As society becomes increasingly globalized and technologically advanced, higher education seems necessary in order to succeed in the real world. It provides additional advantages, such as making new friends, networking, expanding knowledge and pursuing suitable postgraduate careers.
Evidently, the demand for higher education is strong. World Bank data indicates that the global tertiary enrollment ratio, which is a fraction of student-age population pursuing higher education, increased from 14 percent to 32 percent from 1990 to 2012. In this time, American tertiary enrollment ratio soared from 71 percent to 94 percent.
A recent article from The Economist presents two broad methods to address the strong demand. The first approach is the continental European model, whereby most universities have equal resources and status thanks to state funding. The second is the American model, in which mixed public-private funding leads to stratified higher education.
Observing the research ingenuity of American universities, the world is gradually adopting the American model. Of course, more research is always beneficial, especially during an era of technological sophistication. Yet, higher education is becoming costly. The United States spends about 2.7 percent of its gross domestic product in higher education.
Increased expenditures in post-secondary education don’t always correspond to better academic performance. The Economist reports that 45 percent of American students did not improve in their first two years of university. Concurrently, tuition doubled in over two decades, after accounting for inflation, while student debt costs rose to a whopping $1.2 trillion.
Lackluster academic performance is largely due to differentiated universities. The elite private universities (e.g. the Ivy League) enjoy ample amounts of research funding and benefit from their extensive alumni networks. Public universities are funded by state governments and private funding.
Both university systems attract adroit professors, whose admirable teaching skills foster intellectual students. Public universities are usually inexpensive for in-state residents thanks to government subsidies. Despite their daunting sticker prices, elite universities typically offer generous financial aid, especially considering the rigorous screening process employed to select optimal students.
Unfortunately, the non-elite (or ordinary) private universities lack the large amounts of financial support that are treasured by elite and public universities. Poor financial incentive repels stellar professors, so educational quality suffers. Limited resources and scattered networking discourage current students, yielding low retention rates.
Ordinary private universities can entice strong professors by offering faster tenure track supplemented with exclusive benefits. Students and families are stimulated by excellent campus facilities, such as revamped student housing, diverse recreation centers and comprehensive libraries. Some universities can form various deals with companies, such that students can garner internship opportunities.
Although these approaches clearly benefit students and professors, universities incur a significant amount of costs. To compensate, universities may increase their acceptance rates in order to extract additional revenue from growing classes. Yet, selectivity is important, so universities should protect their reputation and avoid accepting too many applicants.
Selectivity considerations result in moderate acceptance rates ranging from 40 percent-60 percent. With an artificial quota imposed to deter excess enrollment, universities have little choice but to increase tuition to cover the excess costs. Since educational output isn’t clearly measured, price serves as a proxy for quality.
Prices generally refer to the cost of attendance, which depends on tuition and fees, room and board, transportation, textbooks and supplies and personal expenses. Analyzing the cost of attendance is essential when comparing financial aid awards, so the prospective student selects the most affordable university.
Upon matriculating, the cost of attendance typically reduces to tuition and fees, since the rest of the factors are readily managed by the student. In the continental European model, universities are subsidized by governments, so students only pay minimal or no tuition. American private universities charge four times more tuition than public universities.
A recent Wall Street Journal article indicates that tuition at public universities strongly depends on public funding. Between 2002 and 2006, state funding had dropped by average of about 5 percent, while tuition rose by average of about 4 percent. Since 1992, tuition and state funding trends have traveled in opposite directions.
Critics often blame high tuition on faculty salaries. Such a claim is flawed considering that faculty salaries have either remained constant or declined. Rather, the underlying problem is an overarching administration with sizable salaries, which makes universities indistinguishable from businesses. In fact, university presidents behave like CEOs and enjoy handsome payments accordingly.
Irrationally attributing the rising costs on tenured professors, administrators decide to exploit the large supply of cheaper adjunct instructors. Since 2011, more than 70 percent of college professors are adjuncts and full-time nontenure-track faculty. Sadly, adjuncts often lack adequate time to prepare for class and don’t have regular office hours.
The mistreatment of adjuncts has sparked fierce unionization to demand higher salaries and long-term contracts. Students and parents are outraged, since they are struggling with high tuition only to receive education from traveling faculty. Administrators warn that wage increases will exacerbate the tuition burden.
Salary raises are hardly problematic. Adjuncts complement theoretical knowledge with practical experience, which are useful skills in strengthening academic performance. Improving financial benefits will ensure stability and longevity of the teaching faculty, while allowing the tenured faculty to focus on their research and teach few specialized courses.
Misallocation of resources is another factor responsible for driving high tuition. Many universities seek to decorate their campuses by investing in impressive dining halls and luxurious dorms. Some universities engage in tight competition to recruit students and gather endowments by constructing marvelous buildings that aren’t necessarily academic centers.
Overwhelmed by crippling tuition, students defer the costs by taking advantage of student loans and federal financial aid. William Bennett, the Secretary of Education under the Reagan administration, argued that the readily available loans allow universities to skyrocket tuition, since easy deferral is essentially subsidizing higher education.
In a Wall Street Journal op-ed that appeared Jan. 27, Mitch Daniels, the former Indiana governor and president of Purdue University, pinpointed that 70 percent of graduates in the class of 2014 (or 40 million people) are borrowers, with an average debt of $33,000. Naturally, the macroeconomic consequences are significant.
Daniels highlighted that the higher education bubble forces college graduates to delay marriage and childbearing. Around 25 percent-40 percent of graduates are suspending major purchases like cars and homes, while half fear risk of defaulting on other bills. Student debt also discourages college graduates from pursuing professional schools.
Luckily, the higher education bubble can be safely deflated by enacting tuition and debt controls. Daniels has enacted a three-year tuition freeze and reduced the costs of supplementary materials, resulting in a significant reduction in Purdue’s total cost of attendance since 2013.
Furthermore, he illustrated that aggressive student counseling against the hazards of incessant loan deferrals has sharply reduced total Purdue borrowings by 18 percent since 2012. He proudly claimed that Purdue graduates have saved roughly $40 million to pursue their goals.
Daniels’ success in bubble deflation at Purdue University serves as a key foundation for all universities to follow. As mentioned previously, elite universities already offer substantial discounts for their students, while public universities are cheap under continued state funding. If the bubble were to burst, these universities and their students would remain largely unaffected.
The danger lies in ordinary private universities that don’t enjoy these financial luxuries. Although campus enhancement is necessary to strengthen university’s image, exorbitant tuitions and debt burden will harm the students and sully the academic reputation. Universities must be cognizant of financial pressures or risk being wiped out by the bubble burst.

The post Deflating the higher education bubble appeared first on The Triangle.

Whenever we see the word “drug,” we often think of illegal substances responsible for strengthening militant cartels and funding illicit drug wars. Such negative connotations are unfortunate, because drug therapies provide simple, noninvasive and effective methods to diagnose and treat diseases.

Sadly, the benefits of drug therapies are offset by their rising costs. From a recent Medscape article, imatinib (brand name: Gleevec), which is used to treat chronic myelogenous leukemia, cost $30,000 annually in 2001; today, the same drug costs $90,000 per year. New cancer therapeutics cost more than $100,000 per course of treatment.

A nucleotide analog called sofosbuvir (brand name: Sovaldi) is an effective treatment for hepatitis C, but it costs about $84,000 for 12 weeks of treatment. According to a Wall Street Journal article, Valeant Pharmaceuticals International bought the rights to two heart drugs, Nitropress and Isuprel, before increasing their prices by 212 percent and 525 percent respectively.

Soaring drug prices are unsettling for patients and their families, healthcare providers and insurance companies. A sizeable fraction of the cost is attributed to advances and complexity in drug discovery.

Drug discovery is a multistep, reductionist and laborious process that spans over 10 years and costs billions of dollars per drug. First, a specific biological target is analyzed and new chemicals are synthesized. At least 10,000 compounds are screened to detect appropriate test chemicals based on structural and biochemical properties.

