Thursday, October 4, 2012

Link: True or Fat?

Link: True or Fat?

“Obesity now contributes to the death of more than 360,000 Americans a year. Alarm bells are going off all over the place,” exclaims Iowa Senator, Tom Harkin. Many people in the United States realize the dangers of over consumption and obesity, but few are actually aware of realistic solutions to this disease that is sweeping the nation. This curiosity, coupled with rising national death rates, sparks scientists’ intrigue to seek potential causes outside the realm of the obvious exercise lack. Scientists have discovered a new cause that many believe to be groundbreaking: A direct link between one’s inherent taste preferences in relation to his/her chance of becoming obese. Recent findings show that taste preferences become established as early as the embryonic stage, and these preferences may be linked to a person’s desire to overeat. The dangers make this question urgent; however, diet and exercise are an unbeatable remedy that remains timelessly true. Though there is a plethora of evidence that supports said link between taste perceptions and obesity dangers, the connection alone does not predict food consumption to the extent that many scientists argue.  

http://www.flickr.com/photos/42109761@N00/4993581135/in/photostream/

Obesity puts one at a higher risk for many hazardous conditions and these conditions cause death rates to increase across the nation. Common troubles that result from this disease include gallstones, type II diabetes, high blood pressure, high cholesterol and triglycerides, coronary artery disease, a stroke, sleep apnea, and the list goes on and on. With a seemingly infinite amount of affordable food now available to the average American, these health issues are pressing. NY Times says in March of 2004, “Obesity is near to overtaking smoking as the number one cause of [preventable] death in the US…Poor diet and physical inactivity caused 400,000 deaths, or 16.6 percent of the total, the report said ("Death Rate From Obesity Gains Fast On Smoking”). This statistic alone shows the rapid fatality rates, as the death toll has gone up by a speculated 40,000 Americans since Senator Harkin’s 2002 quote. The risks associated with being obese are predominantly undeniable, and many unfortunate Americans remain trapped in this danger zone. Keeping this in mind, many scientists frantically search to “strike gold” and find a groundbreaking discovery that can be used to decelerate this epidemic.


 “We discovered something that should have been obvious —..if you're fat, you like sweet and fat better — that's part of what keeps you fat,” sensory scientist, Linda Bartoshuk, says (Crow). Bartoshuk attended Brown University where she obtained her Ph.D. in 1965. She is extremely interested in taste and typically focuses much of her studies upon this highly researched theory ("Ask the Scientists”). Exploration into this link dates back to at least the 1950’s, and Bartoshuk is not alone in being convinced of its significance. To name a few other scientists dedicated to this discovery; Monteleone, Frewer, Wakeling, and Mela have all also done extensive research to prove this connection. Their findings are included in their study titled “Individual Differences in Starchy Food Consumption: The Application of Preference Mapping." Like Bartoshuk, these scientists argue that people whose taste preferences prefer a certain kind of food that is more likely to cause obesity will, then, show a trend of being obese ("Individual Differences in Starchy Food Consumption: The Application of Preference Mapping”). 

Many tests are done to obtain these results, but the most predominant are those that expose one’s genetic “ability” to taste. One way scientists do this is to give a subject a piece of paper to insert into his or her mouth. This piece of paper contains a special substance called PROP and each different “level” of tasting ability can be determined based upon one’s reaction to this chemical. The subjects are asked to describe their perceptions by labeling the experience as “bitter,” “somewhat bitter,” or “extremely bitter” and the results are recorded. The parallels between the link are exploited when the recorded reactions are compared to the subject’s BMI. Another way to expose this link is to place blue food dye on one’s tongue. It is speculated that different taste buds (which account for the different “levels” of taste), hold the stain differently.  ("Individual Differences in Starchy Food Consumption: The Application of Preference Mapping").

http://www.flickr.com/photos/pkingdesign/5550078101/
 
Many scientists that carry out these experiments portray these tests as overwhelming evidence; however, the results are extremely unpredictable and scattered. In the paper test, one is instructed to explain their reaction by placing it into one of three (and easily overlapping) categories. Claiming that obesity levels directly correlate with tasting abilities is simply invalid when the evidence relies on something as insubstantial as one’s differentiation between “somewhat bitter” and “bitter.” These scales are not at all reliable and in reality, the perceived intensities vary based upon the substances being judged.

