Liza Kroeschell

World and Science Interactions

Position Statements
01/31/2012
RATING:4
Should scientists continue to pursue robotics?
Im writing to support the idea that scientists should continue to pursue robotic technology. If
improved and enhanced, robots could help those with disabilities live more normal, active lives
and could lighten the load for many factory workers. This said, I understand that robots, such as
androids, have their limits. Robots will likely never provide the same feedback and
understanding as humans in emergency rooms, for example. Additionally, robots might never be
able to effectively operate motor vehicles. However, robotic technology has incredible potential.
Powered exoskeletons and industrial robots, for example, could change our world for the better
by creating safer work environments and options for paraplegics. For these reasons, I believe that
scientists should continue to pursue robotic technology.

02/02/2012
RATING:5
Should we treat kids with psychiatric drugs?
Im writing to support the use of psychiatric drugs on children. Some children struggling with
bipolar disorder cause their families stress and sadness that can only be avoided with drugs.
Because of underdeveloped brains, children cant benefit from therapy without medications.
Additionally, by using these drugs as children, bipolar patients will prevent or slow future
development of the illnesses and avoid illness-related problems as adults. This said, because
these drugs have not been well tested on children, I encourage parents to give their children
psychiatric drugs with caution; parents should reflect on their childrens behavior--many believe
that bipolar disorder has become a fashionable diagnosis because parents classify their childs
behavior as symptoms when it could be a result of normal childhood stresses. Nonetheless, I
believe that some children need help with disorders and respond best to medication, which
allows otherwise broken families to live in peace.

02/07/2012
RATING: N/A (my presentation)
Are GMOs cool or not cool?
Im writing to support the idea that GMOs are cool. GMOs increase yields through disease and
insect resistance, have enhanced nutritional value due to edible vaccines and increased vitamins

and proteins, and offer environmental benefits such as pesticide, herbicide and runoff reduction.
Although I understand cons to GMOs, such as unintended allergens and cross pollination, I
believe that science can eliminate such problems. For example, scientists have already developed
plants that dont pollinate. Additionally, due to careful scientific testing, no person has yet
developed an allergic reaction from a GM food. This said, I dont believe that GMOs will feed
the third world. Worldwide agriculture already produces enough food to feed the world; hunger
results from uneven distribution of this food. GMOs wont change this problem. Although I dont
believe that GMOs will feed the third world, their enhanced nutritional and environmental value
make them cool.

02/09/2012
RATING:4
Should childhood vaccinations be mandatory?
Im writing to support the notion that all children should be vaccinated. I receive a flu shot
annually because, as my pediatrician has pointed out to me, receiving vaccinations is my ethical
responsibility as a healthy adult. By doing so, I protect the elderly, the young, the pregnant-every person at-risk for contracting the flu. Unlike me, some children, due to disease and other
complications, should not be vaccinated. Unfortunately, if some school children such as these are
not vaccinated, the whole population becomes at risk. This is why vaccinations are so important.
The risk of vaccine complications such as side effects is small in comparison to the larger risk
that we experience a plague. Vaccines have saved countless lives and produce economic benefits
when less people run medical bills for illnesses. Mandating vaccinations will allow these benefits
to continue with rare side effects.
02/14/2012
RATING:5
Do eating disorders result from the environment or from a patients mentality?
Im writing to support the idea that a persons environment plays a lager role than existing
mental health in instigating eating disorders. The fact that anorexia and bulimia are most
prominent among dancers, wrestlers and women (who compare themselves to perfection daily)
shapes my opinion on this issue. This staid, I understand the point that a patients existing
mentality increases or decreases his or her odds for contracting an eating disorder. As someone
who struggles with anxiety disorder, Ive witnessed staggering effects of the disorder on my
eating habits. Often, when Im most anxious, Ill over think the amount of calories that I
consume or eat an entire box of cereal without realizing I took one bite. Still, the fact that eating
disorders run in families (where body image is important) and are prominent among dancers,
wrestlers and women, suggests that the environment instigates eating disorders.
02/16/2012
RATING:5

Does electronic surveillance do more good or harm?

