Cockroach

I found this painting on the internet, though it did not have an author's name attributed to it. I thought this paining--titles "Cockroach Family"--could be an interesting addition to the Fred Jones, Jr. Museum of Art because it show cockroaches in a different light than we are used to seeing them in.

The first thing about this picture, is that the cockroaches are portrayed as humans. They are clearly a family and their appearance is less repulsive than usual. While the intent of the author might have been on meaning, I think it goes along with our book Cockroach because the book itself goes into great detail about cockroach and shows them in a different light than we are used to seeing. We are all used to seeing cockroaches as repulsive disgusting creatures that are a symbol of filth. But this painting characterizes them as a wholesome family. This photo and its accompanying pose is one that many families have probably done in their portraits. Thus, I think this painting would be good to display because it teaches us all that things are not always what they seem, and perhaps there's a little bit of good in everything.

 

Expanding the scope...

Biopunk forced me to consider many issues regarding "citizen science" and whether ordinary citizens had the right (or even the ability) to explore science on their own. A question that arose in my mind during the readings is whether those mentioned in the book are the rule or the exception.

I remember reading the chapter about Gregory Mendel and how he did not have too much success in life at first. Scientists even thought he suffered from extreme test anxiety because he failed to become certified as a teacher. Though he had his share of failures, he eventually became one of the most innovative figures in science as we know. Mendel conducted his own experiences with pea plants and established that certain traits were passed on from generation to generation. Thus, Mendel posed the first questions that gave rise to the science of inherited traits.

While Mendel's story is an inspiring one, how many are destined to follow in his path? Is it safe to have any average citizen take it upon himself to conduct scientific experiments just because people like Mendel have? There is no doubt that Mendel had an extraordinary mind even if other personal issues kept him from advancing to further careers. What if Mendel is the exception and not the rule? Are all destined to succeed like him or must we accept that not all possess the same intellect as Mendel, and therefore, might not succeed in their experiments?

Citizen Science

While reading Biopunk I've been able to explore the issue of "bio hackers" and "citizen science". Should the general public take science into their own hands and conduct their own experiments? This is an interesting question that is posed throughout Biopunk and thus, I wonder how I would respond to a situation of citizen science?

Supposed that I have come back from summer break to find that my roommate has set up a wetlab in our apartment in order to experiment with genetic material. My first response would be concern and serious doubt. While I advocate that everyone should try and educate themselves on some aspect of science, one cannot deny that areas like genetics require serious understanding of the scientific literature. Is it safe for someone with no background in genetics to suddenly start experimenting with genes? I do not think I would participate in my roommate's experiment because I tend to err on the side of caution and would not feel qualified to conduct such experiments. The situation would be different if I were being monitored by someone who has great expertise in the field of genetics. Not only could I safely (and correctly) conduct any experiments I want to, but I could be mentored in the field of genetics further, and perhaps I would learn much more than I would have on my own. Not only would I be getting the "hands on" expertise that is sometimes necessary for studying science, but I would also be taught by a professional who can impart far greater knowledge on me than just my own experimentation. 

The vast, dark universe...

Our universe and immense, and often times, very foreboding. I have always been fascinated by its mysterious abyss. I have always wanted to learn more about the galaxy, but I have also been intimidated by how to begin. However, that seemed to change a bit this past week. In class, we were assigned to take a look at the Galaxy Zoo project. I looked at images and was then asked to answer questions about the image. The questions asked seem to ask me to think deeper about the characteristics of what I was shown. I was not confident at first and seemed to stumble through, but as I went on, I became a little bit more confident in my abilities.

I really enjoyed this website because I feel that it is somewhat geared to a common person with little knowledge about the galaxy (like me). It simplified the images I was being shown as time went on. By doing so, it allowed me to tune in on the fine details of the images and therefore be able to gain greater knowledge over this area. I think websites like Galaxy Zoo are important because there should always be avenues for everyday people to be able to expand their knowledge on a subject. In a world where people are forever seen as becoming "dumber" and are only concerned with the latest happening on the "Real Housewives", perhaps the pubic should invest more time in developing sites that can help educate the public.

