Out of this world...

Map of the thickness of the ice on ENCELADE. Yellow tints and orange indicate a lesser thickness whereas the blue indicates the maximum of the thickness. © Geophysical research letters.

I am fascinated by the planets and I want to become an astronomer. I intend, over the next two years, to prepare the Physics, Chemistry and Engineering Science entrance exam to an Aerospace school.

Space is always in the news. New orbits are discovered every year. Thanks to the many satellites around Earth, we discover ever more things in the infinite space which surrounds us.

A particular topic fascinates me:  is there life on ENCELADE?

ENCELADE (S II Enceladus) is a natural satellite of the planet Saturn discovered by William Herschel in 1789. It is the sixth satellite of Saturn by its size. It is 500 km in diameter. It gravitates around Saturn within the most external and the most tenuous ring of all, called ring E. It possesses a gigantic ocean 45 kilometres deep which is covered in an ice sheet about twenty kilometres thick. But, at the poles, the thinner ice (less than 5 km thick) allows powerful jets of vapour and ice to escape. It is caused by heating due to the intense tides caused by the closeness of Saturn.

In 2004, NASA sent the CASSINI probe on Saturn to collect data. According to the CNRS (the French NATIONAL CENTER FOR SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH): "the data supplied by the Cassini probe was contradictory until now". After seven years of analysis of the images captured by the Cassini probe, ENCELADE apparently oscillates on itself… Astronomers consider that this is due to the presence of an important liquid layer between the core of ENCELADE and its ice-cold surface.

The results of the study, published in the magazine "Geophysical Research Letters," describes the moon’s poles as covered with an ice sheet thinner than had previously been thought. If this model turns out to be exact, it also proves the presence of an intense heat production in the deep core of ENCELADE. The researchers now favour the hypothesis of an intense heat production in the rocky core and a big ocean which, in this new model, represents 40 % of the total volume of the satellite. And, because its salt content is considered as equivalent to that of the oceans of the planet Earth, ENCELADE now seems more than ever, according to the CNRS, to be a very good candidate for a space mission to look for the presence of extra-terrestrial life.

Since this news was announced by NASA during its conference on April 13^th 2017, all the media have been speaking about it (cf. LCI TV for example). The review SCIENCE ET VIE explains that, during the "New discoveries on the extra-terrestrial oceanic worlds" conference, NASA announced that ENCELADE was "liveable." The Cassini probe actually detected hydrogen in the panaches of vapour which appear from weaknesses of its cracked ice floe. The American review SCIENCE explains that the vapour and particles contained 1,4 % hydrogen and 0,8 % carbon dioxide.

These elements are essential in methanogens, the chemical reaction allowing (on Earth) germs to live in oceanic depths which sun rays cannot reach. However, if newspapers such as LE PARISIEN or THE BARBER keep announcing the news, most of the scientific journals and NASA explain that life is still only a hypothesis. ENCELADE is covered with an immense ice sheet that is hard as steel; also, an atmosphere is essential for life…

However, heat, water and organic matter are indeed present on ENCELADE. For LE PARISIEN and LE FIGARO and most television channels and radios, this is enough to prove the existence of life. Only the scientific journals and, of course, the official sites (like NASA and the CNRS) give us a more complete picture.

If life does exist on this moon, it will certainly be marine life. Because of the thickness of the ice, animal and plant species are going to find it difficult to reach the surface to develop there.

ENCELADE is 1,272 billion kilometres from Earth. A manned space flight would surely take too long. However, this discovery remains one of the biggest discoveries of this year. It shows that life is possible outside Earth.

Sources:

• Science journals: SCIENCE ; SCIENCE ET AVENIR ; SCIENCE ET VIE
• Newspapers: LE PARISIEN ; LE FIGARO
• Officials websites: NASA ; CNRS
• Television: LCI
• Radio: RTL

Ronan SIMONNOT wants to become an astronomer.

Why are we scared of Artificial Intelligence?

Cogito ergo sum?

