The Rutgers-Camden Faculty Experts Blog has moved to http://facultyexperts.blogs.rutgers.edu/. 

Please visit us at the new address to read more outstanding, insightful commentary from our faculty.

Charlotte Markey

Charlotte Markey, an associate professor of psychology at Rutgers–Camden, and her husband, Patrick Markey, an associate professor of psychology at Villanova University, recently blogged about politicians and infidelity on the blog, “Science of Relationships.“ Here’s an excerpt:

In the last few weeks and months we’ve found ourselves watching the news and repeatedly exclaiming “Really?!”

Arnold Schwarzenegger is married to the beautiful Maria Shriver, has four gorgeous children, and yet he couldn’t resist becoming sexually involved (and having a love child with) his family’s housekeeper. Really?!

Christopher Lee, a married New York state congressman, sent a shirtless photograph of himself in response to a Craigslist personal ad. He even went as far as to call himself a “fit, fun, classy guy.” Really?!

Not to be outdone by his fellow New York politician, Anthony Weiner sent numerous pictures of himself, including one of his crotch, to women other than his wife. He was a rising political star and newlywed, but couldn’t resist texting pictures to young co-eds. Really?!

Why do prominent and powerful men seem to find themselves in these sorts of predicaments? 

Read the entire post here.

Chester Spell

Not all of our days are sunny.  Sometimes it rains.  Sometimes it’s too hot to go outside.  But does the weather have an affect on employee morale and perfomrance?  Chester Spell, an associate professor of management at Rutgers–Camden, recently answered some questions about the subject for the Rutgers–Camden Faculty Experts Blog. 

Q: How does bad weather affect employee morale?

A: I’m not certain that rain itself has been linked to morale in any specific way but your question reminds me of the research on Seasonal Affective Disorder (SAD), where people are more likely to experience low morale in winter months, which is alleviated by longer periods of bright light in the summer.  Supposedly, it is also related to latitude, being more common in northern locations than areas closer to the equator that receive more light.  So the issue may really be extended periods of darkness that seem to have been related to morale or depressive episodes in individuals. 

Q: Can bad weather stifle employee productivity?

A: Other than obvious cases where weather affects productivity (think construction industry), the real question is how do overall working conditions affect employee performance? This includes, in addition to rainy weather, things like temperature, humidity, and other factors.  The short answer to that question is yes.  For example, one study showed that raising the office temperature to 77 degrees from 65 degrees improved typing speed over 100 percent and greatly reduced the error rate as well in an office pool of typists. 

Q: What about good weather? Does it boost morale, or is it more likely to slow productivity if an employee’s mind is on being outside or on vacation?

A: An article in Scientific American in 2008 concluded that “spring fever” or the other side of the SAD coin, existed, even if it is not something that is completely understood.  While I know of no conclusive evidence that employees can be distracted by good weather, research shows that low levels of anxiety and depression are conducive to higher productivity. 

Q: How can employees prevent the weather from effecting their daily work?

A: While you can’t change the weather, there are other working conditions we do have control over . My research published last year in the Journal Personnel Psychology, for example, shows how employees with a good, trusted social support group at work are less likely to be depressed and anxious on the job.  So looking to others to confide in at work can alleviate some of the stressors and other causes of feeling down on the job, like bad weather.

Andrey Grigoriev

This article, by Andrey Grigoriev, professor of biology, originally appeared in the March 2011 edition of LifeSciTrends.

The new wave of research efforts leading to truly personalized healthcare will rely on data generation on an unprecedented scale. Computational and integrative biology (CIB) approaches will be essential in these efforts in order to sift through petabytes of population data addressing the health of single individuals, and to design treatments suited for their specific conditions, based on their personal genotypes.

New Jersey is already a national leader in the pharma and biotech sectors.  By embracing the new opportunities CIB offers, New Jerseywill be able to further secure its position as a key biotech player as well as demonstrate its ability to utilize the latest techniques.

Another industry in which computational biology can play a significant part is that of sustainable energy.  Further development of biofuels will be a responsible way to address New Jersey’s and the nation’s future energy needs and to cut dependence on non-renewable energy resources. Genetic engineering of microorganisms aided by computational simulations and design may provide an answer.  New graduate education initiatives in this direction will allow New Jersey to strengthen its position.

However, transforming New Jersey into a center for CIB innovation will require significant investment, both in the research facilities available and in scientific talent.  By funding initiatives such as the Center for Computational and Integrative Biology at Rutgers–Camden and encouraging academic partnership with industry, New Jersey can begin the process of building research infrastructure, attracting the most innovative projects, and training the scientists of the future. 

