1) How can the lens of chemistry be used to inform societal practice and policy designed to limit the spread of SARS-CoV-2?
The lens of chemistry can be used to inform societal practice and policy to limit the spread of SARS-CoV-2 through using research based evidence to explain to the public how it is spread and why it is so dangerous. One statistic that I commonly hear is that it is not dangerous because only 2% of the people who get the virus’ cause of death is listed as COVID-19. While this is true, chemistry informs us that the virus leads to other complications because from research, biochemists know how the virus functions and how it attacks people, but are currently still figuring out why it attacks people differently. The knowledge of the virus doesn’t stop at how it attacks people, but also how it is spread. Through the research chemistry informs us how to slow the spread. Their research suggests that it is spread through airborne transmissions and through fomites (the touching of infected surfaces). This was used to inform the public and policy makers that masks, gloves, social distancing, and hand washing are all effective ways of slowing the spread.
I held the belief that I should trust the scientists because they know what they are talking about since this is their area of expertise, and I still hold true to that because I now know the exact science and research that was used to create these, now common, practices and policies. This expansion of knowledge was also (quite obviously) related to my growth in understanding of this essential question.
2) How did your knowledge of science grow through your work on the project?
My knowledge of science, specifically biochemistry, grew through my work on the final project through having discussions with my peers, and recognizing that this is an extremely hard line of work that is influencing how the whole world is functioning currently. Something that I can’t stop thinking about that was presented to me in my research for this project, in relation to the closure of schools, is that we have resources to help each other with schoolwork and mental health because these are things people have struggled with for generations, but we do not have resources to help you if you get the virus. Knowing that literal death can be prevented by closing a school should trump every other reason to go back to school.
3)This semester in Chemistry we focused on the SARS-CoV-2 virus and COVID-19 because of its obvious relevance to our lives. In doing this we studied some ideas that would traditionally be studied in biology class, some that would be found in a physics class and some that would be found in a chemistry class. We also read far more news articles and spent more time looking at scientific papers than is typical for a high school chemistry class. The trade-off is that we did not cover as much chemistry content as you would typically see in a chemistry class and we did not do it in an order that is most advantageous to learning chemistry.Please evaluate this pedagogical decision and state whether you believe the benefits of this method outweigh the downsides or not.
I believe that this method does outweigh the downsides because this is the single most important thing happening in our collective lives right now. The more we are educated on it, the better we will be at educating others on it. The more knowledge spread about this virus, the faster we can defeat it. There is no way that we can move on until everybody is educated on the facts. We have been blessed to have the opportunity to become educated on the most hot-button topic in the world currently. It has caused me to want to be engaged, instead of doing it because I have to. I feel it is also my civic duty to not be ignorant on this topic, so this has been extremely pivotal to be able to learn about this. All I knew before was that we should wear masks, wash our hands, possibly wear gloves, not to touch eyes, nose or mouth, and social distance. Now I know the science that influenced those practices, and can educate others on it.
Chemistry of Food & Cooking "How Temperature Effects Soufflé"
How did your cooking process transform your food macroscopically and affect the food’s overall characteristics?
My cooking process was altered by changing the temperature at which soufflé is baked, and there were three trials done (200º, 350º, & 500º F). Macroscopically, the higher the temperature the more solidified they each became, and external color became darker each time. On a more microscopic scale, this happened due to water loss and the infamous Maillard reaction.
The trial at 200º F left a huge puddle of liquid at the bottom and a more solid piece on the top. I believe that if I had left it cooking for a longer period of time at this temperature, there would have been a dry solid piece on the top and liquid at the bottom because cooking it low and slow would cause the mixture to have time to separate. 350º F had almost completely cooked it as normal (except for a bit of uncooked mixture towards the bottom), however I believe that the perfect soufflé would have been created if it was left in for just 15 more minutes and raised to about 375º F. There was not a huge amount of the characteristic rise on it, but that may be due to the altitude at which this experiment was performed. The final trial at 500º F had completely charred the top, and had cooked the inside too quickly leaving it with a scrambled egg texture and a puddle of liquid at the bottom. In conclusion, this is a very delicate dish and needs to be cooked perfectly to come out right. It is one of those dishes that you cannot change because there is one right way to do it (unless you like puddles of liquid).
How successful was your experiment in helping you understand your food and improve its characteristics? What would be next steps if you were to continue research on this topic?
As far as conclusive results go, this experiment offered me a hint towards the perfect soufflé. So, even though I didn’t get a perfect result this first time, I have ideas about what would make it perfect. First, I would follow instructions for high altitude so that I can get a better rise from the eggs, since altitude often weighs baked goods down. Then I would adjust cooking time to 45 minutes, and temperature to 345-400º F. Although, there are now many more trials I could perform, such as my original design but with ingredients adjusted for high altitude. My IV and DV were not very precise with this experiment, because I hadn’t used a quantitative measurement for the results. Everything was based on my observations, and there was no blind taste test involved. However, I do feel as though my qualitative measurements were accurate because I described the result exactly as can be seen in the pictures and did not offer any opinions on the results. Along with this, the choice in DVs was very relevant because there is definitely on right way to make a soufflé. You definitely need to have the perfect, light texture, do not want a dry soufflé, and are not going for a charcoal grilled top. There are foods that can have varied results to cater to different tastes, but with this there is a classic recipe and one right way to do it. As a follow up to this, I would love to do the same experiment, but adjusted for high altitude.