Scientific Journal

By: Alyse, Brayden, Dillion & Johnny

Limits to Science

Editorial: Science Should Have Limits

Brayden Freeman Alyse Bauman Jonny Blomgren Dillon Dickson

Period 1

Generation after generation, scientific development continues to advance, allowing for humans to create new technology and do extraordinary things, but should science have limitations? For instance, is failing on hundreds of attempts wasting those lives to try and clone a human going beyond the power science should be granted? Is it right that people have the technology to hack into any device anywhere in the world, or do we not give the internet and people using the internet enough limitations? Should humans have the ability to repair any organ in their body, fight disease, or extend their lifetime with the use of stem cells?

Since the 1950’s, scientists have learned how to clone stem cells and implant them into an embryo to clone a new organism. From the first animal being cloned , Dolly the sheep, to the first cells of a human being cloned, many argue whether or not cloning is considered ethical. Although cloning stem cells can be used to replace old or diseased cells, should science allow for the first human to be cloned? Science should be limited to cloning only animals and cells for several reasons. Many of the animals that have been cloned die very early due to diseases or have been born with life-threatening disabilities. The process of cloning a human being is as if you are creating a human with a 50-50 chance of surviving. This is the main reason why cloning of a human could be considered extremely unethical and is why it has been made illegal in the United States.

In this age nearly every single thing has a passcode or lock on it trying to prevent an outsider from getting into someone’s personal stuff. Hacking has even made its way on to the stage of war, the U.S. government has hired people such as Anonymous and Lulzsec to help protect the U.S. from the war on hacking. Hacking is becoming a violation of privacy as the hackers have hacked into things that are way to personal and are using their computer intelligence to intrude on people’s life. People have things on their own personal devices that are not for anyone else’s eyes and when people hack into that it’s an invasion of the victims privacy. You may feel accomplished when you hack into something but at the end of the day you’re putting your nose where it doesn’t belong and this is where hacking need limitations. I understand how some hacking, like hacking for the government, is good. But the unnecessary hacking into someone's personal life and violating their privacy is way overboard and needs to be put to an end. I believe that we need to protect websites better by adding security or internet walls preventing any unwanted hacking that could occur. We need to protect our privacy and we need to end hacking.

Science has also allowed us to use stem cells to perform miraculous things. For example, diabetics need a way to supply insulin to their bodies. With the help of embryonic stem cell research, if the patient is given multiple insulin-producing pancreatic stem cells, they would attempt to repair or replace the rest of the cells in their pancreas allowing it to produce insulin. However, is it right to take the potential life of a human being to expand the lifespan of another? We cannot perform these miracles without embryonic stem cells, however, we can manipulate adult stem cells for the same purpose. It is more difficult to isolate adult stem cells, but it doesn’t cost the life of a human being.

Science has caused consequences within society and is risking lives and resources to find new information. Although science has gotten us to advancements in life as in technology and curing diseases, its isnt worth it with the risks that come with it. Science needs to have limits on it, or in the end of all of the trials and development we could end up with things we never wanted.

Big image

Hacking and Programming

Alyse Bauman

British Literature Period 1
3 March 2016

Hacking/ Programming

A person explores ideas to create things or make something more advanced than it already was. Being an inventor or innovator you must use prior knowledge of certain things to take ideas off of that and create something brand new. Science can never have limits, there's always ways to change and improve something. Hacking and Programming has become very popular in science. There's always those people trying to weave through obstacles of technology. Hacking is the use of a computer to gain unauthorized access to data in a system. Programing is providing a computer or other machines with coded instructions for the automatic performance of a particular task. In “Frankenstein” by Mary Shelley, hacking and programming is shown in many ways, Victor Frankenstein had to hack into creating human life with parts of non-human relations, and had to program a brain into a body to create life. In Hacking and Programming things can be very complex because there's always a code or something stopping a person to being successful but there is always loophole around everything.

