Women in Science - Hope Jahren

Hope Jahren has a very unique story on her claim to scientific celebrity. Not only is she a renowned scientist, studying stable isotopes dating back to the Eocene, but she is a prominent writer, a mother, a wife, a friend, and an activist. Hope Jahren got national recognition for writing a book titled “Lab Girl” that was recently published in 2016. In her book, she talked about her journey through science and what she has endured being a woman in Geology.

            Hope Jahren grew up in Minnesota where her father taught chemistry at a local community college. She would go with her dad to his class and he would let her play with the scientific instruments including beakers, pipettes, and even Bunsen burners. She felt a calm whenever she was in his lab, and soon realized that she would be a scientist just like him. While at the University of Minnesota, Jahren had a few odd-end jobs, including a stint at a hospital where she was in charge of making IV bags. While she didn’t particularly like working in a hospital setting, she realized that she was good with working with her hands. This realization soon led to her majoring in geology, in which she as able to work with her hands in a lab, focusing on stable isotopes analysis from soil and plants.

            After receiving her Ph.D. from University of California, Berkley in 1996, Hope Jahren packed up her bags and went straight to Georgia Tech. While going right to an Assistant Professor position, she was not well versed in getting funding. From her Ph.D. program, she brought with her a lab manager and friend, Bill Hagopian. While citing that Bill is one of her closest friends and colleagues, she has never been able to secure him funding. Throughout her career, her and Bill had trouble getting money. This resulted in Bill oftentimes sleeping in their lab, and a constant moving around of positions. Hope Jahren went from an Assistant Professor at Georgia Tech to Johns Hopkins University, to a full Professorship at the University of Hawaii, to most recently the University of Oslo. All the while, she has not been able to secure funding for her lab manager. Even through many awards, including three Fulbright scholarships and pioneering research, her trouble with funding shows the competitiveness that scientists today face.

            Hope Jahren has often cited that being a woman has led her to the many problems that she has had academia and in science. While at Johns Hopkins, Hope Jahren was the first woman to go on maternity leave, which led to much criticism and discrimination from her male colleagues. About this, Hope Jahren said, “It can be a challenge to be the real me and the science me.” Along with the sexism she has often faced in science, including her lack of ability to secure funding, Jahren has suffered from manic depression. Her manic depression was often sparked by the harsh reality of being a woman in scientist. However, through all the issues she has faced in her academic career, she has managed to prevail and has come to be known as Time Magazine’s “100 Most Influential People” in 2016.

            Hope Jahren has been an advocate for women in science over the last few years, and continues to speak out against sexual harassment in science. She has led a campaign over Twitter to get more women working in science to show off their hands, contrasting “#Science hands” with the polished hands that Seventeen Magazine asked to see. Not only has she continued to gain recognition for “Lab Girl,” but she has continued to gain recognition for her activism. Hope Jahren, now in Oslo with her husband, her kids, and her lab manager and best friend, Bill, continues to do pioneering research. There will be much more to come from this amazing contemporary woman scientist.

By Chelsea Barreto

Moving forward after huge disappointment

Yesterday, November 9, 2016, I woke up after very little sleep feeling hopeless and dejected. Then I had to tell my 9 year old son, who was nervous about the election, why he did not need to be afraid. And I had to tell him the truth. After that, I went to teach a class on multivariate statistics to a class of dispirited students. However, that was nowhere near as difficult as attending a graduate class the hour after learning about the twin towers on September 11. That was hate. A vote for Trump is not. I have spent the day reading news stories, seeing reactions on social media and I have a message of hope. In academic environments we are sheltered from the rest of our nation. What is important to us is not important to everyone. There are many things that we can do to move forward and bring about positive, great change. But it as to start with us. First, we have to stop seeing every Trump supporter as a supporter of hate, racism, sexism, etc. People care about other issues that we may not be aware of or know about and vote on that. I know very good people that voted for Trump for reasons that are important to them and just as valid as my reasons for not. I listened to an African-American woman talk about her vote for Trump because she couldn't fathom a woman in the White House just as a woman shouldn't be leading a church. We need to understand that so many people have grown up different from us and may be scared to realize their own power after centuries of being oppressed. It is a process and takes time. We need to help all women know that the stories we have been told growing up are not true. We need to empower all people to believe in their voice and ability. Second, we must get better at bringing our science to the public. We need to stop focusing on our metrics of success through impact factor and journal citations and also value the ways in which we motivate, train, and mentor others to care about ecology, the environment, and other disciplines in science. Keep talking about what you are passionate about. Help others outside of the acaemic environment see the wonder in the natural world as we do. And finally, we need to be role models of tolerance and hope. Fear breeds hate. There are so many things that COULD change under this new leadership. That doesn't mean it will. The fear of all that can go wrong is what brings about bad policies and people stop listening. When that happens, we lose. There is a bright future ahead of us, even with so much uncertainty. This is what I told me son: our daily lives don't change. Go to school and respect your peers and speak up when someone laughs or jokes about someone, anyone for being different. Know that one person, or a group of people don't get to change our world. And don't live from fear. That is the worst way to start your day.

