Nose cells as the key COVID-19 entry point

Sungnak et al. SARS-CoV-2 entry factors are highly expressed in nasal epithelial cells together with innate immune genes. Nature Medicine, April 2020.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Detection of the virus was first reported in Wuhan, China and has since spread worldwide and emerged as a global pandemic. COVID-19 primarily affects the lungs and airways and has a wide range of symptoms including fever, coughing, and sore throat. One of the scariest aspects of the virus is that some people may not manifest symptoms but can still carry and spread it. In severe cases, the virus causes pneumonia that can ultimately lead to death. Studies suggest that the virus is thought to be spread through respiratory droplets produced when an infected person coughs or sneezes and appears to be easily transmitted within affected areas. COVID-19 has spread to more than 184 countries and claimed more than 190,000 lives so far. One of the major questions scientists around the world are trying to understand is how the virus spreads, how we can prevent transmission, and how we can develop an effective vaccine. To discover the target cells involved in COVID-19 transmission, scientists analyzed the gene expression profiles of thousands of cells from 20 different human tissues including the lung, nasal cavity, eye, gut, heart, kidney, and liver. They specifically looked for individual cell types that expressed both of two key COVID-19 entry proteins – the receptor protein ACE2 and the TMPRSS2 protease. These analyses revealed that mucus-producing goblet cells and ciliated cells on the inner lining of the nose have the highest level of COVID-19 virus proteins of all cells in the airways. While there are many external and internal factors that contribute to the virus’ transmissibility, these findings are consistent with the rapid infection rates of the virus. The location of these cells on the surface of the inside of the nose makes them highly accessible to the virus and also may assist with transmission to other people. Interestingly, ACE2 and TMPRSS2 were also found in cells in the cornea of the eye and in the lining of the intestine. This suggests another possible route of infection via the eye and tear ducts, and also revealed a potential for fecal-oral transmission. These findings have important implications for understanding viral transmissibility and could have critical translational implications. For example, given that nasal carriage is likely to be a key feature of transmission, drugs and vaccines administered intra-nasally could be highly effective in limiting the spread of the virus.

Neutrinos Could Explain Why the Universe Has So Much More Matter Than Antimatter

The T2K Collaboration. Constraint on the matter–antimatter symmetry-violating phase in neutrino oscillations. Nature, April 2020

The current laws of physics propose that 13.8 billion years ago, at the time of the Big Bang, every particle of matter had been created with a counterpart called antimatter. Antimatter is precisely the same as matter but with an opposite physical property such as an electrical charge. The great mystery for physicists is why there is so much more matter than antimatter in the universe. If there had been equal quantities in the beginning then each particle would have wiped each other out in a blaze of energy and left the universe full of just photons and dark matter. To understand the mystery behind this asymmetry, scientists have utilized an experiment known as “T2K.” T2K is a collaboration between 500 international scientists that employs a proton accelerator in Japan that generates beams of subatomic particles called muon neutrinos and antineutrinos which then travel 295 km to the gigantic Super-Kamiokande detector, located in a tank filled with 50,000 tons of water under a mountain in Kamioka on Japan’s west coast. During this trip, the muon neutrinos and antineutrinos change in flight to electron neutrinos and antineutrinos, demonstrating the phenomenon of neutrino oscillations. The team observed for the first time that there is a significant difference between neutrino and antineutrino oscillations. Neutrinos were found to turn into electron neutrinos at a much higher rate than their antineutrino counterparts and, as a result, would propagate regular matter at a higher rate than antimatter. These results show that although matter and antimatter look so similar to each other, they can behave completely different. Previously, scientists have found some differences in behavior between matter and antimatter versions of other subatomic particles called quarks, but the differences observed did not seem to be large enough to account for the dominance of matter in the universe. This new data indicates that subatomic particle neutrinos might be the very reason the universe is dominated by matter. While the scientific community is very excited about these results, most experts suggest collecting a lot more data in order to get the confidence level of their results up over the current ratio of 95%.

Humans Tend To Go With Our “Gut Feelings” Over Evidence-based Decisions

Konovalov& Krajbich. Mouse tracking reveals structure knowledge in the absence of model-based choice. Nature Communications, April 2020.

A new study showed that when faced with a decision, humans prefer to follow their “gut feeling” or habits instead of taking all facts into account. In the study, participants played a simple computer game in which identifying patterns could make them more money. While following the patterns led to success most of the time, there was still a 10-40% chance that it would not give the best outcome. The researchers observed that 56 of the 57 participants were able to identify the pattern to make the decision that gave them the highest chance of success. However, only about 20% of players consistently went with that choice after it failed them. The other 80% of players diverged and made choices based upon their gut feelings. The researchers suggest that participants decided to go with their gut feelings when making in-game decisions because choosing the best pattern only led to a slightly higher chance of success. This study highlights how decision-making works in real life. People can learn what choices lead to the best outcomes; but putting that knowledge into practice can often be difficult as it likely takes a lot of mental and sometimes physical energy to always make decisions based upon your knowledge of your current environment. Moreover, the rewards of following the best strategy aren’t always obvious in real life. Following a familiar strategy may increase your success by only a small percentage. In our decision making, there is always the dilemma – what we should do from a statistical perspective versus what worked out well recently, typically in an anecdotal manner.

Interfaith dialogue has been a very controversial issue and there have been a lot of discussions about it: its necessity, rationale, and success (Kurucan 2006). These questions have made it obvious that people are not aware of the real meaning of interfaith dialogue.

Perelman and Olbrechts- Tyteca (1969) explain dialogue as follows: “… (it) is not supposed to be a debate … but rather a discussion in which the interlocutors search honestly and without bias for the best solution to a controversial problem” (196, 37). Related to this description, Gulen (2000) describes interfaith dialogue as “… seek(ing) to realize religion’s basic oneness and unity, and the universality of belief. Religion embraces all beliefs and races in brotherhood, and exalts love, respect, tolerance, forgiveness, mercy, human rights, peace, brotherhood, and freedom via its Prophets” (The Fountain, September 2000). These descriptions bring out another question: how useful and beneficial can interfaith dialogue be in solving problems?

Interfaith dialogue does not aim to change the ideas of people about their religions or faiths, but seeks to find common ground between religions, to focus on communities, and through an emphasis on harmony and peace, find solutions to many of our common problems. In fact, one of the reasons for interfaith dialogue is to “provide an atmosphere of freedom” (Kurucan 2006, 17).

Another major proponent of dialogue was Seyyed Hossein Nasr, a professor of Islamic studies at George Washington University. When he visited the Vatican in 1977 in a delegation, Nasr highlighted five areas that Christianity and Islam can work together to make the world better. These five areas are “dangers of modern technocracy and ecological ruin, energy crises, youth problems and decadence of morality and faith” (Kot 2009). In addition, Rev. Allman states, “The ability to discuss our religious and cultural differences is more than an ‘extra-curricular activity’; it is a skill which is vital for participants in democracy, especially a democratic society such as ours, which is filled with people whose differences are deep and complex” (The Network, 1999).

These statements show the importance of interfaith dialogue for the improvement of humanity and the goodwill of societies. Pinto (2003) highlights the role of interfaith dialogue in today’s society as “…an inevitable fact of our being-with-other-faiths.”

In connection to this, Swidler et al. (2007) state that, “In the past, during the age of divergence, we could live in isolation from each other; we could ignore each other. Now, in the age of convergence, we are forced to live in one world. We increasingly live in a global village” (Stress added, p.1).

