All posts by Kayla Gross

April 2017, articles, arts & culture

What Scientists Can Learn From Fiction Writers

Scientists don’t often think of themselves as writers. Our employment responsibilities do not include crafting characters or building worlds from words, nor investigating the latest political scandal, nor travelling the globe and composing reflections on our experiences. Yet, we do write: grants, reports, manuscripts. It is how we distribute our knowledge and the science we have done, because graphs and images and data have little impact if not shared. We write and revise as much as any journalist or novelist; still, writer isn’t an identity most scientists would primarily claim.

We are, though. Scientists are writers. Scientists are storytellers. Each graduate student, post-doc, faculty member has a story they are telling through their science. The scale and impact differs, but the fact remains: we must spin a tale convincing enough for our science to be funded, to be published, to matter. We are  writers, and we don’t even realize it.

I was trained to be a writer in the classical sense, specifically fiction writing. There were certain lessons that we learned over and over again, because they were fundamental to crafting even the most basic story. What fascinates me is that I have encountered these components informally in my graduate school training, just in the guise of doing good science.

We use basic story structure in writing articles: our beginnings ask a question, which we then try to answer in the middle, and our ends show how we have changed our little corner of the science world with our answer. There may even be a cliffhanger in there–alluding to a sequel coming soon to a journal near you!–if we’ve created even more questions with our answer. Grant writing uses a similar structure, with more emphasis on the cliffhanger. Leaving your reader on the edge of his seat, wondering what could come next, is something both scientists and fiction writers want (equally for the validation of having intrigued your audience and the satisfaction that such engagement often results in financial investment).

Show, don’t tell. Rather than telling a reader that a character is angry or sad, a writer should describe the character’s balled-up fists or tear-stained cheeks. For scientists, our equivalent of ‘telling’ is ‘data not shown’–and we all know how much we should avoid that. We do our showing in our figures. A scientist knows that the more data you can include, all the better. A scientist also knows that the more visually appealing your data is, the better it represents your conclusions. No one likes to read tables, right? Those data become so much more interesting as a pie chart, a graph, or a schematic. We show as much as we can, and tell as little as possible, because the best case scenario is when the data speaks for itself, instead of the scientist speaking for it.

Stories are much more interesting when they start in media res, or in the middle: no boring leadup, no extensive exposition. It is why publications often start with describing a hit or two they discovered from a screen, instead of the million little steps that led up to and happened during the screen itself. Good papers do that, and so does good fiction. The first Harry Potter book does not walk the reader through Harry’s childhood; it just starts right at the moment his life is about to change. Relevancy and immediacy are key components to telling any story, and scientists know and practice these principles to the best of their ability.

Crafting things out of thin air to make a story is a staple of fiction, but we know that as data fraud in the science world. The ‘characters’ in our scientific writing, the ‘plot’, the ‘setting’, the ‘rising action’, the ‘falling action’, all of those things have to be based on facts and evidence, on carefully planned and painstakingly executed experiments. They are based on reality. We know this; every scientist knows this. What we as scientists may not realize, however, is the extent to which fiction writing is also rooted in reality. Creating characters or worlds out of thin air is in actuality rarely done. The foundation of so many characters–ordinary or fantastical–come from experiences and observations within the writer’s own realm. It is a different way of collecting and representing evidence, a different way of asking or answering a question about the world. This reality-turned-fiction is one of the best ways a novel writer can build a sense of believability even in the most far-fetched fiction. It also builds trust between author and reader, one of the most important–and difficult–parts of fiction writing. Scientists have these components within their works as well, though constructed and strengthened in a different manner. Trust in science is built through executing proper and thorough controls, validating via different experimental methods, and considering (and hopefully, systematically eliminating) alternate theories or explanations. So regardless of the method in which they are built, that believability and that trust are critical components to any story, be it science or fiction.

Fiction writing, creative nonfiction writing, journalistic writing are all still very different beasts than scientific writing. Still, it would benefit scientists to focus less on the differences and more on where our often polarized fields actually do intersect. So much of our work is to provide convincing answers to difficult questions, and that type of evidence-based persuasion can be drastically more powerful if we use the same tools that traditional writers do. Scientists need to learn these tools as undergraduate and graduate students through formalized, structured, specified, and required coursework. That training will carry us, and our work, miles farther in graduate school and in our careers beyond. We need to be trained as writers, maybe as much as we are trained as scientists. Communicating our work in a persuasive and captivating manner is more important the ever, given the disturbing loss of faith in evidence-based arguments. We, as scientists, need to win that trust back, and to do so, we better be able to tell one hell of a story–to our funding institutions, to our public–about our science. For science to progress, we need our stories to be loud, to be spellbinding, to be believed and trusted by the public. We need to be writers, otherwise we might one day read a story about science that starts with once upon a time…

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

articles, arts & culture, February 2017

Opposites Attract: The Unlikely Marriage of Science & Fiction

Science, as a subject of study, often comes into conflict with other ways of thinking about the world. Religion. Philosophy. Art. The caricature of science as an opponent to these ‘humanitarian’ endeavors obscures the real relationship: symbiotic. In the case of science and literature, science provides fiction with an intriguing playground to muck around in, while fiction gives science a more human voice. This give-and-take between the two is what makes the genre of science fiction so rich, so enduring, and above all, so entertaining.

