Skip to main content

Blog Archives

Older posts
Newer posts

The New Age of the United States of Science

A man presents during a panel event.

Scientists, engineers, educators, policymakers, and the public must work together to ensure the United States remains globally competitive.

Published September 23, 2024

By Nick Fetty
Digital Content Manager

Photo by Nick Fetty/The New York Academy of Sciences.

A panel of experts took a deep dive into science education, policy, economics, and more during the United States of Science event, hosted by The New York Academy of Sciences (the Academy) and the Science & Technology Action Committee (STAC) on September 16, 2024.

From left: Keith Yamamoto, PhD,; Mary Woolley; Jo Craven McGinty; Nicholas Dirks; and Darío Gil, PhD. Photo by Nick Fetty/The New York Academy of Sciences.

Moderator Jo Craven McGinty, science bureau chief for The Wall Street Journal, introduced the discussion by citing STAC’s State of Science Report in which more than 75 percent of respondents indicated that the United States is losing, or has lost, the competition to lead the world in science and technology. Furthermore, 60 percent predicted that in six years, China will be the leader.

She posed the question to Keith Yamamoto, PhD, vice chancellor for Science Policy and Strategy at the University of California San Francisco and co-chair of STAC if these perceptions reflect reality.

“The results reflect the fact that there’s been an erosion of trust in science. A lack of understanding of the societal impact of science,” said Dr. Yamamoto, calling it “disappointing.”

Darío Gil, PhD, IBM Senior Vice President and Director of Research, added that in terms of “absolute dollars spent,” the United States continues to lead the way. While the U.S. leads in funding, Dr. Gil did acknowledge that for the first time, the U.S. has been surpassed by China for the number of PhDs awarded, patents issued, and papers published.

Panelist Darío Gil, PhD (right). Photo by Nick Fetty/The New York Academy of Sciences.

Areas of Strength, Room for Growth

“We have extraordinary strengths across the science and engineering enterprise, but we have areas of significant concern as well,” said Dr. Gil, who also serves on the Academy’s Board of Governors and the Executive Board for the International Science Reserve.

Craven McGinty, then shifted the focus to the potential cause of this perceived diminishment of science in the U.S. She asked Mary Woolley, president of Research!America and co-chair of STAC, whether it’s complacency on the part of Americans, or if the nature of competition has changed. Woolley stated that it’s a combination of the two.

“We’re taking science and technology for granted, and progress for granted, and we have for many years,” said Woolley. She added that while government officials are cutting budgets each year with little foresight to the future, private industry is leading the way.

Panelist Mary Woolley. Photo by Nick Fetty/The New York Academy of Sciences.

Dr. Gil said it’s important to understand the historical context to better comprehend how the nature of the competition has changed in recent years. He cited that 20 years ago the United States spent $300 billion annually in research and development. One-third came from the federal government, while the remainder came from the business sector. Fast forward 20 years, that number rises to $800 billion annually with $600 billion from the business sector.

Another contributing factor, according to Dr. Gil, is that the international scene has become more competitive as other countries have effectively imitated the success of U.S. institution building. He said China is perhaps the greatest example of this success. 

The Role of Higher Education in Research

Nicholas Dirks, president and CEO of the Academy, offered an education perspective. Prior to his role at the Academy, Dirks spent his career in higher education, first on faculty and later in administration. He said that historically, higher education has been reliant on the model set up by 20th century governmental investments in science.

This includes research funded by agencies like the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the National Science Foundation (NSF). This funding framework was made possible because of the “efflorescence of great research universities,” according to Dirks, that occurred in the U.S. in the early 20th century, particularly after World War II.

“I worry that if you both look at basic research, but even applied research that’s done within the context of a university where the incentives are not necessarily short-term incentives around building usable products or medicines, you begin to lose the real dynamism that underlies the whole system of research in this country,” Dirks cautioned.

The Importance of Fundamental Research

Keith Yamamoto, PhD. Photo by Nick Fetty/The New York Academy of Sciences.

Electrical engineer Vannevar Bush was the nation’s first presidential science advisor, serving in the Franklin D. Roosevelt administration. When World War II ended, the president asked Bush about the role the federal government should continue to play in supporting science. In his report, Science —The Endless Frontier, Bush stated that the federal government should continue to support scientific advancement.

“[According to the report], the way that [the federal government] should stay involved is to support fundamental research, basic research, in universities and medical schools. And to support the training of the next generation of scientists,” said Dr. Yamamoto. “Which is really still the framework for federal science policy in this country.”

This fundamental research is crucial to support, according to Dr. Yamamoto, because through further investigation, scientists can discover practical applications for something that started as novel research. While this is important in theory, Dr. Yamamoto was critical that a commitment to this practice from the federal government has not been thoroughly maintained.

“The peak in federal research for science and technology in this country was reached in 1964, and it’s been sort of dribbling down ever since, from 1.9 percent to under 0.7 percent of GDP,” stated Dr. Yamamoto. He added that scientific research is “now a multisector enterprise that, in order to succeed, is going to need support across the board.”

The United States as a World Leader

From left: Keith Yamamoto, PhD,; Mary Woolley; Jo Craven McGinty; Nicholas Dirks, PhD; and Darío Gil, PhD. Photo by Nick Fetty/The New York Academy of Sciences.

Building off Dr. Yamamoto’s GDP statistics, moderator Craven McGinty went deeper into the data. She cited that microchip production in the U.S., has declined from 37 percent 30 years ago, to 12 percent today. In particular, demand “has grown exponentially in the last decade.” Furthermore, the 2023 International Student Assessment, which evaluates the academic performance of 15-year-old students, ranked the U.S. 28th out of 37 participating countries in math, 12th in science, and 6th in reading. She then asked the panelists how we got to this point.

