Grad School Tango

March Madness is creeping around the corner, and I am not referring to the college basketball tournament series.

I have accumulated an interesting list of graduate schools that have accepted me into their physical chemistry programs. They are University of Illinois at Urbana-Campaign, University of Colorado at Boulder, John Hopkins University, and Ohio State University.

I visit UIUC this weekend. I will be at LA Tech the next weekend (March 7th and 8th) for the annual Society of Physics Students Zone 10 Meeting. The following weekend (March 14th-16th) I will be in Baltimore to visit JHU, and after JHU that next weekend (March 20th-23rd) I will be in Boulder, CO visiting the CU campus there. Then, for the last weekend of March (29th-30th), I will be visiting OSU.

Of course, the fun doesn't end when March wanes. The first weekend of April is the 235th ACS National Meeting & Exposition in New Orleans, LA. I guess there is consolation in the fact that I will not be adding more airline miles for that trip compared to the previously mentioned destinations. However, I have to prepare the two posters I will be presenting: one on a topic tangent to my undergraduate thesis and the other being my undergraduate thesis topic! Oi!

And when all is said and done, I must make a descision by mid April. I wonder where I will be next year.

Trace Pharmaceuticals in Wastewater

This week's cover story in C&E News addresses an aspect of drug therapy use which is neglected by the public but is a concern to the chemical science community. That is, thanks to our increase sensitivity in analytical intruments, we have been able to detect trace amounts of pharamceuticals in our waste water, such as synthetic estrogen, ibueprofen, and drugs used in chemotherapy.

It is important to consider, though, that these drugs appear in the parts per trillion concentration range (an equivalent of a picoliter of the drug per liter of water). So it isn't a direct threat to humans or our metabolisms, per se.

However, our metabolisms are not as sensitive to such trace amounts as organisms living in aqueous environments. The first half of the artilce discusses the feminization of certain fish species in waters where trace therapeutic estrogen has been discovered in the water table.

I admit that I have not read the journal articles listed in the C&NE article, but I certainly do hope at least one had analyzed the contents of the liver and other potential filtration organs of the fish for amounts of the estrogen ingested.

But why would i study the liver? The liver is where the majority of drugs are decomposed in the body. To me, it makes logical sense that pharmacology would occur similarly in the liver of the fish and of the human. A such, we could determine relative estrogen concentrations of the liver, and determine the amount of drug retention the fish are capable of possessing. That is, does the drug accumulate overtime in the fish or is it simply the presence of the minute concentrations in their environment which induces feminization?

Of course, humans have little to fear in their drinking water. The filtration techniques for waste water is different then water that will be consumed. The latter has the design to remove nearly all contaminents whereas the former is concerned with only making the water clear and have little to no odor.

Though this issue is not new, every year we develop more efficient technologies which may be implemented to help address the unintentional introduction of pharaceuticals into the environment. This is a worthy goal for engineers and chemists interested in lessoning the environmental impact human industires have on local ecologies.

Though this issue is nothing new, I hope the issue can be addressed efficiently and promptly. I believe one of the goals of humanity ought to be to lessen our impact on local ecologies and the global environment from our industries.

Science Fair Memories

I remember my first attempt at a science fair project. I thought I would be able to change the world by developing a hydroponic solution that would grow your plants quickly and to a plump size but with environmentally safe chemical species.

Everything was going as schedule. The control group consisted of a set of lima bean and tomato plants grown hydroponically with a commercially available solution. My experimental group consisted of the same type of plants in my newly formulated solution.

Weeks pass as I studied the various qualitative and quantitative variables I considered important in the study (color, foilage condition and density, oddities in flowers/seedpods/etc.). I even grew a second control group in potted soil. This group was where I pollinated the two other groups.

Well, long story short, when the fruits and pods were ready to be picked and examined via dissection, my dogs ate my experiment. Literally, about a month and a half of data collecting ended abruptly by the hunger of my pets. Not as revolutionary as I had hoped for, and I ended up only getting an honorable mention at the local fair.

What prompted this random track down memory lane? PZ has linked to several "bad" science fair projects. Actually, it's the posters comments on each, mostly centering around either what the student is wearing or the title of the presentation. Admittedly, coming up with titles are difficult when in junior high or high school, especially when you have to fit it on one of those poster-board fold-outs. but some of the titles are worth giggling over, especially "Extreme Wood" and "Who's Your Daddy?".

Enjoy.

Would Guns Prevent School Shootings/School Violence?

Should the recent wave of campus shootings pave the way for relaxing restrictions of firewarms on campus?

