I cannot be alone. I can't eat alone, walk alone, pee alone, work alone, work out alone — hell, I can't even sleep alone, which is why I brought the embarrassingly named Bunny-Bun to school.
Last Thursday, the Chinese spacecraft Shenzhou VII rocketed into orbit carrying three taikonauts bound for China's first spacewalk, which was completed successfully on Saturday. What are the chances that the Chinese will beat the American expedition to the moon set for 2020? Rather likely, according to the Administrator of NASA, Michael D. Griffin. Several weeks prior, the 27 kilometer, $8 billion Large Hadron Collider (LHC) came online on the French-Swiss border. When the LHC becomes fully operational next spring, it will be capable of accelerating particles to energies unseen in 14 billion years, unraveling mysteries from the early days of the universe. The United States' contribution to this project? Five percent of the budget. The current popularity of physics among students? According to one study, it is the lowest it has been since the 1957 launch of Sputnik by the Soviet Union. In a country where a majority of the population rejects the basic premises of evolutionary theory, where the purchasing power of the National Institutes of Health has declined by 13 percent since 2003 and where students fare only slightly better than the average on international math and science test scores, the above may not be so shocking. America remains the world's technological and scientific leader, producing about 40 percent of research and development expenditures, 70 percent of all Nobel Prize winners and containing 75 percent of the top research universities. But how long can the United States maintain its competitive advantage? As the 2008 election draws near, it is time for us to carefully consider what the next four years will look like for the United States in a science-dominated world. The last eight have seen a presidential administration that has, among other things, misrepresented and altered scientific reports for its own ends, slashed research funding, dismissed climate change, advocated for the teaching of creationism in schools and ignored the scientific community. The results of these policies have been, to put it lightly, highly unfavorable. Researchers have fled to friendlier environments, the threat of climate change remains unmitigated, science education in public schools is dismal and the list goes on. In the meantime, countries as diverse as Ireland and China have invested in developing technologically sophisticated workforces, have funded new and exciting ventures and have attracted many of the same leading researchers and students that once came to the United States. As we enter what some have called a golden age for science, the United States remains grossly unprepared. When the electorate cannot understand the fundamentals of climate change, the differences between scientific fact and theory or the issues behind the autism-vaccine debate, we as a nation face grave problems. But why should these subjects matter to the average voter? Ignoring the possible catastrophic ramifications of global climate change, the remaining topics offer a fundamental insight into how science affects our daily lives. Take evolutionary theory, for example. When the SARS virus outbreak spread through China, scientists rapidly employed DNA microarrays and compared the composition of the SARS virus with that of known viruses. Within one day researchers had assigned the virus to a particular evolutionary family of viruses and characterized its common traits. A blood test to screen for the virus was then developed and work began in search of a vaccine. Take the second example of the autism-vaccine debate. After the publication of the controversial Wakefield paper (1998), many wondered whether a link existed between the measles-mumps-rubella vaccine (MMR) and autism. Hundreds of families with autistic children rallied behind the idea that vaccines caused autism and hundreds more refused vaccines for their children. The Wakefield research, however, was largely discredited and serious ethical breaches were observed in the study. Wakefield may now be barred from practicing medicine in the United Kingdom if convicted of the charges brought against him. Unfortunately, the resulting frenzy ensured that many children were not vaccinated and measles outbreaks have now occurred in countries ranging from Britain to Israel. Despite 11 studies showing that the MMR vaccine does not cause autism, many continue to ignore the dangers of stopping vaccinations. We can clearly see that in one case, evolutionary theory helped to identify a potentially devastating disease, while in another, scientific misunderstanding endangered the lives of thousands of children. So, why isn't science viewed as a more important priority? Efforts to inject science into the presidential debates have proven largely unsuccessful, despite attempts by the organization Science Debate 2008. The group has garnered the signatures of leading American scientific organizations and over 175 universities (including the support of Tufts University and President Bacow). Though neither Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) nor Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) accepted the offer to participate in a live debate, both presidential candidates submitted responses to 14 questions posed by the group. The candidates' answers reflect a commitment to preserving the integrity of science during their respective administrations, increasing funding and addressing issues ranging from climate change to restoring America's technological superiority. Nevertheless, real differences exist between the two candidates. While Obama draws upon advisers in the academic arena for his science policy (e.g., President Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, Harold Varmus), McCain's experts come from more business and technology-oriented fields (e.g., former CEO of