This is just a test

“There’s No Such Thing as Sound Science” by By Christie Aschwanden was a lead science writer for FiveThirtyEight. FiveThirtyEight, Science, Dec. 6, 2017 Science is being turned against itself. For decades, its twin ideals of transparency and rigor have been weaponized by those who disagree with results produced by the scientific method. Under the Trump administration, that fight has ramped up again. In a move ostensibly meant to reduce conflicts of interest, Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt has removed a number of scientists from advisory panels and replaced some of them with representatives from industries that the agency regulates. Like many in the Trump administration, Pruitt has also cast doubt on the reliability of climate science. For instance, in an interview with CNBC, Pruitt said that “measuring with precision human activity on the climate is something very challenging to do.” Similarly, Trump’s pick to head NASA, an agency that oversees a large portion the nation’s climate research, has insisted that research into human influence on climate lacks certainty, and he falsely claimed that “global temperatures stopped rising 10 years ago.” Kathleen Hartnett White, Trump’s nominee to head the White House Council on Environmental Quality, said in a Senate hearing last month that she thinks we “need to have more precise explanations of the human role and the natural role” in climate change. The same entreaties crop up again and again: We need to root out conflicts. We need more precise evidence. What makes these arguments so powerful is that they sound quite similar to the points raised by proponents of a very different call for change that’s coming from within science. This other movement strives to produce more robust, reproducible findings. Despite having dissimilar goals, the two forces espouse principles that look surprisingly alike: Science needs to be transparent. Results and methods should be openly shared so that outside researchers can independently reproduce and validate them. The methods used to collect and analyze data should be rigorous and clear, and conclusions must be supported by evidence. These are the arguments underlying an “open science” reform movement that was created, in part, as a response to a “reproducibility crisis” that has struck some fields of science.1 But they’re also used as talking points by politicians who are working to make it more difficult for the EPA and other federal agencies to use science in their regulatory decision-making, under the guise of basing policy on “sound science.” Science’s virtues are being wielded against it. What distinguishes the two calls for transparency is intent: Whereas the “open science” movement aims to make science more reliable, reproducible and robust, proponents of “sound science” have historically worked to amplify uncertainty, create doubt and undermine scientific discoveries that threaten their interests. “Our criticisms are founded in a confidence in science,” said Steven Goodman, co-director of the Meta-Research Innovation Center at Stanford and a proponent of open science. “That’s a fundamental difference — we’re critiquing science to make it better. Others are critiquing it to devalue the approach itself.” Calls to base public policy on “sound science” seem unassailable if you don’t know the term’s history. The phrase was adopted by the tobacco industry in the 1990s to counteract mounting evidence linking secondhand smoke to cancer. A 1992 Environmental Protection Agency report identified secondhand smoke as a human carcinogen, and Philip Morris responded by launching an initiative to promote what it called “sound science.” In an internal memo, Philip Morris vice president of corporate affairs Ellen Merlo wrote that the program was designed to “discredit the EPA report,” “prevent states and cities, as well as businesses from passing smoking bans” and “proactively” pass legislation to help their cause. The sound science tactic exploits a fundamental feature of the scientific process: Science does not produce absolute certainty. Contrary to how it’s sometimes represented to the public, science is not a magic wand that turns everything it touches to truth. Instead, it’s a process of uncertainty reduction, much like a game of 20 Questions. Any given study can rarely answer more than one question at a time, and each study usually raises a bunch of new questions in the process of answering old ones. “Science is a process rather than an answer,” said psychologist Alison Ledgerwood of the University of California, Davis. Every answer is provisional and subject to change in the face of new evidence. It’s not entirely correct to say that “this study proves this fact,” Ledgerwood said. “We should be talking instead about how science increases or decreases our confidence in something.” The tobacco industry’s brilliant tactic was to turn this baked-in uncertainty against the scientific enterprise itself. While insisting that they merely wanted to ensure that public policy was based on sound science, tobacco companies defined the term in a way that ensured that no science could ever be sound enough. The only sound science was certain science, which is an impossible standard to achieve. “Doubt is our product,” wrote one employee of the Brown & Williamson tobacco company in a 1969 internal memo. The note went on to say that doubt “is the best means of competing with the ‘body of fact’” and “establishing a controversy.” These strategies for undermining inconvenient science were so effective that they’ve served as a sort of playbook for industry interests ever since, said Stanford University science historian Robert Proctor. The sound science push is no longer just Philip Morris sowing doubt about the links between cigarettes and cancer. It’s also a 1998 action plan by the American Petroleum Institute, Chevron and Exxon Mobil to “install uncertainty” about the link between greenhouse gas emissions and climate change. It’s industry-funded groups’ late-1990s effort to question the science the EPA was using to set fine-particle-pollution air-quality standards that the industry didn’t want. And then there was the more recent effort by Dow Chemical to insist on more scientific certainty before banning a pesticide that the EPA’s scientists had deemed risky to children. Now comes a move by the Trump administration’s EPA to repeal a 2015 rule on wetlands protection by disregarding particular studies. (To name just a few examples.) Doubt merchants aren’t pushing for knowledge, they’re practicing what Proctor has dubbed “agnogenesis” — the intentional manufacture of ignorance. This ignorance isn’t simply the absence of knowing something; it’s a lack of comprehension deliberately created by agents who don’t want you to know, Proctor said.2 In the hands of doubt-makers, transparency becomes a rhetorical move. “It’s really difficult as a scientist or policy maker to make a stand against transparency and openness, because well, who would be against it?” said Karen Levy, researcher on information science at Cornell University. But at the same time, “you can couch everything in the language of transparency and it becomes a powerful weapon.” For instance, when the EPA was preparing to set new limits on