Tuesday, March 22, 2016

Imposter Syndrome by Laura Carpenter

Project 4
Imposter Syndrome
By Laura Carpenter
(New York Times, 2015)

“A collection of feelings of inadequacy that persist despite evident success. ‘Imposters’ suffer from chronic self-doubt and a sense of intellectual fraudulence that override any feelings of success or external proof of their competence.” Imposter Syndrome was a name coined by psychologists, Pauline Clance and Suzanne Imes, for a type of self-doubt. It is more of a problem than most people think, and more common than many believe. Most people who struggle with imposter syndrome are highly successful, and are walking around in life waiting for people to find out they are a ‘fraud’ and that they don’t really belong. “Imposter Syndrome” sounds like a made-up name, which leads people to believe that it is not a legitimate issue, but new research suggests that high achieving individuals struggle with attributing their success to their own abilities. By observing self-doubt, famous individuals who have experienced the syndrome, and how to “cure” it, I want to prove how impactful Imposter Syndrome truly is, and how it affects a multitude of people around us. It is important for those struggling with the voice in their head, that they are not alone, and that their doubts are legitimate.
        Self-doubt is a simple enough term. We often think of people who struggle with self-doubt to be those who have a reason to; maybe those are the ones who aren’t quite as athletic as most, or aren’t the smartest in their group of friends, or the prettiest. We don’t often refer to self-doubt in individuals who are at the top of their class, or who are the star of a team, or are leading scientists in their field, but imposter syndrome focuses in on those types of people. “It’s at the moment when you’re most vulnerable that all your doubts come crashing in around you” (Richards, 2015). When you perform at a certain level, you are expected to have great outcomes, the winning touchdown, or other things of that matter, and when those things perhaps are not achieved, the feelings of fraudulence settle in deep. New York Times writer, Carl Richards, admits that the first time he heard the voice in his head saying he was an imposter, the fear was paralyzing. He also says that when he brought up the matter to his business coach, he was shocked that this thing had a name, and that he was only one of many that struggled with it. No one likes to admit their weaknesses, and struggling with imposter syndrome is seen as a weakness for many, giving them more reason to believe they are a fraud. However, admitting these fears and doubts can actually be therapeutic in learning you are not alone. Since many feel like they are alone in their doubts and fears about being an “imposter”, it leads others around them to believe that it's made up, a way to gain attention or pity. (Richards, 2015)
        Carl Richards goes on to analyze his own feelings towards imposter syndrome, and what he believes causes and inflames it. He believes that imposter syndrome comes from a “natural sense of humility in our work. That’s healthy, but it can easily cross the line into paralyzing fear. When we have a skill or talent that has come naturally we tend to discount its value”(Richards, 2015). We tend to believe that whatever is natural, or easy for us, can’t offer any real value to the world; it actually leads to discounting its value, even though we usually want our skill to look and feel natural (Richards, 2015). In 2014, psychologist Frederik Anseel and his colleagues decided to take a closer look at imposter syndrome by looking at a study of more than 200 Belgian workers in finance, education and human-resource management. They “found that workers who reported feelings that are consistent with imposter syndrome tended to score higher on measures of neuroticism and excessive perfectionism in personality tests. They were also not as happy with their jobs as were colleagues who did not experience the syndrome” (Woolston, 2016). The more you think about it, the more that makes sense. Obviously those who struggle with neuroticism and excessive perfectionism are going to have a harder time accepting their own talent and hard work, because they always believe they can do better, and should do better. They probably also believe that more is expected out of them, even though they are performing perfectly fine, if not, above average (Woolston, 2016). Along with claims of success belonging to chance rather than hard work and talent, people may also suffer from anxiety and depression alongside their self-doubt. Therefore, self-doubt is the root of Imposter Syndrome.
        There is a large range of people, who struggle with Imposter Syndrome, but they all have something in common, they all put a large amount of pressure on themselves to be successful and to perform above adequate. Many don’t realize the effect that Imposter Syndrome has on multiple celebrities. A lot of these being women celebrities; this is because women are a large portion of those who suffer due to the pressure they put on themselves to live up to the men around them and the men who have been documented throughout history. Academy Award winning actress, Kate Winslet, has been quoted saying: “I’d wake up in the morning before going off to a shoot, and think, I can’t do this; I’m a fraud.” According to an article in the New Yorker, Facebook Executive and author, Sherl Sandberg, has also admitted to similar feelings. Emma Watson, who plays Hermoine Granger in Harry Potter has also stated that she struggled with feelings of being an imposter for years, even with the multitude of success of harry potter (Wessel, 2015). Despite having won three Grammy’s and being nominated for a Pulitzer Prize and a Tony Award, author and poet, Maya Angelou shared that, “I have written 11 books, but each time I think, ‘Uh oh, they’re going to find out now. I’ve run a game on everybody, and they’re going to find me out.’” (Richards, 2015)
        Although famous people --those that we look up to, and see on TV-- may struggle, many who are in our lives every day also deal with these feelings of inadequacy. Students, especially those at Ivy League schools, struggle with self-doubt. This tends to happen because they were the “star” of the school all the way through High School, and now they are, for the first time, not the smartest person in the room. Josh Drew, an evolutionary ecologist at Columbia University, states: “Here, being at the top of your class is just average”(Woolston, 2016). This is a shock to their system, and students don’t know how to handle it; they are used to all the attention and the glory, and now they just blend in. That is a huge blow to their confidence, and results in feelings of being an imposter to even be at an Ivy League school, whereas, many students can’t even imagine having the opportunity to attend such a school. (Woolston, 2016)
        Another group, who struggles with imposter syndrome, is the world of scientists. “Scientists are especially vulnerable, largely because they work in hero-oriented filed that treats its highest achievers as if they are sports stars, leaving many others to wonder in silence whether they are second-stringers or worse” (Woolston, 2016). Scientists tend to have those feelings of doubt creep in also because of sporadic failure, in grants, jobs, or in publications; they are constantly being turned down for things, which leaves them feeling inadequate, however, that is just a part of the job. Charles Darwin complained that “one lives only to make blunders”, and John Steinbeck wrote: “I am assailed by my own ignorance and inability” (Woolston, 2016). Therefore, those who struggle with imposter syndrome are in some lofty company.
        Lastly, many have decided to fight back, these feelings of doubt and fear are taking over lives and people want to be back to normal. There are several suggestions on how to do this. Anseel believes that researchers would be more confident if they were to embrace the inevitability of failure (Woolston, 2016). It is also imperative to stop any comparisons made between colleagues and friends. Comparisons never result well for anyone, and therefore, should be stopped before investigated. Along with comparisons, it is important to realize self-worth does not come from the opinions of others. Biologist Victoria Metcalf struggled with self-doubt for many years, and says that it is an uphill battle, that she continues to fight, but she is winning because she decided to take control and fight (Woolston, 2016). Enough with scientists; for the average straggler, finding ways to increase your value while doing the things you love is probably the most important thing you can do. Carl Richards suggests using imposter syndrome as a way to motivate you. Prove to yourself that you are better than the voice in your head suggests, that you are not an imposter, but a worthy participant in your life (Richards, 2015). If you can recognize self-doubt as a part of personal development, you can tame it, and use it for good. Also, it is important to set reasonable standards for yourself. Believing I will rule the world one day would be far too lofty of a goal. Setting impossible standards only sets you up for failure. (Wessel, 2015)
 As more research is published, and more people come forth with these feelings of self-doubt and fraud, the more people believe that this is a real and rampant issue. No one desires to live in fear. No one wants to feel inadequate. We need to be more accepting of people who struggle with these feelings, so others feel comfortable coming forth, and therefore can move on. It all starts from self-doubt, and blossoms into a lifetime of worry. We would be a far more successful as a nation, if those who struggle with imposter syndrome, actually used it to fuel their work and their accomplishments.



