How excessive cell phone usage can cripple a child’s mental development

The scene of a quiet child tapping away at a phone or tablet with glee is an image that, by now, most people are familiar with. It may seem cute at first, however a sinister reality lurks beneath this scenario. Overwhelming research now shows that excessive cell phone usage in infants and adolescents can slow down, or even permanently alter, various parts of their extremely sensitive and still growing brains. Social skills, cognitive abilities, and emotional awareness can all be affected. This technology is often incredibly addicting because of its constant bombardment of lights, colors, and rewarding sounds that can thus inhibit a child’s ability to focus, learn how to properly socialize with other humans, and develop an interest in other activities. We as a society should be more aware of the effects that our phones have on our children so that we do not end up altering the biology of an entire generation. It should be our utmost goal as a society that we stay technologically literate so that we make our technology supplement our lives and work for us as opposed to being dependent on it to survive.

How much time is too much time?

Smart phones have positive benefits for children when used in small amounts, however there are dangerous consequences if their usage is excessive and left unchecked. For the sake of clarity, “excessive phone usage” will refer to the American Academy of Pediatric’s (AAP) 2018 suggested screen time limits.

“Avoid digital media for toddlers younger than 18 to 24 months other than video chatting. For children 18 to 24 months, watch digital media with them because they learn from watching and talking with you. Limit screen use for preschool children, ages 2 to 5, to just 1 hour a day of high-quality programming” [1].

Cell phones can permanently stunt a child’s neural development

Scientists have identified the first three years of a child’s life to be their “critical years,” a time when their brains are undergoing the most development and are the most sensitive to new information. It is imperative that children constantly interact with their parents via face to face communication, problem solving, and play in order to begin experiencing life while establishing the literal building blocks that will enable them to perceive and interact with the world around them for the rest of their lives. Children’s minds are akin to soft clay that can be easily molded, and both positive and negative experiences can have lasting effects on them. Excessive screen time can cause permanent damage to the brain and can inhibit “the ability to focus, to concentrate, to lend attention, to sense other people’s attitudes and communicate with them, (and) to build a large vocabulary….”

The short term, immediate gratification responses that phones constantly give usually train our brains to become addicted to always expecting quick responses from tasks that we engage in. This can make completing longer tasks that require more focus such as reading, paying attention in class, doing homework, or holding a conversation more difficult and can have lasting ramifications on a child’s performance in school and in social settings [2].

Excessive usage can make children socially awkward and anxious

As most teens and adults learn the hard way, the best way to grow socially is by directly engaging in the social behaviors that we often dread the most. Making new friends, talking to the opposite gender, and public speaking all become easier the more a person partakes in the activity despite how nerve-wracking they may initially be. This is especially true for children, who are socially clean slates that learn how to socialize by interacting with other children, their parents, and through play. Cell phone usage promotes a sedentary lifestyle, and a child can rarely grow socially by being sedentary. Playing with other kids teaches cooperation, empathy, and compassion. These are very human traits that cell phones cannot teach a child. Failing to develop strong social skills can lead to social anxiety, which has a host of its own problems, since a child may be ill-prepared to deal with social scenarios such as these ones.

The AAP recommends interacting with your child by asking them questions and encouraging a response while they use phones instead of just leaving them to their own devices. This way, they are interacting with their parents, as is necessary for their growth, and having the phone supplement their learning in the way that it is supposed to.

Prolonged usage can easily lead to addiction and dependence

Our brains have a built-in reward system that awards us when we achieve something of value. The chemical most commonly associated with this system, and most well-known by society, is dopamine. Normally, our brains receive dopamine in reasonable and completely safe doses as we go about our day whenever we feel we should be rewarded for something. This can include finishing an assignment, sending a difficult email to an even more difficult colleague, or when eating sweets. It makes us feel good and relaxed but can be addicting in large amounts. Cell phones can cause an overproduction of dopamine that has been compared, though to a lesser extent, to the excessive amount of dopamine produced as a result of abusing hard drugs, such as cocaine. Have you ever caught yourself reaching for your phone, without even thinking about it, as soon you hear a text message notification go off? That’s dopamine at work. It’s the rush that we get when something satisfactory happens, and it is all too easy to trigger with phones. Dopamine can easily become addictive, and the brain can become dependent on receiving a certain amount of dopamine every once in a while if it receives too much too quickly. This may be one reason why we may sometimes glance at our phones even if we know there is nothing new to look at.

