Abby L. Goldstein and Gordon L. Flett’s Personality, Alcohol Use, and Drinking Motives is a look into a comparison of independent and combined internal drinking motives groups. Published in March 2009 by Behavior Modification, the study hypothesizes that coping motivated drinkers were more likely to binge drink and thus have more alcohol related problems. This is compared to the other groups in the study: enhancement motivated and noninternally motivated drinkers. However, the alcohol use was predicted to remain constant between those who are motivated to drink for mood enhancement verse those who drink for coping reasons. This study was clearly geared towards college students. The introduction points out that in previous studies, it had been deduced that 40% of college students binge drink at least once every two weeks. It makes sense then that all 230 participants of the study were first year university students. It is important to note that the researchers chose only participants who reported some alcohol consumption in the past year. In essence, the researchers want individuals who they know will cater to their results. They are less concerned with who drinks but why they choose to do so. Moving forward, the researchers had several measures they had in mind to test. Drinking motives for one were assessed using four 5 item subscales. The scales went as follows: enhancement, coping, social, and conformity. From this point, the participants were to rate the frequency (on a scale of 1 to 5) on the reasoning for their consumption. Other areas they aimed to test were anxiety sensitivity, neuroticism, sensation seeking, and positive/negative affect among others. It is important that the researchers chose to include alcohol problems as a measure. The questionnaire was aimed to assess if the participant has had experience with alcohol problems in the past 12 months. Failure to include such a test would serve as a serious outlier as the researchers would have no way of knowing if they are dealing with alcoholics or occasional weekend binge drinkers. From here the researchers describe the process of establishing a procedure for the tests. The participants were given two questionnaires; one during the first six weeks of the semester and the second three months later. These questionnaires were filled with the aforementioned tests and measures. With all data collected, it was time to look at the results. The researchers determined that noninternally motivated consumers ultimately consumed less alcohol when they drank than their counterparts who drank to cope, enhance, or both. In addition these noninternally motivated drinkers actually drank less often in general than their counterparts. Those who drink for internal reasons were discovered to binge drink far more often and drink more when they do. In addition, those who drink to cope reported more drinking consequences than the noninternal drinkers. The study not only supports the hypothesis but seems fairly obvious. Those who drink because they believe it is going to help them internally some way clearly have problems that go far beyond drinking. These are individuals that are usually insecure about themselves. It also makes sense that these individuals, along with those who drink to cope, face more alcohol related incidents. These people are drinking to avoid their pain, to drown their sorrow. You cannot expect them to know when enough is enough. Instead they drink and drink until they cannot feel. If you were to survey most college students it would be apparent that most drink for enhancement and to have fun. They do not have deep set internal problems, but rather drink to fit in and have a good time.
Oren Etzioni has had it up to here with search engine technology. Between teaching computer science classes at the University of Washington and working on the problem himself in labs, he decided to post an opinion article to Nature magazine entitled “Search needs a shake-up.” The fundamental problem he has identified is that there is so much information on the web, keyword-based search engines like Google simply aren’t cutting it anymore. He claims that with a large boost in funding researchers could revolutionize the way we search, interpreting our questions through natural-language analysis and finding an appropriate answermore quickly and efficiently. If you saw Watson on Jeopardy!, the IBM supercomputer designed specifically to take unaltered Jeopardy! questions (renowned for using subtle wordplay) and beat human contestans, that’s what Etzioni is going for: a natural-language question and answer machine. I disagree with the author’s claim that funding would be best-used on search engine improvement not only because those research dollars could be used in more essential areas, but because search engines such as Google have already wreaked havoc on the memory function of its users.
The author extols the values of funding research and development of new and improved searching techniques. He claims that we are drowning in a “growing sea of information,” and that because of the constant addition of new web pages and subsequently large pool of search results, the process of finding what one wants has become too large a task for today’s search tools.
“[Researchers] must invest much more in bold strategies that can achieve natural-language searching and answering, rather than providing the electronic equivalent of the index at the back of a reference book.”
Essentially. the reference-book approach requires the user to refine their question to within certain parameters to get the results for which they are looking. If you use Google a lot (and the fact that the word “google” is now officially a verb might be some indication that most people do) than you probably already know putting a question like “What do I do if my car is the radiator hose on my car is broken?” will yield less results, and more from less reputable sources, than if you had simply typed “broken radiator hose.” To accommodate our search engines’ strengths and weaknesses we have conformed to their keyword-based method. I certainly agree that people alive today are bombarded with more information than at any point in human history, and I have no doubt that putting money into database technologies could improve on the technology we currently have, but does that improvement justify the funding? Every dollar spent in the search for better searching is a dollar not spent in a different area, another possible technological improvement, a different paradigm shift. Why is funding search engine research more justified than funding quantum computing or improved genetic sequencing? Quite honestly, I think that anyone who is google-savvy can find answers to just about any question they have in a matter of minutes, if not seconds. Is shaving off those seconds worth, as the author puts it, “an order of magnitude more of funding” than the $10 million provided by a US Dept. of Defense natural-language search program in 2009?
