With finals approaching and students spending countless hours of studying for exams for exams, the amount of sleep per night is likely to be cut short. But, this does not necessarily mean students will sleep less, maybe just sleep more during the day. We are told that it is important to get 8+ hours of sleep each night, but what if the number of hours we sleep are spread out throughout the day? Does this have a different affect on us and your bodies; will we be more tired or will we feel rejuvenated and more energized after sleeping for shorter periods of time more sporadically throughout the day?

In a recent study conducted by the University of California Berkeley, 39 average, healthy adults were chosen and then divided into two groups – nappers and non-nappers. At 12:00 noon both groups were given a learning tax and were required to learn the information given. After, at 2 pm, the napping group proceeded to take a 90 minute sleeping break while the non-nappers stayed awake. Later at 6 pm, both groups were subject to more exercises and activities regarding learning and other tasks. The napping group showed better results in their performance and their abilities increased, as opposed to the non-nappers whose performance lacked and decreased.

As many may or may not know, while sleeping, the brain produces different kinds of wave which are an indication of how deep of a sleep you are in. After a short period of time (approximately 20 minutes or more) the brain can move into a different phase, the slow-wave sleep, which is the deepest sleep phase possible. If submerged into this deep phase of sleep and nap for too long, it could cause you to wake up feeling disoriented and dazed and confused and not as refreshed or able to perform tasks well.

While the study conducted at UC Berkeley does not consist with the above fact about napping and the brain waves, it is not to say that either of these can definitely prove that taking naps will or will not make you more tired or more energized to do tasks. There are other factors that could contribute to the validity of the study done by US Berkeley. The study did not mention how long the adults slept for the night before, or if caffeine was consumed by the non-nappers. In addition, the fact about brain waves and sleeping does not address the fact that shorter naps might not cause a person to fall into the “slow-wave sleep” phase. While both provide good information to be used to further the study, neither can prove one or the other wrong.

In another research study by NASA, it was found that pilots who took 25 minute naps in the cockpit were more than 35% more alert than other colleagues and twice as focused. While this study tests a shorter amount of time spent napping, it provides consistent results to the first study by UC Berkeley that show napping improves performance in many aspects. No conclusions can be drawn from the information given, but two consistent studies show similar results which could lead to more developed research.

Sources:

http://www.prevention.com/health/sleep-energy/9-sleep-myths-make-you-tired/2-napping-only-makes-you-more-tired

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/179882.php

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2587568/How-feel-refreshed-little-sleep-MUST-afternoon-nap-Never-wake-tired-again.html

Advertisements are everywhere in our daily lives. We see billboards, tv commercials, promotion signs, songs etc. They are so routine to us that we don’t even realize just how effective companies have been in conditioning us into wanting what they provide, knowing them for these certain products and feeling certain ways because of them. Modern advertisement is an industry far more powerful than one may think.  They engage in deceptive subliminal advertising, which most us are unaware of. You may think you’re in total control, but whether you realize it or not, companies have found way to appeal to and manipulate our subconscious minds for their personal gain.

People don’t like to think they are easy persuaded and obedient and so you may find some people who think that advertising has no affect on them. What they seem to be misunderstanding is that companies aren’t out to make you immediately stop what you are doing to go invest in whatever it is they are selling. Companies are looking to leave a memory of their product with you. Though it may not be immediately, they are looking to influence you in the long run about the brands you invest in, ultimately hoping that when you need anything, their store or brand is what you’ll go to. In the United States 70 billion dollars is spent on advertisement alone.

Can you recognize a brand simply by looking as a sign? or hearing a tune? How about a catch phase? “Just do it?” “Have it your way?” Surely you can tell what companies these are just by hearing the sayings. You can most likely even tell which companies are presented in the picture below. The idea of things such as logos and jingles are simply to familiarize you with a brand.

Today, the average person sees up to 5,000 ads a day and surely not all of them go ignored, but to ensure their success, companies take a number of steps. They look to make their ads interesting, memorable and catchy. Creating interesting slogans that will engage their target markets and spread the word of their brand. Also, going for the seemingly innocent vibe so that potential customers don’t initially notice the manipulative nature of trying to sell a product.

Take the Super Bowl for example! It’s the most watched event in the year, averaging over 90 million viewers, and the exposure makes it worth the money for some companies. They spend millions trying to make a commercial that will succeed in attracting peoples’ interest.

There are plenty of others ways a brand may try to appeal to potential customers, ways we don’t initially notice. They’ll often try to surround their product with things people generally like and enjoy to promote positive feelings for what they are advertising. Other times they’ll use the method of compare and contrast (refraining from listing all of their own downfalls btw) to present it as better. Even associate celebrities with their products to build the illusion of it being popular or chic in some way.

In conclusion, advertising is a business far more complex than some may realize. So much work and billions of dollars go into making sure people can simply remember their brand. So, before you claim you’re not influenced by advertising like other people, remember that even you can recognize a few logos and sing a few jingles!

Sources

https://www.neumann.edu/academics/divisions/business/journal/review09/hood.pdf

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/08/why-good-advertising-works-even-when-you-think-it-doesnt/244252/
http://psychcentral.com/blog/archives/2011/02/15/the-psychology-of-advertising/
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/15/business/media/15everywhere.html?_r=0

Many people under estimate the importance of water in our lives. Many people drink water without knowing why we need water. Water is that flavorless, zero calorie beverage that we been drinking since we were born.

Water is the most important fluid in our body. Around 60% of the human body consists of water. Something even as small as a 2% drop in body water, could result in shrinking of the brain.

There are many benefits of drinking water. The more hydrated you are the better skin you have. Staying hydrated is a great way to deal with wrinkles. In our water supply, we have additional fluoride added to it, which is also a benefit. The fluoride will increase strength and bone density. The more water you drink, the more synovial fluid you have in your body. Synovial fluid consists of water, and the more water you have in your body, the more joint protection you have. Water is also essential for healthy brain function and helps improve cognitive function. Water suppresses appetite and makes the body use more fat for energy. For those tying to gain muscle water is key in their diet. Water helps form the structures of protein and glycogen. “Studies have shown that increasing daily water intake has shown to decrease the risk of colon cancer by 45%, reduce the risk of bladder cancer by 50%, and it may potentially reduce the risk of breast cancer. It is also believed that water may prevent kidney stones and urinary tract infections”. If water has the potential to reduce the chance of getting these horrific diseases the rational person should start drinking lots of water. But don’t drink too much water.