I don't think so. Gun pundits are capitalizing on the recent episodes of gun violence egregiously. Let us build a profile of the shooters in each case.

The Dawson College shooter had a deteriorating mental state and ultimately ended his life in suicide.

The Virginia Tech shooter was mentally unstable and committed suicide after his rampage.

The Louisiana Technical College shooter killed the two closest classmates to her and then committed suicide.

The Northern Illinois University shooter unloaded the clip reloaded, and then committed suicide.

What is the common link? They were mentally unstable. They planned on getting vengeance in some manner through violence. The thought of other people having guns probably never crossed their minds. They didn't care. They wanted to end their lives anyway. They saw themselves as an expendable instrument in the ultimate purpose of causing choas and pain to the ones who've hamred them, whether directly or indirectly.

Even if every student had a conceleaed weapon, I doubt that would have stopped the violence. I doubt that would have prevented the deaths. People would've still died regardless.

This is why I disagree with the various student activist groups that have formed as a response to the shootings. Their argument fails when considering the causes behind the shootings. For even when a hero emerges, it wouldn't be until after at least one person had been injured and the point of the shooting fulfilled according to the shooter.

Happy Valentines Day

Today is Valentine's Day. So for your special someone, you ought to consider giving them a special venerial disease.

I'm having a tough decision between which one I think looks the cutest: Chlamydia trachomitis or Neisseria gonorrhoeae ("the clap"). Which would your significant other enjoy the most?

Candle Irony in Europe

Candlemakers in Europe are disgruntled with Chinese candles flooding the market, causing a lose of business to their industry.

My economist friend finds irony in this. Does anyone remember Bastiat's famous candlestick makers' petition? Basically, the French candlemakers wanted the French government to force its citizenry to use only artificial lighting indoors. This would, in effect, encourage the expansion of the industry that manufactures articifical lighting. The French people would prosper due to the increase in industry (more jobs, essentially) and the industry would benefit from the legislation through gaining profits. But his argument was based on something very peculiar:

If an orange from Lisbon sells for half the price of an orange from Paris, it is because the natural heat of the sun, which is, of course, free of charge, does for the former what the latter owes to artificial heating, which necessarily has to be paid for in the market.

Thus, when an orange reaches us from Portugal, one can say that it is given to us half free of charge, or, in other words, at half price as compared with those from Paris.

Now, it is precisely on the basis of its being semigratuitous (pardon the word) that you maintain it should be barred. You ask: ``How can French labour withstand the competition of foreign labour when the former has to do all the work, whereas the latter has to do only half, the sun taking care of the rest?'' But if the fact that a product is half free of charge leads you to exclude it from competition, how can its being totally free of charge induce you to admit it into competition? Either you are not consistent, or you should, after excluding what is half free of charge as harmful to our domestic industry, exclude what is totally gratuitous with all the more reason and with twice the zeal.

To take another example: When a product -- coal, iron, wheat, or textiles -- comes to us from abroad, and when we can acquire it for less labour than if we produced it ourselves, the difference is a gratuitous gift that is conferred up on us. The size of this gift is proportionate to the extent of this difference. It is a quarter, a half, or three-quarters of the value of the product if the foreigner asks of us only three-quarters, one-half, or one-quarter as high a price. It is as complete as it can be when the donor, like the sun in providing us with light, asks nothing from us. The question, and we pose it formally, is whether what you desire for France is the benefit of consumption free of charge or the alleged advantages of onerous production. Make your choice, but be logical; for as long as you ban, as you do, foreign coal, iron, wheat, and textiles, in proportion as their price approaches zero, how inconsistent it would be to admit the light of the sun, whose price is zero all day long!

Oh, the 19th century capitalist: what a funny and peculiar mode of thinking they endured!

Answering Nature's Challenge

Nature's chemistry blog, thescepticalchemist, has issued a challenge. Okay, not really a horrible challenge, but one which does make one think:

Here's a challenge for you - imagine you're setting up a general chemistry
journal and you have a total editorial team of four - how do you break down the
areas of expertise? Along traditional lines, or something different?

That is quite a difficult task. Chemistry has gotten its nose into so many different disciplines, it's a bit sickening. But, I think the safest bet would be to follow the traditional labels: Analytical, Inorganic, Organic, and Physical. Of course, those generic titles do grossly oversimplify the inter-relatedness of each discipline, it is probably the most reasonable approach.

Any other takes on the challenge? I don't have the mind of an editor, so my answer is probably the incorrect one.

