Skip to main content

Current Insights into Women’s Healthcare

Stacey Missmer, ScD, is a professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Michigan, an adjunct professor of epidemiology at Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, and a lecturer in pediatrics at Harvard Medical School. Prof. Missmer will serve as the keynote speaker for The New York Academy of Sciences’ upcoming event Endometriosis: A Look at Current Practices and Emerging Science.

Published May 9, 2025

By Megan Prescott, PhD
Program Manager for Life Sciences


Register today for Endometriosis: A Look at Current Practices and Emerging Science – June 23, 2025 in New York City.


Stacey Missmer, ScD

You have been at the forefront of endometriosis research for many years—how has our scientific understanding of the disease evolved, and what are the most exciting discoveries from the past decade?

You’re spot on that there remain really fundamental questions still to answer about endometriosis. However, genuinely we have had a dramatic increase in discoveries in the last decade or so. It’s very different from when I first started researching endometriosis in 1998 when I started my doctoral dissertation. Where we are now from where we were then in many, many different aspects, from knowledge, from attention, from the types of questions that are being explored, it’s very different.

Back then, there had never been a longitudinal study of risk factors for endometriosis at all. With the exception of ovarian cancer, there had never been studies of conditions that are also common in women with endometriosis. There wasn’t a single study then that had focused on adolescents with endometriosis, nor exploring endometriosis in women after menopause. There was no exploration of informative phenotypes or diversity of endometriosis characteristics and presentation patients outside of the ASRM [The American Society for Reproductive Medicine] staging system.

We know now that the visualized endometriosis is not definitively correlated with the symptoms that patients experience. It’s not correlated with their treatment response for standard treatments. However, what is emerging—now that we have genetic discoveries and gene expression pathways and protein pathways and metabolome studies—is that differing presentations of endometriosis, whether it is cysts on the ovary or deep endometriosis or peritoneal lesions, whether it is cyclic pain symptoms, or pain around sexual intercourse or pain related to bowel movements or bladder pain, we know that those are emerging to be associated with different genes, and different protein pathways. It is in this new era of omics discovery that we’re understanding more and more differences among patients with endometriosis that we never even thought about before.

We also now, within the last decade or so, better understand that those with endometriosis have a higher risk of not just ovarian cancer, but also have hallmarks of different conditions related to immune dysregulation and autoimmune conditions, different dermatologic characteristics, different risk of cardiovascular and cerebrovascular conditions, different impacts on mental health, and life goal attainment. The areas that we’re researching and the speed at which we’re making discoveries is very different.

Your work has contributed to identifying genetic, hormonal, and environmental risk factors for endometriosis. What are some of the biggest remaining questions about what causes the disease?

We know for certain that like most—arguably all—complex conditions, there’s not a single cause, but multiple pathways. That is really important to understand. It maybe should have been obvious only in that we know that the experience of people with endometriosis is very diverse.

Some experience infertility: about one-third of those with endometriosis will have difficulty conceiving, but two-thirds don’t. We know that a large portion experienced pelvic pain, but that pelvic pain emerges at different ages. It has different levels of severity and manifests and different types of pain. We know that for what our standards of care are—excision surgery to remove the observed endometriosis lesions, hormone treatments, other pain focused or analgesic treatments, pelvic floor therapy treatments—that the success of those treatments varies from one patient to another.

One of the really exciting things is how can we determine what are the different causal pathways of endometriosis? Can we prevent endometriosis? Can we cure endometriosis based on those pathways? Do we need different diagnostic markers? One of the key things we’re searching for right now is noninvasive diagnostics. Will there be a diagnostic marker that applies to all patients with endometriosis?Or are there nuances? Where must there be differences based on this diversity of the condition?We need novel treatments, and those novel treatments will be outside of the hormonal and the surgical influences. What might those treatments be along immunologic or rheumatologic pathways?What might they be along pain pathways that have been successful in patients with other types of pain other than pelvic pain?The huge leap forward is not ignoring, but embracing that diversity of the endometriosis journey, what endometriosis patients experience, and the underlying biology.

You have led large cohort studies like the Nurses’ Health Study and worked with the World Endometriosis Research Foundation. How have these large-scale data resources helped shift the landscape of endometriosis research?

I am a data scientist by training. My lens and how I think about scientific questions are really driven by who we’re studying, what information we’re capturing about them, and what window in their journey we are capturing and exploring.

I learned from exceptional forward-thinking people in population science [like David Hunter and Susan Hankinson]. I came into that group when no one was thinking about endometriosis and endometriosis discovery.

We now know that it’s quite prevalent in the Nurses’ Health Study. Across the more than 20 years that I’ve been doing research within that group, we learned that a little more than 11% of the participants have been diagnosed with endometriosis, so it’s quite prevalent.

It has been quite impactful having access to these large data sets. In these large data sets—the details of endometriosis, the types of surgical phenotypes, but also the symptoms: pain symptoms, infertility—they’re not routinely recorded and documented. They’re not routinely focused on.

One example where we saw this was in the COVID pandemic. As the new vaccines were being developed, the trials did not ask about women’s menstrual characteristics. They did not ask about pelvic pain. They didn’t ask about female specific or gynecologically focused characteristics at all. Then it emerged that women started reporting on their own that they thought that the vaccinations were having an impact on their menstrual cycle. The population science field really scrambled to try to pull together ad hoc data to explore that answer. Had we intentionally included female specific characteristics in those data collections, we would have had more solid, faster, information.

That’s proving true for the really revolutionary research that’s being done using health systems data and medical record abstraction data, if things like a woman’s pelvic pain experience is not routinely documented in detail that is regimented, then when we go to pull that information from these large scale projects—unlike  something like cancerous cardiovascular disease, asthma, for example, things that are regularly documented—we’re always a little bit behind. We’re trying to use data that we’re trying to fit into the questions we want to answer rather than having them readily available. We’re spending a lot of extra time trying to clean up data sets. So really the next revolution for endometriosis, pelvic pain, gynecologic specific conditions across the life course, is to make sure that they are prioritized, that we’re curious about them, and that we’re incorporating them routinely into these large datasets.

Despite being so common, endometriosis is still notoriously underdiagnosed. What advances are being made toward earlier, non-invasive diagnosis? And what still needs to happen?

I’m going to address the ‘notoriously underdiagnosed’ just broadly first. There have been important improvements over the last several years for knowledge of endometriosis and attention to it that really is attributable largely to women in social media and other spaces being brave and bold about sharing their lived experience. It’s been captured by documentarians such as Shannon Cohn and others who tried to shine a spotlight on this. Padma Lakshmi and Lena Dunham were very public about their experiences. That did not exist 20 years ago when I was first starting in this space. I was a teen with life impacting pelvic pain and had never heard the term endometriosis, so huge kudos to those who have been brave and bold and sharing their experiences.

Now, where that then leads to in terms of non-invasive diagnostics is despite improved awareness and attention, we know that still many experience an average of seven years delayed diagnosis. For some it’s upwards of 10 or more years. And there’s a few elements here. One is that we diminish, dismiss, normalize pelvic pain. We also know that only about 50% of those experiencing infertility ever engaged with healthcare around it and only a subset of those can access care.