The intricacy of drug discovery explains why drugs are limited and expensive. Extensive knowledge and teamwork are required to develop curative treatments for complicated diseases. Incentives to engage in research are essential, so knowledge is protected by intellectual property rights and subsidized by private and government funding.

From the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, drugs have a 20-year patent life from the date when the patent application was filed.

Regrettably, generic drugs often acquire an unpleasant vibe from the patient population, due to misleading fears that generics are of poorer quality than brand name drugs. The FDA requires generic drugs to have the same active ingredient, dosage form, strength and administration route as branded drugs.

The Hatch-Waxman Act of 1984 allows generics to acquire FDA marketing approval by submitting bioequivalence studies and filing an abbreviated new drug application. Moreover, the first company that files an ANDA for a particular drug acquires 180 days of exclusive rights to market the generic alternative to the branded drug.

Since bioequivalence studies are cheaper than clinical trials, research costs are reduced in marketing generic drugs. After the 180-day period, more companies can produce generic drugs, and increased competition sharply reduces drug prices. Despite the stigma, generic drugs are cheaper than branded drugs while exerting identical functions.

The chemical synthesis of small molecules promotes easy proliferation of generic drugs. Another production method involves biotechnology, whereby living organisms and their derivatives are used to make compounds. Drugs acquired from biotechnology are called biopharmaceuticals, which include hormones and monoclonal antibodies.

Biopharmaceuticals are complex molecules; so generic alternatives called biosimilars have some structural differences. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (i.e. Obamacare) allows the FDA to approve biological products that are shown to be highly similar to brand name biopharmaceuticals. Wall Street analysts expect biosimilars to sell at discounts ranging from 20 percent to 30 percent.

According to another Wall Street Journal article, generic prices have risen by an average of 5.1 percent over the past two years. Richard Evans proposes that generic drug companies have suffered from poor financial performances. These companies cooperate to increase revenue in order to compensate for low sales (e.g. low prices or fewer drugs sold).

Evans reassures that generics inflation is only temporary, as the number of firms needed to cooperate is too large and financial woes will diminish. Yet, his explanation suggests that cooperation can briefly strengthen market power and trigger price increases.

Market power is quantified by a measure called the Lerner index, which depends on the price elasticity of demand. A relatively elastic demand resulting from the availability of generics reduces the market power of branded-drug companies, so the Lerner index is small and drug prices fall.

Pharmaceutical companies protected by 20-year patents reduce the generic threat. The lack of substitutes corresponds to an inelastic demand, so the Lerner index becomes closer to 100 percent and drug prices skyrocket. Since 2008, prices of branded drugs have risen by 127 percent compared to 11 percent increase in the consumer price index.

Strong market power helps pharmaceutical firms to overstate drug prices, because price hikes allow firms to boost sales easily without having to engage in costly research. Price hikes also pay for advertising, shareholder returns and administrative duties. Firms may also sharpen their market power through mergers and acquisitions of smaller rivals.

Patent protection and market power are also predominant in areas outside the United States, which implies that drug prices should be uniform geographically once exchange rates are taken into account. Instead, drug prices are significantly cheaper in regions like Europe, Japan and the Commonwealth of Nations.

Medscape reports that cancer drugs are about 20 percent to 40 percent cheaper in Europe than in the United States. As previously mentioned, imatinib costs more than $6,000.

In a New York Times op-ed, Peter Bach states that geographic price differentials occur because American pharmaceutical firms exploit loopholes in complex laws such that insurers are forced to include all expensive drugs in their policies. Other firms engage in anticompetitive practices by buying inexpensive generic drugs and kicking new firms out.

Drug prices are negotiated at an individual level, which means prices are usually unchecked. Britain and Germany exercise stricter control over firms by enacting various price controls and continuously comparing new drugs with existing drugs in the market. Stringent regulation protects consumers and smaller firms by suppressing anticompetitive practices.

The complicated disaster of the American healthcare system allows firms to place unnecessary burden on insurance companies. Incessant cost deferral is prevented by single-payer healthcare systems, where only the government pays for all healthcare costs. Premiums will disappear, physicians will regain autonomy over patient care and households will save money.

While profit incentive is necessary to drive medical research, wasteful expenditures and anticompetitive practices harm the society. Stricter regulations and improved healthcare systems not only promote cheap curative medicines but also foster a healthier and stronger community.

The post Drug prices should not go unchecked appeared first on The Triangle.

Astronomy is possibly one of the best hobbies to explore. The standard approach is to buy a telescope and find a convenient dark sky for stargazing. Telescopes can be rather pricey, so amateur astronomers can observe the sky via binoculars or unaided eyes, along with using stargazing programs.

Astronomy is one of the oldest sciences. As civilizations formed, early astronomers began to map the positions of the stars and planets, leading to the development of astrometry. From careful geometric analyses, Aristarchus measured the sizes and distances of the moon and sun and proposed the heliocentric model that was rejected by his contemporaries.

While astronomy became stagnant in medieval Europe, Islamic and Asian astronomers made significant discoveries and established numerous observatories. The Persian astronomer Azophi discovered the Andromeda galaxy, and Arabic and Chinese astronomers discovered the brightest supernova named SN 1006. Moreover, numerous astronomers introduced Arabic names for individual stars.

During the Renaissance and Enlightenment, heliocentrism became accepted, and celestial mechanics was developed to quantify the motions of astronomical objects. Galileo Galilei and Johannes Kepler improved the Dutch refracting telescope to strengthen astronomical observations. Isaac Newton developed a reflecting telescope to eliminate aberrations and increase apertures for viewing.

Astronomy soon became a subset of physics, as astronomers and astrophysicists tackled problems involving planetary science, stellar dynamics, galactic and extragalactic astronomy and cosmology. Inspired by Renaissance telescopes, amateur astronomers eagerly built new telescopes combining reflective and refractive properties to optimize sky observations.

What makes astronomy particularly awesome is its incessant desire to explore the unknown, which is reasonable considering that the universe itself is expanding at an accelerating pace. Modern astronomical catalogs are massive, containing extensive physical and chemical properties of observed planets, stars and galaxies.

Equally amazing are astronomy’s interconnections with other disciplines, such as biology, chemistry, geology, philosophy and history. A predominant issue that remains relevant today is the existence of extraterrestrial life. In an ever-expanding universe with countless unseen planets, declaring that the Earth is the only source of life, including intelligent life, is unlikely.

Renowned physicist Enrico Fermi argued that any intelligent extraterrestrial civilization with some rocket technology and ambitious imperialist desire could colonize the entire galaxy, which means that some intelligent species could have visited Earth. The absence of evidence of any sign of intelligence led to the “Fermi paradox”: if intelligent life is common, then why do we see no evidence of other intelligent life?

Astronomer Frank Drake provided a reductionist argument to quantify the Fermi paradox. He speculated that the number of advanced technological civilizations in the Milky Way Galaxy is the product of seven terms.

The first three terms in the Drake equation are empirical: the number of stars in the Milky Way Galaxy, the fraction of stars that have planets and the average number of planets per planetary system that can sustain life.

The last four terms focus on life that actually develops in planets, the formation of intelligent life, the creation of technological civilizations and the civilization survivability. These terms are speculative and philosophical, resulting in zero to a million advanced technological civilizations in the Milky Way Galaxy.

Since the Fermi paradox suggests that no signs of intelligence were detected, the Drake equation implies that the fraction of intelligent life is very low. Thus, the paradox is resolved in two different ways: either no civilization exists or intelligence is necessarily destructive.

Peter Ward and Donald Brownlee assert that the emergence of complex life on Earth required a rare combination of geological and astrophysical events. In their so-called Rare Earth hypothesis, the scientists argue that complex life requires the correct astronomical parameters, plate tectonics, a large moon, a stable orbit and an evolutionary trigger.