More about the information above could be read at this link:

It is assumed that the human body could handle drinking less than .79 gallons of water in a sitting. But after than, if one consumes more than .79 gallons of water in a sitting, he/she has chances of dying from water intoxication. A woman in California entered a contest to drink the most water for an undisclosed incentive. She drank so much water, that in hours she was found dead. And the cause of death was water intoxication. Well, now you may be wondering, how exactly does one die from consuming too much water? If one drinks water excessively it could cause their cells to expand to such extent that the tissues in the body appear to seem swollen. That causes an electrolyte imbalance in the body and leads to an abnormal pumping heart, and could allow water to fill the lungs. All the pressure in the body may cause tension among the organs, which could potentially lead to a painful death.

More about the information above could be read at this link under the subheading, Can I die from drinking too much water?

Water is very mysterious. The body can take up to 15 gallons of water per day, and has many benefits, which could help the body function efficiently. Although most our body consists of water, don’t let that trick you in to drinking water religiously. The amount of water you drink should be monitored. Too much water consumption in one sitting could lead to terrifying consequences such as death.

http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/behar12.htm

http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/weik46.htm

Fireball Whiskey has always been a frat row favorite, especially for those who are willing to throw a little more for something other than “Vlad”. It is a popular beverage of choice and is usually mixed with apple cider (or if you’re a college kid then a coke from the vending machine is fine too). We as the consumer know what we are mixing our beverage with, but do we really know what is inside the beverage itself?

On October 28, 2014 Fireball Whiskey was recalled in 3 different European countries for containing high levels of propylene glycol. Propylene glycol is a chemical commonly used in antifreeze in high levels. Propylene Glycol is not only used in antifreeze, it is also used in some foods, sweeteners and other alcoholic beverages. Surprisingly, there are two recipes for Fireball Whiskey. One recipe is for the Canada and the United States, and the other is for Europe. The European recipe contains smaller amounts of Propylene, if any at all. The United States and Canadian version of Fireball was sent to European manufacturers and recalled instantly.

A study done by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) states that the chemical can be consumed “over long periods of time and in substantial quantities without causing frank toxic effects.” Recently it has been released that the European Fireball Whiskey contains 1/8 of the amount the FDA allows for consumption of Propylene Glycol. The recipes in the United States and in Canada do not meet the same regulation requirements as needed in Europe. The recall on Fireball Whiskey is a retrospective study because they have looked back on the previous records of fireball and the ingredients. After plenty of research (and I’m sure taste tests), Fireball is deemed safe to consume in all countries. Fireball Whiskey is now back on the shelves in Europe, and is still continuing to be “downed” here.

As bad as it sounds, I do not believe people would stop drinking fireball even if it did contain high levels of a dangerous chemical. Propylene Glycol is in many of our foods and drinks. Studies show we consume Propylene Glycol almost every day. As long as the chemical is not affecting us in a negative way, I think Fireball should stay on the market and continue to be a Frat Row favorite.

http://www.latimes.com/food/dailydish/la-dd-fireball-recalled-european-countries-antifreeze-20141029-story.html

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/10/28/frathouse-favorite-fireball-whiskey-recalled-in-europe.html

I would like to make a note before I continue to say that I am not trying to start a fight with those who endorse marijuana use or seem that I endorse it myself. I live in Washington, D.C. where marijuana is now legalized, so this topic pertains to me with the new legislation.

While many people appear to smoke marijuana – in the media’s perception especially – none of these addresses the long-term effects that smoking could have on your brain. Dr. Francesca Filbey, conductor of the newest study at UT Dallas on smoking, says, “research on its long-term effects remains scarce despite the changes in legislation surrounding marijuana and the continuing conversation surrounding this relevant public health topic.” She structured her study so 48 adult marijuana users who typically smoked three times a day were matched with 62 nonsmokers that could counter biases towards race, gender, and age. They also made sure that there was a control for alcohol and tobacco use to make sure that wasn’t a third variable. Subjects were then tested for their IQs and had their brains scanned under three different types of MRIs.

First, the brains of the smokers had a smaller orbitofrontal cortex (OFC), which deals with the senses as well as “stimulus-stimulus learning” (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15134840).  While the habitual smokers tended to have a lower IQ, those conducting the study acknowledged “the differences do not seem to be related to the brain abnormalities as no direct correlation can be drawn between IQ deficits and OFC volume decrease.” Another interesting find was that the smokers had an increased connectivity in structure and function of the brain, especially at the age they started, and even though it decreased over 6-8 years it was still a higher connectivity than the non-smokers. While the lower IQs proved the structural and functional creativity do not necessarily equal intelligence, this was an unexpected result from the study.

Although the study is observational, until the long-term effects can be better studied on perhaps people of this generation who will continue to smoke it would be unethical to make people smoke to test how their bodies handle it. I think the survey did a very good job of accounting for third variables and differences in the subjects, even if that meant matching multiple non-smokers to one smoker (which would explain the gap between 48 smokers and 62 non-smokers). However, I don’t think this study should determine how people approach marijuana because it is only the beginning of studies. As Dr. Filbey says herself, “”To date, existing studies on the long-term effects of marijuana on brain structures have been largely inconclusive due to limitations in methodologies…While our study does not conclusively address whether any or all of the brain changes are a direct consequence of marijuana use, these effects do suggest that these changes are related to age of onset and duration of use.”

People who have had paralysis or an amputation have lost most or all of their sense of touch. People have been trying to make prosthetics that can combat this issue and a group of researchers have

Recent breakthroughs have allowed people who have lost the use of a limb to move a prosthesis and handle objects. But movement alone isn’t enough. The ability to perceive what you touch is fundamental to precisely controlling and accepting a prosthesis as a part of the body.

Dustin Tyler from Louis Stokes Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Cleveland, Ohio, and his colleagues were able to discover this a few weeks ago.The found how to transmit long-term, realistic sensations such as being able to recognize the feel of cotton.

It works so well that one man, on leaving the lab where he tried the prosthetic, said it was like leaving his hand at the door.

Recently people have tried to recreate a sense of touch by delivering vibrations to a person’s residual limb that equal the amount of pressure on the prosthesis. This has proved to be more distracting because people have tried sending electrodes to the nerves but they slowly diminish over time.

That’s why Tyler’s team tried something else more complex. They implanted a bunch of electrodes around the three main nerves that would usually transmit sensory information of two people’s limbs. Each bunch of electrodes were linked to wires and could stimulate different parts of the nerves. The wires were attached to a machine that provided a stream of electrical pulses. This was connected to the prostheses the men were already using.

