Concussions

Concussions are the most common injury in all of sports, both contact and non-contact, from intramural college teams to professional sports. Not only are athletes more likely to suffer from concussions than the average person, but they are also at a greater risk to develop future brain damage as a direct result. Athletes must decide when they are able to come back to play. If one returns too early to play, one risks developing another concussion or potentially dealing with Second Impact Syndrome (SIS). SIS does not need to stem from a large impact, but any impact following a concussion has the potential to trigger the condition, which has only a 25% survival rate. Several tests are used to decide whether or not an athlete is able to safely return to the playing field. However, these tests are measuring psychomotor speed (time to think of something and then perform a task) as opposed to visuomotor speed (time to see something and react) which is far more game relevant. This results in some athletes returning to play before they have fully recovered. Studies show that upper extremity and oculormotor functions deficiencies can still be present a year after a concussion, long after other symptoms have faded. This had led to a call for more intensive testing for athletes returning from concussion. An obvious way to do this would be to implement some sort of test to measure visuomotor speed. Along with being relevant to the environment, incorporating visuomotor tests may increase the sensitivity of current post-concussion testing methods.

The Departments of Psychology and Kinesiology at the University of Waterloo in Ontario, Canada has recently conducted an experiment to see if including visuomotor tests will significantly increase the sensitivity of post-concussion testing. The experiment contained 40 participants, 20 athletes and 20 non-athletes (NA). The 20 athletes were further split into two groups of 10, concussive athletes (CA) who have previously suffered a concussion (CA) and non-concussive athletes (NCA). None of the participants has any known conditions that could complicate the data. All three groups were tested for visuomotor reaction time though a motor tasks test. The athletes were further tested using CogSports testing (a commonly used computer-administered neuro-psychological test battery). The motor tasks test required participants to place their finger in the bottom corner of a touchscreen. After a random delay, a target of sizes 4, 8, 15, and 29 mm would appear at the top center of the touchscreen. The participant must move to touch the target as soon as possible. The test was done 40 times (ten times each size). The test was then repeated for the participants other hand. The test employs Fitt’s law that states any psychomotor (or visuomotor) act has a speed-accuracy trade off.

The CogSports data is highly sensitive to post-concussion changes in motor reflexes. It did not detect any significant difference between the reaction times of those who had and had not suffered concussions. The motor tasks test showed significance between speed and accuracy, validating Fitt’s law. Other post hoc exploration on the CogSports data showed though that while not at a level of high significance, CAs responded slower than both NCAs and NAs. The motor tasks test, unlike the CogSports test, found a significant difference in simple reaction times in half of the CAs. Therefore, the motor tasks test, which incorporates visuomotor testing, was more sensitive to post-concussion decencies. Because the motor tasks tests utilized Fitt’s law, the data shows that the decline in results from concussion suffered was not due to impairment in the speed-accuracy trade-off but rather just an overall decline in speed. Performance on the CogSports and motor tasks tests were uncorrelated.

1. testing can be improved by a larger sample size and a more difficult visuomotor task

Locklin, Jason, Lindsey Bunn, Eric Roy, and James Danckert. "Measuring Deficits in Visually Guided Action Post-Concussion." Sports Medicine 40.3 (2012): 183-187. Web. 12 Sep 2010
http://ehis.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=5&hid=114&sid=44ce9306-cf0f-4cd0-a024-3ecd4215e555%40sessionmgr113

Freshman 15: Fact or Fiction?

If you’re in college, chances are you’ve heard of it. In fact, you may have been dreading it: the “Freshman 15”, a legendary fifteen-pound weight gain among first year college students. But, you may question, looking around at your fellow students, is it really fifteen pounds? Scientists have wondered the same thing. In a recent study published in The Journal of American College Health, the weight changes among college students at Auburn University were recorded over the course of freshman year—and, despite the popular myth, only about 5% of the students gained fifteen or more pounds.

So, if not fifteen pounds, what is the weight gain that can be expected freshman year? The study found results ranging from a loss of 18.2 lbs to a gain of 29 lbs, which is a pretty large range. And, honestly, a range that doesn’t say much—most freshmen would agree that they expect their weight change to be somewhere within that range. On average (using the mean of the results), however, the weight gain came to 2.6 lbs for the academic year. But, that average includes those who lost weight. Among only those that gained, the average came to 6.0 lbs for the year.

