Why do people often feel happy?

When they are with friends and family

Why are we alive? | Quizalize

The story of The Resurrection of Jesus is very amazing. Resurrection: meaning Jesus rising from the dead. Jesus is alive again. Jesus proved to the people that He is the “Son of God”. Would you like to know the amazing story? Let’s read on! Jesus is Alive! After Jesus died a man named Joseph from Arimathea put Jesus in His tomb. Before Joseph left, he and some men rolled a large heavy stone in front of the tomb. Mary and Mary Magdalene made spices and oils as a sign of respect to Jesus, and went very early to the tomb on the third day to go see Jesus' body. As they were just about at the tomb the earth suddenly shook and an angel came down from heaven. He easily rolled away the stone at the entrance of the tomb and sat on top of it. The women looked at each other and rubbed their eyes, they couldn't believe what they had seen. The angel was so bright, almost as bright as lightning. His clothes were as white as snow. There had been guards watching the tomb so no one would steal Jesus' body. When they saw the angel they fell over and they couldn't move or speak because they were so afraid. Christian Living Education 2 SEIBO COLLEGE 5 Then the angel said to the women, "Do not be afraid. I know you are looking for Jesus who has died. But He isn't here; He has risen just as He said He would! Come and see for yourself, the tomb is empty." The women were confused. How could this happen? They were sure Jesus had died, and now He was alive? They looked in the tomb and the cloths Jesus was wrapped in were lying on the ground, and the tomb was empty. Then the angel spoke again, "If you want to find Jesus He's on his way to Galilee." So the women hurried away. They had been so sad that Jesus was dead and now they were so excited He was alive! They just knew they had to find Jesus, and they had to tell the disciples the good news. As they were running down the path they turned a corner, and there was Jesus. "Greetings," He said. The ladies fell at His feet and worshiped him. Then Jesus said to them, "Do not be afraid. Go and tell my disciples to come to Galilee, which is where they will see me." The disciples came to Galilee, and had heard by this time that Jesus was alive. They were sitting around talking about it, when Jesus walked into the room and said to them, "Peace be with you." The disciples immediately stopped talking. Even though they had heard Christian Living Education 2 SEIBO COLLEGE 6 He was alive, they were shocked to see Him standing there with them. Jesus said to them, "Why do you look at me like you've just seen a ghost? Why don't you believe what you're seeing? Look at the scars in my hands and feet. It is really me! Touch me and see, I am not a ghost but a real person." The disciples’ mouths were open in amazement because they still didn't know what to think. They were so full of joy, and yet it was so impossible. Jesus understood what they were thinking, so He said, "This is what I told you would happen, that everything must happen that has already been written in the Bible." Then Jesus told them, "You have seen these things that have happened, so stay in the city and soon I am going to give you what God has promised you, the Holy Spirit. Jesus had one more person to see. His name was Thomas, and he was one of the disciples that weren’t there when Jesus met with them. Thomas had also heard that Jesus was alive, but would not believe until he saw Jesus with his own eyes. A week later when Thomas finally saw Jesus, Jesus said to him, "Put your finger here; see my hands. Stop doubting and believe." But Jesus continued, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; but it is more amazing for those who don't see me, and believe anyway." Christian Living Education 2 SEIBO COLLEGE 7 Jesus is actually talking to us when He said this. If you believe in Him, without seeing Him He thinks you're very special! That is exactly what faith is, believing in God even though you can't see Him. When we become Christians Jesus automatically gives us the Holy Spirit to live inside of us. The Holy Spirit makes us know when we have done something wrong. We might feel sick to our stomach, or just get a bad feeling, that is the Holy Spirit reminding us that we are doing