Tag Archives: Garrett Receveur

Columns, Forum

Experiment results could prove fatal

Leave a comment

By Garrett Receveur

When I initially thought of what I was going to write in this column, my mind flashed to the obvious topic of Mitt Romney, the winner of the Iowa caucus by a slim eight vote margin. Indeed, when I was driving home after school one Friday, I had already started drafting a Mitt Romney column in my head.

I had my radio tuned in to 107.7 The Eagle for the early part of my drive but, on a whim, I tuned my radio to NPR’s station, hoping to hear more information about the upcoming New Hampshire and South Carolina caucuses. However, being a new listener to NPR, I was surprised to hear what I did.

Every Friday, as I found out, NPR airs a two-hour special called “Science Friday.” On that particular Friday, NPR broadcast a question-and-answer session featuring two scientists. One of these scientists specialized in microbiology whereas the other specialized in epidemiology.

Both fields are closely related, but they have clear differences. Microbiologists tend to concern themselves more with the specifics of a certain disease, including the organism that causes it. Epidemiologists, on the other hand, focus more on the spread of that disease through a human population.

The discussion that these two scientists were engaged in centered on research done over winter break about the genetic makeup of the H5N1 virus. This virus, closely related to the swine flu virus known as H1N1, is the cause of the rare but deadly avian flu.

Avian flu has infected nearly 600 people since its emergence in 1997. Of those 600, more than half have died from the disease. It’s a deadly disease but, thankfully, it rarely infects humans. That is, unless it mutates.

This is what scientists are most worried about. In an attempt to see what genes would need to mutate before it could spread easily between humans, scientists at the University of Wisconsin and the University in Rotterdam (the Netherlands) engineered a new strain of avian flu.

Scientists used ferrets, which are great models of pathogenicity (i.e. how viruses spread), to test the spread of the virus. Initially, the scientists had to physically inject the virus into a ferret. Once this ferret died, the scientists injected the blood from the dead ferret into a healthy ferret. After only 10 injections, the virus mutated to a point where it was able to spread through the air to healthy ferrets across the room.

Naturally, the scientists who conducted this study want to publish the results. That’s typical of scientific experiments and no one typically raises a fuss over this. However, the very nature of the results of this experiment turns its publication into a matter of national security.

Scientific papers typically include a section on how the scientists did the experiment. In this case, the paper would include a complete genetic code of the virus. An educated bioterrorist could, theoretically, make his own modified avian flu virus and unleash its wrath upon the world.

As a result, the National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity told several scientific journals, including Science and Nature to publish the paper for this study but to edit out details about how to duplicate the results.

While duplication of results is an important step in determining the validity of an experiment, there would be too much of a risk in this case. If this paper were to fall into the wrong hands, a vast majority of the world population could be done for.

Despite what others are saying, this experiment needed to be done. This experiment revealed what genes are likely to mutate on the avian flu virus in the future and thus gives scientists a head start in the race to create a vaccine.

That said, I do think that the entire paper should be released to a select few scientists in order for this information to be put to use. While I agree that the entirety of the paper should not be published in journals that practically anyone could purchase, some scientists should be allowed to scrutinize it.

In this age of increased global travel, the likelihood of a global pandemic on par with the Black Death or the Spanish flu epidemic of 1918 is quite high. This coupled with unrest in the Middle East could provide the perfect environment for a bioterrorist to strike a heavy blow to modern civilization. If we allow this paper to be published in full in all the major scientific journals, we could potentially be giving him the knowledge he needs.

Just over winter break, a man in Hong Kong died from avian flu. More than likely, he picked it from being in close contact with a sick bird.

However, let us assume for the moment that the man had been infected with a strain of avian flu not much different from the one these scientists developed. Let us assume that the virus is able to be passed easily from person to person and, early on, shows the similar symptoms to milder, less lethal flus.

Let us also assume that the man spread this deadlier avian flu to a business man who happened to be traveling to Britain for a business meeting. Naturally, the man would infect everyone in the Hong Kong airport as well as everyone in the British airport. Those infected will inevitably pass the disease along to other people, perhaps an American family vacationing in Britain. The point is that this deadlier avian flu could very easily, and quickly, spread throughout the world. And all it takes is the instruction manual falling into the wrong hands.

