Telescope to Seek Earthlike Planet in Alpha Centauri System

Chang, Kenneth. "Telescope to Seek Earthlike Planet in Alpha Centauri System." The New York Times. The New York Times, 10 Oct. 2016. Web. 12 Oct. 2016.

<http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/11/science/telescope-earthlike-planet-alpha-centauri-boldlygo-nasa.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fscience&action=click&contentCollection=science®ion=rank&module=package&version=highlights&contentPlacement=8&pgtype=sectionfront>.

I reviewed Kenneth Chang’s article, “Telescope to Seek Earthlike Planet in Alpha Centauri System”. The article begins by saying that a scientific research consortium is planning to build a telescope in an attempt to find Earthlike planets in the Alpha Centauri system, one of the solar systems closest to us. If scientists are able to find a “pale blue dot”, which would most likely be a world covered by oceans, then they can use the telescope to study it in detail looking for signs of life. The telescope is to be built by the end of the decade and will be used to look for Earth-size planets in the habitable zone, where temperatures could support life. Previously, most exoplanets have only been assumed when a dimming occurs when the planet passes between its star and Earth or by changes in the light’s wavelengths that are caused by the gravitational pull of an exoplanet. If scientists are able to photograph planets uses the telescope, they could start to look for specific wavelengths of light that would identify specific molecules. The predicted cost of the telescope, named Project Blue, is between $25 million and $50 million. This is, however, much cheaper than NASA’s mission with similar goals. Fundraising still remains an issue for Project Blue. Despite great hope that the project will find an Earthlike planet in the Alpha Centauri system, there is still a 15% chance that there is not an Earthlike planet to be found in the system. The project is planning to search other nearby stars as well to increase the probability of finding an Earthlike planet. This company, ACESat, may mark the start of more serious private space missions. Project Blue may not be easy, but it is possible.

If Project Blue is able to find Earthlike planets in the Alpha Centauri system, this could have many benefits for the future of the Earth. Humans are using up many of Earth’s natural resources, as well as overpopulating the planet. A new habitable planet could provide an escape from the deteriorating Earth we will on today. If spaceships and rockets get advanced enough in the future, Project Blue could provide us with an alternate planet to live on. Project Blue may also be able to find other forms of life in the universe. This would be able to confirm the belief by many that other species throughout the universe exist. It would open up so many new research projects. It would help us learn about the world around us and the way different planets live. Also, if Project Blue is successful, it may open up the opportunity of many more private space programs. This would allow those not qualified for NASA to have an opportunity to have a prominent role in discovering the universe.

Overall, I thought the article was well-written and interesting. I liked how the article really got me thinking about what it would be like if we found another habitable planets and maybe even other forms of life. I also liked how the article also talked about some of the negatives of the project, such as the cost and the potential for failure. This made the article appear unbiased. However, the author could have done a better job explaining some of the scientific terms. For example, when the author was explaining how exoplanets had been discovered before, he said the wavelength varied due to the gravitational pull of the exoplanet. When I first read this, I had no idea what this meant and I’m sure many other readers didn’t either. To improve the article, he could further explain his ideas to make them less confusing. I also would have liked if he had given examples of what we could do with the knowledge of another habitable planet, so the project would seem even more important. In conclusion, I found Kenneth Chang’s article extremely interesting but could be improved in some areas.    

   

Stem Cell Therapies Are Still Mostly Theory, Yet Clinics Are Flourishing.

For Charlotte Prior

Charlotte Prior

September 20, 2016

Current Event 4

Kolata, Gina. "Stem Cell Therapies Are Still Mostly Theory, Yet Clinics Are Flourishing." The New York Times. The New York Times, 27 July 2016. Web. 04 Sept. 2016.

The article I chose to do my analysis on is called Stem Cell Therapies are still mostly Theory, yet clinics are still flourishing. This article is based on the unlicensed usage of stem cell therapy in treating patients with certain diseases. It explains that, in theory, this research could be effective and stem cells could find new ways to defeat diseases, like Parkinson's and type 1 diabetes, but the science is not perfect. Some clinics are using the science to treat almost any disease, stem cells are used to produce more cells made by your own body, so they heal diseases which are caused by the loss of cells. Clinics all over the country are opening up advertising stem cell research as overwhelmingly positive and using it to treat more common diseases and injuries. In a paper published by Leah Turner, a bioethicist at the University of Minnesota, she says “It's operating brazenly, out in the open. It leaves out of these cultural assumptions about hopes and dreams of stem cell treatment, but there is no science behind it.” She is explaining how even though stem cell research is not heavily backed up by science, it is still extremely popular and has become industrial. The FDA does allow clinics to use stem cells as long as they meet certain criteria, but the FDA does not have the resources to regulate every clinic in the United States.

