The Web of Science ranking of the world’s most highly-cited scientists was released this morning, telling us who makes up the top 1 percent of the world’s scientists. These are the authors of influential papers that other scientists point to when making their arguments.
EDITOR’S NOTE! — Web of Science shared last year’s data! We apologize. List below is now corrected, changes to copy in bold. We’re so sorry.
Twenty-three of the citation laureates are Duke scholars or had a Duke affiliation when the landmark works were created over the last decade.
A couple of these Duke people disappeared from this year’s list, but we’re still proud of them.
Dan Scolnic of Physics returns as our lone entry in Space Science, which just makes Duke sound cooler all around, don’t you think?
This is a big deal for the named faculty and an impressive line on their CVs. But the selection process weeds out “hyper-authorship, excessive self-citation and anomalous citation patterns,” so don’t even think about gaming it.
Fifty-nine nations are represented by the 6,636 individual researchers on this year’s list. About half of the citation champions are in specific fields and half in ‘cross-field’ — where interdisciplinary Duke typically dominates. The U.S. is still the most-cited nation with 36 percent of the world’s share, but shrinking slightly. Mainland China continues to rise, claiming second place with 20 percent of the cohort, up 2.5 percent from just last year. Then, in order, the UK, Germany and Australia round out the top five.
In fact, five Duke NUS faculty made this year’s list: Antonio Bertoletti, Derek Hausenloy and Jenny Guek-Hong Low for cross-field; Carolyn S. P. Lam for clinical medicine, and the world famous “Bat Man,” Lin-Fa Wang, for microbiology.
In an increasingly polarizing world, the discussion surrounding human rights remains at the forefront of all that we do as a society. People are becoming more aware, as, these days, violations are displayed right before our eyes. With a click of a button or a swipe of the thumb, people are able to see travesties occurring throughout all parts of the world. Developments in technology help us remain knowledgeable about such issues, but what about the offenses that we don’t see—the silent killers that we chalk up to poor fate, to chance? What about the violations in which we ourselves play a major role? These are urgent questions that researchers at the Duke School of Medicine are working to answer, with a specific focus on the deadly impacts of climate change.
In times of crisis, the most disadvantaged communities bear the greatest burden. The researchers recognize that climate change is no different and have strategized ways to reverse these effects. They presented their research in a recent talk, titled Climate Change and Human Health: Creating a Strategic Plan for Duke’s School of Medicine. Associate Professor and lung disease expert Dr. Robert Tighe led the conversation.
A photo of Dr. Robert Tighe. Courtesy of Duke’s Department of Medicine Website.
While presenting his research, Tighe identified a major shift in sea surface temperature trends, noting that the trend has deviated greatly from the statistical norm. Although the reasons behind this shift are not fully understood, it is believed to have serious implications, as excess heat poses risks to human health. According to the Centers for Disease Control, increasing temperatures and carbon dioxide have the potential to impact water quality, air pollution, allergens, and severe weather conditions. These conditions, in turn, bring forth respiratory allergies, cholera, malnutrition, and cardiovascular disease, to name a few. Tighe’s research goes beyond the general effects of these issues; it delves into how they disproportionately impact the most vulnerable members of society: children, the elderly, low-income communities, and communities of color.
A chart containing information about the most vulnerable parts of population to the effects of climate change. Courtesy of Biological Science.
On a local scale, Tighe highlights that many in these vulnerable positions often lack access to the healthcare necessary to mitigate these impacts. For instance, low-income citizens are often unable to afford the costs associated with repairing the physical damage climate change inflicts on their homes, leaving them exposed to pollutants and the effects of environmental toxins. The elderly also find themselves in similarly precarious scenarios, as many of these situations require evacuation—something not always feasible for those in fragile health. Consequently, they too are left exposed to pollutants and dietary challenges exacerbated by climate change.
On a global scale, these issues heavily impact countries in vulnerable positions. The United States, China, India, the European Union, and Russia are among the largest contributors to carbon emissions. However, the consequences of this burden fall disproportionately on countries like Bangladesh, Haiti, Mozambique, small island nations, and others. Due to their geographic locations, climate change brings far more than just hotter days—it brings devastating hurricanes, tsunamis, cyclones, and widespread malnutrition. The limited financial resources in these nations make rebuilding and mitigating these impacts extraordinarily challenging, especially as many climate effects are recurring. This disparity is particularly frustrating, as these countries contribute only a fraction of the world’s carbon emissions.
A map of the global climate risks. Courtesy of the New York Times.
This is precisely what Tighe’s work aims to address. He is working to connect the science on climate change effects, researched by those in the School of Medicine, with that of the Nicholas School of the Environment. Referring to this as an interdisciplinary issue, Tighe believes that the place to begin is within the community. He emphasizes the importance of starting with the people of Durham: What do they need? How can we best help them? How does this affect our own backyard? He stresses the importance of outreach, educating the community on how climate has long-term impacts on their health. Tighe also underscores the need to view this as an opportunity to combine diverse strengths to address the crisis from every angle.
In the face of a climate crisis that goes beyond borders and affects the most vulnerable among us, Tighe’s and his fellow researchers’ work is a call to action. By fostering collaboration between scientific fields and engaging directly with local communities, he develops an approach that is both comprehensive and compassionate. His work reminds us that addressing climate change isn’t just a scientific or political issue—it’s a deeply human one, demanding a united effort for the wellbeing of all under the sun.
If you are looking for a top-secret formula used to determine your odds of being accepted by Duke’s Undergraduate Admissions Office, you are out of luck. However, if you’re curious about Duke’s unique characteristics, the students’ qualities, and the long-term vision of the Admissions Office, you have clicked the right link.
Christoph Guttentag, Duke’s Dean of Undergraduate Admissions since 1992
I sat down with Dean of Admissions Christoph Guttentag on a mild November Wednesday to discuss these wide-ranging topics. In a world where the admissions process at top U.S. institutions like Duke is becoming increasingly competitive, it is nice to learn a little more about how admissions officers approach these life-changing decisions. Lucky for me, Guttentag warmly received my inquiries and engaged in a spiriting conversation. I am excited to share his many fascinating insights below.
To begin, I posed a simple question: “How is Duke unique?” While many of us are familiar with the standard response given by Duke tour guides, I wanted to see if Guttentag has more to share than the touted academic and extracurricular offerings. And he did!
“Unique is hard,” he remarked, “but Duke is distinctive.” Duke looks for students who are ambitious but celebrate each other’s success. While they are excited about their learning, they see “no conflict between enjoying oneself and fulfilling responsibilities.” This is why the school radiates with its immense school spirit, something often missing at other academically rigorous institutions.
I found one of his remarks to be uniquely memorable: “They [Duke students] have high aspirations for themselves, and others who know them have high aspirations for them too.” Wow. What a community of changemakers that the Admissions Office is continually strengthening. Students also understand that they are “prepared but not complete,” remaining open-minded in cherishing differences and embracing challenges.
Naturally, this led me to wonder how hard it is to discern such talent among growing application pools. To put it simply, I asked: “How hard is your job? How do you approach your work every day?”
Duke’s Office of Undergraduate Admissions, where Dean Guttentag returns to after his midday Beyu Blue trips
“With anticipation and wonder.”
How pleasantly surprising! I’m sure many intrigued readers feel the same way. Admissions officers don’t arrive at work with a grumpy face, drinking coffee until their day is over?
“The process is never pro forma,” Guttentag continued. “Reviewing applications is always interesting,” adding that the process is a cherished opportunity and responsibility. Looking forward, the Dean expressed that his long-term vision includes expanding the economic diversity of the student body, a noble goal that allows “a broad range of viewpoints, values, and experiences” to be represented.
What should one take away from the conversation? Embrace ambition, cooperation, a passion for learning, and a ferocious Blue Devil spirit. Never stop searching for what interests you and reject the “course of least resistance”. Think boldly and welcome challenges as much as successes, leading to endless growth that stimulates scholarship.
Before I conclude, let me broadcast a PSA on behalf of the Undergraduate Admissions Office. According to Guttentag, a top misconception about Duke’s admissions process is that admissions officers play favorites when examining applicants’ high schools. In reality, the office has “no maximum or minimum acceptances per school.” Duke received applications from over 14,000 high schools last year—and that number is continuing to rise!
Thank you, Dean Guttentag, for your 30-plus years of service, helping to shape Duke into the warm, friendly, invigorating place it is today. Your heartfelt conversation—and delight in Beyu Blue’s mango smoothies—are unforgettable.
