Skip to main content

New York City and the History of Philanthropy

A stack of $100 bills.

Global leaders of business and philanthropy are contributing to a scientific resurgence, the likes of which New York, and the world, has never before seen.

Published November 1, 2013

By Noah Rosenberg

The year was 1924 and Albert Einstein was desperately in need of funding. And so he did what legions of scientists, emerging and renowned alike, would later do in his footsteps: he turned to philanthropists.

In his case, Einstein wrote a letter to the Rockefeller Foundation. The executive leadership had no guarantees of future breakthroughs from Einstein, but they took a chance on the “unknown scholar”—awarding him $1,000.

“He may be on to something,” John D. Rockefeller said when instructing his top lieutenant to double Einstein’s initial request of $500.

With that gift, comically small by today’s standards, the Rockefeller Foundation not only demonstrated its commitment to Einstein himself, but it solidified its place in the pantheon of powerful philanthropic institutions emerging in New York City at the time—a network fueled by a common desire to foster a better world; a network whose ripple effect would eventually extend well beyond the Big Apple.

This institutional mindset was arguably pioneered by the formation of the Carnegie Corporation of New York, which Andrew Carnegie seeded with $125 million in 1911 and 1912, making it the largest philanthropic trust ever established. Within a decade, the Corporation had begun channeling its resources to the natural and social sciences, part of a great effort to improve “scientific management” in the U.S.

This trend continues today, with foundations and individual philanthropists—whose potential beneficiaries are virtually limitless— placing a premium on furthering science through financial support. According to the most recent national report from the nonprofit Foundation Center, which tracks global philanthropic giving, the health industry was the number one recipient of foundation dollars in 2008, receiving nearly 23% of the pie.

The Epicenter of Targeted Giving

The volume of philanthropic monies awarded today is staggering, and it is only logical that New York, an axis of power, wealth, and creativity— and the birthplace of large-scale philanthropy—remains the epicenter of targeted giving. Based on a list of the top donors in America—who each gave over $1 million—published by The Chronicle of Philanthropy, foundations and individuals in New York State gave close to $1.5 billion in 2012. So far in 2013, the amount from New York-based donors has already exceeded $2.2 billion.

Sanford I. Weill

Financier Sanford Weill, who endowed the Weill Cornell Medical College with a $250 million gift in 2007, is often near the top of The Chronicle of Philanthropy’s annual list. Continuing to break his own records for philanthropy—his total giving is now approaching $1 billion—Weill and his wife Joan, and the Weill Family Foundation, gave an additional $100 million to Weill Cornell Medical College in the fall of 2013 to boost the school’s research endeavors.

With New York having become such a hotbed of health and technology- related innovation, Weill says there is no shortage of scientists who are “easy to give money to.”

“What they do is not based on how much money they’re going to make for themselves,” Weill explained recently in his office overlooking Central Park, “but how they’re going to help make the world a better place.”

Supporting Scientific Innovation

And in that sentiment, Weill is hardly alone. In equally grand offices across Manhattan, moguls of finance, media, real estate, and investment are recognizing the profound importance, and future potential, of the scientific innovation that is emerging from New York. Like Weill, they are leveraging their great professional success and personal contacts to endow local laboratories, medical centers, and nonprofits with financial support that is unparalleled in science-centered philanthropic circles. Many are firm believers, and pioneers, in “transformative philanthropy,” a more engaged, lean-forward approach in which donors seek out high-value ROIs while still allowing the scientific innovators to innovate the way they know best.

This new generation of funders, whose names now grace the facades of leading global institutions across New York and beyond, are furthering the health-related causes long championed by proven powerhouses like the Carnegie Corporation and the Rockefeller, Ford, and Alfred P. Sloan Foundations, each established before the Second World War. Together, they have created a robust philanthropic landscape that is quickly propelling New York toward achieving the city’s “ultimate goal,” as vocalized by Mayor Michael Bloomberg in a 2009 speech: “Reclaiming our title as the world’s capital of technological innovation.”

It is only logical that Jan Vilcek would feel indebted to the field of science and to the institution that helped him turn his capacity for it into a wildly lucrative career.

After escaping the crushing grips of Czechoslovakian Communism in the mid-1960s, Vilcek, then a pioneering young researcher, was rewarded with a faculty post at New York University’s School of Medicine, where he remains today. In the course of his research, Vilcek contributed to the development of Remicade, a blockbuster therapeutic drug that would treat untold multitudes of patients suffering from Crohn’s disease, rheumatoid arthritis, and dozens of other inflammatory disorders.

Promoting Basic Research

“We expected the royalty income would grow,” Vilcek recently said, “but we had no idea it would become as successful as it actually has.” And so Vilcek and his wife, Marica, formed the Vilcek Foundation as a way to support the sciences and the arts. And beyond their foundation, they decided to channel a portion of their Remicade earnings to NYU.

One gift alone, donated to NYU in 2005, totaled $105 million. The funding has largely promoted basic research, which Vilcek sees as the building blocks of scientific discovery.

“A decade ago it seemed like there was much more going on in the Boston area and in California,” he says of scientific research outside of the five boroughs. But New York, he adds, is rapidly catching up, with charitable giving serving as a core driver of the innovation.

“Philanthropy is really essential, especially in the times we witness today, when government spending is down,” Vilcek notes. “Without philanthropy, there would be complete stagnation.”

Jim & Marilyn Simons

Likewise, James (Jim) Simons built his financial career on the back of science and technology and he, too, saw fit to pay it forward. His hedge fund, Renaissance Technologies, rose to the top of its field by using complex mathematical models to evaluate and execute trades.

“All the sciences have a beauty to them—a well-conceived experiment, a dramatic new finding,” even intricate financial algorithms, Simons says. “And I think science needs all the help it can get.”

Studying the Human Brain and the Origin of Life

About 20 years ago, Simons and his wife Marilyn formed the Simons Foundation, which focuses its energies on funding basic science and mathematics research. Among his proudest achievements is the foundation’s Autism Research Initiative, which, since 2007, has awarded grants to more than 150 researchers across the globe. Along with a myriad of other programs, the foundation created a novel initiative called Math+X to generate highly competitive challenge grants fostering collaboration between mathematicians and those in science and engineering.

The Simons Foundation is also devoting substantial resources to studying the overall functionality of the human brain and the origin of life.

Asked about his interest in the latter, Simons shrugs and smiles: “It’s interesting! Wouldn’t you like to know?”

“We look at the stars and wonder how this whole thing got here,” he says.

Indeed, in over a dozen interviews with leaders in business and science philanthropy over the summer of 2013, a common personality trait quickly emerged: visionaries like Simons, and those with names like Appel, Soros, and Allen, appear to possess an unbridled curiosity, which motivates them to channel their money to those capable of answering some of life’s greatest questions and solving some of its most dire challenges.

Robert Appel

“When you’re in Wall Street everyone else looks good,” Robert Appel likes to joke. “The Wall Street people make good money and if they’re smart they’ll support other things. But in the medical field, if you do good you’re saving somebody or you’re making them better, and that’s a very refreshing approach.”

A Link Between the Arts and Sciences

Appel, a private investor and financier at his namesake money management firm, Appel Associates, is a self-described futurist who believes that “technology will make it better for all of us.” As Chairman of the Board of Jazz at Lincoln Center, he also sees a direct creative link between the arts and science.

Appel admits that philanthropists might initially support the science and medical fields out of a desire to care for their own families, should the need inevitably arise.

“But what happens is it becomes broader than that,” he says, “once you meet these people and you see the work that they’re doing.” Philanthropists, Appel explains, quickly realize the immensity of change that their financial support can create for those well beyond their bloodline.

To that end, Appel was instrumental in raising the funds to build Weill Cornell Medical College’s new Belfer Research Building, which will become a hub, on East 69th Street, for translational research initiatives. He and his wife, Helen, also endowed Weill Cornell Medical College’s Appel Institute for Alzheimer’s Research, as a means to encourage cross-disciplinary research into the study of Alzheimer’s disease and other neurodegenerative conditions.

“The things that are going on are extraordinary,” Appel says. “And to be involved where extraordinary things are being done by extraordinary people is a very exciting way to spend your life.”

Kickstarting Silicon Alley

Sanford Weill hates the sight of blood. But in 1982, the financier and former chief executive and chairman of Citigroup found himself on the board of Cornell University with no time to commute to Ithaca for meetings.

