Main Philosophy
The Power of Words
After incessant pestering by a few friends, I finally decided to take a break from the sweltering mess that my life has become and watch a movie. I urgently needed the rest and began ruffling through the “Movies” section in the newspaper trying to find a dull film that would put me to sleep (I find that the vastly overpriced movie seats provide the most refreshing two-hour naps).
When I arrived at the theater, I found my friends waiting at the scarcely used mini box office for foreign and “other” movies. The very last thing I was looking for was a thought-provoking film, but everyone was intent on watching a movie called ‘What the bleep do we know’.
Needless to say, I got no rest but I was very interested in one segment of the movie that detailed a new study that visually illustrated the power of words. The research was done by a Japanese scientist, Masaru Emoto, who found a way to measure the effects of different words on water. Emoto wrapped vials of water with different words and let them rest for a few days. After this, he crystallized the liquid on slides by freezing them and studied the results under a simple, light microscope.
What he found was that “positive” words (more likely words that humans have generally assigned a positive sensation) created beautiful, regular crystals while “negative” words created disfigured crystals or none at all. A page from the movie’s website shows a few of the most interesting results.
Obviously, a random collection of shapes that form a language do not in themselves contain any power. It is the collected mental powers of the language’s users who associate experiences with emotions, and emotions with language.
The power is available to anyone and a quote from Stephen King’s “On Writing Well” comes to my attention when I think about the energy unleashed by writing:
“You must not come lightly to the blank page.”
That could not be truer, especially considering over 70% of our world and bodies are water!
More Pictures
Stem Cells
In a time when new disorders are discovered daily, and existing ones are becoming more prevalent, a new line of research is necessary. By far the most promising such line is found in stem cell research which must be more adequately funded and supported to help realize the cures that many doctors say are only a few years away (Stem Cell Information).
Stem cells are a bright light for many people darkened by disease because of their potential to cure or eliminate the disorder rather than suppress it as most drugs currently act. For example, once stem cells have been converted into the desired type, they can be targeted to the area and will eventually replace the damaged cells. This blank slate provided by stem cells can be a cure to many diseases ranging from Type 1 diabetes, and heart disease to Parkinson’s disease and Multiple Sclerosis. However, most of these breakthroughs have been made outside of the United States, in countries such as Italy and Australia where scientists do not face the strict regulation faced here (Stem Cell Information).
The stem cell bill passed in 2001 limited not only government funding for the new technology, but also restricted the research to existing stem cell lines only. While the 60 stem cell lines that were allowed to continue may sound to be enough, at the time of Bush’s speech, only one of these lines was actually usable, and only a dozen are viable today(Stem Cell Facts). Also, all of the approved stem cell lines were prepared using mouse cells and thus pose a risk of contaminating human subjects with mouse viruses (Daniel et al). The bill passed by Bush also killed the expansion of stem cell research by freezing the base of the entire program at its current level and impeded existing projects through inadequate funding for the sole reason of appeasing his constituents while seeming to find a middle ground in the then most divisive issue.
The controversial nature of stem cells is undeniable, but even if there is a remote possibility that the current predictions about stem cells’ uses are true then there is an undeniable need to continue and expand research. Those that oppose the expansion of the stem cell research understandably believe that the destruction of any human embryo is immoral. However, any of the embryos that would be used for research would have already been sentenced to destruction by fertility clinics (Stem Cell Facts). Those opposing research do not describe this as murder although using these marked embryos to save lives is combated violently as immoral.
Another argument made by those opposed to the use of embryonic stem cells is that “adult” stem cells (those extracted from the spinal cord and marrow) can be used instead of those from embryos with the same effect. This is simply not true. Only embryonic stem cells have the ability to divide into every type of cell in the body (totipotent), while “adult” stem cells derived from other sources can only develop into a few types of cells (multipotent) and do not have the vast potential of embryos(Daniel et al.).
While it may not be justifiable to kill a life to save a life, it is reasonable to use those embryos that would otherwise be discarded in an effort to save millions of lives. The potential of embryonic stem cells is beyond comprehension and it is painful to see a gold mine of cures being picked at with toothpicks. The best solution is to increase funding for research and allow for the expansion of the stem cell line base by using the embryos that would have been destroyed. This would not only increase our ability to find cures, but it will also level the research field with countries that have been working unimpeded for years as research in this field may become a major industry in the coming years.