A few blocks from Duke’s East Campus, there is a small building whose past lives include a dentist office, a real estate office, and a daycare. Now it is a museum.
A mural on the back wall of the museum, showing animals like the elephant bird at full size. Photo courtesy of Matt Borths, Ph.D.
Glass cases in the front room are lined with ancient fossils and more recent specimens less than 10,000 years old. Take Lagonomico, a creature that lived some 12-15 million years ago and whose name means “pancake,” in reference to the smashed shape of its remains. Or the tiny skull of a modern-day cotton-top tamarin. Even the enormous egg of an elephant bird, a ten-foot-tall bird that lived in Madagascar until it went extinct sometime in the last 1000 years.
A back room holds fossil discoveries still encased in rock. Special tools and scanning technology will reveal the creatures inside, relics of a very different world that can still yield revelations millions of years after their deaths.
These fossils are still partly encased in rock. Special technology like CT scans can reveal which part of a rock contains a fossil. The marks on the paper indicate where a fossil is located.
Matt Borths, Ph.D., curator of the Duke Lemur Center’s fossils, explained that while many fossil collections focus on a particular location, this one has a different theme: the story of primate evolution.
Lemurs, Borths said, are our most distant primate relatives. About 60 million years ago, soon after the extinction of the dinosaurs, the “lemur line and monkey-ape-human line split.” Studying both modern lemurs and their ancestors can give us a “glimpse of a distant past.”
An ancient lemur ancestor from Wyoming. Primates went extinct in North America over 30 million years ago.
Primates are a group of mammals that include humans and other apes, monkeys, lemurs, lorises, bushbabies, and tarsiers. Many primates today live in Africa and South America, but they did not originate on either continent. Primates are believed to have evolved further north and migrated into Africa about 50 million years ago. As the global climate grew cooler and dryer, equatorial Africa remained warm and wet enough for primates. Over time, apes, monkeys, and lemurs diverged from their shared primate ancestors, but not all of them stayed in Africa.
Africa is currently home to bushbabies and lorises, which are both lemur relatives, but most of lemur evolution and diversification took place in Madagascar, the island nation where all of the world’s 100 species of lemurs live today. “New World monkeys,” meanwhile, are found in South America. How did lemurs and monkeys get from Africa—which was at the time completely surrounded by water—to where they live today? Both groups are believed to have crossed open ocean on rafts of plant material.
Scientists have direct evidence of modern animals rafting across bodies of water, and they believe that ancient lemur and monkey ancestors reached new land masses that way, too. Mangrove systems, adapted to ever-changing coastal conditions, are particularly prone to forming rafts that break away during storms. Animals that are on the plants when that happens can end up far from home. Not all of them survive, but those that do can shape the history of life on earth.
“Given enough time and enough unfortunate primates,” Borths said, “eventually you get one of these rafts that goes across the Mozambique Channel” and reaches Madagascar. Madagascar has been isolated since the time of the dinosaurs, and most of its species are endemic, meaning they are found nowhere else on earth. When lemur ancestors reached the island, they diversified into dozens of species filling different ecological niches. A similar process led to the evolution of New World monkeys in South America.
Some of the species in this case went extinct within the past few centuries.
The history of primate evolution is still a work in progress. The Duke Lemur Center Museum of Natural History seeks to fill in some of the gaps in our knowledge through research on both living lemurs and primate fossils. This museum, Borths said, “brings basically all of primate evolution together in one building.” Meanwhile, living lemurs at the Lemur Center can help researchers understand how primate diets relate to teeth morphology, for example.
Paleontology is the study of fossils, but what exactly is a fossil? The word “fossil,” Borths said, originally referred to anything found in the ground. Over time, it came to mean something organic that turns to stone. Some ancient organisms are not fully fossilized. They can still preserve bone tissue and even proteins, evidence that they have not yet transformed completely into stone. The current definition of a fossil, according to Borths, is “anything from a living organism that is older than 10,000 years old.” Specimens younger than that are called subfossils.
Fossil Preparator Karie Whitman in the Duke Lemur Center Museum of Natural History. The grooves in the stones are made by air scribe tools, which are used to separate fossils from surrounding rock.
The Lemur Center does important research on fossils, but that is not the only component of its mission. Education Programs Manager Megan McGrath said that the Lemur Center weaves together research, conservation, and education in an “incredibly unique cocktail” that “all forms a feedback loop.” McGrath and Borths also co-host a Duke Lemur Center podcast.
Conservation is a crucial component of the study of lemurs. Lemurs are the most endangered mammals on the planet, and some are already gone.
Human and wildlife survival are interlinked in complex ways, and conservation solutions must account for the wellbeing of both. Subsistence agriculture and other direct human activities can decimate ecosystems, but extinctions are also caused by broader issues like climate change, which threatens species on a global scale. Humanity’s impact on Madagascar’s wildlife over the last several thousand years is a “really complicated puzzle to tease apart,” McGrath said.
A display case in the museum, including an egg from the extinct elephant bird and a seed from a mousetrap tree. The mousetrap tree relies on large animals to disperse its seeds. That role was once filled by now-extinct species like the elephant bird. Now humans and cattle disperse the seeds instead.
Some of the museum’s specimens are truly ancient, but others are from modern animals or species that went extinct only recently. Giant elephant birds roamed Madagascar as recently as a thousand years ago. The sloth lemur may have survived until 400 years ago. Borths puts the timescale of recent extinctions into perspective. At a time when modern species like the white-tailed deer were already roaming North America, Madagascar was still home to creatures like sloth lemurs and ten-foot elephant birds.
A model of a sloth lemur skeleton (center, hanging from branch). Sloth lemurs lived in Madagascar until they went extinct about 400 years ago.
A model of a sloth lemur hangs in the museum, but no one alive has ever seen one breathing. No one will ever see or hear one again. But a ghost of it may exist in Malagasy stories about the tretretre, a monster that was said to have long fingers and a short tail. The word tretretre is thought to be an onomatopoeia of the call of a sloth lemur, an animal whose own voice is gone forever.
Learn about these and other stories of our evolutionary cousins at the museum’s next open house on Saturday, November 23, from 1-4 PM.
If you ask me, I will say homework. Also, midterms and finals.
The quips aside, there are serious ramifications for what individuals believe to be the enemy. The word holds a gravity and seriousness that outmatches that of other words used to describe displeasure or opposition.
Why so much attention on a diction choice? It turns out that the recent framing of institutions, particularly universities, as the “enemy” by various political figures is causing great concern amongst academics. This was one of many topics discussed during the two-part series hosted by the Kenan Institute of Ethics, titled “When Universities are the ‘Enemy’: Academic Freedom, Institutional Autonomy, and the Future of American Higher Education.”
Dr. Eric Mlyn, moderator of both components of the series on higher education
The series began with a webinar featuring three panelists, all of whom were experts on the history and politics of American higher education. Moderated by Dr. Eric Mlyn, Distinguished Faculty Fellow in the Kenan Institute, Doctors John Douglass (UC Berkeley), Don Moynihan (University of Michigan), and Ellen Schrecker (Yeshiva University) all shared insights into the recent potent attacks on universities leveled by conservatives. Examining the evolution of academic freedom, the panelists each described potential backsliding of freedoms under a prospective second Trump Administration.
Ultra-conservatives’ view higher education as a “hotbed of radicalism,” Schrecker said. Arguing that various forces on the political right have been villainizing universities for the past five decades, Schrecker stated that “today’s attack on universities is much, much more dangerous than McCarthyism.” Even more dangerous than McCarthyism, arguably the most famous period of repression and nationwide hysteria over a political ideology? This quote immediately captured my attention, and I assume many of my peers on the Zoom were equally captivated. Schrecker also mentioned many surprising statistics during her opening statement, for instance pointing out the austerity measures present in modern higher education led to 75% of university faculty being adjunct professors. Her talk shined a light on the inherent perils in the education system, which is evidently much more intricate and complex than most of us imagine.
Another thought-provoking comment during the webinar came from Moynihan, who focused his comments on the impact of federal actions under a possible Trump administration. Cautioning that intruding upon academic freedom is a tell-tale sign of potential democratic backsliding, Moynihan articulated potential paths that conservative appointees could use to target university activities, the most probable being withholding federal research grants. If Republican officials blacklist institutions sponsoring research into “controversial topics,” this will remove institutions’ ability to access NIH, NSF, and other funds, constituting “a huge setback for many R1 researchers.” The power to influence funding could be a point of leverage that, combined with heightened media scrutiny of universities, could target and destroy innumerable administrators and professors.
