I appreciated that Dr. Alice Conklin came and spoke on this subject matter. This presentation made me excited to visit the Museum of Man. Additionally, the museum is stunning from the outside. I had not previously known that France did not look at race the same way that we do, that it is not a part of their normal dialogue. I think this can play out in both positive and negative ways and will likely spend some time reflecting on the impacts that might have. Furthermore, I think it is fascinating how that plays out in present day current events in both France and US. This is definitely a relevant issue today, particularly with immigration in Europe. I am excited to be there during the current climate. Also, I found it interesting that this museum was established in the 1930s. When you think back on history, that was a both dense and intense part of history with many things going on culturally and politically around the world. It is neat to reflect on things that were valued at particular times in history. Due to the complexity of the topic of mankind, this museum will likely always remain relevant and interesting. And finally, she brought forth an important question regarding letting go of a flawed hypothesis. This is a critical part of science and the history of science that has been faced many times.
Author: bopp.21
Emily Bopp’s Commentary on Dr. Kinghorn
I know that I say this often, but I was truly intrigued by the topic of discussion for this presentation. As someone who will be entering the medical field, I think it is important to have some contextualization and history regarding medicinal plants and pharmacology. As a side note, I appreciated his elaboration on the various names for the UK, Great Britain, and England, which often confuses many. I am actually part Welsh, so I have some ancestral roots in the area. This reminded me of how excited I am to be going to both London and Paris during the time frame that we are, since the political and cultural climates in both locations are quite unique currently.
I had not realized that 75% of the world’s population relies on plants for traditional medicine. Now that I am reflecting on it, it makes sense, but it is an eye-opening statistic on relevance nonetheless. I was also surprised by how old the usage of opium is in history. It is wild that it can be dated back 4,500 years. Additionally, something I found to be very interesting was Dr. Kinghorn’s commentary on the background of heroin. The fact that they believed the drug would be heroic prior to realizing the addictive nature of the drug goes to show how complicated successfully creating an effective drug can be.
Interestingly, I had not previously heard of the terms ethnobotany and ethnopharmacology, so I found that portion of the presentation to be informational and the topics to be important and engaging in general. Dr. Kinghorn’s discussion on alkaloids was also educational, such as the facts that alkaloids can be toxic to our central nervous system and the large extent to which the French contributed to this area of science. Furthermore, the discussion of marijuana was relevant and interesting too for what is going on in the US today. I appreciated the provision of the historical context and complicated nature of the drug. Overall, Dr. Kinghorn was relevant, engaging, interesting, and clear. It was nice of him to provide information on gardens in London and Paris as places to visit.
Emily Bopp’s Commentary on Dr. Alber
I enjoyed having this presentation and watching the film on Louis Pasteur as an educational experience before we go abroad and are able to visit his museum. Louis Pasteur seems to have been a truly interesting man with many passions involving science and dedication to his beliefs. He was portrayed as well-tempered and passionate in the film. Overall, I found his greatest accomplishments to be his beliefs regarding sterilization of objects (or rather pasteurization), the anthrax vaccine, and the process of experimentation, all of which are important components of the scientific field today. I find it to be quite respectable that his motivations were for the improvement of mankind and not fame and fortune, but also that he did majority of his work in unfavorable laboratory conditions alone and was not accepted into a proper laboratory until later in life. I am always impressed by original thought in the scientific field, particularly to this extent.
I appreciated the drawings and descriptions that Dr. Alber gave complementary to her presentation. They allowed for greater and easier comprehension of the content. This presentation enhanced my appreciation of Pasteur’s work and accomplishments. Previously, I had not realized how much he had done for science as a whole, the medical field, and microbiology.
Emily Bopp’s Commentary on Dale Gnidovec
This presentation started out in a unique fashion with the brief history on the building, Orton Hall, itself. I found it really neat that the geological construction of the building mirrors the chronological order that would be occurring in the earth. I would not have known this information without having had this presentation. And, in general, the building is quite beautiful and a significant part of OSU’s campus, so I was excited to learn more.
