In 2023, the United States Surgeon General declared an epidemic of loneliness and isolation. Loneliness is a condition that leads to multiple psychological and physiological morbidities including depression, cardiovascular disease, and even early death. This collection of papers explores the topic of loneliness via a wide spectrum of perspectives including: theoretical concepts of loneliness; assessments and interventions of loneliness in geriatric, adolescent, and LGBTQ+ communities; neurobiological and physiological impacts of loneliness; and social media and artificial intelligence. The novel experimental findings, timely reviews, and unique perspectives will provide important contributions to combat the loneliness epidemic. The virtual issue is edited by Louise Hawkley (NORC at the University of Chicago).
Blog Archives
Beyond the Beaches: Revealing the Real Puerto Rico II
Part Two: A Lasting Impact
What started off as a discovery excursion with many unknowns quickly yielded promise and proved to be one of The New York Academy of Sciences’ greatest early 20th century achievements.
Published October 1, 2024
By Nick Fetty
While celebrating its centennial in 1917, The New York Academy of Sciences also celebrated the success of one of its early scientific endeavors that still resonates today.
The Academy started planning a scientific expedition to Puerto Rico in 1912 and by 1914 the first groups of scientists were traveling to the island to begin conducting research. The findings from this field work were published in a 19-volume series titled The Scientific Survey of Porto Rico and the Virgin Islands. Much of the research was conducted and published in the early half of the 20th century, when relatively little was known about the region.
Expanding the Breadth of the Survey
Because of the success of the initial endeavor, the survey eventually expanded beyond the island of Puerto Rico to also include the Virgin Islands. Academy scientists observed “the physiography of the region was remarkably uniform,” according to historian Simon Baatz in the 2017 update to his seminal history of the Academy published in 1988.
The scientists reported three cycles of erosion in the area including Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. Baatz wrote: “The first cycle, which formed the ‘upper peneplane of Porto Rico’ was ended by uplift; the second cycle destroyed the earlier peneplane and ‘produced an old erosional surface approximately 700 feet below the first’; while the third cycle, which was terminated by submergence, resulted in the formation of a lower peneplane.” These fundamental geological structures are estimated to have been created during the conclusion of the Tertiary period.
Howard Meyeroff, a geology professor at Smith College, made several trips to the region in the 1920s. In The Scientific Survey of Porto Rico and the Virgin Islands he reported “the entire Porto Rico-Saint Croix-Virgin Islands area developed as a unit until the late Tertiary dissection of the coastal plain.” During this same era, other researchers would study the region’s mammalogy (mammals), mycology (fungi), and ornithology (birds).
“A 10,000-Acre Swamp Below Sea Level”
H.A. Gleason studied wetlands in Puerto Rico as part of the Academy’s expedition. Gleason was the curator of the New York Botanical Garden and was a pupil of Academy Fellow Nathanial Lord Britton as a doctoral student in taxonomy at Columbia University. While scientific in nature, Gleason’s Puerto Rican research also had an economic component.
Gleason studied a swamp along the north shore of Arecibo, largely surrounded by fertile cane fields. With sugarcane as a major export for the island, Gleason suggested draining the swamp so that the entire area could be used to cultivate this cash crop.
However, with the swamp being at sea level Gleason stated it cannot be drained using “ordinary means,” as reported by the Yonkers Herald. Instead, he suggested they’d need to follow the example of the Hollanders by “[building] dikes to keep out the sea, and then [draining] the swamp by means of pumps,” which could be powered by windmills because of near constant “trade winds.”
Gleason also observed differences in the island’s topography between the north and south. While the north is swampier and saw greater rainfall, the south is semi-desert, arid and is subject to “long periods of drought.”
Along with co-author Mel T. Cook, Puerto Rico’s government botanist and plant pathologist, this research was published in The Scientific Survey of Porto Rico and the Virgin Islands.
“Curious Habits of Birds”
The Smithsonian Institute’s Alexander Wetmore studied birds in the region in the late 1920s. He observed that the stomachs of the Antillean grebe would often “contain masses of their own feathers, plucked and swallowed, which are regularly ground up and passed on into the intestines,” he wrote in The Scientific Survey of Porto Rico and the Virgin Islands.
Wetmore also studied the honey-creeper. He didn’t have to travel far as the bird would often fly into the parlor of his hotel “to search the blossoms of cut flowers in vases,” according to reporting from the Roanoke World-News.
During these excursions into the hotel room, the bird became puzzled upon seeing its own reflection in the mirror. Wetmore wrote “As it fluttered before the glass, the bird on the opposite side always rose to meet it, and after several attempts to evade the reflection, first on one side and then on the other, it would drop down, baffled, and scold its image sharply with quickly flitting wings.”
Additionally, it was observed that female honey-creepers didn’t always appreciate the company of their male counterparts, particularly during nest building. As Wetmore wrote, “he brings materials only when the female is absent, for when she catches him in the nest, she immediately drives him out.”
Lastly, and perhaps most morbidly, Wetmore uncovered an interesting trait of the brown pelican, also referred to as an alcatraz. After speaking with locals, he discovered that “when the alcatraz grows old and feeble, rather than suffer death by starvation it commits suicide by hanging itself by the head from the fork of a mangrove or the crevice between two stones.”
Advancing the Archeology
Researchers under the auspices of the Academy continued to conduct impactful archeological research in the region, eventually expanding to also cover other islands such as Cuba, Jamaica, the Dominican Republic, Haiti, the Bahamas and more by the 1930s.
On Puerto Rico, researchers in 1940 noted “[two] periods of prehistoric occupation on the island were distinguishable in clearly stratified deposits of culture refuse found on the north and south coasts.”
Done in multiple excavations across various parts of the island, the artifacts that researchers collected included decorative bowls, shell chisels, and carved stone figures.
The Puerto Rican Influence in NYC Today
Much of the success of this effort is attributed to Academy president Nathanial Lord Britton. What started as a four-year project in 1912, continued into the mid-1940s.
Britton controlled nearly every aspect of the survey until his death in 1934. Not only was he lauded for his organizational and administrative efforts, but he led what “proved to be the most ambitious project ever undertaken by The New York Academy of Sciences” so successfully that it became “an almost routine affair,” according to Baatz.