On the 12th of March 2016, a Go competition final made the headlines: Google’s Artificial Intelligence named “AlphaGo” beat the world champion, the South Korean Lee Sedol. The AI won in this extremely complex game, a performance that was not expected by the specialists before at least a decade. This event illustrates the constant improving of Artificial Intelligence and brought up the question of its potential and its possible dangers…

AI is already used in the economy to maximize benefits, but also in speech recognition like Sisi, the famous voice on Apple devices. It also used in connected objects including the well-known Google car that drives itself. According to an article in The Economist in March 2012: “Last year, companies spent $8.5 billion on deals and investments in artificial intelligence” in Silicon Valley. That is four times more than in 2010. It shows that the sector is in strong expansion, whatever the likely drawbacks.

And who is creating AI? Multinational companies like Google and Microsoft. Is that reassuring? Luckily, according to John Markoff in a New York Times article from September 2016: “… five of the world’s largest technology companies are trying to create a common ethic around the creation of Artificial Intelligence.” He adds that the basic intention is: “… to ensure that AI research is focused on benefiting people, not hurting them.” Reassuring news?

There are reasons to be scared of the rise of AI. Would you use a Google car on the highway? Stuart Russel, an AI specialist interviewed in an article from The Guardian in August 2016, takes this example: “Someone building a self-driving car might instruct it never to go through a red light, but the machine might then hack into the traffic light control system so that all the lights are changed to green.” Well, that is a clever solution but obviously not a good one. Another hypothetical risk was suggested by Yuval Nouh Harari, a celebrated historian and writer, in another article in The Guardian in May 2016 who writes that because its jobs would be done by an AI there would be the “… rise of a ‘useless’ class.” Today, there is high unemployment, so what will it be like tomorrow as a consequence of the use of AI? Moreover, public opinion fears the ‘singularity’, the point where AI would become more intelligent than us and would exterminate us because we would be “inferior beings.” What does Stuart Russel think about that? “The risk doesn’t come from machines suddenly developing spontaneous malevolent consciousness,” he writes.

So yes, there are risks with AI, but I think we should continue on the road to progress. After all, did we stop the progress of agricultural technology, the industrial revolution or internet because it was too risky? No, because we love creating new concepts and tools. My point is that despite our fear of the Machine, research will go on, with or without us.

As Tom Chatfield wrote in The Guardian in August 2016: “Who wouldn’t want an immaculate companion, employee, parent, or lover?” Everyone has to make up his own mind, but mine is clear: Artificial Intelligence has great potential for improving our lives.

Guillaume ANDRIEUX wants to become a famous film maker!

Feminism: a fight without end…

Having to write this article makes me feel angry, outraged. But why would defending my rights as a woman get me mad? It should motivate me, give me strength to fight for gender equality, and make me proud for being involved in such an important cause. But the problem is that this combat still exists. In 2017, in France, in a globalized and developed world, as a well-educated seventeen-year-old French girl - soon to be a woman - I have to fight, stand for, and protest to be equal to my brother, to boys, to men, to the other gender, to the other half of humanity. How can 3.5 billion people be discriminated against, under-estimated?

We, the feminists, have been fighting for over a hundred years, and still haven’t won. However, so many pro-female activist movements have been created, so many battles have been fought, women have completely turned society upside-down and accomplished tremendous things through their struggles. In France, women’s right to vote was allowed in 1944 (which is quite astounding when you consider Russia gave women the vote 26 years earlier). In 1965, women were allowed to exercise a profession without their husband’s approval (yes, because the husband sort of “owned” the human he was married to). Contraception became legal in 1967, and Simone Veil succeeded in making abortion legal in 1975. For me, this represents the right to have control over my own body. Furthermore, women’s empowerment has grown continuously over the past 60 years. They have gained greater freedom, are more emancipated.

But in spite of all these major progresses, women are still considered inferior to men and have to fight constantly for gender equality: “[We] need to work through these issues because they are here, and they're not going to go away,” wrote Emily L. Hauser, from The Week magazine. Even if we won considerable rights (that are more than normal to me), history is an endless resumption. It means that our rights are never definitively acquired; we’ll have to stay vigilant forever as women’s rights are always being questioned. For instance, today in my country, one of the most developed in the world, girls who are teenagers like me are protesting against abortion or against feminism in general. They accept their inferior condition, they do not think we deserve better, we ARE better than what we’re told. It is absolutely a shame that even the people directly concerned about an issue this important are hostile to it, that they are protest against it! When we all know that women in France are paid 25% less than men, that gender stereotypes control the way we think and act, that in several countries (actually too many to count) women are being abused, raped, don’t have all the civil rights, can’t drive, can’t vote, are owned by their fathers or husbands, are not considered as citizens, are not considered as PEOPLE: how is it possible to just be careless about or even against feminism? I think it is sad enough that feminism has to exist, as it means equality has not been achieved yet and that the fight needs to continue; we don’t need proponents who don’t realize how lucky they are to live in a country as free as France to fight our cause.

