Space, the Final Frontier

It is difficult to say what is impossible, for the dream of yesterday is the hope of today and reality of tomorrow.

— Robert Goddard, in E. M. Emme Introduction to the History of Rocket Technology, 1963

Apollo 11 Mission Crest

The world’s fascination with space exploration began in 1957 with the launch of Sputnik which was then followed by the Apollo 11 mission in 1969.  “The US space program emerged in large part because of the presence of national security during the Cold War with the Soviet Union” (Launius 205).  After reading Roger Launius’s article An Historical Overview of US Manned Space Exploration, several questions arose.  How have scientists and the public’s perception of space exploration changed between its emergence in the late 1950’s and today?  What are the goals of space exploration and how are they communicated to the public? 

The Jetsons

            In the late 1950’s and 1960’s when space exploration first emerged the public mindset was one of awe and wonder.  A mindset, as seen in the Ulser Bug case, can be defined as "a metal additude or inclination." (Merriam-Webster, 2011)  At this time the economical and human risks associated with the space program fell under the table, while the excitement of the space race came to the forefront. In 1961 President John F. Kennedy stated that “I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the Moon and returning him safely to the Earth.”  (Apollo Program, 2011)   Space exploration dominated everything from politics to pop culture.  Television shows such as The Jetsons becoming hugely popular.  The Jetsons was set in the world of the future with flying cars, self cleaning houses, and fully automated workplaces.  (The Jetsons, 2011).

District 9 Movie Poster

Doctor Who and Daleks

 Pop culture has not lost its interest in space exploration but rather focused it in a new direction.  Modern day television shows such as V and Doctor Who and movies such as Battle: Los Angeles, District 9, and War of the Worlds  frame space exploration in the form of alien invasions rather than humans traveling to new planets.  Framing is making a topic appeal to a specific audience either in your manner of communication or by visual appeals (Nisbet 41).  The BBC sci-fi show Doctor Who repeatedly depicts this frame with the “Daleks conquering the earth and then occupying it along with other stolen worlds to initiate their stratagem for universal destruction.” (Alien Abduction, 2011)  By framing space in this way it appeals to a more modern audience, thus making it more profitable.     

Presently people are more connected with the science and engineering that goes into space exploration.  This deeper understanding of scientific progress is achieved through the internet, television, and science blogs relating to the subject.  Space exploration and the cosmos are less of a mystery to us.  The two cultures model that C.P. Snow described is less pronounced today than it was 60 years ago.  C.P. Snow, a British scientist and novelist, gave a speech about two distinct cultures, science and the arts/humanities.  These parties are supposedly worried about different things and don’t care about each other.  (The Two Cultures, 2011)  Today these parties are scientists and the public, dealing with the topic of space exploration.  The public is indeed interested in scientific advances and the scientists need public support for funding.  This also ties into the concept of science as a social enterprise which was first seen in the Ulser Bug Case.  Society and the media affect the way science evolves.  In the Ulser Bug Case the negative media coverage stopped the Ulser Bug concept from being accepted for years even though there was sound evidence to back up the scientific claims.  In the case of space exploration this can be directly tied to NASA funding or lack thereof.  When the space race first begun the space program was a matter of national pride and received major media coverage and funding.  As time wore on the space program became more common place and some of the hype surrounding the industry dissolved.  Failures such as the Challenger disaster and government funding issues were highlighted and given more negative media attention than positive events and discoveries were.    

Virgin Galactic: Spaceport America

Space travel has become more of a private venture rather than a government operation with companies such as the Commercial Spaceflight Federation, Virgin Galactic, and SpaceX.   NASA is rumored to be collaborating with these private companies but will not own the designs. (NASA paves, 2011)  The Virgin Galactic company frames private space travel as a “renewal of the human spirit.”  The video of the Spaceport America inauguration ceremony is triumphant with upbeat music playing in the background.  (Virgin Galactic, 2011)  Also with the advent of the internet, private space travel companies are able to advertise and communicate their products to a wider audience.  This allows companies to use private funding rather than waiting for government contracts and approval.     

