Category Archives: Technology

What Should We Do?

Posted on by
Reply

Submitted for publication

I start with the note that the following are my thoughts and my conclusions.  I will also note that I made no use of any AI technology in the creation of this manuscript.

I offered some thoughts on the use of AI technology in “The Questions We Ask AI – https://godandnature.asa3.org/mitchell-questions-for-ai.html.   

I am writing this from the perspective of a chemist and chemical educator.  Those who are in other sciences may have episodes in their lives which echo what I present in this manuscript.

I was also a lay speaker/minister in the United Methodist Church and while that was not part of my teaching, it was part of my thinking.

Why do we “do” science? 

Is it because we can create new things?

Is it because we see a problem and we want to know the answer. 

Or are there other reasons for doing science?

No matter why we “do” science, we must also understand that while science may provide us with an answer, it cannot always answer all the questions we may pose.  We must also understand that the answers we obtain are not always going to be the answers we sought.

And we must also consider that results of our work may lead to consequences that we may not have anticipated when we began our research.

Early in my own studies, I was given the idea that science was neutral.  You “did” science to answer a question or solve a problem.  But science, nor any other subject, can never be neutral, for we use the information we have gained for our own purposes, whatever it may be and whether for good or evil.

What would you do if you discovered something that could make you rich beyond your wildest dreams?  What if it didn’t make you as rich as you might have wanted but it made society better?

In the fourth Star Trek movie, “Voyage Home”, Scotty gives Dr. Nichols the necessary information for making “transparent aluminum” in exchange for some plexiglass panels so the Enterprise crew can make a holding tank for the whales they will transport back to their time to repopulate the species and save the Earth.

Dr. McCoy had promised Dr. Nichols would become rich beyond his wildest dreams if he accepted the information.  He also asked Scotty if, in doing this, they were not changing history’s timeline.  Scott asked, “How do we know that he didn’t develop the process”, thus preserving the timeline.

We are beginning to see such questions arise from the development of AI (artificial intelligence).  While the possibilities for good seem endless, there are too many examples to suggest this approach still has a lot of work before we can rely on it – link to my AI paper. 

When I was still teaching in the classroom, I would spend the first couple of days discussing “The Processes of Science” (The Processes of Science | Thoughts From The Heart On The Left (wordpress.com)).  I did this because most of my students did not understand how science worked and knowing how science worked was essential for success in my courses and in their later coursework and after they got out of school.

One year, during this discussion, one student commented that science had eliminated God from the equation (not his exact words but close to the point).  As many before him, this student pointed out that humankind had long created gods (lower case) to explain natural phenomena and as science developed and began to offer physical explanations for natural phenomena, the need for a god disappeared.  There was only a need for God to explain the material that science could not explain.  The student made the argument that science would ultimately find an explanation for everything and thus God would be eliminated.

I responded by saying that science could not explain the presence of good and evil in the world.  Were good and evil measurable quantities?  Or were they somehow encoded in our DNA?

If good and evil were part of a person’s DNA, what was society going to do?  That is a question that has haunted society since the idea of good and evil were first defined.  And history has shown that bad things happen when society has tried to make evil to the property of being a human being.  As I pointed out to the student, that was a path that I was not willing to go down.

If good and evil are not measurable quantities or part of our DNA, what then are they?  More to the point, what are we to do?

This is not about the concept of free will.  I believe that the choices we make are of our own volition, and based on what we have been taught, knowingly or otherwise.  From my own life experience, I know that, knowingly or otherwise, good and evil can be taught (see https://heartontheleft.wordpress.com/2015/06/21/its-not-about-a-piece-of-cloth/).

What then should we do with the discoveries we make today or will make tomorrow? 

When Alfred Nobel saw the consequences of his inventing dynamite, he created the Nobel Prizes. 

Do we limit what we teach to limit evil? 

Or do we focus on the good and hide the evil?  And who decides what is good and what is evil? 

Do we do something for the good that it provides now and wait to see what happens later?

Do we limit our work today because others may use the results for their own malevolent purposes tomorrow? 

Do we limit our work today knowing that it will make reaching tomorrow harder to reach?

Should we create courses that study the mistakes of our past (Agent Orange and Times Beach, MO; Love Canal, thalidomide) so we do not repeat those mistakes in the future?

Do we see the present and seek options for the future?  (see https://heartontheleft.wordpress.com/2023/03/23/alternative-energy-resources-reading-assignment/ for some thoughts about alternative energy resources).

And while the combination of good and evil may be the result of the “Law of Unintended Consequences”, we must still answer the question, “What should we do?”

We created a class of chemicals now known as “forever chemicals” that had a unique set of properties.  Now we know that those same properties are leading to disturbing environmental questions.  Should there have been more study concerning those environmental questions been completed before releasing the compounds for public use?

Whatever we do, we must first ask what we, individually or collectively, should do?

It should be noted that I have never watched an episode of “Breaking Bad.”  This is because episodes in my life echo much of the plot.

When I began studying chemistry, one major chemical manufacturer’s advertising slogan was “Better living through chemistry.”  Because of many factors, this slogan was changed.

Early in my chemistry career, someone approached me at a party and asked me if I could make them some LSD (lysergic acid diethylamide).  I replied that I could, but it would cost that person $250,000 with ½ up front and ½ upon delivery.  This person was shocked that I would put such a price tag on a reasonably easy synthesis.  To which I replied, if I made this compound, it would probably mean the end of my career, and I wanted to make sure that I was covered. 

What I didn’t tell him was that I really didn’t have the skills, the equipment, or a place to do the work.  This person went looking for someone else to make his life better through chemistry.

A few years later, I was in graduate school.  One morning, there was a note in every graduate student’s mailbox telling them that effective that morning, any materials or chemicals that they might need for their research required a signed note from their research advisor.  It turned out that one of the graduate students had been making amphetamines in his research laboratory.  Since it looked like a typical project, no one questioned what he was doing.

This graduate student was so proud of his work that he bragged about it at a campus watering hole.  The weekend before the memo, the DEA and other law enforcement agencies raided the laboratory, seized his materials and equipment, and arrested him.  His life got worse through chemistry.

In 1986, NOVA broadcast an episode entitled “The Case of the Frozen Addict” (https://archive.org/details/TheCaseoftheFrozenAddict).  It described the health concerns of several addicts who had become “frozen” after taking what they thought was heroin.  It turned out that it was another compound, synthesized by a local chemist. 

