I am interested in researching the usefulness of bike lanes. I want to research this because I want to find out if they are actually safer for bicyclists. This is important because if they are not safer, then we should stop promoting them as much as we do.
How did bicycle lanes start? Who came up with the idea? When did they start?
Was the original intent for safety?
Are there any main organizations for or against bike lanes?
I am interested in reasearching how to control the spread of Lyme’s disease. I am interested in this because two of my horses have Lyme’s disease and it is spreading rapidly throughout the U.S. This issue is important because Lym’es disease affects millions of people and animals, and new research shows that it can harbor in the body, and in some cases never truly be cured. This means that new emphasis needs to be put on prevention.
I am interested in researching the origins of science fiction
Because I want to find out how the genre has evolved throughout the ages.
And this is important so that humanity may learn, not only from the past, but from the future as well.
Questions:
1. What specific authors? Seminal science fiction authors, or what?
2. Ages? Perhaps narrow down to within the last 100 or 150 years or so?
3. What is it important for humanity to learn?
I am interested in researching negative impact of caffeine on the mind and body because I want to find out if the long-term consumption of caffeine could lead to unfortunate health issues. This is important because a great many people (including myself) drink caffeine on a regular basis, and it’s always nice to know if what you are consuming is going to lead to some long-term adverse side effects in the future.
1. Are you going to research the modes in which caffeine is ingested? What about the different types of drinks that caffeine is found in? Vastly different amounts of caffeine are found within soda and coffee, after all.
2. What is the science behind how caffeine affects the brain? Will I actually be capable of understanding it? That could be somewhat problematic.
3. Does caffeine affect adults differently than it affects children? Should the research be confined to a single age group?
I am interested in reserching the reasons that the human brain (particularly Americans) is drawn toward religion, if it is. I am interested in why Americans respond psychologically to religion. I want to research this because I want to find out how natural it is to have religious inclinations and what effect on American thinking religiosity has. This is important because such a large population have a religious element in their lives and since religion is a man-made component of thought it is important to figure out how many people are under the influence of a man-made component of thought and what kind of influence this has on them.
1) Do different religions have a different control over different schools of thought in the brain?
2) Does the presence of religion in the mind inhibit any certain kind of brain activity?
3) Are different sexes influenced by religious thought in different ways, and if so, why?
I am interested in researching the link between technology (specifically cell phones or computers) and stress levels because I want to find out how much of an impact constant use of technology has on our bodies and minds. This is important because we as a culture as constantly “plugged in” and should know the consequences.
-Is there a connection between short term activity and high blood pressure?
-Do cell phones and computers disrupt people’s ability to focus on one task?
-Does technology have a particularly negative effect on any age group?
I am interested in researching cell phones because I want to find out their effect on us and on those around us. This is important and interesting to me because we constantly use cell phones, and they are rapidly changing the way we communicate.
1) Which age groups uses cell phones the most?
2) What are cell phones used for the most? (i.e. texting, Facebook, sports updates, etc.)?
3) What are the most popular types of phones?
I am interested in researching what causes serial killers to become killers
Because I want to find out if there is any genetic component to serial killing
And this is important because serial killing is currently treated as a social problem and if there is a genetic basis then we cannot tackle the issue until we can understand and address the underlying causes.
1) What are the different types of serial killers and how do they differ?
2) Are there differences between the crimes of or causes affecting male and female serial killers?
3) Are there any cultures or ethnic groups in which serial killing does not exist or is undocumented?
I am interested in researching the effect of digital piracy on the music industry because I want to find out how to adapt the business models previously used for analog sales to the digital world in a manner that is acceptable to the consumer and the artists. This is important because the music industry need to change and adapt in order to stay financially stable and continue providing consumers with the music they want.
What is the primary source and distibution method of pirated material(physical sale or digital sale)?
What are the primary reasons for pirating music?
How can the needs of the industry be distributed to the consumer in a way that is reasonable and intuitive.
I am interested in researching the use and advancement of contemporary robots, because I want to find out the affects (pros and cons) of increasing artificial agent in our lives, and this is important because technology is exponentially advancing and it is crucial to know or have an idea of where we want to take it.
What is a robot really(like what is considered a robot, and what is not considered a robot).
What can the most advanced robots do now a days?
Will robots start replacing humans in the work place?
What are the leading theories in the debate of how the universe is structured and what support does each theory possess?
When was the first theory developed, by who, and is it still credible in today’s debate?
Have any formal tests been done to solve the mystery of how the universe is structured?
1. Which religion of the three allot the most power to women? Which of these the least? Why (for both questions)?
2. In a modern world where women are now of nearly equal status of men by way of social hierarchy, why are religious views not modernized to fit that equality?
3. ( A skeptical teacher question) Are you focusing on only America or the entire world? In the same vein, are you focusing on only one branch of each of the religions mentioned or are you making a general analysis of all three?
I am interested in researching the development of synthetic cells
because I want to find out how substantial a change they could create through refining reusable fuel
This is important because it could affect the global dependency of fuel as well as affect the environment and global market place.
Questions:
1.) How expensive would manufacturing be?
2.) How long would it take to perfect the refining of fuel?
3.) Would using synthetic cells as a source of fuel be exploiting nature and the environment?
I am interested in researching the changes in the food industry, specifically the introduction of high fructose corn syrup, because I want to find out if these changes are related to the increase of food related allergies and intolerances and this is important because what is added to our food may be having a serious affect on our health.
