The chief premise of Siddhartha Mukherjee’s paper “Fighting Chance,” is rather agreeable. That is, the argument for the essential nature of basic—or curiosity driven science—stands by itself to be one that is supported by sound evidence. However, the evidence and anecdotes that Mukherjee uses are far more controversial. For instance, there is significant issue to be derived from the support for Mukherjee’s argument that the John Collier anthrax anecdote provides. Prominent amongst these issues is the actual results of the work; the “potential antidote to anthrax,” that Mukherjee touts as the conclusion to the success story still does not exist. In fact, many articles more recent than Mukherjee’s work see anthrax treatment development as a …show more content…
That is, serendipity as Mukherjee uses it is presented more as a dimension of luck than one of science, where “completely unrelated project[s],” happen to coincide and are able to share useful information that work towards solutions. However, the definition of the research being done in the specific example of Southwestern Fever as “completely unrelated” is, in itself, incorrect. The research into deer-mouse populations and the research into the disease were inherently related by a key trait—proximity, as they both occurred in the same environment—thus were not “completely unrelated.” Were the “War on Southwestern Fever,” declared and executed in a manner maximizing its potential—by applying directed, applied research to all relevant information, which would include the deer-mouse data—than the same success would have been achieved. This more honed focus on researching the disease itself should not sacrifice any depth of investigation, the event that Mukherjee defines as serendipity still would occur, but as a result of comprehensive research rather than happenstance. Furthermore, this opinion that the role of serendipity is often overstated, or that equal or better results can be achieved via comprehensive research rather than luck, is shared by Nobel Prize Winner Paul Flory, …show more content…
This assertion is quantified and supported by data, as a 2013 Phillips & Company poll found that approximately seventy-five percent of adult Americans support the doubling of NASA’s budget (to one percent of the federal budget), with an emphasis on that funding being allocated towards space travel, particularly to Mars. Space travel fulfills both desires for basic and applied science—as the latter is used to work towards the former in the field—and can be used as a model for the two realms to work in tandem to achieve more complete science in other fields. Rather than those who apply science—such as the hardware and software engineers and scientists of Roving Mars, by Steve Squyres—and those who seek to gain fundamental knowledge from that application—such as the research scientists, including Squyres himself, from the same book—battling amongst themselves—as they often do early in the book—the two groups of people and scientific styles need to work cooperatively in order to achieve the most meaningful results possible—which is seen as the result of the Roving Mars team’s efforts, as the Opportunity rover is still functioning and collecting data. Thus, rather than asserting the supremacy of either basic or applied science, as Mukherjee tends to do for the former, it is essential to recognize the vital nature of both realms of science,
This summer we had an opportunity to dive into the world of bioweapons, through Richard Preston’s novel The Demon in the Freezer. His book explored the colorful world of smallpox and its use as a biological weapon. Earlier this week we were graced with this authors present for an ACES event. He discussed some of the found topics in his book such as animal testing, what small pox is, and even its eradication. One of the great things we had the chance of vocalizing were our many opinions on the gloom associated with this intriguing disease.
In The Great Influenza, John M. Barry educates citizens of the everyday challenges that scientists face through utilizing rhetorical questions, cause and effect, and contrast. Barry’s uses of the rhetorical strategies highlights the beauty of uncertainty because of failure, scientists can make new discoveries everyday. In relation
At times, regardless of the setbacks, rivalry can be advantageous by giving people the inspiration to continue. Debating on whether to give up the race, Watson realizes the full implications this scientific competition has: “But if I went back to pure biology, the advantage of our small head start over Linus (Pauling) might suddenly vanish,” (Watson 144). The grand quest for finding the structure of DNA is too great for Watson to pass up. Not only does this head start inspire Watson to continue studying DNA, but it convinces him to work even harder. While the desire to quickly find a solution can be too daunting to appease, even the notion of being in the lead can be enough incentive to strive for the goal which is a definite positive effect for Watson. But for every positive advantage, there is a negative setback that other competitors may impose.
Science is a study that can be viewed and interpreted in various ways. Some believe science to be based on facts and specific results, while others believe it to be based on creativity and spontaneity. In his account of the 1918 flu epidemic, The Great Influenza, John M. Barry characterizes scientific research as work that requires creativity, spontaneity, and intelligence through his use of rhetorical devices such as allusions, metaphors, and rhetorical questions.
