Individual Project

Jayvee R. Marjes
2013-13902
Section THY
Francisco Santos

A Filipino Chemist: Francisco Santos

Being a scientist is not as easy as cleaning up an entire house. A scientist must use his/her knowledge to help his fellowmen in all sorts of things. He should make inventions for the benefit of others. He should discover cure for the unknown diseases that has spread all throughout the country, and other similar things.

For my project, I will present a Filipino Scientist who worked hard to discover a cure for a certain disease and shared this discovery for the benefit of others; which was a sign of a true scientist. And this scientist was no other than Dr. Francisco O. Santos.

“Francisco Santos was known for his contributions on the field of agriculture and chemistry. With his expertise on his fields, he studied the chemical composition of local food here in the Philippines to help protect Filipinos from diseases and help them to have an excellent diet” (Bellis).

“Dr. Santos was born on Calizon, Bulacan on June 3, 1892. He finished Bachelor of Arts on 1912 and Masters of Science on 1919 at the University of the Philippines. He took his Doctorate Degree at Yale University on Biochemistry. He was then known as a national scientist for his influences on nutrition and his thoughtfulness for the health of Filipinos, especially on places of poor medication” (Wikipedia).

Dr. Santos was the one who advocates the use of fruits and vegetable as source of vitamins and minerals. Through his concern with the Filipino diet and his hard work, he came up with a solution, getting vitamins from local Philippine foods. For me, it was a very practical and efficient way of sustaining health for the Filipinos. Since Philippines is an agricultural land, this plants will be an easy access for all of the people especially for the farmers and the fishermen.

During his time, the disease “beri beri” was a very common disease. This is a disease in which the body does not have enough thiamine or vitamin B1. “Dr. Santos established the anti-beriberi content of sweet potato and demonstrated the food value of this crop” (Bato Balani).

            Because of his discoveries in the field of nutrition, Dr. Santos received a number of awards including the Distinguished Service Medal for outstanding contribution in the field of nutrition among Filipinos, 1955. “He is also a recipient of the Andres Soriano award in chemistry, 1956; and the University of the Philippines Alumni award, 1979” (DOST).

It must have been a very difficult but fulfilling discovery for Dr. Santos; because his own discovery was used all over the world. He was such a great scientist. To discover such thing requires a lot of time, dedication, and hard work. And Dr. Santos proved it. It goes to show us that hard work, inspiration and determination will let us achieve things that we thought we won’t.

Work Cited

Bellis, Mary; Filipino Chemist – Francisco Santos;
            http://inventors.about.com/od/filipinoscientists/p/FranciscoSantos.htm; March 6, 2014

Wikipedia; 6 May 2013; http://tl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francisco_Santos; March 6, 2014

Bato Balani; Francisco O. Santos;
            http://personalmemoir.wordpress.com/2009/06/12/257/; March 8, 2014

DOST; Francisco Santos;
http://www.nast.ph/index.php?option=com_profile&id=94&view=details&template=nast3&Itemid=19

Individual Project: Transparent Batteries (2013-48674)

MARQUEZ, Kristina Patriz S.

2013-48674

STS-THY

Individual Project for STS

Transparent Batteries: Step closer into Sci-fi no more

                In the year 2011, several researchers at the Stanford University lent their hands to create transparent lithium-ion batteries, which can be seen in the picture above. This research was led by Yi Cui. The researchers made a grid-structured electrode, which is fabricated by a microfluidics-assisted method.

                But, what are these transparent batteries for? At first, I was really wondering why someone would waste so much effort just to create transparent batteries. But then of course, I realized how people starve so much for transparent devices, for the devices introduced to us by sci-fi movies.

                What good is a see through screen if the electronics behind it are as opaque as ever? Several companies have already created partially transparent gadgets; however, fully transparent devices seem to have remained in our imaginations due to one missing piece.

                "If you want to make everything transparent, what about the battery?", Yi Cui asked. Transparent batteries, a key component in fully integrated transparent devices, have not yet been reported. Developing a transparent power source was the last obstacle, the last puzzle piece, to creating fully transparent digital gadgets.

                Yuan Yang and Cui came up with a research idea on how to make transparent batteries. “Since key active materials in batteries cannot yet be made transparent or replaced with transparent alternatives, Yang and Cui realized that they had to find a way to construct a battery such that its nontransparent components were too small to be seen by the naked eye.”(Liou, 2011)

                The human eye’s maximum resolving power is between 50 to 100 microns. This means that things smaller than 50 microns would appear transparent in front of the naked eye. With this in mind, Yang and Cui devised a mesh-like framework for the battery electrodes, with each "line" in the grid being approximately 35 microns wide.

