Denis Overbye of the New York Times writes, “What is science’s rightful role in society?” According to Overbye, science is silent on pressing topics such as the effectiveness of mutually assured destruction as a strategy for deterring nuclear war, the morality of same sex marriages, and other critical issues. With similar concerns to Overbye, Einstein said, “I have never obtained any ethical values from my scientific work.” Unlike Einstein, however, Overbye does believe science has taught us something about values: “honesty, doubt, respect for evidence, openness, accountability and tolerance and indeed hunger for opposing points of view” are hallmarks of scientific work. The collaborative working environment on the Large Hardon Collider where people of all faiths have come together to solve one of life’s greatest mysteries is one salient example of this.
Do these attributes characteristic of science sound familiar? Overbye thinks so – democracy contains some of these same traits, and, as a result, he claims that science and democracy have a unique relationship. “[Democracy] thrives on the willingness to embrace debate and respect one another and the freedom to shun received wisdom.” In this regard, science and democracy are “twins”. Science allows democracy to flourish and democracy allows science to prosper. With the exception of controversial topics (e.g., stem cell research) the United States has allowed science to thrive in its open, free and democratic society. In contrast, despite China’s vast resources, its progress in science has been stymied by its closed society, where debate is frowned upon.
With this relationship between science and democracy in mind, the experience of the past eight years is telling. Over these years, we have seen the deterioration of the EPA, an at best minimal relationship between the president and his science advisor, and an administration that silenced scientists such as Dr. Hansen, and believed man has nothing to do with global warming. Overbye concludes with a telling remark from a Mao from 1955, “Let a hundred flowers bloom, let a hundred schools of thought contend.” In this same light, Overbye wonders how our “own wild and beautiful garden” will grow under the new administration.
Click here to view the video of the panel discussion, featuring John Gearhart, Director, Institute for Regenerative Medicine and the James W. Effron University Professor, University of Pennsylvania, and Amy Comstock Rick, President, Coalition of the Advancement of Medical Research.
A summary of the report follows:
“The incoming Obama administration must outline new federal research and funding oversight guidelines for embryonic stem cell research that are cautious and principled.”
Normalize stem cell research guidelines.
NIH as informed by the National Academies and the International Society for Stem Cell Research should create guidelines for stem cell research.
Donated embryonic stem cells must be created at in vitro fertilization clinics with full consent from donors with no financial incentives given to donors.
Following the guidelines in the report, “[Stem cell research] requirements should be codified in legislation by the 111th Congress and become law so that future presidents can not obstruct this research.” The report continues, “The legislation should provide broad, principled, ethical standards so that the science itself can evolve in that experimentation takes it.”
A summary of the panel discussion follows:
Note - Gearheart was a member of one of two teams ten years ago that first identified and isolated stem cells. Further, he assisted the Clinton administration creating the initial guidelines for stem cell research.
Gearhart – On what we know about embryonic cells – “They have the ability to create everything in the human body.”
Gearhart – “The goal is to get them (stem cells) to do what we want them to do.”
Gearhart – “The future is uncertain. Many possible cures can become possible from stem cell research, but there is still much work to be done.” He goes on, “Funding is essential to see these experiments through – to flush out all possible outcomes.”
Rick - It is imperative that we “get politics out of science.”
Rick – “The Obama administration should put the stem cell decision making process within the confines of NIH – they are best equipped to make these decisions.”
Rick – CAMR’s (Collation for Advancement of Medical Research) 2009 study concluded that 72% of Americans support stem cell research.
Rick - “Stem cell education is a better strategy than creating more bureaucracy.”
Rick – Agreeing with the report’s finding, “Federal policy should be flexible, able to change, and must not be based on today’s scientific capabilities.”
Rick – “100 million Americans could benefit from stem cell therapy in some way.”
Timeline: A Brief History of Stem Cell ResearchFrom the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision, which began the discussion on how to ethically research human fetal tissue to the Bush administration’s federal funding of specific stem cell lines, this detailed timeline provides a history of stem cell research. (Science Progress)
Watch Do the Right Thing, the top video entry from SPUSA’s 2008 Emc2 contest, on the issues that revolve around stem cell research.
Yahoo - Scientists say Greenland glacier meltdown may not continue at current rates.
A team led by Andreas Vieli and Faezeh Nick of Durham University in Britain who were behind this study make a case about specific melting of Greenland ice glaciers slowing down, “You cannot maintain these very high rates of peak mass loss for very long. The glaciers start to retreat and settle into a new and relatively stable state, [Viele] said.”
