SCIENCE AND SOCIETY 1

Science and Society

Marnie Merchant

Dr. Melville

Lakehead University

ED 4260-YA

October 17th, 2016

SCIENCE AND SOCIETY 2

Science and Society

A) Wind Patterns in Lowest Layers of Supercell Storms Key to Predicting Tornadoes

Source: Wind Patterns in Lowest Layers of Supercell Storms Key to Predicting Tornadoes (2016,
October 13). Science Daily. Retrieved from
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/10/161013220633.htm

1. What is the situation that the article describes?

This article discusses that new research has been studied to help predict whether supercell
thunderstorms will lead to a tornado or not. There has always been difficulty in predicting
if these long lasting storms will result in a tornado and often results in false alarms.
Traditional weather sampling methods can not clearly observe the differences, but studies
and simulations of supercell storms have been conducted to determine with factors make
the tornadoes more likely.

2. What specific scientific issue(s) are mentioned?

The specific scientific issues mentioned in this article is the problems trying to predict
whether a supercell thunderstorm will lead to a tornado or not and to prevent false alarms
from happening.

3. What claims are being made in this article? Who is making these claims?

The claims being made in this article are that winds in the lowest 500 meters near the
storm are what differentiates between tornadic and nontornadic storms, and that the way
the air rotates in the storm in the updraft makes a difference as well. When the air
entering the updraft spirals like a football, it opens up to favourably produce a tornado.
Brice Coffer who is a graduate student in marine, earth and atmospheric sciences at North
Carolina State University is the one making these claims. He ran simulations of supercell
storms to determine which factors made tornadoes more likely.

4. Are these claims substantiated?

Yes, I believe these claims to be substantiated. Researchers involved in the second

Verification of the Origins of Rotation in Tornadoes Experiment (VORTEX2) collected
data in close proximity to supercell storms. They took the data from the 12 best storms
and had a graduate student from NC University run simulations to determine which
factors made 7 out of the 12 storms selected become a tornado. The graduate student
suggests this opens up an area for better observations of techniques of the low-level
winds being drawn into the storms updraft, which will hopefully help better predict which
storms will result in a tornado.

5. What are the implications of these claims?

SCIENCE AND SOCIETY 3

The implications of the claims being made in this article are that traditional weather
sampling methods cannot clearly observe the differences between tornadic and
nontornadic supercells. This has lead to further research to help predict whether the
supercell storms will develop into a tornado or just be a false alarm. Having the chance to
prepare for a tornado can help a lot of people protect themselves and their belongings,
etc. As well as not waste their time if it ends up being a false alarm.

6. Would you be prepared to accept these claims, giving reasons for your answers?

I would be prepared to accept these claims; as extensive research seems to have been put
into this study. Living in a place that is not often exposed to Tornadoes, I cant quite
relate to these supercell thunderstorms. However, I think that being able to better prepare
people for tornadoes is a rather important factor.

Previously, the prediction of tornadoes was difficult to do so. People often only had a
very short warning as to a tornado heading their way. According to an article in Popular
Science, the Storm Prediction Center coordinator Greg Carbin said they look for patterns
in temperature and wind flow that create certain levels of moisture, instability, lift and
wind shear (Diep, 2013). Sometimes they may be uncertain because not all tornadoes
behave the same while similar scenarios might not produce tornadoes. At this point in
time (2011), they were hoping to improve tornado warnings to at least an hour in
advance. With this new study, hopefully the study of the closest winds can predict the
tornado in a quicker amount of time.

B) Zika Can Cause Birth Defects in Monkeys Too

Source: Zika Can Cause Birth Defects in Monkeys Too (2016, September 12). Live Science.
Retrieved from http://www.livescience.com/56069-zika-birth-defects-monkeys.html

1. What is the situation that the article describes?

This article discusses that certain monkeys (pigtail macaque) have been found to contract
Zika virus in the womb and show similar signs of brain damage to the fetus as it does in
human babies. This development suggests that researchers may be able to develop a
model of Zika virus infection in monkeys to help develop vaccines and such that could
help prevent the birth defects caused by Zika. This topic is of high interest as no other
nonhuman primate/ other monkeys have shown the virus making its way to the fetuss
brain tissue as it does with humans.

