Skip to main content

Blog Archives

Older posts
Newer posts

Laying the Scientific Foundation in New York City

A black and white headshot of Samual L Mitchell

Described by his contemporaries as a “chaos of knowledge,” a “living encyclopedia,” and a “stalking library,” first Academy President Samuel L. Mitchill dabbled in a variety of disciplines, building a unique level of scientific proficiency that was very rare at the time.

Published May 1, 2017

By Douglas Braaten, PhD

Samuel Latham Mitchill was a rare polymath for his time.

Born in North Hempstead, New York, in 1764, he had remarkably varied interests, which ranged from medicine to geology, botany and mineralogy. A farmer’s son, Mitchill exhibited great interest in the natural sciences early in life. After studying the foundations of medicine with his uncle, doctor Samuel Latham, Mitchill went to the University of Edinburgh to earn his medical degree in 1786 and then returned to New York, where he received a license to practice medicine. The route he chose, however, was far from a typical doctor’s path.

Because of his boundless thirst for knowledge, Mitchill couldn’t fully settle on pursuing any one scientific field. His contemporaries described him as a “chaos of knowledge,” a “living encyclopedia,” and a “stalking library.”

He kept dabbling in a variety of disciplines, building a unique level of scientific proficiency, which was very rare at the time. It wasn’t surprising that his wide array of interests and expertise earned him an appointment as a Chair of Natural History at Columbia University, at the age of 28. At Columbia, Mitchill’s scientific career truly flourished. He taught chemistry and botany, and expanded his work into other areas of science.

Promoting Geology, Agriculture, Chemistry

Mitchill was a prolific publisher and produced a variety of works, once again on a wide variety of topics. He prompted the geological survey of the New York State. He contributed to the development of agriculture by surveying the mineralogy of the Hudson River Valley. His chemistry studies led to improved detergents and disinfectants, and even better gunpowder. For 23 years, Mitchill served as a chief editor of the Medical Repository, one of the top scientific publications of the time.

It would only make sense then, that an erudite man like Mitchill would lay the foundation for the New York Academy of Sciences. In 1817, he organized the first meeting of the Lyceum of Natural History (the Academy’s early name), which took place at the College of Physicians and Surgeons in Lower Manhattan. Later elected as the Lyceum’s first President, Mitchill remained in that post until 1823.

Under his supervision, the Lyceum hosted lectures, preserved samples of natural artifacts, and established a library. Seven years after the Lyceum’s commencement, it began publishing The Annals of the Lyceum of Natural History of New York — one of the first American journals of natural history and science. The Annals published articles on myriad topics, from research on swallows by its Member John James Audubon, to descriptions of newly found species.

As the years progressed, the organization started by Mitchill continued to grow, adding more activities to its list. New York State commissioned the Lyceum to do a survey of its mineralogy, botany, and zoology. The Lyceum also became instrumental in launching organizations dedicated to scientific research and literacy, including New York University in 1831, and the Museum of Natural History in 1868.

Science and Politics

Like many other great scholars who sought to educate societies about science, Mitchill worked to emphasize the importance of scientific progress in the American legislature and politics. In 1801, he resigned his Columbia appointment and took a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives. Later, he served a term in the Senate, and then once again in the House. He was an advocate of quarantine laws, and an avid proponent of the Library of Congress.

Mitchill was also instrumental in the creation of educational institutions including Rutgers Medical College, where he served as Vice President during the college’s first four years. Despite being preoccupied with his political efforts and other endeavors, Mitchill never stopped working on his scientific pursuits, and remained very productive in his research publications throughout his life.

As historian Alan Aberbach once wrote, “To Mitchill it was axiomatic that with diligence and empirical practices, developing systematically and organically, one could come to grips with and resolve the historical plagues of mankind’s ills.”

Out of the Lab and Onto the Market

Researchers peer at a test tube inside a science lab.

A look inside an innovative program that encourages new business start-ups.

