TOW #28 Ants: Nature's Secret Power

Driver ants live in colonies with a million individuals, and have reportedly killed people. Never mess with ants.

      Humans don't like to realize or admit it, but there are other creatures on this earth that rival our success and intelligence. Beyond simple communities, ants have been organizing super-organisms that are more prevalent and powerful than any human social construct. Ants: Nature's Secret Power tries to bring this unique and humbling viewpoint into vivid perspective. Incorporating Burt Hölldobler, colleague of world-renowned myrmecologist Edward Owens and one of the founders of Sociobiology, the film draws on the laboratory experiments and field observations of a world leading evolutionary biologist. In addition to the knowledge he provides, award-winning cameraman Wolfgang Thaler uses stunning macro cinematography to descend to the perspective of Earth's miniature world power. Recently, research on ants has become more popular, because understanding the hive mentality they use can help develop artificially intelligent software and understand animal eusociality. Ants, while comprising only 3% of Earth's diversity, make up 50% of all the biomass on the planet. They are fantastically successful and can live in tremendously large and organized colonies (the largest of which housed 306 million individuals, 1 million queens, and stretched over several hectares). They consume more meat than lions, tigers, and wolves combined, and have designed air conditioning, learned to garden, and tend farms of symbiotic insects. Created by the BBC, Ants: Nature's Secret Power is intended for all audiences with an interest in nature and without a broad biological knowledge. It has won critical acclaim and winner of "Best TV-Program and "Best Educational Value" at the International Wildlife Film Festival Missoula (USA).
     The film introduces an alien motif in order to show how foreign the lives of ants appear to be to us, and how different the world they rule is from our own. The purpose of the film is to show how complex and significant that unique world is, and to inform people about the ants societies that thrive unbeknownst to us. The first way that the documentary does this is with its narration style. The speaker is very slow and dramatic, which appeals to pathos and engenders feelings of awe and respect towards the ants busying themselves on the screen. Additionally, the music contributes heavily to the audio effects of the documentary. By using plucky, fast paced music, the documentary mimics the rapid movement and activity of the ants. Enhanced sound effects of scrabbling, cutting, and communicating ants enhances the tiny world far beyond what we can observe normally. The documentary makes the recurring point that ants live a scent and sound based existence.
     Additionally, the macro filming and pans down from our normal view of a forest into the massive world of ants further immerses us in the perspective of these insects. Unique views inside of dug up colonies and clear ant farms also engage and envelope the audience. The purpose of all of this is to give a dramatic view of the ants' world that is far different from the one we recognize. This creates respect and interest in the compelling information presented. Additionally, the contrast and colors in each scene are very attractive and make the scenes beautiful to watch. It is clear that it is filmed by an award-winning cameraman. Many of the scenes also take place in Hölldobler's laboratory and show various experiments. These are always shot with a clean, glowing white background to showcase the ants and give the impression of a sophisticated lab (perhaps like those envisioned on alien spacecraft to continue the motif).
     The information presented by the documentary is also selected and presented in order to intrigue and educate. Statistics such as the meat consumption figure stated above challenge our perspective of the animal kingdom and their superlative nature grabs the audience so that they listen to the ensuing explanation. They also force us to question what was said. I frequently thought to myself "Really? I don't believe that," and replaying sections to fully understand what the documentary had presented. Additionally, the documentary makes several comparisons and analogies comparing ants to a variety of human things. As they protect and eat food produced by aphids, the ants are described as farmers. When they forage for prey or attack bees, they become a vast war machine. Their burrows are described as metropolises. The documentary makes the point that ants are very intelligent and just as complex as people, and drives the point home by describing them with distinctly human terms.
     Overall, the documentary was phenomenal and very informative. I marveled the whole time at the vast world right under my nose, and will never again squash an ant for fear of a violent uprising.
   

TOW #27 Reflection

My TOWS at the beginning of the year were extremely formulaic. I wasn't sure exactly what was expected, and was anticipating being graded randomly. So I made sure to cover all of my bases. There was very little flow, however, and my writing came in the form of one dense paragraph without transitions. Content-wise, I accomplished what I needed with analysis and background information. As the year progressed I added more and more rhetorical devices and spent much more time with the analysis portions of my TOWs. Also, my TOWs became significantly more cohesive. I stopped relying on jargon and the rigid formula and wrote in a more relaxed style that flowed and established better analyses. The assessed TOW really helped initiate that.