This chemist had taken advantage of a loophole in the drug laws by synthesizing a molecule with the properties of heroin but with a different structure.  Unfortunately, the material that was sold on the street was contaminated and the containments caused neurological problems, resulting in the patients being in “frozen” or catatonic state.

The patients were “cured” by treating them as if they were stricken with Parkinson’s disease and several research areas developed from this discovery.  The chemist was arrested on a tax charge (failure to declare income) rather than any drug-related charge (the drug he synthesized was legal under the laws of the time).  While he denied making the drug, it was evident that he was suffering from the same effects from the containment in the product he made.

While an examination of the by-products provided an insight into the onset of Parkinson’s disease and offered a possible pathway for a cure, it also illustrated the problems involved with the synthesis of drugs.

In 1938, Lise Meitner and Otto Hahn published a paper that described nuclear fission and the subsequent release of energy.  At that time, most physicists felt that this would allow nations to develop a weapon of immense destructive power.  Would they have felt this way if the winds of war were not blowing and getting stronger every day? 

Many of those who worked on the development of the first atomic bombs did so because they saw it as a problem to be solved and were appalled at the degree of devastation it wrought and argued against the further development of such weapons.

Others wanted to develop the hydrogen bomb with its increased destructive power, arguing that knowing that the devastation that would come from its use would prevent its use.  We have come to know this as Mutually Assured Destruction, or MAD. 

Others sought to use the promise of unlimited energy in a more controlled manner and develop nuclear power as an energy source, saying that it was cheap and clean.

We have learned that even the peaceful use of nuclear power produces waste that would haunt society for untold generations.

Was the development of atomic weapons and atomic power truly worth the outcome? 

In 1909, Fritz Haber developed a method for converting atmospheric nitrogen into ammonia under high pressure and high temperature with a suitable catalyst.  Carl Bosch took the method Haber had developed and scaled it up to produce ammonia on an industrial basis.  Haber would be awarded the Nobel Prize in chemistry in 1918; Bosch would be awarded the Nobel Prize in chemistry in 1931.

The Haber-Bosch process (named after its inventors) requires high temperatures and high pressures. The cost of production is directly related to the price of fuel; as the cost of fuel rises, so does the cost of fertilizer.

And as we have become accustomed to using ammonia-based fertilizers, we have stripped our farmlands of natural sources of fertilizer. One reason for rotating crops is to allow land to recover from repeated usage.

That is why farmers plan soybeans.  Soybeans are one of the major agricultural crops of this country, not so much for what can be done with them (which is a lot) but for what they do when it is in the field. The soybean plant is one of the few plants that contain a bacterium that take nitrogen from the air and “turns” it into fertilizer.  However, we do not have a complete understanding of how this is done.

Are there other alternatives?  Do these alternatives come with hidden costs?

In 1914, Haber worked on the development of chemical weapons such as chlorine, phosgene, and mustard gas, believing that the development of such weapons could limit or reduce warfare.  And the legacy of the development of chemical weapons during World War I remains with us today.

Regarding war and peace, Haber once said,

“During peace time a scientist belongs to the World, but during war time he belongs to his country.”  This was an example of the ethical dilemmas facing chemists at that time. (Novak, Igor (2011). Science: a many-splendored thing. Singapore: World Scientific. pp.247–316. ISBN 9814304743. Retrieved 16 September 2014 – from Wikipedia)

Do the needs of the country outweigh the needs of society?

Does loyalty to one’s country outweigh loyalty to one’s conscience?

I began this manuscript with the note that I was writing from the standpoint of chemistry and chemical education and my own faith.  These are areas that deal with the future.  The challenge I present to you today is to see how you will prepare your students for the future to maximize the good and minimize the evil.

Will We Have a Future?

Posted on by
Reply

This will appear in the June issue of the Fishkill UMC newsletter.

——————————————————————————————————–

What is your vision for the future?  Do you fear the future or look forward to what it may bring?

My great-great-grandfather John August Schuessler and his twin brother, Nicholas, came to America from Germany in 1840.  I do not have any information about why they came to America or why they moved from New Orleans, their point of entry, up the Mississippi River to St. Louis.  One can assume that they sought to escape the turmoil and war that dominated Europe at that time and seek freedom and a better life in America.

It is a story that most Americans understand.  Many, if not most, Americans have roots in Europe, Africa, Asia, Australia, or South America.  They all came to America because they wanted to escape the troubles of their homeland and seek the freedom and opportunities that America has always offered.

Some 13,000 years before John and Nicholas came to America, another of my ancestors (we have members of the Creek Nation in our heritage) stood with his family and friends on the west end of the land bridge connecting Asia to North America.  All they saw was a wall of ice with an opening that suggested a pathway beyond the ice.  They knew nothing about what lay beyond that imposing wall of ice and it was probably simple curiosity that drove them to see what might be at the end of the corridor.

And while we know that many individuals made the passage across the land bridge before the ice melted and the land bridge disappeared under the waters of the Bering Strait, just as many or perhaps even more turned away, preferring the life they were living over a life in an unknown country.

Today we stand on the edge of an unknown country called the future.  It is a land clouded in the mists of uncertainty and the unknown.  We cannot see what might lie on the other side.

There are some today who feel that the future will bring Armageddon and the destruction of the world.  They do not fear the future because they have “been saved” and will be lifted to Heaven before the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse (conquest, war, famine, and death) reek havoc upon those who are left behind.

But conquest, war, famine, and death are part of the human condition, and we have the capability to prevent them.  (We may not be able to prevent death, but we can work to improve the health of people, and we can seek research to find the cures for many diseases.)

To say otherwise is to say that you have no desire for the future and are, perhaps, only interested in your self-preservation.

There are those today who fear the future because the future brings change.  They have no vision for the future, and as the writer of Proverbs wrote, “those without vision will perish.”  The Message offers “if the people cannot see what God is doing, they stumble over themselves.” (1)

Heraclitus wrote, “No man ever steps into the same river twice, for it’s not the same river and he is not the same man.”  Those who fear the change the future brings feel they can stop the flow of the river.  But when you build a dam to stop the flow of the river, you must spend all your time and resources keeping the dam intact so that it will not break and flood the present, destroying all one tried to save. 

Our journey into the future requires that we have a set of skills that allow us to adapt to the changes that come with the future and faith that will carry us through.  My great-great-grandfather came to America with a set of skills that would allow him to create a new life in America and a strong faith in God (as evident by the number of Lutheran ministers among his descendants).