Hubble Telescope Picture

 “Man’s desire to reach out into space is a compulsion.  The more we saw, the greater this compulsion became.” As the BBC exploration series shows, powerful telescopes are searching the far reaches of the universe looking for new planets similar to Earth. (Part 1, 2009)  More than ever the public has the opportunity to be informed on advances in space exploration through blogs and science journals.  In the 50’s and 60’s the deficit model was assumed to be more prevalent.  The deficit model first introduced by Nisbet can be described follows.  “Communication is defined as a process of transmission from experts to the public with the goal of filling in the deficits in knowledge.  Facts are assumed to speak for themselves and to be interpreted by all citizens in the same way.”  (Nisbet 42)  It was presumed that the general public didn’t understand the technology that went into rockets or satellites and would blindly believe any information presented to them.  Whether this is true is another story.  Also bidirectional communication was much less widespread at the start of the space race.  Bidirectional communication is generally active communication between the public and scientists, and vice versa.  There was communication from NASA scientists and the government through television and newspapers but communication from the public was limited. 

In conclusion, the questions initially posed were partially answered.  Space exploration has become more of a private enterprise rather than a government funded operation.  Information on is more readily available, allowing for better communication between scientists and the public.  In the early days of the space race, space was viewed with awe and wonder.  Space is now viewed in a more scientific light.  If private space travel is successful this will have a huge impact on society.  An industry that was once reserved for astronauts and scientists will open to the public.  This blog ended up focusing more on background content rather that how space exploration was communicated.  To further expand on this topic more indepth research on communication in the 1950's and 60's needs to be preformed.  Particularly looking at how NASA and the government communicated with the public.  What impact did this communication have on public opinion of the space program?  How have public opinion polls of the space program changed with time?  There are vasts portions of space that have yet to be explored and this is definitely an industry to watch in the future.   

References:

Alien Abduction (2011).  Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_invasion. 

Apollo Program (2011).  Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_program.   

Merriam-Webster: Mind-set definition 1.  Retrieved from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mind-set. 

NASA Paves Way for Commercial Space Exploration (Jan 20, 2011).  Retrieved from   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5m1AcpGuWVk&feature=related.

Part 1 Reaching for the Stars Space Exploration - BBC Exploration (2009).  Retrieved from  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qZk7b4cd4jk. 

The Jetsons: TV Series 1962-1988 (2011).  Retrieved from http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0055683/.   

The Two Cultures (2011).  Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Two_Cultures. 

Virgin Galactic (2011).  Retrieved from http://www.virgingalactic.com/. 

Nisbet, C. Matthew (2010).  Framing Science: A New Paradigm in Public Engagement.  Chapter 2.  New York and London:  Routledge Publishers. 

The Evolution of Cold Fusion (1989-1999)

The article “Cold Fusion and the Sociology of Scientific Knowledge” by Trevor Pinch discusses the controversial Cold Fusion finding of Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons in 1989.  After reading this article I was interested in researching the evolution of cold fusion research from 1989 to 1999 and how it has been perceived by the public and scientific community. 

I began my search with a video of the press conference at the University of Utah where Fleischmann and Pons announced their initial discovery. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6CfHaeQo6oU.  The way their discovery was framed by both Fleischmann and Pons and their colleagues was very interesting.  The cold fusion discovery was framed as a major breakthrough in the quest for a sustainable, clean energy source.  At this point Pons says that it would be “reasonable within a few years to build a fully operational device to produce electric power”.  The actual word cold fusion is repeated throughout the presentation and specific energy output values are given.  The mood in the lecture hall is one of hopefulness and anticipation of what lies ahead.

            Next, Fleischmann and Pons were interviewed on MacNeil and Lehrer a few months after the initial announcement.  http://www.youtube.com/user/NewEnergyFoundation#p/c/DEA9457885299AE9/0/00IFpIBpa9Y.  At this point the public still seemed optimistic about the discovery and applications of cold fusion.  The news story was framed in such a way that you couldn’t help but be reassured by how safe cold fusion technology seemed.  The anchorwoman began the segment by showing clips of the Three Mile Island and Chernobyl disasters, discussing the negative environmental impacts of nuclear fission.  She then went on to describe the positive aspects of fusion such as the reduced levels of radioactivity, how it could provide a nearly infinite power supply, and the inexpensive nature of fusion compared to fission.  Pons was not very personable, never actually confirmed that atomic fusion had occurred in recent trial experiments, and focused more on the extreme heat levels of the experiment.

 At the time that Fleischmann and Pons gave this interview other scientific research groups were beginning to release additional findings of cold fusion.  I personally see this as an example of motivated reasoning.  Motivated reasoning is roughly defined as a predisposition to make the results turn out a certain way.  In this case when scientists heard of Pons and Fleischmann’s phenomenal discovery of cold fusion, which had otherwise been thought of as impossible, they were motivated to come up with similar results.  In the first few weeks and months following the announcement there was a flurry of scientific and media activity on the subject of cold fusion.             

