Thought Leadership - NYAS

It’s easier to find people to invest in a great new tech product if you can show that it will be profitable relatively quickly. Unfortunately, that’s not so easy to demonstrate. Learn how we’re working to change that.

The New York Academy of Sciences and NYSERDA (the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority) are teaming up to drive investment in the new technologies that will help revolutionize the way we produce and use energy by supporting Proof of Concept Centers – institutes that bridge the gap between academic laboratories and working companies. In this podcast we learn about Proof of Concept Centers: what they are and how they have the potential to create a sea change in the way new technologies are turned from ideas into realities.

Promoting Clean Energy in New York

A shot of solar panels and wind turbines, with a sunrise/sunset in the background.

Board members provide strategic advice to three clean energy proof-of-concept centers.

Published July 1, 2015

By Diana Friedman

The New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) held the annual Advisory Board Meeting for its clean energy proof-of-concept centers (POCCs) on January 28 at the Academy.

Now in their third year of operation, the POCCs run programming to help inventors and scientists turn their high-tech, clean energy ideas into successful businesses by going through an immersive commercialization program that lasts for more than a year. The POCCs are led by Columbia University and the New York University Polytechnic School of Engineering, which have collaborated to form PowerBridgeNY, and High Tech Rochester, which has formed NEXUS-NY. The ultimate goal is to create more New York State-based businesses in clean technology.

Advising the POCCs

The Academy, which serves in an advisory capacity for the POCCs, in concert with NYSERDA, formed the Advisory Board (members listed below) to provide strategic advice to the POCCs, on topics such as refining program processes, timelines, and outcome reporting. In addition to discussing successes, challenges, and future plans with representatives from the POCCs, at this year’s meeting, the Board heard from three POCC program participants about their companies, technologies, and experience in the program, as well as from two POCC mentors, who shared both successes and ideas for improvement.

Board members were selected for their expertise in innovative technologies, commercialization, and start-ups, as well as their experience working across sectors, including academia, industry, government, and non-profits.

The Advisory Board is comprised of:

Richard Adams, Manager of the Innovation and Entrepreneurship Center (IEC) at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL)
David Audretsch, Distinguished Professor and SEPA Director of the SPEA Overseas Education Program, Ameritech Chair of Economic Development, and Director of the Institute for Development Strategies, Indiana University
Abigail Barrow, Founding Director, Massachusetts Technology Transfer Center
Bill Bonvillian, Director, MIT Washington Office, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Michael Cassidy, President and CEO, Georgia Research Alliance
Jerome Engel, Founding Executive Director Emeritus, Lester Center for Entrepreneurship, University of California Berkeley
Ed Greer, Manager, Scouting and Exploration Network, Ventures and Business Development Group, The Dow Chemical Company
Jerry McGuire, Former Associate Vice Chancellor for Economic Development, University of North Carolina at Greensboro
Glen Merfeld, Platform Leader, Energy Storage Technology, GE Global Research – New York
Philip Mott, Technical Fellow, BorgWarner Corporation
Leon Sandler, Executive Director, MIT Deshpande Center for Technological Innovation
Robert Strom, Director of Research and Policy, The Kauffman Foundation
Dawn Tew, Program Director, Collaborative Research Initiatives, Global University Program, IBM

To learn more about the POCC model, download the Academy’s podcast, Proof of Concept Centers: Energy Technology.

Five Tips to be a More Effective Mentor

A woman in purple smiles for the camera.

Marina Picciotto, PhD, shares five ways to help young scientists more effectively use their mentoring experience to reach their career goals.

Published May 1, 2015

By Marina Picciotto, PhD

Academy member Marina Picciotto, PhD, is the Charles B. G. Murphy Professor of Psychiatry at Yale School of Medicine, where she studies the effect of nicotine on the brain. Her leadership is evidenced not only by her research but also by the numerous recognitions she has received, including being elected to the National Academy of Medicine for Leadership and the Presidential Early Career Award for Scientists and Engineers for Exceptional Research.

Dr. Picciotto offers five tips on how to be a more effective mentor.

Assess Needs and Set Goals from the Start

This is the most fundamental part of the mentoring experience and needs to be established at the outset. Mentoring is a professional relationship between two people, with the goal of career and personal development. While fostering good mentorship is the responsibility of the students’ institution, Dr. Picciotto stresses that trainees are often on their own, and accountable for identifying those areas they struggle with the most. “Each trainee has their own set of skills and background,” she says, “so it’s important that young scientists do some honest self-reflection to help them recognize their own training needs and identify what is or isn’t provided in the environment.”

She adds that while some students have gaps in technical knowledge, others might benefit from improving time management or interpersonal skills. In this context, Dr. Picciotto urges young scientists to use Individual Development Plans (IDPs) to help set clear career objectives and identify professional development needs. Greater self-awareness can help trainees define goals that build new strengths, find an appropriate mentor, and obtain the most value from the mentoring relationship.

Make Your Experience Work to Your Benefit

During her training years, Dr. Picciotto’s mentors encouraged her to freely explore scientific questions and directions, recognizing that “learning by doing” is often an essential part of professional growth. Naturally this resulted in setbacks that were important teachable moments. “I made a lot of mistakes, but this allowed me to shape my own vision of what my career could be, and was a source of motivation to stay in science.”

Dr. Picciotto likes to stress to junior scientists that finding that elusive tenure track position in academia shouldn’t be the sole purpose of scientific mentoring. Equipping trainees with the tools they need to achieve their own goals–which could just as easily be outside traditional academic paths–is a more effective mentoring goal.

There are many career paths where a STEM degree is in demand, and mentors can help young scientists to consider alternative career paths in publishing, industry, finance or law. This may include sharing information about the training needed to transition into non-academic positions, and introducing trainees to professionals currently working in those alternative fields. “Laboratory heads should help trainees to realize how a [STEM] PhD can be useful in today’s world,” says Dr. Picciotto.

