Division of Natural Sciences

Who has the influence to curb gender bias in STEM?

Rachel Sauer — Tue, 25 Mar 2025 13:30:00 +0000

Who has the influence to curb gender bias in STEM? Rachel Sauer Tue, 03/25/2025 - 07:30

Cody DeBos

Hint: It’s not women

When Charlotte Moser started graduate school, she was the only woman in a shared office with four male students. One day, a classmate casually remarked that he wished she weren’t there so the office could be all men.

Moser barely had time to process the sting of the exclusion before another male student cut in, calling out the remark as gender bias.

“It felt so great to have someone stand up for me,” Moser recalls. “I felt like someone had my back and I belonged in this space.”

Charlotte Moser, a research associate in ��Ҵ�ý�ƽ�� Department of Psychology and Neuroscience, studies how allyship in male-dominated fields influences workplace culture.

That moment stayed with her—not just because of the personal validation, but because it led her to begin exploring a larger pattern in workplace dynamics.

Now as a research associate in the University of Colorado Boulder’s Department of Psychology and Neuroscience, Moser studies how allyship in male-dominated fields influences workplace culture. Her findings reveal an unsettling but potentially useful truth: When men openly advocate for gender equality, their voices often carry more weight than women’s do.

The reason? Not necessarily gender, Moser says, but power and influence.

The social influence gap

Moser’s research suggests that in STEM workplaces, where men hold most leadership positions, male allies are perceived as more persuasive, more legitimate and more effective at creating a culture that supports gender equality than their female counterparts.

“We find that men who advocate for gender equality and act as allies tend to be better at signaling to women that they will belong and be respected in male-dominated STEM contexts than when women advocate for gender equality,” Moser says.

Her findings suggest that allyship in male-dominated workplaces isn’t just about intent or even gender. Rather, it’s about who is perceived as having the power to create change.

If a female scientist points out that women are often overlooked for leadership roles or promotions, she may be met with skepticism or dismissed as self-interested. But when a male colleague makes the same argument, research shows that their remark is more likely to be taken seriously and perceived as a norm-setting statement rather than a personal complaint.

“Other work has found that men tend to be perceived more positively than women when advocating for gender equality,” Moser explains. “Women tend to be viewed as whiners, complainers, and only acting in their own self-interest.”

The cost of exclusion

Gender bias in the workplace isn’t a theoretical issue. It has real repercussions.

Car-crash dummies designed to represent women’s bodies weren’t introduced until 2011. Even today, they are tested only in the passenger seat, not the driver’s seat. (Photo: Lin Pan/Wikimedia Commons)

“A huge consequence is the loss of the contributions from many brilliant women scientists,” Moser says.

Research shows that women are less likely to be retained in male-dominated fields due to factors like persistent bias, exclusion and a lack of support. With fewer women present to offer their perspective, blind spots emerge, and those gaps can have serious, even deadly, implications.

One striking example is the case of crash-test dummies.

“For decades, car-crash dummies were built to represent the average body of a man,” Moser says. “This led women to be much more likely to fall victim to serious injury and death in car crashes.”

Shockingly, car-crash dummies designed to represent women’s bodies weren’t introduced until 2011. Even today, they are tested only in the passenger seat, not the driver’s seat. Recent statistics show that women are 17% more likely to be killed in a car accident and 73% more likely to be seriously injured than male occupants.

This oversight isn’t an accident, but the denouement of decades of scientific decision-making that lacked diverse perspectives.

“More inclusive science is better for everyone—not just those who face bias,” Moser says.

Going beyond performative allyship

If allyship from men is perceived as more effective, what should they do to ensure their support is genuine and impactful?

Moser has a few recommendations.

“I would say that men who don’t know where to start could start within their own spheres. Pay attention to what’s going on, how people are treated, and listen to the women around you,” she says.

But listening is only the first step.

Moser emphasizes that standing up against gender bias isn’t just about making statements on social media or in private. Meaningful allyship requires action.

Calling out dismissive remarks in a team meeting or challenging biased hiring decisions can have an immediate effect. Those in leadership positions can stretch their influence further by advocating for equitable organizational policies and ensuring women have access to mentorship and career-advancement opportunities.

“One hurdle for men regarding allyship for gender equality is that they feel that it is ‘not their place,’” Moser says. “I hope that my work can show that allyship from men is not only wanted but very beneficial to women.”

However, Moser warns that inauthentic allyship—publicly claiming to support gender equality without backing it up—can make meaningful change even harder to achieve.