“As soon as we stimulated the nerves in the first subject, he immediately said ‘that’s the first time I’ve felt my hand since it was removed’,” says Tyler.When the electrode were turned on the men felt a tingling sensation that went through the whole hand.

With a real hand, touching distinct objects results in different patterns of nerve activity. To mimic this, the team altered the frequencies and intensities of electric pulses. After a healthy dose of trial and error, the first subject said “that’s not tingling any more, it feels real”.

Before researching this topic, I never really thought about how people with prosthetics aren’t able to feel anything with that part of their body. This improvement will help make injured people to be the most normal people they can be. However, how do they know if this will leave nerve damage or not? Since they’re connecting the electrodes to the nerves? It will be interesting to see how this advances in the future.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22429914.400-prosthetic-hand-recreates-feeling-of-cotton-bud-touch.html#.VEm5XYd4Xdk

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/02/140222-artificial-limbs-feeling-prosthetics-medicine-science/

Remember the days in high school where you had sports, clubs, or other commitments after school? Sometimes people came home at night. I remember coming home sometimes at 10:00 at night, with a countless amount of work to do. I like to work during the day and not procrastinate, but sometimes I had no choice. I would be up until 2:00 in the morning, just finishing my work. Luckily, I found some facts in a couple of articles that say that studying before bed can actually be beneficial.

Supposedly, sleeping right after you study, you retain a lot of what you learned the next morning. A study was done in which 207 participants were asked to memorize pairs of words and the next day they were to take a quiz to see if they remember the pairs. Half of them studied at 9 AM the day before, the other half at 9 PM, and soon after went to bed. The results came out that both of them did equally well on the exam, but the ones who went to bed after they studied were able to pair up unrelated words significantly better than the 9 AM people. This shows that those who slept right after studying retained more information than the others. For the full study, you can read about it here.

Does this mean that procrastinating until the final night is a good idea? I am absolutely not condoning that, but I do know now that if you attempt it you won’t be in too much trouble. Definitely work prior to the night that your exam or assignment is due. But just know that after sleep, you are able to retain information effectively whether you think about it or not!

Sources:

http://lifehacker.com/5896513/study-before-bed-for-significantly-better-retention

http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0033079

http://magazine.good.is/articles/if-you-sleep-after-you-study-you-ll-remember-more?full_site=1

http://wamu.org/sites/wamu.org/files/styles/headline_landscape/public/images/attach/sleep.jpg?itok=tLUsq9_6

My dad as a pediatrician and internal specialist would always wince when bleach brands like Clorox would advertise that they were safe enough to clean baby toys. He told me that this type of extreme sterilizing of baby toys gives them less exposure to harmless bacteria which could build the baby’s immune system and protect them from diseases. One study found that there may be a correlation between exposure to everyday bacteria and a baby’s health.

This study aimed to see if exposure to bacteria from the parents cleaning the pacifier by sucking it not rinsing or boiling it increased the baby’s health. 184 infants were studied while their parents had to maintain a daily diary about food intake and significant events and doctors frequently checked on them. At 4 months old the babies were studied for saliva samples, and at 6 months old parents were interviewed for their methods when it came to cleaning their pacifiers. Out of this group of babies that were studied from birth, 65 had parents that would clean the pacifiers by sucking. This same group had less chances of eczema, allergies, and asthma, as well as possibly altered microbes in the mouth seen through the saliva samples. This seems to support the correlation that an increased exposure to bacteria strengthens an immune system compared to those who fastidiously clean.

While the data does seem to support the hypothesis, there could be certain things to consider. For example, there could be third factors. As Dr. William Schaffner said in a New York Times article (even though he did not conduct the study), “It’s a very interesting study that adds to this idea that a certain kind of interaction with the microbial environment is actually a good thing for infants and children…I wonder if the parents that cleaned the pacifiers orally were just more accepting of the old saying that you’ve got to eat a peck of dirt. Maybe they just had a less ‘disinfected’ environment in their homes.” Also, if the babies were born prematurely or were sickly, it could affect how healthy the babies are regardless of the exposure to the bacteria. This plays into the idea of reverse causation: what if the babies who were born with stronger immune systems could handle the bacteria better? Yet because of first principles – the parents sucking/boiling the pacifier and then the consequential health results – this seems unlikely.

Maybe I’m biased towards my own father’s opinion, but I don’t think that this is a bad idea to consider for down the road when raising children of my own. If it’s the principles my dad used to raise me, why not? I don’t think I turned out too terribly.

I am sure that at some point in your life you have heard the phrase “opposites attract.” While this could be debated, could it also be true that the longer the couple is together, the more they are the same…in appearance? According to an article in the New York Times, scientific evidence has led people to believe that couples will eventually start to look like one another. Sounds crazy, right? Well, it might not actually be so far fetched as you may think. Couple who at start bore no initial resemblance to each other comes to resemble one another after an average 25 years of marriage; some changes might be subtle though.

The main cause is believed to be that due to being married for such a long time, they share many of the same emotions. When one is stressed or upset, the other feels the same way. The way emotions control how our face looks is evident.

In an experiment done at the University of Michigan by Dr. Robert Zajonc to see if people could identify if a man and woman were married by the way they look in photographs was taken place. Two dozen of the photos were of couples when they first got married and the other twenty-four photos were of the same couple twenty-five years later. A large amount of pictures were taken around the time of their silver wedding anniversary. In order to ignore the statistic that most couple are the same race in America, all pictures of the people were white, lived in Michigan, and were between fifty and sixty years old at the time of the twenty-five year anniversary photo.

The results of the study were that people were in fact able to match married couples together better when they had been married a quarter century. The judges of the photos commented on saying that even though many of the similarities were small, but facial wrinkles and contours in the same areas were able to indentify them.

Another factor prevalent in the study is that married couples have the same diets if they are eating together almost every night. Some judgers of the photos said if they had similar facial fat or lack of, they were able to indentify them. But this wasn’t the biggest reason Zajonc came up with. He concluded that unconsciously mimic the facial expressions of their significant other and so over the years they end up sharing similar expressions, which lead to similar faces. Common life experiences throughout the marriage can also affect facial musculature and wrinkle patterns. This also leads to an increased resemblance.

