A Visit To The Galleries

Last week, I visited two student-curated exhibitions at the Beard and Weil Galleries on campus. I found out about this art exhibition through my colleague Rufus Chan who also happens to be among the group of students curating the exhibition. The Beard Gallery exhibition, titled “Tracing the Thread,” features more than 55 objects from Wheaton’s permanent collection, the Gebbie Archives and Special Collection and private collections that represent the ways in which humans from a variety of cultures create and use fiber, both past and present. It was really fascinating to see how the students set up the entire gallery: if I didn’t know better, I would have thought it was set up by an outside source. Each of the pieces in the gallery had written descriptions put together by the students with the help of their supervising faculty and the college archivist.

The Weil Gallery exhibition, titled “Goya and Beethoven: Finding a Voice out of Silence”. The exhibition is collaboration between a history course on Francisco Goya and a Music course on Ludwig van Beethoven. Featured in the gallery were 23 Goya prints and nine print portraits of Beethoven and his colleagues. It was certainly marvelous to see these amazing works of art on display in such harmony. Not to mention, both the Beard and Weil Galleries are in the same room so all the different pieces were next to each other. When I first heard that they were being exhibited together, I couldn’t picture how that would work. However the students in charge of curating gallery made sure that the pieces weren’t convoluted, they actually complemented each other. I enjoyed being able to learn about multiple art pieces individually and collectively. Certainly, I will add “visiting art galleries” to my list of hobbies.

The Unforeseen Pain of Texting

Image Courtesy of Time.com

If you’re the type of person who’s constantly glued to your phone, be warned: Looking down at your screen can be the equivalent of putting up to 60 pounds of extra weight on your spine, according to a new analysis published in the journal Surgical Technology International. As most of you are aware, the caved shoulders habit is bad posture and a recipe for back pain. But turns out, leaning your head forward while texting or using social media may be another way to wreak havoc.

For the study, New York City-based spine surgeon Kenneth Hansraj, MD, created a computer model of the human spine to see what happens as the human head, which weighs about 10 to 12 pounds on average, tilts down to check a text. The results: “As the head tilts forward the forces seen by the neck surges to 27 pounds at 15 degrees, 40 pounds at 30 degrees, 49 pounds at 45 degrees, and 60 pounds at 60 degrees,” he writes in the paper.

To put that in perspective, 60 pounds is about how much an average 8-year-old weighs, meaning being constantly hunched over to view a text is almost like perpetually having a child strung around your neck. Texting isn’t the only thing to blame. Looking down to check a Facebook post or even read a story on your tablet can be just as costly for your spine. People spend an average of two to four hours a day with their heads down looking to read and text on their phones and devices, according to the paper. In total, that’s about 700 to 1,400 hours a year of excess stress on the spine.

Leaning your head forward can reduce the natural curve in your cervical spine (aka your neck), which causes stress that can lead to wear and tear, degeneration, and possibly surgery, Hansraj writes. So, now might be a good time to train yourself to put your phone away. Talk face to face, quit scrolling Instagram so much and enjoy the world around you! That, or text differently: with eyes straight ahead and your phone held out in front of you. It may look funny, but so does a back brace.

Spilling the Beans: The Science and Health Risks Behind GMOs

Image Courtesy of Gmofreeusa

Lets take some time to think about the food that we eat. I think it is about time we started to think about exactly how the food we eat are grown or how they are made. It is a fact that the majority of foods we buy from stores are of genetically produced in order to keep up with increasing demands. After some research, I discovered that foods began to be modified with selective breeding. Selective breeding is when plants or animals with genetically faster maturity rate, resistance to disease are selected and bred together to create new species with preferred traits. A scientist, Gregor Mendel pioneered the science behind this process in 1866 when he worked on breeding common peas to produce certain colors of flowers. The science behind this is certainly fascinating but where did selective breeding go wrong?