Today most of the common reasons for dispute between religions, or between people of different religions, are that they do not understand one another’s beliefs or ideas (Baum 2011). Interfaith dialogue meetings, panels, conferences help these misconceptions and unfamiliarity disappear. And the result of such dialogues can be tremendous. As Smock states, “… when two or more faiths come together to explore or promote the possibility of peace, the effects can be especially potent” (viii).

The benefits of interfaith dialogue are obvious but still it is not an easy work. Once again, Smock (2002) highlights that “interfaith dialogue is a difficult, often painful endeavor” (viii). There are some prerequisites for interfaith dialogue to be successful. Swidler (2003) categorizes them as:

“1) an openness to learn from the other. 2) knowledge of one’s own tradition. 3) a similarly disposed and knowledgeable dialogue partner from the other tradition” (p. 12).

The importance of each prerequisite will be explained in detailed below.

Ingredients for a successful interfaith dialogue meeting

1) The most important component of interfaith dialogue is to remember the real meaning of dialogue. It is a two-way discussion that requires respect and understanding. This component may seem very simple to understand but it is very easy to forget. Swidler (2007) states that, “If this basic goal is kept fixed in view and acted on with imagination, creative and fruitful dialogue – and a growing transformation of each participant’s life and that of their communities – will follow” (p. 19). So for better results out of interfaith dialogue, the real meaning of dialogue should not be forgotten. Be sure to explain dialogue as “… a discussion in which the interlocutors search honestly and without bias for the best solution to a controversial problem” (Perelman and Olbrechts- Tyteca, 1969, 37).

2) In these meetings, participants must be aware of the fact that all of the participants are from different religious and cultural backgrounds, so interfaith dialogue is based on understanding and respecting all participants. In interfaith dialogue, none of the participants should try to discredit or question the belief system of the other participants.

3) Smock (2002) writes that stating the purpose of the meeting very clearly and choosing the right participants goes a long way towards determining the success of a dialogue. The purpose of the meeting should be decided by the participants before the meetings, very clearly and in detail.

4) While describing how to start dialogue, Bohme et al. (1991) state that suspension is an important part of dialogue. Listening to the other participants is a compulsory part of the process. During these meetings, all of the participants should be free of their biases and be open to understanding and recognizing new perspectives. Interfaith dialogue meetings are great ways to learn about different religions and different thoughts.

5) It should not be forgotten that in these meetings, we come together as people, not as belief systems, but these meetings provide an incredible opportunity to learn about, discuss, and understand other religions. “… the dialogue among the world’s religions and traditions should lead to a better mutual knowledge and understanding, and an exchange of the mutual values as an enrichment of one’s own faith and of the faith of the others” (Cosijns & Braybrooke, 2008, 55-56). However, a problem or mistake made in the meetings should not be used to generalize about a whole belief system. Kurucan (2006) states that by interfaith dialogue, “We refer to dialogue between the people of different religions” (17). So people in these meetings should not be seen as categories, sole representatives of their religions, but they should be seen as individual people, with their strengths and flaws – just like all of us.

6) Interfaith dialogue aims to find solutions to the problems of the world and other people by focusing on the similarities between belief systems. It does not focus on the differences and controversial issues.

7) Smock (2002) states that one-time interfaith dialogue meetings cannot be very useful, so there should be some follow-up sessions to enforce the benefits of the meetings.

8) In addition, it would be a good idea to learn about the religious practices of the other participants, see the differences between your own understandings, and be very careful about these differences during the dialogue process. Crowley (2006) states that setting the stasis – the parts that the participants may have different ideas about – is an important part of civil discussion. In interfaith dialogue, being aware of the stasis is important, so as not to offend the other participants.

9) No exclusives and no syncretism. Abu-Nimer et al. (2007) state that in interfaith dialogues, no religion should be excluded. This would be a huge handicap for the success of interfaith dialogue. Abu-Nimer et al. (2007) also highlights that trying to synchronize all religions into one can be just as dangerous as exclusiveness. As stated above, it is very crucial to accept all religions and religious people in their own belief system.

10) Dialogue can only happen between equals. If a religious group sees one group as inferior or even superior to another, no dialogue can happen. There cannot be sharing and understanding between the groups, which is the main aim of any interfaith dialogue.

Interfaith dialogue is an important concept in the globalized world. People from different religions live side by side in the globalized village and there are tons of problems that human beings face today. These interfaith groups are very crucial for a world in which “every day, almost 16,000 children die from hunger-related causes. That’s one child every five seconds” (www.bread.org). The role of the interfaith dialogue in solving these problems cannot be underestimated. Smock (2002) states that “while religion can and does contribute to violent conflicts, it can be a powerful factor struggling for peace and reconciliation (viii).

References

• Abu-Nimer, M. & Khoury, A. & Welty, E. 2007. Unity in diversity: Interfaith dialogue in the Middle East. Washington, DC: United States Institute of Peace.
• Bohm, D. & Factor, D. & Garrett, P. 1991. Dialogue: A Proposal. Retrieved from http://www.david-bohm.net/dialogue/dialogue_proposal.html
• Cosijns L.F. & Braybrooke , M. 2008. Dialogue among the faith communities. Lanham, MA: Hamilton Books.
• Crowley, S. 2006. Toward a civil discourse: Rhetoric and Fundamentalism. Pittsburg, PA: University of Pittsburg Press
• Gulen, M.F. 2000. “Necessity of interfaith dialog.” The Fountain Magazine. Issue 31.
• Kot, Z. 2009. “Muslim-Christian relations: The traditionalist interfaith dialogue” (Unpublished master thesis) George Washington University, Washington, DC.
• Kurucan, A. 2006. Nicin Diyalog: Diyalogun temelleri. Uskudar, Istanbul: Isik Yayinlari
• Perelman C.H. & Olbrechts- Tyteca, L. 1969. The new rhetoric: A treatise on argumentation. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.
• Pinto, H. 2003. Faucault, Christianity and interfaith dialogue. New York, NY: Routledge Publications
• Smock, D. R. 2002. Interfaith Dialogue and Peacebuilding. Washington, DC: United States Institute of Peace.
• Swidler, L. & Duran, K. & Firestone, R. 2007. Trialogue: Jews, Christians and Muslims in Dialogue. New London, CT: Twenty-Third Publications.

Jacobs J. et al. Direct recordings of grid-like neuronal activity in human spatial navigation. Nature Neuroscience, 2013

Do you happen to have a poor sense of direction? Do you often find yourself holding a map upside-down? Well, now you can blame your grid cells. Using direct human brain recordings, researchers have identified a novel type of cell in the brain that helps people keep track of their relative location while navigating through an unfamiliar environment. Scientists got this rare opportunity to identify these unique cells while they studied brain recordings of epilepsy patients via electrodes implanted deep inside their brains. These cells have been called “grid cells” because they are activated in a triangular grid pattern. The “grid cell” is distinct among brain cells because its activation represents multiple spatial locations, which allows the brain to keep track of navigational cues, such as how far you are from a starting point or your last turn. This type of navigation is called path integration. During brain recordings, 14 study participants were asked to play a video game where they ride a virtual bicycle to navigate from one point to another to retrieve objects and then recall how to get back to the places where they found the objects. While participants were playing the game, researchers examined the relation between navigation and the corresponding activity of individual neurons. Results were striking: each grid cell responded at multiple spatial locations that were arranged in the shape of a grid suggesting that the navigation information is principally encoded in our brains through this triangular grid pattern. Without grid cells, humans would frequently get lost or have to navigate based solely on landmarks. Differences in how well the grid cells work could potentially explain why some people have a better sense of direction than others. In addition, grid cells are located in the entorhinal cortex which is a critical component of human memory. The entorhinal cortex is also the first brain region affected in Alzheimer’s disease. Thus, understanding how grid cells work could potentially help us to understand why people with Alzheimer’s frequently become disoriented as well as to develop new strategies to improve brain function in the affected individuals.