Be the change you wish to see in the world. -Mahatma Gahndi

Eradicating Pestilence: Alice Evan’s Crusade in Microbiology

Adamantly defending her sensational research, Alice Evans was a bacteriologist who illuminated people to the dangers of unpasteurized milk. Although she faced constant criticism for her research on freshly drawn unpasteurized milk she was able to invoke a significant change in the ideology of bacteriological research. Her contributions to bacteriology and infectious disease research have positively impacted people worldwide. Even though she was a woman she was able to have a successful career in science. She was respected by her peers and able to complete important research for the United States government during a time when women were not expected to pursue any type of professional career.

 

Alice Catherine Evans was born on January 29^th, 1881 in rural Pennsylvania. She was the second of two children. Her mother immigrated to the United States at the age of 14. Her father had been a surveyor, teacher, farmer, and a Civil War soldier. Once she finished secondary school she became a teacher since it was the only profession available to women in rural Pennsylvania. Although she though that teaching was rewarding she eventually became bored due to the monotony of a repeating curriculum. A two-year tuition free nature study course for rural teachers at Cornell University would allow her to cultivate her budding interest in science. After completing the program, she received a bachelor’s degree specializing in bacteriology.

Once Evans received her bachelor’s degree she was able to attend the University of Wisconsin to pursue a master’s degree in bacteriology. She increased her knowledge of chemistry at the University and was even offered funding to pursue a PHD in Chemistry. In addition to receiving an opportunity to pursue a PHD she was also offered a position with the United States Department of Agriculture. Since she did not consider herself prepared to pursue a PHD in Chemistry, and since a PHD was not required for advancement in science at that time she decided to accept the position with the Department of Agriculture.

At the Department of Agriculture Wisconsin division Evans studied ways to improve the flavor of cheddar cheese. While working in the division she was able to coauthor four publications. While working in Wisconsin, Evans was appointed to a position at the United States Department of Agriculture Bureau of Animal Industry in Washington D.C. After accepting the position in D.C. Evans became anxious because of rumors that claimed that the division in D.C. did not want any women. Once she arrived at the division her fears subsided since the people she worked with seemed to not have any problems with working with a woman. While working in D.C. she discovered that Bacillus abortus and Micrococcus melitensis, bacteria found in freshly drawn milk, were closely related enough that both could potentially cause people to develop Undulant fever. Undulant fever or Brucellosis which it currently named, is an illness that involves chronic fever, fatigue, and many other debilitating symptoms. She published her research in the Journal of Infectious Diseases in 1918.

Her research was initially met with widespread skepticism from many science and healthcare professionals since bacteria with different morphological characteristics were never considered to be closely related by bacteriologists. Even though her claims were contested by many people, her research would eventually be supported by many studies. After publishing her research on Bacillus abortus and Micrococcus melitensis she joined the United States Public Health Service Hygienic Laboratory, where she completed research on relevant world health issues such as the influenza pandemic and epidemic meningitis. While continuing her research on Bacillus abortus and Micrococcus melitensis, Evans contracted Undulant fever in 1922. She would suffer from the symptoms of the condition for many years before fully recovering.  She was elected president of the Society of American Bacteriologists in 1928. This society would later become the American Society for Microbiology which honored her through creating an award in her name which is given to a person who contributes to the participation of women in microbiology. Toward the end of her career she researched immunity to streptococcal infection until she retired. She continued to be a strong advocate of the participation of women in science until she died in 1975.

 
By Grayland Godfrey

References

American Society for Microbiology. The American Society for Microbiology. www.asm.org.  Accessed 19 Oct. 2016.