Dr. Gil explained the complexities of this issue from an economic standpoint. He indicated that recent changes in globalization and supply chains are part of the reason the U.S. lost its status as a major manufacturer of microchips. Dirks then weighed in. While his professional career has been in higher education, he acknowledges that the issue must be addressed at the K-12 level for American students.

“We are not producing enough K through 12 students with requisite STEM skills to work at the highest level of what we’re going to need for the workforce of the future,” Dirks said. He expressed concern about neglecting STEM skill development in American K-12 schools and overly relying on international students to pursue STEM degrees from American universities.

Moderator Jo Craven McGinty. Photo by Nick Fetty/The New York Academy of Sciences.

Taking Action

Woolley emphasized the pervasiveness of these issues. She said it isn’t just scientists and industry leaders who have expressed concern about the strength of the STEM pipeline. It’s also the broader public, such as parents.

She cited data from STAC, which found that people generally gave low rankings when assessing the quality of education in their state. However, when asked about areas that they value most in their state, education ranks high. With K-12 education in the U.S. being largely unfederated, she suggests that action at the local policy level can be the catalyst to make these necessary changes.

“There’s plenty of room for not only improvement but figuring out what each individual already in the science community, or associated with it, universities for example, what can you do?” Wooley asked. “Can you personally encourage a science-trained friend to run for the local school board? Think of the difference that would make.”

Academy members can access an on-demand video recording of the event. Click here to listen to or watch the full conversation.

Not a member? Sign up today.

Academy’s Past – A Need for More Space

A black and white photo of the 19th century New York Dispensary building.

The Lyceum’s third home served as a placeholder until funds were raised for a standalone facility.

Published September 16, 2024

By Nick Fetty
Digital Content Manager

New York Dispensary | White Street and Center Street | 1831 – 1836

From The New York Public Library.

The Lyceum of Natural History in the City of New York (“the Lyceum”) called the New York Dispensary home from 1831 to 1836. The Lyceum – which would rename itself The New York Academy of Sciences in 1876 – procured space on the third floor to house its cabinets and library, in addition to meeting rooms and office space. The lease dictated an annual rental rate of $150 (more than $5000 today) to be paid in quarterly installments.

Unlike cannabis-selling dispensaries that have popped up recently in various cities in the U.S., the New York Dispensary in the early 19th century was more akin to a religion-affiliated hospital that served those without financial means. It dispensed vaccines and other medical drugs to improve public health for the city’s most vulnerable populations. According to the Dispensary’s 1837 annual report, “The Institution is founded for, and dispenses its assistance only to the poor.”

An Immediate Need for More Space

Almost immediately upon moving into the new facility, Lyceum officials pursued a plan to purchase a piece of land on which to erect a new building and home. When attempts to collaborate on a building project with related institutions like the New York College of Pharmacy and the Mechanics’ Institute proved fruitless, the Lyceum decided to go it alone.

In 1834, John C. Jay, a curator for the Lyceum, led a successful effort to raise funds to purchase land and, eventually, construct a new building. Jay recommended the purchase of a 50- by 100-foot plot of land on Broadway between Houston and Prince Streets for approximately $22,000 (nearly $800,000 today). Individual contributors to the project funding were granted Lyceum membership that included access to the Lyceum’s library, as well as free admission to its museum and lectures for donors and their families.

Despite the success of the fundraising campaign, some members expressed concern about the Lyceum’s ability to pay off the debt that would be incurred. Nevertheless, the Lyceum proceeded with the project, which was “speedily completed,” and it moved into the new facility in May 1836.

This is the third piece in an eleven-part series exploring the Academy’s past homes. Read:

Advocating a Better Future for Postdocs

A headshot of a smiling woman.

Blavatnik Regional Awards Finalist Nicole Lake, PhD, is now a strong advocate for postdoctoral researchers. She offers advice on how postdocs should advocate for one another.

Published September 17, 2024

By Nicole Lake, PhD, Postdoctoral Fellow, Yale Medical School
2024 Blavatnik Regional Awards Finalist in Life Sciences

As postdocs, we are not just passive participants in our journey. We are active shapers of our own experience. We must learn and apply a wide range of skills, from research and teaching to networking and time management.

Another crucial skill we need is self-advocacy – standing up for our needs. Whether negotiating for better resources, obtaining support to attend a conference, securing mentorship, or balancing work-life demands, self-advocacy is vital for our postdoctoral success and well-being. As we move through our postdoc, some of us will also find ourselves stepping into a new role: advocating for others. Whether it’s pushing for better representation, compensation, childcare support, or benefits, advocacy for postdocs by postdocs also plays a central role in shaping the postdoc experience.

During my postdoc, I navigated a journey that saw me grow from advocating for myself to advocating for my peers in the postdoc community. My experience taught me that advocacy goes beyond identifying needs; it also requires the confidence and understanding of how to ask for your needs to be met effectively. Whether advocating for yourself or pushing for change within a department or university, framing an ask around mutual benefits is often key. Before making a request, I consider the other person’s perspective: understanding their viewpoint, finding common ground, and showing how my request will benefit them can often lead to a solution.

Advocating for Fellow Postdocs

My role as a Yale Postdoctoral Association (YPA) Co-Chair had the most significant impact on my advocacy perspective as a postdoc. In this role, I was privileged to advocate for over 1,000 postdocs. The YPA has a proud history of advocating for positive change for the postdocs it serves, and one of the achievements I’m most proud of during my term was securing salary increases to reflect the value of postdocs and their living costs better. I took away two critical lessons from this experience:

  • 1) the power of data-driven advocacy and
  • 2) the importance that the allyship of faculty and staff plays in advocacy success.

