Science in Society - NYAS

A wide shot of a banquet room full of people.

On Monday, September 15, 2014, the Blavatnik Family Foundation hosted its first annual celebration of the Blavatnik National Awards for Young Scientists, honoring the scientific excellence and innovation of 27 National Finalists and three National Laureates.

Published September 15, 2014

By Diana Friedman

This event gathered over 200 guests, including members of academia, business, and media. The guests, in black tie, were treated to an elegant evening at one of the most celebrated museums in the world, the American Museum of Natural History.

The evening formally began as the brass ensemble of the renowned Juilliard School played a processional of Fanfare for the Common Man 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 Finalists and later spoke about the history of the Awards and the long-term partnership between the Academy and the Blavatnik Family Foundation. Mr. Rubinstein then proceeded with the formal introduction of the master of ceremonies, Dr. Eric Lander, Founding Director of the Broad Institute and member of the Blavatnik Awards Scientific Advisory Council.

The three National Laureates: Dr. Rachel Wilson, Dr. Marin Soljačić, and Dr. Adam Cohen were introduced during the evening by Dr. Cornelia Bargmann, Dr. Robbert Dijkgraaf, and Nobel Prize Laureate, Dr. Martin Chalfie, respectively. Each Laureate received a gold-plated custom medal from Len Blavatnik and followed with a presentation about their award-winning work.

“I am extremely happy with the success of the Blavatnik Awards for Young Scientists. We have created the support system and the selection process to recognize the best and brightest. My hope is that the awards and the Blavatnik National Laureates will make a huge impact on our society and the life of everyone in the 21st century,” said Len Blavatnik, Founder and Chairman of Access Industries and head of the Blavatnik Family Foundation.

The audience was also treated to two surprise announcements: the new Soljačić Prize for Gifted Croatian Children, established with a donation of prize money from Physical Sciences & Engineering Laureate Dr. Marin Soljačić; and a donation of prize money from Chemistry Laureate Adam Cohen to his alma mater Hunter College High School to support math and science activities.

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 Drs. Ron Breslow, Ruslan Medzhitov, and Marc Tessier-Lavigne. Other notable guests included Edgar Bronfman Jr.; Stephen Cooper, CEO of Warner Music Group; Dr. Joseph Goldstein, Nobel Prize Laureate; Ron Prosor, Israel’s Permanent Representative to the United Nations; Dr. Bruce Stillman, President and CEO of Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory; Dr. Craig Thompson, President of Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center; Dr. Jan Vilcek, Founder and President of the Vilcek Foundation, and Jeff Zucker, President of CNN.

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

Inside the American Museum of Natural History

The Critical Role of Democracy in Advancing Science

A cover shot of the publication Annals of The New York Academy of Sciences.

A look at the history and future of two groundbreaking bastions of knowledge dissemination.

Published August 1, 2014

By Gina Masullo

The cover for the September 1823 issue of Annals of the Lyceum of Natural History of New-York.

In an industry with more than 28,000 academic journals, to say that interested audiences have abundant choices for how they consume scientific information would be a gross understatement. But that wasn’t always the case. When the first issue of Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences (Annals) was published in 1823, it was one of only a handful of scientific journals, most of them unsuccessful, and it had around 100 subscribers—a number that remained stagnant for several years.

Though the interdisciplinary peer-review journal had an inauspicious start, its debut publication sparked a rich tradition of excellence and innovation in scientific publishing. Annals evolved from a resource for local scientific elites into a much respected and cited journal that’s read the world over, one of the longest continuously published scientific serials in the United States and a powerful symbol of the democratization of cutting-edge scientific information. Today, the Academy’s flagship publication, Annals has published more than 1,300 volumes over 191 years.

As the Academy began researching a variety of topics in greater detail during its first decades, its popularity grew; and, by association, so did interest in Annals. Sales of the journal quadrupled in 1939, the same year Eunice Miner was appointed executive secretary of the Academy. Miner passionately expanded the number of Academy memberships and hosted events; accordingly, Annals’ distribution increased exponentially.

By the 1960s, the Academy was sponsoring several dozen conferences a year, and distributing Annals to an audience of about 40,000. Each issue informed readers about the Academy’s conference proceedings, on topics increasingly varied and newsworthy—and a look back through its pages is a window into the challenges the scientific community has faced and overcome throughout history.

The First Large Scientific Assembly on Antibiotics

In 1946, for instance, the Academy hosted the first large scientific assembly on antibiotics, with a particular focus on combating tuberculosis. Margaret Mead published several Annals papers during her time as vice president at The New York Academy of Sciences in the 1970s; other notable contributors over the years have included Paul Ekman, Franz Boas, Edmund B. Wilson, Joshua Lederberg, and Ralph Steinman.

The Academy’s Puerto Rico survey, initiated in the early 20th century, attracted perhaps the most attention of all. Co-founder of the New York Botanical Garden (and Academy member) Nathaniel Lord Britton initiated a four-year study of the island’s geology, botany, and zoology. Starting in 1914 and including research from scientists in various sectors, the survey was the first and most comprehensive of its kind.

Reports from the island, published in Annals as well as the Journal of the New York Botanical Garden and the Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History, were so well received that the project quickly grew in size, scope, and financial backing. By the summer of 1916, 23 research groups had visited the island to examine areas including entomology, mycology, anthropology, and paleontology. The groundbreaking project ultimately expanded to the Virgin Islands, incorporated research from an international community of scientists, and lasted more than 25 years, culminating in the publication of the multi-volume Scientific Survey of Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands.

Expanding Scope & Reach

Annals has documented a large proportion of the conferences held by The New York Academy of Sciences, and, since 1981, it has covered news and discoveries from unaffiliated scientific conferences as well. With the expansion of technology and excitement for attention-grabbing efforts such as space exploration, interest in the Academy and its flagship publication continued to grow.

So, too, did the journal’s scope and reach. Annals is now available in 4,505 institutions worldwide via a partnership with the Wiley Online Library of licensed subscriptions, and in thousands of institutions in the developing world via philanthropic initiatives. During the last year (June 2013 – June 2014), Annals was the fifth-most accessed journal among Wiley’s 2,304 journals, where it received 2,283,137 visits. Google Scholar ranks the journal number 10 on its list of top health and medical science publications, in the company of esteemed publications like The New England Journal of Medicine and The Lancet.

Douglas Braaten, PhD, editor-in-chief of Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences and executive director of science publications, explains the journal’s continued relevance this way: “One of the most unique things about Annals is the ability to produce individually themed issues. We can essentially design what we publish; currently, that’s 28 individual projects per year, on varying topics—so readers really get both scope and depth into the topics.

“We also produce volumes stemming from conferences, which is one of the reasons Annals continues to be unique; we will commission papers from the invited speakers in a field from an international conference. The resulting collection of papers provides a state-of-the-art view of a topic for people who weren’t in the room. We have over a 100-year history of providing conference proceedings, the aim of which is to democratize scientific information.”