So next time you see your parents or some married relatives, try finding picture of them from their wedding and pictures of them now…maybe you can spot the new similarities as well!

http://www.livescience.com/8384-couples-start.html

Everyone has heard the famous phrase “an apple a day keeps the doctor away,” While I don’t think this phrase should be taking completely literal, I did wanted to look into if there is actually any medical benefits of eating an apple a day.

Prior to researching I thought there would be little evidence that a single piece of fruit would have enough benefits to seriously help your health. However, what I found was surprising.

An apple a day can lower the chances getting diabetes, high blood pressure, as well as many types of cancer. Apples also contain pectin, which is a form of soluble fiber that lowers both blood pressure and glucose levels. In addition, they are full of Vitamin C, which helps boost immunity and is good for overall health. Apples act as a toothbrush as well, cleaning teeth themselves and also getting rid of bacteria inside the mouth and on teeth, which helps reduce the risk of tooth decay.

One article claims that while all these advantages are great health benefits, and apples should be eaten if you’re trying to maintain a healthy diet, they outright most likely will not keep a doctor away. “An apple a day can be a good idea if it replaces less healthy foods,” “If you are replacing high-fructose corn syrup or other high calories, high carbohydrate foods with an apple, this would be very healthy.” Says one article.  However, that doesn’t mean they necessarily keep the doctor away.

But according to an article on WebMD, an apple a day can keep the doctor away. Vitamin supplements can be helpful, but they are not as wholesome and beneficial as the fruit and vegetables themselves. One fresh apple alone is equal to 1,500 milligrams of vitamin C. Another amazing aspect of the apple has to do with cancer cells. Using colon cancer cells treated with apple extract, a group of doctors found that 50 milligrams of apple extracted from the skins of the fruit, decreased the cancer cell growth by 43%, while the same amount of extract from the flesh of the apple decreased cancer cell growth by 29%. So lots of the importance in the apple comes from its skin not the flesh of the fruit. With discoveries of the cancer-treating effects and other health benefits of apples, it would not be so far fetched to say that in fact, maybe not one, but an apple or two a day could actually keep the doctor away.

It should not be thought that eating only apples for every meal will keep you immortal, but including an apple or multiple fruits and vegetables into a healthy diet could lower your chances of many diseases and sicknesses leading to a lessened risk of having to be treated by a doctor. I also don’t recommend giving up going to the doctor because you eat an apple everyday, but it is important to know that apples can possibly help you not have to go as frequently.

There is always the risk of chance when it comes to disease and science, so it is hard to determine fully the potential powers apples hold when it comes to healing sickness or preventing it. However according to the reports I’ve read apples help! So, I’m going to go out and eat an apple!

Sources:

http://health.howstuffworks.com/mental-health/human-nature/health-myths/an-apple-a-day1.htm

http://www.uamshealth.com/?id=12428&sid=1

http://www.webmd.com/food-recipes/news/20000621/benefits-of-eating-fruit

As I ate a hamburger at Roxy’s, I wondered what caused human beings to take the route of eating meat and being mainly carnivores, opposed to many other animals that are herbivores, only eating plants, fruits and vegetables. As it turns out humans were not always meat-lovers.

The earliest ancestors of the human kind only feasted on vegetables, berries, and nuts. Therefore more food was needed to be consumed in order to fulfill the hunger of a full-grown human being. “You can’t have a large brain and big guts at the same time,” said Leslie Aiello, an anthropologist and director of the Wenner-Gren Foundation, In addition to eating larger amounts, one would need a large gut to digest it all, so in the case of early humans, digestion was the energy hog of the body, thus not allowing large amounts of energy to go to the brain.

So a major dietary change somewhere around 2.3 million years ago marked a major turning point in the evolution of our species. States Aiello.

Research done on skulls of early hominids claim that regular meat consumption led to a change in the human skull, and a larger brain. Scientists argue that eating meat, which is filled with calories and fat, our ancestors could spend more energy building a bigger brain, and less energy on digestion. Early humans consumed lean meats, which added to a healthy and calorie-dense diet, which provided enough energy to power the brain’s expansion.

However, it is also proven that it was not meat alone that contributed to evolution. Another key introduction into the human diet was cooked vegetables. Raw foods are very nutritious but it is hard for the human body to get at the nutrients it needs without them being cooked. Also there is a lot of time and energy used in chewing raw vegetables, with cooked vegetables time is being saved and humans are getting more from them.

While I found the claim that meat caused increased human brain size very interesting I wondered if it suffered from a Texas Sharp Shooter Problem. Could the introduction of meat into a diet be a small subset of characteristics that lead to an increase of brain size and development? The articles make no mention of other possible things that contribute to enhanced brain development such as forms of communication, creation of tools, social complexity, and other things that cannot be examined in artifacts. I think it would be hasty to say that meat alone caused increase human brain size.

So, I have a heavy critique of claims saying it was only meat that lead to increased brain size. While I do think it played a role in the development of our species and increase of the brain, I don’t think it was the sole or even the strongest factor in brain enhancement.

In the end we may never fully know what was the biggest factor in human brain evolution was, and how much of a factor meat was in the equation. While it did play some roll, it is fair to say that meat did not make humans what they are today all by itself.

Sources:

http://www.npr.org/2010/08/02/128849908/food-for-thought-meat-based-diet-made-us-smarter

http://frugivoremag.com/2012/12/does-eating-meat-make-us-smarter-humans-science-thinks-so/

http://www.livescience.com/23671-eating-meat-made-us-human.html

Test , test, and more tests! We are all in college so therefore we have had to take a standardized test or two in our lifetime. Whether it was a state test, a placement test, or our favorites: the SAT and the ACTs. In order to read this blog you have to be in Science in Our World, to be in the class you have to be at Penn State, and to be in Penn State you have to be accepted, and to be accepted you have to take….a  standardize test. While many schools implement these tests to measure the knowledge of a student I look at the actual process and wonder if its really fair. Looking at the big picture kids who grow up in a low income household are essentially put at a disadvantage.

To begin with the test is a bit pricey. So what about the kids who can not take the test multiple times to get the desired score that they are looking for. Now of course there is always the choice of vouchers but you can only use that one time. I’m then brought to kids who are more privileged and have the opportunity to take the test to take the test more than once. To me, this isn’t fair. Nine times out of ten a child does not pick their living situation, but rather they are just born into it and have to make due.

