Assignments Spring 2017
Class #1: Monday, January 30 Introduction to the course and each other and a discussion of a life in science.
Assigned reading:
H Varmus: The Art and Politics of Science (Norton, 2009) Introduction and Chapters 1 and 2 (pp. 1-35)
(see distributed book or read for free Introduction and Chapters 1 and 2 (pp. 1-35) (see distributed book or read for free on-line: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK190622/)
I.A. Richards, Practical Criticism (1930), Introduction, pp 3-18 Available on line at Internet Archive https://archive.org/stream/practicalcritici030142mbp#page/n27/mode/2
(I’d like English majors to be prepared to say something about this approach.) Other refs: Francois Jacob: The Statue Within (Cold Spring Harbor Press, 1995) (available
Other refs: Francois Jacob: The Statue Within (Cold Spring Harbor Press, 1995) (available
Francois Jacob: The Statue Within (Cold Spring Harbor Press, 1995) (available on line: http://ineedbooks.xyz/?book=0879694769)
Perhaps the best written of the many memoirs of famous scientists; this one features World War II, remarkable modesty, and compelling, graceful prose.
Matthew Cobb: Life’s Greatest Secret: The Race to Crack the Genetic Code (2015) (purchase from Amazon etc). An excellent, recent book describing one of the most exciting moments in the molecular revolution. (The quality falls off in the final third when too rapidly describing progress in molecular biology since the code was deciphered.)
Class agenda:
Course mechanics, expectations, and schedule. (Note that we need to accommodate to multiple holidays and some conflicts on my calendar; be prepared to help us find some alternative dates by bringing your calendar through May.)
An informal talk (by me) about your instructor’s career with Q and A.
A round table discussion of your interests in the subjects of this course.
How others became scientists: http://library.cshl.edu/oralhistory/
Class #2: Monday, February 6th What inspires people to become scientists?
Assigned viewing:
Arrowsmith (1931), movie directed by John Ford, starring
Ronald Coleman and Helen Hayes. (Kevin Ambrose has arranged means of access to the film
Additional reading: passages or chapters from one or more of the background readings.
Background Readings:
Paul de Kruif, The Microbe Hunters (a collection of essays published in 1926 about heroic scientists in the age of discovery of the infectious causes of disease; many scientists of my vintage claim this as an inspiration)
https://laurieximenez.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/1a_microbehunters_pauldekruif.pdf
S. Lewis, Martin Arrowsmith (the award-winning novel from 1925 that is the basis for the movie; de Kruif introduced Lewis to scientists at the Rockefeller Institute in NYC to get him interested!) https://archive.org/details/martinarrowsmith030614mbp
C.P. Snow, The Search (a short novel written in 1934 by an eminent 20th century British novelist/politician/physicist about the early stages of the career of a British physicist; cheap paper versions available on Amazon).
E.Schrodinger, What is Life? (1944)(the essay by a famous physicist about the physical properties of living things that raised intriguing questions about how life could operate according to the laws of physics) https://archive.org/details/WhatIsLife-EdwardSchrodinger
JD Watson, The Double Helix (1969)(perhaps the most famous and enjoyable book about one person’s view of the competition, frustration, social complexities, and exuberance of making a great discovery in the life sciences; for some interesting, contentious commentary, look at the contemporary reviews, especially this one: http://www4.ncsu.edu/~kimler/hi481/Chargaff_review.pdf) http://faculty.washington.edu/hqian/amath532/Watson_The_Double_Helix.pdf
H.F. Judson, The Eighth Day of Creation (a magisterial yet intimate and informal history of the rise of molecular biology as a discipline, teaching how the central precepts of modern biology were elucidated) http://fr.ebooke.info/?book=0879694785
Andrea Barrett, Archangel (a collection of short stories from 2014 about the growing influence of biological science on young people in the late 19th and early 20th century by a contemporary writer) No free ride here: https://www.amazon.com/Archangel-Fiction-Andrea-Barrett/dp/0393348776
Questions to consider:
In general: What are the motivating features for a career in science?For Arrowsmith (movie or book): What special pressures exist in the conduct of research on human subjects? What justifies the randomized clinical trial? What patient protections would you want to impose?
For Arrowsmith (movie or book): What special pressures exist in the conduct of research on human subjects? What justifies the randomized clinical trial? What patient protections would you want to impose?