A Stellar Reputation

Also important to the publication’s stellar reputation is “a high-quality, peer-review process” and “traditional journal standards and ethics.”

Alongside its stalwart ethics, the Academy’s commitment to innovation ensures Annals’ growing influence and credibility. Within the last decade, annual reviews of specific scientific topics have become a staple of the publication.

George Uhl, PhD, chief of the Molecular Neurobiology Research Branch at the National Institute on Drug Abuse, serves as editor of the Annals series Addiction Reviews. “I don’t think there is anything like it in addiction, and I serve on several publication committees in this area,” he says. “The effort with Addiction Reviews is to try to review things that are getting to the point of being interesting rather than things that are already acknowledged by everyone as interesting, and I think that has helped the impact factor”—a statistic that calculates the average number of outside citations per article—which for this series is an impressive 13, compared to similar publications’ typical scores of two or three.

Other annual review topics include The Year in Cognitive Neuroscience, edited by Michael Miller, PhD, professor and vice chair of psychological and brain sciences at UC Santa Barbara, and Alan Kingstone, PhD, distinguished university scholar and professor of psychology at the University of British Columbia.

“Starting up an annual review in cognitive neuroscience was such an obviously brilliant idea,” explains Kingstone. “The field was nearly 20 years old, and there was a real need to provide those in cognitive neuroscience with a place to pull together key ideas on an annual basis.”

The Value of Themed Volumes

He continues, “The value of the themed volumes is evident in the impact that it has had on the field since its initial publication in 2008. As of last year, the reviews contributed to The Year in Cognitive Neuroscience have averaged 38 citations. The very first article in the 2008 edition, “The brain’s default network,” has been cited over 2,500 times. This impact rivals some of the most highly regarded journals, and demonstrates the high value the field places on these review articles to keep researchers up to date on a quickly evolving field.”

The Academy remains committed to quality of research, as well as innovation in information delivery. The number of methods the Academy uses to communicate research and ideas to the scientific community and beyond continues to grow. The 191 year-old journal has evolved from a print-only publication to a robust collection of interactive multimedia tools. Thanks to its partnership with Wiley, Academy members and institutions with Annals benefits can access every volume ever published via the Academy website; they can even read archives via a free mobile app.

eBriefings: Multimedia Science Reports

Further illustrating its commitment to bringing comprehensive, cutting-edge scientific information to a truly global audience, in 2003 the Academy introduced eBriefings: interactive, userfriendly web resources that increase the longevity and impact of Academy events. Conceived in the wake of the Academy’s interdisciplinary SARS conference, eBriefings are now a standard offering, providing the benefits of Academy events and conferences to those who are unable to attend in person.

The multimedia presentations include meeting summaries written by science writers and scientists, a selection of speakers’ slides and audio, and links to related information. Over the last decade, eBriefings have been cited by news outlets including The Wall Street Journal, US News & World Report, and Med News Today. They receive around 10,000 unique page views each month; in the last fiscal year, the presentations were accessed from more than 140 countries.

Explains Brooke Grindlinger, PhD, executive director of scientific programs at the Academy: “eBriefings offer everyone within the global scientific community access to today’s cutting-edge knowledge conveyed by world-renowned leaders in almost every discipline in science and technology. It’s your science, on your schedule, sowing the seeds for your next big idea.”

The Academy produces approximately 60 eBriefings each year; recent topics have run the gamut from Alzheimer’s disease to the use of “big data.” The online resources are presented in partnership with a global network of partners, including The Global HIV Vaccine Enterprise, The Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, The National Institutes of Health, and The U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

Expanding Interest in Emerging Topics

Jeanne Garbarino, PhD, director of science outreach at Rockefeller University, led an Academy panel in September 2013 titled “Crowdfunding: An Emerging Funding Mechanism for Science Research.” She explains that the eBriefing helped expand interest and research in this emerging topic: “It allowed me to connect with others who are interested in this topic, and also provided an opportunity to discuss more ways in which crowdfunding could be applied to scientific research.”

Garbarino adds, “Given the disproportionate distribution of scientific and educational resources in our nation, providing free access to high quality materials is always a good thing.”

This egalitarian approach to the dissemination of scientific knowledge is quite fitting in the context of the Academy’s history. As early as 1903, audiences filled the lecture hall at the American Museum of Natural History to hear Academy presentations on topics such as the Mount Pelée volcano on Martinique or the physical and economic aspects of Mexico. These presentations were particularly appealing because they incorporated cutting-edge technology of the time—lantern slides and stereopticon—that helped bring scientists’ invaluable research to life.

Hints Braaten, the editor of Annals: “A new contract with Wiley is reinvigorating Academy publishing and opening new avenues, such as Academy book publishing.” And as the technology and science fields continue to evolve, you can be sure that the Academy’s approach to disseminating vital information will, too, ensure that scientists and non-scientists alike will have access to globe-changing ideas and evidence for generations to come.

About the Author

Gina Masullo is a journalist in New York City.

40 Years of Advancing Science for the Public Good

A cover shot of the publication The Sciences.

The Sciences, published by the Academy for 40 years, became one of the most honored science magazines in America. The contents of the entire run of issues are now available for members to enjoy online.

Published August 1, 2014

By Peter G. Brown

In 1961, the year The Sciences was born, the Russian cosmonaut Yuri Gagarin became the first man launched into space. Roger Maris hit 61 home runs, breaking Babe Ruth’s record. Catch 22 was published. JFK and Nikita Khrushchev were in office, and one night in August the Berlin Wall was put up.

1961 was a banner year in science, too. Sydney Brenner and Francis Crick showed that the code for making the building blocks of any protein is a series of three consecutive DNA base pairs. Murray Gell-Mann and Yuval Ne’eman developed a scheme they called the eightfold way (later reformulated as the quark model) for classifying “elementary” particles. Louis and Mary Leakey discovered Homo habilis in Tanzania’s Olduvai Gorge.

In those early days, The Sciences was a modest undertaking. The first issues amounted to little more than pamphlets, four sheets of letter-size paper folded once and stapled along the spine. But The New York Academy of Sciences nurtured the project through its fledgling years, and soon major scientists realized they could communicate with the public as well as their peers by contributing to its pages. The magazine gained a reputation as a small voice of reason and authority in the world of science writing for the general public.

Early Days

My initial contact with The Sciences was a fairly typical first encounter. In 1980, fresh out of grad school, I landed in New York, where I decided to “become a science journalist.” I contacted every science magazine I could think of about “writing something.” Susan Hassler of The Sciences was the only editor kind enough to respond to my naïveté, and she took the chance of assigning me to do a brief story for the magazine’s news section. After some editorial back-and-forth, my piece was published, unsigned, but in a form still recognizable to its author. I was on my way.