In 1962, Robert Kennedy said,

The future is not a gift: it is an achievement. Every generation helps make its own future. This is the essential challenge of the present. (2)

Albert Einstein once remarked,

“The world as we have created it is a process of our thinking.  It cannot be changed without changing our thinking.” (3)

We cannot create a vision for the future when people try to take away the tools that will allow us to feed the people, find cures for the diseases that threaten the health of the people of the world(all the people and not just a select few), and remove the causes that allow people to seek conquest and war as the solution to the problems of society.

We cannot create a vision for the future when we, our children, and future generations, do not have the ability to develop the skills that will allow us to solve the problems that will come tomorrow (we can solve today’s problems but even those skills are stripped away).

We cannot create a vision for the future when secular and sectarian fundamentalists demand a society based on a single thought and obedience to those who have that one “true thought”.  The vision for the future will come when there are many thoughts working together.

During his visit to South Africa in 1966, Senator Kennedy said,

The future does not belong to those who are content with today, apathetic toward common problems and their fellow man alike, timid and fearful in the face of new ideas and bold projects. Rather it will belong to those who can blend vision, reason and courage in a personal commitment [- – -]

Our future may lie beyond our vision, but it is not completely beyond our control. It is [ . . .] neither fate nor nature nor the irresistible tides of history, but the work of our own hands, matched to reason and principle, that will determine our destiny. There is pride in that, even arrogance, but there is also experience and truth. In any event, it is the only way we can live. (4)

Today we stand on the edge of an unknown country called the future. 

To borrow a thought from Charles Dickens’ A Tale of Two Cities, the future will either be the best of times or the worst of times.

The future will either be an age of wisdom or an age of foolishness.

The future will either be the epoch of belief or the epoch of incredulity.

It can be the season of light, or it will be a season of darkness.

It will either be the spring of hope or the winter of despair.

Everything lies before us but only if we step into the mists of uncertainty and the unknown.  To take those steps, we must develop the skills and abilities that will provide us with the abilities to solve the problems we encounter.

To take those steps, we must strengthen our faith so that we have the strength to move forward.

To take these steps, we must be a community of all people and not just a select few.

Notes

The Commencement Address I Might Give

Posted on by
Reply

Were I invited to give a commencement address this year, this is what I might say.

I graduated from Nicholas Blackwell High School in 1968.  Historians tell us that 1968 was a year that changed America.  But, as we were in the midst of that year, we did not know that and while certain events had occurred, we had no idea of what was to come.

1968 began with what has become known as the Tet Offensive.  We had been at war in Viet Nam since 1961 (though our involvement probably began as early as 1953).  The Tet Offensive was a coordinated attack by North Vietnamese and Viet Cong forces against population centers in South Viet Nam.

Up until January 1968, the people of the United States had been told that we were winning the war and perhaps with a few more men we could bring it to a successful completion.

This attack caught our military forces completely off guard and, while it was tactical defeat for the North Vietnamese and Viet Cong, it destroyed the image that we were winning this war.  After the Tet Offensive, public opinion began to shift from support for the war to a desire to end the war.

On March 31, 1968, President Johnson spoke to the American people and outlined a plan for a cease fire and the beginning of peace negotiations with the North Vietnamese.  He concluded his speech by announcing that he would not run for reelection as President.

President Johnson was elected in 1964 with one of the biggest election victories in the history of our country.  And with the mandate given to him by the people and with Democratic majorities in the House and Senate, he set out to establish what he called “The Great Society”.

But as the cost of the war increased, both in terms of personnel and finances, his support evaporated, and he felt that he could not run for reelection.

Four days later, on April 4, 1968, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., was assassinated in Memphis.  While his death reverberated across the nation, it was perhaps the loudest in Memphis, my hometown (Where Were You On April 4, 1968?).

This is what we knew as we walked across the stage on graduation night.  Still, as we walked across the stage that night and saw a world in disarray, we also saw a world of promise and opportunity.

But it was a view that was tempered by what we knew and the uncertainty that is always a mark of the future.

We knew that there would be an election in November, but we could not vote and express our thoughts on the direction America should take (the law that lowered the voting age to 18 did go into effect until 1972).

For the young men who walked and were 18 or about to become 18, the walk also meant that we were now faced with the draft and probable deployment to Viet Nam.

As we walked across the stage that night in Memphis, we did not know that Senator Robert Kennedy would be assassinated a few weeks later. 

We did not know that the Democratic National Convention would be marred by riots in the streets of Chicago and the Democratic Party would be almost destroyed by the riots and differences over the war.

We did not know that Richard Nixon would become the Republican candidate for President or that he would win a narrow victory over Hubert Humphrey in November.  We did not know that he would go on to reelection in 1972 with the greatest electoral victory in the history of the country or that his desire for an “imperial Presidency” would lead to the Watergate affair and his resignation in 1974.

And with all the trouble and turmoil, both what we knew and what we didn’t know, 1968 ended on an optimistic note when Frank Borman, Jim Lovell, and William Anders would crew the Apollo 8 spacecraft to the moon and return to earth.  It was the first mission to leave the boundaries of earth’s gravity and marked a four-year period where we explored the moon.

Sadly, just as the Viet Nam war took away many young men and demanded more and more of America’s resources, it would take away our exploration of space.  Our exploration of the moon ended in 1972, and we have not been back since. 

We, as graduates in 1968, were beneficiaries of the science and math explosion that began in 1957 when the Soviet Union launched Sputnik I.  The end of the Apollo program also marked the end of funding for science and math education.

I know that you didn’t expect a history lesson as part of the commencement address, but I wanted you all to have a framework for what lies before you as you shortly walk across this stage.

As you walk across the stage tonight, we are a nation technically at peace.  We have no combat operations taking place, but it is not a peaceful world.  It seems as if war has become the norm and we are the arms supplier to many nations.  I know that many will disagree with me, but we have allowed some of our allies to commit what would have been called war crimes in previous conflicts.  We have allowed innocent people whose only fault was to be in a war zone to be called terrorists to justify the actions of our allies.

We support dictators and tyrants because it serves our interests (or at least the interests of some politicians).  We, or some politicians, are quite willing to repeat the appeasement of Munich in 1938 that destroyed the nation of Czechoslovakia and laid the foundation for World War II simply because they and their minions place their own personal interests before the values of this country.