As if the flaws in the tests weren’t enough to weaken this claim, all of the other causes for obesity make this claim negligible. When researching causes for obesity, the Center for Disease Control (CDC) lists many examples of such but never once mentions taste preferences as a leading factor. If this discovery was as significant as some scientists make it out to be, it would make sense for it to be present on a website that is the nation’s leader in health information. The CDC and other leading research hot spots instead include factors like environment and socioeconomic status, genetics (but a completely different aspect), diseases drugs and alcohol, emotions and habits, and an abundance of even more contributors ("Adult Obesity Facts").  Environments and socioeconomic status can become an overwhelmingly important factor. If one wants to walk to the store or to a friends house, for example, it would be much more dangerous if the subject was living in a community with a higher rate of crime (typically associated with people of a lower income bracket). This danger would almost always incline someone to drive instead of walk, and decrease his/her level of physical activity. Also, when feeding a family of four, someone under the same economic stresses would be much more likely to order from the dollar menu than spend the money on healthier dining options.  Genetics is also a very notable contributor when taking into account certain genetic diseases like Bardet-Biedl syndrome and Prader-Willi syndrome, which are both proven to cause obesity. Other diseases that are not genetic, however also lead to obesity, include Cushing’s disease and polycystic ovary syndrome. Drugs and alcohol are known causes for this disease and are crucial because they are preventable. Drugs such as steroids and antidepressants may have weight gain as a side affect while alcohol consumption comes at a large caloric cost. Emotions and habits can also lead to overconsumption as well in the satisfaction of food that can help appease depression and other emotional states. When looking at all of these different components, the link becomes just another negligible drop in the bucket of a long list.

Ultimately, the risks associated with being obese are not going to be remedied by some “cure-all” scientific discovery. The links between predisposed taste abilities and obesity may be somewhat true, but the tests and results do not back up the evidence at substantial levels. Known causes are much more reliable, all the way from depression to alcoholism, and these are the factors that should be honed in on.

Hannah Sandy 

Death for Sale



http://www.flickr.com/photos/tareqsalahuddin/7273442826/
Doctors declared Hong Chun, a Chinese hotel manager, brain dead only a month after his release from a Shanghai hospital (Lyn). His cause of death? Stem cell therapy. He invested thousands of dollars on personal stem cell treatments, hoping to repair his motor skills after a minor stroke. Chun planned to seek relief, not death. Thousands of desperate patients like Chun currently pursue the stem cell therapies found in online advertisements, oblivious to the fact that the seemingly promising treatments are often untested, unvalidated, unsupported, and unproven. Research suggests that stem cells have the potential to cure common diseases, such as Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, heart disease, and spinal cord injuries, but studies are still in the early stages. So why do countries continue to offer stem cell therapy as a reliable medical treatment to millions, despite the lack of support and knowledge regarding the risks and harmful effects? Medical scientists should discourage the widespread public use of the potentially life-threatening treatments before a potential turns into a failure.

Each of us on this planet share one thing in common: we all began as a single cell type. From this one microscopic cell stemmed our limbs, eyes, organs, hearts and our minds. It is no wonder why scientists are so fascinated with this unit smaller than the period at the end of this sentence.

The mysteriously powerful cell is none other than the stem cell. The stem cell develops into a variety of cell types during the first stages of life. They have no specialized function, they can yield thousands of themselves, and they can be replicated under controlled laboratory conditions to differentiate into any desired cell type (“Stem Cell Basics”). These unique characteristics have led medical scientists to develop rejuvenating “stem cell therapies.” Scientists believe they can stimulate the cells to replicate into particular cell types, which they can then insert into an injured part of the body, thereby replacing the damaged cells there (“Stem Cell Basics”). Variations of this process could potentially lead to cure a range of diseases. For instance, take a person with diabetes. They lack the proper insulin-producing cells needed to regulate blood sugar. Scientists would work with stem cells in the lab, stimulating them to produce cells that would make insulin. They would then inject these newly-specialized cells into the patient’s pancreas, eliminating the complications of diabetes.

 http://www.flickr.com/photos/zooboing/4183272524/
So what’s the catch? Well, scientists don’t quite know how efficient these treatments are yet (Lyn). The research has just begun! We can’t just inject cells that have the tendency to exponentially multiply into a person’s body and expect a positive outcome. We need side effects,concrete proof, clinical tests--all the basics before stem cell treatments for diseases can be sold to the public!

But it’s a little too late for that. Unproven stem cell therapies are open for business, and they’re selling dangerously fast.