While Britton and other researchers from New York helped to influence the scientific culture in Puerto Rico, Puerto Ricans have influenced the culture in the city and other parts of the United States in various ways.
More than 1.1 million Puerto Ricans live in the New York Metropolitan Region, according to 2022 data. This influence has contributed to the city’s rich culture in everything from theatre (West Side Story, Hamilton) to music (Jennifer Lopez, Mark Anthony) to sports (Bernie Williams, Yankees; Carlos Beltrán, Mets).
This is the second article in a two-part series examining the Academy’s past expeditions to Puerto Rico. The series is part of National Hispanic Heritage Month.
Read: Part 1 – Into the Unknown.
The New Age of the United States of Science
Scientists, engineers, educators, policymakers, and the public must work together to ensure the United States remains globally competitive.
Published September 23, 2024
By Nick Fetty
A panel of experts took a deep dive into science education, policy, economics, and more during the United States of Science event, hosted by The New York Academy of Sciences (the Academy) and the Science & Technology Action Committee (STAC) on September 16, 2024.
Moderator Jo Craven McGinty, science bureau chief for The Wall Street Journal, introduced the discussion by citing STAC’s State of Science Report in which more than 75 percent of respondents indicated that the United States is losing, or has lost, the competition to lead the world in science and technology. Furthermore, 60 percent predicted that in six years, China will be the leader.
She posed the question to Keith Yamamoto, PhD, vice chancellor for Science Policy and Strategy at the University of California San Francisco and co-chair of STAC if these perceptions reflect reality.
“The results reflect the fact that there’s been an erosion of trust in science. A lack of understanding of the societal impact of science,” said Dr. Yamamoto, calling it “disappointing.”
Darío Gil, PhD, IBM Senior Vice President and Director of Research, added that in terms of “absolute dollars spent,” the United States continues to lead the way. While the U.S. leads in funding, Dr. Gil did acknowledge that for the first time, the U.S. has been surpassed by China for the number of PhDs awarded, patents issued, and papers published.
Areas of Strength, Room for Growth
“We have extraordinary strengths across the science and engineering enterprise, but we have areas of significant concern as well,” said Dr. Gil, who also serves on the Academy’s Board of Governors and the Executive Board for the International Science Reserve.
Craven McGinty, then shifted the focus to the potential cause of this perceived diminishment of science in the U.S. She asked Mary Woolley, president of Research!America and co-chair of STAC, whether it’s complacency on the part of Americans, or if the nature of competition has changed. Woolley stated that it’s a combination of the two.
“We’re taking science and technology for granted, and progress for granted, and we have for many years,” said Woolley. She added that while government officials are cutting budgets each year with little foresight to the future, private industry is leading the way.
Dr. Gil said it’s important to understand the historical context to better comprehend how the nature of the competition has changed in recent years. He cited that 20 years ago the United States spent $300 billion annually in research and development. One-third came from the federal government, while the remainder came from the business sector. Fast forward 20 years, that number rises to $800 billion annually with $600 billion from the business sector.
Another contributing factor, according to Dr. Gil, is that the international scene has become more competitive as other countries have effectively imitated the success of U.S. institution building. He said China is perhaps the greatest example of this success.
The Role of Higher Education in Research
Nicholas Dirks, president and CEO of the Academy, offered an education perspective. Prior to his role at the Academy, Dirks spent his career in higher education, first on faculty and later in administration. He said that historically, higher education has been reliant on the model set up by 20th century governmental investments in science.
This includes research funded by agencies like the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the National Science Foundation (NSF). This funding framework was made possible because of the “efflorescence of great research universities,” according to Dirks, that occurred in the U.S. in the early 20th century, particularly after World War II.
“I worry that if you both look at basic research, but even applied research that’s done within the context of a university where the incentives are not necessarily short-term incentives around building usable products or medicines, you begin to lose the real dynamism that underlies the whole system of research in this country,” Dirks cautioned.
The Importance of Fundamental Research
Electrical engineer Vannevar Bush was the nation’s first presidential science advisor, serving in the Franklin D. Roosevelt administration. When World War II ended, the president asked Bush about the role the federal government should continue to play in supporting science. In his report, Science —The Endless Frontier, Bush stated that the federal government should continue to support scientific advancement.
“[According to the report], the way that [the federal government] should stay involved is to support fundamental research, basic research, in universities and medical schools. And to support the training of the next generation of scientists,” said Dr. Yamamoto. “Which is really still the framework for federal science policy in this country.”
This fundamental research is crucial to support, according to Dr. Yamamoto, because through further investigation, scientists can discover practical applications for something that started as novel research. While this is important in theory, Dr. Yamamoto was critical that a commitment to this practice from the federal government has not been thoroughly maintained.
“The peak in federal research for science and technology in this country was reached in 1964, and it’s been sort of dribbling down ever since, from 1.9 percent to under 0.7 percent of GDP,” stated Dr. Yamamoto. He added that scientific research is “now a multisector enterprise that, in order to succeed, is going to need support across the board.”
The United States as a World Leader
Building off Dr. Yamamoto’s GDP statistics, moderator Craven McGinty went deeper into the data. She cited that microchip production in the U.S., has declined from 37 percent 30 years ago, to 12 percent today. In particular, demand “has grown exponentially in the last decade.” Furthermore, the 2023 International Student Assessment, which evaluates the academic performance of 15-year-old students, ranked the U.S. 28th out of 37 participating countries in math, 12th in science, and 6th in reading. She then asked the panelists how we got to this point.
Dr. Gil explained the complexities of this issue from an economic standpoint. He indicated that recent changes in globalization and supply chains are part of the reason the U.S. lost its status as a major manufacturer of microchips. Dirks then weighed in. While his professional career has been in higher education, he acknowledges that the issue must be addressed at the K-12 level for American students.
“We are not producing enough K through 12 students with requisite STEM skills to work at the highest level of what we’re going to need for the workforce of the future,” Dirks said. He expressed concern about neglecting STEM skill development in American K-12 schools and overly relying on international students to pursue STEM degrees from American universities.