“The future of allyship isn’t just about who speaks. It’s about who gets listened to.”

“I have other work showing that it is worse to claim allyship but then do nothing to promote equality than if one had said nothing about inequality and allyship in the first place,” she says.

Who deserves to be heard?

Moser’s research makes clear the fact that eliminating gender bias in the workplace isn’t a matter of men versus women. Rather, it’s about recognizing and altering the systems that create credibility and influence.

“I think allyship can change the narrative of the widespread belief that most men don’t care about women and change the narrative that it’s women’s responsibility to make these workplaces work for them,” she says.

But the goal isn’t just getting men to use their influence—it’s about redistributing power so that women’s voices carry the same weight without needing male validation.

“The future of allyship isn’t just about who speaks,” Moser explains. “It’s about who gets listened to.”

Did you enjoy this article? Subscribe to our newsletter. Passionate about psychology and neuroscience? Show your support.

Hint: It’s not women.

Zebra Striped

White

Discovering Boulder County’s tiniest residents

Rachel Sauer — Mon, 24 Mar 2025 17:10:47 +0000

Discovering Boulder County’s tiniest residents Rachel Sauer Mon, 03/24/2025 - 11:10

Collette Mace

��Ҵ�ý�ƽ�� alum and experienced caver Dave Steinmann recently discovered a new species of pseudoscorpion in Mallory Cave, with a moniker honoring its namesake hometown

When Dave Steinmann (Phys’90) first started classes at the University of Colorado Boulder in 1984, he had never explored a cave before and never really thought much about caves. However, when his new dorm-mate suggested they try his dad’s favorite hobby of caving, what seemed at first like an adventurous new pastime soon turned into a lifestyle for Steinmann—one that he has continued for more than 30 years and leading to his discovery of almost 100 new cave-dwelling species.

Steinmann, now a research associate with the Denver Museum of Nature & Science’s Zoology Department, most recently discovered a new species of pseudoscorpion named after the city closest to where it was found—none other than CU’s hometown of Boulder. Steinmann said that he knew almost immediately that the critter that is now known as Larca boulderica was a new species.

Dave Steinmann (right) with his son, Nathan (left), and wife, Debbie (center), as they get ready to go caving. (Photo: Dave Steinmann)

When he first spotted it in Mallory Cave, one of Boulder’s most well-known cave systems thanks to its role in bat conservation, he immediately noticed its unique, almost lentil-shaped body and adaptations for cave living, such as its pale color. These specimens were later verified as a new species by Mark Harvey, a pseudoscorpion expert at the Western Australian Museum; Harvey and Steinmann recently published details of the discovery in ZooKeys.

Steinmann notes that it’s typically not difficult to discern when a specimen is a new species, as it happens pretty frequently in the ancient cave systems right below our feet.

“I always say that if I want to discover a new species, I just need to visit a new cave,” he says.

Why are caves such a great place to make new discoveries? The answer lies in their role as a sort of refuge from climate change, Steinmann notes. In caves, insects can hide from the effects of temperature, floral and faunal changes that happen more rapidly in the outside world, facilitating isolated evolutionary changes.

Changing cave life

However, even cave life is changing. Lately, the temperature inside of caves, typically very cold, has been observed to be rising on a minuscule scale. Although this may seem trivial, even a few degrees’ difference can have immeasurable effects on the delicate life structures within the caves.

Similarly, outside temperatures affect which species go in and out of the cave systems, most notably bats. With the recent spike in white-nosed syndrome in bat populations, the number of bats in cave systems has decreased dramatically, with disastrous effects on internal cave species such as Larca boulderica, who survive on organic material—most often wood brought into the cave—and guano (bat fecal matter).

These changes are slow to progress, though, and there is still time to save cave ecosystems like that of Mallory Cave, which is closed to the public to protect the bat population inside (although it’s still possible to hike up to the cave entrance, a pleasant and short hike for anyone hoping to get outside).

So, how did Steinmann spot these teeny tiny bugs who live on bat feces? Well, after more than 30 years of experience, he has some tricks up his sleeve. One of the easiest methods he uses to spot tiny critters is simply by turning over rocks or pieces of wood.

When species like pseudoscorpions are disturbed by the movement or sense the carbon dioxide released by human breathing, they tend to skitter in every direction, looking for a new spot to curl up and revel in the damp darkness. When they move around, according to Steinmann, it’s just a game of whether you can catch them quickly enough.

