|
SubscriptionsSites I Read
|
|
|
|
|  Brian Buettner
OUBS
Sociobiology Aug. 2006
Journal – 8/10/06
Today is the last journal entry for my time here at the University of Oklahoma Biological Station. I wanted to use this entry to briefly recap what I have experienced over the last two weeks. The first week was an in depth discussion about E.O. Wilson’s book, Sociobiology. We talked about how the 1970’s could have contributed to the debate that followed. When the book was published in 1975, it was first attacked by people in science, such as Richard Lewontin and Stephen Jay Gould. However, the debate was quickly picked up by other people in academia and then into the general public. The debate was so intense because Wilson stated that humans and animals were no different. He also theorized that our actions were based on our genetic composition and not our experiences. However, the debate helped Wilson’s book sales and increased the awareness of his theories. If there had been no debate, it is likely that the book would have been long forgotten. The first week’s discussions helped me understand how science actually takes shape and gains momentum.
During the second week, we began looking closer at the more recent controversial debates in science. After compiling a list of ideas, we split them up as a class and then presented what we found during our research. The topics we covered were politics in science, stem cell research, prenatal diagnostics, and genetically engineered food. It was amazing how we could all split up and concentrate on a small piece of the picture and then pull it all together for an overall view of the topic. Most of the debates, except the genetically engineered food, the debates were over the definition of when a life begins. Most of the people in the class did not appear to have a definition but they were quick to say that the Catholic Church’s definition was wrong and only used to make people feel like outsiders. During these discussions, their true dislike of the Catholic Church was let known to the class. While I tried to avoid stirring up trouble, I let them know my views on life and that life begins at the moment of conception. Did they care? Maybe not, but someone else agreed with me.
Today we wrapped up our PowerPoint presentations and completed our class poster. Melissa, Jennifer, and Colt did most of the designing and I helped with the technical things throughout the process. We ended up doing a very good job and the poster looks awesome. As far as my presentation in concerned, it is ready to go. I was almost through with the presentation last night, but I decided that I wanted to do something more original than a recap of the two weeks. Instead, I will have the class play a short game of “Who Wants To Be A Sociobiologist”. I went to Wal-mart in Madill, Oklahoma for some candy prizes. My thinking is that if the presentation does not go over well with the class, I can still influence their opinions with snacks.
Tomorrow is my last day! I have really enjoyed meeting all of my classmates as well as Dr. Ingo Schlupp and Rúdiger Riesch, the Teaching Assistant. I have been able to apply a lot of the tools I received in college to critically evaluate papers and debates. Even my public speaking class helped me through the capstone. While I have learned a lot, I must thank Dr. Schlupp for his advice and his direction during our discussions. He really helped us all keep the topics in perspective and encouraged us to foster our own conclusions about the debates. | | |
|  Brian Buettner
OUBS
Sociobiology Aug. 2006
Journal – 8/4/06
This morning’s discussions dealt with conflicting research about how closely humans and primates are actually related. The first paper we discussed was by Richard Wrangham, entitled “Ape Cultures and Missing Links”. The paper was presented in the form of a lecture to the Leakey Foundation, a primate conservation foundation. The founder, Richard Leakey, came from a family that had a lot of influence in Kenya and also spent his career determining the phylogentic tree with respect to humans. In general, Wrangman appeared to fall in with the genetic determinists with his theories of human and primate behaviors. However, the foundation of data that he laid down during his lecture was weak and not totally convincing. However, he did give some good points with the relation between humans and primates in respect to aggression and tool use.
The second paper we read was “The Myth of Man the Hunter/ Man the Killer and the Evolution of Human Morality” by Robert Sussman. The article appeared in the Journal of Religion and Science and, therefore, based his paper on the basis of human morality. Sussman, unlike Wrangman, appeared to believe that cultural determinism was more likely to have occurred in humans. I agreed with Sussman’s theory but I wish he would have supplied an alternative to Wrangham’s theory instead of just disputing the theory. Sussman did a good job counter-pointing Wrangham and brought out the inconsistencies within Wrangham’s work.