Like most magazines, The Sciences developed its own “stable” of scientist-authors, artists, freelance journalists, and, of course, staff writers such as Jonathan Weiner and Robert Wright who made regular or semi-regular appearances. Among the “outsiders” (i.e., nonstaff), the most important were designated “contributing editors”—a list that included the cartoonist Roz Chast, Stephen Jay Gould, Brian Hayes, Horace Freeland Judson, Laurence Marschall, Ashley Montagu, and Hans Christian von Baeyer. Artists were drawn from every style, every era, and every culture, but favorites, at least in my day, included those who might be described as neo-surrealists, such as Fanny Brennan, Alfredo Castañeda, Odd Nerdrum, Mark Tansey, and Kit Williams.

The magazine, through the Academy, also attracted its share of noteworthy scientist-authors, among them the Nobel laureates Hans Bethe, Francis Crick, Christian de Duve, John C. Eccles, Roald Hoffmann, Leon Lederman, Peter Medawar, Norman Ramsey, Andrei Sakharov, Richard E. Smalley, and Frank Wilczek, along with such luminaries as Enrico Bombieri, Freeman Dyson, Sir Fred Hoyle, Alan Lightman, Lynn Margulis, Heinz Pagels, Oliver Sacks, Albert Sabin, Robert Sapolsky, and Edmund O. Wilson.

Assembling Eminent Scientists

Perhaps the most amazing assembly of eminent scientists associated with The Sciences gathered in fall 1996 at the Academy for a celebration of the magazine’s 35th anniversary. They included von Baeyer, the biologist and Nobel laureate Günter Blobel, the biologist Tom Eisner, the chemist and Nobel laureate Dudley Herschbach, Margulis, and the physicist/mathematician (and Fields medalist) Edward Witten. We invited these and 20 other leading scientists to list the three most important achievements of the preceding 35 years, the three advances they most expected in the next 35 years—and at least one example of their discipline’s worst mistakes.

Some responses were serious, some not so much. But what we had not expected—and what made the lists so readable—was the playful approach and sparkling wit from some of the world’s smartest people, having a very good time. You can read their responses in “A Billion Seconds of The Sciences” (November/December 1996).

The Sciences staff celebrates a National Magazine Award. Front Row, Left to Right: Emily Laber, Peter Brown, Elizabeth Meryman. Back Row, Left to Right: Levin Santos, Jeffrey Winters, Mary Beth Aberlin. Photo taken May 2000.

Amidst all the scientific royalty, the one feature for which The Sciences was perhaps best known was its use of fine art. Successful offspring have many fathers, and several former chief editors have claimed major roles in inventing or advancing what became the most brilliant design decision of the magazine’s history. In truth, though, fine art was introduced primarily to save money, not to enhance design. Commissioning original oil paintings or airbrush illustrations, as commercial magazines of the day were doing, was out of the question. Even original photography was quite expensive if it was any good. Rental fees for reproductions of paintings and sculpture, however, were quite reasonable.

Art in The Sciences

Reproductions of fine art were appearing in The Sciences by August 1966, under Samuel Burger, the first chief editor of record. Burger’s successor, Peter D. Albertson (editor, 1966–1968), introduced more sophisticated layouts, which he continued decorating with art. Subsequent editors gave an increasingly prominent role to art, until Paul T. Libassi (editor, 1981–1989)—who once held the title Fine Arts Consultant—insisted that all images come from the arts. (Even Libassi, however, found, on rare occasions, that he had to admit a diagram.) The role of art had morphed into a signature feature, chosen to complement the scientific articles rather than simply to illustrate them.

Sometimes the interplay of science and art is straightforward yet striking, as in Rembrandt’s self-portraits from young artist to old man that accompany an article on aging in 1991 (“On Growing Old,” by Robert M. Sapolsky and Caleb E. Finch, March/April 1991). More often, though, placing artwork next to scientific text adds depth and reveals interpretive possibilities that neither the art nor the science could do alone.

The abstract patterns woven into textiles by “Anonymous,” which complement a 1996 article on the origins of the Internet (“Casting the Net,” by Katie Hafner and Matthew Lyon, September/October 1996), or Yves Tanguy’s paintings mashed up with an article on prime numbers,(“Prime Territory,” by Enrico Bombieri, September/October 1992), are two good examples of a synthesis greater than its parts.

Battle for the Bottom Line

But art, introduced as an economy, was beginning to have a substantial indirect impact on cost. Paper quality had been enhanced almost monotonically since the earliest days of The Sciences, until, by the Libassi era, the presses were running Cadillac-quality “body stock.” The paper was a fine, bright, opaque and glossy sheet, the best possible medium for reproducing art. But fine paper is costly, and it weighs more per sheet than lesser stock, which drove up postage and shipping costs as well. By the time I became editor, in late 1989, these high production values, coupled with a “book size” (the page count per issue) pushing 80, were raising red flags for the Academy’s management.

As things turned out, it was quite possible to produce a high-quality magazine with fewer pages and less luxurious materials. After a series of cuts, the issues settled in at around 48 pages each. A blue-ribbon panel of top editors and publishers, including Jacqueline Leo (at the time, the group editorial director for women’s magazines of The New York Times), the late Charles Ramond (a financial whiz with a background in advertising research), and Dick Stolley (a Time-Life wunderkind who was the founding editor of People Weekly magazine), managed to stabilize matters for several years.

But the eventual demise of the magazine never seemed in doubt. Things came to a head in early 2001, when Academy CEO Rodney W. Nichols, ever skeptical about the membership value of the magazine, cut the frequency from bimonthly to quarterly. In the end, as we now know, that lasted one issue. After nearly 40 years of publishing, the Spring 2001 issue of The Sciences rolled off the presses—with a cover story on climate change intentionally titled to convey a double meaning: “Climate of Doubt.”

There would be no summer.

More Info about The Sciences

The success of The Sciences in garnering the most prestigious awards in magazine journalism was so out of proportion to its size or budget that a year without winning or placing among the top five finalists at the National Magazine Awards was the rare exception. In the period 1985–2000 the magazine was either a finalist or a winner in the category “General Excellence (under 100,000 circulation)” in every year except 1992, 1994 and 1997. At the time of its closure in 2001, its lifetime record of seven wins put it in a four-way tie (with Business Week, Outside, and Sports Illustrated) for 11th place among all U.S. magazines

Access to ‘The Sciences’ archive is just one perk of being an Academy member. Not a member? Sign up today.

About the Author

Peter G. Brown was the editor of The Sciences from 1989 until its closure in 2001.

The Caped Crusader for Better Mental Health Outcomes

An illustration of a superhero overlooking a city skyline as his cape blows in the wind.

Andrea Letamendi, PhD, discusses the value of addressing mental health issues through the lens of beloved fictional narratives.

Published July 24, 2014

By Diana Friedman

Image courtesy of rudall30 via stock.adobe.com.

In honor of Batman’s 75^th anniversary, DC Entertainment declared July 23 Batman Day. What does this have to do with science? More than you might expect, with a little imagination. For psychologist Andrea Letamendi, PhD, the Batman world, with its roster of criminally insane villains, is a fictional window onto very real issues. Her podcast series, The Arkham Sessions (named for the asylum where Batman’s enemies usually wind up after the hero thwarts their plots) analyzes characters and interactions from Batman: The Animated Series to explore subjects such as coping with trauma, mental disorders, patient treatment, and stigmatization of people with mental illnesses.