“They had this operation in New York that was just a fair kind of a place,” Weill said of the University’s medical college, “so I figured that might be some fun.”

In 1998, Weill and his wife, Joan, endowed the medical school with a $100 million gift intended to “create the greatest medical complex in the world,” Weill said at the time.

And in a more recent quest to make New York the greatest technological center in the world, Weill helped orchestrate the newly formed partnership between Cornell University and the Technion-Israel Institute of Technology. Their collaboration will form the basis of the revolutionary Cornell Tech campus, set to open on Manhattan’s Roosevelt Island in 2017. The institute, born of a $350 million gift from Atlantic Philanthropies and its founding chairman, Charles Feeney, has been heralded as an NYC-Silicon Valley equalizer, with Mayor Bloomberg comparing it to an “Eerie Canal of the 21st Century,” according to Weill.

“The best kind of philanthropy is when you get somebody to make a contribution and they see results…and they give again and again and again.”

Weill cites a “can-you-top-this?” attitude that he stresses is integral to philanthropic success. At the foundational level, such a strategy often takes the shape of so-called challenge grants—employed with great success by the Simons Foundation—which seek to inspire others to offer a matching gift.

Investing in Health Sciences

Such a phenomenon is evident in the increasing number of business icons investing in the health sciences, from Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg to retired hedge fund manager Julian Robertson and Carlyle Group co-founder David Rubenstein.

It’s all about “teamwork rather than individual superstars,” Weill explains. “Together, there’s no telling the good we can do.”

Mortimer Zuckerman

If anyone should be given a free pass to use a real estate pun at his leisure, it is Mortimer Zuckerman.

And the real estate and media tycoon does just that when he describes the sheer joy and sense of purpose he derives from giving, which he considers to be “another form of public service.” Zuckerman’s latest such service to make headlines was a $200 million gift to Columbia to endow the Mortimer B. Zuckerman Mind Brain Behavior Institute, which, upon opening in 2016, will become a nerve center for what Zuckerman believes is “the most exciting frontier in medicine.”

The institute sits at a crossroads of pure genius and talent, he says, “and to be involved on the ground floor—pardon the pun—on something like this is, for me, just an opportunity to make a contribution that might have a real consequence.”

“It’s certainly an opportunity to make a lot of medical science come to fruition a lot earlier,” he adds.

But despite Zuckerman’s hope for, and expectation of, a big impact, he explains that patience is a key factor in scalability. “The whole idea is to create a platform initially. It’s not going to be the be-all, end-all of everything,” he says.

An Obligation to Empower

What most people might not know about Carl Icahn is that he could have been a doctor.

Carl Icahn

His medical school stint may have been short-lived—“I didn’t like it,” Icahn says, bluntly—but his interest in science never left him. He would go on to become an enormously successful investor and today remains the majority shareholder of Icahn Enterprises, the diversified holding company.

Icahn’s strategy throughout his myriad of business and philanthropic endeavors has had one core principle in common: he looks for “secular change” in the industries and opportunities to which he devotes his attention and resources. One of those sectors is genomics, or the study of the human genome.

“The change that’s going on is amazing,” Icahn says of the field. “I wish I were younger so I could really enjoy watching what happens.”

But Icahn is doing all he can while he is still around, having recently endowed a genomics laboratory to Princeton, his alma mater. His financial support extends into other realms, too: the Mount Sinai School of Medicine was recently renamed in his honor based on gifts totaling $200 million, and Icahn has been a staunch supporter of charter schools in New York.

Through it all, he has learned to stay on the sidelines, cautioning that it would be “absurd and presumptuous” for a businessman like himself to tell the science or education experts how to do their jobs.

“Don’t think because you made a lot of money that you’re so damn smart and you can tell these guys what to do,” he says with a laugh. “That’s my advice. Don’t micromanage them.”

He continues: “People who make a lot of money start believing that they’re geniuses. But they’re not. I can attest to that one.”

How Yong Talent can Flourish

Kenneth Langone

Similarly, Kenneth Langone, the venture capitalist and financial backer of Home Depot—and chair of NYU Langone Medical Center—knows full well the value of a well-placed investment, and he emphasizes that he does not “believe in managed progress.”

He references Jonas Salk and Albert Bruce Sabin—“two Jewish kids that grew up in New York and New Jersey” and pioneered the first polio vaccines—as a powerful example of how young talent can flourish, and change the world, when uninhibited.

Of Salk and Sabin’s science descendants, Langone adds, “These kids who could be making lots of money as lawyers or in finance are making major sacrifices by going into science. Their treasure is time; mine is money. So I want to give my money to make their time well spent.”

In the same fashion, Daisy Soros, who together with her late husband formed the Paul and Daisy Soros Fellowships for New Americans, calls philanthropy her “raison d’être.” Paul, a shipping innovator, “defected to the U.S. with $17 in his pocket,” Soros says, in explaining their decision to support immigrant graduate students through their fellowship. Soros has been told by past awardees, many of whom have gone on to careers in science and medicine, that the fellowship she started with Paul “has heart.”

Meeting the Challenges of World Interdependence

Daisy Soros

It was Soros’ personal eagerness to learn about the latest medical innovations that led her to agree to participate on the board of overseers at Weill Cornell Medical College 20 years ago. But for Soros, who once considered a career in medicine, simple interest in a cause is not enough: “I do my research and I want to understand where the money goes. I don’t want [to] waste money by giving it to organizations that don’t spend it on the people who need it. I believe in due diligence.”

Of course, Soros’ ties to philanthropy run deep: her brother-in-law, George Soros, is legendary for the global vision with which he approaches philanthropy through his Open Societies Foundation and the wide array of grants and fellowships it offers. And no talk of global philanthropic empowerment is complete without mention of the Clinton Foundation, which, from its office in Midtown Manhattan, works to meet the challenges of world interdependence, much of them health-oriented.

On a more local level, Len Blavatnik, the founder and chairman of holding company Access Industries, places a similar emphasis on creating exposure, and financial support, for the challenges being tackled by young innovators in the New York area. Along with The New York Academy of Sciences (the Academy), for which he serves as a board governor, his Blavatnik Family Foundation supports the Blavatnik Awards for Young Scientists, which provides monetary awards to scientists under the age of 42 who are performing groundbreaking research in science, engineering, and mathematics.

Len Blavatnik

As Carl Icahn says, “Give where your money does the most good.”

Success Breeds Success

To say that Larry Silverstein enjoys a world-class view from his office would be a gross understatement. The Manhattan-based real estate developer sits in a sprawling, glass-walled space on the 38th floor of 7 World Trade Center, a building he built in 2006 after the original structure collapsed following the 9/11 attacks. Silverstein can practically reach out and touch One World Trade Center, his most iconic, and important, creation to date, which soars past his office in a shimmer of shiny blue.

As one of the world’s most influential landlords, it is only fitting that Silverstein has a lofty perch from which to watch over the city of New York, his birthplace, which is currently undergoing what he considers a renaissance of ingenuity. Silverstein can tell you all about Wall Street’s forthcoming rebound and the plum opportunities for real estate development, but he’s just as bullish about science, which, he says, “is at the basis of everything.”

Larry Silverstein

“I believe the city is going to experience enormous growth in the sciences, in research of all kinds, in technology, in creativity, in communications,” Silverstein said over iced coffee in his office recently. “The growth here is phenomenal today, and it’s going to become even more so tomorrow.”

Silverstein is a man with a seemingly endless list of philanthropic pursuits, from NYU’s Real Estate Institute and Medical Center to the United Jewish Appeal. But he grows most animated when talk turns to Cornell Tech and all it will do for the city that buzzes hundreds of feet below.

“What they’re going to create here in New York—wow!” Silverstein remarks. “Powerful, powerful draw, powerful magnet. The sciences, the scientists that will come here to participate in it—phenomenal. Absolutely phenomenal.”

New York’s Role as a Cultural Center

Paul L. Joskow, who helms the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation—which been supporting science for the better part of a century—couldn’t agree more. Sloan gives $75 million annually in support of science, but Joskow says that because New York is home to so many world-class researchers, Sloan spends one out of every five dollars here.