particulate pollution in the 1990s, industry groups pushed back against the research and demanded access to primary data (including records that researchers had promised participants would remain confidential) and a reanalysis of the evidence. Their calls succeeded and a new analysis was performed. The reanalysis essentially confirmed the original conclusions, but the process of conducting it delayed the implementation of regulations and cost researchers time and money. Delay is a time-tested strategy. “Gridlock is the greatest friend a global warming skeptic has,” said Marc Morano, a prominent critic of global warming research and the executive director of ClimateDepot.com, in the documentary “Merchants of Doubt” (based on the book by the same name). Morano’s site is a project of the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, which has received funding from the oil and gas industry. “We’re the negative force. We’re just trying to stop stuff.” Some of these ploys are getting a fresh boost from Congress. The Data Quality Act (also known as the Information Quality Act) was reportedly written by an industry lobbyist and quietly passed as part of an appropriations bill in 2000. The rule mandates that federal agencies ensure the “quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of information” that they disseminate, though it does little to define what these terms mean. The law also provides a mechanism for citizens and groups to challenge information that they deem inaccurate, including science that they disagree with. “It was passed in this very quiet way with no explicit debate about it — that should tell you a lot about the real goals,” Levy said. But what’s most telling about the Data Quality Act is how it’s been used, Levy said. A 2004 Washington Post analysis found that in the 20 months following its implementation, the act was repeatedly used by industry groups to push back against proposed regulations and bog down the decision-making process. Instead of deploying transparency as a fundamental principle that applies to all science, these interests have used transparency as a weapon to attack very particular findings that they would like to eradicate. Now Congress is considering another way to legislate how science is used. The Honest Act, a bill sponsored by Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas,3 is another example of what Levy calls a “Trojan horse” law that uses the language of transparency as a cover to achieve other political goals. Smith’s legislation would severely limit the kind of evidence the EPA could use for decision-making. Only studies whose raw data and computer codes were publicly available would be allowed for consideration. That might sound perfectly reasonable, and in many cases it is, Goodman said. But sometimes there are good reasons why researchers can’t conform to these rules, like when the data contains confidential or sensitive medical information.4 Critics, which include more than a dozen scientific organizations, argue that, in practice, the rules would prevent many studies from being considered in EPA reviews.5 It might seem like an easy task to sort good science from bad, but in reality it’s not so simple. “There’s a misplaced idea that we can definitively distinguish the good from the not-good science, but it’s all a matter of degree,” said Brian Nosek, executive director of the Center for Open Science. “There is no perfect study.” Requiring regulators to wait until they have (nonexistent) perfect evidence is essentially “a way of saying, ‘We don’t want to use evidence for our decision-making,’” Nosek said. Most scientific controversies aren’t about science at all, and once the sides are drawn, more data is unlikely to bring opponents into agreement. Michael Carolan, who researches the sociology of technology and scientific knowledge at Colorado State University, wrote in a 2008 paper about why objective knowledge is not enough to resolve environmental controversies. “While these controversies may appear on the surface to rest on disputed questions of fact, beneath often reside differing positions of value; values that can give shape to differing understandings of what ‘the facts’ are.” What’s needed in these cases isn’t more or better science, but mechanisms to bring those hidden values to the forefront of the discussion so that they can be debated transparently. “As long as we continue down this unabashedly naive road about what science is, and what it is capable of doing, we will continue to fail to reach any sort of meaningful consensus on these matters,” Carolan writes. The dispute over tobacco was never about the science of cigarettes’ link to cancer. It was about whether companies have the right to sell dangerous products and, if so, what obligations they have to the consumers who purchased them. Similarly, the debate over climate change isn’t about whether our planet is heating, but about how much responsibility each country and person bears for stopping it. While researching her book “Merchants of Doubt,” science historian Naomi Oreskes found that some of the same people who were defending the tobacco industry as scientific experts were also receiving industry money to deny the role of human activity in global warming. What these issues had in common, she realized, was that they all involved the need for government action. “None of this is about the science. All of this is a political debate about the role of government,” she said in the documentary. These controversies are really about values, not scientific facts, and acknowledging that would allow us to have more truthful and productive debates. What would that look like in practice? Instead of cherry-picking evidence to support a particular view (and insisting that the science points to a desired action), the various sides could lay out the values they are using to assess the evidence. For instance, in Europe, many decisions are guided by the precautionary principle — a system that values caution in the face of uncertainty and says that when the risks are unclear, it should be up to industries to show that their products and processes are not harmful, rather than requiring the government to prove that they are harmful before they can be regulated. By contrast, U.S. agencies tend to wait for strong evidence of harm before issuing regulations. Both approaches have critics, but the difference between them comes down to priorities: Is it better to exercise caution at the risk of burdening companies and perhaps the economy, or is it more important to avoid potential economic downsides even if it means that sometimes a harmful product or industrial process goes unregulated? In other words, under what circumstances do we agree to act on a risk? How certain do we need to be that the risk is real, and how many people would need to be at risk, and how costly is it to reduce that risk? Those are moral questions, not scientific ones, and openly discussing and identifying these kinds of judgment calls would lead to a more honest debate. Science matters, and we need to do it as rigorously as possible. But science can’t tell us how risky is too risky to allow products like cigarettes or potentially harmful pesticides to be sold — those are value judgements that only humans can make.