In some cases, patients’ desperation and exhaustion force them to take extreme measures, seeking cures for themselves and their children. Stem cell therapy advertisers willingly take advantage of this vulnerability, flaunting unproven treatments to ill-informed patients. With little hope left, victims around the globe place their trust into the money-hungry scam artists who claim stem cell therapies are a “guaranteed cure” for any disease known to man.These easily-accessible promises for cures lure the patients in, rendering them easy and profitable targets. Dr. David Resnik, from the U.S. National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, and Zubin Master, from the University of Alberta, reiterate that "patients receive unproven therapies from untrustworthy sources” because they are down to their last resorts and are in dire need of solutions (Lyn). They feed into false hope, and fall naive to the reality that the solutions they seek may actually expand their health and their debt problems. Since when did the value of a life tantamount a convenient scheme to deceive desperate patients and devour money? Unless we want to continue seeing the trend in countless hopeless individuals getting used, exploited, and bamboozled, public access to stem cell therapies should be put out of business.

Nonetheless, stem cell therapies remain fresh on the market, even when they lack support from medical experts inside the countries that promote them! Most researchers and bioethicists in China, the leading headquarters for public stem cell therapies, oppose the “availability of unproven treatments” (McMahon, Halla). This contradicts the endless lists of online stem cell advertisements that stress how reliable the therapies are. In reality, as Dr. George Daley from the Harvard Stem Cell Institute and Harvard Medical School adequately stated, professional physicians have “no idea how to use stem cells for these treatments [because] they have not even undergone clinical trials” (Lyn)! Most doctors dispute the idea of invalidated stem cell therapies, yet the cells are still directly marketed to the public with little evidence on how they will affect the body once inserted. So there’s no evidence, no professional validation, no support, no fine print, no known side effects, but there is, however, an online link to the most current unproven stem cell therapy treatment? The logic does not add up. Stem cell therapies should not be made publicly accessible when physicians can’t even back them up themselves.

If public access to unproven stem cell treatments continues today, it will ruin the promise and reputation of stem cell treatments in the future (Buyer Beware). We are talking about a medical breakthrough that could potentially save lives and help families around the world! Who will believe in the future of stem cell therapy if victims (like Chun) are constantly suffering from the negative side effects of today’s invalid therapies? Doubts will, undoubtedly, begin to surface. Take, for instance, prefrontal lobotomy’s fate in the 1940s. It was a practice believed to treat aggressive inmates and patients that involved inserting an ice pick inside a person’s eye socket and destroying vital neural connections (“Psychosurgery”). Prefrontal lobotomy grew so popular that scientists deemed the demand for clinical trials bypassable  Only after it left millions of patients nonreactive and at a loss of memory, motor skills, personality, and intellect did medical workers realize the practice was indeed harmful. They halted the procedures too little, too late. Today, stem cell therapies are offered without the stress of clinical trials, just as lobotomy practices were in the past. They are becoming widespread as more and more people pursue these untested procedures. Without proper documentation of the effects and evidence, who’s to say that history won’t repeat itself? The fate of stem cell treatment, so promising and full of potential, could possibly end up like the 1940’s psychosurgery--a medical breakthrough will essentially be wasted. Medical scientists can either preserve the reputation of stem cell therapies, or the therapies can remain open to the public and suffer an unexpected fate...

...An unexpected fate just like Chun suffered. The Shanghai hospital reimbursed his family with 80,000 yuan, placing a price on a life that was lost to an untested treatment (Lyn). How long will it take before the realization hits that the unproven therapies could serve as a potential danger to the human body? That what sells could lead to what kills? When Chun decided to pursue stem cell therapy in his desperation, he was unaware of the risks involved, as is the case for several others who rely on the invalid therapies that so many medical workers oppose. Such a bad connotation gets placed on a potentially powerful form of medical treatment. Before even more lives are lost, the widespread use of unproven stem cell therapies needs to be limited to clinical trials instead of public access. Only then, after evidence on the benefits, risks, and safety of the treatments are disclosed, should patients be allowed to consider stem cells as an option.

Quiara Shade

Works Cited

"Buyer Beware." Nature. Nature Publishing Group, 11 Apr. 2012. Web. 11 Sept. 2012. <http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v484/n7393/full/484141a.html>.

Levine, Aaron. "Insights from Patients' Blogs and the Need for Systematic Data on Stem Cell Tourism." The American Journal of Bioethics 10.5 (2010): 28-29. Web. 11 Sept. 2012. <http://ehis.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=914dd92e-89a7-42de-9c23-010fefd17343%40sessionmgr13&vid=8&hid=1>.

Lyn, Tan Ee. "China Stem Cell Therapies Offer Heartbreak for Many." Reuters. Thomson Reuters, 21 Sept. 2011. Web. 11 Sept. 2012. <http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/09/21/us-stemcell-scams-idUSTRE78K18120110921>.