Giant viruses open Pandora’s box

Philippe N. et al. Pandoraviruses: amoeba viruses with genomes up to 2.5 Mb reaching that of parasitic eukaryotes. Science, 2013 Jul 19

On a fairly ordinary day, two French biologists were analyzing water samples collected off the coast of Chile. What they saw under the microscope was quite amazing: a previously unidentified organism, about the size of a bacterial cell, appeared as a large dark spot. Astonishingly, these new organisms seemed to be infecting and killing the amoeba in the water. Later, another group of researchers found a similar organism in a pond in Australia. Both groups soon realized that they discovered a type of “giant” virus which is at least twice as big as the largest known viruses. The biggest virus discovered so far was called Mimiviruses, with a size of 700 nanometers and carrying more than 1000 genes. The newly discovered viruses are called Pandoraviruses, which are 1 micrometer long and 0.5 micrometers across. Pandoraviruses are visible under a light microscope and contain more than 2500 genes. A viral genome consisting of 2500 genes is extremely large compared to known viruses, such as the Influenza or HIV, which only contain 10 genes or less. More importantly, 93% of the genes did not resemble any known lineage in the natural world, suggesting Pandoraviruses are not related to any known virus family and may represent a new life form. These findings generated new perspectives about how scientists see viruses. It raised the possibility that there might be many different kinds of giant viruses out there to be discovered. Some biological features in these giant viruses could easily blur the line between life forms and viruses, which are considered to be non-living. Although Pandoraviruses do not infect human cells, there might be other giant viruses out there that could infect human cells. There are still a lot of human diseases known to have an infectious component but for which no infectious agent has been identified yet. This study will definitely encourage people to actively look for the role of giant viruses in some diseases.

See through the Ears

Haigh A. et al. How well do you see what you hear? The acuity of visual-to-auditory sensory substitution. Frontiers in Psychology, 2013 Jun 18

Scientists have created a revolutionary device for the blind that allows them see the world through their ears. The device “vOICe” trains the brain to invoke mental images of what they are hearing around them. The first test trial of vOICe has been performed on blindfolded sighted people. The participants took a standard eye test where they were asked to view the letter E turned in four directions and in various sizes. The best visual acuity is considered 20/20 (distance in feet/size of the E) and the majority of participants were able to achieve the best performance possible, nearly 20/400 sight. This is an impressive result when compared to an alternative stem-cell based sight restoration technique, which only yielded 20/800 visual acuity. In addition, the affordable and non-invasive nature of vOICe would offer a unique option. But, how might this work in practice? One can imagine that visually-impaired people would wear a discreet head-mounted camera such as Google Glass and receive wireless audio information through mini earbuds. As the person turns to look in various directions, the device scans images and correlates those with soundscapes, then the person’s brain would momentarily translate those into mental images of the objects — like braille for the ears. These sensory substitution devices could potentially be employed in combination with other alternative invasive techniques to train the brain to see again, or even to see for the first time.

All the home-cooked dishes were delicious. It was obvious that the secret ingredient of my Turkish hosts’ cooking was love, spiced with intriguing conversation. I had not known that Turkish cuisine was one of the best three cuisines of the world, along with Chinese and French. As the IID members we had a great time eating the meals, sharing experiences and world views, and indulging ourselves with delicious and sinfully sweet Turkish desserts. During this trip, I had an ample opportunity to learn about Turkish everyday life as our hosts showed us their entire houses and explained Turkish customs and manners. Unlike contemporary, always busy, American or Japanese households, eating meals together still constitutes the core of Turkish family life, and this practice binds each member to the family unit.

Since my 2007 trip, I have been involved with various social activities at the Little Rock Raindrop Turkish House, and chief among them is the cooking course. A friend and I took the course for a few years, and we are now able to cook some dishes with ease, thanks to the classes and also our Turkish friends who gave us private lessons in their kitchens.

The Raindrop Turkish House cooking classes are taught by Turkish women volunteers, most of who are in their late 20s and early 30s. Some are housewives with small children, and others are teachers, researchers, and graduate students at university. When some of these women’s mothers visit them from Turkey, the older ladies often volunteer to show us different dishes that require some special techniques—which I would describe as “tricks.” I learned that Turkish cuisine is characterized by regional differences from the visiting mothers, who come from different parts of Turkey.

Students taking the cooking classes are diverse; some are university professors, school teachers, secretaries, university and high school students, housewives, and retirees. Their ages range from the high teens to low 60s. The nationalities of the students vary, too; during any semester, there are students from the U.S., Japan (me!), Mexico, Columbia, Uzbekistan, Poland, and Turkmenistan, among other places. The classes are thus international, for over the years I took the classes, a number of different languages were spoken besides English and Turkish.

The religious affiliations of the participants differ, too. All the Turkish women are Muslim, and some of them wear the scarf called Esharp, while others do not. American students belong to Catholic or Protestant churches or Jewish synagogues. I practice Zen (meditation).

The classes are very informal and take place once a week during the evenings. When too many people want to enroll, the classes may be offered twice a week. Usually, the class size varies from 4 to 13 students and two to four Turkish teachers. Recipes are given at the beginning of the class, and students learn about the ingredients, cooking techniques, regional differences, and the significance of the meal as they chop or mix vegetables and meats, and talk about life experiences.

The reasons for taking Turkish cooking classes vary. Zelda, an American woman aged 50, who is married to an attorney, said, “I am interested in the development of food, its difference and similarities with different ethnicities and regions. Plus, I like exploring new cuisines and cooking techniques.” Zelda is a dedicated cook at home and always brings a set of sharp knives to the class. She taught her sons how to cook Turkish meals, too. My colleague recommended Amber, a 23-year-old student to take the class to learn about Turkish culture. It is part of her project for a linguistic anthropology class. Kim, 59, a Jewish homemaker, said “I love to cook and learn new traditions and recipes. I enjoy getting to know the other participants,” when I asked why she wanted to learn about Turkish cuisine. Lynne, 62, said, “The food we’ve learned to make is excellent, but my favorite part is learning from and spending time together with the young Turkish women who teach the class.” She went to the IID’s Houston headquarters for a cooking competition in February, 2011, and won an honorable mention award.

Food is often a symbol of national identity, and it helps define cultures. Food can influence and enrich cuisines of other cultures, too. Historically, food was part of cultural imperialism and colonialism as well. Food unites people and standardizes the world as well—as we can see from the spread of American fast food chains thriving all over the world. As a result of globalization, the boundaries between cultures based on tastes and availability of foods have become much more ambiguous, and certain cuisines have merged in recent years, resulting in the food fusion phenomenon.

For me, as a sociologist, food unites the women at Raindrop Turkish House for world peace. Utilizing the Durkheimian theory of religion, we can say that these cooking classes are an integrator of all the participants from different nations and cultures. The class experience is similar to religion.

