Opposition to "Ground Zero" Mosque is a Disgrace
It's a sad day for bigots in New York City. Opponents of a planned Islamic cultural center and mosque at 47 Park Place failed in their last-ditch effort to usurp the private property rights of the Cordoba Initiative. The Landmarks Preservation Commission voted 9-0 that the decrepit old Burlington Coat Factory building was not a municipal landmark worthy of government-imposed preservation.
The controversy over this project is a national embarrassment. Of course the Cordoba Initiative has every right to build a YMCA-style recreation center, auditorium, and mosque at 47 Park Place. There nothing offensive, provocative, or even remarkable about an Islamic organization setting up shop in lower Manhattan, two blocks from the former World Trade Center.
The proposed developed doesn't even border on the hole. It's two blocks away. The southern tip of Manhattan is a densely populated part of a living city. It's not a national park or a shrine. People live, work, and worship there, including Muslims. This was true before 9/11 and it's still true. The group that wants to build the community center has been running prayer meetings next door for years. There's another mosque a few blocks away on Chambers Street. This is exactly as it should be. New York is the same thriving, diverse metropolis that it always has been.
Abe Foxman of the supposedly anti-racist Anti-Defamation League says it's insensitive to 9/11 families to have a mosque in the neighborhood. Some of the 9/11 families are Muslim. What about 23-year-old EMT/paramedic Salman Hamdani who died trying to rescue victims, or the dozens of other Muslim victims? I'd like to think that the vast majority of 9/11 families have no problem with the cultural center, regardless of their religious background. Even if this plan were opposed by the majority of 9/11 families, which I seriously doubt, we shouldn't hold all of lower Manhattan hostage to their whims.
The whole idea that a mosque near Ground Zero is offensive presupposes that all Islam was equally responsible for the attacks. This is such a ridiculous idea that I feel stupid even spelling it out. Should we ban churches from the vicinity of the former Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City because Tim McVeigh was a Christian? Of course not. Nobody thinks that the taint of Tim McVeigh extends to all Christians. Continuing to practice the Christian faith in Oklahoma City is not a provocation or an affront. We don't insult the churches of Oklahoma City by calling them "moderate Christians" as if they're just a part-way along the spectrum to the full-fledged Christianity of Tim McVeigh. We don't make them apologize for being nominally part of the same world religion/civilization.
Remember that the original plan was never to leave the World Trade Center as a permanent gaping wound. We were supposed to rebuild and get on with our lives. Nearly a decade later, a giant hole in the ground has become a fetish object in some very ugly psychodramas.
[Photo credit: Flickr user Johnnie Utah, licensed under Creative Commons. Original caption reads: Jingoistic demonstration in Zucotti Park against proposed Islamic Cultural Center a few blocks from Ground Zero. Later, someone garlanded the proposed site with dirty shoes, raw porkchops, and cartoons of the Prophet.]
- The meaning of the word 'confidence' seems obvious. But it's not the same as self-esteem.
- Confidence isn't just a feeling on your inside. It comes from taking action in the world.
- Join Big Think Edge today and learn how to achieve more confidence when and where it really matters.
If you're lacking confidence and feel like you could benefit from an ego boost, try writing your life story.
In truth, so much of what happens to us in life is random – we are pawns at the mercy of Lady Luck. To take ownership of our experiences and exert a feeling of control over our future, we tell stories about ourselves that weave meaning and continuity into our personal identity.
Researchers hope the technology will further our understanding of the brain, but lawmakers may not be ready for the ethical challenges.
- Researchers at the Yale School of Medicine successfully restored some functions to pig brains that had been dead for hours.
- They hope the technology will advance our understanding of the brain, potentially developing new treatments for debilitating diseases and disorders.
- The research raises many ethical questions and puts to the test our current understanding of death.
The image of an undead brain coming back to live again is the stuff of science fiction. Not just any science fiction, specifically B-grade sci fi. What instantly springs to mind is the black-and-white horrors of films like Fiend Without a Face. Bad acting. Plastic monstrosities. Visible strings. And a spinal cord that, for some reason, is also a tentacle?
But like any good science fiction, it's only a matter of time before some manner of it seeps into our reality. This week's Nature published the findings of researchers who managed to restore function to pigs' brains that were clinically dead. At least, what we once thought of as dead.