The gainers among the group made up the majority, at 66% for the year, and 69% for the first semester, where weight gain seemed to be more common. In fact, the average weight gain for spring semester came to only 0.5 lbs, a statistically insignificant change. So it seems that the fall semester is the one we need to worry about, if we are worried about being among the 2/3 of freshman that gain.

While the article doesn’t mention the potential causes for gain, it’s easy to take a few guesses after over a year of college life. It could be the fact that most of us were part of some sport, or at the very least a P.E. class, in high school while now we find that walking to and from class is the most convenient form of exercise. Or, maybe it’s those deliciously greasy burgers in the convenient all-you-can-eat dining halls, the midnight snacks to keep us going when we’re up all night writing a paper, and the high-fat lattes or mochas or other caffeine-of-choice. And, if it isn’t those two, there’s always the potential for gaining a few pounds from stress, birth control pills and other medication, or lack of sleep.

But, what about those that dropped a few pounds instead of gaining them? When it comes to weight loss for the entire year, the average was found to be -4.4. lb for 31.2% of the group. And, for fall semester—the significant semester in weight gain—28.5% of students lost weight, averaging at -2.5 lbs each. The troubling issue here is that while almost a third of students did lose weight rather than gain it, overall they lost mainly lean muscle rather than body fat, raising the body fat percentage and indicating unhealthy weight loss efforts.

While the study doesn’t give reasons for weight loss, either, the reasons for it aren’t too mysterious—a lot of the time, life takes over and we forget to eat. When it’s midterm season, it comes as no surprise if by the time you look up at the clock from studying, you see that all the dining halls are closed. Or when you only have so many minutes between classes and the line for food is just too long. Or, there’s deliberately cutting down on food just to avoid that college weight gain we’ve all heard about.

So what can we do? First of all, relax—according to this study, the average weight change is pretty small, so there’s no need for crash diets and skipping meals, which only hurt in the long run and can lead to slower metabolisms and future weight gain. But, still keep in mind that it is a problem. Even if the weight gain is generally far from that dreaded fifteen, more students than not will gain weight freshman year. And, most students in the study, among those that gained weight and among those that lost it, saw an increase in their body fat percentage, and a loss or little gain in their lean muscle. So, as hectic as it gets, we should try to remember to eat healthy meals, stay active when possible, and get some sleep (at night, not just during those boring lecture classes). The freshman fifteen may be a myth, but staying healthy should still remain on our minds. It’s not those couple extra pounds that we need to worry about, it’s the decline in health and the development of habits that could lead to future weight gain and obesity.



Gropper, Sareen S., et al. "The Freshman 15—A Closer Look." Journal of American College Health 58.3 (2009): 223-231. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web. 26 Sept. 2010.

Image: flickr.com/jamesfoof

Speaking of Genes....

As shown by the fact that from 2004 to 2006 more that a thousand children were born utilizing genetic diagnosis, the scope of parental assurance is continuing to widen. With the ever-growing knowledge in the field of genetics, hopeful parents across the world are facing the very real possibility that they can be promised a child without debilitating ailments. This process, known as preimplantation genetic diagnosis or PGD, has the potential to virtually eradicate severe diseases in children, and because of this demand is growing. Yet PGD is subject to an enormous share of controversy. The greater share of this controversy, according to Dr. Chantal Bouffard, is not based on the truths behind PGD but rather loaded terms such as ‘eugenics’ and ‘the perfect baby’ that inject fear and distortion into the public perception.


While the concept of preimplantation genetic diagnosis is not a new one, it’s now widespread availability is a relatively modern advancement. The procedure can be done in a standard clinical setting and despite many beliefs; it is not preformed while the actual mother is pregnant but rather on invetro cells. Utilizing PGD allows potential parents to select embryos that are free from genetic defects and abnormalities including Huntington’s disease, cystic fibrosis, Down syndrome and certain types of hemophilia. Most often parents that opt to use PGD suffer from these illnesses themselves or are aware that there is a predisposition in their own genes that could put their children at risk. Having the ability to know that their children will be able to live without the ailments of these diseases is a huge relief to virtually any parent and can provide a much needed assurance throughout the medical field.