Published May 1, 2017

By Carina Storrs, PhD

Jessica Akemi of Cornell presents on plans to commercialize CO2 conversion technologies at the NEXUS-NY demo day in Rochester, NY. Photo courtesy of doerrphoto.com

New York State policy makers and business leaders looking to encourage new business start-ups should take a look at an innovative program developed by New York State Energy Research & Development Authority (NYSERDA), an Academy program partner for nearly a decade.

NYSERDA’s mission is to identify next generation clean energy technology, and bring the best of those ideas out of the lab and into the marketplace through Proof of Concept Centers (POCC). POCCs work with research teams that have promising ideas, inventions and intellectual property. The teams gain access to business expertise that provides a market validation process to determine whether they are ready to create a viable business model.

Jeff Peterson, NYSERDA’s Program Manager, sees this as a viable way to encourage new business start-ups.

“Visualize a funnel. At the wide end of the funnel you have a lot of people with interesting ideas for prospective business enterprises. At the small end of the funnel you have a commercially viable scalable business,” he said. “The POCC programs are designed to help entrepreneurs with ideas around clean energy technology negotiate the funnel to success.”

Establishing Proof of Concept Centers

Four years ago, NYSERDA selected three outstanding groups and awarded them funding to start POCCs: a Columbia University-led group that includes Cornell Tech, Stony Brook University and Brookhaven National Laboratory; a joint NYU and CUNY group; and High Tech Rochester, a nonprofit business incubator.

The first two groups operate as a single POCC known as PowerBridgeNY (PBNY), while the High Tech Rochester POCC is called NEXUS-NY. The inclusion of NEXUS-NY helps cast an even wider net in the search for potentially game changing ideas. Although POCCs tend to focus on academic research Peterson said, “you hate to shut the door on people when they have an interesting idea, so that’s where the NEXUS-NY program came into play.”​

From left to right: Xiaozheng, Co-Principal Investigator Scott Banta, Co-Principal Investigator Alan West, Entrepreneurial Lead Tim Kernan

An Enviable Network of Innovation

Research universities have always been at the center of new technologies and New York State has one of the most enviable networks of innovation centers in the country. POCCs have been centers of innovations for several years. Similar to PBNY and NEXUS-NY, their aim has been to fund groups with promising early-stage research and advice about how to develop their research for commercialization. All of these efforts support Governor Andrew M. Cuomo’s energy goals to have 50 percent of the state’s energy come from renewable resources by 2030.

“Unlike the NYSERDA POCCs, many of these centers promote a range of technologies rather than focusing specifically on clean energy. However, clean energy technology, as compared with software technology for example, is particularly poised to benefit from the POCC model,” Peterson said.

For one, it is relatively capital inefficient to build and test multiple iterations of complex clean energy hardware, such as a transformer or wind turbine, requiring both more upfront market research and funding. In addition, the market for clean energy technology is constantly evolving so it may be more difficult to project the demand for a certain type of product.

To date, 52 teams have participated in the first three cycles of the program. These teams have gone on to start nearly 30 companies between them, many of which have also attracted private investment as well as grant funding from competitive state and federal programs.

Potential for Commercialization

During their time in the POCC, the teams tap into myriad business resources that many academic groups and groups conducting early-stage research, find critical for commercialization. As part of the application process for PBNY, teams participate in a two-day boot camp, during which they hear about lessons learned from previous PBNY classes.

They pitch their idea to a panel of judges from industry who provide guidance and feedback. Once teams are accepted into PBNY, they meet regularly with an assigned industry mentor, who helps them prepare to talk with potential customers, many of whom they connect with through PBNY networking events. In addition, the teams have monthly meetings with PBNY leadership to determine how well they are meeting the business and technical milestones they established at the beginning of the program.

