It is the first comprehensive study linking declining immunity with the use of analgesics. Although the effect of Tylenol was small and the vast majority of infants continued to receive adequate protection of the vaccines, the results “justify” does not routinely provide this analgesic immediately after vaccination, doctors said the Centers for Disease Control and Disease Prevention.

They wrote an editorial accompanying the study, published in the Friday issue of the British medical journal Lancet. The study examined only the preventive use of Tylenol, not whether it is suitable for use after the onset of fever.

Tylenol or generic name, acetaminophen, is a broad-spectrum pain reliever for infants. Many parents are supplied before or after a vaccine to prevent fever and malaise, a procedure recommended by some doctors.

However, the fever after a vaccination is not necessarily harmful; it is a natural part of the body’s response to it. Reduce fever, especially the first time that a baby receives a vaccination, it also means reducing the immune response and the amount of protective antibodies generated, according to new study.

The work was led by military and government scientists in the Czech Republic and performed in 10 medical centers in the country. It involved 459 healthy children from nine to 16 weeks of age, who received vaccines against polio, pneumonia, meningitis, peruses, tetanus, hepatitis and other childhood ailments.

Half received three doses of Carpool or paracetamol, similar to the Tylenol brand sold in Europe in the first days after vaccination. The others only received vaccines.

Babies who received analgesics had lower chances of having foot-by 42% compared to 66% of the other-and very few in both groups suffered high fever.

But in the group receiving the drug were detected in smaller numbers of protective antibody levels generated after several shots. The levels were significantly lower in this group in the booster shots, delivered the babies at ages 12-15 months.

Then, researchers examined 10 other vaccines and other evidence found that using Tylenol to prevent fever at the time of vaccination could reduce the immune response. However, if the drug is administered for fever once it has started it might not affect the immune response.

Helmholtz researchers study how cancer develops. For example, they examine its genetic foundations. They also use molecular, genetic and epidemiological methods to identify additional risk factors. And they inquire into the significance of viruses and environmental factors in the formation of cancer.

Another topic within the programme involves understanding the role which immune system cells play in the disease. Helmholtz scientists focus their work on developing innovative diagnostic and therapeutic procedures in which they use molecular, cell biological, histological and radiophysical methods. Research and clinic collaborate closely in this work, for example, by establishing a heavy-ion and proton therapy.

Medical engineering also plays an important role in the “Cancer Research” programme. Because it makes new video-monitored procedures available which facilitate more precise diagnosis and treatment.

The subject of the existence and properties of time has been a problem for many philosophers. John McTaggart Ellis McTaggart argued that anything existent cannot possess the characteristic of being in time. McTaggart’s rationale is that “nothing that exists can be temporal, and that therefore time is unreal.”[1] McTaggart begins by defining two ways of representing time, and then showing how these models are not appropriate. He holds that change is essential to time, and looks for this change in the events which he proposes make up time, not in the objects present in time. McTaggart looks for change in the wrong place, and attempts to prove that time cannot exist by showing how inappropriate models of time cannot be properly explained.

McTaggart’s argument begins by misrepresenting Kant. He states that “In philosophy, time is treated as unreal … by Kant …”[2] Continuing, he contends that there are no things to which either of two sets of temporal relations apply. The first set, the “A-series” of time uses relations such as past, present, and future; the “B- series” relates events in time as “earlier than” or “later than”. McTaggart asserts that these are the only two ways to order events in time. He terms all the “simultaneous contents of a single position [on the time line]” a group, and this group he considers to be a compound substance. This compound substance which consists of individual events may also be considered an event itself. McTaggart continues to argue that the B-series alone is inadequate to describe time. The A-series must be essential to time, McTaggart states, because the only events we perceive are those which are in the present, an A-series attribute. McTaggart’s argument begins: The B-series alone cannot account for change, because events which are earlier (or later) than other events will always be thus. McTaggart states, “The B-series depends on permanent relations, no moment could ever cease to be, nor could it become another moment.”[3] The death of Queen Anne, McTaggart purports, is static in that every characteristic of it never changes. The only characteristics relating to such an event which may change are whether it is in the future or the past (or in the present for a brief moment). Thus, change can only be found in the A-series.

McTaggart presents an argument put forth by Russell. Russell suggests that McTaggart is looking in the wrong place for change; change is in the objects, not the events. The example of a poker which is hot at one time and not hot at another if presented. Russell purports that the change is in the quality of the poker between the two times, while both events (ie. the poker being hot or not hot) are static. McTaggart agrees that Russell’s example does show change, but disqualifies it because it presupposes the existence of time. Russell’s tenseless view of time does not allow for an A-series, but McTaggart believes that the A-series is essential to time. Thus, the poker cannot be hot at one time and not hot at another, because there is no time. An alternative example proposes that the poker is hot on Monday, and not hot at any other time. McTaggart insists in this example that no change occurs in the poker itself, because it is always a quality of the poker that it is hot on that particular Monday and at no other time. To further prove his point, McTaggart introduces the Greenwich meridian analogy: “we can find two points in this series [on the meridian], S and S`, such that the proposition ‘at S the meridian of Greenwich is within the United Kingdom’ is true, while the proposition ‘at S` the meridian of Greenwich is within the United Kingdom’ is false. But no one would say that this gave us change.”[4] The essence of McTaggart’s A-series argument is summarized in the statement, “…no fact about anything can change, unless it is a fact about its place in the A series. Whatever other qualities it has, it has always. But that which is future will not always be future, and that which was past was not always past.”[5]

Returning to the B-series, McTaggart describes events as being earlier than an utterance, later than that utterance, or simultaneous with that utterance. He insists that such statements are always true or always false, and therefore no facts change. Thus, the B-series cannot allow for change. Since the B-series cannot allow for change, the A-series is essential to change, and therefore to time as well. To show that the A-series is contradictory, McTaggart states “Past, present and future are incompatible determinations. Every event must be one or the other, but no event can be more than one.”[6] If a given event is past, it must have been present and future. If one attempts to escape this contradiction by considering the past, present and future views of the same event as being distinct, then still each of these views of the event has pastness, presentness and futureness. The contradiction has not been escaped. Thus, the B-series does not allow for change and the A-series, which is essential to time, is contradictory. Because the A-series is the only way to account for change, by rejecting the A-series, change must be rejected as well. Rejecting change means rejecting time, which depends upon change, and the B-series, which requires on time.