Hewlett-Packard, Carly Fiorina). Obama supports embryonic stem cell research, while McCain's views are unclear. McCain argues for the prioritization of the space program, while Obama is more interested in addressing terrestrial concerns. The candidates offer both broad and specific proposals in their platforms that reflect their own unique perspectives on the issues. For those interested in finding out more about the candidates' views on a plethora of scientific topics, the Sept. 25 issue of Nature magazine and the Science Debate 2008 Web site both offer an in-depth overview of the candidates' platforms and views. But no matter who is elected president on Nov. 4, I urge every single voter to carefully consider the ramifications of his/her presidential choice on the future of science in this country. Though financial affairs and international concerns will continue to dominate the news in the coming weeks, remember that while banks and administrations may rise and fall, the issues of climate change, energy independence, ethical concerns with biotechnology, the exploration of space, the strength of our workforce in the global technologically oriented economy and hundreds of other big and small issues will not go away. In fact, each day will bring new discoveries and challenges for the next president. The 21st century is upon us. The age of science is here.
"It's kind of like basic physics — what goes up must come down," former President Bill Clinton said of the economy in an interview with David Letterman on the "Late Show." Even so, when it seems like companies are falling left and right, many Americans are worried about just how low the economy can go. Yesterday, lawmakers reached a tentative agreement on a bailout bill that, if passed, would allocate $700 billion to buy out companies' failed loans. The bill, which will go to the House today for a vote,
This year, Tufts' Health Service office has added an extra service to its repertoire. Students who go in for a regular checkup may get a little extra bang for their buck — an unwarranted, spontaneous mental health screening. In an attempt to curb depression, suicide and other psychological issues, the office recently began requesting students to fill out a survey used to evaluate their mental health. Although we recognize the seriousness of depression among college students and understand the need for more services to help students recognize and treat mental sicknesses, we question the validity and effectiveness of Health Service's actions.
On Monday, the Daily published an editorial concerning the Greek community ("A strong start for the Greek system") that was inaccurate and misleading.
Let's play word association! "Pandas" — cute. "Sarah Palin" — librarian porn. "Boston clubs" — gold chains, yuppy dress code, hulking bouncer, red velvet walls, girls dancing in cages and a gigantic aquarium with exotic-looking fish.
Among its diverse offerings, the ExCollege introduced a new course this semester entitled "Medical Spanish." The class, which is aimed at students considering careers in medicine, interpretation and social work, focuses on the specific vocabulary and skills necessary to translate between doctors and Spanish-speaking patients in emergency situations. During a time when immigration continues to be a hot political topic, this course acknowledges that, despite policy implications, all people who enter an emergency room, regardless of their native tongue, should receive the appropriate level of treatment. While many Americans decry the use of bilingual signs and other tactics used to aid non-English speakers, this class has been greeted with enthusiasm from the Tufts community. And that's a good thing. Aside from English, Spanish is the most common language in the United States. As part of the 2000 Census, 28.1 million people living in the country indicated they spoke Spanish; just over half of them reported the ability to speak English "very well." The number of Spanish speakers has undoubtedly swelled, as immigrants from Latin American countries continue to settle in the United States. And in the case of medical care, this linguistic barrier can be the difference between life and death. It is important to remember that this barrier also applies to legal residents and citizens, many of whom speak English well. When faced with the frightening reality of a medical emergency, most people would feel best expressing themselves in their native language. Especially given the technicalities required for an accurate diagnosis, we should leave open as many options as possible. Still, classes like this certainly benefit undocumented immigrants as well. But while many argue that we should not cater to such immigrants — many of whom receive emergency-room care without paying taxes — that does not negate the fact that medical professionals across the country are obligated to treat all patients equally and often lack the language skills to do so effectively. Something is obviously wrong with this situation, and proactive measures are a must. Some say that undocumented immigrants take advantage of the medical system, waiting until their situations require emergency treatment that they can get for free. But so do countless American citizens who cannot afford health insurance. Either way, ignoring the reality of the situation doesn't make it disappear, especially in cities like El Paso, Texas, where 74 percent of the population speaks Spanish at home. Although most Americans consider English to be their native language, the United States remains without an official language — and for good reason. Throughout its history, the country has been heralded as a melting pot, one in which all people, regardless of their native languages, have been accepted into the population. Courses that focus on medical Spanish reflect the type of cultural fluidity that has come to define our country, while also allowing it to adjust to the times. Isn't that what a Tufts education is all about?