“Brucellosis.” Center for Disease Control and Prevention, https://www.cdc.gov/brucellosis/.

Colwell, R. R. “Alice C. Evans: Breaking Barriers.” The Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine 72.5 (1999): 349–356. Print.

Evans, A. C. “Memoires”. 1963. Early Women of Science at NIH. Office of History National Institute of Health. IN 19 Oct. 2016.

Moreno, Edgardo. “Retrospective and Prospective Perspectives on Zoonotic Brucellosis.” Frontiers in Microbiology 5 (2014): 213. PMC. Web. 19 Oct. 2016.

Women in Science - Dr. Fierro, Forensic Pathologist

An accomplished forensic pathologist, Dr. Marcella Fierro is one of the forefront women in the field of forensic scientist. From humble beginnings at the University at Buffalo to Chief Medical Examiner of Virginia, Dr. Fierro continues to be an inspiration to girls and women interested in medicine and forensic science. During the time when Dr. Fierro was earning her medical degree, women with college degrees made up less than 10% of the US population – women were typically not guided toward the medical field. However, she persevered and proved both to herself and to others around her that women would be just as capable as men in any field.

During her tenure as Chief Medical Examiner, she was the medical examiner that oversaw the first case in the country to use DNA evidence in prosecution as well as the Virginia Tech shooting. She handled both of these cases as a wife and a mother of two. In addition to the many responsibilities she had as medical examiner, she was also a prominent member to multiple organizations and associations such as the National Association of Medical Examiners.

Although Dr. Fierro was a pioneer for women in the field of forensic science/forensic medicine, she has said in interviews that she was not discriminated against, nor did she experience any overt sexism. However, she had dealt with police officers who were doubtful of her skills as a medical examiner. She explained that she overcame these challenges by proving these officers wrong time after time by arriving at every crime scene with professionalism, experience and extreme knowledge of material.

Dr. Fierro has also served as the inspiration for a fictional medical examiner in a popular series written by Patricia Cornwell. While the books are considered fiction, she has continued to motivate for women in science through this medium as well.

By Ashley Cooley

Tired of unprofessional reviews

As a scientist, I am no stranger to rejection. I use it to help improve my writing, my message, and the impact of my science. But I don't appreciate reviews that cannot find anything positive to say about my research. I recently received such a review from AoB plants. Needless to say, I decided not to let such an unprofessional review pass unnoticed. As we help move science forward, we also need to shed light on the downsides of science and the areas that still need improvement. I share my response letter with you to take a stand. Reviews that are poorly written and unkind are useless. It is unfortunate that people use the blanket of anonymity to get away with such things. I give you my response here. I do not do this in haste.

To the editor:

Thank you for the opportunity to have our manuscript “Differential Response of Barrier Island Dune Grasses to Species Interactions and Burial” reviewed at AoB Plants. Although the outcome was not favorable, I understand and accept the reasons provided by the Associate Editor to reject the manuscript without consideration of resubmission. However, I am writing to provide feedback on my extreme disappointment with the review provided by referee #2. I find the review to be unprofessional and written by someone still in the dark ages of science. I am able to glean useful information regarding the clarity of the manuscript; however, review #2 is written by someone that could find nothing positive about the paper, which I find difficult to accept given the completely contradictory review by referee #1.

I am familiar with reviews that at least summarize the overall objectives of the paper. It is not clear from the review that the referee understood the objectives of the paper as there is no mention of burial and species interaction. Also, the referee does not understand that our chosen variables were used to assess morphological and physiological responses of species with biotic interactions and burial (even though it is stated in the objectives). The referee states that our “goals seem way too ambitious for the experiments”; however, connecting our results to published work of these species building different dunes was not an objective of the study, but a broader context to help understand the significance of changes in growth due to these biotic interactions and to provide justification for examining these two species. Had the referee summarized our paper and the objectives, this may have become clear to him/her. Instead, the referee begins the review with “The manuscript seems poorly prepared” and gives vague statements such as “In fact, the traits in this experiment are not well justified for the questions addressed in this paper”, “Details are missing about background”, and “things are out of order”, without providing any further examples or clarification to help us understand what is lacking. I understand that more information and citations regarding replacement studies (which are commonly used in recent ecological literature) woulde useful to focus the reader on our objective. Also, I realize we should discuss species interactions instead of competition and discuss the relative inter vs. intra-specific interactions, but this is not an experimental design flaw, rather a point of clarification.