                Instead of using copper or aluminum, polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS) was used as a transparent alternative. PDMS is actually pretty cheap but is not conductive so metals had to be deposited onto it. To do so, PDMS was poured into silicon molds to create grid-patterned trenches. A metal film was evaporated over the trenches, creating a conductive layer. A liquid slurry solution containing minuscule, nano-sized active electrode materials were then dropped into the trenches.

                Next, a special transparent substance was developed to be sandwiched between electrodes. Yang modified an existing gel electrolyte to make it serve double-duty as both an electrolyte and a separator. By precisely placing an electrolyte layer between two electrodes, one functional battery is created. Multiple layers can be added in order to create a larger and more powerful battery.

                As long as the gridlines are matched accurately, transparency is maintained. Yang and Cui's light transmittance tests showed a 62 percent transparency in visible light, and approximately 60 percent  transparency even with three full cells stacked on top of each other.

                The transparent battery is less expensive than one might expect. Cui even said that "Its cost could be similar to those of regular batteries.” The resulting power packs are cheap and flexible but, currently, can only store about half as much energy as a traditional lithium-ion battery. Although Cui says that they could still increase the amount of energy the battery can store without sacrificing its transparency by simply lining up a few transparent cells in the same way that most batteries use a series of cells to produce more power.

References:

[1] Anthony, S. (2011). Transparent lithium-ion batteries make sci-fi gadgets a reality. Retrieved from http://www.extremetech.com/computing/90964-transparent-lithium-ion-batteries-make-sci-fi-gadgets-a-reality. March 1, 2014.

[2] Cui, Y., Hu, L., Jeong, S., Lee, S. W., Woo, H., & Yang, Y. (2011). Transparent lithium-ion batteries. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1102873108 or http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2011/07/18/1102873108?tab=author-info. March 1, 2014.

[3] DiSalvo, D. (2011). 10 Big science and technology advances to watch. Retrieved from http://www.forbes.com/sites/daviddisalvo/2011/07/29/10-big-science-and-technology-advances-to-watch/. March 1, 2014.

[4] Liou, S. (2011). Stanford transparent batteries: seeing straight through to the future?. Retrieved from. http://news.stanford.edu/news/2011/july/transparent-litiumion-battery-072511.html. March 1, 2014.

Individual Project- Noah's Ark Found on Mt. Ararat (2013-49565)

References:

Corbin, B. J.. The Explorers of Ararat and the search for Noah's ark. Long Beach, CA: Great Commission Illustrated Books, 1999.

Sellier, Charles E., and David W. Balsiger. "Ground and Aerial Sightings." In The incredible discovery of Noah's Ark, 212-213. New York, New York: Dell Pub., 1995.

Eden, Dan. "Noah's Ark Discovered -- again." Noah's Ark Discovered -- again. http://www.viewzone.com/noahx.html (accessed March 1, 2014).

Individual Project-Rolando Dela Cruz (2013-72071)

Name: Fabia, Bianca Anne M.

Student No.: 2013-72071

Section: THY

Individual Project

            Have you ever stopped what you’re doing to think about the things around you or the things you’re using? Also, have you thought about who invented them?

            For my project, I’ve decided to write about Rolando De La Cruz, a Filipino inventor. He became recognized in the field of science in the Philippines due to his inventions that can cure or heal different kinds of skin diseases.

            A short background information about Rolando De La Cruz that I’ve found was that in his youth, he once worked as a barber. He used to see a lot of unsightly moles, warts, acne, and other skin diseases on his clients. According to him, that was what inspired him to make the creams that could help heal these skin diseases. (WikiFilipino)

            Apparently, he isn’t a doctor, he’s just an inventor. He improved on what he invented with the help of experts and doctors. (WikiFilipino)

            During March 1997, he founded the RCC Amazing Touch International Inc. where he is a President and CEO. His clinic introduces a non-surgical removal of moles, warts, and other skin diseases, and fixing the skin without physical pain, which costs less than operations.

            His first inventions that gave him recognition are called DeMole and DeWart. These are creams that used cashew extracts to remove moles and warts without scarring. The ingredients used were all natural. It was made known around the world during different exhibitions like the First ASEAN Health and Wellness Exhibition in Japan.

            His other invention, the DeBCC, also gave him a lot of awards and recognition because it was found to be able to cure basal cell carcinoma, an ordinary kind of cancer that can be caused by overexposure to the sun; it usually targets the face, ears, scalp, neck, shoulders, and back. It’s made from cashew extracts and other medicinal plants found in the Philippines. It was also mentioned that it was tested with the help of the University of the Philippines and the Philippine General Hospital on a patients that have suffered from skin cancer that can’t be cured. It was applied on the affected skin and after four months, it became better. After two years, there were no reported negative side effects.

