4

=Boricua Science Class Student Work Space=

Student Name:
[Dina Di Salvo}

End of Term Reflection
Here are some of the activities we did in class this term: Harper's Magazine ("Boots on the Ice"), Hurricane Evacuation Plan, Designer Babies (GATACA), Genetic Diseases, Evolution Movies/Research, NYT Science Reviews, Punnett Squares, Chemical Bond Diagrams, The Periodic Table, The Birth and Death of Stars

1) Watching GATTACA and learning about genetics and how they could be altered to create different types of people. 2) Learning about Hurricane and other disaster evacuation programs. I was able to call and get a plan in the event of an emergency which is not only informative but a safety plan as well. 3) The Periodic Table, I was never able to understand much about chemisty and elements in the past but with the help of Professor Lewis, I feel that I have a much better grasp and understanding of it.] [1) The Punnett's Squares! 2) Chemical Bonding! 3) Genetic Diseases] Computer Class = [More/Less] More would be great, I found it very interesting and informative. Hands-on learning always enhances the experience. Videos = [More/Less] Definitely more, being able to watch a film allows me to get a better understanding of the topics. Student Group Activities = [More/Less] Less for me just because I prefer to work on my own. Evaluations = [More/Less] More. I always like to see where I stand academically and evaluate my classes as a whole so that I can understand what I need to improve for the next semester. [I really did enjoy this class very much when I was present. Unfortunately, I found out that I needed to actually pay tuition rather than receiving full financial aid so I did have ALOT of conflicts with work and school which is what caused me to be absent as much as I was. It didnt help that I was registered late either, and I wish I could have been present for all of the classes because I really enjoyed the ones I was in. It was very enjoyable, Professor Lewis made the topics very interesting and when I was present, I found that I didnt have much trouble understanding the topics at hand.]
 * What 2-3 activities did you enjoy/learn the most?
 * What 2-3 activities topic did you find the most difficult to understand?
 * Describe how could we improve this course in the future
 * Explain why you enjoyed, or why you struggled through, this class, offering whatever insights you may feel are valuable:

Name of Disease
[Apert Syndrome]

Symptoms

 * 1) [The skull has an abnormal shape.]
 * 2) [The fingers and toes are fused together in different degrees.]
 * 3) [The middle section of the face appears sunken in and abnormally shaped.]

Genes

 * 1) [FGFR2]

Cytogenetic Location
[10q26]

Base Pair Sites
[]

Community
[Yonkers, New York]

Evacuation Center

 * 1) Location – [Robert C. Dodson School, 105 Avondale Road, Yonkers, New York 10710]
 * 2) Implemented Plan – [The people of the Yonkers community are all advised to gather here at the school. Once we get there, there is an assembly / auditorium room where we are all given instructions to follow. By following the instructions given and remaining calm, authorities can maintain control of the situation at hand and keep everyone in an orderly and safe fashion.]

Your Evacuation Plan
[In the event of an emergency, we have a "go bag" which includes the following: a flashlight with new batteries, extra batteries, a fully charged, prepaid cellular phone, fresh water, an clean outfit for each of us and $100.00 in cash just in case. We keep this bag with these important items right on the back of our front door to avoid the hassle of looking for it in the event of an emergency when we need it in a hurry! Our plan is to call everyone in the family to ensure that we meet at our designated place and head straight over to the school for further instructions to ensure our safety.]

