White Paper: Qnexa and Finding Safe Ways to Fight Obesity

Topic Background

A big obstacle in the way of optimal public health in the United States is the overwhelming presence of obesity. Weight has become a huge concern across the nation. When viewing infomercials, it’s nearly impossible to overlook advertisements that promise weight loss. There are tons of solutions presented that can be categorized as  surgeries, diets, work out plans, exercise machines, and drugs. There are pros and cons to each of the strategies, and the result is a large group of large people too afraid of invasive surgery and drugs, but too incapable of efficient exercise and diet. For almost a century now, pharmaceutical companies have been trying to yield effective drugs that combat obesity without sacrificing health in the process. In fact, no anti-obesity drug has been approved by the FDA since 1999. Recently, Vivus has been trying to win the approval of the FDA with their drug cocktail, Qnexa. Qnexa is a combination of two other drugs: phentermine and topiramate. Phentermine, an amphetamine, targets appetite, while the other’s purpose is to make the drug user feel fuller. Each has its list of side effects and the FDA still has yet to approve Qnexa because of fears that it may have dangerous side effects.

Topiramine and Phentermine 

To reiterate, Qnexa is a combination of two other drugs phentermine and topiramate. Phentermine was used in a previous drug, fen-phen, which was banned due to the damaging effects it had on the heart valves of individuals. However, phentermine was not the cause of the danger. It was actually the fenfluramine component that was proven to be so dangerous. Topiramine is dangerous for women who are pregnant because the chance increases for the child to be born with a cleft palate. The reason why Qnexa was declined by the FDA was because of fear of heart disease and the probability increase of having a child born with a cleft palate defect if taken while pregnant.

Counterintuitive Note

The FDA has declined a majority of the drugs to treat obesity, including Qnexa, because they cause some sort of heart disease. However, being obese is already harmfully affecting the heart health over a third of the American population while endangering these individuals of high blood pressure, stroke, and diabetes.

Effectiveness of the Drug

In studies with Qnexa, not only did people taking the drug significantly lose weight, they also benefited from things like decreased blood pressure. Unlike the many gimmicks out there promising to get you slimmer, Qnexa actually does the job to help effectively and relatively safely combat obesity. Rather than being a option for any person trying to lose weight, Qnexa is a serious drug, which should only be taken by those suffering from obesity.

Topics for Smaller Papers

Due its importance, I feel like a smaller paper on the accuracy of test trials in the drug field would be very interesting and beneficial. This paper would go into the process of the testing trials and how the results are assessed. Another possible topic could be the mental and physical obstacles preventing those suffering from obesity to become healthy.

Current State of the Research Paper

I’ve gathered much information on Qnexa and its effectiveness, however I am still in the research portion of my paper. At this point, I’ve pretty much made up my mind on how I’m going to tackle this dilemma after having had a change of opinion on it. I’m confident that I’ll be able to find a lot of current evidence to back up my claims.

Topic Background: Social media and networking sites have infiltrated our daily lives to a very great extent within the last decade. Although initially used solely by younger generations, they have now become the most popular channels for people of all ages to connect with friends and remain in contact with one another. While these sites are essentially meant to be resources for communication purposes, they also promote the desire to display personal information about our lives — pictures, posts to friends, status updates, etc. — which can ultimately have a negative impact on our professional lives. Employers always wish to hire employees who are most capable of taking on the job responsibilities they need handled and also want employees who are going to represent their company well. Because of this, a large number of companies use a pre-employment scan of candidates’ Facebook pages to determine whether or not they are suited to represent the company in a respectable manner. Candidates risk losing the chance for a job if employers don’t approve of the way they represent themselves in their personal lives — or at least how they display themselves on Facebook. Likewise, companies often also use posts or pictures that their employees upload on Facebook as a cause for termination.

Counterintuitivity: While Facebook in the job market can be seen as a threat because it could hurt the chances of a given employer wanting to hire a potential employee, it actually is a beneficial tool for job hunting, job advertising, and networking between colleagues. On top of that, Facebook itself is one of the fastest growing companies right now, with its number of employees increasing by an average of 50% per year. Interestingly enough, they seek employees who are fresh out of college, which is the age group that in other markets is most hindered in acquiring jobs because of our deep immersion in the world of social media.