 Certain clinics have been found to be using amniotic fluid which is not FDA approved because it does not come from the patient themselves. These clinics have been doing this for years and the FDA has done nothing to stop them. Online, they advertise impressive success stories with videos of happy patients on their website but they don't talk about when it goes wrong. For example, one experience, a man named Jim Gass had, went terribly wrong, he was being treated for stroke and the stem cells were produced on his spine and a mass of cells grew too big, that paralyzed him from the neck down. His life was ruined because of the assumptions that scientists made about stem cell science before it has been fully backed up. This is why this issue is extremely important and should not be taken lightly. 

I enjoyed reading this article and I think that it was very well written. I chose this article because I'm interested in stem cell research, and the potential it has, and I was one of the people that believed that this research was heavily backed up by scientists and I was unaware that instances like Jim Gass occurred and that the FDA did not approve all stem cell research. The author used great real life examples, that helped the reader to understand that this is not a science issue but I also a social issue. The vocabulary was not confusing or extensive and it was easy to understand. This article offered the opinion that there should be heavier regulations on stem cell usage in clinics around the United States and in other countries and I agree with the author's perspective. I believe that before these tests are done so commonly, people should be warned that they are not fully backed up by science and should be aware that not everybody has a success story. 

China's Giant Space Telescope Starts Search for Alien Life

For Kiki Shinsato

Hunt, Katie. "China's Giant Space Telescope Starts Search for Alien Life." CNN. Cable News Network, 21 Sept. 2016. Web. 12 Oct. 2016.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/21/health/china-fast-telescope-search-for-aliens/index.html

The article "China's Giant Space Telescope Starts Search for Alien Life" by Katie Hunt is about the new telescope in China that will begin to search for life on other planets. The world's largest telescope has been completed and will be able to look further and faster than past telescopes. Compared to the second largest telescope which is in Arecibo, Puerto Rico, the Chinese telescope is almost twice as large. The scientists chose the location they did in China because of the egg-cup shaped valley which is the perfectly size and the surrounding mountains provide a shield against radio frequency interference. The telescope is expected to be able to locate the origins of the universe by mapping the distribution of hydrogen. Scientists also believe it will be able to detect how galaxies have evolved. However, many people are more interested in the expected goal of searching for extraterrestrial activity. The new telescope, FAST, will be capable of detecting exoplanets like these in ways that other telescopes cannot. China's Longer term goals include putting a man on the moon and sending a robotic probe to Mars which the telescope could help track some of these missions. This new information that the telescope is planning on providing is important to life on earth. There has been recent discovery of  three life-friendly planets outside our solar system has rekindled discussion of whether intelligent life is unique to Earth. FAST may be able to shed light onto this ongoing discussion on if human life is unique to Earth. 

This article was able to provided many goals that scientists have for FAST. It was able to lay out China's intentions on how they plan to use the new telescope. They also explained the reason for choosing the location that they did which I felt was very interesting. I think that the article could have gone into depth more about how the size of the telescope allowed scientists to see further and faster. I would also like to know if the telescope will be used by other researchers other than just the Chinese. 

Can the U.S. Really Get Astronauts to Mars by 2030?

Chang, Kenneth, and Daniel Victor. "Can the U.S. Really Get Astronauts to Mars by 2030?" New York Times. N.p., 11 Oct. 2016. Web. 12 Oct. 2016. 

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/12/science/president-obama-nasa-mars.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fscience&action=click&contentCollection=science&region=rank&module=package&version=highlights&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=sectionfront  

