"Why the Beaver Should Thank the Wolf"

AP Bio                                                                                                9/30/12

Blog                                                                                                 Brooke Bonfiglio

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/29/opinion/the-world-needs-wolves.html?ref=science

            “Why the Beaver Should Thank the Wolf” is an article which describes how interconnected an ecosystem is. Through multiple examples it shows how an affect on one species has a series of affects on the ecosystem as a whole. First Hannibal shows the profound affect the wolf has on its ecosystem by describing the drastic change in the Yellowstone National Park after the wolf was reintroduced in the 1960’s. She argues that because the wolf is a natural predator to elk and other grazing animals, they tend to eat less of vegetation by the riverbank, reduces erosion that occurs as a result of overgrazing. She says the healthier vegetation from the reduced erosion aids beavers because they can then make dams, which in turn help the ecosystem by reducing drought,  and the vegetation protects from flooding. This sequence of impacts is titled a “trophic cascade” and describes how organism’s roles influence the organisms and ecosystem around them.

            This article is significant because as we are experiencing drastic changes in climate and drastically altering our surrounding environment we don’t realize the affects it has on other species. At the beginning of this article Hannibal says how nonprofit organizations are fighting to keep the Endangered Species Act for species like wolves, which are facing extinction. Her argument shows that if wolves are extinct in Yellowstone, or other areas, they can have a domino affect on the ecosystem. By removing the wolf form the ecosystem you degrade the quality and diversity of the area and may even endanger another specie, which was dependant on the wolf for survival. Large species such as wolves and sea otters are keystone species, which means there are very few of them in an ecosystem, however they have a large impact on the functionality of the ecosystem. By further endangering the wolf Hannibal proves we are endangering the entirety of the ecosystem.

            This article made a convincing argument about how closely connected all species are in an ecosystem and how important each one is to another. By making such large scale connections between organisms she shows the line of affects removing wolves from an ecosystem would have. At one point said that because there is greater or better quality vegetation that more carbon is sequestered from the atmosphere, which would in theory help reduce global climate change. This point seemed like an overreach and if she was to make this argument I think she should have made an example where this was proven to help reduce climate change. I also think the end of her article, where she said we can’t just have national parks to conserve the environment we need to have conserved continents, was too ambitious and unrealistic.  

Bias Persists for Women of Science

Chang, Kenneth. "Bias Persists Against Women of Science, a Study Says." The New York Times. The New York Times, 25 Sept. 2012. Web. 28 Sept. 2012.

 <http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/25/science/bias-persists-against-women-of-science-a-study-says.html?_r=0>

                In this article “Bias Persists for Women of Science,” written by Kenneth Chang, the author argues that recent studies show despite the elevated status of women in fields that were traditionally dominated by men, such as mathematics and science, they still suffer some degree of discrimination. This was discovered by researchers at Yale University, who designed a simple experiment. They created fake applications and sent them to biology, physics, and chemistry professors at six major universities. Half of these applications, which showed a decent but not a stalling student, were under the name John and the other half Jennifer. John received an average score of 4 out of 7 for competence, while Jennifer received 3.3. John was also seen more favorable for the possibility of mentoring. Finally, the greatest starting salary for John was $3,820 dollars more than the one for Jennifer. To make matters worse, this pattern was something that was prevalent in chemistry, biology, and physics. For physics professors, who teach a largely male-dominated student population, perhaps the bias against women can be understood; they simply have not taught as many female students. However, the result was consistent in biology, where more than half of the undergraduate students are female. Also, the female professors were just as biased as their male counterparts. When asked to comment on how they felt about this result, the researchers said that they did not believe the professors were discriminating deliberately. Rather, it is the psychological and cultural preconception that women are not as good in science or mathematics as men. 

                This article has some personal significance to me, because my sister Ellian suffered from similar bias in Dartmouth. She originally planned to become an architect. Thus, she had to take make engineering and physics classes. There, she felt that her professors held a bias against her because of her gender. In classes that involved actual construction of model buildings, Ellian suffered from health issues because the dust created during the process triggered asthma fits. She was sent to the emergency room on more than one occasion. However, again her professors were not very considerate; although they probably did not mean to discriminate against her deliberately, they just could not grasp the fact that she was not capable of the same physical labor as her male peers, especially taking into account her asthma. She eventually changed her major. I also felt that other students in the class would find this article interesting if they are seriously considering majoring in mathematics or science; I obviously do not mean to discourage any female student from it, but it is probably wise to be aware of this bias before entering the field. 