We say that we are the land of opportunity but call those who seek that opportunity criminals and terrorists.  While Richard Nixon may have secretly subverted the Constitution, we have watched politicians openly subvert the Constitution and other politicians turn a blind eye to the crimes being committed by officials of this country.

We no longer have a viable space program, relying on other countries to send our astronauts into space while turning our space program into a billionaire’s playground.  Just as the rich and powerful exploited the natural resources of this country, I do not doubt that today’s rich and powerful are seeking to find some way to exploit the resources of the moon, Mars, and the asteroids.

One outcome of the diminishing support for science and mathematics education in the 70s was that we now see a growth in disinformation and the apparent lack of discerning what is good and what is bad.  We are seeing the rise in AI technology which, while it seems to have some good, is also capable of generating more disinformation (1).

The dissent that marked 1968 and the years before did not just appear “out of the blue.”  It was, to the dismay of many, the product of an educational system that challenged students to find the answers for themselves. 

Today, many authorities seek to change that system, because they do not want to be challenged in what they do, and they do not want to explain why they feel that only certain individuals are worthy, and all others are not.  Theirs is a system, rigid and unbeing, with allegiance not to the ideas on which this country was founded but allegiance to an individual and his or her supporters.

This is not a pretty picture.  But there is one shining ray of light.  While we who graduated in 1968 could speak out (and many did), we had to rely on others to make the changes that needed to be made, for we did not have the vote.

You, the graduates of 2025, have the vote and that gives you a degree of power that we, the graduates of 1968, did not have.  We have seen in the past few years the results achieved when the youth of the world spoke out.

I challenge you today to speak out against the injustices that you see.  I challenge you today to speak out against the crimes being committed against people whose only crime is that they may have the wrong skin color or the wrong sexual orientation or the lack of money in their back account.

This may be the end of one part of your life, but it is also the beginning of a new chapter.

How you move out into the world that lies beyond this stage, how you respond to the needs of the neighbors, your friends, your family, and the people with whom you share this planet will determine how 2025 will be viewed by historians.

Through your works, your words, your thoughts, and your deeds, 2025 will be known as the year that changed the world.

Notes

A Call to Arms; or, to pen, or voice, or . . .

Posted on by
Reply

The following is from my brother.  Consider what he writes and what he asks us to do.

To all:

America is being tested as it has never been tested since the civil war. We have elected a president, a convicted felon, serial liar, and fraudster, who has openly vowed to destroy our constitution and is in the process of destroying our government:

  • His trillionaire buddy is running wild through our government departments like a spoiled rich kid and now has access to our nation’s most sensitive financial systems.
  • He deliberately appoints unqualified – even dangerously so – people to critical posts who are beholden only to him, not to us.
  • He floats outrageous ideas – Gaza, Greenland, Gulf, and more – to distract us from the carnage he is inflicting on our government, daily, by shuttering entire departments, threatening recriminations, and trying to bully people into quitting.
  • He ordered the release of all the water from two reservoirs in northern California, saying it would be useful in fighting the fires further south when in reality all that water, stored for use in summer irrigation, has been wasted. Thus we see an example of how he intends to punish specific states.
  • He has removed the security details assigned to former officials who he deems disloyal, a chilling act in and of itself.
  • He is trying to purge the DoJ and the FBI and fill each with loyal minions.
  • His people are already talking openly about how to manipulate (or simply ignore) the Constitution, trying to lay the groundwork for his becoming a “president for life.”  If that happens, America would be no different than Oligarchic Russia.  Which seems to be the plan.

This is not insanity; it is a very cold, calculated attempt to destroy our system of government. It is up to us to stop him. All of us. This is not a political issue; it is an American issue. We have to come together as Americans and stop this Man Who Would Be King before the damage he does becomes irrevocable. So what can we do?

  • Listen to people like Senators Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, and Adam Schiff (all have YouTube channels with excellent content); they speak the truth and have workable ideas.
  • Specifically, Bernie recommends contacting your Senator – especially if he or she is a republican – and making your voice heard, politely but firmly. He says they do react and respond to letters and phone calls.
  • I heard that the Senate switchboard ((202) 224-3121)) is flooded and their voice mail is full. Information for contacting US Senators by mail can be found at the Senate website. This is a good way to contact Senators in other states. (I’m not including links in this message because they often get stripped out by various levels of email security.)
  • Watch a YouTube video by Ezra Klein called “Don’t Believe Him.” Klein is a columnist with the New York Times and is one of the most intelligent people in journalism today. His take on all of this is as cogent – and urgent – as any I’ve found.
  • Join an organization. I belong to a union, also to Common Cause, and will be joining the ACLU, whose sworn purpose is to protect and defend the Constitution of this country. Consider People for The American Way, founded by Norman Lear. Find a group whose work you can get behind, give a little money if you can. In unity there is strength.

We are not alone. There is a rapidly growing resistance to trumpism. Just do an internet search.

I believe that republican Senators hold one of the keys here. It will only take a few to stand up and others will follow. Accordingly, I intend to write to every Republican Senator, starting with John Thune (Majority Leader), asking them to stand up to Trump and stand up for America. As in, now. No, they won’t listen to me, as a single person, but the more letters they get, the more they will begin to understand how Americans really feel. When it reaches a critical mass, when they believe that Trump is no longer winning public opinion, they will find their spines again.

It Can’t Happen Here is a 1935 dystopian political novel by Sinclair Lewis. Set in a fictionalized version of the 1930s United States, it follows an American politician who quickly rises to power to become the country’s first outright dictator (in allusion to Adolf Hitler’s rise to power in Nazi Germany). It isn’t the best book Lewis wrote, but it is eerily prescient. Specifically, every move the trumpians make is right out of the Nazi playbook, up to and including The Big Lie. The reality is right in front of us, and if we don’t act America is going to be destroyed.

Reach out to your Republican neighbors and friends and open a dialog . No recrimination, no name calling, but honest questions and honest answers; did they really think this is what they were voting for? If they are hard-core magattes, move on. Contact your republican politicians at every level and let them know in no uncertain terms it is their responsibility to stand up to this encroaching fascism in this country, and that they will be held accountable if they don’t. This isn’t about Democrats or Republicans. This is about America. If we don’t come together and fix it we’re not going to have a country left.

Do you write? Then write an editorial for your local paper (if you still have one), or the paper in your state capital, an epub, find an outlet. Do you sing? May be time to channel a little inner Woodie Guthrie. Paint? Draw? Act? Compose? Preach? Choose a medium and send a message. When we raise our voices as one, we will be heard. Read “Letter From A Birmingham Jail”, or anything by MLK for more ideas and inspiration. Reach out to everyone you know and ask them to do the same.