The teachers and students gather weekly in search of good food in a cathedral called the kitchen. The cookbook is like the Bible or Qur’an that is used as guide to successful cooking. Chopping boards, knives, ladles, and spatulas are items necessary for the “rituals,” and are comparable to an incense burner, a Yad (a pointer for reading the Torah), candle sticks, a Kiddush cup (for the rabbi to bless the wine). The teachers preach the way of cooking and tell us the significance of the specific meal. Some of the Ten Commandments of Cooking include:

• Always cook with love
• Wash the grape leaves before you wrap them with filling
• For the syrupy dessert, the cake must be warm and the syrup must be cold
• Sauté chopped onions with olive oil before you add the tomato sauce
• Use only the freshest and best ingredients

We work in a close proximity and in unison with all the participants. We laugh together as we dice carrots, mix minced meat, roll sarmas, and make mantis in huge quantities, and we cry together as we chop onions. After the cooking comes the tasting of the food we cooked with love. We open bottles of water and soft drinks to quench our thirst and become our nectar of life. We eat the meal that will become our flesh, blood, and energy to keep us going. We talk about experiences in our countries, share stories, and bond. Georgiana, 63, a secretary, said, “I am taking the class for the fellowship of others—to learn about the Turkish culture, to expand my horizons by meeting people from other walks of life. I love the lessons and I love all the folks!”

The teachers and students in the cooking classes are mothers, university professors, and school teachers who are raising the next generation of Americans. The children, youth, and young adults will grow up to be less prejudiced, more open-minded, and have more knowledge and understanding of each other’s nations and cultures because of the socialization process of their mothers and teachers/professors. By talking casually as we cook and eat together about our experiences, nations, and cultures, the participants can relate better to each other in spite of their different backgrounds and world views. The cooking class companionship promotes international understanding, friendship, and appreciation. This is the first step toward peace.

The Latin origin of the word “companion” includes the words “com,” meaning “with” and “pan,” meaning “bread.” Thus, a companion is basically a person you eat bread with! In Japan, there is an idiom, “eat from the same rice pot.” Our cooking-class companionship makes us bond and become friends. At Raindrop Turkish House, we say “Delicious!” in different languages, appreciate the food, and discuss matters that are important to women everywhere in the world. As women, daughters, wives, mothers, and grandmothers, we do share feelings, emotions, and thoughts about certain things, and they are universal to humankind: feelings of love, understanding, empathy, and compassion.

One night, my friend said at the table, “You know, we eat together, share experiences, and try to understand each other’s countries and culture. We become friends, and we will never think about bombing each other’s country or harming each other’s people.”

I hope that a day will come when there are no more wars in the world, and people live together in peace. And we can begin our efforts right in the kitchen!

Dr. Kinko Ito, Professor of Sociology, Department of Sociology and Anthropology, University of Arkansas at Little Rock, U.S.A.

“Good grades pay off literally. Teachers have long said that success is its own reward. But these days, some students are finding that good grades can bring them cash and luxury gifts… Baltimore schools chief Andres Alonso last week promised to spend more than $935,000 to give high school students as much as $110 each to improve their scores on state graduation exams… The most ambitious experiment began in September, when seven states-Arkansas, Alabama, Connecticut, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Virginia and Washington-won spots in an Exxon/Mobil-funded program that, in most cases, pays students $100 for each passing grade on advanced placement (AP) college-prep exams.” (USA Today, 01/27/2008)

The above is just one example of how some educators have developed additional incentives to motivate their students in hopes of them increasing their performance in school. A majority of students have gone through educational systems in which such rewards are present, albeit not as extreme as in the example above. In such systems, money, student awards, honorary degrees or advanced placement opportunities aim to improve student performance and motivation toward meeting expected goals through increased competition. Some of these rewards may not be tangible: simple praise, public appreciation and positive feedbacks are examples of intangible or verbal rewards. Both tangible and intangible rewards are advocated and implemented by many educators. Today they constitute a crucial part of our educational system. The reasoning behind rewarding or praising students is simple: If one reinforces a behavior by bestowing a reward for it, it is believed that behavior is more likely to be developed and maintained by the recipients of the reward, but is this really the case?

Some psychologists, known as behaviorists, believe that human nature is utilitarian: behaviors are influenced by their consequences. The use of reinforcement and punishment to control and manipulate human behavior reflects this view. The former allows educators to increase the likelihood of a behavior, while the latter is employed to decrease its likelihood. They argue that one can improve and nurture a particular behavior through reinforcement. An educator with a behaviorist point of view, therefore, believes that learning can be achieved in part by reinforcing desired behaviors with rewards, medals, degrees, grades or praises.

Even though these concepts have been valued and applied widely by many educators for decades, there are some psychologists and educators that do not agree with the current use of either tangible or verbal rewards for educational purposes. Their reasoning is based in part on motivation theory. According to motivation theory, people are motivated by either extrinsic or intrinsic drives. Extrinsic motivation is defined as any reinforcement to support, develop or maintain a behavior provided by external conditions, such as rewarding a student with money or an award. Intrinsic motivation, in contrast, implies doing an activity for its own sake because it is inherently interesting or enjoyable. The most important distinction between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation lies in their source: an internal (intrinsic) versus external (extrinsic) source of motivation. Money, praise, awards or promotions are examples of external motivators, which are used to nurture some behaviors, while inner willingness and ambition, are sources of intrinsic motivation (Ryan & Deci, 2000).

There are educators who advocate motivation theory but disagree with the idea of rewarding their students since they believe that external rewards undermine intrinsic motivation. As students are extrinsically rewarded, they are more likely to lose their intrinsic motivation to sustain their behavior. Empirical studies have shown that students who did not receive any tangible rewards previously will begin to associate their behavior to rewards they have been given, eventually leading students to neglect performing an activity for its own sake when there is no reward present.

Amabile, Hennesey and Grossman (1986) examined the influence of rewards and perceptions of activity on creativity. In their study, children were rewarded with the opportunity to take pictures with instant cameras after they completed a task requiring creativity. For young children this reward was pretty attractive. The perception of the activity was manipulated by calling the activity “play,” “work” or by not specifying its nature. They found that children with the perception of play but without the promise of a reward showed a higher degree of creative performance than other children who were promised a reward. It appears that the “label” of the activity and the existence of rewards influences the creative performance of children. Another phenomenon considered in this study was the variation of the children’s behavior in activities in which they were given choice and no choice at all. The authors showed that in activities where participants were not given options, rewarded participants outperformed non-rewarded participants while non-rewarded participants were superior to rewarded participants in choice situations. There were three educational implications discovered as a result of this study:

1. The way a teacher presents an activity or responsibility counts! The presentation of an activity as “play” is correlated with higher performance than if it is presented as “work” or if its nature is not specified.
2. Rewards may undermine activities requiring intrinsic motivation. Intrinsic motivation is important for creativity. Biographies of inventors show that inventions are the result of perennial attempts and thus require a high degree of intrinsic motivation. Therefore, educators need to think twice about whether rewarding their students encourages or suppresses creativity in a given situation.
3. Rewards are detrimental when people have intrinsically chosen to do something, but not necessarily when an action is required of them. This point leaves some room for rewarding students. A good portion of the educational curriculum might be outside of students’ interests. For those kinds of activities, rewards may work to motivate them to participate in these activities, however, if students choose an activity, and if they have already had the motivation to do it, rewards will most likely not improve their performance.

This study shows that educators need to answer the following three questions before deciding whether rewards should be used:

1. Do the students already have intrinsic motivation to complete this activity?
2. Did the students choose to complete this activity?
3. Has someone else already asked or encouraged them to complete this activity?