“We put money where the talent is,” says Joskow, “and the scientific talent in New York is staggering.” Recently, Sloan has turned its attentions to the promise and perils of the data avalanche unleashed by information technology and the Internet, partnering with the Moore Foundation in a $7.5 million initiative to turn NYU’s Center for Data Science into a national leader in big data management.

But, perhaps surprisingly, Joskow says it’s New York’s influential role as a cultural center that may hold the most promise for research. “We won’t have a society that adequately funds research until we have a society that fully appreciates researchers.” Sloan acts on this insight by partnering with NYC artistic institutions—from the Metropolitan Opera to the Tribeca Film Festival—to raise the visibility of science and educate the public about the value of research.

“Science deserves a seat at the cultural table,” says Joskow. “New York can give it one.”

Of course a large part of the reason that science is becoming intertwined with New York culture like never before, is the city’s fortunate status as home to many of the world’s most active science-promoting philanthropists and foundations. Close to a century after Albert Einstein received that first auspicious check from the Rockefeller Foundation, it’s fitting that science-related philanthropy is reaching a groundswell moment in and around New York, hand-in-hand with groundbreaking research.

Learn more about how your support can help the Academy advance its mission of science for the public good.


About the Author

Noah Rosenberg is a journalist and the founder of Narratively.

Research in New York City is Having a Global Impact

An eyedropper drops an unknown liquid into a test tube.

A convergence of industry research and development is transforming science and technology in the New York metro area—and beyond.

Published November 1, 2013

By Steven Barboza

Image courtesy of kwanchaift via stock.adobe.com.

In its quest for creating new products as one of the world’s leading food and beverage companies, there’s hard science at work behind PepsiCo’s research and development initiatives. For instance, in the area of flavors, PepsiCo scientists have enlisted a high-tech company robot, encased in a clear glass box and hardwired to the genetic sequences of human taste buds.

The robot might taste 100,000 assays ranging from roots, plants, and fruits per day; and the payoff could be huge. PepsiCo, based in Purchase, NY, sees the use of this technology as one of the many ways to continue building upon its success of offering a highly diversified portfolio that ranges from treats to healthy eats. Today, that success includes 22 $1 billion brands.

“The robot is a tool to help us look into nature more efficiently, faster, and actually with greater sensitivity,” says Mehmood Khan, PepsiCo’s executive vice president and chief scientific officer of Global Research and Development, adding that the taste quest then shifts into higher gear: “How do we take a leaf and find the ingredient inside it? That’s the bridge between modern science, robotics, and the culinary arts.”

A Veritable Hotbed of Corporate Activity

PepsiCo’s advanced technological taster is not only a unique capability; it symbolizes the innovation inherent in corporate research and development (R&D) in the New York metro area. Corporate research ranks among the most important sources of discovery, whether seeking solutions to problems—from everyday ills to major global challenges; improving quality of life; or even extending life itself. And the New York tri-state area is a veritable hotbed of corporate activity.

Hundreds of company labs provide the area with considerable scientific clout stemming from a significant investment in everything from basic scientific research to applied technology development, and grease the wheels of the mega-region’s $2 trillion-plus economy. From the food we eat, to the medicines we rely on, to the electronics we use, and the energy sources that power them—corporate research is constantly pushing the envelope of “new and improved.” Here, we take a look at just a few of the corporate research initiatives driving scientific and technological innovation in the New York-metro area, and the resulting products and services that are changing our world, both near and far.

Targeting the Big C

Scores of world-class biopharmaceutical companies are creating the therapies of the future, right now, in the New York region. Called the “nation’s medicine chest,” the New York tri-state area is home to the biggest concentration of life sciences companies in the world. It has long been home to major industry players like Bayer, which invented aspirin in 1897, and is now conducting research in oncogenomics—a field of research that identifies and characterizes genes associated with cancer—to develop therapeutic agents that selectively target cancer genome alterations.

Further moving the needle in oncology research, Johnson & Johnson’s Janssen Pharmaceutical Companies is advancing a cancer interception initiative aimed at developing a new paradigm in cancer diagnosis and treatment. Johnson & Johnson is the world’s largest healthcare company, and Janssen is one of the largest pharmaceutical companies and the sixth largest biotech in the world. Janssen, based in New Jersey, is striving to achieve a more robust understanding of the mechanisms underlying the initiation of normal cells to a pre-malignant state. Its goal is to develop products capable of interrupting the carcinogenic process—eventually allowing clinicians to diagnose and intercept cancer at its earliest stages, when pre-malignancies are less complex and less resistant to therapy.

Driving Breakthrough Therapeutics

Among Janssen’s recent successes is SIRTURO™, a medicine for multi-drug resistant tuberculosis (TB). SIRTURO was granted accelerated approval by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in 2012. It is the first medicine for pulmonary multi-drug resistant TB with a novel mechanism of action in more than 40 years. TB, second only to HIV/AIDS as one of the greatest killers worldwide, infected 8.6 million people last year, and more than 1.3 million died.

Eli Lilly & Company is also tackling a notoriously tough foe: Alzheimer’s disease. This year marks the company’s 25-year commitment to investing in Alzheimer’s disease R&D. “Our R&D approaches and expertise in Alzheimer’s disease have resulted in a strong pipeline encompassing both potential diagnostics and therapeutics for amyloid and tau pathways,” says Jan Lundberg, president of Lilly Research Laboratories, which has a significant presence in New York.

However, because for every 10,000 compounds researched in laboratories, only 100 are tested, and perhaps only one will become an actual medicine, Lilly developed a five-part Timely Valued Medicines strategy to improve the odds of success. Part of this strategy involves better disease understanding and validated disease targets or mechanisms; for example: Lilly developed Amyvid, an imaging agent that allows researchers to image the brains of patients for detection of amyloid plaques, a key characteristic of Alzheimer’s disease.

Pfizer—the world’s largest research-based pharmaceutical company, with an annual R&D budget approaching $7 billion—also has a robust commitment to innovation, with the end-goal of significantly improving patients’ lives.

“We believe that over time precision medicine—delivering the right drug, to the right patient, at the right time—will result in superior clinical outcomes for patients and enable more efficient clinical development,” says Mikael Dolsten, president of worldwide R&D at Pfizer, which is based in New York.

Committed to Patient Outcomes

One example of this is Pfizer’s Xalkori (crizotinib), which is designed for a specific group of lung cancer patients with a defect in the ALK gene. In 2011, Pfizer received U.S. FDA approval for this first-in-class therapy. Pfizer researchers continue to apply precision medicine R&D to advance future therapies for patients with difficult-to-treat cancers.

Similarly committed to patient outcomes, Acorda Therapeutics is invested in restoring function to and improving the lives of people with multiple sclerosis (MS), spinal cord injury, and neurological conditions. It was founded in 1995 by a physician who operated the company out of a bedroom with the motto, “Therapies or bust!” Today the company, based in Ardsley, NY, manufactures and markets Ampyra, the first and only MS therapy that has been specifically approved to improve walking in people with MS.

Acorda’s neurology pipeline encompasses five separate products at the clinical or pre-New Drug Application stage. The company is now exploring the use of extended release dalfampridine in new disease areas: post-stroke deficits and cerebral palsy. Initial data show improved walking in people with post-stroke deficits—a potentially huge boon to the more than 7 million stroke survivors in the U.S.

With names like Bausch & Lomb, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Kadmon, Merck, Novartis, and Regeneron, dotting the local map, the New York tri-state region is an incredible source for groundbreaking diagnostics, treatments, and cures.

Advancing the Digital Realm

Perhaps no other company has a research legacy quite like Armonk, NY-based IBM. With 12 laboratories in 10 countries, the company has generated more patents than any other company for 20 consecutive years. IBM Research aided Apollo moon landings, was crucial to the discovery of fractals, and invented the technology behind laser eye surgery. IBM Research is also responsible for a series of technologies and products that have transformed day-to-day living: the automated teller machine, the hard disk drive, the magnetic stripe card, the Universal Product Code, and the Sabre central reservation system, which revolutionized the travel industry and served as precursor for the entire universe of e-commerce.

Now, IBM Research is embarking on a new frontier: cognitive computing, which the company expects to dramatically change our relationships with computers.

“The most exciting dynamic in technology and business today is the confluence of four massive trends—big data, the cloud, social media, and the instrumented, connected world we call the Smarter Planet,” says John E. Kelly III, director of Research at IBM.

