A team of researchers led by Lee Cronin at Glasgow University have made a selection of chemicals using a digital blueprint and a 3D printer costing £2000. The printer prints the lab equipment and then squirts the ingredients into the right places to make the desired compounds. This could be very advantageous, because it gives new technology to existing chemists to discover new compounds, However, it means that anyone who possesses one of these printers could be a chemist, regardless of any qualifications.
‘It’s a way of bringing chemistry to the masses’ – Lee Cronin. This could be a good thing because people in ‘far flung’ regions could medicate themselves and people could also use this technology to manufacture new drugs. However, there is no way to be sure that the people who are making their own drugs are doing it safely, and it is only a matter of time until a black markets begin to develop selling prescription only drugs and also illegal drugs. Although, Cronin argues that potential health dangers from allowing people to print their own legal or illegal drugs would be minimized as his team would only write software for specific end products that would be difficult to modify into making other products.
So, how is it possible to make chemistry printable? Cronin used a version of the £2000 printer used in the Fab@Home project. They realized that they could use bathroom sealant as primary material for printing reaction chambers of all shapes and sizes, as well as connection tubes of varying lengths. After the kit had set, the printer’s nozzles squirted in the reactants or ‘chemical inks’.
In principle the dimensions of the equipment and chemical ingredients required to produce a particular product can all be pre-designed and embedded in the same software blueprint, all a user needs to do is download it and feed it into the printer.
So, could downloading a drug help to enhance the field of psychology? I think it could, this technology gives people the equipment they need to be able to produce new drugs that could be more helpful for people suffering with psychotic disorders, the only problem that I can see, from a psychological perspective is that testing new drugs, that have been manufactured in this way, on people could be incredibly unethical.
References
Katherine Sanderson. (21st April 2012). Download a drug, then press print. New Scientist. No:2861. pg: 8-9
Flooding is a treatment process where people who suffer from phobias and other anxiety disorders are exposed to their fears with the goal of reintegrating their repressed emotions with their current awareness. Flooding was invented by Thomas Stampfl in 1967.
Flooding can be seen as quite a good technique as the patient who is undergoing the treatment becomes increasingly more anxious until their anxiety peaks and they realise that they cannot actually get more anxious and therefore, the anxiety lessens and they realise that their fear was irrational, therefore curing them of their fear. Flooding also eradicates the cause of the problem and not just the symptoms unlike anti-psychotic drugs.
However, flooding can also be seen as a vary bad treatment technique as it causes a lot of unnecessary stress to the patient which can be damaging and leave them with other psychological problems especially if they decide to drop out of the treatment which many of them do. Not only that it is also very unnecessary when there are treatments such as client centred therapy, which also gets rid of the cause of the disorder and not just symptoms in a more calm and relaxed way as opposed to flooding the patient with their fear all at once and causing them psychological harm. Flooding does not protect the participant and this is the main reason that I believe it is unethical.
In conclusion, I think that flooding is extremely unethical as it doesn’t protect the participants from harm, mentally or physically and it can cause grave consequences if the participants drop out which many do.
A case study is an in depth analysis of a single person. The data within a case study is qualitative and therefore is not considered to be scientific. In a world where Psychology is attempting to keep the status of a science should case studies be used within the discipline?
Case studies have been highly criticised for being unscientific, by approaches such as the biological and behavioural approaches which are based around the concept of science, but these approaches can be overly scientific, it is a lot more ethical to do a case study on a person than to carry out an experiment on a person in some instances.
Case studies are a good way of getting people to take part in client centered therapies these are therapies that focus on a problem that an individual has as approaches such as the psychodynamic and the holistic approach believe that no indvidual’s problem is the same, therefore different therapies are needed for different people. Client centered therapy is where the client is given the tools to deal with what is bothering them and is more about the client eliminating the cause and not just the symptoms, unlike anti-psychotic drugs
Taking this into consideration, I think that case studies are a very useful tool and should be used within psychology even though they are not scientific because they are also good at helping psychologists to compare individuals over a long period of time, showing if treatment has had any effect whatsoever.
