Science – Page 3 – Renaissance Guy

Incremental Progress Part 1 – Fundraising Burnout

Today we’re trying something a little bit different. The conference I recently attended has given me lots of ideas along similar lines for things to write about, mostly centered around the notion of medical progress, which incidentally seems to have become a recurring theme on this blog. Based on several conversations I had at the conference, I know that this topic is important to a lot of people, and I have been told that I would be a good person to write about it.

Rather than waiting several weeks in order to finish one super-long post, and probably forget half of what I intended to write, I am planning to divide this topic into several sections. I don’t know whether this approach will prove better or worse, but after receiving much positive feedback on my writing in general and this blog specifically, it is something I am willing to try. It is my intention that these will be posted sequentially, though I reserve the right to Mix that up if something pertinent crops up, or if I get sick of writing about the same topic. So, here goes.

“I’m feeling fundraising burnout.” Announced one of the boys in our group, leaning into the rough circle that our chairs had been drawn into in the center of the conference room. “I’m tired of raising money and advocating for a cure that just isn’t coming. It’s been just around the corner since I was diagnosed, and it isn’t any closer.”

The nominal topic of our session, reserved for those aged 18-21 at the conference, was “Adulting 101”, though this was as much a placeholder name as anything. We were told that we were free to talk about anything that we felt needed to be said, and in practice this anarchy led mostly to a prolonged ritual of denouncing parents, teachers, doctors, insurance, employers, lawyers, law enforcement, bureaucrats, younger siblings, older siblings, friends both former and current, and anyone else who wasn’t represented in the room. The psychologist attached to the 18-21 group tried to steer the discussion towards the traditional topics; hopes, fears, and avoiding the ever-looming specter of burnout.

For those unfamiliar with chronic diseases, burnout is pretty much exactly what it sounds like. When someone experiences burnout, their morale is broken. They can no longer muster the will to fight; to keep to the strict routines and discipline that is required to stay alive despite medical issues. Without a strong support system to fall back on while recovering, this can have immediate and deadly consequences, although in most cases the effects are not seen until several years later, when organs and nervous tissue begin to fail prematurely.

Burnout isn’t the same thing as surrendering. Surrender happens all at once, whereas burnout can occur over months or even years. People with burnout don’t necessarily have to be suicidal or even of a mind towards self harm, even if they are cognizant of the consequences of their choices. Burnout is not the commander striking their colors, but the soldiers themselves gradually refusing to follow tough orders, possibly refusing to obey at all. Like the gradual loss of morale and organization by units in combat, burnout is considered in many respects to be inevitable to some degree or another.

Because of the inherent stigma attached to medical complications, it is always a topic of discussion at large gatherings, though often not one that people are apt to openly admit to. Fundraising burnout, on the other hand, proved a fertile ground for an interesting discussion.

The popular conception of disabled or medically afflicted people, especially young people, as being human bastions of charity and compassion, has come under a great deal of critique recently (see The Fault in Our Stars, Speechless, et al). Despite this, it remains a popular trope.

For my part, I am ambivalent. There are definitely worse stereotypes than being too humanitarian, and, for what it is worth, there does seem to be some correlation between medical affliction and medical fundraising. Though I am inclined to believe that attributing this correlation to the inherent or acquired surplus of human spirit in afflicted persons is a case of reverse causality. That is to say, disabled people aren’t more inclined to focus on charity, but rather that charity is more inclined to focus on them.

Indeed, for many people, myself included, ostensibly charitable acts are often taken with selfish aims. Yes, there are plenty of incidental benefits to curing a disease, any disease, that happens to affect millions in addition to oneself. But mainly it is about erasing the pains which one feels on a daily basis.

Moreover, the fact that such charitable organizations will continue to advance progress largely regardless of the individual contributions of one or two afflicted persons, in addition to the popular stereotype that disabled people ought naturally to actively support the charities that claim to represent them, has created, according to the consensus of our group, at least, a feeling of profound guilt among those who fail to make a meaningful contribution. Which, given the scale on which these charities and research organizations operate, generally translates to an annual contribution of tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars, plus several hours of public appearances, constant queries to political representatives, and steadfast mental and spiritual commitment. Thus, those who fail to contribute on this scale are left with immense feelings of guilt for benefiting from research which they failed to contribute towards in any meaningful way. Paradoxically, these feelings are more rather than less likely to appear when giving a small contribution rather than no contribution, because, after all, out of sight, out of mind.

“At least from a research point of view, it does make a difference.” A second boy, a student working as a lab technician in one of the research centers in question, interjected. “If we’re in the lab, and testing ten samples for a reaction, that extra two hundred dollars can mean an extra eleventh sample gets tested.”

“Then why don’t we get told that?” The first boy countered. “If I knew my money was going to buy another extra Petri dish in a lab, I might be more motivated than just throwing my money towards a cure that never gets any closer.”

The student threw up his hands in resignation. “Because scientists suck at marketing.”

“It’s to try and appeal to the masses.” Someone else added, the cynicism in his tone palpable. “Most people are dumb and won’t understand what that means. They get motivated by ‘finding the cure’, not paying for toilet paper in some lab.”

Everyone in that room admitted that they had felt some degree of guilt over not fundraising more, myself included. This seemed to remain true regardless of whether the person in question was themselves disabled or merely related to one who was, or how much they had done for ‘the cause’ in recent memory. The fact that charity marketing did so much to emphasize how even minor contributions were relevant to saving lives only increased these feelings. The terms “survivor’s guilt” and “post-traumatic stress disorder” got tossed around a lot.

The consensus was that rather than act as a catalyst for further action, these feelings were more likely to lead to a sense of hopelessness in the future, which is amplified by the continuously disappointing news on the research front. Progress continues, certainly, and this important point of order was brought up repeatedly; but never a cure. Despite walking, cycling, fundraising, hoping, and praying for a cure, none has materialized, and none seem particularly closer than a decade ago.

This sense of hopelessness has lead, naturally, to disengagement and resentment, which in turn leads to a disinclination to continue fundraising efforts. After all, if there’s not going to be visible progress either way, why waste the time and money? This is, of course, a self-fulfilling prophecy, since less money and engagement leads to less research, which means less progress, and so forth. Furthermore, if patients themselves, who are seen, rightly or wrongly, as the public face of, and therefore most important advocate of, said organizations, seem to be disinterested, what motivation is there for those with no direct connection to the disease to care? Why should wealthy donors allocate large but sill limited donations to a charity that no one seems interested in? Why should politicians bother keeping up research funding, or worse, funding for the medical care itself?

Despite having just discussed at length the dangers of fundraising burnout, I have yet to find a decent resolution for it. The psychologist on hand raised the possibility of non-financial contributions, such as volunteering and engaging in clinical trials, or bypassing charity research and its false advertising entirely, and contributing to more direct initiatives to improve quality of life, such as support groups, patient advocacy, and the like. Although decent ideas on paper, none of these really caught the imagination of the group. The benefit which is created from being present and offering solidarity during support sessions, while certainly real, isn’t quite as tangible as donating a certain number of thousands of dollars to charity, nor is it as publicly valued and socially rewarded.

It seems that fundraising, and the psychological complexities that come with it, are an inevitable part of how research, and hence progress, happens in our society. This is unfortunate, because it adds an additional stressor to patients, who may feel as though the future of the world, in addition to their own future, is resting on their ability to part others from their money. This obsession, even if it does produce short term results, cannot be healthy, and the consensus seems to be that it isn’t. However, this seems to be part of the price of progress nowadays.