Merrill Lynch, Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers are gone off the board. The most dynamic twins since Mary Kate and Ashley, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, have left an enormous crater in the belly of the United States financial landscape. Then the $85 billion bailout deal for the insurance conglomerate American International (AIG) seemed to push the limit. And for the encore, a historical $700 billion federal bailout to get Wall Street back to even blindsides the already overburdened American taxpayer.
Saying that the food industry is invested in the environment is pretty much as big an understatement as saying that Bobby Flay kind of likes to grill.
One of the most frequently quoted statements of Karl Marx is: "Religion is the opiate of the people." In context, Marx was speaking of religion as a condition that arose to help humanity cope with its struggles. He believed that calling on mankind to give up religion would also mean calling upon it to give up the conditions of life that require a coping mechanism. There is a measure of ambiguity about the usage of opium in the statement because, in Marx's day, opium was legally available and widely prescribed. In any case, the metaphor of opium can be seen in Marx's view of religion as being a painkiller and something that dulls the mind. More than a century and a half later, I would like to amend Marx's statement to better fit our modern American context: Politics are the opiate of the people. What do I mean? There is this false optimism that somehow our political process will offer the cure for all that ails our society. If we only elect the right candidate, we can solve the problems we face. What ensues is mostly an attempt by either candidate to cast the other as a wrong choice that will bring certain doom. This year is more of the same. In the end, there are no substantial differences between either Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) or Sen. Barack Obama (R-Ill.) that will result in any real discernible outcome for the American people. You will either get more war in Afghanistan or more war in Iraq. You will either get more spending on expansive government programs or more corporate welfare. Both will push for more regulation on financial institutions without addressing the subsidies and easy credit offered by the government to many of these institutions. Both will offer more aid to countries such as Georgia while aggressively posturing against Russia and Iran. The only real division that can be drawn between these candidates is concerning social and moral issues, most of which have no business being in the federal domain. That is where people line up to make their stand, fighting for the "heart and soul" of the nation. This is the opiate of the people. They are drugged into believing that these are the issues that will guarantee the future vitality of our nation. They are corralled into voting booths to support the candidate that supports their issue or to vote against the candidate that opposes their issue. I cannot count the number of times I've talked to Republicans who curse those "liberal Democrats," or how many times I've listened to Democrats curse the Republican policies. The reality is that most people are not Republicans and Democrats; they are anti-Republicans and anti-Democrats, and they vote accordingly. They are convinced by the campaigns not to vote for what they believe in, but to vote against what they do not. This is what is passing for democracy in our nation, and the people are distracted by the false feud that exists between the two parties. That is not to say that we do not need the voices of Democrats and Republicans, but we do not need them to be our only voices, especially when much of what they are saying is the same. Until we can break the stranglehold these two entities have on our politics, we'll never see true "change" in this country. It is an uphill battle, for sure, but it is one that is definitely worth fighting for the sake of principle and to "secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity" as the Founders put it. And yet, we still find ourselves taking the opium every election cycle, hoping that somehow this dose will do for us what the last dose didn't. Here's to hoping we'll leave the bottle on the shelf the next time around.