According to National Library of Medicine historian Dr. Michael Sappol, “It’s a powerful technology for forming public opinion. It [doesn’t] just reason with the audience, it recruit[s] the audience’s emotions.” Dr. Letamendi leverages a balance between that emotional resonance and the relative security of fiction to engage her audience in consideration of challenging themes. “It’s a way to educate people about psychological science and address important topics in a way that feels safe—less threatening or less personal,” she says. “At the same time, many people feel very connected to these fictional narratives and the stories actually help us to tune in.”

Dr. Letamendi spoke with The New York Academy of Sciences (the Academy) from Comic-Con in San Diego about superheroes and psychology.

Why apply psychological analysis to fictional characters?

As a psychologist, I’m invested in broadening public knowledge about the psychological sciences. I find that one way I can do that is to speak to my passion and the passion of many others: comic books, science fiction, and fantasy. I’ve had wonderful opportunities to speak at universities and at Comic-Con and other cultural conventions to utilize these narratives that people can really relate to—the stories, heroes, and villains that people already know—to examine important health issues. It’s fun but it’s also an educational advantage.

Are there useful parallels between cartoon characters and real people?

Yes! For example, my first experience speaking on a panel was talking about how comic book heroes are actually really similar to real life heroes, specifically soldiers who have experienced combat-related trauma. I used to practice at a veterans hospital and have a lot of experience working with soldiers and veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan with physical and psychological injuries.

The panel was a chance to talk openly about the impact of recent wars on the people who fight in them, and how the field of psychology is struggling with how to meet the needs of the men and women coming back from those conflicts. It’s a really serious topic, but we can draw upon these fictional narratives that simulate and evoke real tensions and interests in a way that feels safe and remains relatable.

How does your series, named for the Arkham Asylum for the Criminally Insane, avoid associations between mental illness and criminal behavior?

It’s really important to us to always make that distinction. When we started the show we knew we’d be examining the psychology of a lot of villains, but we’re not just trying to come up with labels or diagnoses for them. Every episode of the Batman series has a lot of psychological elements to it. We end up talking about such a wide range of subjects—memory loss, substance abuse, anxiety, family issues, patient care and hospitalization, childhood trauma.

We speak about these issues in a way that deliberately doesn’t stigmatize, but rather helps to normalize these experiences. The result is that we’re very inclusive in a way that let’s everyone relate. We include Batman in our analyses, not just villains, and he’s a character with a lot of issues as well. My hope is that it combats the idea that people with mental health problems are villains or criminals.

Do you have a favorite character?

I like the villains who are overlooked because they’re just seen as being big and burly, like Killer Croc or Clayface. They’re like onions. When you unravel them you realize there’s a deep psychological history and trajectory there that got them to where they are [by the time you meet them in the series].

Are there lessons from Gotham City that might apply to real cities’ policies on mental health care?

There are real barriers to appropriate, evidence-based care. In big cities with diverse populations, we deal with issues of underserved populations that don’t have access to care. There are groups of people with structural and psychosocial barriers to getting care. Sometimes we struggle to provide care that’s culturally or linguistically appropriate. We need to think about all of these psychosocial elements to ensure that people have opportunities to heal.

Any parting thoughts?

It is Comic-Con week! If you’re coming, please keep in mind that you can put together a curriculum of educational panels on really interesting topics like psychology, underrepresentation, and gender equality. Comic-Con is fun and a celebration of superheroes, but it’s also an opportunity for education and to demystify and reduce some of the myth around science.

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

The Inaugural Blavatnik Science Symposium

Attendees listen to a lecture during an academy event.

In the eight years since its launch, the Blavatnik Awards for Young Scientists has built an exceptional collection of past and current honorees, who together represent one of the most dynamic, innovative, cross-disciplinary networks in the world – the Blavatnik Science Scholars Community.

Published July 9, 2014

By Diana Friedman

In response to Blavatnik Awards honorees interested in meeting and interacting with each other, and to showcase the high caliber of research of the Community members, the Blavatnik Family Foundation and The New York Academy of Sciences hosted the first annual Blavatnik Science Symposium to encourage networking, exchanging of ideas, and potential collaborations.

The inaugural event began with a dinner on July 8^th featuring keynote speaker Dr. Marcia McNutt and was followed by a full day of presentations on July 9^th. The Symposium gathered nearly 50 members of the Blavatnik Regional Awards alumni and this year’s National Finalists. The event was attended by Len Blavatnik and other representatives of the Blavatnik Family Foundation, scientific luminaries, and representatives of the press.

Below are some of the comments from the Blavatnik Science Scholars who attended the event:

“It was inspirational to learn about the breakthroughs undergoing in leading labs around the US spanning physics, chemistry biology and medicine, going from malaria to black holes, from novel technologies in energy storage and microscopes in a cell phone, to the secret codes in the cell.”
—Antonio Giraldez, 2007 Blavatnik Regional Award Finalist, Professor of Genetics at Yale University.

“As a young scientist, we are often too busy trying to ‘survive’ the academic life to be able to meet and discuss science with other young scientists from different fields. In fact, such cross-fertilization of disciplines is where major discoveries are made. The event has enabled me to discuss new collaborative projects with other attendees, which will generate new directions of research.”
—Ali Khademhosseini, 2014 Blavatnik National Award Finalist, Associate Professor at the Harvard-MIT Division of Health Sciences & Technology, Harvard University.

“The event was an inspiring display of scientific talent exploring some of the most important questions in the natural sciences, and a very unique opportunity to interact with peers, colleagues at the Academy, and the Blavatnik team.”
—Sarkis Mazmanian, 2014 Blavatnik National Award Finalist, Professor of Microbiology at the California Institute of Technology

“Arriving at this stage of my scientific career, travel days to attend scientific conferences are a precious commodity, which are mostly spent interacting with colleagues in my own field, or even sub-field. I would never get an opportunity to spend a whole day listening to amazing talks on topics as diverse as black holes, DNA bricks and origami, materials science that is pushing limits of technology, and new frontiers of biomedicine. Being at the science symposium and interacting with colleagues I would otherwise never interact with, was like being a young science geek all over again, which is why I got into this business in the first place. I feel recharged.”
—Harmit Malik, 2014 Blavatnik National Award Finalist, Member, Basic Sciences, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center.

“This unique Symposium brought together an incredible constellation of top young scientists with expertise ranging from black holes to human genome. Before the meeting started, the only connection between the participants was the Blavatnik Awards. By the end of the Symposium one couldn’t help but feel to be a part of a scientific family. For me personally, it was a humbling experience to be surrounded by so much talent.”
—Ruslan Medzhitov, 2007 Blavatnik Regional Award Winner, Professor of Immunobiology at Yale University

“The symposium was inspiring in terms of the depth and breadth of the presentations as well as the focus on young scientists. I was thrilled and humbled to be among such a distinguished crowd of researchers and scientists.”
—Aydogan Ozcan, 2014 Blavatnik National Award Finalist, Chancellor’s Professor in the Electrical Engineering Department & Bioengineering Department at the University of California, Los Angeles.

