Author: gohwil21

Posted on

taking an interdisciplinary approach to marine conservation

Loren McClenehan, a Colby professor, combined historical marine ecology, marine environmental history, and marine conservation to examine changes in coral reefs. I really enjoyed her lecture! I found the content interesting and engaging. Professor McClenehan’s methods were interdisciplinary and unique. She explained that obtaining a historical picture of coral reefs can be challenging because they can’t be seen with the human eye from the surface. While there is a general understanding in the scientific community that coral reefs are becoming less healthy, the extent of that understanding is limited. There is relatively limited data available regarding the species composition and abundance of different marine species. Dr. McClenehan used archival photos to estimate these changes with a few case studies. She noted the phenomena that people assume that the status of conservation at the beginning of their careers is the peak of conservation. In reality, conservation was likely better at an earlier time.

I came away from Dr. McClenehan’s talk with three main takeaways. Firstly, her talk reminded me that in conservation we must set our sights on higher. Even if we meet some of the goals set today we may have the capability to further improve if we make it a priority. While I absolutely agree, and in some cases, this is the right choice there are other cases where the goals we set already feel lofty and unattainable. I think that it’s important to set goals that feel attainable to help maintain a semblance of hope in the field of conservation. It’s important to reevaluate our goals and reassess based on the information available to us. Funding can also be really limiting with lofty goals- regardless of the goal conservation funding tends to be scarce. I  have a few questions about setting goals. Can they ever really be achieved? How significant are the barriers to achieving these goals? Will the funding ever be there? I guess I’d like to know more about the effectiveness of setting high goals. Secondly, her talk highlighted the variety of data that can be valuable. The use of historic photos illustrates a stark change- I think it’s also a very accessible way to explain topics that get bogged down in jargon and science. During the Q & A, an audience member even emphasized the effectiveness of the photos. I really loved her approach and thought it was very innovative. I wonder/hope that other academics can take similar approaches to both collecting and conveying data. Finally, Dr. McClenehan’s lecture reminded me how imperative it is that we act now. She described that state of the environment as a “10% world”. So much of Earth’s biodiversity has been lost, largely at the benefit of humans. For me, it reminded me and reaffirmed why I’m an environmental science major interested in conservation. There is an immediate need to act- at virtually every climate level. While I’m not particularly interested in marine science her lecture really highlighted the expanse and extent of environmental degradation.

Posted on

Race & Gender in the Noulens Affair- Cold War Origins

Dr. Heather Streets-Salter introduced the Noulens Affair & its historical significance. The Noulens Affair took place in Shanghai in 1931- Joseph Ducroux, a spy for the Malaysian Communist Party was arrested for his overt and unlawful actions in Singapore. The authorities seized his address book and tracked down Hilaire Noulens and his wife in Shanghai. In Shanghai, a wealth of information was uncovered leading to 100s of arrests and a greater understanding of the extent of the connections between national communist groups. Dr. Streets-Salter believes that this event deserves more attention and research due to its significance in conceptualizing 20th-century empires, the origins of the Cold War, the intricacies of communism, and race and gender in international communism.

One of the most interesting components of this lecture was the acknowledgment of gender roles in communism. Dr. Streets-Salter explained that although women believed in the mission and at times aided the movement they were rarely named and when paid received considerably less. For example, in the Noulens Affair literature, Hilairie Noulen’s wife is rarely, if ever, mentioned by name. I’m interested to know if women were ever used as “secret weapons” so to speak. Since society and communism more specifically seemed to view their work as primarily a man’s work, women might be uniquely positioned to infiltrate secret societies and gather information unnoticed. I’m very curious about the balance between maintaining and enforcing gender roles and pushing the communist agenda through any means necessary. Would communist groups be willing to overlook their conceptions of a woman to gather information or better spread their messaging? Similarly, Dr. Streets-Salter introduced the role of race in the communist movement. She shared that in her reading she’s found that European sources almost exclusively told the story of the Noulens affair with white men as the main actors. They didn’t believe that colonial subjects would be able to understand communism. This is especially interesting given the pervasiveness of communism worldwide- where people of different racial and ethnic backgrounds bought into it. It’s also a little paradoxical because communism is supposed to afford more equality to its members. Presumably, in an ideal world, both women and colonial people would be included in communism.