Still, Viele concludes that climate change is a threat we should not ignore, “The new study [should not] be taken out of context - to suggest that climate change is not a serious threat — it is,” he added.”
The IPCC, the leading authority on climate change, and 2007 Nobel Prize winner, has reevaluated its estimate regarding rising sea levels, but still predicts a rise in sea levels by 2100.
It will be interesting to see what the IPCC concludes in its upcoming reports in 2009, and when it meets later this year in the fall.
With the price of oil on the rise and the rate of production of the fuel beginning to slow, it is critical for the United States to invest in alternative energy technologies. The conversation can get confusing - Obama boasts the power of biofuels, McCain argues for more nuclear power plants, and business leaders, like T-Boone Pickens, are calling for the expanded use of natural gas. There have been several alternative energy technologies in development for years, but which one will be the most reliable? The U.S. still relies on fossil fuels to meet its energy demands, but renewable sources will be crucial to the nation’s energy independence in the near future.
Energy produced by harnessing the power of natural wind currents is one such source of renewable energy. Wind power has the potential, if implemented correctly to satisfy five times the current global energy demands and would create no greenhouses gasses while in use. Draw backs to implementing this type of energy production is that wind turbines require a great deal of land to be efficient and are only effective as long as there is a consistent source of wind. Some solutions to these issues have been developed and include the building off shore turbine farms, which would allow more access to wind and would not take up the same amount of space they would require on land.
Hydro power is a form of kinetic energy that is harnessed by means of hydroelectric dams and turbines that draw energy from the constant motion of the oceans tides. Benefits of this include a clean energy source that does not emit greenhouse gasses. Problems implementing this type of energy source include location and scalability. Hydro electric power can only be implemented in areas with enough water to generate enough power to continuously charge the turbines. Scalability is also an issue as landlocked state and local governments would be hard pressed to implement this type of power.
Another technology that is been in development for several years is solar power. This power system can use a number of different formats most common of which are solar cells. These cells absorb solar rays and transform it into clean energy. One issue that has been presented with solar power is that of storing the energy. This becomes a problem as many energy grids usually require a continuous supply of energy. This issue has been dealt with to some extent by implementing the use of rechargeable batteries or by discharging excess energy collected by solar panels into the energy grid system. Solar power is also very expensive to implement which has made implementation of this technology slow.
Bio-fuels are an energy source derived from deceased biological materials. This can be any sort of deceased biological mater but the most common source of biomass used in the production of these fuels is plant matter. Use of this type of fuel has the potential to reduce net levels of pollution and green house gasses. Bio-fuel is also easily transportable because of the variety of forms that are available including gas and liquid compositions. Some problems thus far with this type of fuel have been that key crops used to develop this type of fuel such as corn; wheat and sugar cane have driven up the price of comparable retail products in grocery stores world wide.
Since the early 1900s scientists have attempted to create a source of energy from the natural heat found underneath the earth’s surface. Geothermal power refers to harnessing energy generated by this natural heat. This type of technology comes from heat pumps that use a network of pipes to convert the heat found in the earth into usable energy. This energy source is not affected by the weather. It is also scalable with projected geothermal technologies being able to power entire cities. One problem found by engineers is that geothermal plants can affect the ground stability of the area in which they are built. Long term use of a geothermal plant may cause the area in use to cool down, which would limit or end the use of the energy generated in that region.
Nuclear power uses controlled nuclear reactions to generate a usable energy source. Like some of the other energy sources, nuclear power would reduce carbon emissions and provide a sustainable energy source for the future. One of the larger issues with this type of energy is the control and disposal of the radioactive wastes that it produces. Nuclear decay takes upwards of thousands of years, which render the waste potentially harmful to the public if not dealt with carefully. Another issue with nuclear power is that although the technology has existed for sometime, it is still very expensive to produce and maintain nuclear power plants.
With the production of oil and other fuels uncertain there is no question that energy independence is of great national interest. Each of these energy systems brings to the table a new way for the energy crisis of the 21st century to be handled. These systems have the potential to not only change our national energy demands, but global needs as well.
Dig Deeper:
Which of these energy systems is most feasible for implementation on a national and global level?
How will implementation of these energy systems affect the national and global economy?
What are the long term social and environmental effects of these systems?