It’s important to note that Ward and Brownlee strongly believe that simple, bacterial life is common, but complex life is rare. Nonetheless, the Rare Earth hypothesis tries to extrapolate Earth’s history to establish the criteria for complex life, as observed by the unique requirements for plate tectonics and a large moon.

First, the Earth isn’t rare considering new planets with Earthlike conditions are being discovered. Second, planets have different atmospheric conditions, so selection pressures can form and sustain complex life with alternative biochemistry, which implies that oxygen is not a requirement for life.

The second hypothesis dictates that intelligent civilizations self-destruct or annihilate other societies in short timescales. Such catastrophes can occur from nuclear warfare, climate change, population instability and resource breakdown. Technological singularity can occur, whereby intelligent species with advanced technology may destroy other signs of intelligence or create superintelligent machines to destroy themselves.

Except for singularity, the catastrophic factors driving the eradication of intelligent civilizations are extrapolated from human-related ailments. If civilizations smarter than human civilizations were to exist, extraterrestrials would use reason and sound judgement to avoid wars, superintelligent competitions and economic collapse. Such civilizations would be sustainable.

Hypothesizing the biology and culture of intelligent civilizations is a matter of science fiction. A physical solution to the Fermi paradox is that distances from Earth to other planets can be vast, spanning over several million light-years. With an accelerating universe, it becomes increasingly difficult to contact nearby planets, much less planets in adjacent galaxies.

Even more possibilities exist. Perhaps humans haven’t been searching long enough. Humans may fail to distinguish alien languages from noise, which means they aren’t listening carefully. Some intelligent civilizations are non-technological, while singularity may allow other societies to communicate in abstract ways, such as through black holes and cosmic rays.

Just thinking about extraterrestrial life is astounding. The eminent astronomer Carl Sagan proposed that advanced extraterrestrial civilizations could store their complete information and knowledge into the Encyclopedia Galactica (a hypothetical version of Encyclopedia Britannica).

Despite the complexity of the Fermi paradox, the search for extraterrestrial life (SETI) should continue in order to enhance learning on the cosmic neighborhood. By using inexpensive radio and microwave astronomy, the cosmos can be explored extensively to discover any technological remnants or artifacts.

SETI research was actively promoted by astronomers and science fiction writers. Subjected to vicious attacks from angry politicians, SETI research was removed from NASA budget in 1981 but was restored in 1982 thanks to Sagan’s intervention. Sadly, in 1994, Congress canceled the NASA SETI program, so SETI is now privately funded.

Science is distinguished from philosophy in that empirical evidence is required to verify theoretical claims. Furthermore, a small probability of finding intelligent civilizations elsewhere is still better than giving up. Congress must be cognizant of scientific research and use the rare opportunity in being productive by funding SETI.

Badri Karthikeyan is a biology major at Drexel University. He can be contacted at op-ed@thetriangle.org.

The post The search for extraterrestrial life must continue appeared first on The Triangle.

The April 3 editorial titled “Students should be more political” expressed alarm that Drexel University students are uninterested in politics, as they are more focused on co-op and academics. Seeking to reduce this political apathy, the Editorial Board encouraged students to become civically active by voting, volunteering and campaigning.

However, politics is essentially the same story written by different authors. From local to federal, governments are increasingly complex and bureaucratic, resulting in controversial and divisive politics. Buoyed by unrestricted campaign finance, powerful interest groups actively seek to nominate their favorite candidate, effectively converting elections into auctions.

Once in power, politicians propose various bills, which support the objectives of the interest groups that elected them. Debates among opposition groups intensify and usually collapse into inaction. Rarely, politicians may enjoy unity by enacting legislation that leads to disastrous outcomes, such as endless government spending and diplomatic breakdowns.

By observing politicians’ bizarre and tiresome antics, Drexel students, and citizens in general, become disillusioned with politics.

A direct remedy is to restrict the power of interest groups by strengthening limits on campaign finance. Sadly, this solution only attacks the problem superficially.

The underlying problem is that flawed political systems lead to wasteful elections, inefficient allocation of resources and obstructed progress. A comparative analysis of democratic government systems indicates that the presidential system (also called presidentialism) suffers from these preventable problems.

Under presidentialism, the executive is independent from the legislature. The elected leader of the executive is the president, who serves as both the head of government and head of state. From “checks and balances,” the president cannot dismiss the legislature, and the legislature cannot remove the president under normal circumstances.

Presidentialism originated in the United States before spreading across South America, Africa, Middle East and Asia. By having an independently elected president to control the disorganized legislature, presidentialism seems to be the most effective democracy in the world.

It’s actually the opposite. Most countries with presidential systems are insolvent and susceptible to corruption, warfare and instability. South Korea currently doesn’t have a prime minister, since the predecessor Lee Wan-koo resigned April 27, after two months in office, over accusations of bribery.

Presidentialism fails because the executive is too powerful. Unlike the legislature that contains hundreds of representatives directly elected by the people, the executive is managed entirely by the president, who is often indirectly elected (e.g. the outdated Electoral College).

Larger numbers in the legislature allow for diffusion of responsibilities. Regardless of the political system, all leaders have a personalized cabinet to distribute and simplify tasks. Yet, a presidential cabinet isn’t responsible to the legislature nor can it be readily dismissed under normal circumstances.

Presidents can exercise numerous powers that appear strikingly dictatorial. For instance, presidents can terminate bills with vetoes, which usually can only be overridden by a supermajority vote in the legislature. Presidents can also force additional changes by signing executive orders and negotiate deals with foreign countries without congressional oversight.

Fundamentally, the executive’s objective is to enforce laws enacted by the legislature, so separating the two branches is unnecessary and detrimental. Having two parallel elections wastes money and resources. When the executive and legislature are controlled by opposing parties divided government occurs, resulting in delayed progress and government shutdown.

The parliamentary system, or parliamentarism, is a superior democratic structure that effectively resolves numerous issues suffered by the presidential system. Under parliamentarism, the executive is derived directly from the legislature. The prime minister serves as the head of government, whereas a constitutional monarch or a ceremonial president is the head of state.

Parliamentarism is predominant in Europe, Canada, Australia and Indian subcontinent. Not surprisingly, these regions have minimal corruption, reduce income inequality, enjoy stability and promote excellent quality of life. Moreover, political gridlocks are minimized, legislation is passed efficiently and responsibility is shared evenly among the prime minister, cabinet and legislature.

Juan Linz and Fred Riggs pinpointed that since World War II roughly two-thirds of third world countries that adopted parliamentarism successfully transitioned to democracy. However, third world countries that implemented presidentialism suffered from numerous coups and constitutional crises.

Usually, the prime minister is the leader of the political party (or a coalition of parties) that wins the most seats in the parliament. The indirect election of prime minister is essential to minimize wasteful expenditures in election campaigning, as well as highlighting party issues.

Many parliamentary systems employ proportional representation, allowing numerous political parties to participate in elections and win parliamentary seats. Such multiparty systems produce a diverse and versatile parliament, as seen in Germany and Israel. Even in dominant-party (Japan) and two-party systems (Britain), minor parties can win enough seats and force the winning major party to form a coalition.

Since the prime minister typically has the majority of votes, legislation can be passed and enacted readily. Consequently, the prime minister can be removed effectively by a vote of no confidence if the parliament becomes frustrated with poor leadership. Such measures are necessary in order to select strong and successful leaders to maintain national permanence.

Parliamentarism is also beneficial for nations suffering from debilitating racial and ethnic divisions. Diffusion of responsibility allows parliamentary governments to represent most, if not all, affected groups, and optimal legislation can be enacted to minimize social tensions.

Unlike presidentialism, the veto power in parliamentarism is restricted, and prime ministers cannot strike deals with other nations without parliamentary oversight. Fortunately, opposition leaders carefully monitor the actions of the prime minister and main cabinet and provide different policies to ensure progress and win future elections.

