One Day I Will Find the Right Words, and They Will Be Simple

As someone who has lived with science for a very long time (I am from a science high school and am currently taking up my bachelor’s degree in Biology), I understand that sometimes it can be misunderstood. There’s a lot of pseudoscience in the world which tries to trick people into making “informed decisions” when it’s really just a marketing ploy. For example, some items are marketed as “chemical free” which is impossible, because everything is made up of chemicals. More than that, perpetuating the “chemical-free” lie makes people assume that all chemicals are bad and all natural ingredients are good which is totally not the case. This is why I believe in science communication, because it helps people clear up misinformation and utilize science to better their everyday lives.

I realize that science can seem harsh and maybe even pointless to some people. Others might not understand why they need at least a little science in their lives, which makes me pretty sad. I believe that science, including technology and mathematics, is like juice concentrate: a little can go a long way.

Knowing basic algebra can tell you if you got the right amount of change, knowing the chemistry of cooking can help you prepare a better meal, and knowing how your gadgets work will help you care for them better. Science is really just knowledge of how the universe works, and knowing how the universe works will help you live in it a little better. Now what about science communication? As I said before, science can seem very inaccessible to people, which is why science communication is important. It makes science more palatable for laymen, and/or for people who don’t seem too interested. It either simplifies concepts to make it less ‘scary’ or it presents concepts in a way that will amaze people, thereby making it more available.

Watching the forum on science communication was really eye opening, even though I was focusing on the audience. STS classes are usually a mishmash of different courses, some of them not from the sciences. Seeing the wonder in their faces when the flame jet experiment was executed was reminded me that sometimes it’s not the subject matter, it’s the presentation.

2013-14735

MTM Cadiz

The Dawn of Ultrabooks

         In this Apple-dominated-slash-smartphones-and-tablets era, the PC market sales are slumping in a disappointing rate. But computer microchip maker Intel has one big idea to save these dying devices. With their Ultrabook concept they intend to change the mobile computing field of this century. These ultra-thin, ultra-sleek laptops offer increase battery life, greater mobility and portability, 2-in-1 features of a tablet and laptop with touch sensors, and better applications and software with Windows 8. Will these new devices begin a new era for computing? Or will it go down the flush, out of the market and be forgotten? It's time to find out!

Click here to zoom in

Time Travelling Reaction Paper

            Recently, we watched a video about time travelling. I was surprised that this was advancing at a fast speed. It seems that more brilliant minds are working with the century’s high technology. Scientists from all over the world are making their own study about it. Before, we could only watch this in films and think of it as science fiction. But today, it is actually near our grasp.

The concept of time travelling is not foreign to anybody. In fact, a lot of people are quite curious and interested about it. If you are given the opportunity to go back and forth in time, would you miss it? Of course you would not. Who would, right? It is because we are often told that time is precious. It is easily lost so we should not waste it. A mistake in the past cannot be corrected by repeating the situation. Hence, some people devote their lives for this study – to be able to bend time. It is almost unbelievable if you ask me. It is scary actually because the consequences are hard to predict. And this is why this is also dangerous.

            Everything that happened in the past causes a chain of events that leads to the future. If any one of those events did not occur or happened differently, every event that follows will also turn out differently. The mistake in the past can be corrected, but the future may suffer in the end. This is too much of a risk. I do not believe that any of the past events have to be changed, no matter how badly they turned out. To be able to time travel is a huge discovery, but we have to understand that time is not something that we should meddle with. There is a reason why it goes the way it is, and we should let it stay that way.

2013-49311

Bernardez, Richelle M.

Frankenstein Reaction Paper

           Up until now, I thought that the name of the monster was Frankenstein. The film and the book made me realize that Frankenstein is actually the family name of the scientist who created this monster. They also made me realize the roles of morality and science in our society. One can say that the scientist is to be blamed for putting up an idea that we can create immortal beings or that we can recreate life on our own. He may be at fault because after the monster was created, he abandoned it. Hence, due to his lack of knowledge and guidance about the world, the monster committed crimes such as murdering innocent people and more. Another can say that the monster is also at fault because his embarrassment about himself is not a valid reason to do bad things. He may have looked hideous but it was still his decision to commit those crimes. Science is not immoral, but what people do with it that causes harm to others is.

            In the book, the monster had the ability to talk so the readers got to know his side of the story. They got to know how he felt about his creator and how he felt sorry for the bad things that he did. In the movie, however, the monster was not able to carry a decent conversation. He was not able to defend himself and thus he was seen more as a frightening creature by the people. He was made dumb. And I think they did that to show that we cannot create a being that is as complex and as delicate as humans are. No matter how similar the creating process might be, a human’s complexity is its beauty. Thus it cannot be easily created with the exact results.