The telephone, the cell-phone, the computer and the internet have brought people closer together and have given people a wealth of information to which they did not have access, but with each new step in technology and communication we give up more of our personal privacy. With the advent of electronic mail and instant messaging arose challenges such as electronic spaming and phishing. In recent years, these concerns worsened as the popularity of social networking sites, such as Facebook, have grown. Social networking sites have become indispensable tools, allowing people to communicate with each other frequently. While providing this social connection, Facebook has faced growing criticism because of the threats it poses to personal privacy.
Facebook’s network now includes one hundred million active users. We receive instant updates not only on the lives of our close friends, but also the intimate details of the lives of long lost high school classmates. While most enjoy the information available to them, others raise questions about threats to their personal privacy. The News Feed feature gives up-to-the second updates whenever a user changes their profile. Another feature on Facebook, the e-commerce plug-in Beacon, shows purchases users have made from partner sites. They appear on the user’s news feed for the rest of their network to see. For some users the addition of these features has been extremely controversial. “This whole thing is a violation of privacy. What is Facebook looking to achieve by doing this? Its stupid,” says a member of an anti-news feed group on Facebook.
The creator of Facebook Mark Zuckerberg feels otherwise. Once users become used to the idea of the news feed, he argues that it will become more convenient for them than having to browse each user’s page individually. Furthermore, Facebook’s terms of service states:
We may use information about you that we collect from other sources, including but not limited to newspapers and Internet sources such as blogs, instant messaging services, Facebook Platform developers and other users of Facebook, to supplement your profile…We may share your information with third parties, including responsible companies with which we have a relationship.
Because it disseminates user information to third parties, Facebook seeks to protect its users by allowing them to customize their account. Users can choose who sees their profile and what kind of information can be accessed. This information includes pictures, personal information, and communications with other users. Facebook also gives its clients the ability to limit their profile visibility.
While Facebook argues that their customers have the tools to protect their privacy, the idea persists that it is the responsibility of social networking sites to protect the privacy of their customers. Several lawsuits have been initiated based on the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) and the Video Privacy Protection Act against Facebook. These suits claim that Facebook knowingly continues to violate electronic privacy laws with the implementation of new features.
Facebook offers us a wealth of information, but we must continue to ask questions about how they use our private information. Individuals who sign up for free services should be aware the risks upon joining and understand the laws that protect their personal privacy. In a society where private information is coveted, is it the responsibility of the individual to shield their information from misuse? Or, is it the responsibility of free services such as Facebook to protect the individual? Furthermore, should social networking sites have the freedom to share personal information not only with other users, but with third parties? Do these sites have a moral or legal obligation to protect the privacy of their users?
To read more about the Emc2 contest and winning entries go to SPUSA’s election guide here.
As this election cycle heads into its peak season, it is difficult not to notice the prevalence of science among the issues. While each has its tangible effects upon American and global society, possibly the most pressing is the deterioration of science education. Science, though still world-class at the university level, has suffered in compulsory education. Improvements to the state of science education will not only allow the United States to maintain its place in research, as well as maintaining economically competitive in industry and development, but also will give Americans who do not pursue science as a career a better background with which to make decisions regarding other issues.
It is well established that the American educational system is deeply flawed, and efforts have been made to correct it. However, No Child Left Behind, the most recent effort, has drawn time away from sciences, while providing negligible improvement in its target areas. Teaching to the test has become wide spread, with focus on reading, writing and basic math only, leaving the reasoning skills associated with science and higher math in the dust. Testing in 2006 confirmed that barely half of graduating seniors nationwide had a basic or better grasp of scientific concepts (Dillon). Furthermore, on the 2006 PISA exam, American students were outperformed by almost every other developed nation, ranking soundly in the bottom in both math and science (Glod).
In April, as the Democratic primary raged through Pennsylvania, former President Clinton made a stop at Muhlenberg College on behalf of his wife. During that speech, his comments on education, though no doubt at least a slight pander to well-educated, private college-attending audience, provided an excellent suggestion on how to fix the ever increasing problem. Clinton suggested that rather than allowing states to mandate performance levels and their assessment, it would be better to set a national standard modeled off the highest achieving schools. Rather than focusing on standardized testing, it would be better to implement the techniques used by these schools. There are many high achieving magnet schools nationwide, and while public schools do not have their budgets, lessons can still be gleaned. Thomas Jefferson High School in Virginia is a well known science magnet. A quick glance and one can note courses many students would not have available until college (TJHSST). While the majority of schools cannot offer such advanced courses, certainly it would be possible to require a minimum of three lab sciences during high school. And great strides could be made in the requirements for students not pursuing scientific careers. Though such students cannot be expected to slog through organic chemistry, there is no excuse to allow them to slide by in over simplified “Easy A” classes.