Taking Action
Woolley emphasized the pervasiveness of these issues. She said it isn’t just scientists and industry leaders who have expressed concern about the strength of the STEM pipeline. It’s also the broader public, such as parents.
She cited data from STAC, which found that people generally gave low rankings when assessing the quality of education in their state. However, when asked about areas that they value most in their state, education ranks high. With K-12 education in the U.S. being largely unfederated, she suggests that action at the local policy level can be the catalyst to make these necessary changes.
“There’s plenty of room for not only improvement but figuring out what each individual already in the science community, or associated with it, universities for example, what can you do?” Wooley asked. “Can you personally encourage a science-trained friend to run for the local school board? Think of the difference that would make.”
Academy members can access an on-demand video recording of the event. Click here to listen to or watch the full conversation.
Not a member? Sign up today.
Ethical AI
Overview
AI is changing the landscape of the world as we know it. It offers opportunities to impact humanity in positive ways by minimizing human error, streamlining data analysis and decision-making, as well as lowering risk to human lives – to name a few benefits. At the same time, with deep-fakes, biased algorithms and the ethical questions around AI such as art generators and chat-gpt, we as a society must grapple with the challenges of AI. How can we maximize the benefits of AI while also implementing useful boundaries to minimize the disadvantages and dangers? Can we create systems or implement new technology to address ethical issues surrounding AI? In this challenge, you will develop a solution to address one specific issue that AI poses.
Challenge
Design a technical solution that addresses and considers one clearly outlined and defined issue that AI poses in our global society.
Consider the following when designing your solution:
- What are some of the issues that AI poses in our society? What are the impacts or implications of those issues?
- Focus on one specific issue that AI poses. How could your solution be used by society at large? How would you propose governments use your solution?
- Are there any downsides to your solution? What else would you and your team have to consider to create an ethical solution?
- Who is your solution calling upon to act or implement? How does your data or solution support that societal change or law?
- How can you integrate community co-design into your solution?
See the challenge course syllabus.
Success Evaluation Criteria
Solutions will be judged based on the following criteria:
- Innovation and Design Thinking: Is the design and approach unique and/or innovative? Does the design show a high degree of originality and imagination?
- Scientific Quality: Are the appropriate references and analytical methods used and are the insights derived correctly?
- Presentation Quality: Is this concept concisely and clearly explained? Are the findings/recommendations communicated clearly and persuasively?
- Commercial Viability/Potential: Does the solution have the potential to make a difference?
- Sustainability: What is the social impact on local communities? How does the solution incorporate positive environmental or social objectives? Is the solution in line with a sustainable or justice focused future?
- Teamwork and collaboration: Was the experience a collaborative endeavor? Was the knowledge gained from the experience reflected upon and tied back to a civic engagement mindset? (From Personal Reflections)
See the challenge rubric.
Winners
The winning team, Reducing BIAS in AI models, had a futuristic approach in designing a technical solution that addresses and considers one clearly outlined and defined issue that AI poses in our global society.
Team members:
- Emma L. (Team Lead) (New Jersey, United States)
- Shubh J. (California, United States)
- Darren C. (New York, United States)
- Aradhana S. (Pennsylvania, United States)
- Shreshtha B. (Kuwait)
- Jemali D. (New York, United States)
Mentor: Abdul Rauf (Pakistan)
Sponsor
Remediation in South Brooklyn
Overview
Offshore wind has the potential to reimagine the cityscape of New York City. With increased summer temperatures and the heavy reliance on an overworked cooling system, New York City will be the new home to a wind farm right in our backyard. The South Brooklyn Marine Terminal will be the new hub for Empire Wind 1 and Equinor’s wind farm. In this challenge you are asked to design solutions that remediate the building of offshore wind renewable energy infrastructure in New York City through the lens of STEM and the community, focusing on land and water preparation.
Challenge
At the South Brooklyn Marine Terminal in Sunset Park, there are areas on land and in the water that call for immediate remediation to prepare for the new offshore Empire Wind complex.
Focus on one of the following areas and design a comprehensive solution for remediation:
- Preparation for building on land
- Noise/traffic/actual construction/air monitoring
- Current buildings from 1970s
- Regrade hydraulics separator for run-off stormwater
- Preparation in the water
- Marine traffic
- Wind turbines and other building materials are taken in via barge or other water vessels
- Dredging
- Living edge/shorelines
- Pile driving
- Construction approach that is used to build the foundation of a new structure
- Marine traffic
Integrate the following into your solution:
- Social justice
- A concept that asserts every person should have the same rights and opportunities, and that wealth and resources should benefit everyone – is not always integrated into remediation, making already disadvantaged communities even more vulnerable to negative impacts of climate change.
- Think about how social justice can be included in your solution, looking at racial, urban, identity, accessibility, and/or environmental justice.
- Community co-design
- The shared mapping of a problem, identifying shared priorities, and designing, implementing and evaluating a potential solution together with those most affected by the issue (in this Challenge, residents of Sunset Park).
- New or adapted technologies (AI, AR/VR, nanotechnology, materials, robotics),
- Processes, steps (such as detecting seafloor anomalies/seafloor mapping, underwater sea vehicles) that are preliminary to your solution.
Innovative solutions may be completely new ideas or solutions that have worked in other regions but are adapted for New York’s unique needs and people. Solutions need to be tested to ensure they are effective for community needs as offshore wind infrastructure is built up in the near future.
See the challenge course syllabus.
Success Evaluation Criteria
Solutions will be judged based on the following criteria:
- Innovation and Design Thinking: Is the design and approach unique and/or innovative? Does the design show a high degree of originality and imagination?
- Scientific Quality: Are the appropriate references and analytical methods used and are the insights derived correctly?
- Presentation Quality: Is this concept concisely and clearly explained? Are the findings/recommendations communicated clearly and persuasively?
- Commercial Viability/Potential: Does the solution have the potential to make a difference?
- Sustainability: What is the social impact on local communities? How does the solution incorporate positive environmental or social objectives? Is the solution in line with a sustainable or justice focused future?