Based on the scope of the executive political power and independence, presidentialism slants towards an autocratic democracy, while parliamentarism favors libertarian democracy. The intermediate political systems combine elements from both democratic structures. Such mixed systems are called semi-presidential systems, whereby the popularly elected president appoints a prime minister and a cabinet.

Semi-presidentialism is a broad term so it is further subdivided into two categories. Under premier-presidentialism (France and Portugal), the prime minister and cabinet are exclusively responsible to the legislature and can be effectively dismissed by a vote of no confidence. In president-parliamentarism (Russia and Taiwan), the prime minister and cabinet are responsible to both the legislature and president.

Sadly, it’s impossible for the United States to adopt parliamentarism because that would require a complete overhaul of the Constitution. Instead, the president’s power must be limited by restraining the casual use of executive orders and agreements, while requiring substantial congressional supervision.

Eliminating the Electoral College will improve voter turnout, as voters can directly influence elections. A nationwide implementation of proportional representation will strengthen minor parties and diversify the legislature, resulting in a wide assortment of productive ideas. These proposals are hardly enough to form a libertarian democracy, but it’s a start.

Badri Karthikeyan is a biology major at Drexel University. He can be contacted at op-ed@thetriangle.org.

The post Presidentialism dispirits voter turn out appeared first on The Triangle.

It is a heartbreaking reality that diseases remain unavoidable despite significant medical achievements. In a way, diseases signify natural intervention, whether it is through selective pressure to promote healthier descendants or a method of population control. To alchemists’ dismay, a panacea does not exist, as diseases are simply too diverse. Some diseases, like the common cold, are slight nuisances that disappear within few weeks. Others, like Alzheimer’s disease, can lead to cognitive changes, coma or death.

Fortunately, treatment strategies can be provided efficiently by organizing diseases into a hierarchy. The bottom contains trivial diseases that can be treated with over-the-counter drugs, while the top consists of untreatable diseases.

This pyramidal disease scheme has an apex, which is context-dependent. By frequency, the deadliest disease is coronary artery disease, yet in developing countries, it is the human immunodeficiency virus.

Both diseases are excellent candidates, but the pyramidal apex is awarded to cancer. The key isn’t the fatality rate, but rather its resistance to treatment and detrimental effects on the patient’s quality of life. As such, Siddhartha Mukherjee rightfully deemed cancer as “The Emperor of All Maladies,” in a book of the same title.

Cancer refers to abnormal cells dividing uncontrollably before spreading and attacking other parts of the body. From the intestinal lining to the skin, cell division occurs normally, so these cells are susceptible to cancer formation. Only cells that are terminally differentiated, like neurons and muscle cells, do not divide.

Consequently, cancer is a heterogeneous group of diseases, which means there isn’t a single cure for cancer. Understandably, such a declaration is alarming to cancer patients and their families, but treatment strategies are offered on an individual basis.

However, Mukherjee must have a reason for depicting cancer as a single “emperor” despite its diversity. In order to overthrow the emperor, it is necessary to survey the empire, which means there should be some underlying similarities among all cancer types.

In a 2000 pivotal article published in Cell, Douglas Hanahan and Robert Weinberg outlined six key traits that depict how normal cells transform into cancerous cells. In essence, cancer cells want to grow and avoid dying.

Unlike normal cells, cancer cells are self-sufficient, as they don’t need growth signals to divide. To sustain growth and divide indefinitely, cancer cells require a constant blood supply. Conversely, cancer cells resist anti-growth signals and bypass cell death. Eventually, cancer invades other tissues through metastasis.

In a 2011 update, Hanahan and Weinberg delivered two additional hallmarks: altering the cellular metabolism and avoiding the immune system. They also isolated two enabling characteristics critical for transformation to happen: genomic instability through accumulation of random mutations and a tumor-promoting inflammatory environment.

This was thanks to countless years of cancer research, which was strongly promoted by Mary Lasker’s passionate activism and funded by the National Cancer Act of 1971. Historically, cancer research was improved by learning from previous mistakes.

The ancient Greek physicians Hippocrates and Galen were among the first to study cancer. They were aware that surgery was ineffective, as cancer would simply return. Based on their studies, they sadly dismissed the disease as incurable.

Challenging the ancient Greek opposition to surgical oncology, William Stewart Halsted developed radical mastectomy in 1882. He argued that cancer had spread outward, so curing breast cancer required removal of the affected breast and the underlying muscles.

Radical mastectomy was horrifying for women, since it left them badly disfigured. Tragically, Halsted firmly believed that larger surgical excisions would stop the metastatic spread. Since radical mastectomy yielded curative results, it remained a standard surgical procedure until mid-1970s.

Alternatives to surgery would soon be devised. In the 1900s, French doctors discovered that daily doses of radiation over several weeks significantly improved the cure rate for cancer patients. Yet, radiation was also the cause of cancer, so it was largely avoided until the 1970s, when radiation could be aimed precisely.

After World War I ended, scientists discovered that mustard gas reduced the white blood cells in poisoned soldiers. During World War II, an analog drug called nitrogen mustard was shown to reduce lymphomas. Soon after, Sidney Farber discovered that aminopterin, an analog of the vitamin folic acid, reduced pediatric acute leukemia.

With the success of aminopterin, Farber developed a closely related but less toxic compound called methotrexate. Like aminopterin, methotrexate reduced leukemia. More importantly, Jane Wright showed that methotrexate also triggered remissions in solid tumors, such as breast cancer.

In the mid-1970s, Bernard Fisher searched for minimally invasive alternatives to radical mastectomy. In a surgical procedure called lumpectomy, only the tumor and some surrounding tissue would be removed. Lumpectomy, in conjunction with radiation therapy or chemotherapy, improved breast cancer curative rates, thereby ousting radical mastectomy.

Undoubtedly, the war on cancer made significant strides in cancer treatment. The Wall Street Journal reported that from 2002 to 2011, mortality rate decreased by 1.5 percent annually on average for all cancers, while new cancer cases fell 0.5 percent annually.

In another Wall Street Journal article, Craig Thompson optimistically forecasts that within 10 years, the number of male and female cancer survivors will increase by 35 percent and 26 percent respectively. He attributes the survivorship increase to precision medicine.

Precision medicine focuses on prevention and treatment strategies that take into account of individual variability. In the 2015 State of the Union Address, President Barack Obama declared that he is “launching a new precision medicine initiative to bring us closer to curing diseases like cancer and diabetes.”

Rather than treating cancer based on the tissue it emerged from, precision medicine improves cancer therapy by targeting the precise mutations that an individual patient’s tumor has acquired. Hence, precision medicine effectively targets the hallmarks of cancer.

Traditional chemotherapy focuses on directly disrupting cell division, while targeted therapy attacks subtle nuances that distinguish cancer cells from normal cells. As such, targeted therapy is more selective for cancer and minimizes adverse effects.

Hormonal therapy and immunotherapy manipulate the endocrine and immune system respectively as additional ways to suppress cancer proliferation. Thompson also pinpoints that cancer cells can be eradicated by forcing them to differentiate.

Realistically, today’s cancer treatment strategies are too good to be true. Diagnosis and treatment for pancreatic and brain cancers remain poor, while treatment of seemingly manageable cancers remains inadequate.

Consider breast cancer. About 70 percent of women have breast cancers that test positive for the estrogen and progesterone receptors. Hormonal therapy, such as tamoxifen, is usually effective. About 20 percent of breast cancers test positive for a growth receptor called HER2, which is treated with an antibody called herceptin.

Yet, 10 percent of breast cancers lack the hormone receptors and HER2. This triple-negative breast cancer cannot be treated with conventional therapy. As such, it is similar to metastatic breast cancer, whereby a combination of chemotherapy and radiation therapy are necessary to hinder cancer progression.