The National Center for Fair and Open Testing measured the same thing I was worried about.  After reviewing numbers provided by The College Board, their findings were sad but factual. In their studies they found that students with wealthier families outscored poorer families by an astounding 400 points. There was an obvious strong correlation between SAT scores and the amount of money the parents made. If you look at the graph below you can see the strong correlation…

Analyzing the findings by the College Board, we must dig deeper as scientist and try and figure out the whys and hows. After viewing the stats it is obvious that the money that the families bring in allow the students to have more resources. With that being said, kids with rich families can buy private tutors or attend  prep classes that teach techniques that can help raise the score of these students. This once again puts privileged kids a few steps ahead of the other kids who are not able to afford these special classes.

Branching off of finances we can assume that families with more money live in better neighborhoods. In  better neighborhoods they have a better educational system or can afford to send their kid off to a private school. These fancy schools have high graduation rates as well as college prep classes. On the other hand students with less money might not get the same opportunity and may end up stuck in a crumbling public school.

As I don’t want to seem like a hypocrite I could see where other may form a counter argument. In my opponents side they may view America as the land of the free and full of opportunity. By that I mean they may believe that a kid coming from a low income family could go out get a job and make something of themselves, or just work harder to get the score that they want.

While both sides make sense, it is scientifically evident that there is certainly a strong correlation between family incomes and the score of the student.

According to The College Board, they notice the many issues with this test and are making a  new test in Spring 2015 that will be designed to be more “fair.” “David Coleman, President of the College Board, told the New York Times that the test (along with the ACT) had ‘become disconnected from the work of our high schools.'”

This new test design is geared towards students despite their backgrounds and family income. To many this isn’t really solving anything because once again, you still have to pay for the actual test. All in all, I think this is a problem that many are starting to become aware of and trying to take action on.

http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2014/10/07/sat-scores-and-income-inequality-how-wealthier-kids-rank-higher/

The Correlation Between Income and SAT Scores

http://theweek.com/speedreads/index/257504/speedreads-how-family-income-determines-sat-scores-in-one-revealing-chart

http://www.msnbc.com/all/sat-scores-trend-family-income

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/files/2013/02/teset11.jpeg

When Penn State was voted number one party school, it wasn’t out of the question that women were contributing to this collegiate reputation. This isn’t a fight for feminism or an example of the battle of the sexes, but in fact it is purely science. When it comes to the consumption of alcohol, women cannot keep up with man drink for drink. So is it true, are women more vulnerable to alcohol’s effects?

Women achieve higher concentrations of alcohol in their blood and therefore feel the effects much more than men. This causes women to be more impaired after drinking the same amount of alcohol as a male. Going back to the environment that is Penn State, or any other college, Binge Drinking is a huge problem. I’m sure upon entering college you have heard the various warnings from all sorts of friends, elders, authorities, and safe learning programs. For those who need a quick reminder, binge drinking is the consumption of five or more drinks per occasion on five or more days in the past month. This risky trend is most common in women ages 18 to 25, college aged women.

The most common reason for why women feel the effects of alcohol stronger than men is not what most people would believe—its not because men are always bigger than women, because this is not true. It is not because the culture of drinking is usually portrayed as something of male. The reason why women are more vulnerable to alcohol is mostly due to metabolism. Have you ever seen people scurrying to help someone that drank heavily by feeding them water? Or have you ever heard the rule of having a glass of water between every drink? That is because with more water in our system, our blood is diluted from the alcohol and we therefore feel the effects of alcohol less. Women absorb and metabolize alcohol differently than men. Women have less body water than men of the same body weight. This means that when women drink the same amount of alcohol as a man, they feel it more because they have less body water to dilute their blood.

Not only do women feel the effects of alcohol more than men in the way their body responds the night of the drinking, but according to magnetic resonance imaging women are more vulnerable to alcohol-induced brain damage. In the MRI, researchers were able to see that the region of the brain responsible for multiple brain functions was significantly smaller among alcoholic women than both nonalcoholic women and alcoholic men.

Women are more prevalent to the toxic effects of alcohol on the liver, heart muscle, and the pancreas.

Vulnerable is a broad term, as well. This can meet vulnerable as in they get drunk quicker, vulnerable as in their body parts and organs get damaged easier with drinking, or vulnerable as being sexually victimized. A survey of female college students found a large relationship between amounts of alcohol drank by a woman and their experiences of sexual victimization. This survey found that the more a woman drank, the more vulnerable she was to be sexually assaulted. Another survey found women who drank large amounts more vulnerable to be victims of dating violence.

In a study in the April issue of Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, scientists searched for possible causes of why women are more vulnerable to alcohol. It was concluded that not only metabolism, but also body size is a factor as well. Women tend to way less then men, but drink sizes are all the same. Women for reasons such as pregnancy carry more fat in their bodies than men. Alcohol is more soluble in water than in fat, this causes alcohol to be less diluted in the blood.

For this reason, it makes me wonder if more money in alcohol related programs should be spent on programs just for women. This way woman can realize that they are not the same as men when it comes to alcohol consumption.

Sources:

http://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/aa46.htm

http://www.attcnetwork.org/explore/priorityareas/science/tools/asmeDetails.asp?ID=55

Since before I can even remember my house has always had a jar of honey in the cabinet. If mom was cooking something, good chance there was a drop or two of honey in it. Anything from tea to cookies to even soup, honey was the secret ingredient. But what my mom never used it for were my cuts I would get from messing around outside when I was little or when I would fall during field hockey games and scrape my entire knee on the turf. That’s right—According to a study in Microbiology, Manuka Honey could help clear infections, even the ones that are untreatable by antibiotics.

Manuka Honey is a type of honey made by European honeybees that suck from a Manuka or tea tree. These trees are found all over New Zealand and southeastern Australia. Throughout history, honey has been used to treat various types of conditions but it was not until the nineteenth century when scientists discovered that honey has antibacterial characteristics. It protects damage done to the skin by bacteria and can also produce cells that can fix and repair tissue damaged by infections. As well, once honey is applied to the skin, it has anti-inflammatory properties that can quickly reduce pain and inflammation.

With this being said, how can evidence support such a claim that honey can be some sort of miracle worker?

In 2008, the Cochrane Review found that while honey may help with treating burns, there are still little evidence form studies. It also stated that the use for honey on leg ulcers was not productive and had no benefit.

Streptococcus pyogenes is a normal skin bacterium that is usually associated with chronic wounds. This bacteria that can enter wounds can stick together making a “bioflim”. This biofilm then creates a barrier to pharmaceutical drugs.

