"See Where Clinton and Trump Stand On Science"

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/see-where-clinton-and-trump-stand-science

Staff, Science News. "See Where Clinton and Trump Stand on Science."Science News. N.p., 13 Sept. 2016. Web. 14 Sept. 2016.

Review by Jay Burstein

9/14/16

The election of 2016 has been one of the most controversial elections in our history. Our two candidates for the presidency have been boasting about their vision for America. This article points out their views on science and how it will have an impact for our future. The article interviews the two candidates to find out more about their platforms on the following scientific objects such as space exploration, climate change, vaccines, health, genetic engineering, gun research, and STEM education. While Science has not been a main issue in this cycle, this article discusses certain scientific views of Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. In my review, I will focus on space exploration, climate change, and STEM education. These topics are the most important to be reviewed.

Space exploration has been a debated subject for half a century and also a recent one. Mrs. Clinton's stance is that we have a lot more to learn and discover so the government should continue to fund those efforts. The article said, "Clinton wanted to be an astronaut when she was 14 years old, but NASA told her that they weren’t accepting girls". Hillary Clinton supports the mission of NASA and this quote shows that to be true. Surprisingly, Trump agrees with Clinton on this issue. He too loves what NASA represents. NASA can create new jobs and spark curiosity in kids and ultimately trillions of dollars into our economic system. However, he stated that their are bigger issues that we have to tackle and space exploration shouldn't be a high priority. Overall, Trump and Clinton are for space exploration but neither candidate goes into depth as to what their plan would be.

Climate change has also been a debated subject for a while now and it is a topic that can have a heavy impact on our future and for the future generations to come. Mrs. Clinton believes that science is real and specifically, that climate change is real and that we can save our planet while creating millions of good-paying clean energy jobs. She has called the Paris climate agreement a "historic step forward". According to Mrs. Clinton, she'll deliver on the U.S. pledge to curb warming without relying on the climate deniers in congress to pass new legislation. Her goal is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 80 percent in 2050. In order to do this, she would invest in renewable energy. Ultimately, she is for climate change and has a clear and concise vision to tackle that problem. On the other hand, Donald Trump is strongly against climate change calling human caused climate change a "hoax". He has also said that any efforts to combat it are burdensome on the economic system. Donald Trump at a rally said, "President Obama entered the United States into the Paris climate accords. Unilaterally and without the permission of congress, this agreement gives foreign bureaucrats control over what we do on our land in our country." From this quote, it is evident that Trump does not support the fight to combat climate change. Trump has said that he will cancel the Paris climate agreement and stop all payments of U.S. tax dollars to U.N. global warming programs. Part of his plan is to undo many of the climate initiatives put into place by the Obama administration such as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's plan to cut emissions from power plants. Also, he would encourage the use of natural gas and other American energy resources. Ultimately, the nominees strongly differ on this scientific subject. 

As far as the article goes, I thought that it was an extremely well informed article that covered a lot of the points. It was well detailed and provided a lot of useful information. I liked the fact how the article covered the state of the science as well as Trump and Clinton's stance on each of the issues. However, I wish they had talked to more scientists who are experts on these issues and to ask for their opinion on each of these issues. If we got the insight of the scientists who do this for a living, then this article would be a lot more meaningful and insightful. Overall, this was a well written article and as we are 55 days away from choosing our next commander in chief, it is essential to take notice of these two candidates visions on scientific views. I say this because, our well being of earth is important for our future and their actions on the following scientific issues can have a major impact on the direction for our future. 

 http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/07/us/politics/five-things-to-know-about-congresss-fight-over-zika.html?_r=1

Five Things to Know About Congress’s Fight Over Zika

By EMMARIE HUETTEMANSEPT. 6, 2016

Continue reading the main storyShare This Page

• Share
• Tweet
• Email
• 
  
• S

Review by Ava Gaston
Five things to know about Congress fight over Zika” disscuses the main issue on the Congress fight over Zika and how much money the government is running short of. Congress voted down the proposal of  more funding for Zika treatment. There are two sides of the debate, One side is saying that we should not worry about as the mosquitos season is over in the North,however, in the South, especially Florida, there are still a number of cases. Therefore , we need more funding. But  Congress doesn't have enough votes to better the issues. According to the Florida Department of Health, the number of cases in Florida is 56. In addition to this the CDC says that out of the $222 million given, $194 million had already been used. $35 we million were used in Florida, but unfortunately the money is running out too fast.