In 2010, President Obama set a goal that America should get to Mars by the 2030's, and on Tuesday, he called again for astronauts to get to Mars.  NASA is working hard to execute this mission.  They gave contracts in August to six companies to develop habitats that could sustain humans on space missions.  The White house advisor and the NASA administrator are also allowing private companies to give modules ideas to the International Space Station.  Work in the space station will move into the area of space in between Earth and the moon in the next decade.  Although NASA is moving into the next stage of getting astronauts to Mars, there are still challenges.  Many wonder if travel to Mars is possible.  The mission is possible, although it would be economically costly, take a lot of time, and the astronauts would be subject to risks including radiation.  There have been plans to get to Mars over recent years, but the main challenges have been political and financial.  One example is in 1989 when President George Bush planned to send Americans to the moon then to Mars.  The plan did not work out because according to NASA, the mission would cost half a trillion dollars and take two or three decades.  Another common question is will SpaceX get there first.  Elon Musk, the chief executive of SpaceX, said the Interplanetary Transport System would get people to Mars by 2024.  Although possible for SpaceX to get there soon, it is still unclear how the company will pay for it.  In addition, there are certain abilities and technologies that the spacecraft needs to prove before SpaceX can travel to Mars.  As of right now, the plan in the U.S. is to have the first launch of the Space Launch System without crew be in 2018.  The second launch with crew is estimated for over three years later.  Because cost is one of the main issues, NASA is coming up with ways to find the funding for the mission.  One way to get astronauts to Mars by 2030 is to stop operating the International Space Station in 2024.  It costs NASA $3 billion to $4 billion a year and would allow NASA to use the money for building the spacecraft for the mission.  Engineers plan to send a spacecraft around Mars by 2028, and according to Gerstenmaier, NASA's associate administrator for human exploration and operations, astronauts should orbit Mars in the 2030's and land in the 2040's.
The discussion in this article is very important.  Landing on the moon was a huge accomplishment of the U.S. and opened up many opportunities of exploring and learning about the solar system.  Since then, many people have wondered if a mission to Mars would even be possible, and now agencies in the world are well on their way of carrying out the mission.  NASA is working hard to get the money to make the mission to Mars possible.  If the U.S. is able to pull off a mission to Mars, it will increase the world's resources for learning about Space.
This was a very interesting article to read.  The author did a good job of explaining NASA's progress on the mission to Mars as well as their future plans.  The article also clearly addressed the main challenges in the mission: financial and political rather than technical.  I also liked how the author talked about common questions asked about the mission.  Examples include how has NASA been preparing and will SpaceX get there before the U.S.  The author also pointed out ways in which NASA is going to deal with the financial issue.  One area of weakness is the author was unclear when explaining why NASA was going to be able to orbit Mars in the 2030's but land on Mars in the 2040's.  The author could have explained why there was such a time gap.  The article could have also gone into an estimate of how long it would take to get to and from Mars.  Overall, this article was very clear and well done.  I learned a lot about NASA's plans for the U.S. mission to mars.  
    

A New Debate Over Pricing the Risks of Climate Change

Tabuchi, Hiroko, and Clifford Krauss. “A New Debate Over Pricing the Risks of Climate             Change.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 26 Sept. 2016.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/27/business/energy-environment/a-new-debate-over-pricing-the-risks-of-climate-change.html

            Companies with major environmental impacts, including Exxon, have recently contested that the economics of climate change are unpredictable and they should therefore not be forced to come up with exact figures regarding their impact. Republicans in Congress are attempting to pass legislation to allow companies to not disclose exact figures. Representative Bill Posey contended that the original bill forcing companies to disclose these figures was passed with deceitful intentions: the bill was passed under the guise of protecting investors, when in reality the bill was passed to shame companies for their environmental impact – according to Posey. Posey further argued that the bill leads to a waste of resources for companies, shareholders, and the S.E.C., and therefore impedes potential economic growth. Posey has, however, accepted donations from oil and gas companies, entirely undermining his credibility on the subject. Advocates of fuller corporate disclosure argued that climate change has a significant economic impact, therefore justifying the bill: a peer-reviewed study in the journal Nature revealed that a 2ºC increase in temperature could wipe out $1.7 trillion of financial assets. Therefore, proponents of the bill argue that the S.E.C must consider climate change. The recent discussion on the issue has been prompted by the ratification of the Paris climate agreement, which will lead to an increase in both the magnitude and frequency of measures taken to prevent climate change. A shift in the global energy landscape has brought about concerns about the viability of future coal, oil, and gas projects: scientists estimate that three-quarter’s of the world’s coal, oil, and gas reserves must remain untouched in order to keep carbon emissions within the confines set by the recent Paris accord. These companies’ reluctance to reveal economic impact stems from concerns regarding the volatility and damage that would ensue. Having such precise figures available to shareholders at any given instant would certainly influence their behavior in buying and selling shares, which would obviously damage any company. This is compounded by the genuine difficulty in predicting future asset valuations: it is impossible to predict future regulations and technologies. As it stands, the US oil industry is under significant financial pressure, and any additional regulation would only add to this pressure. This argument is flawed, as Exxon Mobil has recently stress-tested its major assets and expects that future cash flow would sustain regardless of situation. As all industries have some impact on climate change – whether direct or indirect – efforts are being made to set standards for climate change risks across all industries. While some companies have led the way with full disclosure, others have been far more reluctant. It is certainly clear that there are economic benefits and drawbacks to increased disclosure.