Excess cancer therapies used to suppress metastatic cancer can lead to cancer resistance and relapse, both of which can be overcome. Cancer resistance can be blocked by interfering with drug-pumping proteins called ABC transporters. Relapse is averted by targeting cancer stem cells.

Such a rigorous treatment regimen required to control and eradicate metastatic cancer is incredibly expensive and harmful for the patient. Although cancer research is certainly advancing, cancer drugs are becoming increasingly costly. Adjusting for inflation, a new cancer drug cost about $100 in 1969: today, a new drug is worth roughly $10,000.

Combination therapies reflect the “more is better” principle endorsed by the Halsted radical mastectomy. From an economic and moral perspective, the principle doesn’t apply to medical treatments because of the overwhelming burden of adverse effects and the risk of cancer relapse.

Instead, treatments should  aim to maximize the patient’s satisfaction, such that the side effects are minimized while cancer is being optimally treated. Further research must be devoted to understanding the central processes of metastasis and finding adequate therapies to suppress or even reverse tumor invasion.

Physicians must provide complete information regarding cancer prognosis, management and treatment strategies to patients and families, along with offering personalized care. As members of the civil society, we must devote our efforts to continue raising cancer awareness and support families afflicted with this dreaded disease.

The post Years later, cancer treatment is still not simple appeared first on The Triangle.

Looking at history, it is evident that contemporary governments worldwide are becoming increasingly complex and pervasive. Under the guise of representing the constituency, politicians seek to regulate minute aspects of ordinary affairs, resulting in complicated and inefficient bureaucracies.

Economic interventionism is the driving cause behind the emergence of extensive governments. Interventionists argue that free markets necessarily lead to market failure, harmful externalities and anticompetitive practices. Regulated markets enforced by antitrust legislation therefore restore and maintain optimal efficiency.

Under Keynesian economics, short-run economic output is strongly influenced by aggregate demand, which in turn depends on government expenditures. As such, Keynesians assert that increasing government spending will increase the economic output, thereby helping the economy recover from recessions.

Both arguments are misleading. As long as a market economy continues to operate freely, market failures are avoidable, since consumers can readily choose the cheapest alternatives, while producers can maximize profits. Monopolist firms engaging in predatory pricing discourage rational consumers and motivate entrepreneurs to capture lost surplus.

Even if market failure is inevitable, government regulation can lead to disastrous outcomes. Governments lack a profit motive, so there isn’t an incentive for regulators to improve services. Under regulatory capture, government agencies promote the interests of the firms in the industry being regulated, thereby resulting in negative externalities.

Keynesians may be correct to emphasize the importance of aggregate demand, but government expenditures aren’t an adequate solution. Consumption and investment show strong positive correlations with business cycles, but government spending is uncorrelated. Government spending also crowds out and thus lowers investment spending, undermining aggregate demand.

Consequently, economic interventionism is unnecessary, indicating that governments must be reduced drastically. Yet, there is another problem: civil rights and defense. If people are reasonable and self-sufficient, they can voluntarily protect natural rights. Moreover, all disputes can be resolved through a patient and evenhanded discussion.

According to the nonaggression principle, individuals can make their own choices as long as they don’t involve aggression, namely the initiation of fraud or force, against others. If aggression is irrational, defense is unnecessary. Education, healthcare and social services can all be provided by voluntarism.

If voluntarism and nonaggression can promote social progress, government can be abolished, leading to sustainable anarchism. Now, anarchism emanates misconceptions of chaos and disasters. Critics pinpoint the infamous example of revolutionary anarchy during the Russian Civil War, even though these “anarchists” were irrational and paranoid.

Detractors also inaccurately claim that anarchists oppose all rules and laws. Such an assertion contradicts the concept of natural rights and natural laws, both of which are entirely independent of jurisdiction. Anarchists simply oppose rules and laws that are involuntarily imposed on society by illegitimate authorities, such as governments.

Anarchism eliminates the need for voting and civic duties, thereby avoiding controversies that arise from decisions made by a majority rule. Rationalism and self-sufficiency also lead to altruism, since individuals can enjoy the satisfaction in improving the wellbeing of the overall community. Hence, anarchist societies tend to promote low-cost living.

Economics strongly influence anarchism, resulting in two broad subdivisions. Anarcho-capitalism underlines the importance of free market, private property and individualism. Anarcho-capitalists oppose taxation, asserting that privately funded competitors can manage all security and social services.

Anarcho-socialism emphasizes social equality, arguing that individualism inherently depends on mutual benefits. While respecting personal property, anarcho-socialists believe the most optimal society will consist of a complete conversion of private property to public goods.

Semantically speaking, these subdivisions are improperly named. Most anarchists argue that anarcho-capitalism is a meaningless term, since capitalism intrinsically requires involuntary transactions. Likewise, anarcho-socialism seems oxymoronic, since conversion from private to public property will face individual opposition and thus requires the use of force.

The controversy in terminology simply indicates that anarchism is a diverse political philosophy, since the criteria constituting an ideal, stateless society are entirely subjective. Regardless of semantics, it is evident that anarchism creates the optimal society in theory. In practice, anarchy is impossible to sustain.

Anarchism fails because humans are not innately rational and self-sufficient. On the contrary, humans are driven by instinct, a characteristic shared by all animals and derived from evolution. Reason is a recent evolutionary trait that is unique to humans.

Sigmund Freud asserted that instinctual desires are characteristics derived from birth. Parents must impose moral and cultural norms in order to ensure the successful development of children into successful adults. Expanding from individual to society suggests that the state serves a critical regulatory role to nurture social progress.

In “Federalist No. 51,” James Madison boldly declared, “If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.”

Madison and Freud both accurately pointed out that people are far from angels, confirming that people are inherently irrational beings. Thomas Paine admitted that the government was “a necessary evil” to regulate irrationality. Conversely, governments run by people are fundamentally irrational if left uncontrolled.

The solution proposed by Madison requires the government to control the governed, while also governing itself. This is analogous to Freud’s structural theory of psyche, whereby the ego maintains the delicate balance between the id (instincts) and the superego (regulations).

Hence, the optimal political structure in practice is a limited government, which is also called minarchism. Minarchists argue that governments should focus primarily on basic roles, such as protecting the individuals from aggression, as well as providing common defense and neutral judiciary.

Minarchism in the United States is achieved by strictly following the Constitution. By imposing political term limits, downsizing the bureaucracy and privatizing many public programs, corruption is reduced and efficiency can be achieved. Limited government is thus the only way to promote and maintain a sustainable and rational society.

Badri Karthikeyan is a senior biology major at Drexel University. He can be contacted at op-ed@thetriangle.org.

The post Human nature demands controlled government appeared first on The Triangle.

Last week marked an important milestone when Iran tentatively accepted significant restrictions on its nuclear program. In return, the United States and the European Union agreed to remove several sanctions against Iran.

The Iran deal will curb the nuclear cascade that emanated during the Cold War. Although nuclear competition was restricted between the United States and Soviet Union, proxy wars had triggered the proliferation of nuclear weapons in hotspots like Pakistan and . Stemming Iran’s nuclear program will deter nuclear expansion in the volatile Middle East.

Despite being a member of OPEC, Iran suffered heavily from crippling sanctions and trade embargos, so easing these economic controls will stimulate oil production and trigger falling oil prices. Thanks to increased investment and rising exports, Iran will enjoy a strong economic growth.

Equally important is the thawing of Iran relations. It helped that Ernest Moniz, the U.S. Secretary of Energy, and Ali Akbar Salehi, head of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran, shared a common history at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, despite not having met in person at that time.

Yet, the fact that U.S.-Iran relations have deteriorated in the first place is a tragedy in foreign policy. The culprit behind poor U.S.-Iran relations is paradoxically the driver of Iran’s growth: oil economics.

In 1901, a British millionaire named William Knox D’Arcy negotiated an oil concession with Shah Mozaffar al-Din and his Qajar dynasty in Persia. This concession formed the Anglo-Persian Oil Company, which soon discovered a massive oil field at Masjed Soleyman in southwestern Iran.