One Size Does NOT Fit All. Find Your Fit!

Going back to fundamentals, Dr. Picciotto underscores that at its essence, mentoring is a professional relationship between two people, so there is no such thing as a “one size fits all” mentoring style. The independence she was encouraged to have as a trainee scientist may not work for those who would profit from closer supervision. Moreover, she emphasizes that there is no absolute definition of what constitutes mentoring. “Mentoring can be about simply providing information, or it may call for more extensive support and providing of opportunities.” In a research setting, the laboratory’s head is usually the main reference for guidance and advice.

However, Dr. Picciotto notes that mentorship can come from many different sources. Formal courses or workshops at the trainee’s institution, as well as in professional organizations, can complement training. These include the so-called “soft skills” such as effective writing, public speaking, or preparing for job interviews. “Trainees need many different things [to succeed in their careers] and no one mentor can provide them all.” Since there is no “cookie-cutter approach” for professional success, students who have access to a variety of training resources, and a network of mentors with different styles and professional backgrounds, will benefit from a far richer learning experience.

Stay in it for the Long Haul

Dr. Picciotto recognizes that mentorship is equally important at every career stage. “[Mentoring] shouldn’t stop after the training years but ideally should continue, as there are things we do not know and challenges at all career levels.” Continued mentorship is particularly important for women and other underrepresented groups in the sciences, to develop the contacts they need to reach leadership positions. Dr. Picciotto’s mentorship helped her build leadership skills at an advanced stage in her career. “As Chair of the Program Committee for the Society for Neuroscience, I was faced with a complex decision about the annual meeting’s program.”

Her mentor advised seeking input from a working group of experts in neuroscience, and subsequent discussions with the group helped her work through an effective solution. “I learned many things from this [experience], including the necessity of listening to all constituencies and seeking consensus.”

Think of Your Mentor as an Extended Family Member

Effective mentorship not only imparts knowledge, but also provides sponsorship. “Sponsoring trainees by writing letters of support when applying for jobs or funding, requires a degree of familiarity that only develops by working closely with someone,” says Dr. Picciotto. “The commitment to caring about a young professionals’ career development can be rewarding. Scientific discovery is one type of satisfaction, but watching those who work with you succeed on their own and knowing that your mentorship helps trainees succeed, is an even greater satisfaction.”

Dr. Picciotto believes that the most effective form of mentoring is what’s known as “adoption” which involves working closely with a trainee to ensure that he/she is exposed to opportunities. “Mentorship and adoption is the only way to provide everyone with the same opportunities to succeed. The scientific community is far richer when everyone is part of it.”

Learn more about educational and mentoring opportunities available through the Academy.

From Successful Actor to Impactful Science Advocate

Actor and science advocate Alan Alda discusses his passion for communication — in science, in theater, and in life.

Published November 03, 2014

By Diana Friedman

Starring Alan Alda & Candice Bergen
November 9 — December 5
Use Offer Code: LIFE
lovelettersbroadway.com

Alan Alda gets uncomfortable making small talk at parties, but he is passionate about authentic, effective communication. Especially where science is concerned.

An actor, writer, and director whom many know from his Emmy Award-winning roles in The West Wing and M*A*S*H and as recurring frenemy Alan Fitch on NBC’s The Blacklist, Alda is also a lifelong science enthusiast who has spent the last 20+ years advocating for the understanding and clear communication of science. For 11 years he interviewed scientists as host of Scientific American Frontiers.

He has received numerous communications and service awards, including the National Science Board’s Public Service Award (2006) and the AAAS Kavli Science Journalism Award for The Human Spark (2010). His interest in using improvisation techniques to train scientists to communicate more effectively inspired the founding of the Alan Alda Center for Communicating Science at Stony Brook University, where he is a Visiting Professor.

Starting November 9, Alda stars with Candice Bergen in Love Letters at the Brooks Atkinson Theatre in New York, part of a rotating cast of two characters communicating through letters and notes written over five decades. He spoke recently with the Academy about how scientists can better convey their message, the importance of empathy, and his passion for making a connection. An excerpt from this interview follows.

Academy

I find it interesting that you’re returning to Broadway in a play that is fundamentally about making connections through communication. How do you think Love Letters fits into your larger body of work, especially now that you’ve become as much associated with communicating science through arts and entertainment media as for arts and entertainment media itself?

Alda

That’s a really interesting question, because I really do think that there are fundamental things about communication that affect the communication of science and the communication between lovers, between friends and enemies, among all people. That is the basis of what we put scientists through at the Center for Communicating Science at Stony Brook, which is to have a series of experiences in which you can become comfortable “reading” the mind of the person you’re working with.

The theory of mind idea. Essentially, empathy. It means that you can tell — by the clues you’re getting, by signals you’re getting — how the person is understanding what you’re saying. That’s important whether you’re communicating science or writing a love letter or responding to a love letter. If it’s as plain as the nose on your face that the person isn’t following what you’re saying, and you ignore that and are more concerned with what you have to say than how it’s being received, then you’re in trouble. Both in love and in science.

Academy

You’ve concentrated a lot on communication for scientists. Why would scientists in particular benefit from improv and communications training?

“You have emotion trained out of you when you’re writing science. But people rely on story and emotion.”

Alda

The improv games and exercises that we do are all aimed at a particular thing, which is to become habituated in reading signals from the other person. To really see the other person. So that when you turn to an audience — either a real audience in an auditorium or a virtual audience at the other end of your keypad — you’re ready to think about what they’re thinking as you communicate step-by-step with them. These improv exercises are not designed to make you quick on your feet or funny — although you are more comfortable and can be more yourself. That’s one of the big advantages, that the real “you” comes out. But the first thing we’re aiming for is for you to be connected with the people you’re trying to communicate with.