In regards to animal testing there are many pros and cons. This week, my blog will cover the pros, cons and alternatives to animal testing to form an overall conclusion. The pros of animal testing are, it saves many human lives, scientists are able to learn a lot about the body by testing on animals, and the animals undergo surgery that is too dangerous for humans to do. Another pro is that products for humans are deemed to be safe for them to use. Also, scientists are fighting to make animal testing more humane than it already is. What many people are unaware of is that almost every large medical discovery has been made through testing on animals, it is vital to medical progression, this can be seen through the many discoveries made through it, for example, it has led to life saving vaccines for humans and animals, a vaccine for AIDS was found (for partial immunity).
All of these pros are valid, however, there are also many cons, such as, the stress that the animals undergo in the process could make some tests invalid. Also, the test animals have no freedom whatsoever as well as this they are forced to suffer life threatening diseases just to see if they can be cured. The animals have no choice, they can’t withdraw from the research like a person could, and they are not really physically protected like a human would be. The repeated tests that are done cause useless suffering. Some animals don’t really differ from humans and therefore, some get addicted to harmful drugs, just like humans would if they underwent the same tests. Some test labs keep animals in unsanitary conditions, and wounds that have been inflicted sometimes don’t get looked after properly and therefore become infected causing the animal great pain which it cannot communicate to the researchers because animals can’t express emotion to humans. The tests that are done are limited, some things are safe for animals but unsafe for humans making results pointless and misleading. 8.8% of animals that are purposely put in pain for a particular study do not get pain relief when the study has finished. Some animals are bred with a particular disease and are destined to die.
Animal testing is not the only option in psychological research, there are many alternatives, such as, the three R’s. The three R’s are Reduction, Replacement, Refinement. Reduction basically means reducing the amount of animals that are being experimented on, replacement means replace the animals with other testable things and refinement means refine the techniques that are used so that animal suffering is minimal. Refinement techniques are very important in animal testing as they aim to alleviate pain and suffering and also to promote the well being of animals. At the very least, refinement techniques will attempt to minimize the suffering and distress brought to the animal by animal testing.
IN conclusion, I don’t think animal testing is right, although it has provided many medical breakthroughs it is not right to do anything to an animal that a human would not have done to them.
This weeks blog will be tackling the question of whether or not SONA participants are recruited in the best way that they could be. SONA is a website that allows first year students from Bangor University to sign up for and take part in studies that are being carried out as part of the third year+ students as part of their degree. The fact that the first year students are expected to sign up online means that the type of sampling that is used is called volunteer sampling. Volunteer sampling is when the participant volunteers to take part in the research. The advantages of this type of sampling are that it gets rid of investigator bias because it is not the investigator who is selecting the sample, also, it is less time consuming for the investigator because they do not have to spend time selecting the sample. However, the disadvantages of this way of sampling highly outweigh the advantages, for example, if the participants are volunteering themselves it may not be representative of the target population and they also may not fit the criteria, this would make the experiment a waste of time for both the investigator and the participant, it would also make the experiment not worth replicating and not help to advance the field of psychology. In conclusion, the way that students sign up for SONA is not very reliable or effective.
The article that I chose was, ‘Nuns prove God is not a figment of the mind’, the hypothesis of this study was that there was a ‘God Spot’ in the brain, meaning that there was circuit of nerves that were activated when a religious experience was encountered. The Nuns involved underwent a brain scan using an fMRI, whilst the brain scan was undergoing they were asked to relive a religious experience that they had once had. Rather than showing a specific point in the brain that was triggered during a religious experience it was shown that numerous parts of the brain are activated during a religious experience, this discredited the hypothesis.
I don’t think the title of the article is accurate as it is quite confusing, the title, ‘Nuns prove God is not a figment of the mind’ implies that Nuns have proven God’s existence, also, that there is a god centred part of the brain which, in this study, as been said to be false. Also, this can be seen as quite a biased study it focused only on the brains of nuns, religious figures, who already claim to have a religious connection with God as opposed to people who do not have a religious connection with God.
The conclusions that were implied by the report and the headline were that there had been a ‘God Spot’ in the brain, within this study it has been said that there isn’t just one part of the brain allocated for religious experiences, but that numerous parts of the brain are triggered.