something wrong, or that we need to stop and say sorry and ask for forgiveness for what we've done. Do you know what we celebrate during Easter Sunday? We celebrate the rising of Jesus from the dead. We celebrate because Jesus shared His new life with us. Through His rising from the dead, we are saved. We also have new life. What do you think we should do with our new life? How can we thank Jesus for sharing His new life with us? Of course, we should do good deeds. When we say good deeds, it is anything that we do that is good. It doesn’t matter how big or small as long as it is good. It would make Jesus very happy if we stop our bad ways and change for the better

Why I'm Late Today I rushed into the school office. "Sorry I'm late. I was having breakfast with the Norbotians," I said. "Who are the Norbotians?" Mrs. Gage asked. "The aliens-well, creatures-on Norbot," I explained. "They're really very nice," I added. Mrs. Gage shook her head. "You had breakfast with aliens?" she asked. "They invited us. They felt bad after I did a belly flop into their swimming pool," I said. "Why did they feel bad?" she asked. "Because it was filled with green slime,." I said. "They love to swim in green slime, but of course, they're Norbotians," I said. "I see. Well, why did you jump in if it was filled with green slime?" Mrs. Gage asked. "Oh, I didn't jump. I flew into it when Teresa pushed the red button-it said 'eject," I explained. Mrs. Gage snorted. "I suppose this eject button was inside your spaceship?" she asked. "That's right. The eject button is only for emergencies," I said. "Teresa freaked out, though, when the Norbotians came to say hello," I explained. "I thought you said they were nice," said Mrs. Gage. "They're very nice. It's not their fault they look... like they do," I replied. "And they came to say hello because ...?" she asked. "A spaceship doesn't land in their backyard every day," I said. "What were you doing in a spaceship?" Mrs. Gage asked. "How else would we get to Norbot?" I replied. "But where did you get this spaceship?" Mrs. Gage asked. "Teresa built it in her backyard," I said. "Where is the spaceship now?" Mrs. Gage asked. "It's out on the grass. I had to either land there or on the school roof." I said. "So where is Teresa?" Mrs. Gage asked. "She's going to school on Norbot today." I said. "We're doing a student exchange," I explained. Mrs. Gage looked at me and laughed. "That's the strangest excuse I've ever heard," she said. Then Mrs. Gage jumped up and spilled her coffee. "Your backpack is alive!" she screamed. "Oh, that's not my backpack," I said. I smiled and waved at Mrs. Gage. So did Norby. Mrs. Gage waved back. "Welcome to Earth!" she said.

CELLULAR RESPIRATION CELLULAR RESPIRATION What is it? Cellular respiration is the process by which cells break down glucose (a simple sugar) and other organic molecules to release energy in the form of ATP (adenosine triphosphate), which powers cell activities. Overall equation: C6H12O6 + 6O2 ⟶ 6CO2 + 6H2O + ATP (energy) Stages of Cellular Respiration 1. Glycolysis (in the cytoplasm) • Where it happens: Cytoplasm (outside mitochondria) • What happens: o One molecule of glucose (6 carbons) is split into two molecules of pyruvate (3 carbons each). o 2 ATP are used to start the process. o 4 ATP are produced (net gain = 2 ATP). o 2 NADH (electron carriers) are also produced. Summary of glycolysis products per glucose: • 2 ATP (net gain) • 2 NADH • 2 Pyruvate 2. Krebs Cycle (Citric Acid Cycle) (in the mitochondrial matrix) • Where it happens: Mitochondrial matrix • What happens: o Each pyruvate (3C) is converted to acetyl-CoA (2C) before entering the cycle. o Acetyl-CoA combines with oxaloacetate (4C) to form citric acid (6C). o Through a series of enzyme-controlled reactions, citric acid is broken down, releasing CO₂, ATP, NADH, and FADH₂. Summary of Krebs Cycle products (per 2 pyruvates): • 2 ATP • 6 NADH • 2 FADH₂ • 4 CO₂ (exhaled as waste) 3. Electron Transport Chain (ETC) & Oxidative Phosphorylation (in the inner mitochondrial membrane) • Where it happens: Inner mitochondrial membrane (cristae) • What happens: o NADH and FADH₂ donate high-energy electrons to proteins in the ETC. o As electrons move through the chain, protons (H⁺) are pumped across the membrane, creating a proton gradient. o This