I think I mastered the ability of establishing context. I did solid research before my TOWs to figure out who the authors were and where their point of view would be coming from. This helped a lot in my APUSH essays actually, where I would quickly establish context in my introductions. Also, I think I became good at identifying effective examples in the text that illustrated the analysis I made. Throughout the year I used direct quotes in my TOWs and I think they worked well.

My analysis cold definitely be improved. Sometimes it wasn't clear and other times I rambled about too many devices. Additionally, my organization could still improve. I don't think my TOWs are quite as unified as I would like them to be and still appear a bit formulaic. Writing as a simple, organic analysis would be more comfortable and possibly even take less time.

I think I definitely benefited from TOWs, though I think the assessment came too late in the year. My TOWs got much better after that and were easier to write because I tried to do it less formally and without looking directly at the requirements. But writing analysis essays throughout the year helped me to identify strategies in a variety of different articles and figure out how to analyze them. I think I should have used more prompts like those seen in the exam, but the process of developing two to three sentences of coherent analysis per each device was invaluable. That is the hardest part of an analysis essay and I spent all year preparing. Given that that is the purpose of the TOWs, I think they were successful assignments.

IRB #4 The Particle Odyssey (Christine Sutton, Michael Marten, and Frank Close)

This summer I was accepted into a program at UPenn for research in high energy particle physics. When they described what I will be doing, I understood almost none of the words and figure I need to properly educate myself. The program, called QuarkNet, will be sending me a textbook called The Particle Odyssey. The authors are four scientists deeply involved in physics research. Frank Close and Christine Sutton are particle physicists at Oxford and Michael Martin is the founder of the Science Photo Library. With the Photo Library backing, the textbook incorporates hundreds of images that can effectively display experimental results and the rather abstract subject matter. The textbook starts with the basics, describing the structure of the average atom and grounding the reader with some of the more common physics concepts, like the Big Bang. But then it goes into cosmic radiation and subatomic particles like muons (which I will be detecting), eventually ending with the modern discussion about the legitimacy of the standard model. From this textbook, I hope to gain a better fundamental understanding of the research I'll be conducting this summer and its application to modern advances in physics.

TOW #26 Science at Liberal Arts Colleges: A Better Education? (Thomas Cech)

Thomas Cech presents his take on liberal arts v. research university science education.

     Deep in the college search, I've come across a division in college education for degrees in science/engineering. Liberal arts colleges and major research universities both offer successful programs for students with totally different experiences. In this article, Thomas Cech, a Nobel Laureate and professor at the University of Colorado, compares the two options. His purpose is to support the liberal arts education (which he received) and to advocate that it (think Swarthmore, Williams, Pomona) is just as effective, if not more so, than more famous research institutions (think Harvard, Berkeley, MIT). He aims the article at prospective students like me who are weighing the value of different programs and probably enticed by the prestige of large universities.

     Cech begins the essay with an anecdote of his experience graduating from a tiny liberal arts school called Grinnel College and pursuing a PhD at one of the largest research schools in the world: UC Berkeley. This provides a personal touch to the essay; Cech is already extremely successful, so relating back to his formative years as a scientist captures the attention of his audience. As he assures the reader that we had received a high-quality education and was well-prepared for higher research, Cech effectively introduces his argument and establishes his ethos because he has clearly studied in both forms of science school.

     Cech's argument progresses with the introduction of a statistical analysis paired with logical conclusions (you can barely tell that he's a laboratory chemist). He begins by explaining the value of looking at the percentages of students who go on to earn PhDs in their respective fields as an accurate measure of the success for the college. He then provides data in tables that is readily understood and compared, which he further analyzes to show that liberal arts colleges produce as many PhD students as a percentage of their total enrollment, which indicates the success of such programs.

     Cech finally presents information in a strictly logical format which he uses to draw conclusions. He presents the assertion that research universities depend on their grants and research to hold their prestige. He then presents the argument that they would prefer graduate students to carry out this vital research, whereas liberal arts colleges only have their pool of undergraduates to give such experience to. By progressing logically, Cech offers up a sound argument.

     Cech clearly knows what he's talking about and does a great job establishing his credibility and logical arguments. The article was very rhetorically effective.