The newly described pseudoscorpion Larca boulderica is about the size of a sesame seed and is only known to live in Boulder, Colorado. (Photo: Dave Steinmann)

To catch samples, Steinmann usually brings simple tools along with him—a painter’s brush and some rubbing alcohol. When the brush is wetted with the alcohol, it’s easy to run it along a surface and pick up all of the tiny things residing there, including minuscule species of bugs like Larca boulderica.

From there, it’s also easier to see what he’s found, as cave species are usually albino due to the lack of melanin— they don’t need pigmentation when there’s no sunlight—and they stand out against the dark ground and hairs of the paintbrush.

Looking for a gold bug

Despite being at it for multiple decades, Steinmann has no plans to slow down his caving career any time soon. He’s even made it a family pastime, and often spends time caving with his wife, Debbie, and his son, Nathan. He keeps an ongoing list of caves he plans to visit in the future and looks forward to making even more discoveries.

“I’d really like to find some kind of gold-colored bug and name it after the university,” he says, “or maybe even Coach Prime!”

He’s also enthusiastic about getting more students involved in caving, including caver and photographer Andres “Andy” Better, who will be a CU transfer student next fall. Steinmann emphasized how many different opportunities lie in the caving experience and says students of any background could find a niche interest in the hobby.

He also mentions local groups and clubs for both new and experienced cavers, including the Front Range Grotto and the Colorado Grotto, which meets at the Colorado School of Mines. He says that while anyone is welcome in caving, experienced members of the clubs can sometimes be protective of the places they visit, as human disturbances can harm delicate cave ecosystems, and caving as a hobby can be dangerous in a lot of ways.

However, if you’re looking to learn about caving with curiosity and respect, any of these clubs are great ways to get involved in this adventurous and exciting hobby—just be careful not to step in the bat guano because there could be a new species in there!

Did you enjoy this article? Subscribe to our newsletter. Passionate about arts and sciences? Show your support.

��Ҵ�ý�ƽ�� alum and experienced caver Dave Steinmann recently discovered a new species of pseudoscorpion in Mallory Cave, with a moniker honoring its namesake hometown.

Traditional

White

An ultrafast microscope makes movies one femtosecond at a time

Rachel Sauer — Tue, 11 Mar 2025 16:18:01 +0000

An ultrafast microscope makes movies one femtosecond at a time Rachel Sauer Tue, 03/11/2025 - 10:18

New ��Ҵ�ý�ƽ�� research harnesses the power of an ultrafast microscope to study molecular movement in space and time

The interactions in photovoltaic materials that convert light into electricity happens in femtoseconds. How fast is that? One femtosecond is a quadrillionth of a second. To put that in perspective, the difference between a second and a femtosecond is comparable to the difference between the second right now and 32 million years ago.

Subatomic particles like electrons move within atoms, and atoms move within molecules, in femtoseconds. This speed has long presented challenges for researchers working to make more efficient, cost-effective and sustainable photovoltaic materials, including solar cells. Imaging materials on the nanoscale with high enough spatial resolution to uncover the fundamental physical processes poses an additional challenge.

Understanding how, where and when electrons move, and how their movement depends on the molecular structure of these materials, is key to honing them or developing better ones.

Ultrafast nano-imaging of structure and dynamics in a perovskite quantum material also used for photovoltaic applications. Different femtosecond laser pulses are used to excite and measure the material. They are focused to the nanoscale with an ultrasharp metallic tip. The photo-excited electrons and coupled changes of the lattice structure (so called polarons, red ellipses) are diagnosed spectroscopically with simultaneous ultrahigh spatial and temporal resolution. (Illustration: Branden Esses)

Building on more than five years of research developing a unique ultrafast microscope that can make real-time “movies” of electron and molecular motion in materials, a team of University of Colorado Boulder scientists published in Science Advances the results of significant innovations in ultrafast nanoimaging, visualizing matter at its elementary atomic and molecular level.

The research team, led by Markus Raschke, professor of physics and JILA fellow, applied the ultrafast nanoimaging techniques they developed to novel perovskite materials. Perovskites are a family of organic-inorganic hybrid materials that are efficient at converting light to electricity, generally stable and relatively easy to make.

Working with a thin perovskite layer, the researchers directed ultrashort laser pulses onto tiny metallic tips positioned above the perovskite layer. The tip functions like an antenna for the laser light and focuses it to a spot much smaller than what is possible in conventional microscopes. The tip is then scanned across the perovskite layer, creating an image pixel by pixel. Each image provides one frame of a movie as the different laser pulses are varied in time.