A Two-Phase Process

The NEXUS-NY program involves two phases: In the first 12-week phase, teams make the case to the POCC leadership that their technology lends itself to creating a startup. If they advance, they spend the rest of the program working to demonstrate that their technology works in a way that is useful to potential customers, such as through building prototypes and developing investor presentations. Throughout the program, participants meet weekly with teaching teams, either virtually or in person, which help train them to have conversations with potential customers. The mentor network at NEXUS-NY is invaluable for introducing teams to key industry players.

Both NEXUS-NY and PBNY award research money to teams accepted into their program, but by the time they finish the program, teams usually say the most helpful part was everything else.

Christopher Schauerman, co-director of the Battery Prototyping Center at Rochester Institute of Technology, is part of a NEXUS-NY team that formed a company, called Cellec, for its technology, which involves using nanomaterials to build smaller and more energy dense batteries. The batteries have potential applications in drones and satellites and the Cellec team, which graduated last year, already has contracts lined up with customers in the aerospace and defense community.

“Through the NEXUS-NY program, we were able to talk to enough customers and get enough customer feedback that motivated us to form a company,” Schauerman said.

The Impact of the Program

For some teams, feedback from potential investors led them to substantially pivot their plan. Tim Kernan, GM of Ironic Chemicals and his partners at Columbia University were accepted into the first cohort of PBNY with the plan to use their genetically engineered bacteria to convert solar energy to liquid fuel. The negative response from investors, who questioned the need for this technology because fuel was so cheap, combined with input from a PBNY business mentor, led the team to instead develop the bacteria to break down sulfide waste from copper mining.

“Academics are not always experienced or familiar with the commercialization process,” Kernan said about the company he and his partners formed based on their technology. “Up until the existence of PBNY and similar types of centers, there was no support, you had to figure it out on your own or be lucky enough to have a technology that a company already wanted to buy. But with clean energy you’re creating technology that doesn’t have a market yet,” Kernan said.

Ironic Chemicals currently has a partner in the mining industry and a federal small business grant that will hopefully allow them to start testing bacterial tank reactors at a mining site by early 2018.

A Strong Advisory Board

Another important component to the program is the advisory board organized by the Academy. National thought leaders from academia, government and industry meet regularly to provide strategic advice to the POCC leadership.

“After a relatively short time, there have been many interesting success stories. Many companies have been formed. Some have raised private capital. A few have sold products. Even more have been awarded additional grant funding,” Peterson said. “The truly exciting part of the program, however, is that many of the research teams have become excited about entrepreneurship. NYSERDA committed to funding the POCCs for a five-year term. The hope is that the program will gain enough momentum and interest that grant and investment money will step in and NYSERDA and state funds would not be necessary at the scale they are at now.”

The New York Academy of Sciences – A Concise History

An illustration of the Academy's original home in 1817.

Published May 1, 2017

By Douglas Braaten, PhD

Founded in 1817 as the “Lyceum of Natural History in the City of New York,” by a small group of science enthusiasts, led by Samuel Latham Mitchill, a polymath and prominent politician who represented New York in the U.S. Congress, determined to create an organization that anyone interested in natural science could join in order to learn from experts, and that provided a venue for public consumption of scientific ideas and advances of the time.

For the next 100 years, the trials and tribulations of the Academy were in many respects the trials and tribulations of progress of science in New York and other states of the new American republic. In March 1817, James Monroe became the fifth American president. That same year he was elected an honorary member of the Lyceum, along with the third American president, Thomas Jefferson.

The intentionally anti-patrician nature of the Lyceum not only distinguished it from other institutions of the day, it served as the basis for a new type of democratic institution that later was instrumental in the progress of science, especially in the New York City area, though this was also felt throughout New York State and beyond.

On the national scene, Philadelphia, originally owing to its centrality as the first American capital and birthplace of major figures in politics and science—e.g., Benjamin Franklin—was home to the first science societies in the nascent country, although with the exception of Franklin’s Academy of Natural History the societies were aristocratic and elitist. They were institutions largely, if not exclusively, for men of wealth who were not themselves scientists; nor probably even much interested in science. Membership was a symbol of status, indicating, among other things, that a person had the financial means to support these 19th century social clubs.