The Facebook Economy: Later this spring, when the $5 billion IPO for Facebook goes through, the Facebook stocks are going to have a huge spike, potentially creating many new millionaires. Aside from helping the economy through stocks, however, they also will be expanding the company, creating many new jobs to help decrease the 8.5% unemployment rate. They currently employ 3,200 people, but their staff grows in number by approximately 50% each year. In a study done in 2011, results showed that Facebook contributed “about 183,000 new jobs per year in the United States and $12 billion worth of economic activity.” The only issue, however, is that a large portion of the jobs that exist at Facebook are jobs specifically geared toward technological and software development, a skill typically found only in “college graduates under 40.” That same 2011 study also showed that the average salary of a Facebook employee was $58,000 — 35% higher than the average American salary. So while the Facebook network is really beneficial for the younger generations, it doesn’t do as much for the job market of older generations.

More Grads Use Social Media To Job Hunt: Studies have shown that more college graduates are turning to the world of social media to look for jobs after graduation. About 35% of college graduates planned to use social media sites like LinkedIn and Facbook to find the right path to their careers last spring. Because of this, companies now need to update their online images to make their companies look more attractive to potential employees. Grads can even read comments from past or current employees of the company to see it from an employee’s point of view. In a survey of potential employers, about 60% said that social media tools are beneficial in attracting Generation Y candidates. In 2009, UPS used social media to recruit 29 employees. In 2010, that number skyrocketed to 955.

Warnings for Online Image: It is very common for students in both high school and college to be told by their teachers and parents to be wary of what they post on their Facebook pages. In high school, students are told that colleges may look at their Facebook when making their admission decision. In college, students are told that their potential employers may browse their page. Often times, students don’t take the warning as seriously as they should. A study by researchers at University of Dayton found that 40% of companies would consider looking through a potential employee’s Facebook page before making their decision. Employers believe that they have the right to get a full impression of the person they are to hire before they make any decisions. But students feel that this practice is unfair — an invasion of privacy. About 32% of students said it is unethical for companies to do this, however only 17% of employers agreed. One issue that both sides can agree is unfair, however, is that by previewing a candidate’s Facebook profile, it violates equal-opportunity-employment laws because a company can see a student’s race, gender, or sexual preference.

Losing a Job From a Facebook Comment: In Paterson, NJ, a white first grade teacher lost her job because of a comment she had made on her Facebook page. A year ago, the teacher, Jennifer O’Brien, wrote a comment on her Facebook page that was forwarded by one of her friends to several of the parents of the children O’Brien taught. The comment was in reference to her students at her predominately African-American school, that read, in part, “I am the warden of future criminals.” She argued that she was driven to write the comment because her students wouldn’t obey her in class and that one of them had even hit her. But the judge and the students’ parents were in agreement that she deserved to be terminated. It shows that it really is necessary to be careful what is posted on Facebook because it can definitely jeopardize a career.

Topic for Smaller Papers:  Some smaller topics that could be researched farther are: analysis of the average age/gender/education level of Facebook employees, if Facebook uses a preview of their candidate’s Facebook pages prior to hiring, if there are laws regarding what can or can’t cause a person to lose their job because of what is posted on Facebook, or if seeing Facebook pages before hiring someone is a legally considered a violation of equal-opportunity-employment-acts.

Current State of Research Paper: Currently, I have a lot of different sources that are  pretty broad, but they have good pieces of information throughout them that are more narrow and closely related to my thesis. Once I get through extracting information from the rest of my sources, I’ll be able to start organizing my ideas into a logical structure. I also need to compare all my statistics and see which ones can be made stronger by pairing them with another statistic or piece of information.

The Topic Background: File Sharing

File sharing is the practice of distributing or providing access to digitally stored information, such as computer programs, multimedia (audio, images and video), documents, or electronic books.  File sharing allows anyone with a computer and access to the internet the ability to directly download copyrighted files and programs for free from people who post them in public peer-to-peer networks illegally. In 2004, an estimated 70 million people participated in file sharing. The website Megaupload, which was shut down January 2012, had claimed to have 50 million people a day using illegal file sharing. A large portion of file sharing and one of the most talked issues is the sharing of music via peer-to-peer file sharing.