This is the first part of a multi-part commentary on patient perspective (specifically, my perspective) on the fundraising and research cycle, and more specifically how the larger cause of trying to cure diseases fits in with a more individual perspective, which I have started writing as a result of a conference I attended recently. Additional segments will be posted at a later date.

Lessons From Reunion

So, this weekend I attended Cornell reunion with my family. Here are the key lessons:

1) Science is continuing to accelerate, despite political pushback.

2) College students are wily, especially the girls. Do not underestimate them.

3) I need a new phone yesterday.

Let’s start from the beginning, and work our way down, shall we?

1) Science is continuing to accelerate, despite political pushback.

Sometimes I wonder whether fields like veterinary science get too much prestige for the amount of actual groundbreaking work they do. And then they bring in a pair of puppies to the donor gala I was attending; the first puppies ever to have been created via in vitro fertilization. They seemed just like any other dogs, to the point that I felt compelled to double check my own pictures against those in the scientific journals just to be sure I wasn’t being duped.

Pictured: The most adorable breakthrough in recent memory

This is, naturally, a huge step for veterinary science, but also a significant step for medicine in general. Humans and dogs share a lot of genetic code, including many genetic diseases, and being able to clone and genetically modify puppies, aside from producing absolutely adorable results, will yield valuable information on treatments for humans. Additionally, as one who had played the fundraising game, I must say, kudos. Bringing puppies who are both adorable and a product of a major scientific breakthrough is rather brilliant.

I was a little unsure about how different things would be this year, given the open hostility between the presidential administration and academia. It feels as though last June was a lifetime ago, and that since then the world has only gone downhill. And so seeing a good showing of support for the sciences was a great boost to morale. Seeing large attendance and participation at space sciences open house, and massive lines for lectures by Bill Nye is, I firmly believe, a good sign for the cause of humanity.

Given my health situation, I put a lot of my hope for a better future, and indeed, having a future at all, in continued scientific advancement. As I noted in my last post, most of this progress is out of my hands, and relies on large, systemwide cooperation. Having these systemwide mechanisms under threat, therefore, as they have been within the past six months, is not only threatening to humanity’s future overall, but to my personal existence. Having public reaffirmation of the value of science and rational thought, therefore, is very reassuring.

2) College students are wily, especially the girls. Do not underestimate them.

Okay, so I already knew this. Still, I was reminded to be on my guard. Allow my to recount a story:

T’was the last night of reunion, and there I was, sitting against the base of the statue of A.D. White, getting my bearings as I treated my low blood sugar, my brother sitting beside me. In such a state, I could conceivably be mistaken as slightly intoxicated, especially given that the tents which were giving out free alcohol to those who had reunion badges. The dance music and shouts from the tents was audible, and the sense of celebratory gluttony was palpable. Between me and the tents was a checkpoint, with security guards inspecting badges.

Pictured: “Ain’t no party like a Cornell party ‘cos a Cornell party don’t stop” (Direct quote)

Theoretically, such badges were only given to alumni who had paid full registration price, and who had already proven they were of drinking age. As it were, both my brother and I had been given adult badges despite being underage, owing to the fact that our registration desk had run out of youth badges. Because the badges were supposed to work as ID throughout campus, and because both my brother and I were now shaving, it seemed to me quite likely that if we were to with confidence and self assurance, stride up to the checkpoint for admission, that we would be allowed in.

From the darkness into our midst came two figures, one in the lead a short blonde lady who could have been anywhere between eighteen and twenty five to look at her, with a taller, scruffy gentleman in tow. Both were dressed up in the usual style of young people out for a night of entertainment and diversion. The lady approached with the air of an old friend, though I don’t believe I had ever seen her before, coming just close enough to make it clear that she was addressing us, without coming so close as to put herself within immediate striking distance.

She smiled and leaned forward in a maneuver that amplified the visual effect of her deep neckline, and for a moment I was moved to wonder if I was wearing or else doing something that might be construed as suggesting that I was looking to solicit romantic overtures.

“Hey guys,” she crooned in a tone that made me wonder if she was about to begin twirling her hair, just to complete the picture.

I don’t remember whether my brother or I actually responded with words, or whether the mere reaction of our expressions caused her to deduce that she had captured our expression. Regardless, she immediately continued with her proposition.

“Could you lend us your badges so we could use them to get in?”

Again, I don’t consciously remember either me or my brother saying anything. She continued in the same coquettish voice that made me question whether her tone was meant to be a parody; a détournement of the stereotype of the young blonde.

“We’ll throw them back over the fence after we’re through, so you can follow after us.”

The pieces began to come together as my brain overcame its momentary surprise and the lingering effects of low blood sugar. I glanced at the checkpoint, and the plastic mesh fence, reinforced by occasional metal posts, and lined with rope lights to prevent drunken collisions, that ran the perimeter of the quad. It was a decent plan in theory, though I couldn’t see any part of the fence that was obviously obscured from the view of the guards. There was also the matter of subversion, and aiding what was most likely underage drinking. Though I have become accustomed to the fact that many people, especially youth, will inevitably seek to indulge in reckless behavior against medical and legal recommendations, actively enabling such self destruction is another matter entirely.

While I could not participate in such acts, I did give consideration to attempting to stall out the conversation; demanding lengthy assurances and ridiculous payments for my cooperation which would never come; the endgame being that if I could stall for long enough, they would waste time they might otherwise spend committing fraud and alcohol abuse, and perhaps, if I was effective enough, grow frustrated enough to give up on their plan entirely.

“We can get them back to you.” The gentleman standing further behind her stammered in assurance. “Are you leaving right after this?”

I assessed my position: They most likely assumed that my hypoglycemia-induced pallor was due to drunkenness, which would work in my favor. I could be crass, unreasonable, and incoherent without tipping my hand. The gentleman seemed to be unsure and hesitant, which I could use. If the lady was attempting to persuade us by employing stereotypical feminine charms, and appearing unreasonably affectionate and extroverted, I could likewise act cordial and complaisant to a fault. With a lifetime of experience in public speaking and soliciting donations, I was reasonably confident in my ability to filibuster. Any physical confrontation which my words might lead to would be quickly ended by the security at the nearby checkpoint.

Alas, I did not get to execute my plan, as before I could speak, my brother, ever the Boy Scout, answered that we were both underage, and couldn’t get in ourselves. The second point may or may not have been strictly true, as we did technically have adult badges, we never actually tried to get past the checkpoint, and in the entire time we sat near it, I never saw anyone turned back who had a badge, regardless of how old or young they looked. Still, it was enough for the two figures.

The lady’s coy smile evaporated in a second. “Oh. Well then, you’re no help.” She waved a hand dismissively and stalked off back into the darkness. The gentleman lingered for a moment longer, muttering something that sounded like “thanks anyways” scarcely loud enough to be heard above the noise of the music.

I find this story both intensely amusing, and a nice reminder that, despite insistence that new college students are lazy, unmotivated, and unable to execute schemes, there is still plenty of craftiness on modern campuses.

3) I need a new phone yesterday.