What's dead may never die, it seems
The researchers did not hail from House Greyjoy — "What is dead may never die" — but came largely from the Yale School of Medicine. They connected 32 pig brains to a system called BrainEx. BrainEx is an artificial perfusion system — that is, a system that takes over the functions normally regulated by the organ. The pigs had been killed four hours earlier at a U.S. Department of Agriculture slaughterhouse; their brains completely removed from the skulls.
BrainEx pumped an experiment solution into the brain that essentially mimic blood flow. It brought oxygen and nutrients to the tissues, giving brain cells the resources to begin many normal functions. The cells began consuming and metabolizing sugars. The brains' immune systems kicked in. Neuron samples could carry an electrical signal. Some brain cells even responded to drugs.
The researchers have managed to keep some brains alive for up to 36 hours, and currently do not know if BrainEx can have sustained the brains longer. "It is conceivable we are just preventing the inevitable, and the brain won't be able to recover," said Nenad Sestan, Yale neuroscientist and the lead researcher.
As a control, other brains received either a fake solution or no solution at all. None revived brain activity and deteriorated as normal.
The researchers hope the technology can enhance our ability to study the brain and its cellular functions. One of the main avenues of such studies would be brain disorders and diseases. This could point the way to developing new of treatments for the likes of brain injuries, Alzheimer's, Huntington's, and neurodegenerative conditions.
"This is an extraordinary and very promising breakthrough for neuroscience. It immediately offers a much better model for studying the human brain, which is extraordinarily important, given the vast amount of human suffering from diseases of the mind [and] brain," Nita Farahany, the bioethicists at the Duke University School of Law who wrote the study's commentary, told National Geographic.
An ethical gray matter
Before anyone gets an Island of Dr. Moreau vibe, it's worth noting that the brains did not approach neural activity anywhere near consciousness.
The BrainEx solution contained chemicals that prevented neurons from firing. To be extra cautious, the researchers also monitored the brains for any such activity and were prepared to administer an anesthetic should they have seen signs of consciousness.
Even so, the research signals a massive debate to come regarding medical ethics and our definition of death.
Most countries define death, clinically speaking, as the irreversible loss of brain or circulatory function. This definition was already at odds with some folk- and value-centric understandings, but where do we go if it becomes possible to reverse clinical death with artificial perfusion?
"This is wild," Jonathan Moreno, a bioethicist at the University of Pennsylvania, told the New York Times. "If ever there was an issue that merited big public deliberation on the ethics of science and medicine, this is one."
One possible consequence involves organ donations. Some European countries require emergency responders to use a process that preserves organs when they cannot resuscitate a person. They continue to pump blood throughout the body, but use a "thoracic aortic occlusion balloon" to prevent that blood from reaching the brain.
The system is already controversial because it raises concerns about what caused the patient's death. But what happens when brain death becomes readily reversible? Stuart Younger, a bioethicist at Case Western Reserve University, told Nature that if BrainEx were to become widely available, it could shrink the pool of eligible donors.
"There's a potential conflict here between the interests of potential donors — who might not even be donors — and people who are waiting for organs," he said.
It will be a while before such experiments go anywhere near human subjects. A more immediate ethical question relates to how such experiments harm animal subjects.
Ethical review boards evaluate research protocols and can reject any that causes undue pain, suffering, or distress. Since dead animals feel no pain, suffer no trauma, they are typically approved as subjects. But how do such boards make a judgement regarding the suffering of a "cellularly active" brain? The distress of a partially alive brain?
The dilemma is unprecedented.
Setting new boundaries
Another science fiction story that comes to mind when discussing this story is, of course, Frankenstein. As Farahany told National Geographic: "It is definitely has [sic] a good science-fiction element to it, and it is restoring cellular function where we previously thought impossible. But to have Frankenstein, you need some degree of consciousness, some 'there' there. [The researchers] did not recover any form of consciousness in this study, and it is still unclear if we ever could. But we are one step closer to that possibility."
She's right. The researchers undertook their research for the betterment of humanity, and we may one day reap some unimaginable medical benefits from it. The ethical questions, however, remain as unsettling as the stories they remind us of.
A space memorial company plans to launch the ashes of "Pikachu," a well-loved Tabby, into space.
- Steve Munt, Pikachu's owner, created a GoFundMe page to raise money for the mission.
- If all goes according to plan, Pikachu will be the second cat to enter space, the first being a French feline named Felicette.
- It might seem frivolous, but the cat-lovers commenting on Munt's GoFundMe page would likely disagree.
SMARTER FASTER trademarks owned by The Big Think, Inc. All rights reserved.