The third paper we discussed was entitled “Bonobo Sex and Society” written by Frans de Waal. Interestingly, bonobos are believed to be the closest species on the phylogenetic tree to humans. However, bonobos, also called pygmy chimpanzees, have a very unique social system. The females are the dominant sex. This reversal of roles has allowed bonobos to display non-aggressive behaviors but supplement their aggression with sexual contact. We then briefly discussed if this type of society would ever work for human societies. The consensus appeared to be that it would be difficult to apply bonobo behaviors to human societies, even if bonobos are the closest relative of humans.
During the afternoon session, we wrapped up the first week by discussing where the sociobiology debate was today. We all concluded that the term “sociobiology” is rarely used today because of the stigma that it now carries (i.e. genetic determinism). However, the theory has leaked into many aspects of both physical and social sciences. Wilson’s original idea that sociobiology would completely consume sociology and other disciplines have failed. However, the theory has revolutionized science and has been the last large discovery in all of the biological sciences so far. | | |
|  Brian B.
OUBS
Sociobiology Aug. 2006
Journal – 8/9/06
This morning’s discussion was very broad and helped me explore how science is portrayed and received by the general public. The first part of the discussion was about how the hard times in the late 1920’s may have allowed for Germany to respond to fascism that led up to World War II. He made some very good points about how everything was going very well for the German’s in terms of culture and other aspects of society. Dr. Schlupp even stated that Germany was considered the foremost leader in science in 1920. However, how could this all fall apart so quickly?
After World War I, the peace treaty between Germany and the Allied Forces tried to prevent Germany from ever rising again to power. Many Germans felt that the sanctions placed on them were not fair and needed to be changed. Therefore, this facilitated the general uneasiness around Germany and led to the acceptance of Adolph Hitler and the Third Reich. All of the German culture and traditions that had accumulated for hundreds of years were put aside in support for a government that promised many things without any interest in actually following through with their responsibilities. This can serve as a lesson to us that we need to closely examine political candidates and not just giving in to their propaganda.
We then discussed if science could be stopped. The basic answer was “no”. For example, imagine a chemist was working on a new insecticide that would prevent any insects from feeding on pumpkins. The chemist had been working on the project for four years and was nearing the final stage of the research. However, the chemist found out that the research was actually going to be applied to warfare as a weapon against enemy countries. The chemist could quit her job but someone will eventually take the project over and finish it. While hypothetical, situations like this have happened throughout the history of science. It almost seems impossible for science to just stop.
Next we discussed journalism and scientific education. It is unfortunate that many science reporters do not have any formal science training. If they understood the ground-breaking research that is occurring, they could convey more relevant information to the public. This would, therefore, increase the public’s scientific knowledge. We also talked about how television shows for children rarely involve science. For example, shows like “Bill Nye the Science Guy” and “Where in the World is Carman Sandiego?” have been replaced with Poké-mon. There needs to be an effort by the mass media to spark the interest of our youth with enjoyable science programming. For adults, we talked about several resources that they could use to keep up-to-date with scientific progress, such as “Science Friday” on National Public Radio, Nature, Science, and Scientific American. In addition to these resources, The New York Times publishes a section on Tuesdays with science content for the average person.
Finally, we ended with a discussion of bio-ethics and the creationism/evolution debate. Science and Faith-Based systems are separate entities that must be reconciled or one is false. They are just not the same. As far as bio-ethics is concerned, there is no way to foresee what consequences our scientific research can cause, both for better and for worse. Therefore it must be left for ethicists to help lead scientists down a grey road towards progress. Hopefully, we will never lose our humanity by getting too caught up in our quest for knowledge. Hopefully, scientific prudence will keep us safe for many years to come.
| | |
|  Brian B.
OUBS
Sociobiology Aug. 2006
Journal – 8/8/06
Today was presentation day. After Monday’s discussions, we split up into four groups and selected a topic from the list we had compiled about debatable science topics. The topics were hard to select and most of the class wanted to select genetic screening as their topic to begin with. However, we all ended up working together and selecting different aspects of science to discuss.