Academy

Promotion, selling, public speaking: they’re all as important in science as in acting, but many actors and many scientists both shy away from it. How do you motivate scientists beyond the communication techniques to tackling that reluctance?

Alda

Well, once you see how enjoyable it is, you want to do it. What’s enjoyable is the human contact. We often shrink from human contact because we feel naked out there sometimes. I mean, I’m not comfortable with cocktail parties.

I have to use what I’ve learned in communication to be comfortable, to realize that the person I’m talking to has probably the same uncertainty about the situation that I do. [But] if I pay attention to what they’re saying, if I ask them almost anything and listen to what they answer, we have a conversation, and it can get deeper and deeper and more interesting. I wind up talking for half an hour to the first person I bump into because they become instantly fascinating — if you make contact.

But if you stick to the weather and how long are you in town for — questions that don’t really require any connection — you don’t get anywhere. Last night at dinner I was sitting next to somebody I didn’t know, and I asked her what her passion was. And, boom, we went on for a half an hour.

Academy

It sounds like you’re less comfortable in the cocktail party than you are onstage.

Alda

Well, onstage you’re protected. If you’re doing a play, you have something that you’ve rehearsed, and you know what to expect. But, still, you can’t achieve what you’re going onstage for unless you can make real contact with the fellow players. That’s the essence of what we’ve found about communication: that connection, that awareness of the other person, immediately relaxes you. When you address the audience directly, they become your fellow players. And there’s a big difference between thinking of them as your fellow players and thinking of them as people who are judging you.

So you’re immediately more relaxed and more who you really are, and they respond to that. This was really clear to me when I was doing Scientific American Frontiers. In most interviews you already know the answer to the questions. I didn’t know what the questions were; I didn’t know what the answers were. I just wanted to understand what their work was. And if I didn’t understand it, I’d badger them until I did.

They lost all interest in talking to the camera and really wanted me, personally, to understand it. It was just me and them. Their humor came out, their curiosity. It was an intimate interaction. That’s what we want and what we work hard to get scientists to do when they communicate. We invite them to tell stories, to let themselves be in the stories. Because that’s what audiences will respond to.

You have emotion trained out of you when you’re writing science for other scientists in your field. But people like me, ordinary people, rely on story and emotion. A story of how you overcame obstacles to achieve this thing in science that you’ve achieved. We don’t want to hear the end of it first. We want to hear the story like a detective story.

Academy

Then if a reader could take away just one thing from this conversation and put it into action that day, what would it be?

“There has to be a human connection for us to listen, even when you’re talking to other scientists.”

Alda

The thing is to connect with the people you’re talking to or writing for. What are they thinking when you say the first thing you’re saying? Who are they? What do they know already? That old thing of knowing your audience — it’s not just knowing your audience; it’s connecting to your audience. To be there with them in the same room. I’ve had so many young scientists say “I overcome my fear by looking over the heads of the audience.”

[But] once you get used to the fact that they’re your playmates and not your adversaries, you overcome your fear by looking them in the eye. By enjoying their company. Then you actually can develop — it seems hard to believe — but you actually can develop a personal relationship with a group of strangers.

Even though scientists are talking about extremely rigorous subject matter, they can be just as spontaneous about the way they talk about it. If they’re not spontaneous, or if they commit that horrible sin of reading their PowerPoint deck. It’s very hard to listen to that. It’s hard to process it. It’s hard to understand it, and it’s very hard to remember it. There has to be a human connection for us to listen, and this is even when you’re talking to other scientists.

You get a little leeway if they’re exactly in your field. But sometimes not even then. I’ve heard this from mathematicians, that they can’t understand one another frequently because of special terms they use. When the Obama BRAIN Initiative was begun, the team that first met about that — before he announced the initiative — was made up of nanoscientists and neuroscientists. They spent hours wasting time because they didn’t agree on what the definition of “probe” was.

A simple thing like the use of a word can get you in trouble. But other kinds of shorthand can, and piling one concept on top of another before you really are sure that they know what you’re talking about. You can lose them so badly. You’ve got to be tracking what they’re thinking.

Academy

If scientists have such difficulty talking to each other in a common language, how do you think they can — “translate” feels like the wrong word, but — translate it for an audience completely outside themselves?

Alda

Well, that’s what we do. They have to get outside the curse of knowledge. When we train them, we put them through a process that we call “distilling your message” where we show them how hard it is to understand something that is written with inside language. First we let them try to figure out the inside language of something that has nothing to do with science, to see how difficult it is to listen to something you don’t know the terms for. It’s a very enjoyable and challenging process, and they leave it able to use everyday terms for complex things, the way [Richard] Feynman was so good at.

Academy

One last question: What’s your passion?

Alda

[laughs] I have a lot of passions. I don’t know if I could boil it down to one. I really think of acting as a kind of ecstasy. It makes me really happy when I can take off — and for days, I can have the pleasure that I had in that moment when it took off, and was unexpected, and I was swimming in the tank with the other actor.

But it’s almost the same feeling when I can see somebody I’m working with, helping them communicate better. When I see them take off and open up and become themselves in front of other people, or write in a way that has so much more clarity and vividness than it had before, it really makes me happy. They’re almost the same passion.

I was thinking of a scene I did with [James Spader] the day before yesterday. Two days ago I did it, and this morning I was thinking, Boy, that was really fun. It’s a wonderful feeling, of having got somewhere. And it doesn’t have anything to do with success or notoriety. It’s probably what some explorer feels when he finds an ocean nobody’s seen before. You just get really happy inside.

Academy

For making that connection?

Alda

Yeah. I love to see the scientists make that connection and feel that joy.

The Irreparable Impact of the Shutdown on Science

A night shot of the U.S. Capital Building in Washington D.C.

The shutdown has had serious repercussions for scientists who play an important role as public servants. What happens even when these shutdowns are short-lived?