In children whose brains are still developing, this dependence on dopamine can be catastrophic towards their growth. Their brains are much more susceptible to dopamine addictions than teens or adults are, though this is not to imply that older populations are safe. This is why a child may seem impossibly glued to a phone and will throw a tantrum once they are told to put it down. A proven method to help rid addictions, including cell phone addictions, is to replace the addictive behavior with a similar, healthier, but equally satisfying behavior. Phones can be replaced with Legos, or other interactive toys, in order to teach a child that there are ways to have fun besides phones. Going cold on an addiction rarely works as it does not sate the brain’s hunger for dopamine.

It is entirely possible for us to regain control

Fortunately, there are plenty of solutions that families can utilize in order to make sure that phones do not dominate their lives. Professional organizations such as the AAP and Mayo Clinic stress the importance of unstructured playtime for the minds of young children. In general, psychologists have realized that unstructured play is actually vital for the growth of children’s brains since it encourages creativity, imagination, and problem solving. Their brains are encountering problems, and thus creating solutions that lead to growth and understanding, while they play. Cell phones, on the other hand, tend to do the work for them instead and do not allow the brain to learn. This is especially true for videos that tell children everything that they need to know and do not give them time to problem-solve on their own.

The AAP encourages parents to establish a Family Media Plan that clearly outlines when and where family members can use their technology. Parents may consider forbidding technology at certain places, such as the dinner table, or doing activities, such as weekly board game nights, without technology either in order to remove the barriers that technology so often puts between us. A strong family is one where all family members have firm trust, understanding, and respect in between one another. Less face-to-face interaction, and an obsession with screens from both parents and children, can very much damage these bonds. You can make a Digital Media Plan for your family at www.HealthyChildren.org/MediaUsePlan.

Technology is awesome when used properly and in reasonable amounts!

Virtually every person can name at least one technological medium that brings them joy and can bring them closer to the people that they care about. For some, this may be gathering around the couch and watching a movie or TV show. Others may prefer interactive video games that can bring the family together and can promote bonding in ways similar to board games. The internet also possesses an infinite treasure trove of resources that can greatly enhance education and our general quality of life. This technology mainly becomes problematic once we fail to monitor it properly and allow it to spiral out of control. But in moderation and under control, these innovations are a series of mind-blowing inventions that dazzle the mind and can very much aid our personal and family goals.

There are organizations out there that are constantly raising awareness and promoting online safety

In recent years, parents have realized how destructive cell phones can be to their families and have decided to do something about it. “Wait Until 8^th” is a grassroots movement that encourages parents across the country to take a pledge that they will not give their children a smart device until they are at least 8 years old. It was started by Brooke Shannon and a few other parents in Austin, Texas, and works to empower parents and communities about the dangers of cell phones for kids. You can learn more about the pledge at www.waituntil8th.org.

There is also a wealth of resources for parents that are concerned about their children’s online safety. The National Cyber Security Alliance, Project Safe Childhood, and National Center for Missing and Exploited Children all help spread awareness about internet safety and the consequences of careless internet surfing. It should be a goal of every parent to stay technologically literate and up to date about which websites their children are visiting and the apps that they use.

Make technology work for you, as opposed to working for it

Our world is changing faster than we can adapt to it, and smart phones are no exception. New technology always presents new challenges, especially when it can take so long to thoroughly research the effects that this technology can have on our minds and bodies. It is important to always stay technologically literate so that we may provide the best quality of life that we can for our families. Technology, above all else, is a double-edged sword.