An audience member raised a question about Christian missionaries as critics during this time period. Dr. Streets-Salter said that she would need more research to fully answer this question. Both the question and response highlight the complexity of the situation. Even through this short case study of the Noulens Affair, it’s evident that the origins of communism and national disputes far predate the Cold War. I’m inclined to agree with Dr. Streets-Salter’s statement of a need for further, research. I’d also be interested in the gender and race roles that played into possible criticisms of communism.

In conclusion, race and gender affected the way that communist groups. Going forward it would be interesting to further explore these relationships- especially in the context of a case study like the Noulens affair.

Posted on

art & medicine/anatomy- what does that mean today?

Dr. Carin Berokwitz explored the connections between art, science, and religion. I enjoyed her effort to present the material in a clear, interesting, and accessible fashion through storytelling coupled with her research. Much of her research and talk focused on the anatomist Sir Charles Bell during the early 1800s in London. Bell taught anatomy before medical education was formally standardized. He placed a particular emphasis on showing the body through dissections, wax models, and sketches. Many of Bells sketches were beautiful and exceedingly intricate. Additionally, Bell believed there was a deep connection between eye and hand. Since Bell’s time, medical training evolved to include a comprehensive curriculum and systematic teaching method. Additionally, Gray’s Anatomy, THE anatomical textbook for students, was first published in 1858. It featured numerous illustrations with labels imbed in the images. This made it one of the most efficient teaching tools. For my response paper, I will focus on the effects of Bell’s work in the present day.

During the Q & A session, an audience member asked whether or not Dr. Berokwitz expected to see more realistic illustrations (like Bell’s) in future textbooks. Dr. Berokwitz responded that she did not expect to see a return to intricate illustrations. In part, she attributed her response to an education system that begins teaching simplified versions of science very early on. At each level of education, there is an increase in understanding. But, the early stages of understanding are too simplified while the later stages of understanding are often too complex to be fully represented with an image. I think it’s very interesting that today we view intricate anatomical drawings more as art than science. The precision and detail of artistic forms that Bell created are viewed as superfluous. However, one question I have about this is the effect of computer modeling. Given that we are able to create very accurate AND precise models of human functions, will these fill part of the role that Bell’s drawing filled in the early 19th century? Will we use such intricate computer simulations and models in lieu of drawings? Are these models art in their own right? Is their artistic value limited by their functionality?

Despite the increasing obsolescence of Bell’s detailed drawings, his approach to science seems to affect medical education today. Dr. Berokwitz explained that many major medical schools including Yale introduced a visual arts component to their educational requirements. This speaks to Bell’s early influence in the medical field. It also highlights the importance of presenting information through clear and understandable mediums. While the medical field is heavily based in “hard science”, conveying treatment to patients and other doctors can be dramatically improved through effective communication- whether that be through an image or a computer model.

In conclusion, Sir Charles Bell’s creation of artistic drawings and wax preservations proved to be an effective teaching tool in the early 19th century. Today, some of those elements are incorporated through computer modeling and simulations. To some extent, they are also incorporated in medical education and textbooks.

Posted on

the evolutionary responses of organisms on a genomic scale

Professor Suegene Noh discussed her research in her talk entitled, “How Current Genomes are Shaped by Evolutionary Pasts”. Despite covering fairly complex material, I really appreciated Professor Noh’s effort to make the content accessible to a range of audiences. Additionally, as an environmental science major, my previous coursework helped prepare me to understand her lecture. Dr. Noh’s research focuses on Dictyostelium discoideum, a social amoeba,  found in soil. The “dicty” aggregate into slug shaped forms during the winter. About 20% of the dicty at the head of the aggregation die while the other 80% turn into spores. She used genomic sequencing to compare the mRNA abundances of each gene sample from clonal samples and wild samples. By comparing chimera based up and chimera based down samples Dr. Noh found evidence to support her claim that the dicty positively select traits through evolution rather than through neutral evolution. She further studied the endosymbiotic relationship between dicty and Burkholderia. She found that over evolutionary time the more closely associated the burk and dicty become, they show distinct differences as a result of their relationship.