In academia, we rely on data to support our hypotheses, and I’ve found this approach equally powerful for advocacy. To better understand, uncover, and address unmet needs in our community, we initiated a university-wide postdoc survey on topics including cost-of-living considerations, and available resources for postdocs, to obtain data, enable data-driven discussions with university leadership, and strengthen our case for change. This survey was a collaborative effort with the postdoctoral office, representing an example of allyship between postdocs and the university, working together to achieve a common goal: improving the postdoc experience.

It’s important to acknowledge that the success of our advocacy didn’t happen in isolation. Within the YPA it was built on the groundwork laid by previous leaders who, for example, established channels for regular dialogue with university leadership—these channels were critical for communicating our requests. Our time as a postdoc is limited, and we may not always see the outcomes of our efforts advocating for better representation, benefits, compensation, and beyond. However, it’s important to remember that our efforts are cumulative and often provide a foundation for future advocates to build upon, contributing to progress long after we’ve moved on.

A Skill Developed Over Time

Finally, I want to share that self-advocacy does not come naturally to me but rather is a skill I’ve had to develop over time. Advocating for others has always come more easily than advocating for myself. Like any other skill, self-advocacy is learned—it requires practice, patience, and persistence. However, it is a skill worth cultivating, given its impact on your career and well-being.

Overall, my journey has shown me the power of advocacy – not only for improving our circumstances but also for improving the experience of others. Whether you’re advocating for yourself or pushing for change to benefit others, advocacy has an essential place in the postdoctoral experience.

About the Author and the Award

Nicole Lake is a 2024 Blavatnik Regional Awards Finalist in Life Sciences.

You can learn more about her and the Blavatnik Awards at Blavatnikawards.org

This piece published on the National Postdoctoral Association member blog as part of 2024 National Postdoc Appreciation Week. Current Academy Members can receive a 20% discount on a National Postdoctoral Association postdoc individual membership by emailing customerservice@nyas.org and requesting the NPA membership discount code

Self-Advocacy Played Important Role in My Journey

Blavatnik Regional Awards Laureate Raghavendra Pradyumna Pothukuchi, PhD, had to advocate for himself to find the right work-life balance. He offers advice so fellow postdocs can do the same.

Published September 17, 2024

By Raghavendra Pradyumna Pothukuchi, PhD, Postdoctoral Fellow, Yale University
2024 Blavatnik Regional Awards Laureate in Physical Sciences & Engineering

Raghavendra Pradyumna Pothukuchi, PhD, celebrates his wife’s birthday with their two children.

We all enjoy science and research, but it’s hard to deny that academic life is grueling. This is especially so as a postdoc, which is a great springboard for one’s career but also brings unique challenges.

Making the most of a postdoc inevitably requires significant effort. Couple this with personal needs, goals, and responsibilities, and you have a fragile contraption of sorts, ready to fall in many ways.

My choice of being a postdoc was born out of an abruptly terminated job search during the COVID-19 fallout. When I graduated from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign in 2020, my kids were 1 and 4, and my dear wife, a fellow PhD in computer science, would soon opt out of work due to long COVID.

My postdoc would be on brain-computer interfaces, and classical and quantum frameworks for cognitive models. It’s exciting — but very new and challenging. I had to balance my research with personal commitments including childcare, my wife’s health, providing long-distance support to my parents living in my home country of India, traveling to help my father while he was being treated for cancer, and, of course, managing my own well-being.

Finding Work-Life Balance

One way that has helped me in making the postdoc process work, is self-advocacy. You are (or can be) your best ally and advocate on issues that matter to you, whether they are about yourself or those that you care about. The definition of being a self-advocate means “identifying your needs and communicating them clearly to help others understand how they can support you”.

There are many valuable resources on self-advocacy, including those at the National Postdoctoral Association (NPA). I’d like to share what I learned from my experience. The first step to self-advocacy is to identify what you need, professionally and personally. These could be resources, compensation, special needs, processes, projects you should be on, or even assistance from people, like teammates and mentors. This step is not easy—it requires time and thought.

One could start with high-level tangible goals such as, readiness for academic job searches within two years, allocating hours for childcare, improving wellbeing in a community you care about, etc.; then move to identify the specific needs to accomplish them. It’s helpful to identify and talk to various stakeholders, such as family and mentors, with whom your plans intersect. On the professional side, a good starting point is the postdoc mentoring plan, which makes career goals and means explicit.

Advocating for Yourself

In my case, I needed a mentor who understood my situation, a system with flexible schedules, reasonable compensation and benefits to support my family, and the leeway to explore new fields. These needs weren’t exhaustive or static, since life changes. However, to the extent possible, it pays to be foresighted so that you don’t appear capricious or importunate, and importantly, that you ask for what actually helps you.

The next step is to identify the people that you would communicate your needs with. This is critical. They should be able to provide what you need and be willing to help. In several cases, this could be your mentor, but it doesn’t have to be. For example, while my mentor was the right person to talk to about compensation and work schedules, it wasn’t so for childcare or other benefits that are set by my university.

Sometimes when asking for policy-level changes, it helps to find others who share your cause. This could be your local postdoctoral association, or the NPA. When I was a grad student, I was concerned about the wellbeing of students in my academic community (computer architecture). At a conference, I met with a fellow student who shared the same cause, and our joint effort led to the creation of a new student association with this mission, CASA. This wouldn’t have been possible if I hadn’t met my co-founder.