While McTaggart’s argument may seem to support the contention that time cannot exist, this illusion quickly falls away under investigation. Neither his B-series nor A-series arguments support his conclusions. McTaggart’s initial statement that the A-series and B-series are the only way to represent time is definitely a debatable topic, but for the purposes of brevity and to add strength to my retort, I shall assume that they A-series and B- series are the only models. By grouping all the simultaneous events at a given moment together, and considering them as a compound substance, McTaggart changes the notion of time from a logical entity to a physical entity. This would mean that an infinite amount of time would have an infinite amount of matter, thus every piece of matter in the universe would have to be part of the compound substance of time. An interesting proposition, and a wise choice for McTaggart not to pursue it, as it is based upon a nothing but his own definition. If the compound substance representing all the individual events is an event itself, is the action of summing all the component events into a sum of events an event in itself? Then is the action of making this event also part of a larger summation of events? This implication would lead to an infinity of events which would spawn from the simple summation of even two events into one combined event. Once again, this is a risky argument, and while McTaggart introduced the possibility of it, he did not argue it.

Although it is not possible to properly describe Kant’s views of time in this paper, I will attempt to explain why McTaggart was wrong in believing that Kant felt that time was unreal. Kant’s general opinion of how we see the world is that we don’t actually experience the objects we perceive. Just like we wouldn’t consider a photograph of a chair to be an actual chair, we should not consider the interpretations from our eyes, hands, etc. of a chair to adequately represent the chair. In truth, all we experience is a representation of the chair. In his transcendental aesthetic, Kant attempts to reveal what is actually real through a two step process, “First isolate sensibility, by taking away from it everything which the understanding thinks through its concepts, so that nothing may be left save empirical intuition. Secondly, we shall also separate off from it everything which belongs to sensation, so that nothing may remain save pure intuition and the mere form of appearances, which is all that sensibility can supply a priori.”[7] By filtering out anything that is not empirically evident (like dragons and unicorns) and then filtering out anything that we can sense (like tables and chairs) all that is left is that which is common to everything we experience, but not as a result of that experience. The only remaining things after this filtering are time and space. Everything we experience has space and time. Kant continues to describe time and space as “pure” intuitions, but that is beyond the scope of this argument.

McTaggart claims that the B-series does not allow for the “present”, and therefore we experience time in an A-series sort of way, via the present. If we define the present as a time which is neither earlier than or later than the utterance of a given phrase, we can represent the present in a B-series system. Furthermore, the B-series can allow for change. McTaggart tries to refute this possibility by presenting a poker which transcends time. He states that a poker which is hot on Monday and not hot at any other time (this presupposes time as much as Russell’s argument did) has the quality of being hot at no other time than that Monday, and that is the quality of the poker. Returning to McTaggart’s previous claim – that we experience time in the present, and the present alone – how can the poker have qualities that extend over several days, past our perception? Even if the poker did have qualities past our perception, we would have no way to verify those qualities. Thus, for a poker to be hot on a particular Monday and not hot at any other time, change must be involved. McTaggart’s example of the Greenwich meridian further demonstrates his misconception. Assuming that time is one dimensional, imagine the Greenwich meridian being a time line. Call point S, within the United Kingdom, “Monday”. Point S`, not in the United Kingdom, shall be called “not Monday”. If time is one dimensional, and we exist at a single point in time, then we can imagine ourselves as observers standing either at S (Monday) or S` (not Monday) or somewhere else, but never in more than one place on the Greenwich meridian. If we stand at Monday and look around, we see the United Kingdom. Travelling to Tuesday, we see something which is not the United Kingdom. When asked if there was a change, we must say “Yes, there was a change.” Now imagine that we have broken free of our one-dimensional time line and we are now orbiting above the earth looking at the Greenwich meridian. We see a line drawn on the surface of the earth. Is there any change? Of course not, we are looking at a line that always spans the globe. The point of this exercise is to demonstrate that as long as we consider ourselves the be “within” time, and only able to experience the present, then we will see change as we move along a time line. If we are looking down upon time from a different dimension, we are able to see more than one point of time at once and will not recognize change. McTaggart clearly states that we only experience the present, but violates this statement with his example. Russell correctly stated that McTaggart was looking for change in the wrong place, and McTaggart’s retort only strengthened this contention.

In order to express the notion of change, it is not essential to literally state that change has taken place. If we state that a balloon is inflated at one instance and not inflated at another (earlier or later) instance, then change has occurred, without the requirement of A-series predicates. Thus the B-series can represent the present and does allow for change.

McTaggart’s claim that all events must be have past, present, and future determinations is simple to understand from a macroscopic level, but his explanation for why these qualities are incompatible is quite convoluted. It is quite obvious that from a single viewpoint, a given event cannot have more than one of these qualities, but nobody ever asserted this. Each event is past, present and future in relation to no less than three distinct events, and assuming an infinite time series, a given event is past or future to an infinite number of other events. An easy solution to any concerns over the multiplicity of infinities spawned is to imply that the past and the future don’t physically exist, they are merely representations. Thus, just like there are an infinite amount of numbers between 0 and 1, there are an infinite number of events both prior to and subsequent to the completion of this sentence. Prior to the completion of the former sentence, it was just a probability, and subsequent to its completion, it shall be known as a logical truth (this sentence is complete) but not anything physical. The confusion arises from confusing the sentence itself with it’s own completion. The same analogy can be extended to events in time. Events do not exist, it is their results that exist. The death of Queen Anne is represented by Queen Anne being dead just after being alive, but the event does not exist, we simply mark the time of the first moment of her being dead as the event of her death for indexical purposes.

McTaggart’s claim of the future and past and their events as actually existing is nothing more than assuming that things which are defined exists. One could just as easily argue that dragons are large, green and scaled beasts which breath fire and fight knights. Just because dragons are defined does not mean that they exist.

Conclusion

To defend his argument against Russell’s claim that he was looking for change in the wrong place, McTaggart misinterpreted Russell’s complaints and demonstrated how Russell’s arguments were incompatible with his own criteria for change. Thus I reassert that McTaggart was looking in the wrong place for change, and short of resolving McTaggart’s self contradiction, there is no defence. I have also shown where McTaggart went wrong by showing how his own Greenwich meridian argument contradicts his earlier statements. McTaggart does not explain why it is inappropriate for events to be related to an infinite number of other events via pastness and futureness. Indeed, he does not discuss whether or not there can be an infinite number of events at all. If one were to claim that an infinite number of events cannot exist, I have established that events do not actually exist, only their representations exists. Furthermore, I purport that an infinite number of events must exist. Much as there are an infinite number of numbers between 0 and 1 and an infinite number of points between two distinct points on a line there are an infinite number of events between any two distinct events. Time shares qualities with numbers and Euclidian geometry in that it is not a physical entity. McTaggart’s models of time as being part of a “block” universe, or frames on a reel of film obviously disagree with my arguments, but I have demonstrated how in order for time to be real, these models are inappropriate.