Follow up to Arrowsmith:
Article in Dec 2016 STAT about the treatment of infection with bacterial virus:https://www.statnews.com/2016/12/07/virus-bacteria-phage-therapy/
DG McNeil, “New Ebola Vaccine Gives 100 Percent Protection,” NY Times Dec 22, 2016. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/22/health/ebola-vaccine.html
Class #3: Wednesday, February 15th What is the purpose and importance of science?
Assigned readings:
Vannevar Bush, The Endless Frontier (1945). Essential summary pp.5-9. But also valuable to browse through the volume. https://archive.org/stream/scienceendlessfr00unit#page/42/mode/2up
S. Greenblatt, The Swerve (2014) You can listen for free at: https://archive.org/details/00000000_20141012
(read or listen to the Preface, pp 1-13)
Francis Bacon: see the paragraphs below
Consider science from several perspectives:
Public purpose: A way for communities and nations to prosper by developing technical skills that promote progress (V. Bush, Bacon, and Sobel), based on the findings of fundamental science
Personal satisfactions: A way to get a grip on the meaning of life, a kind of philosophy, based on the way things are (Greenblatt), a way “to explain the world” (Weinberg), and a way to enjoy life through stimulating, thought-provoking careers (Crick, Stent)
Background readings:
Lucretius, On the Nature of Things (or his predecessors: Democritus, Leucippus)
http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/carus-on-the-nature-of-things,
http://classics.mit.edu/Carus/nature_things.html
and other presentations on line.
F. Crick, What Mad Pursuit: A Personal View of Scientific Discovery (1990) Especially Chapter 2 (The Gossip Test) https://www.amazon.com/What-Mad-Pursuit-Scientific-Discovery/dp/0465091385
(or PA Lawrence, “Francis Crick: A Singular Approach to Scientific Discovery,” Cell 167: 1436, 2016).http://www.cell.com/cell/pdf/S0092-8674(16)31529-X.pdf
G. Stent, The coming of the Golden Age: a view of the end of progress (1969) Too expensive to acquire! https://www.amazon.com/Coming-Golden-Age-View-Progress/dp/0385019378
S. Weinberg, To Explain the World (2015) A dense, long, clear history of science by a great contemporary physicist
https://www.amazon.com/Explain-World-Discovery-Modern-Science/dp/0062346660
(instructively reviewed by Jim Holt in NYROB, Sept 24, 2015, p 53-54; http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2015/09/24/steven-weinberg-core-science/
D. Sobel, Longitude, The True Story of a Lone Genius Who Solved the Greatest Scientific Problem of His Time The True Story of a Lone Genius Who Solved the Greatest Scientific Problem of His Time. A highly enjoyable essay that shows the utility of science and an unusual way to fund it: prizes! https://www.pdf-archive.com/2014/07/31/longitude/
Francis Bacon (a mini-synopsis)
From Wikipedia: “Bacon considered that it is of greatest importance to science not to keep doing intellectual discussions or seeking merely contemplative aims, but that it should work for the bettering of mankind’s life by bringing forth new inventions, having even stated that “inventions are also, as it were, new creations and imitations of divine works”.[2] He cites examples from the ancient world, saying that in Ancient Egypt the inventors were reputed among the gods, and in a higher position than the heroes of the political sphere, such as legislators, liberators and the like. He explores the far-reaching and world-changing character of inventions, such as in the stretch:
“Printing, gunpowder and the compass: These three have changed the whole face and state of things throughout the world; the first in literature, the second in warfare, the third in navigation; whence have followed innumerable changes, in so much that no empire, no sect, no star seems to have exerted greater power and influence in human affairs than these mechanical discoveries.” Novum Organum, see Section CXXIX (p 37 of 139) on iPad version)
***********************************************
February 20th is a holiday, plans for February 27th (Jonathan Weiner), week of March 6th (no class), and March 13th (Vicki Sato) will be provided soon
Class #4 Feb 27 Problems in writing non-fictional accounts of science
Visiting Discussion Leader: Jonathan Weiner (Columbia Journalism School)
Even this early in the course, we have encountered examples of stories about science told in the form of fiction (Martin Arrowsmith) and as lively biographical essays (Microbe Hunters). In the fourth session of MHC 360, Jonathan Weiner—well-known for several inviting accounts of complex science, including the Pulitzer Prize-winning The Beak of the Finch—will address some of the dilemmas facing writers who want to portray science in ways that are compelling, accurate, and comprehensible. As he writes:
“In some ways, writing non-fiction stories about science can be like doing science itself. With each story, science writers have to ask themselves hard questions about evidence, significance, objectivity. I’d like to explore some parallels between science writing and science, using a few science stories as case studies.”
