I'm going to begin posting about my problems with the world and how I think we could fix them. It's kind of a manifesto, although doesn't really pertain to any extant political system nor does it promote any acts of violence or revolution. While I strongly believe a significant change in our society and democratic institutions, I disagree that any sort of undemocratic process will result in effective change. While I often find myself furious at many right wing commentators, initiatives, and a disturbingly increasing inclusion in GOP policy, promoting violence against these people will only enable and galvanize them in their extreme positions. The absurdity of much of these claims will be laid bare through arguments based on fact. Whether anyone listens is another matter, but it hasn't really stopped me before.
Sunday, June 26, 2022
Sunday, January 22, 2017
Gene Cernan
An American Hero has died. Captain Eugene Cernan. The last person to walk on the moon in 1972. He is a Hero of all humanity, not simply because he happened to be an American. His death is a sad day for anyone who thinks of themselves as an explorer.
I'd like to take a moment to remember him. He rode the great Saturn V twice, the Titan II/Gemini once, and was one of very few men to journey to the moon twice, on Apollo 10 and Apollo 17. After his historic trips, he was an outspoken advocate for space exploration, extolling the US Congress to provide funding in order to pursue manned space exploration and focusing on its value, both to science and engineering, and to the morale of the public. He believed the peaceful exploration of outer space, beyond Earth orbit, was not just a club to be joined by the wealthy nations of the world, but an honorable goal that was in itself its own reward. It was a concept, he felt, that had at its core, the very best from within us, and represented our shared basic need to explore the unknown. His words will be missed now, more than ever. His kind of person will be missed now, more than ever.
What is his 'kind' of person? What is that 60s Naval aviator/test pilot cum astronaut thing all about? Was it a bunch of fighter jocks vying for the biggest adventure out there on Uncle Sam's dime? Was it a group a thrill seekers who needed the ultimate fix? Was it a boys club who giggled, in a very puerile way, at the word 'cockpit'? Possibly. Probably a little, but it was also a group of men (and it was all men back then, sorry, no offense) who came to believe in what they were doing so entirely that it followed them for the rest of their lives. The ego-obsessed flyboys from the early days of jet aviation (and these were the very best, mind you) became enamored with the concept of Gemini and Apollo. They bought it, and they didn't have to half-ass it. They bought it because it was good. It was right. Even at the time of red scares and politics of the Cold War, it was something slightly different...because it was a concept that superseded the struggles of the West against the Reds. While born from that fear it became its own, independent operator and served to unite the pilots, the scientists, the engineers, the visionaries, and the politicians for one purpose - to go to the moon because it was there. And at the end of the day I would argue (passionately) that they all came to realize that the journey to the point where such a mission was possible, would produce such a wealth of understanding, of technology, of human achievement, that the simple flag-planting exercise would be entirely transcended. It was a step into the totally unknown, completely alien abyss, and it had to be done to foster in an entirely new age of exploration.
I cannot imagine that when we first journeyed away from Earth, left its orbit to set foot on another world, we even considered that we would not return there for 50 years. That we would go forward so fast, with such lust for the undiscovered, and then retreat back to safety and complacency. Cernan spoke once of his friend, the first person to walk on the moon in July 1969. He came in peace for all mankind. A video of his eulogy for Neil Armstrong may be found here: https://youtu.be/17k29vMozBg
I think it is a fitting bookend to an extraordinary life, not just because he happened to be the first, but because of how he chose to live his life in the years following that unique moment.
In regard to the exploration of space, there is one thing I can tell you, sir. The dream is alive. It is alive in my generation. It will be alive in the next generation. We will keep the dream alive for as long as we are able, through whatever hardships and whatever administrative challenges we face. Some of us, despite the popular view of millennials as being glued to smartphones, passive to all around us, know well what was achieved in the pioneering days of space exploration, know of the many, many sacrifices made by those brave men and women, and want to do them the honor of continuing their quest. We have no intention of letting 50 more years sail by while we 'work out our problems down here'. There will always be problems on Earth, but it is through uniting our vision and finding a unifying goal that transcends our minute differences that we will find ways through those problems in working on unworldly challenges. We will find solutions in our many perspectives which require, at their very core, a variety of cultural experiences. Our differences are our strengths. Our problems on Earth are no reason to ignore the realm above us; I am confident, in fact, that they are our salvation. Our conquest of space is a destiny, not a political pawn.