McTaggart, J.M.E., Time p.87 in Gale, R. “The Philsophy of Time” MacMillan, 1968.
McTaggart, J.M.E., Time p.86 in Gale, R. “The Philsophy of Time” MacMillan, 1968.
McTaggart, J.M.E., Time p.90 in Gale, R. “The Philsophy of Time” MacMillan, 1968.
McTaggart, J.M.E., Time p.93 in Gale, R. “The Philsophy of Time” MacMillan, 1968.
McTaggart, J.M.E., Time p.93 in Gale, R. “The Philsophy of Time” MacMillan, 1968.
McTaggart, J.M.E., Time p.94 in Gale, R. “The Philsophy of Time” MacMillan, 1968.
Kemp, N. translation Critique of Pure Reason (Transcendental Aesthetic).

 

SCIENCE EDUCATION CONTENT STANDARDS (NRC)
(GRADES 5-8):
Identify appropriate questions for scientific investigations.
Use appropriate tools and techniques to gather, analyze, and interpret data.
Construct explanations and models using evidence.
Think critically and logically about the relationships between evidence
and explanations.
Recognize and analyze alternative explanations and procedures.
Communicate scientific procedure and explanations.
(GRADES 9-12):
Identify the questions and use concepts to guide scientific investigations.
Use technologies to improve investigations and communications.
Recognize and analyze alternative explanations and models.
STATE SCIENCE CURRICULUM FRAMEWORKS:
(GRADES 5-8)
1.1.11, 1.1.12, 1.1.13, 1.1.15, 2.1.6, 2.1.7, 2.1.8, 2.1.9, and 3.1.25 (GRADES 9-12):
1.1.20, 1.1.21, 1.1.24, 1.1.26, 2.1.11,2.1.14, 3.1.28, 3.1.33, 3.1.39, 3.1.44

MATERIALS
Per class:
16 oz. dishwashing liquid (Dawn or Regular Joy)
2 one-gallon bottles or buckets
1 measuring cup
1 gallon vinegar
glycerin (available at Wal-Mart or pharmacies)
overhead calculator
Per Group of 4:
1 roll paper towels
16 plastic drinking straws
2 rulers
12 four oz. clear plastic cups
1 roll masking tape
1 graduated cylinder or measuring cup
1 meter stick
1 eyedropper
4 sheets of white paper
1 calculator
Activities from Bubbleology. Gems
Bubbleology, Insights Visual Production,(for previewing only)
Module 1- Bubbleology
KEY QUESTIONS
1. What is a controlled experiment?
2. What is a hypothesis?
3. What are data?
4. What is the difference between a data table and a graph?
5. What is the difference between results and conclusions?
6. When writing a conclusion statement, how does it relate to the hypothesis?
7. How are scientific process skills organized to solve a problem?
8. How can bubble experiments demonstrate the relationships that exist among the various scientific disciplines?
MANAGEMENT SUGGESTIONS
° Activities should be done on flat surfaces.
° Tape trash bags to table tops or desks for the experiments with bubbles.
° Mix bubble solution at least 24 hours in advance.
° Avoid using scented dishwashing liquids. They do not work as well.
° Students should wash out the plastic straws each time they change solution. They should reuse their own straws.
° Plastic plates such as SOLO can be used to regulate bubble size for reliable results.
° Vinegar is added to tables or desktops to remove the soap bubbles.
° Each activity requires more than one regular class period.
° Teachers may choose to give all measurements in SI units. -
° Alter experiments to allow students to design their own.
° Activity 3, page 9, variation: Assign each group a glycerin solution and compare results.
SAFETY CAUTIONS
° Preventive actions are the best safety measures.
° Close teacher supervision of student activities will usually prevent accidents or improper use of materials.
° For elementary students, certain precautions should be taken.
° Goggles should be worn in order to keep the bubble liquid from getting in their eyes. The goggles should be sterilized between use as some forms of contagion might happen.
° The students should be cautioned not to inhale while blowing bubbles through the straw.
° Any student with a cut should be cautioned about getting the solution or vinegar in the cut.

PROCEDURES
Activity 1
“The Chemistry of Bigger Bubbles” – Bubbleology
Activity 2
“Predict-A-Pop” – Bubbleology
TEACHER NOTES:
Americans rarely use soap! Sounds like a headline for a sleazy tabloid, but it is true. Today we often call the detergents we use soap, but they are not
soap. What is the difference between a soap and a detergent? To answer that question, first examine their similarities.
Soaps and detergents are both organic compounds. This means they are carbon compounds. Both of them function by acting as connectors between water and oils.
oil – soap – water
or oil – detergent -water
Dirt and grime are usually combined with oils such as grease, body oils, cooking fats etc.
Water does not combine readily with oils. Water does readily combine with one end of a soap or detergent molecule however. The cleaning molecule
then makes the water connect to the oil and dirt.
dirt – oil – soap – water
or dirt – oil – detergent -water
Why not just use soap? Soap has two major disadvantages. It becomes a greasy scum in acid and it combines with components of hard water to become “bathtub ring”. The more advanced detergent molecule is less susceptible to these problems. Modern organic ch emistry gave us detergents from crude oil. Alkylbenzenesulfonate (ABS) detergents quickly replaced soaps in the marketplace. Instead of soap made from animal fat and lye, America had an inexpensive “better” cleanser from petroleum products. America also h ad ABS foam floating on its rivers and even suds in drinking water from the tap. America had discovered that ABS detergents were not as biodegradable as soap.
A newer detergent soon replaced ABS detergents. Linear alkylsulfonates (LAS) present the advantages of a modern detergent produced from
petrochemicals while degrading in the environment like soap. Bacteria cannot easily digest an ABS detergent, but they do like soap and LAS.
EXTENSIONS
The following questions relate to technology, science, and society. They are suitable classroom projects for research and presentation.
1. America once exported wood ash to Europe for the soap industry. What positive and negative effects accompanied this? Consider the effect on the economy, the environment, politics, and westward expansion.
2. It can be argued that technology comes with a “price” that must be considered. That “price may be to the environment, natural resources, health, culture, or even other aspects of the economy. Consider the following technological improvements, discuss t heir contributions and their price
Soap
Alkylbenzenesulfonate (ABS) detergents
Linear alkylsulfonates (LAS)
3. Detergents are particularly toxic in an aquarium.
Propose some hypotheses for these phenomena.
RESOURCES:
Film “Bubbleology” INSIGHTS Visual Productions, Inc.
374A North Highway 101
Encinitas, CA 92024 (619) 942-0528
Activity 1: THE CHEM~ISTRY of Bigger BUBBLES
Introduction~~
Why do some dishwashing liquids make bigger bubbles than others? Why does (cream form bubbles’s when it is whipped, while milk does not? An enormous variety of natural substances form bubbles. Sea foam is formed by the agitation of phosphates (like those in soaps) released by decomposing kelp. Egg whites form hundreds of tiny bubbles when beaten. In each case, the formation of bubbles depends on the chemical composition of the substance.
This activity introduces your students to some of the properties of bubble-making substances. The students observe how soap affects the surface tension of water and investigate the role of evaporation in bubble formation, as they test the ef fect of different amounts of glycerin on the size of bubbles.
What You Need
For preparation and cleanup:
. 8 oz. (240 ml) dishwashing liquid
water
. measuring cup or graduated cylinder
.1 one-gallon container for mixing bubble solution
. 1 roil of masking tape
. paper towels
. 2 cups vinegar
. 1 squeegie (optional)
For the class:
. several ounces of glycerin
. several eyedroppers
. several measuring cups
. several calculators (optional)
. chalkboard
. chalk