He asks that everyone read “Greenland is Melting,” an excellent story by Elizabeth Kolbert (published in The New Yorker in 2016). http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/10/24/greenland-is-melting
During the discussion on February 27th , the group will also address three pieces that Professor Weiner has written:
–Chapter 1 from The Beak of the Finch (1995);
–A brief excerpt from his earlier book about the science of global warming, The Next One Hundred Years (1990); and
–His story “The Tangle” that appeared in The New Yorker.
These three items are attached as PDFs, and every student should commit to reading at least one of them by responding to the poll.
Class #5 March 6 No class
Class #6 March 13 Can science be a business?
Visiting Discussion Leader: Dr. Vicki Sato, Harvard Business School
In this session, we will extend our views of the nature of the scientific enterprise by talking about the role of science in the commercial world. This conversation will extend the discussion that began in Session 3, when we read Vannevar Bush’s Science: The Endless Frontier, an essay that set the framework for the US government’s support of science, a formula that continues to be honored today.
Here is what Professor Sato says about the class:
“If you have read the essay by Vannevar Bush, you know that, many decades ago, he stated his belief that scientific innovation can drive great economic value and growth for a society. And we have seen the exemplification of this in computer technology, biomedical science, space programs and the like. More and more (and sooner and sooner), breakthrough discoveries in the laboratory become the foundations for new businesses. In fact, the breakthrough discoveries are often done inside the businesses themselves. How does this work? What doesn’t work? What value does it create?
“We will discuss some examples in the area of biotechnology and pharmaceuticals as we explore the value and the tensions that can be created when science (and scientists) turn to business.
“As you consider the reading, think about:
1. what attributes drive good science? ( e.g.: freedom, sharing, criticism, etc)
2. what makes for a successful business?”
The attached article by Gary Pisano is required reading for the session. Pisano is a social scientist who has written widely on this topic; a longer version of the article is available inexpensively as a used book from Amazon (https://www.amazon.com/Science-Business-Promise-Reality-Biotech/dp/1591398401/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1486737604&sr=1-1&keywords=gary+pisano) and those with limited time can buy a podcast of the article there too (https://www.amazon.com/Science-Business-Lessons-Biotech-Harvard/dp/B000JJRW9O/ref=sr_1_5?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1486737604&sr=1-5&keywords=gary+pisano).
Another book about science as a business, recommended by both Professor Sato and me, is The Billion Dollar Molecule by Barry Werth (https://www.amazon.com/Billion-Dollar-Molecule-Quest-Perfect-Drug-ebook/dp/B00AK78PTG/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1486737917&sr=1-1&keywords=barry+werth). This is a very engaging account of the interaction, perhaps collision, between academic and commercial cultures, with some entertaining characters, that leads to the success of a prominent biotech company, Vertex. Not required now, but possible summer reading for those with further interest in such activities.
Class #7, March 20: Why scientists get things wrong and what should we do about it?
Topics: Misconduct (willful cheating?)
Sloppiness (what are causes? And what are remedies?)
Science is hard and mistakes are inevitable
INSTRUCTIONS TO STUDENTS:
1) Misconduct: everyone should watch this short talk on YouTube by Howard Schachman, who made a compelling case for a strict definition of what constitutes misconduct: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k554m3CghYI
2) Reproducibility: Science has always been defended as sound because important conclusions proposed by individual laboratories are accepted by a scientific community that has repeated or built on the evidence that supports the conclusions. But this claim has recently been challenged.
Everyone should read this brief account of the difficulty that pharmaceutical companies claim to have had in reproducing work that could affect what drug companies work on: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v483/n7391/full/483531a.html
It is not certain whether non-reproducibility is actually a growing problem. If so, why is it? One view is that science, especially biomedical science, has recently become hyper-competitive. Everyone should read this short article by Alberts et al, in PNAS 2014 (full disclosure: I am a co-author): https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24733905
Several people have argued that we should have mechanisms for reproducing important or widely cited work. Think about the benefits and difficulties of doing this.