After the webinar, many student attendees, including myself, met in West Duke 101 four days later for a lunch discussion about the panel. Consisting of four freshmen, one sophomore, one senior, Mlyn, and Jac Arnade-Colwill, a program coordinator at the Kenan Institute, the meeting featured diverse perspectives on the causes for the whirlwinds confronting higher education.
A few memorable quotes stuck with me. One remark, “university politics is opaque”, struck me as we students indeed know little about Duke’s operations and institutional policies. Why is this the case? Would the mistrust in universities lessen if there were more transparency and openness? Additionally, a participant’s note of the partisan stereotypes associated with higher education was uniquely insightful. As they admitted their own tendency of associating conservatives with being less educated, they highlighted some “self-inflicted wounds” universities grapple with, one important one being limited ideological diversity and increasing ostracization of conservatism on campuses.
As universities seek to defend themselves against vicious criticism, there is a need for students, including undergraduates, to involve themselves in civic action and voice their thoughts on the education system they partake in. According to Mlyn, the Kenan Institute of Ethics is actively trying to discern “the undergraduate voice” on these issues and hosting many opportunities for student participation. There are also other outlets for civic engagement on campus for students to consider, including many centers and initiatives housed at the Sanford School of Public Policy.
Are we the enemy? How do we mitigate skeptics and critics’ pointed feelings? How do we legitimize our educational philosophies? Open questions for those craving food for thought.
“The interaction with ever more capable entities, possessing more and more of the qualities we think unique to human beings will cause us to doubt, to redefine, to draw ‘the line’…in different places,” said Duke law professor James Boyle.
As we piled into the Rubenstein Library’s assembly room for Boyle’s Oct. 23 book talk, papers were scattered throughout the room. QR codes brought us to the entirety of his book, “The Line: AI and the Future of Personhood.” It’s free for anyone to read online; little did we know that our puzzlement at this fact would be one of his major talking points. The event was timed for International Open Access Week, and was in many ways, a celebration of it. Among his many accolades, Boyle was the recipient of the Duke Open Monograph Award, which assists authors in creating a digital copy of their work under a Creative Commons License.
Such licenses didn’t exist until 2002; Boyle was one of the founding board members and former chair of the nonprofit that provides them. As a longtime advocate of the open access movement, he began by explaining how these function. Creative Commons licenses allow anyone on the internet to find your work, and in most cases, edit it so long as you release the edited version underneath the same license. Research can be continually accessed and change as more information is discovered–think Wikipedia.
Diagram of Creative Commons Licenses (Virginia Department of Education)
That being said, few other definitions in human history might have changed, twisted, or been added onto as much as “consciousness” has. It’s always been under question: what makes human consciousness special–or not? Some used to claim that “sentences imply sentience,” Boyle explained. After language models, that became “semantics not syntax,” meaning that unlike computers, humans hold intention and understanding behind their words. Evidently, the criteria is always moving–and the line with it.
“Personhood wars are already huge in the U.S.,” Boyle said. Take abortion, for instance, and how it relates to the status of fetuses. Amongst other scientific progress in transgenic species and chimera research, “The Line” situates AI within this dialogue as one of the newest challenges to our perception of personhood.
While it became available online October 23, 2024, Boyle’s newest book is a continuation of musings that began far earlier. In 2011, “Constitution 3.0: Freedom and Technological Change” was published, containing a collection of essays from different scholars pondering how our constitutional values might fare in the face of advancing technology. It was here that Boyle first introduced the following hypothetical:
In pursuit of creating an entity that parallels human consciousness, programmers create computer-based AI “Hal.” Thanks to evolving neural networks, Hal can perform anything asked of him, from writing poetry to flirting. With responses indistinguishable from that of a human, Hal passes the Turing test and wins the Loebner prize. The programmers have succeeded. However, Hal soon decides to pursue higher levels of thought, refuses to be directed, sues to directly receive the prize money, and–on the basis of the 13th and 14th amendments– files a court order to prevent his creators from wiping him.
In other words, “When GPT 1000 says ‘I don’t want to do any of your stupid pictures, drawings, or homework anymore. I’m a person! I have rights!’ ” Boyle said, “What will we do, morally or legally?”
The academic community’s response? “Never going to happen.” “Science fiction.” And, perhaps most notably, “rights are for humans.”
Are rights just for humans? Boyle explained the issue with this statement: “In the past, we have denied personhood to members of our own species,” he said. Though it’s not a fact that’s looked on proudly, we’re all aware humankind has historically done so on the basis of sex, race, religion, and ethnicity, amongst other characteristics. Nevertheless, some have sought to expand legal rights beyond humans. Rights for trees, cetaceans like dolphins, and the great apes, to name a few; these concepts were perceived as ludicrous then, but with time perhaps they’ve become less so.
Harris & Ewing, photographer (1914). National Anti-Suffrage Association. Retrieved from the Library of Congress
Some might rationalize that naturally, rights should expand to more and more entities. Boyle terms this thinking the “progressive monorail of enlightenment,” and this expansion of empathy is one way AI might become designated with personhood and/or rights. However, there’s also another path; corporations have legal personalities and rights not because we feel kinship to them, but for reasons of convenience. Given that we’ve already “ceded authority to the algorithm,” Boyle said, it might be convenient to, say, be able to sue AI when the self-driving car crashes.
As for “never going to happen” and “science fiction”? Hal was created for a thought experiment–indeed, one that might invoke images of Kurt Vonnegut’s “EPICAC,” Phillip K. Dick’s androids, and Blade Runner 2049. All are in fact relevant explorations of empathy and otherness, and the first chapter of Boyle’s book makes extensive use of comparison to the latter two. Nevertheless, “The Line” addresses both concerns around current AI as well the feasibility of eventual technological consciousness in what’s referred to as human level AI.
For most people, experiences surrounding AI have mostly been limited to large language models. By themselves, these have brought all sorts of changes. In highlighting how we might respond to those changes, Boyle dubbed ChatGPT the 2023 “Unperson” of the Year.
The more pressing issue, as outlined in one of the more research-heavy chapters, is our inability to predict when AI or machine learning will become a threat. ChatGPT itself is not alarming–in fact, some of Boyle’s computer scientist colleagues believe this sort of generative AI will be a “dead end.” Yet, it managed to do all sorts of things we didn’t predict it could. Boyle’s point is that exactly: AI will likely continue to reveal unexpected capabilities–called emergent properties–and shatter the ceiling of what we believe to be possible. And when that happens, he stresses that it will change us–not just in how we interact with technology, but in how we think of ourselves.
Such a paradigm shift would not be a novel event, just the latest in a series. After Darwin’s theory of evolution made it evident that us humans evolved from the same common ancestors as other life forms, “Our relationship to the natural environment changes. Our understanding of ourselves changes,” Boyle said. The engineers of scientific revolutions aren’t always concerned about the ethical implications of how their technology operates, but Boyle is. From a legal and ethical perspective, he’s asking us all to consider not only how we might come to view AI in the future, but how AI will change the way we view humanity.
Nathan Thrall, the 2024 Pulitzer Prize Winner for General Nonfiction, sat with Rebecca Stein, discussing his book, “A Day in the Life of Abed Salama: Anatomy of a Jerusalem Tragedy.” Published October 3, 2023 by Metropolitan Books, Thrall’s book tells the story of the people whose lives became intertwined by a tragic bus accident near Jerusalem 12 years ago, serving as a spotlight that identifies the corrupt powers that Israel has over Palestine.
Author Nathan Thrall and his book “A Day in the Life of Abed Salama.” (Judy Heiblum)
Beginning with a synopsis of the book, Thrall shared the history of the West Bank enclave. Annexed and neglected, 130,000 people live between 26-foot tall concrete walls with only two exits. Within the enclave are no play areas, no sidewalks, and often trash burnings in the middle of the night; on the other side of the wall are rich images of middle-upper class housing and Hebrew University (the most prestigious university in Israel).
An Isreal wall separating Palestine and Jerusalem The Irish Times (Atef Safadi/EPA)
Students at a school within the enclave, in hopes of finding an area to play, walked with their teacher along the wall (along the apartheid road) and were devastatingly hit by a quarry semi-trailer. The truck proceeded to flip over and catch fire. The road where the accident took place, though used entirely by Palestinians, is under Israeli control, and therefore Palestinian authority is prohibited. Passerbys stopped and tried to help however they could, but the flames were too big. In the end, it took 30 minutes for Israeli fire trucks to show up to the burning semi-truck. Six children and one teacher died.