Shortly after this incident, I opted to check my phone, only to discover that it had spontaneously died. This, after being charged to ninety four percent a ,ere twenty minutes ago. For a device on which I routinely depend to make medical dosage calculations, look up nutritional information, and contact assistance during emergencies, this kind of failure is unacceptable. This isn’t the first time that such a thing has happened, though it is the first time it has happened outside of my house.

As such, I am in the market for a new phone. Or perhaps more accurately, given that I am about to embark on summer travels, I need a new phone in my hands as soon as possible. Given the usual timeframe for me to make major decisions, this means that in order to get my phone on time, I really need to have started on this process a couple of weeks ago, in order to have had my hands on the new phone yesterday, in order to have enough time to get contacts switched over, get used to the new phone, and so on.

Overall, Reunion was great fun as always, despite a few minor incidents. This year in particular, it was nice to spend a weekend in an environment surrounded by intelligent, cultured people in a setting where such traits are unambiguously valuable. And of course, having been taught the Cornell songs since I was newborn (my mother used Evening Song as a lullaby), the music is always fun.

Environmentalist Existentialist

Within the past several days, several of my concerns regarding my contribution to the environment have gone from troubling to existentially crippling. This has a lot to do with the recent announcement that the US federal government will no longer be party to the Paris Climate Agreement, but also a lot to with the revelation that my personal carbon footprint is somewhere between four and five times the average for a US resident, roughly nine times the average for a citizen living in an industrialized nation, about twenty five times the average for all humans, and a whopping forty seven times the target footprint which all humans will need to adopt to continue our present rate of economic growth and avoid a global cataclysm. Needless to say, this news is both sobering and distressing.

As it were, I can say quite easily why my footprint is so large. First, there is the fact that the house I live in is terribly, awfully, horrifically inefficient. With a combination of poor planning and construction, historically questionable maintenance, and periodic weather damage from the day I moved in, the house leaks energy like a sieve. The construction quality of the foundation and plumbing is such that massive, energy-sucking dehumidifiers are required to keep mold to tolerable minimums. Fixing these problems, though it would be enormously expensive and disruptive, would go some way towards slashing the energy and utility bills, and would shave a good portion of the excess off. By my back of the envelope calculations, it would reduce the household energy use by some 35% and the total carbon footprint by about 5%.

There is transportation, which comprises some 15-20% of the total. While there is room for improvement here, the nature of my health is such that regular trips by private motor vehicle is a necessity. Public transport infrastructure in my area is lacking, and even where it exists, is often difficult to take full advantage of due to health reasons. This points to a recurring theme in my attempts to reduce the environmental impact which I inflict: reducing harm to the planet always ends up taking a backseat to my personal health and safety. I have been reliably told that this is the way that it ought to be, but this does not calm my anxieties.

The largest portion of by carbon footprint, by an overwhelming margin, is the so-called “secondary” footprint; that is, the additional carbon generated by things one buys and participates in, in addition to things one does. So, for example, if some luxury good is shipped air mail from another continent, the secondary footprint factors in the impact of that cargo plane, even though one was not physically on said plane. This isn’t factored into every carbon footprint calculator, and some weight it differently than others. If I were to ignore my secondary footprint entirely , my resulting impact would be roughly equivalent to the average American (though still ten times where it needs to be to avoid cataclysm).

Of my secondary footprint, the overwhelming majority is produced by my consumption of pharmaceutical products, which, it is noted, are especially waste-prone (not unreasonably; given the life-and-death nature of the industry, it is generally accepted that the additional waste created by being cautious is worth it). Herein lies my problem. Even if I completely eliminated all other sources of emissions, the impact of my health treatments alone would put me well beyond any acceptable bounds. Expending fewer resources is not realistically possible, unless I plan to roll over and stop breathing.

The implications for my largely utilitarian moral framework are dire. If, as it seems, thirty people (or three average Americans) could live comfortably with the same resources that I expend, how can I reasonably justify my continued existence? True, this isn’t quite so clear cut as one person eating the food of thirty. Those numbers represent averages, and all averages have outliers. Carbon output reduction isn’t a zero-sum game, but rather a collective effort. Moreover, the calculation represents averages derived from current industrial processes, which will need be innovated on a systemwide level to make the listed goals achievable on the global level which is required to prevent cataclysm.

These points might be more assuring if I still had faith that such a collective solution would in fact be implemented. However, current events have called this into serious question. The Paris Climate Agreement represents a barest minimum of what needs to be done, and was specifically calibrated to have a minimal impact on economic growth. The United States was already ahead of current targets to meet its obligations due to existing forces. While this does reinforce the common consensus that the actual withdrawal of the US will have a relatively small impact on its contribution to environmental damage, it not only makes it easier for other countries to squirm their way out of their own obligations by using the US as an example, but also demonstrates a complete lack of the scientific understanding, political comprehension, and international good faith which will be necessary to make true progress towards averting future cataclysm.

That is to say, it leaves the burden of preventing environmental catastrophe, at least in the United States, in the hands of individuals. And given that I have almost as much (or, as it happens, as little) faith in individuals as I do in the current presidential administration, this means in effect that I feel compelled to take such matters upon myself personally. Carrying the weight of the world upon my shoulders is a feeling that I have grown accustomed to, particularly of late, but to have such a situation where these necessary duties are openly abandoned by the relevant authorities makes it seem all the more real.

So, now that I have been given the solemn task of saving the world, there are a few different possibilities. Obviously the most urgent problem for me is solving my own problems, or at least, finding a way to counteract their effects. For a decent chunk of cash, I could simply pay someone to take action on my behalf, either by planting trees, or offering startup cash for projects that reduce carbon emissions somewhere else in the world, so that the net impact is zero. Some of these programs also hit two birds with one stone by targeting areas that are economically or ecologically vulnerable, doing things like boosting crop yields and providing solar power to developing communities. While there is something poetic about taking this approach, it strikes me as too much like throwing money at a problem. And, critically, while these services can compensate for a given amount, they do not solve the long-term problem.

Making repairs and upgrades to the house will no doubt help nudge things in the right direction. Putting up the cash to properly insulate the house will not only save excess heating fuel from being burned, but will likely result in the house staying at a more reasonable temperature, which is bound to help my health. Getting out and exercising more, which has for a long while now been one of those goals that I’ve always had in mind but never quite gotten around to, particularly given the catch-22 of my health, will hopefully improve my health as well, lessening the long term detriments of my disability, as well as cutting down on resources used at home when indoors (digital outdoors may still outclass physical outdoors, but also sucks up a lot more energy to render).

This is where my efforts hit a brick wall. For as busy as I am, I don’t actually do a great deal of extraneous consumption. I travel slightly less than average, and like most of my activities, my travel is clustered in short bursts rather than routine commutes which could be modified to include public transport or ride sharing. A personal electric vehicle could conceivably cut this down a little, at great cost, but not nearly enough to get my footprint to where it needs to be. I don’t do a great deal of shopping, so cutting my consumption is difficult. Once again, it all comes back to my medical consumption. As long as that number doesn’t budge, and I have no reason to believe that it will, my carbon footprint will continue to be unconscionably large.

There are, of course, ways to play around with the numbers; for example, capping the (absurd) list price of my medications according to what I would pay if I moved back to Australia and got my care through the NHS (for the record: a difference of a factor of twenty), or shifting the cost from the “pharmaceuticals” section to the “insurance” section, and only tallying up to the out of pocket maximum. While these might be, within a reasonable stretch, technically accurate, I feel that they miss the point. Also, even by the most aggressively distorted numbers, my carbon footprint is still an order of magnitude larger than it needs to be. This would still be true even if I completely eliminated home and travel emissions, perhaps by buying a bundle package from Tesla at the expense of several tens of thousands of dollars.