At least three people should look at January 2017 papers from the open access journal, eLIFE (https://elifesciences.org/archive/2017/01) to see what is being done and what some people think about the efforts to demonstrate reproducibility.
At a minimum, those three should look at the very short essay by Nosek and Errington: https://elifesciences.org/content/6/e23383
Some of you interested in cancer biology should look at an articles about one of the five replication efforts (perhaps one about certain mutations in melanomas: https://elifesciences.org/content/6/e22662
Another possible contributor to the replication problem is “publication bias”, a tendency to favor publication of so-called “positive results.”
Some of you from the social sciences might find this interesting: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=nissen+gb%2C+magidson+t%2C+gross+k
3) Failures of scientific methods can have important practical consequences. One striking example, recently in the news, concerns the use of science in the judicial system. At least one person, preferably more, should read the executive summary of a recent report from the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) on the imperfect accuracy of such methods: Forensic Science in Criminal Courts: Ensuring Scientific Validity of Feature-Comparison Methods (PCAST, Executive Office of the President, September 2016) https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/PCAST/pcast_forensic_science_report_final.pdf
Philosophers of science have long worried about what is necessary for scientific observations to become the basis of accepted conclusions about how the world works. Two of the best known writings are these:
Karl Popper, The Logic of Scientific Discovery,1935. At least three people should browse sufficiently in this book to summarize Popper’s widely cited point of view. Excerpt: http://personal.lse.ac.uk/ROBERT49/teaching/ph103/2013-2014/pdf/Popper_LSD_Ch1.pdf
Squashed version: http://sqapo.com/popper.htm
Ludwig Fleck, Genesis and Development of a Scientific Fact (1934) This book is less widely known or available, but Kelsy Hillesheim noted its importance a few weeks ago and will, I hope, summarize its thesis briefly, based on the PDF she sent.
Some brief optional amusements:
• Sara Whitlock, “A new PhD student learns her first lesson: Certainty doesn’t exist in science,” STAT 12/30/16 https://www.statnews.com/2016/12/30/science-grad-student-lesson/
• N. Bilton, “How Elizabeth Holmes’s House of Cards Game Came Tumbling Down, Vanity Fair, September 2016. Light reading on failed methods in the private sector with big financial consequences.
• PLOS ONE essay on the role of the media and institutions in promoting questionable conclusions: https://www.statnews.com/2017/03/02/science-media-news/
Class #8 For March 27th: The consequences of error in science
On March 20th, we will discuss some of the reasons why errors arise in the conduct of science. On March 27th, we will consider some of the consequences of errors, as well as the inherent incompleteness of scientific investigation. These consequences often affect scientists themselves or their discipline: making errors is not uncommon and often innocent, but can nevertheless have devastating effects on the reputation of a single scientist or the trajectory of a field. And unsatisfactory results (ambiguous or imprecise) can motivate people to devise better instruments or methods, and we will discuss some of those.
Readings on the inevitability and virtues of scientific errors
These titles refer to the virtues of making mistakes in honorable efforts to solve big problems. None of this is required reading, but I’d be pleased if one or more of you wanted to follow up on Watson’s The Double Helix by reading the two chapters in Livio’s excellent book that describe how Linus Pauling (arguably the greatest chemist of the 20th century) got misled about the structure of DNA and lost out to Watson, Crick, and others.
M. Livio, Brilliant Blunders From Darwin to Einstein: Colossal Mistakes by Great Scientists That Changed Our Understanding of Life and the Universe, Simon and Schuster, 2013. (Chapters 6 and 7)
K. Schultz, Being Wrong: Adventures in the Margin of Error, HarperCollins, 2010.
Hannah Bloch, “Failure is an option,” National Geographic, September 2013.
But the focus of the March 27th discussion will be on the consequences of the inherent inaccuracy of science and its propensity to error for the formulation of public policy. We will think about this in relation to current debates about some highly sensitive topics: climate change, vaccination, evolution, and compensation for sports injuries, and we will also discuss these issues as they affected the control of tobacco use.