Being intentionally better about, well, frankly, caring about women’s experiences with pelvic pain, with infertility, with symptoms, and with early age endometriosis matters. In terms of non-invasive diagnostics, there’s exciting things happening in the microarray space, the protein pathway space, the epigenetic space, in saliva, blood menstrual effluence (collections through specially designed tampons or cups)—those are all new and exciting areas.

We know that there is not a one-size-fits-all for patients with endometriosis. They have different biologic profiles. They express different symptoms. Also, we need to understand better the change across someone’s endometriosis journey. If you’re trying to measure things very early when they’re experiencing symptoms, those biomarkers may look different than if you’re measuring them the seven years in when they’re—by current standards—being successfully diagnosed. The [missing] foundational biologic and health systems information is impeding our discovery of noninvasive diagnostics. This is an area of lots of attention and hopefully we’re going to see large breakthroughs in the next few years.

But again, recognizing that it’s unlikely that there’s a one-size-fits-all, and that’s OK as long as we’re embracing those differences and making sure that the best test for the best patient is what’s being developed.

Much of your work emphasizes patient-reported outcomes and lived experiences. How do patient voices influence your research questions, study design, or the interpretation of results?

I love this question because this is everything. Coming from my own lived experience as a teenager who had life impacting pelvic pain and didn’t know what that meant. I really struggled to get treatments that helped and struggled to know what this would mean long term for my health.  As an epidemiologist and population scientist, I spend most of my time thinking about—in our studies and in the evidence that I’m looking at to inform my research studies and those of my collaborators—who has been missed? Who are we still leaving out? How might their experience, characteristics, their biologic markers, how might those being included differ from those being excluded?

For example, in the infertility space we know that those who successfully achieve infertility treatments are healthier, wealthier, and have better access to care. How might that matter in ways that what we discover in those clinical settings can’t be applied to everyone? How might it matter that we’re often capturing patients years into their journey with these symptoms and life impacts versus if we’d been able to capture them when they were teenagers or very early in their journey?

I also think a lot about who is included and who is missed and how that is clouding our understanding or limiting it. But I also think a lot about who might be misrepresented. What gets documented routinely for a patient? What is missed in that documentation? What questions are we asking? What questions are we failing to ask? What questions are we asking of some patients and not others? And this really gets informed by listening to patient experiences, the outcomes that they care about.

I think of Andrew Horne, who was a senior clinician scientist at the University of Edinburgh. In 2017 he led a James Lind Alliance initiative that tried to designate and rank the points of discovery and the next key steps of science and clinical discovery as determined by scientists, clinicians, and medical systems professionals. They also looked at what the priorities were from patients experiencing endometriosis and patient advocates and then looked at the differences in those priority lists and tried to reconcile them. We need to always think about both making sure that we’re encouraging excitement and curiosity in this space, but also that we’re always embracing and prioritizing those patient experiences so that they’re informing the questions we’re asking and then how we’re trying to answer them.

What areas of endometriosis research do you think are most promising or in urgent need of attention over the next 5–10 years—from treatment innovations to public health interventions?

First and foremost, we really need to continue to and even more so embrace this diversity of patients—their experiences, their biology, their symptoms. We have to make sure that we’re developing, whether it’s through animal models or in vivo models, and engineering utilities and platforms to maximize our discovery. Improving what elements of the menstrual cycle, menstrual biology of the uterus, the smooth muscle realities, and the surface realities of the uterus and the peritoneal environment, making sure that we’re prioritizing getting those foundational things right. I think we should be dismayed that in 2025 we don’t have those tools about female specific biology, but that’s changing, and we need to embrace the change. That’s what the next 5 to 10 years has to do. We have to continue to and expand upon wooing those who are applying novel, advanced, really exciting new technologies in the more common areas of discovery—in cancer, cardiovascular disease, diabetes rheumatology—woo them to apply those exciting, new technologies and discoveries in the gynecologic health and the female dominant health space that’s starting to happen more and more. But we need interest from those who’ve never thought about gynecology before. We need funding to embrace that someone who’s spent their whole career in rheumatoid arthritis, for example, to be able to get funding and excitement to support an interest in the interface with endometriosis and the immune system realities of those with endometriosis.

We really have to push this need for curiosity about female bodies, female anatomy, female specific biology. There’s so much about the menstrual cycle we still don’t understand. There’s so much about menopause and menopausal transition that we don’t understand, and about menarche and pubertal changes that may be related to risk of endometriosis and how symptoms manifest. We are starting to understand more about the interface of hormones, immunology and pain, but the combination of those is essential. I’m quite optimistic that we will see revolutionary and paradigm shifting discoveries, but they will only happen if we keep people excited about how gynecologic characteristics fits in there. I come back to the COVID example. It’s fascinating. It’s not only something that should have been prioritized and included, but the fact that there can be an interface between vaccination and viral infection and the menstrual cycle is amazing, and everyone should be excited about things like that.

And then the last thing is really delving into models of and discovery around genetic predictors, transcriptomic predictors, protein pathway predictors around the experience of pain—when it is endometriosis specific, or when its related to centralized sensitization and pain—and how and what that means in the endometriosis journey. But also what that means for novel treatments and meeting patients where they are both in terms of their needs for relief and benefit. And also in their biology, shifting across time. There are so many questions to answer and the technologies are available, it’s just getting the collaboration, the attention, the foundational funding to keep moving forward.

Register today for Endometriosis: A Look at Current Practices and Emerging Science – June 23, 2025 in New York City.

Get Ready with the Disaster Response Game

A new virtual scenario game established by the International Science Reserve prepares users for responding to crises like wildfires, hurricanes, and food security.

Published February 12, 2025

By Mila Rosenthal, PhD
Executive Director, International Science Reserve

We can’t always predict where a disaster will happen next. What we do know is that scientists have a critical role to play in reducing risk and solving problems in a crisis. If you are a scientist looking to prepare for crisis response, the first step might be playing a game!

The International Science Reserve (ISR) has just launched its latest crisis readiness response exercise, The Disaster Response Game, a new digital simulation that puts scientists in the driver’s seat to practice how to think and respond quickly to emerging crises like pandemics, wildfires, hurricanes, and food security.

The Disaster Response Game creates scenarios that challenge the player to make rapid decisions when faced with a prospective disaster. How can you assess quickly what you need in the way of resources and expertise? How will you navigate potentially difficult decisions and other roadblocks? You can try it live here:

Why Serious Games for Crisis Preparedness?

This new game comes in response to the Academy’s research on how best to prepare researchers in an age of compounding crises worldwide. Environmental concerns represent at least half of the top risks in the World Economic Forum’s annual risk report in 2025. Solutions are rooted in science and technology.

The International Science Reserve, now a network of scientists nearly 20,000 strong, focuses on simulating real-life scenarios or drills that can improve the capacity to collaborate, communicate, and make informed decisions in high-pressure crisis situations. Gamification also makes the experience of learning crisis preparedness skills more engaging for participants, encouraging wider participation, and contributing towards a culture of readiness.