Towards the end of that year on December 9^th Fleishmann and Pons were interviewed by KSLTV and their science correspondent.   http://www.youtube.com/user/NewEn ergyFoundation#p/c/0/Tpb7xGbOZJI.  In this interview Pons was evasive, avoided looking at the camera for the majority of the segment, and reluctant to say if they had any new findings.  Both scientists mentioned “calorimetry” and specific heat data that they had acquired but said that there were very few nuclear byproducts. 

            Jumping ahead a few years, MIT hosted a ‘Cold Fusion Day’ in 1995 with distinguished guest lecturer and MIT professor Dr. Peter Hagerstein.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6CfHaeQo6oU.  The main focus of this event was to go over the theory behind cold fusion.  Dr. Hagerstein’s conclusions included there was no consensus at the time on what they know or do not know on cold fusion.  The neutron hopping equation had been solved fully at this point but beyond that no tangible progress had been made in the field of cold fusion.  Dr. Hagerstein did mention that the situation was better than it had been in 1989.  Cold fusion was now being framed as a theoretical concept rather than a proved scientific discovery. 

Next moving into 1998, I found an article written by Charles Platt for Wired Magazine.  This article discusses how there is a strong scientific community who still believe Cold Fusion is possible.  “Despite the scandal (Fleischmann and Pons), laboratories in at least eight countries are still spending millions on cold fusion research. During the past nine years this work has yielded a huge body of evidence, while remaining virtually unknown - because most academic journals adamantly refuse to publish papers on it” (Platt 1998).  Despite all of the setbacks that cold fusion had faced over the years, a small part of the scientific community still remained hopeful that they would one day succeed in creating true cold fusion.    

In 1999 Dr. Fleischmann lectured at the Pacific conference of the American Chemical Society on the topic of ‘Cold Fusion: Past, Present, and Future.’  http://wn.com/martin_fleischmann?orderby=relevance&upload_time=all_time.  The comments made in the first two minutes were very intriguing.  The gentleman introducing Dr. Fleischmann states that, “It has been ten years since Pons and Fleischmann announced cold fusion…whether you want to call it cold fusion or something else, it’s up to different people.  I like to call it the Fleischmann-Pons Effect.  And you don’t get in trouble with that.”  Fleischmann responds to this by saying, “You know you can’t even file a patent at the US patent office that has the word cold fusion in it.”  Scientists are now afraid to make even the smallest claim in the field of cold fusion due to the harsh media reaction to the scandal of 1989.  The course concept that Science as a social enterprise can be seen in this context.  Science as a social enterprise means that society and the media affect the way science evolves and what scientific topics are provided government funding for research.  We first came across this topic in the Ulser Bug Case Study where the public and other scientists rejected new findings on the acidity of the stomach and didn’t allow for this to be an accepted scientific fact for almost a decade.  In the case of cold fusion the media sparked a gold rush of sorts in the scientific community.  Scientists were rushing to replicate the experiment and publish positive results, sharing in the glory of Pons and Fleischmann’s discovery.  Also when the results were proven wrong the media sprang on this, blowing the results out of proportion.        

Joint European Turus (JET) Project

After researching cold fusion I found that despite the setbacks it has faced there remains a thriving scientific community who aim to produce pure cold fusion energy.  They may not be as vocal of their discoveries as Pons and Fleischmann were but they are equally motivated.  If these scientists were to succeed in the future the societal implications would be enormous.  Having an infinite and renewable energy source with limited environmental impacts would be life altering.  I only researched up until 1999 but would like to continue with the evolution of cold fusion research.  One of the intriguing projects that I would like to look into is the Joint European Torus (JET) Project which is currently the largest fusion power experiment in the world.  The topic of cold fusion research is always evolving.  Could it one day be the energy of the future?                 

Bibliography:

ACS Pacific Conference with guest speaker Dr. Martin Fleischmann (October 1999).  “Cold Fusion: Past Present, and Future.”  Retrieved from: http://wn.com/martin_fleischmann?orderby=relevance&upload_time=all_time.

Battalio, T. John , ED (1998).  “Cold Fusion and the Sociology of Scientific Knowledge.”  Essays in the Study of Scientific Discourse.  Vol 6.  Ablex Publishing Corporation.    

Cold Fusion Day at MIT by Dr. Peter Hageistein 6/6 (1995).  Retrieved from: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6CfHaeQo6oU.

Cold Fusion Press Conference at University of Utah (March 23, 1989).  Retrieved from: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6CfHaeQo6oU.

New Energy Foundation (January 15, 2010).  Retrieved from: http://www.youtube.com/user/NewEnergyFoundation.