1) Climate change Everyone should read Robert Proctor’s brief summary of the issue and its contemporary relevance: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/20/opinion/climate-change-in-trumps-age-of-ignorance.html?smprod=nytcore-ipad&smid=nytcore-ipad-share&_r=0
The debates about climate change can affect legislation, regulation, and budgets; everyone should look at this very recent development and consider the consequences: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/03/03/white-house-proposes-steep-budget-cut-to-leading-climate-science-agency/?utm_term=.ebf85552951c&wpisrc=al_alert-COMBO-econ%252Bpolitics%252Bnation
For those who have not followed the science about climate change, here is a brief, useful consensus view: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/11/28/science/what-is-climate-change.html
2) Sports injuries
There are complex medical issues here and a lot is at stake for team owners. You may notice a pattern in the way the issues are framed. http://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/08/sports/hockey/nhl-chronic-traumatic-encephalopathy-cte-juliet-macur.html?smprod=nytcore-ipad&smid=nytcore-ipad-share The league’s onerous demand in a class-action suit on head injuries seems to show little regard for medical privacy and accepted scientific facts.
3) Other contentious issues (with different degrees of consensus)
Does immunization increase the risk of autism? Is evolution of species still a theory or an established fact? Does tobacco use increase the risk of cancers and other diseases?
No specific reading assignments for these topics but our discussion will be informed by anything that anyone chooses to read from a vast literature.
To enlarge the discussion beyond science to politics and to think about how the political approaches are framed, here are a few relevant, recent books on the political uses of uncertainty:
N. Oreskes and E.M. Conway: Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming (Bloomsbury Press, 2010). I’d like everyone to read at least the introductory chapter of this book, assuming that Kevin can provide a PDF or a link to it. Otherwise I will summarize the argument for our discussion.
J. Nesbit: Poison Tea: How Big Oil and Big Tobacco Invented the Tea Party and Captured the GOP (St. Martin’s Press, 2016)
Shawn Otto, The War on Science (Milkweed, 2016)
Class 9#: April 3rd More about science and commerce: Industrial: government: academic interfaces Ownership and patenting of intellectual property in science.
In this class, we will extend your earlier discussions with Professor Sato of how science becomes a business by considering some of the conflicts that occur in that transition. We will talk about some articles, legal rulings, and books that illustrate problems about ownership (patents and licensing) and financial returns (to basic scientists and product developers), and we will think about what is in the best interests of the public versus the owners of intellectual property.
Assigned reading about current events:
(1) http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/19/health/harnessing-the-us-taxpayer-to-fight-cancer-and-make-profits.html?smprod=nytcore-ipad&smid=nytcore-ipad-share
Public funding is backing a new immunotherapy treatment, but the bulk of any profits will go to a private company. So are taxpayers getting a good deal?
(2) http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/31/business/scientists-loved-and-loathed-by-syngenta-an-agrochemical-giant.html?smprod=nytcore-ipad&smid=nytcore-ipad-share&_r=0
An academic provides an inside view of the relationships being forged with corporations, and the accompanying expectations.
(3) https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/10/opinion/bernie-sanders-trump-should-avoid-a-bad-zika-deal.html http://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/21/opinion/developing-a-zika-vaccine.html?smprod=nytcore-ipad&smid=nytcore-ipad-share Bernie Sanders and a former head of the NIH square off over the development of a vaccine against Zika virus
Elective readings.
In considering these three recent conflicts, we will depend on several aspects of patent law.
Under Article I, section 8, it reads, “Congress shall have power… to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.”
Here are some relevant readings that I hope will be read by at least two people:
(1) Charles R. McManis & Sucheol Noh, The Impact of the Bayh-Dole Act on Genetic Research and Development: Evaluating the Arguments and Empirical Evidence to Date (An accessible legal essay that reviews some important aspects of the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980, legislation that strongly influenced how academic institutions pursue ownership of biological findings and products.) A PDF is on the class website. (2) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4225052/pdf/40142_2014_Article_55.pdf
An essay by Robert Cook-Deegan, a leading scholar on genetics and the law, about the Supreme Court’s decision on DNA patenting in a case that invalidated the patent held by Myriad Genetics on the BRCA1 gene. Reference #23 has the Court’s decision, also important reading (US Supreme Court, American Association of Pathologists v.Myriad )
(3) The latest and most intense patenting fight in recent times has been over the gene-editing method often referred to as CRISPR/Cas9. An account of the ruling can be found in the NY Times by Andrew Pollack: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/15/science/broad-institute-harvard-mit-gene-editing-patent.html
One of many articles about the effects of the fight on science: Pursuit of profit poisons collaboration, by Jacob S. Sherkow, Nature, April 14, 2016 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27075081
(4) Debate about the invention and royalties from the HIV test kit was among my most difficult problems in my first year as NIH Director. One account of the settlement is here: http://articles.latimes.com/1994-07-12/news/mn-14822_1_hiv-test-kit
Another can be found in my memoir, The Art and Politics of Science, the reference for which was provided for the first session of this course.