Not only do I believe the funding isn’t justified, but that improved searching is actually harmful more than it is beneficial for the human race. In a study conducted by the University of Columbia under psychologist Betsy Sparrow, researchers investigated the effects of current search technology on our memories. Among many other parts to the study, participants were given the answers to difficult trivia questions; some were told that the answers would be saved in specific folders, others were not told nothing. Asked later to recall the answers, the group who was informed of the folders showed a significant disability to recall information compared to the other group. However, what they did remember was the specific file names under which they could look up the answers. The results supported their hypothesis that people often forget things that they are confident they can look up at any time (through Google or some other tool). Using these tools, the brain has shifted from remembering the information itself to remembering where it can locate that information if the need arises. As a direct result of the level of connectivity we have to the information on the web, through blogs, aggregates, social networking sites, and search engines in particular, we know less off the top of our heads, and instead just rely on the Internet to back us up.
So let’s say that Etzioni’s request is fulfilled, that someone provides enough funding, and lo and behold, the next Google arises. It has the ability to answer whatever question we give it, faster than anything else before it. It crawls through billions of page hits and instead of giving us an index of everything that appeared with our keywords, it picks out the few that are truly relevant. It revolutionizes the way we are connected to our information. What would Betsy Sparrow and the Columbia team say? This kind of breakthrough probably wouldn’t improve our memory of the facts and information we look up, now brought to us even faster and with less effort on our parts. No, it would most certainly widen that gap between the information and our recollection of it. We now know that any answer is a mere breath away, so why bother to remember it?
“Well, why should it matter?” one might point out. With the rise of smartphones it’s not hard to believe that we could be connected to the Internet at every waking moment if we so choose. One might even frame it like the rebuttal every math teacher has probably heard: “why should I learn mental math if I can just use a calculator?” Those kids were right, they probably will have easy access to a calculator at any given time in the form of a phone. And if Etzioni’s appeal is answered, it might not be long before you will have a new and improved Google along with you calculator. However, most people can find a use for the mental math they learned in school in their everyday lives. And I think being able to retain general knowledge is some degree more important to your everyday life than being able to multiply fractions or estimate a volume. If we are given yet another level of connectivity to the “growing sea of information” surrounding us, it’s not hard to guess what the cultural norm will become: know next to nothing, but be armed with your smartphone in case a thought wanders into your pathetic, vestigial brain.
Matt Hugo
Etzioni, O. (2011). Search needs a shake-up. Nature, 476, 25-26.
Study Finds That Memory Works Differently in the Age of Google. (2011). Retrieved 10 October 2011 from http://news.columbia.edu/googlememory
In the article “The wrong message on Vaccines” published in Nature, the author criticizes potential presidential candidate, Michelle Bachmann for her statements against vaccination against HPV. While the author makes valid points about the need for a more educated public regarding vaccination, he misdirects his anger. He is afraid of an uneducated public being misinformed by Bachmann and choosing not to get vaccinated leaving the US much like Europe with many rises in disease that have vaccinations. While he makes some interesting criticisms, he is giving the public too little credit, discouraging discussion and places his own sense of duty upon public figures, ignoring the greater issue behind the skepticism. The author takes issues with Michelle Bachmann’s ignorant statements regarding getting the HPV vaccination. He says that her claims that the vaccination could lead to “mental retardation” were irresponsible. While this is true, she is within her rights to make these claims. While her motives may have been in question, her controversial rhetoric did something positive: it brought to light an issue not discussed enough. She brought to light the questionable nature of the Human Papiloma Virus Vaccine. It is favorable for public figures to talk about salient issues, no matter what the stance because it creates a source of discussion The author is not giving women enough credit. Bachmann’s comments while probablhy inaccurate, are at least controversial enough to start a discussion where the true facts and research will be examined. We are at an age where information is attainable anyone quickly and simply. From this, one can deduce that it is not the responsibility of public figures to educate us on anything, especially on issues where the information is so easily attained. Consequently, it is not Michelle Bachmann’s responsibility to speak a certain way on the issue of vaccination. It is highly doubtful that one woman’s ignorant comments can leave our public health in jeopardy. If anything were to be in jeopardy as a result of her