2. What specific scientific issue(s) are mentioned?

The scientific issues mentioned in this article are that the Zika virus has the capacity to
result in fetal brain injury in a pregnant pigtail macaque and that this animal may be very
useful for testing vaccines and therapeutics to prevent the virus.
SCIENCE AND SOCIETY 4

3. What claims are being made in this article? Who is making these claims?

The claims being made in this article are that the Pigtail macaque is the first monkey to
contract and show signs of the Zika virus affecting a pregnant mother and showing brain
injury defects. This discovery is said to help lead to vaccines and therapeutics to prevent
this virus. The claims in this article are being made by researchers from Seattle who
published another article in nature medicine that discusses the details of the fetal brain
lesions after the Zika virus has inoculated in a pregnant pigtail macaque.

4. Are these claims substantiated?

Yes, these claims are substantiated. There are links in this article that lead to the actual
article that the researchers have published. They do admit that more studies are needed to
better understand how the virus causes injury to the brain, but based on their studies they
have findings and evidence that support their claims.

5. What are the implications of these claims?

The implications of these claims are that hopefully researchers are on a path to finding a
vaccine to help prevent/cure the Zika virus in humans. Because they have found a non
human to test on, that very much resembles us humans, the researchers are hoping that
his lead will provide them with the information they need to have successful results.

6. Would you be prepared to accept these claims, giving reasons for your answers?

Overall, I would be prepared to accept these claims. Based on information attained from
this article and a few others I have read, the Zika virus infection is being referred to as
congenital Zika syndrome because of all its health problems that are being tied back to
the virus (Rettner, 2016). I feel as though if researchers are able to use the pigtail
macaque to help find vaccines for this disease, we are opening up an area of research than
can help so many people all over the world.

Obviously it is in the beginning stages and as they stated further studies need to be looked
at the better understand how the virus causes injury to the brain. But with the claims they
are making, I dont see any reason why they shouldnt be accepted as they are only
claiming to be the first to demonstrate the effects of the zika virus in the fetus of a non
human primate and that this work is meant to put researchers on the path to testing
possible therapies.

Reading the article in the Seattle Times, Seattle scientists first to show monkey model of
Zika damage, many different researchers have commented on how great this is. This
original claim was made by researchers at The University of Washington Center for
Innate Immunity and Immune Disease. Other researchers who have been doing research
are from the University of Pittsburgh as well as a clinical professor of pathology at the
Medical College of Georgia, Augusta University (Aleccia, 2016).
SCIENCE AND SOCIETY 5

C) Great Barrier Reef Obituary Goes Viral, To The Horror of Scientists

Source: Great Barrier Reef Obituary Goes Viral, To The Horror of Scientists (2016, October 14).
The Huffington Post. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/scientists-take-on-
great-barrier-reef-obituary_us_57fff8f1e4b0162c043b068f?section=us_science

1. What is the situation that the article describes?

This article discusses the claim being made which was published in Outside Magazine,
that The Great Barrier Reef of Australia passed away in 2016 after a long illness. It was
25 millions years old. This reef is in trouble due to climate change and most severely,
coral bleaching, but as a whole, it is not dead. The article talks with leading coral
scientists and others who are high up in the coral reef studies about their thoughts on the
situation and publication of this obituary. They discuss the importance of optimism
when it comes to facing such a global crisis. The article ends with saying that whatever
people choose to believe about the controversial obituary, the reef still needs desperate
help to survive.

2. What specific scientific issue(s) are mentioned?

The specific scientific issue mentioned in this article is that the Great Barrier Reef has
died. The implication of the truth to this issue is discussed in this article. Other issues
mentioned are coral bleaching and that state of the Great Barrier Reef.

3. What claims are being made in this article? Who is making these claims?

The main claim being made in this article is that the published article in Outside
Magazine about the Great Barrier Reef being dead is a false statement. Scientists discuss
how yes the reef is in danger due to climate change and coral bleaching, but that great
barrier reef still does exist as a whole. Writer Rowan Jacobsen is making these claims in
his publication in Outside Magazine.