A firmer background in the sciences would most certainly give the American public a better grip on today’s pressing issues. For instance, though the storm of ethical questions surrounding them seems unlikely to subside, a reasonable background in biology would hopefully help to clear some of the more egregious misunderstandings of both the limitations and the potential of genetic engineering and stem cell research. It could also help demonstrate the deleterious effects of climate and habit change, without resorting to the arguably necessary, but borderline propaganda techniques used to persuade people currently. For example, at this year’s Pennsylvania Academy of Science meeting, the guest speaker was Lance Simmens, a former politician trained by Al Gore to give the Climate Presentation. While grounded in fact, Mr. Simmens’ obvious lack in science background allowed for a number of glaring generalizations and over-enthusiastic attempts at persuasion that approached brow-beating. While this may be needed to make the point in a general audience, there, it came off as inappropriate. An audience who has received an adequate scientific education is better able to decipher the facts in a more neutral tone, without such tactics. However, the field likely to benefit most from improved education is research. It is entirely possible that providing greater opportunity in the scientific fields in all schools will open the door to students who would have otherwise dismissed chemistry or biology as “boring” or “not their best subject.” This could create a potential surge of new blood, with fresh ideas, into research institutions.
It is imperative to rectify the state of science in America. This can only be done by righting the educational system and policy maker’s attitude towards it. To remain the pinnacle of research and innovation, the problem must be solved at the foundation.
Works Cited
Dillon, Sam. “Science Test Scores Falling for High School Seniors.” 24 May, 2006. The New York Times. 2 July, 2008 http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/24/education/24cnd-exam.html
Glod, Maria. “U.S. Teens Trail Peers Around World on Math-Science Test.” 5 Dec, 2007. WashingtonPost.com. 2 July, 2008 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/04/AR2007120400730.html
Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology. 2 July, 2008. http://www.tjhsst.edu/
Through the 20st century the United States led the world in science education and research and development with significant contributions to a wide range of technological fields. America’s investment between the early 20th century and the present day in regards to higher education in engineering, science, math and technology has played an important role in motivating young men and women to seek advanced degrees in universities across the nation. In the mid 1980s, the United States produced many of the world’s engineers along side Japan, China and South Korea. Recently, the U.S. has seen a dramatic change in the technological advantage that it built through out the 20th century. Currently the United States education system has seen less students seeking science and technology related degrees and is producing less engineers each year by an increasingly larger margin. Even with such a dramatic decline in the number of science related students and the number of engineers produced each year, some still believe that the United States can continue to reign as the worlds leading science and technology power.
It has been argued by a number of sources that there are many reasons for the decline in the production of science related specialists in recent years. Some argue that this is a by product of economic function and the United States transition from a production economy to a service and information economy. In a number of research and development firms there has been a strong shift from hiring from within the United States to outsourcing jobs to much cheaper alternatives outside of the country. A report released by the Information Technology & Innovation Foundation (ITIF) in 2008 notes an example of this with Intel’s Israel based research and design facility.
“Intel’s Israeli-based R&D program made improvements on their microprocessors, and rather than forcing the two groups to coordinate from different continents, Intel subsequently built a $4 billion manufacturing plant near the R&D facility.”
This goes against the previous unstated belief that many corporations would outsource manufacturing operations, but would keep the service sector of their operations within the United States. This trend has already been adopted by a number of corporations and industries, and is spreading significantly throughout the shrinking production economy of the United States, and is now impacting many R&D firms.
A report released by the RAND organization in June of 2008 argues the U.S. is still strong in the scientific and technological fields. Supported by the Department of Defense, this document maintains that the United States continues to lead the world in science and technology with no sign of slowing down. They cite high levels of private and federal funding as well as an influx of foreign students into American schools with interest in technical and scientific programs. The report also notes a strong number of Nobel peace prize winners living and working in the U.S. as a healthy sign of the continued strength of R& D in the U.S.
One of the strengths of the United States has always been its development and quick adoption of new trends in science and technology. In the past, the U.S. led the world in development of technology as well as engineers produced through higher education. With the recent decline in the production of these key elements as well as the current out sourcing and economic crisis there are real signs the United States faces a real danger of falling behind technologically.