I want to remember Gene Cernan as a great pilot, a great astronaut, and a great man, who used his found celebrity to spread his belief that manned spaceflight was worth the expense and the risk. I would challenge a single astronaut to disagree with me. He believed that we found a very important aspect of humanity in flying to outer space, the desire to confront the unknown, and I believe he was right. I choose to cherish what I believe he's meant to say and make it something that will inspire me to think broader, reach higher, and pursue the goals necessary to make human spaceflight a reality whose benefits will clearly reward us all.
I'd like to take a moment to remember him. He rode the great Saturn V twice, the Titan II/Gemini once, and was one of very few men to journey to the moon twice, on Apollo 10 and Apollo 17. After his historic trips, he was an outspoken advocate for space exploration, extolling the US Congress to provide funding in order to pursue manned space exploration and focusing on its value, both to science and engineering, and to the morale of the public. He believed the peaceful exploration of outer space, beyond Earth orbit, was not just a club to be joined by the wealthy nations of the world, but an honorable goal that was in itself its own reward. It was a concept, he felt, that had at its core, the very best from within us, and represented our shared basic need to explore the unknown. His words will be missed now, more than ever. His kind of person will be missed now, more than ever.
What is his 'kind' of person? What is that 60s Naval aviator/test pilot cum astronaut thing all about? Was it a bunch of fighter jocks vying for the biggest adventure out there on Uncle Sam's dime? Was it a group a thrill seekers who needed the ultimate fix? Was it a boys club who giggled, in a very puerile way, at the word 'cockpit'? Possibly. Probably a little, but it was also a group of men (and it was all men back then, sorry, no offense) who came to believe in what they were doing so entirely that it followed them for the rest of their lives. The ego-obsessed flyboys from the early days of jet aviation (and these were the very best, mind you) became enamored with the concept of Gemini and Apollo. They bought it, and they didn't have to half-ass it. They bought it because it was good. It was right. Even at the time of red scares and politics of the Cold War, it was something slightly different...because it was a concept that superseded the struggles of the West against the Reds. While born from that fear it became its own, independent operator and served to unite the pilots, the scientists, the engineers, the visionaries, and the politicians for one purpose - to go to the moon because it was there. And at the end of the day I would argue (passionately) that they all came to realize that the journey to the point where such a mission was possible, would produce such a wealth of understanding, of technology, of human achievement, that the simple flag-planting exercise would be entirely transcended. It was a step into the totally unknown, completely alien abyss, and it had to be done to foster in an entirely new age of exploration.
I cannot imagine that when we first journeyed away from Earth, left its orbit to set foot on another world, we even considered that we would not return there for 50 years. That we would go forward so fast, with such lust for the undiscovered, and then retreat back to safety and complacency. Cernan spoke once of his friend, the first person to walk on the moon in July 1969. He came in peace for all mankind. A video of his eulogy for Neil Armstrong may be found here: https://youtu.be/17k29vMozBg
I think it is a fitting bookend to an extraordinary life, not just because he happened to be the first, but because of how he chose to live his life in the years following that unique moment.
In regard to the exploration of space, there is one thing I can tell you, sir. The dream is alive. It is alive in my generation. It will be alive in the next generation. We will keep the dream alive for as long as we are able, through whatever hardships and whatever administrative challenges we face. Some of us, despite the popular view of millennials as being glued to smartphones, passive to all around us, know well what was achieved in the pioneering days of space exploration, know of the many, many sacrifices made by those brave men and women, and want to do them the honor of continuing their quest. We have no intention of letting 50 more years sail by while we 'work out our problems down here'. There will always be problems on Earth, but it is through uniting our vision and finding a unifying goal that transcends our minute differences that we will find ways through those problems in working on unworldly challenges. We will find solutions in our many perspectives which require, at their very core, a variety of cultural experiences. Our differences are our strengths. Our problems on Earth are no reason to ignore the realm above us; I am confident, in fact, that they are our salvation. Our conquest of space is a destiny, not a political pawn.