I learned numerous new things during Dale Gnidovec’s presentation. For example, I did not realize that the individual that Parkinson’s disease is named after was an esteemed scientist. Or that Thomas Jefferson was a scientist in addition to politician, although when this was mentioned I sung the lyrics “Jefferson or Burr?” in my head multiple times. Furthermore, I took away a lot of information on previous creatures that roamed this earth. For instance, the fact that there was a giant sloth much larger than a human being, the magnitude of some pteradactylus, and the reality of the mosasaur that is depicted in Jurassic World. I found Gnidovec’s comment that 99.99% of species are extinct to be an intriguing, yet somewhat sad thought; there are likely innumerable fascinating species that I will never see. It would be neat to have the ability to view the past and see what life was like millions of years ago.
Overall, I enjoyed the content and Gnidovec was an energetic, passionate, and entertaining presenter. He made the material enjoyable and comprehensible. Paleontology and geology present a complex, yet connected world that is stimulating to ponder. I look forward to visiting the museums that he mentioned during the lecture.
Emily Bopp’s Commentary on Dr. Otter
I found this presentation to be quite beneficial, particularly for approaching the readings for this class. Since Kuhn is not a simple read, a greater comprehension of the history of science will likely improve the reading process moving forward. I liked Dr. Otter’s comment that “you cannot be ahead of your time.” I agree with this idea that the phrase, “ahead of your time” is a bit overstated since in order to be where they are they must be of their time and have had the upbringing and education that they did, shaping them into accomplished individuals.
As an individual that enjoys history from the last few hundred years, I find the topic of scientific revolutions to be quite interesting. The comment that “ideas make history” is intriguing since what we are taught in classrooms all stem from major ideas that shaped the modern way of thinking. Often times, I gravitate towards questioning whether what I am taught in a historical sense is accurate. As I have stated in previous commentaries, we view everything with a modern lens and will never truly understand certain events or time periods, so pictures become fuzzy. Yet, this picture is also complicated by societal consensus. It is interesting that something that is “fact” can be entirely rejected by a society and disregarded. Moreover, I think it is important to realize that science is highly political, constantly being shaped by money and institutions.
When Dr. Otter spoke of the way in which we are a part of paradigm shift culture, I was surprised by the accuracy of what he said. I particularly related to his comment that we always trust the textbook and the experiment and never assume a variant result disproves the experiment. But more importantly, his commentary on the trauma of paradigm shifts was my favorite part of the presentation. I had yet to spend a great deal of time reflecting on the impact that paradigm shifts can have on overthrown viewpoints, even leading to traumatic suicides as in the example he provided. People become so invested in what they believe to be true, that rejection can be detrimental. I bet that if there was stark evidence disproving my core beliefs, I would be devastated and not know what to do with myself. Yet, as a closing thought, I found Dr. Otter’s statement that an argument can be made for the end of the age of paradigm shifts to be an engaging concept. I will likely spend time reflecting on the complications of modern day science and how that may inhibit some paradigms.
Emily Bopp’s Commentary on Dr. Mathur
From the start, I enjoyed the topic of discussion for this presentation. I am fascinated by the works completed by Stephen Hawking. He was a brilliant individual that showed genuine character despite his health hardships. His story grasped my attention with the film, The Theory of Everything, which made me sob in a theater more than any other film has. I am grateful that the film was created though, because it provided me with a greater understanding and appreciation of Hawking’s life and accomplishments.
Going into this lecture I had very little knowledge on the concepts of black holes. I appreciated that Dr. Mathur took his time and clearly explained some of the basic concepts behind black holes. He made the concepts much easier to grasp compared to attempting to read articles on the subject matter or even compared to the physics professors that I had at OSU. I found it really interested that in a time not too long ago, in the 1960s and 1970s, the existence of black holes was heavily debated and only a young concept relatively speaking. It is fascinating that Hawking was able to bring about a major debate within physics, called the black hole information paradox. I have great respect for individuals capable of original thought, particularly within science; I doubt that I will ever be able to create a new scientific theory, but I hope that I may live through new discoveries. I appreciate having a greater understanding of black hole horizons, Hawking radiation, the Big Bang Theory, singularities, etc. It is interesting that the radiation of particles culminates in the loss of information. But, what was most intriguing was that Hawking continued to work with science and make it popular in culture, and that he continued to participate in scientific functions until his death. I believe that that makes him a true scientist. The one thing that is clear is that at the end of the day we know so little. I liked Dr. Mathur’s comment that the more we learn, the more confusing the picture becomes. I agree with this comment.