The last step is to articulate your needs. This means clearly and politely stating your needs, participating in good faith, and being open. If needed, convey the value you bring to the group.

Identify Your Non-Negotiables

Raghavendra Pradyumna Pothukuchi, PhD, (second from left) with his lab members.

It’s useful to identify which of your needs are non-negotiable. However, it’s also possible that some needs can’t be met, at least not fully or immediately. Be open to alternatives. In my case, my starting postdoc salary was good but not great for my family needs. I brought this up with my mentor, who understood my situation and recommended that we apply for a fellowship, the NSF and CRA computing innovation fellowship, which I received. This took time, but it helped immensely, even beyond the finances.

I hope my experience inspires you to self-advocate. My postdoc journey didn’t happen without making hard choices or giving up things I loved. But I’m glad about my progress—personal and professional (the Blavatnik Regional Award for Young Scientists being one!), and the things I was able to hold on to, and pickup. Self-advocacy played an important role in my journey.

Looking forward, I will continue to practice it as I transition to a tenure-track faculty position at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.

About the Author and the Award

Raghavendra Pradyumna Pothukuchi, is a 2024 Blavatnik Regional Awards Laureate in Physical Sciences & Engineering

You can learn more about him and the Blavatnik Awards at Blavatnikawards.org

This piece published on the National Postdoctoral Association member blog is part of 2024 National Postdoc Appreciation Week. Current Academy Members can receive a 20% discount on a National Postdoctoral Association postdoc individual membership by emailing customerservice@nyas.org and requesting the NPA membership discount code

A New Approach to Postdoc Work-Life Balance

A woman poses with her significant others, a river and sunset in the background.

Blavatnik Regional Awards Finalist Amy R. Strom, PhD, offers advice on the subtle differences postdocs must consider when finding work-life balance.

Published September 17, 2024

By Amy R. Strom, PhD, Postdoctoral Fellow, Princeton University
2024 Blavatnik Regional Awards Finalist in Life Sciences

Amy Strom and partner Akshay Tambe.

Is work-life balance truly harder for postdocs than other professions? The short answer is yes, and there’s a reason you’ll find so many “How I Found Balance” articles written by academics. These narratives often focus on the number of hours spent at work versus at home, which is, of course, an essential aspect of balance. However, this narrow focus misses a crucial component: the role of the employer in shaping the work environment.

Achieving balance in the face of obstacles is not just about personal discipline; it often hinges on the resources and support provided by the institution. We should be building structures that empower individuals to create a balanced life.

My own journey in science has required a long-distance relationship during my postdoc, between New Jersey and California. I have had to carefully organize my project timelines and fund cross-country flights in order to spend time with my partner, but even with these personal sacrifices I quickly ran out of leave.

An Individualized Approach

Then I advocated for myself to my mentor and the University to be able to work remotely from out of state without the time away from campus being counted as vacation. As an experimentalist, remote work can be complicated to coordinate, so I am grateful to my partner, to my mentor and to the administrators in my department for their support in identifying a solution that works for my personal situation.

Perhaps establishing this solution and sharing the story will aid postdocs in similar situations in the future (long-distance relationships among academics are not rare), but more practically, it is important for each individual to get the support they need to enact their own personal solutions. I credit my own navigation of my challenges not in small part to coalescing with a group of fellow women grad students and postdocs who face different but equally complex challenges. Together we discuss the difficulties we face and help each other brainstorm potential solutions. Women in Science groups and other shared identity groups provide not only a sense of belonging but also a platform for advocacy.

Postdocs are not a monophyletic clade. We are women, men, nonbinary, single, partnered, married; we are sexually, racially, and culturally diverse. Such diversity means that a one-size-fits-all approach to work-life balance is ineffective at best and harmful at worst. This is where mutual and intersectional advocacy becomes crucial. By recognizing our shared challenges and working together, we can push for changes that benefit us all.

Amy with a close group of women scientists. From left: Amy Strom, Claire Weaver, Jessica Zhao, Lindsay Becker, Anita Donlic, Yoonji Kim, Sofia Quinodoz, and Hailey Tanner

Postdocs and Unionization

In the summer of 2024, postdocs at my home institution, Princeton University, voted to become part of the United Auto Workers (UAW) union, an American union that has grown to represent more than just the auto industry. This victory required immense effort from many current postdocs, demonstrating the power of collective action.

Unionization will allow us to gather centralized information about our needs and bargain more effectively with the University for policy changes that will benefit us as a group and as individuals. Now just a few weeks later, a survey is collecting data on the most pressing issues we face, from pay equity to green card applications to family leave policies. I enthusiastically look forward to the additional support and benefits that Princeton will enact based on these data.

So, this National Postdoc Appreciation Week, let’s truly appreciate postdocs. Let’s listen to their unique stories, empathize with their individual challenges, and then make real, tangible, institutional changes to support them. Acknowledging the diversity of experiences among postdocs is the first step towards creating a more equitable academic environment where each individual can achieve their own balance.

About the Author and the Award

Amy R. Strom is a 2024 Blavatnik Regional Awards Finalist in Life Sciences

You can learn more about her and the Blavatnik Awards at Blavatnikawards.org

This piece published on the National Postdoctoral Association member blog is part of 2024 National Postdoc Appreciation Week. Current Academy Members can receive a 20% discount on a National Postdoctoral Association postdoc individual membership by emailing customerservice@nyas.org and requesting the NPA membership discount code

15 Years of Advancing Machine Learning Research

The New York Academy of Sciences has been at the forefront of machine learning and artificial intelligence since hosting the first Machine Learning Symposium nearly two decades ago.