Fantasy vs. Science Fiction

When we started this unit on science fiction, I found myself wondering why we even had to talk about it in the first place. I have never been a huge fan of science fiction -- it has always seemed uninteresting and too "techy" for me. However, I have always been a fan of the fantasy genre. I grew up on Harry Potter, and while I despise the Twilight characters, I find the story to be an interesting read.

I do vehemently believe we live in an age where fantasy is more popular than science fiction. First and foremost, I believe that while science fiction can be seen as a "glimpse" of our future (an apocalyptic world overrun by technology), fantasy is pure imagination and magic. While many will woefully agree that there never was a Middle Earth inhabited by Hobbits, it is an escape to think of a world that is so different than the one we live in now. I see science fiction as a situation that could be real -- maybe our world will be like the battlegrounds of War of the Worlds or maybe technology will develop beyond its current capabilities like The Matrix.

Additionally, I believe that science fiction is geared toward men more so than girls. Fantasy tends to focus more on emotions than science fiction. Harry Potter appealed to both girls and boys because it had both thrilling action and profound love. Star Wars doesn't hold my interest for long because it doesn't have the things that I am interested in.

Furthermore, fantasy, and mythical creatures like Bigfoot, are more fun to speculate about. I believe that audience finds it intriguing to debate over whether the Yeti or Bigfoot exist. I do not believe science fiction has that appeal, because most of it is set in the future.

Thus, I believe we live in an age of fantasy, rather than an age of science fiction. To me, fantasy has so much more to offer its audience, and perhaps that is why it dominates over science fiction.

Visions of the Future

The world has always been captivated on visions of what the future held -- visions of towering cities and bold new inventions that will change one's life in a second. While reading through The Wonderful Future That Never Was by Gregory Benford, I got a taste of what society imagined our world would look like in a short amount of time. One "invention" that particularly caught my attention was the idea of the super-super-super skyscraper. It was imagined that these skyscrapers would love "climates of their own", with its own heating, lighting, and ventilating machinery. Interior wooden finishings and furniture would be unnecessary, and they would tower over 100 stories high, or 1000 feet. While some of these predictions were far off, I was struck by how society envisioned futures that were convenient for everyone -- that is, new technologies were developed in order to make life easy, with relatively no hardship. This showed me that the world was concerned with what made our lives more easy. Often, this is what was seen in the future, rather than some flashy gadget for entertainment.

Towering skyscrapers seemed to be an indication of an advanced, civilized society, and that is the reason they were in most scenarios regarding the future. Though most still had furniture, their far-off imaginings showed how people longed for buildings that would serve an efficient, functional purpose. Not only could skyscrapers show off the grandeur that society had become, but they could also serve our world in a valuable way, but having its own "climate" that could be regulated at the whim of the people. No longer would people fall victim to the travesties of Mother Nature -- just step inside for work and all was well. Presently, we have developed beyond what our past could imagine -- we have buildings taller than a 1000 feet. In fact, the tallest stands in Dubai, at almost a mile and a half long. We have gone beyond what we could have imagined so long ago, and it shows that our imaginations, and our abilities, know no bounds.

The World of Tomorrow

People have always wondered what science can bring us, and a better future seemed to be imminent. Nothing seemed to demonstrate that to me more than my readings over the 1938 New York World Fair While one would expect a carnival filled with fantastic rides and delectable foods, I was surprised to find that one of the biggest attractions was "Futurama".

Contemplations of what the the far future (the 1960s) held were immense! Segregated streets for traffic and pedestrians, a world of free men! It seems that one of the greatest productions that the future held was a society built by and inhabited by free men. I kept on getting that sense from the "Democracity" brochure from the fair. It went into great detail of the cities of "Pleasantville" and "Millville" that held great libraries for scholars and law tax rates. It seems that the "science fiction" attitude almost seemed to lean toward a utopian future where people lived in relative ease. It spoke of a "highway" of sorts, and while we were eventually able to develop one, it did not erase the time issue. Highways gave way to traffic jams that continue to be the bane of society. With every advancement, there comes an accompanying problem that perhaps we did not consider in the first place. The attitude toward the future at that time seemed to be that technology could only advance us without any problems whatsoever. Everything would be made to make use more efficient as a society.... society saw no different!

