A new, thought provoking study from UCI suggests our fears about leaving children alone are based much more on moral judgement about neglectful parents than on actual dangers faced by an unattended child; JPL scientists now believe there might not be as much flowing water on Mars as we thought; education experts break down the mission and efficacy of LAUSD's expanded magnet program; Plus, funk legend George Clinton stops by ahead of his September 17th concert at the Hollywood Bowl.
New study waters down the amount of H20 believed to be in Mars ‘dark streaks’
The scientific community was elated last summer when NASA scientists found long, dark streaks on the surface of Mars that they said could be proof of possible flowing liquid water on Mars.
Now, almost a year later, new research from researchers at Northern Arizona University and the NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory has come out suggesting that if those dark streaks -- called “recurring slope lineae” (RSL) -- were created by flowing water, it wasn’t much. Furthermore, they say it’s also possible that the RSLs weren’t created by water at all, though it’s not clear to them just yet what did cause the streaks if it wasn’t flowing water.
The tests, done using data collected by the NASA Mars Odyssey mission’s Thermal Emission Imaging System, measured the temperature of the ground that had dark streaks versus areas that did not. The results showed no temperature difference in the compared areas, and it was determined that at most the darkened streaks on Mars surface contain three percent water. That’s about as much as you’d find in the driest desert sands on Earth, according to a NASA JPL press release.
The researchers are careful to point out that the new research doesn’t contradict last year’s findings that suggest there could be flowing water on Mars during the summer months, but it does narrow down exactly how much water could have created them.
Guest:
Chris Edwards, assistant professor of physics and astronomy at Northern Arizona University
Education experts dive into how well LAUSD magnet schools are fulfilling their mission
The magnet program in Los Angeles Unified Schools was originally designed as part of a desegregation plan in the 1970s.
More than 40 years later, magnet schools are still alive and well in LAUSD, having become a coveted school alternative for parents who decide not to send their kids to the public school in their district. Magnets are popular because most offer more diverse student populations and themed programs focused on things like STEM or the performing arts.
This year, LAUSD added 16 new magnet schools in the hopes of increasing enrollment and providing more choice. Newly-minted Superintendent Michelle King is opening up more seats at current magnet schools and making them available faster. The district is also working on streamlining its application process and hopes to create a ‘one-stop-shop’ website where parents can easily apply to the program they want for their kids.
Competition getting into magnets is tough, though. Last year more than half of students who applied to a magnet didn’t get into the one they chose.
If you’re the parent of a student in an LAUSD magnet, what has your experience been? Do you think LAUSD magnets are fulfilling their mission?
Guests:
Kyle Stokes, KPCC K-12 education reporter
Pedro Noguera, distinguished professor of education in the Graduate School of Education and Information Studies at UCLA
Dangers faced by children left alone tend to be exaggerated, researchers say
Fears about the psychological impacts on children who are left alone are based more on moral judgments about neglectful parents than on actual dangers faced by an unattended child, a new study suggests.
In the study, social scientists at the University of California, Irvine asked survey participants about a variety of theoretical scenarios in which a child was left alone for less than an hour.
Depending on whether the parent's absence was unintentional (delayed by a car crash) or intentional (engaging in an extramarital affair), respondents would rank the risk faced by the child.
"Despite identical descriptions of each set of circumstances in which children were alone, those left alone on purpose were estimated to be in greater danger than those whose parents left them alone unintentionally," the study’s researchers said in the journal Collabra.
UCI's Barbara Sarnecka said the consequences of this type of thinking lead to harsh legal ramifications for parents charged with neglect.
Sarnecka: “Exaggerating the risks of allowing children some unsupervised time has significant costs besides the loss of children’s independence, freedom and opportunity to learn how to solve problems on their own,” Sarnecka said. “As people have adopted the idea that children must never be alone, parents increasingly face the possibility of arrest, charges of abuse or neglect, and even incarceration for allowing their children to play in parks, walk to school or wait in a car for a few minutes without them.”
One listener of KPCC’s Airtalk — Maya, driving on the Santa Monica Freeway — commented that culture is an important variable in parenting:
Maya: “I was born and raised in Yugoslavia. [I] came here when I was 12. I remember how easy it was for my parents to get in trouble and be questioned for their parenting. There’s a definite cultural bias.”
Sarnecka said people’s harsh reactions toward the incident of the child who recently fell into a gorilla’s enclosure at the Cincinnati Zoo was an example of the phenomena she was studying:
Sarnecka: “People are really freaked out about the idea of a child ever being unattended for a minute. And if some crazy, low probability freak accident like that happens, they immediately are very angry at the parent who didn’t have the child in handcuffs.”
Another AirTalk listener, Melissa from Santa Monica, said trusting children to be responsible for themselves has a positive impact:
Melissa: “When my sister and I were kids, we were left in our home alone while our parents worked. And we had access to alcohol and we didn’t do that [drink alcohol] because there was an innate trust… The neighborhood moms were pretty judgmental, but we [my sister and I] spent a lot of time studying…. And those other kids in the neighborhood didn’t have the skills to cope with day to day decisions.”