References

1. “Children and Media Tips from the American Academy of Pediatrics.” org, 1 May 2018, www.aap.org/en-us/about-the-aap/aap-press-room/news-features-and-safety-tips/Pages/Children-and-Media-Tips.aspx.
2. “What Screen Time Can Really Do to Kids’ Brains.” Psychology Today, Sussex Publishers, www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/behind-online-behavior/201604/what-screen-time-can-really-do-kids-brains.

There are already 1.5 billion smartphone users and a total of 5 billion mobile phones in the world. Smartphone companies are announcing new phone models with improved capabilities every year. These are smarter and better phones with new sensors, powerful chips, and new capabilities. Newspapers and technology blogs often start discussing rumors about an upcoming smartphone several months before its launch.

Over the past few years, we have seen many futuristic prototypes and designs. Consumers request better and smarter phones that can handle more and more tasks with every new model. Although the phone companies are surprising us with new smartphones every year, we are far from seeing some of the technologies presented in prototypes. What do you expect to see in smartphones in the next 5 to 10 years? Let’s talk about some of the technologies that will end up in a smartphone in the near future.

One of the critical components in a smartphone is the battery. While most smartphones only support being charged from a wall plug, some of them are supporting inductive wireless charging out of the box. Although it is not a standard feature for most smartphones, wireless charging can be enabled using third-party cases and charging pads. Current wireless charging systems still require the smartphone to be placed on a pad for charging. A bigger step in powering smartphones will be touchless wireless charging. A new startup company, Ossia [1], recently unveiled the world’s first commercially viable touchless remote wireless power system. Imagine you are walking into your house or office, and the smartphone in your pocket is starting to charge via receiving electric waves through the air.

With wired or wireless charging, the battery technology of smartphones remained largely unchanged for years. A large percentage of smartphone bodies are occupied by lithium-ion batteries. With the developments of new power efficient displays and computing chips, smartphones are now using less and less power. This allows manufacturers to use smaller batteries with the same usage time. Battery technologies are not efficient enough to power smartphones more than a couple of days with average daily usage. People often carry extra batteries and chargers when travelling or spending time outside. Solar charging can help with some of these challenges by enabling smartphones to recharge under sunlight. Researchers are also exploring other materials to replace lithium-ion (e.g. graphene) in batteries to provide extra power for the ever-growing size of smartphone displays.

Smartphone displays are getting bigger and better with ultra-high screen resolutions that are sometimes even stronger than the human eye. Some manufacturers are already working on 4K ultra HD displays (3840 pixels wide by 2160 pixels tall). With the screen sizes getting larger, the distinction between a smartphone and tablet is becoming less clear. Some smartphones are even called phablet, a new category between smartphones and tablets, by newspapers and tech blogs.

A bigger jump in display technology will be through the use of flexible screens. There are already prototypes of 5-inch flexible displays or 50 inch curved televisions from several companies. One benefit of flexible displays would be fitting a tablet size screen on a small smartphone body. Users will be able to slide or unfold the display of a typical size (e.g. 4-inch) smartphone, and convert it to an 8-inch tablet. Companies are still looking for a good use case for flexible displays in daily life. Some applications of the smartphones with flexible displays make them closer to wearable devices. Some of them have appeared as watches or bracelets.

Another development in display technology is transparency. There are already prototypes of transparent displays in various sizes and forms. Transparency is important for heads-up displays and some models where seeing the background is necessary. This technology will allow displays on glasses, contact lenses, windows, and windshields. An obvious application of the transparent displays in cars is a GPS navigation system on the windshield [2]. This will open a full immersive experience by showing directions directly positioned on the road, virtual signs on the sidewalks, and even augmented information about companies and addresses directly on the walls of the buildings. Imagine seeing a large virtual menu or information panel with available seats, business hours, and prices on the wall of a restaurant. While the transparent displays are already available in various prototypes, the main challenge is achieving transparency in electronics and other components in a smartphone.