Claire DeFrancisci, Columns, Forum

Writer gives ideal political situation

Leave a comment

By Garrett Receveur

The national debt stands at over 14 trillion dollars. Unemployment stands at 9.1 percent. The global economy is eroding away. New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg warns that, as riots engulf Europe, New York City may be next.

The time for solutions to solve these problems is now. Barack Obama is entering the last year of his first term as president with disapproval for him and his administration rapidly increasing.

If Obama wants to remain in the White House for another term, he has to make significant headway in bringing our nation’s problems under control. He has to stop golfing and start leading.

It now seems that Obama is trying to come up with a viable solution.

His proposal is focused on eliminating three trillion dollars from our national debt over the next decade. Plans include a heavier tax on the wealthy, reductions on Medicare, and removing troops from Iraq and Afghanistan.

These proposals to fix our country are in danger of falling into a partisan trap with Republicans trying to mar Obama’s image by destroying every facet of Obama’s proposals and with Democrats willing to pass anything to keep Obama in the White House.

Obviously, this is a gross over-simplification of the matter. There are proposals that Republicans agree with and some that Democrats disagree with.

There are going to be disagreements with Obama’s plan on both sides of the political spectrum, no one denies that. However, these disagreements need to be on the basis of what is best for the country, not on what voters want.

What this country needs now is a non-partisan approach to solving this economic crisis. Rigid party lines are more of a high brick wall, blocking progress in the right direction.

I am non-partisan. To be specific, I am economically conservative and socially liberal. I believe that the best way to solve this national debt problem is to cut spending and raise taxes. In addition, I am pro-life and pro-gay marriage.

My political beliefs combine those of the Democratic and Republican parties. Democrats are, for the most part, pro-gay marriage and pro-raising taxes. Republicans, on the other hand, are more pro-life and pro-spending cuts.

We often judge people based upon their political affiliations. We often associate Republicans with backwoods rednecks who speak with an unintelligible Southern drawl and Democrats with blind politicians concerned more with their public image than with doing what is best for the country.

Often, our particular party affiliations bind us with metaphorical blinders, happy with any action our party does and decrying any action the opposite party does. Sometimes, our party affiliations even cause us to sulk and take an axe to the television when a president from the opposite party is elected.

That happened to me in 2008 when Obama was elected. In the days before the election, I would often engage in intense political debates with my friends about why Republican John McCain would make a better president than Obama.

On Obama’s election night, I continuously pinched myself to make sure I wasn’t dreaming.

In the years since Obama’s election, I have warmed up to him and other Democrats. Do I still think that Democrats are a curse put on mankind? No, absolutely not. Democrats and Republicans both have certain platforms I agree with and certain positions I don’t.

Regardless of our political affiliations, we must try to do what is best for our country in the months leading up to the 2012 election. If keeping Obama in the White House will solve this debt and jobs crisis, I hope you all will join me in cheering when he is reelected. If, however, Obama proves that he needs to go, I hope we will all cheer for his replacement with as much enthusiasm.

I think former president John Kennedy put it best when he said, “Let us not seek the Republican answer or the Democratic answer, but the right answer.”

Now is not the time to fill Congress with one political party. Now is the time to put people who know what they’re doing into power in order to fix this crisis.

Columns, Forum

Columnist deliberates on trial verdict

Leave a comment

By Garrett Receveur

After eleven hours of deliberation, which was spread out over a two-day period, the jury enters the courtroom and takes their seats. As the judge is handed the jury’s verdict, the prosecution and defense rise.

The defendant holds hands with her two defense lawyers, standing on either side of her.

The judge, collecting his voice, reads, “On the charge of first-degree murder: not guilty. On the charge of aggravated child abuse: not guilty.. On the charge of aggravated manslaughter: not guilty. And on the charge of four counts of giving false information to law enforcement: guilty as charged.”

After the verdict was read, the defendant tearfully smiled and hugged her lead attorney. She was fingerprinted and later returned to the Orange County Jail, where she will probably be released from soon.

Casey Anthony, the defendant in this case that held the nation spellbound as it proceeded, was found not guilty of murdering her two year-old.

Caylee Anthony, Casey Anthony’s daughter, was almost three years-old at the time of her untimely demise in July 2008.

Caylee Anthony had a whole life to live, a whole life to enjoy. In about August of this year, she would be preparing for her first day of kindergarten. She would have gone out with her mother to buy school supplies and, quite possibly, a Winnie-the-Pooh backpack. She would have been nervous seeing the bus pull up to take her to school that first day but, after some reassurances from her mother and bus driver, would eagerly climb onto the big yellow monster that would become a part of her daily routine.