“I attended the Symposium to meet the Blavatnik Awards finalists and to learn about the new developments in life sciences – a field which is outside of my general research area. The reason for my interest as a physicist and mathematician in life sciences is that having progress in certain problems in this field may require combining scientific knowledge from various disciplines such as quantum mechanics, chemistry, mathematics, and biology. The symposium was most valuable because, besides the fact that all presenters were selected among most talented researchers in the field, the requirement for all was to present their results in a way that is understandable for scientists working outside of their normal domain. This goal was fully achieved.”
—Alexander Pechen, 2009 Blavatnik Regional Award Winner, Academic Secretary and Leading Researcher at Steklov Mathematical Institute of Russian Academy of Sciences.

“It was very stimulating to see so many creative and accomplished young scientists from so many different disciplines!”
—Michael Rape, 2014 Blavatnik National Award Finalist, Professor of Cell and Developmental Biology at the University of California, Berkeley.

“The Blavatnik Symposium was one of the most intellectually stimulating gatherings I have attended in some time. It was amazing fertile ground for the cross pollination of ideas. I really enjoyed it.”
—Michael Strano, 2014 Blavatnik National Award Finalist, Professor of Chemical Engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

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

A Science State of Mind in the Empire State

An introduction to New York’s newest role: that of an undisputed scientific powerhouse.

Published June 1, 2014

By Sharon Begley

Image courtesy of ecst22 via stock.adobe.com.

Come, New York has long beckoned: come achieve your dreams and create what has never existed before—come build America’s first department store and largest stock exchange, her first pizzeria and first public brewery. Come make New York City the nation’s capital of finance and media and fashion, and come invent the inventions that change the way we live (air conditioning, toilet paper), the way we remember (photographic film), and the way we sing (folk rock).

Immerse yourself in neighborhoods filled with other artists and writers and thinkers who will nurture and challenge your ideas, producing the critical mass that will enable you to achieve what you cannot in isolation. Change the way an entire nation thinks, as when the abolition movement put down roots in Rochester in the mid-1800s.

Even as New York City and State have called the world’s doers and dreamers to their shores for centuries, scientists became almost an afterthought by the mid-20th century. Yes, Nikola Tesla did pioneering experiments on alternating current in lower Manhattan during the Golden Era for New York science in the late 19th century; biologists at The Rockefeller University discovered in the 1940s that DNA is the molecule of heredity; and physicists using particle accelerators at Brookhaven National Lab on Long Island in the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s discovered some of the basic building blocks of the universe and the magical rules that govern them.

But by the post-war era, science and technology had become less central to the life, commerce, and the very identity of New York than the rising commercial behemoths of advertising, finance, law, and business.

Exulting in a Science Renaissance

Now, New York is exulting in a science renaissance. You can measure it in glass and steel, like the $350 million Advanced Science Research Center that The City University of New York is building on St. Nicholas Park in Upper Manhattan and which, when it is completed next year, will house scientists whose work will be driven by a revolutionary new way of organizing research. You can measure it in bold new collaborations, such as the New York Structural Biology Center in Harlem or the $50 million New York Genome Center in SoHo, both of which attract researchers from around the country and around the world.

You can measure it in the ways that long-established institutions are expanding their research footprint: in West Harlem, Columbia University is building an entirely new campus, allowing it to increase the size of its engineering faculty by 50%. “Never before in our city’s history has there been…so much scientific investment,” said then-Mayor Michael Bloomberg in his 2013 State of the City address.

And you can measure it in the ways that New York is hanging up “Science Wanted” signs, such as its offer of land on Roosevelt Island and up to $100 million to induce world-class institutions to build a state-of-the-art applied sciences and engineering campus. Welcome, Cornell Tech, a collaboration between the Ithaca, NY, university and Technion-Israel Institute of Technology, which has been hailed as “the most exciting economic development project our city has ever undertaken.”

“[R]eclaiming our title as the world’s capital of technological innovation.”

Only a decade ago, New York, the city as well as the state, were behind other regions with relatively well-educated populations and leading universities in attracting scientists and research funding. That began to change when Bloomberg vowed that the city would rise from the ashes of the 9/11 attacks with a more diversified economy, one in which science would take its rightful place alongside other creative, forward-looking fields. The city’s “ultimate goal,” Bloomberg said in a 2009 speech, is “reclaiming our title as the world’s capital of technological innovation.”

Just as Wall Streeters and Mad Men, as well as denizens of the diamond and garment districts, draw much of their energy and hone their competitive instincts from sheer proximity to one another in the neighborhoods where they cluster, so too have scientists formed a critical mass in New York, both upstate and downstate.

New York City is home to more students than any other city in the country. Attracted by the city’s dynamism and culture, to say nothing of the access to capital, ideas, and the growing presence of others like them, young people are streaming into New York to study, to invent, and to start technology companies; welcome, Silicon Alley. For sheer creative and intellectual energy, Paris in the 1920s has nothing on New York City in the 2010s.

In Upper Manhattan, CUNY’s Advanced Science Research Center will be welcomed to the neighborhood by the five-year old CUNY Energy Institute, the new CUNY Hub for Innovation and Entrepreneurship, and a new City College science building. A subway ride away is Columbia University’s new Mortimer B. Zuckerman Mind Brain Behavior Institute.

Spawning Science Startups

Continue downtown to the three-year-old Alexandria Center for Life Science on the East River, which has already drawn such tenants as Kadmon Pharmaceuticals, ImClone Systems, and Pfizer’s Centers for Therapeutic Innovation, and has spawned dozens of life sciences startups. With NYU Langone School of Medicine and Bellevue Hospital close by, Midtown East is as dense with biologists and physicianscientists as 6th Avenue in the 20s is with wholesale florists.

Global organizations that could have chosen headquarters in Beijing, Boston, Baltimore, or anyplace else with an abundance of science talent are lately choosing New York, including The Global Alliance for TB (tuberculosis) Drug Development and the International AIDS Vaccine Initiative’s (IAVI) AIDS Vaccine Design and Development Lab. Both leverage New York City’s status as the crossroads of the world—and the international hub of finance and communications—to carry out their ambitious missions.

New arrivals have long brought new energy and new ideas to the city, starting well before a soaring copper-and-wrought-iron lady with a torch welcomed them in its harbor. The scientific groups putting down stakes today are doing the same, igniting a research renaissance that is rejuvenating well-established institutions. The Rockefeller University, established in 1901, recently launched a Center for Genomic Medicine—which is barely two years old. And Mount Sinai Medical Center, whose roots go back to the 1850s, expanded its clinical and research space by nearly 30% last year with the completion of the Hess Center for Science and Medicine, which promotes a trans-disciplinary approach to patient-centered care.