The alternative to such investment is stagnation at best and abandonment at worse.  As the biotech and pharmaceutical industries move towards more computational, cross-disciplinary projects, New Jersey must provide the workforce and incentives to maintain its position as a good location to do business.  If not, these industries on which the state so heavily relies will move shop.

Sheila Rodriguez

Most Americans care about the welfare of farmed animals. Egg companies know that, and many market their eggs with labels claiming the hens were treated well. What consumers don’t know is that many of the animal welfare claims on egg cartons are meaningless.

Egg consumers have a right to know that most hens are packed eight or nine birds to a cage. The cages are so small that hens are unable to stretch a wing. The overcrowding causes them to fight, so their beaks are cut off to prevent them from injuring other birds. The fewer than 5% of eggs in the U.S. that are not produced under these conditions are from hens that were not even allowed outside.

Many of the production method claims made by egg producers cannot be accurately verified. Industry standards are factory farmed standards.  Federally-verified claims made under the National Organic Program, though comprehensive, are problematic because of lax enforcement. Private programs that verify the conditions under which hens are raised offer limited hope: two of the three main programs use animal welfare guidelines similar to industry standards. Moreover eggs certified under these programs are typically more expensive and can be difficult for consumers to find.

Claims such as “natural,” “no antibiotics used,” and “no hormones administered” have no relevance to animal welfare. And while the terms “free-range” and “free-roaming” frequently appear on egg cartons, these are claims that apply to poultry, or birds raised for their meat, not to birds raised for their eggs.

Perhaps most important, consumers need to understand that “cage-free” hens are a subset of factory farmed production. Even small farms that do not raise hens under industrial production standards purchase their birds from factory-farm hatcheries.

Animal welfare claims on egg labels should be regulated to ensure accuracy. Until then, consumers should avoid purchasing most eggs. 

Sheila Rodriguez teaches animal law at The Rutgers School of Law-Camden and can be reached at sheilaro@camden.rutgers.edu.

Wojtek Wolfe

Wojtek M. Wolfe, an assistant professor of political science at Rutgers-Camden, recently spoke with Rutgers Today about the death of Osama bin Laden.  An excerpt of Wolfe’s commentary is below.  For the complete interview, click here.

Osama bin Laden became the symbol of al Qaeda and his death allows the United States to claim a symbolic victory in the decade long “War on Terror.” Since bin Laden went into hiding, he has had very little operational control over al Qaeda activities, therefore his death will not significantly impact al Qaeda’s ability to operate.

His death, however, does indicate an intelligence failure for al Qaeda, and if this failure leads to the death or capture of other more operationally relevant figures within the organization, then we could expect to see a weakened al Qaeda presence in the region.

Bill FitzGerald

At a recent departmental colloquium, Bill FitzGerald, an assistant professor of English at Rutgers–Camden, presented results of his research on prayer in a digital age.  This presentation emerged from his work in the rhetoric of prayer that is the topic of his book manuscript “Spiritual Modalities,” currently under review with a university press. In his talk “There’s an App for That: Delivering Prayer Digitally,” FitzGerald noted the increasing migration of prayer and other worship practices to digital environments as more and more of our life is transacted online. 

Today, thousands of websites and hundreds of “apps” are devoted to prayer. At the same time, the use of technology is really nothing new. As communication between human and divine, prayer has always taken advantage of various modalities (oral, visual, textual, bodily, etc.). In many ways, “texting” prayer to send into cyberspace draws on prayer’s fundamentally oral character, with typing a form of speaking. Although prayer is frequently imagine and performed as private communication between individuals and God, much prayer is communal or public by nature. 

Online practices typically blur the lines between public and private prayer. On the one hand, prayer is vocally addressed to God; on the other hand, by appearing online, it is “overheard” by other people who may benefit from or cooperate in this devotional act. 

After examining specific websites and internet applications that allow individuals to post their prayers for (human) others to read, including several sponsored by specific faith traditions and other more non-denominational efforts, one site allows visitors to journey virtually to the Holy Land to pray the rosary. Another site allows visitors to deliver prayers to the Wailing Wall in Jerusalem (In actuality, a person prints and physically places prayers at the Wall).  The vast majority of sites feature a “wall” that allows visitors to see (and in many cases, respond to) prayers placed there. Most prayers take the form of a petition seeking divine assistance. 