In today's day and age there always seems to be pass codes or some type of lock on a system to eliminate access to any outsider. Throughout war there's a lot of hacking that goes through the process of one upping the other opponent. In an article “ Political Hackers Are the Enemy of the State” describes how the US and the UK have been verbally assaulting and threatening one another over the internet. The US government has hired people such as, Anonymous and Lulzsec, political hackers to get involved to stop this. Hacking can come with positives, as helping stop this war or keep it off the internet. But hacking comes with negatives also. In frankenstein, Victor Frankenstein hacks into creating life that shouldn't be possible. He creates the impossible and that's hacking into the way life is supposed to be, that we come from god and he creates our body and soul. Another reason why I do not agree with action of hacking is the invasion of privacy. In an article “Protecting Free Speech on the Internet” describes how hackers are getting too personal in the things they hack into and get their hands on. Theres many things on peoples personal electronics that aren't meant for others to see, and this is what the article is trying to explain to readers. I think there are limits to hacking when it comes to others things, and it becomes personal. Hacking and programming progresses to get more popular as the years go by, it needs to come to a stop before people begin to bury themselves in things they shouldn't be in. Frankenstein deals with this first hand when he creates one monster and is almost forced to create another life that is destructive. Science can be such a toxic thing but also life changing, it's 50/50 depending on the circumstances.

Victor Frankenstein states, “None but those who have experienced them can conceive of the enticements of science. In other studies you go as far as others have gone before you, and there is nothing more to know; but in a scientific pursuit there is continual food for discovery and wonder. (4.2)” Scientist always try to go farther than other scientist to find something new or create something new. In Frankenstein life was created that turned out to be evil, he may have created something monumental but it turned toxic to the world. Same with hacking and programing, you may feel accomplished of the hacking you have done, but in the end you don't belong in that information. You're putting your nose in information that isn't for your knowledge or opinion. The world would be more of a full rounded place without hackers and programmers, life is the way it is for a reason we don't need science changing it.


Brayden Freeman

Period 1

Brit Lit Scientific Advancement Argumentative Essay

March 3rd, 2016


Cloning is the process of producing something genetically identical that occur in nature through nonsexual means. Animal cloning has been scientifically experimented with for many years but didn’t get attention until January 8th, 2001 when the first clone of an endangered animal was born. A baby bull gaul which is a large wild ox from India and Southeast Asia. Even though the clone died from an infection not due to the procedure, it did prove that cloning animals and recreating life was possible. Cloning truly demonstrates being an innovator and inventor because you literally invent new life and use innovation to reproduce something through science. I am against cloning because the failures of human cloning could result in abortion, miscarriages, or births of malformed or diseased individuals.

These possible failures of human cloning are thought to be unacceptable by all current ethical standards. After the first successful cloning of a mammal several nations such as Great Britain outlawed human cloning. The WHO (World Health Organization) disapproved of it and the United States passed a law that prevented federal funds to be spent on human cloning research. Fifteen U.S. states since 2008 have made laws that ban the cloning of human. A lot of scientists such as like Ian Wilmut as against this subject because of the risks. Both therapeutic and reproductive cloning are very controversial because many people think that it is wrong to create human life and only God can create it. This is where I think science should have limits. Cloning is playing God in the sense that science has found a way to imitate what God has done to create life. The bible says that life is “fearfully and wonderfully made” (Psa. 139:14) this verse acknowledges God’s creation of man and is important to this argument because it shows man is more important than a biochemistry project. What gives life meaning is not how someone tries to rearrange the circumstances or conditions he’s experimenting on, but how he responds to God’s individual calling. The scripture of God’s word teaches the nature of the human condition. Human cloning uses human beings as an animalistic object in scientific experiments and goes against God’s image. Science should not be allowed to clone humans because for a lot of people God’s word is everything and going against that is going against someone's morals and ethics and is way out of the boundaries science should be allowed to cross.