Posted by at No comments:

Project #4: Why we need to defend fetal tissue research




Project #4: 
Why we need to defend fetal tissue research
by: Sasha Afanasyeva
Vaccines, treatments for degenerative diseases like Alzheimer’s, Down syndrome, and even miscarriage are developed through fetal tissue research. Opponents of abortion are naturally against fetal tissue research and are pushing to try to stop it. Legislators should strive to defend fetal tissue research by opposing legislation attempting to ban or restrict it; the benefits of fetal tissue research gained through vaccine development and degenerative disease treatment investigation are simply too great to overlook and must be defended.



Planned Parenthood and the issue of fetal tissue research made headlines last summer when anti-abortion activists David Daleiden and Sandra Merritt released videos featuring Planned Parenthood employees talking about aborted fetal tissue donations taken during a sting operation. The videos resulted in an emotionally charged political storm with prominent Republican politicians such as Ted Cruz and Rand Paul calling for defunding Planned Parenthood, and states such as Wisconsin and Missouri are attempting to pass legislation to ban fetal tissue donations and research.

Some states are making an active push to outright ban fetal tissue donations. While it is illegal to sell fetal tissue, it is currently legal for a mother to choose to donate it. It is also legal to charge a small fee between $50 to $100 to cover transportation costs. Wisconsin’s Republican-dominated legislature is currently pushing for a complete ban on such fetal tissue donations, including its use in research.

Due to the emotionally and politically charged nature of abortion and fetal tissue research, many scientists are choosing to stay silent about defending fetal tissue research, something that a December Nature editorial, which ironically was written anonymously, discussed. “US scientists who use fetal tissue are choosing to stay silent about the value of their work rather than to defend it publicly and face the real possibility of physical attack,” the editorial said. When in November, a gunman attacked  a Planned Parenthood clinic and killed 3 people, injuring 9, calling himself “a warrior for the babies,” concerns for safety were further raised for researchers and Planned Parenthood employees alike.