The concept of delivery taken from classical rhetoric can help us to understand prayer across different modes of performance. Delivery (or actio, in Latin) is actual performance of a speech, a text, or a “tweet” in the physical or virtual presence of some audience. In many ways, prayer long ago anticipated contemporary technology’s virtual reach across the digital divides to the extent that prayer already reaches to the heavens. In this respect, prayer is an app.

Kimberly Mutcherson

Revolutionary reproductive technology has assisted thousands of people who have been unable to have children for various reasons.  But could the law ultimately interfere with a person’s desire to bring children into a family?  Kimberly Mutcherson, an associate professor at the Rutgers School of Law–Camden, recently discussed the issue.

I think the law is moving in a restrictive direction.  Many would say that we need more lawmaking; we need consistency and uniformity to address issues concerning reproductive technology.  My position has always been that those laws often close doors.

It’s interesting is to think about all of the different ways in which the paradigm of family gets shaken up a little. When you talk about reproductive technology, it’s harder to figure out where to draw those lines.  If someone is being paid to carry an embryo to which she has no genetic connection, is she a mother?

New Jersey has one of the biggest fertility industries in the United States, but it’s also a state that has been very hostile towards surrogacy.  You have hundreds of people who are making babies this way, but the legal system says it’s against the public policy of our state.

Legislation makes it harder for people to access the technology, it makes the technology more expensive, and it’s dictating which people should or shouldn’t have access to the technology.  Those are the things I worry about.

There is deep sympathy for people who use assisted reproductive technology because they are infertile, or have a disability.  But on the other side of that, there are people who say the technology is turning babies into products.  There are those who supposedly use the technology to predetermine what kind of baby they will have, to choose donors on the basis of race, or of SAT scores.  People imagine this world where we’re manipulating genes and pre-selecting babies to be special. That’s not the future I see.  These people just want families.

My ultimate goal is to push people to think critically about what it is we think of when we think of family.  Why is family so important to us?  If we can focus in on that, it makes it easier to think about all of these technologies.  Instead of being focused on fear of technology, we have to focus on the end result, which is family.

The American Academy of Political and Social Science recently conducted an interview with Daniel Hart, distinguished professor of psychology at Rutgers-Camden, about the push to allow 16- and 17-year-old children vote in the United States.  Hart and Robert Atkins, assistant professor of nursing and childhood studies, recently published an article on the topic in the Academy’s journal, The Annals.

Read and listen to the entire interview by clicking here.

Janet Golden

Janet Golden, a professor of history at Rutgers–Camden, recently blogged about First Lady Michelle Obama’s remarks on breastfeeding.  Golden is the author of “Message in a Bottle: The Making of Fetal Alcohol Syndrome” (Harvard, 2006).  This blog entry first appeared on the History News Network.

Something every American should be able to agree on is that babies need a healthy start in life.  Yet First Lady Michelle Obama’s recent remarks in support of the decision by the Internal Revenue Service to make breast pumps and other breastfeeding supplies tax deductable elicited vitriol as well as praise.  Representative Michele Bachmann (R-MN) called it the “new definition of the nanny state,” while public health and medical experts applauded, pointing to the voluminous data supporting the importance of human milk for babies.  While critics alleged that the government would be buying breast pumps, tax experts pointed out that this was not a direct government purchase but rather allowed the cost of pumps and other supplies to be reimbursed from Health Savings Accounts and Flexible Spending Accounts (using pre-tax dollars) or to be listed as an itemized medical expense once those expenses exceeded 7.5 percent of adjusted gross income.  Economic experts noted that the minimal costs to the government of such expenditures might well be met by lower costs for the Women, Infants, Children (WIC) program of the United States Department of Agriculture’s Food and Nutrition Service, the biggest single purchaser of infant formula in the United States.

Supporters of the ruling failed to sway individuals who believed that the federal government was embarking upon a new and dangerous path.  They might be surprised to learn that, if the definition of a “nanny state” is one that promotes sound public health practices, including breastfeeding, the federal government has taken this position for nearly a century.  And, they might be equally shocked to find out that for the past century ordinary Americans eagerly sought advice about pregnancy, infant care, and childcare from the federal government.

“To nurse her baby is the first duty of every mother,” proclaimed the 1913 pamphlet Prenatal Care published by the U.S. Children’s Bureau.  Founded in 1912 during the administration of President Taft and housed in the Department of Labor, the Children’s Bureau’s mission was to investigate and report “upon all matters pertaining to the welfare of children and child life among all classes of our people.”  A key aim was the reduction of infant and child mortality.