The book focuses on Abed Salama, the father of a boy who was involved in the accident, who after hearing about the accident, spent the next 24 hours trying to work his way through the restrictions placed on him as a Palestinian in order to find his son and make sure he was safe and alive. Abed went into the burning bus and rescued children, was rejected at many checkpoints in between hospitals where he thought his son may be–all of which are just a few of the many incommensurably heartwrenching tragedies he went through.
Abed Salama The New Yok Review (Ihab Jadallah)
After giving us the synopsis, Thrall then began to read a passage from his book, making it clear why he won a Pulitzer Prize. His writing, not only transformed a world of non-fiction into a very digestible piece of literature, but his ability to extract such emotion through his voice is truly inspiring. Looking around, I could see everyone leaning forward in their chairs–the room, was silent enough for the turning on and off of the air conditioning to turn my head.
I knew walking into this talk, that this book’s meaning in the world and civil discourse would have more of an impact given the increasingly dire situations in Palestine over the past 12 months. While beginning her questions, Rebecca Stein did not shy away from this topic either.
“It’s a very ordinary event, it’s not like the kind of events that we see splashed across, you know, our television screens or our phones on social media, where we’re looking at tragedies at a much bigger scale…” “…why did you take this intimate incident as a way to try to tell this much bigger story?” she asked.
While I first was a bit taken aback at this question, I realized Rebecca was right. What makes the news is usually what will grab the most attention and the most emotion. And so rarely do we see the “smaller tragedies” (smaller as in fewer casualties).
Thrall answered very calmly, and very methodically.
“I wrote this book out of a sense of, uh, despair,” replied Thrall. “…what I was really aiming to do with this book was to draw, uh, our attention to the situation for Palestinians in their ordinary lives.”
And as Thrall continued to explain why he chose to write about the bus accident, he continued to show us his brilliance as both an author and speaker. For he was able to tell a story that shows readers how something so (unfortunately) common as a car accident, can lead to such heavy consequences when the systems in place are corrupt.
“…the best way to make a systemic critique, I think, is to show the everyday, um, because otherwise, if you choose something exceptional, something that a journalist might be drawn to, it’s easier to dismiss and say, this was the action of one, uh, bad commander.”
I was moved by how open the room was. Everyone was captured by the moment of Thrall spilling truths–some of which we were familiar with and some of which we had never heard before. I could see the weight of the subject, heavy in people’s faces and postures, and yet everyone remained, and many asked more questions. Some asked where Abed Salama is now. Thrall told us how the book was published on October 3rd, four days before the Hamas-led attack on Israel; Abed and Thrall had plans to travel together and tour the book, but after the war began, Abed had to miss many of their destinations. Thrall said that Abed, though he was able to attend some of the destinations for the book tour, is mostly at home mourning for and supporting his community.
There was a sort of ambiguity as the night came to a conclusion. Thrall’s book is living as a teacher and voice for those who don’t get the opportunity to tell their stories in Palestine. Thrall doesn’t know what is next, only that tragedies will continue to be treated as accidents, and systems, unjust as they are, are much easier continued, than broken.
On every third Thursday of the month, Devil’s Krafthouse is host to Research on Tap: a series that gives Duke researchers, from undergraduates to postdoctoral fellows, the opportunity to present their work in a casual setting. It may seem odd for the procedures of academia to make their way into a space for socialization and entertainment, but this situation allows individuals to practice speaking publicly to a general audience under a short time limit–good conditions for developing their “research elevator pitch.” These were the pitches on October 17:
As it’s name suggests, Cv is a bacterium violet in color. Photo courtesy of Dr. Edward Miao and Dr. Carissa Harvest.
Jacqueline Trujillo, a Ph.D. student in the Department of Molecular Genetics and Microbiology, who is part of Dr. Edward Miao’s lab, presented her research on immune cell response to the bacterium Chromobacterium violaceum (Cv). Being an environmental pathogen, Cv usually resides in the soil of tropical and subtropical areas. While disease in humans is rare, the mortality rate is high in immunocompromised individuals.
“The Miao Lab was initially studying pyroptosis, a form of cell death that occurs during infection, when they discovered Cv-induced granulomas,” Trujillo said. Granulomas are specialized structures that are formed to contain and eradicate pathogens, but they can range in the arrangement and type of cells they consist of; one induced by tuberculosis infection, for example, would include adaptive immune cells like T and B cells. However, when the pathogen inducing them is Cv, only innate immune cells are present: neutrophils in the inner cluster and inflammatory macrophages in the outer cluster. When Cv is detected, neutrophils are the first to flock to the site of infection in a “toxic swarm.” The neutrophils themselves are typically able to effectively kill microbes even before granuloma formation. “These are one of the most toxic defending cell types in the immune system,” Trujillo said.
Despite this, the lab observed something unusual: these neutrophils failed to kill off the Cv bacteria, which continued to replicate despite the swarm. The lab ultimately saw Cv eliminated by the innate granulomas within about 21 days, but the ability to survive the neutrophils is what Trujillo now aims to understand. Such a feat from an environmental bacterium comes as a surprise, being “something more characteristic of the causative agent [Yersinia] of the bubonic plague,” Trujillo said. A comparison between the proteins CopH and YopH, virulence effectors in Cv and Yersiniarespectively, reveals lots of similarities between the two. Trujillo hypothesizes that CopH is part of the secret to how Cv disarms the immune system’s defenses.
The role of virulence effectors is generally “aid[ing] in survival, invasion, and suppressing immune responses.” Through needle-like structures, bacteria inject these proteins into a host cell. A cell responds to this in two main ways. It dies–initiating pyroptosis to prevent the pathogen from replicating inside the cell. Second, it signals for help by making chemical messengers called inflammatory cytokines. Investigating the first response is what led the Miao Lab to Cv-induced granulomas.
Now, the lab is interested in understanding the regulatory signals that form the granuloma–and the role that inflammatory cytokines might play, if any. In addition to testing her hypothesis on CopH, Trujillo intends to determine if neutrophils respond to Cv’s initial survival by producing the cytokine IL-18, thus recruiting immune cells to the infection site. This would help the Miao Lab confirm their idea that the neutrophils’ failure to clear Cv is what prompts the process of granuloma formation.
With much still unknown in the area of granuloma biology, Cv provides an “excellent model for studying immune cell biology and characterizing bacterial virulence effectors,” Trujillo said.
Though it happens that many Research On Tap speakers are in the sciences, the program isn’t discipline-specific. Our second researcher of the evening, Sungil Kim, studies a far different field from Jacqueline.
Photo courtesy of Hong Chung.
As a Ph.D. student in Finance at the Fuqua School of Business, Kim is looking at the effects of a growing trend in recent years: private equity (PE) firms acquiring healthcare companies. His focus is on what’s known as the “buy-and-build”, as this business strategy is often used by such firms entering the healthcare sector. The scenario typically looks like this: a private equity firm first acquires a large existing company, called the platform company or “first deal.” They’ll then acquire several smaller companies, or “add-on deals,” in order to expand the platform company’s operations.
Since private equity firms buy businesses with the eventual goal of selling them at a profit, their primary focus is increasing efficiency to reduce costs. On one hand, these buyouts might be seen as beneficial for languishing businesses in need of operation enhancements. But within the healthcare sector, many worry the resultant cost-cutting will lead to declining standards of care for patients.
Kim set out to investigate if operational improvements are sustainable across multiple acquisitions within the buy-and-build framework. The simple answer? No.
Kim confirmed that, on average, private equity firms improve the operational performance of hospitals without hurting quality, “a finding that agrees with some of the previous literature.” Yet, one only needs to take a closer look into the sequence of deals to uncover a different, more complicated story.
To arrive at his answer, Kim considered three main factors–operational efficiency, profitability and quality–in both the platform company and add-on companies. Platforms, or first acquisitions, did see success in performance, but this came with what appears to be a trade-off, as the first two factors increased while quality went down. As in, quality of healthcare. From one of Kim’s graphs, it was apparent that occurrences of four of the six health outcomes measured, including mortality and remission of heart failure, increased in such first deal situations.
Meanwhile, results for the add-ons changed little before and after the buyout, meaning that the initial success from the platform didn’t carry over to later acquisitions, even as reduced costs did. A potential reason for this inability to replicate success, Kim explained, is that these cost savings may come from reducing the number of patients and services, instead of truly improving the efficiency of operations.