The data is unequivocal. I cannot save the world alone. I rely on society to get me the medical supplies I require to stay alive on a daily basis, and this dependence massively amplifies my comparatively small contribution to environmental destruction. I feel distress about this state of affairs, but there is very little I can personally do to change it, unless I feel like dying, which I don’t, particularly.

This is why I feel disproportionately distressed that the US federal government has indicated that it does not intend to comply with the Paris Climate Agreement; my only recourse for my personal impact is a systematic solution. I suppose it is fortunate, then, that I am not the only one trying to save the world. Other countries are scrambling to pick up America’s slack, and individuals and companies are stepping up to do their part. This is arguably a best case scenario for those who seek to promote climate responsibility in this new era of tribalist politics.

Something Old, Something New

It seems that I am now well and truly an adult. How do I know? Because I am facing a quintessentially adult problem: People I know; people who I view as my friends and peers and being of my own age rather than my parents; are getting married.

It started innocently enough. I became first aware, during my yearly social media purge, in which I sort through unanswered notifications, update my profile details, and suppress old posts which are no longer in line with the image which I seek to present. While briefly slipping into the rabbit hole that is the modern news feed, I was made aware that one of my acquaintances and classmates from high school was now engaged to be wed. This struck me as somewhat odd, but certainly not worth making a fuss about.

Some months later, it emerged after a late night crisis call between my father and uncle, that my cousin had been given a ring by his grandmother in order to propose to his girlfriend. My understanding of the matter, which admittedly is third or fourth hand and full of gaps, is that this ring-giving was motivated not by my cousin himself, but by the grandmother’s views on unmarried cohabitation (which existed between my cousin and said girlfriend at the time) as a means to legitimize the present arrangement.

My father, being the person he was, decided, rather than tell me about this development, to make a bet on whether or not my cousin would eventually, at some unknown point in the future, become engaged to his girlfriend. Given what I knew about my cousin’s previous romantic experience (more in depth than breadth), and the statistics from the Census and Bureau of Labor Statistics (see info graphic above), I gave my conclusion that I did not expect that my cousin to become engaged within the next five years, give or take six months [1]. I was proven wrong within the week.

I brushed this off as another fluke. After all, my cousin, for all his merits, is rather suggestible and averse to interpersonal conflict. Furthermore, he comes from a more rural background with a strong emphasis on community values than my godless city-slicker upbringing. And whereas I would be content to tell my grandmother that I was perfectly content to live in delicious sin with my perfectly marvelous girl in my perfectly beautiful room [2], my cousin might be otherwise more concerned with traditional notions of propriety.

Today, though, came the final confirmation: wedding pictures from a friend of mine I knew from summer camp. The writing is on the wall. Childhood playtime is over, and we’re off to the races. In comes the age of attending wedding ceremonies and watching others live out their happily ever afters (or, as is increasingly common, fail spectacularly in a nuclear fireball of bitter recriminations). Naturally next on the agenda is figuring out which predictions about “most likely to succeed” and accurate with regards to careers, followed shortly by baby photos, school pictures, and so on.

At this point, I may as well hunker down for the day that my hearing and vision start failing. It would do me well, it seems, to hurry up and preorder my cane and get on the waiting list for my preferred retirement home. It’s not as though I didn’t see this coming from a decade away. Though I was, until now, quite sure that by the time that marriage became a going concern in my social circle that I would be finished with high school.

What confuses me more than anything else is that these most recent developments seem to be in defiance of the statistical trends of the last several decades. Since the end of the postwar population boom, the overall marriage rate has been in steady decline, as has the percentage of households composed primarily of a married couple. At the same time, both the number and percentage of nonfamily households (defined as “those not consisting of persons related by blood, marriage, adoption, or other legal arrangements”) has skyrocketed, and the growth of households has become uncoupled from the number of married couples, which were historically strongly correlated [3].

Which is to say that the prevalence of godless cohabitation out of wedlock is increasing. So too has increased the median age of first marriage, from as low as eighteen at the height of the postwar boom, to somewhere around thirty for men in my part of the world today. This begs an interesting question: For how long is this trend sustainable? That is, suppose the current trend of increasingly later marriages continues for the majority of people. At some point, presumably, couples will opt to simply forgo marriage altogether, and indeed, in many cases, already are in historic numbers [3]. At what point, then, does the marriage age snap back to the lower age practiced by those people who, now a minority, are still getting married early?

Looking at the maps a little closer, an few interesting correlations emerge [NB]. First, States with larger populations seem to have both fewer marriages per capita, and a higher median age of first marriage. Conversely, there is a weak, but visible correlation between a lower median age of first marriage, and an increased marriage per capita rate. There are a few conclusions that can be drawn from these two data sets, most of which match up with our existing cultural understanding of marriage in the modern United States.

First, marriage appears to have a geographic bias towards rural and less densely populated areas. This can be explained either by geography (perhaps large land area with fewer people makes individuals more interested in locking down relationships), or by a regional cultural trend (perhaps more rural communities are more god-fearing than us cityborne heathens, and thus feel more strongly about traditional “family values”.

Second, young marriage is on the decline nationwide, even in the above mentioned rural areas. There are ample potential reasons for this. Historically, things like demographic changes due to immigration or war, and the economic and political outlook have been cited as major factors in causing similar rises in the median age of first marriage.

Fascinatingly, one of the largest such rises seen during the early part of the 20th century was attributed to the influx of mostly male immigrants, which created more romantic competition for eligible bachelorettes, and hence, it is said, caused many to defer the choice to marry [3]. It seems possible, perhaps likely even, that the rise of modern connectivity has brought about a similar deference (think about how dating sights have made casual dating more accessible). Whether this effect works in tandem with, is caused by, or is a cause of, shifting cultural values, is difficult to say, but changing cultural norms is certainly also a factor.

Third, it seems that places where marriage is more common per capita have a lower median age of first marriage. Although a little counterintuitive, this makes some sense when examined in context. After all, the more important marriage is to a particular area-group, the higher it will likely be on a given person’s priority list. The higher a priority marriage is, the more likely that person is to want to get married sooner rather than later. Expectations of marriage, it seems, are very much a self-fulfilling prophecy.

NB: All of these two correlations have two major outliers: Nevada and Hawaii, which have far more marriages per capita than any other state, and fairly middle of the road ages of first marriage. It took me an unconscionably long time to figure out why.

So, if marriage is becoming increasingly less mainstream, are we going to see the median age of first marriage eventually level off and decrease as this particular statistic becomes predominated by those who are already predisposed to marry young regardless of cultural norms?

Reasonable people can take different views here, but I’m going to say no. At least not in the near future, for a few reasons.

Even if marriage is no longer the dominant arrangement for families and cohabitation (which it still is at present), there is still an immense cultural importance placed on marriage. Think of the fairy tales children grow up learning. The ones that always end “happily ever after”. We still associate that kind of “ever after” with marriage. And while young people may not be looking for that now, as increased life expectancies make “til death do us part” seem increasingly far off and irrelevant to the immediate concerns of everyday life, living happily ever after is certainly still on the agenda. People will still get married for as long as wedding days continue to be a major celebration and social function, which remains the case even in completely secular settings today.