Even with flexible displays, you may not be able to carry and fold a 50-inch display into typical smartphone size. A major shift from increasing the display size will come via the use of pico-projectors. A smartphone, with a decent display size (e.g. 5 inch) for everyday use, can be turned into a full size (e.g. 50-inch) media consumption system with an integrated pico-projector. Although there are prototypes of pico-projectors embedded into smartphones, there are still many technical limitations in projection size, brightness, battery life, and cost of components.

While larger displays provide a better experience for users, the consumable content is mostly 2-dimensional. Even though there are games and movies designed and recorded in 3-dimensional environments, they still cannot provide a true 3D experience. All of this 3D content is projected onto a 2D screen in smartphones. There are prototypes giving the 3D effect by providing 2 separate images to both eyes by using a stereoscopy or parallax barrier. These technologies have limitations in field of view, viewing angle, interactivity, and distance of viewer. Researchers can create a pseudo 3D experience via head tracking, using camera or sensors to provide a glass-free experience. This allows users to see a different perspective of the scene on the phone by looking from different angles. The technology is still in its early steps with limited applications and hardware support for the full immersive experience and interaction.

The keyboard is main point of interaction in smartphones. One of the major changes in smartphones was eliminating the physical keyboard on the phone. Now most of the front face of the phone is covered with the display. Multi touch displays provide on-screen keyboard for text input. While they are similar in size, on-screen keyboards allow customization for different languages, use cases, and applications. On-screen keyboards try to imitate the haptic feedback through vibrations, but still cover almost half of the screen during typing. There are prototypes with air-inflatable buttons in real 3D forms using a transparent layer on the screen to provide realistic haptic feedback. The size of the keyboard is the main limitation for smartphones. A new prototype eliminates even the on-screen keyboard using laser projection. A small device projects a full size virtual keyboard on a flat surface like table using lasers, and tracks finger movements for recognizing key inputs. This allows both customization and experience of a full size keyboard, while making the screen fully available for other functions on the phone.

While the main input point for the phone is through virtual or on screen keyboards, a smartphone actually gets many inputs from outside through sensors. The full potential of these phones can only be achieved through new technological sensors in the phone. GPS and compass sensors allow navigation and direction capabilities, and replace the need for a GPS device for most users. Many smartphones are now listed as the most used camera devices on photography websites, and are getting closer to the quality of a DSLR camera with new image sensors. Proximity sensors understand the distance between device and user, and allow the device to turn off the display during phone calls to reduce battery usage. Accelerometer and gyro sensors provide new inputs for gaming and user interaction. Barometer, temperature, humidity, gesture, fingerprint, and heart rate sensors are becoming part of many smartphones. Researchers are already experimenting with ultrasound [3] and x-ray scanners [4] for smartphones, and we are getting one step closer to the Star Trek tricorder, a general-purpose science fiction health diagnosis device.

The future of smartphones is almost unlimited. We have already seen novel technologies introduced for smartphones as prototypes and concept designs. We can easily extend the list with intelligent assistants, nano-coating for waterproofing and self-cleaning, seamless integration of voice controls and augmented reality, environmental and medical sensors, and 3D and holographic displays. I can’t wait to see some of these technologies integrated into smartphones in the near future.

While smartphones revolutionized the way we communicate and how we carry out many of our daily tasks, at the same time they are challenging our privacy, safety, behavioral codes, social life, and the use of public space. The problems and discussions will not end here, and they are growing with the introduction of new sensors and capabilities. Increasing awareness through education about the security and privacy risks that smartphones present is the first step for protecting users from future problems. Parents and educators have a critical role for raising responsible generations, and they can start with becoming a good role model [5] on how they use their smartphones…

Acknowledgment: This article is produced at Mergeous [6], an online article and project development service for authors and publishers dedicated to the advancement of technologies in the merging realms of science and spiritual thought.