LESSON 4. Cellular Respiration • Define cellular respiration • Identify the stages of clan respiration You have just learned how the energy from the sun is captured, processed, and stored in the form of glucose. Cellular respiration, another important life process, is the means by which cells release the stored energy in glucose to make adenosine triphosphate (ATP). The primary goal of this life process is to convert stored energy into usable form, such as ATP, for the cells to carry out their functions. Cellular respiration involves several chemical reactions. The reactions can be summed up in the following equation: C6 H12 O6 + 602 ----- 6 CO₂ +6H₂O + ATP Glucose oxygen carbon dioxide water energy Aerobic respiration reactions, or cellular respiration that takes place in the presence of oxygen, can be grouped into three stages glycolysis, Krebs cycle, and electron transport chain (ETC). Stage 1: Glycolysis Glycolysis is the process that breaks down one molecule of 6-C glucose into 3-C pyruvates or pyruvic acids. It also releases four molecules of ATP. This process occurs in the cytoplasm of the cell. The following is the step-by-step process of glycolysis. Take note that several enzymes are involved in this process. 1. The first step of glycolysis requires energy. It can only proceed when the two ATP molecules donate energy to the glucose by transferring a phosphate group with the help of an enzyme, producing glucose 6-phosphate 2. Then, a specific enzyme promotes the rearrangement of the atoms, producing the fructose 6-phosphate. 3. The action of the enzyme in step 2 promotes the transfer of a phosphate group from another ATP molecule, forming fructose 1,6-bisphosphate. 4. The resulting fructose 1,6-bisphosphate molecules, with the help of another enzyme, splits into two molecules, each with three carbon backbones. These two sugars are dihydroxyacetone phosphate and glyceraldehyde 3-phosphate. 5. Another important enzyme then rapidly interconverts the molecules of dihydro-xyacetone phosphate and glyceraldehyde 3-phosphate. This produces two molecules of glyceraldehyde 3-phosphate or 3-phosphoglyceraldehyde (PGAL) 6. The succeeding step involves another enzyme-mediated action. The hydrogen (H) from PGAL is transferred to the oxidizing agent, nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide (NAD), which forms NADH. A phosphate (P) is also added from the cytosol of the cell to oxidize the two molecules of PGAL, forming two 1.3-bisphosphoglycerate. 7. A phosphate (P) from 1,3-biphosphoglycerate is transferred to ADP to form ATP. This happens for each of the two 1,3-bisphosphoglycerate. resulting to a yield of two ATP and two 3-phosphoglycerate molecules. 8. A phosphate is transferred from 3-phosphoglycerate molecules from the third carbon to the second carbon, forming 2-phosphoglycerate molecules A hydrogen atom and a hydroxyl ((OH) group is released, which then combines to form water (H2O). The removal of H2O from 2-phosphoglycerate results in the formation of 2- phosphoglycerate molecules. 9. A hydrogen atom and a hydroxyl ((OH) group is released, which then combines to form water (H2O). The removal of H2O from 2-phosphoglycerate results in the formation of two phosphoenolpyruvic acid (PEP) 10. Phosphate (P) from PEP is transferred to ADP (and forms ATP) and the final product, pyruvic acid. This reaction yields two molecules of pyruvic acid and two ATP molecules In summary, a single glucose molecule that undergoes the process of glycolysis produces two molecules of pyruvic acid, four molecules of ATP, two molecules of NADEL and two molecules of H.O. However, only two molecules of ATP are counted as net products since two molecules of ATP are spent throughout the process. Stage II: Krebs Cycle The Krebs cycle, named after its proponent Sir Hans Adolf Krebs, is a cyclical series of enzyme-controlled reactions. This stage of cellular respiration occurs in the matrix of the mitochondria. It is sometimes. called the citric acid cycle (CAC) since it produces citric acid. Citric acid contains three carboxyl (COOH) groups; hence, it is also called the tricarboxylic acid cycle (TCA). This requires the pyruvic acids produced during glycolysis. The main function of this cycle is to produce high-energy-yielding molecules, namely, NADH and flavin adenine dinucleotide (FADH) that will later on be used in the electron transport chain reaction. Figure 6-7. Summary of glycolysis and corresponding products in each reaction presented (See Appendix F on page 285 for an enlarged and complete version of the image.) An initial process is needed for the Krebs cycle to begin. As a pyruvate molecule from glycolysis enters the mitochondrion, it undergoes an important preliminary ate to form acetyl-CoA reaction. Coenzyme-A (COA) combines with pyruvate help of an enzymatic complex. This conversion also produces CO, and NADH. The Krebs cycle is summarized as follows. Take note that several enzymes are involved in this process. 1. The Krebs cycle technically begins when the acetyl-CoA combines with oxaloacetic acid (OAA), a 4-C molecule, to produce citric acid, a 6-C molecule. 2. With the aid of an enzyme, the citric acid now goes through a series of reactions that releases energy. Water molecule is removed from the citric acid and is returned in a different location. The-OH group is repositioned, forming the molecule isocitrate. 