On the flip side, Orsen Well's 1938 War of the Worlds seemed to illustrate the destructive power that science could wield.

The broadcast went into great detail of the weapons that could be used against us, such as gas that could incapacitate tons of people! While society seemed to think that science could progress us beyond our greatest dreams, it could also be our end. The technology that could have been developed from advances in science could be the same technology that could cause an all out war between worlds, and eventually destroy civilization. Thus, science seemed to be both good and evil -- it's power was broad and immense.

Dino Talk

This week we were asked to consider the rise of the dinosaur, especially in popular imagination. For me, the most apparent image of dinosaurs in this early period is how their design often seemed ridiculous and fanciful. Charles Knight's dinosaurs offered a peek into how earlier audiences must have seen dinosaurs, but they were also regarded as inaccurate. After viewing these images and reading about the Crystal Palace Dinosaur Tribute, I got the feeling that people of this time period were so fascinated with portraying the dinosaur as a most spectacular being. Perhaps their realistic appearance was not a concern -- whatever appearance would garner the most attention seemed to be the philosophy of those times. However, I understood where this sentiment comes from...

The discovery of fossils and the formulation of dinosaurs must have been an earth-shattering notion to the people of those times. People wanted to know what these beings that inhabited our planet long before we did looked like. I believe that this is a sentiment that holds true today. Young children are introduced to dinosaurs early on in school. I remember my own experience -- dinosaurs seemed to be these "playful" creatures. They often seemed like animals that jumped right out of a child's imagination, and I can see the appeal they have on children. As a child we would pick our favorite dinosaur and often tell each other proudly on the playgrounds. As I grew older, my fascination with dinosaurs fell by the wayside. They seemed to be an obsession for kids, but not for the older teen that I was becoming. As I grew older, I began to see dinosaurs in a new light. No longer did I solely concern myself with what my favorite dinosaur did, but I began to learn more about their beginnings and their untimely end. Even as I started to learn about evolution, I saw dinosaurs as just a mark on the timetable of our planet -- they played their necessary role and met their end in the natural rise and fall of species so seen by evolution. I began to study their relation to the grand scheme of things more, although I sometimes wish I could return to those days on the playground where my and my friends argued over the "best" dinosaur.

Portrait of a Genius

If I had the opportunity to pick a portrait to hang in the Fred Jones, Jr. Museum, I would pick the portrait of Edward Bromfield. First and foremost, Edward Bromfield displayed extreme acuity and intelligence with his vast improvements to the microscope - an invaluable tool in the field of science. I believe his portrait is important because it shows him gesturing to a microscope, deeming it important and valuable to society and further scientific developments. Furthermore, his style of clothing has been mentioned to mark him a man of "studious habit" and genius. I think that it is this emulation of genius that makes this portrait interesting to the realm of science. Here is a man who has made valuable contributions to science and has been marked by them. It is these conclusions that I would advise a tour guide to help his audience realize while showing them this portrait in the museum.

Einstein: An Appropriate Image of Science

As a Zoology major I thought I had seen enough of science for a lifetime. I have studied the nitty gritty details of the inner workings of the cell, charted the evolution of our species from their humble beginnings, and written out those impossible organic chemistry reactions over a hundred times. I thought I was just about done with science and had no desire to see it imparted in everything I see. However, an image of Einstein seems to be an unequivocal image of science. I like this image particularly because it is almost as if we catch Einstein in the middle of a scientific discovery – Einstein looks over his shoulder almost unexpectedly. It’s refreshing to see a genius like Einstein so surprised at being intruded on – we see the scientific processing happening in the moment. This is the image of scientists and science I like to see: the process of developing the breakthroughs that change our world.