A Suite of Free Games

The Disaster Response Game is the latest offering in a growing portfolio of free, digital games from the ISR, to test decision-making skills during an emerging crisis. Last year, the ISR launched The Pathogen Outbreak Game, where players can act as a public health director as an unknown pathogen emerges. Developed in partnership with the Center for Advanced Preparedness and Threat Response Simulation (CAPTRS), the game challenges players to navigate an evolving, hypothetical public health crisis, evaluating new information that is shared as the game progresses.

Are You Ready?

Ready to jump in? Then join us and play the ISR’s new Disaster Response Game! Earn badges, climb the leaderboard, and be recognized as a top player and top contributor in a global scientific community. 

Not a member of this inclusive and impactful community? Join the ISR today.

Advancing Cancer Research and Therapies

The Academy’s role in combatting this deadly disease dates to the 1940s. Promoting cancer research remains a prominent part of the Academy’s conference programming today.

Published February 4, 2025

By Nick Fetty
Digital Content Manager

Carl June, MD, presents during the Frontiers in Cancer Immunotherapy symposium at NYU Langone Health on May 22, 2024. Photo by Nick Fetty/The New York Academy of Sciences.

Cancer is one of the leading causes of death in the United States and across the globe, causing significant health, emotional, and financial burdens for millions each year. The New York Academy of Sciences (the Academy) has long played a role in promoting and advancing research to combat this devastating disease.

A History of Advancing Cancer Research

The Academy’s role in advancing cancer research spans nearly nine decades. The earliest cancer-related papers published in Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences include connections between botany and cancer (1947) and the potential biochemical genesis of cancer (1948). A 2016 article covering the role that iron can play in the growth of cancerous tumor cells ranks among Annals’ most cited papers on this topic.

The Academy also has ties to several pioneers in the field of cancer research and treatment. Former Academy president E. Cuyler Hammond, PhD, was an epidemiologist whose research linked cigarettes to lung cancer and other diseases. He was among the first researchers to make this connection. Former Academy vice president, Norbert J. Roberts, PhD, was a specialist in preventive medicine who served on the National Cancer Institute’s Board of Scientific Counselors. Both Dr. Hammond and Dr. Roberts passed away from cancer.

Women Pioneers in Cancer Research

May Edward Chinn, MS, advanced cancer research in the early 20th century, despite the limitations imposed on her as a result of her gender and ethnicity. Chinn, an Academy member, is credited with developing the test for cervical cancer, now known as the Pap smear. She spent her 30-year career working in New York hospitals and clinics where “she developed techniques for early detection [of cancer] including consideration of personal and family medical histories.”

Anna Goldfeder, D.Sc., an expert in cancer and radiobiological science, was a recipient of the Academy’s presidential gold medal. This honor was awarded on the recommendation of the President of the Academy in consultation with the Committee on Awards for outstanding accomplishments in science or service in the cause of science. Throughout her career she was known for being in the lab seven days per week, often putting in 12-hour shifts, and working well into her retirement years. Dr. Goldfeder was particularly lauded for her work in “growing human breast cancer cells in cultures, researching radiation treatment and the effectiveness of different dosages and showing the importance of lead shielding of normal tissues during radiation.”

Cancer Metabolism

The Academy started hosting events to advance cancer metabolism research in 2007. The event brings experts together to discuss recent findings suggesting that discrete metabolic pathways and activities are over-utilized in certain cancer contexts, leaving cancer cells selectively vulnerable to specific metabolic interventions. Experts in this field of research share their findings which can be applied to the development of safe and effective, metabolism-targeted therapies.

The goal of this program is to improve communication and collaboration between junior- and senior-level researchers around the world from academia, government, and industry. Attendees are then encouraged to disseminate the knowledge and data from the conference to further maximize the impact for the research community.

“I’m so proud that the New York Academy of Sciences continues to bring the cancer metabolism community together year after year,” said Melanie Brickman Borchard, PhD, MSc, Director of Life Sciences for the Academy. “These gatherings are more than just opportunities to showcase groundbreaking work—they’re essential for fostering dialogue, sparking ideas, and creating new partnerships that drive the field forward.” 

Cancer Immunotherapies

James “Jim” Allison, PhD, presents during the Frontiers in Cancer Research symposium at NYU Langone Health on May 4, 2023. Photo by Melanie Brickman Borchard/The New York Academy of Sciences

Academy events focused on cancer immunotherapies have taken place since 2012.  These symposia unite immunotherapy and immunology experts to discuss emerging approaches, challenges, and opportunities. Carl June, MD, the Richard W. Vague Professor in Immunotherapy at the University of Pennsylvania’s Perelman School of Medicine, is a leader in the field and has presented at the immunotherapy conference numerous times.

 James “Jim” Allison, PhD, a Nobel Laureate and faculty member at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, also has presented multiple times at this event, including the highly-attended 2023 Frontiers in Cancer Research symposium.  He will return as a keynote for the 2025 meeting.  Alongside Tasuku Honjo, PhD, Dr. Allison won the 2018 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine “for their discovery of cancer therapy by inhibition of negative immune regulation.” Dr. Allison’s research has been published in Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences as well as other leading journals. He is the subject of the PBS documentary “Breakthrough” and is an honorary lifetime member of the Academy.

Shedding Light on Promising Novel Therapies

The 2025 Cancer Immunotherapy conference aims to shed light on promising novel therapies for cancer patients. While the field has seen many successes over the last few years, challenges remain in understanding the basic biology of some tumor types and in identifying targets for developing novel therapies. This year’s symposium aims for attendees to understand the therapeutic potential/limitations of antigen specific adoptive T cell immunotherapy. By being familiar with both established and novel checkpoint blockade proteins and therapeutic approaches to their inhibition, attendees gain awareness of the mechanisms of resistance to immunotherapies by the tumor microenvironment.  The New York Academy of Sciences has been convening cancer immunotherapy conferences since before the groundbreaking approval of the first PD-1-targeted drug in 2014.

“Witnessing the field’s remarkable transformation has been a privilege, as it has advanced from pioneering successes with checkpoint inhibitors like PD-1/PD-L1 and CTLA-4 to a diverse range of innovative treatments, including CAR-T cell therapies, bispecific antibodies, and other novel immune-modulating strategies,” said Dr. Brickman Borchard. “The growing focus on personalizing therapies and addressing resistance mechanisms underscores the commitment to improving outcomes and accessibility for all patients. Bringing together the academic and industry leaders driving these advancements year after year is an honor and central to the Academy’s mission.”

Sign up now for Cancer Metabolism and Signaling in the Tumor Microenvironment (April 8, 2025) and Frontiers in Cancer Immunotherapy 2025 (June 16-17, 2025).

Explore STEM Careers with the Academy

With our national and global economy increasingly powered by STEM, it’s crucial to offer opportunities to explore the careers available in these fields.