            So now, I’ll talk about the awards he received.

            For his first inventions, which were the DeMole and DeWart, he received a gold medal in the International Invention, Innovation, Industrial Design and Technology Exhibition which happened in Kuala Lumpur Malaysia during September 2000. He also achieved a bronze medal during 1999 in the Salon International des Inbventions de Geneve in Switzerland and a silver medal from the World Genius Convention in Japan during 2001.

            For his other invention, which was the DeBCC, he received a gold medal for the Archimedes Award in Russia. During November 2005, he achieved the first place award, which was also hailed as the most meaningful or relevant invention of the year, in the International Inventor's Forum which was held in Germany.

            The excellence and creativity that he showed also gave him recognition in the World Intellectual Property Organization.

            According to one of my sources, despite everything he has achieved and the great contributions to science, he’s still working on other research projects in order to find more ways to treat skin cancer and other skin diseases.

            From his life story, I can say that hard work, determination and an open mind are really important characteristics or traits that an inventor or a scientist should have in order to attain success in their research and experiments. I also learned that you don’t have to hold a specific scientific degree in order to create your own experiments to help solve some health problems.

Bibliography

Bellis, Mary, 2014. Filipino Scientist Rolando de la Cruz. About.com Inventors. http://inventors.about.com/od/filipinoscientists/p/de_la_Cruz.htm. February 28, 2014.

2009. Rolando dela Cruz. WikiFilipino. MediaWiki. Vibal Foundation. http://fil.wikipilipinas.org/index.php?title=Rolando_dela_Cruz. February 28, 2014.

2001. Pinoy develops anti-viral cream from cashew nut. Philippine Star. http://www.philstar.com/science-and-technology/128431/pinoy-develops-anti-viral-cream-cashew-nut. February 28, 2014.

Anonas, Framelia, 2005. Filipino inventor wins gold for skin cancer cure. Science and Technology Media Service. http://sntpost.stii.dost.gov.ph/frames/OcttoDec05/Filipino_inventor_wins_gold_for_skin_cancer_cure.htm. February 28, 2014.

2010. Filipino Chemist - Rolando De La Cruz. Filipino and Foreign Chemist. http://www.filipinoandforeignchemist.com/testament.php?chemist=12. February 28, 2014.

Reaction Paper for Imelda (2013-72071)

Name: Fabia, Bianca Anne M.

Student No.: 2013-72071

Section: THY

Reaction Paper for Imelda

            The documentary about the former first lady Imelda Marcos was something that shows more sides into the story of her life especially her life with the former president Marcos.

            While watching the documentary, I was kind of amused with how vain I thought that Imelda was. She looks at herself very highly. I also noticed that she liked talking about herself, seeing herself on the television and hearing others talking about her.

            Another thing that I found amusing was her strong belief that what they did during her husband’s term as president and eventually the dictator here in the Philippines was good and was for the best. She really believes that the people loved them even during and after martial law.

            Through this documentary, I was able to see a different side of their family and I was able to see them for a while in a different light. In it, I saw this couple who most likely loved each other. Most importantly I saw that maybe Imelda was innocent of some of the things that her husband probably did or she was just a really delusional lady.

            I was also able to see them as more human. I think that I feel this because most of the time, Imelda was the one talking and because of how she views their family, I was able to see that they’re just like everybody else it’s just that they were thrust into a different circumstance.

            All in all, I was able to have an insight as to how the politics in our country works. The strategies that some of them use to get power and to stay in power.

Gods and Monsters: Bride of Frankenstein Reaction Paper

2013-14710
STS-THY 7
BACONGUIS, Liana Isabelle T.
Bride of Frankenstein Reaction Paper

Gods and Monsters

The sequel to 1931’s Frankenstein, Bride of Frankenstein is considered to be one of the most loved of the classical horror films and for good reason – it’s aged quite well, bringing several now-cliché horror film conventions to the table while still remaining enjoyable. Despite its scientific basis (taking Galvani’s frog experiment and amping it up to lightning being able to bring something to life) being rendered baseless with the advancement of technology, it’s still a very entertaining piece.

At one point in the film, someone scorns the Monster’s existence, calling it what happens when its creator, Frankenstein, tried to “play God” – the implication being that humanity and science should not interfere with the natural goings-on of life. This is still a hotly-debated ethical issue eighty years’ worth of technological advancement later: whether or not GMOs should be mass-produced, whether cloning is morally acceptable, whether stem cells are ethical at all – the list goes on.