In the past few months, the U.S. congress has introduced the SOPA bill, which is a bill introduced by U.S. Representative Lamar S. Smith to expand the ability of U.S. law enforcement to fight online trafficking in copyrighted intellectual property and counterfeit goods. This controversial bill has caused a great debate between those who oppose and those who are for file sharing, even between famous musicians who are affected the most by file sharing.  Many musicians and artists of the music industry, such as Metallica, Bob Dylan, and U2, have argued against file sharing because their intellectual property is being given away for free without their permission and some artist, such as David Grohl Foo Fighters, Radiohead guitarist Ed O’Brien, and Pink Floyds drummer Nick Mason, of the  have backed illegal file sharing saying that it is not a big deal.

Counterintuitive Note:

Those who are in favor of file sharing defend illegally downloading music off the internet are twisting their morals by defending it to benefit their own good and keep their consciences’ clean. It is a basic understanding taught to people in their childhoods that taking something that is not yours without asking permission is considered stealing. File sharing fits that same exact criteria, yet so many people try and defend it saying that it is not stealing. It is obvious to see how the average person benefits from getting music for free, but so many people try to say that file sharing is not stealing.

50 Cent File Sharing Statement:

Before going on stage at a concert in Oslo, Norway in 2007, Curtis Jackson, better known as 50 Cent, made the statement, “What is important for the music industry to understand is that this really doesn’t hurt the artists.”

When he was asked about the status of his record company with the effects of file sharing, G-Unit Records, he responded saying that it was not doing so well. He also said, “The advances in technology impacts everyone, and we all must adapt. Most of all hip-hop, a style of music dependent upon a youthful audience. This market consists of individuals embracing innovations faster than the fans of classical and jazz music.”

50 Cent later goes on to state that he appreciates his fans wither they pay for his music or not.  These statements from an artist who is also a record company CEO really helps bring to light the true effect of file sharing to the music industry and to the artists.

Record Companies Cut on Artists’ Profits:

A common argument that is used by people who are for music file sharing is that the artist barely get any money from CD sales because the record companies keep most of the money. On high end royalty deals, a band may make up to 50% of  what the record label’s  profit is, and on a low end royalty deal the artist may only make 15% of what the record label is making. Even when selling albums on iTunes or Napster, the band will make about the same amount as they would on a high end royalty deal, but the record label will make over 300% profits selling music online.

This information backs up the argument made by those who support music file sharing, but is it still a valid excuse? Just because the artist is not receiving a large profit from CD sales does not mean that it is okay to cheat them out of any profit from fans listening to their work. Also, the record label plays a very valuable role in the music industry. They are the people who discover the talent and give them a chance to become famous. Without the record companies, artist would not be able to produce, market, and advertise themselves like a record label can. Artists make most of their money through touring  and merchandise, but they would not be able to book large concerts and sell merchandise without the help of record labels getting their name in the spotlight. So it is not right to deprive artists and record labels through CD sales out of spite that artists don’t make enough money from it.

Topics for Smaller Papers:

One reason that people who defend file sharing say that they choose to download music for free instead of buying music is because CD prices are too high. Why CD prices are so expensive would be an interesting side topic for a smaller paper because record companies only pay about $.50 per CD made and make about $2.00 or more on each sale and the bands make half as much as the record companies at the most, so where does the rest of the money go and why are prices for hard copy CDs more than $10.00 sometimes?

Current State of the Research Paper:

At first after only touching on the research for my paper, I was quickly informed that my original assumption on file sharing’s effect on artists in the music industry that artist are losing large amounts of income seems to be wrong. I was unaware about how little the artists in the industry make on CD sales through record labels and how many artists back file sharing even though it effects their record sales. What I learned is that artists are not the ones being hurt in the music industry, but the record companies are the real victims. The  Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) posted the financial problems the music industry faces due to the piracy of music online saying, “One credible analysis by the Institute for Policy Innovation concludes that global music piracy causes $12.5 billion of economic losses every year, 71,060 U.S. jobs lost, a loss of $2.7 billion in workers’ earnings, and a loss of $422 million in tax revenues, $291 million in personal income tax and $131 million in lost corporate income and production taxes.”

With this information, I am able to say that I was correct in my assumption that file sharing has a negative financial impact on the music industry, but not necessarily in the way I thought it was affected. Finding a solution to the dilemma that the music industry faces economically may prove difficult considering that I am not an economist and that if such a problem was to be solved by a college freshman record companies would have probably solved it themselves by now, but nevertheless, I will try and find a solution for the problem.