McMahon, Dominique. Halla, Thorsteinsdottir. "Regulations Are Needed for Stem Cell Tourism: Insights From China." The American Journal of Bioethics 10.5 (2010): 34-36. Web. 11 Sept. 2012. <http://ehis.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=914dd92e-89a7-42de-9c23-010fefd17343%40sessionmgr13&vid=6&hid=1>.

"Psychosurgery." Encyclopedia of Mental Disorders. Advameg, Inc., 2012. Web. 11 Sept. 2012. <http://www.minddisorders.com/Ob-Ps/Psychosurgery.html>.
“Stem Cell Basics.” Stem Cell Information. Bethesda, MD: National Institutes of Health, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2009. 11 Sept. 2012. <http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/basics/defaultpage>.

"Stem Cell Research: Regulating Translational Application." Nature. Nature Publishing Group, 30 May 2012. Web. 11 Sept. 2012. <http://www.nature.com/ncb/journal/v14/n6/full/ncb2517.html>.

Sustainable Solutions

http://www.flickr.com/photos/mrbologna/430932477/

Every day, 25,000 African people die from malnutrition and related illnesses. Meanwhile, 100 Americans develop type 2 diabetes each day due to sedentary lifestyles and overconsumption. Civil war, drought, depleted soil, and underdeveloped economies cause the food crisis in many African countries to worsen, while developed countries enjoy gross excesses of food and see the shocking effects of overeating. Something must be done to even things out, and quickly. Chemical fertilizers and access to microfinance loans would be effective solutions to the African food crisis in the short term, but they will eventually harm the environment and will do little to help the economy. The most sustainable solution in the long run is increased agricultural subsidization in Africa coupled with decreased subsidization throughout the developed world.

Chemical fertilizers are proven to increase crop yields, but the environmental effects can be devastating and are rarely worth the benefits. One of the most popular types of fertilizer is nitrogen fertilizer. When German chemist Fritz Haber discovered how to make synthetic ammonia in 1908, he created a cheap way to make the crucial ingredient in nitrogen fertilizer (Charles). When sprinkled on depleted soil, ammonia replenishes nitrogen, which is necessary for plant growth. However, due to overuse of fertilizer, much of the nitrogen is not utilized by plants and instead finds it’s way back into the environment (Killpack and Buchholz). Large amounts of the nitrogen applied to crops run off into rivers and eventually end up in the ocean. This is a serious problem because nitrogen continues to encourage plant growth, even once it reaches water. It causes algae blooms, which consume large amounts of oxygen from the water and disrupt the ecosystem. “Dead zones” represent areas of the ocean where oxygen has been depleted and fish have died due to excessive nitrogen. Dead zones often occur at the mouths of rivers that run through agricultural areas and are becoming more common, especially in the Gulf of Mexico. In addition to causing devastating dead zones, a study found that algae blooms can dump domoic acid, a neurotoxin, onto the ocean floor. The toxin can persist for weeks and affects surrounding sea life (Pearce). Nitrogen from fertilizers also gets into the air in the form of Nitrous oxide, a heat-trapping greenhouse gas that is much more potent than Carbon dioxide (“Sources and Emission”). Clearly, nitrogen fertilizers have very negative effects on the environment. In the short-term, they would potentially help to lift Africa out of the food crisis by increasing crop yield. However, the environmental damage that would result from such large-scale use of fertilizers would not be worth any potential benefits.


http://www.flickr.com/photos/andrewmoir/499398809/

In recent years, small loans to small business owners in developing countries have seen a jump in popularity both in the economic community and in popular culture. The UN has supported microcredit loan facilities and websites such as Kiva.org allow people to make small loans to business owners around the world with specific goals (Karlan and Zinman). Like many simple solutions to complex problems, microfinance has both beneficial and detrimental effects. Some studies have found that overall, microfinance is helpful on an individual or small community basis and that it alleviates the stress of poverty and sets communities on a more sustainable and productive path (Deininger and Liu). Small farmers who receive loans can use the money to buy hardier seeds, farm equipment, and other items that increase their farm yield and profit. However, many recent events, including the suicides of many farmers in India that were believed to have been motivated by the farmers’ inability to repay small loans, show the darker side of microfinance (Kermeliotis). Clearly, it is a complicated issue. Microloans seem to be beneficial in many individual cases and may help individual African farmers to lift themselves out of poverty, but they clearly do not provide a complete solution nor a reliable route to lifting the entire continent out of the food crisis.