Published November 27, 2024

By Zamara Choudhary
Program Manager, Education

A recent study, titled STEM and the American Workforce, found that two thirds of people in the United States are employed in STEM-related occupations. The analysis took an inclusive view of STEM, accounting for all occupations that contribute to STEM-related work regardless of educational attainment. Altogether, this group accounts for a staggering 69% of the U.S. GDP and contributes $2.3 million in annual federal tax revenue.

STEM powers our economy, and the number of these jobs are growing at a rate that cannot be filled by the workforce. Global society is reliant on quickly developing technologies, and there is consistent demand for innovation and collaboration across continents. As a result, the U.S. must “develop adequate talent in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields to ensure economic strength, security, global competitiveness, and environmental health,” according to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce Foundation.

To support this goal, this fall, The New York Academy of Sciences (the Academy) launched a year-long virtual series called Chat with Experts: Career Explorer, which explores the variety of careers an individual can pursue with a STEM degree or background. Each month on a select Thursday, a STEM professional gives a presentation about their background, career path, and current work, followed by questions from the audience. Featured speakers work at organizations including Pfizer, the City College of New York, the New York Hall of Science, the Broad Institute at Harvard and MIT, Noven Pharmaceuticals, the Space Telescope Science Institute, and more.

There are so many paths to STEM. Join the Academy and explore some of the possibilities pursuing a career in STEM can offer. Learn more about and register for Chat with Experts: Career Explorer.

The New York Academy of Sciences Partners with 2030 STEM on Inclusion in STEM Series

Promoting inclusive STEM classrooms, labs, and workspaces is just one part of The New York Academy of Sciences’ broader mission of advancing science for the public good.

Published October 25, 2024

By Zamara Choudhary
Program Manager, Education

Numerous studies have demonstrated the value of a diverse workforce, especially the inclusion of people from underrepresented groups in the STEM fields. A diverse workforce brings multiple perspectives and ways of thinking. The result catalyzes innovation, promotes creativity, and allows more communities to have access to scientific information, resulting in a better educated global citizenry. 

However, after more than two decades of investment in STEM education, there is still a pronounced lack of diversity. According to a 2021 report from the National Science Foundation, just 28% of the STEM workforce identified as either Hispanic, Black, or American Indian or Alaska Native. In addition, less than 3% identified as having a disability.

Most of the jobs filled by these groups are technical and do not require a bachelor’s degree. As a result, they are often lower paid and have limited impact on STEM policy and research. In fact, Pew Research reports that although Black and Hispanic students enroll in STEM degree programs at the same rate as other students, they are less likely to graduate, in part, because of their reduced access to academic resources during and prior to college.

A Culture of Inclusion in STEM

The Academy is committed to fostering diversity in science. Cultivating a sense of belonging, which is designed to ensure everyone feels respected, valued, and supported empowers historically marginalized individuals to contribute fresh ideas and perspectives. The Academy’s series, “Inclusion in STEM,” was ideated in partnership with 2030 STEM, which advocates for full representation of Black, Latino/a/X, Indigenous and people of color across STEM disciplines, sectors, and leadership.

Taking place online this fall, the series spotlights topics that are instrumental to actively cultivating a culture of inclusion in STEM. Upcoming sessions feature a panel of engaging speakers, who share their expertise on specific topics, including inclusive science communication, mentorship, and leadership.

No matter your career status, whether a student, fellow, or working professional, learning about and implementing inclusive practices can enrich your work and perspective. Through this series, the Academy is continuing its commitment to diversity in STEM.

Learn more about upcoming events in the 2024 Inclusion in STEM series:

Inclusive Science Communication

Wednesday, October 30 | 1:00 – 2:30 PM ET

Featuring:

  • Elizabeth Bojsza, MFA, Alda-Certified Facilitator and Assistant Professor of Practice, Alan Alda Center for Communicating Science, Stony Brook University
  • Lydia Jennings, PhD, Assistant Professor, Dartmouth University
  • Amy Sharma, PhD, Executive Director, Science for Georgia

Promoting Inclusive Pathways through Mentorship

Tuesday, November 5 | 1:00 – 2:30 PM ET

Featuring:

  • Magdia De Jesus, PhD, Director, Scientific Strategy and Portfolio Lead, Chief Medical Office, Pfizer
  • Marcus Lambert, PhD, Associate Vice President for Research, SUNY Downstate Medical Center

Inclusive Leadership in STEM

Wednesday, November 20 | 1:00 – 2:30 PM ET

Featuring:

  • Lorelle L. Espinosa, PhD, Program Director, Higher Education, Alfred P. Sloan Foundation
  • Mandë Holford, PhD, Associate Professor, CUNY Graduate Center and CUNY Hunter College

Finding Solidarity and Support in Affinity Groups

Tuesday, December 10, 2024 | 1:00 – 2:30 PM ET

Featuring:

  • Eileen Gonzales, PhD, Assistant Professor, San Francisco State University
  • Marge Musumeci, MA, Manager, Talent Acquisition, Research and Development, Pfizer
  • Kishana Taylor, PhD, Assistant Professor, Towson University

Registration for these events is free for Academy members. Not a member? Sign up today.

15 Years of Advancing Machine Learning Research

The New York Academy of Sciences has been at the forefront of machine learning and artificial intelligence since hosting the first Machine Learning Symposium nearly two decades ago.

Published September 16, 2024

By Nick Fetty
Digital Content Manager

In today’s digital age, an abundance of reliable data is readily available at our fingertips. This is, in part, because of significant advances in the field of machine learning in recent years.

The New York Academy of Sciences (the Academy) has long played a role in advancing research in this subfield of artificial intelligence. In machine learning, researchers develop mathematical algorithms that extract knowledge from specific data sets. The machine then “learns” from the data in an iterative fashion that enables predictions to be made. It has a wide range of disparate practical applications from natural language processing and search engine function to stock market analysis and medical diagnosis.

The first Machine Learning Symposium was hosted by the Academy in 2006. Collaborators included experts from Google, Rutgers University, Columbia University, and NYU’s Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences.

Continuing a Proud Tradition

This proud tradition will continue when the Academy hosts the 15th annual Machine Learning Symposium at the New York Academy of Medicine (1216 5th Avenue, New York, NY 10029) on October 18, 2024. This year’s keynote speakers include:

  • Pin-Yu Chen, PhD, IBM Research: Dr. Chen’s recent research focuses on adversarial machine learning of neural networks for robustness and safety. His long-term research vision is to build trustworthy machine learning systems.
  • Furong Huang, PhD, University of Maryland: Dr. Huang works on statistical and trustworthy machine learning, foundation models and reinforcement learning, with specialization in domain adaptation, algorithmic robustness, and fairness.
  • Daniel Russo, PhD, Columbia University: Dr. Russo’s research lies at the intersection of statistical machine learning and online decision making, mostly falling under the broad umbrella of reinforcement learning.
  • Jon Schneider, PhD, Google Research New York: Dr. Schneider’s primary research interests include problems in online learning, game theory, and convex optimization/geometry. His recent work focuses on designing strategically robust algorithms for learning in game-theoretic environments.