gradient powers ATP synthase, which makes lots of ATP (like a turbine powered by flowing water). o Oxygen acts as the final electron acceptor, combining with electrons and hydrogen to form water (H₂O). Summary of ETC products: • About 34 ATP • H₂O Total Energy Yield from One Glucose (Aerobic Respiration) • Glycolysis → 2 ATP • Krebs Cycle → 2 ATP • ETC → ~34 ATP Total: ~38 ATP (usually 36 in eukaryotes due to energy costs) Anaerobic Respiration (When Oxygen is Absent) If oxygen is not available, cells switch to fermentation: • Alcoholic Fermentation (yeast & some bacteria): pyruvate → ethanol + CO₂ • Lactic Acid Fermentation (muscles & some bacteria): pyruvate → lactic acid These processes only make 2 ATP per glucose, much less efficient than aerobic respiration. Key Takeaway: Cellular respiration is like the cell’s power plant: glycolysis breaks glucose into smaller pieces, the Krebs cycle extracts more high-energy electrons, and the ETC uses those electrons to generate the bulk of ATP. Oxygen is essential for the final step, which is why we need to breathe to stay alive.

CHARACTERISTICS OF LIFE The world is filled with familiar objects, such as tables, rocks, plants, pets, and automobiles. Which of these objects are living or were once living? What are the criteria for assigning something to the living world or the nonliving world? Biologists have established that living things share seven characteristics of life. These characteristics are organization and the presence of one or more cells, response to a stimulus (plural, stimuli), homeostasis, metabolism, growth and development, reproduction, and change through time. Organization and Cells Organization is the high degree of order within an organism’s internal and external parts and in its interactions with the living world. For example, compare an owl to a rock. The rock has a spe- cific shape, but that shape is usually irregular. Furthermore, differ- ent rocks, even rocks of the same type, are likely to have different shapes and sizes. In contrast, the owl is an amazingly organized individual, as shown in Figure 1-2. Owls of the same species have the same body parts arranged in nearly the same way and interact with the environment in the same way. Copyright © by Holt, Rinehart and Winston. All rights reserved. ORGANISM (Barn Owl) ORGAN (Owl’s Ear) TISSUE (Nervous Tissue Within the Ear) CELL (Nerve Cell) Every living organism has a level of organization. The different levels of organization for a complex multicellular organism, such as an owl, are shown in the figure below. FIGURE 1-2 THE SCIENCE OF LIFE 7 All living organisms, whether made up of one cell or many cells, have some degree of organization. A cell is the smallest unit that can perform all life’s processes. Some organisms, such as bacteria, are made up of one cell and are called unicellular (YOON-uh-SEL-yoo-luhr) organisms. Other organisms, such as humans or trees, are made up of multiple cells and are called multicellular (MUHL-ti-SEL-yoo-luhr) organisms. Complex multicellular organisms have the level of orga- nization shown in Figure 1-2. In the highest level, the organism is made up of organ systems, or groups of specialized parts that carry out a certain function in the organism. For example, an owl’s ner- vous system is made up of a brain, sense organs, nerve cells, and other parts that sense and respond to the owl’s surroundings. Organ systems are made up of organs. Organs are structures that carry out specialized jobs within an organ system. An owl’s ear is an organ that allows the owl to hear. All organs are made up of tissues. Tissues are groups of cells that have similar abilities and that allow the organ to function. For example, nervous tissue in the ear allows the ear to detect sound. Tissues are made up of cells. A cell must be covered by a membrane, contain all genetic information necessary for replication, and be able to carry out all cell functions. Within each cell are organelles. Organelles are tiny structures that carry out functions necessary for the cell to stay alive. Organelles contain biological molecules, the chemical compounds that provide physical structure and that bring about movement, energy use, and other cellular functions. All biological molecules are made up of atoms. Atoms are the simplest particle of an