Published September 16, 2024

By Nick Fetty
Digital Content Manager

In today’s digital age, an abundance of reliable data is readily available at our fingertips. This is, in part, because of significant advances in the field of machine learning in recent years.

The New York Academy of Sciences (the Academy) has long played a role in advancing research in this subfield of artificial intelligence. In machine learning, researchers develop mathematical algorithms that extract knowledge from specific data sets. The machine then “learns” from the data in an iterative fashion that enables predictions to be made. It has a wide range of disparate practical applications from natural language processing and search engine function to stock market analysis and medical diagnosis.

The first Machine Learning Symposium was hosted by the Academy in 2006. Collaborators included experts from Google, Rutgers University, Columbia University, and NYU’s Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences.

Continuing a Proud Tradition

This proud tradition will continue when the Academy hosts the 15th annual Machine Learning Symposium at the New York Academy of Medicine (1216 5th Avenue, New York, NY 10029) on October 18, 2024. This year’s keynote speakers include:

  • Pin-Yu Chen, PhD, IBM Research: Dr. Chen’s recent research focuses on adversarial machine learning of neural networks for robustness and safety. His long-term research vision is to build trustworthy machine learning systems.
  • Furong Huang, PhD, University of Maryland: Dr. Huang works on statistical and trustworthy machine learning, foundation models and reinforcement learning, with specialization in domain adaptation, algorithmic robustness, and fairness.
  • Daniel Russo, PhD, Columbia University: Dr. Russo’s research lies at the intersection of statistical machine learning and online decision making, mostly falling under the broad umbrella of reinforcement learning.
  • Jon Schneider, PhD, Google Research New York: Dr. Schneider’s primary research interests include problems in online learning, game theory, and convex optimization/geometry. His recent work focuses on designing strategically robust algorithms for learning in game-theoretic environments.

The symposium’s primary goal has always been to develop an active community of machine learning scientists. This includes experts from academic, government, and industrial institutions who can exchange ideas in a neutral setting.

Graduate students and representatives from tech startups will also deliver a series of “Spotlight Talks.” Others will share their research during an interactive poster session.

Promoting Impactful Machine Learning Applications

Over its history, the symposium has highlighted several mainstream machine learning applications. This includes simulation, learning and optimization techniques for IBM Watson‘s Jeopardy! game strategies, the role big data played in the 2012 U.S. presidential election, and a trainable vision system for off-road mobile robots.

Corinna Cortes, PhD, VP of Google Research, Mehryar Mohri, PhD, Professor at NYU and a Research Director at Google Research, and Tony Jebara, PhD, VP of Engineering and Head of Machine Learning at Spotify, have been involved since the event’s inception. They continue to guide the event’s programming through their roles on the Scientific Organizing Committee. This year’s sponsors include Google Research and Cubist Systematic Strategies.

Register today to secure your spot at this year’s event!

Beyond the Beaches: Revealing the Real Puerto Rico I

A cover of the March 3, 1915 issue of Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences.

Part One: Into the Unknown

Relatively little was known about the small Caribbean Island prior to a series of expeditions led by The New York Academy of Sciences in the early 20th century.

Published September 16, 2024

By Nick Fetty
Digital Content Manager

From Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1915

Puerto Rico is known for its beautiful beaches, rich rainforests, and bioluminescent bays that attract tourists from all over the world.  

Upon the conclusion of the Spanish American War in 1898, Puerto Rico (often spelled “Porto Rico” during this era) became an official territory of the United States. In the following years, the University of Puerto Rico was established. Academic and scientific institutions in the U.S. also began conducting their own field work on the island. Some scientific research had occurred prior to the Academy’s survey. However, these early findings were only available in obscure, generally inaccessible journals. Roads, harbors, and other infrastructure were also constructed during this era. This made the island, roughly three quarters the size of Connecticut, more navigable.

In 1912, The New York Academy of Sciences commenced planning its first in a series of scientific surveys of “Porto Rico”.  Nathanial Lord Britton, a Fellow at the Academy and, later, Academy president, led many Puerto Rican expeditions. He initially proposed a four-year project with the Academy contributing $2,000 (roughly $63,000 today) annually.

Emerson McMillion was the Academy’s then-president and a Wall Street investment banker. He was so in favor of the effort that he contributed personal funds to support it. Other area institutions eventually joined the effort. This included the American Museum of Natural History, the New York Botanical Garden, Columbia University, and New York University.

The First Visit to the Island

According to historian Simon Baatz’s 2017 update to his seminal history of the Academy published in 1988, there were two reasons for why the Academy chose Puerto Rico. Not only was it “an unexplored territory that had the potential for interesting and worthwhile discoveries” but it also had “the presence of an administrative structure that would provide Academy scientists with invaluable logistical and technical assistance.”  

In March 1913, Britton, who also served as director of the New York Botanical Garden, visited the island. He established connections with researchers at the university as well as with government officials. Britton pinpointed several shortfalls in the current research that he hoped the Academy scientists could fill.

He also wanted to show the residents of Puerto Rico that their government was justified in funding and supporting this effort. Britton offered to print copies of their survey for distribution in Puerto Rican schools and libraries. Additionally, he committed to contributing specimens uncovered during the survey to establish a natural history museum on the island.

The research teams, which began arriving in 1914, were to conduct comprehensive studies in areas like zoology, geology, and anthropology.

Studying the Island’s Zoology

Researchers from the Academy’s zoology department departed for the island in summer 1914 to study the region’s fauna. Some of them were affiliated with the American Museum of Natural History.