- Teamwork and collaboration: Was the experience a collaborative endeavor? Was the knowledge gained from the experience reflected upon and tied back to a civic engagement mindset? (From Personal Reflections)
See the challenge rubric.
Winners
The winning team, Remediation in South Brooklyn: Upgrading the Hydraulic System, had an innovative approach of finding ways to remediate the areas on land and in the water to prepare for the new offshore Empire Wind complex.
Team members:
- Cameron A. (Team Lead) (New York, United States)
- Ohee S. (New York, United States)
- Cindy W. (New York, United States)
- Ankea C. (New York, United States)
- Ayten A. (New York, United States)
- Annika C. (New York, United States)
Mentor: Xiwei Huang (New York, United States)
Sponsor
Academy’s Past – A Need for More Space
The Lyceum’s third home served as a placeholder until funds were raised for a standalone facility.
Published September 16, 2024
By Nick Fetty
New York Dispensary | White Street and Center Street | 1831 – 1836
The Lyceum of Natural History in the City of New York (“the Lyceum”) called the New York Dispensary home from 1831 to 1836. The Lyceum – which would rename itself The New York Academy of Sciences in 1876 – procured space on the third floor to house its cabinets and library, in addition to meeting rooms and office space. The lease dictated an annual rental rate of $150 (more than $5000 today) to be paid in quarterly installments.
Unlike cannabis-selling dispensaries that have popped up recently in various cities in the U.S., the New York Dispensary in the early 19th century was more akin to a religion-affiliated hospital that served those without financial means. It dispensed vaccines and other medical drugs to improve public health for the city’s most vulnerable populations. According to the Dispensary’s 1837 annual report, “The Institution is founded for, and dispenses its assistance only to the poor.”
An Immediate Need for More Space
Almost immediately upon moving into the new facility, Lyceum officials pursued a plan to purchase a piece of land on which to erect a new building and home. When attempts to collaborate on a building project with related institutions like the New York College of Pharmacy and the Mechanics’ Institute proved fruitless, the Lyceum decided to go it alone.
In 1834, John C. Jay, a curator for the Lyceum, led a successful effort to raise funds to purchase land and, eventually, construct a new building. Jay recommended the purchase of a 50- by 100-foot plot of land on Broadway between Houston and Prince Streets for approximately $22,000 (nearly $800,000 today). Individual contributors to the project funding were granted Lyceum membership that included access to the Lyceum’s library, as well as free admission to its museum and lectures for donors and their families.
Despite the success of the fundraising campaign, some members expressed concern about the Lyceum’s ability to pay off the debt that would be incurred. Nevertheless, the Lyceum proceeded with the project, which was “speedily completed,” and it moved into the new facility in May 1836.
This is the third piece in an eleven-part series exploring the Academy’s past homes. Read:
- Where It All Begin (Part 1)
- A Budding Institution (Part 2)
- A Home to Ourselves (Part 4)
- A Generous Gift and a New Home (Part 5)
- Fire Leads to Academy Setback (Part 6)
- A New Name for a New Era (Part 7)
- An Era of “Unprecedented Prosperity” (Part 8)
- Moving on Up(town) (Part 9)
- A Return Downtown (Part 10)
- Right Up There on Broadway (Part 11)
Nine Outstanding Postdoctoral Scholars for the 2024 Blavatnik Regional Awards for Young Scientists Announced
Cutting-edge research includes the study of the human ribosome to combat cancer, interfacing machines with the human brain to better understand neurological characteristics, and decoding the “dark matter” of viral genomes to mitigate viral threats.
New York, NY | September 17, 2024 – The Blavatnik Family Foundation and The New York Academy of Sciences today announced the three Laureates and six Finalists of the 2024 Blavatnik Regional Awards for Young Scientists. The Awards honor outstanding postdoctoral scientists from academic research institutions across New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut.
The Blavatnik Regional Awards jury, consisting of distinguished scientists and engineers, selected one Laureate in each category who will receive a $30,000 unrestricted prize and two Finalists in each category who will be awarded $10,000 each. The three Laureates and six Finalists were chosen out of 134 highly competitive nominations received from 24 academic institutions in the Tri-State area.
The announcement comes during the National Postdoctoral Association’s 15th annual celebration of 2024 National Postdoc Appreciation Week, which recognizes the significant contributions that postdoctoral scholars make to U.S. research and discovery.
The 2024 Blavatnik Regional Awards Winners and Finalists will be honored at the 2024 Blavatnik Awards for Young Scientists Ceremony at the American Museum of Natural History, Central Park West and 79th Street, on October 1, 2024.
“It is a great pleasure to congratulate and honor our outstanding Laureates and Finalists,” said Len Blavatnik, Founder of Access Industries and the Blavatnik Family Foundation, and member of the President’s Council of The New York Academy of Sciences. “Their ongoing research and discoveries will contribute to the global scientific community for years to come.”
“Postdocs help drive research and innovation forward and are catalysts for new scientific ideas and applied technologies,” said Nicholas B. Dirks, President and CEO of The New York Academy of Sciences. “We are incredibly proud to announce these outstanding postdoctoral honorees of the 2024 Blavatnik Regional Awards, especially during National Postdoc Appreciation Week — a week dedicated to recognizing the important contributions that postdoctoral scholars make to American research and discovery.”
The 2024 Blavatnik Regional Awards Winners in the three award categories are:
Chemical Sciences
Arnaud Vanden-Broeck, Ph.D., nominated by The Rockefeller University
Biochemist and structural biologist Arnaud Vanden-Broeck is leading groundbreaking work in uncovering the intricate processes behind human ribosome assembly, laying the foundation for treating cancers and diseases related to ribosome dysfunction.
Physical Sciences & Engineering
Raghavendra Pradyumna Pothukuchi, Ph.D., nominated by Yale University
The work of computer scientist Raghavendra Pradyumna Pothukuchi has led to unprecedented advances in creating a “brain-memex”, a system that interfaces computers with the human brain and could fundamentally shift our ability to understand neurological characteristics.