#1
> research, a panel of the National Academy of Sciences > yesterday recommended prior review, at the university and > federal levels, of experiments that could help terrorists > or hostile nations make biological weapons. > > The panel's work was initiated by the academy, the leading > scientific body in the nation, and represents an attempt by > biologists to put their own review systems in place before > others might do so for them. > > But Dr. John H. Marburger, science adviser to President > Bush, suggested that the report might not go far enough. > Though it was "a very positive move by the scientific > community, I am sure there are other things that will > happen in the future," he said. > > "So it isn't as if this is a magic bullet that will bring > an end to all discussion of the issue," Dr. Marburger said. > Asked what further measures might be necessary, he said > only that this was the first time biologists had defined > areas of concern and that the proposed list of seven fields > needed more discussion. > > Dr. Marburger said the administration had not yet decided > whether or how to act on the proposal. > > Though physicists have long lived with the fact that > certain areas of research are classified and cannot be > discussed openly, biologists are relatively new to security > concerns. Apart from biological defense research, done > mostly at military institutions, academic biology is > focused on medicine and conducted without security > restraints. > > The academy panel has sought to institute some measure of > review of possibly harmful biomedical research without > burdening scientific research with onerous controls. Its > proposed solution is to reinvigorate a review system put in > place after a 1975 conference at which biologists called > for a moratorium on certain genetic engineering experiments > then becoming possible. > > Concern about those experiments has long since faded. But > the review system remains, with biosafety committees at all > leading research universities and the federal Recombinant > DNA Advisory Committee, known as the R.A.C. > > The National Academy of Sciences panel, led by Dr. Gerald > Fink of the Whitehead Institute at M.I.T., said research > proposals in seven areas of biology should be reviewed by > both a scientist's local biosafety committee and by the > R.A.C. Local committees could decree that an experiment > should not be conducted on their premises, and the federal > committee could advise the director of the National > Institutes of Health that an experiment should not receive > government money. The government has the power to make any > research secret and therefore prevent the work from being > published, but in practice would not wish to classify large > chunks of biomedical research like immunology and virology. > > > Both Dr. Fink and another panel member, Dr. Ronald Atlas of > the University of Louisville, said the academy had taken up > the security issue on its own initiative, not from > government pressure, and had paid for the study. Most > academy studies are financed by the government. > > The time has come when "interaction between the security > community and life scientists is extremely important, so > that we speak the same language," Dr. Fink said. > > The panel's work seems likely to be palatable to many > scientists, but it remains to be seen if those concerned > with national security will be satisfied. > > A national security expert who served on the panel, Dr. > David Franz of the Southern Research Institute, said he > expected that "individuals who look carefully at this will > see it as a reasonable approach." > > Dr. Donald Kennedy, editor of Science magazine and former > president of Stanford, said his impression of the report > was "very favorable." Dr. Kennedy praised the panel for > deciding not to second-guess journal editors on what could > be published, and for having avoided a step under > discussion, that of creating a murky category of research > that would be deemed somehow sensitive but not so dangerous > as to be classified. > > A chief ingredient of the panel's ideas is the creation of > an advisory committee high in the Department of Health and > Human Services where biologists and national security > experts could swap ideas and fashion advice for the R.A.C. > and local biosafety committees. > > Such guidance might be in great demand. One practical > problem is that neither the R.A.C. nor the local committees > have any expertise in bioterrorism or national security. > > If the administration accepts the panel's ideas, > Congressional action could be needed to set up the proposed > biological defense advisory committee. Or it could be > created by executive order, though Congress would have to > approve its budget. The new duties of the R.A.C. and local > safety committees, however, could be ordained by the > director of the National Institutes of Health through > standard regulatory procedures, panel members said. > > Though the anthrax mailings of fall 2001 demonstrated the > havoc that terrorists might wreak with biotechnology, the > Fink panel's work began 15 months earlier, stimulated by an > Australian effort to enhance the natural potency of a > virus, said Dr. Eileen Choffnes, the study director for the > panel. To eradicate mice in Australia, the scientists > souped up the mousepox virus with a human gene. The > enhanced virus killed even mice that were vaccinated > against the disease. > > Both the authors and editors of The Journal of Virology, to > which they submitted their work, knew the paper could give > terrorists direct ideas about enhancing human pathogens. > But realizing that all the components of the research had > already been published, the editors decided to publish the > article, though after a two-year delay. > > ]
 * 1) Summary – [Despite scientists' general distaste for any constraints on
 * 1) Book Citation – [October 9, 2003, By NICHOLAS WADE
 * 2) Personal Interest – [I chose to cite this article because it is of great interest to me. I think it is important for scientists to be careful with the information that they posess. If it gets into the wrong hands, such as a terrorist, they might get first-hand ideas on how to attack our country whether it be weapons of mass destruction or a simple gas that could cause people to become sick and die.

#2
In this note, we disprove 44 claims in [4] on minimal Boolean formula size of one-dimensional two-state nearest neighbor cellular automata as well as set a new upper  bound. In [4] Wolfram asserts to have found minimal Boolean formulas for (what he denotes) rules of one-dimensional, two-state, nearest neighbor cellular automata (CA) or simply // elementary rules  //. These formulas are minimal in the sense that they “use the minimum possible number of operators” over basis Ω 1  = {0,1,  //  ｬ  // ,  //  ∧  //  ,  //  ∨  //  ,  //  ⊕  //  }. Provided that elementary rules can be interpreted as 3-input Boolean functions and visualized via their respective truth table representation, we would like to draw attention to result (a) of [2], which states that the maximal formula size for 3-input Boolean functions over basis Ω  1   is 5. This result clearly disproves the minimalistic nature of Wolfram’s 8 Boolean formulas in [4] of size 6 and sets a new uppe  r   bound on formula size. We enumerate all 256 3-input Boolean functions via their respective truth table representation and their output column Boolean vector ˆ //  α  //  where  //  α   i   ∈  // {0,1}. Each of the 256 functions represents one permutation of eight binary bits in the output column Boolean vector ˆ // α  //  = [  //  α  //  0  //  α  //  1  //  ｷ ｷ  //
 * 1) Summary – [
 * 1) Book Citation – [Type here]
 * 2) Personal Interest – [Type here]

#3

 * 1) Summary – [Type here]
 * 2) Book Citation – [Type here]
 * 3) Personal Interest – [Type here]

Back to Science homepage