“This environment drives completely new thinking and is driving the emergence of a third ‘cognitive’ era of computing. We believe cognitive systems that learn, reason, and interact naturally with people will become the biggest opportunity in our industry over the next few decades.”

Reinventing Virtually Every Aspect of Computing

The first cognitive computer was IBM’s Watson, which debuted in 2011 in a televised Jeopardy! challenge and beat the show’s two greatest champions. Today, Watson is working with doctors, insurers, and customer service professionals to transform the outcomes that can be achieved. But that vision will require computer scientists to reinvent virtually every aspect of computing, from how we think about applications and data, to the nature of computer hardware.

IBM scientists want to eventually create computing systems that emulate the brain’s capacity to adapt. As a result, cognitive computers will not be programmed; they will be trained using enormous volumes of data that no single human could ever process.

“Research is central to IBM because we are continuously shifting to higher value,” says Kelly. “It’s important to have the courage to disrupt yourself—based on deep insight and fueled by powerful ideas brought to life by very unique skills.”

Powering Our World

The cities and towns that make up the New York-metro area are home to a staggering number of businesses, and one thing they all have in common is a thirst for more and more energy. New York City’s commercial and industrial sectors consumed more than 42% of power usage in 2011, and their energy needs are growing.

Perhaps surprisingly, New York is among the nation’s most energy-efficient cities due to its reliance on public transportation (two of every three users of mass transit in the U.S. live in Greater New York) and its sheer density (1 million buildings crammed into 300 square miles). Even so, energy concerns abound as demand grows, and area companies are seeking novel ways to reduce carbon footprints while increasing the reliability and efficiency of energy delivery.

Con Edison, a utility whose electric and steam businesses date back to the days of Thomas Edison, has new plans to meet tomorrow’s energy needs. Among its consumer-focused programs is one that allows New Yorkers with room air conditioners to remotely control their thermostats using a device called a Modlet. In addition, the modern electrical outlet allows engineers to remotely control window units on the hottest days.

With 6 million room air conditioners in its service territory, Con Edison sees great potential in the device.

Con Edison Development and Con Edison Solutions—competitive energy businesses—are looking heavily to clean energy development, with a $500 million investment in solar projects, making it one of the top five solar producers in North America.

Meanwhile, Connecticut-headquartered General Electric is picking up the pace of its product development cycle by using a Rapid Prototyping Center. The center’s 3D printer, which creates products by printing them layer upon layer, reduces part development time by 80% on average.

Better Together

While the sheer range of companies involved in R&D in the New York region is astounding, there is increasing overlap, both within and outside of the corporate sector. PepsiCo, which is planning the future of food, cites a need for 40% more food productivity on the planet by 2050 due to population growth. While industry has to take up the cause, “because 90% of the world’s population buys its food from the private sector,” says Khan, “food companies, academia, governments, NGOs—all of us— must come together to work collaboratively. Ultimately, we need to deliver this food.”

The focus on the greater good—and major global challenges—is apparent in medicine too. Biomarker experts at Johnson & Johnson’s Janssen are collaborating with academic centers to develop and commercialize next-generation circulating tumor cell technology for capturing, counting, and characterizing tumor cells found in a patient’s blood. The cross-sector work is not usual for the company.

“In total, I think we do 100 collaborations per year in early science and technology,” says Paul Stoffels, chief scientific officer, Johnson & Johnson, and worldwide chairman, Janssen Pharmaceutical Companies of Johnson & Johnson. This includes work that comes out of the company’s new research hubs, one of which is based in New York, that foster R&D collaborations with entrepreneurs, emerging companies, and leading academic centers.

Immeasurable Value

Pfizer’s Center for Therapeutic Innovation, which co-locates industry scientists with academic researchers in major bio-innovation clusters, including New York City, aims to transform the biopharmaceutical R&D model—making it speedier and more creative. “We seek to be a nodal player at the center of a thriving ecosystem that includes academic scientists, patient foundations, government researchers, and other innovators. We recognize that science requires extensive and open collaboration,” says Dolsten.

The idea—that working together leads to bigger gains—is one that in the past might have been dismissed as a barrier to the all-important competitive edge, but is today part and parcel of New York’s booming research industry mindset. The companies that call New York home see such close quarters in terms of benefits, not just concessions. And to be sure, New York derives immeasurable value from the industry tenants that help to shape its status as a region always looking to the future.

Also read: From New York City to the Rest of the World


About the Author

Steven Barboza is a writer in New Jersey.

From New York City to the Rest of the World

Residents in North Gujarat fill up water jugs.

The scientists, engineers, and organizations that call New York home are increasingly interacting with citizens and governments in cities and towns across the world, working together to solve some of humanity’s most challenging problems.

Published November 1, 2013

By Hallie Kapner

Vials from the Global Alliance for TB Drug Development.

On an inner city Johannesburg street, a new mother’s cell phone registers a text message. It reminds her to breastfeed her baby, and to give him antiretroviral syrup daily to reduce his risk of contracting HIV.

At a rural school in Kenya, the lights are on. It’s no small feat considering the scarcity of fuel, and the fact that most residents can’t afford to buy it. The school, along with a neighboring maternity clinic, runs on dung power—something that’s never in short supply.

Half a continent apart, the new mom and the school are connected by a thread that runs to the other side of the globe, to the place where the programs that are improving—and even saving—lives are created and supported: New York.

New York has rightfully been called the meeting place of the world—the United Nations alone justifies the title—but it is not only a city where people gather. It’s one of the greatest launching-off points in the world, home to dozens of nonprofits, universities, and foundations that export ideas, technologies, business practices, and innovative health measures to places as far as Madagascar and as close as Queens.

The Most Vexing Issues Around the Globe

At any moment, tens of thousands of New Yorkers are addressing some of the most vexing issues around the globe. By leveraging the most developed medical infrastructure in the country, 110 local colleges and universities, and a highly developed network of donors, local citizens are creating synergies and implementing programs to improve health, strengthen cities, and expand education, globally.

Such is New York’s legacy as a truly global city; from the early, and continuing, contributions of immigrants and local foundations in shaping the city’s major industries, to the present, when its Mayor, Michael Bloomberg, is asked to chair a council of 40 cities interested in sharing best practices for sustainability, and its resident science academy—The New York Academy of Sciences (the Academy)—is asked by the President of Russia, the Prime Minister of Malaysia, and the Mayors of Barcelona and Mexico City to share wisdom around science and policy.

1,000 Days and Counting

For organizations engaged in solving global health problems, the clock is ticking. With fewer than 1,000 days left to achieve the United Nations’ Millennium Development Goals, many local institutions are turning up the heat on what has already been considerable progress. These days, New York isn’t known as a hotbed of tuberculosis (TB). Following an outbreak in the 1990s, local TB rates have been in steady decline.

Yet in 2000, when global health stakeholders gathered in Cape Town to found a new organization dedicated to making treatment breakthroughs for a disease that takes a life every 25 seconds, the consensus was to locate it in New York. Since then, the Global Alliance for TB Drug Development, known as the TB Alliance, has catalyzed the field of tuberculosis research. As a product development partnership, it serves as a critical point of connection between pharmaceutical companies, academic researchers, funders, and the communities around the world where tuberculosis is a daily threat.

Along with managing the largest TB drug pipeline in history, the Alliance has brokered the kinds of collaborative partnerships among competing corporations—notably in the pharmaceutical industry—that are rare. By improving researchers’ access to both novel and established drug compounds, the Alliance and its partners are speeding a path to improved treatment. They aim to drastically shorten the treatment course from what is currently as long as two years to fewer than two weeks, by developing new, affordable regimens to combat all forms of TB. “A wonderful drug that’s too expensive for the developing world doesn’t do much good sitting on the shelf,” says Alliance spokesperson Derek Ambrosino.

A Promising New Multi-drug Regimen

The Alliance currently has three drug candidates in clinical development and is awaiting results of Phase III clinical trials of a promising new multi-drug regimen.

“We’re bringing innovation to a field that’s been stagnant,” says TB Alliance CEO Mel Spigelman.  “It’s possible in part because of our access to the incredible human capital in this area—the people, the intellect, the proximity to the pharma companies and the research groups. This couldn’t happen in Washington.”