Overall, I am disappointed that a journal would accept a review that is written in such a scathing and unprofessional manner. This does nothing to help advance science or encourage young scientists to pursue the field. I hope in that writing this letter you will reconsider using this reviewer in the future and you will seek a third referee when receiving reviews of this nature.  I also write this letter in hope that the young scientist who is first author on this paper does not let poorly written reviews which are incapable of finding any scientific value in a paper that is “thoughtful, well-formulated hypotheses; appropriate variables, sufficient data, and adequate statistics to address those hypotheses; and it was well organized and clear (to a native English speaker) if not particularly well written” discourage her from pursuing science in the future. Reviews such as #2 are completely unnecessary for helping any scientist to improve and make better and more impactful contributions to science. I will be hesitant in the future regarding submissions to AoB Plants.

Thank you for your time,

Julie Zinnert


As an addendum, I did receive a very respectful response to my letter. I hope that in providing feedback I can encourage others to do so, and also to ultimately move towards a standard in etiquette for reviews. It is difficult to accept a review as objective that is terse and only highlights faults without being written in the context of the goals of the study. We all have bias and it comes out in peer review too easily.

3 months in Cordoba, Spain

We are back in Cordoba, Spain for the next three months to continue developing our collaborations. We are focused both on research interests of plant ecology - hydrology and to establish formal research and training that focuses the ecohydrology of the James and Guadalquivir rivers for better predictions of ecological consequences to sea-level rise. As coastal plant ecologists, we have a great understanding of salinity effects on functional responses of plant communities. As part of the Virginia Coast Reserve, we work with many physical and environmental scientists to fully understand the ecological - physical feedbacks and interactions in barrier islands. We are partnered with Professor Maria Jose Polo, an excellent hydrologist at the University of Cordoba (UCO), and will continue establishing relationships with other UCO ecologists and physical scientists to expand our understanding to riverine systems and associated terrestrial communities. In addition to our work, we will also learn the language and the surrounding environment to fully appreciate the issues and importance of global change to other communities.

On a personal note, we are here with both of our children and have found the city and country to be very kid friendly. As a science mom for over 9 years and partner of a scientist, we have taken (now both) children on travel - whether to scientific meetings or to foreign countries for work. Every time I have visited Spain, I have never felt awkward or out of place having the children with me. Here, they are very accepted.

Driving into Cordoba

Outside the botanical gardens

 Lunch at La Casa del Agua - notice all the children

Flowers are already in bloom

In the historic district

Outside the Mezquita-Catedral of Cordoba

Read more about it here - fascinating history!

Mechanisms of Native Shrub Encroachment on a Virginia Barrier Island

 

Recent shrub encroachment is generally recognized as a response to anthropogenic disturbance and often a threat to ecosystems, although historically, shrubs represent a shift in successional states after a natural disturbance.  Negative effects associated with recent shrub expansion include decreased species diversity, extreme alteration in community structure, the creation of irreversible alternate stable states, nutrient cycling shifts, and increased susceptibility of shrubland compared to previous ecosystems.  On the Virginia barrier islands, Morella cerifera thickets clearly represent a different community structure compared to grasslands, and decreased plant diversity as well as increased soil nitrogen has been observed with the shift to shrubland. Joseph Thompson's master's research evaluated the effects of Morella cerifera on fine-scale abiotic and biotic factors upon encroachment into grassland. Species composition, temperature, soil nutrients, and leaf area index (LAI) were recorded across three encroaching M. cerifera thicket edges and three free-standing shrubs on Hog Island, Virginia to characterize the effect of shrub thickets on the plant community and microclimate. Electron transport rate (ETR) was taken on shrub leaves to determine if microclimate benefits M. cerifera physiology. Species richness was lowest inside shrub thickets. Soil water content and LAI were higher in shrub thickets compared to grassland. Soil organic matter, N, and C were higher inside shrub thickets. Summer and fall maximum temperatures were more moderate in shrub thickets and at free-standing shrubs. Fall and winter minimum temperatures were warmer inside shrub thickets. ETR was higher at the free-standing shrubs compared to the thicket edge. Morella cerifera significantly changes the microenvironment including temperature, edaphic factors, and plant species composition. These results show that expansion of M. cerifera in coastal systems has an immediate and significant impact on the surrounding environment.