Science fiction more often than not uses science as a tool to explore other subject areas versus the science itself. It is not the engineering of the 20,000 Leagues submarine or the bioelectricity behind the monster in Frankenstein that makes these books long-standing members of high school reading lists. Readers are not likely spellbound by Margaret Atwood’s MaddAddam series mainly because of the intricacies of the genetic engineering catastrophe that ended her version of our world. No one likes Star Wars because of its explanations of the physics behind inter-galaxy travel. Fiction is not a mirror that reflects science to readers so that they can understand its most basic aspects. Instead, fiction is a prism that refracts science, fractioning and expanding it into its ripple effects and societal implications. It bends the bleached starkness of the discipline into a million different shades, spattering dark implications and bright hope for humanity in equal measure.

It is not always a fair coloring. Dystopia walks hand-in-hand with science fiction more times than not. Those stories do speak well of the perseverance of the human condition but often at the cost of vilifying some aspect of science. (Everything becomes a villain if left unchecked long enough, after all.) Still, fiction doesn’t just take from science; it gives as well. Science fiction is always ahead of its time, more audacious in imagining what human hands are capable of creating than what we believe is achievable at the time. With that creative inspiration, our history has shown it is inevitable that science fiction becomes science fact, from endeavours as incredible as space travel to tools as mundane as credit cards. And as such, science fiction has the privilege of not just asking can we, but also should we, and it has the added advantage of most times asking it first.

The audacious pushing of boundaries beyond the confines of the contemporary scientific knowledge within science fiction also creates a unique and rich environment for rebellion. Because in that type of story, in an imagined world that both is and is not this real one, what else could be different? Who else could become something more than what they are, or what society tells them they are?

This type of rebellion is what led to the existence of the genre itself. In 1666, the English duchess Margaret Cavendish published The Blazing World, a prose piece often considered one of the first utopian fictions and the precursor to ‘science fiction’ (a term not officially coined until 1926) as we know it today. Cavendish was an anomaly of her time, publishing plays, essays, and prose that tackled philosophy, rhetoric, and fiction, all under her own name instead of anonymously. She also was the first woman to attend a meeting of the Royal Society of London, despite fierce protest, and did not hold back in commenting on and even criticizing the scientific presentations and practices she observed. Her novel dove into discussions tackled by male authors of the time period–the conflict between imagination and reason or philosophy and fiction–but also was groundbreaking in two ways. First, she explored these topical areas within an alternate universe entirely of her own making but one that still used contemporary science of the era; second, her story strikingly centered on herself as the main character, where she traveled in between the two worlds. In a time where women were not considered capable of studying complex topics such as science, the Duchess of Newcastle used her writing to boldly carve herself a space in which she could defy that notion. In the process, she wrote into existence the first examples of many science fiction tropes still widely used today.

Her actions paved the way for other rebels, such as Mary Shelley, the mother of the first science fiction horror novel, Frankenstein. While a grey, depressing summer and a writing challenge born out of boredom provided an opportunity to craft her terror-filled story, her imagination was ultimately sparked after a firelit evening conversation with the controversial Lord Byron about what life is and how to create it. Despite being supported in her endeavours by her companions and her husband, Shelley ran into criticism upon publishing her work–incidentally most strongly from the specific publishers who knew the author was a woman–because it challenged the entrenched ideology of God being the only conceivable creator, not Man (or, in her case, Woman). In the deeply religious society of Victorian England, this was a revolutionary act.

Cavendish and Shelley may have been the some of the first authors to use sciene in fiction to challenge the social and moral status quo, but it was a tradition that persisted in the genre throughout the twentieth century. Starting in the 1960s, female authors were among the first to interrogate the definitions, implications, and biases associated with gender, class, and race. Ursula Le Guin’s sci-fi novel The Left Hand of Darkness–with its gender-fluid alien race dissecting what exactly gender and sex means outside of its Western civilization confines–led the charge. This breakthrough was followed by Joanna Russ’ 1975 matriarchal parallel-universes utopian novel The Female Man, then by Octavia Butler (who was the only African-American woman publishing in the genre at the time) and her late-1980s space trilogy Xenogenesis which explored race in addition to sexuality.

These revolutionary works also represent a broader theme within the genre: the influence of contemporary events of the era in which they were written. Science fiction is as much a reflection on the scientific knowledge of the day–and what could come of it–as it is on the historical and political backdrop of the time. Many early science fiction novels from the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries focus on stories of exploration and the technology that allows journeys into lands unknown. Most notable of these are Gulliver’s Travels (Jonathan Swift, 1726), 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea (Jules Verne, 1870), and The Time Machine (H.G. Wells, 1895). Historically, these centuries were flooded with exploration expeditions by European countries, and later the United States and Russia. While discovery for political and economic gain was the main purpose of most 18th century explorations, those carried out in the 19th century were more focused on deepening knowledge of the world, often through scientific observation and analysis. So, it is little wonder that the science fiction of the era reflected that desire to know more about the surrounding environments.

In the early 20th century, the domination of exploration themes in science fiction gave way to playing around in other subject matters–such as technology, biology, and medicine–which would later become genre staples. The early half of the century was one of rapid scientific advancement as much as it was political upheaval, and the collision of these two jarring phenomenons is reflected in the science fiction of the day. It was during this era that some of the seminal works of the genre were produced, including the post-Bolshevik revolution novel We (Yevgeny Zamyatin, 1924) and the science fiction classics Brave New World (Aldous Huxley, 1932) and 1984 (George Orwell, 1949). These novels each address how uncurbed scientific advances lead to a dystopian political society, and their thematic commonality clearly demonstrates the lasting impact several world wars and fast-paced science had on the public psyche of the time.