And of course, there is the elephant in the room: Taxes and legal benefits. Like it or not, marriage is as much a secular institution as a religious one, and as a secular institution, marriage provides some fairly substantial incentives over simply cohabiting. The largest and most obvious of these is the ability to file taxes jointly as a single household. Other benefits such as the ability to make medical decisions if one partner is incapacitated, to share property without a formal contract, and the like, are also major incentives to formalize arrangements if all else is equal. These benefits are the main reason why denying legal marriage rights to same sex couples is a constitutional violation, and are the reason why marriage is unlikely to go extinct.

All of this statistical analysis, while not exactly comforting, has certainly helped cushion the blow of the existential crisis which seeing my peers reach major milestones far ahead of me generally brings with it. Aside from providing a fascinating distraction, pouring over old reports and analyses, the statistics have proven what I already suspected: that my peers and I simply have different priorities, and this need not be a bad thing. Not having marriage prospects at present is not by any means an indication that I am destined for male spinsterhood. And with regards to feeling old, the statistics are still on my side. At least for the time being.

Works Consulted

Effron, Chloe, and Caitlin Schneider. “At What Ages Do People First Get Married in Each State?” Mental Floss. N.p., 09 July 2015. Web. 14 May 2017. <http://mentalfloss.com/article/66034/what-ages-do-people-first-get-married-each-state>.

Masteroff, Joe, Fred Ebb, John Kander, Jill Haworth, Jack Gilford, Bert Convy, Lotte Lenya, Joel Grey, Hal Hastings, Don Walker, John Van Druten, and Christopher Isherwood. Cabaret: original Broadway cast recording. Sony Music Entertainment, 2008. MP3.

Wetzel, James. American Families: 75 Years of Change. Publication. N.p.: Bureau of Labor Statistics, n.d. Monthly Labor Review. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Mar. 1990. Web. 14 May 2017. <https://www.bls.gov/mlr/1990/03/art1full.pdf>.

Kirk, Chris. “Nevada Has the Most Marriages, but Which State Has the Fewest?” Slate Magazine. N.p., 11 May 2012. Web. 14 May 2017. <http://www.slate.com/articles/life/map_of_the_week/2012/05/marriage_rates_nevada_and_hawaii_have_the_highest_marriage_rates_in_the_u_s_.html>.

Tax, TurboTax – Taxes Income. “7 Tax Advantages of Getting Married.” Intuit TurboTax. N.p., n.d. Web. 15 May 2017. <https://turbotax.intuit.com/tax-tools/tax-tips/Family/7-Tax-Advantages-of-Getting-Married-/INF17870.html>.

The Antibiotic Apocalypse and You

Following up on the theme established inadvertently last week: I’m still sick, though on the whole, I’m probably not feeling worse, and possibly arguably marginally better. In an effort to avoid the creativity-shattering spiral that happens when I stop writing altogether, this week I will endeavor to present some thoughts on a subject which I have been compelled to be thinking about anyway: Antibiotics.

A lot of concerns have been raised, rightfully, over the appearance of drug-resistant pathogens, with some going so far as to dub the growing appearances of resistant bacteria “the antibiotic apocalypse”. While antibiotic resistance isn’t a new problem per se, the newfound resistance to our more powerful “tiebreaker” drugs is certainly a cause for concern.

In press releases from groups such as the World Health Organization and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, much of the advice, while sound, has been concentrated on government organizations and healthcare providers. And while these people certainly have more responsibility and ability to react, this does not mean that ordinary concerned citizens cannot make a difference. Seeing as I am a person who relies on antibiotics a great deal, I figured I’d share some of the top recommendations for individuals to help in the global effort to ward off antibiotic resistance.

Before going further, I am compelled to restate what should be common sense: I don’t have actual medical qualifications, and thus what follows is pretty much a re-hash of what other experts have given as general, nonspecific information. With this in mind, my ramblings are no substitute for actual, tailored medical advice, and shouldn’t be treated as such.

Before you’re put on antibiotics

1) Stay home when you’re sick

This one is going to be repeated, because it bears repeating. Antibiotic resistant strains spread like any other illness, and the single best way to avoid spreading illness it to minimize contact with other people. Whether or not you are currently infected with antibiotic-resistant illness; in fact, whether or not you even have an illness that is treatable by antibiotics; staying at home when you’re sick will help you get better sooner, and is the single most important thing for public health in general.

2) Wash hands, take your vitamins, etcetera.

So obviously the best way to deal with illness is to avoid spreading it in the first place. This means washing your hands frequently (and properly! Sprinkling on some room temperature water like a baptism for your hands isn’t going to kill any germs), preparing food to proper standards, avoiding contact with sick people and the things they come in contact with, eating all of your vegetables, getting your vaccinations, you get the picture. Even if this doesn’t prevent you from getting sick, it will ensure that your immune system is in fighting shape for if you do.

3) Know how antibiotics work, and how resistance spreads

Remember high school biology? This is where all that arcana comes together. Antibiotics aren’t a magical cure-all. They use specific biological and chemical mechanisms to target specific kinds of organisms inside you. Antibiotics don’t work on viruses because they aren’t living organisms, and different kinds of antibiotics work against different diseases because of the biological and chemical distinctions.

Understanding the differences involved when making treatment decisions can be the difference between getting effective treatment and walking away unharmed, and spending time in the hospital to treat a resistant strain. Antibiotic resistance is a literally textbook example of evolution, so understanding how evolution works will help you combat it.

Public understanding of antibiotics and antibiotic resistance is such a critical part of combating resistance that it has been named by the World Health Organization as one of the key challenges in preventing a resistant superbug epidemic.

4) Treat anyone who is on antibiotics as if they were sick

If someone is on antibiotics and still doesn’t feel or seem well (and isn’t at home, for some reason), you’re going to want to take that at face value and keep your distance. You can also kindly suggest that they consider going home and resting. If you become sick after contact with such persons, be sure to mention it to your doctor.

If they’re feeling otherwise fine, you want to treat them as if they were immunocompromised. In other words, think of how you would conduct yourself health-wise around a newborn, or an elderly person. Extra hand-washing, making sure to wipe down surfaces, you get the picture. If they’re on antibiotics preventatively for a chronic immunodeficiency, they will appreciate the gesture. If they’re recovering from an acute illness, taking these extra precautions will help ensure that they don’t transmit pathogens and that their immune system has time to finish the job and recover.

5) Never demand antibiotics

I’ll admit, I’m slightly guilty of this one myself. I deal with a lot of doctors, and sometimes when I call in for a sick-day consult, I get paired with a GP who isn’t quite as experienced with my specific medical history, who may not have had time to go through my whole file, and who hasn’t been in close contact with my other dozen specialist doctors. Maybe they don’t recognize which of my symptoms are telltale signs for one diagnosis or another, or how my immunology team has a policy of escalating straight to a fourteen day course, or whatever.

I sympathize with the feeling of just wanting to get the doctor to write the stupid prescription like last time so one can get back to the important business of wasting away in bed. However, this is a problem. Not everyone is as familiar with how antibiotics work and with the intricacies of prescribing them, and so too often when patients ask for antibiotics, it ends up being the wrong call. This problem is amplified in countries such as the United States where economics and healthcare policies make it more difficult for doctors to refuse. This is also a major issue with prescription painkillers in the United States. So, listen to your doctor, and if they tell that you don’t need antibiotics, don’t pressure them.