I want to remember Gene Cernan as a great pilot, a great astronaut, and a great man, who used his found celebrity to spread his belief that manned spaceflight was worth the expense and the risk. I would challenge a single astronaut to disagree with me. He believed that we found a very important aspect of humanity in flying to outer space, the desire to confront the unknown, and I believe he was right. I choose to cherish what I believe he's meant to say and make it something that will inspire me to think broader, reach higher, and pursue the goals necessary to make human spaceflight a reality whose benefits will clearly reward us all.
Sunday, September 9, 2012
When does the scientists' nose end?
I ask this of myself as a kind of reference to the adage of "my right ends where you nose begins" when considering the matter of how far a scientist is reasonable permitted to profess his or her craft. When does a person speak out of order? When does respect for personal choice and culture override the need to use reason and fact to describe something?
I was brought to consider this question after pondering masturbation. No, not WHILE doing it, but while considering the causes and reasons for the activity in terms of personal comfort and psychological state. I was actually doing a Google search, one of my favorite pastimes on history of non-pharmaceutical anxiety treatment to find a curious article about generalized anxiety and "habitual masturbation" which later led me to discover some very "exciting" links on the subject from informed points of view:
http://couragerc.net/Masturbation.html
http://www.cathmed.org/assets/files/H&H%202010%20Pages%20for%20Website.pdf
The first is a guide for pastoral care for treating confessing habitual masturbators, so I do not consider it a scientific source, although it is written from the relevant point of view of a Catholic Priest. The second links to a *.pdf for medical professionals on how to deal with masturbation and individuals expressing Same Sex Attractions, something they label (SSA), tendencies.
Obviously this bothered me otherwise I would not be writing this. I consider this completely unacceptable. The priest writing about masturbation in adolescents is one thing, the opinion of a religious official whose role is in advising people who choose to practice a particular faith. However, a medical professional being encouraged to express an opinion that a person who feels attraction to the same sex is obligated to pursue a life of chastity and service to God while distancing himself/herself from homosexual feelings is UNACCEPTABLE to me. These things are unacceptable not only because I find them personally very silly, but because it is not supported scientifically (that homosexuality results from abuse or gender confusion), it is not supported socially (that you may feel SSA if you are very lonely and desperate), and it is not supported applicably (that individuals feeling homosexual attractions usually choose abstinence and pray for help from God). It is simply absurd, and the fact that actual licensed, practicing physicians in the United States of America are permitted to advise individuals in this way really bothers me in the same way that a hot poker in the face bothers me.
In my opinion, and this is absolutely not held universally by many scientists and academics, it is our duty as well educated well-read individuals to object to this travesty and terminate it. This is not a matter of faith - it is about abuse of the truth to force pseudoscience into the medical community. It is about the manufacture of evidence to reinforce a cultural and moral (and political) position. The word "truthiness" rings in my head when I read about this supposed condition, 'SSA'. I stated once to a fairly stunned group of people that if I was a member of a person's PhD committee, presumably in my area of the biological sciences, and they publicly denied evolution, I would refuse to sign off on their candidacy. I stand by this position. It is equivalent of stating as a student of mathematics that arithmetic order of operations is unimportant. Or as a chemist that electrons form attractions to protons because they really like being around each other. If I stated as a sociologist that American black culture was entirely unaffected by slavery, I would be laughed out the door.
Why are we as scientists not allowed to demand individuals whose decisions are made based on scientific research and evidence hold themselves to the same standards we do? While it is true that medical science cannot afford to hold itself to confidence intervals that we do, they should be expected to maintain a standard of discipline that includes advice confined to scientifically supported opinion. Their diagnoses should be expected to conform to accepted, culturally neutral frameworks intended to preserve and protect human health. Those who do not wish to withhold their personal opinions can and do cause harm to innocent patients who look up to doctors, holding their advice in high regard. This damage permeates a society and festers over long periods of time, retarding human advancement. In my opinion (note that I'm declaring that this is a personal statement) doctors who choose to bring their religious affiliation or mores into the clinic do not belong in medicine.
Tuesday, May 8, 2012
As I was sitting in my new favorite bar which just happens to have a delicious all-you-can-eat wing special on Monday nights, the bartender and I got to talking about life, drinking, the meaning of functional alcoholism and (oddly) her chemotherapy treatments. Being of medical science background, I became interested when she declared that her taste for things, especially spicy food, had completely changed after her treatments has concluded. I was fascinated and asked about as many probing questions as possible without being downright rude.