While dystopia strongly persisted within science fiction in the middle of the 20th century, the worlds crafted within genre novels did begin to grow a little less dire. As technological development continued to accelerate and started infiltrating daily life in the Western world–thus ‘normalizing’ it–likewise did the role of technology grow in fiction as androids and robots appeared on the genre scene. Authors of the time such as Isaac Asimov and Philip Dick couldn’t help but ask–and then answer through their writing–questions pertaining to the human condition in relation to the (imagined) creation and existence of non-human life. This philosophical bent echoed the early origins of the genre, going all the way back to Cavendish’s precursor work, demonstrating how far the genre had progressed.

Glancing back and paying homage is all well and good, but science fiction also found new ways to move forward at the end of the 20th century. In 1979, The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy added a little laughter and good humor to the genre, breaking ground for many others to follow across even until today. The gloom of the war-torn early decades also seemed to have worn off, with a revitalization of the previously ‘tired’ utopian sci-fi tradition by Kim Stanley’s Mars trilogy in the 1990s. This trend of revitalizing and redefining the genre has persisted into recent years, with the semantic alteration by Margaret Atwood, who calls her novels not ‘science’ fiction, but speculative fiction. In her MaddAddam series, she reaches for what might be just possible in the realm of science and society, instead of the complete impossible. In some ways, this approach brings about an even more imaginative (and frightening, and wonderful) vision of what the human mind can create when challenged in the perfectly right and wrong ways.

Ultimately, the fiction of science is as elusive and ever-changing as the real thing. It circles itself: thought and action, can and should, might and will and have done. Whether we as scientists today use science fiction as inspiration–or as a warning–only time will tell.

December 2016, Events for Students

GSC Committee & Club Updates: December 2016

Tufts Biomedical Business Club (TBBC)

from Aaron BernsteinCMP

Upcoming Events

TBBC Case Study Group: Mondays – 5-7PM beginning M Feb 6, Jaharis 508

Practice solving cases, gain insight and tips, and learn more about the field of consulting.

Recent Events

TBBC Seminar Series: Liz O’Day, Founder and CEO of Olaris Therapeutics

Tu Dec 6: Liz O’Day, PhD, presented actionable tips and insight into her transition from the academic world to being an entrepreneur. Olaris is a venture-backed drug discovery company that uses a proprietary NMR-metabolite profiling platform to unlock aspects of human metabolism that could never before be analyzed.

TBBC Consulting Seminar Series: Peter Bak, PhD

Tu Dec 13: Peter Bak, PhD, Manager at Back Bay Life Science Advisors, spoke about transitioning from a PhD program to life sciences consulting and career opportunities at BBLSA.

articles, Events for Students, GSC, Mentoring & Outreach, November 2016

GSC Committee & Club Updates: November 2016

Tufts Biomedical Queer Alliance (TBQA)

by Laura DarniederNRSC, Amanda GrossPPET

TBQA-oSTEM Joint Networking Mixer and Panel
We are having our TBQA-oSTEM Joint Networking Mixer and Panel on Friday, 11/18 from 6:00-8:00pm in the Crane Room on the Medford Campus. Food will be provided!

TBQA Transgender Health Panel: December 1, 3pm, Sackler Auditorium

The Tufts Biomedical Queer Alliance (TBQA) invites you to come learn about the current state of transgender healthcare. We are pleased to welcome Dr. Anne Koch, DMD, to share her personal experiences of the healthcare system as both a patient and provider. A professional panel composed of Dr. Julie Thompson (Primary Care, Fenway Health); Dr. Stephanie Roberts (Endocrinology, Boston Children’s Hospital); and Cei Lambert (Trans Patient Advocate, Fenway Health) will join Dr. Koch in a panel discussion of the services they provide from both medical and social perspectives. A complimentary reception will follow.

Please register at: https://goo.gl/sCCmbT

Tufts Biomedical Business Club (TBBC)

from Aaron BernsteinCMP

Upcoming Events

TBBC Case Study Group – Mondays — 5-7PM, Jaharis 508

Practice solving cases, gain insight and tips, and learn more about the field of consulting.

TBBC Tufts Biomedical Data Science Club: Information Session – Tu Nov 29 — Time and location TBA

The Tufts Biomedical Data Science Club is a resource for students wishing to learn and apply programming techniques in order to tackle big data problems in the biomedical sciences. No programming experience required! The club hosts bi-monthly meetings, works on group projects, and provides opportunities to hear invited speakers and network with others interested in big data. Please email Matt Kelley at matt.kelley@tufts.edu with any questions.

TBBC Seminar Series: Liz O’Day, Founder and CEO of Claris Therapeutics – Tu Dec 6 — 5:30PM, Sackler 216A

Olaris is a venture-backed drug discovery company that uses a proprietary NMR-metabolite profiling platform to unlock aspects of human metabolism that could never before be analyzed. Focusing on diseases with limited to no treatment options, Olaris uses their technology to uncover previously unknown biomarkers and molecular targets to develop breakthrough therapies that fundamentally alter how these diseases are diagnosed and treated.

TBBC Consulting Seminar Series: Peter Bak, PhD – Tu Dec 13 — 5:30-7:30 PM, Sackler 221

Join us for a discussion with Peter Bak, Manager at Back Bay Life Science Advisors. Dr. Bak will talk about transitioning from a PhD program to life sciences consulting and career opportunities at BBLSA.