References

1. Darrell Etherington. 2013. “Cota By Ossia Aims To Drive A Wireless Power Revolution And Change How We Think About Charging,” September.
2. Jared Newman. 2013. “GPS on Your Windshield: Garmin Brings Navigation HUDs to Regular Old Cars,” Time Magazine, July.
3. “Ultrasound scan and health check using your smartphone,” BBC News, December 2013.
4. James Plafke. 2013. “Tiny terahertz chips can give smartphones X-ray vision, tricorder-like functionality,” ExtremeTech, July.
5. Larry Magid. 2012. “Smartphone Guide for Parents of Tweens and Teens,” SafeKids.com, August 2012.
6. Mergeous, Online article and project development service, mergeous.com.

Original article: Olzsak T. et al, Science (2012, epub ahead of print)

It has been known by epidemiologists that people who grew up in farms are less likely to acquire immune diseases such as asthma, allergies, inflammatory bowel disease and multiple sclerosis when compared to people living in cities. Such observations have been the roots of “hygiene hypothesis,” which essentially points out the beneficial effects of being exposed to infectious agents. Supporting this theory, a recent study at Harvard Medical School showed that exposure to symbiotic bacteria has a long lasting beneficial effect on the immune system development. “We as a species are not exposed to the same germs that we were exposed to in the past,” said the co-author Dennis Kasper, a microbiologist at Harvard Medical School in Boston. In this study, published in Science, the researchers compared germ-free mice to mice with normal bacterial flora. Germ-free mice showed significantly higher levels of invariant natural killer T (iNKT) cells in their colons and lungs. “We made the serendipitous observation that these cells were dramatically enriched in the lung and colon in mice that lacked any microbes,” said the co-author Richard Blumberg, the chief of gastroenterology at Brigham and Woman’s Hospital in Boston. Body’s own production of elevated iNKT cells correlated with higher susceptibility to inflammatory bowel disease and allergic asthma in germ-free mice. Most strikingly, the study showed that exposure to these bacteria in late age did not lower the susceptibility to these immune diseases, indicating that the bacterial exposure needs to be early in life to boost the immune system. After all, broad-spectrum antibiotics for babies may not be such a good idea.

2- Giant chickens of Jurassic Park

Original article: Xu X. et al, Nature 484, 92 (2012)

Many of us undoubtedly learned a lot about dinosaurs from the famous Sci-fi movie Jurassic Park, but who would have imagined that some gigantic feathered dinosaurs would be running along with our favorite monster T-Rex? Paleontologists have recently made an incredible discovery in Liaoning Province of China. They found a set of perfectly preserved fossils that belong to a previously unknown species of dinosaurs. These 125-million-year-old feathered giant dinosaurs represent the largest feathered animal species ever lived on earth. The adult one is predicted to be at least 9 meters (30 feet) long with a weight of 1400 kg (~3000 pounds), which is approximately 40 times bigger than the Beipiaosaurus, largest known feathered dinosaur. New gigantic feathered dinosaurs are given a Chinese-Latin name Yutyrannus huali meaning a “beautiful feathered tyrant.” Simple filament like structures as well as the relatively small sizes of feathers seem more similar to feathers from a baby chick than the plumes of an adult bird, suggesting that Yutyrannus used feathers not for flying but for body temperature insulation, perhaps under the harsh climate conditions of that age. Paleontologists are really excited to see that how much more we have learned about dinosaurs over last 15 years and they predict that many different feathered meat-eating dinosaurs lived before and they are still yet to be discovered.

3- Stardust mystery revealed

Original article: Norris B.R.M. et al, Nature 484, 220 (2012)

Heavy elements are formed in the cores of stars and are crucial in formation of celestial structures like our earth. When an intermediate-mass star dies, it triggers a cosmic sandstorm that lasts thousands of years ejecting more than half of its mass into space. Our Sun is expected to go into a similar phase in around 5 billion years. Scientists observed these sandstorms for years but it was a mystery how these particles found could leave the vicinity of the stars and find their way into interstellar space. Computer simulations hinted that these sand-like particles could not be that small, otherwise they would be evaporated by the immense heat of the dying star. Scientists using the Very Large Telescope in Chile had a chance to explore these stars in a greater detail and discovered that the size of these particles is around a micrometer. This size might seem very small to us but for these particles, it is large enough to behave like mirrors for the light rays coming out of the star instead of absorbing them. Since light also behaves like a particle, the momentum transferred by this reflection helps particles to accelerate to the speeds like 10km/second. As the lead author of the study, Barnaby Norris from University of Sydney says: “The dust grains are like lots of little sails catching the wind, or in this case, starlight.” The material that comes out of the stars is recycled during the formation of new stellar objects like our old planet.

