Space Exploration

The whole semester we have been discussing how to effectively communicate science and technology to the public, not only so they understand it, but are also engaged and eager to know more. When space exploration was just starting out, the general public may not have been completely informed on the subject, but the scientists and government that backed space exploration informed the public in a way that excited them and made them interested in the newly discovered adventure. How was this accomplished? In what ways were the potentials of space travel advertised that caused a spark of interest in the public's mind? Another good question to ask is, would the same methods used back then also be effective today in getting the general public excited about space travel?

When the idea of space travel was first gaining popularity, authors such as Roald Dahl featured space adventures in their writings. Roald Dahl's Charlie and the Great Glass Elevator, published in the US in 1972, depicts the adventure that Willy Wonka, Charlie and his family take into space. They link to a space hotel that is newly launched by the United States government. This story uses the frames of adventure and nationalism to make space travel appealing to the reader. Framing is the way an author depicts information to appeal to a certain group. In this instance, the author would be writing for an audience that is adventurous and has a passion for it's country. The adventure frame is accomplished by describing the wonders of space and the encounter of extraterrestrials called "vermicious knids," which are depicted in the image above. Nationalism is used as a frame by saying that the United States were the country that launched the space hotel, giving the impression that the US has a more superior space program (OnRead.com).

Another example of how space travel was further expressed to the public through sources of media is the film From Earth to the Moon, which was adapted from the Jules Verne novel. The film was produced in 1958 and told the story of a man who discovers a new explosive and another man who claims he has invented the strongest material. When the explosive melts the material, it creates a lightweight ceramic that is very strong. From this, the two men make a space shuttle and fly to the moon. This film also used the frame of adventure as well as a frame of discovery by depicting a story of two men finding a way to travel to uncharted territory. The men in the story are from the United States of America; therefore, it also plays into the frame of nationalism (Wikipedia 2011). If anyone is interested in watching the film, it can be found on YouTube here.

The third type of publication used to inform the public of the space program was a magazine called Collier's Magazine. It was know for investigative journalism and social reform-seeking values and at the peak of its production was read by 2.8 million readers worldwide. This magazine provided the general public with "fiction, fact, sensation, wit, humor, and news." This reminds me of the four organ communication model. This model states that communication can occur in three different organs of the body, the head for logic, the heart for emotions, the gut for humor, and the lower organs for sexuality. This also may be the reason that the publication reached so many readers. It not only interested intellectuals, but it also engaged people with the gut and the lower organs using humor, wit, and sensation (Collier's 2011).

So to recap, in the past, frames of adventure and nationalism were used along with the four organ model to effectively communicate the wonder of space travel. However, I don't believe that these methods will be very useful at this time to obtain more support for space travel. This is because nowadays it seems that while it is exciting to think that one day commercial space travel may be accomplished, it is well known that it is probably not in the near future. Therefore, with all the present problems at hand for the US, the public may find it difficult to support something so expensive just because it has an astonishing future.



References

Collier’s (2011). Collier’s. Retrieved from

http://colliersmagazine.com/home

OnRead.com. Charlie and the Great Glass Elevator. Retrieved from http://www.onread.com/book/Charlie-and-the-great-glass-elevator-191279/ 

Wikipedia (2011). From Earth to the Moon. Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_the_Earth_to_the_Moon

Scientific Gold Rush

               At the beginning of the cold fusion case study, Trevor Pinch says that the claim “launched the equivalent of a scientific gold rush (1998).” This got me thinking about what other scientific discoveries had been described as scientific gold rushes. When I “googled” the term, I found the most interesting search result was the idea of a genetic gold rush. Critics have coined the term “genetic gold rush” to describe the trend of big companies getting the discovery of genes patented. These patents require that any researcher using a patented gene to pay the company who “owns” the gene. Scientists and critics argue that discoveries should not be patented. They argue that only inventions base off of the knowledge of those discoveries should be patented. Scientists recognize that genes are “products of nature” and people should not get credit for discovering products of nature. The idea that patents should only be for ideas that are inventions is a type of mindset. It has been stated that patents of genes will give too much power to individuals, which will unbeneficial for research, patients, or society (Church of Scotland).