For each pair of students:
. 1 meter or yard stick
. 2 plastic drinking straws
1 one-pint container (such as a cottage cheese container) for holding bubble solution
/ 1 “Experimenting with Glycerin data sheet (master included, page 26)
. 1 graphing sheet (master included, page 26)
. 1 pencil
1 table, counter, desk, or board about 30″ *(75 cm) in diameter
For the demonstration:
. 1 tall, clear, drinking glass
. water
. water pitcher
1 eyedropper
dishwashing soap (just 1 drop)
Getting Ready
1. Make one copy of the “Experimenting with Glycerin” data sheet and of the graphing sheet for each pair of students.
2. Prepare a gallon of bubble solution without glycerin:
1 cup (240 ml) dishwashing liquid
1 gallon water (3.8 liters)
3. Clear one flat surface, about 30″ (75 cm) in diameter, for each pair of students.
4. Place the demonstration materials on a table or desk.
5. Label eight pint containers “A” through “H.” Fill all eight containers with one cup of bubble solution made with no glycerin. Leave container “A” without glycerin. Add 10 drops of glycerin to container “13,” 20 drops to container “C,” and so on through container “H,” which will have 70 drops of glycerin. Hold the eyedropper vertically in order to help reduce variation in size of drops.
6. Place these containers of bubble solution and all other materials on a centrally located table.
Observing Surface Tension
1. Ask your students what substances they can think of that form bubbles. Point out that some substances, such as water, do form bubbles, but these bubbles disappear almost as quickly as they are formed.
2. Perform the following demonstration to explain why pure water bubbles don’t last:

€ Gather the group areound the demonstration table. Have them squat down so their eye level is closer to the level of the table.
€ Fill a glass to the top with water. Keep adding water , drop by drop, until you think the glass will over flow. Then add a few more drops. If you are careful, you’ll be able to add water until the surface of the water is actually higher than the gl ass.
€ Ask students if they can see that the water behaves as if it were covered with a skin. Explain that this effect is called surface tension. Water molecules at the surface of water are more attracted to each other than to the air; it is as if fthey s tick together. This “stickiness” causes surface tension. Surface tension keeps water from spilling and discourages the formation of bubbles. When bubbles do form, they are short-lived
If you have an extra twenty minutes and access to enough eye droppers for each student , consider replacing this teacher dmonstration with a hands-on activity. Give each student an eyedroopper and a penny. Ask them to predict how many drops of water wi ll fit on the penny without spilling. Distribute dishes of water and have them find out.
After the students have a chance to observe the surface tension of the water on a penny, ask them to put drops of water on a penny again. Then have them “break” the surface tension of the water on the penny by adding a drop of soap solution.

° To demonstrate the effect of soap on surface tension, carefully add one drop of soap to the very full glass of water. This should “break” the surface tension of the water, causing it to overflow. Explain that soap decreases the surface tension of w ater to about one-third of what it usually is: just right for making bubbles.
Discussing the Problem of Evaporation
1. Point out that another problem with using water to blow bubbles is that water evaporates very rapidly. When the water evaporates, the bubble wall is broken. This problem is not limited to the use of pure water since most soap bubble solutions contain w ater.
2. Explain that scientists have devised a way to deal with the problem of evaporation: adding a substance to the bubble solution to keep water from evaporating. Substances that have water-holding properties are referred to as hygroscopic. Glycerin is a hygroscopic liquid that is typically added to bubble solutions. Glycerin forms a weak chemical bond with water that delays evaporation.
Planning the Experiment
1. Tell your students that their challenge is to determine what effect the amount of glycerin in a bubble solution has on the size of the bubbles formed.
2. Ask the students for their ideas on ways of designing the experiment so it is a fair comparison. Use the following questions to guide the group in determining the test procedure they’d like to use.
° What is the test variable? [Amount of glycerin.]
° What variables must be kept the same or “controlled”?
3. Present a plan for varying the amount of glycerin while keeping the amount of water anddishwashing liquid the same. Draw eight cups on the chalkboard. Tell the class that each test formul will start with one cup of bubble solution made without glycerin . Formula A will have 0 drops of glycerin added to it. Formula B will have 10 drop of glycerin added to it, and so on up to Formula H,
which will have 70 drops of glycerin added. On the chalkboard, record the letter of the formula and the number of glycerin drops in each “cup.”
4. Ask the students if they have any expectations about the experiment. How much glycerin do they think will make the biggest bubbles?
Experimenting
1. Assign pairs of students to test the formulas. Have them apply the same method for measuring bubble size used in Activity 2: Comparing Bubble Solutions, as explained on pages 12 and 13.
2. As students finish testing one formula, have them swap work stations and test other formulas. For best results, each formula should be tested by at least four different groups.
Graphing the Results
1. Ask your students to gather around the chalkboard. Record the students’ averages under the formula names written across the top of the board. Calculate the grand average for each formula.
2. Ask your students to graph the results of all experiments on a graphing sheet (master included). Does the graph show an optimum amount of glycerin for making the biggest bubbles?
Note: Sometimes student data has so much variation that it is difficult to identify an optimum amount of glycerin. If so, have your group identify a broader range for the desirable amount of glycerin. Ask them how they would improve the expe riment in order to pinpoint more exactly the optimum amount of glycerin.
3. You may want to ask your students if they were surprised by the results. Many students assume at fIrst that the more glycerin used, the bigger the bubbles will be. As this experiment demonstrates, that is not the case.
Going Further
1. Sugar is another hygroscopic substance. Challenge your students to repeat their experiments using sugar instead of glycerin. Compare the results of the two experiments. Which is better for making big bubbles, sugar or glycerin?
2. Give your students the open-ended challenge of developing their own ideal bubble solutions. Remind them to vary only one ingredient at a time as they experiment, and to keep a careful record of what they do.