Even by name—Lyceum: an institution for popular education providing discussions, lectures, concerts, etc.—the first incarnation of the Academy was fundamentally different from other societies. Its raison d’être was not social climbing and show, but the dissemination of science, and bringing people who were keenly interested in science, together.

This fundamental democratic principle determined the course of the Academy’s history, and with it the development of key institutions of science and learning in New York City today, including Central Park, the American Museum of Natural History, the New York Botanical Garden and New York University. It was by inclusion of people on the basis of only their interest in science that the Academy could bring together so many different stakeholders—indeed so many key individuals at just the right moments—to influence, if not forge the development of many New York City institutions.

The founding meeting of the Academy, then the Lyceum, occurred on January 29, 1817. To tell the history of the Academy’s accomplishments since then is to tell the history of science in New York State and America, and beyond. It is the history of an institution, but more importantly of the tens of thousands of individuals who have been Academy Members since 1817, from around the globe and from many diverse institutions, cultures and walks of life.

Indeed the history of the Academy would not have been possible without the devotion, energy and creativity of its Members. This collective engagement—today we refer to this as the Academy’s network—has enabled and driven fundamental changes in the landscape of science and science-based institutions in New York City and throughout the world. This is history worth telling, and re-telling.

Two centuries later, on January 29 2017, the Academy unveiled a permanent 200th Anniversary Exhibition in the lobby of its headquarters at 7 World Trade Center in New York City (see photos below). The folded timeline insert in this issue of the magazine provides a concise history of key Academy events, members and accomplishments since 1817. A prominent feature of the physical exhibition is a 17-foot-long timeline with images and text that tells the story of some of the enormous challenges and successes over the Academy’s 200 years.

In addition, as part of the 200th anniversary celebration, the Academy is publishing a revised edition of a critically acclaimed history of the Academy and of science in New York City and the early United States, Knowledge, Culture, and Science in the Metropolis: The New York Academy of Sciences, 1817–2017 by historian and professor Simon Baatz (John Jay College).

Originally published as special issue of Annals (Ann NY Acad Sci 584: 1–269) in 1990, professor Baatz’s book provides an, “engrossing account of the role of the sciences within the great American metropolis”… “this masterly account of science in its social context will be of the greatest interest to everyone who cares about New York, about the growth of knowledge, and about the importance of voluntary associations in our national life.” The revised edition, published in January 2017, contains a new chapter on the Academy’s history from 1970 to 2017.

An even earlier account, A History of the New York Academy of Sciences, formerly the Lyceum of Natural History, published in 1887 by Herman Le Roy Fairchild, is also available in electronic form by contacting the Academy at annals@nyas.org. Fairchild’s account is a detailed discussion of many facets of the Lyceum’s early days, including biographical sketches of many of the important founders, lists of all of the first Lyceum officers and administrators, dates and addresses of locations of the Academy during its early peripatetic days, copies of the original constitution, by-laws and other legal documents.

Finally, a very brief history, “The Founding of the Lyceum of Nature History,” by historian Kenneth R. Nodyne, was published in 1970 (Ann NY Acad Sci 172: 141–149).

Some Prominent Members of the Academy

From its inception, the Academy has been a member-driven organization. And while it was a democratic organization that welcomed anyone, the Academy, for its first 100 years or so, proposed and voted on bestowing memberships.

As specified in the original constitution of 1817, admittance to the Lyceum was by three categories of membership. Resident members were from NYC and “its immediate vicinity” and thus could take part in Academy meetings, while Corresponding members, largely on account of travel times in the early 19th century—it took a day and a half to travel to Boston!—were less involved; Honorary members were selected on the basis of “attainment in Natural History,” no matter where they resided.