White Paper: Walking in a Straight Line

Topic Background: Can we Walk in a Straight Line

Common sense would tell us that it would be a simple task for us to stay on a straight path while walking, and assuming that you’re not blindfolded it is. However, as soon as you put on a blindfold it becomes an impossible task that will send you walking in circles. Research done by Asa Schaeffer and Jan Souman has shown us that it is impossible for us to walk in a straight line without the aid of a visual landmark of some sort. We do not know why this phenomenon occurs, although there are a few theories of why it happens. For example, some people have legs that are slightly longer or stronger than the other, which would influence how we walk, and that walking is a fluid motion that has many inconsistencies that go uncorrected and we eventually end up going in a circle.

Physiology of Walking:

During each step while walking the center body mass vaults over the limb that’s supporting it, sort of like an upside down pendulum. It is also sometimes described as a controlled falling. However, all fifty muscles in each leg are free to move. Since all of these muscles have freedom to move walking cannot be perfect. Walking includes complex muscle movements and contractions, and therefore has a high potential to make mistakes.

Counterintuitivity Note:

Walking in a straight line is one of the easiest things to do. Just about anyone can easily walk in a straight path, if they’re not blindfolded that is. As soon as you put on a blindfold it becomes impossible to stay straight. It would seem crazy to think that something so easy could become impossible just like that.

Navigation in Animals:

Animals actually use many of the same techniques we do to keep on a straight path. It is proven that many migrating birds use the sun as a navigation tool, and many migrating land animals use landmarks. For example, whales traveling up and down the west coast of North America in The Pacific Ocean will keep the continent on their right at all times while traveling north and keep it on their left while traveling south. However, many animals will migrate using scents or magnetic fields. In these cases they can be easily drawn off course by a similar scent or a man made magnetic field that may replicate the magnetic fields of the planet. There was a study done with sea turtles that make their eight thousand mile migration route the first time that they ever see it. The turtles were first intentionally moved off course, and using the magnetic fields of the planet they were easily able to get back on track. However, a second experiment was preformed where the turtles were introduced to many man-made magnetic fields throughout their journey. The turtles went off course and were unable to find their way to their normal migration spot.

Navigating the Open Ocean:

Just like waking in a straight line, the same problem arises with sailing on the open ocean. Ancient sailors used many methods to make sure that they were staying on course. There, of course, was the obvious answer of land masses, but what if there was no land mass? The navigators would immediately turn to the sun. The sailors would use the placement of the sun, and the stars at night, to determine what direction they were headed in. Another method of navigation would be to follow the birds. The sailors would occasionally notice a sea bird flying over head. They were smart enough to realize that if the bird had an empty beak it was more than likely that it was flying from land out to sea to get food, and vies versa if its beak was full.

Topics for Smaller Papers:

There are many different tools that humans have made to help us navigate. A topic for a smaller paper could be how these tools work and how they were made. Also, the impact that navigation tools have had on our society as a whole.

Current State of the Research Paper:

The research paper is going well. I have the majority of the sources I plan to use. I have tried to broaden my topic by adding in the physiology of walking, and comparing the way humans navigate to the way that animals navigate. However, I am having some concerns that my paper may not reach ten pages. As for my own experiment I am still trying to come up with other sounds I can use to help guide someone I a straight line. I have decided not to do the trial without sound since it has already been proven that we cannot walk in a straight line. My next step is to find a large enough field and willing participants.

Topic Background:

All of the best superhero legends have a fantastic origin story of how they came to be icons; Captain America was once the scrawny, bullied wimp who wanted nothing more than to protect those he loved, Spider-man has great responsibility thrust upon him, and the X-men will always battle discrimination with hope of a brighter tomorrow.  Unfortunately, the real world is not a comic fantasy; it’s ugly, brutal, and cruel.  Even worse so is when the comics world and creators are forced to face these ugly truths of society.  Such was the case when Gary Friedrich, the creator of the popular hero of the dark side of Marvel Comics – The Ghost Rider – opened up a lawsuit in 2007 against Marvel themselves, over a case of ownership rights to his character.  Marvel, and all of comicsdom, are no strangers to lawsuits; the estate of Jacky “The King” Kirby has filed several suits claiming his creations were his family’s property.  Friedrich, as well, believed, based on the contracts signed upon giving Marvel publishing rights, that Marvel was only able to create books and advertise the Rider, not create films and merchandise; he lost, of course, and the ruling was that Marvel owned all rights to Ghost Rider.  This is not the ugly instance; no, this comes with Marvel’s retaliation years later.  Friedrich, attending Comic Conventions like the creator he is, was found selling copies and prints of Ghost Rider material, and Marvel wasted no time in suing him over exactly what they were sued for just years prior. The case would end with Friedrich losing and Marvel deciding to sue creators and artists, who draw their characters and sell the pieces for profit, on the grounds of copyright claims.  And, in the equivalent of Captain America’s tragic death on the stairs of the Supreme Court, this includes the artists that Marvels pays to draw their characters, whose names gloss the covers of comics sold weekly.