3. Isocitrate is then oxidized, forming the a-ketoglutarate, a 5-C molecule. The byproducts of this reaction are NADH and CO, 4 The a-ketoglutarate loses its CO, and a coenzyme-A is added in its place. The decarboxylation occurs with the help of NAD, which then becomes NADH. The resulting molecule is called succinyl-CoA. 5. Succinyl-CoA is converted into succinate. Also in this reaction, a molecule of guanosine triphosphate (GTP) is synthesized. The GTP molecule has similar structure and energy properties to that of ATP and is used by cells the same way. The free phosphate group attacks the succinyl-CoA molecule, which detaches the COA. Then, phosphate is attached to GDP to come up with GTP, similar to the process that occur in ATP synthesis (from ADP to ATP). 6. Two hydrogens are removed from succinate, A molecule of flavin adenine dinucleotide (FAD), a coenzyme similar to NAD, is reduced to FADH, as it takes the hydrogens from the succinate. This reaction produces the fumarate. 7. Fumarate is then converted into malate as the addition of a water molecule is catalyzed. The final reaction is the regeneration of oxaloacetate. The resulting byproduct of this regeneration is NADH Recall that two pyruvate molecules were produced during glycolysis, causing the Krebs cycle to turn twice. Each tuts produces three molecules of NADH, single ATH one FADIH, and the by-product CO, which is exhaled. Stage III: Electron Transport Chain The electron transport chain (ETC) is a series of photon pumps on the inner membrane of the mitochondrion. Electron transport is the last stage of the cellular respiration. In this stage, the energy from NADH and FADH, from the Krebs cycle is transferred to ADP to produce ATP. This process is generally known as oxidative phosphorylation. This energy coupling mechanism in the cell was revealed by the work of Peter stored energy in the form of proton (1) gradient to phosphorylate (add phosphate) ADP and produce ATP. The pumping of hydrogen sons across the inner membrane creates higher concentration ions in the inner membrane than on the outside of the membrane. This chemiosmotic gradient causes the ions to flow back across the membrane where the concentration of ions is lower. ATP synthase lined in the matrix serve as a channel protein, helping the ions to move across the membrane. The chemiosmotic gradient powers the phosphorylation of ADP to ATP, which also occurs in the ATP synthase. After passing through the ETC, the oxygen, being the final hydrogen acceptor, combines with two electrons and two protons, forming a water molecule. Water is a by-product of cellular respiration and is excreted. MINI TEST 6-3 1. Which energy-releasing pathway yields the most ATF in each glucose molecule? 2. Briefly describe the two stages of aerobic respiration that follow glycolysis: (a) Krebs cycle (b) Electron transport chain Anaerobic Respiration Most cells carry out arrobic respiration when oxygen is present. Aerobic respiration is an efficient process that yields a lot of ATP. However, many organisms thrive in mud, marshes, animal gut, canned goods, sewage treatment pond, and deep oceans where oxygen is scarce. Organisms that can live without oxygen are called anaerobes. Cellular respiration that proceeds without the presence of oxygen is called anaerobic respiration. In the event that the oxygen supply becomes low, aerobic cells also perform fermentation and lactic acid fermentation anaerobic pathways. There are two common anaerobic pathways in these cells, alcoholic fermentation and lactic acid fermentation. In alcoholic fermentation, ethyl alcohol and carbon dioxide are produced by some cells using the pyruvate from glycolysis. Each pyruvate molecule is rearranged into acetaldehyde and carbon dioxide, which is eventually released. NADII gives up electrons to acetaldehyde to form ethanol Fermentation is widely used in the industry. Yeast, a fungus used in making bread. can undergo anaerobic respiration. Bakers aux sugar, flour, water, and yeast to form the bread dough. The dough rises due to the carbon dioxide and alcohol released by the yeast cells trapped in air bubbles. Beer and wine manufacturers, we yeast to ferment the sugars in wheat and grape juice, forming alcoholic beverages such as beer and wine. In some cells, glycolysis produces two pyruvates, two NADH molecules, and two ATP molecules. Pyruvate itself becomes the final acceptor of the electrons from the NADH that produces the final product: lactate. Oftentimes, this product is called lactic acid. Human skeletal muscles can carry out fermentation when the blood cannot supply the cells with adequate oxygen during strenuous activities. When lactic acid builds up in the muscles, fatigue, burning sensation, and cramps result. Lactic acid will continue to build up until there is adequate supply of oxygen. Lactic acid is then converted back into pyruvate in the liver. Muscles also restore normal functions. Have you ever wondered why milk or cream turns sour after some time? Bacterial cells that undergo fermentation are responsible in producing lactate that turns the milk sour. These bacteria are used in manufacturing yogurt and sour milk products. Fermentation pathways do not breakdown and utilize the glucose completely. ATP is no longer produced beyond the process of glycolysis. Thus, energy produced is just enough for some single-celled organisms, or the energy can only be used by multicellular organisms for a short period.