Selective breeding of today’s foods has commercial interests as its focus and not healthy plants, animals, or people. The genetic modification (GMO) of foods by producers takes selective breeding to a new area, one that is yet to be found anywhere in nature. Usually genetic modification, producers can grow specific species of crops like corn to make harvesting much easier. However, genetically modifying corn introduces bacteria DNA to the corn plant that can multiple health consequences for humans and animals alike. For instance, it was found that the bacteria DNA in genetically modified corn have harmful effects on Monarch butterflies because the pollen from the corn contains toxins. That’s just animals who help other crops grow through pollination. What about its effects on humans you ask?

In America specifically, the argument is still ongoing. However, certain nations have completely outlawed GMO foods because they believe that GMO foods pose a health risk to their citizens. This is because GMOs have been linked to thousands of toxic and allergenic reactions, thousands of sick, sterile, and dead livestock, and damage to virtually every organ and system studied in lab animals. Typical foods that contain GMOs are soy, corn and canola. These maybe a few foods but corn for example is used and processed into tons of other foods that we use daily. Certainly the chain of GMO in our food and our genes is scary and changes are needed. For now I suggest that we all critically consider where are food originates before we consume.

#LetsTalkAboutHashtags

Image Courtesy of Space&Time

We’re officially in the era of too many hashtags. Nearly all-social media users stick them in posts as a form of categorization to create trends. Quickly scan Twitter, Instagram, and Tumblr — and now Facebook — and you are bound to see a hashtag attached to a post. This is not only in America; in January France chose to ban the word hashtag due to its overwhelming popularity. Should America follow suit and ban the hashtag or limit its popularity?

Does the use of hashtags affect our writing skills? I am not quite sure. What I’ve observed on several social media platforms is that people often use only single coherent phrases followed by strings of hashtags. This is to often done to convey a message but a writers, I believe this might limit our ability to coherently express ourselves. Chris Messina, a Google employee, pioneered this modern use of hashtags several years ago. Messina thought the old pound symbol could be a good way to “tag” tweets and add order to all Twitter action.

This origin doesn’t matter anymore. Hashtags now act as paralanguages, like shoulder shrugs and intonations which is fine. Although hashtags are occasionally annoying, I think they also serve a great purpose as well. Think back to hashtags like #BostonStrong and #Bringbackourgirls. These hashtags among many others showed the potential for people from all walks of life to rally for good courses. I believe hashtags have become an interesting part of American culture despite the fact that it is often misused. It would certainly be interesting to see what hashtags will be used for in the years to come.

“Never Lose a Holy Curiosity” – Albert Einstein

Image Courtesy of PBS

Before the Internet and before the printing press, knowledge was the preserve of the 1 percent. Books were also luxuries only available to kings. The arrival of the printing press and, latterly, the worldwide web has broken this monopoly. Today, in a world where vast inequalities in access to information are finally being leveled, a new cognitive divide is emerging: between the curious and the incurious.

Twenty-first-century economies are rewarding those who have an unquenchable desire to discover, learn and accumulate a wide range of knowledge. It’s no longer just about who or what you know, but how much you want to know. The curious are more likely to stay in education for longer. A hungry mind isn’t the only trait you need to do well at school, but it is the best single predictor of achievement since it is associated with intelligence and conscientiousness.

Students need to stay curious, because the wages for routine intellectual work, even in professional industries are falling. Technology is rapidly taking over tasks historically performed by human beings, and it’s no longer enough to be merely competent or smart. But no computer can yet be said to be curious. Curious people are often good at solving problems for their employers, because they’re really solving them for themselves. When working with others on the same problem, most people cut themselves slack. Highly curious people form an exception to this rule.

We ought to be doing everything we can to foster curiosity but we undervalue and misunderstand it. Our education system is increasingly focused on preparing students for specific jobs. To teach someone to be an engineer or a lawyer is not the same as teaching them to be a curious learner – yet often the best engineers and lawyers are the most curious learners.