Particular companies, such as Myriad, own the rights to genes that can identify if a person is genetically predisposed to get cancer. Myriad owns the rights to the genes that are connected to breast and ovarian cancer; therefore, if a woman wants to be tested for this specific gene, she must pay Myriad and because Myriad is the sole owner of the gene, a monopoly is formed. Not only does this cause the cost to have the test performed to be high, it also means that a woman cannot get a second opinion. It is also thought that in the future doctors may be able to use DNA chips to identify 15000 genes with a sample of blood.  This technique may not be possible if this broadness of patents continues in the future. This is because if different companies have patents on a majority of the genes that are recognized by the DNA chip, then paying all the companies their rights for the genes will get very expensive (ABC 2002).

This video shows an interview of both David Koepsell and Gene Quinn.  Koepsell is the author of Who Owns You? His book describes the disadvantages of allowing companies to purchase patents on genes and the breadth of the patent rights. Quinn is a US patent attorney and talks about the necessity of patenting genes. Both men agree that the breadth of patent rights needs to be reformed. Quinn describes the current patent system as a “one size fits all” system that needs to be reformed so it better meets the needs of genetics and new science and technology. The patents are needed so that companies can get funding for research. Koepsell argues that patents cause the problems that were described in the previous paragraph (Flanders 2009). This interview represents the two-cultures model, which was originally defined as the differences between scientists and artists. In this instance, the two-cultures are critics of patents and large corporations. The critics observe patents from the standpoint of a researcher, or a patient, while the large corporations see it with respect to business.  

It has been reported by the LA Times that there are more than 2,000 patents in place and more than 25,000 patent applications pending for human genes (LA Times 2000). It seems that upstream public engagement would have been useful before allowing all these patents to be produced. Upstream public engagement encourages the involvement of the public when policies and decisions are in the process of being created. Because the action of patenting genes directly affects the public and their well being, it seems that it would only be fair to include the public’s opinion for policy making. It also seems that it would have been easier to reform the policies on patents for the human genome before patents were granted, rather than waiting until after there are patents already in place.  

References

Pinch, T. (1994). Cold Fusion and the Sociology of Scientific Knowledge. Essays in the Study of Scientific Discourse, 73.

Flanders, L. (Interviewer), Koepsell, D. (Interviewee), Quinn, G. (Interviewee). (2009). GIRT tv: Who Owns You? Corporations Patenting Your Genes. Retrieved from blip.tv website: http://blip.tv/grittv/grittv-who-owns-you-corporations-patenting-your-genes-2791141

ABC (2002). Genetic Gold Rush. Retrieved from http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/s510318.htm

Church of Scotland. Genetic Gold Rush. Retrieved from http://archive.srtp.org.uk/pmpres2.htm

LA Times (2000). Taming Gene-Patent ‘Gold Rush.’ Retrieved from Los Angeles Times website: http://articles.latimes.com/2000/may/22/local/me-32807

Quantum Dots

Jeniffer Kuzma begins her analysis of nanotechnology by discussing how many people believe that nanotechnology will improve the life of humans. I was curious as to how this may be true and in my research I found that there are studies of how nanoparticles may be used to diagnose and treat cancer. These particles are called quantum dots, which are crystalline nanoparticles that can be attached to proteins and receptors. In doing so, it is possible for scientists to see which molecules the protein interacts with, its location, and the signaling pathways that it utilizes. This can help scientists determine when cancer present. 

These nanoparticles can also be used to "tag" cancer cells, so scientists can see exactly where the problem exists. Also, because quantum dots are more resistant to degradation than other optical probes, they can be used to observe the changes in cancer over longer periods of time. The hopes of the future are that they will not only be able to identify cancer, but also be able to treat it [1].

However, there are fears of the risks that are associated with quantum dots. A study has shown that the shells of the quantum dots can corrode, causing toxic contents to leach into the surroundings. A large fear is that the acidity of the human body would result in the quantum dot toxins being released in the body. The concern of scientists is that if the toxins are released into the body, they could accumulate over time, causing serious health issues. It is still uncertain whether or not the toxins do accumulate in the body over a long period of time. Scientists are looking into ways to possibly lessen the risk of the quantum dot toxicity by either making the shells of the particles more resistant to corrosion, or by making the metal toxins inside the particles less toxic to humans [2].

If more studies are done proving the usefulness and practicality of using quantum dots in diagnosing and treating cancer and it is found that the toxicity of them can be managed, then I believe this would be a great breakthrough in science.  Quantum dots have the potential to change the way many diseases are treated and allow scientists to gain a better understanding about the way cells interact in the body. 

[1] Press Release, University of California, www.understandingnano.com/quantum-dots-locating-cancer-tumor.htm 

[2] Scientists Eye Risks of Quantum Dots, http://www.physorg.com/news152797334.html