Im writing to support the idea that electronic surveillance in schools and workplaces does more
good than harm. In schools, electronic surveillance offers students, parents and teachers comfort;
even if a teacher is not present for shady activity, surveillance will scare perpetrators and create a
greater realm of security in the school. In the workplace, electronic surveillance, in addition to
promoting security and safety, promotes productivity. For example, as a member of the Iowa
Legislature, which posts a 24-hour live stream webcast, my mother remains cautious about
surfing Facebook and lazing around at work. Some argue that electronic surveillance is not worth
the invasion of privacy and the message of distrust because electronic surveillance provides a
false sense of security; to be most effective, the surveillance must be actively monitored and
surveillance must survey all corners. However, the comfort and productivity enhanced by
electronic surveillance outweighs these points.
02/21/2012
RATING:5
Should marijuana be legalized (over the counter)?
Im writing to support the idea that marijuana should be legalized as an over-the-counter drug for
adults over 30. I understand that many people oppose this legislation because marijuana is
commonly abused and is often a gateway drug. However, marijuana is not physically addicting
when compared to other drugs, such as coffee. To those that say that marijuana has no known
medical benefit because it is a schedule one drug, I point out that, by legalizing marijuana,
governments allow patients who have few drug options another alternative. I also believe that the
legalization of marijuana will reduce its rebel appeal, which attracts users, and assuage our
problem of overpopulated prisons. This said, I understand concerns regarding the connection
between a-motivational syndrome and use of marijuana before having a fully developed brain.
Thus, I support the notion that marijuana should be legalized for adults over 30.
02/23/2012
RATING:5
Should the government fund embryonic stem cell research?
Im writing to support government funding of embryonic stem cell (ESC) research. First, I dont
believe it is unethical to use ESCs in research because many embryonic stem cells sit in
laboratories and will otherwise die; procedures such as in vitro fertilization produce these
doomed cells. This noted, I understand that ESCs pose problems: ESCs have links to tumor
production when used therapeutically, ESC donors must be well related to avoid a patients
rejection of the cells and ESCs do not easily form into specified cells that target the sources of
sickle cell anemia or Parkinson's disease, for example. If scientists discover detours around these
obstacles, ESCs could be the cure for many diseases. Cancer patients cannot afford to let us push
this research aside because of a few obstacles. I believe that we will never understand the
effectiveness of ESCs without further research and, consequently, government funding.

02/28/2012
RATING:5
Should we continue to use nanotechnology in our daily lives without understanding the
possible consequences?
Im writing to support the halt of nanotechnology until further information is understood about
its effects. Nanotechnology does not follow the law e=mc^2. Because the planet has not yet
experienced materials such as those involving nanotechnology, scientists cannot predict
nanotechnologys effects on the environment or public health. We understand nanotechnology at
the same level that we understood PCBs 50 years ago. PCBs still infest our waters and cause fish
and humans reproductive problems. This said, I understand that the ubiquity of nanotechnology
in our daily lives makes imagining a world bereft of nanotechnology difficult. Personally, I cant
imagine life without my iPhone. My mom uses teflon cookware daily. As an Iowan, I fear a
harvest without disease resistant plants. However, our ongoing problem with PCBs suggests that
further use of nanotechnology might not be worth the trouble it could bring.
03/01/2012
RATING:5
Which is cooler: Eastern or Western medicine?
Im writing to support the idea that a combination of Eastern and Western medicine is more
effective than sole dependence on one or the other. Eastern medicine is strong where Western
medicine is weak and vise versa. For example, Eastern medicine focuses on the health of the
whole body, while doctors of Western medicine often undergo specialized training that allows
them to tackle specific problem areas. As an additional example, Eastern medicine focuses on
prevention while Western medicine focuses on existing problems. Finally, doctors of Eastern
medicine provide in-depth individualized treatment and know their patients while Western
medicine has been studied and developed at a higher level than eastern medicine. As these
comparisons demonstrate, both Eastern medicine and Western medicine have strengths and
weaknesses. A combination of the two is more effective than dependence on one or the other.
03/13/2012
RATING:5
Should people have access to elective cosmetic treatments?
Im writing to support the idea that people should be able to tan, undergo cosmetic surgery and
use anti-aging products freely, but I also encourage skepticism and research of these procedures
for those considering them. My experience with acne treatments has given me some insight on
this topic. After taking ProActive for a year, I developed a rash. When I asked my doctor for
another option, she prescribed me Benzoil Peroxide 5%, which contained twice as much of the
active ingredient that bothered my skin in the ProActive and inflated my face like a blowfish; I
could barely open my eyes for two days. Although I believe everyone should have access to

