Scientific Impact vs. Job Creation

As a very soon to be graduate student, grant proposal writing and funding from the National Science Foundation is very important to me since the NSF (NSF) is a great contributor of scientific research.NSF currently provides grants to approved research proposals based on various factors including impact to the science community and laymen community outreach. I find these two conditions especially important because they ensure the quality of the research they are funding and not just science for the sake of science. By requiring an impact to the existing science community, researchers funded by the NSF are well versed in the literature of their topic enabling them to recognize a gap in the knowledge and fill that gap with the results of their project, ultimately leading to innovative and novel scientific contributions. With the community outreach requirement, the NSF shows their interest in not only the scientific community, but the layman members of our country as well. For graduate program funding, they look for research coming from labs that have undergraduate students working in their labs and larger programs that collaborate with smaller programs that don't have the extent of resources that they have. This is the way the NSF has chosen projects to fund for years and, in my opinion, it has proven to be an efficient way of making sure the research being done is well rounded and beneficial in more ways than one.

However, not everyone feels as I do. Sponsor of the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), Lamar Smith (R-Tx) has proposed a bill that revises the NSF's process of grant funding in a way that removes the peer-review requirement. This adjustment was proposed on the idea that the research NSF funds should be geared more towards creating jobs for citizens instead of impacting the science community. The bill suggests that the NSF director should make sure all funded research proposals are advancing U.S. national health, prosperity, or welfare and significantly different than any other research already existing and being funded. I believe this is a valid concern to have for such a large amount of tax dollars being spent, but I also believe the current form of proposal acceptance is adequate for national benefit.The peer review process provides expert opinion of the research in question and is an accurate measure of merit.Without this critical step in grant approval the quality of research being funded will decrease significantly.

Fortunately, President Obama has promised to "protect our rigorous peer review system" to ensure tax payers' dollars go as far as possible and the research it supports is as prosperous as possible. With this being said, I hope the peer review process stays in place and the politicians who are against it realize the importance of having experienced and knowledgeable scientists approve of a research project before it is funded with thousands of dollars.

Media

Activist journalism is not the dominate method of journalism in our nation's history but after the notorious Watergate Scandal along with the growth of national skepticism during the Vietnam War became very popular. This form of reporting is more manipulative because it leads the audience towards a certain conclusion Investigative journalism a process that can include the collaboration of other parties within the media. This form of journalism doesn't really alter public opinion or change it, but rather it further polarizes peoples views and ideologies. The three main objectives investigate journalism tries to use is to excite the audience in order to draw in numbers of viewers, secondly gain recognition from other journalist and third to trigger a reform or change.

Due to the nature of socialization especially when concerning politics media does not change political belief but were it can definitely be felt is through the polization of peoples existing position regarding an issue. Most adults are fixed on believing a certain idea that the use cognitive misers when analyzing information being reported. In turn further validating their own beliefs. This may not be the case when taking racial or gender issues in to consideration because the media in these cases are educational and can change some beliefs, but often times this is not the case. This being the case media influence acts as polarization tool rather than research has proved to be problematic because it is impossible to wholistically measure how people react to what the media outlets report. Until the day comes were we will be able to effectively evaluate how individuals are influenced by the media and to what degree it will continue to be problematic. There are some incidents were correlations can be drawn by finding out who uses what types of media. For example we knew that Blacks and Hispanics rely more on television and high income and older populations use print media more than low income populations. Along with people who watch four or more hours of T.V. a day are more worried of being attack victims, Correlations can be drawn but we still are unable to effective find out to what degree people are influenced.


Posted by: Ivan Benitez

Sometimes the apple does fall far from the tree...

In CNN's article, A Killer in the Family by Sarah LeTrent, the old saying "the apple doesn't fall far from the tree" arises. The article is about people who are related to killers, in particular killers who are serial or committed nationwide, grief-striking murders. I found the article interesting due to the title, but found the actual content even more so upon reading it. The article discussed the feelings that family members of the killer experience after their loved one has committed these heinous crimes. It struck me as interesting because I always wonder about the family of a killer when I hear of a murder crime. It leads me to wonder what type of home did they grow up in?...were they close with their parents?....did they have siblings?....what were their family members like?....did something happen in their family that caused them to commit such an act? 

As stated in the article, many family members of murderers go into a state of silence after their kin commits the crime. They often experience feelings of grief, guilt, shame, and remorse. They have to go through therapy to ultimately convince themselves that they are not to blame. But then that strikes up another topic, are they to blame? Of course that question is completely subjective and everyone will probably have a different answer, but it is a topic I have personally heard multiple times regarding the family, parents specifically, of a mass murderer. I've heard the argument, "well if their parents had chastised them more firmly as a child they wouldn't have done that." That, too, is a purely opinionated statement. I believe a child's upbringing is directly related to the person they grow up to be, but I also believe that sometimes people experience personal illnesses that are independent of anything they have experienced in life. Sometimes people go through depressions simply because of a chemical imbalance in their brain. Of course I am leaning on my scientific background for this opinion, but I do genuinely believe people sometimes lose control of what goes on in their bodies. Call me crazy, but I don't think people who experience neurological diseases make a conscious effort to contract that disease. With that being said, I do not believe these things make people innocent of the crimes they have committed, they should be dealt with according to their sentences from  judge and jury, but I do believe, many times, that the parents and other family members of these people are not to blame for their conditions. As I stated earlier, out of emotional thinking and shock of gruesomely atrocious crimes, I have questioned the family life of murderers, but only out of sheer curiosity. No one should be blamed for the actions of another human being just for the sole purpose of being related to them.

"What's In a Name"

Naming a baby can turn into being one of the hardest decisions for parents, but what if you are only allowed to pick names from a list the government gives out?  It sounds like some sort of "future world, dictatorship" type of government you'd see in a movie. But it's not.  New Zealand has actually released a list of banned baby names. The list is actually quite extensive and some of the banned names that are include: Justice, Lucifer, Christ, Majesty, and Anal (really... You wanted to name your child Anal?!)  New Zealand isn't the only country to ban names. however.  Sweden has a naming law in place, and in 2009 the Dominican Republic thought about creating a similar law after parents begun naming their children after fruit! In the United States most of the name changes are among adults and the appeals court ruled against a man who wanted his name to be "F*** Censorship."  

This article got me thinking... If a government can control what you can name your child, what else can they control?  I don't feel that the naming law is too crazy, but I don't think the United States would be successful in passing a law like that.  The U.S. is way too big on freedom and our freedom of speech, so a law of that nature may cause some riots.  It's a little frightening to think how much control a government can have over their country.  What are some of y'alls thoughts on this matter?

Posted by: Kara Rivas