Reductionism is when psychologists study human behaviour by reducing it to simple components i.e. the biological approach would reduce human behaviour down to genes and hormones and study it with only them in mind. There are many strengths of the reductionist approach such as: reducing human behaviour down to certain, simpler components makes it easier to study because there’s less to take into consideration than there would be if it was being studied with the holistic approach. Also, it makes reasons for human behaviour more understandable because it manages to pin the behaviour down to a particular aspect of their personality and therefore the psychologist does not have to take into consideration all factors of the personality and then decide which contributes to which type of behaviour, also, because behaviour is being reduced down to simpler components it makes certain concepts easier to test. Another advantage of reductionism is the fact that it is scientific and tends to use the scientific method of controlled lab experiments which aids replication. Finally, if we reduce explanations to their most basic level then we are less likely to used subjective and inaccurate explanations.
As well as the advantages reductionism does have its disadvantages, such as: reductionism tends to reduce complex behaviour down into explanations that are way too simplistic, because of the simplicity of the explanation and the fact that the psychologist is not taking into account the person as a whole it means that important causal factors could be overlooked. Also, some of the higher level explanations may be more interesting and engaging as opposed to over facing the person reading up on the investigation with scientific jargon. It can also detract from the study of the ‘whole’ person/animal, for example, in IQ testing.
Holism is where human behaviour is studied by studying the person as a whole as opposed to reducing the person to component parts. There are many advantages of using the holistic such as: it gives the complete picture, i.e. background of the person which gives an inclination as to why a certain disorder was acquired, which makes it more realistic. Also, it does not ignore the complexities of human behaviour which in turn makes it more realistic as well, because it does not ignore the complexities of human behaviour it means that the explanation it provides is of a higher level than it would be if the behaviour was reduced to simplistic component parts.
As well as having many advantages it also has many disadvantages such as: it is less scientific than reductionism, meaning that it can at times be subjective and inaccurate. Also, it is difficult to investigate human behaviour at different levels because it is up to the person to divulge whatever information they wish to. Also, holistic explanations tend to be hypothetical because nothing is ever certain.
Taking all of this into consideration I think that in terms of psychological research the reductionist approach to research is more important. This is because is is objective and reliable and can be replicated to add to the field of psychology. Although it doesn’t take into account the person as a whole it is simpler and easier for the psychologist to make assumptions and add to the field of psychology it also pushes psychology more into being a science because it uses scientific methods which makes the subject reputable among other scientists and also the general public.
This is a question that is heatedly debated within the topic of psychology. This question sits with the debate of nature and nurture; nature is supported by the biological approach whereas nurture is supported by the behavioral approach.
It has been known for years that traits such as hair colour and eye colour are determined by specific genes encoded in the human cell. However the nature theory also claims that abstract traits of our personality such as intelligence, aggression, and sexual orientation are also encoded into an individual’s DNA.
Supporters of the nurture theory do not ignore the fact that genes exist they just believe that they don’t matter and that the only influence on our behaviour is the environmental factors that, in their mind, determine our behaviour. Supporters of the nurture theory believe that a person’s upbringing and the surroundings that they are brought up in have a bigger influence on personality than genetics.
It is now known that not just one side of the debate is correct, nature and nurture both play an important part in forming an individual’s personality. For example, where a person is raised helps to determine what sort of people they will hang around with and this in turn influences what personality traits they will pick up from the people that they hang around with, also, small children learn certain types of behaviour from their parents through the means of classical and operant conditioning, i.e. they learn to associate a particular stimulus with a particular response and to imitate it, also, they learn that certain actions are rewarded and certain actions are punished, therefore children decide how to react to certain situations depending on the consequences of their actions.
However, genetics cannot be ignored completely, while it is true that some aspects of personality are determined by the environment there are certain studies that show that genetics play a very important part in shaping a person’s personality. The controversial study carried out by Dr John Money on a child named David Reimer show that genetics do shape personality. David Reimer was born a genetic male but after a botched circumcision he was sexually reassigned and raised as a female named Brenda. Reimer has been known to have quoted that he never felt right as a female, when he was eventually told that he was a genetic male he decided to return to being a genetic male, he went on to marry and have children, before killing himself because he couldn’t cope with his conflicting emotions. This study shows that personality is also shaped through genetics and that environment cannot change your genetic make up
In conclusion, it is safe to say that both genetics and environment play a part in shaping a personality, one cannot be said as being more important than the other.