We will discuss copyright when we talk about publishing in a few weeks.
Some interesting longer readings on these topics.
These are not required for class but keep them in mind if you want to read more about ownership of intellectual property, fights over priority in science, and other items related to turning discoveries into fame and profits. All can be found at Amazon.com
R Hoffman and C Djerassi, Oxygen (a play by two distinguished chemists about establishing priority for the discovery of oxygen)
L. Jardine, The Man who Measured London (a lively biography about Robert Hooke, a remarkable scientist and difficult person who played critical roles in English science, the Royal Society, and the plan for London in the late 17th Century)
R. Skloot, The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks (a very popular social history of the origins and politics of the most famous cell line in medicine: HeLa cells)
S. Hall, Invisible Frontiers (an excellent account of the early days of the recombinant DNA industry by a journalist who will meet with you on April 24th)
A.Kornberg, The Golden Helix (a personal story of the founding of the company DNAX by a Nobel Prize-winning biochemist )
B. Werth, The Billion Dollar Molecule (this was already recommended by Prof. Sato)
J. Shreeve, The Genome Wars (one of several good accounts of the race to finish and possibly commercialize the human genome)
Class #10 Equity issues in science and its applications
Scientists would like to think that their work is done for the benefit of all, but it is evident that the benefits are not shared equally, even in the countries in which the work is done. This is so because of numerous factors—most obviously, economic disparities that influence whether people can afford the services and products that science enables, but also because of location, educational levels, gender, and ethnicity. Furthermore, we would like to believe that opportunities to participate in scientific work are available equally to all who have the necessary talents, but it is evident that social networks, gender, and race strongly influence access to those opportunities.
In this session, we will talk about some notable examples of the lack of equity and discuss ways in which the more subtle factors—especially issues of gender and ethnicity—can be studied, understood, and perhaps ameliorated.
In doing the readings below, think about the following questions:
What are the possible origins of the disparities in health outcomes among groups of US citizens?
How can we distinguish between prejudice and other factors to account for the under-representation of female and minority personnel in the sciences?
Some of the assigned papers make use of social sciences to enhance understanding of gender and racial disparities. What kinds of changes in the medical and scientific enterprise would you recommend upon reading these papers?
Assigned readings:
One of the benefits of science that we might expect to be available to all in an enlightened society is advanced health care. The following two papers are classic studies that attempt to identify factors accounting for disparate outcomes:
1) Survival of Blacks and Whites After a Cancer Diagnosis
Peter B. Bach, MD; Deborah Schrag, MD, MPH; Otis W. Brawley, MD; Aaron Galaznik; Sofia Yakren; Colin B. Begg, PhD JAMA. 2002;287(16):2106-2113. doi:10.1001/jama.287.16.2106 http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/194853
2) THE EFFECT OF RACE AND SEX ON PHYSICIANS’ RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CARDIAC CATHETERIZATION
KEVIN A. SCHULMAN, M.D., JESSE A. BERLIN, SC.D., WILLIAM HARLESS, PH.D., JON F. KERNER, PH.D., SHYRL SISTRUNK, M.D., BERNARD J. GERSH, M.B., CH.B., D.PHIL., ROSS DUBÉ, CHRISTOPHER K. TALEGHANI, M.D., JENNIFER E. BURKE, M.A., M.S., SANKEY WILLIAMS, M.D., JOHN M. EISENBERG, M.D., AND JOSÉ J. ESCARCE, M.D., PH.D. New England Journal of Medicine 340:618, 1999. http://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJM199902253400806
3) Another aspect of the story may depend on the way in which clinical trials are done; here is an illustration of the problem from a recent news article:
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.nytimes.com_2016_12_23_health_cancer-2Dtrials-2Dimmunotherapy.html-3Fsmprod-3Dnytcore-2Dipad-26smid-3Dnytcore-2Dipad-2Dshare&d=DwIFAg&c=lb62iw4YL4RFalcE2hQUQealT9-RXrryqt9KZX2qu2s&r=cMR6PxhkhAL2qKn0xYKfchNejcL6-gY37Lz3FbQ13Zg&m=ve3LgZemJOTyt72l7gFlYBdY0SBCgZtdpsFyIxBrzw4&s=60YV1mz620gncr-s50QN36jy2_j9V97Fr7hg1Nwdh9w&e=
(As immunotherapy research takes off, the patients getting the treatment have been overwhelmingly white. Researchers know this and say they are trying to correct it.)