Platt, Charles (November 1998).  What if Cold Fusion is Real.  Wired Magazine.  Retrieved from:  http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/6.11/coldfusion.html.

Pons & Fleischmann KSLTV Interview 1/3. Retrieved From: http://www.youtube.com/user/NewEnergyFoundation#p/c/0/Tpb7xGbOZJI. 

Pons & Fleischmann on MacNeil/Lehrer 1/2.  Retrieved from: http://www.youtube.com/user/NewEnergyFoundation#p/c/DEA9457885299AE9/0/00IFpIBpa9Y.

Nanotechnology and it's uses in dietary supplements

“Nanotechnology is defined as the manipulation of matter at the scale of 1 to 100 nanometers to create new products and processes with novel properties” (Kuzma 243).  After reading Nanotechnology: Piecing Together the Puzzle of Risk by Jennifer Kuzma I was interested in the governmental regulations on nanotechnology specifically in dietary supplements.  Some of the initial questions I had were: Are there any regulations on the manufacturing and sale of products that utilize nanotechnology in dietary supplements?  How are policy makers dealing with the new nanotechnology industry?  Are similar regulations used worldwide or are they country specific?   

Starting with these initial questions my search began.  I found ‘The Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies’ whose aim is “ helping to ensure that as nanotechnologies advance, possible risks are minimized, public and consumer engagement remains strong, and the potential benefits of these new technologies are realized.” (Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies 2011)  As with any new website I was skeptical of its credibility.  Therefore I looked into the two groups that fund this website, The Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars and The Pew Charitable Trusts.  The Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars is a highly trustworthy organization whose aim is to build “a bridge between the worlds of academia and public policy, to inform both to develop solutions to the nation’s problems and challenges.  Through public meetings and events, broadcast media and social media, publications in print and online, and a wide range of outreach activities, the Wilson Center is engaged in the global dialogue of ideas. More importantly, the Center provides you with the tools and opportunities to join the national conversation.” (Research, Reason, Relevance 2011)  I found their outlook to be very interesting and to fall into two of our course concepts, bidirectional communication and science as a social enterprise.  By allowing not only for research and scientific studies to be conducted but also for public meetings and outreach activities, the Wilson Center allows for bidirectional communication.  Strong communication between academia and the public is extremely important to the advancement of science.  The Wilson Center’s outlook also falls into the science as a social enterprise category.  They clearly understand that society affects the way science evolves and have allowed for some public input and critique of their findings. 

           While searching for relevant articles on nanotechnology I found this video entitled ‘Nanotechnologies Roundtable with Dr. Andrew Maynard’ produced by the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources in 2009.  The video was quite lengthy so I only watched the first half hour.  Dr Andrew Maynard is the Chief Science Advisor to the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies, and Science Advisor to the Synthetic Biology Project at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. (Maynard 2008)  Dr Maynard was one of the first scientists to focus his research specifically on nanoparticles in the eighties and has his PhD in occupational health.  In the video Dr Maynard specifically discussed the different Mindsets on nanotechnology that policy makers and the public have in Europe and the US.  In the US under the Bush administration the secret to success was innovation.  US policy makers tended to downplay regulations in order to promote innovation and growth in the nanotechnology industry.  It was generally understood that organizations such as the EPA and FDA should not mess with business and be extremely careful if they were planning on putting regulations on nanotechnology.  In contrast the European mindset was one of social benefits.  European policymakers wanted to do whatever was in their power to ensure people have the best ‘quality of life’ and to have effective business practices.  A new European chemical regulation system (REACH) was put into place in 2007 (European Commission Environment 2011).  This new chemical regulation system aims to “place greater responsibility on industry to manage the risks from chemicals and to provide safety information on the substances,” though how this will effect nanotechnologies is presently unknown.  By having different mindsets Europe and the US have gone in different directions with the development of nanotechnology and their policies towards the extent of its use.  The US has more of an open mindset with little restriction placed on the development of new technologies while Europe has stricter policies and regulations.  Currently it is unclear whether one mindset is more effect than the other and what the long term consequences will be.

            On the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies website I found a study published by William B. Schultz and Lisa Barclaythat discusses the challenges the FDA faces with new dietary supplements that utilize nanotechnology.  According to the study Schultz and Barclaythat conducted, three main problems need to be addressed:

1.     "FDA does not have the capacity to identify nano-based dietary supplements that are being developed and marketed, unless manufacturers submit to the pre-market notification process for new dietary ingredients.