ele- ment that retains all the properties of a certain element. Response to Stimuli Another characteristic of life is that an organism can respond to a stimulus—a physical or chemical change in the internal or external environment. For example, an owl dilates its pupils to keep the level of light entering the eye constant. Organisms must be able to respond and react to changes in their environment to stay alive. ORGANELLE (Mitochondrion) BIOLOGICAL MOLECULE (Phospholipid) ATOM (Oxygen) cell from the Latin, cella meaning “small room,” or “hut” Word Roots and Origins www.scilinks.org Topic: Characteristics of Life Keyword: HM60257 mb06se_bios01.qxd 5/18/07 10:37 AM Page 7 8 CHAPTER 1 Homeostasis All living things, from single cells to entire organisms, have mecha- nisms that allow them to maintain stable internal conditions. Without these mechanisms, organisms can die. For example, a cell’s water content is closely controlled by the taking in or releas- ing of water. A cell that takes in too much water will rupture and die. A cell that doesn’t get enough water will also shrivel and die. Homeostasis (HOH-mee-OH-STAY-sis) is the maintenance of a stable level of internal conditions even though environmental conditions are constantly changing. Organisms have regulatory systems that maintain internal conditions, such as temperature, water content, and uptake of nutrients by the cell. In fact, multi- cellular organisms usually have more than one way of maintain- ing important aspects of their internal environment. For example, an owl’s temperature is maintained at about 40°C (104°F). To keep a constant temperature, an owl’s cells burn fuel to produce body heat. In addition, an owl’s feathers can fluff up in cold weather. In this way, they trap an insulating layer of air next to the bird’s body to maintain its body temperature. Metabolism Living organisms use energy to power all the life processes, such as repair, movement, and growth. This energy use depends on metabolism (muh-TAB-uh-LIZ-uhm). Metabolism is the sum of all the chemical reactions that take in and transform energy and materials from the environment. For example, plants, algae, and some bacteria use the sun’s energy to generate sugar molecules during a process called photosynthesis. Some organisms depend on obtaining food energy from other organisms. For instance, an owl’s metabolism allows the owl to extract and modify the chemi- cals trapped in its nightly prey and use them as energy to fuel activities and growth. Growth and Development All living things grow and increase in size. Some nonliving things, such as crystals or icicles, grow by accumulating more of the same material of which they are made. In contrast, the growth of living things results from the division and enlargement of cells. Cell division is the formation of two new cells from an existing cell, as shown in Figure 1-3. In unicellular organisms, the primary change that occurs following cell division is cell enlargement. In multi- cellular life, however, organisms mature through cell division, cell enlargement, and development. Development is the process by which an organism becomes a mature adult. Development involves cell division and cell differen- tiation, or specialization. As a result of development, an adult organism is composed of many cells specialized for different func- tions, such as carrying oxygen in the blood or hearing. In fact, the human body is composed of trillions of specialized cells, all of which originated from a single cell, the fertilized egg. This unicellular organism, Escherichia coli, inhabits the human intestines. E. coli reproduces by means of cell division, during which the original cell splits into two identical offspring cells. FIGURE 1-3 Observing Homeostasis Materials 500 mL beakers (3), wax pen, tap water, thermometer, ice, hot water, goldfish, small dip net, watch or clock with a second hand Procedure 1. Use a wax pen to label three 500 mL beakers as follows: 27°C (80°F), 20°C (68°F), 10°C (50°F). Put 250 mL of tap water in each beaker. Use hot water or ice to adjust the tem- perature of the water in each beaker to match the temperature on the label. 2. Put the goldfish in the beaker of 27°C water. Record the number of times the gills move in 1 minute. 