Social scientists have been studying the factors that influence the participation of population groups in the scientific enterprise. Here are two recent, much discussed examples of such studies that might help address the questions raised earlier:
4) Race, Ethnicity, and NIH Research Awards Donna K. Ginther1,*, Walter T. Schaffer2, Joshua Schnell3, Beth Masimore3, Faye Liu3, Laurel L. Haak3, Raynard Kington2,† Science 19 Aug 2011:Vol. 333, Issue 6045, pp. 1015-1019 DOI: 10.1126/science.1196783 http://science.sciencemag.org/content/333/6045/1015/tab-pdf OR https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21852498
5) C.A. Moss-Racusin et al, Science faculty’s subtle gender biases favor male students. PNAS 109: 16474, 2012. http://www.pnas.org/content/109/41/16474.full.pdf
Additional readings (not required but interesting):
Several interesting women scientists have been written about. One of them, the astrophysicist Vera Rubin, died recently: here is an obituary by Dennis Overbye:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/27/science/vera-rubin-astronomist-who-made-the-case-for-dark-matter-dies-at-88.html?smprod=nytcore-ipad&smid=nytcore-ipad-share
(Dr. Rubin, who was awarded the National Medal of Science in 1993, ushered in the cosmic realization that most of the universe is invisible.)
Another, perhaps the most famous, woman scientist is the crystallographer, Rosalind Franklin, about whom numerous biographies (including Rosalind Franklin and DNA by Anne Sayre [Norton, 1975]) and a play (Photograph 51) have been written.
A notable black embryologist, E.E. Just, is the subject of another terrific biography:
Manning, K. R., Black Apollo of Science. The Life of Ernest Everett Just. Oxford University Press, New York/Oxford, 1983.
A briefer version of Just’s career can be viewed here: http://www.genetics.org/content/179/4/1735
A recently published account by a woman who studies plant biology has received a lot of praise this year: Hope Jahren, Lab Girl, Knopf, 2016.
Class # 11: April 24th
Science in the Public Square: Explanation, Advocacy and Policy
Professor Steve Hall, NYU School of Journalism
The interface between science and society is crucial to democratic societies, and the ability of scientists to engage directly with the public (a field known as science communication) has gained urgent attention over the past decade. We’ll consider the history of scientists talking to the general public (Aristotle, Humphrey Davy, and Charles Darwin, among the earlier practitioners), and then explore this increasingly important (and fractious) boundary through the lens of science explanation, political advocacy, communication of policy, and popularizations of science for broad public consumption. The in-class discussion will focus on the “March for Science” (April 22); communicating risk to the public (Italian earthquake episode); the virtues and perils of popularization (Carl Sagan, Daniel Gilbert); recent skirmishes between scientist communicators (Steven Pinker) and outside communicators (Malcolm Gladwell); and how technology (Internet, blogs, TED talks) have transformed the landscape of science communication. Finally, we will reserve a little time toward the end of the session to discuss—with the help of J.B.S. Haldane’s “How to Write a Popular Scientific Article”—principles of clear communication as you prepare your student presentations.
REQUIRED CLASS READINGS:
—Amy Harmon and Henry Fountain, “In Age of Trump, Scientists Show Signs of a Political Pulse,” New York Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/06/science/donald-trump-scientists-politics.html?_r=0
—Stephen S. Hall, “At Fault,” Nature (pdf)
—Daniel Gilbert, “Why We Should Talk to Humans”: http://www.danielgilbert.com/SPSP2016.pdf
—Chelsea Harvey, “In the Age of Trump, a Climate Change Libel Suit Heads to Trial,” Washington Post https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/12/23/in-the-age-of-trump-a-climate-science-libel-suit-heads-to-trial/?utm_term=.dc8d888f7a85
—J. B. S. Haldane, “How to Write a Popular Scientific Article” (pdf)
OPTIONAL CLASS READINGS:
—Charles Darwin, Chapter 1, “The Voyage of the Beagle”
—Steven Pinker on Malcolm Gladwell, New York Times Book Review: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/15/books/review/Pinker-t.html?_r=2&emc=booksupdateema1&nl=books& —George Orwell, “What Is Science?”