The Association of American Medical Colleges released a statement signed by more than 58 medical colleges and medical organizations highlighting the medical benefits of fetal tissue research and urging lawmakers to reject proposals that would restrict access to fetal tissue research. According to Nature, the AAMC statement allowed medical professionals and scientists to speak out on the issue without having their personal name attached. In the editorial, Nature said that they shared the AAMC’s concerns and joined the AAMC in asking US lawmakers to reject such proposals. “The current episode is a reflection of a larger politics of division that has taken hold in the United States, and which has worsened alarmingly in recent months. It is time for a de-escalation of the rhetoric and the creation of a space for calm and rational discourse,” Nature wrote.

Alto Charo, a bioethicist from University of Wisconsin-Madison, spoke out against Wisconsin’s current attempt to ban fetal tissue research and donations. “No embryo or fetus is going to be lost because of the research,” said Charo. “Research needs to be regulated to protect public health and safety, but this is very different,” she says. “This is shutting down research for purely moral purposes—it’s shutting down research because people disapprove.”

In the AAMC release, the US Department of Health and Human Services was quoted as saying that “fetal tissue continues to be a critical resource for important efforts such as research on degenerative eye disease, human development disorders such as Down syndrome, and infectious diseases, among a host of other diseases.” A WebMD article from September interviewed Anita Bhattacharyya, from the University of Wisconsin-Madison, and Jorge Busciglio from the University of California-Irvine, about the use of fetal tissue in research. The work of the two researchers relies on access to fetal tissue.

When it came to Down syndrome and Alzheimer’s disease, the researchers said that animal studies are not possible due to the way the human brain is different. “For Down syndrome specifically, animals aren’t very good, because their brains and chromosomes are so different from humans”, Bhattacharyya said. Busciglio who studies human cortical neurons, a type of brain cell affected in Down syndrome and Alzheimer’s disease, said that fetal tissue is necessary for such research. “It’s really critical to do some of these experiments in these types of cells,” Busciglio said. “If we don’t have these cells, we don’t have our answer.”

Although Busciglio’s and Bhattacharyya’s work highlights some of the current research going on, previous uses of fetal tissue also included the development of life-saving vaccines. In the statement, the AAMC said “In the past, human fetal tissue research has been critical in establishing permanent cell lines for use in vaccine research for diseases such as polio, hepatitis A, measles, mumps, rubella, chickenpox, and rabies. These established cell lines are currently being used to develop an Ebola vaccine.”

Opponents to fetal tissue research such as Marco Rubio, a Republican US senator from Florida, said that fetal tissue research has “created an incentive for people to be pushed into abortions so that those tissues can be harvested and sold for a profit.” The AAMC stressed in its report that the ability to donate fetal tissue for research is not linked to an increase in abortions practiced. “Nor can we reasonably expect a limitation on fetal tissue donation or research to reduce the number of abortions,” the AAMC said. “Rather, it will prevent the use of tissue that would otherwise be destroyed, hindering efforts to better understand, diagnose, and treat diseases.”

The Nature editorial noted that fetal tissue donation for research is already rare, with only 1 percent of about 700 Planned Parenthood clinics even participating in tissue donation. Given the political climate, Nature expects that number to go down further.  With Wisconsin’s Republican-dominated legislature attempting to ban fetal tissue donations, there is growing concern that other states may do so too, thus eliminating all access to fetal tissue for researchers. The Hill reported in September that the number of Planned Parenthood clinics that allow women to donate fetal tissue went down from six to two, pointing to the political climate as the primary cause.

Should fetal research be banned or restricted, the medical and scientific community is worried that the loss of medical advances can be significant. Given the political climate, researchers fear for their safety for speaking out in defense of fetal tissue; a fear that was reinforced during the November Planned Parenthood shootings. The only way to ensure that scientists can continue their lifesaving work is for legislators to step up and vote down any bills attempting to ban or restrict fetal tissue research. The AAMC ended its report by saying that “as physicians and scientists, we work every day to save and improve lives. We urge lawmakers to support our ability to continue this important work by rejecting any proposals that restrict access to fetal tissue for research that has the potential to save countless lives.”
___
On the net:
Washington Post:


Nature Editorial:
The Atlantic:
WebMD interview:
NPR coverage:




Wisconsin’s new bill:

Posted by at No comments:

BECCS Issue Analysis



Limiting global temperature from rising more than 2oC is a widely agreed upon target, but even with a temperature change of only 2oC , we can expect to see habitat destruction, reduced crop yields, and increased flooding and drought. If the temperature rises more than this we can expect to see even greater repercussions, and on our current track, we can expect a temperature rise well above 2oC . In the search for solutions to mitigate climate change, Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Sequestration (BECCS) has emerged. The idea behind BECCS is that we will grow plants that can be burned for energy, called biomass, which will pull CO2 out of the atmosphere. Then when the biomass is burned to produce energy, we will collect and store the CO2 that would normally be released back into the atmosphere. This process results in net negative CO2 emissions. While BECCS is presented as a potential solution to climate change, many questions are left unanswered on what we can expect the impacts to be. To make BECCS more attainable, researchers should continue to assess BECCS to reach more precise estimates on its impacts, there should be a push for agricultural improvements that will free up land and use less water so these resources will be available for growing biomass, and the IPCC should explore other solutions as well as make BECCS more attainable for the future.