Another study by Mueller and Dweck (1998) revealed the influence of praise on performance. In a culture of appreciation, praise is expected to encourage people and motivate them to be more successful. This study questions whether praising students is necessary and how praise can affect students. The authors of this study designed six experiments to examine the effects of praise for intelligence and praise for effort and how they influenced the participants. The authors discovered that when praising students for their intelligence the students’ achievements and motivation were lower than those students who were praised for their effort. Children whose intelligence was praised cared more about performance goals while children whose effort was praised cared more about learning. Moreover, the students whose intelligence was praised displayed lower levels of task persistence and enjoyment, increased low-ability attributions, and worse task performance when they experienced failure than children praised for their effort. Another crucial result of the study concerns the concept of intelligence. The same group of students, who were praised for their intelligence, considered their intelligence to be a fixed trait whereas the other group considered it a flexible trait. While the first group (students who were praised for their intelligence) tried to look smart even by sacrificing learning, the second group (students who were praised for effort) attempted to learn new things even if doing so was difficult or risky. Another interesting result was in the discrepancy in performance between the two groups of students when they encountered difficulty in their tasks. The study found that the performance of the students in the first group was impaired in comparison to the second group whose performance increased.

Considering the controversy surrounding rewarding versus not rewarding, the authors of this study focused on the issue of “what to praise.” Praising some traits such as intelligence, ability or creativity might be detrimental for the traits’ continuity in students while praise for endeavoring towards utilizing their intelligence; creativity or any other ability appears to increase the likelihood of learning. This issue raises some serious questions about the current practices of gifted education. Today, most education systems in the United States and other countries “identify” gifted students through tests and other means of determining intelligence, some even group students in separate classes. These students are well aware why they are being treated in this way. In other words, the system itself is continuously providing implicit rewards for the students identified as gifted. From Dweck’s point of view, this policy would impair learning because the student’s performance is not rewarded, while their “intelligence” is.

Another important question raised in this study is the “appropriate time of rewarding.” In research by Kamins and Dweck (1999), the influence of praise and criticism was observed in several ways: when directed variously toward the person performing an activity, toward the process of the activity itself, and toward the activity’s outcome. In their research some of the participants were praised with “I’m very proud of you”; some as “That’s the right way to do it,” whereas others were told: “You found a good way to do it, can you think of other ways that may also work?” When these groups were compared, the researchers found that the process-praised group was superior in rating the products of their work in comparison to the outcome-praised group. It was also noticed in that participants that were members of the process-praised group had increased self-esteem and were more persistent than the other groups. Those findings were the same when criticism was used in place of praise. The lesson to take from this research is clear: we should provide feedback, praise or criticism, about the process rather than the person and the end product.

There are other side effects of rewarding students. When we reward, we actually teach two different things in a very subtle way. First, we teach the student to do something for the purpose of another thing rather than for its own sake. Second, we teach the student not to do anything for free. Both of these have important drawbacks: we kill their enthusiasm and intrinsic motivation because they have been given another reason to do their activities and we implicitly redirect their valuation to external things that then could cause them to undervalue the task itself. This means that they will no longer repeat the same behavior when the rewards are discontinued. There is a paradox here. On the one hand, behaviorist psychologists defined learning as an overt change in behavior. Since the behavior (or learning) fades away later along with the rewards, we cannot argue that rewards did make a permanent influence on behavior. On the other hand, by using these methods we teach students to be independent individuals who do not care about others. Especially in today’s conditions, when many jobless, homeless, and hungry people are trying to survive all around the world, self-centered individualism should not be the desired outcome of education. Infusing people with seemingly innocent notions of “money talks” or “There ain’t no such thing as a free lunch,” might function as a rationale for unethical and socially irresponsible behaviors. Educators should not bolster a self-centered individualism by excessively rewarding students. Such rewarding may contribute to the kind of irresponsibility that allows for the kinds of unwise decisions that lead us to the current recession.

The overall point that I have advocated in this article is not an argument strictly against rewarding. Rather, knowing more about the individual, the conditions, and possible consequences related to rewards are vital for an effective education. How can this be achieved? An example is the treatment of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) toward a child who was making fun of the Adhan (the Muslim call to prayer). He approached one of them and praised one of them by saying, “What a beautiful voice that you have.” Caressing his hair, he continued by asking the boy “Would you mind to give the call to the prayer in the masjid with such a beautiful voice?” He took the child to the masjid and this child, known as Abu Mansura, later became a well-known muezzin (the individual who makes the Muslim call to prayer). This example stands as evidence of the importance of rewarding. On the other hand, in traditional Sufi thought, the purpose of praying and good works is not merely entering Heaven or avoiding Hell, instead, acquiring the acceptance and approval of God is seen as the ultimate goal for a person. Such a purpose may not apply to everyone, because the majority of people may need a tangible reward to do something, just like majority of students want to achieve a certain goal primarily in order to gain rewards, however, higher levels of spirituality can be developed toward an overarching goal that can be achieved by only a select few. Therefore, these two examples do not in fact conflict. The messages derived from educational and psychological literature, as well as religious teachings, seems to converge, even though rewards may help most people to perform better, rewarding is not helpful and even detrimental to a minority group of people who already display high levels of motivation and ambition to achieve.

As a result, rewarding is not necessarily helpful or detrimental. Educators should give up applying their ready-made methods to all students. Ideally, intrinsically motivated students should not receive external rewards because this would switch their focus to material prizes. When needed, educators should try to provide feedback directed toward the process rather than the outcome or the person. Also, they should foster student’s efforts rather than their ability. The decision about rewarding should be based on knowledge regarding the person to be rewarded, the target or direction, and even the timing of the reward. Otherwise, for some individuals the rewards might produce an effect diametrically opposed to its intended purpose.

References

• Skinner, B. F. 1953, Science and Human Behavior. New York: The Free Press.
• Kamins, M. L. & Dweck, C. S. 1999. “Person versus process praise and criticism: Implications for contingent self-worth and coping.” Developmental Psychology, 35, 835-847.
• Mueller, C. M. and Dweck, C. S. 1998. “Intelligence praise can undermine motivation and performance.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 33-52.
• Ryan, R. M. & Deci, E. L. (2000). “Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivations: Classic Definitions and New Directions.” Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 54-67.
• Amabile, T. M., Hennessey, B. A. & Grossman, B. S. (1986). “Social Influences on Creativity: The Effects of Contracted-For Reward.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 14-23.

Original Article: Kim, D-H et al., Science 333, 838 (2011).

We often see patients in hospitals with many cables attached to their bodies. Now there is hope to replace these mobility-limiting settings with something very portable. Engineers have developed an ultrathin, stretchy, and flexible synthetic skin that consists of electronic components such as sensors, antennae, and light-emitting diodes (LEDs). Embedded solar cells or wireless power transfer can be employed to power the patch. The device is thin enough to stick to skin using only the short-range van der Waals forces without the addition of any adhesives, and it can be applied and removed like a temporary tattoo. As a result, electronic skin is much more comfortable than traditional electrodes and gives the user complete freedom of movement. These devices have many potential applications in medical diagnostics, including EEG and EMG sensors to monitor nerve and muscle activity. Gathering patient data during normal activity is especially beneficial for continuous monitoring of health and wellness. During the tests, the patches collected data accurately for up to six hours, and showed no signs of degradation or irritation to the arm, neck, forehead, cheek, or chin after 24 hours. In addition, the researchers used electronic skin to control a video game by collecting electrical activity of muscles from the user’s throat, demonstrating the potential for human-computer interfacing. In the near future, patients with muscular or neurological disorders could use this technology to communicate with computers. There is one major obstacle for long-term use. The patch falls off after a few days due to the continual shedding of skin cells. Researchers are looking for ways around this so they can be worn for months at a time.

2- Searching memory engines

Original Article: Sparrow, B. et al., Science 333, 776 (2011).