Life Sciences
Shira Weingarten-Gabbay, Ph.D., nominated by The Rockefeller University
Through her research, virologist Shira Weingarten-Gabbay has uncovered thousands of novel microproteins encoded in the “dark matter” of viral genomes, which has exposed previously unknown immune targets for vaccines.
The following postdoctoral researchers have been named Finalists in their respective categories:
Chemical Sciences
Juan D. Jiménez, Ph.D., nominated by Brookhaven National Laboratory
Chemical engineer Juan D. Jiménez is advancing sustainable industrial practices by developing novel catalytic materials that transform greenhouse gases like CO2 and methane into valuable chemical products.
Arthur Neuberger, Ph.D., nominated by Columbia University
As a Professor of Molecular Bioimaging at LMU Munich, Arthur Neuberger conducts pioneering research on TRP channels, which has led to new ways of treating pain, cancer, and skin diseases, as well as deciphering the mechanism of how we sense temperature.
Physical Sciences & Engineering
Aavishkar Patel, Ph.D., nominated by the Flatiron Institute
Condensed matter theorist Aavishkar Patel is advancing a new theoretical understanding of “strange metals” and their tendencies towards superconductivity based on how microscopic irregularities in materials modify electron interactions.
Chiara Trovatello, Ph.D., nominated by Columbia University
Nanotechnology materials scientist Chiara Trovatello is developing new nano-engineered material platforms for optical computing, a critical step towards innovative imaging and information processing methods in quantum technologies.
Life Sciences
Nicole J. Lake, Ph.D., nominated by Yale University
Geneticist Nicole J. Lake is developing novel tools to study genetic variation in mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) to improve genetic diagnostics for patients with rare diseases.
Amy R. Strom, Ph.D., nominated by Princeton University
Molecular and cellular biologist Amy R. Storm is exploring the organization of biological “condensates” that physically compartmentalize target genes in the cell, influencing the expression of cancer-causing genes.
About the Blavatnik Awards for Young Scientists
The Blavatnik Awards for Young Scientists, established by the Blavatnik Family Foundation in 2007 and independently administered by The New York Academy of Sciences, initially identified outstanding regional scientific talent among faculty and postdoctoral students in New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut. The Blavatnik National Awards, honoring faculty-rank scientists throughout the United States, were first awarded in 2014 and were expanded in 2017 to honor faculty-rank scientists in the United Kingdom and Israel. By the end of 2024, the Blavatnik Awards will have awarded prizes totaling $17.4 million and, to date, has honored over 570 scientists.
Blavatnik Awards scholars are driving economic growth by embarking on new scientific trajectories to pursue high-risk, high-reward scientific research. To date, Blavatnik Awards honorees have founded 74 companies. After recognition by the Blavatnik Awards, 30% of past honorees obtained a patent or filed a patent application, 75% have started a new research direction, and 11% have started a new collaboration with another Blavatnik Awards honoree. Visit blavatnikawards.org for further information.
About the Blavatnik Family Foundation
The Blavatnik Family Foundation provides many of the world’s best researchers, scientists and future leaders with the support and funding needed to solve humankind’s greatest challenges. Led by Len Blavatnik, founder of Access Industries, the Foundation advances and promotes innovation, discovery and creativity to benefit the whole of society. Over the past decade, the Foundation has contributed over US$1 billion to more than 250 organizations. See more at blavatnikfoundation.org.
Beyond the Beaches: Revealing the Real Puerto Rico I
Part One: Into the Unknown
Relatively little was known about the small Caribbean Island prior to a series of expeditions led by The New York Academy of Sciences in the early 20th century.
Published September 16, 2024
By Nick Fetty
Puerto Rico is known for its beautiful beaches, rich rainforests, and bioluminescent bays that attract tourists from all over the world.
Upon the conclusion of the Spanish American War in 1898, Puerto Rico (often spelled “Porto Rico” during this era) became an official territory of the United States. In the following years, the University of Puerto Rico was established. Academic and scientific institutions in the U.S. also began conducting their own field work on the island. Some scientific research had occurred prior to the Academy’s survey. However, these early findings were only available in obscure, generally inaccessible journals. Roads, harbors, and other infrastructure were also constructed during this era. This made the island, roughly three quarters the size of Connecticut, more navigable.
In 1912, The New York Academy of Sciences commenced planning its first in a series of scientific surveys of “Porto Rico”. Nathanial Lord Britton, a Fellow at the Academy and, later, Academy president, led many Puerto Rican expeditions. He initially proposed a four-year project with the Academy contributing $2,000 (roughly $63,000 today) annually.
Emerson McMillion was the Academy’s then-president and a Wall Street investment banker. He was so in favor of the effort that he contributed personal funds to support it. Other area institutions eventually joined the effort. This included the American Museum of Natural History, the New York Botanical Garden, Columbia University, and New York University.
The First Visit to the Island
According to historian Simon Baatz’s 2017 update to his seminal history of the Academy published in 1988, there were two reasons for why the Academy chose Puerto Rico. Not only was it “an unexplored territory that had the potential for interesting and worthwhile discoveries” but it also had “the presence of an administrative structure that would provide Academy scientists with invaluable logistical and technical assistance.”
In March 1913, Britton, who also served as director of the New York Botanical Garden, visited the island. He established connections with researchers at the university as well as with government officials. Britton pinpointed several shortfalls in the current research that he hoped the Academy scientists could fill.
He also wanted to show the residents of Puerto Rico that their government was justified in funding and supporting this effort. Britton offered to print copies of their survey for distribution in Puerto Rican schools and libraries. Additionally, he committed to contributing specimens uncovered during the survey to establish a natural history museum on the island.
The research teams, which began arriving in 1914, were to conduct comprehensive studies in areas like zoology, geology, and anthropology.
Studying the Island’s Zoology
Researchers from the Academy’s zoology department departed for the island in summer 1914 to study the region’s fauna. Some of them were affiliated with the American Museum of Natural History.
Roy W. Miner, an Academy Fellow, examined the marine invertebrates and myriopods in the waters off the main island. Harry G. Barber, from the New York Entomological Society, conducted a similar survey on insects and arachnoids. John T. Nichols, also a Fellow, investigated the ichthyology of the region.