Questions:
* Is the United States doing enough to maintain its technological advantage? If not what can be done to alleviate this growing concern?
* If we hold the RAND report to be true, should the bulk of United States Federal R&D budget be allocated for defense projects and short term projects, or should it be used to finance long term projects like ones that would create renewable energies?
The foreign policy of President George W. Bush has been widely maligned, and the American public’s disapproval of his policies is a major reason why he has become one of the most unpopular presidents in American history. However, whether you agree with Mr. Bush’s policies in the Middle East and elsewhere or not, we can all agree that he has taken at least one major step to help the people of the world, and help maintain a positive image for the United States: his global AIDS initiative.
The President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) has, according to the New York Times, supplied 1.4 million AIDS sufferers with necessary medicine that they otherwise would not be able to afford. The program does have its flaws, for example, a requirement that one-third of the money be used to teach abstinence, when many experts do not believe such programs are effective. Still, this is a big step in the right direction to combating a disease now reaching devastating levels of infection in Africa. Unfortunately, 1.4 million people are only the tip of the iceberg that is the AIDS epidemic. According to the United Nations, 33.2 million people have AIDS as of 2007, and 2.5 million more were infected in that same year. For every two people that get treatment, five more are infected, and if we cannot expand the access to treatment fast enough, we risk an epidemic that could destroy entire cultures and nations.
While PEPFAR is only one part of the fight against AIDS, it is certainly a crucial component in trying to slow down and someday eliminate this epidemic. A bill to renew the program and supply $50 billion more over the next five years is currently in the Senate, and if the opposition of some senators to such a large aid package in a time of economic slowdown can be overcome, the bill will likely pass before the end of Mr. Bush’s term. However, even with such a large cash infusion, more assistance is needed from other countries.
The Group of 8 (G-8) industrialized nations, which include Japan, Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Canada and Russia, as well as the United States, promised in 2005 to provide $25 billion in assistance to Africa by 2010. Since the epidemic has hit sub-Saharan Africa the hardest (it has over two-thirds of the world’s AIDS sufferers), it would make sense that a large chunk of this money would go to supplying AIDS treatments. Unfortunately, it is becoming doubtful that these countries will actually fulfill this promise. Mr. Bush has very little diplomatic leverage to bring to bear on these nations, largely because of his own international unpopularity and the fact that he is only months from leaving office. The next president, however, whether he is John McCain or Barack Obama, should use all of the leverage possible to ensure not only that the G-8 nations keep their promise, but also secure more aid from other sources to fight this disease.
However, it is not enough to ensure that people can afford the treatments currently available; we must also push to develop new, more effective treatments. A virus like HIV that can and has spread to so many people so rapidly has many opportunities to mutate and perhaps render current treatments useless, so it is urgent that solutions to this problem are found and implemented as soon as possible. This is where the next president and what will be the 110th Congress must step forward and put the full scientific power of this country behind AIDS research, and the ultimate goal of developing a vaccine for HIV. By approving more funding through government agencies like the National Institutes of Health and the Centers for Disease Control, Congress and the president can put the United States firmly in the front of the efforts to eradicate this plague. John F. Kennedy put the full efforts of this country behind putting a man on the moon; the next president should make a similarly bold commitment to beating AIDS.
Facts for this editorial were taken from two New York Times articles (“Bush Asks for Help, Abroad and at Home, in Sending Aid to Africa”, 7/3/08, and “In Global Battle on AIDS, Bush Creates Legacy”, 1/5/08) and the AIDS epidemic update for 2007 by the Joint United Nations Program on AIDS.
Humanity is beginning to face a simple, but stark reality: our resources are finite, and we cannot maintain our levels of consumption. Most Americans understand the threats of global warming and terrorism and understand that we cannot continue our reliance on fossil fuels indefinitely. However, our problems run deeper than that; we have surprisingly little time to reach complete sustainability. The next president should thus establish a new Apollo Program with the goals of energy independence by 2020 and complete sustainability by 2050.
Energy Independence
The most obvious problem with continuing to use fossil fuels is global warming. Continuing to burn fossil fuels will release greenhouse gases, trapping heat, triggering more violent weather, and raising sea levels. The Earth’s average surface temperature is estimated to increase by 1.1-6.4ºC by 2100. Dry areas will likely experience severe drought, while rainier areas will probably see increased precipitation and more violent storms. Sea levels are projected to rise 18-59 cm, possibly more if, for example, the West Antarctic Ice Sheet collapses.