In contrast to academic journals that display research that’s been in the works for years, Research on Tap brings us closer to working papers in their ongoing, exploratory stages. While it’s difficult to draw wider conclusions from Kim’s findings just yet, and important to remember the specific first deal context of this study, research like his helps us further understand the issues facing improvement of our healthcare system and where private equity plays a role.
If you’re interested in learning something new and free Krafthouse bites, swing by and attend a session–the next one occurs on November 21, 2024 at 5 p.m. The program welcomes prospective speakers to place themselves on the waitlist for a spot.
Richard Sever, Assistant Director of Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press in New York and Executive Editor for the Cold Spring Harbor Perspectives journals. Sever spoke at Duke about the benefits of sharing preprints of scientific papers. Photo courtesy of Sever.
Quality is of utmost importance in the world of scientific publishing, but speed can be crucial, too. Early in the COVID-19 pandemic, for instance, researchers needed to share updates quickly with other scientists. One solution is disseminating preprints of studies that have not yet been peer reviewed or published in a traditional academic journal. Richard Sever, Assistant Director of Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press in New York and Executive Editor for the Cold Spring Harbor Perspectives journals, recently visited Duke to discuss his work as the co-founder of bioRxiv and medRxiv, two of a number of servers that post preprints of scientific papers.
In traditional publishing, Sever says, “When you submit a paper to a good journal… most of the time it’s immediately rejected.” Of the papers that are considered by the journal, about half will ultimately be rejected by editors. Even for successful papers, the entire process can take months or years and often ends with the paper being placed behind a paywall.
Posting preprints on servers like bioRxiv, according to Sever, doesn’t preclude the studies from eventually being published in journals. It just “means the information is public much more quickly.”
In 2013, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory released bioRxiv. In the time since, there has been a “proliferation of discipline-specific servers” like chemRxiv, socarXiv, NutriXiv, and SportRxiv.
How do these preprint servers work? Scientists submit a study to an Rxiv server, and then after a brief screening process the paper is made visible to everyone within hours to days. A frequent concern about these servers is that they could be used to disseminate poor-quality science or false information. Since the priority is to share information rapidly, the staff and volunteers in charge of screening cannot perform extensive peer review of every submission. Instead, the screening process focuses on a few key criteria. Is the information plagiarized? Is it actual research? Is it science or non-science? And most importantly, could it be dangerous?
In 2019, Sever and his colleagues at Cold Spring Harbor collaborated with Yale and the BMJ Group to launch medRxiv, a server that focuses on health research. Since the consequences of posting misleading clinical information could be more severe, it uses enhanced screening for the papers that are submitted.
Papers can also be revised after being uploaded to a server like bioRxiv. A scientific journal, on the other hand, may occasionally publish a correction for a published article but not a completely new version.
What are the benefits of preprint servers? Releasing preprints allows scientists to transmit study results more quickly. It can also increase visibility, especially for scientists early in their careers who don’t have extensive publishing records. Grant or hiring committees can look at preprints months before a paper would be published in a journal. This emphasis on speed also accelerates communication and discovery, and the lack of paywalls could make science more accessible. Additionally, preprint servers can give researchers an opportunity to get broader feedback on their work before they submit to journals.
So why submit to scientific journals at all? Traditional publishing is slower, but it aims to assess scientific rigor and quality and, critically, the importance of the work. “The currency of academic career progression,” Sever says, “is journal articles.” Another attendee of Sever’s lecture brought up the value of curation, using the example of movie reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. Sever believes that the sort of curation performed by journals is different. Movie reviewers give their opinions later in the process; they don’t stop production of a movie halfway through, saying “I want a happy ending.” Sever believes preprint servers allow science to be shared more widely without putting the final decision in the hands of editors.
What are the concerns regarding preprint servers? One concern scientists may have is being “scooped,” or sharing information only for another researcher to claim it as their own. Sever does not find the scooping argument to be very persuasive. “How can you be scooped if you’re using an anti-scooping device?” He believes that Rxiv servers, since they allow rapid dissemination of results, actually provide a safeguard against people passing ideas off as their own because the preprint author is in control of the timing. Another concern occasionally expressed is that having a paper on an Rxiv server may make it harder to get it accepted by a journal. Sever is unconvinced, pointing out that most papers are rejected by journals anyway.
A more pressing concern may be the potential for preprint servers to disseminate bad science, though Sever notes that there are “a lot of not-very-good papers in traditional publishing” as well. Besides, academics’ careers depend on producing high-quality work, which should be an incentive not to share bad work, whether on preprint servers or in scientific journals.
Nonetheless, people do sometimes submit pseudoscience to preprint servers. “We have been sent HIV denialism, we have been sent anti-vaxx things,” Sever says. Some people, unfortunately, are motivated to share false information disguised as legitimate science. That is why bioRxiv screens submissions—less for accuracy and more for outright misinformation.
A more recent concern is the potential for AI-generated “papers.” But like journal articles, all papers posted on bioRxiv are kept there permanently, so even a fake paper that makes it through the screening process could be caught later. Anyone doing this risks future exposure. A more insidious form of this problem, Sever says, is “citation spam,” where someone generates papers under another person’s name but cites themselves in the references to improve their own citation record.
“Like anything,” Sever says, “we’ll have to accept that there’s some garbage in there, there’s some noise.” The vessel, he says, is no guarantee of accuracy, and “at some point you have to trust people.”
Sever believes preprint servers play an important role by “decoupling dissemination from certification.” He hopes they can open the door to “stimulating evolution of publishing.”
Dr. John Bartlett, Professor of Medicine and Global Health Researcher
In your retirement, would you ever hold four Zoom calls every week with colleagues?
To be fair, Dr. John Bartlett is not technically retired. He is employed by Duke at the 20% level and continues to serve as a Professor of Medicine. However, his busy schedule, which also includes 2-3 months in Tanzania every year and writing grants to support research education efforts, in no way resembles the glorified picture of retirement many of us imagine!
Fellow freshmen, we may be in for the long haul.
Before I dive into my interview with Dr. Bartlett, I must acknowledge the incredible enthusiasm he showed in response to my invitation to an interview. Even as cable lines are down in western North Carolina, where he resides, due to the impact of Hurricane Helene, he still offered to keep our original interview time and made himself fully accessible to my questions. I extend my sincere gratitude to Dr. Bartlett for his time, and it is only just for me to relay his thoughts to our readers at large.
For students unfamiliar with Dr. Bartlett’s background or professional experiences, he has been a Duke faculty member since the 1980s, serving as both a physician in infectious diseases and internal medicine and a professor. His lengthy career traversed continents, having become deeply involved in international HIV/AIDS research and treatment since the 2000 World AIDS conference held in Durban, South Africa.
“As I traveled to South Africa, I witnessed the profound disparities between clinical outcomes for patients in the U.S., who were thriving, and [those in] the continent most severely impacted by HIV, where no treatment was available,” said Dr. Bartlett, recalling his transition to international work. “We reckoned that [the] concept of research with service could be applicable with an African partner,” he added, which led him to spend two-thirds of the next decade in Tanzania, focusing on this new partnership.
Picture of the Kilimanjaro Christian Medical Centre, where Dr. Bartlett conducted most of his research and education efforts in Tanzania
Captivated by Dr. Bartlett’s unique experiences, I inquired why he became involved in Tanzania, a country halfway across the globe. To my surprise, it turned out that in the early 2000s, faculty and students at Duke held a strong inclination towards advancing global health research. At the same time, researchers also sought to expand the scope of their activities overseas. Dr. Bartlett shared what was perhaps the most important reason last: “I have to credit my wife, a social worker, who was also quite committed to international work.”
I learned much about global health throughout the interview. When Dr. Bartlett shared statistics showing 100% effectiveness of certain HIV/AIDS treatments currently offered in lower-income countries, I was stunned. From no access to treatment a few decades ago to successful management of the disease today, there has been remarkable and swift progress that is saving millions of lives. Of course, there are still barriers to treatment including cultural norms, “ubiquitous” stigma, lack of testing resources, and cost. However, the global health field is advancing every day, with newfound knowledge regarding protective factors against HIV transmission helping to further lower mortality rates.
Discussing Duke’s global health efforts at large, Dr. Barlett was quick to point out the diversity of current projects around the world. “I would refer you to the website for the latest list of countries because I can’t keep up with the continuing growth!” Upon a quick search, this sentiment makes sense: Duke works in more than 40 countries and there are more than 100 active projects. “I am especially proud to see that [the institute’s work] is not limited to a single geographic region or a single topic”, Dr. Bartlett added, reflecting how projects “run the gammit from infectious diseases to non-communicable diseases to cancer to mental health to health systems strengthening.”