A State-Wide Effort

The research renaissance doesn’t peter out once you leave the five boroughs. New York State, spurred in part by the need to replace lost manufacturing jobs, is making its own big bets on science and technology, and drawing national support. A dozen years after its founding in 2001, the College of Nanoscale Science and Engineering (CNSE) of the State University of New York (SUNY) has attracted more than 3,100 scientists, engineers, students, and faculty to its world-class labs, drawing researchers from IBM, Intel, Samsung, Toshiba, and many others.

Albany has not only CNSE but, as of 2010, The RNA Institute, also part of SUNY, which in turn taps the expertise of faculty at the University at Albany School of Business to develop and commercialize new biotechnology in the Capital Region. On Long Island, the Advanced Energy Research and Technology Center is leveraging $45 million from the state to bring together 14 universities, Brookhaven National Laboratory, and telecom companies—among others—to accelerate and commercialize research on solar and wind energy, fuel cells, and the efficiency and security of the electric grid.

A Scientific Powerhouse

In a collaboration that fuses upstate with downstate and medicine with engineering, the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai Medical Center in Manhattan and Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI) in Troy signed an agreement last May to build on the institutions’ respective strengths—Mount Sinai’s in biomedical research and patient care, and RPI’s in engineering and invention prototyping.

It’s clear from just a quick dive that New York has indeed reclaimed its place as a scientific powerhouse. These scientific institutions are truly astounding—and will no doubt have implications far beyond the local area.

Also read: A Region on the Verge of Discovery

About the Author

Sharon Begley is a science journalist and author in New York.

Live from New York, It’s Einstein a Go Go

A hand adjusts a knob on an audio mixing board.

Presenting science updates on Australian public radio helps to bridge the gap between continents, and spark scientific interest among people half a world away.

Published June 1, 2014

By Jennifer Henry

I am passionate about communicating science, basically to anyone who is interested. Every two months I do a call-in radio segment on a weekly science program called “Einstein A Go Go,” on public radio station 3RRR-FM in Melbourne, Australia (which happens to be my home country).

The station is not unlike The New York Academy of Sciences (the Academy)—it is a membership-based, not-for-profit organization that is supported by community sponsors and 12,000 subscribers. “Einstein A Go Go,” which airs on Sunday mornings (Melbourne time) is headed up by Dr. Shane Huntington. Huntington has a background in physics, with a specialty in photonics and imaging. The five or so other panelists on the show are equally accomplished scientists and science communicators, holding PhDs in areas spanning infectious diseases, chemistry, engineering, and quantum mechanics. The show’s aim is to discuss science and science-related issues in a friendly and accessible manner.

My brief is to cover “What’s Hot in New York Science.” I have covered such diverse topics as:

the fascinating ginkgo fruit, including ginkgo recipes;
the work of the Office of the Chief Medical examiner, particularly their analysis of the biological samples at Ground Zero;
the arrival of the once-every-17-years periodical cicada;
scientific highlights from Obama’s 2nd inauguration speech;
how Hurricane Sandy hit various research labs in NYC; and
changing pitches and frequencies in NYC’s emergency response sirens.

Preparation Is Key

When I am preparing for a show, I spend about two months looking at research breakthroughs, current affairs, or interesting presentations that I have heard at the Academy—basically seeking anything that catches my attention through the eyes of a science-interested citizen. This process starts the minute I’m off the call from the previous show. I spend a few hours researching the topic and preparing a few pages of notes, at which point I usually find I have way too much information for a 10-minute segment, then spend a while distilling it down into a page or two of bullet points.

Once show time rolls around, I tune in via streaming radio and listen to the first half hour of the show so I can be sure not to repeat any material already discussed, including breaking news stories that the other panelists may have seen in Science or Nature that week. Due to the fact that we are multiple time zones apart, the show goes to air at 11am on Sunday morning (east coast Australia time), which is either 7pm or 9pm on Saturday night in New York (depending on daylight savings).

I therefore also need to get “in tune” with the Sunday morning vibe of the show and be cognizant of any major events that took place the night before in Melbourne, such as the aftermath of a federal election, cuts to Australian science budgets, or a football grand final (equivalent to the Superbowl). If Huntington’s team (Essendon) and mine (Collingwood) have recently played each other, a few jokes usually fly…

Live from New York…

With the words “…and after the break, we will be joined by Dr. Jennifer Henry, live from New York…,” they cut to a track, and I call in via Skype. Huntington picks up my call, we have a quick chat to test the sound quality, and he puts me on hold until the track finishes. He then says “…and joining us now on the phone from New York, we have Dr. Jennifer Henry, director of Life Sciences at the New York Academy of Sciences. What’s happening over there, Dr. Jennifer?”

And off I go. I try to make my segment as natural, chatty, and conversation-like as possible. I talk my way through the topic using my prepared bullet point notes to keep the facts straight. After a few minutes, the other panelists contribute their thoughts (which gives me the chance to catch my breath, and gives me guidance on what angles they, as representatives of the citizen-science community, find interesting about the topic). It can be rather like an exam, as the panelists throw in unexpected questions and I have to hope that my preparation was sufficiently broad to get me through this phase of the segment.

Answering the Right Questions

“How does the life span of the periodical cicada differ from those of the cicadas we see every summer in Australia?”

“How did the coroner’s office handle processing the remains of the terrorists alongside those of the victims?”

“Is there evidence that New Yorkers no longer take emergency response sirens seriously?”

This is where my notes come in handy—hopefully the panelists’ questions touch upon issues that I have researched. At times, however, I am caught by surprise if they ask an unexpected question or one from way out of left field. All I can do then is make an educated guess, or ask the panelists if they have an opinion (which they invariably do).

Advancing Science for the Public Good

We then wrap up the segment, vow to do it all again in two months, and I get off the call with a huge sigh of relief. I walk to the other end of the apartment, where my husband has usually been hiding out in the bedroom to give me some privacy on the call, and he says “How did it go?” My response is almost always “Fine…I think.” It takes at least half an hour to get over the ordeal.

So why do I subject myself to this grueling mini-exam every two months? Wouldn’t I rather spend my Saturday evening relaxing? Yes, it’s work, and it’s often difficult to find the free time to select and research a topic, but, like all things that require effort, the feeling of achievement when it’s all over makes it well worth it. I love the feeling of international science connectivity. Furthermore, I love that, even though my fellow panelists, the listeners, and I can all read the same material in Science or Nature, I can hopefully bring an extra, more personal dimension to the issues with an on-the-ground New York perspective.

I also love spreading the word about the Academy’s mission, and hope that this might propel listeners to visit our fabulous website, listen to our extensive range of eBriefings and podcasts, read our regularly-updated blog and archive of Annals, and possibly also become a member of our truly international network.

Opportunities for Inter-Generational STEM Engagement

Three people, dressed formally, pose together inside.

At today’s White House Science Fair, The New York Academy of Sciences pledges to positively impact the STEM education crisis through innovative, impactful, and inspiring programming.