What’s happening in Brooklyn—or more specifically, the Brooklyn Army Terminal—may change the world. The Terminal is the site of the International AIDS Vaccine Initiative’s (IAVI) AIDS Vaccine Design and Development Lab, a place where research outcomes from around the world are analyzed in the quest to design an effective, affordable vaccine for HIV.

Through partnerships with dozens of academic, pharmaceutical, and governmental institutions in 25 countries, IAVI is among the world’s leading forces advancing the ultimate solution in HIV prevention. Filling gaps in the drug discovery and development process, IAVI directs clinical trials and community engagement efforts in countries hardest hit by HIV/AIDS, as well as funds high-risk and proof-of-concept work of promising early-stage technologies.

Working with partners around the world and at its Brooklyn lab, IAVI has contributed significant findings to the field. Among them is the identification of nearly 20 broadly neutralizing antibodies—molecules capable of binding to and marking multiple variants of the virus for destruction by the immune system. Found only in a fraction of those infected with HIV, broadly neutralizing antibodies are believed to have strong potential in vaccine development, and efforts are underway to reverse engineer their mechanisms.

Solving Major Global Health Threats

In the late 1980s and early 1990s, New York City was the epicenter of the AIDS epidemic. More than 150 years before that, it was established as a major commercial center, a status that remains true to this day. Joining the two, and harnessing the power of the business community to impact the course of diseases like AIDS, is the work of the Global Business Coalition on Health (GBCHealth).

Since its founding in 2001 by former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Richard Holbrooke, GBCHealth has amassed a coalition of 200 companies in a mission to apply business practices to solve major global health threats. What started as a response to AIDS now includes campaigns against malaria, tuberculosis, and non-communicable illnesses including diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and cancer.

“There’s a public-private partnership behind most successful global health efforts, and every industry has a core expertise to apply,” says Eve Heyn, communications manager for GBCHealth. “In addition to the United Nations, New York also offers us the research and educational institutions to help our partners understand what’s needed, and the marketing and media firms who can help spread messages about medical compliance, sleeping under a net, or using condoms.”

Applying Business Skills

GBCHealth in action looks like this: A declaration from 40 CEOs of major companies—Levi Strauss & Co., which spearheaded the campaign with UNAIDS, along with Kenneth Cole Productions, The Coca-Cola Company, The National Basketball Association, Thomson Reuters, and others—demanding that 45 countries lift arcane travel restrictions on those living with HIV. It provides support and promotion of innovative partnerships like the Mobile Alliance for Maternal Action (MAMA), which uses text messaging to deliver critical health information to pregnant women and new mothers in developing countries and underserved areas.

“Business skills are readily applied to global health,” says Heyn. “Have you noticed you can find a Coke anywhere in the world? The same isn’t true with TB medicines. Coca-Cola is the master of the supply chain, and they’re working with African governments to improve drug delivery.” Similar private sector efforts by GBCHealth and its partners aim to save the lives of 4.4 million children and 200,000 mothers before the Millennium Development Goals clock winds down to zero.

Urban Testbed

More than half of the 7 billion people on Earth live in urban environments—a first in human history. As one of the world’s largest metropolitan areas, New York is the ultimate urban testbed for the engineers, ecologists, urban planners, and environmental health specialists developing solutions to strengthen the world’s cities.

A family fills water jugs in North Gujarat.

When Edwin Torres, associate director of the Rockefeller Foundation, talks about Jamaica Bay, he doesn’t sugar coat matters. “It was basically a dumping ground for New York City for about a century,” he told a group at the Municipal Arts Society Summit for New York in 2012. Torres, who runs the Foundation’s NYC Opportunities Fund, is among those involved in a first-of-its-kind initiative to rehabilitate a damaged urban ecosystem, taking notes for the rest of the world’s coastal cities along the way.

The Rockefeller Foundation is one of the founding supporters of the recently announced Science and Resilience Institute in Jamaica Bay, the 10,000-acre wetland estuary that touches parts of Brooklyn, Queens, and Long Island. The storm surge during Hurricane Sandy devastated both the natural environment and the densely populated neighborhoods surrounding the bay, highlighting the vulnerability of coastal cities as climate volatility increases.

The Institute will ultimately serve as a hub for research on making cities more resilient—able to survive, adapt, and grow amid climate and population stress. “Eighty percent of the world’s coastal cities are on estuaries,” Torres says, mentioning some of the more populous places on the planet, like Mumbai, Tianjin, and Lagos. “Solutions developed here will be shared for global gain.”

Tackling Flooding

Flooding is only one subject tackled by Upmanu Lall and his colleagues at the Columbia Water Center, one of the 30 research centers that comprise Columbia University’s Earth Institute. Powered by more than 850 scientists pursuing a sustainable future, the Institute’s global programs address poverty, health, energy, climate change, and, of course, water.

Founded in 2008, the Center’s approach “inverted the way people view water,” says Lall, the Water Center’s director and a professor of engineering at Columbia University. “Many water projects fail because people don’t look at the entire chain. If you can secure the resource itself and its quality, then you can impact access—not the other way around.” The shift in strategy has served the Water Center, and millions of people on four continents, well. Its engineers and scientists have taken on some of the world’s toughest water-related challenges, navigating fierce politics and life-or-death resource issues. They have achieved measurable, positive outcomes in a field often marked by failure.

Providing Governments with Reliable Data

In the Brazilian state of Ceará, a place Lall calls “the poster child for drought,” an advanced system of climate forecasting has helped stabilize a tug of war over water that put the region’s farmers at contentious odds with urban dwellers and the government. The Center designed algorithms for predicting rainfall and river flow levels, allowing the government to plan water allocation accordingly and helping subsistence farmers determine when—and if—conditions would be favorable for planting.

Likewise, in India, where groundwater depletion from agriculture is so severe that no city gets more than a few hours per day of water flow, the Center devised a strategy to preserve farmers’ staple crops while dramatically decreasing water and energy usage. Working with local scientists, Water Center staff deployed soil moisture sensors at farms throughout the Punjab region. The results were significant—a 22% water and 24% energy savings. A project that began with 525 farmers has more than quadrupled today.

Closer to home, the Water Center is training its expertise on New York’s water needs, conducting an in-depth study of the history of drought in the Upper Delaware River Basin. The team is eyeing the possible impacts of a series of droughts on the Northeast. “We’re trying to determine how much water New York City really needs, and how we should be managing supply today based on what we’re learning about the past,” says Lall.

A Global College Town

The SUNY Korea campus, as it will look when construction is complete.

Forty miles south of Seoul, South Korea, is the Songdo International Business District in the Incheon Free Economic Zone. A “smart city” conceived and built by the Korean government, it is high-tech, sustainable, and designed to incorporate signature features of cities around the world. It’s also the site of the only outpost of an American university in Korea, SUNY Korea.

“Songdo is considered the global education city in the region,” says Samuel Stanley, president of the State University of New York at Stony Brook. “The innovative idea the Korean government had was to invite foreign universities to set up programs in their areas of excellence. In our case, it’s been more than just a program.”

Expertise in Computer Science and Engineering

SUNY has transported its nationally recognized expertise in computer science and engineering to SUNY Korea, with 84 graduate and undergraduate students—mostly in these two fields— enrolled for the spring 2013 semester. SUNY Korea is also home to a branch of the university’s Center of Excellence in Wireless and Information Technology, conducting state-of-the-art research at what Stanley attests is an equally advanced facility in Songdo. Students spend two years in Korea and one at SUNY’s home campus on Long Island. The first class from Korea will arrive on campus in fall of 2013.

If SUNY’s other campuses abroad will serve as level-setters for Korea, the outcomes will be impressive. Among other international centers, SUNY runs the Turkana Basin Institute in Kenya, home to Richard, Maeve, and Louise Leakey. Working alongside the renowned paleontologists and anthropologists—whose findings include such landmark discoveries as identifying new species of our own genus—are a team of environmental scientists applying new solar and wind technologies to solve local energy issues. The dung-powered school in Kenya is one of several facilities benefitting from the work of SUNY scientists to improve the energy applications of biogas generators.