With all this well and good, where does all the hubbub come from you might ask? In their article Genetic Diagnosis of Embryos: Clear Explanation, not Rhetoric, is needed, Drs. Chantal Bouffard and Stephane Viville discuss how they believe a “particular… use of words and concepts have distorted public and scientific discourse” (Bouffard, 1 of 7). This mostly concerns the seemingly innocent terms “eugenics” and “perfect baby” that have been connected to the very different subject of preimplantation genetic diagnosis. In the eyes of the science fiction fed public of today these terms can summon to mind horrors of a designer race, and even eventual genetic discrimination ala the sleeper film GATTACA. With this disposition it is not difficult to see how the reality of PGD could easily be confused with the fictional applications of eugenics. Further the use of this language serves as a catalyst to specific groups. Notably the sensational terms draw the excitement of the media, whose reach then dominoes into the government; while the truth of PGD is largely only recognized by the couples who seek to apply the practice to secure their family. As the government is led into the paranoia from the “eugenic” veil, laws are made hastily, a key example being France’s Bioethics Law 94-654. This law “prohibits testing for more than one genetic condition… even when there is a known risk for more than one condition” (Bouffard, 3 of 7).

With fears spurred by misused language guiding such impactful restrictions Bouffard and Viville maintain that the differences between “designer babies” and PGD needs to be brought more definitely into the spotlight. PGD is designed to divert disease and there are many limitations in its use that keep it from being the terror that many believe eugenics could be. For PGD to become eugenic in nature its entire process would have to become far less complex and much more attainable to the public as a whole. As of now, PGD is far too expensive for common use and too easily regulated to become the threat some politicians are hailing it as.

To be completely honest, Genetic Diagnosis of Embryos does not attempt to pass off PGD as a completely flawless angel of scientific progress. The authors want to be very clear that PGD is not eugenics and is not a route to the formation of the perfect child, and they press the need for reliance on factual evidence. Bouffard and Viville call to mind the real issues surrounding PGD that are being overshadowed by the fantastical elements of the eugenics argument. Beyond potential promises that are essential to the development of numerous medical fields, PGD is absolutely not without its risk of failure. Certainly there is also the potential for PGD abuse in the future, specifically with regards to its outer ability to allow for gender selection. Other important reserves that are diverted by the use of misleading language are the prospect of “reproductive tourism,” which could occur when the procedure costs less in some countries than in others, and the lack of long-term follow up regarding the children birthed through PGD.

Overall I am very intrigued by the reality of PGD. I know that one day; after college, as my mother has so strongly stamped into me, that I would like to have a family of my own. I would greatly appreciate having the ability to know that the child I would bring into the world could live a life free of disease and the struggles that face one with a severe illness. I believe that Drs. Bouffard and Viville are very right when they say that evidence should be the defining factor behind the future of PGD usage and regulation. Far too often people let a fear of the unknown or the complex restrict true needed progress into the future, and I hope that through informative articles such as this, confining language will not be all that is seen by the public when faced with PGD. With no amount of cliché intended I will end with the statement that the future is only a day away, and that it is our duty to make sure the door is not closed on development.

Chose Your Words Wisely.




Sources:
Bouffard C, Viville S, Knoppers B. Genetic diagnosis of embryos: Clear explanation, not rhetoric, is needed. CMAJ: Canadian Medical Association Journal [serial online]. September 15, 2009;181(6/7):387-391. Available from: Academic Search Premier, Ipswich, MA. Accessed September 12, 2010.

http://ehis.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=9&hid=114&sid=f286c55b-c0d0-4e74-8e12-cf71ea9a2d0e%40sessionmgr114

Photo: google.com/images

I.S. Solutions to a Growing Problem

"Our global climate is nearing tipping points. Changes are beginning to appear, and there is potential for rapid changes with effects that would be irreversible-if we do not rapidly slow fossil fuel emissions during the next few decades” -climate scientist James Hansen. It’s not a new discovery--the climate is rapidly altering, and the majority of it can be attributed to human impact. The real discovery, yet to be found, is the solution to this monumental problem. Research is constantly underway to discover ways to halt the damage, as well as find ways to improve our environmental sustainability. Nigel P. Melville writes to galvanize environmental sustainability  research on information systems. Information systems (IS) are combinations of information technology and people’s activities using that technology to support operations, management, and decision-making--essentially business enterprises. Why might this even matter to you? Won’t you be alive in the next few decades? Like Hansen said, “there is a potential for rapid changes with effects that would be irreversible if we do not rapidly slow fossil fuel emissions during the next few decades.” 