I’m sick of being considered less, of having to live with irrelevant stereotypes and society’s rules, of having to fight an endless issue because of my gender. I’m tired of being treated like an object, of being seen as a body first rather than a mind, of struggling daily to prove that I am as capable as the male standing next to me.

Blandine LOCHU wants to work as a lawyer defending women's rights.

Should we close our borders?

Fear-mongering poster in Beziers

Throughout the developed world, immigration has been the number one topic for the past few years, creating a climate of insecurity and concern about what our future holds. In some people's mind, there's nothing more urgent than closing our borders, even if it actually means closing in on ourselves. At a time when Europe is indeed experiencing a significant migratory crisis, people are getting worried, to such an extent that our fundamental principles and policies are called into question. This ever-recurring fear of “invasion” is one of the main reasons that has driven British people to vote to exit the EU (June 2016), as well as a majority of Americans to elect Donald Trump President of the United States (November 9th 2016), in both cases with the aim of regaining full control over borders. Is that fear justified? Are we indeed being invaded? Is it really in our interests to shut down our borders? Well, I, for one, am not so sure…

First of all, this so-called invasion is nothing more than a political fantasy. Figures are very easy to manipulate and it's no secret that some ill-intentioned people are trying to agitate and get people worked up. So, let's get things straight, using the example of France. French elections are now just around the corner and our presidential candidates keep bringing up what is considered as France's main issue: immigration. Not a single day goes by without the press talking about it, using sensationalist headlines to dramatize the situation.

Let's begin with the basics: how many immigrants and asylum seekers enter our territory? According to the French government around 200,000 migrants get into France each year, which is less than 0.3% of the population (against an average of 0.6% for the other members of the OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development). Basically, we host half as many migrants as other developed countries do. Hold on, there's more: according to the French INSEE (national institute for statistical and economic studies), 110,000 immigrants either die or move to another country each year, which means that France only receives an extra 90,000 migrants. These figures give us a little more perspective. Now what about the extent of the burden on taxpayers? Well, what a  surprise, immigrants are a pretty good deal for the French economy: sure they receive €47.9 billion, but they also bring in €60.3 to the State through taxation in return. The study, from which these figures were drawn, also reveals that immigrants mostly take the "unwanted" jobs: for instance, 90% of our motorway network was built and is today maintained by foreign workers. So no, immigrants do not “steal our jobs”, period.

It is also important to remember that immigration to the West is a small-scale phenomenon, compared to "south to south" migration. According to data from the United Nations, immigration to the West accounts for less than 50% of all global migration. Journalism about immigration focuses overwhelmingly on those coming to North America and Western Europe, even though individuals who move within the Global South make up the majority of refugees and migrants.

Now you know that we are not being invaded my migrants. Figures “proving” otherwise are completely fanciful, unrealistic and pure electioneering. Nationalist leaders have made this subject their main campaign argument, feeding people's irrational fears in their demagogic speeches. Marine Le Pen, the leader of the xenophobic Front National, is really good at it and has been for a very long time. She even said in 2011 that we should "push migrants who want to come to Europe back into international waters." Far-right parties profit from people’s anxiety. The political poster (above) from Bezier, France, is a good example of how ultra-nationalist parties feed xenophobic fears to win votes. Such radical parties also tend to suggest unrealistic security measures: just think of Trump's wall to "keep Mexicans out".

As I've just explained, immigration has nothing to do with invasion and figures should be taken with a grain of salt, especially when used by people with political motivation. Furthermore, closing borders would be useless and even more dangerous than it already is. It won't keep migrants out, it will only make their conditions of movement more precarious and more expensive. Also, it will surely result in an increase in smuggling and human trafficking, since immigration is inevitable and won't stop, given the current situation in Africa and the Middle East. Immigration has become a reality of the century we have to come to grips with and deal with, in the most humane way possible.