From the Cradle of Human Civilization to the “Cradle of Modern Western Society”

New York’s university network abroad stretches from Africa, the cradle of human civilization, to the “cradle of modern Western society,” as David McLaughlin, provost of New York University, refers to the Middle East when he discusses the importance of having a presence in the region. NYU Abu-Dhabi (NYUAD) opened its doors in 2008, and has grown from a study abroad site into a full-fledged member of the NYU network of research campuses. The inaugural undergraduate class of students from 39 countries has given way to a spectacularly diverse student body hailing from 100 countries, and both the campus and its population are set to grow quickly in the coming years.

The advantages of expanding NYU’s presence abroad are numerous, according to McLaughlin. “We certainly think New York is the greatest city in the world, but not everyone of talent wants to travel here,” he says. “By having these campuses, we are able to recruit outstanding faculty and students who might otherwise have never been a part of our university.”

It also creates possibilities for collaborative research that couldn’t happen on anything less than a global scale. The Center for Global Sea Level Change, a joint project between NYUAD and NYU’s Courant Institute in New York, aims to produce quantitative estimates of future sea-level changes, combining the physical theory capabilities of Courant with observational data and new modeling techniques pioneered in Abu Dhabi. The multidisciplinary Neuroscience of Language Lab, straddling two major world cities where many languages are spoken, investigates the neural basis of language use and production.

This year also marks another major expansion in the NYU network—campuses in Shanghai, China, and Sydney, Australia.

The Grand Challenges

A synergy between New York and Qatar is yielding something more than results on paper—it’s creating doctors. New York’s Weill Cornell Medical College, which has a full campus in the state, taught the first students to ever attend medical school in Qatar in 2002. The initial class of 22 students and eight faculty members, housed temporarily at a Doha high school while the medical school facility was constructed, has grown to 265 students from 30 countries today.

And while the curriculum is identical to that of the Weill Cornell Medical College in New York—even down to the exams—the faculty and students in Doha are engaged in a suite of projects all their own, including original research on genetic disorders and stem cells, and a high school engagement program to build enthusiasm for a new generation of native physicians.

In 2011, the government of Qatar made a commitment to advancing sustainability and establishing the State as a center for research and development. There was only one problem—they had neither the local expertise nor the capacity to identify the actions needed to achieve these goals. Enter The New York Academy of Sciences (the Academy). With members spanning the globe, the Academy has considerable reach, along with a history of assisting international leaders in identifying science and technology priorities.

Six Grand Challenges

In cooperation with the Qatar Foundation for Education, Science and Community Development (QF), the Academy facilitated communication between stakeholders across multiple sectors in Qatar, ultimately arriving at six Grand Challenges spanning secure and sustainable natural resources, healthcare, information and computing technology, human capacity development, and urbanization. “When Qatar turns to New York for guidance, it signals something interesting,” says Academy President and CEO Ellis Rubinstein. “We don’t have all the answers, but this is the best international city to pull the right people together to address big challenges.”

Rubinstein and a team from the Academy will continue to advise QF on creating partnerships and implementing programs to address the Challenges.

The Academy has similarly partnered with Malaysia, after being asked by the country’s Prime Minster to help form the country’s Global Science and Innovation Advisory Council (GSIAC) to bring best practices from around the globe to bear on Malaysia’s economic growth and sustainability efforts—with many of the meetings taking place at the Academy’s headquarters in New York City. The Academy, along with its GSIAC partners, made a series of recommendations to advance Malaysia’s goal of becoming a high-income country. One of the more exciting elements for Academy CEO Rubinstein is a program to boost science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) education in Malaysia, modeled on the Academy’s own successful Afterschool STEM Mentoring Program.

Seamless Telepresence Technology

Another way the students will be connected—not only to each other but to Nobel laureates, working scientists, and teachers worldwide—is through seamless telepresence technology, provided through a generous new gift from Cisco Systems Inc. By bolstering local resources and talent, and then connecting them with other local resources around the globe, the Academy and its partners are creating a Global STEM Alliance that seeks to extend STEM excitement and engagement to the next generation.

The outcomes of such outreach—from New York to points all over the globe, and back again—strengthen both New York’s science community and those abroad. As Rubinstein says, “The major global challenges facing our world today will require a global response. We will not solve the problems of malnutrition or energy sustainability or chronic disease in isolation—we will solve them together, with science and technology as our common language.”

Also read: Engineering New York into a STEM Hub


About the Author

Hallie Kapner is a freelance writer in New York City.

Engineering New York into a STEM Hub

A colorful shot taken from under a microscope.

From the New York Genome Center to the New York Stem Cell Foundation, the New York science scene has, through unique alliances and partnerships, become greater than the sum of its parts.

Published November 1, 2013

By Hallie Kapner

A New York Genome Center researcher works with a sample.

As Willa Appel, chief executive officer of the New York Structural Biology Center (NYSBC), shares the story of the city’s first major collaborative life science research center, which opened in 2002, she still marvels at the good fortune that landed the NYSBC at the abandoned South Campus of the City University of New York on Convent Avenue in Harlem. The gymnasium’s lower level, complete with an empty swimming pool sunk deep into the Manhattan schist, turned out to be an ideal site for housing the city’s most advanced nuclear magnetic resonance spectrometers—exquisitely sensitive equipment unable to tolerate the nonstop vibration of millions of New Yorkers and the subways that move them.

The NYSBC—along with dozens of universities, research institutions, nonprofit organizations, and start-ups that comprise New York’s burgeoning science sector—is a true product of the city: wildly ambitious, visionary, and undaunted by the challenges of the island E.B. White called “the greatest human concentrate on earth.”

The major players in New York’s science industry almost universally view what most residents perceive as obstacles—population density, intense competition, and premium real estate—as assets. They’ve succeeded not in spite of, but because of, the city’s singular makeup and layout. The secret behind the success of what has become one of the world’s best funded and most productive multidisciplinary science sectors is the kind of mold-breaking collaboration that is uniquely possible in a place like New York.

New York as a “Science Hub”

Speaking from the new downtown headquarters of the New York Genome Center, Bill Fair, vice president of strategic operations, recalls a time when joining the terms “New York” and “science hub” was more likely to generate questions than answers. As recently as 2002— despite having the most advanced medical infrastructure and largest healthcare workforce in the country—New York City was struggling to attract science talent and the funding dollars that often followed. At the first meeting to discuss what would become the NYSBC, Appel remembers, one participant joked that “the best recruiting tool in New York was a subway token and a bus pass. People weren’t moving here to work in science.”

The town long known as the capital of finance, media, and fashion took a turn toward technology when Mayor Bloomberg zeroed in on life sciences and entrepreneurship as ways to revitalize and diversify the post-9/11 economy. What would transpire over the following decade would vault New York into an elite position among bioscience and technology hubs, uniting the city in a way that would draw the attention of the world.

From Competition to a Competitive Edge

An employee at the New York Structural Biology Center collects data on a dual beam and scanning electron microscope.

“When we first proposed the idea of the Structural Biology Center in 1997, nobody believed this kind of collaboration could happen,” says Appel, describing the circumstances that prompted its nine founding institutions to put their competitive concerns aside and form a consortium. Structural biology—the study of the three-dimensional shape of biological macromolecules and how changes in shape can affect their function in both health and disease—was a hot field that required access to highly specialized research equipment no one institution could afford alone.

Pooling their resources, the consortium initially purchased four high- field nuclear magnetic resonance spectrometers at 800 megahertz—the most advanced instrumentation in the field—housing them at the renovated NYSBC facility and alternating access much like a time- share. On opening day, the NYSBC was the most advanced facility of its kind in the country, and it has since added cryoelectron microscopes, synchrotron beamlines for x-ray crystallography, and high throughput protein production facilities. Today, it’s the most advanced structural biology facility in the world.

A Transformative Paradigm

A new and transformative paradigm for New York’s research institutions and universities was born.

By 2004, the city was gaining competitive ground, garnering close to $1 billion in National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding. By 2007, New York’s colleges and universities would well surpass that number, leading the nation in NIH funding.

Despite that progress, the city was still home to, what one researcher quipped, “a lot of R, but almost no D.” Pharmaceutical giants like Pfizer had a presence limited to sales in New York City, but the crucial behind-the-scenes work took place in the kind of lab space that seemed unattainable in the five boroughs. Many researchers who made breakthroughs with commercial promise had to weigh the possibility of leaving academia to bring an innovation to market. Finding a solution that would allow them to translate local research into reality would be the next crucial step in New York’s transformation.