This issue affects humanity as a whole as Congress is being careless about how their people they are representing are getting sick and need help. This also shows that we as humans care more about money keeling as supposed to taking care of one another. We should be caring about each other and not about stupid superficial money.people are getting sick and their own country’s government  doesn't work hard for them.

The article was detailed and was written very well. It was clear and easy to read. I could understand it. However it could have provided more specific data or evidence on number of cases nationwide as supposed to only Florida. This would alarm the readers more and really drive the issue more

"Toxic Air Pollution Can Penetrate the Brain: Study"

Julia Curran

September 6, 2016

Current Events

Worland, Justin. "Toxic Air Pollution Can Penetrate the Brain: Study." Time. Time, 06 Sept.

2016. Web. 06 Sept. 2016.

http://time.com/4480016/air-pollution-health-effects/

 “Toxic Air Pollution Can Penetrate the Brain: Study” by Justin Worland addresses how air pollution remains a major global health threat that contributes to many more degenerative diseases than previously thought.  According to new research the toxic effects of pollution reach well beyond just cardiovascular diseases.  Based on research from a new study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, pollution also appears to be a contributing factor to brain maladies, such as Alzheimer's.  Researchers found that toxic particles of magnetite and other metals which makes up the much of the pollution in urban areas, are actually able to permeate the brain through the olfactory nerve.  These substances have been found in high levels of brain tissue taken from people who had previously resided in heavily polluted cities.  The author believes this research now shows how the  pollution can enter the human body and cause the disease, although he does note that more research will be necessary to show the exact cause and effect.   

This is problematic, since according to the World Health Organization, over 80% of people in urban societies reside in areas where air quality is well below current health standards. According to this article air pollution is linked to a variety of health issues, including millions of premature deaths yearly, throughout the world. It has long been a problem in cities that are heavily polluted such as in third world countries like India, but now it seems to also be affecting areas that are proactively fighting pollution, such as in Europe and the United States.  It affects our lives here in Bronxville, because we are located just outside a major city.  We breath the same air and it appears based on this article, that even small amounts are able to “infiltrate” the human body and wreak havoc on one’s health.  Now that we are gaining a greater understanding of how pollution can permeate the body, we need to focus more on ways to prevent it from doing so.  

I found this article to be very interesting since toxic air pollution affects so much of humanity.  However, it covered this topic in very general terms, raising a lot of unanswered questions.  The author often stated that “research shows” that pollution contributes to degenerative brain diseases without giving specific examples or sources for his theories.  He asserts that pollution “infiltrates” the brain through the olfactory nerve, but has not detailed exactly why he makes this claim, other than that it was found in the brain tissue of  individuals from heavily polluted cities, like Mexico City and Manchester.  It leaves me to question whether there could be other ways that pollution could end up in the brain tissue.  Maybe it traveled in the person’s bloodstream when that person drank contaminated water or food?  Could the magnetite or other metals somehow be absorbed by the skin, similar to lead poisoning? Leaving these questions unanswered was frustrating to me as a reader, however with more research these questions could possibly be answered.

         

         

The Giant Panda Is No Longer Endangered. It's 'Vulnerable.'