The first group gave a presentation on how politics can influence the scientific progress of a nation. They then went into detail about how China has been able to bring many scientists from all around the world in order to use limit-less science. On the other hand, the United States has enacted tough legislation that restricts some scientists from doing things such as cloning. They also pointed out that the cultural values in China lead to the formation of the political agenda which leads to the advances in science and the economic impact of the breakthroughs.
My group went second. We talked about Stem Cell Research. We broke the discussion into four segments; an introduction to stem cells, current research, ethics and misconceptions, and funding and future of the research. We then had a good discussion about how stem cells are actually obtained and grown in culture. In general, I think our presentation went very well. We received some good advice for future presentations.
After the lunch break, we listened to a presentation about prenatal diagnosis and the politics involved. Within the presentation they talked about such testing procedures as amniocentesis, Chrionic Villus Sampling, and Alpha-Fetal-Protein / Maternal Serum Testing. We had a lively discussion over the moral implications of “knowing” the potential outcome of the pregnancy and also how abortion could be used to prevent the “burden” from befalling the unwilling parents. Of course, many of their points I disagreed with. For example, in my mind I have a clear definition of when life begins; at the moment of conception. Since this is my view, it is very hard for me to accept even the thought of aborting a baby. IT IS A BABY!!! As much as I wanted to share my thoughts with the class, it would not have been appropriate. Some people can get very defensive and rude if they are confronted. While looking back now, I wish I would have started the debate that was underlying much of the lecture.
Finally, the last group discussed genetically modified food. They had some awesome points on how everything from corn to chickens have been modified to prevent diseases and to encourage growth. I thought it was interesting that there is not a requirement in place for the labeling of such foods unless there may be an allergy issue. I thought the presentation was very thorough and described many aspects of the current research that is being conducted by researchers today and its implications on humans
In conclusion, today was very informative. I learned a lot about the politics of science, stem cell research, genetic screening, and genetically altered food. Tomorrow we will discuss Evolution and Creationism. However, I hope that the conversation doesn’t turn into Evolution vs. Creationism. I have no problem reconciling the two. | | |
|  Brian B.
OUBS
Sociobiology Aug. 2006
Journal – 8/7/06
Today was the first day of the second week of class. Over the weekend I worked on my second essay entitled Sociobiology: 30 Years of a Revolutionary Concept. I basically outlined the many things that I have learned about Sociobiology during our first week of class. In my opinion, the field of sociobiology is not what E.O. Wilson had expected. In fact, he was under the impression that sociobiology would envelope many fields both in biology, sociology, and psychology. Instead, the theories of sociobiology were adopted by the different disciplines. Even the term “sociobiology” has become loaded with the idea that it is ONLY genes that determine behavior. However, it is clear to me that the debate has been settled; it is both genetic make-up and culture.
This morning we began discussing the different topics that are currently controversial in the world of science.
Animal Testing
Bio-engineered Food
Stem Cell Research
Human Cloning
Prenatal Diagnosis
Assisted Suicide
Abortion
“Germ Warfare”
Global Warming
HIV/AIDS
Human/Animal Hybrids
Avian Flu
Gene Therapy
Blood Doping
Gay Marriage
Animal Genetic Engineering
In-vitro Gender Selection
Overpopulation
Biodiversity Conservation
Alternative Fuels
Genetic Screening
Gene patenting
Scientific Integrity
Obesity
Antibiotic Resistance
ICSI
Horizontal Gene Transfer
Evolution/Creationism
Science Funding
Virus Driven Pandemics
ADD/ADHD
From these topics, we split up into groups and each selected a topic to discuss. My group, Stephen, Colt, and Melissa, are going to give a presentation about Stem Cell Research. We split up the presentation into four segments. I will talk about the basics of stem cells. I will then turn it over to Colt for a discussion of stem cell research. Following Colt, Stephen will discuss the politics of stem cell research. Finally, Melissa will discuss the funding and the future of stem cell research.
Hopefully, our presentations will be informative for the class tomorrow. | | |
|