comments, it would be her political career, not public health. There are those who, like Bachmann are skeptical of the vaccine. Every woman should educate herself about every drug put in her body.It is only natural and healthy to be skeptical of a new drug that is heavily marketed towards women. Human Papilloma Virus can be spread to anyone, regardless of gender. To prevent this virus from spreading, would it not be just as logical to vaccinate everyone? Women are protected from the virus by taking the vaccination, but one can easily deduce that they are as protected if the people from whom they can contract the virus don’t have it either.The Center for Disease Control has stated that males benefit as much from the vaccine as much as women and yet this vaccine is not being as heavily recommended to men quite as much as it has been pushed upon women. While the HPV vaccine can help prevent cervical cancer, it also prevents genital warts and anal cancer, problems that I doubt men want any more than women. Why is it the responsibility of the female population to bear this vaccine? Why is it the role of women to take a vaccine whose effects have only been studied for six years (at most)? The inequality is pretty severe, and yet women are expected to shut up, take the shot and be thankful. This is not a plea against vaccination, but encouragement in enough skepticism. It is not the Michelle Bachmann’s fault if women do not take the vaccine, regardless of her comments, her media exposure, or popularity. There is enough about this issue that is murky to the public that would cause unease in taking this new medicine. It is not the duty of a public figure to take on a certain view, or in the author’s words a more “responsible” stance on a topic. Even so, responsibility does not entail falling in line with a scientific community. Like religion (an institution that many consider to hold empirical truth), Science has been wrong before. “Responsibility” means to question what we are told to do, not to shut up and obey. Michelle Bachmann may have questioned the scientific community in a controversial and unfounded way, but the editor has no grounds for putting the responsibility of the public not falling in line on her. Skepticism should not be treated as ignorance, and women shouldn’t be expected to shut up and take a (rather painful) series shots without having their questions reasonably answered.The public must and can educate themselves. We are not the products of our political figures, but rather our political figures are a reflection of us. Perhaps Michelle Bachmann is an over dramatic reflection of the uncertain feeling many women have behind taking this HPV vaccine.
May 24th 2011. A day that would seem no different
from any other held major consequences concerning the future of one of
history’s most dangerous viruses: smallpox. It was earlier this year that the
member states of the World Health Organization (WHO) met in Geneva to once more
debate-as they have since 1976-whether or not the remaining stocks of the virus
should be destroyed. The result of the
assembly was not unlike any other, as the United States and Russia once more
bullied their way into postponing the destruction of the virus for another
three years. While the tide of opposition for keeping the live virus in two
sanctioned repositories continues to grow, some have continued their support of
the United States and Russia in keeping the virus intact. One of these pieces
of support comes from the January 2011 edition of Nature. The editorial titled “Smallpox should be saved” is a clear
backing of the efforts made by the United States and Russia to secure their
virus stocks and calls for a political compromise that would allow them to do
so. This argument, while intriguing in its own right, is simply outdated and
narrow minded. Too often the article tends treat the political wants and needs
of these two member states as superior to the other 191 member states of the
World Health Organization. A much more fair and balanced insight into the
dilemma comes from Jonathan Tucker’s “Breaking the Deadlock Over Destruction of
the Smallpox Virus Stocks”. Published by the scientific journal Biosecurity and Bioterrorism: Biodefense
Strategy, Practice, and Science in January 2011, Tucker’s article is a
chronological display of conflict that has spanned over four decades. It
becomes clear that the patience of the member states with the United States and
Russia over their desires to hold on to their WHO repositories is waning. As
such, Tucker has successfully argued that two former superpowers can no longer
hold the rest of the World Health Organization in gridlock. Efforts must be
made to reduce and eventually eliminate the stocks of smallpox to ensure global
stability and international security.
The fate of
the smallpox virus has been the topic of discussion among world powers for
almost half a century. This is a disease
that has claimed a third of its victims, amounting to hundreds of millions of
lives. It was in 1966 that the World Health Organization launched a global
campaign to purge the world of this epidemic. By 1977 the last natural outbreak
of smallpox had been contained and eradicated.
While contained accidents continued for a few more years, the WHO
recommended destroying the stocks or transferring a limited amount of them to
WHO collaboration centers in the United States and former Soviet Union. This
was 1976. The year is now 2011 and stocks of the disease still exist because
the United States and Russia refuse to give up their position that further
testing is still needed.