In 1925, an Iranian officer named Reza Shah Pahlavi, born Reza Khan, overthrew the Qajars and created the Pahlavi dynasty that would rule until 1979. Reza Shah Pahlavi was a nationalist who attempted to limit British influence on the newly renamed Anglo-Iranian Oil Company. He also sought to establish stronger relations with Nazi Germany.

During World War II, Winston Churchill and Joseph Stalin were worried about Iran’s loyalty to Germany. This led to the Anglo-Soviet invasion of Iran in 1941 that overthrew Reza Shah and replaced him with his son, Mohammed Reza Pahlavi.

As part of a joint agreement, Iran was partitioned by the two nations, with Britain controlling the south, and Soviet Union controlling the north. Opposing the partition, the United States insisted Britain and Soviet Union withdraw from Iran six months after the war ended.

British forces withdrew on schedule, but Stalin wanted access to oil fields in northern Iran. After Harry Truman’s censure and Iran’s consent to maintain oil trade with the Soviets, Stalin withdrew his army in May 1946.

Iranians were initially happy when the United States helped the Pahlavi dynasty plan economic infrastructure. However, Iranians were frustrated by the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, which hardly gave Iran any profits.

Opposing the Pahlavi dynasty, Mohammed Mossadegh argued that Iran should control its own oil industry and suggested that the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company split profits equally with Iran. Truman supported the plan; the British dismissed it.

Eisenhower believed Mossadegh was a Soviet sympathizer who planned to give the Soviet Union complete access to Iranian oil. Eisenhower decided it was a good idea to overthrow a democratically elected leader and place an autocratic ruler on the throne.

After Mossadegh was overthrown in a 1953 coup, the Shah resolved the oil crisis by allowing three U.S. petroleum firms and Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (now called BP) to distribute oil from refineries that remained under Iranian control. Iran soon joined an anti-Soviet pact and supported Israel.

With the help from CIA, the Shah silenced all opposition. John F. Kennedy was aware of the growing domestic opposition to the Shah’s rule and suggested economic liberalization and political reform. The Shah agreed and soon enacted the White Revolution, which promoted land reform, manufacturing expansion, education and women’s rights.

In 1972, Richard Nixon suggested that if Iran were to remain an American ally and promote political stability in the Persian Gulf, the Shah could purchase any non-nuclear weapons in the U.S. military arsenal. Soon after, oil prices skyrocketed thanks to Arab-Israeli Wars and OPEC embargos.

Aware of the protests, Islamists decided to manipulate the masses. In 1978, an Islamic cleric named Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini persuaded an angry mass of college students and merchants that Western reforms were corrupting Iran. The Islamists won, and the Shah was exiled to Egypt in 1979.

American foreign policy became complicated by the Iran-Contra Affair and the Persian Gulf War. Through economic sanctions and military threats, Bill Clinton promoted dual containment to prevent further troubles from Iran and Iraq.

Enraged by American hypocrisy, Ahmadinejad reversed Khatami’s reforms, denounced the United States and Israel, and accelerated the nuclear research program. U.S.-Iran relations under Bush and Ahmadinejad could have very well triggered another world war.

Such a global catastrophe was averted when President Barack Obama took office in 2009. Obama insisted on an open-minded outlook on the Middle East and was willing to meet with Ahmadinejad to improve U.S.-Iran relations. Unfortunately, Ahmadinejad, who controversially won the 2009 election, denounced Obama in the similar manner as Bush denounced Khatami.

In fact, the Iran deal was only possible thanks to Hassan Rouhani, a reformist president who won the 2013 election. His visit to New York later that year was considered a significant progress to U.S.-Iran relations.

Consequently, it is better to avoid neoconservative and Islamist leaders, since national fervor will lead to conflicts. Although non-Islamist leadership would be difficult to implement in Iran, it is possible, as indicated by election victories of Khatami and Rouhani. The manageable problem is the neoconservative popularity in the United States and Israel.

Neoconservatism wishes to protect national interest in foreign affairs, often in the disguise of promoting democracy. Neoconservatives, such as George W. Bush and Benjamin Netanyahu, directly clash with the Islamist leaders, reject compromise and foolishly declare Iran as a terrorist state. In particular, reformist leadership in Israel can help restore friendly relations with Iran.

In addition, the United States and European Union must avoid unduly sanctioning Iran just because it is an Islamic theocracy. Despite the 1979 regime change, Iran remains a stable and powerful nation, providing critical assistance to Iraq, Syria and Yemen to fight against the Islamic State and al-Qaida.

Oil trade with Iran must be consistent and fair. The underlying problem is that Iranian oil was monopolized by a British company with negligible profits given to Iran. Nationalizing attempts were scorned, and when Islamists did succeed in controlling Iran’s oil supplies in 1979 revolution, the nation was brutally sanctioned.

Rather than demonizing Iran for rightfully protecting its own interests, the United States and European Union must renew trade relations and reduce sanctions. After all, oil trade is happily maintained with authoritarian regimes like Saudi Arabia, so shunning stable theocracies like Iran is rather shortsighted.

Just as with Egypt, Iran can be a powerful ally in suppressing Islamic insurgency and maintaining regional stability in the Middle East. Stable, equitable and consistent relations must be established with Iran to avert geopolitical disaster in the future.

The post The history of US-Iran relations appeared first on The Triangle.

On Feb. 1, millions of Americans nationwide dashed to their televisions to watch one of the most hyped programs in American television history: Super Bowl XLIX. Emotions raged as sports fans clashed to decide which team would emerge supreme.

Shunning my mountain of midterms and assignments, I decided to watch the Super Bowl. Although it was expected that the game would be intense, even the controversial last-minute play from the Seattle Seahawks that led to the New England Patriots’ winning 28-24 took fans by surprise.

Curious about the reactions of zealous sports fans, I examined the comments online. As expected, fans of both sides engaged in fierce flame wars, although a minority did display decorum by respecting rival teams.

Unexpectedly however, was my accidental encounter of a cheerleader video. During the game, I was immersed in the gameplay, so I lacked the chance to observe fleeting cheerleader performances. Consequently, I decided to pay my dues by watching the video.

The blinding radiance of cheerleaders’ performance walloped me. After about a minute of gathering my composure, I nervously stationed myself back to my seat, took several deep breaths and replayed the video.

Watching the video, I realized that cheerleading is a demanding activity that requires a combination of athletics, time management, maintenance and dedication, a note that many football teams and sports fans fail to appreciate.

Along with providing ample time to dedicate to jobs and education, cheerleaders spend countless hours practicing during pregame and off-season, attending events and maintaining an overall image. Considering their dedication, cheerleaders would be expected to earn adequate wage.

The opposite is the reality. In a recent Wall Street Journal article, Eric Morath illustrates that five football teams were sued by former cheerleaders on grounds of poor working conditions and violation of wage laws. The Oakland Raiders reached a settlement and proceeded to pay cheerleaders minimum wage.

In the case of the Buffalo Bills cheerleading squad, known as the Buffalo Jills, Morath pinpoints that Jills cheerleaders were required to work at least 16 hours per week. In return, they were rewarded a parking pass and tickets to the game. When faced with a wage violation lawsuit, the Bills simply disbanded the Jills.

The labor environment experienced by cheerleaders may seem deplorable and abnormal at first glance. In economics, such a labor market is called a monopsony, which consists of a single buyer (the football team) and numerous sellers (the cheerleaders).

Monopsony, like any market structure, is driven by two economic quantities: marginal revenue and marginal cost. When a team hires an additional cheerleader, the team acquires extra revenue from the cheerleader’s performance but suffers from increased costs.

Profit maximization is achieved by equating marginal revenue with marginal cost. The upward slope of the labor supply curve indicates that a monopsonist team must increase the wages of all cheerleaders whenever an additional cheerleader is employed. This problem is counteracted by a larger marginal cost.