Caylee Anthony was robbed of the amazement she would feel when she stepped into her school for the first time, the shear fun she would have on the playground as she swung from the monkey bars, and the utter confusion she would experience as she waited in line in the cafeteria.

Her mother selfishly took away her daughter’s first day of school, her first day of high school, her first kiss, her graduation day, her wedding, all of it. Caylee Anthony never got to experience growing up; her young life was cut off before she was even three years-old.

Despite the jury’s verdict, there was considerable proof that Casey Anthony murdered her daughter to, quite probably, enjoy life free from the burden of motherhood. Numerous photos entered into evidence showed Casey Anthony shopping and partying during the 31 days that passed before Caylee Anthony’s disappearance was reported.

In addition, near the end of those 31 days, Casey Anthony’s father George was told that his daughter’s car was in a tow yard. When he went to pick it up, he noticed strong smell that smelled like something dying.

In fact, Cindy Anthony, Casey Anthony’s mother, reportedly told a 911 operator, “There is something wrong. I found my daughter’s car today and it smells like there’s been a dead body in the d*** car.”

Needless to day, forensic scientists searched the car, spending a lot of time on the trunk. The scientists found a human hair in the trunk that exhibited a phenomenon known as “hair banding.” Simply put, hair banding is when the root of the hair turns dark after death.

In addition, a gas analysis performed in the trunk of the car showed that there were chemical compounds “consistent with a decompositional event.” However, it is unclear whether this indicates that a human was lying dead in the trunk or not.

Also, there was duct tape found across Caylee Anthony’s mouth when her body was found. This duct tape matches that of a gas can at Casey Anthony’s house. In addition, Caylee Anthony’s Winnie-the-Pooh blanket, which was missing from her bedroom, was found near her body.

Even a quick glance at the evidence will show that Casey Anthony is guilty of murdering her daughter and as such deserves to be punished under the full extent of the law. In other words, for murdering her almost three year-old daughter, Casey Anthony deserves the death penalty.

However, when the charge she deserves is brought to light, the case gets grave. The evidence, while it does indicate that something died in Casey Anthony’s trunk and that Caylee Anthony is dead, does not explicitly state that Casey Anthony did, without a shadow of a doubt, kill her daughter.

While it is quite likely that Casey Anthony is in fact guilty, there is a chance that someone else could have killed her daughter. There is a chance that a boyfriend, out of jealousy against Caylee Anthony, could have killed her with materials in Casey Anthony’s house, could have taken the body to the forest, and dumped the car off at a tow yard.

Of course, if that was the case, Casey Anthony would still be a terrible mother, having spent 31 days shopping and partying before reporting to the police that her daughter was missing. But it would mean that her boyfriend, not Casey Anthony, was guilty of the actual murder and thus deserved the death penalty.

However, this is only a hypothetical. There was no “smoking gun” at the scene that directly convicted Casey Anthony. Heck, there was not even a crime scene. There was just a place where the body was supposedly stored and where the body was found.

The evidence, while casting a heavily suspicious eye on Casey Anthony, does not directly proclaim her guilt. That is why, while I feel uneasy about letting Casey Anthony go, I agree with the jury.

Let us assume for a second that Casey Anthony is, indeed, not guilty and is just a really terrible mother. Let us also assume that the public believed that Casey Anthony was innocent. Yet, with the same evidence presented, the jury finds her guilty of murdering her daughter. As such, by finding her guilty, the jury would be sentencing an innocent woman to death and letting the guilty killer go.

Frankly, while I believe that Casey Anthony is guilty of murdering her daughter, I would rather, given the evidence, let her go. While Caylee Anthony, the nearly three year-old girl robbed of much of her childhood, does deserve justice, it should be definitive justice.

I thoroughly believe that Casey Anthony was guilty of murdering her daughter. And, if more evidence came to light, I am positive that the jury would agree with me and she would be sitting on death row right now.

But, with the unclear evidence that was presented, it is unclear whether Casey Anthony was guilty or innocent.

If evidence later comes to light that Casey Anthony was guilty, well, she’ll get hers. But, if it comes out that Casey Anthony was, in fact, innocent and we killed her, we will all get ours in the future.

We should not kill one innocent life for the sake of avenging another. After all, an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.

[polldaddy poll=5225419]