Recent Events

TBBC Health Advances presents, “Diagnostics Commercialization Challenges”

Th Oct 6: TBBC hosted Sackler alum and Partner at Health Advances, Dr. Donna Hochberg (SK03), who discussed the career path that led her from the bench to her current role as the leader of the firm’s Diagnostics and Life Science Tools Practice. She also led the group through a business case study exploring the challenges of bringing diagnostics to market. 

TBBC Biotech Buzz with Hannah Mamuszka

F Oct 21: Hannah Mamuszka, picked by Future of Biopharma as one of 5 women to watch in Boston, and founder and CEO of Alva10, a company specializing in precision medicine, joined us for an informal conversation about the future of diagnostics, the latest news in biotech, her career, and Alva10. 

TBBC, GSC, and the Sackler Dean’s Office Career Exploration Panel

Th Nov 3: A panel of senior graduate students provided insight about steps that newer students can take to prepare themselves for a variety of career paths, including: academic/industry science, teaching, entrepreneurship, science communication, policy, data science, venture capital, and consulting. (For a more in-depth recap, read the Insight article here!)

Tufts Mentoring Circles (TMC)

from Daniel WongCMP

This year, the graduate student and post-doc mentoring circle programs have merged together to form a larger, single Tufts Mentoring Circles program that started for the 2016-2017 academic year with a kick-off event on Thursday, October 6. In total, 71 people are participating in the Mentoring Circles program this year: 24 mentors, 21 graduate students, and 26 post-docs between the Boston and Medford campuses. These mentors, who are faculty, post-docs, senior graduate students, and industry and non-traditional professionals working in different fields, will be working in pairs to advise and facilitate discussions with small groups of post-doc and graduate student mentees over the course of this year.  Mentors and mentees were matched together based on their personal and professional development interests indicated in the registration survey that was available online in September. Each group, or circle, will meet monthly on their own schedules to have discussions as they see fit on topics they choose. A closing event will be held toward the end of the academic year, likely in May or June 2017. Registration is now closed for the year, but for more information and to be notified when registration opens next year, contact us at tuftsmentoring@gmail.com.

The graduate student-focused Tufts Mentoring Circles program was founded in November 2014 through the Sackler GSC as a peer mentoring program to serve the professional and personal development needs of graduate students, and also facilitate inter-program and -department communication and collaboration. Tufts Mentoring Circles is based on the Association for Women in Science (AWIS) Mentoring Circles program.

Community, Events for Students, October 2016

GSC Committee & Club Updates: October 2016

Tufts Biomedical Queer Alliance (TBQA)

by Laura DarniederNRSC

First General Meeting!
Join LGBTQIA colleagues from the Medical, Dental, and Sackler schools on Wednesday 12/12 at noon in Sackler 114W for free dumplings and to learn about this year’s upcoming events!

Tufts Biomedical Business Club (TBBC)

from Jaclyn DunphyNRSC

The Tufts Biomedical Business Club (TBBC) is a student run organization whose mission is to cultivate business leaders in the health and life sciences. TBBC is a growing community of graduate, medical, dental and nutrition students, postdocs, physicians, scientists and alumni. It provides members with opportunities to learn about consulting, business development, entrepreneurship, intellectual property and more.  We engage our members though a number of initiatives including a seminar series, Biotech Journal Club, Consulting Case Study Group, panel discussions, Biotech BUZZ and most recently the Biomedical Data Science Club. E-mail tuftsbiotech@gmail.com for more information.

Recent Events:

TBBC Seminar Series: Seismic – W Sep 21: The founders of Scismic, a tool aimed at helping researchers to find their optimal work environment/mentor, met with students and postdocs for feedback on the company’s product and business model.

TBBC Tufts Advisory Partners – After a successful first engagement last year, TAP’s second engagement is now well under way.

Upcoming Events:

TBBC Case Study Group: Mondays – 5-7PM, Jaharis 508

Practice solving cases, gain insight and tips, and learn more about the field of consulting.

 

 

TBBC Tufts Biomedical Data Science Club: Information Session:   Tu Oct 11 — 5PM-7PM, Sackler 221

The Tufts Biomedical Data Science Club will be a resource for students wishing to learn and apply programming techniques in order to tackle big data problems in the biomedical sciences. No programming experience required! The club will host bi-monthly meetings, work on group projects, and provide opportunities to hear invited speakers and network with others interested in big data. Please email Matt Kelley at matt.kelley@tufts.edu with any questions.

TBBC Biotech Buzz with Hannah Mamuszka: F Oct 21 — 9AM-10AM, M&V Lobby (Stearns 108)

Picked by Future of Biopharma as one of 5 women to watch in Boston, Hannah Mamuszka is the founder and CEO of Alva10- a company specializing in precision medicine. Hannah will be joining us for an informal conversation about the latest news in biotech, her career, and Alva10.

TBBC, GSC, and the Sackler Dean’s Office Career Exploration Panel: Th Nov 3 — 5PM, Sackler 114

A panel of senior graduate students will provide insight about steps that newer students can take to prepare themselves for a variety of career paths, including: academic/industry science, teaching, entrepreneurship, science communication, policy, data science, venture capital, and consulting.

October 2016

Presidential Candidates Talk Science: Where They Stand on 20 Important Issues

by Nafis Hasan, Drew Hooper, & Kayla Gross

Science policy, though intertwined with many other aspects of national and international issues, is not the usual focus of a presidential election and often boils down to just a few questions during a debate. In an effort to change this narrative, in 2008, several scientific and engineering organizations initiated a challenge to the presidential candidates by asking them to participate in a science-focused debate. By crowdsourcing questions, ScienceDebate.org presented the candidates with 20 questions addressing the most immediate and important STEM-oriented issues that affect the American public and published their answers online. In its third iteration, this movement has recently posted the 2016 candidates’ responses.