I don’t know the final answer, but I do know this: we are Americans, and we figure out how to do stuff. So, let’s get with it. They aren’t wasting time; neither can we.

I’m interested in any thoughts you may have about this. Please forward as you see fit. Meanwhile, I’ve got a letter to John Thune to write.

Terry Mitchell

What Is Wisdom?

Posted on by
Reply

This is my contribution to the August issue of the Fishkill UMC newsletter.

Reinhold Niebuhr is credited with a variation of the following:

God grant me the serenity
To accept the things I cannot change;
Courage to change the things I can;
And wisdom to know the difference.

When he became king, Solomon asked God to give him the wisdom needed to make the proper decisions.

The compilers of the Old Testament thought enough of wisdom to include five books (Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes and Song of Songs) devoted to the topic of wisdom.  The wisdom books in the Old Testament offer shift from the historical books that preceeded them and focus on existential questions about God, humanity, Creation, and the nature of evil and suffering.  It focuses on daily human experiences: how is life to be lived?

The wisdom literature of the Old Testament is comparable to other ancient Near Eastern compositions from Mesopotamia and Egypt that reflected on the problems of everyday life.

But this raises the question, “What exactly is wisdom?

Wisdom is the ability to use your knowledge and experience to make good decisions and judgments.  Wisdom involves an integration of knowledge, experience, and deep understanding, as well as a tolerance for the uncertainties of life. There’s an awareness of how things play out over time, and it confers a sense of balance.

Wisdom is an art.  How do we deal with various situations and achieve a good life?  It is by teaching; the lessons gained from experience and transmitted at various levels, from education at home all the way through traditional education processes.

The task of wisdom is often to ask, “What is the best path to walk?”

But wisdom is not something that one automatically gains.  It requires everyone to act.  You must ask questions.

And therein lies the problem.  We have stopped asking questions.  We have allowed others to tell us the answers without stating the questions.

As I have written before, we have become very good at answering the questions when the answer is in the back of the book.  But what will happen when the question asked comes from a book that hasn’t been written yet.

I see in the discussion of “forever chemicals” the results of being unable to answer such questions.  These chemicals have some value for society, but they do not break down over time and remain in the environment forever.  It would seem that when these chemicals were made, the focus was on what the chemicals could do and not what would happen after they were used.

The discussion of climate change is another topic that demands we, the people, ask questions.  There is, in my mind, no doubt as to what is happening to the climate of this planet but too many people are not willing to ask the questions needed to slow down and perhaps, if it is not too late, reverse the changes humankind has made to this world.

Some people would rather we not ask questions.  They will say that asking questions, especially about one’s faith, will lead to a diminished faith.  But asking questions should help one understand their faith.  Go back and read the Book of Job again.  It is a dialogue between Job, Job’s friends, and God that teaches and enlightens everyone, including each of us.

Many years ago, our ancestors were gathered around a fire, perhaps looking at the stars above or perhaps preparing for the next day.  No doubt, some of the children asked the elders, “Where did we come from?”  And the lesson began when one of the elders, answered, “In the beginning . . .”

Some may be satisfied with that answer, but we are curious and want to do more.  And each question that we answer generates two more questions.  And from this our wisdom grows. 

As we grow in wisdom, we find that God values and responds to our questions and wisdom.

The Questions We Ask AI – The Questions AI Answers

Posted on by
2

This is my contribution to the April 2024 Fishkill UMC newsletter; it appears in the Fall 2024 issue of God & Nature.

I am a chemist because of a question I was asked in 1966.  Some questions that I was asked in 1974 and could not answer caused me to evaluate my career path.  (It should be noted that I know the answers to those questions today).  I earned a Ph.D. in science education with an emphasis on chemical education because of some questions I was asking about how students learned chemistry.

I became a lay speaker/servant in the United Methodist Church because, in 1990, I asked myself what the best way was to fulfill the commitment I made in 1965 when I earned the God & Country award.

The path I have walked over these past years was determined, in part, because of the questions I was asked and how I answered them. 

It is perhaps an axiom of research that the answer to one question leads to the development of two new questions.

When chemists were still known as alchemists, they asked the question, “Is there a substance that dissolves everything?”

Can there be a substance that dissolves everything?  If there was, what would you put it in?  Obviously, if this substance dissolves everything, it would dissolve the container you put it in.  It would also dissolve everything which it contacted, creating havoc and destruction.  This leads to two questions.

First, how could we study such a “super solvent’?

Could we use AI systems?  We could provide the AI system with information concerning the nature of solvents, the nature of solutions, information about the nature of materials that make up containers, as well as a discussion of bonding and why containers normally do not react with the materials that are put in them.

AI systems have already been used to “solve” other chemistry questions.  One research group already used an AI system to reconstruct the periodic table from existing data.  However, it was not clear if the results included the noble gases (Stanford AI recreates chemistry’s periodic table of elements | Chemistry – https://chemistry.stanford.edu/news/stanford-ai-recreates-chemistrys-periodic-table-elements).

AI-systems can achieve results that humans may not achieve.  We can set up an AI-system to analyze a series of digital images (such as X-rays, MRI, and CAT scans) to detect the presence of cancer cells at a resolution beyond the capabilities of the human eye.  But to do this, someone must supply the images that have cancer cells so that the system can “learn” what to look for.  If the system does not have this information, it cannot determine what is a cancer cell and what is not.

At the present time, AI systems are not intelligent.  They do not create new information, only copy current information.  It still takes a human to create new information.

While some may use AI systems to write reports, all the system is doing is gathering all the information that can be found on the web that is related to the topic and putting it together in a readable format.  But this system has not created any new information, and, in my opinion, the ability to create new information is one hallmark of intelligence.

Joshua Conrad Jackson, a professor and lead researcher at Chicago Booth, conducted a study about the ability of an AI-system to produce a sermon.  He concluded,

“Our research arrives at a point where automation is pervading every job industry, and it suggests that some professions may not be automated so easily.  Robots may struggle in professions like priests or monks, that require high levels of creativity.” 

see Researchers tried out AI preachers — and it didn’t go so well (zmescience.com)– https://www.zmescience.com/science/news-science/researchers-tried-out-ai-preachers-and-it-didnt-go-so-well/

For all the benefits we might gain, the study of a “super solvent” generates two new questions:

“Why would you want to synthesize such a substance?”