The Nature editorial “Outside the Bubble” discusses the scientific controversy surrounding BECCS. The authors main criticisms are the number of questions regarding BECCS that remain unanswered as the topic gains support. The editorial begins by introducing the main idea of BECCS, and calls it an “overnight sensation” and a “one-hit climate wonder.” The article expresses a lot of doubt for BECCS, but never states that it won’t work. The article supports its claims by naming some questions that remain unanswered, and bringing in the opinions of experts. For example, it states, “climate scientist Kevin Anderson compared BECCS to a fairy godmother, conjured up to wish away reality in a puff of optimism.” Although the article holds a negative perspective of BECCS for most of it, the author begins the final paragraph by stating that “BECCS may yet prove to have staying power.” He then explains that the groundwork must be done, and governments must be willing to pay for this. The article ends with the statement, “climate change must be based on the science of the probable.” Although the article is quite negative, the author doesn’t condemn BECCS. Instead, he critiques the amount of support it has while it is still lacking in scientific support.


As the Nature article touches on, many uncertainties surround BECCS, and there is debate over what we can expect the impacts of it to be. In a GCB Energy article, “Economic and ecological views on climate change mitigation with bioenergy and negative emissions,” Felix Creautzig discusses the differences in integrated assessment models and ecological models in evaluating BECCS. He writes, “integrated assessment models tend to emphasize economic dynamics and long timescales, whereas ecological models are more grounded in biophysical processes and today's observations.” While his article discusses the differences in these models, it still leave uncertainty about the accuracy of any of these models. One issue with having these different models is that they disagree on the amount of energy that we will be able to produce with BECCS. Creautzig describes, “a systematic overestimation of the estimation potential of bioenergy, or alternatively, a systematic underestimation of the area needed for mitigation by bioenergy.” These differences translate to big differences in the amount of energy we will be capable of producing through BECCS. A third debate surrounding BECCS is the amount of land that will be required to grow biomass, and how this will become available. BECCS implementation hinges on resources being available to produce the biomass that is burned to produce energy. This leads to another discussion on the impact BECCS may have on food and water. Creautzig writes, “biomass plantations could compete with food for water resources, and other food-energy market interactions.” These are the issues that make up the foundation for the controversy surrounding BECCS.

In order to resolve multiple controversies, scientists need to continuous assessments of BECCS and the impacts it holds. Current estimates for BECCS energy production vary greatly. Creautzig describes, “IAM studies, in general, display a range of uncertainty, projecting between 20 and 300 EJ yr−1 bioenergy actual deployment in 2100.” When estimates vary by this degree, it is hard to assess how much of an impact BECCS will be able to have. I we can decrease this uncertainty, it would decrease the amount of doubt surrounding BECCS. In addition, we need a better understanding of the environmental impacts of BECCS. BECCS is proposed as a solution to climate change, a global environmental problem. If it is to mitigate an environmental problem, we should be aware of what environmental problems it could cause. Finally, more precise estimates could tell use what impact we can expect a large scale implementation of BECCS to have on food supply and water availability.

To address the concerns over land availability, there should be a push for agricultural improvements that will free up land and use less water, so these resources will be available for growing biomass. Biomass is made up of the plants that will be used as fuel to create energy for BECCS, and large scale BECCS will require large amounts of biomass to be produced. Many predictions about BECCS are based off of assumptions that land will become available to grow this biomass. The GCB Energy article states, “The FAO assumes an agricultural productivity increase of 1.63 and projects an increase of agricultural land for food production by 70 Mha from 2005 to 2050...This is possible by an assumed high increase in agricultural productivity of about a factor of 2.” For this land to be available, we will need to use agricultural land more efficiently. Making land available cannot be done instantaneously, so we need to start moving towards this. With the implementation of BECCS, land costs will rise which will pressure people to use land more efficiently. By pushing for changes sooner as opposed to later, this transition to producing lots of biomass will be much smoother. While making land available for biomass production, we need to simultaneously ensure that water will be available to grow this biomass. The best way to ensure that this water will be available is to reduce water waste. Because much of the energy production of BECCS depends on the amount of biomass available, we need to work towards having land and resources available to grow this biomass.

As we work towards making BECCS more attainable, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Control should continue to explore other options that can be used to supplement BECCS if we cannot reach a high enough yield for it to stand alone. The IPCC has voiced support for BECCS stating in a report that “combining bioenergy with CCS (BECCS) offers the prospect of energy supply with large-scale net negative emissions which plays an important role in many low-stabilization scenarios, while it entails challenges and risks.” It is important for the IPCC to continue to explore other options because BECCS has yet to be implemented on a large scale, so there remain many uncertainties. The also need to consider the criticism for BECCS even though they are in support of it. In addition, even though some models show us being able to rely on BECCS alone, many do not. The GCB Energy article describes, “a central result of the IPCC assessment – bioenergy and BECCS as main mitigation option – hinges on a few crucial assumptions in integrated assessment models.” Because of this, the IPCC need to continue to assess other options because although BECCS has potential, we have yet to see the real impacts of it being implemented on a large scale.