            The topics discussed in this article are especially important. Climate change stands as one of the greatest threats facing biodiversity and the world as a whole, and efforts must be made to prevent further damage. Policy improving conditions must be very delicately balanced, however, as all regulation has an economic impact, and economic health is wholly essential to the health of society. The costs and benefits must be weighed of forcing companies to disclose their impact on climate. Forcing one particular industry to disclose figures puts them at a disadvantage against all other industries. Forcing all companies to disclose exact economic figures could potentially lead to a complete lack of faith in the market and manufacture an economic downturn. At the same time, climate change must be stopped by any reasonable means possible. In many cases, an impasse consequently results when attempting to configure both environmental and economic policy. Businessmen, ordinary citizens, and policymakers alike must have a firmer grasp on the relationship between the environment and the economy (and thus the necessity of each policy discussed) in order to avoid these impasses and maintain progress on both fronts. Clearly, the subject of the article is incredibly important.

            Though the article made many strong points, many of its finer points were either poorly written or addressed. The authors fails to address any data when discussing regulatory history and the history of the policy discussed in the article – such an addition surely would have provided far more insight on the topic discussed. Additionally, the article was poorly structured, and the authors seemed to jump between topics with a lack of structure. The authors could have made a far stronger point had their information been more structured and concise. Otherwise, the article was very well written and addressed important points.

Scientists Inspect the Great Barrier Reef, From 28,000 Feet Above

Innis, Michelle. "Scientists Inspect the Great Barrier Reef, From 28,000 Feet Above." The New York Times. The New York Times Company, 26 Sept. 2016. Web. 28 Sept. 2016. http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/09/27/science/great-barrier-reef-nasa-australia.html?_r=0

Scientists are putting together a collection of data from the Great Barrier Reef using aerial images from 28,000 feet above the reef. Using a NASA gulfstream jet, a sensor called a Prism (Portable Remote Imaging Spectrometer) picks up light that bounces off of the various objects in the reef. Each object has it’s own wavelength, and the Prism converts these wavelengths into bands of color, using the color to make a high resolution image of the reef. Prior to this technology, people could only study reefs through small scale scuba diving trips and studies— however, these cannot be extrapolated to the entire reef due to the fact that the Great Barrier Reef is the size of Germany. Recently, there has been a problem with coral bleaching, which occurs when the water warms and the coral evict algae, which normally has a symbiotic relationship with the coral because the algae are photosynthetic and make food for the coral. Scientists hope to find out how reefs adapt to man-made and natural stresses, how they calcify, and how much photosynthesis takes place on reefs and where.

Reefs are important to study and understand because they provide food and shelter to a quarter of the ocean’s species, protect coastal communities from hazardous weather, and provide revenue from fishing and tourism. It is imperative for agencies like NASA to fund reef studies because many of the countries that border these reefs are unable to pay for equipment to monitor and preserve the reefs. The data collected from this study will be plotted against the effects of wave stress, rising sea temperatures, and pollution and overfishing in order to give people a definitive explanation of how and why human activities are causing coral bleaching, and hopefully suggest a way that people can stop the destruction of biodiversity in the reefs.

Overall, I found this article to be informative and compelling. The author explained the study well and gave the reader an understanding of why it is so important to study reefs. However, the article jumped around and was hard to follow. The author switched back and forth between reef science and the study being discussed, which was confusing. The author also did not give the dates that this study is taking place. Finally, I would have liked for the author to explain exactly why coral bleaching damages biodiversity in the reefs.

For Evelyn

Evelyn Kluemper

September 29, 2016

AP Biology C Odd

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/28/health/birth-of-3-parent-baby-a-success-for-controversial-procedure.html?action=click&contentCollection=science&region=rank&module=package&version=highlights&contentPlacement=2&pgtype=sectionfront&_r=0

Kolata, Gina. "Birth of Baby With Three Parents' DNA Marks Success for Banned Technique." The New York Times. N.p., 27 Sept. 2016. Web.

The first baby to use genetic material from a donor in addition to that of its parents was born.  This controversial method was used to avoid mitochondrial disease that is genetic on the mother’s side.  The couple had two naturally produced children in the past who had both died of Leigh’s syndrome, a mitochondrial disease where babies lose their ability to move and breathe.  The DNA of the mother was placed in the egg of a healthy egg donor and then fertilized.  The donor’s DNA was removed from her egg cell so her genetic material would not be passed on to the child.

This new process, although advantageous, is controversial and to some, unethical.  Some parents may feel ashamed that they must depend on a donor for a child.  Others are concerned that the child will receive genes from the donor.  However, mitochondria does not carry genes, which is in the nuclear DNA.  Donors may be of a different race than that of the parents of the child, but the baby will not have traces of the donor’s features.

This article, although short, was very interesting.  Readers sympathize and follow the story of a Jordanian couple who fought to have a child without a fatal mitochondrial disease, following the death of two previous unhealthy children.  More quotes from experts may have been helpful to understand the article better and include in my review.