“What value would there be in even designing a substance that might destroy the world?”

AI systems can gather large amounts of data, but it is becoming clear that this process cannot differentiate between good and bad data.  Reports created from this approach contain serious errors, so the veracity of any reports generated may have to be questioned.  A chemistry teacher reported on a Facebook group that their students were using AI-systems to gather information about various chemistry topics, but they were not checking the validity of the information.

AI systems are also being shown to be discriminatory.  Not everyone gains from the use of such systems.  The use of AI systems may only widen the digital divide we see developing today.  In addition, the approach used by AI systems seems to ignore standard privacy protections (granted that even we humans often have this same problem). 

What is to stop AI-systems from being used to develop potentially hazardous materials?

In the end, do the benefits gained from the use of AI systems outweigh the negative values?  Can AI systems be taught to differentiate between good and bad data?  Can AI systems understand the nature of privacy protection and other laws related to the use of personal information?

Notes on AI

I am not opposed to the development of new technologies, such as AI systems, if it will make my work easier to accomplish.  While I tend to prepare the initial drafts of my manuscripts with pen and paper, I do use current technology (personal computer, the Internet, online correspondence, etc.) to share the results of my work.  But the systems that I use only aid in what I do, not do it for me.

In the Star Trek movie “Resurrection”, Sojef, one of the Ba’ku leaders, says to Jean Luc Picard why his group rejected technology.

“We believe that when you create a machine to do the work of a man, you take something away from the man.”

Perhaps the ultimate question that must be asked is “what will the future be?”  Will the future be human driven or technologically driven?  Will it be progressive and positive but will our reliance and possibly subservience lead to the destruction of mankind?

As we move to an even more technologically oriented society, we must not be blinded by the movement.  There must be an active effort to keep humans in the equation and in control, not just part of the solution.

Notes

AI and humanity – Lutheran Alliance for Faith, Science and Technology (luthscitech.org)

What Is Artificial Intelligence? How Does It Work? – Sinai and Synapses

A Path of Science and Faith

Posted on by
1

This is my contribution to the 2024 Religion and Science weekend, sponsored by the Clergy Letter Project, and Boy Scout Sunday. It will also appear in the upcoming February issue of the Fishkill United Methodist Church newsletter.

——————————————————————————————–

I had no idea when I began my journey with Christ back in 1965 where it would lead or what I would do.  It wasn’t until I drove across the plains of north Missouri back in the 1990s that I was reminded that I had entered a covenant with God and that I needed to fulfill my part of the covenant.  I then began exploring ways to become a lay speaker/servant and ultimately a lay minister (A Reminder | Thoughts From The Heart On The Left (wordpress.com) – https://heartontheleft.wordpress.com/2018/02/09/a-reminder/).

Similarly, when I choose to become a chemistry major in 1966, I had no idea what I would do with the degree.  To be honest, on the day I graduated from Truman State University, I thought that I would be going to graduate school at the University of Memphis.  But I received a phone call from a local school district shortly after graduation and, a few hours later, sign a provisional contract to teach chemistry and physical science.  This diversion from graduate school to teaching would provide the impetus for my later graduate studies and the completion of my doctoral studies at the University of Iowa.

In one of my classes at Iowa, we discussed the issues of creationism and intelligent design and the impact these issues would have on science education.  This was not the first time I encountered these issues.   

In 1980, the Missouri state legislature was preparing to pass a bill that would have told biology teachers how to teach biology, by including creationism in the discussion of evolution.  I suppose I could have ignored this because I only taught chemistry, but one must be careful when individuals who do not have any knowledge of the processes of science (“The Processes of Science”) try to tell science teachers what to teach and how to teach it.  I was prepared to resign if the law passed and was surprised to find that my department chairman, a devout Southern Baptist layman and biologist, was also going to resign (No one told me: Thoughts on the relationship of science and faith | Thoughts From The Heart On The Left (wordpress.com) – https://heartontheleft.wordpress.com/2021/07/23/no-one-told-me/). 

I don’t believe that I have ever had a conflict with my faith and my science background.  I accepted the idea that God created the earth and the heavens, but I never accepted the idea that it was done in six days.  And the more I studied things, the more I began to see the hand of God present in creation.

And as my studies and work in the areas of faith and science began to converge (“The Confluence Between Religion and Science” | Thoughts From The Heart On The Left (wordpress.com) – https://heartontheleft.wordpress.com/2019/02/06/the-confluence-between-religion-and-science/) I began to discover two things.

First, those who argue for a science only or faith only approach to life do so only for their own power.  Each group seeks to impose its view on the people as the only acceptable view.

The second thing I discovered was that many of the individuals that I studied in chemistry and physics were men of God as well as men of science (A Dialogue of Science and Faith | Thoughts From The Heart On The Left (wordpress.com) – https://heartontheleft.wordpress.com/2009/12/31/a-dialogue-of-science-and-faith/).

It is entirely possible that I could or would have come to Christ without having been a Boy Scout but that is clearly a question for another time and place. Besides finding a path to God through the God and Country award, I also began to develop an appreciation for the world around us. I cannot call myself an environmentalist but clearly, having seen the beauty of the Rocky Mountains when camping with my troop and seeing the physical wonders of this country and then seeing the awesome view of galaxies far away, I know that there is a Creator out there. And if there is not a Creator, then how was this all done?  (“Removing the Veil” | Thoughts From The Heart On The Left (wordpress.com) – https://heartontheleft.wordpress.com/2013/02/11/removing-the-veil/)

I did not need to know that Boyle and Priestley were men of God to understand their work and what it meant to me as a chemist.  But knowing that their work helped them better understand how God works is also true for me.

Can I use the skills that God gave me (allowing me to use other words from Genesis that state that you and I were created in His image) and begin to work out the mysteries of the universe, from the moment of the Big Bang to the present day and perhaps far into the future?

The author and activist Stephen Mattson wrote.

Some people mistakenly believe that trusting in God requires them to distrust science, history, art, philosophy, and other forms of education, information, and truth.

But intelligence is a friend of faith, and ignorance is its enemy.  God loves knowledge and truth, and any faith that objects to either is terribly misguided.

Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr., wrote,

Science investigates; religion interprets. Science gives man knowledge that is power; religion gives man wisdom that is control. Science deals mainly with facts; religion deals mainly with values. The two are not rivals. They are complementary.

In a world that is fast dividing, it is the joint study of faith and science that will be one means of bringing people together.  For as science brings us knowledge of the physical world, faith brings us an understanding of the spiritual world and together we can bring the world together.