Chemotherapy generally targets rapidly dividing cells in an effort to poison malignancies that exhibit unrestrained cell growth. These drugs are rarely specific so tend to attack the metabolism of all rapidly diving cells, resulting in the common hair loss, GI difficulty, nausea, ect. As olfactory cells (odor chemoreceptors in the sinus) and gustatory cells (receptors in taste buds) must be replenished regularly, they are on this list of rapidly diving cells and both become sickly and decrease in number. So, it's easy to understand why someone would lose their acute sense of taste and smell. But it does not explain why totally different tastes/preferences would take over later.
Which brings me to my question. Is there a CNS (central nervous system) reason behind this? It is widely accepted that the great majority of cells in our brains do not divide beyond early childhood. In fact, many cognitive psychology experimenters consider "general cognitive decline" to occur after age 21 in males. Our brain cells will only decrease in number over time. However, there are cells in the hippocampus near a place called the dentate gyrus that seem to continuously divide into adulthood. These are generally thought to have a role in memory formation, emotional processing, and experiential learning, although there is some uncertainty. If these cells are affected by chemotherapy drugs and connected to memories whose shared storage includes odor references, it might explain a partial or total loss of taste/odor preferences. This is my speculation.
How many people have studied this? Zero. There are a few clinical studies examining taste changes in chemotherapy patients and they have basically found that yes, chemotherapy drugs do seem to harm your ability to taste foods as well. But then they stop! Why? The clinician's primary concern is to ensure health and safety of the patient, i.e. getting them to eat a nutritious diet. They don't particularly care why it happens, so long as the patient is aware and can either move through it or find a preferred flavor enhancer. I want to know why, mechanistically, this happens. Maybe the hippocampus has absolutely nothing to do with it, but I am bothered that clinical research often falls short of actually probing for a conclusion. Retrospectives are great, but do not challenge the medical science community to move beyond treating a symptom. If we instead examine a mechanism, the least we will do is learn more about the root cause; we can hope to elucidate an effective treatment to mitigate the negative consequences for future patients.
Chemotherapy generally targets rapidly dividing cells in an effort to poison malignancies that exhibit unrestrained cell growth. These drugs are rarely specific so tend to attack the metabolism of all rapidly diving cells, resulting in the common hair loss, GI difficulty, nausea, ect. As olfactory cells (odor chemoreceptors in the sinus) and gustatory cells (receptors in taste buds) must be replenished regularly, they are on this list of rapidly diving cells and both become sickly and decrease in number. So, it's easy to understand why someone would lose their acute sense of taste and smell. But it does not explain why totally different tastes/preferences would take over later.
Which brings me to my question. Is there a CNS (central nervous system) reason behind this? It is widely accepted that the great majority of cells in our brains do not divide beyond early childhood. In fact, many cognitive psychology experimenters consider "general cognitive decline" to occur after age 21 in males. Our brain cells will only decrease in number over time. However, there are cells in the hippocampus near a place called the dentate gyrus that seem to continuously divide into adulthood. These are generally thought to have a role in memory formation, emotional processing, and experiential learning, although there is some uncertainty. If these cells are affected by chemotherapy drugs and connected to memories whose shared storage includes odor references, it might explain a partial or total loss of taste/odor preferences. This is my speculation.
How many people have studied this? Zero. There are a few clinical studies examining taste changes in chemotherapy patients and they have basically found that yes, chemotherapy drugs do seem to harm your ability to taste foods as well. But then they stop! Why? The clinician's primary concern is to ensure health and safety of the patient, i.e. getting them to eat a nutritious diet. They don't particularly care why it happens, so long as the patient is aware and can either move through it or find a preferred flavor enhancer. I want to know why, mechanistically, this happens. Maybe the hippocampus has absolutely nothing to do with it, but I am bothered that clinical research often falls short of actually probing for a conclusion. Retrospectives are great, but do not challenge the medical science community to move beyond treating a symptom. If we instead examine a mechanism, the least we will do is learn more about the root cause; we can hope to elucidate an effective treatment to mitigate the negative consequences for future patients.