Alright, Isti — here’s a longer and more detailed English version of the Isaac Newton text, still written at a level that’s accessible for Grade 4 students, but rich enough in information to meet PISA literacy expectations and EF A2-level vocabulary. I’ve kept sentences short, clear, and with explanations for new concepts so it’s easier for young learners to follow, while still including both famous facts and lesser-known stories. ⸻ Isaac Newton: The Man Who Changed the Way We See the World A Boy from a Small Village Isaac Newton was born on January 4, 1643, in Woolsthorpe, a small village in England. His life was not easy. His father died before he was born. When he was just a few months old, his mother remarried and left him to live with his grandmother. Isaac missed his parents, but he kept himself busy by making things and exploring the world around him. As a child, Isaac liked to build models and machines. He made a small windmill that could turn with the wind. He built a water clock that told the time by dripping water into a container. He even made a sundial — a clock that tells the time by using the shadow of the sun. 💡 Did you know? The sundial marks that Isaac carved as a boy can still be seen today on the wall of his old house. ⸻ School and Curiosity When Newton first went to school, he was not the top student. At first, he did not pay much attention in class. But one day, another boy teased him for not being smart. Newton decided to study hard to prove him wrong. Soon, he became the best in his class. Isaac loved asking questions. He wanted to know how and why things happened. He enjoyed watching the stars at night and thinking about how the world worked. ⸻ The Falling Apple and Gravity One of the most famous stories about Newton is the falling apple. One afternoon, Isaac sat in his mother’s garden and saw an apple drop from a tree. This made him think: “Why does the apple fall straight down? Why doesn’t it fly up into the sky?” From this question, Newton began to think about gravity — an invisible force that pulls objects toward each other. Gravity is what keeps our feet on the ground. It’s also what keeps the Moon moving around the Earth and the planets moving around the Sun. 💡 Fun fact: The apple did not hit Newton’s head. That’s just a story people made up later to make the tale more exciting. ⸻ Newton’s Three Laws of Motion Newton studied movement and wrote three important rules: 1. Objects stay still or keep moving unless something makes them change. • Example: A ball will not roll unless you push it. 2. The bigger the push, the bigger the movement. • Example: If you kick a ball harder, it will go faster and farther. 3. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. • Example: When you jump off a boat, the boat moves backward as you move forward. These three laws are still used today to understand how cars, rockets, and even roller coasters work. ⸻ Discoveries in Light and Color Newton also studied light. He found that white light is not just one color — it is made of many colors. He used a glass prism to split sunlight into a rainbow. This helped scientists understand how colors work. ⸻ Inventions and New Ideas Newton made a special telescope that used mirrors instead of lenses. This type of telescope made images of planets and stars much clearer. It is still called the Newtonian telescope today. He also worked in mathematics and helped create a new type of math called calculus, which is used to study changes and movement. ⸻ Strange Experiments Newton was so curious that he sometimes tested ideas on himself. Once, he put a thin needle, called a bodkin, beside his eye to see how it would change his vision. It was very dangerous, but luckily he did not go blind. 💡 Did you know? Newton also studied alchemy — an old kind of science where people tried to turn metal into gold. He never succeeded, but it showed how wide his interests were. ⸻ Later Life and Work At the age of 27, Newton became a professor at Cambridge University. He later worked for the Royal Mint, making sure coins were made safely and stopping people from making fake money. He was very strict, and some criminals were sent to prison because of his work. Newton never married. He spent most of his life reading, writing, and doing experiments. ⸻ The End of His Life Isaac Newton died in 1727 at the age of 84. He was buried in Westminster Abbey, a famous place in London where great people of Britain are honored. His work changed the world forever. Even today, scientists, engineers, and students still use Newton’s laws and ideas. 💬 Newton once said: “If I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants.” This means we can make new discoveries by learning from the work of others who came before us. give 10 questions to each passage with PISA literacy standard for kid 10 years, 1. Nikola Tesla: The Man Who Dreamed of Lightning Born: July 10, 1856 Died: January 7, 1943 When Nikola Tesla was a boy in Croatia, he saw a flash of lightning and asked his mother, “Can we catch the light?” That question never left him. As he grew older, Tesla became a brilliant inventor, especially fascinated by electricity. He believed in a future where energy could be sent wirelessly through the air—like music through the radio! Tesla invented the alternating current (AC) system, which became the foundation of modern electricity. At the time, Thomas Edison promoted direct current (DC), and the two men had a fierce competition. Many laughed at Tesla's bold ideas, but he never gave up. He dreamed of wireless communication, flying machines, and even free energy for everyone. Though he died alone and poor, today the world honors his vision. Think About It: Why do you think people didn’t believe Tesla at first? What can we learn from Tesla’s courage to dream big? 2. Charles Darwin: The Man Who Studied the World’s Weirdest Creatures Born: February 12, 1809 Died: April 19, 1882 When young Charles Darwin got on a ship called HMS Beagle, he didn’t know he would change science forever. He sailed around the world for five years, collecting plants, animals, and fossils. On the Galápagos Islands, he noticed something curious: finches had different beaks depending on their island. Why? Darwin’s observations led him to write the theory of evolution by natural selection. It explained how animals adapt and survive. But his ideas shocked many people because they seemed to challenge religious beliefs. Despite the controversy, Darwin continued his work. His book On the Origin of Species changed how we see life on Earth. Think About It: Should scientists share their ideas even if they go against what others believe? How did traveling help Darwin make new discoveries? 