We Are Destroying Our Future.

Posted on by
1

For those who do not know, I am the son of an Air Force officer and the grandson of an Army officer.  I spent most of my pre-college days living on or near Air Force Bases, many of which were prime targets for Soviet missiles (if there was to be a third World War). 

A friend of mine who was married to an Air Force officer told me once that she had been briefed that, in the event of a nuclear attack by the Soviet Union, the western portion of Missouri (where she lived at the time) would be dead within a few moments (because of the Titan II missiles and SAC bomber bases nearby) and the remainder of Missouri would probably be dead from the radioactive fallout within the week.

After a briefing at the beginning of his presidential term, President John Kennedy was told that our response to a Soviet attack would be a full and complete response with all our nuclear weapons, resulting  in the deaths of countless millions.  As he left the briefing, President Kennedy is supposed to have said to Secretary of State Dean Rusk, “and we call ourselves a civilized nation.”

The only thing that kept the Soviet Union and the United States from going to war during the 60s was the doctrine of mutually assured destruction (appropriately named MAD).  Fortunately, for our generation and the ones that followed, this doctrine kept the world at peace, albeit an uneasy one.

Today, while the destruction of the world using nuclear weapons may not be as real as it seemed in the 1960s, it is still a possibility.

We still see violence as the answer to violence.  But violence begats violence. 

From the beginning of humanity, we have sent our children off to war.  If our children are killed on the battlefield, who will be the future?  Remember what the Greek philosopher Herodotus once wrote,

Nobody is stupid enough to prefer war to peace.  Because in times of peace children bury their parents, whereas, on the contrary, in times of war parents bury their children.

And yet, that is what we do.  How can there be a future when there is no one to live in it?

And what of those who come home wounded, sometime physically, sometimes mentally?  It seems, based on our budget priorities, that we tell those who return from the battlefield to take care of themselves for we, as a society, often do not.

We have a budget where we spend more on the military-industrial complex than we do on education and development.  When you spend more on destruction than construction, there will come a time when we will not be able to rebuild this country. 

There is a feeling in this country that the budget for the military-industrial complex cannot be touched or questioned.  Funding the military-industrial complex is a way for legislators to tout their patriotism and ensure their own power and position.  Are not greed and the seeking of power other ways of destroying the future?

When the Apollo 11 mission was launched, there were those who wanted the money spent on the Apollo program to be spent on other social programs.  But this was at a time when the Viet Nam War was stripping our financial and personnel reserves at a much faster rate.  And when it came down to dollars, the Apollo program was cut because the war was becoming too expensive.

And this continues today – we fund the military-industrial complex and cut the funding for social programs.

It is not just the countless and seemingly endless wars that continue to destroy our future.  A greater threat may be our own ignorance. 

We are neglecting this world in which we live, ignoring the damage we have done to the environment, ignoring the sides of change.

We have ignored the health of this planet, this world in which we live, for too long.  Despite the claims of some, climate change is real and, if we do not act immediately, it will not be nuclear war that destroys our future, but our own ignorance.

In a world where more is spent on destruction than construction, where will get the individuals who will rebuild our country?  Where will the spark of creativity come from when monies for creativity and construction are the first to be cut.

It is my opinion that the rise in pseudo-science, climate change deniers, and anti-vaccination proponents can be attributed to a decrease in the funding for schools.

We are neglecting our youth when it comes to their education.  Our schools no longer focus on creativity and free thought, choosing to or being forced to teach the “answers in the back of the book” and not even considering how to solve problems that have not been discovered.

Perhaps because they fear the future, there are those who would prefer that our children and youth not find out who they are but rather conform to a particular set of rules.  But each person is unique, and we have seen what happens when we try to make people conform to one single set of rules.  Those who push for conformity in society do so to hold onto their power and position.

Conformity to a single set of rules ignores and increases the inequalities of society.  For there to be a future, we must be a society of equality, not inequality.

There is a moral factor involved in all of this.  The church today seems rather silent on the issue of war, education, and equality; in fact, many churches seem to want war, no education and inequality, again because it would increase their power and position.

The numbers tell us that people are moving away from the church because it tends to support the status quo.

But it must be the church which speaks out if we are to build the future, not destroy the future.

If we are to build our future, we must, individually and collectively, speak out against a society that places the military-industrial complex before the needs of the people. 

We must, individually and collectively, speak out against an educational system that does little to prepare our children and youth to solve the problems of the future, the problems that are not in the back of the book.

We must, individually and collectively, speak out against a religious system that moves us further from God’s Kingdom through the encouragement of repression and inequality.

The call to build the future is a call that must come from the church.

“I Made a Mistake.”

Posted on by
3

Published in the April 2023 issue of the Fishkill UMC newsletter. Will be published in the Spring 2023 issue of “God and Nature.”

————————————————————————————————————————–

In April 1970, I was a junior at Northeast Missouri State College (now Truman State University).  After a rather tumultuous sophomore year and a change in the academic calendar at the beginning of my junior year, I was beginning to feel things were smoothing out.

But I made a mistake.  The first Earth Day was April 22, 1970, and I ignored it.  In retrospect, I probably should have paid more attention. 

When I began writing this piece, my memories told me that nothing happened on campus. 

But thanks to Dan McGurk, one of the reference librarians at Pickler Memorial Library, I discovered that that it was an announced event, that the town of Kirksville had issued a proclamation in support of the day, and there had been a meeting of some 300 students that focused on the topic.

But my mindset was otherwise.  My academic plan was almost back on track, I was in a relationship, and I was involved in a chemical research project.  Things were looking pretty good.  And we still had the Viet Nam war to worry about (the Kent State Massacre would occur twelve days later, on May 4, 1970).

What I did not realize was that the movement that began that day was a continuation of what I had learned and done while in the Boy Scouts.  Now, I do not consider myself an environmentalist but, as anyone associated with Scouting will tell you, you cannot be involved in Scouting and not come away with an appreciation for the environment.

But one does not have to have been a Scout or be currently involved in Scouting to have an appreciation for the environment.  At the beginning of Creation, God charged humankind to take care of the earth and all that was in it (Genesis 1: 26 – 28).

For a long time, humankind held the view that the charge in Genesis to be good stewards of this world meant that we could do anything we wanted.  We dumped our trash in the streams, the rivers, lakes, and oceans, confident that there was always going to be fresh water left over.  We filled the atmosphere with noxious gases, confident that the atmosphere was big enough to diffuse the pollutants.