Consequently, monopsonist teams hire only fewer cheerleaders than would be expected under a perfectly competitive labor market. Moreover, teams wish to minimize costs, so the fewer number of cheerleaders earn lower wages as calculated from the labor supply curve.

Since a monopsony is inefficient due to deadweight losses sustained by reducing labor input, wages are necessarily lower than optimal. How much are wages reduced? This question is answered by using an economic measure called elasticity of supply.

Roger McCain states that the elasticity of supply depicts how much the employer must reduce hiring to lower wages by one percent. Larger elasticity of supply corresponds to reduced monopsony power, which in turn results in closer to optimal wages.

Unfortunately, the labor supply of cheerleaders is relatively inelastic. At first, this seems rather strange. Unlike healthcare providers examined in McCain’s analysis, cheerleaders have numerous alternative jobs to switch readily if they insist.

The deciding factor is passion. For many young women, cheerleading is a glamorous and enviable activity that has numerous long-term benefits. Cheerleaders work in other jobs, but passion is what makes them thrive under rather repressive labor conditions.

Geography is another important factor. Since most football teams are located sufficiently far apart, potential cheerleaders lack a choice in choosing teams. Absence of alternatives and nonuniform labor policies contribute to an unnecessary random factor behind cheerleader working conditions.

Selectivity is critical, since young women must meet team-dependent requirements and pass several auditions to qualify. As such, teams employ a labor quota to choose the optimal cheerleading squad.

These three factors all contribute to a small elasticity of supply. With a fixed number of cheerleaders from the labor quota and inelastic supply, cheerleader wages sharply decrease, often becoming zero as seen in the Buffalo Bills lawsuit.

The solution is minimum wage. From the monopsony analysis mentioned previously, the equality of marginal revenue with marginal cost sets the profit-maximizing quantity, which is reflected by the labor quota imposed by the teams.

Wages are calculated by using either the labor supply curve or the marginal cost curve. Teams select the labor supply curve to minimize costs. Yet, wages determined from marginal cost curve are actually larger than optimal wages earned under a perfectly competitive market.

Minimum wages are best determined from the marginal cost curve, which maintains the labor quota. Earning even higher wages is actually irrational, since teams can always reduce the cheerleading squad to reduce costs, if not dissolve the squad altogether.

American football consistently alienates the female audience. A possible solution to this problem is to reward cheerleaders with sufficient wages, ample coverage and thriving working environment.

Badri Karthikeyan is a senior biology major at Drexel University. He can be contacted at op-ed@thetriangle.org.

The post Labor market has no room for cheer appeared first on The Triangle.

Unit conversions are one of the worst nightmares experienced by hapless elementary school students. How many inches are there in a foot? Twelve. How many feet are there in a yard? Three. How many yards are there in a mile? One thousand, seven hundred and sixty.

Despite being different physical quantities, mass and weight share a similar pattern of conversions. There are 16 ounces in a pound, 14 pounds in a stone, 2000 pounds in a short (U.S.) ton and 2240 pounds in a long (British) ton.

The good news is that unit conversions for volume are straightforward. A gill is four fluid ounces; a cup is two gills; a pint is two cups; a quart is two pints; and a gallon is four quarts.

Yet, to complicate matters further, there exist area and volume analogs of inches, feet and miles. A square foot has 144 square inches, nine square feet in a square yard, 4840 square yards in an acre and 640 acres in a square mile.

Volume analogs follow a similar trend, and at first glance, they seem different from the cups and gallons mentioned previously. Thanks to some dimensional analysis, one gallon is equal to 231 cubic inches.

These unit conversions are so easy to remember that it’s no surprise they are widespread throughout the United States. In fact, they are given their own special name: U.S. customary units, which are similar to the outdated imperial system apart from subtle differences in terminology.

With the exception of the United States, Liberia and Myanmar, all countries have officially adopted the metric system. We find ourselves in a unique predicament, which can possibly be attributed to American exceptionalism. Alternatively, the rest of the world is doing something right, and we are simply resistant to change.

Photo Courtesy Canuckguy/Wikipedia
The countries shaded in green are those that have adopted the metric system.

Why is the metric system so popular? The obvious reason is that the metric system is easy to learn, since the units are scaled by multiples of 10. Decimals simplify unit conversions and standardize the metric system.

Under the U.S. customary system, one gallon is equal to 231 cubic inches. Fortunately, the metric system simply defines one liter to be equivalent to a cubic decimeter, or 1000 cubic centimeters. A liter is a little more than a quart, so volume is readily metricated. In addition, the metric system avoids unit duplications. As mentioned previously, mass and weight are different physical quantities, but share the same unit of pound. Under a strict classification of base and derived units, the metric system is unambiguous, whereby weight is expressed in newtons, while mass is expressed in kilograms.

The metric system is also consistent and versatile. The U.S. customary system has limited scope, since it is only applicable to convenient measures, such as length and mass. Yet, this system doesn’t provide alternatives to the electrical units of volts and amperes, or the chemical units of moles and katals.

When we drive, we are aware that distance is measured in miles, and speed is measured in miles per hour. How is acceleration measured? Miles per hour per second and miles per hour per hour are possible alternatives, but they are too convoluted to have any meaningful value.

The metric system solves the problem by expressing acceleration in terms of meters per second squared. Speed can be expressed in kilometers per hour. Dividing by 3.6 gives an equivalent result depicted in meters per second, from which acceleration can be easily found.

Metrication also has significant economic benefits. Since the rest of the world employs the metric system, metrication in the United States will strengthen and expedite trade with other nations. Standard rules used under the metric system will improve efficiency and foster technological progress.

However, criticizing the United States for failing to metricate is demeaning and inaccurate. For instance, Fahrenheit scale and calories are useful in meteorology and chemistry respectively. Moreover, metric prefixes like kilo- and mega- are used in finance, computer science and even in ordinary conversations.

Currently, both the U.S. customary system and the metric system are used. Yet, the continued use of the U.S. customary system remains a problem due to its numerous drawbacks. Metrication opponents are simply too resistant to adapt, and they justify their stance with incorrect scientific claims.

From a historical perspective, metrication opponents are traditionalists. The U.S. customary system is derived from the outdated imperial system used by the British Empire, which in turn originated from an arbitrary medieval system of weights and measures.

During the French Revolution, a group of French scientists led by Antoine Lavoisier and Pierre-Simon Laplace developed the metric system based on principles that relate length, volume and mass. This metric system is called the International System of Units.

From Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, Congress has the power to fix the standard of weights and measures. Yet, when the first Congress convened in 1789, the metric system was only at its infancy.

Instead, Thomas Jefferson proposed a decimal system that was surprisingly similar to the metric system. Sadly, he didn’t use prefixes, so his system contained a long list of names. Lacking sufficient scientific support, Congress took no action, so Americans were stuck with the confusing imperial system.

Tragically, relations between France and the United States deteriorated, especially after the ratification of Jay’s Treaty in 1795 that improved American commerce with Britain. Additional problems from the XYZ Affair and Quasi-War led France to snub American delegates who were interested in learning about the metric system.

Consequently, Americans kept the imperial system, so that they could focus on pressing issues and controversies. After the American Civil War, most of Europe had metricated. As such, Congress passed the Metric Act of 1866, which authorized the use of the metric system.

The metric system was favored by scientists and business leaders for a single obvious reason: efficiency. In 1875, the United States signed the Treaty of the Meter, which established the International Bureau of Weights and Measures.

In 1893, Thomas Corwin Mendenhall, who served as the superintendent of Weights and Measures in the Treasury Department, declared that the metric standards should be used to define all customary units of American measurement. Legally, a foot is exactly equal to 0.3048 meters, while a pound is exactly equal to 453.59237 grams.