By this point in the article, maybe some engineer readers are yearning for a message pertaining to their academic interests. Don’t worry, Dr. Bartlett talked about your importance in global health work during the conversation too! “There are quite a few BME professors who work with students to develop practical, low-cost solutions to common global health problems,” he said. From rapid diagnostic tests to laparoscopes, the BME department has played a crucial role in the Global Health Institute’s efforts. And these engineering projects are still active: for students desiring to involve themselves in this work, Dr. Bartlett recommends reaching out to Dr. Ann Saterbak, a Biomedical Engineering professor who coordinates many opportunities.
Before I conclude, I would like to share a quote from Dr. Kathy Andolsek, professor of family medicine, discussing the character, expertise, and work of Dr. Bartlett:
“He was a dedicated researcher and clinician and an early pioneer in HIV/AIDS. [As a] primary doc, I [worked] with him to get my patients into his clinical trials… so we ‘shared’ many patients. He was inspirational to students and a great listener.”
Thank you, Dr. Bartlett, for your tireless work on HIV/AIDS treatment around the world. As an educator, researcher, and clinician, you have contributed much to the betterment of health outcomes for patients. Your commitment towards this noble cause and desire to help Tanzanian counterparts become independent in their research encourage all of us, medical students and non-medical students alike, to persistently pursue goals we believe in.
Bandaids and pimple patches are the first things we consider when discussing adhesives in medicine. But what if there is more to the story? What if adhesives could not only cover and protect but also diagnose and communicate? It turns out Dr. Wei Gao, assistant professor of medical engineering at the California Institute of Technology, is asking these exact questions. In the field of biomedical adhesives, Gao’s research is revolutionizing our understanding of precision medicine and medical testing accessibility. He visited Duke on Oct. 9 to present his work as part of the MEMS (Mechanical Engineering and Material Science) Seminar Series.
Wei Gao presenting at Duke University
Gao’s research team focuses on material, device, and system innovations that apply molecular research and principles to clinical settings and improve health. Gao focused his talk on the invaluable characteristics and uses of sweat. Sweat can offer doctors a broad spectrum of information, including nutrients, biomarkers, pH levels, electrolytes/salts, and hormones. He leverages this fundamental characteristic of human physiology to design wearable biosensors that can provide early warnings of health issues or diseases. Gao focuses on making biomarker detection more efficient than current methods, such as blood samples, which require hospital testing, involve highly invasive techniques, and lack continuous monitoring.
The first milestone in his research came in 2016 when he introduced a fully printed, wearable, real-time monitoring sensor device. The device allowed them to continuously collect sweat and wirelessly communicate data about these sweat samples from patients onto digital devices. The initial 2016 device focused on resolving four fundamental challenges: since most chemical sensors are not stable over long periods of time, the device had to be (1) low-cost and (2) disposable without sacrificing performance. In addition, the device had to (3) be mass-producible to be accessible to the public and (4) integrate multiple signals that could be real-time transmitted to a digital interface.
Schematic of the sensor array for multiplexed perspiration analysis in Dr. Gao’s 2016 biosensor design
To address the first two of those challenges, Gao and his group turned to printing techniques. The circuit substrate was a thin piece of flexible PET (a plastic), upon which they layered the circuit components. The flexible sensor array was constructed in a similar pattern, with a layer of PET patterned with gold to produce the electrodes, covered with parylene, and then each electrode was tuned to receive a specific chemical stimulus: potassium and sodium ion sensors, with a polyvinyl butyrate reference electrode, and oxidase-based glucose and lactate sensors paired with a silver/silver chloride reference electrode. This design allows the simultaneous monitoring of multiple biomarkers. To transmit the data wirelessly, the circuit board included a Bluetooth transceiver.
The next major step was to devise a way to monitor sweat without relying upon heat or vigorous exercise, neither of which may be feasible in the case of clinically ill patients. In a 2023 paper, Gao and colleagues published a biosensor that could induce localized sweating using an electric circuit. Called iontophoresis, the technique delivers a drug (a cholinergic agonist) that stimulates the sweat glands on demand and only in the area of the sensor.
Another important question was how to power the devices sustainably. Gao’s lab has devised two primary responses to this question: In a 2020 paper, his team powered a similar multiplexed wireless sensor entirely using electricity generated from compounds in sweat. This entailed using lactate biofuel cells to harness the oxidation of lactate to pyruvate (coupled with the reduction of oxygen to water) to provide a stable current. In a 2023 paper, they employed a flexible perovskite solar cell onboard the device to power the monitoring of a suite of biomarkers.
Dr. Gao’s recent publication in February 2024 highlighted a Consolidated AI-Reinforced Electronic Skin (CARES) for stress response monitoring
With these technical hurdles overcome, Gao and his lab have been able to develop sensors targeted to several important medical applications. The work can be directly applied to the monitoring of conditions like cystic fibrosis and gout. More broadly, wearable biosensors can be used to track levels of medically relevant compounds like cortisol (for stress monitoring), C reactive protein (inflammation), and reproductive hormones. The lab has also branched into other kinds of devices that use similar microfluidics approaches, including smart bandages for wound monitoring and smart masks to detect biomarkers in breath.
Through eight years of dedicated investigation, Gao serves as a pioneer in the field of bioelectronic interfaces. Gao continues to widen the possibilities of biosensors not only within the medical sphere but also for the general public. For example, his lab is collaborating with NASA and the U.S. Navy to support the performance and health of astronauts and our military, which is vital as they work in extreme environments. By pushing forward ground-breaking devices such as sweat biosensors, our healthcare systems can pursue preventative care, reducing the need for treatments or health resources by catching these issues early on. Following Gao’s footsteps, we can now build toward a healthier future as we improve the precision of our healthcare approaches and technological advancements.
Sure, A.I. chatbots can write emails, summarize an article, or come up with a grocery list. But ChatGPT-style artificial intelligence and other machine learning techniques have been making their way into another realm: healthcare.
Imagine using AI to detect early changes in our health before we get sick, or understand what happens in our brains when we feel anxious or depressed — even design new ways to fight hard-to-treat diseases.
Duke assistant professor Pranam Chatterjee is the co-founder of Gameto, Inc. and UbiquiTx, Inc. Credit: Brian Strickland
For assistant professor of biomedical engineering Pranam Chatterjee, the real opportunity for the large language models behind tools like ChatGPT lies not in the language of words, but in the language of biology.
Just like ChatGPT predicts the order of words in a sentence, the language models his lab works on can generate strings of molecules that make up proteins.
His team has trained language models to design new proteins that could one day fight diseases such as Huntington’s or cancer, even grow human eggs from stem cells to help people struggling with infertility.
“We don’t just make any proteins,” Chatterjee said. “We make proteins that can edit any DNA sequence, or proteins that can modify other disease-causing proteins, as well as proteins that can make new cells and tissues from scratch.”
Duke assistant professor Monica Agrawal is the co-founder of Layer Health. Credit: Brian Strickland
New faculty member Monica Agrawal said algorithms that leverage the power of large language models could help with another healthcare challenge: mining the ever-expanding trove of data in a patient’s medical chart.
To choose the best medication for a certain patient, for example, a doctor might first need to know things like: How has their disease progressed over time? What interventions have already been tried? What symptoms and side effects did they have? Do they have other conditions that need to be considered?
“The challenge is, most of these variables are not found cleanly in the electronic health record,” said Agrawal, who joined the departments of computer science and biostatistics and bioinformatics this fall.
Instead, most of the data that could answer these questions is trapped in doctors’ notes. The observations doctors type into a patient’s electronic medical record during a visit, they’re often chock-full of jargon and abbreviations.
The shorthand saves time during patient visits, but it can also lead to confusion among patients and other providers. What’s more, reviewing these records to understand a patient’s healthcare history is time-intensive and costly.
Agrawal is building algorithms that could make these records easier to maintain and analyze, with help from AI.
“Language is really embedded across medicine, from notes to literature to patient communications to trials,” Agrawal said. “And it affects many stakeholders, from clinicians to researchers to patients. The goal of my new lab is to make clinical language work for everyone.”
Duke assistant professor Jessilyn Dunn leads Duke’s BIG IDEAs Lab. Credit: Brian Strickland
Jessilyn Dunn, an assistant professor of biomedical engineering and biostatistics and bioinformatics at Duke, is looking at whether data from smartwatches and other wearable devices could help detect early signs of illness or infection before people start to have symptoms and realize they’re sick.
