While this stereotype stems from somewhere, scientists come in all looks, shades, and some even have quite a fashion sense!

In fact, the term science comes from the Latin scientia meaning “knowledge.”  So in its broadest sense, science just means acquiring knowledge.  So a scientist could be anyone seeking knowledge.

Of course, that is not what we think of when we hear someone is a scientist.  Instead, our common day usage refers to the scientific method – or as some call “the harnessing of curiosity.”

To be termed scientific, the method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical (observable by the senses) and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning where the rules of logic apply.

One the evidence is gathered, a repeatable experiment is set-up and designed to answer a question that will bring more insight observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.

So in other words, research simply means using the scientific method for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge.

No one needs a degree to be a scientist, they simply need to be curious about something, and develop a repeatable experiment to test their hypothesis.  Isaac Newton said he was inspired to formulate his theory on gravity simply by watching an apple fall from a tree.

Benjamin Franklin helped to usher in our everyday use of electricity by designing experiments, testing the results and formulating new theories based on those results.

As Thomas T. Arny, author of “Explorations: An Introductory to Astronomy” puts it,  “Our picture of the Universe has been assembled bit by bit from many separate discoveries – discoveries made by scientists from many parts of the words, at many times in the past, and in many disciplines.”

While empirical investigations of the world have been around since Ancient Greece, the period before that, the pre-scientific era, is especially fascinating to me because ruins found all over the world suggest prehistoric man was specifically interested in astronomy.

No one knows when people began studying the skies, but we can be certain it was thousands of years ago.

For many prehistoric people, observing the skies enabled them to keep time because so many astronomical phenomena are cyclical, repeating day after day and year after year, Arny’s book explains.

“Ironically, many of the astronomical phenomena well known to ancient people are not nearly so familiar to people living today because the smog and bright lights of cities make it hard to see the sky and its rhythms,” Arny continues.

But these predictable cycles told the ancient when it was best to harvest, set out to sea, predict an eclipse, and may have motivated early cultures to build massive monuments that allowed them to keep track of movement in the heavens.

Stonehenge, which dates back to 3100 B.C., marks the seasonal rising and setting points of the Sun.

Mayan archaeological sites do the same, and the Mayan calendar is the most accurate system ever invented by anyone.  It’s more accurate than our own Gregorian calendar.

Not until the classical period (500 B.C. – 1400 A.D.) did scientist-philosophers begin to use their knowledge of geometry and mathematics to measure celestial bodies and their orbits.

During the Renaissance (1400-1650) many of the theories about space were found lacking in logic.  New models were then devised that took into account the greater body of data based on observed records that accumulated over the centuries.   This period was also benefited by the invention of the telescope.

The modern period (1650-present) found scientists searching for the physical laws, like gravity, that underlie the observed movements in space.  The development of calculus, advances in optics, and finally computers marked the beginnings of new and improved methods for testing and formulating new theories in science. 

Of course, this is a brief, very general overview of scientific history so there will be more to come in the near future.

In the meantime, what are your thoughts on how science has evolved?  Do you think science research should be regulated?  Is there a line science should not cross?

The New York Times reported this morning that President Obama said his administration will “make scientific decisions based on facts, not ideology.”  President Obama signed an order ending Bush’s limits on human embryonic stem cell research.

What are stem cells?

According to the National Institute of Health (NIH), there are adult stem cells, and then there are embryonic stem cells, which is where the ethical issues are raised.

“Specifically, embryonic stem cells are derived from embryos that develop from eggs that have been fertilized in vitro - in an in vitro fertilization clinic - and then donated for research purposes with informed consent of the donors,” the NIH website explains.

However, an adult stem cell is a cell found among other cells in a tissue or organ that can renew itself.  The role of adult stem cells are to maintain and repair the tissue in which they are found.  Yet the abilities of these stem cells reach beyond the tissues in which they are found.

Researchers have found some of these stem cells have the ability to differentiate into many different cell types - so stem cells found in one area of the body may be useful for another part of the body that has begun to deteriorate.

According to wikipedia.org, human embryonic stem cell research is controversial because it requires “the destruction of a human embryo and/or therapeutic cloning.”

Recently, though, researches may have found a way to avoid the controversial part.  That is, “…adult stem cell lines can be manipulated to generate embryonic-like stem cell…that may allow stem cell creation without embryonic destruction.”

Pros and cons of stem cell research

The pros and cons of human embryonic stem cell research is widely debated.

Those weighing the cons of the argument warn that such technologies could potentially devalue human life.  The pro-life movement also argues the human embryo is a life and is entitled to protection.

Those weighing the pros of the research argue stem cells hold “significant medical potential.”  Wikipedia also notes that “excess embryos created for in vitro fertilization could be donated with consent and used for the research.”  (Perhaps lessening cases such as Octomom).

Among those celebrating Obama’s order are diabetics.  According to nydailynews.com , “Embryonic stem cells hold the promise of replicating the pancreatic cells that produce insulin.”

Transplanting cells cures Type I diabetes, but donated organs do not meet the need while embryonic stem cells would allow doctors to grow as many new cells as needed, said Robert Pearlman, president of Diabetes Research Institute Foundation.

Pearlman noted that of the 1.5 million Americans living with Type I diabetes, only 6,000 pancreases are donated each year.

But it’s not just the pro-life movement that’s outspoken about stem cell research.  Advocates of the private sector don’t want the Feds funding this research.

According to Steven Milloy , a Fox News blogger:

“The reason that the embryonic stem cell research community has been so vocal in advocating for federal funding of its work is that private investors virtually abandoned them in the late 1990s. Private investors have learned that there simply is little hope that money invested in embryonic stem cell research will produce a financial return anytime soon. Taxpayer money, on the other hand, is a much easier thing to obtain and spend in unaccountable ways — so that’s the game being played by the embryonic stem cell research community.”

What do you think about stem cell research?  Should the federal government fund this research?  Please share your thoughts and opinions in the comment section below.