It’s fascinating to apply the theme of the presence of the past to scientific findings. Many of the other lectures in this series have focused on either the social sciences or literary studies. Over time, scientists like Dr. Noh have identified evidence supporting evolutionary and adaptive changes over time. Thus, the historical origins of older species are present in a changed/evolved way today. It’s really incredible to see how adaptive organisms can be to their environments. The fact that the dicty she studied changed in size as a response to their relationship with the burk is pretty amazing- especially given the relatively short time period considered (compared to geological time scales of millions and billions of years). The effect of the historical origins and treatments was really highlighted by Chris Walker’s question. Professor Walker asked about Dr. Noh’s motivation for studying wild dicty. She explained that many scientists use lab grown/cultivated samples of dicty but, these samples, over time, adapt to the lab conditions. By using a wild strain Professor Noh attempts to remove a specific bred, component of the past from affecting the results of her research. By removing a controlled component of the past Dr. Noh is able to better see the changes in the organisms she studies. However, she’s also able to use the existing research about those lab-grown dicty samples as a control in her research.

I was inspired by how modern, and groundbreaking Professor Noh’s research is. By using the fairly new study of genomics, Professor Noh is able to study the burk and dicty at an extremely precise level. Her research likely would not have been possible 20 years ago. It’s cool to know that such a  present and active field of research is being conducted on Colby’s campus.

Posted on

holding academics accountable

In her talk Toward an Environmental Theory of Early Sexuality, Dr. Greta LaFleur explored the connection between race, environment and sexuality studies of humans. She discussed how early scientists used taxonomic “varieties” to differentiate between humans. Through this, human sexuality was considered in taxonomy science. Similarly, she explored the environmental factors (e.g. distance from the equator, climate etc.) and their effects on human sexuality and more broadly human sexuality. Interestingly, she incorporated a few contemporary examples. One example highlighted “cuffing season” which is the idea that people pair off into relationships during the colder months. Dr. LaFleur’s talk reminded me of Dr. Projit Bihari Mukharji’s talk collecting bodies. Dr. Mukharji’s talk similarly, discussed how science could be manipulated to further a racist agenda- although he research focused more directly on India.

During the Q & A session, someone asked what is meant by the term “climate” as used by race/sexuality scientists. Dr. LaFleur responded by saying that defining and searching for a coherent answer in the field is virtually impossible. There is a range of answers depending on who you ask. This struck me because it highlights the relative vs absolute nature of science. Oftentimes, we view science as the end all be all to questions but, I really appreciated Dr. LaFleur’s perspective that science/scientists can have their own biases. It also highlights how science can be manipulated to meet racial agendas- as Dr. LaFleur highlighted in her talk.

Both Dr. LaFleur ( and the Q & A) and Dr. Mukharji’s lectures reflect the human tendency to find evidence that matches our own belief systems. In both professor’s research, they noted different fields of study (e.g. environmental and sexuality studies) incorporating science as a way to further the agendas of the academics and their respective fields. I think this begs the question of how do we hold academics and entire fields accountable for the introduced bias?

In an attempt to answer my own question, I will consider two solutions that to varying extents exist in the status quo. Firstly, I think that it’s imperative that peer review remains a crucial part of all academia. I further question how we can make peer review more holistic and interdisciplinary. Given, the often very academic and insular nature of high-level research in each field how do make conclusions of academic findings reviewable by a wide range of professionals? Can there be more interdisciplinary journals? Similarly, related to my first point, I see a possible solution being increased collaboration between academic fields and departments. Most, issues (like race that LaFleur and Mukharji) discuss cross multiple fields. Thus, it is imperative that we increase collaboration and communication between fields. I think one way to do this is by creating more summaries that are accessible to the public/lay reader. Things at the level of a NYT article will raise awareness and spark conversations between different academic fields could ultimately increase collaboration and hold academics more accountable.