The symposium’s primary goal has always been to develop an active community of machine learning scientists. This includes experts from academic, government, and industrial institutions who can exchange ideas in a neutral setting.

Graduate students and representatives from tech startups will also deliver a series of “Spotlight Talks.” Others will share their research during an interactive poster session.

Promoting Impactful Machine Learning Applications

Over its history, the symposium has highlighted several mainstream machine learning applications. This includes simulation, learning and optimization techniques for IBM Watson‘s Jeopardy! game strategies, the role big data played in the 2012 U.S. presidential election, and a trainable vision system for off-road mobile robots.

Corinna Cortes, PhD, VP of Google Research, Mehryar Mohri, PhD, Professor at NYU and a Research Director at Google Research, and Tony Jebara, PhD, VP of Engineering and Head of Machine Learning at Spotify, have been involved since the event’s inception. They continue to guide the event’s programming through their roles on the Scientific Organizing Committee. This year’s sponsors include Google Research and Cubist Systematic Strategies.

Register today to secure your spot at this year’s event!

Biomaterials Pioneer and Beloved Mentor Honored with Janssen Award

Self-boosting vaccines. Regeneration of diseased tissues and missing limbs. Organs on a chip.

Published March 06, 2024

By David Freeman
Academy Contributor

Such life-saving advances in biotechnology—some already in existence and others in the works–took the spotlight on February 8, 2024, when thousands of attendees around the world gathered online for the Paul Janssen Award Symposium in honor of Robert S. Langer, ScD, a renowned chemical engineer and entrepreneur best known for his pioneering work in drug delivery systems and tissue engineering.

Dr. Langer, whose work has led to new treatments for heart disease, cancer, arthritis, and other ailments, is the 2023 recipient of the Paul Janssen Award for Biomedical Research. Given annually by Johnson & Johnson to a scientist or scientists who have made a “transformational contribution toward the improvement of human health,” the award includes a sculpture and a $200,000 cash prize. Eight of the 23 scientists who have received the award have gone on to win the Nobel Prize.

Impactful Research from MIT

Hosted by The New York Academy of Scientists and the Dr. Paul Janssen Award, with sponsorship by J&J, the event featured a keynote address by Dr. Langer. It also included talks by a trio of eminent researchers who trained with him at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He is one of a handful of faculty members who hold the prestigious title of Institute Professor.

The other researchers, who detailed their own research and described Dr. Langer’s contributions as a scientist and mentor, were Cato T. Laurencin, M.D., Ph.D., professor of orthopedic surgery at the University of Connecticut and CEO of the Cato T. Laurencin Institute for Regenerative Engineering; Kristi Anseth, Ph.D., professor of chemical and biological engineering at the University of Colorado; and Gordana Vunjak-Novakovic, Ph.D., professor of biomedical engineering and medicine at Columbia University.

The event began with remarks from Academy president and CEO Nicholas B. Dirks who hailed Dr. Langer as “a luminary figure” whose work “reflects a visionary spirit that advances science while demonstrating the importance of this research for the public good, inspiring the next generation of innovators and scientists to follow in his path.” Following Professor Dirks, William N. Hait, M.D., Ph.D., Executive Vice President, Chief External Innovation and Medical Officer, and a member of the Johnson & Johnson Executive Committee, praised Dr. Langer for his groundbreaking work at the intersection of biomaterials and biotechnology. He also highlighted Dr. Langer’s remarkable productivity, with over 1,400 patents issued or pending and nearly 1,600 publications.

Blazing a Trail in Biotechnology

Dr. Langer said he was humbled to have received the award. He explained the roundabout way he got his start in biotechnology. After getting a chemical engineering degree from Cornell University in 1974, he said, he turned multiple job offers from oil companies. “I just didn’t want to spend my life doing that,” he recalled. He wrote to universities, medical schools, and hospitals, hoping to land a job in science curriculum development or in medicine. He got nowhere, he said, because he lacked the right pedigree for such work.

Ultimately, Judah Folkman, a Boston surgeon with a reputation for hiring “unusual people” to work in his lab, brought on the young engineer with the task of developing tiny particles that release molecules that block the growth of blood vessels within tumors. Blocking this growth, the “anti-angiogenesis” theory went, would starve tumors of the oxygen and nutrients they need to grow.

Many scientists said the task was impossible. But Dr. Langer was undeterred. “I spent several years working on this, and I literally found several hundred ways to get this to not work,” he said. “But eventually we got one way to get it to work, and I was able to make these tiny little particles.”

The First Anti-angiogenesis Cancer Drug to Win FDA Approval

In a 1976 paper published in the journal Science, Dr. Langer showed that microparticles that deliver macromolecules could indeed inhibit blood vessel formation in tumors. Years later, he patented the technology, and in 2004 Avastin (bevacizumab) became the first anti-angiogenesis cancer drug to win FDA approval. It and other drugs based on the technology are now used to treat various cancers, as well as the vision-robbing eye disorders macular degeneration and diabetic retinopathy, which are caused by abnormal vascularization in the back of the eye.

Dr. Langer and his collaborators went on to develop polymer materials that could be tailored to release drugs within the body continuously at a specified rate—a functionality that they thought might prove useful for the treatment of brain cancer. As with the earlier anti-angiogenesis research, other researchers expressed skepticism about the safety and effectiveness of these synthetic degradable polymers. But Dr. Langer and his collaborators, including Dr. Laurencin, didn’t give up; in 1996 the FDA approved Gliadel for the treatment of glioblastoma multiforme, the deadly brain malignancy. It was the first new drug in two decades to receive approval for the treatment of brain cancer and the first ever approved for local chemotherapy, according to Dr. Langer.

Applications to Covid

Dr. Langer went on to help in the development of a technology to immunize people against Covid without the need for repeated injections, using 3D printing to fabricate microneedle-equipped transdermal patches that deliver periodic “pulses” of vaccine without the need for repeated booster shots. Ongoing research, he said, will find out if related technologies might be possible to engineer synthetic tissues and organs that would replace diseased ones. “You could combine cells with materials and theoretically make almost any organ,” he said, including skin to treat burns and diabetic ulcers.

Dr. Langer said, “I’m incredibly proud of my students, who received all kinds of awards and great jobs”—and the three speakers returned the compliment to their former mentor.

An “unmatched record of brilliance”

Dr. Vunjak-Novakovic said Dr. Langer has an “unmatched record of brilliance.” With his more than 400,000 citations and 1,600 papers, she said, he is “the fourth-most cited scientist of any kind in the world and the most cited engineer in human history…About 400 of his 1,000 trainees are today faculty at prime universities around the world.”

Said Dr. Anseth, “He was always very encouraging. To this day I’m inspired by his ability to be available. Usually, his response time is in minutes and not hours.”

Dr. Anseth said she had a longstanding interest not only in developing new disease-fighting biomaterials but also in exploiting patient-specific cells or tissues with the goal of moving from off-the-shelf drugs into personalized, sex-specific medicine. “A lot of times in medicine, we scale down products, so we think of a woman as a small man…but that is not the case at all.”