2.      To the extent that FDA is aware of nano-based dietary supplements, it has little regulatory authority over them.

3.      Even if it were granted increased regulatory authority, FDA lacks the scientific expertise and resources to effectively regulate nanomaterials in supplements" (Schultz and Barclaythat 30).              

These three points show that the FDA and governmental organizations face a huge barrier when it comes to the regulation and development of nanotechnology products.  Also there currently exists a cycle of mistrust between the government/FDA and the nanotechnology manufacturing companies.  For years the FDA has been unsuccessfully trying to get manufacturing companies to document the type and quantity of nanoparticles that they produce.  In the video I watched by Dr Maynard he estimated that only 20 percent of the companies that produce large quantities of nanoparticles have voluntarily documented their production rates for the FDA.  With only 1/5^th of the nanotechnology industry complying with FDA studies, this makes any progress on the FDA’s part nearly impossible.  It should be noted that the pre-market notification process is currently voluntary.  It would be highly beneficial for companies to report their production but the FDA currently has no governmental authority to force companies to comply.  On the other hand though, nanoparticles manufacturing companies fear that strict FDA regulations on their product would severely impact their production, expansion, and sales.  In order to move forward in the right direction the manufacturing companies and the FDA need to find some way to break this cycle of mistrust.  Also the government must take a stronger stance on their nanotechnology policies and regulations, giving more power to organizations such as the FDA.  With nanotechnology being the next chapter in science we must find a way to safely and effectively use and regulate this technology.            

 

            Overall I found that the emerging nanotechnology industry lacks any clear regulation or unity.  The European and American mindsets differ significantly on how best to create policies that will both aid society and allow this industry to flourish.  There is very limited knowledge as how best to manage the research and development of new dietary supplements utilizing nanotechnology.  In order for nanotechnology to move forward in a productive manner the government, governmental agencies such as the FDA and EPA, and nanotechnology manufacturing companies must work together.  The current cycle of mistrust between these parties must be broken.  Not only is it the government and industries responsibility to make nanotechnology safe and effective for everyone, but it is our responsibility as an individual to stay up to date on advances in nanotechnology.  In order for this industry to move forward bidirectional communication between the public and the scientific community is paramount.  The Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies and the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars do a wonderful job of organizing events and forums where the public can learn more on nanotechnology and recent advances in this field.  These scientific organizations clearly understand that science is a social enterprise and that the public affects how science evolves.         

After researching this topic I would like to keep track of any advances in the regulation of nanotechnologies.  Specifically will the FDA's attempts to track and regulate nanotechnologies in dietary supplements prove successful?  Will the US govenment continue to hold such loose standards over the nanotechnology industry in the future?  Also I would like to research specific types of nanotechnology used in dietary supplements and their health benefits/risks.  I didnt have enough time to look into this specifically but if given more time would be very interested in researching this in more detail.  Nanotechnology in dietary supplements is an important advance in science and modern medicine.  It would most likely be in societys best interst to encourage it's safe advancement and expansion through through carefully constructed government regulations and standards.

Sources Used:

European Commission Environment. "REACH." September 7, 2011. <http://ec.europa.eu/environment/chemicals/reach/reach_intro.htm>.

Kuzma, Jennifer.  "Nanotechnology: Piecing Together the Puzzle of Risk."    Controversies in Science and Technology: From Evolution to Energy.  Kleinman, Lee Daniel, ed.  Vol 3.  Mary Ann Leibert Inc Publishers: 2010.  243.     

Maynard, Andrew. "Andrew Maynard." 2020 Science: A Clear Perspective on Emerging Science and Technology. September 19, 2008. September 7, 2011. <http://2020science.org/andrew-maynard/>.

Nanotechnologies Roundtable with Andrew Maynard. Dr. Andrew Maynard. Wisconson Department of Natural Resources. 2009. September 7, 2011. <http://dnrmedia.wi.gov/main/Viewer/?peid=64d05f50-f81b-4029-9da3-7f5505dddd3d>.      

Schultz, B. William and Barclay, Lisa. PEN 17- A Hard Pill to Swallow: Barriers to Effective FDA Regulation of Nanotechnology- Based Dietary Supplements. The Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars: January 14, 2009. 6-30. 

"Research. Reason. Relevance." Woodrow Wilson Center International Center for Scholars. 2011. September 7, 2011. <http://www.wilsoncenter.org/research-reason-relevance>.

The Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies.  2011.  Pew Charitable Trusts and The Woodrow Wilson Internation Center for Scholars.  September 7, 2011  <http://www.nanotechproject.org/>.