body-altering techniques, such as tanning, cosmetic surgery and anti aging products, which boost
self esteem, my experience with Benzoil Peroxide underlines the fact that these procedures can
be dangerous and those considering them should tread carefully.
03/15/2012
RATING:5
Does the internet harm us or make us better?
Im writing to support the idea that the internet does more good than harm. The internet
facilitates convenient and free effective communication, connections and learning that would
otherwise be impossible. This said, I recognize and understand several negative effects of the
internet. For example, Ive noticed that my cousins, who are internet-savvy, have trouble relating
and communicating with my grandparents, who have weaker understandings of the internet and
social media. This social disconnect, as well as a constant need for stimulation, difficulty
retaining information and sustaining concentration, contribute to the idea that the internet is a
harmful tool. Still, I believe that the internet has positively and profoundly advanced our way of
life. Although I dont recommend constant exposure to the internet, I support its role in
improving our communication, connections, and learning: our life.
03/20/2012
RATING:5
Should anabolic steroids be illegal in professional sports?
Im writing to support the prohibition of steroid use in professional sports. Although I consider
steroid use for the average person after receipt of a prescription acceptable, I think differently of
steroid use in professional sports. Because professional athletes are role models, they should be
held to different standards. By allowing steroid use in professional sports, the world sends a
message that fame outweighs the importance of health. Some might argue with me by noting that
all professional athletes around the world use steroids, but the athletes with money take
undetectable steroids; by allowing all professional athletes access to steroids, the world
eliminates this unfairness. This considered, I still believe that athletes should be penalized for
steroid use because this allowance use sends the message that success requires artificial drugs
and a compromise of health.
3/22/2012
RATING:5
Should scientists publish their studies even if their discoveries could be harmful?
Im writing to support the publication of a study which a lethal strain of the H5N1 bird flu virus
spread among lab ferrets. I understand the concern that censorship of this scientific study and
other similar studies prevents bioterrorism, promotes bio-defense, and prevents plagiarism.
However, by making an exception to the first amendment by censoring and hiding this material,
the United States could set a precedent for undermining the Bill of Rights. Also, although the

publication of other sensitive studies, such as rocket technology, have been mishandled,
subsequent studies have allowed astronauts to land on the moon. Due to my belief in the
importance of the first amendment and the fact that publicizing these documents could lead to a
better understanding of diseases and their cures, I support full disclosure of the discovery.
03/29/2012
RATING:5
Should the U.S. legalize physician-assisted suicide?
Im writing to support the idea that the U.S. should legalize physician-assisted suicide. My
support is based on several beliefs. First, I believe that, by eliminating the option to die, the U.S
would have to reevaluate Supreme Court rulings, such as Roe v. Wade, which support personal
autonomy and choice. Second, I believe that the Hippocratic Oaths do not harm statement
supports euthanasia; euthanasia relieves slow, painful deaths. I understand why many are afraid
of physician-assisted suicide--they believe that it will lead to abuse such as health care cost
containment. However, most people, whether or not they endorse physician-assisted suicidesupport hospice centers and the right to abstain from treatment. I ask these people, What is the
difference between doing something to make someone die and not doing something to make
someone die?
04/03/2012
RATING:5
Should the United States condone designer babies?
Im writing to support the idea that choosing an embryo before fertilization should be legal for
parents who wish to increase their odds of delivering a healthy baby, but inaccessible for parents
who wish to control other aspects of their childrens genetic makeup. Some parents know that, by
passing on their genes, they risk delivering an unhealthy baby. Although I admire parents of
down-syndrome kids, for example, raising a disabled child is a life-long commitment that
requires resources that many parents dont have. To further demonstrate my point, parents of
autistic children have a shorter life expectancy than those of other children. Although I
understand the worry that normal children will become ostracized and that hair color choice is
unnecessary, I believe that parents should be able to monitor the health of their child before
fertilization if that technology is available.
04/05/2012
RATING: N/A (My Presentation)
Should drugs containing pseudoephedrine require a prescription?
Im writing to support the idea that drugs containing pseudoephedrine should require a
prescription. The over-the-counter status of these drugs allows meth cooks and addicts access to
pseudoephedrine, a key ingredient in meth. Legislation requiring a prescription for these drugs
has potential to reduce the nations meth addiction, which destroys communities; In 2004, most

foster care children and incarcerated individuals in Oregon were the product of meth use. When
Oregon passed prescription legislation, the state experienced a huge decline in meth use. For
example, meth-related arrests declined by 22%. I understand the concerns that meth cooks will
discover new methods of obtaining pseudoephedrine and that the requirement of a prescription
for these drugs penalizes the legitimate consumer. However, the success of Oregons legislation
proves its effectiveness; I believe that we can all sacrifice a few dollars and minutes for the
betterment of our communities.
04/10/2012
RATING:4
Should the U.S. invest in nuclear energy?
Im writing to support the idea that the U.S. should avoid nuclear energy, especially fission, until
safety concerns are assuaged and scientists gain a deeper understanding of the technology. My
fears of toxic waste and radiation poisoning form my opinion on this issue. Events such as
Fukushima remind me of the risk posed by nuclear energy. Although I realize that France has
relied on nuclear energy for almost 50 years without problems and that our demand for energy
will soon go unsatisfied with the depletion of fossil fuels, nuclear energy, in its current state,
threatens us more than it promises to save us. I believe that a more comprehensive approach to
Americas energy demand, including a refurbished transportation system and a stress on
renewable energy sources, such as wind and solar energy, will prove more effective than the
creation of a new dependence on nuclear energy.
04/12/2012
RATING:4
Is animal testing harmful or helpful?
Im writing to support animal testing with passage of additional legislation. Animals play a
necessary role in the research process; animal testing weeds out harmful substances that do not
kill in-vitro cells, saving lives of those who choose to participate in the first clinical trial;
Someone will die if a drug is unfit for human consumption- whether that person is an animal or a
human. This said, I understand the ethical conflict that this issue presents: can we ban testing on
humans while allowing animal testing? For this reason, I only support animal testing for drugs in
special circumstances--when there are no other options-- and I support regulation that limits the
number of animals used in these trials. I also support legislation banning testing of cosmetics on
animals, a policy in place in Europe. I believe that we should limit animal testing to drugs that
can save lives.
04/17/2012
RATING:5
Should gene patenting be legal?