In our greed and ignorance, in our lack of care for the welfare of this world, we have sown the seeds of our own destruction.

Perhaps it will not be through nuclear war or some other violent process, but we are beginning to see that if we do not change our ways right now, we will destroy this world and ourselves.

The writers of the Old Testament emphasized that this world was God’s creation and that we must answer to Him when it is done. 

In Deuteronomy, God reminds us to look at what He has done for us.  At the end of the Book of Job, God reminds Job (Job 38: 1 -18) that it was He who was responsible for the creation. 

That alone should remind us of the role science has in our daily lives, for it is through science that we find the ways to take care of this world and those with whom we share its resources and space. 

We are beginning to see that what we once thought were unlimited resources are beginning to run out. 

We are also becoming aware that our continued use of fossil fuels and the emission of “greenhouse gases” such as carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4) have an effect not only on the physical world, but on those who live here as well.  Climate change is not just a science problem; it is a social and economic problem as well.  As the climate changes, this forces changes, welcome or not, on the people of this world. 

We have made great strides in reducing air and water pollution, but we still seem to have a cavalier attitude towards the materials we use to maintain the style of life we seem to desire.

There are solutions to the climate change problem.  There are things that one can do, individually and collectively, to counter the effects of climate change (see How Four Churches Flourish by Caring for Creation – Science for the Church – https://scienceforthechurch.org/2022/10/11/how-four-churches-flourish-by-caring-for-creation/?mc_cid=4c1d68fa2f&mc_eid=a90f1704f9) for a discussion on what individual churches have done.

But is our concern for God’s creation limited to just the physical world?  In Matthew 5: 21 – 29, Jesus speaks of the Ten Commandments and our relationship with others.  Our concern for the Earth must include how we care for those with whom we share this planet.

The solutions offered to offset climate change may not be as optimal as one would like.  It does no good to develop a solution that generates its own source of problems.  (When I was teaching introductory college chemistry courses, I would ask my students to consider the pros and cons for various alternative energy resources – see Alternative Energy Resources Reading Assignment | Thoughts From The Heart On The Left (wordpress.com) – https://heartontheleft.wordpress.com/2023/03/23/alternative-energy-resources-reading-assignment/). For example, there is a push to develop electric cars, but the batteries require minerals that must be extracted from the earth.  And the extraction of those minerals will impact those who live on the lands that will be mined.

The future belongs, as it always has, to the next generation.  But it is our generation that must teach them how to see the future.  But we have lost our ability to imagine and envision the future, preferring to live in the present and teach for the moment.

We have become quite good at answering the questions when the answers are in the back of the book. 

The recent report on the state of the climate tells us that we have time to fix the problems but to do so requires other changes as well.

We will not find the solutions to climate change, what it is doing to this world and the people who live here, in the back of the book because that book hasn’t been written yet.  And unless we change our mindset about the present educational process, that book will not be written.

We once taught people how to think analytically and creatively.  And this allowed us to go to the moon and begin to see what we were doing to this world.  We must return to this style of teaching.

Fifty-three years ago, I made a mistake because I wasn’t paying attention.  But I recognized that I had done so and have worked to correct that mistake.

Today, we have heard the voices of the modern prophets warning that we are about to make the same mistake, of ignoring the signs that we have not cared for the world that has been our task since the beginning days of humankind.    Unless we change what we are doing, unless we find new and innovative ways to meet the needs of society without endangering society, we will find that our vision and the vision of the next generation will be dark and society will come to an end.

I trust that we will not make that mistake.

Alternative Energy Resources Reading Assignment

Posted on by
2

When I was teaching introductory college courses, I would assign a series of reading assignments to be completed during the semester (in the old days, this was called “writing across the curriculum” and sometimes caused ripples because some never thought that one could do so in a chemistry class, let alone a science class.)

This particular assignment was developed about twenty years ago, but I think that it is still viable today.

————————————————————————————————————————–

What are the advantages and disadvantages for each of the following processes with reference to power production? 

  1. List the major advantages and disadvantages for nuclear fusion and nuclear fission. Which of the two is currently in use in this country and where is it being used?
  2. List the major advantage and disadvantages for using solar energy in power production.
  3. Summarize the major advantages and disadvantages of the widespread use of wind power.
  4. Identify the major advantages and disadvantages of geothermal energy.
  5. What is a fuel cell? What are the advantages of fuel cells in terms of power production?

Based on your study and evaluation of the various alternative energy sources currently available, what are your conclusions about the options available to your generation?

Notes for the alternative energy resources reading assignment.

I first offered the following areas as topics for consideration in the teaching of science in In my blog post “Thoughts on the Nature of Teaching Science in the 21st Century.” 

  1. Energy – not only energy production today but energy sources (renewable and non-renewable) for tomorrow
  2. Global warming – if there was ever a topic that called for the public to have a knowledge of science and its role in society, it is global warming.  (“Earth’s Dashboard Is Flashing Red—Are Enough People Listening?)
  3. Environmental chemistry – how we view recycling and what can go into landfills and what cannot; this would also include acid rain. I might point out that there was an article in The Journal of Chemical Education some years ago in which the instructor posed the question about the cost of recycling. The essence of the problem was “what to do with some Co2+ solution that was left after an analytical problem. Should the solution be diluted to a safe level and disposed of by pouring down the drain or shipped off as liquid waste; should it be precipitated and shipped off to a landfill as solid waste; or should it be recycled and used again during the next semester. The calculations for this problem are typical calculations for an introductory chemistry course and one can set up the calculations to be dependent on the size of the class. The only information that an instructor would be need would be the cost of the original raw materials as well the cost of shipping liquid and solid wastes. And, from the numbers of times that I asked my students to do these calculations, it always appears that that recycling is the best solution. (“The Educational Case for Recycling”)
  4. The role of chemicals in our environment – I would include the issue of mercury and mercury compounds in the preservation of vaccines and what this may or may not do. I would also include the use of the word “organic” to mean pesticide and insecticide free produce (when all foods are organic in nature).
  5. The debate for free thought in the classroom – if I was a biologist, I might have entitled this the creation/evolution debate. But to me, this issue has several impacts besides biology; it goes to the issue of free thought and what our responsibilities as scientists and educators should be. It also speaks to how we, individually, believe.

————————————————————————————————————————–

I will be referencing this page in an upcoming post – “I Made a Mistake.”