3. Marie Curie: The Woman Who Glowed in the Dark Born: November 7, 1867 Died: July 4, 1934 Marie Curie was born in Poland at a time when girls were not allowed to study science. But that didn’t stop her. She moved to France, worked day and night, and discovered radioactivity, a powerful energy hidden inside atoms. She and her husband, Pierre Curie, found two new elements: polonium and radium. She became the first woman to win a Nobel Prize, and the only person to win in two different sciences: physics and chemistry. Even when Pierre died in an accident, Marie continued their work. Her discoveries helped doctors treat cancer—but working with radioactive materials also harmed her health. She died from radiation exposure, but her legacy lives on. Think About It: What challenges did Marie Curie face as a woman in science? Why is it important to balance discovery with safety? 4. Galileo Galilei: The Star Watcher Who Defied the Church Born: February 15, 1564 Died: January 8, 1642 Galileo loved looking at the stars. He built one of the first powerful telescopes and made stunning discoveries: mountains on the Moon, moons around Jupiter, and that the Earth orbits the Sun—not the other way around. This idea, called heliocentrism, went against the teachings of the Church. He was put on trial and forced to say he was wrong. But he wasn’t. He spent his last years under house arrest, quietly writing. Today, Galileo is called the father of modern science for daring to question what others blindly believed. Think About It: Why do you think Galileo was punished for telling the truth? Should science always follow evidence, even if it goes against powerful beliefs? 5. Isaac Newton: The Man Who Asked “Why?” When an Apple Fell Born: January 4, 1643 Died: March 31, 1727 One day, an apple fell from a tree, and Isaac Newton began to wonder: Why did it fall down, not sideways or up? This simple question led to his theory of gravity. Newton also invented calculus, described the laws of motion, and changed physics forever. But Newton wasn’t just a genius—he was curious, quiet, and often worked alone. He believed everything in nature followed rules, and it was our job to discover them. Thanks to him, we understand how planets move, how rockets launch, and why you fall when you trip. Think About It: How did Newton’s curiosity lead to great discoveries? Do you think working alone helped or hurt Newton? 6. Ada Lovelace: The First Computer Programmer Before Computers Existed Born: December 10, 1815 Died: November 27, 1852 Ada Lovelace was the daughter of the famous poet Lord Byron, but she didn’t love poetry—she loved numbers! At a time when girls were expected to sew, Ada studied mathematics. She met Charles Babbage, who designed an early computer called the Analytical Engine. Ada imagined the machine could do more than just math—it could create music, art, and even write! She wrote what is now considered the first computer program, long before real computers were built. Think About It: How did Ada imagine something that didn’t exist yet? Why do we call her a pioneer in technology? 7. Albert Einstein: The Man Who Brought Time and Space Together Born: March 14, 1879 Died: April 18, 1955 Albert Einstein wasn’t always a good student. In fact, his teachers thought he was slow. But Einstein thought deeply. He asked big questions like, “What if you could ride a beam of light?” His theories of relativity changed how we see space, time, and gravity. He also warned the world about the dangers of nuclear weapons, even though his ideas helped create them. Einstein believed science should help people, not harm them. With his messy hair, kind smile, and brilliant mind, he remains a symbol of genius. Think About It: Can someone be bad in school but still be brilliant? Should scientists be responsible for how their inventions are used? 8. Pythagoras: The Musician Who Loved Math Born: Around 570 BC Died: Around 495 BC Long ago in ancient Greece, Pythagoras believed the universe followed numbers. He discovered the Pythagorean Theorem, a rule about triangles that helps us build houses, design computers, and navigate space. He also believed that music had math inside it—that certain notes made perfect harmony because of mathematical ratios. Pythagoras started a secret school and taught his students to search for truth through numbers, shapes, and sound. Think About It: Why do you think Pythagoras saw math in everything? How does music relate to math? 9. Rosalind Franklin: The Woman Behind the DNA Discovery Born: July 25, 1920 Died: April 16, 1958 Rosalind Franklin loved looking closely at things. She used a special machine called X-ray crystallography to photograph molecules. One of her greatest photos, called Photo 51, showed the shape of DNA, the molecule that carries life’s instructions. But her work was taken without credit. Two men, Watson and Crick, used her photo to build their famous model of DNA and won the Nobel Prize. Rosalind died young and never knew how important her work became. Think About It: Why is it important to give credit in science? What can we learn from Rosalind’s quiet strength? 10. Carl Linnaeus: The Man Who Gave Names to Everything Born: May 23, 1707 Died: January 10, 1778 Have you ever wondered why a tiger is called Panthera tigris? That’s thanks to Carl Linnaeus, a Swedish scientist who created a way to name and organize every living thing. His system is still used today in biology. Linnaeus loved nature and spent his life collecting plants, animals, and even rocks. He believed that by organizing life, we could better understand it. Thanks to him, we now have a global “dictionary of nature.” Think About It: Why is it important to name and organize living things? How does order help us understand the world?