Roy W. Miner, an Academy Fellow, examined the marine invertebrates and myriopods in the waters off the main island. Harry G. Barber, from the New York Entomological Society, conducted a similar survey on insects and arachnoids. John T. Nichols, also a Fellow, investigated the ichthyology of the region.

In this era, the rank of “Fellow” was bestowed upon Academy members who were selected by other active members for their scientific achievement.

Geological Findings

The geological work commenced in August 1914 and was led by Charles P. Barkey, then a vice president for the Academy who would go on to become president.

He traversed more than 2,000 kilometers across the island. His observations studied everything from hot springs and volcanic vents to rock formations and natural resources. These observations were recorded in the March 1915 issue of Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences (Annals).

“At the outset, it is well to appreciate that the Island of Porto Rico is geologically young. There are no traces, so far as known, of any of the so-called ancient rocks. It is quite true, of course, that the older series of formations is largely a volcanic complex whose exact age may never be accurately determined, but there is no occurrence of profoundly metamorphosed members or other evidences [sic] of great geologic age,” wrote Barkey.

Through an Anthropological Lens

Renowned anthropologist and Academy member Franz Boas began conducting field work in Puerto Rico in 1915. As an already established academic, he viewed the survey as an opportunity for his graduate students to conduct serious field work.

Boas and his research team scoured the island and interacted with locals to assemble “an immense collection of folk tales, riddles, ballads and songs.” The researchers also studied the anthropometric and dental features of school children in Utuado as well as soldiers in San Juan. The team’s archeological dig of “the ancient village of Capá” was perhaps their greatest contribution to the effort. The site is known today as Centro Ceremonial Indígena de Caguana.

From Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1915

The Importance of Communicating the Science

During these initial excursions, the research team brought back more than 200 specimens of water plants for gardens in New York City, according to The New York Times. Additionally, the Brooklyn Daily Eagle reported “some 12,000 fossils” were also brought back to New York.

According to Baatz’s 2017 book, the Academy’s initial efforts were considered so successful that “during the first two years, the Puerto Rico Survey expanded at an almost exponential rate so that by the summer of 1916, a total of twenty-three different groups had travelled to Puerto Rico to explore the botany, entomology, geology, ichthyology, mycology, anthropology, paleontology, and archeology of the island.”

Britton, who led these efforts, understood the importance of rapid dissemination of their findings. These findings were not only published by the Academy but also in the Journal of the New York Botanical Garden, the Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History, and Science.

Academy affiliates and other researchers would make several visits to the Caribbean in the following years.  Findings of the full survey were published through the 1940s as the Scientific Survey of Porto Rico and the Virgin Islands in 19 volumes. Additional reports would also appear in Annals. The Academy was continuing to prove its utility to the broader scientific community, and the efforts in Puerto Rico were just getting started in 1916.

This is the first article in a two-part series examining the Academy’s past expeditions to Puerto Rico. The series is part of National Hispanic Heritage Month.

Read: Part 2 – A Lasting Impact

Our Iceland Adventure Turned into a Climate Crisis Wake-Up Call

A shot of icebergs in Iceland.

The Jökulsárlón glacier lagoon provides not only aesthetic beauty but it’s a case study in the detrimental effects of climate change and the need to take mitigative action now.

Published September 11, 2024

By Syra Madad, D.H.Sc., M.Sc., MCP, CHEP
Chief Biopreparedness Officer, NYC Health + Hospitals

Photo by Syra Madad.

On a recent trip to Iceland with my children, we visited the Jökulsárlón glacier lagoon, a place known for its serene beauty, where fractured icebergs from the Breiðamerkurjökull glacier drift across the water. Their ethereal shades of blue and black felt timeless, but in reality, they represent the fragility of an ecosystem being reshaped by climate change.

While sailing through the lagoon, we witnessed massive icebergs drifting across the water, their glistening surfaces reflecting the light in stunning shades of blue. During the excursion, we watched as one of the staff members aboard the boat scooped up a piece of ice from the lagoon—once part of a melted glacier—and took a bite.

For most of the group, this was a fun and quirky highlight of the trip. But as an infectious disease epidemiologist, my thoughts immediately turned to the potential microbes preserved in that ancient ice—microbes that could have been dormant for millennia. Research shows that as glaciers and permafrost thaw due to climate change, long-dormant microorganisms, including potential pathogens, can be released.

Glacial ice can harbor viable infectious pathogens, as evidenced by a recent study which found that over 50% of bacterial cells on glacier surfaces are capable of resuming activity within 24 hours after thawing, highlighting their ability to remain dormant and potentially pathogenic in frozen environments, only to become active under the right conditions.

Public Health and Melting Ice Caps

This experience left me thinking not just about climate change in the abstract, but also about the potential public health consequences of melting ice caps. The possibility of ancient microbes resurfacing is a stark reminder that climate change affects more than just the physical environment—it also has implications for causing future outbreaks. 

Jökulsárlón, which didn’t exist before the 20th century, is a direct result of rising global temperatures. This glacial lagoon only began to form around 1935, driven by the rapid retreat of the Breiðamerkurjökull glacier, a process that has accelerated with every passing decade. The lagoon’s surface area has doubled since the 1970s, and it now stands as Iceland’s deepest lake, growing as the ice that once shielded this region melts into history.

Photo by Syra Madad.

The expansion of Jökulsárlón is a living testament to the impact of a warming planet, visible and visceral. This lagoon’s growth is not a triumph of nature’s beauty but a stark reminder of the irreversible transformations happening in our environment.

Every meter of receding glacier signifies the loss of critical ice reserves that have sustained ecosystems for centuries. Iceland’s glaciers are losing significant ice mass each year. For example, a study on Iceland’s glaciers revealed a loss of approximately 9.6 gigatons of ice annually as observed from 1995 to 2019, with half of the total mass loss occurring during this period, reflecting an accelerated rate due to climate change.