                To a larger degree, I enjoyed the style of writing. It was concise and easy to understand. However, I was a little baffled that the author did not include the names of the researchers who performed the experiment involving fake applications. (They are merely mentioned as a team of researchers at Yale. I can’t tell if that means undergraduate students, graduate students, or professors.) Also, since she mentioned affirmative action and the inherent difference between men and women as possible factors leading people to believe that females are not as good as males in science and mathematics, I would have liked to see some mention of research done on those two topics. 

posted for E. Choi

Raising Frogs for Freedom, Prison Project Opens Doors

Andrew Jones                                                                                                                       AP Bio

Article Review                                                                                                                     9/29/12

Johnson, Kirk. "Raising Frogs for Freedom, Prison Project Opens Doors." The New York Times. The New York Times, 27 Sept. 2012. Web. 28 Sept. 2012. <http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/28/us/raising-frogs-for-freedom-prison-project-opens-doors.html?ref=science>.

“Raising Frogs for Freedom, Prison Project Opens Doors,” tells the unbelievable story of Matt Henson and Taylor Davis, two individuals who are both prisoners, now living their lives behind bars at Cedar Creek Correction Center in the state of Washington.  Both Henson and Davis are serving time for stealing automobiles.  Although they are not free men, they have been spending their time raising 250 Oregon spotted frogs (Rana pretiosa), an endangered species, in the prison yard this past summer.  The program Mr. Henson is working with is writing a scientific curriculum for other frog raisers, in and out of prison.  Sustainability in prisons is having a very positive impact on inmates, significantly improving prisoner potential, with, one man finishing his Ph.D. after his release.  The program was the brainchild of Dan Pacholke, Washington State Director of prisons, who helped establish the program in 2004 at the 500 bed Cedar Creek prison.  Prisons all around the country are looking to bring nature and sustainable practices to their prisoners.  Why? - Because it is having a positive impact on prisoner rehabilitation while reducing the overall costs of incarceration.  For example, inmates grow a majority of their own food in Wisconsin, “and federal energy rules are pushing for the goal of zero-net energy use in federal prisons by 2030.”  This may seem like an unreachable goal, but the idea of putting prisoners to work with the combination of energy conservation and self-grown food products is very appealing.  In order to enter the program, individuals must compete and maintain a record of superb behavior.  They are even paid the paltry wage of 42 cents per hour!  Because of their dedication and hard work, inmates saw their frogs enter the wild six months after hatching.  This amazing process will begin all over again for next year beginning in the winter.

            Kirk Johnson’s article proves to be of significance to society because it demonstrates the hope for prisoners to be more productive, transforming their lives, and contributing positively to the world.  It is important to take notice of the movement amongst prisons across the United States who are using prisoners more efficiently to conserve food, while positively impacting our environment.  This article appealed to me because I had no idea that prisoners were involved in any activities such as farming and biological studies.  I am happy that inmates are doing more than just being locked up, and instead are reducing overall consumption of our scarce resources.  For example, in Wisconsin, most prisoners grow their own food.  In addition, waste generated has been reduced by almost 50% through recycling and composting.  The use of potable water has also been reduced by 100 million gallons through the collection of rainwater per year, all while inmate populations have increased.

            This article provided a good understanding of the potential for improved environmental conditions through innovative governmental programs.  The specific benefits to the environment could have been expanded to demonstrate a more national and global impact if the sustainability program were to be implemented more broadly.  Greater detail around the impact on specific scarce resources (eg. spotted frogs species, clean water, and waste) could have been provided to emphasize the potential for the sustainability program.  Kirk Johnson should have opened his piece describing the program, “Sustainability in Prisons,” providing a short summary of its background and how it came to be the successful organization it is today.  Johnson could have also went into more detail about Matt Henson and Taylor Davis’ relationship, and how they work together to achieve a better life and day-to-day existence for all prisoners.