Emily Bopp’s Commentary on Dr. Goldish
Similarly to the first presentation, I found the topic of this presentation to be quite interesting. The divide between religion and science is relevant to my personal life and ideologies. I find it quite intriguing, but also tragic at times, how much people associate societal standards with religious justifications. Whether discussing religious or non-religious topics, people typically base what is right and what is wrong on what society tells them. I struggle with literal interpretations sometimes, especially because any English version of the Bible is already inaccurate. I took a translation course last semester and learned that it is actually impossible to perfectly translate anything. Thus, I find quoting works in a translated copy to be imperfect, thus occasionally unreliable. Yet, people do like to be told what they believe is wrong leading to sensitive and mixed emotions. I agree with Dr. Goldish’s comment that the war between religion and science was created in falsehood; the picture is entirely too complicated to be simplified into separation of the two.
It is interesting how we always view things with a modern lens. Since we exist in modern times with contemporary ways of thinking, it is nearly impossible to avoid this, yet it is important to recognize. I liked that Dr. Goldish gave background to some components of the scientific revolution. For example, his elaboration on Copernicus and his role with the Catholic Church was entirely new information to me outside Copernicus’s general scientific innovations for the time. The example of the addition of the preface to Copernicus’s novel making a disclaimer that none of this matters is sad, but the reality of it is that a large portion of historical documents likely have been tailored to the contemporary cultures of the times whether through translation adjustments and sly additions such as this. His point that Copernicus was working with the Catholic Church goes to show how influential word-of-mouth can be in society and how what we learn in a classroom today is not always reflective of the truth. Galileo is another great example of this inaccurate telling of the clash between religion and science.
Overall, I really enjoyed Dr. Goldish’s presentation. He was engaging, interesting, and a great speaker. His diction, elaborate explanations, and drawings made his points easy to comprehend. This presentation reminded of a book that I have called The Language of God, in which a leading geneticist in the Human Genome Project reflects on how the work he completed for the project is not separate from his theology, but rather enlightening.
Emily Bopp’s Commentary on Dr. Breitenberger
As a female seeking a career in the scientific field, I found this discussion topic to be highly relevant and intriguing. Even though it is 2019, there are still gaps in the presence of women in the STEM community, such as in engineering. However, fortunately, this gender gap has improved drastically since the time of many of these scientists from England and France. Reflecting on the work that some of these female scientists have accomplished, such as Margaret Cavendish in the mid-17th century, exposes quite impressive intellect and courage. I find Cavendish’s outspoken nature and interest in science to be profound for the time. I strive to have similar confidence. For anyone to be remembered still today is a feat, but particularly so for these women.
I enjoyed Dr. Breitenberger’s commentary on nearly all of the women, such as Mary Anning, Elise Widdowson, and Dorothy Crowfoot Hodgkin. It seems as though the process for giving credit to discoveries is complicated. Though Anning was not highly regarded during her time, at least her memory survives, even to the extent of the discussion of her in a classroom in Ohio in the United States. Furthermore, the work that Widdowson completed on nutritional necessities particularly during war, sustainability, and quantification of food value is quite interesting. Or even the passion that Hodgkin had when researching the structure of insulin.
Additionally, I found Anne McLaren’s work as a developmental biologist to be relevant to my personal life, because my father is an OB/GYN reproductive endocrinologist who performs in vitro fertilization almost every day. My father’s career would likely not exist, or at least not exist early enough for him to have this career, without the work of McLaren.