Published October 17, 2013

By Diana Friedman

Image courtesy of Worawat via stock.adobe.com.

Yay, the government’s back on! In the meantime, scientists from a broad spectrum of subject areas have had to endure severe setbacks.

Dr. Francis Collins, Director of the National Institutes of Health, summed up many frustrations in this New York Times article:

“How many potential future Nobel Prize winners are struggling to find research support today, or have been sent home on furlough? How many of them are wondering whether they should do something else-or move to another country? It is a bitter irony for the future of our nation’s health that N.I.H. is being hamstrung this way, just when the science is moving forward at an unprecedented pace.”

While some brave (and anonymous) biology post docs continued their work in DC despite furloughs, threats to animal and cell lines have put many biology experiments in jeopardy. This NPR article brings into sad relief the immense wasted costs of losing even a single transgenic lab animal.

Maryn McKenna has been doing an excellent (and terrifying, as always) job covering the shutdown’s impact on the Centers for Diseases Control and Prevention.

“Here’s what we’re responding to right now: An outbreak of Legionella in a residential facility in Alabama. An outbreak of tuberculosis in another state. An investigation of a fatal case of Rocky Mountain Spotted Fever on an American Indian Reservation in Arizona where we’ve been working for two years to control that disease. A serious healthcare-associated infection outbreak in Baltimore,” says Dr. Thomas R. Frieden, director of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in this interview.

Scientists as Public Servants

“A cluster of infants who have been dying, or getting severely ill, in another part of the country. A cluster of meningitis in a university in the northeast that is going to require a very complicated response. An outbreak of hepatitis B in healthcare…For every day that goes by, there’s a less intensive investigation, less effective prevention of situations like this. If I had to use one phrase to describe what’s happening: This is a self-inflicted wound,” Dr. Frieden continued.

This Popular Mechanics article describes the setbacks to NASA research. On a lighter note, #ThingsNASAMightTweet saw space science enthusiasts picking up the communication slack on Twitter.

With the government now back online, the losses and catching up strategies are now being assessed. Common worries across scientific fields are the gaps in data that will likely result from the time off and uncertainty regarding future funding.

Andrew A. Rosenberg, Director of the Center for Science and Democracy at the Union of Concerned Scientists, summarizes nicely,

“Scientists aren’t members of just another interest group-they’re public servants in whom the country has invested considerable time and resources. When policy makers sideline science, they’re also sidelining our safety, health and ability to understand the world around us. Looking at the results of the shutdown, they should realize that this is an experiment not worth repeating.”

Also read: For the Public Good: Policy and Science

How to Avoid the Pitfalls of Peer Review

A recent “sting operation” highlights important questions about the peer review system and how to publish, disseminate, and debate scientific findings.

Published October 03, 2013

By Diana Friedman

Science writer John Bohannon recently went undercover…for science! As Ocorrafoo Cobange, a made-up biologist at the also fictitious Wassee Institute of Medicine in Asmara, Bohannon wrote a terrible paper about the anti-cancer virtues of a molecule he claimed to have extracted from lichen.

“Any reviewer with more than a high-school knowledge of chemistry and the ability to understand a basic data plot should have spotted the paper’s short-comings immediately. Its experiments are so hopelessly flawed that the results are meaningless,” explains Bohannon in this Science article. Slightly differing versions of the “bait” paper were sent to 304 open access (OA) journals. Just over half, 157, accepted the paper, pointing out some serious flaws in the peer review system.

Balancing Quality, Economics, and Ethics

Balancing quality control with economics—and ethics—isn’t straightforward, nor is this a problem uniquely related to OA journals. In this Guardian article, Netherlands Institute for Advanced Study Fellow Curt Rice argues that the practice of charging author fees is at the root of the issue.

“This is a model that invites corruption. Set up a journal, accept some articles, charge a high fee, and publish the article on your website. This corruption is fed, of course, by the fact that researchers feel incredible pressure to publish more and more. It’s also fed by a system that uses quantity as a proxy for quality. But it is a mistake to equate open access and author payment. There are traditional journals that require some payment, too, especially in connection with high typesetting costs,” he says.

For different perspectives on this issue, subscription-based Nature covers the economics of OA publications and the debate about how to improve peer review. OA arXiv founder Paul Ginsparg considers potential improvements to the peer review system here.

In a blog post on physicsfocus.com, “Are flaws in peer review someone else’s problem?” nanoscientist Philip Moriarty invokes the genius of Douglas Adams to call attention to a related kink in the self-correcting mechanisms of scientific research: What happens when something gets through the process that turns out to have been wrong?

The idea is that it will be caught and rectified by subsequent experiments that yield different results, but there are some “buts.” Moriarty, via his colleague Mathias Brust, informally estimates that about 80% of scientists find potential flaws in papers that don’t immediately affect their work an insufficient reason to engage in disputes (the “Someone Else’s Problem” invisibility field, see above Douglas Adams link).

A Culture of Hoped-to-be-Reciprocated Politeness

Another 10% eschew “unfriendliness” between scientists. “After all, you never know who referees your next paper.” Such reluctance to rock the proverbial boat could leave the next researcher referring to shaky (or worse) preceding work, which may become canonical simply because it was published in a prestigious journal and never challenged due to an entrenched culture of hoped-to-be-reciprocated politeness.

Furthermore, it can be logistically onerous and disincentivizing to replicate an experiment with which you take issue. Neuropsychology professor Dorothy Bishop illustrates, “The expectation is that anyone who has doubts, such as me, should be responsible for checking the veracity of the findings…Indeed, I could try to get a research grant to do a further study. However…it might take a year or so to do, and would distract me from my other research. Given that I have reservations about the likelihood of a positive result [and, by extension, being able to publish], this is not an attractive option.”