It became apparent in 1918 during a flu epidemic that certain traits were lacking in the scientific community necessary to research for a cure. In a passage from The Great Influenza, John M. Barry implements exemplification, diction, and didactic figurative language in order to depict the works of a scientist and the common obstacles encountered. Barry also characterizes scientists as those who possess the traits needed to accomplish their goals.
It is also interesting to know just how many medical breakthroughs came about by accident. It allows people to realize that, although it should be handled with the utmost care, cut of the edge research is not always cut and dry. This book teaches that it takes true intellect to take what seems like a failure or an accident and instead of abandoning it, reflecting on what has truly happened. Students as well as current researchers should read, study, and take inspiration from this book. It has a lot to teach other than simply the surface of the history of the discoveries it
...out sanitation, infrastructure, and hygiene can greatly reduce global health disparities worldwide. In addition, research is another fundamental necessary in ensuring human health quality for individuals. I admire the researchers who commit in finding answers to fight against chronic diseases occurring worldwide. I have significantly respect the researchers who work together in discovering new diseases and treatments affecting individuals globally and not only fulfilling one country’s needs. It is my desire to become one of those researchers in the next ten years contributing in global health and decreasing global health inequalities in order to provide health care equality for every human being living in the world. We need to work together, globally, and collaborate in order to end health inequalities and the pursuit of human equality in the sake of social justice.
These are the reasons why I believe there should be more investment in space research and technology. It would be a time consuming and financially draining quest, but the pay off in new technology, applications, resources, and expansion opportunities make it a goal to strive for. As our rate of consumption of Earth’s natural resources continues to increase, it is imperative that we invest in the research of outer space as a possible solution to sustaining the human race.
In the summer of 1995, the periodical Wilson Quarterly published "Enemies of Promise," an essay by J. Michael Bishop, a Nobel Prize-winning professor of microbiology from the University of California, San Francisco. The essay addressed the renewed criticism the scientific community has received in recent years by an ignorant and unduly critical public. The overall effect this single work has had on the world may be nominal, but the points Professor Bishop raises are significant, and provide ammunition against the ignorants who maintain this "intellectual war," centuries after it was sparked.
Lind, Michael. "Why We Should Embrace the End of Human Spaceflight."Salon.com. N.p.: n.p., 2011. N. pag. Rpt. in NASA. Ed. Margaret Haerens. Detroit: Greenhaven, 2012. Opposing Viewpoints. Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 21 Mar. 2014.
...genesis of diseases. The early clinical application of those research findings will undoubtedly make our life better.
The recent events regarding the NASA Mars probes have renewed the debate of reinstalling manned space missions with the objectives of exploring and landing on foreign worlds such as the moon and the red planet Mars, rather than the use of solely robotic craft and machines. It is my belief that we should return to the days of Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin, those of manned lunar landings and manned space exploration. Robots simply cannot and should not be allowed to be the sole means of visiting these worlds, nor should humans only be able to witness new findings second hand through the use of computers and machines. It is human nature to be normally curious of one’s surroundings, and it is important that we send one of our own to new worlds. The effects that past missions have had on the world’s people, as well as our political and cultural climates are another valid reason for flesh instead of metal to lay claim to space. Also, the limitless applications and new education that manned flights can bring to us from on site human interactions could lead to another technological and industrial revolution like the original lunar programs had done for us during the Gemini and Apollo programs.
NASA is more than just a space administration; it shows itself everyday in the world although at first it might not be apparent. There are not many people that know the variety of what it has brought to everyday life. NASA is not limited to just aerospace technology. The three main fields of development have been medical, environmental and consumer products. Each field is equally important to technological development. NASA’s space exploration is essential for the advancement of technology on Earth.
As such, this essay will argue that space exploration is a necessity of our kind and that NASA should be progressively more financed. To begin with, space research has helped bring several developments to modern science, affecting the quality of our everyday lives. With issues like climate change, and population overgrowth, our species faces the risks of major extinction (4). Climate change has been a man-made problem in recent years that threatens our planet. It will take huge mitigations from current and future societies to even come close to reversing climate change.
Most people think that the costly downside to funding space exploration is a reason to avoid spending money on sciences and instead spend it on problems here on earth, but such funding for space exploration actually promotes economical as well as scientific benefits. Space exploration is an important expenditure for the high cost because of the potential for numerous benefits such as the possibility to find useful resources to cultivate, space exploration and satellites produce many thousands of jobs in our economy, and it creates and discovers newer and better technologies through research and development.