http://www.flickr.com/photos/sharp-sharp/4060274341/

A sustainable solution to the food crisis would be increased agricultural subsidization in Africa coupled with decreased agricultural subsidization in the developed world. Agricultural subsidies, or monetary assistance from the government to farmers, are extremely popular in the US and Europe. Recently, organizations and governments have been testing out the option of subsidies in various African countries (“Africa: Subsidies That Work”). Although there are still not many examples of subsidies at work in Africa, many of the ones that are in effect have been successful. For example, a pilot subsidy program in Malawi has paid for itself by making the country a grain exporter and reducing import costs (Macanda). Subsidies are popular in the rest of the world as well, especially the US and Europe. The amount that developed countries spend subsidizing their farmers each year is about $250 billion (Kline). Subsidies in rich, developed countries drive prices down worldwide. This pleases consumers but is a huge threat for many small farmers in developing countries (Beaubien, Nath). Recently, controversy over subsidies has been mounting as it becomes clear that subsidies contribute to the cycle of poverty in developing countries. If governments of developed countries such as the US are serious about helping African citizens, they need to decrease agricultural subsidization in their own countries and support government subsidization of agricultural products in Africa.

Solving the African food crisis requires more than a simple solution. While chemical fertilizers and access to microloans may help relieve the situation for a bit, they will eventually do more harm than good, both to the environment and the economy. Instead of prescribing these simple cures, concerned people around the world should band together to encourage governments to change their approaches. The best solution is for governments to support increased agricultural subsidization in Africa and more responsible subsidization in the rest of the world. This will provide a sustainable solution without negative side effects.

Galen Burns-Fulkerson




Works Cited

"Africa: Subsidies That Work." Africa Focus. Africa Focus, 22 Jan. 2009. Web. 16 Sept. 2012. <http://www.africafocus.org/docs09/sub0901.php>.

Beaubien, Jason. "U.S., European Subsidies Undercut African Farmers." NPR. NPR, 13 Oct. 2006. Web. 15 Sept. 2012. <http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6256274>.

Bhanoo, Sindya N. "In Fertilizer, A Climatic Divide." The New York Times. The New York Times, 23 June 2010. Web. 14 Sept. 2012. <http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/23/in-fertilizer-a-climatic-dividend/>.

Charles, Dan. "The Tragedy of Fritz Haber." NPR. NPR, 11 July 2002. Web. 15 Sept. 2012. <http://www.npr.org/programs/morning/features/2002/jul/fritzhaber/>.
Deininger, Klaus, and Yanyan Liu. "Economic and Social Impacts of Self-help Groups in India." Data & Research. The World Bank, 30 Mar. 2009. Web. 15 Sept. 2012. <http://econ.worldbank.org/external/default/main?pagePK=64165259&piPK=64165421&theSitePK=469372&menuPK=64216926&entityID=000158349_20090330103344>.

"Food for Thought." Editorial. Nature. Nature Publishing Group, 28 Mar. 2012. Web. 8 Sept. 2012. <http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v483/n7391/full/483510a.html>.

Karlan, Dean, and Jonathan Zinman. "After Microcredit Loans, Business Owners Are Worse Off, Study Finds." Discover Magazine. Kalmbach Publishing Co., 10 June 2011. Web. 15 Sept. 2012. <http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2011/06/10/after-microcredit-loans-businesses-owners-are-worse-off-than-before-study-finds/>.

Kermeliotis, Teo. "Experts Warn Africa Must Learn from India's Microfinance Problems." CNN. CNN, 23 Mar. 2011. Web. 15 Sept. 2012. <http://edition.cnn.com/2011/BUSINESS/03/23/microfinance.africa.lessons/index.html>.

Killpack, Scott C., and Daryl Buchholz. "Nitrogen Cycle." University of Michigan Extension. Curators of the University of Michigan, Oct. 1993. Web. 16 Sept. 2012. <http://extension.missouri.edu/p/WQ252>.

Kline, Jesse. "America's Corny Farm Subsidies Are Making a Bad Drought Worse." National Post. National Post, 19 July 2012. Web. 11 Sept. 2012. <http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/07/19/jesse-kline-americas-corny-farm-subsidies-are-making-a-bad-drought-worse/>.

Macanda, Phumza. "Malawi President Urges Africa Farm Subsidies." Reuters Africa. Thomas Reuters Corporate, 29 Mar. 2010. Web. 15 Sept. 2012. <http://af.reuters.com/article/topNews/idAFJOE62S0IN20100329>.