Lyric Abbott   

September 6, 2016

Current Events

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/07/science/giant-panda-endangered-vulnerable.html?action=click&contentCollection=science&region=rank&module=package&version=highlights&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=sectionfront&_r=0

The Giant Panda Is No Longer Endangered. It’s ‘Vulnerable'

In the article, The Giant Panda Is No Longer Endangered. It’s ‘Vulnerable,’ published in the New York Times by Liam Stack, it is stated that Giant Pandas are no longer considered an endangered species. Giant Pandas originate from China where the climate is frequently changing which will have a negative effect on pandas in the future. Giant Pandas are no longer close to becoming extinct due to the growing forests and protection in China. Efforts by the Chinese government to create better living environments for the pandas has changed their status to vulnerable as opposed to endangered. Although the pandas currently live in a safe environment surrounded by forest, climate change in the future could eventually demolish over 35 percent of the animal’s habitat which is mostly made of bamboo. This destruction is estimated to occur within the next 80 years. The Chinese government is taking full measure to ensure a safe environment for the pandas in order to conserve the species for as long as possible. Although Giant Pandas are no longer endangered, the Chinese government is taking strong measures to make sure their safety is not compromised in the years following.

The endangerment of Pandas leaves a huge affect on the world for many reasons. As humans, we are the ones who have caused the endangerment of pandas and for our own unnecessary benefit. By cutting down forests, we have made many different species of animals environments a very unsafe place for them to live. The article states that pandas survive mainly on bamboo and by cutting down these bamboo trees, we are depriving them of both food and shelter. Giant Pandas are important to mankind because they play a crucial role in the growth of China’s forests. The article also states that Giant Pandas spread seeds and help with the growth of vegetation as well which could benefit humans in the future.

Although the author of this article does a good job of getting the point of how pandas are no longer endangered across, their are a few things that could be improved in order for the article to be more clear to the reader. The author starts with a strong opening that introduces the main idea of the article and backs it up with a lot of factual evidence. As the article progresses, the author starts to talk about how eastern gorillas are far more likely to become extinct in the coming years. This part of the article was not as necessary to include because the article is about Giant Pandas and their endangerment and the title of the article does not make it clear that the article will go into detail about endangered gorillas as well. The author could have also included more detail and facts about how they became endangered in the first place because only a brief summary is given which does not leave me as the reader particularly satisfied.

Summer Programs

We have recently received information on two summer programs available to students interested in pursuing the study of science over the summer months.

 

http://www.summerscience.org/home/index.php

http://www.seas.upenn.edu/saast/

Farmer John Boy Ubaldo's Bloomberg TV Interview about GMO's

John Boy Ubaldo is the farmer from Cambridge NY, from whom we purchase our pork, beef, and this summer we are participating in his CSA. In a CSA we get a box of vegetables and fruits from him each week. John raises hormone, antibiotic and GMO free Berkshire pigs and Black Angus cattle. Here he is talking about why we should insist on labeling of GMO products.

Oh The Times They Are a' Changing

http://www.biologynews.net/archives/2013/02/27/seeing_through_hivs_disguises.html

I read the article, “Seeing through HIV’s disguises”.  It was very interesting; it is about how the Scientists from Johns Hopkins have studied the infectious HIV subtype. The article goes into details about how researchers can use tools to come up with treatments and strategies to fight HIV. In the article it mentions that the virus will choose certain proteins to infect so that it can survive longer, because those proteins would have been the resistance. Scientists hope to combat the disease with specific proteins that kill the virus, but there are so many proteins that, “[it Leaves] too many targets for researchers and drug companies to chase after.” Said David Graham. But fortunately the new research narrows the, “pool” to a smaller number. This discovery is very helpful and caused them to find that 25 of 279 of the proteins shared the two cell types of cells compatible. And later a research team found that CD44 is the only one of those 25 that can bind to other cells.

This discovery is very interesting and helpful to the world of medicine.  Because of this discovery they can now apply new medicines to patients with HIV. The article is not as applicable since Biology is over, but it is pretty recent.

The article was an interesting read but I feel like it was lacking. There was no hook at the beginning; I didn’t feel at all compelled to the story until they specified the significance half way through the article. But I do think the way the information was told was well done, and kept me engaged.