What is the capital of Liberia? Which year did Edison invent the light bulb? Are your fingers itching to “Google” the answers? Evidently, the answer is yes. Researchers led by Betsy Sparrow of Columbia University cleverly designed four experiments to investigate how we process information in our memory. In one experiment, participants were presented with trivia-like statements, e.g. “An ostrich’s eye is bigger than its brain,” to which they immediately thought about computers or accessing the Internet. In another experiment, participants were asked to type answers to trivia questions. The computer would either save or erase their answers. When participants thought their answers were saved, they remembered information less as opposed to the erased-from-the-computer-condition. In the other experiments, participants were given statements along with the names of the folders where one can reach that information (e.g. DATA, INFO, ITEMS). They remembered where to find the information (i.e. folders) more accurately than the information itself. To sum up, this research showed that we come to utilize computers or Google as external or transactive memory. In the 1980s, Daniel Wegner of Harvard University first coined the term “transactive memory.” Dr. Wegner, co-author of this article, suggested that people relied on others such as spouses or friends to remember various things. However, it seems like the duty is all on Google now.

3- Lasers come to life

Original Article: Gather, M.C. & Yun, S.H., Nature Photonics 5, 406 (2011).

Since its invention in 1960, the laser became an invaluable device that found uses in numerous applications in many segments of today’s world, including science, medicine, industry, electronics, and entertainment. Laser, an acryonym for Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Radiation, works through a process where light amplifies by bouncing back and forth between two mirrors. Sandwiched between these mirrors, lasers utilize a gain medium made of non-biological materials such as dyes or crystal. Two physicists at Harvard Medical School, Seok Hyun Yun and Malte Gather, were able to replace gain medium with a living cell. The cells used in this study produce green fluorescent protein (GFP) the material that makes jellyfish fluoresce. When illuminated with relatively weak blue light, GFP amplified the light and the cell produced a visible green laser. Even though their biolaser is currently in the development stage, the researchers predict that it will be very useful in science and medicine in the future. For example, they suggest that biolasing may be used for unraveling the structure of living cells. Yun and Gather are now trying to integrate a nanoscale cavity inside the cell rather than using external mirrors. Such self-lasing cells may allow medical applications where cells can be specifically targeted for disease treatment.

4- The smallest farmers of the world

Original Articles: Brock, D. A. et al., Nature 469, 393 (2011).

A social amoeba, Dictyostellum discoideum, lives independently and feeds on bacteria, but when the food becomes scarce, many amoebas bond and form a slug-like organism that can move around to find more resources to feed on. It was thought the amoeba exhausts all its resources by eating all nearby bacteria before forming the slug structure. Surprisingly, scientists from Rice University found that these single-cell organisms use a very simple form of agriculture in the form of bacterial husbandry. Agriculture in the general sense includes the scattering of food seeds, farming of crops, and harvesting. Humans have used agriculture for thousand of years and it was one of the transforming forces behind our switch from nomadic to settled lifestyles. Researchers showed that a group of amoeba, called farmers, eat less and engulf bacteria into their migratory systems instead of consuming all food they encounter. The slugs of the farmer amoeba travel slowly because of packed food, and one-third of Dicty found in nature turns out to be farmers. Apparently, being a farmer is a genetic trait but it comes with a cost: farmers produce less spores during feasts, but more during famine, which explains why there are both farmers and non-farmers still present. There are still many mysteries, yet this article shows the principles of frugality even in the single-cell realm.

This article does not claim to provide answers about social traits or morality in general, but simply summarizes the findings of two recent scientific papers that appeared in the journals Science and Nature, describing interesting research on social ethics and moral behavior. The broader implications of the studies are left to the reader to reflect upon.

The article published in Science magazine presents a line of evidence that spending money on others makes us happier. The Nature article comes up with a – perhaps – more surprising finding: preverbal infants can evaluate social actions, and strongly prefer individuals who help others. The results of the two articles thus suggest that not only do we become happier by doing good to others, but we also feel sympathy for other individuals who do so, even before we start talking.

Spending on others makes us happier

In order to investigate the effects of spending money on others, researchers at the University of Vancouver in collaboration with Dr. Michael Norton of Harvard University, first asked a representative group of 632 Americans to rate their general happiness, report their annual income, and estimate how much they spend monthly on: i) bills and expenses, ii) gifts for themselves, iii) gift for others, and iv) charity donations.1 The first and second items of expenditure were averaged to calculate an index of “personal spending,” whereas the third and fourth items were used similarly to deduce a “prosocial spending” index. Data analysis revealed that significantly greater happiness was associated with higher prosocial spending, whereas personal spending was found to be unrelated to happiness.

Second, a group of employees who received a profit-sharing bonus from their companies were put to a similar test. All sixteen employees reported their annual income as well as their general happiness one month before receiving the bonus. Almost two months after the bonus, the same participants reported their general happiness and were asked to estimate how much of their bonus was spent personally or prosocially. The prosocial spending was again found to be the significant predictor of happiness, whilst the income and the bonus both remained insignificant.

Finally, the researchers designed experiments in order to further decipher the correlation between happiness and prosocial spending. To this end, forty-six university students were asked to assess their happiness in the morning, and were given $5 or $20 (a one time stipend) to be spent by 5 p.m. on the same day. Some participants were randomly instructed to spend the money on a bill, an expense, or a gift for themselves (personal spending condition), and the rest were told to spend the money on a gift for someone else, or a donation to charity (prosocial spending condition). After 5 pm, participants were asked to report their general happiness. The participants in the prosocial-spending group reported greater post-stipend happiness, with the effect of stipend size (i.e. $5 or $20) remaining insignificant. This work hence demonstrated that spending money on others promotes more happiness than spending money on oneself-a result that was apparently counterintuitive. Interestingly, when the conditions of the experiments were described to 109 students from the same university and they were asked their opinion on what condition would make them happiest, they were doubly wrong about their prediction: a significant proportion estimated that the $20 on personal spending would cause the highest happiness.

Preverbal infants can evaluate social actions

The second study by a Yale group describes experimental designs where preverbal infants (i.e. infants having not yet learned to speak) were made to watch animated events.2 (The group of infants chosen for the experiments were 6–10 months old.) In the first scheme (see figure, Scheme 1), a character (a red, circular object with eyes) tries to climb a slope, but fails in its first two attempts (A). At the third attempt, another character comes into the picture, either helping the climber by pushing from behind (B), or hindering it by pushing down (C). When the infants were encouraged to choose between the helper and the hinderer, they almost always reached for the helper (only 2 of 26 infants chose the hinderer). Interestingly, when the climber was made to look like an inanimate object as a control, infants did not show any preference for B or C. (Eyes were removed from the climber, and the climber no longer underwent self-propelling motion with the experiment unchanged in all other aspects.) This suggested that the infants did not choose the helper in the first experiment because they simply preferred the action or the shape or the color (further control experiments) of the helper, but instead their choice was purely social: With the eyes removed from the climber, the infants no longer identified the climber as an individual, and did not perceive the events as social interactions.

It is known that infants look at unexpected events for longer times.2 After the experiment described above, the same infants were subjected to a second test where their observation times were measured. In the display (see figure, Scheme 2), the climber sitting atop a hill initially goes back and forth (D) between the helper and the hinderer, and eventually approaches one of the two (E, the climber ends up approaching the helper; F, the climber ends up approaching the hinderer). On average, the infants stared at the display longer when the climber approached the hinderer (which is a surprising action), compared to the climber approaching the helper (which is an unsurprising action). These findings altogether suggest for the first time that the preverbal infants, although themselves unaffected as third parties (hence remaining unbiased), could make judgments about the value of a social act by differentially evaluating those who perform in positive and negative ways.