Posted on

how we know what we know & its implications for the environment

In his lecture, professor Peterson explored Kantian ethics, focusing more specifically on the idea of a priori- things prior to experience that we use to categorize and process information, life, and more broadly the world. He tied a priori to how we reconcile the climate crisis. He asked big questions like, “Is the human brain wired to deal with climate change?”. He ultimately suggested the need to adopt a new paradigm to transition to an ecological culture. I’d like to address two things in my response: the insular nature of academia and how we implement change in the real world.

During the Q & A session, professor Peterson nodded to the fact that philosophy and academia are very insular. Something I’ve really struggled with in this lecture series and in this lecture, in particular, is the lack of accessibility to the topics discussed. What’s the point of all this research if the lay person can’t understand it or must work very hard to do so? If the ultimate goal of work like professor Peterson’s is to enact change locally, regionally, and globally don’t we have to make it more approachable? I appreciated professor Peterson acknowledgment of the importance of mediums like film and social media to reach people. I think that many of the ideas (e.g. we all have a set of categories that we use to view the world) that professor Peterson presented were interesting and if they were more broadly accepted by the general public could help shift the narrative around things like climate change. I think it would be interesting to see research like this study on a priori be more integrated into popular culture through things like web series, TV shows, and podcasts.

Similar to my first point, I’d like to address how we implement change in the real world. In his talk, professor Peterson indicated that under this philosophical framework, for people to care about the climate crisis they must have some kind of personal experience with climate change. Whether that be growing up in a smog filled city or experiencing what it’s like to live in a food desert there must be some kind of connection. This made me consider how we connect seemingly abstract concepts like a priori to our lived experiences. Perhaps, storytelling is a good way to start these conversations? Through hearing the stories of other people’s climate crisis experiences I think we are able to more easily connect our own experiences to the climate crisis. Groups like Planned Parenthood and political campaigns/nonprofits often use storytelling to connect with their base. I think that climate/environmental groups can and should use storytelling more frequently as another way to connect with voters as we try to implement change. Perhaps, that’s an alternative way to begin to shift the paradigm with the philosophical framework that people like professor Peterson study.

In conclusion, professor’s research about a priori is interesting but, I found it to be somewhat inaccessible to the average listener. I’m intrigued by his mention of things like popular culture and film to connect his philosophical viewpoint with the general public- especially when considering the severity of climate change in the status quo.

Posted on

science as a justification for racism

Projit Mukharji’s talk entitled “Collecting Bodies, Bodily Collectives” explored the relationship between genome projects, the biologization of race, and the ethics/practices behind these projects. Much of Dr. Mukharji’s lecture focused on the coercion of indigenous Indian people. Mukharji identified the 4 major castes in Indian culture and briefly touched on the fact that there are 4, 693 different communities. Historically there’s been an attempt to categorize these communities based off of some biological factor (e.g. blood type & bones). The premise of the talk was interesting but, the very academic nature of it made certain parts feel inaccessible/challenging to fully comprehend. For this response, I will focus on the questions I have regarding science used to further a racist agenda.

Things like BiDil, a drug specifically targeted at African Americans with heart failure, capture the absurdity of much of the science used to justify racism. What differentiates the heart belonging to a white person from one belonging to a black person? Likely, nothing at all. The scariest part to me was that science like this persists today, in the status-quo. Largely, there’s a belief that science is true and factual. So when science is manipulated to serve a racist agenda, taking that as fact is much easier than using simply ideologies or beliefs. If individuals and groups are presented with seemingly credible, scientific findings I don’t think that it’s unreasonable to believe it. The question I found myself asking was, whose responsibility is it to stop (or at least inform the public about) questionable science like this- especially when it’s deeply entrenched in cultural norms? Do we have to perform racial experiments to disprove science like this?

While I can’t answer my own question, considering the ethics of the data collection used in some of the existing studies Dr. Mukharji mentioned was enraging & might be one entry point to highlighting the questionable practices employed. Indigenous groups were violated by scientists who blatantly stole and lied to community members. Whereas, wealthier Indian groups like the Hindus were exploited using more subtle persuasion. While white and Christian individuals were not asked to contribute any blood or bone samples. The groups behind these projects first exploited populations and communities and then went on to use that information to further erect boundaries and exacerbate social constructs. I think that the ethical implications here are extremely questionable- and brings serious doubt to the credibility of their experiments. Which again made me wonder how entire databases like the Indian Genome Variation Database can have such wide acceptance and support.