Activity 2: PREDICT – A – POP
Introduction
Blow a soap bubble. Can you tell when it will
Pop? You and your students may have already discovered that color is one important clue. It’s interesting that color should be a key to predicting bubble survival, since we usually think of color asa mere surface decoration. but actually the color of a soap bubble are produced by a complex interaction between light and matter calledinterference.
This activity is a playful introduction to interference, an important phenomenon in the history of physics and in modern industry Your students will enjoy discovering how to count down the last few seconds of a bubble’s existence..
3…2…1…POP!!!
What You Need
For preparation and cleanup:
þ 8 oz. (240ML) dishwashing liquid
. water
þ 1 measuring cup or graduated cylinder
. 1 eyedropper
þ 1 one-gallon container for mizing bubble solution
2 several rolls of masking tape
/ glycerin (optional)
For each pair of students:
, 1 pint-sized container for holding bubble solution
þ 2 plastic drinking straws
2 6 8″ X 11″ sheets of white paper
2 1 flat, dark surface about 18″(45cm) in diameter
or
2 1 cafeteria tray and black construction paper to cover the tray

14
If your students have difficluty seeing the colors on top of the bubble, suggest that they position a piece of white paper so that it will reflect more light onto the top of the bubble
Getting Ready
1.Prepare one gallon of bubble solution:
1 cup (240 mL) dishwashing liquid
50-60 drops glycerin (optional)
1 gallon water (3.8liters)
2. Pour the bubble solution into the small containers. Place the containers in a central location along with straws, white paper, and masking tape.
3.Clear off a flat, dark surface (about 18″ [45 cm In diameter) for each pair of students.
4.Prepare one “white collar” by taping fOur sheets of white paper together so they form a cylinder 81/2″ high. The white collar reduces air currents and reflects light onto the bubble so its colors can be seen clearly.
Observing Colors
1. Gather the students around you. Blow a bubble dome as follows:
a.Pour about 1/3 cup of soap solution on the surface of the table or tray, and use your hand to wet an area about 18″ (45 cm) in diameter.
b.Place the white collar around the soapy
area.
c. Dip a straw into the soap solution.
d. With the straw just touching the surface of the table, gently blow through the straw to form a bubble dome.
e. Remove the straw.
2. Expain that the challenge for the day is to use color to recognize tha tmoment just before a bubble pops. Instruct each pair of students to start by makin a collar, blowing a bubble dome, and observing the changing colors on top of the bubble . Tell them tgo record the sequence of colors they see for four or five bubbles.
1.9
Reporting Results
Have the students leave their materials and form a circle in view of the chalkboard. As several of the teams report, record their findings on the board. The students will probably discover a repeating sequence something like this: green to blue to magenta to yellow to green… (sequence repeats more than once)… and finally white to white with black spots to black- POP!! (The spots are actually transparent but because the background is black, they appear black.) Explain that the colors on the surface of a bubble change as the bubble becomes thinner and thinner.
Not all students will see this pattern because air currents may interfere with the gradual thinning of the top of the bubble, interrupting the usual color sequence. Write the typical color sequence on the board and draw the decreasing bubble wall underneath it. (See diagram.) Explain that in cases where there are absolutely no air disturbances, such as a bell jar, this is the pattern scientists have reported seeing. Ask the students if they notice any aspects of the typical pattern in their data.
GREEN – BLUE-MAGENTA-YELLOW-GREEN…(SEQUENCE REPEATS)-WHITE-WHITE W/BLACK SPOTS-BLACK-POP
ð ð BUBBLE WALL 1/1,000,000 OF AN INCH
Predicting the Pop
Now challenge the students to apply what they
learned to invent a method for counting down, to the second, when their bubbles will pop. Here are strategies some students have used:
° timing how long a period elapses between the appearance of the first white color on the bubble and when it pops;
° noticing how far down the side of the bubble the transparent or “black” area extends before the bubble pops;
° noticing how long before the “pop” a bubble loses its reflective properties.
let your students discover their own approaches before mentioning strategies used by other students.
Explaining the Phenomenon
The following explanations are written for the teacher. After your students have some success in predicting when a bubble will pop, you may want to discuss these explanations with them. Use your judgment about how much to present to your students. Typical ly, the concept of interference is first presented in high school physics courses.
1. Where do the colors in a bubble come from?
The colors in a bubble come from the reflection of white light shining on the bubble. White light contains waves of all different colors. The length of a wave, from crest to crest, determines its color. When light bounces off a bubble, some of each wave i s reflected from the outer surface of the bubble wall, and some passes through to be reflected by the inner surface.
Interference refers to what happens when two waves pass through the same region of space at the same time. For example, when two rocks are thrown into a lake near each other, the two sets of circular waves interference with one another. In some places, wh ere the crest of one wave meets the crest of another, the motion of the water is increased. In other places the crest of one wave meets the trough of another and there is little or no movement. The same basic process holds true for other wave motion, incl uding sound waves and light waves.
When the thickness of the bubble wall is such that the two reflected parts of the wave of light leave the bubble in step, crest top crest (as illustrated by red light in the diagram), that color appears brighter (constructive interference). Some co lors of light will emerge crest to trough (as Illustratedby blue light in the diagram) and will cancel each other (desrtructive interference) : those colors will not be seen. As the wall gets thinner, the colors that interfere constructively and de structively will also change.
Cleanup
1. If dark table surfaces were used:
a. First use a squeegie or paper towels to remove excess bubble solution from thetable surface. Do not add water.