Within Psychology there are 5 main types of sampling, sampling is a very important method to implement during psychological research, this is because when a psychologist decides to do a piece of research they need to decide on their target population, for example, 16 – 18 year olds, however to include the full target population would be too time consuming and confusing, so psychologists take a sample of the target population and then generalise the findings back to the entire target population.
The first sampling method I am going to talk about is random sampling, random sampling is basically a sample where every participant has an equal chance of being selected, basically a random number generator is used and each participant is given a number and if the random number generator picks a particular number the participant with the corresponding number is then a part of the research. Advantages of this kind of sampling are there is no investigator bias because the investigator has no control over which participants get selected to take part in the research, also, it is very quick to do because the computer basically does it all. However, a random sample may not be representative of the target population, also, it is not always possible to have a complete and up-to-date list of all the people in the specific target population, therefore, this would mean that not everyone in the target population has an equal chance of being selected.
Next, there is systematic sampling, this is a sample that involves taking every ‘nth’ individual from a list of names. This is a good sampling method because, again, it eliminates investigator bias because the investigator has no control over who is being selected for the sample. It is also simple and doesn’t take a lot of time to do. However, like random sampling, it requires a list of names of everyone in the target population which isn’t always possible. Another disadvantage is that it can be unrepresentative of the target population.
Then, there is stratified sampling, this is an attempt to make a sample representative by having the same proportions of different groups of people in the sample and in the target population. An advantage of stratified sampling is that it is ALWAYS representative of the target population. However, it is more complex to organise and is very. very time-consuming. Also, it is harder to analyse the results from a stratified sample.
Next, there is opportunity sampling, this is where the investigator asks participants who are available at the time of asking to participate. An advantage of this is the fact that it is quick and cheap to do. However, the participants asked might not fit the criteria for the investigation and also, they may not actually want to participate. Also, this doesn’t eliminate investigator bias.
Finally, there is volunteer sampling, this is where the participants put themselves forward. Again, this is quick and easy and cheap to do. However, the participants may not match the criteria, also, it DOES eliminate investigator bias, because the investigator has no control over who puts themselves forward.
Okay, so, in my opinion random sampling is the better sampling method, because, although it may not always be representative there is no investigator bias and this makes the results fairer and more reliable.
Okay, so this weeks blog is basically asking if we can ever really prove a hypothesis. It is known that psychologists base their hypotheses on the variables that they already know, however, this must mean that they are disregarding variables that they are not aware of, that said, can you ever really prove a hypothesis if you never really know all the fact that backs it up? I don’t think you can, I don’t think that any hypothesis within psychology can ever be proved.
Take, for example, the hypothesis that all Swans are White.. A psychologist could spend years building up evidence to suggest that all swans are white, however, could they really prove that ALL swans in the entire world were white? No.. It would take just one black swan, just one little black swan, to disprove this entire hypothesis and all of the research and effort that has gone into it.
In my opinion a research hypothesis can never really be proved because I think it is impossible for a psychologist to know every little detail about the experiment that they are pursuing, a research hypothesis is based on existing fact, but all of the facts can never really be known. It is a well known fact that a hypothesis cannot be proved until all of the possible antithesis have been indisputably disproved, and even then, who is to say that ALL of the antitheses have been considered and disproved? There is just never a way to know whether or not every little thing has been taken into consideration.
Also, not only is it impossible to know every single variable it is also impossible to be able to control and manipulate the variables to attempt to prove your own hypothesis right as this would lead to biases, which would make research unreliable, which would basically make it all pointless.
Also, psychologists base their hypotheses, in some cases, on pre-existing theory which basically means that psychologists are basing their hypothesis on other people’s unproved hypotheses, which, to me, basically means that a hypothesis can never fully be proved because different people are constantly coming up with different hypotheses that either solidify other hypotheses from different angles or just totally contradict existing hypotheses. Also, because psychologists base their work on other psychologists’ work if a psychologist manipulates their own variables to attempt to prove their hypothesis then they are basically ruining other people’s chances of successfully contributing to the psychological world.
In my opinion research hypotheses can only really be solidified by pre-existing theory, and new theories that are being tested, or they can be disproved, but no hypothesis can ever really be proved indefinitely.
psuf0f 