“A Complete Cultural Shift”

A New York Stem Cell Foundation researcher at work.

Private labs were one way to, as Susan L. Solomon says, “leave the politics at the door and take the science as far as the researchers were able to go.” Solomon, who founded the New York Stem Cell Foundation (NYSCF) in 2005 and serves as CEO, saw the potential for New York—with its 50 hospitals and diverse population— to become a leader in stem cell research. “Young researchers were being counseled out of pursuing stem cell work,” she says. “The thinking was that the real work wasn’t happening here.”

With a roster of healthcare luminaries as an advisory board and $1.1 million in private seed funding, Solomon and her team opened a lab in less than four months. “There was very exciting diabetes research coming out of Harvard, but too much red tape preventing it from moving forward. We brought the work here, and built the lab faster than the researchers could collect patient samples.”

Since then, NYSCF scientists, including 45 postdocs from New York’s elite research centers, have done “high-risk, high-reward” work, turning out five top medical breakthroughs including the first personalized bone intended for transplant. The organization has also designed software to automate the labor-intensive process of generating stem cell lines, producing a degree of uniformity that is key to advancing therapeutics. “We’ve saved years of time and millions of dollars through the openness of our scientists and partners, who go so far as to share pre-publication work at our conferences,” Solomon says. “It’s a complete cultural shift. At our first meeting, most of the researchers in the room—and they were the best in their fields—had never met each other.”

Testing and Breaking Barriers of Convention

The shift Solomon noted occurs several dozen times a year at the lower Manhattan offices of the New York Academy of Sciences. Jennifer Henry, director of life sciences at the Academy, presides over a program for local scientists that tests—and often breaks—the barriers of convention. “We set out to create a more united community of scientists working in New York—to introduce them to each other before they meet at major conferences,” Henry explains.

For nearly 50 years, scientists from across the region and around the world have convened at the Academy to attend one-off conferences and recurring Discussion Group symposia. Formalized as Frontiers of Science 12 years ago, this program unites academia, industry, nonprofits, and government to discuss progress and challenges in science, medicine, and technology. The Academy hosts over 60 such events each year, each with a different focus. “Everyone is on equal footing at these events,” says Henry. “It’s a neutral environment where people who don’t typically get together can interact in a personal way. It’s also an incredible opportunity for younger scientists to network with major players.”

The Discussion Groups bring sought-after speakers and smaller gatherings of scientists together in New York throughout the year. “Networking is a major benefit, but these groups have become so much more than that,” Henry explains. “The Discussion Groups are now safe spaces where what are, essentially, competing researchers have been known to enlist the group’s feedback on their work in progress. Can you imagine?”

Inspiring New Ventures

A research image of induced pluripotent stem cell neuron precursors from the New York Stem Cell Foundation.

The success of New York’s academic collaborations continues to embolden and inspire new ventures, continually expanding the city’s science capabilities. Manhattan’s foothold in the emerging field of genomics and bioinformatics lies in SoHo at the New York Genome Center. Ten local institutions founded the facility, which operates as an independent nonprofit, to speed advances in genomics and commercialize breakthroughs. Researchers gain access to valuable wet lab space and latest generation sequencing equipment, along with technical support. Demand for the Genome Center’s services—which include full human genome sequencing, bioinformatics analysis, and data storage— has been so high that it had to establish a 3,000 square- foot temporary lab at The Rockefeller University during construction of the new headquarters.

The Genome Center’s founding institutions are reaping more than scientific benefit from their investment. It has been a powerful recruiting tool, helping attract top-level talent to the area. “You can’t get this kind of genomics experience just anywhere,” says Fair. “New York has the most diverse patient population in the world.”

Cooperation and technology are transforming the region’s hospitals, too, offering a glimpse into a future of fully connected care. The New York eHealth Collaborative is leading the movement to make electronic health records for any patient available to any physician, anywhere in the state, instantly.  Currently under development is a portal that will also allow New York’s patients to access their own records electronically.

In less than a decade, New York’s scientific community norm moved from competition to collaboration, with positive results on the bench and at the bedside. Asked to describe the interactions of the Genome Center founders, Fair laughs. “Every Board meeting is like a 14-way pingpong match.”

A Contagious Collaboration

Two of the city’s premier science museums, the American Museum of Natural History (AMNH) and New York Hall of Science collectively host more than a million pairs of exploring young hands each year, drawing school groups and families with programs that are now, more importantly than ever, helping turn curiosity into careers. AMNH’s much-lauded science-enrichment initiative, the Urban Advantage Network, started in New York middle schools and is now serving as a model for schools across the country to partner with local science institutions.

Taking in the many vibrant organizations comprising New York’s current science scene, it’s clear that what began as an experiment among an elite group of New York’s research institutions has spawned a contagious collaboration that has touched every sector of the city, changing it for the better. This drive toward togetherness has inspired members of the scientific community to see the limitless possibilities for invention in this extraordinary city.

Today, the subway token has been replaced by the Metrocard, and much like the transit system that runs beneath them, New York’s science players are more connected than ever. As Appel says, in a sentiment that also characterizes New York itself, “in science, you can’t sit still for half a second.”

Also read: The Story of a 25-Year Collaboration


About the Author

Hallie Kapner is a freelance writer in New York City.

From Survival to Joy: The Science of Fear

A foggy and eerie scene inside a forest in the fall.

Is it weird that feeling afraid is so fun we have a holiday for it? Besides aiding in survival, the experience of fear can actually be enjoyable.

Published October 25, 2013

By Diana Friedman

Happy Halloween! It’s the time of year we revel in the revolting and fete our fright. Fear is one of the oldest responses life has evolved to its environment. It’s so ancient that it’s common to just about all forms of life, explains author Jeff Wise in this podcast.

Is it weird that feeling afraid is so fun we have a holiday for it, or voluntarily watch horror movies, for that matter? Besides aiding in survival, the experience of fear can actually be enjoyable.

The Psychology Today blog considers the addictive potential of adrenaline-inducing extreme sports such as BASE jumping.  In the article, Emory University neuroscientist Dr. Michael Davis discusses the potentially pleasurable biochemistry of our bodies’ reaction to fear. “If something scares us, the body immediately releases endorphins, dopamine and norepinephrine. Endorphins mitigate pain. Dopamine and norepinephrine are performance enhancers…The greater the release of these chemicals, the greater the addiction-like symptoms.”

A Fear-Induced Chemical Cocktail

Developmental psychologist Nathalia Gjersoe, in this Guardian article, adds, “One reason adults like being scared so much could be the heady cocktail of a heightened sense of physical awareness with the reassuring knowledge that there is no real threat. In a real emergency [endorphins and dopamine] cushion the immediate blow of potential injury but, when no damage occurs, they simply contribute to the overall sense of excitement.”

The important catch is: things have to turn out OK! To enjoy your fear-induced chemical cocktail, you have to really believe in, or have alredy achieved, a happy ending. You know it’s just a movie. You’re climbing off the landing pad after your bungee cord remained intact, or—due to experience or optimism—you always knew it would be fine. In more technical terms, your interactions with fearful stimuli have occurred within a protective frame.

Differentiating Fact from Fiction

Professors Joel B. Cohen and Eduardo B. Andrade explain, “For positive affect to result, one must adopt a frame of mind adequate to convince the person that real danger/threat is not actually present.” This de-fanged, fun fear can happen in three different ways: “the confidence frame (i.e., one feels the danger but is confident about his/her skills to deal with it), the safety zone frame (i.e., one places himself/herself sufficiently away from immediate/likely danger), and the detachment frame (i.e., one observes the danger but does not interact with it).”

Young children have less experience than adults on which to base formulations of confidence, safety, or detachment. Kids are more sensitive to and have a harder time rationalizing fear. But, intriguingly, “children, like adults, quite enjoy a good scare,” notes Gjersoe. She goes on to describe an experiment:

“Paul Bloom, at Yale University, played four- and five-year-olds videos of other children watching happy, boring or scary movies and then asked them which of the movies they themselves would like to watch. Preliminary evidence suggests that, on the whole, children want to watch the happy movie but the scary movie comes a close second, a long way ahead of the boring movie. Like adults, kids would rather be scared than bored.”

So, ghoul it up for your Halloween parties and forge on ahead into the haunted houses. Try to get your friends with an especially good “Boo!” They should thank you for it.