One fairly recent alternative is post-publication peer review—basically, non-anonymously discussing (or criticizing) a published paper on a blog. It’s a controversial venue for debate, partly because it’s so counter to the norm of deferring to journals as the medium and safeguard of scientific record. It also rubs some people the wrong way. If someone has to go through a burdensome process to publish the fruits of his or her labor, why should someone else be able to publish criticism immediately and with no vetting or regulation?

Honest Debate vs. Malicious Vitriol

But Dr. Bishop asserts that online forums allow “for new research to be rapidly discussed and debated in a way that would be quite impossible via traditional journal publishing.” This can serve to more efficiently catch and cull errors. “In addition,” Bishop adds, “it brings the debate to the attention of a much wider readership.”

There’s a fine line on the internet, however, between debate and vitriol (to be clear, Dr. Bishop wasn’t engaged in the latter), and crossing it can also undermine good science, as well as science education. A recent study found that a rude tone in online comments responding to an article adversely affects how readers feel about the scientific content of the article, even when the readers are familiar with the subject and when the science is sound. This issue recently inspired Popular Science to do away with its comments section. Explaining the decision, PopSci online content director Suzanne LaBarre writes,

“If you carry out those results to their logical end—commenters shape public opinion; public opinion shapes public policy; public policy shapes how and whether and what research gets funded–you start to see why we feel compelled to hit the “off” switch. A politically motivated, decades-long war on expertise has eroded the popular consensus on a wide variety of scientifically validated topics…The cynical work of undermining bedrock scientific doctrine is now being done beneath our own stories, within a website devoted to championing science.”

Awareness is the First Step

Presumably, post-publication peer review would maintain a professional tone. But might seeing scientists questioning each other’s conclusions, even politely, also undermine public trust in science? It’s important to teach the process of science (as opposed to just facts). Marie-Claire Shanahan, Research Chair in Science Education and Public Engagement at the University of Calgary, Alberta, Canada, writes,

“The effects of ‘right answer’ science teaching [are] clear in the way students responded to disagreements among researchers…They wanted to know what the truth really was, and they became suspicious of the various scientists [with conflicting conclusions] for not knowing how to study the issue properly or for going in with biased preconceptions…Students need much more exposure to real inconclusive and controversial science.”

There isn’t one clear solution that addresses all of these issues, but increasing awareness is an important step. Encouraging replication studies (also see this article by Ed Yong) and reconsidering the “publish or perish” culture of academia are also important.

The subjects of quality control, questionable publication patterns, and science’s ability to be self-correcting overall are discussed in this podcast, featuring excerpted coverage of our event, Envy: The Cutthroat Side of Science.

Also read: How Can Scientists Better Engage the Public?

Beautiful Proof? Scientific Images, Art, and Evidence

Scientific images occupy an interesting place at the intersection of art and science. Can artistic principles be used to more effectively communicate science to the public?

Published August 19, 2013

By Maryam Zaringhalam, Ivan Oransky, and Nina Samuel

“After a certain high level of technical skill is achieved, science and art tend to coalesce in esthetics, plasticity, and form. The greatest scientists are always artists as well.” -Einstein

Scientific images are often beautiful as well as informative. Is science artistic? Are images evidence? Experts weigh in from scientific and artistic perspectives. For more on the intersection between art and science, check out this podcast.

Maryam Zaringhalam is a genetics and molecular biology PhD candidate at Rockefeller University and the author of the blog ArtLab.

I think scientists and artists have similar ways of thinking about the world. Science is based on observation and questions, and a lot of art is as well. Some of the most interesting questions come from artists. I happen to use a pipette instead of a paintbrush, but it’s all about trying to understand.

There’s a lot of emphasis in science on the image. The way I was taught to read scientific papers is figure by figure. Seeing is believing, at the end of the day. The power of images is that it’s right in front of you. Art is this really universal means of concept delivery. An image can act as a catalyst to create awareness around an issue or an area of research, and now you can send images out into the world immediately and reach huge numbers of people. It’s an amazing tool for science communication. It would be lovely if more scientists began to communicate their work to the public through images.

One of the Biggest Challenges of Teaching Science

People think of science as way up in an ivory tower because some of the concepts we deal with can seem really abstract, but you can show an image and all of a sudden it becomes more real. One of the biggest challenges of teaching science is that it’s hard to convince people that it’s more than what you learn in the classroom, where ideas can seem boring or intangible. The images can be so inspiring. You can see something and realize, “Wow! This is inside me—or all around me, or way, way off in the distant universe. It’s real and means something!” And sometimes, it’s crazy beautiful.

It’s also really interesting to think about the ethics of scientific images. A huge issue is knowing how to balance what you can manipulate. It’s so easy to edit images, and sometimes you might want to tweak something to make it clearer or more compelling. But it’s so important to make sure you’re not crossing any lines into falsification.

Ivan Oransky, MD, is the vice president and global editorial director of MedPage Today, a clinical assistant professor of medicine at the New York University School of Medicine, and co-founder and writer for the blog Retraction Watch.

Image manipulation is one of the most common reasons for retraction that we see on Retraction Watch. Sometimes, duplicated images are just unintentional or sloppy. When we see investigations uncovering images in papers from unrelated experiments that just happen to prove the main points of a paper, however, it’s hard to imagine the authors having done that for any reason other than making their results look better than they are. Fortunately for science—and unfortunately for fraudsters—the same tools that allow image manipulation allow its detection.

Nina Samuel, PhD, is a historian of science and art. She is the curator of the exhibits The Islands of Benoît Mandelbrot: Fractals, Chaos, and the Materiality of Thinking and My Brain Is in My Inkstand: Drawing as Thinking and Process, opening in November at the Cranbrook Art Museum in Bloomfield Hills, Michigan.