Counterintuitivity Note: 

Certainly, copyright laws and claims are laws set in stone and clearly stated: no one can use someone else’s work and profit from it as their own.   In the case of Marvel’s lawsuits, it may not have been an entirely wrong decision: just because Jim Lee is hailed as greatest X-men artist does not mean he “can” still draw them; he works for DC Comics now, Marvel  does not pay him nor is he contracted.  It is still morally wrong of Marvel to attack artists, as this is how they make their livings, but it is more legal of them to pursue.  The back-handing comes with Marvel going after character creators like Friedrich, and artists that are currently employed by Marvel Comics.   So, they are paid to draw these characters, have their names on the covers of these characters’ books, and Marvel can (and will) sue them for drawing the same character at a convention; people are being sued over their livelyhoods and passions.

From the Artists:

The artists, of course, are the party who suffers here.  Marvel has nothing to lose; they’re owned by Disney, so a $75 sketch of the Winter Soldier done at a Comic-con is not exactly going to hurt them financially.  Artists have a difficult enough time making ends meet as it is, and comic artists fair far worse, so commissions from fans are the best way to guarantee a steady income.  Marvel is effectively taking that away from them.  The case has spawned several actions from artists, centering around a union on the popular art/artist site DeviantArt, in which high-profile artists warn everyone to take not only a strike-esque stance against drawing Marvel characters, for profit or otherwise, but to protect themselves from the risk of being sued for triple what they could sell a piece for.  Oddly enough, certain artists are not as hurt by Marvel’s actions as others; Robert Liefeld, creator and artist of Deadpool, Cable, and the original X-force, has stated “Not a single creator that has sued Marvel for creative compensation has succeeded. The list is getting longer. Know what you signed.  I do not own Deadpool, Cable, X- Force—I get a generous payout on their exploitation, but I knew from day one, they are not mine. Period.  I signed those deals when I was 21 years old. I knew that pennies on the dollar were better than no pennies at all.  I was an eager young talent looking to change the game and the playing field, I did that through my creations. No regrets.”  Of course, why should he care; he left for DC Comics the second an opportunity opened.

Marvel Avenges…Itself:

With the ball back in Marvel’s court following their suit against Friedrich, and rumors moving faster than Quicksilver, Editor-in-Chief Joe Quesada appeased the writers of the news site Comic Book Movie with an interview, hoping to clear the air.  However, their perspective offered did not exactly provide the clarity fans and artists hoped.  Quesada stated that Gary “didn’t do it alone,” and that several Marvel affiliates “disagree with the claim that Gary was the sole creator.”  Now Marvel has sued Friedrich, and smeared his word; they do not even want him taking credit for creation, let alone selling books with his name on them.  They may have unintentionally offered their true intentions, though, in stating that Marvel “in no way wants to interfere with creators at conventions who are providing a positive Marvel experience for our fans.”  So, it is perfectly fine to have fan and creator interaction, as long as Marvel gets proceeds whenever it happens; that, or they sue you.

Copyright:

The entire purpose of copyrighting material is to state that you own (usually all) aspects of a creative project.  In fact, it is the Copyright Office’s mission statement to “promote creativity by administering and sustaining an effective national copyright system.”  This statement is rather devalued when the fact that thousands of claims and lawsuits made over who owns copyright are made every year; Marvel suing a creator of one of its high-profile characters does not seem to be promoting creativity.  The exact opposite is occurring, actually, with the DeviantArt “strike” against illustrating Marvel characters.  What are the extents of copyright, anyway?  Friedrich himself was not aware, as there were no plans for a Ghost Rider film and advertising, when he signed Marvel the rights to publishing his character.  Copyright does nothing to benefit creators, it benefits whoever is currently in possesion of the rights to use them.