The entirety of Melville’s fifteen page article, Information Systems Information for Environmental Stability, can be summarized by four objectives: to summarize the results of articles published in leading IS journals, to define and discuss Coleman’s micro-macro model to develop the concept belief-action-outcome, to develop a set of research questions, and to conclude by summarizing findings and discussing implications for this research. These objectives help to explain Melville’s overall belief that IS plays a critical role in “shaping beliefs about the environment, in enabling and transforming sustainable processes and practices in organizations, and in improving environmental and economic performance” (Melville, 1). I will briefly and effectively outline these four objectives.

Melville finds three principal topics while researching articles published in leading IS journals. They include: antecedents, performance, and supply chains. Antecedents refer to factors that promote or inhibit the adoption of sustainable business practices. Studies in performance examine the association between sustainability practices and organizational and environmental performance outcomes. Finally, supply chains relate an example of the inter organizational focus.  Coleman’s Micro-Macro model can be defined as shaping the role of individuals in associating micro-level variables (individuals) and macro-level variables (social structure). Essentially, the model seeks to describe the importance of the two levels of organization and how they both strongly affect each other. Melville composes a list of questions, whose purpose is to “illustrate how researchers might begin to tackle complex problems arising at the nexus of IS, organizations, and environmental sustainability” (Melville, 14). Four of these questions fall under the domain of philosophical perspective and theory, while six of the questions are categorized by the phenomena belief, action, and outcome. After explaining and discussing the solutions to the questions, Melville also connects them to belief-action-outcome, which simply explains how macro-level variables and micro-level variables are all intertwined in the context of environmental sustainability. The final objective of the paper is a conclusion/review of the overall purpose of his research. Melville re-iterates the sole problem that prompts the article: environmental sustainability is one of the most important global challenges of the 21st century. Furthermore, he relays the important role that IS plays in this challenge. He gives the reader a sense of the many potential issues that IS scholars might analyze. Then, he stresses the importance that business organizations play a huge role in mitigating the climate change (because of their dominance in the global economy) as well as working toward becoming more environmentally sustainable. These businesses can be persuaded by motivating them to take actions to achieve environmental objectives.

Information systems are fundamentally important for the global problem of climate change, yet they are vastly misunderstood. When understood properly, they can enable new practices and processes for belief formation, action formation, and outcome assessment--essentially, there will be no doubt in anyone’s mind that climate deterioration is rapid, people (especially business organizations) will seek to take action, and there will be a strong improvement from where we once started. All of these practices help to stop the bad practices harming the environment, as well as to actively search for solutions. Melville maintains “there needs to be a development of well-founded discourse on IS for environmental sustainability that leads to improvement of the natural environment” (Melville, 14).


Melville, Nigel P. MIS Quarterly. Information Systems Innovation for Environmental Sustainability. 1 Mar. 2010. Web. 9 Sept. 2010. <http://ehis.ebscohost.com/ehost/ pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=2&hid=118&sid=0c88ffaa-280a-4116- bdf0-9ab3eef5f619%40sessionmgr104>.

Human Reason or Animal Instinct?

The ability to know right from wrong is one thing that helps set us apart from the animals that we keep as pets, visit in the zoo, or cook up for dinner. It’s what makes us human. And since we have the ability to think rationally, that must be how we know whether something is wrong, right? But when we’re given a controversial situation, do we really act as judges, carefully considering all sides and consequences before reaching a verdict? Or, do we react first with emotion, and only use reason to—like lawyers—justify whichever side we have chosen? Scientists Paul Bloom and Frans De Waal take opposing sides on this issue, with De Waal defending the importance of emotion in judgment and Bloom insisting that reason has a larger role; however, both authors agree that morality does not come from just emotion or just reason, but some combination of the two.

In his article, “The Animal Roots of Human Morality”, primatologist De Waal the argues that emotion is key in moral judgment. To support his point, he first draws attention to a study performed by psychologist Jonathan Haidt, where subjects were given examples of questionable behavior. In the case of sex between a brother and sister, there was immediate disapproval. Subjects then defended their views, and continued to insist on the wrongness of the situation even when every argument had been challenged. The subjects were acting the role of lawyers rather than judges, relying on emotion before reason.