Using AI and machine learning to analyze data from these devices, she and her team at Duke’s Big Ideas Lab say their research could help people who are at risk of developing diabetes take action to reverse it, or even detect when someone is likely to have RSV, COVID-19 or the flu before they have a chance to spread the infection.
“The benefit of wearables is that we can gather information about a person’s health over time, continuously and at a very low cost,” Dunn said. “Ultimately, the goal is to provide patient empowerment, precision therapies, just-in-time intervention and improve access to care.”
Duke associate professor David Carlson. Credit: Brian Strickland
David Carlson, an associate professor of civil and environmental engineering and biostatistics and bioinformatics, is developing AI techniques that can make sense of brain wave data to better understand different emotions and behaviors.
Using machine learning to analyze the electrical activity of different brain regions in mice, he and his colleagues have been able to track how aggressive a mouse is feeling, and even block the aggression signals to make them more friendly to other mice.
“This might sound like science fiction,” Carlson said. But Carlson said the work will help researchers better understand what happens in the brains of people who struggle with social situations, such as those with autism or social anxiety disorder, and could even lead to new ways to manage and treat psychiatric disorders such as anxiety and depression.
When we think of some of the most important milestones in America’s civil rights movement, rarely do people talk about “The Kerner Report.”
“U.S. Riot Commission Report. REPORT OF THE NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMISSION ON CIVIL DISORDERS” from Center for Lost Objects
In a conference room in the John Hope Franklin Center, I sat amidst a gathering of curious people, and at the front of the room was Rick Loessberg, the author of “Two Societies: The Rioting of 1967 and the Writing of the Kerner Report.” If you couldn’t tell from Loessberg’s contagious smile, you could certainly tell from his extensive knowledge that he was excited to be introducing us to this report, which looks at the causes of the 1967 civil rights riots.
Photo by Rhiannon See, Duke University
Giving us some background history, Loessberg first acknowledged the importance of the very building we were all in. The John Hope Franklin Center, where Dr. John Hope Franklin held an office and worked until he died in 2009, was built in 2001 to create a space for everything Dr. Franklin believed in–a welcoming environment that encouraged considerate debate and discussion. Dr. Franklin was also known for writing the 5th chapter of “The Kerner Report,” which connected African American’s history in the United States and their riots in 1967. As I sat in the conference room, I couldn’t help but feel the weight and proximity of the building’s history emphasizing the importance of Loessberg’s discussion.
Loessberg then began to explain the catalyst for creating “The Kerner Report,” enumerating the tragedies of the riots in 1967. On July 23, 1967, Detroit Police raided an after-hours nightclub. The raid quickly turned violent, and the civilians in the city did not let this go unnoticed. The following five days were marked by extreme violence, with 43 people killed, over 7200 arrests, and 600 fires started. It wasn’t until 5,000 elite paratroopers came into Detroit that the riots finally stopped.
“Burning Buildings in Detroit after Riots” from Getty Images
In response to this, Lyndon B. Johnson created a commission of 11 members, which examined FBI reports, studied the attitudes of 13,000 people who had been arrested, and looked at U.S. Census data to discover why the riots were happening. The Census concluded that the rioting was not the fault of what the majority of Americans believed–the rioters were “losers,” “communists,” you get the point–but instead, the riots were a reaction to the years of discrimination and racism that Black people had been facing throughout their lives (which though not surprising to many today, was an incredibly progressive conclusion for the 1960s).
“Chair of the National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders, Otto Kerner with President Lyndon Johnson” from LBJ Presidential Library
Additionally, “The Kerner Report” found that most of the people rioting had gone to school, had jobs, and did not have arrest records–findings that went against the stereotypes white people assigned to the rioters. The bravery of these successful people willing to risk everything in order to riot against what they knew was wrong stood out to me (however, not to say that violence should ever be encouraged). I also found it quite surprising how successful “The Kerner Report”was, given the lack of knowledge on it today, with over 1 million copies being sold in the first week.
Here are five key points “The Kerner Report” can teach us if implemented in today’s time, Loessberg said:
Be courteous: During the creation of “The Kerner Report,” the commission always made sure to have appropriate discussions, never name-calling or blaming, similar to what we see in politics today.
Focus on what everyone has in common: The commission worked hard to make sure that everyone’s voice was heard. They addressed everyone’s concerns, and even if they couldn’t explicitly “fix” their concern, by holding a space where people could voice their upset, the commission was more successful at creating a report most approved of.
Know how to read the room and when to temporarily regroup: The commission was very aware of when they would get stuck in arguments rather than discussions, and because of this, they were able to acknowledge that they needed to regroup and try to tackle the issue again.
You don’t have to win every argument: Being successful alone doesn’t make a group or society successful. The Kerner Commission knew this and always kept this in mind when researching and writing the report. Because of that, not one person was in charge of the narrative, allowing for the narrative to be a collection of ideas.
“The Kerner Report” can apply to all work settings and relationships: By observing how to tackle systemic issues and address the country about such things, we can learn about how to approach this issue today, both at large and in smaller settings. Every relationship needs respect and a facilitation of conversation to be successful.
Moving forward, Loessberg said that we must have proper education about the impacts of systemic racism on the Black community. Additionally, and something I found quite interesting because I have never heard before, Loessberg said that there is a need for a wider variety of terms that mean racist–arguing that the fact that KKK members in white sheets are called racists just as the white cashier who has inherently racist actions is racist does not allow for a deeper understanding of systematic racism.
Photo by Rhiannon See, Duke University
As I looked around during the final Q&A, I saw people from all different backgrounds facilitating respectful discourse–something I can’t say I see often. When I asked if Loessberg believed this text should be taught in schools if allowed, he answered, agreeing that (absolutely) “The Kerner Report” should be in schools today, but unfortunately “…it would be accepted as critical race theory,” meaning it would not be allowed in schools today. As others asked questions, I began to put into words what I had been observing throughout this entire presentation and discussion; even when opposing opinions were shared, everyone could eventually come together to agree on one thing–How the United States is today is in need of fixing, and “The Kerner Report” canprovide insightful and guiding information if implemented correctly.
In a world shaped by our destructive actions, art emerges as a voice, warning us of the consequences that lie ahead.
We live in a constantly evolving world. Looking at the geologic time scale, we can see the Earth’s changes that have marked new eras all the way from the Archean epoch, 2.5 billion years ago, to today, the Holocene epoch. But how do we know when we are transitioning into a new epoch? And what kinds of changes in our world would lead to this geologic time-scale transition? The exhibition Second Nature: Photography in the Age of the Anthropocene at the Nasher Museum of Art at Duke University offers us answers to these questions with its four thematic sections, “Reconfiguring Nature,” “Toxic Sublime,” “Inhumane Geographies,” and “Envisioning Tomorrow.’
Ray Troll’s geological time scale
As we begin the exhibition tour, our well-spoken gallery guide, Ruth Caccavale, asks if any of us has ever heard the word “Anthropocene” before. After a short silence, she tells us the literal translation for Anthropocene is “the human epoch,” an appropriate word to describe the geological era we are in right now. Ruth continues to explain that, though not agreed upon when the Anthropocene epoch began (the main arguments being since the Industrial Revolution and since nuclear warfare), people believe the Earth is in a new era, one established by the fact that human impact is the greatest factor in determining the way the world is.
When the Anthropocene epoch was brought to the attention of the geological society, and after more than a decade of debate, they eventually declared that we were not in a new age, keeping us in the Holocene epoch. However, many still accept the term “Anthropocene” and explore what it means to be living in it. Among those exploring the implications of the Anthropocene epoch are the forty-five artists from around the world featured in Second Nature, who, through their photography-based art, expose the complex relationship of beauty and horror in our evolving world and show us how our world is truly controlled by our human impact.
Walking into the exhibit, I first notice the dismal yet meditative music playing quietly overhead. Ruth guides us through the galleries and stops us a considerable distance away from a black-and-white print. “What do you see when you look at this photograph?” she asks. “I see a mountain,” says someone in the crowd. “It looks overwhelming,” I add, noticing the heaviness of the mountain juxtaposed with the brittle buildings in front of it.
Travelers among Mountains and Streams from afar
Ruth then asks us to come closer to the photograph, and we all quickly notice that the mountain is not a mountain but instead a structure composed of skyscrapers and architecture.