In a study done at Cardiff Metropolitan University, researchers found that Manuka honey can get rid of fully formed s. pyogenes. Not only that, but they also found that honey can prevent the bacteria from binding to tissues in the first place. The researchers used real life wounds as well as bacterium in Petri dishes to conduct the study.

Works with animals too!

Wounds that have s. pyogenes often fail to respond to antibiotics. These wounds have strong antibiotic resistance, making it hard for the antibiotic to penetrate the wound. The results of the study done at CMU showed that small amounts of honey prevented the beginning of biofilm development. As for the Petri dishes—Petri dishes treated with honey for two hours killed up to 85% of the bacteria that was in them.

The leader of the study, Dr. Sarah Maddocks said “Molecules on the surface of the bacteria latch onto human fibronectin, anchoring the bacteria to the cell. This allows infection to proceed and biofilms to develop.” She continues on by explaining how the Manuka honey stops infections form the start. Honey makes the biofilm formation a lot less likely. “No instances of honey-resistant bacteria have been reported to date, or seem likely.”

Maddocks brought up how honey can decrease health care costs. Using antibacterial agents directly to the skin to clear bacteria is a lot less money that antibiotics. This is important because chronic, or untreatable, wounds account for up to four percent of health care expenses in the developed world.

In conclusion of the study, we can gather that honey does in fact work for treating wounds. With its anti-bacterial qualities and how it can stop bacteria in the wounds before they even begin to inhabit it, we can conclude that not only is honey cheaper product than pharmaceutical antibiotics, but it also works better.

Usually when you first formally meet someone you look the individual in their eyes. To many it is a form of respect and trust; and leads the other person to elude that you have a sense of confidence about yourself. Recently, when I met my friends roommate for the first time we made eye contact. As our eyes met one another she complimented my eye lashes commenting that they were nice. By nice I am assuming she meant long. After she made this comment I got to thinking. What is the actual purpose of our eye lashes. Now ladies, I know you love buying mascara and trying to get the perfect lashes but what exactly do they do except for making our face more appealing?

We also all have seen that new famous vine video highlighting eyebrows and by saying “eyebrows on fleek.” Now other than making them look pretty and keeping them waxed what purpose do they serve. Essentially they are they eyelashes partner in crime, being how close they are.

Given I took anatomy, I know that nine times out of ten each thing on our body serves a purpose. Our fingers grab things, our skin secretes and protects, our hair keeps us warm and protects us, our feet help us walk, our spine helps us stay upright , etc. The list goes on. Often we forget about the purpose of smaller things such as our eyebrows and eyelashes.

According to MeMD medical blog, “As humans evolveed, we lost a lot of excess body and facial hair along the way. But the eyebrows and eyelashes remained a core part of our features.” Going off of evolution , this notion makes sense given we did start out a bit on the hairy side.

Going off of the same medical website , eyebrows serve as the big brother for the eyes. They protect the eyes from sweat and moisture getting into them. Scientists say that the arch in our eyebrows was designed for the sweat and moisture to drip down the sides of our face. According to medical blogger Kat Smith, “experts believe that if humans did not evolve to have eyebrows, we may have developed extremely pronounced foreheads or really long eyelashes to help keep moisture out.”

Unlike the eyebrows, our eyelashes have multiple jobs. First, they protect our eyes from debris and other harmful things that could get in our eyes and cause possible irritation. Our eyelashes also warn us to detect unwanted objects such as flies or gnats. This is why we automatically blink at the first sensation of a foreign object invading our eyes. Some even say our eyelashes help filter sunlight so we don’t get direct exposure to the bright sun( hence, we sometimes wince when we walk into bright light.)

While all this is nice and informative ,in class Andrew always teaches us to be scientist. Find a problem, experiment, ask questions, and eventually try and find an answer. While right now these findings seem to be logical and true ; we have to think about the future and other possible counter-arguments. What if someone later detests the idea of evolution? Then parts of my argument would be proven false. What if someone later in science says something along the lines that our eyelashes true soul purpose was to attract the opposite so we can do what many think our real job on earth is (which is to reproduce.)

With that being said, in the comments I would like to open an argument and ask whether or not you believe that eyelashes/eyebrows have jobs other than what I listed.

http://www.livescience.com/32352-what-are-eyelashes-for.html

http://www.memd.me/why-do-we-have-eyebrows-and-eyelashes/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eyelash

http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20131115-why-do-you-have-eyebrows

Every one loves to enjoy a refreshing soda from time to time—especially me. Nothing beats going to Chipotle with your friends on a football Saturday in Penn State, and getting a burrito with an ice-cold root beer on the side. It became a small little tradition that my friends and I had every weekend. But, one Saturday, as I ate at Chipotle, a strand of lettuce fell down and landed on my protruding gut. Yikes. That’s when I realized my freshman fifteen was coming in. Immediately, I knew I had to change my habits. The first thing that had to go was my bubbly soft drink. It’s empty calories and abundance of sugar was something I could go without. All of this got me thinking about the harmful effects of soda. Yes, soda is unhealthy—practically everyone knows that. But, what other negative side effects does consuming a lot of soda have? This led me to do some research, and what I found was pretty astonishing.

A news study suggest that soda isn’t just unhealthy, but it makes you age faster. The research conducted at the University of California, San Francisco’s Ageing, Metabolism, and Emotion Center determined that in addition to obesity, soft drinks take a toll on your age. The variables that were tested in the study were telomeres found in the human body. Telomeres, the protective caps located at the end of the chromosomes, have been to shown to shorten when we age. Scientists believe that the younger you are, the longer your telomeres are, and vice versa. The study measured telomere length in the white blood cells of 5,309 healthy men and women between the ages of 20 and 65. The 3-year study determined that participants who drank 8 ounces of soda daily, showed an increase in age by 1.9 years, based on telomere shortness. Those who drank 20 ounces a day portrayed an increase in age by 4.6 years.

This information was all gathered based on telomeres. Adam Friedman, MD, FAAD, assistant dermatology professor, and a renowned columnist for Everyday Health, describes telomeres like “the plastic ends of a shoelace—they keep the shoe lace together. That’s kind of what a telomere is — it’s at the edge of DNA, helping to protect and repair it.” When telomeres get too short, they fall apart, thus dying. Now, whether this is causation or correlation, it is hard to tell. Therefore, I continued my research in hope of finding others experiments to support this data. Unfortunately, I could not find any similar experiments. This led to me to question the legitimacy of the experiment. First of all, the experiment was only conducted with about 5,000 subjects. Additionally, it didn’t say how the men and women were selected. To provide a true analysis, the subjects should have been randomly selected. This would help deduce correlation from causation, and any other confounding third variables. Furthermore, reverse causation is ruled out, as the subject’s telomeres were shorter after the study, then when they were measured before the study.