Social cooperation

Social ethics is not only puzzling for philosophers and sociologists, but also for biologists because social traits are not inherently specific to humans. For instance, altruistic forms of behavior appear to be ubiquitous in nature and occur in creatures from bacteria to mammals. Even within a rapidly growing bacterial culture, a minority of cells are known to commit to reduced growth rates.3 This slow-growing subpopulation can survive an antibiotic encounter to regenerate the colony, providing an insurance policy for the whole population despite their reduced self-benefit. Towards the other end of the spectrum of living beings, vervet monkeys have watchmen that warn fellow monkeys in the presence of predators by attracting attention to themselves,4 increasing their own risk of being attacked. On first reflection, altruism contradicts the selfishness which is the natural outcome of the underlying assumption of Darwinian evolution, survival of the fittest. If only the fittest survive, according to natural selection, how can such magnanimous behavior continue to exist, when individuals who do not maximize their own interest should have been wiped out long before we can come to know them? Biologists are nowadays trying hard to reconcile altruism with selfishness, and altruistic behavior poses yet another challenge for evolutionary biologists (see a recent article in The Fountain for a detailed review5).

Reflections

• Surely We have created human of the best stature as the perfect pattern of creation. (Tin 95:4)
• Those men and women who give alms and lend to God a goodly loan, it will be increased manifold to their credit, and they will have an honorable, generous reward in addition. (Al-Hadid 57:18)
• The Prophet (may peace be upon him) reported that God said, “I created my servants in the right religion but devils made them go astray.” Every child is born with the fitrah (an innate disposition towards virtue, knowledge, and beauty). Everyone is born in the nature of Islam. (Al-Bukhari and Muslim)

Bill Sayoran is a freelance writer living in Boston. He can be contacted at billsayoran@gmail.com.

Notes

1. “Spending Money on Others Promotes Happiness”, Science, vol. 319, 21 March 2008.
2. “Social Evaluation by Preverbal Infants” Nature, vol. 450, 22 November 2007. Videos of the animated events can be found at the Nature magazine website: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v450/n7169/suppinfo/nature06288.html
3. “Is Bacterial Persistence a Social Trait?”, PLoS ONE, Issue 8, August 2007.
4. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/altruism-biological/
5. “Darwinism and Altruism: Is There A Problem?,” The Fountain, Issue 64, July–August 2008.
6. http://saifur.tripod.com/religion.html

Like much of what I saw in Turkey, I spent a great deal of time processing the experience, letting it really sink in, and figuring out what it meant for me. I saw this experience as a powerful metaphor for the wider communion of God-seekers, attempting to live together on a world stage. Each of us as individuals and as units−places of worship, denominations, religions−each is spinning in a hungry drive to experience the divine, to understand and be a part of the mystery and magnitude of God. We are too often, however, distracted by the waxing and waning distances between the dancers, the different ways of spinning, insecurities in our own movement. We are colliding with one another in a clumsy, chaotic mess. If we could lift our eyes and our arms to God and just spin, moving in the ecstatic reality of God’s love, not only would our personal spiritual experience be enriched, but we would begin to spin together, to fall into a beautiful, cosmic dance, one of peace and harmony.

The question then comes: how do we do that? This place of harmony and peace, quite frankly, seems distant and illusory. Humanity is a diverse assortment of peoples, trying to live together in an increasingly small world. And, it’s not looking good.

There is a startlingly prevalent tone in the world arena of intolerance, judgment, and hatred. Mankind is tragically plagued with violence, hurt, oppression, and war, and too much of this takes place in the context of religious differences. Our differences aren’t going to dissipate any time soon, nor should they. What has to happen is dialogue. We have got to learn to love one another, to respect one another, and to communicate with one another. As people of God, we can do one of two things. We can couple our religious identity with that of a soldier, armed and ready for the clash of religious empires, or we can take our seat at the table of humanity with a voice of love, humility, and faith.

Religious tolerance is a huge first step that we must take, first in our personal lives, then toward a peaceful world communion. Religion is one of the most deep and penetrating faces of the human condition. It bears in it an energy of passion and intensity, a power that little else in the sphere of human existence does. We are inherently driven to seek a union with our creator, with the divine, with something that is greater than ourselves. While I personally believe that this hunger is a universal, natural core of our being, it undoubtedly manifests itself in infinitely varying ways. There is no ignoring the fact that there are huge differences and points of separation between the world’s religious nomenclature. There are points of convergence and divergence on every level, from East to West, Jew to Buddhist, Episcopalian to Baptist, and from me to you. The only way to love all in the context of this diversity is to acknowledge and respect those differences.

Now, it is important to note that religious tolerance is not merely a failure to stand up for what one believes. It isn’t a weak cop-out. It begins with a security and understanding of one’s own identity, one’s spiritual core. An awareness of and conviction to one’s own beliefs allows for calmly, strongly held, but permeable boundaries. Tolerance does not require an abdication of those boundaries, but neither does it call for a relentless defense of those boundaries.

Stopping at tolerance is not enough, though. There is no room for growth in merely recognizing differences and agreeing to respect one another from a distance. If we, as individuals, seek growth, and if we as a global religious community seek movement toward a peaceful existence together, have to take it further. We have to dialogue, to engage in a meaningful conversation with one another. Dialogue is a two way sharing between different sides. This means that through love, you share your faith with others. But, it also means that through love you seek a better understanding of those whose faith is different from your own.

Interfaith dialogue is an extremely powerful, highly underestimated tool for achieving peace in such a deeply divided world. Globalization is rapidly and forcefully changing the way we live our lives, whether we realize it or not. Every day, technology transportation, and communication are getting better, placing the entire world in our reach. Geographical separation is becoming much less significant and real. The cultural and religious separations, however, are not narrowing. I live in a tiny global neighborhood with Jews, Muslims, and Hindus, Baptists, Roman Catholics, Methodists and the like. We are neighbors who don’t understand one another, don’t talk to one another….we just stay at home, separated by high fences. The fences are there for a reason, we tell ourselves. Better yet, let’s build them higher, and let’s build some more. How much energy have we spent on building these barriers? We have to be intentional about breaking down those fences and living out the inclusiveness and universality of God’s immeasurable and unconditional love. This doesn’t mean losing our identity or abdicating our beliefs. It means making love, compassion, and understanding a priority.

One of Christ’s major endeavors as a social activist was to tear down the walls that separate humanity and to unite all of mankind under the banner of divine love. The Jewish community during his time was in a tumultuous state of tension between its religious identity and a growing Roman presence. Among the varying responses from the Jewish community, one of the most prevalent was that of the Pharisees. They believed that the redemption of Israel would come from a strict adherence to the complex codes of holiness and purity. Christ made clear, though, that it is Yahweh’s love, compassion, and mercy that supercede the walls that we build to separate and compartmentalize ourselves. He wanted to override the barriers that separate Jews and Greeks, Slaves and Free, prostitutes and tax-collectors, Pharisees and Saducees, rich and poor with divine love. We are called to do the same.

While there are very real issues that separate the religions of the world, our points of commonality are far greater. In loving one another we must understand, dig deeper into our differences. We must move away from a polemic approach to one another and toward a respectful appreciation for religious diversity. We must come to the table with humility and a sincere desire to grow.

In “The Dialogue Decalogue,” Leonard Swidler lists some commandments for effective inter-religious dialogue.