Categories of membership changed over the years. In the 1980s there were eight: Active, Life, Student, Junior, Institutional, Certificate, Honorary Life and Fellows. The total number of members had reached its highest, 48,000 from all 50 states and over 80 countries around the world. This membership apogee was in large part the result of two factors. One was the enormous influence of the Academy’s executive director from 1935 to 1965, Eunice Miner, whose zeal and “stubbornness” increased membership from 750 in 1938 to over 25,000 by 1967! The other influence was a membership policy in the 1980s of mailing out membership certificates to people worldwide.

Today’s Academy membership of 20,000 is composed of Professional, Student and Postdoctoral, Supporting and Patron, and—continuing a long tradition—Honorary Members. Over the course of our history there have been well over 200 Honorary Members, including 110 Nobel Laureates. Below are profiles of just a few of the Honorary Members.

Lord Kelvin (1824–1907)
Elected Honorary Member 1876

William Thomson, 1st Baron Kelvin, a Scots-Irish mathematical physicist and engineer who did important work on electricity and thermodynamics. Absolute temperatures are stated in units of Kelvin in his honor.

Louis Pasteur (1822–1895)
Elected Honorary Member 1889

A French chemist and microbiologist known worldwide for his work on understanding vaccination, microbial fermentation, and pasteurization. He was director of the Pasteur Institute, established in 1887, until his death. He was made a Chevalier of the Legion of Honour in 1853, promoted to Commander in 1868, to Grand Officer in 1878 and made a Grand Cross of the Legion of Honor—one of only 75 in all of France.

Niels Bohr (1885–1962)
Elected Honorary Member 1958

A Danish physicist who won the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1922 for making fundamental contributions to the studies of atomic structure and quantum theory. He spent much of his life and worked in Denmark, where he founded the Institute of Theoretical Physics at the University of Copenhagen.

Barbara McClintock (1902–1992)
Elected Honorary Member 1985

An American cytogeneticist who won the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 1983 for her discovery of genetic transposition. Her work concentrated on studies of maize, for which she developed techniques for visualizing the chromosomes; she produced the first genetic map for maize and demonstrated the important roles of telomeres and centromeres. McClintock spent her entire professional career in her own laboratory at Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory.

Rosalyn S. Yalow (1921–2011)
Elected Honorary Member 2006

Born in New York City, Yalow was a medical physicist and co-winner of the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for the development of the radioimmunoassay (RIA), an in vitro technique used to measure concentrations of immune proteins called antigens. This revolutionary technique helped to marshal in the modern era of immunological research. Yalow also won the prestigious Albert Lasker Award for Basic Medical Research (1976) and the National Medal of Science (1988).

2016 Blavatnik Science Symposium

A three-person panel discussion during the symposium.

The third annual Blavatnik Science Symposium took place on July 18 and 19, 2016 at The New York Academy of Sciences.

Published January 24, 2017

By Diana Friedman

From Left 2015 Regional Award Winner Dr. Hani Goodarzi, 2015 Regional Award Finalist Dr. Allyson Friedman, 2015 Regional Award Finalist Dr. Jinzhong Lin

This unique two-day event was hosted by the Blavatnik Family Foundation and the Academy and convened more than 50 past Blavatnik Awards honorees and the 2016 National Finalists. The Symposium was attended by representatives of the Blavatnik Family Foundation, scientific luminaries, and members of the press.

The Blavatnik Science Symposium has become a key event in the calendar for the highly interdisciplinary Blavatnik Awards community, bringing winners and finalists together for two days of research updates, panel discussions and networking. The Symposium enables outstanding scientists from diverse subject areas to come together and share ideas, and has resulted in some unexpected but highly productive collaborations between participants in previous years.

Ellis Rubinstein, President and CEO of the Academy, and Brooke Grindlinger, Chief Scientific Officer for Scientific Programs and Awards, began day one of the event with their welcoming remarks. They were followed with an alumni keynote address from 2015 Blavatnik National Award chemistry Laureate Christopher Chang, from the University of California, Berkeley, who spoke about his work on the unique properties of transition metals in relation to human brain research. The second keynote, on day two, focused on the human speech cortex, and was given by 2015 Blavatnik National Award life sciences Laureate Edward Chang, from the University of California, San Francisco.