Supporters of animal cloning are for it because of the potential economic and medical benefits. It could result in the creation of identical organisms that have been genetically modified in ways that have significant value to humans. For instance it could create pigs that have proteins on its organs which would make it possible for the pig's organs to be transmitted into humans without it being rejected by the human body's immune system. For the economic side top-quality cattle could be cloned to produce disease free herds that produce disease free high quality good beef. Since the 2000’s cattle have been cloned, some have even been cloned from dead carcasses, to produce exceptional cuts of meat. But could there be benefits from cloning humans? For example if doctors could clone the cells of a paralyzed or sick people and produce tissues and organs that could heal the person, then in turn human cloning would be very beneficial. Some scientists even think human cloning could cure crippling ailments such as parkinson's disease. This cloning is called therapeutic cloning and doesn’t involve cloning anything besides tissue and single organs, it’s different from reproductive cloning because it doesn’t involve the reproduction of an entire human being. This is using innovation to benefit the needs of human beings and bring good to the people.

Cloning is prevalent in Frankenstein because Victor was going to clone the monster he had created so his monster could have a companion. He was going to invent a second monster to meet the needs of his first. But in reality he knew cloning the monster would be a terrible idea because he would bring another bad creation into the world so he ended up not doing it. Although he had the ability to clone the monster he already had created he knew his innovation wouldn’t benefit anybody but the monster and be a terrible idea. Innovation also highly exists in this book because Victor was an inventor and used innovation to come up with his creations. “Natural philosophy is the genius that has regulated my fate; I desire, therefore, in this narration, which has led to my predilection for that science.” This quote to me speaks on the type of science Victor was interested in which led to the creation of a monster and almost to the cloning of it. Victor was interested in creating human life and through innovation and invention he was able to recreate it through science.

Anyone can be an innovator or inventor, the severity of it depends on your intelligence and how far you can take it though. Cloning would require some serious knowledge and skill to recreate life on earth. Innovating and inventing is easy to get into it just depends how far you are willing to take it to determine just what you are dabbling into. In my opinion science should be limited to cloning anything besides human life because that way they are able to not damage the rights and morals of a human but also find ways to benefit and impact lives by cloning other organisms. Innovating and invented life on earth is somewhat of a phenomenon, but walking all over someone's morals is absolutely unethical. On that note, I am against human cloning because the failures of human cloning could result in abortion, miscarriages, or births of malformed or diseased individuals and playing God is completely against everything I believe in.

Works Cited

Citation Page

Brayden Freeman


Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, n.d. Web. 04 Mar. 2016.

HowStuffWorks., n.d. Web. 04 Mar. 2016.

"Cloning." Opposing Viewpoints Online Collection. Detroit: Gale, 2015. Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 3 Mar. 2016.

"Chalcedon." Chalcedon Podcast RSS. N.p., n.d. Web. 04 Mar. 2016.

Shmoop Editorial Team. "Frankenstein Science Quotes." Shmoop University, Inc., 11 Nov. 2008. Web. 04 Mar. 2016.

Citation Page

Alyse Bauman

Hacking/ Programming

"Hacking and Hackers." Opposing Viewpoints Online Collection. Detroit: Gale, 2015. Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 16 Feb. 2016.


Ball, James. "Hacktivists Fight for Civil Liberties and Free Expression." Hacking and Hackers. Ed. Margaret Haerens and Lynn M. Zott. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2014. Opposing Viewpoints. Rpt. from "Hacktivists in the Frontline Battle for the Internet." Guardian 20 Apr. 2012. Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 16 Feb. 2016.

Shelley, Mary Wollstonecraft, and Diana Gibson. Frankenstein. Madrid, España: Edimat Libros, 2000. Print.

Citation Page


Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, n.d. Web. 16 Mar. 2016.

"Unit 1: What Is Cloning?" - KNILT. N.p., n.d. Web. 16 Mar. 2016.

"How to Monitor Your Website for Hacking with Google Analytics & Alerts - Coast Digital." Coast Digital Blog. N.p., 08 Apr. 2015. Web. 16 Mar. 2016.

"The Limits of Science." N.p., 24 Jan. 2014. Web. 16 Mar. 2016.