b. Then sprinkle vinegar on the area to cut the soap film. Wipe dry with paper towels.

c.Repeat once more if surface still retains soap film.
2. If trays with black construction paper were used:
a. Discard soggy black paper.
b. Pour the bubble solution remaining on the tray down the sink or into a spare container. (Note: black dye from the construction paper will have leached into the soap solution, causing it to appear dark in color.)
c. Rinse off the tray.
Going Further
I. Assign students to look up the name Thomas Young and the concept of interference. They will find out about: (1) the controversy surrounding wave and particle theories of light; and (2) modern applications of interference phenomena, such as anti~ reflection coatings on bi binoculars l~0 rs.
2. Have your students begin a collection of materials others~at exl~ibit the phenomenon of interference: abalone shells, peacock feathers, some sunglasses, etc.

The stones of the main monument appear to form layers of circles and horseshoe patterns that slowly enclose the site. First there is an outer stone circle, now mostly in ruin. Within this are a smaller set of stones, also set in a circle. Within the centre of the monument are trilithons — two pillar stones with one stone on top — in the shape of a horseshoe. Within this is another smaller set of stones, also in a horseshoe.
 

 The monument captured at sunset.

But it is a monument made of more than just rocks. There is the henge, or a ditch and bank, that surrounds the stone circle. There is also a laneway that extends from the northeast side of the monument from the open horseshoe to the River Avon, a few kilometers away. Several stones mark this laneway, just outside the hinge of the monument.

It doesn’t sound all that different from many of the other stone circles being constructed around this time. So, why does this megalithic monument draw so much attention? Christopher Witcombe, a professor of art history at Sweet Briar College in Virginia and an authority on Stonehenge, believes that much of Stonehenge’s intrigue can be explained in terms of the advanced architecture shown in the erection of the site.

“The world seems to have gone through a kind of megalithic period where they were moving large stones around and putting them into various positions in the landscape,” says Witcombe. “Stonehenge, compared to those, is a fairly sophisticated piece of architecture.” The outside set of stone pillars, complete with linking top stones, called lintels, form a complete circle. How the builders would have known how to shape the lintels in such a way so that they remain flat but still form a gentle circle would be considered architecturally advanced for the time period. In addition to this, these top stones were attached to the pillars in a technique still being used by carpenters today — by mortice-and-tenon joints. The top of the upright stone would have been shaped to have a protruding section that fit into a carved out slot in the lintel.

Jutting out from the green landscape of the English countryside, the circles of stones and outlying monuments emit a power that must have been ingrained in the site itself. But it is a magnetism that can’t be explained by architecture alone. Much of Stonehenge’s intrigue stems from the fact that the stones are so shrouded in mystery, a characteristic that is magnified by its age. “The very fact that [the stones] have survived must mean they are special in some way — and we afford them that sort of quality,” says Witcombe.

Stonehenge was constructed in three phases, over a 2,000 year period between 3000 BCE and 1400 BCE. Erosion, time and human invasion has worn it down, leaving many of the stones in stumps similar to a set of baby teeth.

Although the site may not be as majestic as it once was, it still conveys a sense of power that seems to enclose people in its mystery, allowing no one to escape from the riddle of its purpose. Today, there is enough left of Stonehenge to speculate on its purpose, but not enough to say for sure why or how it was constructed. Astronomers, archaeologists and historians continue to debate theories on its construction and purpose, but the only thing that can be said for certain is a description of what still exists today.

On the outside of the main monument is a circle of 17 sarsen stones, or sandstones, left from a set of about 30. These rocks stand four metres high and weigh about 25 tonnes each. Some of them still retain their lintels, which would have been secured in a type of tongue-and-groove slot.

Within this is a larger sarsen stone horseshoe in the middle of the monument. There are remnants of what would have been five sets of two stones with a lintel on top — called a trilithon after the Greek word for three stones. The tallest of these upright sarsen stones is about 7 meters tall with lintel, acting as a reminder that the word sarsen comes from “saracen”, meaning heathenish, foreign and vaguely satanic.

Some of the most interesting theories still being generated about Stonehenge have to do with the bluestones, the small rocks set in a circle between the

The elusive bluestones, now very small, still ignite debate.

 sarsen stone circle and sarsen stone horseshoe. Originally, there may have been as many as 60, but only a few stand today, two of which are believed to be lintels. A bluestone horseshoe can also be found within the large sarsen stone horseshoe, which would have originally been made up of 19 stones. Again, few of these are left. The stones were placed in such a way that they increased in size towards the centre and alternated in shape between tall, thin pillar-like stones and stones of a tapering obelisk shape.

These bluestones, now severely weathered and covered in lichen, may not appear blue. But if freshly broken, most would have a slaty-blue color. There are five color variations represented in the bluestones found at Stonehenge. Some contain crystals that have given them a different shade when broken, such as the spotted dolerite, named for its pink crystals, which emits a pinkish hue. Within the bluestone horseshoe is the Altar stone — a blue-grey stone from the shores of Milford Haven in Pembrokeshire. It may have once stood upright but now lays underneath one of the great sarsen trilithons, and is about five metres long.

Many other stones, of more historical and astronomical importance, also mark the site. One of the most intriguing is the “Heel stone.” It stands along a laneway, known as the Avenue, that extends from the open horseshoe, on the northeast corner of the monument and down toward the River Avon, two kilometers away.

Along the Avenue, closer to the stone circles, is the “Slaughter Stone” that may have once been part of a pair of stones, forming a gate to the main monument. Shaped around the stone circles are two pillar stones, known as the “Station Stones.” Originally there would have been four, placed in the shape of a rectangle.

A bank-and-ditch, or the henge of the monument, circles the main monument at about 91 metres in diameter. On the inside boundary of the henge are 56 pits, known as “Aubrey Holes” that can barely be seen. Closer to the stone circles are two other sets of pits, called “Z” and “Y” holes. These were the last additions to the monument and may have been carved out to accommodate more bluestones, but now lay empty.

The Heel Stone of the monument was once upright but now leans into the monument at 30 degrees.