In this era, the rank of “Fellow” was bestowed upon Academy members who were selected by other active members for their scientific achievement.
Geological Findings
The geological work commenced in August 1914 and was led by Charles P. Barkey, then a vice president for the Academy who would go on to become president.
He traversed more than 2,000 kilometers across the island. His observations studied everything from hot springs and volcanic vents to rock formations and natural resources. These observations were recorded in the March 1915 issue of Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences (Annals).
“At the outset, it is well to appreciate that the Island of Porto Rico is geologically young. There are no traces, so far as known, of any of the so-called ancient rocks. It is quite true, of course, that the older series of formations is largely a volcanic complex whose exact age may never be accurately determined, but there is no occurrence of profoundly metamorphosed members or other evidences [sic] of great geologic age,” wrote Barkey.
Through an Anthropological Lens
Renowned anthropologist and Academy member Franz Boas began conducting field work in Puerto Rico in 1915. As an already established academic, he viewed the survey as an opportunity for his graduate students to conduct serious field work.
Boas and his research team scoured the island and interacted with locals to assemble “an immense collection of folk tales, riddles, ballads and songs.” The researchers also studied the anthropometric and dental features of school children in Utuado as well as soldiers in San Juan. The team’s archeological dig of “the ancient village of Capá” was perhaps their greatest contribution to the effort. The site is known today as Centro Ceremonial Indígena de Caguana.
The Importance of Communicating the Science
During these initial excursions, the research team brought back more than 200 specimens of water plants for gardens in New York City, according to The New York Times. Additionally, the Brooklyn Daily Eagle reported “some 12,000 fossils” were also brought back to New York.
According to Baatz’s 2017 book, the Academy’s initial efforts were considered so successful that “during the first two years, the Puerto Rico Survey expanded at an almost exponential rate so that by the summer of 1916, a total of twenty-three different groups had travelled to Puerto Rico to explore the botany, entomology, geology, ichthyology, mycology, anthropology, paleontology, and archeology of the island.”
Britton, who led these efforts, understood the importance of rapid dissemination of their findings. These findings were not only published by the Academy but also in the Journal of the New York Botanical Garden, the Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History, and Science.
Academy affiliates and other researchers would make several visits to the Caribbean in the following years. Findings of the full survey were published through the 1940s as the Scientific Survey of Porto Rico and the Virgin Islands in 19 volumes. Additional reports would also appear in Annals. The Academy was continuing to prove its utility to the broader scientific community, and the efforts in Puerto Rico were just getting started in 1916.
This is the first article in a two-part series examining the Academy’s past expeditions to Puerto Rico. The series is part of National Hispanic Heritage Month.
2024 Blavatnik National Awards for Young Scientists Announced
A molecular biologist from Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, a chemical engineer from UC Berkeley, and an earth scientist from Cornell University are this year’s Laureates.
New York, NY | September 12, 2024 – The Blavatnik Family Foundation and The New York Academy of Sciences named three women scientists as Laureates of the Blavatnik National Awards for Young Scientists, marking the second time since the launch of the awards ten years ago that all three Laureates are women. Each will receive $250,000, the largest unrestricted scientific prize offered to America’s most promising, faculty-level scientific researchers under 42. Three independent juries – one each for life sciences, chemical sciences, and physical sciences & engineering – composed of some of America’s most distinguished scientists selected the three winning Laureates. An additional 15 Finalists will each receive $15,000.
The 2024 Blavatnik National Awards received 331 nominations from 172 institutions in 43 U.S. states. Nominees must be faculty-level scientific researchers, 42 years of age or younger.
The Blavatnik National Awards for Young Scientists will celebrate the 2024 Laureates and Finalists and the 2024 Blavatnik Regional Awards Laureates and Finalists in a gala ceremony on October 1, 2024, at the American Museum of Natural History in New York.
The 2024 winning Laureates are:
2024 Laureate in Life Sciences
Cigall Kadoch, Ph.D., Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard Medical School & Howard Hughes Medical Institute (Molecular & Cellular Biology)
Working to discover and characterize chromatin remodeling complexes, understanding how their disruption leads to human disease, and developing a new class of therapeutics
Healthy cells rely on the intricate collaboration of millions of biological molecules; even minor perturbations in these interactions can lead to diseases like cancer. In a series of groundbreaking studies, Cigall Kadoch has decoded the role of ATP-dependent chromatin remodelers—complex molecular machines made up of dozens of interacting proteins—in regulating DNA accessibility and gene expression. The Kadoch Lab also unraveled how disease-causing mutations in these complexes impact their structure and function in an expanding list of diseases that includes cancer, neurodevelopmental disorders, and immunodeficiencies. Dr. Kadoch has built upon these discoveries to develop novel therapeutics, which are being tested in clinical trials and could revolutionize the treatment of diverse maladies.
2024 Laureate in Chemical Sciences
Markita del Carpio Landry, Ph.D., University of California, Berkeley (Chemical Engineering)
Pioneering nanoscale chemical tools to address disparate challenges in human health and sustainability
The behavior of chemicals within and between cells of the body still holds many secrets to how life operates. By manipulating these basic chemical interactions of life, using very small particles to uncover new insights and tools for biology, Landry has applied new nanobiotechnology towards a wide range of tasks, from measuring the transfer of chemicals between synapses in the brain to bioengineering plant genetics. Landry’s strategies for applying nanobiotechnology tools are already paving the way for more resilient crops and new treatments for neurological disease ranging from neurodegeneration to autism spectrum disorders.
2024 Laureate in Physical Sciences & Engineering
Britney E. Schmidt, Ph.D., Cornell University (Physical Earth Sciences)
Advancing climate science and planetary habitability studies through groundbreaking research on ice-ocean interactions and innovative exploration of Earth’s polar regions and icy planetary bodies
In order to better predict the impact of climate change we must understand the interactions between the Earth’s oceans and ice. Britney E. Schmidt and her team designed, built, and deployed Icefin, a remotely operated vehicle that provides unprecedented insights into Antarctic ice shelf melting and ocean circulation. Schmidt’s work solves key problems in ice dynamics and interaction with the ocean and offers novel comprehensive views of sub-ice environments. Critically, this research shows how interactions between the ice, ocean, and seafloor control how glaciers respond to the warming ocean. Schmidt also applies Earth-based ice studies to solar system icy worlds to further our understanding of extraterrestrial environments. Schmidt’s contributions have earned widespread recognition, including inclusion in Time Magazine’s 100 Most Influential People of 2023.