Learning from Failure

Attendees had ample opportunity to network with each other and present their work in front of their peers. A number of participants gave brief talks highlighting their most recent research accomplishments in a broad variety of subject areas across all three disciplines of the Blavatnik Awards Program. A special session featured 2015 Blavatnik Regional Award honorees, who, having been recognized for their stellar postdoctoral work, have received faculty appointments in leading universities and labs in the US and Europe.

Several panel discussions featuring Blavatnik scholars focused on the most exciting and topical developments in science of the last year, including “100 Years In the Making: Gravitational Waves Discovered” moderated by Blavatnik Award Program Manager Louisa Bokacheva, with participation from Szabolcs Marka (Columbia University), Frans Pretorius (Princeton University), and David Spergel (Princeton University); “Combatting Infectious Dieseases,” moderated by Ruslan Medzhitov, with participation from Leor Weinberger (Gladstone Institutes), Sinisa Urban (Johns Hopkins University), Xiang Gao (Yale University), and Matthew Evans (Mount Sinai Health System); and “Nanotechnology” moderated by Yueh-Lin Loo (Princeton University), with participation from Kenneth Shepard (Columbia University), George Malliaras (Ecole Des Mines de Saint-Etienne), and Sergei Kalinin (Oak Ridge National Laboratory).

Stuart Firestein of Columbia University delivered the dinner keynote address of the symposium, entitled “Ignorance, Failure, Doubt and Uncertainty: Why Science Is So Successful”, a topic related to that on which he has also given an extremely well-received TED talk. At the symposium keynote, he discussed the importance of failure to scientific inquiry and discovery, as well as the interesting phenomenon of scientists being more accessible when talking about what they don’t know, as opposed to what they have already discovered.

To learn more about the Blavatnik Awards for Young Scientists, visit blavatnikawards.org.
2011 Regional Award Winner Dr. Szabolcs Márka
Dr. Casey Dunn, 2011 Regional Award Finalist Dr. Robert Anderson, 2013 Regional Award Winner Dr. Frans Pretorius
Dr. David Ginger and 2007 Regional Award Finalist Antonio Giraldez
2012 Regional Award Winner Dr. Elisa Oricchio and Dr. Shoba Vasudevan
From Left: 2007 Regional Award Winner Ruslan Medzhitov, Dr. Leor Weinberger, Dr. Sinisa Urban, 2015 Regional Award Finalist Xiang Gao, and 2008 Regional Award Finalist Matthew Evans
2010 Regional Award Winner Daniella Schiller
2016 National Finalist Dr. Oliver Rando
Dr. Jenny Greene
President and CEO of NYAS Ellis Rubinstien, 2016 National Award Winner Dr. Michael Rape, 2016 National Award Winner Dr. David Charbonneau

Pioneering Anthropologist Advances the Academy

A woman wearing pearls.

Anthropologist Margaret Mead brought attention to cultural perspectives on scientific change.

Published January 1, 2017

By Marie Gentile and Robert Birchard

“The Academy has stood for new ideas, for the adventurous and experimental,” said Margaret Mead, at a celebration of the Academy’s 150th anniversary in 1967.

“Adventurous and experimental” well describes Mead’s own career. As a new PhD in the 1920s, she carried out pathbreaking—and controversial—anthropological fieldwork on childhood and adolescence among indigenous South Pacific peoples. She later turned her attention to the context of youth in her own society, famously commenting on the “generation gap” of the late 1960s.

An outspoken public intellectual, Mead became, during her lifetime, America’s most famous anthropologist. And she used her decades-long association with the Academy to bring attention to cultural perspectives on scientific change in an era that spanned the development of nuclear weapons to the energy crisis of the 1970s.