All of the stones were brought far distances to Salisbury Plain, using only muscle and primitive tools, like ropes and wooden

A side shot of the large trilithons that tower above the stone circle.

 levers. The sarsen stones are believed to have been brought from Marlborough Downs, 30 kilometers to the north of Stonehenge, which is a feat incomparable by today’s standards. But even more intriguing than this is the mystery of the bluestones. They are believed to have come from the Preseli Mountains in southwest Wales, nearly 385 kilometers away. How these stones, each weighing four tones, arrived at Stonehenge is still debated. But regardless of how they came to the site, it appears to have required much effort in a time before the invention of the wheel.

“Clearly, a lot of trouble was taken by the builders to put those things up — and some of the stones were brought from a long way away,” says Witcombe. “Which also, incidentally, signifies how important that spot on Salisbury Plain must be if they went to all that trouble to get those stones to that particular place.”

“It’s not the stones that make it sacred. It’s the spot that’s already sacred, or holy, and then the stones are built,” says Witcombe.

And construction couldn’t have been much easier than hauling those stones all that way.

Astronauts working in spacesuits to build the Space Station may get even colder than the suit designers imagined. Measuring the effects of extremely low temperatures on astronauts was the first step in making a better space suit.

Walking in spaceSpace suits must provide complete life support, safety, comfort, and mobility when astronaut leave the ship for up to 8.5 hours.Space suits therefore must provide compartments for the storage of food, water, oxygen, and waste, as well as protection from temperature extremes, vacuum, and micrometeoroids.

The suit, including gloves, boots, and helmet, contains many subsystems, each with a variety of sensors, transducers, and control elements. One area that needs improvement is the temperature inside the gloves.

The figure below shows the suit’s complexity.

Space Suit Design and Functions

1. First inner and outer liners of swimsuit fabric for comfort.
2. Next transport tubes for cooling and ventilation.
3. Third the pressure garment and its cover restraint.
4. Next layers of Mylar insulation, and a ripstop liner.
5. Outermost is the thermal micrometeoroid garment (TMG).

The general principle behind the space suit is that the astronaut’s body makes heat that is controlled by the life support system. If it gets to hot in the suit, either because the astronaut is working hard or in direct sunlight, the water cooling removes the heat. The reverse problem is when the astronaut can’t put enough heat into the space suit to stay warm.The lack of heat is felt first at the body’s extremities, notably the fingers tips. Boots can be heavily insulated to keep toes warm, but glove insulation is limited by the need for manual dexterity. Space walk efficiency can be adversely affected when astronauts’ hands become uncomfortably cold.To study the problem and improve glove design, NASA outfitted space suit gloves with tiny, battery-powered temperature loggers. The instrumented gloves were worn by astronauts Bernard Harris and Michael Foale during NASA’s STS63 mission flown by space shuttle Discovery.

HOBO Loggers mounted in glove
To monitor the temperature of the astronauts’ fingers, the gloves of the space suits were equipped with HOBO Littler temperature loggers. The units were secured between the outermost and insulation layers on the glove backs, out of the 100% oxygen environment of the glove interiors.

Four of the data loggers were connected via a cable 8-10 inches long to small thermistors sewn into the finger tips. A fifth HOBO measured the temperature on the back of the glove where the devices were placed.The data indicated that because the suits were being subjected to environments colder than their design limits, they were unable to keep the astronauts comfortable during the EVA if there were lulls in the astronauts’ metabolic rate. Rather than trying to further insulate the gloves, NASA engineers have decided to move to internal heaters for the finger tip areas.

The F-22 project is conducted at three locations with 90 Integrated Product Teams, or IPTs. Each IPT is responsible for a part of the aircraft-avionics, cockpit, airframe, utilities, or subsystems-from the engineering of a part or system to manufacturing and supporting the product once in use. The IPT concept is effective but coordinating change requirements throughout the teams has become increasingly difficult.

Manual change processing was both labor and paper intensive. The teams communicated using hard copy requests, attachments, drawings, and specifications. These documents were copied, and routed via interoffice, standard or express mail, e-mail, or fax. Comments were returned to the IPT in varying formats and complexities. A change manager would consolidate the information into a final change request, and coordinate the approval through a Change Control Board. One manual change request could take an average of 1000 man-hours over an average of 50 days and at a cost of $220 in materials.

The process had to be automated to increase productivity and reduce material cost. The team selected FORMTEK to provide system integration and commercial off-the-shelf software technology. Using FORMTEK:TDM electronic vault repository and workflow technology, FORMTEK helped the team develop the Electronic Change Request System, or ECRS, to develop and process change requests. ECRS returns to the source of the data for information instead of creating paper copies.

ECRS uses FORMTEK:TDM’s underlying relational database and an electronic vault, or object repository, to control, access, and store change requests and related information.

Process rules, formatted worksheets, workflow logic, states, and user roles enable change requests to flow from creation to disposition within defined paths. FORMTEK:TDM uses InConcert software so users can model and coordinate all components of the work process. InConcert integrates workflow technology with document management, to automate and maintain the business process.

ECRS features include automatic change request numbering, automatic routing/ distributing to impacted IPTs, and task driven to-do lists, with the ability to determine potential product impact on change requests. ECRS allows all change request information to be captured automatically. This information might include routing history, attachments, redlines/markups, and comments. Finally, ECRS gives users current status and tracking information on each change request project.

The system is configured with a centralized object repository and process control server. Over local and/or wide area networks, users may access the object repository and process control server, which may be served via either the object repository or remote storage servers. ECRS is fully integrated with F-22′s Digital Information Management System (DIMS) to give users complete data management tools. DIMS represents the object repository in the platform where released drawings and project documents are stored along with change requests and related documents generated from ECRS.

 

  

Figure 1 illustrates the original change request process path.

 

 

 

  

After FORMTEK delivered Phase I of ECRS, an eight week test and training period gave the F-22 team time to prepare the system and the user community for a mandated switch from the paper process to the electronic process. Training was done in two sessionsÐthe overview, followed by a 4-hour detailed hands-on session. The trainers took users through the application, basing the sessions on the user’s guide, which served as the text for the training sessions. There are now approximately 600 ECRS authorized user seats in the F-22 project. ECRS is expected to help reduce the time required to perform change requests to an average of 400 manhours, with an average of $25 in material per changeÐa 60% reduction.

It is not easy to change how people work. Automation, whether on the assembly line or in an engineering department, is a culture change. To make changes work, organizations need strong buy in from both management and the user community. The technical infrastructure must be able to support the new processes. A phased implementation can help ease user’s fears about the new system and give the project team an opportunity to better tailor the system to users’ needs.