We need to work to make BECCS more attainable because currently, it may be our best option for climate change mitigation. To do this, we should continue research on BECCS, push for agricultural improvements, and in the meantime, continue to explore other options as well. Keeping Global temperature from rising more than 2oC is vital to avoiding devastating consequences, and BECCS can help us do this.

___

On the net:

Nature Editorial: http://www.nature.com.prox.lib.ncsu.edu/news/outside-the-bubble-1.19324

Bioenergy Article: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/gcbb.12235/full

IPCC Report: http://mitigation2014.org/

Huffington Post Article: http://data.huffingtonpost.com/2015/11/two-degrees-will-change-the-world


Posted by at No comments:

Friday, March 4, 2016

The controversy of fetal tissue research

Project #3: The controversy of fetal tissue research
by Sasha Afanasyeva
After sting videos were released this summer by anti-abortion activists about Planned Parenthood fetal tissue donations, a political storm has erupted with some calling for a ban of fetal tissue research and donations. Fetal tissue is used to develop vaccines and research conditions such as Parkinson’s disease and Down syndrome. Should fetal tissue research and donations be banned or restricted, that effect will be felt amongst all the stakeholder groups. These stakeholder groups include anti-abortion activists and Republicans, researchers and the Association of American Medical Colleges, Planned Parenthood, and more broadly any beneficiaries of vaccinations and research for degenerative diseases. Such analysis of stakeholder groups is critical to better understand the complexity of the fetal tissue research controversy.



Anti-Abortion Activists and Republicans
Planned Parenthood and the issue of fetal tissue research made headlines last summer when anti-abortion activists David Daleiden and Sandra Merritt released videos featuring Planned Parenthood employees talking about aborted fetal tissue donations taken during a sting operation. The videos have resulted in an emotionally charged political storm with prominent politicians such as Ted Cruz and Rand Paul calling for defunding Planned Parenthood, and some states such as Wisconsin and Missouri going as far as pushing for a ban on fetal tissue donations and research.


The videos released from the sting showed Planned Parenthood employees discussing fetal tissue uses and transportation costs. The goal of the videos was to try to show that Planned Parenthood was illegally selling fetal tissue, something multiple investigations across twelve states later failed to find.


Given that anti-abortion activists oppose abortion for religious and moral reasons, they naturally oppose fetal tissue research as well. Opponents to fetal tissue research such as Marco Rubio, a US senator from Florida and a current Republican presidential candidate, said that fetal tissue research has “created an incentive for people to be pushed into abortions so that those tissues can be harvested and sold for a profit.”


Some states are making an active push to outright ban fetal tissue donations. While it is illegal to sell fetal tissue, it is currently legal for a mother to choose to donate it. It is also legal to charge a small fee to cover transportation costs. Wisconsin’s Republican-dominated legislature is currently pushing for a complete ban on such fetal tissue donations.
Researchers and the Medical Community
This recent push against fetal tissue has caused growing concern in the scientific and medical community who say that such a ban or restriction would set back medical research.
Due to the emotionally and politically charged nature of abortion and fetal tissue research, many scientists are choosing to stay silent about defending fetal tissue research, something that a December Nature editorial, which was written anonymously, discussed. “US scientists who use fetal tissue are choosing to stay silent about the value of their work rather than to defend it publicly and face the real possibility of physical attack,” the editorial said. When in November, a gunman attacked a Planned Parenthood clinic and killed three people, injured nine, and called himself “a warrior for the babies,” concerns for safety were further raised for researchers and Planned Parenthood employees alike.
However not all stayed silent. Alto Charo, a bioethicist from University of Wisconsin-Madison, spoke out against Wisconsin’s current attempt to ban fetal tissue research and donations.
“No embryo or fetus is going to be lost because of the research,” said Charo. “Research needs to be regulated to protect public health and safety, but this is very different,” she says. “This is shutting down research for purely moral purposes—it’s shutting down research because people disapprove.”
A WebMD article from September, which was reviewed by an MD professional, interviewed Anita Bhattacharyya, PhD, of the University of Wisconsin-Madison, and Jorge Busciglio, PhD, of the University of California-Irvine, about the use of fetal tissue in research. When it came to Down syndrome and Alzheimer’s disease, the researchers said that animal studies are not possible due to the way the human brain is different. “For Down syndrome specifically, animals aren’t very good, because their brains and chromosomes are so different from humans”, Bhattacharyya said. Busciglio who studies human cortical neurons, a type of brain cell affected in Down syndrome and Alzheimer’s disease said that fetal tissue is necessary for such research. “It’s really critical to do some of these experiments in these types of cells,” Busciglio said. “If we don’t have these cells, we don’t have our answer.”
The Association of American Medical Colleges
The Association of American Medical Colleges released a statement signed by more than 60 medical colleges and medical organizations highlighting the medical benefits of fetal tissue research and urging lawmakers to reject proposals that would restrict access to this research. According to Nature, the AAMC statement allowed medical professionals and scientists to speak out on the issue without having their personal name attached. In the editorial, Nature said that they share the AAMC’s concerns and join the AAMC in asking US lawmakers to reject such proposals. “The current episode is a reflection of a larger politics of division that has taken hold in the United States, and which has worsened alarmingly in recent months. It is time for a de-escalation of the rhetoric and the creation of a space for calm and rational discourse,” Nature wrote.
In the AAMC release, the US Department of Health and Human Services was quoted as saying that “fetal tissue continues to be a critical resource for important efforts such as research on degenerative eye disease, human development disorders such as Down syndrome, and infectious diseases, among a host of other diseases.”