Hearing and Learning from Deo

Image Courtesy of Wheaton College

Deogratias “Deo” Niyizonkiza, the visionary founder and CEO of Village Health Works (VHW), is a leading advocate for the most impoverished people in the world. His compassion, expertise and life experience have made him a key voice in global health and international development. I had the opportunity to meet Deo during the inauguration of Wheaton’s 8th president, Dennis Hanno. Deo was on campus to deliver a keynote speech at the inauguration as well as to receive the 2014 Otis Social Justice Award. After receiving the award, he delivered an amazing speech on “Restoring Human Dignity in a Wounded Burundi” through his Village Health Works project. What I found amazing by his speech was the fact that he encouraged people to be active, that no matter how small the effort is, everyone can make a change in the lives of others in seemingly impossible ways. Along with a group of students interested in health initiatives, I had the opportunity to speak to Deo for an hour after the event. I was blown away by how humble and encouraging he was despite having survived several difficulties in his life. I discussed with him some of my passions in my life to which he gave me lots of advice as to ways I can fulfill them. One additional aspect of his life I also found unique was the fact that he was motivated to make a difference in the life of others by his challenging upbringing in Burundi. Meeting Deo was an absolute delight and I was glad he signed my copy of his book “Strength in What Remains” and also offered to keep in touch with me.

Whats All The Commotion About Ebola??

Image Courtesy of CNN

First, only two people have caught Ebola in the United States. Both were in contact with the patient during the time he was most infectious. Should you be aware of this news? Yes! Should you freak out? No. I am aware that Ebola has arrived in the U.S and people are scared but there no need for panic and hysteria. I believe it is the unknown nature of the disease that has most people scared because it is extraordinarily unlikely that the U.S will have an Ebola outbreak. Many news outlets are perpetuating this unnecessary anxiety and hysteria because they realize that being calm and thoughtful wouldn’t get them as much ratings as panic and terror. Despite the ongoing mixed messages, I have done my research so here are some tips you should know about Ebola in America:

• How does Ebola spread: The virus isn’t airborne so it doesn’t spread easily like the flu or a cold. Instead, it’s in a sick person’s bodily fluids, such as blood, vomit, urine, semen or saliva. Another person can catch the disease by getting those germs into his own body, perhaps by wiping his eyes or through a cut in the skin. The initial symptoms are easily confused with other illnesses, however: fever, headaches, flu-like body aches and abdominal pain. Vomiting, diarrhea and sometimes-bleeding follow as the disease progresses, increasing the risk to others.
• You can’t catch it on a bus or plane: This is unlikely because health officials haven’t seen real world cases of the virus spread by casual contact in public, such as sitting next to someone on a bus. To be on the safe side, the CDC defines “contact” with the disease as spending a prolonged period of time within 3 feet of someone ill with Ebola, a distance designed to protect health workers from projectile vomiting.
• The talk never stops: Expect to hear news reports in the coming days about people who are being cared for as potential Ebola cases. That doesn’t mean they have the disease. Several measures are in place to ensure the curtailing of any chance of Ebola outbreaks. Please stay safe and do your research before you make any claims about the disease that is not true.

This post is partly inspired by a recent episode of the Colbert Report where Steven Colbert debunks all the false news surrounding the disease. You can watch a clip of the episode here, its pretty hilarious and accurate.

Academic Writing Doesn’t Have To Stink

Image Courtesy of VisualizeUs

As major in anthropology, the majority of my writing has to be tailored to the requirements of my department. When it comes to writing in anthropological ways, there isn’t any strict structure to follow as long as the message is clear to the reader. However, I can honestly say there are several times when I feel compelled to use anthropological jargon that many people might find it hard to read. This feeling to adhere to often abstract jargons is what Steven Pinker, author of the article “Why Academics Stink at Writing” would attribute as a deliberate choice in bad writing.