Different Affects for Males and Females

Many ailments affect males and females differently, she said, including mental illness, osteoporosis, and cardiovascular disease. She recounted her and her collaborators’ work on valvular heart disease in particular, an ailment that traditionally has required surgery to replace the diseased heart valve to restore cardiac function. Men’s aortic valves tend to develop calcified deposits, she said, whereas women’s tend to thicken and become more fibrotic. Dr. Anseth wondered: Could valvular disease be treated medically rather than surgically? Should women with valve disease get different treatment than men?

Research showed that when cells taken from diseased valves were cultured in the lab, the genes expressed by the cells changed markedly, thus making it hard to understand the disease process in vivo. But when the cells were placed on newly developed hydrogel materials rather than the hard plastics typically used for cell culture, she said, they behaved as they did inside the body. That gave the researchers a good model for studying valvular disease—which, in turn, might help lead the way to drugs that could transform diseased heart cells into healthy, quiescent ones.

“We designed in our hydrogel systems ways that could recapitulate these [sex-linked] differences where the females would get lots of fibrosis and collagen and the males would get much more calcification,” she said. “And we can use this for screening different types of drugs.”

Organs on a Chip

Dr. Vunjak-Novakovic described recent work with human stem cells, including their use in tissue regeneration research and the creation of so-called organs on a chip, which emulate organ function outside the body. Recently, she’s been involved in research aiming to find and develop a system for restoring the health of human donor lungs so that more can be implanted and fewer discarded. Studies with pig and human lungs have shown that it is possible to improve the performance of diseased lungs, she said.

Dr. Vunjak-Novakovic concluded her remarks by recounting a list of 10 life lessons she had learned from Dr. Langer. Among these were: “dream big and take big risks; work on something you’re passionate about and things take care of themselves; pursue science that can benefit people; and work hard and be strong and never give up.”

Dr. Laurencin said Dr. Langer had taught him not to confuse activity for accomplishment, and that “everything you do should be extremely meaningful.” He praised Dr. Langer for inspiring generations of researchers and helping them balance their research with family life. “Bob Langer rubs people the right way,” he said.

Collaboration is Key to Solving Global Issues

The New York Academy of Sciences works in partnership with New York City high schools to promote interest in STEM subjects among students. Many high school students from New York have taken part in Junior Academy challenges, which enable them to team up with peers from various countries around the world to devise innovative solutions to real-life issues.

Published June 29, 2023

By Nicole Pope
Academy Education Contributor

We interviewed Angela, and a group of students from around NYC, who recently participated in the Junior Academy about their experiences.

Newfound Confidence and a Broader Understanding of Science

When we catch up with Angela, she has just embarked on her second Junior Academy challenge. Her team is still at the beginning of the three-month process to find a solution. The high school student is excited about making new connections and learning about a new topic. “I’m doing the public health and climate change challenge,” Angela says. “Some of my current team members are from Egypt and although we still have a language barrier, we’ve been communicating really well.”

This time, she is familiar with the process and what it entails. Angela first signed up for a Junior Academy challenge (designed by the Royal Academy of Engineering in Sweden) on the Restoration of Aquatic Ecosystems in 2021, encouraged by her older sister who had taken part in an earlier competition. For their project, Angela’s team focused on tackling overgrown algae in the Yellow Sea.

When she enrolled, Angela wasn’t sure how much she would benefit from working online with other students. The experience, it turns out, “far exceeded my expectations,” she says. “It’s been amazing.”

Global Collaboration

Angela enjoyed introducing herself to her teammates and getting to know them better through their regular interactions over the Launchpad platform. “This program was one of my first experiences meeting people from different U.S. states. I’ve really grown my network. I was able to bond with people from different places, different schools,” she says. “We still talk to each other. It’s cool. I can say I have a friend in Texas.”

Working collaboratively with her teammates and mentor has increased Angela’s self-confidence. “I used to be more on the quiet side, sometimes afraid of sharing because I was afraid I would be wrong,” she explains. “But everyone makes mistakes and we work off them, and it helps build the final product in the project. Being able to answer questions with the mistakes we made in the past has been great.”

Angela also credits her teammates for encouraging her to express her views. “At the start, seeing everyone so open was a shock for me. Everyone was sharing their ideas,” she explains. Initially, she was more reticent. “Over time, my teammates understood and they would bring me into the conversation and ask, ‘Do you have something to add?’”

Empowering Shy Participants

Enabling shy participants and giving them space to be heard in a collective environment is a lesson from the challenge that Angela is now applying to other areas of her life.

Her communication skills have improved. In class, she no longer hesitates to speak up. “Whenever I raise my hand, I have more confidence in what I’m going to say – even if it comes out wrong and you cause some laughter in class. I’m learning, they’re learning.”

The Junior Academy has changed Angela’s understanding of science and she has a broader understanding of the arduous but exhilarating path to scientific progress. “When I was younger, I thought research meant you just google something and it’s over. But now I see everything we do is shaped by a very long process,” she says. “Even if you find a solution, you can continue and share it with the scientific community. This has really shaped me as a person.”

Applying What They Learn

When Angela recently attended a Model U.N. conference on climate change, she was proud to discuss her work and her team’s achievements on the aquatic ecosystems project. With the knowledge she had acquired, she was even able to provide input for the conference resolution.

Angela loves the student-led, hands-on collaboration with her teammates (very different from the science classes at school, she points out) but also highlights the contribution of the team mentors, who guide them through the project.

“I think my favorite part, aside from collaborating with people, was the final product: creating something. One of my teammates was able to create a 3D model on an app on the computer. Some of us didn’t know how to do that,” she says. “This is something I want to continue to work on and develop my skills.”

Prior to joining the Junior Academy, Angela was mainly interested in computer science and political science. “Working with mentors has opened me to possibilities that are out there – so many majors I didn’t know of when I started, in 10th grade,” she says.

The Junior Academy has revealed new areas of interest for Angela. “Being able to do research in different fields, such as biology and biomedical, has really changed what I want to do, and now I’m focusing more on working toward that field.” Whatever subject of study she eventually chooses, Angela hopes to have a transformative impact and to contribute to the solution of pressing issues. “I hope I can do that and apply in the future what I learn now and in college.”

Student Interviewed

  • Angela, High School for Dual Language and Asian Studies
    Challenge: Restoration of Aquatic Ecosystems (Fall 2021)
    Project: Prevention of Algae

Interviews from Junior Academy Participants from New York City Schools

What did you learn from engaging with students from around the world?

Joseph: Coming from New York, I was already exposed to a multitude of cultures and perspectives, but my past experiences were nowhere near the scope of this project. I felt like the country that my team’s project focused on, Egypt, was gradually becoming a part of me.  Conversing with Bashar and Noor, my [Egyptian] teammates, has taught me the importance of open mindedness– from coordinating early morning meetings across time zones to listening intently to their findings as they knew their community on a much deeper level.