4. Are these claims substantiated?

No these claims are not substantiated. There are many scientists who have commented on
this claim which goes against what they are saying. For example, the Australian Research
Councils centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies found that the most severe coral
bleaching event impacted 93 % of the reef, but as a whole, is still alive. Other preliminary
findings which were published in Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority said that only
22 % of the coral died. These are just two examples from the article that are being
commented on by scientists that the great barrier reef is still living. There is also nowhere
in the story where it is labeled as an opinion piece which leaves people to believe that it is
dead, nor are there any sources to back up the misleading headline and subhead
throughout the body of the story.

5. What are the implications of these claims?

SCIENCE AND SOCIETY 6

With global warming and climate change being such a major part of our society right
now, whether this statement is true or not, the main implication can be seen that things
need to change or else the Great Barrier Reef will be fully dead. The article is making a
broad statement saying the reef is dead, when in actuality it is not. However, the scientific
community is becoming concerned with these types of statements because it is causing
people to loose hope and give up rather than take action to solve the problem. Some
people feel that this statement was made to express the urgency of the situation, but the
people who are not educated in this field are going to take it as 100% real.

6. Would you be prepared to accept these claims, giving reasons for your answers?

I would not be prepared to accept these claims, because just based off the title Great
Barrier Reef Obituary Goes Viral, does not sound very scientific or professional which
sparks question as to if it is real or not. For me, I would want proof that shows the Reef is
dead which would result in me doing further research.

Many scientists that study coral reefs are in disagreement with this statement and are
telling people that they need to slow down and not believe that there is no hope left,
because there is. Kim Cobb speaks about the Great Barrier Reef to the LA Times about its
state and why there is reason for both concern and hope. We know that there have been
previous massive bleaching events that past research has shown the reefs were able to
recover from even in the worst cases (Netburn, 2016). Bleaching results from the warm
water temperatures creating algae, which ultimately destroys the coral. Bleaching is still
seen as a concern because if water temperatures do not drop the coral will starve to death.
Especially with global warming and climate change this issue seems to be of high
concern. There have been cases of bleaching before but again the main issue is that the
ocean temperatures are getting warmer, and the amount of damage is shocking when it
comes to the reefs (Netburn, 2016).

I think a lot of researchers in this field are holding on to hope and looking at the
positives of the corals that are still alive and are able to recover from such events. Cobbs
says, there is loads of research opportunities in this field right now as there is a lot more
resilience baked into the system then they can understand right now, and that out of the
rubble will come a reef that may not look exactly like it looked before, but may be better
adapted for future temperature change.
SCIENCE AND SOCIETY 7

Resources

Wind Patterns in Lowest Layers of Supercell Storms Key to Predicting Tornadoes (2016,
October 13). Science Daily. Retrieved from
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/10/161013220633.htm

Diep, F. (2013). Why Are Tornadoes so Hard to Predict? Popular Science. Retrieved from
http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-05/why-are-tornadoes-so-hard-to-predict

Zika Can Cause Birth Defects in Monkeys Too (2016, September 12). Live Science. Retrieved
from http://www.livescience.com/56069-zika-birth-defects-monkeys.html

Rettner, R. (2016). Zika Infection Linked with Rare Joint Birth Defect. Live Science. Retrieved
from http://www.livescience.com/55709-zika-virus-birth-defect-joints.html/

Aleccia, J. (2016). Seattle scientists first to show monkey model of Zika damage. The Seattle
Times. Retrieved from http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/health/seattle-scientists-first-to-
show-monkey-model-of-zika-damage/

Great Barrier Reef Obituary Goes Viral, To The Horror of Scientists (2016, October 14). The
Huffington Post. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/scientists-take-on-great-
barrier-reef-obituary_us_57fff8f1e4b0162c043b068f?section=us_science

Netburn, D. (2016) No, the Great Barrier Reef in Australia is NOT dead. But it is in Trouble. Los
Angeles Times. Retrieved from http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-great-
barrier-reef-not-dead-20161014-snap-story.html