But, not only does De Waal’s article reveal our own tendency toward emotional moral judgments, it draws connections to similar behavior in animals. Primates, according to Waal, exhibit evidence of both empathy and reciprocity—both of which he identifies as important emotional factors in morality. Chimpanzees will comfort the victim of an attack by another chimp and a chimpanzee given food to split within the group will share more generously with a chimpanzee that had groomed him or her earlier. Waal does not use this to say that chimpanzees are moral beings, but that the basis of our human morality may be more instinctive and animalistic than reason alone would allow.

Bloom, on the other hand, insists that reason plays a more important role. Emotional responses alone, he argues, could not explain how our moral views have changed over time. Two hundred years ago, many people in the United States saw no moral problem with denying women equal political rights; however, in the present day, inequality is labeled morally “wrong”. Similar moral changes have occurred when it comes to the issues of slavery, animal cruelty, and other issues. If emotion alone were responsible for our morals, how would these changes have come about?

Instead, Bloom attributes moral change to the power of persuasion. In the case of slavery, for example, the novel Uncle Tom’s Cabin helped the public to empathize and see wrongness where they hadn’t before. Bloom applies this idea to everyday life as well, suggesting that our regular interactions help shape the ideas of those around us, particularly children, about the moral issues we face on a daily basis, and require us to deliberate and form opinions rather than simply react. Emotional response, he insists, still is important to expressing a moral view, but it is reason and persuasion that form the moral views we instinctively react to.

In the end, it’s Bloom that has me more convinced. Unlike De Waal, he explains the role of both emotion and reason, in a believable way. De Waal leaves the role of reason more open, which makes his argument weaker. Of course, there’s always the chance that I—like many other people—would simply rather believe that I’ve formed my moral opinions through some use of reason rather than just blindly defending what my gut tells me is right or wrong.



Bloom, Paul. “How do Morals change?” Nature 464, 490 (25 March 2010). Web. 15 Sept. 2010.

De Waal, Frans. "The animal roots of human morality." New Scientist 192.2573 (2006): 60-61. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web. 15 Sept. 2010.

Image: flickr.com/jacobcvinson

Reviving the Public's Trust in Global Warming

Much like Obama’s approval rating, public opinion towards the significance of global warming has taken a turn for the worse. Global warming has generally been accepted by the public as true, with varying opinions as to the seriousness of the issue. The evidence has always seemed quite reliable. However, this faith in the evidence has been rocked by scandal. A leaked e-mail from the University of East Anglia UK admitted to intentionally tampering with the data to mislead the public. This scandal became known as Climategate and captured new headlines across the country. Whether or not Climategate is to blame for the public’s declining belief in global warming and how to best win back the public’s trust (in the theory of global warming) are both up for debate; a debate in which Nature and the Christian Science Monitor take opposing sides.

Nature magazine argues that for once in their lives, the public has been able to avoid the hysteria that the mass media has tried to provoke. The problem of global warming resonates with different people on different levels and many are going to make their stand more on political or personal grounds than in fact. But the facts still do matter to the public and the scientific community must take measures to ensure that the information that it publishes is indeed undeniable fact. Giving out questionable and disputable data only undermines what proponents for global warming are trying to achieve. Also, scientists need to learn from Washington’s example that closed doors are not a welcoming sight to many, that transparency is the desired method. And lastly, step back on the extremism. Don’t make mountains out of molehills and go claiming the end of the world over small details. However, do bring up legitimate fears. If scientists are simply honest with the people, then you can bet the public will be more willing to look at the facts and realize the dangers of global warming. (A Question of Trust)

The Christian Scientist Monitor takes the exact opposite view on both issues. They put heavy emphasis on the emails for the decline in public belief though. The article briefly mentions that the opinion was already in decline. However, it also points out that Climategate has caused a much faster decline in those who believe global warming is fact. One problem with the email was the amount of specifics describing how scientists have been bamboozling the masses. It’s one thing to be told that one is being lied to. It’s another thing to have it explained in clear detail how exactly it is that one has been deceived. The informality of the email has also sparked considerable outrage. In the public’s mind, the scientists should be taking these issues with the upmost seriousness and acting with professionalism. That the correspondents of the Climategate emails took such a serious issue so lightly was found offensive. (Jonnson)

While both articles try to blame people for the drop off in belief of global warming, neither has stopped to consider the weather. After all, isn’t the climate change debate all about the weather and whether or not it is getting hotter? Neither article mentions that the east coast experienced one of its coldest winters in a very long time. At one point, snow could be found in 49 of the 50 states. It can be hard to cultivate the belief that things are getting warmer when Florida is seeing snow for the first time in years.