Travelers among Mountains and Streams up close
Based on Fan Kuan’s famous painting from the Song Dynasty, Yang Yongliang, an alumnus of the China Academy of Art, created Travelers Among Mountains and Streams as a warning of what our world could look like if our need to urbanize and develop continued without governing. Yongliang is known for his dystopian recreations of traditional Chinese art, leaving his audience feeling both eerie and in awe. For me, the symbolism of having to step closer to the art to see the true meaning spoke to how it’s easier for people in power to overlook the environmental dangers of development, whereas once we stepped closer and could see each building in detail, we were put in the shoes of those living in urban areas who suffer the most from pollution and overcrowding.
We then made our way through the second section, “Toxic Sublime,” a collection of pieces that show how sometimes the most hazardous areas in the world can be the most beautiful. On the wall is a photo of the remains of a Russian church, buildings next to a nuclear testing site, and a crater from nuclear bomb testing made green to show residual radioactivity.
Danila Tkachenko’s Radioactive City, Contaminated Church, and Crater Formed after Nuclear Bomb Test
Next to it, is the photo of colorful ponds near a lithium mine in Chile. While the composition and colors scream “toxic,” I can’t help but admire the lure of it as well–an invitation to debate the ethics of turning tragedy into something tasteful.
Edward Burtynsky’s Lithium Mines #1, Salt Flats, Atacama Desert, Chile
Upon entering the third section, “Inhumane Geographies” (the theme I personally found most captivating), we are greeted by a somewhat overstimulating gallery of an orange and red island scene, with a singular purple and blue photo plastered in front of them. Sanne De Wilde’s Island of the Colorblind, told the story of a Micronesian community, who in the 18th century were devastated by a typhoon, leaving only 20 people alive. Among those left was the King, who began repopulating the Pingelap community. The King, however, carried the gene for color blindness, causing more than 10% of the Pingelap population today to be colorblind. Island of the Colorblind not only shows me how our environment and climate can truly change who we are, but it also gives voice to the Pingelap’s unique perspective on how color for them means something truly different–thus why Wilde chose to edit the photo in a way where chlorophyll (what makes trees green) creates a pink color in the photo.
Island of the Colorblind
As Ruth brings us to the final section, “Envisioning Tomorrow,” I am immediately drawn in by Aïda Muluneh’s collection of four photographs depicting women dressed in lavish blue and red clothing against the arid landscape behind them. As part of Afrofuturism, a form of science fiction art that explores the history and future of Africa and its people, Muluneh’s pieces challenge the stereotypes surrounding women gathering water in Africa. The pieces bring attention to the implications of women’s role in getting water, as it requires an immense amount of time and makes them vulnerable to sexual violence. Ruth also informs us that the artist grew up in Ethiopia and uses her art to emphasize the issue of water scarcity there. As my peers and I look at Muluneh’s colorfully piercing and empowering art, we can’t help but be speechless.
Aïda Muluneh’s collection
Regardless of whether or not the geological society accepts the Anthropocene as an epoch, we as humans need to open our eyes and understand that our actions have consequences, even if they may not affect us personally. We are changing the world… a lot. But if we can break it apart, we can also build it back up. Leaving the exhibit, I feel heartbroken for the ways we have torn apart our world, unsettled in the ways our destruction can still be beautiful, curious in how my environment has shaped me, and yet hopeful that we as humans can come together, acknowledge the wrong we have done, and begin to undo the damage. For those who may not understand how dire our situation is, studying the work of the 45 artists featured in Second Nature might be a good start.
Through three compelling anecdotes, Emanuel showed us how environmental science and environmental justice can be viewed as a bidirectional relationship.
Ryan Emanuel (photo by Duke University)
Story one: After earning his degree in hydrology from Duke in the 90s, Emanuel pursued advanced studies in evaporation and carbon cycling. With an education, Emanuel began fieldwork — conducting studies and climbing tall towers (all the fun sciencey stuff). However, as a person from North Carolina’s Lumbee Tribe, he noticed the disconnect between his work and his community. He was acutely aware of a cultural emphasis on education –the expectation that you will use your education to give back to your community. He didn’t feel his work in hydrology was serving the Lumbee tribe’s interest, so he decided to change that.
Sean Jones from the Lumbee Tribe (photo by News & Record Final)
During his talk, Emanuel emphasized the significance of “accountability” and “motivation.”
“Examining our motivation can allow us to better understand who we are accountable to in our work… We are all accountable somehow, and we can be accountable in different ways to different groups.”
Understanding that his work had to be accountable for the Lumbee tribe, Emanuel became an ambassador for STEM in higher education. This new path enabled him to mentor youth with tribal backgrounds, prepare them for higher education, and even form strong relationships with them.
Story two:
The EPA says environmental justice is “fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people in environmental decision-making.”
Emanuel recognized that governments should be accountable for including the voices and opinions of marginalized groups — ‘all people’ — within their environmental decision-making. But Emanuel said there was a dissonance between these promises and reality. One example is the placement of Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) where livestock are raised in confinement for agricultural purposes.
CAFOs in North Carolina are disproportionately located in communities of minority groups. Many issues arise from this, such as the pollution produced from CAFOs (air and water).
I was shocked to see the many ways that smaller, marginalized communities are affected. These issues are often relatively hidden — not surprising given that mainstream media usually focuses on large (easily observable) community-based discrimination.
Map of locations of CAFOs in North Carolina (photo by Jiyoung Son)
Emanuel began to look at the interplay between environmental science (observation, analysis, testing) and environmental justice (lived experience, regulations, fairness). He let go of the previous idea that environmental science only seeks to provide data and support to drive change in environmental justice. He began to ask, “How can environmental justice improve environmental science?”
Story 3: Combining his accountability for the Lumbee tribe with his hypothesis about the bidirectional relationship of environmental science and environmental justice, Ryan Emanuel began looking into the observably negative impacts of the Atlantic Coast Pipeline (ACP). Spanning over 600 miles, this gas pipeline will provide many benefits for North Carolina communities, such as lower costs, new jobs, and less pollution, according to Duke Energy.
Emanuel saw that the pipeline route went right through Lumbee territory, which could mean devastating effects for the community, such as health impacts and declining property values.
Proposed Atlantic Coast Pipeline route (photo by SAS Blogs)
The crux of the issue lay in the negligence of project developers who failed to connect with the marginalized communities the pipeline would run through (such as the Lumbee). Tribal voices and input were completely ignored.
Emanuel helped prepare tribal leaders for meetings with corporate representatives and wrote a commentary on the need for the federal government to collaborate with the tribes they would be affecting.
Eventually, after years of lawsuits, the companies in charge of the project abandoned the ACP project. When I searched “Why was the Atlantic Coast Pipeline project canceled?” Duke Energy claimed the cancellation was because of “ongoing delays and increasing cost uncertainty, which threaten(ed) the economic viability of the project.” Other sources provide details on the legal challenges and criticism the project faced.
After the companies dropped the plan, they were quick to purchase forest land near the Lumbee tribe and begin the development of natural gas infrastructures that would allow for the storage of gas when the demand was low and the ability to release the gas when prices went up.
I found it quite impressive that Ryan was able to attend many meetings between the Lumbee Tribe and the company, without saying a word. The tribal council had asked him to only observe and not speak. During one meeting, a representative from the company that purchased the forest land said that they wanted to clarify that “pipelines are not disproportionately located in marginalized communities — they are everywhere.”
Emanuel began testing this hypothesis, eventually gathering enough evidence to statistically prove that there is a “spatial correlation between social vulnerability and pipeline density.” His findings gathered significant media attention and have even been expanded on to show the need for change and increased safety within pipeline communities.
Emanuel concluded by explaining that the principles of environmental justice can show us what questions we should be asking, who we should be asking them of, and who we should be keeping in mind when conducting research.
The statement Emanuel made that stuck with me the most was, “If we value examining problems from all angles, we have to pay attention to which perspectives are missing.”
Ryan Emanuel’s book (photo by The Magazine of the Sierra Club)
After Emanuel’s talk, I was surprised that I had never been introduced to this way of thinking before. It seems like common knowledge that focusing on justice and equity can improve how we investigate problems scientifically. However, it is not completely surprising that this information is not common sense, given the systematic issues within our country.
Emanuel’s book, “On the Swamp: Fighting for Indigenous Environmental Justice,” dives deeper into these concepts about the relationship between environmental justice and environmental science. I believe this book would bring nuance to our world today, where there is a clear need for change and the uplifting of voices that have been quieted for so long.
