicine. If you look at health of the USA versus everywhere, we are way down on the rung and it’s because of this discrepancy in distribution.”

It truly does seem outrageous for such an advanced country to not provide healthcare for all of its inhabitants. While Dr. Harris did not talk about healthcare as a human right as much as was expected, he is confident that universal healthcare can be accomplished via technological advances. Specifically, Dr. Harris strongly believes in telemedicine; “technology and innovation enable better care and outcomes”. His fascination with telemedicine seems to have come from his time at NASA, where he saw newly invented robotic surgeon arms and Computerized tomography (CT scans). Being a physician, as well as an astronaut, mixed with a touch of Star Trek admiration, he started up his own company Versalius Ventures. As a venture capitalist, he used his appreciation for the technologies at NASA and obvious drive as a physician to better healthcare, to invest in cutting edge telemedicine.

The telemedicine Dr. Harris is investing in largely focuses around preventative medicine. He believes that the “hope is in prevention, providing wellness, education of people about their health, being able to have the ability to allow us to see when we’re getting unhealthy, being able to measure our healthiness”. Some of the devices monitor a diabetic patient’s insulin levels, hypertension, and even a small computer that asks how a patient is feeling and directs them with what measures to take to keep them healthy. Other telemedical devices are robots that perform surgery and a small pad that sits under a mattress that can monitor a patient’s vital signs. Finally, Dr. Harris spoke a great deal about smart phone apps including a personal therapist, a “doctor in your pocket”, and an app that uses GPS coordinates and your desired health that directs you where to find a healthy lunch (and annoys you when too close to an unhealthy alternative!).

Many people are critical of our technologically dependent society. Most of us have seen or been in a room full of people where literally every single person is focused on the nearest piece of technology around them and no one is actually communicating with the surrounding humans. Some think this detracts from real human relationships, while others think that always being connected to someone can enhance relationships. As for doctors, I already know that when I visit mine the human to human interaction we have lasts for a few minutes at best and it seems as if the doctor is already onto his next patient by the time he enters the room. Additionally, with a "doctor in your pocket", will Americans become even bigger hypochondriacs, wasting more money on unecessary tests? Perhaps the telemedicine that Dr. Harris is fond of will be the best future for medicine, or perhaps the telemedicine will backfire making healthcare more of an issue. How this will play out in reality I am not sure, only time will tell.

Harmon, Pollan, and Sibel Fitts

I really enjoyed Amy Harmon's A Race to Save the Orange by Altering Its DNA. Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) are a touchy subject that raise a lot of high emotions. This is the first article I have read that isn't involved in PR for companies that engineer GMOs, that does not entice fear in the readers. Instead, Harmon takes a fairly complicated scientific subject and makes it understood through an entrepreneur, rather than merely quoting scientists. Through her narrative, the reader is captured by Kress and his desire to save the orange trees and the jobs that they provide. Harmon's depiction of Kress enabled the reader to experience the ups and downs of his process and appreciate his conquest. While there may be downfalls to GMOs, and perhaps less invasive alternatives such as planting polycultures, I do not believe it is ethical to paint every GMO is a terrible light and overlook the potential for safe benefits from them. I believe that even though Pollan said that he "meant to highlight her article because it was a good piece", he was trying to cause uncertainty and raise alarm. Further, I think that Alexis Sobel Fitts article misses an interesting and important piece my Harmon because she mainly focuses on the negatives and continually criticizes her for not highlighting the issues surrounding Monsanto. This is a flawed argument because Kress is not working with Monsanto to develop the GMO oranges and Harmon isn't focusing on the flaws of Monsanto and their gene patents, but instead on the blight of oranges.