Published May 27, 2014

By Diana Friedman

Attending the White House Science Fair, (left to right) Rocket21 CEO Mark Grayson, student Thompson Whiteley, and Academy Board Chair and SUNY Chancellor of Education Nancy Zimpher.

At the White House Science Fair on May 27, 2014, The New York Academy of Sciences (the Academy) pledged to positively impact the STEM education crisis through innovative programming that inspires students to see science as an exciting conduit to solve local and global challenges.

Today’s students are tomorrow’s workforce. Such a fact is not lost on the Academy, which today, along with its partners in The Global STEM Alliance, is tackling the science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) education crisis head on-by creating opportunities for inter-generational mentoring and engagement in STEM subjects.

By joining the White House in making a formal commitment to STEM education today, the day of the White House Science Fair, the Academy is joining with a group of like-minded organizations, and the federal government.

“It is essential that the nation’s classrooms, from the earliest stages of education through college, utilize technology and critical thinking as we strive to meet increasing demand for STEM graduates in today’s competitive, global economy,” says Nancy L. Zimpher, Academy board chair and State University of New York chancellor, who is attending today’s event. “We are thankful to have the support of the White House as the New York Academy of Sciences’ Global STEM Alliance continues to help educate and train a technologically-savvy, innovative workforce for the future.”

Why Target STEM?

President Obama addresses the audience at the White House Science Fair.

The world needs a workforce of skilled science and technology innovators to address the most pressing global challenges of the coming century-climate change, food shortages, increases in chronic diseases, energy shortages, and more. In the U.S. alone, it is estimated that by 2018, some 75% of occupations will be middle- or high-skilled, with the majority of these jobs requiring an education in STEM subjects. And yet, students are dropping out of STEM at alarming rates, in the U.S. and in countries the world over, from China to South Africa, due to lack of engagement.

How Will We Solve the Crisis?

Enter a new initiative: The Global STEM Alliance, launched by the New York Academy of Sciences and its partners. The Alliance is designed to connect students from around the world with each other and scientific role models, through a mix of site-based programs, a collaborative digital platform, and a social learning network.

The initiative will begin with students in the United States, Malaysia, Australia, and the City of Barcelona, with other countries and regions expected to join. Working with sophisticated Telepresence capabilities and additional tools from fellow founding partner Cisco, the virtual platform allows students to interact and discuss STEM with counterparts in other countries; participate in mentoring relationships with brilliant, young scientists; elect to participate in cutting-edge science courses, challenges, games, and other activities; learn about a day in the life of a scientist; and seek advice and network with science-minded peers for life.

Additional members of the Alliance include GALXYZ, a game-based intergalactic science adventure, and Rocket21, an online youth innovation platform, with more to come.

Connecting Science and Community Service

Academy Board Chair and SUNY Chancellor of Education Nancy Zimpher, Senior Advisor to the President of the United States Valerie Bowman Jarrett, and United States Secretary of Education Arne Duncan, at the White House Science Fair.

Rocket21’s Dream Green Innovation Winner, 14-year-old budding environmentalist Thompson Whiteley from Easton, Conn., is attending today’s White House Science Fair. Whiteley created a winning plan to capture and repurpose plastic from The Great Pacific Garbage Patch in the North Pacific.

“Students like Whiteley make clear the connection between engagement in STEM subjects and the ability to solve problems in local communities, and beyond. Such is the premise of the Academy and Rocket21’s Dream Big for the World initiative, which we are excited to launch with the Academy,” says Mark Grayson, CEO of Rocket21.

Dream Big for the World is a series of STEM challenges designed to immerse middle and high school students in the pressing global issues raised in the USAID Grand Challenges. Planned for launch during the 2014-2015 academic year, the challenges will invite students, working independently or in teams, to develop innovative solutions to their choice of Grand Challenges, with opportunities to connect virtually with content experts, as well as provide resources to teachers.

The ultimate goal: The Global STEM Alliance seeks to scale the experience of humanizing science and providing students with real-world STEM role models through technology. By connecting students with the best scientists and engineers, with each other, and with innovative curriculum and educational challenges, the Alliance will foster engagement, mitigate STEM drop-out, and create the next generation of STEM leaders and innovators.

Learn more about educational programming at the Academy.

The Mischievousness Early Life of a Nobel Laureate

Nobel laureate and Academy Chairman Emeritus Torsten Wiesel maps receptive field properties within the visual cortex, etching a singular vision for his own life.

Published December 1, 2013

By Marci A. Landsmann

When examining the life of a Nobel laureate, what generally emerge are clear bends in the path: chance situations, meetings, and discoveries that serve as critical signposts to lead an intellectual down the road to greatness. In the same way, our brain provides a complex circuitry of form and function—chemical processes not fully understood, yet acting precisely, as stoplights do, to spark a desired action at just the right time.

Torsten Wiesel’s own fascination with the inner workings of the brain led him to trace the pathways of how the mind “sees” and “perceives” the world. His research, exploring the role of receptive field properties of neurons in the visual cortex, earned him and colleague David Hubel the honor of the 1981 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine (an honor also shared with Roger W. Sperry, for independent research). Their research elucidated how light and patterns move from the retina and organize into neural columns within the cortex. They identified a neural hierarchy within the striate cortex, where images are processed. By blocking the vision of one eye in cats and then monkeys, these investigators also established how gaps in visual stimulation at a critical time period during infancy could lead to permanent and irreversible blindness.

When asked about his early influences, Wiesel points out the often serendipitous nature of life, much the same way a researcher might describe lab work: “It is difficult to say. You often move forward and try to find a way,” he says. “Afterwards, it seems logical what you did, but the process, while you are going through it, is actually much more complex.”

Following in His Father’s Footsteps

Wiesel, the youngest of five children, spent much of his childhood in Beckomberga Hospital, one of the largest psychiatric hospitals in Europe. His father, chief psychiatrist Fritz S. Wiesel, lived with his family on the campus of the large hospital, located on the outskirts of Stockholm, Sweden. While Wiesel went to a private school in Stockholm each day, he was also exposed, from an early age, to different types of people on the hospital campus. Wiesel describes himself as a mischievous child and teenager who was far more interested in sports than his studies. After his parents divorced and his brother became ill, he, at age 17, suddenly took stock of his own life’s direction. “All of these things worked together and made me want to understand human behavior and the mind,” he says.

Despite not having a close relationship with his father, Wiesel followed in his father’s footsteps, and earned a medical degree.

He graduated from Karolinska Institute in Stockholm in 1954. He worked first with adults and then children in psychiatric settings for a year and a half after graduation. During that time, he realized the limiting nature of psychiatric treatments, including electro-shock therapy and insulin shock therapy. “It was before the pharmacologic revolution, you must remember,” he says. “And I became frustrated that there was so little we could do,” Wiesel recalls.

Wiesel turned his efforts to the lab, where he would spend the next 40 years. He returned to his early college mentor, Carl Gustaf Bernhard, a professor of neuroscience at Karolinska Institute, and began doing basic neurophysiologic research.