There's a reason I'm registered Independent

I discovered two distrubing things this morning.

The first is Hillary Clinton receiving a quasi-endorsement from Anne Coulter (under the condition that McCain becomes the GOP candidate). The second was a Swedish perspective on American Leftism.

With the above YouTube video, I am forced to concur with Dr. Martin Rundkvist of Aardvarchaeology. The progressive movement of America is under-represented by the current party leaders in the primaries. The "change" proposed by the two front-runners amount to a miniscule bump toward the ultimate goals of leftists with views that align to modern European thought.

I wonder what happened to the zeal and the momentum. What events lead Europe to shape into the political system it possesses versus ours. Such things intrigue me with no end.

The Democratic Party's centrist bent prevents me from labelling myself a "True Democrat". Perhaps one day the party's heart will refocus itself onto progressive ideals and reassert itself as a powerful body. Until then, i will simply grit my teeth as I vote in November between a potential turd sandwich versus a potential douchbag.

Roe as an Extension to the Right of Personal Privacy

(Note: The following is more of musings more so than anything definitive. I am certain I overlooked details, so please feel free to criticize my work.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thirty-five years ago marks the day the U.S. Supreme Court passed judgement on Roe v Wade. For the past 35 years, American women have utilized their right to privacy and have participated in legalized abortions. For the past 35 years, the issue of abortion and the government have polarized the population into two distinctive camps named by their members: pro-lifers and pro-choicers.

But what does this argument boil down to? Arguments about the beginning of life and the sanctity of life are pitted against arguments concerning individual privacy, freedom of thought, and sexual autonomy. Arguments of the health and welfare of the mother are issued by both sides. The situation becomes overburdening when sectarian motivations are entangled with secular mechanics. How does one make sense of all these arguments, their sources and motivations, and connect them into a logically coherent statement?

For Roe, the case ultimately pitted the interest of privacy granted by the combination of penumbra of the fourth, the complete ninth, and the complete fourteenth amendments versus the interests of the state. Certainly the state has a vested interest in the health of the mother and safeguarding potential life. Consequently, the individual certainly has the right from government interference and intrusion on private effects. A balanced medium must be sought between both parties of vested interests.

The Right to Privacy and Roe
An underlying philosophy of any constitution, whether it be state or federal, is summarized by a quote of Thomas Jefferson in an address concerning the reformation of the Virginian Constitution:

Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the ark of the Covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human, and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment... laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind... as that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, institutions must advance also, to keep pace with the times.... We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain forever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.

Certainly, the Constitution is not a stagnant document but meant to be flexible with the ever changing power of social movements. This includes incorporating into the intentions of the present Bill of Rights any technology and knowledge that expands the venues address by the amendments and the text. It is with this spirit Roe and subsequent laws concerning abortion ought to be analyzed.

The Fourth Amendment reads: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be iolated..." (emphasis mine). Though the Fourth is addressing precisely warrants of arrest, it was written with the common spirit of privacy from government intrusion into personal affairs. The technology of 1791, the year of ratification, did not include the luxuries of the 19th century telephone or the 20th century facsimile or the 21st century email. In order to initiate contact with an individual, you were forced to either be present or write a postal letter (concepts that escape my generation, I'm sure!).

Reading the Fourth in combination with the First ("Congress shall make no law...abridging..the right of the people peaceably to assemble") gives rise to the clear indication that the federal government may not, without due process, prevent a meeting between two citizens. But what of the mail system? The Supreme Court, with statement by Justice Fields, found in Ex parte Jackson (1878):

In their [Congress] enforcement, a distinction is to be made between different kinds of mail matter -- between what is intended to be kept free from inspection, such as letters, and sealed packages subject to letter postage, and what is open to inspection, such as newspapers, magazines, pamphlets, and other printed matter purposely left in a condition to be examined. Letters and sealed packages of this kind in the mail are as fully guarded from examination and inspection, except as to their outward form and weight, as if they were retained by the parties forwarding them in their own domiciles. The constitutional guaranty of the right of the people to be secure in their papers against unreasonable searches and seizures extends to their papers, thus closed against inspection, wherever they may be. Whilst in the mail, they can only be opened and examined under like warrant, issued upon similar oath or affirmation, particularly describing the thing to be seized, as is required when papers are subjected to search in one's own household. No law of Congress can place in the hands of officials connected with the postal service any authority to invade the secrecy of letters and such sealed packages in the mail; and all regulations adopted as to mail matter of this kind must be in subordination to the great principle embodied in the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution.