Jonsson, Patrik. “Climate scientists exonerated in 'climategate' but public trust damaged.” The Christian Science Monitor (2010). 7 July 2010. Web. 6 Sept. 2010. http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/2010/0707/Climate-scientists-exonerated-in-climategate-but-public-trust-damaged

“A question of trust.” Nature (2010). Article : Nature 30 June 2010. Web. 6 Sept. 2010. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v466/n7302/full/466007a.html

Inception: Raging Success or Viewer Mind Stress?

Inception: Almost everyone who keeps up with pop-culture has seen it, or at least read about it. If you somehow disregarded all your friends’ pressure see it, or perhaps were too busy with summer classes to go and see the 148 minute, science action film, here is a brief summary of the plot: Dom Cobb (played by Leonardo Dicaprio) is a thief who extracts information from the subconscious dreams of his victims. As the viewers gradually get Cobb’s background story, they learn a haunting past about how he can no longer see his children and wife. In a last attempt to re-connect with them, he must perform the job of inception, to plant an idea into the subconscious of his client’s competitor. This task involves the work of henchmen who aid him in this trying and dangerous tri-lateral dream sequence. While Inception’s elaborate script, neurological accuracy and overall plot intelligence has garnered its praise from critics such as Christof Koch; others such as Mel Valentin argue that the films lack of a true conflict and uninteresting characters collectively clip Inception’s cinematic wings. Here both views are presented accompanied by some input of my own.

Chrisof Koch presents the claim that “Inception is a game changer: a smart, mega-budge Hollywood product that does not pander to its audience.” (Koch, 1) He supports his claim with three key reasons for his high approval of the film. The first is his admiration for the scripting--he maintains the plot is more intriguing than most films produced today. Secondly, Koch expresses that he is a scholar and neuroengineer who is seeking to learn how the brain parallels with the subconscious, and he is designing devices to examine people’s innermost thoughts (Koch, 1). Thus, the film relates to his studies and does not insult his intelligence. Finally, Koch states the movie portrays truths about dreams, such as: physical laws can be ignored, time moves faster than in reality, intense emotion can be felt, memory of dream events is absent, and external stimuli can be incorporated into the dream before waking (Koch, 1).

Mel Valentin expresses his disapproval of the film, claiming “Like film geeks, movie-obsessed bloggers some movie critics, and casual fans, Inception topped the list of my most-anticipated films of the summer, based on Nolan’s decade-long track record of combining style, substance, and more recently, spectacle...For me, though, Nolan managed to deliver on style and spectacle, but failed to deliver on substance.” (Valentin, 1) Valentin gives three reasons, validating his claim, that were provided by another author from the blog “Cinmatical,” Peter Hall. Hall concludes that one, Inception did not have a strong, main villain or a real character in conflict (and vise versa), two, that the characters lacked inner lives and self-motivating goals which made for unengaging characters, and three that most of the characters had no personal or emotional stakes (Valentin, 1).

Upon reading both opinion articles, it seemed they were both equally convincing. Koch validated his claim with scientific facts and used himself as an example of how scholarly viewers  could relate and enjoy the film. Valentin and Hall validated their claims with lots of support from the film. I am in favor of Valentin and Hall’s claims mainly because I believed the film to be too long, purposefully confusing, and simply, another run-of-the-mill action film. However, Koch made a convincing assertion about the complexity and scientifical truth of the film.

Kotch, Christof. "Access : A Smart Vision of Brain Hacking : Nature." Nature. Nature Publishing Group : Science Journals, Jobs, and Information. 1 Sept. 2010. Web. 10 Sept. 2010. <http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v467/n7311/full/467032b.html>.

Valentin, Mel. "Six Ways Where 'Inception' Went Wrong (and Could Have Gone Right)." The Moviefone Blog. 20 July 2010. Web. 10 Sept. 2010. <http://blog.moviefone.com/2010/07/20/six-ways-where-inception-went-wrong-and-could-have-gone-right/5>.