Getting Involved with the Academy

Mead first became involved in the Academy in the 1930s. By then she had already made her mark with her best-selling books Coming of Age in Samoa and Growing Up in New Guinea.

Her professional home was in New York City, at the American Museum of Natural History (AMNH), where she became Curator of Ethnology—and where the Academy’s headquarters occupied two rooms during the 1930s and 1940s.

It’s possible that Eunice Thomas Miner, the Academy’s Executive Director at the time, recruited Mead—Miner initiated an unprecedented Membership drive in the late 1930s. Both women held the title of Research Assistant at AMNH, where they became friends as well as colleagues.

For the next 40 years, Mead’s perspective as an anthropologist shaped Academy affairs. She understood science as a product of culture. In Academy forums and elsewhere, she compared science in different national contexts, professional and public understanding of science, and perception of science by young people and older generations.

Her many articles and talks on the implications of these different perspectives—whether for nuclear war, space exploration, science education, scientific literacy of the public, and other issues—converged with a growing concern within the Academy about the place of science in society.

Contributions to the Academy

Throughout this time, Mead contributed research to Annals, organized meetings, and served the Academy in official capacities, at different times as Chair of the Anthropology section, Vice President of the Scientific Council, and Vice President of the Academy.

The Academy first provided a platform for Mead’s research in 1942, when it published her book with Gregory Bateson, Balinese Character: A Photographic Analysis. Carried out from 1936 to 1938, Bateson and Mead’s fieldwork in Bali made unprecedented use of photography and film, generating some 25,000 still images.

Earlier anthropologists had taken photographs, but this project was the first to do so on such a large scale, and also the first to present the visual record as the primary scientific evidence with written documentation secondary. The book helped launch the new field of visual anthropology and it remains a classic today.

As she became more involved with the Academy, Mead valued its ability to convene experts in “symposia on the growing edge of knowledge,” as she put it—and “the structure it provided for creative interchange among the sciences.”

Considering the Cultural Implications

In October of 1957, one of these frontiers was launching earth-orbiting satellites. Mead later recalled that the announcement of the Soviet Sputnik launch came only two hours after she had mailed invitations to an Academy conference on the cultural implications of “man in space.” The conference was held later the same month, and the proceedings were published in Annals the next year.

By the 1970s, when the cultural relevance of science came more and more into public view, Mead returned to theme that she often explored—the distance between specialists and non-specialists; between scientists and the public. To her thinking, improving science education at all levels was vital to bridging this gap and ensuring both scientific advances and informed public debate and decision-making.

These and many other issues that Mead tackled in the 1960s and 1970s remain relevant to the Academy today, including childhood nutrition and the challenges faced by women in science. She was, “Always helpful to this Academy,” in the words of a 1973 citation praising her as an Academy Governor, and could “be counted on for sound advice based on high principles.”

Learn more about Mead

Also see:

2016 Blavatnik National Awards Ceremony

A large group shot of honorees and other award administrators.

This year’s black-tie event, held at the American Museum of Natural History in New York City, gathered over 200 distinguished guests, including members of academia, business, and media.

Published September 12, 2016

By Diana Friedman

On Monday, September 12, 2016, the Blavatnik Family Foundation hosted its second annual celebration of the Blavatnik National Awards for Young Scientists, honoring the scientific excellence and innovation of the 3 National Laureates and 28 National Finalists.

The evening formally began as the brass ensemble of the renowned Juilliard School played a processional of Triumphal March from Aida by G. Verdi and New York City high school students with a passion for science served as flag holders for the grand entrance of the Finalists and Laureates into the museum’s famed Milstein Hall of Ocean Life.

Ellis Rubinstein, President and Chief Executive Officer of The New York Academy of Sciences opened the evening with the introduction of the National Laureates and Finalists and welcomed them to the Blavatnik Science Scholars alumni community. He acknowledged the Blavatnik Awards for Young Scientists celebrating its 10–year anniversary, as well as the continuing support of the exceptional judges and Blavatnik Awards Scientific Advisory Council that help make the Awards possible. The remainder of the event was presented by the evening’s master of ceremonies, Dr. Andrew Hamilton, President of New York University.