Building a Bat Cave to Battle a Killer

AP Biology                                                                                                            Petey DeJoy

Current Events                                                                                                9/26/12

Works Cited

Gorman, James. "Building a Bat Cave to Battle a Killer." New York Times. N.p., 24 Sept. 2012. Web. 26 Sept. 2012. <http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/25/science/in-tennessee-building-a-bat-cave-to-battle-a-plague.html?pagewanted=1&_r=0&ref=science>.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/25/science/in-tennessee-building-a-bat-cave-to-battle-a-plague.html?pagewanted=1&_r=0&ref=science

Building a Bat Cave to Battle a Killer

            This article discusses a pernicious disease that is killing many bats across America. The white noise syndrome is a devastating fungal infection that takes out hibernating bats by the millions. When they get the disease, which was first noticed in 2006, they get a telltale fuzzy, white growth on their muzzles. As a preventative act, Cory Holliday has recently decided to build a man-made cave that is 80 feet long and 16 feet wide, with 11-foot ceilings. A fairly large risk, Holliday has gambled 300,000 dollars that his plan will work. By building this cave relatively close to a large cave where the bats currently hibernate, he is able to monitor them through video surveillance and clean the cave every year in order to prevent the fungus from spreading. If his technique works, it will enable the same process to be done to other areas in order to conserve the lives of the bats.

            Bats seem relatively unimportant, because they have relatively little direct influence on our lives. So why make such an effort to save them? As it turns out, bats eat millions of insects, keeping them out of our way. If the bats were to die off, the cost of pesticides to farmers would increase by more than a billion dollars. Therefore, the money being spent to save them is an investment to save money in the future, and is economically logical.

            The article is well written, but it changes subject a few times. The main point of the article is that this man, Cory Holliday, is making an effort to save the bats through his production of an artificial cave. However, it digresses a little bit into the field of zoology and discusses bats and their immunity to some diseases and weakness to others. It should stay on one track and not change the subject.

Stanford Scientists Cast Doubt on Advantages of Organic Meat and Produce

Chang, Kenneth. "Stanford Scientists Cast Doubt on Advantages of Organic Meat and Produce ." nytimes.com. The New York Times, 3 Sept. 2012. Web. 26 Sept. 2012. <http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/04/science/earth/study-questions-advantages-of-organic-meat-and-produce.html>.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/04/science/earth/study-questions-advantages-of-organic-meat-and-produce.html

“Stanford Scientists Cast Doubt on Advantages of Organic Meat and Produce” by Kenneth Chang, details an interesting scientific study that attempts to release the truth about organic foods.  Stanford scientists have analyzed four decades of research and come to the conclusion that on average, organic foods are neither more nutritious, nor any less likely to be infected by dangerous bacteria than conventional foods; however there were a number of key differences that were unearthed between the two types of foods as a result of the study.  Conventional foods often had higher levels of pesticide residue, organic chicken and pork were found less likely to be contaminated by antibiotic-resistant bacteria, organic milk was found to contain more omega-3 fatty acids, which are good for the heart, and organic produce even contained higher levels of phenols, which are believed to help prevent cancer.  These findings indicate that while organic foods may not necessarily be more nutritious, they are often safer and more beneficial to one’s health, a big reason why this study is not expected to have an effect on the willingness of the consumer to pay more for organic food.  There are a number of critics of this study because it involved so many variables and grouped all foods into one group, and thus it is very hard to determine how to interpret the results; however, if there is one thing to take away from this article, it is that despite the fact that there may not be any discernible difference between nutritional values of organic and conventional foods, on the margin, it appears that organic food is slightly better for one's health.

In the United States in recent years, the organic food market has grown in value to over $12 billion.  The results of this scientific study validate such growth.  While, consumers, such as myself, may not be getting more nutritional value from eating organic foods, there are a number of health benefits to be gained from eating such foods.  The higher price of organic foods may dissuade some, but the health benefits detailed in this article may help convince people that their health is well worth the extra money.    In this article a study was detailed in which pregnant women who had been exposed to high levels of pesticides known as organic phosphates were identified and the development of their children was tracked for a number of years.  It was found that those children had a lower I.Q. on average than their classmates, and thus it is comforting to know that when eating organic foods, the chance of such pesticide consumption drops significantly.  This study may convince people who have the money that is worth the extra dollars to obtain the health benefits that may come with eating organic foods instead of conventional foods.

I thought that this article was very informative, but sometimes hard to follow, and a little bit disorganized.  I felt that at times the author was shifting from topic to topic too quickly and without enough depth. The author also did a very mediocre job of connecting constituent parts to the message of the article as a whole.  This resulted in the article being a little bit confusing until I had gone through it a couple of times.  I did like that the author seemed to present no bias to either the conventional foods side or the organic foods side and left the interpretation of the results up the to reader.  He allowed the reader to decide whether or not the potential benefits of organic foods outweigh the extra costs and the fact that they don't contain any more nutritional value than the conventional foods.