2013-49311

Bernardez, Richelle M.

THE UNSEEN SIDE OF THE MONSTER

                As what I clearly observed upon watching the film the role of morality has been one of the main streams that the film was trying to reach out to its viewers aside form strong portrayal of the role of science. Morality has been all throughout the years the greatest influential thing to the behaviors of man. It directs how man needs to act and interact with others for a fair and peaceful living. It sets criteria on which needs to be done and which is not, what is good and what is bad, at the same time putting limitations to the freedom of every man. In the film was portrayed the extreme reaction of the people to the monster, Frankenstein, and how they abhor and fear him so much. It was also shown in the movie the friendly relationship between the monster and the blind man, and finally the suicidal of the monster which killed also the girl monster and the doctor. These three scenes are the one I find to be the film’s strongest points. The first and last scenes mentioned both share the same thoughts on what morality dictates to the people. Morality is telling everyone that whoever commits crimes such as to kill or murder and works for his own good and interest only is ideally bad and immoral. Furthermore those who commit the abovementioned should be punished. That is why people tried to kill the monster because they believed that he is immoral and bad because he kills. On the other hand, the second scene was trying to show that people must not look unto the outside appearance only of someone rather look beyond what is unseen by our naked eyes, that what people see externally does not define the person but his internal traits, his profound attitudes that can rarely be seen but can be felt by our hearts. The other message of the scene is that there are people who turn bad not because they are so but because others made to, that if you’ll do well to others you will be treated nicely in return by those others. These things which the film portrayed reflect on the role of morality in the society; how it affects people’s behaviors and thinking; and the perception of the society, thereafter followed by the individuals, on which is good and which is not.

                On the other side of the film’s objective is the portrayal of the role of science. Science is curious in many things; it seeks what is beyond the human’s knowledge, trying to find ways on how to make life convenient and answers to the confusions that need to be clarified. But throughout its existence, science as well became an avenue on getting recognitions, becoming famous, gaining power, and money, which at some point negates the essence and purpose of science. The film showed how the doctor was so desperate and desired to be recognized as the first man to create man. Even if it took him to the risk of doing bad and against morality, he still continued doing so because there is that desire to be famous, to gain power, and money. At the end, those who use science for their own interests and use it not for its real purpose will never be granted success.

                According to our professor, the monster in the book where the movie was adapted is able to carry decent conversation. However in the movie the character of the monster was a bit changed because in the movie the monster was having difficulty in conversing. This in my own point of view is for the purpose of making the monster scarier and realistic knowing that during the time the movie was created there were yet no advanced technology that could have made the monster scarier with just the way he looks. The purpose of making the monster unable to speak properly for me was a failure because frankly viewers during our film showing were most likely laughed, including me, and find the monster ridiculous rather than scary. Nonetheless the monster in the film seemed to be realistic and perhaps will scare me if I will see it on real life situation.

Morality play

By: Langsa Tuguinay, 2013-62888

         Only now did I realize that Frankenstein wasn't the name of the monster but was the surname of the scientist that created the monster.

Based on Mary Shelley’s book Frankenstein, the movie’s storyline goes like this. Dr. Frankenstein, the scientist, and his monster both turn out to be alive, not killed as previously believed. Dr. Frankenstein wanted to finally get out of the evil experiment business but when another mad scientist, Dr. Pretorius kidnaps his wife, Dr. Frankenstein agreed to help him create a new creature, a woman to be specific, to be the companion of the monster.

Just by knowing the plot, there could already by ethical issues presented there like Dr. Frankenstein’s case where he was torn between giving up his wife over NOT creating a monster or creating a monster over not giving up his wife. Naturally, he would pick the latter because of human instinct. Of course, we could not blame him because of emotional and sentimental value. Now this is where morality comes in. Based on the movie, I believe that science as itself is moral, it's just the people "moving around" science who are the deciding factor whether what they do about science would be considered as moral or immoral (I hope you get my point here).

Also, in the monster's case, it wasn't him who was wrong, it was the people who have already judged in based on his facade. It's the like moral-immoral play in science, people tend to do what they think is right but is actually wrong. People drive away the monster because they think that it is the right thing to do, but if we look at it deeper and after watching the movie, it is wrong.

Frankenstein

I always knew the story of Frankenstein even though I never read the book. I guess it was somehow common knowledge because of the high level of popularity that the story has reached. It was always a story I found interesting despite the different remakes and versions it had encountered throughout the years. That is why when the movie adaptation was shown in class, I was really looking forward to it.