Topics for Smaller Papers:

• Copyright Laws work against the creators of projects
• Artists ability to draw copyrighted characters (i.e. those not in the public domain)
• Extent of Copyright Laws (Marvel’s creating a film a character they publish, but did not create)
• What it means to be a creator (does a creator have rights to use their character if they do not  own him?)

State of the Paper:

The paper is well-underway at this point.  The concept of the White Paper certainly aids the organization of thoughts and everything is being woven together better than expected. The issues may come in tying that weave tightly; while everything fits merely okay with loose transitions and having one issue lead to another, the culmination of them all to analyze the problem of Marvel suing it’s artists and explaining why its a major problem may be more difficult than intended.  Of course, there is still much research and reading on the Laws of Copyright to be done, and that must be tackled before the paper can even be considered started.  Nonetheless, I am quite confident that everything will work itself out when given the time.

~Avengers, Assemble!

Topic background: The current “Drug Czar”, the head of the war on drugs, made a public statement in 2009 that the war on drugs should be ended. Just like 99% of the people in this country, he realizes that the last 40 years of anti-drug efforts have been wasteful and sometimes counterproductive and have showed very little benefit. Even after this statement, the government has continued to spend tens of billions of dollars on ineffective law enforcement and supply-oriented action.

Counterintuitivity Note: http://www.esquire.com/the-side/richardson-report/drug-war-facts-090109

The purpose of the war on drugs is supposed to be public health and safety. The author of this article calculated a rough death toll of the war on drugs in the US for 2007: 6,487 from drug related violence alone, 15,223 if you add in overdoses. Many of these deaths are police officers who are sent to fight an uphill battle. If drugs were legal and regulated, most of the 6,487 drug-related deaths would never have happened. The war on drugs is killing thousands of Americans, yet the government perpetuates it.

Cops and Drugs: Why we Never Hear what they Really Think-  Niel Franklin, a former high-ranking narcotics officer, said “I find that 95 percent of my law-enforcement friends agree” that the war on drugs is not working, “and probably 60 percent to 65 percent agree that we should legalize.” Franklin states that police departments keep these sentiments quiet for “selfish reasons.” If drugs were legalized, we could cut one third of law enforcement in the country. “And give back all the federal funds too. That’s why very seldom will you see a police chief step forward and say, ‘Yeah, we need to do this.,'” says Franklin.

Packed Prisons: In 2007, 55% of federal prison inmates were incarcerated for drug offenses, with an even higher average state prisoner percentage. When calculated out of the prison budgets, that’s an astonishing $30.4 billion spent just on imprisoning drug offenders in one year. Also, at least 44 states reportedly overspent their prison budgets, so these cost estimates are actually quite low. The combined cost of law enforcement and imprisonment for drug offenses is about $52.3 billion for 2007, which is close to the expected yearly expense of universal health care. So, instead of spending money to protect citizens’ health, our government is spending it on enforcing laws that kill and wrongfully imprison us.

State of the Paper:  I have found many unlikely opponents of the war on drugs in its current form, and despite sensible counterarguments that:1. more people would use drugs and 2. more people would overdose, I am convinced that legalization and regulation of drugs is the best and only solution to the economic and social issues of the drug problem.

THE TOPIC BACKGROUND: ANABOLIC STEROIDS

Anabolic steroids are a compound that can produce multiple physiological effects. They were first developed in the 1930s to treat hypogonadism. Hypogonadism is a condition in which testes do not produce sufficient testosterone for normal growth, development, and sexual functioning. During the late 1930s scientists began to discover that the anabolic steroids could facilitate the growth of skeletal muscle in laboratory animals. This led to the use of these steroids first by bodybuilders and weightlifters and later by athletes in other sports. The effects of anabolic steroids include increases in protein synthesis, muscle mass, strength, appetite, and bone growth.

More than 100 different anabolic steroids have been developed. In order to use these steroids legally in the United States you must have a prescription. A vast majority of steroids that are illegally used by athletes are smuggled in from other countries or illegally diverted from U.S. pharmacies. This has caused multiple tainted records and lots of speculation in professional sports today.

EFFECTIVENESS OF STEROIDS

Anabolic steroids are not effective if you do not do intense workouts while using them. But, when taken with a strength training program, steroids are effective in increasing body mass and strength. They can be injected or taken in tablet form. The injectable steroids can be put into two categories, oils and waters. Oils are the longer lasting anabolic steroids. Most people take them in cycles of weeks, which means stopping for a period then starting again. Another method is stacking, which is taking a combination of several different types to maximize the effectiveness. They are effective by increasing protein synthesis and nitrogen retention.