How has the food industry changed?
What are the advantages and/or disadvantages of using high fructose corn syrup instead of sugar?
Are more women than men experiencing food related difficulties? If so, why?
I am interested in researching the market for human organs.
Because I want to find out if the market for human organs is a more efficient way getting organs to people who need them than what we have in place now.
And this is important because if the market for human organs is indeed more efficient, then that would save lives.
Questions:
1. Would you be willing to look at other ways of allocating human organs, beyond the market and donation?
2. Can you analyze the market for all human organs, or do different organs make for different acting markets?
3. Are there moral/religious restrictions associated with organ transfer that would not be represented in a market analysis of human organs?
I am interested in researching minority representation in the US media/film industry because I want to find out why there seems to be a lack of representative stories. This is important because if you only see a few dominant groups on screen, what happens to the other groups? This can lead to the marginalization and erasure of voices, which is harmful.
1. Is there a specific film or example of media you’d like to use?
2. Can you claim/support that there’s a lack of representative stories? Representatives stories about whom? Also, what do you mean about “representative stories”?
3. Is there a specific minority you’d like to/can focus on? Can you more be specific about groups (e.g., dominant groups, other groups)?
I am interested in researching the ideological basis behind the Creationist belief of human origins.
…Because I want to find out how Creationists can call their idea on human origins a theory without facts or evidence supporting it.
…And this is important because the debate over whether Creationism is regarded as a valid ‘theory’ on the origins of human life is still debated and because Creationists continue to denounce evolutions ever happened.
Questions
1. There are many different branches of creationism, what type would you look at?
2. Would you explore the classroom/teaching controversy through this subject?
3. What area or grouping of the worlds view would you examine?
http://www.afa.org/media/enolagay/11-19-93.asp
This document talks about the meeting before the Enola Gay display, in which the idea for the exhibit is discussed. One of the problems for the proposed plan is that there was not enough coverage on the background information of the event. Another problem is that there was too much sympathy for the Japanese people by using an in context approach. The official story in this case would be that the Americans dropped bombs on the innocent people of Japan, who did nothing wrong. This causes bias and also makes America look bad. These problems led to a new perspective, in which the Enola Gay should just be a militaristic item. This would be an in situ approach and would decrease the bias present in the current plan. Also, the number of casualties would not be present in the exhibit, which also decreases the sympathy on the Japanese. This lessens the emotional impact a viewer may have because of the large number of casualties. The ideas and views of the people present at this meeting cause the museum display to be more of an unemotional piece. This is because the in situ approach is taken for the exhibit causing the emotional side of the Enola Gay story to disappear.
I was struck by the conclusion of the Enola Gay and the Smithsonian chronology written by the Air Force Association (AFA) – it states, at the end: “Air & Space Museum puts the forward fuselage of the Enola Gay and other items on display as part of a straightforward historical exhibition. Within a year, it draws more than a million visitors–making it, by far, the most popular special exhibition in the history of the Air & Space Museum. (When the exhibition finally closed in May 1998, it had drawn almost four million visitors.)” I feel like it implies that the exhibit was so successful because the original idea was dropped. I’m not sure that’s a correct statement/assumption. On one hand, it seems like some of the content of the exhibit was skewed towards the Japanese; for example, there were 49 photos of Japanese casualties vs. 3 photos of American casualties, 5 photos of Japanese military members in military role vs. 65 photos of American military members in military role, etc. That does paint Americans as aggressive, and also, to imply that Americans soldiers attacked for “vengeance” dishonors those who faithfully served for their country. However, is it “wrong” to show that the US harmed Japan? It may be an “ugly” depiction, but it happened. You can justify why the atomic bomb was dropped, but you can’t deny the results of what happened. Later, when the exhibit re-opened in 2003, the Committee for a National Discussion of Nuclear History and Current Policy pointed out that the exhibit was “devoid not only of historical context and discussion of the ongoing controversy surrounding the bombings, but even of basic information regarding the number of casualties.”
The controversy of the Enola Gay exhibit is a clash of official stories – the museum wanted to tell one story and the AFA disagreed with that story and wanted another one to be told. I’ve always thought that museums present facts, that they aim to be objective. The Enola Gay exhibit controversy brought home that while museums/museum exhibits are factual/informative, how they present the facts affect the story they tell.
The article about the exhibit in the Japanese Times focused a lot of its commentary on the curator of the exhibit and what he had to say about how well the exhibit at the Smithsonian could accomodate their interests in terms of representation of the event. In relationship to our discussion about museums and exhibits and in situ versus in context, I would say that this exhibit, and quite possibly the National Air and Space museum as a whole, are predominantly in situ pieces. The survivors of the bombing were calling for the exhibit to show just how devastating the attack on Hiroshima was. The curator explained that it just wasn’t possible because there wasn’t space (no pun intended) for such an exhibit at the museum. Most of the important exhibits are just replicas that hang overhead from the ceiling of the museum, which is exactly how the Enola Gay exhibit was to be placed. Like most exhibits there, the Enola Gay came with just a description of what it did or could do. If this were an incontext museum, it would be on display as having been the aircraft that dropped the bomb on Hiroshima and there would be more detail about the event and the importance surrounding it. This is not that kind of museum though, as the curator explained. What I thought was most important about what he said was that the museum is that it is “primarily a technology museum,” and not one that shows historical impact or importance. It is there for people to revel in the technological advances of our time, and I think Enola Gay was a big part of that advancement.