Bear in mind that if a doctor says you don’t need antibiotics, it probably means that antibiotics won’t help or make you feel any better by taking them either, and could cause serious harm. For reference, approximately one in five of all hospital visits for drug side effects and overdoses are related to antibiotics.

It should go without saying that you should only get antibiotics (or any medication, really) via a prescription from your doctor, but apparently this is a serious enough problem that both the World Health Organization and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention feel the need to mention this on their patient websites. So, yeah. Only take the drugs your doctor tells you to. Never take antibiotics left over from previous treatment, or from friends. If you have antibiotics left over from previous treatment, find your local government’s instructions for proper disposal.

If you are prescribed antibiotics

1) Take your medication on schedule, preferably with meals

Obviously, specific dosing instructions overrule this, but generally speaking, antibiotics are given a certain number of times per day, spaced a certain number of hours apart, and on a full stomach. Aside from helping to ensure that you will remember to take all of your medication, keeping to a schedule that coincides with mealtimes will help space dosages out and ensure that the antibiotics are working at maximum efficiency.

Skipping doses, or taking doses improperly vastly increases both the likelihood of developing resistant pathogens, and the risk of side effects.

2) Take probiotics between dosages

Antibiotics are fairly indiscriminate in their killing of anything it perceives as foreign. Although this makes them more effective against pathogens, it can also be devastating to the “helpful bacteria” that line your digestive tract. To this end, most gastroenterologists recommend taking a probiotic in between dosages of antibiotic. Aside from helping your body keep up it’s regular processes and repair collateral damage faster, this also occupies space and resources that would otherwise be ripe for the taking by the ones making you sick.

3) Keep taking your antibiotics, even if you feel well again

You can feel perfectly fine even while millions of hostile cells linger in your body. Every hostile cell that survives treatment is resistant, and can go in to start the infection all over again, only this time the antibiotic will be powerless to halt it. Only by taking all of your antibiotics on the schedule prescribed can you ensure that the infection is crushed the first time.

Furthermore, even though you may feel fine, your immune system has been dealt a damaging blow, and needs time to rebuild its forces. Continuing to take your antibiotics will help ensure that your weakened immune system does not let potentially deadly secondary infections slip through and wreak havoc.

4) Stay Home and Rest

Is this message getting through yet?

If you are on antibiotics, it means your body is engaged in a struggle, and it needs all of your resources focused on supporting that fight. Even the most effective antibiotics cannot eliminate every hostile cell. You immune system plays a vital role in hunting down and eliminating the remaining pathogens and preventing these resistant strains from multiplying and taking hold. In the later stages of this fight, you may not even feel sick, as there are too few resistant cells to cause serious damage. However, unless all of them are exterminated, the fight will continue and escalate.

Ideally, you should stay at home and rest for as long as you are taking antibiotics. However, since antibiotics are often given in courses of fourteen and twenty one days, this is impossible for most adults. At a barest minimum, you should stay home until you feel completely better, or until you are halfway done with your course of antibiotics, whichever is longer.

If you do return to your normal routine while taking antibiotics, keep in mind that you are still effectively sick. You should therefore take all of the normal precautions: extra hand washing, wiping down surfaces, extra nutrition and rest, and the like.

5) If you don’t feel better, contact your doctor immediately

Remember: Antibiotics are fairly all or nothing, and once an illness has developed a resistance to a specific treatment, continuing that line of treatment is unlikely to yield positive results and extremely likely to cause increased resistance to future treatment. Obviously, antibiotics, like any course of treatment, take some time to take effect, and won’t make you feel suddenly completely better overnight. However, if you are more than halfway through your treatment course and see no improvement, or feel markedly worse, this could be a sign that you require stronger medication.

This does not mean that you should stop taking your current medication, nor should you take this opportunity to demand stronger medication (both of these are really, colossally bad ideas). However, you should contact your doctor and let them know what’s going on. Your doctor may prescribe stronger antibiotics to replace your current treatment, or they may suggest additional adjunctive therapy to support you current treatment.

Works Consulted

“Antibiotic resistance.” World Health Organization. World Health Organization, n.d. Web. 28 Apr. 2017. <http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/antibiotic-resistance/en/>.

Freuman, Tamara Duker. “How (and Why) to Take Probiotics When Using Antibiotics.” U.S. News & World Report. U.S. News & World Report, 29 July 2014. Web. 28 Apr. 2017. .

“About Antibiotic Use and Resistance.” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 16 Nov. 2016. Web. 28 Apr. 2017. <https://www.cdc.gov/getsmart/community/about/index.html>.

Commissioner, Office Of the. “Consumer Updates – How to Dispose of Unused Medicines.” U S Food and Drug Administration Home Page. Office of the Commissioner, n.d. Web. 28 Apr. 2017. <https://www.fda.gov/forconsumers/consumerupdates/ucm101653.htm>.

NIH-NIAID. “Antimicrobial (Drug) Resistance.” National Institutes of Health. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, n.d. Web. 28 Apr. 2017. <https://www.niaid.nih.gov/research/antimicrobial-resistance>.

On 3D Printing

As early as 2007, futurists were already prophesying about how 3D-printers would be the next big thing, and how the world was only months away from widespread deployment. Soon, we were told, we would be trading files for printable trinkets over email as frequently as we then did recipes and photographs. Replacing broken or lost household implements would be as simple as a few taps on a smartphone and a brief wait. It is ten years later, and the results are mixed.

The idea of fabricating things out of plastics for home use is not new. The Disney home of the future featured custom home fabrication heavily, relying on the power of plastics. This was in 1957*. Still, the truly revolutionary part of technological advancement has never been the limited operation of niche appliances, but the shift that occurs after a given technology becomes widely available. After all, video conferencing in the loosest sense has been used by military, government, and limited commercial services since as early as World War II, yet was still considered suitably futuristic in media up until the early years of the new millennium.

So, how has 3D-printing fared as far as mass accessibility is concerned? The surface answer seems to be: not well. After all, most homes, my own included, do not have 3D printers in them. 3D-printed houses and construction materials, although present around the world, have not shaken up the industry and ended housing shortages; though admittedly these were ambitious visions to begin with. The vast majority of manufacturing is still done in faraway factories rather than in the home itself.

On the other hand, perhaps we’re measuring to the wrong standard. After all, even in the developed world, not everyone has a “regular” printer. Not everyone has to. Even when paper documents were the norm rather than online copies, printers were not universal for every household. Many still used communal library or school facilities, or else used commercial services. The point, as far as technological progress is concerned, is not to hit an arbitrary number, or even percentage of homes with 3D printers in them, but to see that a critical mass of people have access to the products of 3D printing.

Taking this approach, let’s go back to using my own home as an example. Do I have access to the products of 3D printing? Yes, I own a handful of items made by 3D printers. If I had an idea or a need for something, could I gain access to a 3D printer? Yes, both our local library, and our local high school have 3D printers available for public use (at cost of materials). Finally, could I, if I were so disposed, acquire a 3D printer to call my own? Slightly harder to answer, given the varying quality and cost, but the general answer is yes, beginner 3D printers can now be purchased alongside other hardware at office supply stores.