4- Babies understand more than we think

Original article: Bergelsona, E. & Swingley, D., P.N.A.S. 109, 3252 (2012)

Most babies do not say a meaningful word until they are a year old. It was not clear whether they knew the meaning of the words prior to the speaking age. It is easy to ask the question on whether the babies understand words but it is hard to scientifically measure it. The researchers from the University of Pennsylvania devised an ingenious experiment to test the hypothesis whether the 6-9 months babies understood the common words. During the experiment babies sat on their parents’ lap in front of a computer while some images of body parts or foods were shown on the screen. The parents were given instructions through headphones about what to say to the baby about the image on the screen. Babies were monitored by an eye-tracking device to measure their attention being directed to screen. The researchers designed a control environment by pairing a body part and a food item. For instance, if a banana and some hair were shown on the screen, the researchers measured the time that the baby fixated on the banana when the parent instructed the child to look at the banana versus when the parent instructed the baby to look at the hair. 33 infants of ages 6 to 9 months and 50 toddlers of ages 10 to 20 months were recruited for this study. The study convincingly showed that the babies fixated longer on an object when they were instructed to do so. Moreover, as the age of the babies increased the period of fixation stayed pretty much constant until 14 months, but jumped dramatically afterwards. The reason behind the jump in 14 months begs further research. Now, the researchers want also to test the vocabulary of the babies and whether the babies also understand the abstract concepts.

I am sure, to most of us who have learned about scientists as unapproachable figures sitting on top of Mount Everest (and somehow almost all of whom are Western), this viewpoint may seem quite new. Yet, there is more to it. The same thinker points to another equally important factor in the development of civilization and advancement of sciences: with a great strength in his weakness and potency in his impotence, man is very much like a pampered child in creation. If he recognizes his weakness and performs his worship with his words, actions and state of mind, if he knows his own impotence and asks for God’s aid, he will then have fulfilled the obligation of gratitude for the subjugation of creation to his needs.

As with a petted child who by means of a little cry or simply a sad look obtains the assistance of adults to serve him: even the tiniest part of what they do for him by far exceeds what lies in the child’s own power to do for himself, and their great help he owes to his great weakness. So too, the apparent dominance of man over the rest of creation and his progress in civilization are not the result of his own deserving but they were subjugated to him because he himself was weak: he received aid because he was helpless; he was enriched thereby because he was poor; he was inspired because he was ignorant; he was bestowed with favours because he was in need of them (Nursi, 23rd Word). 

Penicillin

Most people believe that great discoveries are results of deliberate, directed effort, planning. exhaustive experiment and logical inference. The discovery of penicillin is the most famous counter example. Although the role of planning, experimenting and research has an undeniable role in scientific discoveries, events do not always form a logical sequence, and this is what I am here trying to emphasize.

During World War I, doctors depended on antiseptics to cure battIe wounds. A. Fleming, a bacteriologist, observed that phenol (or carbolic acid, the most common antiseptic at that time) did more harm than good, in that it killed the leukocytes (white blood cells) faster than it killed the bacteria, and he knew this was bad because the leukocytes are the body’s natural defenders against bacteria.

In 1922, while suffering from a cold, Fleming made a culture from some of his own nasal secretions. As he examined the culture dish filled with yellow bacteria, a tear fell into it from his eye. The next day, when he examined the culture, he found a clear space where the tear had fallen. He correctly concluded that the tear contained a substance that caused rapid destruction of the bacteria, but was harmless to human tissue. The antibiotic enzyme in the tear he named lysozyme. It turned out to be of little practical importance because the germs that lysozyme killed were relatively harmless, but this discovery was an essential prelude to that of penicillin.