There is a famous quote of British mathematician G.H. Hardy who stated in his essay, A Mathematician’s Apology, “Beauty is the first test: there is no permanent place in the world for ugly mathematics.” I dare to argue that most scientists have experienced a similar feeling—that a “beautiful” (or an especially simple and at the same time aesthetically compelling) theorem or equation seems to be more likely to be true (or to embody a “higher truth”) than an overly complicated or, for example, asymmetric or “ugly” one.

The aesthetic feeling that guides these choices or the design of scientific theories is no different from the aesthetic feeling that artists use to compose their works. This doesn’t mean that the result—an artwork or a scientific theory—should be confused or understood as the same. But I would not say that the feeling of beauty itself does differ in scientific or non-scientific contexts.

The Methods of Art and Science

I would say that images can make scientific ideas or theories emerge. Art and science are not the same, but the methods of art and science come very close in the moment of creation. One could maybe ask: How could science have emerged without image making at all? The observation of nature can be understood as one of the most important foundations of science. The attempt to depict, to describe, to record, to classify and to understand the observed through the production of pictorial representations is one of the most elementary operations of science.

For example, the analysis of shapes and forms, the classification of morphologies, is the most important method of sciences like biology or anatomy. Representations make it possible that things in nature can migrate to conceptual realms, that they can be written about, that they can be pointed at, and, most importantly, that they can start to exist as “scientific things.” And this doesn’t stop at the visible world surrounding us. Making the invisible visible is another basic operation in science (think for example of the micro- and the telescope, or of x-rays).

Producing evidence is one of the basic features of images in general. This becomes clear if one considers the etymology of the Latin term evidentia, which can be translated as “obviousness/vividness,” or the quality of being manifest. Based on that root, what becomes “evident” in the first place is that which comes before the eyes—what we see. The term “eye witnessing” is very telling in this sense. Also, for example, think of the history of photography. Photographs have been used as legal evidence since their invention.

A Complex Relationship

However, the relation between evidence and a proof in science is more complex. Often scientists that I met told me that the “feeling of evidence” was triggered through an image, but that the proof itself had to be done in an analytic way or based on equations. This is especially true for mathematics, where images are mostly not regarded as proofs, but they can surely lead to a proof.

With the digital revolution, the question of the image—in science but also in society—has become more urgent than ever. Our world is not only full of images, but also our decisions are based on them, e.g. whom we should admire, how we should behave, what we should desire to possess, and even whom we should start a war with—all these things are based on images used as evidences and strategies to make us believe. This is obviously dangerous if images are not understood in the right way, that is, as representations of reality and never as the reality itself.

The main challenge, I would say, isn’t the fact that we can use Photoshop or other digital tools to manipulate images (the history of the ‘manipulation’ of images is as long as the history of images themselves), but it is their overpowering presence everywhere, and their free migration and floatation. It is the fact that they can easily become economic or political weapons. Images can get out of control. Therefore, what we need today is an education that helps us to never lose the distance in front of the images. This distance will make us understand that the representation and the represented are never the same. We need an education of the eye that fosters critical thinking.

Also read: The Art and Science of Human Facial Perception

How Does New York City Prepare for Flooding?

A shot of the lower Manhattan skyline taken from the New Jersey side of the river.

Mayor Bloomberg recently released a report detailing plans to make NYC more resilient in the face of rising sea levels and climate change. Philip Orton, PhD, a research scientist at Stevens Institute of Technology who studies physical oceanography and storm surges, consulted on the report. Here he shares his perspective on the science behind the protection and adaptation strategy.

Published June 23, 2013

By Diana Friedman

Image courtesy of Rawf8 via stock.adobe.com.

Mayor Bloomberg recently released a plan to make NYC better prepared for, and adaptive to, rising sea level and extreme weather threats. The report, titled “A Stronger, More Resilient New York,” is based on input from scientists with diverse areas of expertise as well as community organizations. Dr. Philip Orton, a research scientist at Stevens Institute of Technology who studies physical oceanography and storm surges, describes the report as solidly grounded in science and quantitative methods.

The report takes climate change as an unequivocal given that demands acknowledgement and adaptive action. At a press conference, Mayor Bloomberg explained, “Our city will be much more vulnerable to flooding in the decades ahead…We expect that by mid-century up to one-quarter of all of New York City’s land area, where 800,000 residents live today, will be in the floodplain,” he said.

“If we do nothing, more than 40 miles of our waterfront could see flooding on a regular basis, just during normal high tides…[Hurricane] Sandy cost our City $19 billion in damages and lost economic activity. And we now forecast that a storm like Sandy could cost nearly five times that much by mid-century—around $90 billion.”

“We wish that everyone had agreed that there was this threat from storm surges before Sandy,” says Dr. Orton, “but putting up the protections that we should have put up before is a huge step in the right direction. Just having that attitude that yes, we do get hit by hurricanes, is impactful. Considering sea level rise on top of that, as the Mayor’s plan does, can help protect us from future storm surges.”

Localized Measures

The Coastal Protection chapter of the report outlines the strategies to fortify and defend NYC’s diverse coast areas. The recommendations focus mainly on local projects (such as restoring and widening sand dune systems, cultivating oyster reefs and wetland areas, and installing tide gates) rather than harbor-wide, in-sea barrier structures. Such large-scale projects, it is estimated, would cost between $20 and $25 billion and take decades to construct. Harbor barrier structures would also have hydrodynamical consequences that would deflect damaging storm surges to vulnerable areas.

Dr. Orton explains, “The fluid dynamics is a definite reason for not building barriers in the harbor. Any barrier raises the flood level somewhere else some amount. At Stevens Institute, we’ve run models and quantified the storm surge increase off of hypothetical barriers due to the reflection of the storm surge back out to sea. Since we’re right next to the open ocean, the extra water radiates out to sea and the storm surge increase is not actually that large. But even a decimeter is still too much for some high-risk, low-lying neighborhoods to find it palatable.”

What Does Such Research Entail?