This study definitely opened my eyes and made me realize that everything we put into our body has an effect on us. Of course, the experiment that was conducted didn’t completely prove that drinking soda makes you older, but it did remind me of the pop quiz we had in class that discussed if blinds should be shut at bedtime. You might as well avoid soda, and you should close the blinds, because it is a small effort that can yield positive results for you. In the end, I think this was a great study to stumble across, as even though it wasn’t the best experiment, it made me have a bit of an epiphany when it came to consuming unhealthy things. It is safe to say that I will be a healthier, and hopefully no longer catching any strands of lettuce with my bulging gut.

http://www.everydayhealth.com/news/soda-could-be-aging-you-faster/

http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2014/oct/16/sugar-soft-drinks-dna-ageing-study

http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/21/health/sugar-soda-age-faster/

Although we know inhaling helium is not a healthy choice, most of us can say we have tried it. When you speak your first word after you inhale the helium, everyone in the room is hysterical. Why does your voice sound like this though? First, lets start with the air flow through your lungs without helium. When you talk, air travels from the lungs and up through the larynx where it meets the vocal cords. Infoldings from the mucus membrane stretch horizontally across the larynx, hit the underside and then vibrate. These vibrations determine, pitch, quality and frequency of your voice. Everyones voice is unique and there own way, but what confuses me is how does helium make everyones voice sound so similar?

When you inhale the helium, you change the type of gas molecules in your throat and increase the speed of sound of your voice. Helium is changing the quality of sound in your voice, instead of the pitch or frequency of your voice. This results in that squeaky voice that we all find extremely hilarious. Since helium is considered a lighter gas, what would happen if we inhaled a deep gas like Sulfur Hexafluoride? Ultimately, your voice would do the exact opposite and slow the speed of sound resulting in deep grown mans voice.

Now how can this affect your body? Well, when you are breathing in helium, you are not breathing in the correct amount of oxygen that your brain needs to function correctly. This may result in that dizzy light headed feeling, which means you should probably take a break. Frank Pegueros, executive director of DARE, Drug Abuse Resistance Education stated “it’s important to remind kids that ingesting any substance—for the sake of getting high or just changing their voices—can be dangerous”. This statement came shortly after one of few helium related deaths. Although this harmless gas brings many kids joy, you need to know when it is a good time or bad time for it. Matter fact, there really is no right time to inhale helium, but almost everyone will tell you that they have tried it at least once in their life. One thing people need to make sure they do not do is directly inhale the helium from one of the tanks, because that will rupture your lungs and result in a possible stroke, seizure or even death.

http://mentalfloss.com/article/21590/why-does-inhaling-helium-make-your-voice-sound-funny

http://www.foxnews.com/health/2012/02/23/teen-dies-after-inhaling-helium-at-party/

http://www.livescience.com/34163-helium-voice-squeaky.html

Some of us may have enjoyed a nice cold refreshing drink over the holidays…and i’m not talking about soda or water. I’m talking about an alcoholic beverage (if you’re of age of course.) Personally if you aren’t of age I do not see any problem with enjoying an alcoholic drink in the comfort of your own home. Some of us like to watch what we put into our bodies and an alcoholic beverage could be one of them. But is there a specific type of alcohol that is best for your health? I decided to look at both wine and beer.

You can argue that beer has more vitamins than wine or other spirits. You can also argue that wine drinkers refer to a term called the “French Paradox.” This term means that the French are proven to have a lower rate of deaths when it comes to heart disease even though they are known to smoke more, are proven to exercise at a lower rate than Americans, and indulge in the nasty foods that most of us consume in a fast food joint.

In 2000 a study was done by Danish scientists that compared both wine and beer drinkers. Danish scientists concluded that the risk of cancer was proven to be more likely found in beer drinkers than wine drinkers. The risk of getting a stroke and even death was shown to be higher in beer drinkers as well. These may be true but I have problems with this study because the individuals diet was not taken into account and the everyday life of the individuals also plays a role as well and I think that is important. I stumbled onto another study that was conducted in Germany involving 300 patients.

What makes this study more convincing is that these individuals had heart disease and wrote down just how much they were consuming. German studies showed that those who consumed beer whether abusing it or drinking it in moderate amounts, displayed a lower risk of getting heart disease. However a 2006 study that also took place in Denmark showed that wine drinkers are known to eat better. Over six months the beer and wine drinkers were tracked in supermarkets adding up to 98 supermarkets. As for the results they showed that wine drinkers make more beneficial and healthier choices when it comes to eating. Examples included the purchasing of vegetables and other healthy items. Beer drinkers went down a different road showing they bought more fatty foods like soda and chips.

The 2006 study took into account the diet of these participants which I believe is most important. A 2001 study conducted in the Czech Republic showed that vitamin B6 is found to be most common in beer which is used to fight heart disease. Also if you are looking to obtain a good beach body light beer is very low in calories and the price of beer is much cheaper than wine. What I just mentioned regarding the cost means that since wine is more expensive the drinkers of wine are believed to be more wealthy thus resulting in a healthier lifestyle. It seems as if the winner is wine but I found that different studies showed different results so there is really no clear winner in my opinion. Always remember though that excessive amounts of any alcohol is not good to your health and there are plenty of other ways to live a healthier lifestyle without the use of alcohol.

http://www.medicinenet.com/alcohol_and_nutrition/page7.htm

http://www.focused-on-fitness.com/health/wine-vs-beer.php

http://www.fitday.com/fitness-articles/nutrition/healthy-eating/beer-vs-wine-which-drink-should-you-order.html

Everyone knows to put a jacket on otherwise your going to get sick. “You’ll catch a cold if you don’t bundle up” my mom always told me. Now that the weather is getting cold I was wondering  if that has any truth to it. Turns out during the winter and colder months there is a higher percentage of people who are sick (15-20%) (Mental Floss). Most typically with the common cold or the flu. But, that is just a correlation. Any doctor will tell you that people do not get sick because of the temperature of their bodies, people get sick because of viruses, bacteria or germs. Although scientist are not sure exactly why sickness spikes during these cold winter months they have theories that cold work individually or a combination.