With the election drawing nearer, we decided to review their answers and provide summaries which are listed below.

Clinton Trump Johnson Stein
Innovation
  • Establishes education, especially in computer science, as foundational for improving national innovation
  • Improve open access between government-funded scientists and private sector groups for “commercialization of research results”
  • Reduce barriers for entry into free markets to allow entrepreneurs to flourish
  • Emphasis on space exploration & “research & development across the broad landscape of academia”
  • Reduce tax burden allowing more private investment in innovation
  • Government should not pick winners and losers by imposing priorities
  • Requests for Applications skew science towards “fashionable topics”
  • Reduce Pentagon spending to free up dollars for innovation investment
  • “Level playing field” with living wage and paid sick leave will lead to more innovation
Research
  • Concerned about US “underinvestment in research”
  • Improve funding for (1) young investigators and (2) “high risk high reward” and/or long-term projects
  • Improve efforts towards sustaining “viable space program” and institutional research
  • Government should get out of the way, allow scientists to determine regulations
  • Private companies will invest in basic science research
  • More transparency in funding to reduce waste
  • Top priority is climate change
  • Science policy should better reflect preferences and needs of citizens
Climate Change
  • Acknowledges the severity of climate change and its consequences.
  • Proposes 3-tiered plan to reduce fossil fuel dependence through technological advancement, increase investment and reliance on cleaner energy alternatives and cut energy waste.
  • Also proposes to increase jobs in the clean energy sector.
  • Launch $60 billion initiative to partner with local govts for cleaner energy alternatives.
  • Believes climate change to be a hoax created by the Chinese, as evidenced by his speeches, and still refers to it in quotation marks.
  • Believes that limited resources would be better spent in other avenues such as clean water and food production.
  • Acknowledges the threat of climate change and the contribution of humans to it..
  • Believes that market forces will be able to bring tangible reductions in carbon emissions rather than governmental regulations and international treaties.
  • Believes climate change to be the “greatest existential threat that humanity has ever faced”.
  • Proposes a “Green New Deal” which will create 20 million jobs and completely switch to clean energy sources by 2030.
  • Also proposes to end subsidies to fossil fuel companies and phase out nuclear energy.
  • Advocates for more investment in sustainable agriculture and infrastructure.
Biodiversity
  • Emphasis on preventative approaches to protect at-risk species from becoming endangered
  • International collaboration for research, information sharing, & conservation efforts
  • Necessary to move away from “special interests” controlling decisions about federal land
  • Innovation, free trade, and prosperity will enable better environmental protection
  • Private ownership of land leads to better stewardship
  • Ban pesticides that threaten pollinators
  • Invest in clean air and water, zero-waste manufacturing processes, and sustainable agricultural practices
Internet
  • Advocates internet to be kept as “a space for free exchange, providing all people equal access to knowledge and ideas.”
  • Proposes to build on Obama administration’s “Cybersecurity National Action Plan” and put in place a Chief Information Security Officer.
  • Cyber attacks to be treated just as any other attack and will be responded with serious political, economic and military approaches.
  • Believes that the govt should not “spy on its citizens”.
  • Any attack on the Internet deemed to require “utmost protection”, and a “proportional response” to “eliminate any threat to internet infrastructure”.
  • Advocates for protection of user privacy and encryption.
  • Wants to scale back National Security Agency’s role to provide cyber defense rather than being on the offensive.
  • Proposes more education on cyber security.
  • Propose to keep the internet free by supporting public broadband, supporting net neutrality laws, negotiate international treaties to ban cyber attacks with the UN’s help.
  • Opposes the “Online Piracy Act” and other legislation that would “undermine freedom and equality on the internet”.
Mental Health
  • Implement changes to health care system so that mental health & physical health are considered and treated in tandem
  • Improve awareness and training of medical & other professionals in mental health areas
  • Increase federal support to states to improve treatment options
  • Recognizes that “a comprehensive solution set must be developed”
  • Delivery of treatment is the key challenge, and state solutions are better than federal ones
  • Drug war prevents treatment by criminalizing drug abusers
  • Implement Medicare for All, including mental health care, Supplemental Security Income for mentally ill, and public education on mental illness
  • Provide rehabilitation services for mentally ill prisoners
Energy
  • Proposes a “smart energy policy” that will be at the intersection of economy, environment and security concerns.
  • Advocates for more usage of cleaner energy sources, with a short term focus on solar power.
  • Also wants to discourage fossil fuel dependence by cutting subsidies, investing more in clean energy technology and infrastructure.