What, then, have been the results of this quiet revolution? One’s answer will probably vary wildly depending on where one works and what one reads, but from where I stand, the answer as been surprisingly little. The trend in omnipresent availability and endless customizability for items ordered on the internet has intensified, and the number of people I know who make income by selling handicrafts has increased substantially, but these are hardly effects of 3D printing so much as the general effects of the internet era. 3D printing has enabled me to acquire hard protective cases for my medical equipment. In commercial matters, it would seem that 3D printing has become a buzzword, much like “sustainable” and “organic”.

Regarding the measuring of expectations for 3D printing, I am inclined to believe that the technology has been somewhat undermined by the name it got. 3D printers are not nearly as ubiquitous as printers still are, let alone in their heyday, and I do not expect they will become so, at least not in the foreseeable future. Tying them to the idea of printing, while accurate in a technical sense, limits thinking and chains our expectations.

3D printers are not so much the modern equivalent to paper printers so much as the modern equivalents of fax machines. Schools, libraries, and (certain) offices will likely continue to acquire 3D printers for the community, and certain professionals will have 3D printers, but home 3D printing will be the exception rather than the rule.

The appearance of 3D printing provides an interesting modern case study for technologies that catch the public imagination before being fully developed. Like the atomic future of the 1950s and 1960s, there was a vision of a glorious utopian future which would be made possible in our lifetimes by a technology already being deployed. Both are still around, and do provide very useful services, but neither fully upended life as we know it and brought about the revolutionary change we expected, or at least, hoped for.

Despite my skepticism, I too hope, and honestly believe, that the inexorable march of technology will bring about a better tomorrow. That is, after all, the general trend of humanity over the last 10,000 years. The progress of technology is not the sudden and shiny prototypes, but the widespread accessibility of last year’s innovations. 3D printing will not singlehandedly change the world, nor will whatever comes after it. With luck, however, it may give us the tools and the ways of thinking to do it ourselves.

* I vaguely recall having seen ideas at Disney exhibits for more specific 3D-printing for dishes and tableware. However, despite searching, I can’t find an actual source. Even so, the idea of customized printing is definitely present in Monsanto’s House of the Future sales pitch, even if it isn’t developed to where we think of 3D-printing today.

Keeping Promises

I have just been informed of a setback to one of the research programs which I have had my eye on as a possible answer to my disability. The setback is not a natural discovery of some scientific obstacle, but rather a political hurdle put in place by the new American presidential administration.

A researcher who had been tapped to work in the United States on curing several deadly disease, including tuberculosis, rheumatoid arthritis, and Type 1 Diabetes, was denied boarding in Frankfurt on the grounds that she was an Iranian national [1][2].

What ever happened to “a big, fat beautiful door right in the middle of the wall” for the “good people” who “have recommendations from people”? This is, after all, the alleged basis for the new executive orders [3]. The researcher in question held a doctorate from the École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne, and was slated to work at Harvard on the personal recommendation of Dr. Soumya Raychaudhuri. Does this not sound like a good person wth recommendations?

This isn’t a question of how to process those who have come to the US illegally. This is someone whose visa was approved, who had even traveled to the US previously [1][2]. This is about America keeping its promises. Because if the United States government decides it can get away with breaking its word whenever it feels like it, how are foreign governments supposed to trust that the US will uphold its end of the bargain when, say, negotiating trade deals, or even security treaties? How are foreign leaders supposed to trust our dealmaker in chief when he decides to renegotiate all of current treaties? This is already in the minds of our European allies, who see this kind of promise-breaking as a destabilizing move [4].

Moreover, if the US government decides it can break its own rules when dealing with foreigners, what is to stop it from deciding it has to keep its promises to its own citizens? We don’t have to imagine an answer, because the State Department has already given us one, saying the dual citizens will be subject to the ban [5].

That is to say that American citizens who are of certain ancestry will not be permitted reentry to the country. This is, frankly, horrifying, and, perhaps ironically, makes me glad I have a second passport. Although I do not plan to leave the country over this latest debacle, I can now say with confidence which I would pick if forced to choose.

Works consulted:

1) Kliff, Sarah. ““But I have a valid visa:” An Iranian researcher barred from flying to US for new job.” Vox 28 Jan. 2017: n. pag. Web.

2) Gans, Felicia. “‘I told him I do have a valid visa, but he told me that it doesn’t matter.’.” Boston Globe. N.p., 29 Jan. 2017. Web. 29 Jan. 2017.
https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2017/01/28/told-him-have-valid-visa-but-told-that-doesn-matter/yttREc10s5cc7yjX3d48hJ/story.html

3) Johnson, Kevin R. “Trump’s ‘Big, Beautiful Door’ Is a Big, Beautiful Step in the Right Direction.” Time. N.p., 29 Oct. 2015. Web. 29 Jan. 2017. <http://time.com/4092571/republican-debate-immigration/>.

4) Smale, Alison. “European Leaders Reject Trump’s Refugee Ban as Violating Principle.” The New York Times. N.p., 29 Jan. 2017. Web. 29 Jan. 2017. <https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/29/world/europe/trump-executive-order-europe-merkel.html?_r=0>.

5) Jordan, Miriam, Ian Lovett, and Alejandro Lazo. “Donald Trump’s Immigration Order Sparks Confusion, Despair at Airports.” The Wall Street Journal. N.p., 29 Jan. 2017. Web. 29 Jan. 2017. <http://www.wsj.com/articles/donald-trumps-immigration-order-sparks-confusion-despair-at-airports-1485709114>.

Engineering Equality

If you didn’t know already, I occasionally advocate for causes I believe in. More rarely, I go so far as to actually volunteer to go meet with people. I am not exactly a people person, so I take these kinds of engagements quite seriously. One particular role I have played is acting as an effective salesperson for the Nightscout Foundation. Amid other things, one of the activities I do is show people how to build little battery powered LED lights from off-the-shelf hardware components. It’s meant to be a proof of concept, as our foundation is a maker-movement DIY group. The notion is that if you can assemble a simple LED with a little instruction, you have all the qualifications to go on and build anything. If you can build this, you can engineer your own solutions to your chronic illness.

For the adults and those who are interested in our foundation, it provides a great segue into talking about building your own treatment setups. For the kids and the casual observers, it’s a great feel-good moment and a pleasant memento. But being a DIY engineering project, even if a relatively simple and small scale one, has inspired a great variety of reactions in a great variety of people.

Some you might expect. For example, kids tend to be more enthralled with the idea of a fun project than the adults, who are by and large more interested in free stuff. These are trade shows where we’re presenting, after all. Some are a bit less expected though.

For one thing, I’ve distinctly noticed that some of our oldest visitors also seem to be the most interested in building something themselves. I had one elderly lady at the American Diabetes Association conference. She had a walker and wore an eyepatch on one eye, a pair of thick glasses over both. Her hands shook as she tried to grip the components. In her place, I might have well given up. Yet she persisted in doing it herself. Seeing the LED bulb light up, she herself lit up to match.

At the same conference was a man in a wheelchair. His hat proclaimed he was a Veteran of several different conflicts. He did not seem awfully happy to be at that particular conference on that day. Yet he was overjoyed to be able to build a simple little gadget, which he used to decorate his own wheelchair. After completing his first one, a red bulb, my mother pointed out that he ought to build a green bulb one as well, for port and starboard on his wheelchair. He agreed wholeheartedly. I don’t think I have ever seen a man more proud of his wheelchair.