Are The Genes Too Tight!?!

When faced with the term Genetically Engineered Food what comes to mind? As a person who has been told on more than one occasion that I let my imagination have too long of a leash, I first envisioned a monstrous battalion of Franken-food that would viciously terrorize a small farm town. Since this introduction to the subject, I have shed my B-movie logic and am now a great deal more educated in the actual qualifications for a food to be considered genetically modified. Most modifications to crops take place on a microscopic level, and involve the alteration of usually only a few genes. This process has garnered varying arrays of reactions from across the public spectrum. Much in favor of the further development of genetically modified crops, or GMCs, is writer Ingo Potryus who maintains that if freed from excessive regulation, GMCs could save millions from starvation. Opposing arguments from Paul Roberts however strongly maintain that GMCs are not ready to save the world and that more lenient restrictions will not change that issue.

In his article Regulation Must Be Revolutionized, Ingo Potryus states his firm belief that unjustified laws are crippling GMC production and has in turn kept thousands of people from using GMCs to prevent malnutrition worldwide. His outrage centers on the length of time that many GMC’s are stalled from distribution to the consumer market, which is generally years longer than the unmodified counterpart. Yet many feel that this extra amount of testing truly needs to be done on these new altered crops. Paul Roberts presents his counter to Potryus’ accusation in his article Food Fight by high-lighting how GMCs are far from being “world saving” and that easier laws on GMC production would not change the current drawbacks of the concept. Roberts seems to challenge Potryus’s high touting of the GMC named “golden rice” in saying that the major producers of GMCs are not even focusing on the nutrition-fortified rice, or any crop that is relevant to food security. Even as both authors have probably never read the others pieces in many points they seem to be taking stances against one another’s points. The advantages of GMCs are certainly impressive as they have the ability to “increase yield by protecting…crops from pests and diseases” (Potryus, 2 of 3), and can fortify normally deficient foods with vitamins. However, it is also known that the corporations that report the largest GMC production numbers are not benefitting from better or more revolutionary seeds; they are simply using better soils, fertilizers and overall harvesting practices. These are factors not influenced by genetics and that could cause elevated production in regular crops as well.

Further both articles address the topic of money. The fact that roughly ten times the amount of money is spent testing altered crops than non-modified foods infuriates Potryus as he reasons that it would be much wiser for funding to be spent on directly feeding the malnourished than on repetitive testing on hypothesized risks. The tests seem to be simply presenting hoops for the GMC producer to jump through as no substantial cases have shown harm to the environment or human through the altered crops. While these cases have not shown pertinent harm, Roberts argues that they have not been followed through a long term period as GMCs as a whole are relatively new in the scientific community. It is also pressed that if large GM companies can use the promise of a solution to the food crisis to garner acceptance and legal flexibility, they will readily exploit this loophole. If granted the desired freedom, GM companies are very likely to quickly ditch the appropriate regional crops, such as cassava and chickpeas, “to keep making the same big-money cash crops they always have”(Roberts, 5 of 5).

In the end I believe that both writers passionately believe in their cause, and that their concern is evident in their work. While they clash on almost every subject their care for the poor, rather monopolized, farmers may be a link of unity. But that unity ends where Potrykus believes looser regulations would allow the regional farmers to more easily obtain the valuable GMC seeds, as Roberts believes the loosening would just allow the already giant GM corporations to further grip seeds as their property. I must say that after reading both opinions with an open mind, that I for one stand beside Mr. Roberts. His argument seemed to hold more grounded reasoning and less of a bias than that of Mr. Potrykus, who is the head of a Golden Rice board. So give it a thought the next time you set down to a mountainous plate of food at the cafeteria (Don’t pretend it isn’t mountainous, I am a college student too!). Would you change your mind about that scrumptious pilaf or gooey cookie if you knew that the rice or flour that went into making it had been genetically altered?

*Cue Twilight Zone music*

Happy eating!!


Potrykus, Ingo. "Regulation Must Be Revolutionized." Nature 466. (2010): 561-562. Web. 6 Sep 2010.

Roberts, Paul. "Food Fight." Slate. Washington Post Interactive, 08 Aug 2008. Web. 6 Sep 2010. .