*Also see “Climate Change” answer for more details.
  • Believes achieving “energy independence as soon as possible” as the goal of the US govt and American people.
  • Proposes said goal can be achieved by “exploring” all possible energy sources.
  • Also believes that the market will determine the best sources of energy for consumers.
  • Government interferes with proper acquisition and use of energy
  • Nuclear power is underused and overregulated
  • Market will dictate use of renewable energy sources
  • Rapidly transition to 100% clean energy
  • End fracking, offshore oil drilling, and nuclear power by pulling subsidies
Education
  • Committed to implementing improved computer science education at the primary, secondary, and collegiate levels to meet current job market needs, especially in underrepresented populations
  • Education models need to be changed as “one size fits all” does not work and thus should be determined at the local or state versus federal level
  • Will “allow market influences” to improve education
  • Federal standards are unnecessary and counter-productive
  • Rely on competition among states to incentivize high academic achievement
  • Pre-school through university should be “tuition-free and world-class”
  • Replace Common Core based on input from educators, parents, and communities
  • Increase federal funding of public schools
Public Health
  • Establish consistent budgeting for rapid responses to public health crises
  • Expand training programs as well as available resources to current government divisions
  • Resources are limited and thus assessment of areas with most need is required
  • Federal government’s role should be limited to “superbugs” and epidemics that cross state lines
  • Health data should be shared, not proprietary, to better monitor trends
  • Save money through a more preventative approach to public health
Water
  • Wants to work with both public and private sector to provide clean, safe water and improve water treatment technology.
  • Proposes to build a multi-agency “Western Water Partnership” to improve access to clean water.
  • Also proposes a “Water Innovation Lab” to develop novel technology for better water resource management.
  • Acknowledges the crisis and proposes to invest in infrastructure development to provide clean water to everyone.
  • Proposes increased desalinization approach and better infrastructure to meet the demands of clean water.
  • Failure to protect water supply as in Flint, MI is criminal
  • Federal government should step in when local and state officials fail or engage in misconduct
  • Investing in infrastructure will ensure clean water and prevent future crises
Nuclear Power
  • Fund research for advances in nuclear power
  • Reduce amount of weapons-grade nuclear material globally
  • Continue to rely on nuclear power as important part of energy independence
  • Maintain robust safety and security standards, and continue using nuclear power
  • Invest in newer, safer, less wasteful types of reactors
  • End nuclear power subsidies, and phase out nuclear power completely by 2027
Food
  • Proposes to increase investment in sustainable agricultural practices through the “Beginning Farmer and Rancher Development”.
  • Proposes to invest more in rural business through “Rural Business Investment Companies” that would drive growth and jobs in rural areas.
  • Believes that the market forces should be able to provide the agriculture industry with the best solutions.
  • However, also believes that food availability is a
    “national security issue” and therefore federal govt should be involved to provide a safety net for farmers.
  • Federal management of agricultural, including subsidies, has created imbalances
  • Label GMOs and regulate to make sure they are safe
  • Support regenerative agriculture and sustainability
Global   Challenges
  • Proposes to appoint US’ first “Special Envoy for Climate Change” and lead the world in responding to climate change. Also proposes to build a global “Climate and Clean Air Coalition” on an international level and make climate change a major diplomacy issue.
  • Also proposes to build a “Rapid Response Fund” to respond to national and international crises.
  • Wants to make sure that the US is experiencing economic growth due to his belief that “a prosperous America is a much better partner in tackling global problems”.
  • Use diplomacy and trade to engage with the world and solve global problems
  • International institutions should be strengthened to tackle climate change and pandemic disease
Regulations
  • Employ environmental, health, and energy regulations that “use the best available science”
  • Keep, rescind, or add regulations based on science
  • Balance economy with protection of citizens
  • Federal regulations should be reduced wherever possible
  • Patients in extremis should be free to use experimental medicine
  • FDA should be used more for informing the public about risk and less for regulating therapies
  • Rely on science advisors to formulate regulations
Vaccination
  • Globally eliminate childhood diseases through vaccination
  • Educate parents about dangers of not vaccinating their children
  • Bridge “innovation gap” between research and production of new vaccines
  • Invest in comprehensive vaccination program as a public service
  • Federal government should assist in the event of national or regional outbreak
  • Engage with partner countries to combat international outbreaks
  • Universal health care needed to ensure everyone has access to critical vaccines
  • Increase public trust in regulatory agencies by removing corporate influence
Space
  • Wants to build on current progress in US’ space exploration by ensuring funding for NASA’s programs.
  • Supports a “strong space program” from employment and educational perspectives.
  • Propose to work on a global scale to expand space exploration.
  • Space exploration should be encouraged in the private sector
  • Lead international collaboration to ensure that space technology benefits all people
  • Sign International Treaty for the Demilitarization of Space
  • Leave space exploration and research agenda up to scientists, not military or corporations
Opioids
  • Proposes a $10 billion initiative to fight the opioid epidemic by expanding the “Substance Abuse and Treatment block grant” and other federal-state partner programs.
  • Recommends “rehabilitation and treatment over prison for low-level and non-violent offenders”.
  • Wants to “stop the inflow of opioids” into the US.
  • Drug laws and “crony capitalism” of legal opioid sales have largely driven the opioid addiction crisis
  • Decriminalize and reschedule drugs, particularly cannabis
  • End the war on drugs and focus instead on research, education, and treatment
Ocean Health
  • Proposes to “oppose efforts in Congress that seek to weaken” established regulations on overfishing. Also wants to “act globally to address the fisheries crisis” and proposes better tracking of seafood sources.
  • Also wants to protect coastal habitats and coral reefs.
  • No mention of oceans, fishing, coral reefs or coastal habitats in answer.
  • Focus on protecting our own coastlines and territorial waters
  • Ocean pollution and over-harvesting will depend on international agreements and market forces
  • As part of total climate change response, conserve fish stocks and coral reefs “with or without Congress” (i.e. through executive action)
Immigration
  • Proposes to “staple” a green card to Master’s and PhD degree holders in STEM fields.
  • Proposes to support “start-up visas” for tech entrepreneurs from abroad to invest in the US.
  • Wants to streamline immigration process for “lawful residents” for easier naturalization, as mentioned in her comprehensive immigration reform.
  • Rebukes the tech companies for abusing the H1-B visa program.
  • Endorses “legal” individuals for extended stay in the US after achieving their degrees, however, was unclear on which status they would fall under.
  • Believes that a “robust” H1-B visa program will increase growth, innovation and wealth.
  • Wants market forces to determine immigration of labour and would streamline the immigration process for all labor types and skills.
  • Supports the H1-B visa program, and believes immigration issues should be studied within a global economic context.
  • Supports more “international development and demilitarization”.
  • No specific comments on “scientists and engineers who receive their graduate degree at American Universities.”
Scientific Integrity
  • Supports open access to government-funded findings through implementation of incentives for scientists to “share data, code & research results”
  • Invested in bolstering public trust in scientific findings, preserving non-partisan nature of science research, and maintaining penalties for fraud & dishonesty
  • Committed to eliminating political bias in research as “science is science and facts are facts”

