Nonprofit Makes Science Hot

10.21.2010

I read an article in Sunday’s paper (10.16.2010) about a nonprofit that recently opened whose focus is on engaging children with science. A woman, Tara Chklovski, founded Iridescent while pursuing a doctorate in aerodynamics at USC. She is 32-years old and what an inspiration… I have had many kid-oriented nonprofit ideas in my head but have always talked myself out of exploring them because of fear.

What Ms. Chklovski has done is recruit surrounding-area schools to come to the complex and learn different things about science taught by volunteer teachers who are USC engineering students and the like. One little girl was so enthralled with a workshop where she got to pull things apart that she asked her mom if she could pull apart the family car. The mom didn’t think that was such a good idea, of course. (But hey, a kid excited about science!? And a girl at that!? Yay!)

These are the kinds of things we need more of and it also serves as one more example that it truly does take a village to raise a family. We all have a part in raising the next generation whether we have kids or not.

If you’re looking for a place to donate, I’m sure Iridescent could use the help. www.iridescentlearning.org.

Schools Kill Creativity

09.17.2010

I long ago came to the conclusion that society stifles creativity and, as we get older, sucks it dry so that by the time we reach the age of 18, we’re conditioned to think that only the math and sciences = good and that the arts = bad.

If the world were run by the likes of Vejune, I’d make those in college follow one of these two formats:

1. Pick a major in the sciences or business
2. Pick a minor in the arts

Or

1. Pick a major in the arts
2. Pick a minor in the sciences or business

I don’t think enough people with a job-guaranteed major like pre-med have a balanced background in the creative arts just like I don’t think those who major in the arts think about their financial future and take enough classes in economics, marketing, or business.

In the following video, Sir Ken Robinson speaks much more eloquently on this topic than I ever could and even though it is 20 minutes long, I highly encourage taking the time to listen to what he has to say. He’s funny, engaging and makes a whole helluva lot of sense.

Science and Morality

08.25.2010

Two scientists, Dr. James L. Sherley and Theresa Deisher, may win their case against the Department of Health and Human Services because they are morally opposed to stem cell research. It is because of them that there is a current injunction on federal funding for research involving human embryonic stem cells.[1]

What about being morally opposed to scientists creating the atomic bomb that killed thousands of Japanese? Or bombs that kill Iraqi civilians? Or Afghanis?

What about being morally opposed to scientists creating methods to alter cells genetically so that we can engineer an ideal baby?

What about being morally opposed to the hunger of thousands of children already born and living in our own backyard? Or being morally opposed to thousands of children already born who die from neglect and physical abuse at the hands of their supposed caretakers?

My father-in-law has Parkinson’s disease. Stem cell research is one of the biggest hopes we have in finding a cure not just for that disease but also for MS and Huntington’s disease, among others. Is the plan to privatize this research? If so, who's paying for it? We're all going to end up paying for it in some other way; higher health care costs, anyone?

It’s so frustrating to me how much people are willing to fight (and kill) for the possibility of someone else's baby or just for the mere idea of a baby and yet, look away so easily at the death, destruction, and neglect that goes on around us on a daily basis. They may give a voice to the “unborn” but what about those children who already walk, already talk, and already feel? What about those children who already understand from the actions of adults around them that they are not wanted? What about those children…?

---

[1] Maugh II, Thomas H. “The Pair Behind the Stem Cell Suit,” Los Angeles Times, Wednesday, August 25, 2010, A10 and Kaplan, Karen, “Scientists Rush to Use or Redirect Stem Cell Funds,” Los Angeles, Times, Wednesday, August 25, 2010, A10.

Designing Your Child

07.29.2010

1. If you could create the perfect baby but it meant it would have very little of your genetic traits, would you?

2a. If you could engineer a genetic edge, would you? (quicker sprint, higher IQ, perfect vision, etc.)
2b. If yes, what would the trait be and why?
2c. What would be the most you'd pay for it?

3. Do you think that the opportunity to genetically engineer children could become a type of eugenics?

4. Do you think that genetically engineered children would be available to minorities and the poor?

5. Do you believe that just because science can, it should?