An Impressive List of Notable Guests

2016 Blavatnik National Laureates: Dr. David Charbonneau, Dr. Phil Baran, and Dr. Michael Rape were introduced during the evening by their mentors Dr. Sara Seager, Dr. Ronald Breslow, and Dr. Marc Kirschner, respectively. Each Laureate received a custom gold-plated medal from Len Blavatnik and followed with a presentation about their award-winning work.

The event was attended by Blavatnik Awards winners and finalists from previous years, members of the National Jury, and members of the Blavatnik Awards Scientific Advisory Council, including Dr. Ruslan Medzhitov. Other notable guests included:

  • Dr. George Q. Daley, Dean of Harvard Medical School
  • Kenneth Bialkin, Secretary of the Carnegie Hall Corporation
  • Stephen Cooper, CEO of Warner Music Group
  • Richard Plepler, CEO of HBO
  • Julie Greenwald, Chairman and COO of Atlantic Records Group
  • Alan Dershowitz, Professor of Law at Harvard Law School
  • Peter Schultz, CEO of The Scripps Research Institute
  • Dr. Joseph Klafter, President of Tel Aviv University
  • C. L. Max Nikias, President of the University of Southern California
  • Lindsey Graham, US Senator of South Carolina
  • Robert Darnell, Founding Director of New York Genome Center

View the photos from the event.

To learn more about the Blavatnik Awards for Young Scientists, visit blavatnikawards.org.

Bioethics Meets R&D: The Ethics of Pre-approval Access

An illustration of a patient in a bed receiving medical care.

Patients with life-threatening illnesses face challenges in accessing potential therapies at the cutting-edge of research and development, which have not yet been proven in a clinical trial. Some pharmaceutical companies produce and provide medicines on a case-by-case basis through expanded access or “compassionate use” programs. The tension among principles of fairness, equity, and compassion are explored in this podcast through a case study about a social media campaign led to an expedited clinical trial for an investigative antiviral medicine. Guests will explore the provocative and emotional stories of patients, family members, advocates, researchers, physicians, and the regulators charged with keeping medicines in the marketplace safe and effective. 

This podcast was a collaboration between The Division of Medical Ethics at NYU School of Medicine and The New York Academy of Sciences. 

Is There a Limit to Human Knowledge?

A colorful and abstract graphic.

Modern physics and its leading theories have been remarkably successful in describing the history of our universe, and large-scale experiments, such as the Large Hadron Collider, are continuously producing new data that extend our knowledge of the world. Nevertheless, our understanding of some physical concepts that seek to explain our universe—dark matter and dark energy, quantum gravity, supersymmetry, and the cosmological constant—remain unresolved. Featuring cosmologist Neil Weiner, string theorist Eva Silverstein, and physicist Vijay Balasubramanian, with moderation from philosopher of science Jill North, this podcast explores what the future holds for physics. 

This podcast was made possible through the support of a grant from the John Templeton Foundation. The opinions expressed in this podcast are those of the speaker(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the John Templeton Foundation. 

Improving Clinical Trials through Mobile Technology

An illustration of a smartwatch with healthcare/medical elements.

Mobile technology is emerging as a powerful tool for transforming the way clinical research is conducted now and in the future. Acquisition of real-time biometric data though the use of wireless medical sensors will allow for around-the-clock patient monitoring, reduce costly clinic visits, and streamline inefficient administrative processes. With the promise of this technology also comes challenges including digital data privacy concerns, patient compliance issues, and practical considerations such as continuous powering of these devices.  

This podcast provides an illuminating examination of both the promises and challenges that underpin the implementation of mobile technology into the clinical realm. 

Proof of Concept Centers: Energy Technology

The logo for The New York Academy of Sciences.

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

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

Older posts
Newer posts