Citation Convention

Here at The Quartet, many of our posts will involve the use of articles and research by various authors. We fully understand the importance of giving these authors credit, and because of that we will cite our sources. In doing so, we hope to show the credibility of our sources and allow our readers to fully appreciate the author's original ideas.

Our methods of citing will vary according to how the sources are used. When an article is used as the basis of the post, a traditional MLA-style citation will be provided at the end of the post; however, when using a source only for small details or background information, we will use in-text hyperlinks to refer the reader directly to the source.

Introductory Post

The Quartet

The Quartet is an exploration of academic topics that are relevant to the everyday college student. We will focus on the natural sciences, the social sciences, and the humanities. In addition, you may receive a sprinkling of various other tidbits that our authors wish to share--there’s no guarantee that we will stay exactly on topic. But, we can guarantee refreshing points of views free from excessive formal headache.

Our Authors:

Welcome to the Jacob Day experience! As a quarter-piece of this group of bloggers I will give a brief insight into the man whose writings will, at times astound, shock, educate and even maybe inspire! As of August 31st 2010, I am a first-year student at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. I dabble strongly in the sciences but so far I am undecided as to a major; yet I do know I want to pursue a career in forensics. I originate from Ashe County, North Carolina, where I developed a deep love for the mountains. From my mother I grew a fondness for the macabre and from my father I obtained an almost overwhelming drive to make people smile through my somewhat left-of-center sense of humor. I keep my views open and I am more than willing to hear others opinions, as well as change my own if I am so inclined. When faced with the ever-fleeting prospect of free time, I enjoy board games (I will dominate any opponent in Monopoly), reading, doing crossword puzzles, and spending as much time as possible with the friends and family that have stood by me through my life. I also find music to be amazing; to me it is a kind of therapy that can soothe when little else can, which is why I am so passionate about playing bass guitar. In this blog I intend to post on many topics which I find relevant to the collegiate person. I am not here to talk over anyone’s head or babble about things that most people would honestly care less about. If any of my writings make you feel intrigued, I will feel that I have accomplished what I set out to.




My name is Charlotte Steddum, and I am from Raleigh, North Carolina. I am a sophomore, psychology major at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. In my free time, I enjoy playing tennis, playing the viola, psychoanalyzing people, speaking French, and blogging. I have dual citizenship with the U.S. and the U.K. I hope to one day earn my PhD in some specialized field of Psychology.





I’m Elspeth Chapman, but I go by Elfie (and yes, I’ve read Wicked, but I was Elfie years before Elphaba was!). I’m a sophomore at UNC Chapel Hill, and a transfer student from New York University. I don’t really have a hometown (I’ve lived in four different states within the last year), but I went to high school in Hammond, NY, a rural town that’s pretty much in Canada. I’ve changed my major a few times, but have finally settled on “Peace, War, and Defense Studies” with a minor in Russian--I’m hoping to take over the world, or at least work in foreign affairs. In my free time, I can usually be found doodling on my notes from class, obsessively practicing Russian cursive, baking cookies, and falling asleep while trying to read/watch TV/clean/do homework/etc. Despite what our blog name may suggest, I don’t play an instrument and have failed in every attempt to do so. I’ve tried violin, clarinet, and recorder. Then I gave up. But, I can play “Mary Had A Little Lamb” on the piano, and I’m kind of proud of that.


My name is Matt Lancaster and I’m kind of a big deal... people know me. I am from Hendersonville, North Carolina, just outside of Asheville. I am currently a student at the greatest university on Earth--or at least in North Carolina--UNC Chapel Hill. I am either going to be a biology or chemistry major, either way on the pre-med track. My dream lifestyle would be as doctor in Sorrento, Italy because of my fascination with the culture. Along with being on the pre-med track, I am a political science minor. I complement these interests with my love of comedy; thus, my love for Scrubs (medical comedy) and the Today Show and Colbert Report (faux news). Outside of academia and all, I like to play soccer, basketball, and tennis. But here at Chapel Hill I decided to forgo these sports in pursuit of a greater passion of mine, Ultimate Frisbee. I am also a certified soccer and basketball referee and an ardent San Diego Chargers fan. So, yeah, a lot of my free time is sports involved. And along with our blog’s guarantee of a refreshing point of view, I can also personally guarantee a 100% chance of sky in today’s forecast.