I also enjoyed Dr. Breitenberger’s inclusion of quotes from the scientists themselves, such as Marie Curie’ commentary on the separation of scientific work and private life and Emilie Du Chatelet’s opinion on education in that we all should have the right to access to education. Though the group that is not receiving education may change over time, it is still a tragedy if one is not able to pursue education. Overall, the presence of particular individuals in the history of accomplishments, such as scientific accomplishments, is often inaccurate and unjust, but it is important to take into consideration the social customs and ways of thinking of the time. Yet, this makes the contributions from these women even more impressive. Thank you for the presentation, Dr. Breitenberger!
Emily Bopp’s Commentary on Dr. Cogan
From the start, the title captured my attention. I found the title, “A Tale of Two Chemists” to be a good play on words since I am a fan of Charles Dickens and his novel, “A Tale of Two Cities,” which conveniently are the two cities we will be traveling to. Interestingly, I am not highly educated on the two scientists of focus, Joseph Priestly and Antoine Lavoisier, so I found this presentation to be quite informational.
I enjoyed the activity where we took a step back and thought about air in its simplest form. As someone who majors in a biological science, it can be easy to get caught up in the contemporary scientific standards. It is beneficial to think about how hard explaining certain natural properties likely was and how impressive the paradigm shifts truly are because of these difficulties. Slightly diverging, something that caught my attention was that they knew so little about air at the time, yet had discovered the capability of hot air balloon flight. Furthermore, as someone who participates in research utilizing mouse models, the work that Priestly completed on mice captured my attention. I am impressed by what he was capable of discovering at the time using a model that is still highly relevant.
Something else that is truly fascinating is the impact that political and cultural climates have nationally and internationally on all realms of thought. The fact that the American Revolution was going on during the progression of understanding on air and oxygen and impacting English science and thus global science is an interesting concept. The same King George that the Americans were revolting against was simultaneously impacting the scientific culture in England. And tragically, both Priestly and Lavoisier were both negatively influenced by the political climate of their respective countries. Yet, I liked Dr. Cogan’s commentary on the idea that democracy and science go hand-in-hand. The idea that wealth is not all-determining and that concepts are adjustable/correctable brings forth a reasonable argument for this.
I also found the differences between English and French “science” of the time to be intriguing. The fact that the French were paid as professionals changes the expectations and standards rather than individual, casual interest. I am excited to compare and contrast the approaches to science in London and in Paris and see if there is any lingering evidence of cultural variance in the presentation of and approach to science. This was a truly engaging and interesting presentation, Dr. Cogan!
Emily Bopp’s Commentary on Dr. Root
I found the subject matter of this presentation to be fascinating, particularly due to my interest in public health, epidemiology, and vaccination. It is truly intriguing how influential geographical factors and socioeconomic status are on health and disease transmission. As someone who will be attending medical school this upcoming fall, the implications of John Snow’s work with cholera drastically impacted what became the profession that I will be entering.
In addition to the significance of the impacts of global health, once again, the context of events proves critical. What John Snow accomplished in the 1850s is highly impressive. As someone who has the world at my fingertips with modern technology, the progression of science and technology can be abstract, but neat to learn about. Germ Theory did not exist before John Snow’s time, so the fact that he was able to come to the conclusions that he did can be hard to grasp for me. I liked that Dr. Root stated that the work he completed at the time was “rocket science then.” I find it fascinating that he even researched the social factors that were additionally impacting the cholera outbreak, such as sanitation habits and water sources.
One of my favorite components of Dr. Root’s presentation was her commentary that what makes John Snow’s accomplishments so impressive was that Snow and his colleagues were open to and accepting of new scientific ideas. This is essential in scientific innovation, even in modern topics, such as genomic medicine. In order to be the best scientist and the best life learner in general, we need to be accepting of change and new ideology. Overall, I truly enjoyed this lecture, especially the discussion of vaccines and the impacts of geography and social networks. In 2019, vaccines are a hot topic, due to the unexpected movement of anti-vaccine supporters. I struggle with comprehending the justifications for rejecting vaccination. However, that’s a whole other topic. But, furthermore, learning about landscape genetics was new and exciting to me in its implications. In order to be an effective medical provider in the future, I need to comprehend the roles population and landscape pressures play on evolutionary processes in public health. Our health is determined by biological, social, geographical, cultural, and more factors. This lecture was a perfect example of the necessity of looking at the whole picture.