According to the F-22 ECRS/DIMS project leader, Ron Best, F-22 Configuration/Data Management Senior Engineer at Lockheed Aeronautical Systems Company, “user culture shock is the biggest hurdle to overcome during process reengineering and implementing automated workflow technologies. It’s a bumpy road, but the benefits are worthwhile.” Mr. Best plans to employ additional automated processes, using FORMTEK:TDM and Workflow, on the F-22 program. “With a management commitment to control cost, achieving the highest level of productivity, and maintaining excellence in product quality, there are many business processes that can realize the same types of benefits as those realized by using ECRS,” said Mr. Best.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

Figure 2 illustrates the change request process path using ECRS.

 

For more information on how Formtek Business Application Solutions can help your business, contact a sales representative at sales@formtek.com or call 1.800.FORMTEK. 

Course Structure
Each course was taught entirely via computer with no face-to-face meetings. The courses were structured around weekly readings, at-home activities, weekly required e-mail, and on-going question/response/feedback with the other students. Each student was assigned a reading partner with whom summaries were exchanged. The basic structure of each course was based on the format used by Professor Edwin F. Taylor of Boston University, instructor of the Special Relativity course. (For Taylor’s perspective, see “Teaching Physics On Line” by Richard C. Smith and Taylor.) Learning activities included problem sets and lab activities using a kit of materials or computer software mailed to the student.

Quality of Learning
In Byrum’s experience, “the quality of learning in any environment depends on the time and effort that each student is willing to commit to the course.” Interaction is also important for learning, and Byrum noticed a high quality and quantity of interaction among students and instructors: “In these courses, I believe that there is more interaction between the students and with the instructor than would normally occur in a face-to-face course and an overall higher quality to the discussions that occur.” Byrum’s advises new distance students, “Be prepared to interact. You can’t hang back the way you might in a lecture-based class.”

Technology
Obviously, everyone had a computer and Internet connection, and the brand (IBM or Mac) did not seem to matter. The quality of the telecommunications software dramatically improved over time. In the first two courses, students used ZTERM and the host site used CONFER as the organizing/management software. According to Byrum, communication was difficult with CONFER: “Editing was a challenge, pasting from word processing documents was not fully supported, and some keyboard characters were not allowed. It was difficult to communicate and to participate in the courses, but it was still doable.”
The last course used a software package called First Class to organize and manage the communications between participants. First Class supports folders and easy access between topics. “It was extremely easy to use and greatly facilitated communications among students and between student and instructor,” remarked Byrum.
Overall, the technology in courses ran smoothly. Byrum noted, “The only real glitches were the few occasions when assignments were due on a Sunday and either the host computer was not up or the local Internet connections were not doing well. In all cases the instructors were very understanding and willing to be flexible.”

Final Thoughts
Will Byrum continue to take online courses? You bet! In his own words, “they are a great benefit to working students as well as students who live in an area where the local colleges/universities do not offer similar courses.” Byrum, who has helped design and teach many university-level education and chemistry courses, would even consider teaching an online chemistry course. Don’t be surprised if we profile his teaching experience some day.

Indeed, they have discovered a new link between a tumor suppressor gene called PTEN (phosphatase and tensin homolog) and a protein called PKR, known to inhibit protein synthesis. In case of absence or mutation of PTEN, PKR loses its ability to inhibit, and protein synthesis in affected cells becomes uncontrollable.



“This leads to strong proliferation of these cells with a survival advantage compared to normal cells, says Dr. Antonis E. Koromilas the Lady Davis Institute for Medical Research at the JGH and the Department of Oncology of the McGill University. It is a condition which facilitates the development of tumors. ”



PTEN plays an essential role in the suppression of human cancers by blocking a process called genetic phosphoinositide-3 kinase (PI3K). Clinicians often target the PI3K with drugs prescribed to cancer patients, but treatment is not always effective since all the mutant forms of PTEN do not interact with PI3K. In 1992, a study published in the journal Science, Dr. Koromilas and Dr. Nahum Sonenberg of McGill University have identified PKR as a possible tumor suppressor, but its association with PTEN remained unsuspected at the time.



The new discovery was made by a university researcher Dr. Koromilas, Zineb Mounir, lead author of the study, in collaboration with colleagues in the United States. Their findings were published December 22 in the journal Science Signaling.



“Since they are not facilitated by the PI3K known, existing treatments for cancer does not always work on tumors with mutant forms of PTEN,” says Ms. Munir.

“Therefore, this finding has important implications if, says Dr. Koromilas. If we begin to understand how these mutations of PTEN, we should be able to create drugs that can activate PKR, mainly to wake its inhibitory function of protein synthesis. ”



These treatments, said Dr. Koromilas, not necessarily to be designed from scratch to target PKR.

“Our work has also learned that DNA damage can actually activate the PKR path, and some chemotherapy treatments are known to alter DNA. So we choose to create drugs that are specific to PKR or use drugs that have a wider impact and that activate this process almost as a side effect. ”




Note:

The co-authors of the study are Dr. Gavin Robertson of Penn State University, Dr. Maria-Magdalena Georgescu, MD Anderson Cancer Center, and Dr. Randal Kaufman of the University of Michigan.

Ian Maze, of Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York and his colleagues have studied the certain mouse molecular interaction occurring in the chromosomes of neurons in the brain and have an effect on the expression of various genes. They found that chronic exposure to cocaine led to the reduction of some form of lysine methylation of histones, a biochemical modification of parts of chromosomes in the nucleus accumbens. This reduction of methylation increases the plasticity of certain neurons, which facilitates their connection to others and increases the preference of mice for cocaine.



The researchers say that a better understanding of genes regulated by these processes could help develop more effective treatments for addiction disorders.



Definition of Dennis S. Charney, M.D.:

Drug abuse is a disease characterized by continued misuse of drugs even when faced with drug-related job, legal, health, or family difficulties. Problems associated with drug abuse must have existed a minimum of 12 months to meet the diagnosis.

Drug dependence refers to long-term, compulsive drug use, perhaps with attempts to stop but repeatedly returns to drug use. Drug dependence also means that your body has begun to require the drug in higher doses to avoid withdrawal symptoms.



Drug abuse and drug dependence are not terms that should be used to describe people who are taking appropriate dosages of prescribed drugs (pain medication, for example) and who have become physically dependent on them. Diagnosis of both drug abuse and drug dependence requires the presence of specific behavioral symptoms.