A second problem is that the United States’ reliance on oil often ends up financing terrorism. Saudi Arabia supplied over 500 million barrels of oil to the U.S. last year, making them the States’ third-largest supplier. The Saudis have spent $70 billion abroad between 1975 and 2002, significant portions of which supported jihadists and helped spread radical views.
The government should thus start curbing the use of fossil fuels. The best way to do so would be by establishing a cap-and-trade program. In such a system, the government auctions off a limited number of emission allowances, which can then be traded freely. The free trade ensures economic efficiency: companies most able to reduce their emissions will do so and sell their remaining allowances.
Money made from auctions and fines can then be used to research and implement renewable energies. Wind power seems especially promising. According to a recent Department of Energy report, wind farms could provide up to 20% of the nation’s electricity by 2030. Doing so would decrease consumption of fossil fuels, effectively removing 825 million metric tons of carbon dioxide per year. However, challenges would have to be overcome, such as improving turbine efficiency and constructing new power lines. These problems can be easily solved if government invests in the research, development, and implementation of wind power.
The federal government should also invest in hydropower, hydrogen fuel cells, and even nuclear energy. Nuclear technology is safe and well-developed. The most harmful greenhouse gas it produces is water vapor, and up to 95% of nuclear waste can be reused.
Biofuels derived from corn and soybeans should be avoided if possible. Corn ethanol and soybean biodiesel burn more cleanly than gasoline, but still produce greenhouse gases. Corn and soy are largely grown with fossil fuel-based fertilizers, and clearing land to produce biofuels might actually contribute to greenhouse gases. Moreover, using corn and soy for biofuel will drive up the costs of foodstuffs made with those crops. Cellulosic ethanol, made from naturally occurring plants like switchgrass, may offer promising results and should be researched, and corn- and soy-based biofuels could serve as a stepping stone to a sustainable future but will not offer a permanent solution.6
Complete Sustainability
Much attention has been given to oil, but many other resources are surprisingly limited, and these limits prevent maintaining our current levels of consumption. For instance, it is estimated that we will exhaust our copper resources by 2072. If every new car was manufactured with hydrogen fuel cells, which currently use platinum as a catalyst, platinum would be exhausted in two years.
Our society needs to become completely sustainable; i.e. we must manage every resource that we use so that we can continue to use them indefinitely. Perhaps the problem is not that we use too much, but that we reuse too little. For example, 124 million tons of construction-related waste is generated and 200,000 homes are demolished every year in the U.S. Up to 95% of the demolition waste could have been reused or recycled. The government should therefore invest in researching cheaper recycling methods. The government could also offer tax breaks to companies and individuals who engage in sustainable practices.
The next president and the 111th Congress should move quickly to address these concerns. A cap-and-trade system should be established. The revenues generated should be used to fund a new Apollo Program that would research and implement renewable energies and environmental sustainability. Our future depends on their immediate action.
1 “Future Climate Change.” 20 December 2007. Environmental Protection Agency. 11 July 2008.
2 “U.S. Total Crude Oil and Products Imports.” 26 June 2008. Energy Information Administration. 11 July 2008.
3 Kaplan, David E. “The Saudi Connection: How billions in oil money spawned a global terror network.” U.S. News & World Report. 7 December 2003. 11 July 2008.
4 Wolverine. “Let’s Do It.” The Warrior-Poets. 13 May 2008. 11 July 2008.
5 Koffler, Daniel. “The case for nuclear power.” The Guardian. 8 July 2008. 11 July 2008.
6Morrison, Deane. “Ethanol fuel presents a corn-undrum.” University of Minnesota News. 18 Sept. 2006. 11 July 2008.
7Wright, Steven. “Ethics: Sustainability.” University of Michigan Intro to Engineering. Ann Arbor, 5 Nov. 2007.
8“Statistics and Facts Regarding Construction Waste, Salvage, and Recycling.” The ReStore. 11 July 2008.
Written by: John Vineyard, SPUSA Fall Intern
By: Jace Perrodin, Top Video Entry, Emc2 Contest. 
Written by: John Vineyard, SPUSA Fall Intern
By: Kunle Demuren, Princeton University, Emc2 Contest 2nd Place Winner
By: Bryan VanDuinen, Univserity of Michican, Emc2 