 

.
  • Increase transparency to reduce influence of political interference on scientific integrity
  • Respect diversity of thought in research centers
  • American public distrusts scientific regulatory agencies because of corrupting influence of pharmaceutical corporations
  • Stop the “revolving door” between political and corporate positions, and “clean up” regulatory agencies to improve public trust in science

And finally, members of our writing team have provided their opinions on where these candidates stand when it comes to STEM:

Andrew Hooper: The perennial policy debate in the U.S. boils down to a critical role for the federal government in ensuring parity and safety through regulation from the perspective of the political left (Clinton, Stein), versus the stifling of creativity and market forces by over-regulation from the political right’s point of view (Trump, Johnson). Thus there is a greater burden on Clinton and Stein to provide detailed agendas for tinkering with regulations and bureaucracies to improve them, while Trump and Johnson tend to fall back on broad statements about the free market, federal overreach, and misspent tax dollars, promising massive overhauls to get the federal government “out of the way” of entrepreneurs, innovators, and educators.

Nafis Hasan: The US govt’s scientific policy, since World War II, has largely focused on development of a technocratic superpower, with a delicate balance maintained between environmental and economic concerns. As such, the obvious split between the centre and left-leaning candidates (Clinton, Stein) and the right-leaning ones (Trump, Johnson) is reflected on how this status should be achieved. Both Clinton & Stein advocate federal govt’s regulations in areas of concern such as climate change, energy and water, whereas Trump (in cases where he does acknowledge the crises) and Johnson are more likely to put their trust in the free market, a Friedmanian ideology that wreaked economic havoc in countries where it was tested. While Clinton seems to have the most thought-out plans for all the 20 topics covered, she is lacking in concrete details in some cases; it is also concerning that Clinton doesn’t openly support protection of user privacy and data encryption, which the other three candidates have all favored. Stein, true to her party’s namesake, favors a much stronger stance on climate change, water and energy crises; however, her plans might be deemed a bit too “idealistic” for the American public’s and legislators’ tastes. Both Johnson and Trump, while making a few good points, advocate for measures that would largely remove federal regulations and govt programs that have kept the standard of living in this country from free-falling. By and large, the choice for the next President of the US should be quite obvious for the scientific community.

 

For related reading on these topics, check out:

 

October 2016, Techniques

Top Techniques: The Basics

Western Blot

PCR

IHC

Immunoprecipitation

GSC, September 2016

Sackler Graduate Student Council Announcements

GSC 2016-2017 PERSONNEL

Officers

     President: Julia Yelick2
     Vice President: Christina McGuire2
     Treasurer: Cho Low2

Representatives

     Biochem: Christina McGuire2
     CMDB: Kayla Gross1, Cho Low2, Julia Yelick2
     Genetics: Kevin Child2, Jaymes Farrell2
     Immunology: Frankie Velazquez2, Rebecca Silver1
     Molecular Microbiology: Ila Anand1, Stacie Clark1
     Neuroscience: Anna Nathanson1, Molly Hodul1
     PPET: Vaughn Youngblood1, Roaya Alqurashi1
     MD/PhD Liaisons: Ramesh Govindan1, Matt Zunich1

     Faculty Liaison: Michael Malamy
     Dean’s Office Liaison: Kathryn Lange

     1,2 denotes year on GSC

GSC 2016-2017 ORGANIZATIONAL UPDATES

Representation

    • CMP Representative: The new merged Cell, Molecular, and Developmental Biology (CMDB) program is entering its second year with the Cell, Molecular, and Physiology (CMP) and Biochemistry (Biochem) no longer taking students. As such, due to the current program student populations, Biochem will retain one GSC representative while CMP will no longer have a designated representative; students in the CMP program will be contacted by the Biochem representative regarding GSC matters.
    • MD/PhD Liaison: Due to increased commitment to and enthusiasm for involvement in GSC, the MD/PhD program students will now be represented by two liaisons.
    • GSC Liaison Positions: As an alternative to having separate, assigned liaisons positions between GSC members and other Tufts organizations, these tasks have been delegated to the appropriately designated committee chairs and members (described below).