In his article, Pinker suggests numerous reasons to why academics are terrible at conveying often-simple messages or findings in their writing. For instance, academics like myself tend to write abstractly because they feel pressured to adhere to the writing styles of journals and review boards. However in doing so, most academics forget that writing is a form of communication, that using clear and precise wording allows your reader to engage with you rather than searching for other ways to understand the conversation. As a measure to deal with such issues, Pinker suggests adopting the 17^th century classic style utilized by essayists such as Descartes and La Rochefoucauld.

The Classic style succeeds in aligning language used by the writer with truth, clarity and simplicity. This is mainly because if a writer were confident in their writings, s/he wouldn’t feel the need to use abstract words or language to appear versed in their field. More so, Pinker suggests rethinking about the two components of academic writing, which are practical and self-conscious styles. The two styles are often blended together in presenting coherent information and thus neglecting one or the other diverts the message within the specific writing. I found this point really interesting because in considering writing as a communication, it is important to assure that a reader or listener is on the same page as I am.

In general, Pinker’s article has certainly changed the mindset with which I approach my academic writing. Since I am currently working on my senior thesis, this information on academic writing is absolutely vital to presenting and defending my topic. Also, to my fellow academics, remember communication is key when writing to an audience.

What Are We Eating!!

Image Courtesy of Saxton Horne

As you can tell by now, I am a big advocate for news and issues presented on NPR. I was reading a health article that discusses reasons why European countries do not want to import food from America. The main argument of the article centered on the use of chemicals by American food producers. The article, aptly titled “European Activists Say They Don’t Want Any U.S. ‘Chlorine Chicken’” raised some personal concerns I’ve always had about how food is processed in the US.

According to the article, American producers often use chlorine to disinfect their chicken primarily because production is on a large scale and it also saves time. Additionally, cleaning chicken with chlorine also removes diseases like salmonella and other bacteria. While taking this step to make food cleaner for consumption might be a good idea, the issue of having side effects of using such chemicals in food cannot be ignored. According to the article, Europeans use a different and efficient approach to preventing the same issue that the US uses chemicals for. Their flocks of chicken are tested regularly for salmonella and if any of these chickens test positive, farmers have to get rid of the entire flock. If we are to compare, the European approach is much more effective as they are able to eliminate the problems at the root.

As a society, I believe that if we do not condone drinking water from pools because of the chlorine and chemicals in them then there should be no reason to use those chemicals in our food. I believe this issue relates to many of the reasons why most Americans have multiple health complications often tends to be passed on to future generations. Compared to chicken prices in Europe, American chicken prices are cheaper but in the long term the externalities of both systems suggest that it would be worth is to pay more for non-chlorine cleaned chicken. In this sense, I gladly side with European countries not wanting to buy poultry produce from America.

Redefining Patient-Physician Relationships

Photo Courtesy of Fox Business News

While combing through NPR this weekend, I found an article titled, “To Prevent Repeat Hospitalizations, Talk To Patients” by Sarah Mccammon to be quite interesting. The article talked about changes and improvements in patient-doctor communications as an important method for sustainable health. The article elaborated that those patients who establish deep rapport and trust with their doctors beyond prescriptions and checkups tended to be have improved health situations.

Although this is certainly great news, I believe it also highlights a lot of the issues within our healthcare system. Communication between patients and physicians is as effective as medicine. But too often, both come up short. From the perspective of an anthropological and a regular patient, I have noticed that healthcare system in this country tends to be skewed towards profit than the delivery of care. Thus many people have continuously suffered despite having access to medications because their physicians are more dedicated towards profit than health provision. I believe this also relates to specific attitudes people develop towards health as they often become aware that health institutions value their monies more than their lives.

This article points to a lot of changes that can be made to improve healthcare in our society. For instance, with improved communication between patients and physicians, a lot of hospital visits would be prevented as patients learn more ways to care for themselves. Additionally, some of unnecessary costs of Medicaid due to constant hospital can be prevented, which will also mean taxpayer dollars are being put to good use. Finally, I believe physicians will serve their true purposes as health providers and teacher, not exploiters.