After the talk, an audience member asked about the connection of this racialization to population registries and creating an “ideal population”. Dr. Mukharji responded that yes there is a push for similar things in India. The widespread nature and entrenchment of these ideologies across science and the culture feel somewhat foreign to me despite similar studies based in eugenics in the United States. The deep cultural beliefs and biases seem to be major driving forces in the continuation of these scientific pursuits.

 

Posted on

the presence of the industrial past is here- are old books really the answer?

Dr. Nathan Hensley’s lecture focused on the power of literature in addressing the climate crisis. Early on, Dr. Hensley laid the foundation for his talk by discussing the profound environmental losses of species, habitat, and changes in weather patterns/disasters in modern history (~70 years). He then suggested that authors, long before the environmental movement we have today, devised language that helps us communicate these realities. He specifically used Lewis Carroll’s Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland to illustrate this point. Dr. Hensley claimed that as Alice traveled through the two worlds she tried to enforce conventions of her own world onto the characters in the underground one. He suggested that as we verge between two geologic epochs we, much like Alice, are teetering between two worlds and need the language to communicate that.

I left Dr. Hensley’s lecture unconvinced that literature is the answer to the climate crisis. From an academic standpoint, I understand the thinking behind literature as a tool to convey and connect people to climate change. It’s snappy and accessible. Watercolor paintings are beautiful and resonant. Books like Alice’s Adventures into Wonderland seem accessible and easy to connect with. But, I don’t believe that these sources are the antidote to the climate crisis. The environmental crisis spans industries, countries, and is a part of virtually every component of our day to day life. Even after Dr. Hensley’s lecture and applied case study I struggle to see the connection between old literature and the environmental crisis today. It seemed like a bit of projection/stretch to contend that by reading old books we can shift the entire world’s (or enough) of the world’s mindset to stop climate change- especially at the rate that climate change is progressing vs. the rate changing the world’s mindset with take.

When Eana and I asked questions about the implementation of literature as a  decisive response to the climate crisis Dr. Hensley responded by suggesting a need for collectivism and collaborative thinking. While collectives and co-ops certainly hold their place I don’t see that as the solution to the climate crisis. To me, a collective approach is idealistic. It feels like something that academics thought up in isolation without truly and deeply considering how a solution like that would play out in reality. While I absolutely agree that collective action- especially on an international scale- is integral, I think we need additional, more concrete options. In a world where economic growth and development are priorities to virtually every nation on Earth, we need to facilitate industry changes (much larger than a co-op or writing collective). Restrictions to mass production of food and consumer goods seem like a better, faster approach to the same problem.

The presence of the past shows in every CO2. Industrialization and development are omnipresent features of the past. Injecting and projecting old literature to fit the environmental movement today seems far from the answer to the climate crisis. Perhaps, we need all the solutions- the action based ones like climate regulations and the more thought based ones to eventually create a paradigm shift. Dr. Hensley’s solution appeals to a certain group of people and if people buy into it as an entry point to fighting the climate crisis that’s important too.

Posted on

the implications of personal connections/storytelling to the presence of the past

Professor Sonja Thomas’s lecture discussed the phenomena of Indian missionary priests coming to the United States- particularly to Native American reservations. As part of the lecture, Prof. Thomas incorporated components of her research process (e.g. positionality as a researcher and interest in the topic area). For this response paper, I will focus primarily on how the idea of storytelling and its significance as it relates to the theme of the presence of the past.

Professor Thomas explained that she views her research as an autoethnography because her research closely connects to her own life. Additionally, during her lecture, Professor Thomas mentioned one of her interviewees emphasizing the need to preserve her mother’s story of Catholic violence against indigenous people because she may be one of the last individuals with that story.  I was struck by this idea because when I consider research projects in my academics I’m often most inclined to study things that are personally related to my own life or that I already have an existing connection to. Interestingly, Zaie Nursey, another student in the class, shared her mother’s similar experience with Catholicism in her own response paper. I mention this because I’m intrigued by how our upbringings, personal histories, and connections to topics and ideas uniquely position us to act as storytellers.