The movie also has “color,” albeit in the infrared and invisible to the human eye but where the molecules and electrons respond. Through different wavelengths of light, the researchers can follow both the electron and molecular motion and their coupling, which is what controls the photovoltaic efficiency in perovskites.

This milestone not only helps them better understand the missing links between the perovskite’s crystal structure and composition and its performance as a photovoltaic material but also led to the surprising discovery that more disorder seems to facilitate better photovoltaic performance.

“We like to say that we’re making ultrafast movies,” Raschke says, adding that there have long been many unknowns about the elementary processes after sunlight gets absorbed in photovoltaic materials and how the excited electrons move in them without being dispersed, but “for the first time, we can actually sort this out because we can record spatial, temporal and spectral dimensions simultaneously in this microscope.”

Molecules as spectators of how the electrons move

In recent years, much research has focused on perovskites, particularly in the quest to create more efficient and sustainable solar cells. These materials absorb certain colors of the visible spectrum of sunlight effectively and can be layered with other materials, such as silicon, that catch additional wavelengths of light the perovskite does not absorb.

"This is a way to examine the material properties on a very elementary level, so that in the future we’ll be able to design materials with certain properties in a more directed way."

“(Perovskites) are easy to fabricate and have a very high solar cell efficiency, and can be applied as a very thin film,” explains Roland Wilcken, first author on the new paper and a post-doctoral researcher in Raschke’s research group. “But the problem with this material is it has relatively low photostability.”

Improving the material’s performance is no easy feat. There’s a large possible combination of chemical compositions and preparation conditions of perovskite solar cells, which affect their structure, performance and stability in ways that are difficult to predict. This is a challenge also faced by many other complex materials used for semiconductors, quantum materials, displays or in biomedical applications.

This is where the ultrafast microscope helps the researchers gain the spatial and temporal information needed to optimize the material—and in turn—find a good compromise between stability and performance.

Building the ultrafast microscope was a challenge, explained Branden Esses, a physics graduate student and research contributor. The team used nanotips, coated in a platinum alloy or gold, which are brought within nanometers of the perovskite layer, then hit with a sequence of laser pulses.

The first pulse excites the electrons in the visible, and subsequent pulses in the infrared watch how the electrons and molecules interact and move in time, Esses says, adding that “if you shine a light on this very tiny tip, the light that comes back is very weak since it only interacts with very few electrons or molecules; it’s so weak that you need special techniques to detect it.”

So, they developed a special method, modulating the light beams and using optical-amplification techniques to reduce noise and background to isolate the desired information.

Both how “the light is focused at the nanometer scale with the tips and how it is emitted and detected was essential to get enough contrast and signal to make these ultrafast movies of the material,” Wilcken explains.

And thanks to the ultrafast microscope technology, researchers are able to capture ultra-high-resolution images of femtosecond movement, measuring atomic motion in the molecules with very high precision. A particular feature of this development is the ability to resolve the dynamics of the molecular vibrations as a spectator of how the material responds to the photoexcited electrons.

Building better and functional materials from the bottom up

“This is a way to examine the material properties on a very elementary level, so that in the future we’ll be able to design materials with certain properties in a more directed way,” explains Sean Shaheen, a professor of electrical, computer and energy engineering who provided the material sample and collaborated on the research.

“We’re able to say, ‘We know we prefer this kind of structure, which results in, for example, longer lived electronic excitations as linked to photovoltaic performance,’ and then we’re able to inform our material synthesis partners to help make them,” Esses adds.

One of the surprising results of the work is that “in contrast to conventional semiconductors it seems that more structural disorder gives rise to more stable photogenerated electrons in hybrid perovskites,” Raschke explains. With the ultrafast microscope it became possible for the first time “to directly image the role of molecular order, disorder and local crystallinity on the optical and electronic properties of materials in general.”

This discovery is expected to have a profound impact on material science for advancing the performance of novel semiconductor and quantum materials for computing, energy and medical applications.

The instrument development was supported by the National Science Foundation, through STROBE, an NSF Science and Technology Center for which Raschke serves as co-principal investigator.

Roland Wilcken, Branden Esses, Rachith Nithyananda Kumar, Luaren Hurley, Sean Shaheen and Markus Raschke contributed to this research.

Did you enjoy this article? Subscribe to our newsletter. Passionate about physics? Show your support.

New ��Ҵ�ý�ƽ�� research harnesses the power of an ultrafast microscope to study molecular movement in space and time.