Wednesday, September 14, 2011
If you have diarrhea, you are helping the terrorists
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/2011/09/11/2011-09-11_passengers_cause_security_scare_on_american_airlines_flight_34_by_behaving_suspi.html?r=ny_local&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+nydnrss%2Fny_local+%28NY+Local%29
Tuesday, August 30, 2011
Warning
My mother had a minor heart procedure (cardiac catheterization) and luckily all was well with no indication of significant plaque formation or ventricular damage due to infarct. What struck me as a neuroscientist, however, was the effect of various drug cocktails used to produce analgesia and amnesiac effects during and post procedure. In my experience, several conversations had shortly after the procedure ended where she seemed lucid, albeit drowsy, were either totally forgotten or blended with events occurring an hour or more later. Now, of course we all know these are due to the effects of benzodiazepines on the CNS, blended with blended opiate analgesia. The GABAergic system is affected, and memory formation is inhibited, preventing any solidification of short term-memories into long term storage.
But what the observation provokes in terms of my thoughts is the meaning of consciousness. Is it a tangible thing, or simply an arrangement of partially solidified memories with continuous sensory streams? Is there an actual state of "consciousness" or is it a product of other states, and therefore partly intangible? On the side of tangibility, we have the fact that there are states where a person or animal can be characterized as 'not-conscious' and other states where the characterization of 'semi-conscious' or 'delirious' and the facts that levels of consciousness can be interpreted as proceeding along a linear scale affected by various circulating drug concentrations. On the side of the intangible, there exists no real rubric to evaluate a person's subjective experience to altered states of consciousness or proof that consciousness, when maintained, is anything other than an instantaneous snapshot into a subjective reference frame composed of sensory input, near-term memories, and some higher order processes. Perhaps even someething like a 'side effect' of sensory integration.
A side effect. I imagine that a machine intelligence would say something like this: "Consciousness is nothing but a perceived byproduct of sensory integration, near-term, and long-term memory formation. it is an illusion. emotion is the process through which irrational situations are evaluated and consciousness exists as a low-order mediator between the irrational and rational self interest."
But what the observation provokes in terms of my thoughts is the meaning of consciousness. Is it a tangible thing, or simply an arrangement of partially solidified memories with continuous sensory streams? Is there an actual state of "consciousness" or is it a product of other states, and therefore partly intangible? On the side of tangibility, we have the fact that there are states where a person or animal can be characterized as 'not-conscious' and other states where the characterization of 'semi-conscious' or 'delirious' and the facts that levels of consciousness can be interpreted as proceeding along a linear scale affected by various circulating drug concentrations. On the side of the intangible, there exists no real rubric to evaluate a person's subjective experience to altered states of consciousness or proof that consciousness, when maintained, is anything other than an instantaneous snapshot into a subjective reference frame composed of sensory input, near-term memories, and some higher order processes. Perhaps even someething like a 'side effect' of sensory integration.
A side effect. I imagine that a machine intelligence would say something like this: "Consciousness is nothing but a perceived byproduct of sensory integration, near-term, and long-term memory formation. it is an illusion. emotion is the process through which irrational situations are evaluated and consciousness exists as a low-order mediator between the irrational and rational self interest."
Saturday, July 2, 2011
The Rudderless Neuroscientist
I am starting this blog because, simply, I am a neuroscientist and I am unemployed with little to do but play video games, critique other people's relationships, and write. Most of these posts will probably be fairly empty, falling on deaf ears, but perhaps someone will read and identify with my words.
I completed my masters degree a few weeks ago, but have elected not to remain in academia to pursue my education to its obvious conclusion, the PhD. This is both my choice as well as the suggestion of prospective advisers, many of whom were not encouraged about my personality mixing well with the others in the academy. They are probably right. My outspokenness regarding the desire to go into industry probably hasn't helped either.
What I've been learning is that many industry positions for neuroscience-minded individuals are in the pharmaceutical industry or in contract research, areas that do not really interest me. Most others require a PhD and significant industry experience. There are also biotech startups, comprising some of the companies I would be most interested in, but they are very hard to find and often come with wholly new challenges and high risk.
As I attempt to ford this confusing job-search ravine and even consider a career change toward green energy research, I will share with you, the anonymous audience, my observations, my thoughts, my experiences, and my rants. I hope you will find something here as intriguing as I find it cathartic.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)