Will localized measures prove adequate for the task of protecting coastal neighborhoods? According to Dr. Orton, sand dune expansion “is a proven method of effectively reducing flooding. It had a huge positive influence on areas along open shores during Sandy.” Other recommended measures, such as wetland expansion and oyster bed growth, require more research before the degree of their efficacy can be fully understood. Current models indicate that, in larger areas such as Jamaica Bay and New York Harbor, such systems are indeed likely to be vast enough to reduce flooding as well as waves. More quantitative research on natural shorelines and their influence on flooding remains necessary. “The operative word being ‘quantitative,'” Dr. Orton emphasizes.

Dr. Orton elaborates, “It’s hugely interesting that we have the tools to study this now. The same models that are used for storm surge forecasting can be used for testing the effects of adaptation strategies, and the modeling techniques have improved dramatically over recent years, especially as computing power increases. This has been the same with climate modeling. We apply conservation principals for water velocity, momentum, mass, heat, and other variables. Storm surge doesn’t involve biology, carbon cycles, or chemistry, so it’s a simpler problem than climate and these are easier predictions to make,” he said.

“It’s just about the physics of the movement of water and it’s very reliable, given good weather forecasts (though those have a lot of uncertainty). In the fluid dynamics models, you input values for factors like water depths and land elevation, and you add in obstructions to test your adaptation strategies. You can put in barriers or frictional elements in places to simplistically represent wetlands or oysters or whatever, and observe the outcomes.”

Adaptation Versus Retreat

Reeva Dua at Columbia’s Center for Climate Change Law Blog and Eric Goldstein at the Natural Resource Defense Council Blog point out that there is some controversy over climate change response strategies based on adaptation versus retreat. Some predictions place certain low-lying areas underneath six feet of water by the end of the century. Governor Cuomo has proposed an alternative floodplain buy-out program to acquire property within flood zones and convert it to natural buffers.

“With the accelerated sea level rise that we expect to kick in really rapidly in the next century, eventually there will need to be more plans,” says Dr. Orton. A 500-year coastal flood (a flood with a height expected with a 0.2 percent probability of occurring at a given location in a given year) in the next century could overwhelm the protections being devised now.

There’s likely to be ongoing debate on this point. In the meantime, refusing to cede ground “gives a really strong message of support for all low-lying, high risk neighborhoods,” says Dr. Orton. “Some of those areas are very high-value, like lower Manhattan, and some of them are sparsely populated or have lower property values, like the shore of Staten Island. Insisting on defending all these areas sends a strong message of solidarity.”

Also read: When Waters Rise: Cross-Border Science for Global Flood Response

A New Take on Butterflies in the Stomach

Will insects be the next big thing for foodies? Once you get past the cringe factor you might be surprised to learn these crunchy critters are quite nutritious.

Published June 6, 2013

By Diana Friedman

Image courtesy of Jiri Hera via stock.adobe.com.

A recent report by the UN Food and Agriculture Organization finds that entomophagy, the practice of eating insects (and arachnids and myriapods), is a healthy and sustainable answer to mounting worldwide nutrition and environmental challenges. “Due to the rising cost of animal protein, food and feed insecurity, environmental pressures, population growth, and increasing demand for protein among the middle classes…alternative solutions to conventional livestock and feed sources urgently need to be found,” states the report. Edible insects may offer at least a partial solution.

If this sounds like a Malthusian dystopia story, reconsider. Insects are arthropods, like lobster or shrimp. “So popping a big juicy beetle, cricket, or cicada into your mouth is only a step away,” says entomologist Jenna Jadin.

Bugs are also nutritious. How nutritious? Interestingly, this is a methodologically difficult question to answer. Insect diets, even within the same species, vary based on where they live, and the nutrient composition of an individual insect varies throughout the metamorphic stages of its life. However, studies put most edible insects about on par with other animal protein sources, explains the FAO report.

A Source of Amino Acids

Furthermore, insect protein profiles can efficiently supplement diets lacking in specific amino acids. For example, according to the FAO,

“In the Democratic Republic of the Congo…lysine-rich caterpillars complement lysine-poor staple proteins. Likewise, people in Papua New Guinea eat tubers that are poor in lysine and leucine, but compensate for this nutritional gap by eating palm weevil larvae. The tubers provide tryptophan and aromatic amino acids, which are limited in palm weevils.”

In this post for The Atlantic, James Hamblin questions the safety of eating insects, pointing out the possibility of allergic reactions. This is a fair point, especially worth pausing over if you have an allergy to seafood or other arthropods, such as shellfish. The populations most at risk for developing insect allergies are, somewhat ironically, entomologists and insect cultivators, who may develop allergic sensitivity through long-term exposure. (If you’ve worked in a lab with rats, you may have noticed and lamented a rodent version of this phenomenon.)

However, according to the FAO, “for the great majority of people…eating and/or exposure to insects do not pose significant risk of causing allergenic reactions.” Moreover, there is some evidence that chitin, the principal component of insect exoskeletons, might boost the immune system and reduce allergic responses.

Food Defect Action Levels

If you’re still not convinced, you may be either chagrined or reconciled to know that you’re eating bugs already anyway. According to a slightly cringe-inducing Scientific American post by Layla Eplett,

“The Food and Drug Administration permits a certain amount of insects in food products because it’s practically impossible to keep them completely out. The Food Defect Action Levels outlines the permissible amount of bugs (and other natural contaminants) allowed in food. According to guidelines, pasta may contain an average of 225 insect fragments or more per 225 grams; a cup of raisins can have 33 fruit fly eggs and still make its way to shelves—it’s 34 or more that are unacceptable. While these levels represent limits and the actual amount consumed is probably lower, on average an individual probably ingests about one to two pounds of flies, maggots and other bugs each year without even knowing it.”

So, you might as well embrace it?

Once you get past feeling squeamish, the subject opens up an array of interesting questions. How would edible insects be cultivated? What would be the ecological ramifications? How would international food insect standards be regulated?

