BY gabriellA debenedictis • Septmember 22, 2017 • 6:00 A.M.
University of Connecticut President Susan Herbst said today that the university will not be able to make up for budget cuts by using donated funds and federal grants.
“Some have suggested that UConn could cover a two-year $300 million hole in our budget by using ‘donated funds’ and ‘federal grants’. That is absolutely not the case; it is either a misunderstanding or fantasy about how universities operate,” Herbst said in an email.
Herbst said federal grants are donated to universities to fund specific research projects and it would be illegal to use them to replace state operating cuts.
“What’s more, a university cannot obtain grants without scientists, and the Republican budget will decimate our science faculty. And no university can make up for hundreds of millions in cuts through donors- not even Harvard University could do it,” she said.
Herbst said the cut would force the university to dramatically increase tuition and fees, as well as make reductions and closures that would decimate it academically.
Growing up in the area, I remember much about Storrs Center. Before construction, it was just a handful of shops in a slightly rundown area. As I began high school at Edwin O. Smith, however, construction was already underway: large buildings still covered in plastic, rumors of new shops, and the constant sounds of work. It was exciting to see all this development being done to better the region, especially when it felt so tight-knit. It was almost as if Mansfield wasn’t condemned to the rural fate of much of Eastern Connecticut. In junior year of high school, I was ecstatic to finally be allowed to leave the school building for breaks and lunch. I would go out to eat with my friends at all the different places in Storrs Center (likely much more often than I should have) and see even more expansion. By my senior year of high school, though, I became jaded. I felt many of the new stores going up were gimmicky, unnecessary, or inconvenient in location. Storrs Center was overdeveloped.
A field of cannabis at the University of Connecticut Department of Plant Science and Landscape Architecture Research Farm may hold a new treatment for mental conditions like epilepsy, according to Dr. Gerald Berkowitz, a professor of plant science at UConn.
The plants are hemp, a low tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) version of the cannabis plant that has no psychoactive effects, according to Berkowitz. The project comes in response to various greenlights by federal and state legislatures in recent years that relax the legal restrictions on cannabis research.
“There have been some interesting changes in the federal policy regarding cannabis,” Berkowitz said.
Section 7606 of the 2014 Farm Bill states that “institutions of higher education or a State department of agriculture may grow or cultivate industrial hemp if the industrial hemp is grown or cultivated for purposes of research conducted under an agricultural pilot program or other agricultural or academic research.”
“There has been a distinction made between hemp cannabis and cannabis that contains THC,” Berkowitz said.
Throughout history, humans have witnessed changes within nature and society as a result of mechanisms such as natural selection and thought. These changes became apparent through noticeably improved performances over time, through a process that we now refer to as evolution.
Evolution has now occurred in more than just biological forms. Since the introduction of the first programmable computer in the early 19th century, the human brain has evolved to store data outside of itself. We have developed technologies capable of surpassing our own intelligence, technologies that can run a million times faster than the human brain.
The evolution of technology is not just dangerous due to the fact that electronic processes can think a million times faster than biochemical processes, but because its evolution is seemingly not dangerous.
Although we notice the changes in technology, do we really notice the danger? When you scroll through your phone, updating your Facebook or searching Google for answers, you don’t perceive your device as a threat, nor as a danger to yourself or society. These devices are seen by the mass public as tools; tools that allow instant access to limitless information.