1. The purpose of dialogue is to increase understanding.

2. Participants should engage in both interfaith and inter-religious dialogue.

3. Participants should be honest and sincere.

4. Participants should assume that other participants are equally honest and sincere.

5. Each participant should be allowed self-definition.

6. There should be no preconceptions as to areas of disagreement.

7. Dialogue can only occur between equals.

8. Dialogue can only occur where there is mutual trust.

9. Participants must be self-critical of their religious traditions.

10. Participants must attempt to experience how the traditions of others affect them holistically.

Basically, interfaith dialogue brings people of faith together, creates a loving, respectful relationship between them, and offers immeasurable growth to every party.

I know I’m running on some really broad, abstract ideas, so I want to offer my real, personal experience with interfaith dialogue. My interest in dialogue between religions and within my own faith goes far back, but my recent trip to Turkey transformed that interest into something much deeper and more passionate.

We traveled all over the country, visiting important cultural and religious sites and spending time with people who were a part of this huge movement in Turkey and within Islam. The movement stems from the teachings of Fethullah Gulen, a religious leader and social activist.

I also left with a massive charge on my heart to bring Christianity to the table with equal fervor and conviction. We need to step it up, join our voices in this exciting and hopeful journey toward peace through understanding and education. We have so much to gain, and so much to offer.

I want to leave you with a quote by Huston Smith. “What a strange fellowship this is, the God-seekers in every land lifting their voices in the most disparate way imaginable to the God of all life. How does it sound from above? Like bedlam, or do the strains blend in strange, ethereal harmony? Does one faith carry the lead, or do the parts share in counterpoint and antiphony where not in full-throated chorus? We cannot know. All we can do is try to listen carefully and with full attention to each voice in turn as it addresses the divine.”

The Madina Charter is a constitution that essentially established the Madina city-state. The Charter was the first written constitution in Islam and arguably the first constitutional law in society. Before Prophet Muhammad’s arrival from Makka, Yathrib (later known as Madina) had a population of 10,000 that was organized into approximately 22 tribes. Approximately half the population was Jewish and half was Arab. Regardless of religion, tribes sought power through military dominance over other tribes, with the numerous alliances forged between warring tribes greatly contributing to the aggression. Constant warfare was taking a toll on the tribes. While some sought external military assistance for the conflicts, many were making preparations for the enthronement of a leader from one of the tribes. However, it was unclear whether each tribe would acquiesce to the leadership of a single leader from one of the tribes and if such a leader would be able to establish political organization, create military defense for the city, reconcile tribal hostilities, and define local rights and obligations as well as address the issues of the growing immigrant refugee population from Makka.

God’s Messenger was requested by the tribes in Yathrib to act as a third-party mediator to try and help resolve the on-going conflict between them. He had a reputation for being an able mediator as he had helped to resolve conflicts in Makka and was able to fill the leadership void that existed in the area. It was also common practice of Arabs at that time to refer their conflict to outsiders, and the Prophet had already been given the title, “The Trustworthy” by the residents of Makka. Finally, while drafting the Charter, he consulted the leaders of each tribe, thereby demonstrating his willingness to listen to the needs of all tribes.

The methods God’s Messsenger made use of in the creation of the Charter are similar to trends that have emerged in modern conflict resolution techniques. These methods provide an important source for understanding the concepts of mediation and conflict resolution in Islam, and subsequently, can also offer effective means with which to approach dialogue with and within Islamic societies and among non-Islamic societies.

The Charter, which was the first declaration of the area of Madina as a city-state, established rules of government and addressed specific social issues of the community in an attempt to put to an end the chaos and conflict that had been plaguing the region for generations. The Charter outlined the rights and duties of its citizens, provided collective protection for all citizens of Madina, including Muslims and non-Muslims, and provided the first means of seeking justice through the law and community instead of via tribal military actions.

The Madina Charter, which contains 47 sections in total, addresses the power structures that contributed to the conflict in Yathrib. The Charter expressly identified the parties involved in the conflict; the first 23 sections of the Charter address the Muslim immigrants from Makka and the Muslims of Yathrib, while the second half of the document is directed towards the Jews of the community. Prophet Muhammad also identified immediate physical issues in Yathrib. In the second section, the people of Yathrib are defined as one community to the exclusion of all others. Prior to this proclamation, the boundaries of Yathrib were indistinct, each tribe occupying a certain territory, with the whole of the tribal territories in the area not being considered as one, united city. Once Yathrib was established as an integrated community, The Prophet addressed issues of community justice and protection. The Charter established the course of law for Yathrib. The right to seek justice was shifted from individuals to the central community. The Prophet’s arrangements for community justice and protection encouraged collective responsibility. The Madina Charter was also the first acknowledgement of religious divisions within the Yathrib tribal system. Though he did little to change the organization of inter-religious tribes, the Prophet called upon the deeply instilled values of Islam and Judaism to fortify the agreement. These stipulations enabled the participants of the agreement to look once again beyond tribal alliances, thus making tribal lines indistinct.

Along these same lines, the Charter focused on relationships rather than group dynamics: the Madina Charter eliminated tribal hostilities by realigning residents, shifting the focus from militaristic rivals to allied religious followers. In the event of religious dispute, the document continued to decree that the participants of the agreement must act in good faith with one another Finally, interaction goals, including specific desires to maintain one’s sense of self-identity, were left intact by shifting the alliance from tribes (which were hostile) to religion, enabling participants to abandon tribal hostility without loss of face.

Before the Charter, Yathrib was a community of constant tension between independent, hostile tribes. The Prophet addressed these power struggles by establishing common goals that would serve the whole community. The Charter specifically advises mutual influence with the declaration that the Muslims and Jews “must seek mutual advice and consultation, and loyalty is a protection against treachery.” The Charter binds the parties of the agreement to helping one another against any attack on Yathrib. It dictates behavior for a specific instance of mutual influence. If the Jews “are called to make peace and maintain it they must do so; and if they make a similar demand on the Muslims it must be carried out.” Also, reference to a higher authority was repeated in both sections. The Charter also explicitly pronounces that future disputes “must be referred to God and to Prophet Muhammad.” The participants had placed a power that was external to their group that they would be able to draw upon in the event of their own power being or seeming insufficient. The power of the agreement was uniquely balanced due to its direction towards God. The Madina Charter addressed potential power complications by focusing the participants on their interdependence. The Madina Charter prohibited independent contention by participant groups that claim God’s protection, and states that the peace of believers is as one. Once again, the idea of being one community was emphasized and the participants of the agreement were made to recognize their power as a unit.

The solutions presented in the Madina Charter can be applied to questions concerning dialogue and conflict of today’s world: the Charter was created to address problems present in and created by a pluralistic society, the main characteristic of today’s globalized system. The constitution of the Charter created a federal-type structure with an authority that was centralized in matters of state security, yet provided the tribes a certain level of autonomy in social and religious issues. Prophet Muhammad only made final decisions in cases where tribes could not resolve disputes between themselves, and these decisions were based on the laws laid out by the Charter. The Madina city-state, while granting every citizen equal rights, protection against oppression, and a voice in the government, declared itself a brotherhood of believers, extending financial help to its citizens. Laws were also enacted to punish criminals, such as prohibiting help being given to a murderer. Finally, as prescribed in the teaching of the Qur’an, freedom of religion was guaranteed for each member of the community.

For a peaceful world, individuals must live within the boundaries of the lawfully created universe. In this modern age of science and technology, the Madina Charter could be a source for answers to questions about how to live together and how to solve and prevent conflicts between groups based on differences in culture and belief. The Madina Charter represents the principles of law and good and right reason, which is higher than any individual man. On the charter, God’s name comes first, as God represents the highest good and the highest principle of right reason. Thus, the Madina Charter can be a good model of ways to create and sustain dialogue in a pluralistic society, and of ways to build and conduct political and social relationships among different groups.