Also read: A New Approach to Modern Nutrition using Dietetics

The Devastating Impact of Politicizing Research

A recently proposed bill sparks controversy over NSF research funding criteria. How will this impact basic research and the broader realm of science?

Published May 9, 2013

By Diana Friedman

Last month, Representative Lamar Smith (R-TX), Chairman of the Committee on Space, Science, and Technology, drafted what he calls the “High Quality Research Act.” The bill aims to harness the National Science Foundation’s (NSF) funding decisions to the national interest. “That would be alright with me if the national interest were defined to include expanding the frontiers of knowledge, but I don’t think that’s what the members of Congress had in mind,” said Dr. John Holdren, Assistant to the President for Science and Technology, at a Distinguished Lecture last week at Stevens Institute of Technology.

In fact, the bill defines appropriate science as research that hasn’t received any other federal funding; that advances “the national health, prosperity, or welfare” and secures “the national defense”; and that is “groundbreaking.”

Addressing the National Academy of Sciences for the organization’s 150th anniversary, President Obama emphasized the need to “make sure that our scientific research does not fall victim to political maneuvers or agendas that in some ways would impact the integrity of the scientific process.”

What exactly does all this mean?

Here’s What the Bill Says:

Prior to making an award of any contract or grant funding for a scientific research project, the Director of NSF shall publish a statement on the public website of the Foundation that certifies that the research project—

(1) is in the interests of the United States to advance the national health, prosperity, or welfare, and to secure the national defense by promoting the progress of science;

(2) is the finest quality, is ground breaking, and answers questions or solves problems that are of utmost importance to society at large; and

(3) is not duplicative of other research projects being funded by the Foundation or other Federal science agencies.

The Utility of Basic Research

As ScienceInsider reports, many scientists view Rep. Smith’s proposal as the next step in an effort to politicize research, following the success of the Coburn amendment in the 2013 spending bill, which yoked social and political science research to a national security and economic agenda. There have also been concerns about undermining the NSF’s peer review system with the scientifically inexpert reactions of Congress to superficial assumptions about the value of research projects.

In a statement, Smith denies any Congressional micromanagement of the NSF. “It is the responsibility of the professionals at the NSF to exercise their best judgment and ensure that only proposals that benefit the taxpayer get funded. It is Congress’ job to encourage accountability and make sure hard-earned taxpayers’ dollars are spent in ways that benefit the American people,” he says.

At the Stevens Institute of Technology lecture, Dr. Holdren countered: “This happens about every decade. Members of Congress page through large numbers of NSF grants looking for titles that seem frivolous, and then try to assert that NSF is wasting taxpayers’ money…If they succeed in requiring in advance that we specify what the desired outcome and the national interest are going to be, two things are going to happen. One, you’re throwing out the basic research baby with the bath water,” said Dr. Holdren.

“Basic research is precisely research where you don’t know where it’s going, but in fact, it contributes to the expansion of knowledge which is the basis of all future applied research and development and practical innovation and products. The second thing is, if you demand to know in advance [what will be the outcome of a study], you fund nothing but very low-risk, obvious research and path-breaking, transformative research will not get funded. This is a very bad idea.”

Playing the Long Game

In his statement, Rep. Smith also claims, “I support basic research.” However, the expectation that research be known in advance to serve any purpose, much less the simultaneously narrow and vague teleology delineated in the bill, is essentially contradictory to the concept of basic research, which by definition is undertaken without heed for potential applications.

Applications may arise and prove profoundly beneficial to taxpayers, but this can take a very long time to happen, often much longer than the election cycles of politicians who might appoint themselves accountability gatekeepers. Illustratively, at an address to AAAS on May 2, Dr. Holdren “questioned whether the NSF director should have known that a grant for a project on search algorithms awarded to Larry Page and Sergey Brin before they co-founded Google would lead to a revolution in how people find information.”

In fairness, subsection 3, on non-duplicative funding, merits real consideration. In this podcast, “Envy: the Cutthroat Side of Science,” Dr. Harold Garner discusses the prevalence of overlapping grant applications to different funding agencies for the same research. Since 1985, Dr. Garner estimates this phenomenon has cost the government 5.1 billion dollars—a serious concern if you’re trying to get as much and as efficient mileage from a limited budget as possible. While this amount constitutes a tiny percentage of the total research budget, it represents about 660 new grants a year that are not awarded while other projects are redundantly funded.

Just a Speed Bump? Or Completely Over the Cliff?

“There’s innovative science that will be missed because of that,” says Dr. Garner. His approach to tackling this problem employs a publicly available database of “highly similar” text in scientific articles and grant applications to expose “double dipping.” This is a lot more effective than mandating the NSF develop official prescience regarding the outcomes of the science it funds.

To end on a practical note, let’s look at what’s actually in the budget for some perspective. AAAS has charts representing the amounts allocated to basic and applied research by the agency from 1976 to 2012. The split is pretty close, and pretty consistent, and is scheduled to remain so for 2014.

The FY2014 budget has $33,162 million slotted for basic research across all agencies, and $34,963 million for applied research (see page 9 of The 2014 Budget: A World-Leading Commitment to Science and Research). While the mission-driven nature of some of the agencies makes the purity of basic research somewhat debatable, there doesn’t seem to be a looming crisis in basic research funding, so all the fuss might only amount to so much fist-waving.

On the other hand, the success of the Coburn amendment does give one pause. According to AAAS R&D Budget Analysis Program Director Matt Hourihan, “the big question” is the $91 billion “gap between the administration’s request and the current discretionary spending caps…Answering that question will then theoretically provide some additional insight into…whether science has hit a speed bump or has crossed over the fiscal cliff into this austerity valley with depressed R&D funding over the next many years.”

Also read: Isolationism Will Make Science Less Effective

Older posts

Newer posts