In the summer of 1928, Fleming was engaged in research on influenza. While doing some routine laboratory work involving microscopic examination of cultures of bacteria grown in petri dishes (flat glass dishes provided with covers), Fleming noticed in one dish an unusual clear area. Examination showed that the clear area surrounded a spot where a bit of mould had fallen into the dish, apparently while the dish was uncovered. Remembering his experience with lysozyme, Fleming concluded that the mould was producing something that was deadly to the staphylococcus in the culture dish. Later he would say: ‘There are thousands of different moulds and there are thousands of different bacteria, and that chance putting the mould in the right spot at the right time was like winning the Irish sweep.’

Fleming’s own words are enough as a response to those who attribute scientific discoveries to chance or idolize scientists. However, I will give other examples to make the point clearer.

Teflon

From non-stick frying pans to space suits to artificial heart valves, Teflon has found several areas of application. Its discovery resulted from an apparently ‘accidental’ observation by a young chemist, R. Plunket, working in Du Pont laboratories. On April 6, 1938, Plunket opened a tank of gaseous tetrafluoerothylene in the hope of preparing a non-toxic refrigerant from it, but no gas came out, to the surprise of Plunkett and his assistant. Plunkett could not understand this because the weight of the tank indicated that it should be full of the gaseous fluorocarbon.

Instead of discarding the tank and getting another in order to get on with his refrigerant research, Plunkett decided to satisfy his curiosity about the ‘empty tank’. Having determined that the valve was not faulty by running a wire through its opening, he sawed the tank open and looked inside. There he found a waxy white powder and, being a chemist, he realized what it must mean.

The molecules of the gaseous tetrafluoroethylene had combined with one another ‘polymerized’ to such an extent that they now formed a solid material. The waxy white powder did indeed have remarkable properties: it was more inert than sand – not affected by strong acids, bases or heat and no solvent could dissolve it – but, in contrast to sand, it was extremely slippery.

X (Roentgen) Rays

Physicist W. Roentgen discovered the rays which were later to be named after him, in an unexpected and unplanned manner. Roentgen was repeating experiments by other physicists in which electricity at high voltage was discharged through air or other gases in a partially evacuated glass tube. We now know that cathode rays are actually streams of electrons being emitted from the cathode, and the impact of these electrons on the walls of the glass tubes produces the phosphorescence.

In 1892, it was demonstrated that cathode rays could penetrate thin metallic foils. Discharge tubes having thin aluminium windows allowed the cathode rays to pass out of the tube where they could be detected by the light they produced on a screen of phosphorescent material (such screens were also used to detect ultraviolet light), but they were found to travel only two or three centimetres in the air at ordinary pressure outside the evacuated tube.

Roentgen repeated some of these experiments to familiarize himself with the techniques. He then decided to see whether he could detect cathode rays issuing from an evacuated all-glass tube, that is, one with no thin aliminium window. Na one had observed cathode rays under these conditions. Roentgen thought the reason for the failure might be that strong phosphorescence of the cathode tube obscured the weak fluorescence of the detecting screen. To test this theory, he devised a black cardboard cover for the cathode tube. To determine the effectiveness of the shield, he then darkened the room and turned on the high voltage coil to energize the tube. Satisfied that his black shield did indeed cover the tube and allowed no phosphorescent light to escape, he was about to shut off the coil and turn on the room lights so that he could position the phosphorescent screen at varying short distances from the vacuum tube:

Just at that moment, he noticed a weak light shimmering from a point in the dark room more than a yard from the vacuum tube. At first, he thought there must be, after all, a light leak from the black mask around the tube, which was being reflected from a mirror in the room. However, there was no mirror. When he passed another series of charges through the cathode tube, he saw the light appear in the same location again, looking like faint green clouds moving in synchronism with the fluctuating discharges of the cathode tube. Hurriedly lighting a match, Roentgen found to his amazement that the source of the mysterious light was the little fluorescent screen that he had planned to use as a detector near the blinded cathode tube, but it was lying on the bench more than a yard from the tube.