“On behalf of the Blavatnik Family Foundation, I congratulate this year’s outstanding Laureates and Finalists for their exceptional research. They are among the preeminent leaders of the next generation of scientific innovation and discovery,” said Len Blavatnik, founder of Access Industries and the Blavatnik Family Foundation and a member of the President’s Council of The New York Academy of Sciences.
Nicholas B. Dirks, president and CEO of The New York Academy of Sciences, said, “The New York Academy of Sciences has always championed women in science. We are thrilled to celebrate, for the second time in the United States, that all three of the scientists named the 2024 Blavatnik National Awards Laureates are women working in their respective fields to use science to benefit the public good.”
FINALISTS
The following scientists have been named Finalists in their respective categories:
Life Sciences
Wei Gao, Ph.D., California Institute of Technology (Biomedical Engineering & Biotechnology)
Developed advancements in wearable biomolecular sensors, allowing for continuous, real-time monitoring and early diagnosis of various health conditions without requiring invasive medical procedures.
Kaiyu Guan, Ph.D., University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign (Agriculture & Animal Sciences)
Developed revolutionary technology to enhance our understanding of agricultural production systems and innovating transformative solutions to achieve co-sustainability of agricultural productivity and environmental quality.
Sergiu Paşca, M.D., Stanford University (Neuroscience & Developmental Biology)
Uncovered transformative and therapeutically relevant insights into the molecular and cellular steps underlying the assembly of the human brain and the mechanisms leading to neuropsychiatric disease.
Sohini Ramachandran, Ph.D., Brown University (Ecology & Evolutionary Biology)
Established quantitative methods that reveal the causes and consequences of human genetic variation while advancing the goal of personalized medicine for all.
Christoph A. Thaiss, Ph.D., University of Pennsylvania (Neuroscience & Immunology)
Made significant advances in decoding the mechanisms by which the communication between environment, body, and brain mediates the impact of lifestyle factors on common human diseases.
Chemical Sciences
Joseph Cotruvo, Jr. Ph.D., The Pennsylvania State University (Biochemistry & Structural Biology)
Discovered and engineered biomolecules to sustainably harvest and purify rare metals, which are used in advanced technology, from electronic waste and the environment.
Garret Miyake, Ph.D., Colorado State University (Polymer Chemistry)
Made ground-breaking advances across polymer and organic chemistry, including inventing light-driven synthesis methods, novel plastics that are chemically recyclable, and light-reflecting coatings to reduce energy needs.
David Nagib, Ph.D., The Ohio State University (Organic Chemistry)
Stabilized traditionally unstable molecules, such as carbenes and free radicals, to discover faster, more effective, and previously unknown chemical mechanisms for synthesizing pharmaceuticals.
Yogesh Surendranath, Ph.D., Massachusetts Institute of Technology (Inorganic & Solid-State Chemistry)
Developed a molecular-level understanding of how charges arrange at electrified surfaces, like battery electrodes, and new chemical reactions to decarbonize fuel and chemical synthesis.
Wei Xiong, Ph.D., University of California San Diego (Physical Chemistry)
Established the experimental foundations of polariton chemistry, which describes hybrid, excited states of molecules, and engineered photonic cavities to provide better control over chemical reactions.
Physical Sciences & Engineering
Anima Anandkumar, Ph.D., California Institute of Technology (Computer Science)
Made ground-breaking advancements in AI to address practical scientific challenges, drastically accelerating simulation of complex phenomena like weather forecasting, scientific simulations, engineering design and scientific discovery.
Polina Anikeeva, Ph.D., Massachusetts Institute of Technology (Materials Science & Nanotechnology)
Integrated nanomaterials synthesis and electronic device design to develop neurotechnologies, artificial limbs, and soft robotics that advance our understanding and treatment of neurological disorders.
Ivan Z. Corwin, Ph.D., Columbia University (Applied Mathematics)
Expanded “Extreme Diffusion Theory” to model complex physical systems like the growth of tumors, the propagation of nerve signals, and the early spread of pandemics.
Alexey V. Gorshkov, Ph.D., National Institute of Standards and Technology & University of Maryland (Theoretical Physics)
Advanced the design of large interacting quantum systems through pioneering research at the intersection of quantum physics and information science with groundbreaking implications for quantum computers, sensors, and networks.
Maryam Shanechi, Ph.D., University of Southern California (Electrical Engineering)
Pioneered research at the intersection of engineering, AI, and neuroscience to develop advanced neurotechnologies that decode and regulate brain activity for treating brain disorders.
About the Blavatnik Awards for Young Scientists
The Blavatnik Awards for Young Scientists, established by the Blavatnik Family Foundation in 2007 and independently administered by The New York Academy of Sciences, initially identified outstanding regional scientific talent among faculty and postdoctoral students in New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut. The Blavatnik National Awards, honoring faculty-rank scientists throughout the United States, were first awarded in 2014 and were expanded in 2017 to honor faculty-rank scientists in the United Kingdom and Israel. By the end of 2024, the Blavatnik Awards will have awarded prizes totaling $17.4 million and, to date, has honored over 470 scientists.
Blavatnik Awards scholars are driving economic growth by embarking on new scientific trajectories to pursue high-risk, high-reward scientific research. To date, Blavatnik Awards honorees have founded 72 companies. After recognition by the Blavatnik Awards, 30% of past honorees obtained a patent or filed a patent application, 75% have started a new research direction, and 11% have started a new collaboration with another Blavatnik Awards honoree.
Visit blavatnikawards.org for further information.