Courtney: This was my first time working on a Junior Academy challenge. I had so much fun and I really enjoyed being able to bring in my coding skills to contribute to the team. It was also really insightful to be able to work with people of different backgrounds because it gave me new perspectives and ideas I never would have thought of alone.

Demetra: My team’s varied perspectives were needed in order to come up with our solution. I do not think we would have had the same process or results if we all lived in the same place and had the same experiences.

Jocelyn: A significant part of this challenge that made it enjoyable was working in a group. If I had worked alone, I wouldn’t have been able to come up with some of the solutions and research that we came up with. We were able to work harmoniously as a team. Because everyone had different skill sets, we were able to split up the work to best complement each of our background knowledge and experiences. We also helped each other out whenever needed, allowing our work to be done thoroughly and effectively.

Ethan: I was surprised that I could collaborate with students around the world to brainstorm and develop solutions for contemporary problems. Initially, I expected this process to be difficult since I only had a few skills. However, working collaboratively in a group made the process significantly easier and approachable since my group members were extremely talented and diligent.

What have you learned about science and how it works? What skills have you gained?

Jocelyn: Throughout this challenge, I’ve not only improved in my collaborative and communication skills, but I’ve also grown as a researcher and creative thinker. The challenge definitely prompted me to think outside of the box to come up with my own creative solutions to various issues. In order to devise these solutions, I had to look through countless research journals and papers, allowing me to refine my research skills as I carefully selected pieces of information to include in our deliverables. I’m extremely grateful for having the opportunity to participate in The Junior Academy due to the innumerable knowledge and teamwork, collaboration, communication, and research skills that I walked away with.

Yewon: Despite several setbacks and hurdles we’ve had to overcome along the way, I’m glad to have learned valuable lessons through trials and errors.

Qing Yi: While it was a smooth process overall, we had our set of obstacles that we had to overcome, such as our schedule, and what exactly our main goal was by the end of the project as there were so many factors and ideas, and we had to solve them. But of course, we overcame them over time and especially with the help of our mentor, Renee.

How important was it to have a mentor?

Yewon: Dr. Mails has been a wonderful mentor and guide to us, offering her timely advice and aiding us in producing work that we could all be proud of, consistently.

Joseph: The project was one of the first instances I have worked with such a passionate mentor, Ms. Janice Havasy. Her extensive knowledge and profound experience in this field proved essential to the progression of our challenge from time to time.

Ethan: Our mentor considerably assisted our group by thoroughly reviewing our brainstorming and development stages, including our deliverables, to identify flaws and ways to make our solution more explicit and effective. Throughout this program, I learned and incorporated graphic design, and I hope to learn web-development or programming in the future since they are critical skills to create virtual solutions. Ultimately, all our group demonstrated a collective effort to create multiple effective solutions to combat misinformation in the public health sector.

Courtney: Working with a mentor was also really helpful as she was able to point out aspects of our project we may have overlooked. Overall, I think I was able to grow personally and professionally through this project.

Demetra: The Junior Academy has been a unique experience because it is largely student led. I have had few opportunities to participate in entirely student run projects outside of clubs at my school, and it was really enjoyable to be able to work out issues and bounce ideas off of my peers rather than an adult with more experience and education. Our mentor helped to guide us and provided advice, but she also let us make our own decisions and choose which direction our project went in. I think that my team had the right balance of guidance from our mentor and leadership from the student participants.

Jocelyn: Our mentor provided extremely valuable feedback that prompted us to consider additional ideas and solutions that we didn’t previously look into. He also consistently communicated with us to ensure that we stayed on track and remained organized.

What was the broader impact of your participation in the Junior Academy Challenge?

Joseph: The Junior Academy has served as a bridge for me to make meaningful connections – combining medicine and social sciences in my research and bonding with teammates from all walks of life. I am beyond grateful for being able to grow and communicate with my peers and mentor, and would love to do it again!

Demetra: I learned about a topic I knew almost nothing about before I started this program, and I was able to do it with people I would never have met without this program, as well. I will use my experience in the Junior Academy to inform my future experiences in STEM, leadership, and teamwork, and I hope to join the program again in the future!

Qing Yi: Everyone did a great job working together, with the short deadlines, the long calls, and our perseverance we made it so far. It wasn’t easy but it was an amazing effort and involvement of each and every single team member.

Ethan: This program gave me a foundation in STEM, and I hope to partake in other future challenges to develop more skills to develop more effective projects.

Students Interviewed

  • Ethan, Queens High School for the Sciences at York College
    Challenge: Combating Misinformation in the Public Sector (Spring 2022)
    Project: Misinformation Management
  • Jocelyn, Townsend Harris High School
    Challenge: Healthcare on Demand: The Future of Telemedicine (Fall 2020)
    Project: Telehealth Technology Meets Healthcare
  • Yewon, The High School for Math, Science and Engineering
    Challenge: Restoration of Aquatic Ecosystems (Fall 2021)
    Project:  De-Eutrophying Lakes
  • Joseph, Stuyvesant High School
    Challenge: The Impact of COVID-19 on Non-Communicable Diseases (Fall 2021)
    Project: Coronavirus Controllers
  • Courtney, Stuyvesant High School
    Challenge: The Impact of COVID-19 on Non-Communicable Diseases (Fall 2021)
    Project: Data Innovate
  • Demetra, Dominican Academy
    Challenge: Restoration of Aquatic Ecosystems (Fall 2021)
    Project: Prevention of Algae
  • Quing Yi, Stuyvesant High School
    Challenge: Restoration of Aquatic Ecosystems (Fall 2021)
    Project: Algae Geostrainer – The Restorative Buffer

A New Approach to the Hippocratic Oath

For more than 40 years, public- and private-sector biochemical pharmacology experts have been sharing knowledge at Academy meetings.

Published September 1, 2007

By Jill Pope
Academy Contributor

Image courtesy of Artinun via stock.adobe.com.

It’s a rare occasion when scientists from competing pharmaceutical companies and academic laboratories come together to share their latest findings on human diseases and treatments. But since 1964, The New York Academy of Sciences (the Academy) has played host to a regular meeting of biochemists, molecular biologists, and biomedical researchers who do just that.

The members of the Biochemical Pharmacology Discussion Group (BPDG) hail from more than a dozen pharma and biotech companies, as well as top research universities and medical centers. Pfizer and Bristol-Myers Squibb provide major funding. The American Chemical Society, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Novartis also sponsor the group.

As the oldest of the Academy’s 14 discussion groups, the BPDG convenes eight times a year for half- and full-day symposia where experts address topics designated by the group’s steering committee. More than 70 scientists attend each meeting.

Good Career Move

Academy Fellow Martha Matteo began attending the group’s meetings nearly 25 years ago when she was a scientist for Boehringer Ingelheim. New to the pharma industry in 1983, she recalls she was pursuing a theory about how anti-inflammatory steroids affect protease levels. It ran counter to the conventional wisdom that “leukotrienes and prostaglandins modulate everything.”