Nath, Kamal. "Farm Subsidies Are The Real Culprit." BloombergBusinessweek. Bloomberg L.P., 13 May 2008. Web. 09 Sept. 2012. <http://www.businessweek.com/stories/2008-05-13/farm-subsidies-are-the-real-culpritbusinessweek-business-news-stock-market-and-financial-advice>.

Pearce, Fred. "The Nitrogen Fix: Breaking a Costly Addiction." Yale Environment 360. Yale University, 05 Nov. 2009. Web. 9 Sept. 2012. <http://e360.yale.edu/feature/the_nitrogen_fix_breaking_a_costly_addiction/2207/>.

"Sources and Emission." Nitrous Oxide. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 22 June 2010. Web. 15 Sept. 2012. <http://www.epa.gov/nitrousoxide/sources.html>.

Surowiecki, James. "What Microloans Miss." The New Yorker. The New Yorker, 17 Mar. 2008. Web. 09 Sept. 2012. <http://www.newyorker.com/talk/financial/2008/03/17/080317ta_talk_surowiecki>.

Poles To Poles


Picture Taken By: Hamish Moffatt
http://www.flickr.com/photos/hnmoffatt/381679543/in/photostream/
The Antarctic and Arctic Circles are the driest, windiest, emptiest, coldest, most desolate places on earth, yet they attract the attention of many scientists, politicians, and businessmen. Why is this land of ice so attractive? Oil, arguably the most coveted resource on earth. Researchers reported that the Arctic contains about 83 billion barrels of undiscovered oil and about 1550 trillion cubic feet of natural gas (Grom). Science says this magnitude of oil can sustain the global demand for 3 years (Grom). The problem is the exploitation of the land causes high levels of pollution. The increasing oil pollution in the Circles continues to devastate the land and the marine ecosystem. The Antarctic Treaty has slowed down the pollution; however, without the aid of the Arctic Council and scientific innovations, pollution will continually increase.

The most significant effect of pollution is the dramatic climate changes. Within the past two decades, the annual mean temperature of the Arctic has risen at twice the rate of the temperature in the rest of the world (Store). Talk about warming up! Ice sheets and sea ice are increasingly thinning out, which affects the marine ecosystem. Species populations like krill, penguins, and fish are declining as sea ice decreases. Not only are our beloved animals dying out, people are also at risk. The ice cover around the continent regulates exchanges of heat, moisture, and gas between the atmosphere and the ocean. Any changes in the ice will change the planet’s temperature and change the discharge of ice back into the ocean, causing sea levels to rise. ("Antarctica and Southern Ocean Coalition") You may have heard the phrase “don’t cry over spilled milk,” but in the case of melting ice, it is acceptable to get emotional.

The Antarctic Treaty was the first successful attempt to alleviate the pollution level in Antarctica. A territorial dispute between Argentina and Britain, called the 1952 Hope Bay Incident, was the catalyst that initiated the Antarctic Treaty ("Poles Apart"). The treaty is the legal framework for the Antarctic Circle and exists to promote scientific studies, international relations, and environmental stewardship. In addition, the treaty focuses on protecting the environment, banning mining, and protecting the marine animals. Its main goal is to sustain the land and prevent pollution in Antarctica. Representatives of 28 voting nations and 20 non-voting nations meet every other year since the treaty entered into force, June 23, 1965, to discuss and improve the Treaty. As of April 2010, 16 new nations had joined the Consultative Party through investing in scientific research in the region ("The Antarctic Treaty"). Jonas Gahr Store, minister of foreign affairs in Norway, said in regards to the Treaty, “It enabled a well functioning legal order that deals with the challenges at hand. Thus, peace, stability, environmental protection and international scientific collaboration have been maintained in Antarctica. This is a remarkable achievement” (Store).

Although the Antarctic Treaty is very active, it is only part of the solution. There must be a strong group of environmentalists to uphold the Treaty and carry out new protection policies. The Arctic Council was created to fit the criteria of an intergovernmental assembly that addresses issues impacting people in the Arctic Circles. The Council focuses on Arctic Indigenous communities and other inhabitants, as well as environmental protection. It has conducted studies on climate change, oil and gas, and Arctic shipping. The Arctic Council cannot be reinforced or effective because the policies are merely strong suggestions. A.H. Zakri, director of the United Nations University’s Yokohama-based Institute of Advanced Studies, said, “Many experts believe this new rush to the Polar Regions is not manageable within existing international law.” The Arctic Council addresses the marine oil pollution in Antarctica, but they are not taking concrete actions. The Arctic Council must implement effective conservation measures in order for there to be positive change in the environment.