So why won’t
the United States and Russia compromise with the rest of the World Health
Organization? The answer is a complicated one but it lies between the node of
public health and national security. As the editorial in Nature is quick to point out, the whereabouts of all stocks of
smallpox remain clouded in mystery. It is possible that secret stocks of the
virus could be in the hands of terrorists. This threat pulls at the emotional
cords of the American people following the events of 9/11. With this in mind, Nature argues that the means of
producing biochemical warfare have increased the need to keep the smallpox
stocks that remain. Tucker himself further elaborates on this point in his own
article; stating the uneasiness of the Cold War and the information that was
leaked following its collapse as a major source of anxiety for the United
States. It was in 1992 that Ken Ailbek, a defected Soviet official, revealed
the biological warfare program of the former U.S.S.R. The details of their program were nothing
short of astonishing. Ailbek revealed that the U.S.S.E has developed a highly
lethal strain of smallpox as a weapon. This strain had been stockpiled by the
ton and shipped for delivery against the United States in the case that World
War III broke out. This however was not the only source of concern as
circumstantial evidence obtained by the CIA suggested more undeclared stocks of
smallpox could exist in countries such as Iraq, Iran, North Korea, etc. There is no question this uneasiness
influenced the United States’ decision to keep their WHO stockpiles of smallpox
in order to decode the genome of the virus and prepare a vaccine in case of an
attack. However, the excuses by both governments have run stale with the other
members of the WHO and their opposition is picking up steam.
It has
become clear within the past decade that international support for keeping the
stockpiles of smallpox has almost completely died out. According to Tucker, the
stated goals of the smallpox research program have been achieved. In terms of
DNA sequencing and progress of investigative kits, continued access to live
smallpox samples is almost useless. Scientists have learned almost all they can
from the disease. Critics of this approach rationalize their thinking by
stating that further work with the live virus would aid in the development and
testing of antiviral drugs. While in theory having these drugs would be a major
milestone to the prevention of any biochemical threat, one major obstacle would
make any chance of these drugs being passed remote. The U.S Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) require an Animal model of the virus to secure approval of
drugs and vaccines. To this day, an animal model has not been produced. The
reasoning behind this is lies in the fact that smallpox is a uniquely human
disease. Critics rightfully argue that the use of a surrogate virus such as the
monkey pox would be a much better option than keeping smallpox intact. The case
for the use of monkey pox is staggering. Not only does it contain ninety
percent of the homology of smallpox, but it is far dangerous to handle. In
addition, monkey pox is already prevalent in animals (monkeys specifically,
where it gets its namesake) and prevents a much lesser risk to its human
counterparts.
The argument
against keeping stockpiles of smallpox is strong and picking up steam. Public
health officials of developing nations within Asia and Africa simply need to
invest their scarce financial and scientific resources elsewhere. Smallpox has
not been prevalent in over thirty years, while AIDS, malaria, and tuberculosis
continue to disrupt society. On the home front, Tucker argues that the United States’
policy makers need to decide how much of a defensive front against the smallpox
virus they need. Russia is not capable of withholding off the scrutiny of the
entire World Health Organization without the United States. This fact implies
that Russia would have no choice but to concede to the WHO if the United States
chose to drop its opposition to the virus destruction. It is in Tucker’s belief that the United
States should finally accept a firm deadline for ending smallpox research. In
addition, it is time for the nation to destroy its stocks of smallpox, which
had been authorized by WHO to begin with. While the Nature article claims any destruction of smallpox would be purely
politically driven and symbolic, it fails to account for the unrest of the majority
of countries in the World Health Organization who are calling for the destruction
of the virus. However, the writers of the Nature article and Jonathan Tucker
have common ground: both can agree that the elimination of some of the stocks
would create some headway in a debate that has seen nothing but stalemates.
It is clear
that a consensus over the fate of one of the deadliest killers in history will
not be solved overnight. Yet the time for delay is over. With May 2011 come and
gone, and another delay on the future of this disease passed, the members of
the WHO are putting society through the same endless game year after year.
These stocks should be destroyed, if for nothing else just to promote stability
between the members of the WHO. An organization that is driven by only two of
its one hundred ninety three members is not fair and just. Instead, it is a
mockery of democracy and teeters on absolute rule. Concessions have to be made
by the United States and Russia in the upcoming years to prevent not only
biochemical harm, but to protect international unity.
Bibliography
"Smallpox Should Be Saved : Nature : Nature Publishing Group." Nature Publishing Group : Science Journals, Jobs, and Information. Web. 11 Oct. 2011. <http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v469/n7330/full/469265a.html>.
D. A. Henderson. Biosecurity and Bioterrorism: Biodefense Strategy, Practice, and Science. June 2011, 9(2): 163-168. doi:10.1089/bsp.2011.0011.