Roentgen realized immediately that he had encountered an entirely new phenomenon. These were not cathode rays that lit up the fluorescent screen more than a yard from the tube! With feverish activity, he devoted himself single-mindedly in the next several weeks to exploring this new form of radiation. He reported his findings in a paper published in Wunburg, dated December 28, 1895, and entitled ‘A New Kind of Ray, a Preliminary Communication’. Although he described accurately most of the basic qualitative properties of the new rays in this paper, his acknowledgement that he did not yet fully understand them was indicated by the name he chose for them, X-rays. (They have also often been called Roentgen rays.)

He reported that the new rays were not affected by a magnet, as cathode rays were known to be. Not only would they penetrate more than a yard of air, in contrast to the two or three inch limit of cathode rays, but also (to quote his paper):

‘All bodies are transparent to this agent, though in very different degrees. Paper is very transparent; behind a bound book of about one thousand pages I saw the fluorescent screen light up brightly. In the same way the fluorescence appeared behind a double pack of cards. Thick blocks of wood are also transparent, pine boards two or three centimetres thick absorbing only slightly. A plate of aluminium about fifteen millimetres thick, though it enfeebled the action seriously, did not cause the fluorescence to disappear entirely. If the hand be held between the discharge tube and the screen, the darker shadow of the bones is seen within the slightly dark shadow image of the hand itself.’

He found that he could even record such skeletal images on photographic film. This property of X-rays captured the attention of the medical world immediately. In an incredibly short time X-rays were used routinely for diagnosis in hospitals throughout the world.

Insulin

If a relative or a friend of yours has diabetes, you will probably know how important insulin is for them. As a partial remedy for most diabetics today, insulin was discovered as an answer to the prayers of hundreds of thousands of diabetics by the Most Merciful One. Perhaps, even better relief and remedy are awaiting discovery in some unexpected time or place.

In 1889, while studying the function of the pancreas in digestion, two researchers removed the pancreas from a dog. The very next day a laboratory assistant called their attention to a swarm of flies around the urine from this dog. Curious about why the flies were attracted to the urine, they analysed it and found it was loaded with sugar. Sugar in urine is a common sign of diabetes.

The researchers realized that they were seeing for the first time evidence of the experimental production of diabetes in an animal. The fact that this animal had no pancreas suggested a relationship between that organ and diabetes. The researchers subsequently proved that the pancreas produces a secretion that controls the use of sugar, and that lack of this secretion causes defects in sugar metabolism then exhibited as symptoms of diabetes.

Many attempts were made to isolate the secretion, with little success until 1921. A young Canadian medical student extracted the secretion from the pancreas of dogs. When they injected the extracts into dogs rendered diabetic by removal of their pancreases, the blood sugar levels of these dogs returned to normal or below, and the urine became sugar-free. The general condition of the dogs also improved.

Until recently, all insulin used for the treatment of human diabetes came from the pancreases of some animals. As a result of genetic engineering, based on knowing how DNA controls protein synthesis, a major pharmaceutical firm has begun to produce human insulin by using bacteria. The fact that a microscopic creature, like the bacterium can be made to work for the wellbeing of human beings is a subject worthy of study on its own.

Of course, these are by no means the only examples worth mentioning of ‘happy, chance discoveries’. Here are some more to add to the list: the discovery of molecular structure of organic compounds, saccharin and nutra-sweet (sugar substitutes, again for diabetics), ‘safety glass used in automobiles and planes, oxygen and several other chemical elements, radioactivity, astronomical discoveries like pulsars and background Big Bang radiation, many mathematical theorems, high temperature superconductors, synthetic dyes, etc., etc.

Can one really call all of these marvellous discoveries simply ‘happy, chance accidents’? I believe human conscience and reason must resist such a misconception. Surely, any person of common sense would say: ‘I am thankful to the Merciful One, who has bestowed upon us the favour of these discoveries, enabled us to benefit from them, among His innumerable other bounties’.