Committees: The GSC Bylaws were revised this year in order to restructure the council committees to better serve the Sackler student community’s needs. The reorganized committees are as follows:

    • Career Paths (Chair: Vaughn YoungbloodPPET; GSC: Roaya AlqurashiPPET, Ila AnandMMB, Kevin ChildsGENE): Organize the Career Paths Seminar series; recruit external speakers from a diverse set of professional environments to speak about their career experiences in areas other than biotechnology; work with the Dean’s office to recruit speakers and to help facilitate events, collaborate with the Post-doc Association (PDA) and Tufts Biotech Business Club (TBBC).
    • Newsletter (Chair: Kayla GrossCMDB; GSC: Molly HodulNRSC, Anna NathansonNRSC; Contributors: Ila AnandMMB, Jessica Davis-KnowltonCMDB, Jessica ElmanCMDB, Nafis HasanCMDB, Andrew HooperNRSC, Dan WongCMP): Write, edit, organize, and distribute an electronic newsletter at least bi-monthly; actively solicit newsletter contributions from SGSC members, students, and faculty; serve as a conduit of information from the SGSC to the Sackler student body.  Also serve as a liaison to the Sackler Library, via Laura Pavlech.
    • Outreach (Chair: Stacie ClarkeMMB; GSC: Ramesh GovindanNRSC/MSTP, Matt ZunichCMDB/MSTP): Organize volunteer and community service events for the Sackler community, as well as advertise opportunities for Sackler students outside of Tufts.
    • Social (Chair: Rebecca SilverIMM; GSC: Jaymes FarrellGENE, Cho LowCMDB, Frankie VelazquezIMM): Organize social events to promote GSC visibility within the student community.
articles, Community, September 2016

Elisabeth Adkins graduates as the first Tufts JAX Track Ph.D.

Written by Alex Fine

Not all experiments at The Jackson Laboratory take five years to complete. But one day last month, a group of JAX scientists gathered to see the results of a five-year experiment. The presentation by Tufts University Genetics Program student, Elisabeth (Liz) Adkins, described a newly defined cell in the immune system, a cell that when multiplied excessively could contribute to autoimmune diseases such as lupus or rheumatoid arthritis. But the five-year experiment was even bigger than Liz’s newly defined cells. The other experiment was Sackler’s collaborative partnership with The Jackson Laboratory, and it had yielded measurable success: Liz is its first Ph.D. graduate!

A little over five years ago, the Sackler School and JAX created a new graduate program, the “JAX Track,” that would allow students to enroll with the explicit intent of conducting their thesis research at JAX. Located in Bar Harbor, Maine, The Jackson Laboratory is a world-renowned institution where mammalian genetics is at the forefront of research. JAX hosts Ph.D. students from universities in the US and abroad during some portion of their thesis research.

Tufts JAX Track students might be drawn to JAX because of the laboratory’s history and reputation in mouse genetics, or they might have been at JAX as a summer student and fallen in love with the place, or they might have been told about the resources and community from a mentor who had valued their own time at JAX. But the question, five years ago, that faced JAX and the Sackler School was: were there students who wanted a uniquely JAX experience during their Ph.D.? And would it work? Together, Sackler and JAX faculty thought they had the right ingredients: a strong translational research group at Tufts and wide strengths in mammalian genetics at JAX. But it took the students, and especially Liz Adkins as the pioneer student, to put it together and meet the high expectations.

Adkins joined the JAX Track on the strong recommendation of her undergraduate mentor, Tom King, who had worked with Eva Eicher at JAX during his scientific training. As Liz said, “I also knew that if I wanted to do mouse research – and I did – that there was no better place in the world to do it than at JAX.” Liz’s graduate school career began in the two months before her Sackler orientation, during which she attended the Short Course in Medical and Experimental Mammalian Genetics and had a short research rotation, both at JAX in Bar Harbor. She then moved to Boston to complete her first semester of coursework at Tufts with the rest of her Genetics cohort before returning to Maine to resume her laboratory rotations. At the end of her first year, Liz joined the research group of JAX professor Derry Roopenian for her thesis research. Roopenian studies autoimmune disorders, pathologies that arise when our body’s immune system starts fighting our body. Adkins wanted to understand the process by which B cells, the immune cells in our bodies that produce antibodies, become corrupted to produce antibodies against our own cells and tissues instead of exclusively against foreign invaders like bacteria or viruses.

As we all know, a Ph.D. requires a lot of work. There are hours and hours in the lab, at the microscope and the cell sorter, and reading papers and trying to figure out why results are different than you thought they would be. Adkins had the added challenge of helping to shape the JAX Track program. Although the Sackler and JAX faculty had a clear vision of the program’s mission and the overall structure, there were challenges along the way that no one anticipated – and which Adkins, initially as the sole student, helped solve. “I knew there would be hiccups helping pilot a new program, but I love a challenge and this was one I was happy to take,” recalled Adkins. “Communication lines are open over the geographical distance separating the two institutions. Faculty at both institutions are pulling together and there is a mutual sense of pride in what we all have accomplished,” added Mary Ann Handel, the JAX Track director in Bar Harbor. Thus today, thanks to the efforts of Liz, other Genetics students, both in the JAX Track and in Boston, and the Sackler and JAX faculty, we can all call the program a success!

Liz Adkins moves on from her successes and outstanding work at Tufts and JAX to a postdoctoral research position, studying basic questions about how stem cells remain immortal. And she will continue to teach, an interest she developed during her time as a Sackler student at JAX. She leaves with a sense of accomplishment – in her research and her life – and appreciation for the JAX Track’s unique scientific environment. “Five years later, I have absolutely no regrets,” said Adkins. “I know it helped shape me into the person and scientist I am today, and I feel extremely well prepared for the future.” So yes, in a very personal way, Liz has shown the JAX Track works!