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

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 stack of publications.

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?

A Theologist’s Perspective on Science and Ethics

An obscure, colorful piece of art.

Christiana Peppard, PhD, assistant professor of theology, science, and ethics at Fordham University, discusses the relation between science and ethics.

Published September 05, 2013

By Christiana Peppard, PhD

According to a study performed by Yale law professor Dan Kahan et al, just thinking about politics messes with one’s ability to be objective, even when it comes to something as seemingly apolitical as numeracy. Participants were asked to analyze two identical fake data sets, which they were told represented results from two studies. The subject of one was ideologically neutral (effectiveness of skin creams) and the other was more charged (concerned with gun control laws). People who performed the analysis of the neutral data correctly were more likely to err when it came to the more culturally controversial data set.

In a nearly diametric study, UC Santa Barbara psychology professors Jim Blascovich and Christine Ma-Kellams find, “Thinking about science leads individuals to endorse more stringent moral norms and exhibit more morally normative behavior.” The authors contend this may be due to “a lay image or notion of ‘science’ that is associated with concepts of rationality, impartiality, fairness, technological progress, and ultimately, the idea that we are to use these rational tools for the mutual benefit of all people in society.”

Science and Ethics: Profoundly Related

This “might seem encouraging, particularly to fans of science. But one possible cost of assigning moral weight to science is the degree to which it distorts the way we respond to research conclusions,” points out psychology professor Dr. Piercarlo Valdesolo in this Scientific American piece. “When faced with a finding that contradicts a cherished belief (e.g. a new study suggesting that humans have, or have not, contributed to global warming), we are more likely to question the integrity of the practitioner. If science is fundamentally moral, then how could it have arrived at such an offensive conclusion? Blame the messenger.”

Another paper, regarding the ethics of data stewardship and sharing, further points out that the results and processes of science (in this case, data collection, use, and dissemination) have important social implications.

The juxtaposition of these conclusions powerfully illustrates the idea that science and ethics are profoundly related—in ways that warrant consideration by scientists and non-scientists alike.

The Ethical Intersection of Science and the Humanities

Regarding the ethical intersection of science and the humanities, ethicist and biologist Dr. Christiana Peppard says, “Pitting the humanities against science is a missed educational opportunity.  There’s not a binary between total relativism on one hand and scientific realism and objectivity on the other hand.”

For science deniers, the issue of uncertainty in science is a real problem, which is why they make way too much of the concept: “If science is fallible, then all sources of authority are equally valid.” But, of course, uncertainty isn’t a problem. More information may be needed. Maybe our experiment was inappropriate. Maybe we need better methodology or equipment. But this doesn’t mean the process isn’t sound. On the other hand, for people who tend to be more triumphalistic, there tends to be a more totalizing approach, a sense of, “Hey we know so much and we have all this data! Now we can do anything!”

Having all this information is totally great and worthy of celebration, but it’s not a stopping point. Data isn’t actually useful without a framework for interpretation, and these interpretive frameworks warrant at least as much critical consideration as the data and methods of data collection. It’s really imperative in many areas of life now to be able to evaluate data and claims about what it means. Humanities critical thinking skills help to parse out what’s reasonable conjecture and what’s a stretch.”

Also read: The Ethics and Morality of Modern Biotechnology and National Security, Neuroscience and Bioethics

A Scientist’s Perspective on Ethics and Morality

A walking path forks into two different directions.

What can science tell us about ethics? Piercarlo Valdesolo, PhD, Director of the Moral Emotions and Trust Lab at Claremont McKenna College, scientifically investigates our moral decision-making processes.

Published September 12, 2013

By Diana Friedman

Scientists must often consider the importance of ethical and interpretive frameworks for thinking about data and the results and cultural contexts of scientific inquiry. Dr. Piercarlo Valdesolo, Director of the Moral Emotions and Trust Lab at Claremont McKenna College, studies the relation from the other direction. He asks what science can tell us about people’s moral decision-making processes.

“There are all these emotional states—compassion, awe, jealousy—that philosophers and scholars of religion have been interested in for a long time and have speculated about when it comes to moral judgments. I’m trying to look at these states and their effects on moral decisions more empirically in the lab,” explains Dr. Valdesolo.

In this Q&A, Dr. Valdesolo discusses the value and challenges of investigating morality through a scientific lens.

Why use science to ask these questions?

I think the value of looking at these questions through a scientific lens is to provide philosophers and people whose job it is to think about ethics with more fodder for philosophizing. Though, I don’t see it as my role to do that part. I agree with people who are wary of scientists who make normative claims. There’s value in what we’re doing because it can inform the perspectives of people who are in that business.

What are the challenges?

There are negative feelings that need to be evoked in the lab in order to study, say, aggression. The biggest challenge is to try to create these phenomena as they would exist in the real world, but to do so in a way that still respects participants.

Could understanding patterns or emotional influences over moral choices have a dark side? Could people be manipulated more effectively, for example?

That’s the case with so much of social psychology. If you’re someone who studies persuasion or attitude change, that information can be used for good or bad. You could try to get people to change their attitudes about charity in a positive way. Conversely, the information could be used by marketers to try to get you to buy a product that might not be good for your health, for example. The application of the knowledge of psychological principles can go either way, good or bad, and that’s true across all social science findings, I think.

What do you think is the value of studying moral psychology?

What I try to emphasize in my classes, when I teach social psychology, is that the point of trying to get at the processes by which people  make these decisions is to gain a third party perspective on your own choices. It helps you to try to remove yourself from a given situation, to really understand—in as objective a way as you can—why you’re doing what you’re doing. Are your behaviors and decisions getting you towards your goals, whatever those goals may be? I think that’s the real value of learning about social psychology.

For more on this topic, including some of the methodologies by which Dr. Valdesolo studies moral decisions, check out the complete interview in the podcast, The Science of Moral Decisions.

Also read: The Ethics and Morality of Modern Biotechnology

How Can Scientists Better Engage the Public?

The debate over whether scientisim is a problem points out an opportunity to engage people in science in more constructive ways.

Published August 29, 2013

By Diana Friedman

Image courtesy of kubko via stock.adobe.com.

There’s been a lot written lately debating scientism. There are various definitions of this concept but, basically, some fear that “Science” is appropriating questions that are supposed to be under the purview of “The Humanities,” while others contend that science is the only reasonable way to determine human values. While debate is a great way to vet and hone ideas, this particular one might be more constructively framed. There probably are individual exceptions to this, but I don’t think there’s really a conflict between scientists and humanists (I like to think you can be both). A more useful question is how can non-scientists better understand science and scientific perspectives, and how can scientists better engage the public.

“We both believe in the attainability of truth and progress, and we agree that science is our most powerful means of understanding and improving our world. By all means engage with science,’ says science writer John Horgan in this Scientific American blog. “But engage with it critically, because science…needs tough, informed criticism.” Science andthe humanities offer valuable frameworks for such critical thinking, and both perspectives are important.

The scientific method can be employed in the consideration of any type of question as a powerful tool for evidence-based decision-making, but it should be kept in mind that scientists are human. Denying the value of science doesn’t get anyone anywhere. Neither is it constructive for scientists to deny our own fallibility or involvement in cultural contexts.

Increasing Public Engagement and Trust in Science

There are a lot of ways to make mistakes. If an experiment turns out a false result, the best way to catch and correct it is to have more people paying attention, thinking critically, and employing the scientific method in replication studies and new experiments. Fostering these skills and an appreciation for experimentation and the challenges involved in non-scientists as well as scientists is vital for increased public engagement as well as trust in science. In this Boundary Vision blog, Marie-Claire Shanahan 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.”

In this podcast, biology professor and author Dr. Stuart Firestein makes a similar point:

“How do you engage more people in the scientific project in a way they can engage in it? It begins with education and the way we teach science. We teach facts instead of teaching questions. Now we present it as a huge encyclopedic collection of facts that nobody could ever hope to master. You have to give people a taste for questions and have them understand that science is about puzzles and questions and a kind of uncertainty that’s very appealing the way that a sporting event should be…We’re all scientists in a way. We’re all out in the world trying to figure things out. We make predictions and we test them…I think being a scientist is being a human being.”

Also read: The Culture Crosser: The Sciences and Humanities