Anabolic steroids cause enzymes that result in creatine phosphate synthesis and protein synthesis. Creatine phosphate allows an athlete to work out harder and for longer periods of time by being a short-term energy source in the absence of sufficient oxygen. Increased protein synthesis helps the athlete to build and repair muscle tissue.

Another way anabolic steroids are effective is by retaining nitrogen. It utilizes the nitrogen in the protein an athlete has eaten or drank. This is result helps athletes build body mass. This is because a body must temporarily be in a state in which the body takes in more nitrogen than it loses to gain muscle mass. An intense exercise causes a negative nitrogen balance in your body but, the steroids reverse this effect causing a positive balance and faster gain in muscle mass.

COUNTERINTUITIVITY NOTE

Most people believe that steroids disgrace professional sports. What they do not realize is that many of your favorite athletes have most likely taken or are currently using steroids. So, contrary to popular belief, steroids can be a good thing for sports. This becomes obvious when you look at specific cases. For instance, everyone knows Barry Bonds took steroids if you saw him when he first entered the MLB it would be obvious. He broke records and brought tons of interest to baseball. Until he was accused of using steroids no one had a problem with Barry Bonds and the great things he was doing. By making steroids legal it would take away the publicity that testing positive for steroids bring and just leave the positive effects.

Home run Factor:

Anabolic steroids cause an increase in muscle mass. This increase in muscle mass causes a batter to apply a greater force to the bat, resulting in a faster bat speed. An increase in swing speed of course results in increased batted ball speed. This is all proof that steroids cause a larger home run production. This increased home run production will result in more fans of the sport due to the fact that everyone likes to see home runs. It is no secret that fans like watching the unexpected like an intense home run race and more home runs. Allowing athletes to use steroids would just be giving the fans what the want to watch.

Negative Effects of Steroids:

Although athletes receive many benefits in using steroid there are also side effects when athletes abuse steroids. Abuse of steroids results in increased risk of muscle tears and increased risk of tendon injuries. There is also evidence that steroid use may result in a weaker left ventricle. The left ventricle is the hearts main pumping chamber.

Dirty Needles:

Steroids are currently illegal without a prescription and banned from sports. This causes athletes to inject themselves with steroids. This brings across the problem of sharing needles and dirty needles. When you use a dirty needle you risk getting HIV, Hepatitis B, and Hepatitis C from these contaminated needles. Making steroids legal will allow doctors to be the ones to inject these athletes and ensure that the needles are clean. This will make taking steroids as safe as it can be. Athletes are aware of the possible negative outcomes of using steroids and yet they are still willing to use them in order to achieve a higher skill level. If athletes choose to take the risk they should be allowed to have a doctor be the one to provide the steroids so they can be monitored and as safe as possible.

TOPICS FOR SMALLER PAPERS:

I could write a smaller paper on why exactly anabolic steroids are illegal. A small paper on the different types of steroids and their effectiveness is another idea. I could also write a small paper on how steroids have been being used by athletes for longer than most people think. One other smaller topic is that using steroids causes people to exercise which in result helps the fight against obesity. Finally, another topic for a smaller paper is that because while taking steroids you are required to eat healthy they help prevent malnutrition related diseases.

CURRENT STATE OF RESEARCH PAPER:

So far the steps I have completed towards finishing my research paper include: researching sources, writing a proposal, this white paper. I have come up with many strategies on how to approach my paper. I have decided to specifically talk about how steroids would be helpful to the sport of baseball. My paper is still certainly a work in progress and needs a lot more thought and work put into it. Although I have done significant research on how steroids can be helpful, I still need to do much more research on the negative effects to get a better understanding. The more research I do and more feedback I receive will bring me closer to completing my paper.

White Paper : Can Money Buy Championships?

The Topic Background:

Baseball is a game of numbers and statistics. Most people only concern themselves with one statistic, and that would be a player’s salary. Players getting too much money compared to players getting too little money, and if players are getting the amount of money they should be for how they have performed. All players that are “superstars” are not all worth the large sums of money teams throw at them. Teams do not need to “break the bank” trying to build a team of all star players when they can get a team of players that all have a role on the team and can perform that role for less than an all star. These that do not want to spend the big money on players go after statistics. They will look at a players runs batted in when runners are in scoring position, and on base percentage, put outs, assists, errors, caught stealing bases, and grounded into double plays just to name a few. Those statistics that teams are looking at can be the difference between making it to the World Series or being at the bottom of the division. Based on specific teams such as the 2003 Florida Marlins, 2002 Oakland Athletics, 2002 Angels, and 2005 White Sox, these are all teams that did not have a team of all the highest paid players, but they had specific statistics that made them able to win the World Series, all besides the 2002 Oakland Athletics who lost in the American League Division Series.