Fetal tissue research also plays an important role in vaccine development. In the same statement, the AAMC said, “In the past, human fetal tissue research has been critical in establishing permanent cell lines for use in vaccine research for diseases such as polio, hepatitis A, measles, mumps, rubella, chickenpox, and rabies. These established cell lines are currently being used to develop an Ebola vaccine.”
The AAMC also stressed in its report that the ability to donate fetal tissue for research is not linked to an increase in abortions practiced. “Nor can we reasonably expect a limitation on fetal tissue donation or research to reduce the number of abortions,” the AAMC said. “Rather, it will prevent the use of tissue that would otherwise be destroyed, hindering efforts to better understand, diagnose, and treat diseases.”
Planned Parenthood
The Nature editorial noted that fetal tissue donation for research is already rare, with only one percent of about 700 Planned Parenthood clinics even participating in tissue donation. Given the political climate, Nature expects that number to go down further. The Hill reported in September that the number of Planned Parenthood clinics that allow women to donate fetal tissue went down from six to two, pointing to the political climate as the primary cause.
Beneficiaries of vaccines and research
Should fetal research be banned or restricted, the medical and scientific community is worried that the loss of medical advances can be significant. The AAMC ended its report by saying that “as physicians and scientists, we work every day to save and improve lives. We urge lawmakers to support our ability to continue this important work by rejecting any proposals that restrict access to fetal tissue for research that has the potential to save countless lives.”
Takeaways
Given the complexity and controversy of fetal tissue research, having an understanding of stakeholder groups and how they are pitted against each other is critical to understanding this issue. Regardless of how the courts rule and what legislators choose to do, all stakeholders will be affected by the decisions as to whether or not fetal tissue research and donations should be restricted.
___
On the net:
Nature Editorial:

The Atlantic:


WebMD interview:




Posted by at No comments:

Imposter Sydrome Stakeholders (project 3) By Laura Carpenter


It strikes without warning. The more one cares about grades and achievements, the more likely they are to be overcome by it. Famous? Overachiever? Fancy scientist? It takes no pity. The Imposter Syndrome name was officially coined in 1970’s when Dr. Suzanne Imes and Dr. Pauline Rose Clance identified the phenomenon. They realized that “certain overachievers could not acknowledge their accomplishments by crediting themselves. Many of those with imposter syndrome claimed their success was because of chance rather than their own hard work and talent” (Gasalberti, 2014). In the past forty years, famous people, such as Emma Watson and Kate Winslet have admitted to struggling with this “imposter” (Sanghani, 2015).  Although it is a recently discovered phenomenon, it has been present for as long as we know. Scientists are also a large group of people that struggle with that voice inside their head. Since scientists are constantly developing research and publishing results, they are also constantly being rejected from journals or from a necessary grant proposal (Woolston, 2016). Psychologists are also largely involved with the “imposter syndrome”. Without Doctors such as Dr. Suzanne Imes and Dr. Pauline Rose Clance, the imposter syndrome would remain as a voice inside multiple people’s heads, and without anyone knowing it existed. Lastly, it is not necessary to be a scientist, or even famous to struggle with imposter syndrome. For those who are overachieving, especially those pushed by parents and peers, or those in minorities, imposter syndrome can easily creep into the back of one’s thoughts and grow.
Famous celebrities are always in the limelight, and always appear to have their life, and thoughts together, however, that is not always the case. Being in the limelight can actually cause greater stress on being “perfect” and not feeling adequate enough in accomplishments. Women especially are a target for Imposter Syndrome. This comes from a lack of confidence in their positions. It often occurs when “women feel like people have overestimated them, and that they’d only got far because of their luck not their skills.” Maya Angelou stated “ I have written eleven books but each time I think ‘uh oh, they’re going to find out now, I’ve run a game on everybody, and they’re going to find me out’”. Tina Fey has admitted that Imposter syndrome for her alternates between egomania and thoughts of fraud. She says that when the egomania comes she tries her best to enjoy it while it lasts. Renee Zellweger is yet another famous woman who struggles with thoughts of incompetence. She said she used to wake up at night thinking: “They gave me this role; don’t they know I’m faking it?” This is an Oscar winning actress who doesn’t believe she’s good enough. Some people find this hard to believe, that those with large amounts of success could ever question their abilities, however, those are the people who struggle with imposter syndrome the most. (Sanghani, 2015)
Scientists are practically their own community throughout the world, connected through their love of science. With that love, come constant research and experiments, and then developing their results into something useful and interesting. Since scientists are a fairly large community, they are often rejected for grants, publishing, or even just a bad experiment. Moses Milazzo, a planetary scientist with the Astrogeology Science Center “thinks that imposter syndrome is nearly universal among scientists—at least among those who are self-aware enough to realize that they don’t know everything.” He goes farther into the article saying that he never truly has confidence in his grant proposals; he never expects them to actually be accepted. Even some famous scientists such as John Steinbeck struggled with this syndrome. Steinbeck stated “I am assailed by my own ignorance and inability… sometimes, I seem to do a good little piece of work, but when it is done it slides into mediocrity.” Scientists are constantly comparing themselves and their work to others around them, negating their own work because of the greatness of another’s. As these researchers grow in their schooling, they go from being top of the class to average, and that realization alone downgrades their self-worth in their minds. “Researchers who struggle with the syndrome have to learn how to tune out feelings of inadequacy and develop a more realistic view of their abilities and their value.” This is the only real “cure” to imposter syndrome. Those who realize they have it, and want to fight it, have to find, and be reminded of their value and self-worth. (Woolston, 2016)
The term “Imposter Syndrome” almost seems made up; it doesn’t seem real. How could something to simply affect so many? What about those who are underachievers, why don’t they struggle? Without psychologists, we wouldn’t have much insight to these questions. The two Doctors, who coined the term, are two women who have struggled with it themselves. They say, “Although it has not damaged their careers, both admit they haven’t published as many papers as some of their male counterparts.” Both admit to overanalyzing their own papers, even down to the smallest comma, before they are willing to submit one. “Their need for perfectionism is a hallmark of feeling like an imposter”. They have found that childhood experiences typically begin the cycle, and it festers from there. Those who are born into a family where they are often valued for their intelligence struggle when they receive a grade that is not as high as expected for their effort. Imposter syndrome wasn’t even “discovered” until the 1970’s because many psychologists didn’t believe it to be real. Thanks to Clance and Imes, it has become obvious that self-doubt can lead to questioning ones self in anything and everything they do, and lead them to believe that they don’t belong in any type of league of excellence. (Kaplan, 2009)
Lastly, famous people, genius scientists, and psychologists aren’t the only ones who come into contact with “Imposter Syndrome”.  It can strike down anyone. Imposter syndrome can prevent (normal) people from public speaking publicly with authority; even at small events such as a work meeting, this happens even when one is knowledgeable in a field. A large amount of students, in any field struggle with imposter syndrome, because the jump from high school to college is a large one. Going from the top of the class to mediocre is a huge blow to one’s ego, and can be detrimental to one’s mental health. Moving into the working world, the need for perfectionism can cause imposter syndrome to arise. Whether it involves being a perfect wife, or giving the perfect presentation, the need for perfection is detrimental. In reality, perfectionism is unattainable, therefore, causing more stress to those who strive for it.
Whether an overachiever, underachiever, or somewhere in the middle, beware of the Imposter Syndrome. That voice in the back of the brain can be dangerous and lead to disturbing thoughts. It can also cause a stressful life, and one that you can never be fully comfortable in.

Posted by at No comments:

Thursday, March 3, 2016

BECCS: Producing energy while mitigating climate change



Introduction

A recent Nature editorial discusses the use of Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Sequestration (BECCS) as a viable solution to climate change as a result of greenhouse gases. It was first brought up as a potential solution to climate change in the 1990s, and has been referred to by multiple names including BECS, BCCS, and Biotic CCS. Producing energy with BECCS can result in negative net emissions. This works because BECCS burns plant material, called biomass, to produce energy. The amount of carbon released by burning biomass is equal to the amount absorbed by the plants growing, resulting in a net zero. The emissions become negative when the CO2 is captured instead of released back into the atmosphere.

An environmental research letter from IOPScience states, “Without a change in prevailing energy and climate policies, the expected future greenhouse gas emissions will likely lead to an increase of global mean surface temperature above the 2° C temperature limit endorsed by the UNFCCC.” BECCS is a proposed solution to keep us within this 2° C temperature limit, but there is debate over whether or not BECCS would be a sustainable solution to climate change. The Nature editorial describes BECCS as “the boy band launched to number one on the back of a reality television show, rather than the grizzled rockers who earned their fame after years of concerts attended by three people and a dog.” BECCS has recently gained attention as a possible solution to mitigate climate change. While many people like the idea of BECCS, there is also lots of criticism for it.