She organized a BPDG meeting where other scientists presented evidence that steroids induce protease inhibitors. “The story was just unfolding and I got right in the thick of it,” she says. “I had the opportunity to test ideas with a broad range of industry and academic scientists, separate from long-held beliefs and prejudices.” Matteo, who eventually became director of knowledge management and R&D planning at Boehringer Ingelheim before retiring last year, adds, “The Academy has long provided neutral territory and instant feedback in the exploration of new ideas.”

For industry and academic researchers who work mostly in isolation from one another, BPDG events are opportunities to connect, says Charles Lunn, a research fellow at Schering-Plough Research Institute and the group’s current program coordinator. While attendees don’t disclose proprietary information, people do share their work. That’s essential because in industry, Lunn says, “Much high-quality science is accomplished that is never communicated to the academic community.”

From Theory to Therapy

An Alzheimer’s seminar drew more than 100 participants last December. This is another example of a BPDG forum where researchers discuss cutting-edge research. Alzheimer’s researchers have focused on two main culprits in their search for the cause of this devastating disease: amyloid-β peptide (A-beta), which forms plaques in the brain, and tau, a rogue protein that forms tangles. A-beta is produced when a large protein is cut by two enzymes. Several leading experts on one of those enzymes, γ-secretase, shared their insights into how it might be targeted by Alzheimer’s therapies. Others discussed the role of tau: some showed how amyloid pathology may trigger changes in tau, and others examined how tau abnormalities lead to cell death.

Speakers included Mark Shearman, senior director of neuroscience drug discovery research at Merck in Boston; Thomas Lanz, a scientist in central nervous system biology at Pfizer Global Research & Development; Michael Wolfe, who in 2006 established the Laboratory for Experimental Alzheimer Drugs at Harvard Medical School; and David Holtzman, head of the Department of Neurology and associate director of the Alzheimer’s Disease Research Center at Washington University in St. Louis.

Matteo, who chaired the group from 1989 to 1994, says it’s not unusual to see theories presented at BPDG meetings turn into therapies years later. Around 1990, she remembers, the group held a meeting to discuss a potential approach to cardiovascular disease called angiotensin II receptor blockers. Today, ARBs such as losartan and valsartan are standard therapy for hypertension.

Setting The Agenda, Seeking Diversity

It’s easy to imagine how the BPDG will continue to benefit young scientists’ careers the way it did Martha Matteo’s.

Recent seminars have included another on Alzheimer’s research trends—“Immunotherapy for Neurodegenerative Diseases,” in which experts discussed ways to train the body’s immune response to attack the wayward proteins that plague patients with Alzheimer’s and other diseases of the brain and spinal cord.

In May 2007, the group hosted “The Future of Monoclonal Antibody Biotherapeutics.” Monoclonal antibodies are cloned proteins that modulate the activity of specific disease targets. In cancer treatment, they zero in on tumor promoters, leaving healthy tissue alone. The therapies are already benefiting patients, but they have limitations, including high production costs. Speakers discussed new approaches, such as optimizing cell culture processes, that promise to spur the therapies forward and make them more widely available. Also this past year, speakers at BPDG’s “Novel Strategies for Compound Identification from Compound Libraries: High-Throughput Screening” presented diverse approaches to drug screening such as Biotrove’s RapidFire mass spectrometry, and virtual screening with the University of New Mexico’s high-throughput flow cytometry platform.

Diabetes to Stem Cells

The 2007-2008 meeting schedule will cover progress in treating diabetes and eating disorders, psychiatric illness, and atherosclerosis, as well as tools for drug discovery including adult stem cells and molecular imaging. Setting the year’s agenda is a labor-intensive process, requiring committee chairs to tally the votes of hundreds of discussion group members. But the result is worthwhile, says Ross Tracey, an associate research fellow at Pfizer who led the group from 2002 to 2006: “The programs that emerge have clearly passed the popularity and interest test.”

To ensure the continued relevance of BPDG meetings, Jose Perez, a senior principal scientist at Pfizer and a committee co-chair, is on a mission to recruit new members to the group. In the coming year, he’ll reach out to scientists at underrepresented pharma and biotech firms, as well as at New York City’s universities. “That’s the only way the organization is going to have a broad perspective,” he says. “We really strive for diversity of thought.”

Also read: Equivalence of Complex Drug Products: Scientific and Regulatory Challenges


About the Author

Jill Pope is a freelance science writer and frequent contributor to Academy publications.

The Art of Sci-Fi: 80 Years of Movie Posters

A new art exhibit combines art and science as it explores 80 years of science fiction movie posters. See the styles of different artists from Argentina and the United States to Germany and Japan.

Published May 1, 2006

By Fred Moreno
Academy Contributor

Ever since science gave birth to the cinema more than a century ago, the link between the two has often been intimate and exciting – and sometimes rather disturbing. Sort of like the relationship between Dr. Frankenstein and his creation. Countless movies have featured aspects of science and technology, both credible (or almost so) and fantastic (mostly). Just as fanciful is the varied collection of absurdly mad or strangely saintly scientist “heroes” that have populated the movies over the years.

Numerous studies have shown that movies are a major source for what the general public thinks about science and scientists. And just as the films themselves have influenced societal perceptions, so too have their movie posters. With its images of heroic sacrifice, spaceships, other worlds, and scientifically engendered creatures, the movie poster has produced some of the most iconic visual signposts of our time.

Coming Attractions! 80 Years of Cinematic Science: Movie Posters from Around the World, an exhibition in The New York Academy of Sciences’ (the Academy’s) Gallery of Art & Science through June 30, brings together posters for more than 25 movies, including examples from such countries as Argentina, Germany, Japan, Russia, Great Britain, Italy, Poland, and the U.S., among others.

The exhibit includes a British poster for the rerelease of Fritz Lang’s Metropolis; one from France for the American eco-drama, Soylent Green; and an Argentinean poster for the Italian film Mission Stardust. Also represented will be posters for such true-to-life dramas as Inherit the Wind, the thinly disguised rendition of the 1925 Scopes “monkey trial,” and a poster for the glossy American tribute to the medical profession, Not as a Stranger.

Visual Lures

All works in the exhibition come from Posteritati Movie Posters, a New York gallery specializing in international movie art. It has more than 12,000 posters in its collection. The works are used courtesy of Posteritati owner Sam Sarowitz.

“Some of the world’s most talented illustrators, painters, art directors, and graphic designers have produced movie posters,” said Tony Stinkmetal, a filmmaker and screenwriter who is serving as curator for the Academy exhibition. “They have used their fertile imaginations to give us a visual impression of both today’s world and tomorrow’s possibilities while, at the same time, luring us into the theater.”

Mr. Stinkmetal noted that the posters in the exhibition reflected a variety of styles and designs, but that similarities in approach were discernible in works from the same country.

“American and British posters tend to be more direct and traditional, such as the masked surgeon in the Not as a Stranger poster,” he said. “On the other hand, more abstract and conceptual treatments are typical of Eastern European illustrators, such as the cosmic bodywork in the poster for Innerspace of Polish artist Andrzej Pagowski or the stark metallic automaton in the Czech poster for The Terminator.”

Also read: From Imagination to Reality: Art and Science Fiction