The Urgency of Action

As I stood at the lagoon’s edge with my children, I couldn’t help but wonder what kind of world they will inherit. Will these glaciers become distant memories? As a mother, the climate crisis is deeply personal. The wildfires, floods, and extreme heat waves we see across the world are not exceptions but increasingly the new normal, driven by a warming planet.

In Jökulsárlón, the visible melting glaciers underline the urgency of action. Climate change is no longer an abstract concept; it is unfolding right before our eyes. As we approach Climate Week NYC, it is a reminder that the time for action is now. The retreating glaciers of Iceland tell us a story of loss, but they also challenge us to decide what kind of future we will create for the generations to come.

Will we act, or let this pivotal moment pass, forever changing the world our children will inherit?

Read more from Dr. Madad on the Academy blog:

The Ethics of Developing Voice Biometrics

A writer conducts an interview with an AI researcher.

Various ethical considerations must be applied to the development of artificial intelligence technologies like voice biometrics to ensure disenfranchised populations are not negatively impacted.

Published August 29, 2024

By Nitin Verma, PhD
AI & Society Fellow

Nitin Verma, PhD, (left) conducts an interview with Juana Caralina Becerra Sandoval at The New York Academy of Sciences’ office in lower Manhattan.
Photo by Nick Fetty/The New York Academy of Sciences.

Juana Catalina Becerra Sandoval, a PhD candidate in the Department of the History of Science at Harvard University and a research scientist in the Responsible and Inclusive Technologies initiative at IBM Research, presented as part of The New York Academy of Sciences’ (the Academy) Artificial Intelligence (AI) & Society Seminar series. The lecture – titled “What’s in a Voice? Biometric Fetishization and Speaker Recognition Technologies” – explored the ethical implications associated with the development and use of AI-based tools such as voice biometrics. After the presentation, Juana sat down with Nitin Verma, PhD, a member of the Academy’s 2023 cohort of the AI & Society Fellowship, to further discuss the promises and challenges society faces as AI continues to evolve.

*Some quotes have been edited for length and clarity*

Tell me about some of the big takeaways from your research so far on voice biometrics that you covered in your lecture?

I think some of the main takeaways from the history of the automation of speaker recognition are, first, really trying to understand what are the different motivations or incentives for investing in a particular technology and a particular technological future. In the case of voice biometrics, a lot of the interesmyt is coming from different sectors like the financial sector, or the security and surveillance sector. It’s important to keep those interests in mind and observe how they inform the way in which voice biometrics get developed or not.

The other thing that’s important is that even though we have a notion of technological progress, some of the underlying ideas and assumptions are very old. This includes ideas about the body, about what the human body is, and how humans have the ability to change, or not, their body and the way they speak. In the case of voice biometrics, these ideas date back to 19th-century eugenic science, and they continue informing research, even as we have new technologies. We need to not just look at this technology as new, but ask what are the ideas that remain, or that sustain over time, and in which context did those ideas originate.

So, in your opinion, what role does, or would, AI play in your historical accounting of voiceprint technology?

I think, in some way, this is the story of AI. So, it’s not a separate story. AI doesn’t come together in the abstract. It always comes along in relation to a particular application. A lot of the different algorithmic techniques we have today were developed in relation to voice biometrics. Really what AI entails is a shift in the logic of the ontology of voice where you can have information surface from the data or emerge from statistical methods, without needing to have a theory of what the voice is and how it relates to the body or identity and illness. This is the kind of shift and transformation that artificial intelligence ushers.

What would you think is the biggest concern regarding the use of AI in monitoring technologies such as voice biometrics?

Well, I think concerns are several. I definitely think that there’s already inscripted within the history of voice biometrics an interest in over-policing, and over-surveilling of Black and Latinx communities. There’s always that inherent risk that technology will be deployed to over-police certain communities and voice biometrics then enter into a larger infrastructure where people are already being policed and surveilled through video with computer vision or through other means.

In the security sector, I think my main concern is that there’s a presumption that the relationship between voice and identity is fixed and immutable, which can create problems for people who want to change their voice and or for people whose voice changes in ways outside of their control, like from an injury or illness. There are numerous reasons why people might be left out of these systems, which is why we want to make sure we are creating infrastructures that are equitable.

Speaking to the other side of this same question, in your view, what would be some of the beneficial or ethical uses of this technology going forward?

Rather than starting from the point of ‘what do corporations or institutions need to make their job easier or more profitable?’, we should instead focus on ‘what are the kinds of tools and techniques that people want for themselves and for their lives?’, and ‘in what ways can we leverage the current state of the art towards those ends?’. I think it’s much more about the approach and the incentive.

There’s nothing inherent to technology that makes it cause irreparable harm or be inherently unethical. It’s more about: what is the particular ontology of voice?; what’s the conception of voice that goes into the system?; and towards whose ends is it being leveraged? I’m hopeful and optimistic about anything that is driven by people and people’s desires for a better life and a better future.

Your work brings together various threads of research or inquiry, such as criminology, the history of technology, inequality, and the history of biometric technology as such. What are some of the challenges and benefits that you’ve encountered on account of this multidisciplinary approach to studying the topic?

I was trained as a historian, and originally my idea was to be a professor, but once I started working at IBM Research and the Responsible and Inclusive Tech team, I think I got much closer to the people who very materially and very concretely wanted to make technology better, or, more specifically, to improve the infrastructures and the cultures in which technology is built.