Since the Antarctic Treaty promotes scientific investigations, there has been an increasing amount of research done in the poles. Scientists are focused on extracting the oil to be as “clean” as possible. The Arctic is a cold, dark, and expensive place to get oil and natural resources. Therefore, it is a no brainer that the cost of oil production is twice as much in the Arctic than any other areas. The problem is the correlation between the amount of machines used and the increase of pollution. Scientists need to come up with new and green ways that will not increase oil pollution and will minimally affect the environment (King).

In the 21st century, with more machinery and automobiles than ever, there is a great need for oil. Disputes among companies and wars between nations are waged in an effort to attain this valuable resource. It is impossible to end the oil productions in the Antarctic and Arctic Poles, so steps should be taken to monitor the Poles. The first step is in process through the effectiveness of the Antarctic Treaty. If we want to see sustainable changes in the conservation of our planet, the Arctic Council must also be strengthened and there must be new scientific innovations.

Ying Lin

Work Cited

"Antarctic and Southern Ocean Coalition." Climate Change and the Antarctic. N.p., n.d.

and-the-antarctic>.

Grom, Jackie. "Arctic May Boost Oil and Gas Reserves." ScienceNOW. N.p., 28 May

King, Hobart, Dr. "Oil and Natural Gas Resources of the Arctic." Oil and Natural Gas

Resources Map of the Arctic Ocean. Geology, n.d. Web. 16 Sept. 2012. <http://geology.com/articles/arctic-oil-and-gas/>.

"Poles Apart." Nature.com. Nature Publishing Group, 01 Feb. 2012. Web. 16 Sept. 2012.  
           <http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v482/n7383/full/482005b.html>.

Store, Jonas G. "Joint Meeting of the Antarctic Treaty/Arctic Council." - Regjeringen.no.
N.p., 06 Apr. 2009. Web. 01 Oct. 2012. <http://www.regjeringen.no/en/dep/ud/Whats-new/Speeches-and-
articles/speeches_foreign/2009/joint-meeting-of-the-antarctic-treatyarc.html?
id=554475>.

"The Antarctic Treaty." US NSF. N.p., n.d. Web. 16 Sept. 2012.   
<http://www.nsf.gov/od/opp/antarct/anttrty.jsp>.





What Ocean Exploration Needs


On March 25, filmmaker James Cameron funded and completed the first solo dive into the Challenger Deep, the deepest point on earth, about seven miles down in the ocean. While many praised his scientific approach, others were uneasy having someone so wealthy getting such a big role in discovery because their interests in hiding or extorting information could interfere the pursuit of knowledge. Even some who approve of Cameron’s dive argue that using robotic vehicles is the best exploration option. Although remotely operated vehicles are important and beneficial to scientific research and exploration, scientists should utilize human operated vehicles. Whether funded by wealthy patrons or not, human operated vehicles grab the public’s attention as well as experts, which can lead to more funding opportunities to keep research and scientific companies alive and an increase in public interest.  

Since 1960, scientists have sent remotely operated vehicles, or ROVs, into the Challenger Deep to collect samples from the trench’s bottom (“Into the Depths”). Scientists on land use a camera to see, and remote-controlled arms grab samples. They have explored “hydrothermal vent communities, the
ROV Nereus http://www.flickr.com/photos/btmspox/5155029241/
exploration of mid ocean ridges, the census of marine life and discovery of deep reefs, brine pools,
cold seeps and other extraordinary habitats that prove that the deep sea is anything but a cold lifeless desert.” Using human operated vehicles, HOVs, adds difficulty since they need life support systems and oceanic pressure protection. ROVs are also cheaper and easier to build than HOVs, and they can spend more time on the bottom while HOV passengers have time constraints (Dove, McClain). The ROV Nereus and Kaiko represent some ROVs that have actually been to the Challenger Deep and returned with “video, sediment, and biological samples” (Andrew). Cameron’s dive experienced a hydraulic leak and this hindered his view from the submersible’s window; he brought back nothing vital or noteworthy (Jaggard). Because ROVs have brought back samples and information effectively, they seem like perfectly good tools to use in deep-sea exploration.