Traditional

White

Communities working together for better air

Rachel Sauer — Thu, 06 Mar 2025 19:32:50 +0000

Communities working together for better air Rachel Sauer Thu, 03/06/2025 - 12:32

Jenni Shearston

Colorado is tackling air pollution in vulnerable neighborhoods by regulating five air toxics

The Globeville, Elyria-Swansea and Commerce City communities in metro Denver are choked by air pollution from nearby highways, an oil refinery and a Superfund site.

While these neighborhoods have long suffered from air pollution, they’re not the only ones in Colorado.

Now, Colorado is taking a major step to protect people from air pollutants that cause cancer or other major health problems, called “air toxics.” For the first time, the state is developing its own state-level air toxic health standards.

��Ҵ�ý�ƽ�� researcher Jenni Shearston studies chemical exposure and health, measuring and evaluating the impact of air pollution on people’s well-being.

In January 2025 Colorado identified five air toxics as “priority” chemicals: benzene, ethylene oxide, formaldehyde, hexavalent chromium compounds and hydrogen sulfide.

The state is in the process of setting health-based standards that will limit the amount of each chemical allowed in the air. Importantly, the standards will be designed to protect people exposed to the chemicals long term, such as those living near emission sources. Exposure to even low amounts of some chemicals, such as benzene, may lead to cancer.

As a researcher studying chemical exposure and health, I measure and evaluate the impact of air pollution on people’s well-being.

Colorado’s new regulations will draw on expert knowledge and community input to protect people’s health.

Communities know what needs regulation

In your own community, is there a highway that runs near your house or a factory with a bad odor? Maybe a gas station right around the corner? You likely already know many of the places that release air pollution near you.

When state or local regulators work with community members to find out what air pollution sources communities are worried about, the partnership can lead to a system that better serves the public and reduces injustice.

For example, partnerships between community advocates, scientists and regulators in heavily polluted and marginalized neighborhoods in New York and Boston have had big benefits. These partnerships resulted in both better scientific knowledge about how air pollution is connected to asthma and the placement of air monitors in neighborhoods impacted the most.

In Colorado, the process to choose the five priority air toxics included consulting with multiple stakeholders. A technical working group provided input on which five chemicals should be prioritized from the larger list of 477 toxic air contaminants.

The working group includes academics, members of nongovernmental organizations such as the Environmental Defense Fund – local government and regulated industries, such as the American Petroleum Institute.

There were also opportunities for community participation during public meetings.

At public hearings, community groups like GreenLatinos argued that formaldehyde, instead of acrolein, should be one of the prioritized air toxics because it can cause cancer.

Additionally, formaldehyde is emitted in some Colorado communities that are predominantly people of color, according to advocates for those communities. These communities are already disproportionately impacted by high rates of respiratory disease and cancer.

Other members of the community also weighed in.

“One of my patients is a 16-year-old boy who tried to get a summer job working outside, but had to quit because air pollution made his asthma so bad that he could barely breathe,” wrote Logan Harper, a Denver-area family physician and advocate for Healthy Air and Water Colorado.

How is air quality protected?

At the national level, the Clean Air Act requires that six common air pollutants, such as ozone and carbon monoxide, are kept below specific levels. The act also regulates 188 hazardous air pollutants.

Individual states are free to develop their own regulations, and several, including California and Minnesota, already have. States can set standards that are more health-protective than those in place nationally.

Four of the five chemicals prioritized by Colorado are regulated federally. The fifth chemical, hydrogen sulfide, is not included on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s hazardous air pollutant list, but Colorado has decided to regulate it as an air toxic.

State-level regulation is important because states can focus on air toxics specific to their state to make sure that the communities most exposed to air pollution are protected. One way to do this is to place air pollution monitors in the communities experiencing the worst air pollution.

For example, Colorado is placing six new air quality monitors in locations around the state to measure concentrations of the five priority air toxics. It will also use an existing monitor in Grand Junction to measure air toxics. Two of the new monitors, located in Commerce City and La Salle, began operating in January 2024. The remainder will start monitoring the air by July 2025.

When Colorado chose the sites, it prioritized communities that are overly impacted by social and environmental hazards. To do this, officials used indexes like the Colorado EnviroScreen, which combines information about pollution, health and economic factors to identify communities that are overly burdened by hazards.

The Commerce City monitor is located in Adams City, a neighborhood that has some of the worst pollution in the state. The site has air toxics emissions that are worse than 95% of communities in Colorado.

Air toxics and health

The five air toxics that Colorado selected all have negative impacts on health. Four are known to cause cancer.