There is one scene that stands out – when Pretorius shows Frankenstein his collection of humans in small jars. Frankenstein is horrified, claiming that “this isn’t science!” The message this scene seems to send is that science, when used sanely, for good reason, and with sound moral judgment, is good – but science bordering on meddling and black magic is bad. With the Monster’s awesome declaration of “We belong dead,” the “we” referring not just to himself and his bride, but also to Pretorius, whose experiments are morally unprecedented, the film on the whole seems to lean towards the stance that Frankenstein’s monster is a representation of the failure that inevitably results from humans interfering in things they have no right to – and by extension, that science has its boundaries that it should not cross.

And yet Karloff still plays the monster more sympathetically than its book counterpart, the latter of which was much more intelligent and fearful. Keep in mind that by no means is the monster a good creature – he murders several people and is pointlessly cruel, but is taught proper, good emotions by a kindly old man –resulting in his desire to be loved and accepted strengthening. In the end, the Monster, accepting that he can never be loved, willingly blows himself, his bride, and Pretorius up so Elizabeth and Frankenstein can live happily together. Why – because Whale wanted the viewers to empathize with the creature. He wanted to show that even the basest form of sentient life, despite the questionable morality of its origins, can still learn love. 

Monstrous Affection by Nicole Santos

Dumb, ugly, and severely misunderstood. This is how I would describe Frankenstein’s monster in the film “The Bride of Frankenstein” by James Whale. Although popular culture and children’s literature have given me an idea of who and what Frankenstein and his monster are, I was still quite amazed when I watched the film in my STS class. I had no idea that the monster’s character was so complex and that there was more to him than just his ugly appearance.

At present, there are many issues surrounding certain fields of science and morality. Some examples of these are stem cell research, cloning, and artificial pregnancy. Although there are hordes of people who protest studies such as these, scientists continue to pursue research in these fields, driven by their desire for knowledge and their thirst for novelty.

Mary Shelley’s “Frankenstein” and James Whale’s “The Bride of Frankenstein” paint an excellent image of such issues and situations. Dr. Victor Frankenstein built his monster for the love of science, but mobs of people grew fearful of his creation. Their fear and anger towards him did not deter him from pursuing his passion, and in the end, he created a monster that caused death and destruction.

I think the book and the film serve as a warning to the world of science and its constituents against the pursuit towards studies with objectionable morality. They show how morality should still be considered in the study of science and that sometimes man is not ready for certain discoveries and scientific breakthroughs. Frankenstein is a reminder that not science and technology must be used with caution and with sound moral judgment.

James Whale’s “The Bride of Frankenstein” showed a more human side of the monster; a side that craved companionship and affection. The monster had the need for an emotional connection. The monster had a heart. In contrast, Mary Shelley’s “Frankenstein” was a more cerebral creature. It could carry on decent conversations and was able to articulate its thoughts with rudimentary language.

While “The Bride of Frankenstein” was based off of “Frankenstein,” I think it showed an emotional side to the monster because it wanted to highlight its need for a female counterpart. While Mary Shelley wanted her readers to fear her monster, James Whale’s goal was for his audience to empathize with the creature.

After seeing two interpretations of Frankenstein’s monster and analyzing their impact on the relationship of science and morality, I have a better appreciation of this classic horror story. The monster is no longer just a prospective Halloween costume or character in my Saturday afternoon cartoons. “Frankenstein” and “The Bride of Frankenstein” are allegories for today’s moral issues and science, which warn us against venturing into morally questionable fields. Moreover, the monster is not merely a symbol of fear and madness, but a lover and a man greater than the sum of his hodgepodge of parts. Beyond the pages of the book and the movie screen, Frankenstein is a lesson in life.

Nicole Catrina P Santos

2012-63269

Reaction Paper for The Bride of Frankenstin (2013-72071)

Name: Fabia, Bianca Anne M.

Student No.: 2013-72071

Section: THY

Reaction Paper for The Bride of Frankenstein

            In the movie, it was explained a bit that the monster was created by Dr. Frankenstein because he dreamed of creating a man. But the monster became a source of fear for the townspeople. No one wanted to get close to him in fear of being harmed or killed. In response to this, the old professor of Dr. Frankenstein contacted him to partner up with him to create man-made people. He also thought of creating a bride for the monster in order to keep him company since the monster was lonely.