3. Move the goldfish to the beaker of 20°C water. Repeat observations. Move the goldfish to the beaker of 10°C. Repeat observations. Analysis What happens to the rate at which gills move when the temp- erature changes? Why? How do gills help fish maintain homeostasis? Quick Lab mb06se_bios01.qxd 5/18/07 10:37 AM Page 8 THE SCIENCE OF LIFE 9 Reproduction All organisms produce new organisms like themselves in a process called reproduction. Reproduction, unlike other characteristics, is not essential to the survival of an individual organism. However, because no organism lives forever, reproduction is essential for the continuation of a species. Glass frogs, as shown in Figure 1-4, lay many eggs in their lifetime. However, only a few of the frogs’ off- spring reach adulthood and successfully reproduce. During reproduction, organisms transmit hereditary informa- tion to their offspring. Hereditary information is encoded in a large molecule called deoxyribonucleic acid, or DNA. A short segment of DNA that contains the instructions for a single trait of an organism is called a gene. DNA is like a large library. It contains all the books—genes—that the cell will ever need for making all the struc- tures and chemicals necessary for life. Hereditary information is transferred to offspring during two kinds of reproduction. In sexual reproduction, hereditary information recombines from two organisms of the same species. The resulting offspring are similar but not identical to their parents. For example, a male frog’s sperm can fertilize a female’s egg and form a single fer- tilized egg cell. The fertilized egg then develops into a new frog. In asexual reproduction, hereditary information from different organisms is not combined; thus the original organism and the new organism are genetically the same. A bacterium, for example, reproduces asexually when it splits into two identical cells. Change Through Time Although individual organisms experience many changes during their lifetime, their basic genetic characteristics do not change. However, populations of living organisms evolve or change through time. The ability of populations of organisms to change over time is important for survival in a changing world. This factor is also impor- tant in explaining the diversity of life-forms we see on Earth today.

Broken windows are covered. Floorboards are patched and doors screwed back on. The road that was ruined by German tanks is shovelled and raked smooth. Boot-shaped bruises turn yellow then fade and disappear. Flowers grow and spread across the ugly German footprints stomped into garden beds. The village looks pretty once more. School stops for the summer and everyone is put to work on the kolkhoz, the village farm. Women and big boys begin harvesting the barley crops in the outer fields. The biggest girls milk the cows, morning and night, and keep the barns clean. Old Nikolay mends ploughs, horse harnesses, pitchforks and scythes in his workshop. Anna Pushinka teaches Yelena and her friends how to get the honey from the beehives that are scattered through the orchards. I am in charge of collecting eggs. My friends Olga and Nina help. Olga and Nina are five, a year younger than me. They are twins and look exactly alike, except Nina’s nose is a little bit crooked from when she fell out of bed and squashed it sideways on the floor. The hens, ducks and geese wander free in the summer, so collecting eggs is like a treasure hunt and takes hours. Catching the hens for their daily hugs takes even longer, but I think it’s important because hugs make everyone happy and happy hens lay bigger eggs. Olga says I’m the best hen-hugger in all of Russia. Nina says I’ll be the best cow-hugger, too, when my arms grow longer. But good hugs have nothing to do with the size of your arms. It’s all to do with the size of your heart. When we are done with the hens, Olga, Nina and I can spend the rest of the day doing whatever we like. We climb the apricot trees, chase squirrels, lie in the meadow marvelling at how hot Ushanka’s black fur becomes in the sunshine, make daisy chains and race little boats of bark in the stream. I teach Olga and Nina the alphabet and we use charcoal to write our letters and our names all over the village – on doors and walls and the freshly cut ends of firewood. In between, I practise my knots. In case the German