Another demographic trend which I have noticed recently, which I would not have expected but perhaps should not be so surprised at: I have noticed that while children of both sexes participate in roughly equal numbers, on the whole, the girls have seemed more interested. It’s hard to quantify and difficult to explain, but I see more of that familiar gleam – that hope – when I give my whole spiel about being able to build anything.

This is of particular interest to me, because this anecdotal experience seems to be in line with some of the larger picture about STEM-related skills in American students. The data, which admittedly is still quite limited, has suggested that young girls may actually be better equipped in terms of scientific than their male counterparts, at least at a young age. This, despite overwhelmingly male-dominated workplaces in STEM fields.

There are of course other possibilities. Perhaps girls at trade shows are simply more interested because it is an arts and crafts project as much as an engineering one. Perhaps they see other people wearing their LEDs and don’t want to miss out on the latest fashion. But I don’t think so. Also, it’s worth nothing, none of these scenarios are mutually exclusive.

If this pattern is true, then it points to some very dark truths about our society and culture. It suggests that not only are we shortchanging women, and likely also many other traditionally marginalized groups, but from a technological development standpoint, we are robbing the world of their opportunity to improve life for everyone. Still, I remain hopeful. We can’t undo the past, and we can’t change our social order and culture overnight, but we can set a positive example and improve outreach. For my part, I intend to continue my work promoting DIY engineering solutions. Do It Yourself is, after all, completely gender neutral and inclusive.

The truth is that the solution to achieving genuine equality- between genders, ages, races, and all the other things that divide us – lies in enabling those that are interested and able to access the necessary resources to advance both themselves, and humanity as a whole. The solution to equality lies not in legislation, but in education. Only by encouraging self-motivated DIY engineers can we expect to achieve the egalitarian dream that we have for so long been promised.

Scientific Optimism

This past week I had the honor of attending Neil deGrasse Tyson’s 2016 Year in Review lecture alongside several comrades from our local astronomy club. While I’m not sure I can genuinely say I learnt anything I didn’t already know, it was nonetheless engaging to have the major successes and failures of the past year presented by one who has played such a large role in moving science into the popular vogue.

Science in pop culture was, in fact, one of the main topics of the lecture. The consensus reached was that while there remains a great deal to be done in terms of science literacy, being able to inspire people to be excited about scientific discoveries in the same way that people become excited about new blockbuster movies or the Oscars is a major step in reinvigorating the zeitgeist which enabled such massive leaps in scientific exploration and discovery of the 1960s and 70s. The photo above is from one such effort- Tyson’s cameo appearance in Zoolander 2.

There were, of course, less optimistic moments. Astrophysics has not been exempt from the slew of deaths that 2016 hath wrought, and concerns about the political situation, in particular the election of new leaders who have publicly denied scientific consensus on issues such as climate change and the origins of the cosmos, were overtly mentioned.

“Florida is basically at sea level, so Florida will be the first to go.” Tyson said in response, citing the elevation and terrain of the state in relation to rising sea levels. “That’s where his golf courses are. It’s going to be pretty hard for him to swim from hole to hole, and say it’s a Chinese hoax.”

While not exactly reassuring for the short term, this reflects the kind of quiet optimism that dominated the talk. It was reiterated that it does not particularly matter whether or not politicians deign to believe in scientific fact. Those who refuse to believe in observable phenomena will continue to be proven wrong. So long as they do not attempt to legislate their wrongness, or to use it to supplant the facts, he stated, we need not be particularly concerned with what others believe.

I have strongly mixed feelings about this attitude, as I fear it breeds complacency and elitism of the kind that has contributed to the political divide in this country, and which has been blamed partially for the rise of the “alt-right” and “post-truth” enclaves. In point of fact, I had the opportunity to discuss this point with a former member of the Clinton campaign shortly after the results of the election. I was adamant that it did not particularly matter the religious beliefs of those who had been elected; that it was their duty to govern based on the facts, and not what people claimed they wanted.

“That attitude is why Trump won.” He stated solemnly.

While I appreciate having faith that the scientific process will prevail, I think faith that people will always accept results is misplaced. Whether or not there is an objective truth to the universe one way or another, the fact remains that human observation and understanding of reality is colored and limited by our individual perceptions of reality. If human understanding, therefore, is limited by human perception, it is critical that we ensure that human perception is up to snuff.

While it may not be necessary for an absolute consensus on all subjects, if human progress is to be made most efficient, then it is necessary that enough people have an understanding of the facts to both make informed decisions on a political and social level, and to ensure the timely application of new discoveries on a technological and industrial level. In other words, in order for science and technology to genuinely improve our lives, it is required that they be widely understood enough to be applied. Prospective entrepreneurs need to be aware of technology in order to exploit it, and investors need to understand what there is to be gained by putting capital into cutting edge fields.

This, interestingly enough, was also touched upon in the talk, albeit not directly, when discussing the Nobel prizes awarded this year. The prizes awarded in physics had something to do with the geometric patterns of ultra-thin sheets of carbon; something which seems to most of us quite arcane and esoteric. To someone making a living in construction or farming, or even law or medicine, this work has no apparent application, and indeed might seem like a waste of effort to pursue; certainly not something work winning a Nobel prize over. Professor Tyson explained that this was precisely the same position that quantum physics was in through the first half of the 20th century. In contrast, today roughly a third of the world’s GDP relies directly on the discoveries of quantum physics.

In a perfect world, the truth would be easily recognizable when seen for the first time, and scientists and their followers could rest secure in the knowledge that their discoveries would be disseminated and understood without conscious effort. Unfortunately, we do not live in such a world. While I do fully expect that science and technology will continue advancing regardless of the sociopolitical climate, it remains paramount that we continue our efforts to ensure that the largest number of people are educated to a level to understand and participate in mankind’s drive for advancement. The battle for hearts and minds today is not merely a matter of determining research funding for the next four years, although this is certainly relevant; it is a matter of determining who will be in a position to make tomorrow’s next great discoveries and breakthroughs. It is in the interests of all humanity for that number of people to be as large as possible.

In closing, I would like to mention a brief incident which transpired towards the end of the event. Having finished with the main lecture, the floor was opened up to questions from the audience. A flamboyantly dressed man took the microphone, stating that he had “travelled over many thousands of miles” to present Dr. Tyson with a disc containing evidence he had collected while crossing the Nevada desert, of something in the sky “unlike any system we’ve ever seen”. The room was silent as the man explained that he had taken the evidence to various news outlets, and to NASA, all of whom had turned him away. Ever the scientist, Tyson explained that, while skeptical that such an alien phenomenon as the man seemed to imply would not have also been noticed by many others, he would nonetheless accept the disk and review it.

After the whole thing had finished, the astronomy teacher who had been with us asked us what we had taken away. My response was unequivocally that, should it come to pass in two weeks or so, that an announcement is made from NASA or the like regarding the discovery of extraterrestrial life, we would know that the man was right, and we would all have been present for a critical moment in scientific history. That notion is perhaps more inspiring than anything else that evening; that such a discovery could conceivably be made within our lifetime, and that, by being up to date and educated, we might be able to share in the new discovery. This is why I feel science literacy is critical to our future – because it will enable such terrific discoveries, and increase the likelihood that they will have a positive benefit on all of us.