—Peter Medawar, “Science and Literature” (in Pluto’s Republic, 1986)
—Boris Kachka, “Proust Wasn’t a Neuroscientist. Neither Was Jonah Lehrer” (New York, 2012) http://nymag.com/news/features/jonah-lehrer-2012-11/
Questions to Consider:
—What are the responsibilities, and risks, of communicating scientific information to the public?
—What does the public need to know and, conversely, what does the public not need to know?
—Who makes for the more “reliable narrator” in disseminating scientific information to the public—scientists themselves or mediators like journalists?
—How does a writer or speaker figure out how to “pitch” a scientific explanation at the right level for a general audience? om Professor Steve Hall who will substitute for Professor Varmus on this evening.
Class # 12: May
1st 6-7:30 Portrayals of science in the arts
7:40-8:40 Four student presentations
Assignment: Watch GATTACA (1997). Kevin will obtain the movie and provide links to it and offer at least one showing in the screening room.
The movie portrays a future, one perhaps not far away, in which genetic information obtained at birth governs lives and dictates what people might be allowed to do. We will talk about the following questions: —–How close is the premise to current scientific reality? Closer than it was twenty years ago when the film was made?
–How likely is it that genetic information can be as predictive as the film implies?
–What are the political benefits of making a film of this sort?
–What do you expect the film to achieve as entertainment, instruction, or a call to action?
There are many other interesting examples of ways in which science and scientists are depicted in the arts. I have listed some of these below; none is required for class but you might look at them in the future and I am likely to refer to them during our session.
Fiction:
CP Snow, The Search (1934) (An early novel by the physicist turned novelist and politician, CP Snow, about the trials of starting out in competitive academic science in England)
Allegra Goodman, Intuition (2006) (A deft novel about young scientists working in a biomedical research laboratory in a place modeled on the Whitehead Institute at MIT)
Andrea Barrett, The Voyage of the Narwhal (1998) (A prize-winning novel about the rigors of geographical discovery in the late 19th century by a writer we’ve considered before when we read some of her short stories)
Carl Djerrasi, Cantor’s Dilemma (1989) (An insightful novel by a famous chemist about how doubt pervades the relationship between an cancer researcher and his trainees when important but uncertain results are obtained)
Theatre:
QED (a portrayal of the famously irreverent physicist, Richard Feynmann)
Wit (a moving account of a John Donne scholar dying of ovarian cancer)
Photograph 51 (a dramatization of Rosalind Franklin’s relationship with Watson, Crick, Wilkins, and others during the discovery of DNA structure)
Copenhagen (the German physicist Werner Heisenberg goes to visit his mentor, Niels Bohr in you-know-where)
Proof (a young women reveals her mathematical skills)
Film: The Man Who Knew Infinity (a recent well-reviewed biopic about the Indian math genius, Ramanujan, and his mentor at Cambridge University)
Arrowsmith (this you should already have seen for Session #2)
Dr. Ehrlich’s Magic Bullet (an oldie about discovering a treatment for syphilis)
Contagion (a realistic account of the birth of an epidemic)
Paintings by William Blake, Gerrit Dou, Rembrandt van Rijn, Hans Holbein, others (you can find many of these on line)
Class # 13: May 8th
6-7:30 How scientific findings are disseminated
Required reading:
Chapter 15 (“Science Publishing and Science Libraries in the Internet Age”)from my book, The Art and Politics of Science (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK190606/), which describes the development of public digital libraries and open access publishing for the life sciences. It also alludes to the virtues of preprint servers, described more recently for the life sciences in RD Vale and AA Hyman, “Priority of discovery in the life sciences” eLIFE 2016;5:e16931, a short essay that I hope some of you will read.
Consider:
–What factors enable and restrict access to new scientific findings?
–What are the ideal methods for getting such information to other scientists? To the general public?
–What are the costs of publishing and who should pay them? (The public? Funders of science? Scientists themselves?)
–What is the role of scientific reports as opposed to news accounts, history of science, and textbooks?
–Why is publishing so contentious? What is the relationship of publication to career development? How should peers evaluate a scientist’s record?
7:40-8:40 Four student presentations
Class # 14: May 15th
Nine student presentations To be followed by a celebration of the conclusion of MHC 360