These stories may, in some cases, only be shared, discovered or even know by individuals close to the stories themselves. This connects to the theme of the presence of the past because it asks us to consider how the past gets shared across generations. How important are oral traditions in sharing and remembering the past? Written works? Cultural shifts and intonations? It also begs the question of who is the best person to tell these stories in the present? Given that those most knowledgable to these kinds of stories are often the closest to them, are they the best individuals to record this history? Will their personal connections, beliefs, and attitudes serve as more beneficial or detrimental?

In an effort to answer my own questions, I believe that all forms of sharing knowledge and tradition are likely important factors in remembering the past today. Every situation will be unique but, all recorded history helps us piece together the past as we view and utilize it today. In things like fundraising campaigns and politics, storytelling is often viewed as a powerful way to connect with others and share a message that they believe ought to be heard/supported. Secondly, I’d like to believe that the personal connections a researcher has to a topic ultimately allows for a more in-depth study. Especially, when the researcher, like Professor Thomas, makes a concerted effort to acknowledge their own positionality. Without these individual connections, the greater public might have little to no knowledge about somewhat obscure topics. On the flip side, it’s important to recognize that implicit biases and the desire to portray an image may be limiting factors in research processes.

In conclusion, Professor Sonja Thomas’s lecture forced me to consider the mechanisms through which we explore and integrate the past into our present. I think storytelling is a powerful way to share these stories over the course of time and may only be accessible (or of interest) to those closest to the origins themselves.

Posted on

humanitarianism shaped by Merkel’s biography and German history

Jennifer Yoder explored Angela Merkel’s usage of memory politics as chancellor of Germany. She identified three overarching themes that Merkel uses in her speeches to address the past: responsibility for the past, humanitarianism as a response to the past, and solidarity over nationalism. For this response, I will focus on the theme of humanitarianism as a response to the past and the importance of Merkel’s background in her choice to shift the narrative of memory politics in Germany.

In contemporary politics, particularly with regards to the Syrian refugee crisis, Merkel has taken a strong, pointed response. Merkel argued that Germany, the EU, and the world at large ought to have more tolerance for people fleeing from tyranny. I think Merkel’s response is admirable and sets a world precedent. I was surprised by the world’s lukewarm and even negative response to her position.  Yoder identified and clarified the connection that Merkel makes between present-day politics with the Syrian refugee crisis and the Holocaust by explaining that Merkel’s explicit acknowledgment of the Holocaust forces Germany to remember and consider their history in the face of contemporary politics. She forces us to think, how can we (on an individual, community, country, and world level) learn from mistakes and take preventative action? I found this question extremely pertinent to U.S. politics. Why can’t the U.S. take more decisive action in the face of such profound human suffering? Does it take a mass genocide of your loved ones to make a nation care? Can Merkel’s approach to the invocation of memory politics in the past somehow be applied broadly in the United States? Merkel’s emphasis and willing to take such a strong stand, despite being a relatively conservative politician, speaks to the value she places on Germany’s history and the importance of kindness, understanding, and respect for others. I hope that U.S. leadership can take elements of Merkel’s into their own decision making whether that be with or without memory politics. By invoking the past in the present, Merkel bolsters her own response and connects present-day Germans/people to an event that some might prefer to forget and leave in the past.

Something that stood out to me was Yoder’s focus and emphasis on Merkel’s biography/personal history.  Yoder suggested that Merkel’s relatively young age, upbringing in the GDR behind the Iron Curtain, and academic background as a physicist set her apart from former German leaders. Yoder pointed out that Merkel is part of a generation of children/grandchildren of Holocaust survivors who want to preserve the history/memory of their aging relatives. This seemed like one of the most influential factors in Merkel’s attitude towards addressing the past. Merkel’s generation and those younger than her must work harder to learn about the past than those who experienced it. Merkel seems to have taken that generational attitude to mean that she should use her position of power to educate and remind all Germans of their past. 

In summary, Merkel connects Germany’s history with contemporary politics to implore Germany and the world at large to take a humanitarian approach to crisis situations. This forced me to consider whether the U.S. could take a similar approach and if it would have the same effect. Some of her belief and emphasis on the past stems from her relatively young age.