That really pushed me to take a multidisciplinary approach and to think about things not just from a historical lens, but be very rooted in the technical, as well as present day politics and economic structures. I think of my own immigrant background. I’m from Colombia and I naturally already had this desire to engage with humanities and social science scholarship that was critical of these aspects of society, but this may not be the same for everyone. I think the biggest challenge is effectively engaging different audiences.

In the lecture you described listening as a political process. Can you elaborate on that?

I’m really drawing on scholars in sound studies and voice studies. The Sonic Color Line, Race as Sound, and Black Linguistics, are three of the main theoretical foundations that I am in conversation with. The point they try to make is that when we attend to listening, rather than voice itself as a sort of thing that stands on its own, we can see and almost contextualize how different voices are understood, described, interpreted, classified, and so on.

The political in listening is what makes people have reactions to certain voices or interpret them in particular ways. Accents are a great example. Perceptions of who has an accent and what an accent sounds like are highly contextual. The politics of listening really emphasizes that contextuality and how we’ve come to associate things like being eloquent through particular ways of speaking or with how particular voices sound, and not others.

Is there anything else you’d like to add?

Well, I think something that strikes me about the story of voice biometrics and voiceprints is how little the public knows about what’s happening. A lot of decisions about these technologies are made in contexts that are not publicly shared. So, there’s a different degree of awareness in the kind of different public discourses around the ethics of AI and voice. It’s very different from facial recognition, computer vision, or even toxic language.

Have We Passed the Turing Test, and Should We Really be Trying?

A black and white headshot of computer scientist Alan Turing.

The 70th anniversary of Turing’s death invites us to ponder: can we imagine AI models that will do well on the Turing test?

Published August 22, 2024

By Nitin Verma, PhD
AI & Society Fellow

Alan Turing (1912-1954) in 1936 at Princeton University.
Image courtesy of Wikimedia Commons.

Alan Turing is perhaps best remembered by many as the cryptography genius who led the British effort to break the German Enigma codes during WWII. His efforts provided crucial information about German troop movements and helped bring the war to an end.

2024 has been a noteworthy year in the story of Turing’s life as June 7th marked 70 years since his tragic death in 1954. But four years before that—in 1950—he kickstarted a revolution in digital computing by posing the question “can machines think?” and proposing an “imitation game” to answer it.

While this quest has been the holy grail for theoretical computer scientists since the publication of Turing’s 1950 paper, the public launch of ChatGPT in November 2022 has brought the question to the center stage of global conversation.

In his landmark 1950 paper, Turing predicted that: “[by about the year 2000] it will be possible to programme computers… [that] play the imitation game so well that an average interrogator will not have more than 70 per cent. chance of making the right identification after five minutes of questioning.” (p. 442). By “right identification”, Turing meant accurately distinguishing between human-generated and computer-generated text responses.

This “imitation game” eventually came to be known as the Turing test of machine intelligence. It is designed to determine whether a computer can successfully imitate a human to the point that a human interacting with it would be unable to tell the difference.

We’re much past the year 2000: Are we there yet?  

In 2022, Google let go of Blake Lemoine, a software engineer who had publicly claimed that the company’s LaMDA (Language Model for Dialogue Applications) program had attained sentience. Since then, the closest we’ve come to seeing Turing’s prediction come true is, perhaps, GPT-4, deepfakes, and OpenAI’s “Sora” text-to-video model that can churn out highly realistic video clips from mere text prompts.

Some researchers argue that LLMs (Large Language Models) such as GPT-4 do not yet pass the Turing test. Yet some others have flipped the script and argued that LLMs offer a way to assess human intelligence by positing a reverse Turing Test—i.e., what do our conversational interactions with LLMs reveal about our own intelligence?

Turing himself made a noteworthy remark about the imitation game in the same 1950 paper: “… we are not asking whether all digital computers would do well in the game nor whether the computers at present available would do well, but whether there are imaginable computers which would do well.” (Emphasis mine; p. 436).

Would Turing have imagined the current crop of generative AI models such as GPT-4 as ‘machines’ capable of “doing well” on the Turing test? I believe so, but we’re not quite there, yet. As an information scientist, I believe that in 2024 AI has come closer than ever to passing the Turing test.

If we’re not there yet, then should we strive to get there?

As with any other technology ever invented, as much as Turing may have only been thinking of the public good, there is always the potential for unforeseen consequences.

Technologies such as deepfake apps and conversational agents such as ChatGPT still need human creativity to be useful and usable. But still, the advanced AI that powers these technologies carries the potential of passing the Turing test. That potential portends a range of consequences for society that deserve our serious attention.

Leading scholars have already warned about the consequences of the ability of “fake” information to fuel distrust in public institutions including the judicial system and national security. The upheaval in the public imagination caused by ChatGPT even prompted US President Biden to issue an Executive Order on the Safe, Secure, and Trustworthy Development and Use of AI in the fall of 2023.

We’ll never know what Turing would have made of the spurt of AI advances in light of his own foundational work in theoretical computer science and artificial intelligence. His untimely death at the young age of 41 deprived the world of one of the greatest minds of the 20th century and the still more extraordinary achievements he could have made.

But it’s clear that the advances and use of AI technology have brought society to a turning point that he anticipated in his seminal works.

It remains difficult to say when—or whether—machines will truly surpass human-level intelligence. But more than 70 years after Turing’s death we are at a point where we can imagine AI agents that will do well on the Turing test. And if we can imagine it, we can someday build it too.

Passing a challenging test can be seen as a marker of progress. But would we truly rejoice in having our AI pass the Turing test, or some other benchmark of human–machine indistinguishability?

Older posts
Newer posts