Theory #1: One theory is in the colder months people stay indoors more often. Indoors means the air is being recycled between more people than usual. A lot of people are in schools or work and are in close contact with other people. This makes the transmission of viruses and bacteria from person to person much easier. Therefore making more people sick.

Theory #2: Another idea is that in the hot summer weather, viruses and bacteria have a harder time staying alive on surfaces like counter tops and door nobs. The colder temperature is more sustainable to these viruses which allows them to live longer and infect more people during the cold winter months.

The only diseases cold temperature can single handily cause is Hypothermia or Frost Bite. Hypothermia is when the body looses too much heat and warmth, and Frost Bite is when one region of the body loses too much heat. But being cold, will not affect whether or not you will suffer from the common cold or the flu. Hypothermia is when the body temperature drops below the temperature required for bodily functions. Symptoms of mild cases of Hypothermia are slight confusion and shivering. But if it becomes severe the persons heart could stop which would kill them. Frost Bite happens when a localize body region become too cold for proper blood flow. This most commonly happens in toes and fingers. There are different stages of Frost Bite but it can range from permanent nerve and tissue damage to temporary numbness. Both diseases are serious conditions.

There are risks to being cold and not wearing proper cold weather attire but these risks do not include catching a cold or the flu. In fact, the risks are much worse.

http://mentalfloss.com/article/30741/does-being-cold-make-you-more-susceptible-getting-cold

http://www.healthline.com/health-slideshow/does-cold-weather-make-you-sick#2

http://www.redcross.org/images/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m4340104_Frostbite_and_Hypothermia.pdf

The very controversial topic of same sex marriage has raised many issues in the area of raising children. Some people feel that it is their right to be able to raise a child and others feel it is extremely wrong. People’s reasoning behind their opinions is different, but quality of life for the child should be the main concern. The only way to truly tell if the quality of life lessens for the child being raised by gay fathers or lesbian mothers is to look at the facts.

Mark Regnerus of the University of Texas at Austin conducted a study that has brought new light to the thought that same sex marriage children do not face more disadvantages than children from a married mother and father. In past studies, researchers have observed and studied children who are still living with their parents, and many times the information was filled out by the parents themselves. This leads to bias opinions and an invalid study (Sprigg). Regnerus decided to study adults ages 18-39 to see how their upbringing effected them then and how it has continued with them into their adulthood. 15,000 people were screened as potential candidates for the study, and 3,000 were selected. Of that 3,000, 175 people were raised by mothers in lesbian relationships and 73 were raised by fathers in  gay relationships.

The questions included:

• Yes or no: are you currently married, are you currently unemployed, have you thought recently about suicide?
• Place yourself on a scale: of educational attainment, happiness or depression, and household income.
• “Event count” which is the frequency something has happened of: smoking marijuana or being arrested and the number of sex partners.

The results were separated into three groups: those with “intact biological family” (IBF), aka raised by a mother and a father, those raised by gay fathers, and those raised by lesbian mothers. The study had 80 outcome measures that compared children of homosexual parents and IBF children. On 77 out of the 80 measures, children of homosexual parents were more likely to “deviate from the social norm in the case of their sexual orientation” (Sprigg). Regnerus wanted to make sure that the results were accurate and significant. He compared the results directly but also “‘Controlling for income,’ for example, would mean showing that “IBF” children do not do better just because their married parents have higher incomes, but that they do better even when the incomes of their households and the households of homosexual parents are the same” (Sprigg). This way, the comparisons are fair and give valid results.

The results of the study showed that in comparison to IBF children, the children of lesbians and gays:

• “Are much more likely to have received welfare (IBF 17%; LM 69%; GF 57%)
• Have lower educational attainment
• Report less safety and security in their family of origin
• Report more ongoing “negative impact” from their family of origin
• Are more likely to suffer from depression
• Have been arrested more often
• If they are female, have had more sexual partners–both male and female” (Sprigg).

Since there were fewer children of gay fathers in this study, the results were not significant enough. But since 71% of the homosexual children in the study were raised by lesbian mothers they found that they:

• “Are more likely to be currently cohabiting
• Are almost 4 times more likely to be currently on public assistance
• Are less likely to be currently employed full-time
• Are more than 3 times more likely to be unemployed
• Are nearly 4 times more likely to identify as something other than entirely heterosexual
• Are 3 times as likely to have had an affair while married or cohabiting
• Are an astonishing 10 times more likely to have been “touched sexually by a parent or other adult caregiver.”
• Are nearly 4 times as likely to have been “physically forced” to have sex against their will
• Are more likely to have “attachment” problems related to the ability to depend on others
• Use marijuana more frequently
• Smoke more frequently
• Watch TV for long periods more frequently
• Have more often pled guilty to a non-minor offense” (Sprigg).

Since this study had a small amount of children of homosexual parents, the results are not 100% convincing. It was an observational study so it does not rule out third variables, reverse causation, or chance. Also, there have been so many studies done on this topic that many of them come to different conclusions. For example, researchers from the University of Melbourne in Australia found very different results.

The Washing Post writes about how Simon Crouch led the study that surveyed 315 same-sex parents which added to 500 children in Australia. 80% of children had lesbian mothers and 18% had gay fathers. Compared with the general population, children of same sex marriage scored 6% higher on general health and family cohesion (Bever). Since many children of same sex marriages are given a stigma, it leads to bullying and uncomfortable situations for the child. This could beat down their self esteem, but according to the American Academy of Pediatrics, children of homosexual parents have more of a resilience in regards to their stigmas and other people’s opinions.

This study was bigger, but the results are not as convincing. Benjamin Siegel, professor of pediatrics at the Boston University School of Medicine, told BU Today that “none of the studies have been a randomized, controlled trial and that all studies on same-sex parenting are small since there aren’t as many same-sex parents” (Bever). This is extremely true and every child’s case is different.

Studies on same sex marriage will continue to come to different results especially when third variables, reverse causation, and chance are so prevalent in every case. People still have their opinions, but in mine, I believe that children of same sex marriages do face disadvantages, but that is not to say that children of a mother and father do not face disadvantages as well. At this time, I cannot make a certain conclusion about whether children of same sex marriages experience negative effects from their upbringing.

Sources:

Sprigg, Peter. “Family Research Council.” Family Research Council. N.p., n.d. Web. 30 Nov. 2014.

Bever, Lindsey. “Children of Same-sex Couples Are Happier and Healthier than Peers, Research Shows.” Washington Post. The Washington Post, n.d. Web. 30 Nov. 2014.