What do you think? What affects your perceptions of risk and fear? How does that play out in your parenting?
These interviews have been edited for clarity. You can listen to the full segment by clicking the blue Play button above.
Guest:
Barbara Sarnecka, Co-author of the study “No Child Left Alone: Moral Judgments about Parents Affect Estimates of Risk to Children;” Associate Professor of Cognitive Sciences, University of California, Irvine
LA may soften proposal to limit billboards
Weighing the ethical implications of the first head transplant
In Philadelphia last year, the first double-hand transplant on a child was successfully performed.
The U.S. saw its first penis transplant this past May. If all goes according to plan for one patient, the world will see its first head transplant by 2017.
But will this be a medical advance, or are we stepping into dangerous ethical territory?
Valery Spiridonov, 31, has volunteered himself for the controversial procedure. Spiridonov resides in Vladimir, Russia, and suffers from the genetic disorder, Werdnig-Hoffman’s disease, which destroys muscles and brain and spinal nerve cells. Dr. Xiaoping Ren of Harbin, China is the surgeon who will perform the procedure.
The transplant would take approximately 36 hours and cost up to $100 million. Critics of the operation argue that the negative implications far outweigh the scientific breakthroughs. Aside from Spiridonov’s death, speculation of adverse reactions to the transplant have ranged from uncontrollable phantom limb pain to insanity.
What do you think of the first head transplant? Are the risks to the patient’s well being outweighed by the potential medical breakthroughs of the procedure?
Guests:
James Giordano, Ph.D., professor of neurology and chief of the neuroethics studies program at Georgetown University Medical Center
Nita A. Farahany, J.D., Ph.D., bioethicist and professor of law and philosophy at Duke University
Funk pioneer George Clinton at 75: 'I still get butterflies in my stomach'
At 75 years young, funk music innovator George Clinton joins AirTalk to talk about his coming show at the Hollywood Bowl on Saturday, September 17, 2016.
The show is described as happening “on its own space-time curve... an epic night of sounds from the Brainfeeder trust.”
Clinton, his Funkadelic and Parliament bandmates, along with Flying Lotus and more will celebrate the evolution – and revolution – of beat-minded music, from electronic and deconstructed jazz, to futuristic R&B and instrumental hip hop.
On AirTalk, Clinton talks about his collaboration with Compton-artist Kendrick Lamar, and his hobbies outside of music including fishing.
Interview Highlights
Do you still get excited about going into the studio or getting on stage?
Clinton: Oh, yeah. I still get butterflies in my stomach. It’s like, we’re just getting started.
When you started getting sampled so much by hip-hop artists, did you see that as paying tribute to you, or did it at all rub you the wrong way?
Clinton: No, I was glad. I saw it as a way to reinvent myself. I was glad to hear “Me, Myself and I,” by De la Soul...Public Enemy... all the different people who sampled because I knew that was the way to keep the funk alive, and that’s why I’m so close with all of those artists.
How do you feel about being the elder statesman? Now, people look at you of with artistic reverence, how do you feel about that?
Clinton: You know, I don’t care how they look at me as long as I get the chance to funk. Whatever it takes for me to stay in the game, I’m up in there and don’t bother me.
One of the things I love about your work is the humor. You make me laugh, along with making all of us move. Are you naturally a funny person or do you have to think of the funny titles and lyrics?
Clinton: Somebody told me that recently. I didn’t think I was being funny.
C’mon, “Brides of Funkenstein?”
Clinton: I guess it is funny. But you know, if it ain’t no fun, it ain’t worth doing it.
I try to be stupid if I can, stupid is a prerequisite in having fun. When you get stupid, that’s when it becomes fun. And I hate to be preaching, even if we say something that sounds a little profound, people don’t want to hear it if you’re preaching to them. So like, “Free Your Mind and Your Ass Will Follow,” that sounds like a pretty basic thing, but it’s true.
When you’re not working, what kind of lifestyle do you live?
Clinton: I go fishing, I feed the birds in the backyard. I had my fun over the years; I did all of the rock-n-roll things you do as a rock star. I’m 75, so I can actually chill out now and still be cool. But I’ve probably always been pretty boring at home if you don’t dig fishing and stuff like that. When I get on stage I turn up, but off stage, I ain’t getting paid to act a fool.
There’s a line in your memoir that came out a couple of years ago, and you described P-Funk as, “We were too white for black folks, too black for white folks, and that’s exactly how we wanted it.” Was that conscious?
Clinton: Oh, believe me, we definitely intended to do that. Everybody comes to the show now, black and white, old and young. So I don’t even have a set list until I get out on the stage and see who’s out there. I have to check the audience before I tell them what songs we’re going to play. You know, because I have to be mindful that we have a big audience of black and white; it took so long to accumulate the audience because like I said, we were too white for black folks and too black for white folks. But as it grew and grew, we got the P-Funk audience, and now they’re all different colors, ages and genders.
This story has been updated.
This interview was edited for clarity.
Guest:
George Clinton, American singer, songwriter, bandleader, and music producer; a Rock and Roll Hall of Fame inductee, he has been cited as one of the foremost innovators of funk music, along with James Brown and Sly Stone