Agriculture Industry
The first stakeholder group to bring attention to is the agriculture industry. Because BECCS will rely on biomass, it will require a large amount of land. The IOPScience letter stated, “A back-of-envelope estimate of global land requirements suggests that 200 EJ yr−1 of bioenergy may require around 500 Mha of land, or one third of global crop land.” to satisfy this shift in demand for crop land, there must be a change in the agriculture industry. Felix Creautzig makes the argument that although integrated assessment models seem to take this into account, ecological models reveal the negative impacts of this. Creautzig explains that according to the IAM model, “with additional land demand for other purposes such as food production, the value of land would increase rapidly and globally and market forces would foster high yield growth.” This model assumes that the agricultural industry will be capable of increasing yields when the demand changes.

Creautzig also explains where the IAM model will get the land needed; he states, “this ‘abandoned’ land is currently agricultural land in use, which is modeled to get abandoned between 2000 and 2050 by increases in agricultural productivity.” This model relies on the agricultural industry being able to increase productivity. Although the IAM model shows high yield values for BECCS, it relies heavily on certain changes in the agricultural industry to occur. After pointing out some of the assumptions made by the IAM model, Creautzig explains that through the ecological model, “biomass plantations could compete with food for water resources, and other food-energy market interactions; and removing residues could have a negative effect on soil carbon and reduce fertility.” According to this model, the amount of stress BECCS would put on the agriculture industry would result in scarcity and negative impacts.

IPCC
Another important stakeholder group in this discussion is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or the IPCC. The IPCC discusses what ideas are viable solutions for climate change. A New Scientist article discussing a recent IPCC report wrote, “The report should galvanise the UN negotiators who are drafting a global climate deal to be signed next year. But the hottest topic from the report may be its backing for negative emissions and CCS.” The IPCC believes that BECCS show promise in climate change mitigation. This IPCC report states that “combining bioenergy with CCS (BECCS) offers the prospect of energy supply with large-scale net negative emissions which plays an important role in many low-stabilization scenarios, while it entails challenges and risks.” This explains that the IPCC recognizes the fallbacks of BECCS that have been pointed out, but still believes that BECCS will be important in mitigating climate change. The IPCC further acknowledges that they are aware of these risks by stating “there is uncertainty about the potential for large-scale deployment of BECCS, large scale afforestation, and other CDR technologies and methods.” The IPCC supports BECCS as a possible solution to climate change, even though they expect to encounter problems.

Those Paying Cost
The third stakeholder group to bring attention to is those who will be paying the expense of this technology. BECCS would influence the prices consumers pay for electricity, as well as the power companies. Regardless of how it is done, if the change in temperature is to be kept within 2° C, then there is going to be some cost. The IOPScience article describes, “stringent temperature targets can be met at considerably lower cost if BECCS is available. However, the economic benefit of BECCS nearly vanishes if an overshoot of the temperature target is not allowed.” This means that BECCS is a cost effective solution, which would make it more appealing than other options to those that will have to pay for it. It is important to note that this is assuming overshoot is allowed. The IOPScience article further details this by stating, “if overshoot is allowed, BECCS may significantly reduce the cost of meeting a stringent temperature target, by delaying emission reduction efforts and using negative emissions to compensate for them later.” This assumes that the cost of BECCS will be lower later, making it more economic to allow for overshoot. In addition, the reveals that when BECCS is implemented, as well as how much technology advances play key roles in how effective BECCS is for climate change mitigation.

General Public
The final stakeholder group to address is more general that the the previous ones. As mentioned when talking about the agriculture industry, BECCS will increase land and water demand which will raise the cost of these resources and limit the availability of them. As mentioned above, electricity consumers will likely see an increase in costs, but this will be less that it would using other technologies. 

 An impact of BECCS on the general public that was not aforementioned is how it will affect food availability and diets. Creautzig writes that if we “judge 300 EJ yr−1 as feasible, pointing to a carbon-price-induced diet shift away from meat to a vegetarian diet, which would provide another 250 Mha for bioenergy.” This means that because meat requires more land to produce, as demand for land increases, we will shift towards vegetarian diets that require less land to sustain. Creautzig continues and points out this diet shift may not work out evenly. He states, “in an unequal world, the affluent may well be able to continue paying for meat, while the global poor, who live on a mostly vegetarian diet to start with, get more deprived of food. Even as diet shift might be a desirable goal in terms of public health and climate mitigation, carbon-price-induced food price change could counter the original goals of climate change mitigation – improvement of human welfare, especially that of the most vulnerable.” The IOPScience article does not go into as much detail about this but states, “Producing large amounts of bioenergy may have significant impacts on global food prices, biodiversity, water availability, etc.” This also recognizes that BECCS would affect food globally, as well as mentioning the issue of water availability. Both of these thing would impact the general public.

___

On the net:
Nature Editorial: http://www.nature.com.prox.lib.ncsu.edu/news/outside-the-bubble-1.19324

Bioenergy Article: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/gcbb.12235/full

New Scientist Article: https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn25413-no-option-left-but-to-suck-co2-out-of-air-says-ipcc/

IOPScience Article: http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/3/034004/meta#erl461045s5

IPCC Report: http://mitigation2014.org/

Posted by at No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)