A Chance Inquiry

At that point, a chance inquiry would change Wiesel’s future path. Stephen Kuffler, now referred to as “the Father of Modern Neuroscience,” asked Bernhard for a promising post-doctorate fellow to work with him at the Wilmer Institute at Johns Hopkins Medical School in Baltimore, MD. When he accepted the position, Wiesel was, first and foremost, looking forward to exploring the culture of the United States. But he became immediately intrigued when he read over Kuffler’s research papers of the receptive field arrangements of cat retinal ganglion cells—research that would eventually spur his own discoveries.

Wiesel never worked in the lab with Kuffler, but he credits the researcher for fueling his career in those early days of his ophthalmology lab fellowship. “Stephen had an informal style. He hated pomposity and could be very critical of facts. But you never felt threatened or not accepted. His style of mentoring certainly affected my way of being,” Wiesel recalls. The two would take long walks and discuss science and life in general, he says.

Kuffler had a hands-off approach. He left his postdocs, Wiesel and David Hubel, another neurobiologist, alone to carry out and explore their findings. Using Kuffler’s research on the retina as a start, the young investigators studied central vision and pinned down its neural beginnings.

Establishing a Department of Neurobiology

When Kuffler was offered a position at the Department of Pharmacology at Harvard Medical School in 1959, he brought four promising investigators, including Wiesel and Hubel, with him. After a few years, these young investigators became part of the faculty of a new Department of Neurobiology, which Kuffler founded. “Neuroscience in those days was pretty much rooted in anatomy and physiology,” Wiesel recalls. But Kuffler’s interests in neurochemistry changed that. Kuffler brought chemists and physiologists together to pursue answers to the brain’s illusive questions—and Harvard’s neurobiology department would soon come to be considered one of the most esteemed in the country.

Wiesel, ironically, never completed his PhD. “It never really occurred to me until people started to ask where I got my PhD [that this was strange],” he recalls. “In some ways, it saved me some time so I could get right to my research. It’s interesting; a formal education is very important, but, at the same time, it is possible to function [without it]. If someone is doing well in research, formalities are less important sometimes.”

At the age of 68, an age when most think of retiring, Wiesel assumed the role of president at The Rockefeller University, a New York-based institution known for allowing independent and self-directed laboratory study. When he became president in 1991, the university was in financial trouble and needed re-direction. Wiesel quickly built up morale and financial backing. “There is nothing like doing an experiment, but to be part of rebuilding an institution was a special challenge,” he says.

From Research to Administration

During his 7-year tenure as president, Wiesel took pride in recruiting 16 bright and forward-thinking faculty members. He also established six interdisciplinary research centers, including the Center for Studies in Physics and Biology. In addition, he formed the University’s collaborative relationship with the Aaron Diamond AIDS Research Center, of which he was chairman.

Wiesel applied these same leadership skills to The New York Academy of Sciences (the Academy) during a difficult time in its history. Wiesel suggested delaying the sale of the Academy’s office building, since the real estate was severely undervalued at the time. This decision led to about an extra $10 million in revenue for the Academy when the building was sold a few years later.

The key to Wiesel’s administrative success at the Academy came, in part, from his ability to shift the Academy’s mission back to scientific discovery and conversation, instead of political activism. “Think-tanks serve an important purpose, but they belong in Washington. We returned to our roots to become part of the scientific community.”

Supporting Scientific Discovery

In recent years, Wiesel’s passion for removing roadblocks to scientific discovery has only grown. In 2000, Wiesel became involved with the Human Frontier Science Program, an organization headquartered in Strasbourg, France, that stresses international and interdisciplinary collaboration, with its focus on life sciences. Wiesel served as secretary general for 9 years and helped to introduce a grant program for young investigators, a career development award for post-doctoral fellows who go back to their home countries, and a post-doctoral program for physicists and chemists who want to study biology.

For 10 years, up until 2004, Wiesel also served as the chair of the Committee of Human Rights, sponsored by the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The committee writes appeals on behalf of unjustly imprisoned scientists, engineers, and health professionals, as well as personal letters of encouragement.

While he clearly is an advocate for human rights, Wiesel takes issue with the designation of “activist,” despite serving on several activist-oriented boards, including the Pew Center on Global Climate Change. His focus has been, and will always be, science, he says.

“I do think it’s important to keep science and politics separate,” Wiesel says, “But as a member of society, you have a responsibility to ensure that laws and justice are respected. I’ve always believed when people do something wrong, we have a responsibility to tell them and to advocate for justice.”

Breaking Down Boundaries

Wiesel is also interested in breaking down boundaries. He chairs the Board of Governors of the Okinawa Institute of Science and Technology (OIST), an international graduate university offering a 5-year PhD program in science, which is supported by the Japanese government. “One important feature is that there are no departments in physics, chemistry, biology, mathematics, computer science, or engineering, so the scientists and the students are free to explore.” says Wiesel.

“We have a mixture of scientists with different disciplines and different cultures, so it’s a way of trying to create a kind of ‘university of the future’.” The future, and progress, of science is a concept Wiesel embraces—viewing life as a welcome series of challenges and discoveries.

About the Author

Marci A. Landsmann is a medical writer in Philadelphia.

2013 Blavatnik Regional Awards Gala and Cocktail Reception

On November 18th, The New York Academy of Sciences celebrated regional institutions and individuals who have made New York the newest, most vibrant international hub for groundbreaking science and technology, and honored the seven winners and five finalists of the 2013 Blavatnik Awards for Young Scientists.

Published November 18, 2013

By Diana Friedman

The 2013 Blavatnik Awards honorees were selected for their exceptional research from a pool of over 160 nominations submitted by 43 research institutions in New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut. Winners and finalists received unrestricted cash prizes and were awarded with medals.

During the Academy’s Science & the City Gala, where the Awards ceremony was held, Richard Roberts, winner of the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine (1993), Chief Scientific Officer of the New England Biolabs, and Blavatnik Awards judge announced the national expansion of the Blavatnik Awards. Dr. Roberts spoke about the importance of recognizing and supporting young scientists.

“I am a great believer in and advocate for young people. In the current funding situation at NIH they often have a difficult time getting a grant to pursue independent research until they are past their prime. This is a great tragedy and one we need to correct. I hope the Blavatnik Awards will help young scientists get funding since it is a mark of their excellence that they otherwise wouldn’t have,” says Dr. Roberts.

Check out these photos from the gala:

2013 Blavatnik Awards honoree Bi-Sen Ding receiving his award

On Sunday evening, November 17th, the Blavatnik Family Foundation hosted a cocktail reception in honor of the winners and finalists (past and present), and judges of the Blavatnik Awards at The Metropolitan Club.

Check out these photos from the reception:

(From left to right) 2013 Blavatnik Awards honorees Kristjan Haule and Frans Pretorius with judge Mark Trodden

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

Older posts

Newer posts