However, even though ROVs seem like a better option, the science field needs the publicity that HOVs can give it. Viewers watched with baited breath as Cameron descended, and “the excitement [the dive] generate[d] around the valuable deep sea scientific exploration already being conducted” gives science the public support it needs (Mims). These submersibles make great marketing tools because they give the people watching at home the sensation of actually being there (Andrew) and participating. Even though ROVs don’t have time constraints and are cheaper, they don’t create media excitement, like Cameron’s trip did, making his dive valuable (Dove, McClain). Aside from just gaining public interest, humans can react to spontaneous findings and spur-of-the-moment events while machines cannot; scientists just look through a camera into the abyss. HOVs also have better control than ROVs, and they don’t have to be attached to a ship, so they can roam farther to collect more samples and possibly find species and sediments that an ROV couldn’t (Andrew). With the possibilities of failure and triumph that surround sending a real live person, HOVs create the wonder and awe that science needs to keep public interest alive.

Some believe Cameron’s privately funded dive has placed science farther out of public hands because he is a wealthy patron, not a scientist (“Into the Depths”), but his celebrity status has allowed science to gain publicity, which can provide support and funding for research companies and spark interest in children to pursue science careers. The Canadian government announced a shift from environmental science to industry-collaborated science (Sam), so it does seem a little questionable that the rich and powerful have such strong influence in science. With industry funding science explorations, research regarding public health, the environment, and ocean exploration could see a downfall (Sam) because big industries could want to avoid research that causes their company to lose money. The cutbacks at hand, however, deal with research companies. The United Kingdom National Oceanography Centre, NOC, announced that it would be getting rid of one-quarter of its scientific staff because its main funding source, the Natural Environmental Research Council, was moving towards strategic environmental research (“Into the Depths”). Companies devoted to scientific exploration are experiencing funding and job cutbacks, so it’s important that the public becomes concerned with science. Because of the attention that celebrities and high-interest persons bring to scientific exploration, money may flow back to companies like the NOC. People like James Cameron grab attention, and then the general population starts to care about an issue, and once they care, they can fight for scientific organizations to receive funding. Science also needs public interest so children will want to become scientists themselves one day. Scientists need something, like an important figure, to make new discoveries and do something cool, so that children will want to pursue exploration as their career.

Even though ROVs have been beneficial to science, it is important to facilitate HOVs because they bring excitement and the spark of life, literally, to exploration and research. While some agree with this but believe the humans aboard the submersibles shouldn’t be wealthy patrons, it is a good idea to utilize those, like James Cameron, who aren’t trying to sway scientific findings or potentially hide important information like a wasteful industry would. Adventure- and knowledge-seeking funders will grab the public’s attention, who can then save companies like the NOC from losing money and encourage children to pursue careers in science.

Kathleen Gildea



Works Cited

Andrew. "I Sing the Praise of My Robot Underlings, the Workhorses of Deep Sea Exploration." Southern Fried Science. N.p., 28 Mar. 2012. Web. 15 Sept. 2012. <http://www.southernfriedscience.com/?p=12885>.

Dove, Al, and Craig McClain. "James Cameron's Deep Sea Challenge: A Scientific Milestone or Rich Guy's Junket?" Deep Sea News. Deep Sea News, 26 Mar. 2012. Web. 16 Sept. 2012. <http://deepseanews.com/2012/03/james-camerons-deep-sea-challenge-a-scientific-milestone-or-rich-guys-junket/>.

"Into the Depths." Nature.com. Nature Publishing Group, 04 Apr. 2012. Web. 16 Sept. 2012. <http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v484/n7392/full/484006a.html>.

Jaggard, Victoria. "James Cameron on Earth's Deepest Spot: Desolate, Lunar-Like." National Geographic. National Geographic Society, 27 Mar. 2012. Web. 24 Sept. 2012. <http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2012/03/120326-james-cameron-mariana-trench-challenger-deepest-lunar-sub-science/>.

Mims, Christopher. "Was Cameron's Deep Dive as Useless as Manned Space Flight? - Technology Review." Technology Review. MIT, 26 Mar. 2012. Web. 16 Sept. 2012. <http://www.technologyreview.com/view/427329/was-camerons-deep-dive-as-useless-as-manned-space/>.

Mustain, Andrea. "Cameron's Dive Stirs Push for Future Deep-Sea Exploration." OurAmazingPlanet.com. OurAmazingPlanet, 12 Apr. 2012. Web. 15 Sept. 2012. <http://www.ouramazingplanet.com/2756-cameron-dive-praise.html>.

Sam. "Challenges, Deep-sea and Budgetary." Oceanographer's Choice. N.p., 31 Mar. 2012. Web. 16 Sept. 2012. <http://www.oceanographerschoice.com/2012/03/challenges-deep-sea-and-budgetary/>.