Counterintuitive Note: People think that if a team has the most money and buys expensive players that they are going to win the World Series. In my essay I will be using my examples of the 2003 Marlins, 2002 Angels, and 2005 White Sox to disprove that and also giving you the standing of the team with the highest payroll during each of those years.

2002 Oakland Athletics:  This team was featured in the movie Moneyball (2011) , and the book Moneyball: The Art of Winning an Unfair Game by Michael Lewis (published in 2003).  This team had the third worst salary in Major League Baseball which was approximately 41 million dollars, and they went to the playoffs, won the American League West, but ultimately lost in the American League Division Series to the Minnesota Twins. They built their team by using something called sabermetrics. Sabermetrics is the specialized analysis of baseball through specifically baseball statistics, and it derives from the acronym SABR ( Society of American Baseball Research).The Oakland Athletics hired full time sabermetric analysts which was not being done at the time, and they started to make up a team using baseball statistics. Players that were on this team were Miguel Tejada (2002 American League MVP), Barry Zito (American League Cy Young Winner), Mark Mulder, and Tim Hudson (Mulder, Hudson, and Zito made up the “Big 3”).

2002 Anaheim Angels: This team won the 2002 World Series against the San Francisco Giants. They had the fifteenth highest salary in the major league that year. This team was built up of good pitching, a very good lineup of young, exciting, and skilled players. This team was not a team of super stars by all means these were a mixture of veteran players and young players with a great coaches. This team beat the New York Yankees who had the number one highest salary in 2002 which was 125.9 million dollars, while the Angels had a salary of 67.1 million dollars. They beat the Yankees in the American League Division Series. This team included Tim Salmon in Right Field who was a Hutch Award winner, Garret Anderson in Left Field who was an All-Star, won the Silver Slugger Award, and was fourth in the American League with 123 RBI’s. Also on the team were Darin Erstad at First Base who won the Gold Glove Award, Bengi Molina at Catcher who won the Gold Glove Award , and manager Mike Scioscia who won the American League Coach of the Year.

2003 Florida Marlins: This team won the 2003 World Series against the New York Yankees. The Florida Marlins had the twenty-fifth highest payroll at 48.7 million dollars, while the Yankees had the highest payroll at 152.7 million dollars. This team was not expected to win the World Series against the Yankees, but they defeated them in the series four games to two games. This team was made up of great starting pitchers such as Josh Beckett, A.J. Burnett, Carl Pavano, Brad Penny, Dontrelle Willis, and great fielders and hitters such as Ivan Rodriguez, Derek Lee, and Mike Lowell. These players are mostly still having great careers to this day such as Derek Lee, A.J. Burnett, and Josh Beckett. This team shocked baseball winning the World Series.

2005 Chicago White Sox: This team won the 2005 World Series against the Houston Astros. They had the thirteenth highest payroll in the major league at 75.2 million dollars, while the New York Yankees were the first highest payroll at 208.3 million dollars. The Yankees lost in the American League Division Series to the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim. This team was made up of great pitching, very good hitting, and a manager who was energetic and was going to do anything in his power to win games. Key players on this team were pitchers Mark Bueherle, Orlando Hernandez, Jose Contreras, Freddy Garcia and Jon Garland.  Also A.J. Pierzynski, Paul Konerko, Frank Thomas, and Jermaine Dye. This team was solid in every aspect of the game whether it be hitting, pitching or fielding.

Current State of Research Paper: My research paper is coming along, I have everything I am going to talk about, all my sources, and a lot of detailed statistics from all the teams I have stated above.  I just need to link everything together and transition into each new topic. I am open to any suggestions if I should talk about something else more or not talk about something as much. I will be giving statistics about the top players’ salaries during the years of 2002, 2003, and 2005 to show the differences between the players on the teams I will be talking about and the top salaries in the major league. This will show how the players on these teams are not the highest paid players, but they are there for key reasons.