Im writing to support the idea that gene patenting should be illegal. First, genes are discoveries,
not inventions. By allowing ownership of genes, the world accepts ownership of body parts.
Also, gene patenting slows research by restricting the number of scientists focused on a cure, for
example; when people have to pay to study a gene, they are less likely to do so for the same
reason that people are less likely to buy shoes from Gucci than shoes from PayLess. I understand
that gene patenting provides incentive for scientists to research cures that save lives and
encourages gene discoverers to disclose information gained from their studies. However, the
restrictions of patients access to therapy and scientists access to genes due to necessary patent
royalties are disconcerting. To maximize the number of scientists searching for cures and the
number of patients receiving new treatments, the world must prohibit gene patenting.
04/19/2012
RATING:5
Is plastic destroying our health?
Im writing to support the idea that the government should take steps to limit our plastic use,
especially that of plastics affecting children and critically ill patients, until further research
confirms correlations between plastic and health problems. Plastic is ubiquitous and has
advanced everything from health care to food packaging. However, research suggests that
plastics contain endocrine disruptors such as Bisphenol A, which leak from materials such as
baby bottles and intravenous bags. Consumption of endocrine disruptors have detrimental effects
on animals and could be the source of the feminization of the world, although no research proves
this. Because we know that plastic is dangerous, we should begin to limit our use. Because we
dont understand the extent of plastics danger, we should wait to take dramatic action banning
plastics until we uncover more knowledge through stem cell research and other research
methods.

04/24/2012
RATING:5
Can digitized books replace traditional, paper books?
Im writing to support continued emphasis on traditional books complemented by further
development of digitized books. Although I understand that digitized books are great because
they save paper and that they can prevent chronic back pain by alleviating the weight carried in
backpacks, digitized books not effective replacements of traditional books. Digitized books are
difficult to flip through, which is important when reading or skimming textbooks. Digitized
books can become unreadable when new software emerges, in the same way that floppy disks
have become insignificant. Additionally, keeping all of my books on one device is risky because
once it crashes or someone steals it, Ive lost everything. This said, digitized books have their
places: they increase access to rare, special books, archive technical books and simplify life for
travelers reading on the go. However, I believe digitized books are only cool when used to
complement traditional, paper books.

04/26/2012
RATING:5
Should the United States invest .7% of the federal budget in space exploration?
Im writing to support the idea that the United States should continue to invest .7% of its budget
in space exploration. Opponents of space exploration say that the United States should spend
that .7% to combat other world problems, such as hunger, poverty and job creation. First, I argue
that NASA does create jobs--space exploration inspires children to pursue the sciences.
Secondly, that .7% of the federal budget allotted for space exploration wont necessarily be
redirected towards poverty. The government will divide it into the portions that already exist-part of the money saved could go the the pentagon, for example. Although I understand that
space exploration often risks human life, poses potential for harmful discoveries, and takes
money away from other research projects or investments that could better our society, I believe
that the minerals discovered and inspiration to students that space exploration provides
outweighs its cons.
05/01/2012
RATING:5
Should scientists continue to pursue synthetic life?
Im writing to support the idea that scientists should continue to pursue synthetic life. Synthetic
life allows scientists to gain an understanding of life impossible with any other method.
Synthetic life could introduce biofuels and restore the ozone layer, protecting future generations.
Additionally, synthetic life has the potential to save lives by allowing doctors to perform
expensive treatments at lower costs. Those opposed to synthetic life argue that scientists
experimenting with life in this way should stop because they are playing God, life made this
way can be toxic to humans, and lives created synthetically might take over ecosystems by
reproducing quickly. Although I recognize these cons, synthetic life could redefine our
understanding of the world and benefit humanity-- it doesnt seem like a plot to play God.
Scientists should beware of overpopulation and toxicity, but continue to study synthetic life,
which could benefit society.