The Future of Funding

After recent research I have done concerning the current problems with scientists receiving funding for equipment, trials, and other experimental costs, I believe there is a major problem worth the public's attention. Over the past few years, science funding has largely been riding on the help of the stimulus bill signed by President Barack Obama in February of 2009. $10 billion dollars supplement was given to the National Institute of Health in order to continue funding breakthrough scientific research. Although it was only three years ago, within the next year and a half, this will have been used, leaving only a few hundred million left. This drastic change in money available for funding runs the risk of putting the United States in a position where we could no longer keep up with the scientific research of countries that receive better funding. Britain faces a situation similar to that of the United States. Due to cuts in science funding, a major brain drain may be in Britain's near future. Young, upcoming scientists are looking for work in other countries with better funding that can provide more prosperous and productive careers. Considered a major investor in the development of various science and technology research and training institutes, brain drains of countries like Britain threaten the advancement and progression of the scientific community. In order to uphold progression within the scientific community, funding is essential.

The Truth In Lie Detection

After changing my next read from The Big Thirst to The Lying Brain, I came across an article regarding lie detection technology and how valid it actually is. I was surprised of how doubtful I became of the technology, which before reading the article I believed was rather advanced and foolproof.

 Some of the major problems with lie detection technology lie in its validity due to countermeasures that interrogated suspects can take. For years, lie detection has consisted of questioning combined with observations of physiological responses. The problem with this form of lie detection is based on how easily physiological responses can be triggered. Subtle, unseen actions such as biting your tongue or pressing your toes into the ground can trigger a physiological response, making each question asked have the same affect on the interrogated individual. In this sense, there is no difference in response between any questions, making it impossible to tell if a person is lying.
         In addition to validity problems, the brain’s unique qualities that vary from person to person raise question as to how scientists can accurately tell what a lie exactly is. Brain altering problems such as depression, personality disorder, and Alzheimer’s disease cause people’s brains to function differently from one another. For scientists to pinpoint a response in the brain to a lie seems rather absurd, as every person’s brain functions slightly differently.

In the article Emerging Technologies for Lie Detection: Promises and Perils, other problems including these are further described. I would highly suggest reading the article, as it not only provides great insight as to what new technology has been developed in the field of neuroscience, but also, the article allows you to form your own opinion on whether or not these technologies should be integrated into our society. 

Interview with Dr. Young Complete

My interview with Dr. Young, neuroscientist at Rutgers University, was an extremely rewarding experience. I was fascinated to learn of his accomplishments throughout his career, as well as his perspective on science research. I would highly suggest anyone interested in the field of neuroscience or spinal cord injury to visit the W.M. Keck Center For Collaborative Neuroscience on Busch Campus. A conversation with Dr. Young or any of his students is sure to inspire any student interested in neuroscience. Below is a segment of the interview between Dr. Young and I.

When dealing with a major issue like spinal cord injury treatment, it is essential that all possible approaches to discovering a cure be considered. I was initially interested in learning about what motivated Dr. Young to pursue his research into finding a cure for people suffering from spinal cord injury, as well as his approach toward research. While Dr. Young was an intern at Bellevue Hospital in 1978, he took care of a seventeen-year-old wrestler who had broken his neck in a wrestling accident. Young, a former wrestler, found it hard to tell the young man’s parents there was nothing that could be done to treat him at the time. “ It always has been the people with spinal cord injury that has driven me to do this research,” Young explains. Considering himself a problem solver, Dr. Young believes instead of specializing in one particular facet of science, it is best to incorporate knowledge from all aspects of science and apply this knowledge toward a particular problem. Dr. Young reminisces of a saying his friend Andrew Blight, a fellow neuroscientist, once said, “ If the only tool you have is a hammer, the only problems you solve are nails. As you can see in our lab, we use microscopy, cell culture, engineering, molecular biology, surgery, etc. We use every technique available to us to solve the problem [of spinal cord injury].” As a teacher, Wise feels it is necessary to teach his students that every problem has multiple solutions, and it is fundamental to learn how to quickly come up with a variety of solutions in order to conduct the best science research. Comfort dealing with a wide variety of research tools allows scientists to apply all facets of science knowledge into formulating a possible solution. Young’s approach toward scientific research incorporates all parts of the spectrum, part of the reason he has been so successful within his field.