With the idea of letters being an aspect of a persons papers and requiring a warrant for seizure, the spirit of privacy from the federal government continued. Though such privacy became contracted in initial proceedings surrounded around wiretapping the telephone, Justice Louis D. Brandeis wrote an excellent dissent in Olmstead v. United States (1928):

Whenever a telephone line is tapped, the privacy of the persons at both ends of the line is invaded, and all conversations between them on any subject, and although proper, confidential, and privileged, may be overheard...

The makers of our Constitution undertook to secure conditions favorable to the pursuit of happiness. They recognized the significance of man's spiritual nature, of his feelings, and of his intellect. They knew that only a part of the pain, pleasure, and satisfactions of life are to be found in material things. They sought to protect Americans in their beliefs, their thoughts, their emotions and their sensations. They conferred, as against the Government, the right to be let alone — the most comprehensive of rights and the one most valued by civilized men. To protect that right, every unjustifiable intrusion by the Government upon the privacy of the individual, whatever the means employed, must be deemed a violation of the Fourth Amendment.

In summary, Justice Brandeis held that a literal reading of the Fourth detracts from the spirit of the motivations behind it. That is, an utter disgust of government intrusion without a justifiable cause. This spirit was born from the history of colonialism and the abuse of the Crown, including the writs of assistance. Simply because the manner in which such intrusion can occur does not exclude the concept of right to privacy engendered in the Fourth and subsequent elucidation from the Ninth ("The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.").

The precedent set by Olmstead centered around the location of the wiretapping. However, in the 1967, this precedent would be overturned in Katz v. United States, where Justice Stewart wrote: "The Fourth Amendment protects people, not places".

Certainly it can be charged that the right to privacy is not explicitly written in the Constitution. However, neither is the right to educate your child in either public, private, or parochial school nor is the right to study any foreign language or philosophical position of ones choosing. The entire idea of freedom of conscience is not explicitly written into the Constitution, yet it surfaces at the conjunction of the First and Ninth amendments. The federal government does not have the ability to censor or otherwise hinder the dissemination of information. Congress may no more ban a book than ban a complete school of thought. Yet this concept of freedom of thought or freedom of conscience is no more present in the literal texts than this right to privacy of which this essay is centered upon. This is why it is imperative to utilize fully the intentions of Madison's wording in the Ninth Amendment. Also, consider the text of the Tenth: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people" (emphasis mine).

Before Roe, another case came before the Supreme Court which expanded the concept of the right of privacy into distinctive zones. In Griswold v. Connecticut, Justice Douglas wrote: "Specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance...Various guarantees create zones of privacy." The case was concerning the criminalization of the usage and distribution of contraceptives. Justice Douglas argued that there is a both a right to privacy in the marital relationship and a right in assemblage with the medical practitioner or contraceptive distributor. The wording of the antiquated law gave rise to a possible scenario of the state issuing a warrant to search every marital bed for evidence of contraceptive usage. This situation grated with the current rend of the right to privacy granted by the penumbra of the Bill of Rights.

All this led, in part, to the decision in Roe. Justice Blackmun wrote the following concerning the general right to privacy in relation to terminating pregnancy (all emphasis mine):

This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy. The detriment that the State would impose upon the pregnant woman by denying this choice altogether is apparent. Specific and direct harm medically diagnosable even in early pregnancy may be involved. Maternity, or additional offspring, may force upon the woman a distressful life and future. Psychological harm may be imminent. Mental and physical health may be taxed by child care. There is also the distress, for all concerned, associated with the unwanted child, and there is the problem of bringing a child into a family already unable, psychologically and otherwise, to care for it. In other cases, as in this one, the additional difficulties and continuing stigma of unwed motherhood may be involved. All these are factors the woman and her responsible physician necessarily will consider in consultation.

With the idea that State intrusion does significant harm to the rights of the mother to her privacy, the majority found the criminalization of abortion unconstitutional. It is this right to privacy that transpires into the sexual autonomy desired by the women right activists that ought to be celebrated and championed. It is this fundamental right that ought to be protected with voice and fervor.

On this day, privacy won, and it will only be through the efforts of those who care for it to continue for years to come.

Random Musings

The spring semester is in full swing now at LSU. Senior labs and thesis research will keep me (un)happily busy for the greater part of the semester. And this semester will probably be the only one I'll consider blogging on the inferior* parts of chemistry, such as synthesis and analysis.

But I suppose first I must actually begin posting topics from physical chemistry...

In other news, it is about time for graduate schools to begin sending out letters of acceptance and rejection. I wonder where academia will lead me?