Growing up in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, a small city surrounded by endless plains, I've found unexpected echoes of home in China's smaller towns — from the warmth of locals in Huaihua, Central China's Hunan province, to the quiet charm of Yangshuo, South China's Guangxi Zhuang autonomous region. With an itch to see more of China's lesser-visited regions, I began planning a trip to the northwest with seven friends — five Americans, one Pakistani, one Zimbabwean, and one Colombian. We bought round-trip tickets from Shanghai to Yinchuan, Ningxia Hui autonomous region, for less than $120 each. From there, we planned to rent a car and drive to Xining in Qinghai, then on to Qinghai Lake, and finally to Lanzhou, Gansu. To make that possible, several of us applied for Chinese driver's licenses, a process that involved translating our US licenses into Mandarin and passing a short test on traffic laws. Within a day, we were licensed. As we piled into two rental cars in late March to begin our eight-day journey, it became clear that this wasn't just a road trip — it was the culmination of our four years in China, the Mandarin we had so diligently studied, and our ongoing effort to contribute to US-China people-to-people relations. Right away, we drew curious reactions. At the Yinchuan airport, taxi drivers offered us rides into the city, only to stare in astonishment when we told them we had rented cars. "You're driving? In China?" one driver asked, visibly surprised. It was a reaction we'd encountered multiple times during our trip, as foreign drivers are rare in China, especially in remote regions. In Yinchuan, we stocked up on snacks and adjusted to the chilly desert air. From there, we headed west, navigating wide highways framed by dramatic landscapes: arid plains, jagged mountains, and occasionally, a herd of sheep crossing the road. The vastness of the Northwest was humbling — and as someone who grew up on the wide-open prairies of South Dakota, it felt oddly familiar. One of the highlights of our trip was camping by Qinghai Lake, the largest saltwater lake in China. A few summers ago, Santiago Solano, one of my classmates from the US, cycled from Xi'an in Shaanxi to Urumqi in the Xinjiang Uygur autonomous region over the course of a month and met many kind strangers along the way. One of them was Geng San, a Tibetan lamb herder who managed a piece of land right next to Qinghai Lake and graciously invited us to camp there. "That's what China is — it's the people. The quiet generosity of an old Tibetan nomad who, years after we first met, still offered us a place to rest on his land," said Solano, who is also part of the group on this trip. But apparently, we underestimated just how cold it would be to camp next to Qinghai Lake in late March. It was deathly freezing. In preparation for the trip, we had ordered two tent kits and eight sleeping bags. However, when the temperature eventually dropped to — 10 C, all of us piled into the cars and turned the heaters on. So much for camping. From Qinghai Lake, we drove to Lanzhou, where we visited many food markets and tried every type of noodle on offer. Since we are college students, we rented a gaming hotel room — something I've only ever seen in China. At night, instead of attending local parties as we had before, we stayed in the hotel and gamed late into the morning. For me, the trip was as much about the journey as it was about the destinations. Driving through Northwest China gave us a unique perspective on the region's natural beauty and its people. At gas stations, shopkeepers greeted us with curiosity and kindness, often offering recommendations for nearby attractions. At roadside carts, we sampled local specialties, grabbing a quick skewer and a mango for the road. And at every stop, we were touched by the warmth and hospitality that make traveling in China so rewarding. As an American who has lived in China for several years, I'm often asked about my experiences here. Trips like this one remind me of the similarities between the two countries, despite their differences. Just as road trips are a quintessential part of American culture, they've become my favorite way to explore China. Whether it's driving through the rolling hills of South Dakota or the deserts of Ningxia, there's something universal about the freedom and camaraderie that come with having complete control over where you end up. Written by Charlie Howes, a 22-year-old American who has lived in China since 2019. He completed his final year of high school at Beijing No 80 High School and is currently studying at New York University Shanghai. He has founded a company in China focused on facilitating US-China trade and plans to continue living in Shanghai long term. He enjoys road trips, cycling around the world, learning languages, and meeting new people.

Fed. 51: To the People of the State of New York: TO WHAT expedient, then, shall we finally resort, for maintaining in practice the necessary partition of power among the several departments, as laid down in the Constitution? The only answer that can be given is, that as all these exterior provisions are found to be inadequate, the defect must be supplied, by so contriving the interior structure of the government as that its several constituent parts may, by their mutual relations, be the means of keeping each other in their proper places. Without presuming to undertake a full development of this important idea, I will hazard a few general observations, which may perhaps place it in a clearer light, and enable us to form a more correct judgment of the principles and structure of the government planned by the convention. In order to lay a due foundation for that separate and distinct exercise of the different powers of government, which to a certain extent is admitted on all hands to be essential to the preservation of liberty, it is evident that each department should have a will of its own; and consequently should be so constituted that the members of each should have as little agency as possible in the appointment of the members of the others. Were this principle rigorously adhered to, it would require that all the appointments for the supreme executive, legislative, and judiciary magistracies should be drawn from the same fountain of authority, the people, through channels having no communication whatever with one another. Perhaps such a plan of constructing the several departments would be less difficult in practice than it may in contemplation appear. Some difficulties, however, and some additional expense would attend the execution of it. Some deviations, therefore, from the principle must be admitted. In the constitution of the judiciary department in particular, it might be inexpedient to insist rigorously on the principle: first, because peculiar qualifications being essential in the members, the primary consideration ought to be to select that mode of choice which best secures these qualifications; secondly, because the permanent tenure by which the appointments are held in that department, must soon destroy all sense of dependence on the authority conferring them. It is equally evident, that the members of each department should be as little dependent as possible on those of the others, for the emoluments annexed to their offices. Were the executive magistrate, or the judges, not independent of the legislature in this particular, their independence in every other would be merely nominal. But the great security against a gradual concentration of the several powers in the same department, consists in giving to those who administer each department the necessary constitutional means and personal motives to resist encroachments of the others. The provision for defense must in this, as in all other cases, be made commensurate to the danger of attack. Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place. It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions. This policy of supplying, by opposite and rival interests, the defect of better motives, might be traced through the whole system of human affairs, private as well as public. We see it particularly displayed in all the subordinate distributions of power, where the constant aim is to divide and arrange the several offices in such a manner as that each may be a check on the other that the private interest of every individual may be a sentinel over the public rights. These inventions of prudence cannot be less requisite in the distribution of the supreme powers of the State. But it is not possible to give to each department an equal power of self-defense. In republican government, the legislative authority necessarily predominates. The remedy for this inconveniency is to divide the legislature into different branches; and to render them, by different modes of election and different principles of action, as little connected with each other as the nature of their common functions and their common dependence on the society will admit. It may even be necessary to guard against dangerous encroachments by still further precautions. As the weight of the legislative authority requires that it should be thus divided, the weakness of the executive may require, on the other hand, that it should be fortified. An absolute negative on the legislature appears, at first view, to be the natural defense with which the executive magistrate should be armed. But perhaps it would be neither altogether safe nor alone sufficient. On ordinary occasions it might not be exerted with the requisite firmness, and on extraordinary occasions it might be perfidiously abused. May not this defect of an absolute negative be supplied by some qualified connection between this weaker department and the weaker branch of the stronger department, by which the latter may be led to support the constitutional rights of the former, without being too much detached from the rights of its own department? If the principles on which these observations are founded be just, as I persuade myself they are, and they be applied as a criterion to the several State constitutions, and to the federal Constitution it will be found that if the latter does not perfectly correspond with them, the former are infinitely less able to bear such a test. There are, moreover, two considerations particularly applicable to the federal system of America, which place that system in a very interesting point of view. First. In a single republic, all the power surrendered by the people is submitted to the administration of a single government; and the usurpations are guarded against by a division of the government into distinct and separate departments. In the compound republic of America, the power surrendered by the people is first divided between two distinct governments, and then the portion allotted to each subdivided among distinct and separate departments. Hence a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control each other, at the same time that each will be controlled by itself. Second. It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers, but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part. Different interests necessarily exist in different classes of citizens. If a majority be united by a common interest, the rights of the minority will be insecure. There are but two methods of providing against this evil: the one by creating a will in the community independent of the majority that is, of the society itself; the other, by comprehending in the society so many separate descriptions of citizens as will render an unjust combination of a majority of the whole very improbable, if not impracticable. The first method prevails in all governments possessing an hereditary or self-appointed authority. This, at best, is but a precarious security; because a power independent of the society may as well espouse the unjust views of the major, as the rightful interests of the minor party, and may possibly be turned against both parties. The second method will be exemplified in the federal republic of the United States. Whilst all authority in it will be derived from and dependent on the society, the society itself will be broken into so many parts, interests, and classes of citizens, that the rights of individuals, or of the minority, will be in little danger from interested combinations of the majority. In a free government the security for civil rights must be the same as that for religious rights. It consists in the one case in the multiplicity of interests, and in the other in the multiplicity of sects. The degree of security in both cases will depend on the number of interests and sects; and this may be presumed to depend on the extent of country and number of people comprehended under the same government. This view of the subject must particularly recommend a proper federal system to all the sincere and considerate friends of republican government, since it shows that in exact proportion as the territory of the Union may be formed into more circumscribed Confederacies, or States oppressive combinations of a majority will be facilitated: the best security, under the republican forms, for the rights of every class of citizens, will be diminished: and consequently the stability and independence of some member of the government, the only other security, must be proportionately increased. Justice is the end of government. It is the end of civil society. It ever has been and ever will be pursued until it be obtained, or until liberty be lost in the pursuit. In a society under the forms of which the stronger faction can readily unite and oppress the weaker, anarchy may as truly be said to reign as in a state of nature, where the weaker individual is not secured against the violence of the stronger; and as, in the latter state, even the stronger individuals are prompted, by the uncertainty of their condition, to submit to a government which may protect the weak as well as themselves; so, in the former state, will the more powerful factions or parties be gradnally induced, by a like motive, to wish for a government which will protect all parties, the weaker as well as the more powerful. It can be little doubted that if the State of Rhode Island was separated from the Confederacy and left to itself, the insecurity of rights under the popular form of government within such narrow limits would be displayed by such reiterated oppressions of factious majorities that some power altogether independent of the people would soon be called for by the voice of the very factions whose misrule had proved the necessity of it. In the extended republic of the United States, and among the great variety of interests, parties, and sects which it embraces, a coalition of a majority of the whole society could seldom take place on any other principles than those of justice and the general good; whilst there being thus less danger to a minor from the will of a major party, there must be less pretext, also, to provide for the security of the former, by introducing into the government a will not dependent on the latter, or, in other words, a will independent of the society itself. It is no less certain than it is important, notwithstanding the contrary opinions which have been entertained, that the larger the society, provided it lie within a practical sphere, the more duly capable it will be of self-government. And happily for the REPUBLICAN CAUSE, the practicable sphere may be carried to a very great extent, by a judicious modification and mixture of the FEDERAL PRINCIPLE. PUBLIUS.

Related quizzes

Related quizzes