Indeed, rescuing migrants is a moral duty for every developed country. Welcoming them with open arms is the least we can do. It is never an easy thing to leave one's country for another. Let's be assured of one thing: migrants have good reasons to emigrate and would obviously rather not have to. As an article from The Economist reminds us, "refugees are reasonable people in desperate circumstances […] and most people would rather not abandon their homes and start again among strangers". Their choice to leave is just rational. Also, Europeans seem to have a short memory. As Amnesty International points out, by mistreating refugees, Hungary seems to ignore history. Indeed, over 200,000 Hungarians fled their country as refugees, after the Hungarian Uprising had been brutally put down by the Soviets in 1956, and were welcomed by other European countries. We have to keep in mind that one day we may be in need of a host country too…

Finally, receiving migrants is something that we CAN do. As previously discussed, hosting them is not a burden and could even benefit us economically. We just need to facilitate their integration and work together with other European Union countries to manage the flow. To this end, worldfinance.com gives us the keys to "successfully assimilate refugees into a society". It starts with helping them earn a living by integrating them into the market legally and effectively, as well as giving them the opportunity to acquire language skills.

Let's not dwell on immigration and let's focus on integration.

Sources:

http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21690028-european-problem-demands-common-coherent-eu-policy-let-refugees-regulate

https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2016/10/hungarys-mistreatment-of-refugees-today-ignores-history/

http://www.worldfinance.com/infrastructure-investment/government-policy/refugees-are-an-economic-benefit-not-burden-to-europe

https://www.amnesty.be/decouvrir-nos-campagnes/migrants-et-refugies/10-prejuges-sur-les-migrants/prejuges

http://www.alternatives-economiques.fr/tribune/migrants-dix-raisons-et-plus-de-les-accueillir-dignement-en-europe-201508311800-00001999.html

http://www.courrierinternational.com/article/2010/12/02/les-tres-bons-comptes-de-l-immigration

https://www.oecd.org/els/mig/World-Migration-in-Figures.pdf

Etienne BUTIN wants to work in the humanitarian field.

Suffering slaughterhouses…

 

I've always dreamt of becoming a vet, so that’s why it is important for me to talk about what the vet’s responsibilities are as regards how animals are treated in slaughterhouses…

In slaughterhouses, the vet has to check if the animals have any diseases and are treated well. In order to protect public health, the vet also monitors the quality of the meat and the establishment’s general hygiene conditions. The time spent controlling the animals' well-being is often insufficient; it's not the vet's fault if animals suffer. Animals are sometimes badly treated and this is mainly the slaughterhouses’ fault.

In order to maintain profitability, the number of workers is often inadequate and many are under-qualified. They are recruited on their physical strength and not because of their know-how with animals. Most of the suffering of the animals comes at the stunning stage (when the animal is meant to be rendered unconscious using a captive bolt device); the pace of work is often so fast that the workers do not have time to do this properly and sometimes the animals are cut up whilst still alive...

I think there should be more workers and they should all be well-qualified. Also, surveillance cameras should be installed in all slaughterhouses in order to check that the correct methods of slaughter are respected at all times. This is especially necessary as there are too few vets.

Espérance de FELIGONDE

Are casinos responsible for gambling addiction?

Some casino games, like slot machines and roulette, are more addictive than others. This is because they allow players to experience strong feelings, boosting their adrenaline levels and holding them spellbound because these games are based on chance. It is the more irrational players that are the most likely to become gambling addicts.

Everything in a casino is designed to make the player spend his money without counting. The atmosphere is welcoming, with relaxing background music. The game rooms are spacious, elegantly decorated and comfortable and well lit. There are no views on the outside to distract players’ attention. Players are confined in the room and don’t see time going by. Therefore, they spend more money than they had maybe planned to. Delivering a loyalty card to the “home players” is also a means to attract customers and let them stay as long as possible. The presence of a bar-restaurant also promotes relaxation and the well-being of the players, although the casino managers insist on the fact that the bars and restaurants are imposed by the Government as a way of boosting job creation...