About the Blavatnik Family Foundation
The Blavatnik Family Foundation provides many of the world’s best researchers, scientists and future leaders with the support and funding needed to solve humankind’s greatest challenges. Led by Len Blavatnik, founder of Access Industries, the Foundation advances and promotes innovation, discovery and creativity to benefit the whole of society. Over the past decade, the Foundation has contributed over US$1 billion to more than 250 organizations. See more at blavatnikfoundation.org.
The Ethics of Developing Voice Biometrics
Various ethical considerations must be applied to the development of artificial intelligence technologies like voice biometrics to ensure disenfranchised populations are not negatively impacted.
Published August 29, 2024
By Nitin Verma, PhD
Photo by Nick Fetty/The New York Academy of Sciences.
Juana Catalina Becerra Sandoval, a PhD candidate in the Department of the History of Science at Harvard University and a research scientist in the Responsible and Inclusive Technologies initiative at IBM Research, presented as part of The New York Academy of Sciences’ (the Academy) Artificial Intelligence (AI) & Society Seminar series. The lecture – titled “What’s in a Voice? Biometric Fetishization and Speaker Recognition Technologies” – explored the ethical implications associated with the development and use of AI-based tools such as voice biometrics. After the presentation, Juana sat down with Nitin Verma, PhD, a member of the Academy’s 2023 cohort of the AI & Society Fellowship, to further discuss the promises and challenges society faces as AI continues to evolve.
*Some quotes have been edited for length and clarity*
Tell me about some of the big takeaways from your research so far on voice biometrics that you covered in your lecture?
I think some of the main takeaways from the history of the automation of speaker recognition are, first, really trying to understand what are the different motivations or incentives for investing in a particular technology and a particular technological future. In the case of voice biometrics, a lot of the interesmyt is coming from different sectors like the financial sector, or the security and surveillance sector. It’s important to keep those interests in mind and observe how they inform the way in which voice biometrics get developed or not.
The other thing that’s important is that even though we have a notion of technological progress, some of the underlying ideas and assumptions are very old. This includes ideas about the body, about what the human body is, and how humans have the ability to change, or not, their body and the way they speak. In the case of voice biometrics, these ideas date back to 19th-century eugenic science, and they continue informing research, even as we have new technologies. We need to not just look at this technology as new, but ask what are the ideas that remain, or that sustain over time, and in which context did those ideas originate.
So, in your opinion, what role does, or would, AI play in your historical accounting of voiceprint technology?
I think, in some way, this is the story of AI. So, it’s not a separate story. AI doesn’t come together in the abstract. It always comes along in relation to a particular application. A lot of the different algorithmic techniques we have today were developed in relation to voice biometrics. Really what AI entails is a shift in the logic of the ontology of voice where you can have information surface from the data or emerge from statistical methods, without needing to have a theory of what the voice is and how it relates to the body or identity and illness. This is the kind of shift and transformation that artificial intelligence ushers.
What would you think is the biggest concern regarding the use of AI in monitoring technologies such as voice biometrics?
Well, I think concerns are several. I definitely think that there’s already inscripted within the history of voice biometrics an interest in over-policing, and over-surveilling of Black and Latinx communities. There’s always that inherent risk that technology will be deployed to over-police certain communities and voice biometrics then enter into a larger infrastructure where people are already being policed and surveilled through video with computer vision or through other means.
In the security sector, I think my main concern is that there’s a presumption that the relationship between voice and identity is fixed and immutable, which can create problems for people who want to change their voice and or for people whose voice changes in ways outside of their control, like from an injury or illness. There are numerous reasons why people might be left out of these systems, which is why we want to make sure we are creating infrastructures that are equitable.
Speaking to the other side of this same question, in your view, what would be some of the beneficial or ethical uses of this technology going forward?
Rather than starting from the point of ‘what do corporations or institutions need to make their job easier or more profitable?’, we should instead focus on ‘what are the kinds of tools and techniques that people want for themselves and for their lives?’, and ‘in what ways can we leverage the current state of the art towards those ends?’. I think it’s much more about the approach and the incentive.
There’s nothing inherent to technology that makes it cause irreparable harm or be inherently unethical. It’s more about: what is the particular ontology of voice?; what’s the conception of voice that goes into the system?; and towards whose ends is it being leveraged? I’m hopeful and optimistic about anything that is driven by people and people’s desires for a better life and a better future.
Your work brings together various threads of research or inquiry, such as criminology, the history of technology, inequality, and the history of biometric technology as such. What are some of the challenges and benefits that you’ve encountered on account of this multidisciplinary approach to studying the topic?
I was trained as a historian, and originally my idea was to be a professor, but once I started working at IBM Research and the Responsible and Inclusive Tech team, I think I got much closer to the people who very materially and very concretely wanted to make technology better, or, more specifically, to improve the infrastructures and the cultures in which technology is built.
That really pushed me to take a multidisciplinary approach and to think about things not just from a historical lens, but be very rooted in the technical, as well as present day politics and economic structures. I think of my own immigrant background. I’m from Colombia and I naturally already had this desire to engage with humanities and social science scholarship that was critical of these aspects of society, but this may not be the same for everyone. I think the biggest challenge is effectively engaging different audiences.
In the lecture you described listening as a political process. Can you elaborate on that?
I’m really drawing on scholars in sound studies and voice studies. The Sonic Color Line, Race as Sound, and Black Linguistics, are three of the main theoretical foundations that I am in conversation with. The point they try to make is that when we attend to listening, rather than voice itself as a sort of thing that stands on its own, we can see and almost contextualize how different voices are understood, described, interpreted, classified, and so on.
The political in listening is what makes people have reactions to certain voices or interpret them in particular ways. Accents are a great example. Perceptions of who has an accent and what an accent sounds like are highly contextual. The politics of listening really emphasizes that contextuality and how we’ve come to associate things like being eloquent through particular ways of speaking or with how particular voices sound, and not others.
Is there anything else you’d like to add?
Well, I think something that strikes me about the story of voice biometrics and voiceprints is how little the public knows about what’s happening. A lot of decisions about these technologies are made in contexts that are not publicly shared. So, there’s a different degree of awareness in the kind of different public discourses around the ethics of AI and voice. It’s very different from facial recognition, computer vision, or even toxic language.
Also read: The Ethics of Surveillance Technology