princemonsters return. I slip into Old Nikolay’s workshop and tie knots in the harnesses hanging on the walls. I wander into gardens where the washing is hung out to dry and tie knots in the laces on pants and smocks. I creep up behind Anna Pushinka and tie knots in her apron strings. I find baling twine in the hay shed and tie my own ankles together. I do such a good job of these last knots that I can’t get them undone. I have to jump all the way to Olga and Nina’s house and ask them to cut me free with their mama’s knife. At the end of each day, Ushanka and I run out into the distant barley fields to meet Mama. This is my favourite part of the day, because Mama always shouts, ‘Little Rabbit!’ and smothers my head with kisses. And as we walk home, we sing. Everyone – women, big boys and me. I love to sing. Almost as much as I love to be kissed by Mama. Sometimes one of the boys, Mikhail, has his balalaika with him. He takes the instrument out from beneath the sheaves of barley piled high on the wagon and plays music. We sing about forests and orchards and people who find their true love. As we walk home, arm in arm, my heart fills with happiness and my belly swells with pride that I am allowed to sing along with the big boys. And I can almost forget about the German prince-monsters and their lies about Russia and their big ugly boots. Almost. But today, when Mikhail reaches for his balalaika, I see other things hiding beneath the barley sheaves. Three of the mamas rush forward and cover them up, but it’s too late. I know they are there. I’ve already seen them. Rifles. Lots of rifles. Mikhail hugs his balalaika to his chest and blushes. ‘So play!’ cries Mama, her voice oddly loud and high. ‘Let’s play Sasha’s favourite song, “The Little Birch Tree”.’ So Mikhail plays and everyone sings about the lovely birch tree with its curly leaves and the branches that will be turned into silver flutes. They sing too quickly, too loudly, and as they sing and walk, they cast nervous sideways glances at me. ‘It’s alright,’ I say, when the song comes to an end. ‘I didn’t see the rifles.’ Mama nods and smiles, and I know it was the right thing to say. But I did see the rifles. And I think about Yelena wanting to get lots of guns and dynamite for the Partisans so they can shoot the Germans and blow them into thousands of tiny pieces, and Mama looking as though she agreed, and I know this is what the mamas and the big boys are doing. As well as harvesting, they are helping the Partisans. Three days later, I wake before dawn and I am all alone. Yelena is always here beside me when I wake. But not this morning. I climb down from our bed above the stove. Mama is filling a cloth sack with bread. She ties it closed with a piece of string and hands it to Yelena. ‘Stay out of sight,’ says Mama. ‘And don’t return until after dark.’ ‘Where’s she going?’ I ask. ‘Nowhere,’ snaps Mama. ‘Then why does she need all that bread?’ I ask. ‘There’s nothing left for us.’ Mama baked four loaves last night and she has stuffed them all into the sack. Yelena opens her mouth, but before she can speak, Mama shoves her out the door and sends her on the way to nowhere. Mama turns and stares at me, her blue, blue cornflower eyes wide with worry. ‘I know,’ I say, flopping down on the bench. ‘I didn’t see any bread.’ Mama sits beside me and takes my hand. ‘And . . .?’ she prods, obviously waiting for more. I puzzle for a while, then say, ‘And I don’t have a sister called Yelena.’ Mama laughs, softly and with a little bit of sadness around the edges. ‘Sweet Little Rabbit! You do have a sister called Yelena.’ ‘I do?’ I ask, now confused. ‘I haven’t seen the rifles or the bread, but I have seen Yelena?’ ‘Yes.’ Mama smiles and the magic makes me smile, too. And I am glad that Yelena is real because I love her very much. ‘Yelena is real,’ Mama explains, ‘but she does not carry sacks of bread into the forest for the Partisans.’ ‘Of course not!’ I shout, slapping my forehead. ‘Because there is no bread!’ Mama laughs loudly now, with not a hint of sadness. She hugs me, pressing me against her warm, loving heart, covering my head with kisses. ‘Clever Little Rabbit,’ she murmurs, and then, in barely a whisper, ‘Your papa would be so proud.’ When I wake the next morning, Yelena is sleeping beside me, her mouth open, her braided hair unravelling. Mama is serving kasha to a strange woman seated at our table. I crawl down from above the stove and slide along the bench beside her. I stare at her pants, her tunic, the rope she is using as a belt and her big boots. She’s dressed like a man! And there’s a rifle leaning against the wall near the door. ‘Hello,’ I say. ‘I’m Sasha.’ The woman doesn’t reply. She just shovels down her kasha. I line my four wooden bears along the table in front of her bowl and say, ‘These are my bears: Big Bear, Medium Bear, Little Bear and Even Littler Bear.’ ‘Hello, Sasha. Hello, bears.’ She smiles but she doesn’t tell me her name. ‘Why are you dressed like a man?’ I ask, tugging at the sleeve of her tunic. ‘Because men’s clothes make it easier to run and climb and crawl and shoot,’ she says. ‘You’re a Partisan!’ I gasp. ‘But she’s not real,’ says Mama, placing a bowl of kasha before me. ‘Is the kasha real?’ I ask. Mama laughs. ‘Yes, Little Rabbit.’ I’m glad the food is real, because I’m hungry. But I’m disappointed that the woman is not real. I was going to ask if I could use her rope-belt to tie her ankles together. For practice. But if she’s not real, then the rope and her ankles aren’t either. The woman finishes her kasha, hangs her rifle over her shoulder, kisses Mama on the cheek then slips out the door. I run to the window to watch her leave, but by the time I get there, she’s gone. Vanished. ‘Because she’s not real,’ I whisper. A week later, Mama and I are working in the garden. We sing as we weed between the flowers and pluck caterpillars from the vegetables. Anna Pushinka is picking strawberries in her garden and wanders over. ‘Taste these,’ she says, holding out the basket. Mama reaches in and takes out a fat strawberry and a tiny piece of folded paper. The strawberry goes into her mouth, the paper into her pocket. ‘What’s on the paper?’ I ask. ‘Paper?’ Anna Pushinka replies with a wave of her hand. ‘Goodness, Sasha! Who has money for paper? These are lean times. We must choose between paper for writing and noodles for our soup. And I always choose noodles.’ She chuckles and I know the paper is yet another thing that is not real. That night, Mama slips the paper to Yelena, but she drops it on the floor. I pick it up for her, and I see that there are tiny words and numbers written all over it. I wish I could read better. I’m desperate to know what it says. Or rather, what it doesn’t say, because it’s not real. Later, when Mama has tucked us into our bed above the stove and Ushanka has wrapped herself around the top of my head, I ask Yelena, ‘What’s on the paper?’ ‘What paper?’ says Yelena. ‘The paper that isn’t real,’ I reply. Yelena stares at me, nibbling her lip, then whispers, ‘A message for the Partisans. Stuff about where the Germans have their headquarters and when their trains are travelling and where they store their ammunition.’ ‘Why?’ ‘So the Partisans can blow them up.’ Yelena grabs my arm. ‘But don’t tell anyone. It’s a secret.’ ‘What’s a secret?’ I ask. ‘The message.’ ‘What message?’ I say, my eyes wide. Yelena laughs. ‘Good boy, Sasha.’ My belly swells with pride. I know how to play this game. ‘How are your knots coming along?’ asks Yelena. ‘Good! Yesterday, I crept into the dairy and tied knots in the apron strings of all the girls who were milking and only one of them noticed. Today, I tied Olga’s ankles together with Mama’s embroidery thread and just now, while you were taking a bath, I tied the sleeves of your blouse together in an enormous knot.’ Yelena rolls her eyes, then says, ‘I’ll see if I can find you some rope for practising.’ ‘Practising what?’ I ask. ‘Your knots,’ she says. ‘What knots?’ Yelena, my big sister who is twelve and always serious t

“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.

Where are we, Mom? We are in the train station. We need to buy train tickets. We will go to Shanghai. Why are we going to Shanghai? Your cousin, Li Song, lives there. It is a holiday. It is good to visit family during the holidays. Wow, there are so many people in the train station. Yes, they are called passengers. There are always many passengers on the train during the holidays. Are you excited to see your cousin? Yes! I am very excited. We will play sports and eat soup dumplings together!

Related quizzes

Related quizzes