Above the bars, a display shows continuously all the gains achieved since the beginning of the previous day, the current day and the month. It gives an impression of an increasing speed of the customers’ gains. In reality, the display doesn’t take into account losses: only the gross profits are recorded. This system can give the illusion to the player that gains are easy and sizeable.

Slot machines account for nearly 85% of the turnover of casinos. Managers therefore have made the seats ergonomic so that the players spend most of their time feeding coins into the machines. Some slot machines even accept banknotes, allowing the player to accumulate "Player Plus" benefits (sic) points. It is an example of the application of neuromarketing.

As for the roulette tables, they are now electronic, allowing the player to play fast and alone. On a screen, information such as "hot numbers" is put up and the player can compare his results to the results of other players. The aim of course is to push the player to try his luck one more time.

In the United States, oxygen is sprayed into the gambling halls in order to help the players keep awake or to get their breath back after a win or a loss. In France, this system is not allowed (yet), but the casinos do use various means to incite the players to keep playing.

Gaming establishments try to make gambling socially acceptable (“normal”) so that players will come back often and thus generate greater profits. The risk is making more people become gambling addicts…

Timothée BERTHAUD wants to become a neuroscientist

Scientific research: a threat to humanity?

 

First, I think that it is important to point out the difference between science and technology. Indeed, technology isn’t science. Reliable scientific knowledge is value-free and has no moral or ethical value. Science tells us how the world is. Scientific discoveries are neither good nor bad. Dangers and ethical issues only arise when science is applied as a technology. Science generates ideas about how the world works, whereas the ideas in technology result in usable objects. However, scientists are obviously involved in the application of their discoveries. That’s why in an article in Science magazine, Sir Joseph Rotblat (1908-2005) proposed a “Hippocratic Oath” for scientists. The Nobel Peace Prize winner was strongly opposed to the idea that science is neutral and that scientists are not to be blamed for its misapplication; he proposed the oath: “I promise to work for a better world, where science and technology are used in socially responsible ways (…)”. Rotblat did not want to seperate scientific knowledge and its applications. But, surely, the very purpose of science is that it is not possible to predict what is going to be discovered or how these discoveries could be applied? Indeed, scientists cannot easily predict the technological and social implications of their research; it can lead to a cure for a disease as much as to the creation of a deadly weapon. Therefore the question is: who is best placed to say if a discovery and its possible technological application are ethical or not?

Let us consider the example of gene therapy, an experimental technique that uses genes to treat or prevent disease. In the future, this technique may allow doctors to treat a disorder by inserting a gene into a patient’s cells instead of using drugs or surgery. On what moral ground prenatal diagnosis and gene therapy should be refused to parents who want to avoid having a severely disabled baby? So far, embryology and genetics have not harmed anyone, so what dangers does genetics and embryo research raise? In fact, gene therapy is frightening because of eugenics. Indeed, people think that if we pursue this research, in a few years we might be able to select a baby’s physical and psychological features, leading to a “brave new world” of clone-like beings. However, according to Axel Khan, a geneticist and philosopher, it is pure fantasy to think that people will prefer to see doctors and undergo a myriad of tests and exams to have a child when they can be spared the medical expense and have offspring the natural way.

So, scientific research can lead to dilemmas. That’s why qualified people have to make the right decisions and make sure that the applications of scientific discovery are not dangerous. Today, such decisions are up to politicians. As John Carey, an English Professor at Oxford, has said: science is a sphere of knowledge and understanding, politics is a sphere of opinion. He goes on to point out that politics depends on rhetoric, opinion, and conflict. It also aims to coerce people. Ultimately, science is all about consensus as to how the world works. However, political decisions are inevitably influenced by money, economic interests, companies, lobbies and other factors. To my mind, scientific research per se is not the issue here, but rather more the fact that nobody is really in a position to judge, in a neutral way, if a discovery should be applied. I think that we should not give up the possibility of doing something for the greater good thanks to science just because we could also do something bad with it. Technology can be misused and manipulated for evil purposes. Moreover, humanity needs science in order to progress and the proof of this is that societies that do not want to encourage research tend to disappear…

To conclude, I believe that we have to put competent people in charge of deciding what is best for humanity and of making the right laws to control scientific research, but in no way should we prevent scientists from making the discoveries that could improve our world, especially in the medical field.

Juliette MAGNIER will be a famous scientist some day...