Scientists, engineers, business leaders and the government all supported the metric system, so Congress passed the Metric Conversion Act of 1975 to accelerate metrication. The United States would finally join the rest of the world by adopting the metric system.

Shockingly, metrication efforts were halted by a steadfast group: the American public. Curiously, the American public was also responsible for resisting the Metric Act of 1866 and stalling the Mendenhall Order.

Popular opposition is mainly due to a matter of convenience, and American consumers confidently believed that metrication would obscure weather reports and distance measurements. This is ironic since U.S. customary units have complex conversions, while “convenient” measures are easily metricated.

Clearly, consumer stubbornness to stick with the U.S. customary units would hurt trade. As a result, Congress passed the Omnibus Foreign Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988, which made the metric system as the preferred system used for trade and commerce.

My message to the American public: Support the metric system. The U.S. customary system is irregular, redundant and confusing, which not only complicates math education for children, but also hinders economic growth.

Short-term costs are inevitable, but they can be minimized through a gradual and complete transition. Let’s expedite the metrication process to bolster international commerce and avoid preventable economic difficulties in the long term.

Badri Karthikeyan is a senior biology major at Drexel University. He can be contacted at op-ed@thetriangle.org.

The post Time for US to embrace metrification appeared first on The Triangle.

The story of Mohammed Bouazizi provides deep insight into the contemporary politics of the Middle East. A vegetable vendor and the breadwinner for his family of eight, Bouazizi hoped to save enough money to buy a pickup truck that would simplify his work.

On Dec. 17, 2010, a police officer seized Bouazizi’s unlicensed cart, rejected his fines and abused him. Frustrated, Bouazizi complained to the local municipality officials, but his request was denied. Hopeless and forlorn, he set himself on fire , which subsequently triggered widespread protests in Tunisia that led to the Arab Spring.

Photo Courtesy The Economist

Initially, the Arab Spring was an optimistic transformation of the Middle East, much like the Revolutions of 1989 that toppled communism. Authoritarianism and political corruption were exacerbating social inequality and hindering economic growth. Democracy seemed to promote socioeconomic advancement and defuse global tensions.

The 2011-12 phase of the Arab Spring appeared successful. The authoritarian governments in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya and Yemen were overthrown in protests ranging from peaceful to violent. Governmental changes were observed in Jordan, Iraq and Bahrain, while autocrats in Saudi Arabia and Algeria assured social reforms.

With the oppressive regimes ousted, the Middle East should be much better off under a democratic transition. Tunisia is a shining example of progress, since it adopted a new modernist constitution and held parliamentary elections in 2014. Thus, it’s no surprise that The Economist designated Tunisia as the 2014 Country of the Year.

Tragically, Tunisia is the lone exception to what is actually happening in other places. The Islamist Mohammed Morsi narrowly won the Egyptian presidential elections in 2012, succeeding the ousted autocrat Hosni Mubarak. As president, Morsi sought to develop a major industrial hub connecting the Suez Canal as a way to alleviate the struggling economy.

Yet, Morsi’s political reforms were disastrous. He worsened relations with the military, reestablished the Islamist-dominated parliament and issued a decree that protected him from any judicial prosecution. In 2013, Morsi was overthrown by the military. The new president Abdel Fattah el-Sisi essentially restored Egypt to its pre-2011 revolution state, while promoting “democratic” reforms.

Yemen is a failing state due to its worsening ethnic tensions. In 2012, the Yemeni president Ali Abdullah Saleh resigned in exchange for immunity from prosecution. His successor Abd Rabbuh Mansur Hadi sought to unify diverse social groups and strengthen the military, while fervently combatting al-Qaida.

Sadly, Hadi failed to defend against the growing Shia insurgency known as the Houthis. Claiming discrimination and government aggression, the Houthis overthrew Hadi and captured the Yemeni capital, Sana’a, Jan. 22.

Libya and Syria are plagued by endless civil wars. The 2011 Libyan Civil War was clearly a Western-backed success. The deposed and executed autocrat Muammar Gaddafi accepted responsibility for the Lockerbie bombing, displayed hostility to the United States, and supported insurgencies in the 1980s.

After Gaddafi’s overthrow, the National Transitional Council held parliamentary elections in 2012. The Islamists won only few seats, but strengthened their power due to a weak central government. In 2014, General Khalifa Haftar organized the Council of Deputies to oppose the Islamist Libyan Dawn, triggering a second civil war.

The twin civil wars in Libya are rivaled by the factional Syrian Civil War, which has been in a deadlock since March 2011. The war was initially between Bashar al-Assad and the Syrian opposition. However, the Islamic State seized power in much of Syria and Iraq, before being opposed by the Kurds seeking independence from Syria.

What happened? The Arab Spring initially showed signs so similar to the Revolutions of 1989. Bouazizi’s self-immolation symbolized a protest against corruption, social inequality, and authoritarianism. Instead, the opposite happened. Egypt returned to authoritarian rule; Syria, Libya and Yemen are in a political mess; and Islamic State is becoming stronger.

There are several reasons as to why the Arab Spring failed. One explanation is the absence of political alternatives to Islamism and military rule. Taking advantage of anti-authoritarian protests, Islamists provide social relief and education for the working class, as a means of strengthening political power to establish a theocracy.

Compared to Islamism, military rule is a better alternative despite defeating the central purpose of the Arab Spring. First, Islamism is strongly anti-imperialist, since colonial powers seemingly created a split between the minority elite that was privileged and modernized, and the frustrated “commoner” majority.

Second, Islamists opposed the creation of Israel, since they feared the Jewish state created a physical split among the Arab countries. With such zealous anti-Western and anti-Israeli sentiments, Islamist domination in the Middle East would only lead to a geopolitical catastrophe.

Economic prosperity explains why the Arab Spring exerted its greatest impact in only few nations. After all, we don’t see revolutions raging in Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, whereby wealthy autocrats would remain popular, while suppressing dissidents through bribery.

If anything, Western support for the Arab Spring was geared towards political realism instead of democratic ideals. Triggering democratic protests in Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Bahrain would clearly be a foreign policy disaster, since these countries are major allies in combatting Islamic State.

Lack of education and high illiteracy rates in many Arab countries are barriers against democracy. Instead of rote learning and cultural intrusions, public education must emphasize critical thinking and analysis. Successful education reforms will engender a new generation of independent, rational citizens that are critical to maintaining a stable democracy.

It is also possible that the Arab Spring was doomed to fail from the start. Two intellectual movements shaped the Middle East in the early 20th century. The al-Nahda movement was inspired by classical liberalism, and accordingly supported public education, women’s rights and an open society.

On the other hand, Salafism emphasized a return to Arab roots and supported a much purer form of Islam. Unfortunately, Salafism shifted from intellectual ideas to physical force over time. Not surprisingly, many Muslims in Saudi Arabia and Qatar identify as Salafists.

Tunisia being the sole success of the Arab Spring can also be explained historically. Habib Bourguiba secured Tunisian independence from France, abolished the monarchy and established the modern Tunisian state. Although he was a dictator, he improved public education, strengthened women’s rights, curtailed Islamism and promoted a state-run healthcare system.

In 1987, Bourguiba was overthrown by Zine El Abidine Ben Ali, who promised greater democracy. However, he was notorious for various human rights violations, most notably being suppression of press freedom. Unemployment worsened, and Ben Ali was overthrown in 2011.

The new Tunisian government seeks to expand Bourguiba’s social reforms and promote significant democratization, a resounding success for the Arab Spring. Containing Islamism, combatting socioeconomic inequality and strengthening education are the main approaches to form a sustainable democracy.

Egypt, despite its authoritarian rule, seems to follow Tunisia’s lead. Hopefully, the rest of the Middle East can join along, so that the Arab Spring can finally succeed.

Badri Karthikeyan is a senior biology major at Drexel University. He can be contacted at op-ed@thetriangle.org.

The post Arab Spring brings success, failures appeared first on The Triangle.