            I think that the story of Frankenstein reflects on what happens when men want to play god. I think that it brings up questions in ethics, like is it moral to dig up the bodies of the diseased and use their body without permission from their loved ones? Also, I think that it brings up the question that should we really judge someone depending on what they look like? In the movie, when the people see the monster they run away from him afraid of what they think he might do but when he met the old, blind man, he was accepted in to his home and we saw that all he wanted was a friend who would accept who he is. Looking at that, isn’t that what all of us want? To be accepted by the people around us and to feel loved.

            I think that the film mainly talks about how we should also take into account our morals during scientific experiments, like keeping in mind to follow ethical procedures when conducting experiments. When we keep that in mind, we might prevent creating something that turns into monsters in a sense that it might bring us to destruction.

            Moving on to why the monster was made dumb in the movie, I think that it is because they wanted to convey about the learning capacity of the monster and that what he was doing, hurting humans, was because of their projected ideas of what he going to do to them. I think that it also made him more human in a sense that we are not born smart and that we have to be taught for us to learn. It made it seem like he was a child trapped in a grown man’s body.

War Metaphors and Cancer

2013-14710
BACONGUIS, Liana Isabelle T.
Rhetoric of Cancer Reaction Paper

The podcast The Rhetoric of Cancer has cancer patient Andrew Graystone discuss with several people the common metaphor of having cancer as a war zone, and whether or not it is truly appropriate. We as members of society (thanks in no small part to the media) use the war metaphor more often than we realize -- "Alice is losing the fight against cancer," "Bob is struggling," "Carol was very brave," for instance.

According to Graystone's discussion with Dr. Wendy Makin, an oncologist at the Christie Hospital, the war metaphor is sort of dehumanizing towards the person with cancer - it puts them in a passive light, lays out their body as a warzone, starts treating them as "patients" instead of "people." Natasha Hill, Cancer Research UK, notes that the public likes the idea of the war metaphor -- this paints the cancer cells as the enemy and us -- the people working to delay it, to cure it -- as the heroes. Contrary to Makin, Hill also notes that sometimes the war allegory is positive: it presents a motivation or a clear end goal for the patient to stay strong with.

Grayson also met with Michael Overduin, who talked about curing on the molecular level. Overduin's interview is very science-inclined; he also stated that he disapproves of the war metaphor, calling it "a war against oneself" (as cancer cells are body cells that just multiply uncontrollably) and "wrong." Here Grayson offers an alternative analogy that I really liked -- the human body is an orchestra, with several instruments working together to create beautiful music. Cancer is anything -- a misstune, a broken string -- that can disrupt the harmony, and curing cancer is trying to "fix" that. I prefer that metaphor far more than the war one: it treats cancer not as the enemy, but as something that, while unfortunate, just happens, and can be fixed. Jim Cotter, a priest diagnosed with leukemia, described his cancer treatment as a weed killer that was supposed to target one weed but instead killed the whole garden, a sad but common truth for cancer patients (especially in times with less developed medical technology).

Grayson's own coming to terms with his cancer involved neither opinion -- his arc, instead, involved him accepting the cancer and treating it as part of him. He expresses his disapproval of the war metaphor with this line -- "...If anyone says that I have lost my battle against cancer, I will personally come back and haunt them."

Cancer is a mystery that we are still quite far from cracking. However, as all the focus has been on the medicinal research, I appreciated the podcast because it showed what was wrong with the sensationalism on the disease, showing that sometimes even the most common of phrases have quite the unfortunate implications. 

2013-41509

Section THY

Group 7

Reaction on Bride of Frankenstein

The Bride of Frankenstein

The film the bride of Frankenstein is about Frankenstein who was really feared by the citizens in that land. Although he is not harmful, people get scared of him because of his monstrous appearance. He is a very tall man with a very unattractive face. Nobody knows that he is a kind-hearted being because he cannot expresses his feelings, every time he tries to speak, he only scares the people away. But on the later part of the film, Frankenstein was slowly learning how to speak but is still having a hard time practicing it. The life of Frankenstein was very tragic.

Frankenstein just wanted to have a friend who will accept him. Because of this, the scientist who created Frankenstein was forced to create a creature like him but this time, it will be much more humanlike and not a monster looking creature like Frankenstein. They will create a creature that can speak and react like a human. They first experimented a heart so strong that could support the dead body. The experiment was quite successful, however the created to be Frankenstein’s bride also feared Frankenstein for his physical appearance.

The film depicted that lightning or electricity can make a dead body be brought back to life. They used a kite and a lightning rod just like what Benjamin Franklin did before when he was conducting his experiment that would discover facts about electricity which was still unknown during that time. Some people before maybe thought that electricity can revive a dead creature which is scientifically wrong. All in all, the idea or the concept of the film, might be convincing to us people who are less knowledgeable about this kinds of stuffs, was just a fantasy.