For me, the book and the movie was not a story to be valued when morality is being talked about. Victor Frankenstein, the creator of the Frankenstein monster, used parts and organs from the bodies of dead people without the consent of their family members. They did this during the night when no one was around to see it and they paid the workers to keep quiet about what they were doing. I think this shows that they knew the public wouldn’t react well to what they were doing that is why they were hiding. Even in this day and age, the public still wouldn’t react well to the way they were using in performing their experiments. They were disturbing graves without thinking about whether what they were doing was respectful or good.

In the movie, Frankenstein wasn’t able to communicate with other people, that’s why they always thought of him as a monster that would only do them harm. It also added to the viewer’s sympathy for Frankenstein. It made me think of him less of a monster and more of a person that just wanted to fit in and wanted a friend to like him and get to know him for who he is.

The story tackles a lot of issues and shows a lot of problems humanity is encountering that time and possibly in our time also. It shows us that science sometimes faces a lot of problems when experimenting with different things. Limitations are set for scientists because there are things which the public considers are inhumane or against the laws of nature. When science crosses that line, even if they discover something remarkable in the world of science, it wouldn’t last long because people wouldn’t patronize and support it. It also tells us that there are some things we need first to consider before doing anything. In this case, there are a lot of things scientists need first to consider before continuing with their experiments and such. Because even if they make large breakthroughs that would greatly contribute to society, if the ways in which they achieved these breakthroughs are considered immoral by the public, then these breakthroughs wouldn’t be of much help because it would be against what we believe in.

Frankenstein's Monster

   The last time I read Frankenstein by Mary Shelley, I was in grade school. I hadn't watched the movie at all, only a parody of it called Young Frankenstein, directed by Mel Brooks. In the book, the 'secret of life' that Victor Frankenstein discovered was never explained. In the movie, the monster was hooked up to machines and then charged with lightning. I guess the movie had the difficult part, because it had to show a possible mechanism for reanimation, while the book didn't need to.

   How does Frankenstein the book and the film reflect upon the role of morality and science?
   Victor Frankenstein desecrated graves and mutilated dead bodies, and gave his science experiment consciousness, after which he abandoned it. I think the main point was that you have to be smart, but you also have to be humane. There are a lot of possible science experiments, but some of them we are unable to do because it would not be 'good.' By good I mean it would cause physical or mental duress upon people or animals. Though I think it's pretty hard to say absolutely what is moral and what isn't—because after all, who has the right?
 

   The difference between the movie adaptation of the monster and in the book is that the monster was able to carry a decent conversation. Why was the monster made dumb? Did it work?
   I liked how they made communication a theme in the movie. The monster wasn't able to communicate properly, and due to his unsightly appearance, he scared everyone off—except the man who couldn't see what he looked like. Communication and presentation is an important part of science, which is why people who are able to explain science in layman's terms are very important to its development and role in society. There are some things that we need to understand and have understood in order for progress.

Marianne Cadiz
2013-14735

Frankenstein: On Science and Morality

I have never read the book Frankenstein and seen its direct movie adaptation before for the reason I never read or watch horror books and films. So when James Whale’s adaptation of the book, The Bride of Frankenstein, was shown in STS class, I at first was rather hesitant to pay attention. But when the story continued, I realized it was not too scary. The monster turned out to be rather gentle and kind-hearted than I expected it to be. Moreover, it was full of metaphors and lessons about morality and science.

While watching the film, I was sad in some parts especially where it’s shown how the monster was always treated so badly even if he only wanted to help and have a friend. It showed how uneducated and poor fellows are mistreated in our society before and now. And how most of us misinterpret their motives in doing something. What makes it even harder for the monster in the movie is that he cannot express himself well because of being mute, resulting to further misunderstandings between the people and himself. This resulted for him to feel alone and miserable which in turn prompted him to ask for a mate (wife).

It is also good to note that the film also portrayed the advancement of technology already in the 1930s. The machines and devices to create the wife of Frankenstein’s monster was already detailed and using lightning as the source of electricity to bring the dead to life reminded me how modern physicians use a device called defibrillator, with a dose of electrical current,  to treat cardiac arrhythmias among others, which makes patients' hearts continue beating.

The story Frankenstein is one of those books, films, and even lectures that tell us how “playing God” with science causes a lot of trouble. Innocent lives and dreams might all be affected if science is not used wisely and for the good of all.  It also teaches men that even though science has reached many breakthroughs and discoveries beyond one’s imagination, there are still limits and boundaries it can never tread. One must still consider humanity as one develops science and technology, for science without humanity is science without purpose.