As I scanned the op-ed section of The Tufts Daily last week, I reached an article on the virtues of Gov. Sarah Palin (R-Alaska), Sen. John McCain's (R-Ariz.) vice-presidential nominee ("The Democrats' Palin problem," Sept. 8). Though the bent seemed conservative, I ignored any compulsion I had to turn the page and, instead, read through to gather whatever points could be gained from the piece. I found the article well-written, logically presented and politically relevant.
Now that the library steps are frequented by students flocking to class, and Tuftslife.com is flooded with countless events for us to occupy our time before, between, after and maybe even during those classes, I think it is appropriate to share directly with the student body the status of these activities in light of the events of the past few months. As Tufts Community Union (TCU) Treasurer, I am required to regularly report on the "State of the Treasury" to the Senate. I gave the first of these updates last night, and I believe it appropriate to share some of my comments with the greater Tufts community.
I've never been shy about expressing my political ideology and personal values — especially during this election year. If you find yourself engaged in a conversation with me, you would swear that I had been raised in America's heartland. I identify myself as a simple girl who grew up in a humble Christian household, where family values and hard work were stressed. A strong supporter of American troops and military power, I feel grateful to be living in a country where freedom is not deemed a privilege but an inalienable right. I can identify a soybean crop at the drop of a hat (and tell you the optimal conditions needed for growth). Oh, yeah, and I'm finally getting a gun license this year.
In the last few days, Sen. John McCain's (R-Ariz) campaign has been criticized for distorting the truth, obfuscating the facts and, in some cases, just making stuff up. We at the Daily thought it only fair to even the score.
In yesterday's paper, the lead picture was attributed to Danai Macridi. It was actually taken by Annie Wermiel. In the Sept. 12th article "Record turnout marks freshman TCU Senate contest," Elliott McCarthy's name was misspelled.
At first sight I fell for you Your warm glow apparent from the start Roomy and cozy, you welcomed me at once We had everything in common School spirit and an appreciation of puns A love of great tea and drinkable coffee The need to indulge with a chocolate chip muffin But also have the option to take the high road (whole wheat bagel, anyone?) O Brown and Brew! Through good times and bad, you were there For naps and group projects Breakdowns and meet-ups I turned to you And I supported you When you never had the butterscotch syrup, I did not abandon you When the bad men came to rid you of your worn-out (but beloved) upholstered appendages, I wept for you but did not look away Why do things seem different between us now? You are so unavailable. What changed during the summer? Whence your rosy demeanor? You don't want to see me on weekends, and you kick me out earlier than before. I can change. I'll shell out for the iced mocha or toffee coffee, I'll put your needs first. I've been selfish, I admit, but I promise to try harder. Come back to me, B, like in that Kid Rock song with Sheryl Crow. You love that song. Don't make me seek comfort in the arm(chair)s of another.
Although September is barely halfway over, the yearly scramble is already underway. We at the Daily can almost hear the collective wheels of the senior class turning as students begin to wonder what it is they will do in that vast abyss commonly known as "life."
On Monday, the Task Force on Freedom of Expression created by President Lawrence Bacow released a Draft Declaration on Freedom of Expression and Inquiry at Tufts University. This document was the result of almost two years of discontent and hand-wringing after a Tufts journal, The Primary Source, published an offensive Christmas carol in December 2006. Some have faulted this document for offering little in the way of explicit regulations that can define the extent to which freedom of speech will be protected. But I argue that the document is very clear in its intentions and goes too far in constraining freedom of speech at Tufts University.
In this election of "hope" and "change," it is easy to believe the Democrats' energy policy is the right solution for our country. But is it possible that the Republicans, the party so many have grown to despise, could actually have the right energy policy? And if so, would people be too caught up in "change" to acknowledge that the Democrats have become too idealistic? The Republicans have crafted an energy policy that deals with both supply and demand — drilling and alternate fuels — while the Democrats have stubbornly refused to acknowledge the realities of the world we live in.
Op-ed submissions are an integral part of our connection with you, our readers. As such, we would like to clarify our guidelines for submitting op-eds and what you can expect from the process.
Read More