When state or local regulators work with community members to find out what air pollution sources communities are worried about, the partnership can lead to a system that better serves the public and reduces injustice.

Benzene, perhaps the most well known because of its ability to cause blood cancer, is one. But it also has a number of other health impacts, including dampening the ability of the immune system and impacting the reproductive system by decreasing sperm count. Benzene is in combustion-powered vehicle exhaust and is emitted during oil and gas production and refinement.

Ethylene oxide can cause cancer and irritates the nervous and respiratory systems. Symptoms of long-term exposure can include headaches, sore throat, shortness of breath and others. Ethylene oxide is used to sterilize medical equipment, and as of 2024, it was used by four facilities in Colorado.

Formaldehyde is also a cancer-causing agent, and exposure is associated with asthma in children. This air toxic is used in the manufacture of a number of products like household cleaners and building materials. It is also emitted by oil and gas sources, including during fracking.

Hexavalent chromium compounds can cause several types of cancer, as well as skin and lung diseases such as asthma and rhinitis. A major source of hexavalent chromium is coal-fired power plants, of which Colorado currently has six in operation, though these plants are scheduled to close in the next five years. Other sources of hexavalent chromium include chemical and other manufacturing.

Finally, long-term exposure to hydrogen sulfide can cause low blood pressure, headaches and a range of other symptoms, and has been associated with neurological impacts such as psychological disorders. Some sources of hydrogen sulfide include oil refineries and wastewater treatment plants.

Jenni Shearston is an assistant professor in the Department of Integrative Physiology.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Colorado is tackling air pollution in vulnerable neighborhoods by regulating five air toxics.

Traditional

White

Storytelling, not statistics, can make STEM more inclusive

Rachel Sauer — Tue, 04 Mar 2025 22:57:54 +0000

Storytelling, not statistics, can make STEM more inclusive Rachel Sauer Tue, 03/04/2025 - 15:57

Cody DeBos

��Ҵ�ý�ƽ�� researcher Eva Pietri studies how stories can help address gender bias and create inclusivity

Eva Pietri wasn’t planning on being part of a documentary.

When the University of Colorado Boulder associate professor of psychology and neuroscience was contacted by the creators of Picture a Scientist, a film that takes an unflinching look at sexism and discrimination in STEM (science, technology, engineering and math), she was thrilled to discuss her research. Pietri, who has an extensive background studying gender bias in STEM, knows interventions often fail because facts alone rarely change minds.

But when paired with human narratives, they become undeniable.

“I think one danger with anything that talks about bias is that it might dishearten people. But storytelling, when done right, can motivate people to do something about it," says Eva Pietri, a ��Ҵ�ý�ƽ�� associate professor of psychology and neuroscience.

“They’re doing exactly what I would have recommended,” Pietri recalls thinking as she watched the film engage audiences with compelling stories supported by data.

Now, Pietri’s latest research explores how storytelling can be a powerful tool for shifting perceptions about gender bias and creating more inclusive environments. It supports what filmmakers have long believed—that stories can change culture.

Why facts alone aren’t enough

Traditional diversity training in STEM often follows a familiar formula: workshops, slideshows and statistical breakdowns of workplace disparities. Though well intentioned, such initiatives often fail to change minds.

Facts alone, it turns out, aren’t always enough.

“It’s easy when you hear one story, especially if you aren’t motivated to believe it, to think, ‘Well that was just you,’” Pietri explains. “But if we have some data to back that story up, the combination can be more persuasive.”

Her studies in social psychology reveal that the most effective interventions engage both the rational and emotional centers of the brain. This phenomenon, known as narrative persuasion, happens when people become absorbed in a story.

In short, emotional investment makes us more likely to find a new perspective and reconsider past assumptions.

“Having communications that use both stories and the data can be really powerful. And I think documentaries are a unique platform to do that,” Pietri says.

That’s precisely what makes Picture a Scientist effective. The film follows three women in STEM careers who recount their experiences with bias, harassment and institutional roadblocks. Their stories create an emotional connection, making it difficult for viewers to dismiss sexism as an abstract problem.

A case study in narrative persuasion

When Picture a Scientist arrived in 2020, its timing created an unusual moment. The COVID-19 pandemic had forced companies and universities to rethink their approach to workplace training, including diversity programs.

Traditional workshops, which already struggled to engage audiences, were relegated to Zoom. But the documentary offered a more compelling alternative.

Pietri and her colleagues saw an opportunity.

The filmmakers had already consulted with her during production, but after the film’s release, they proposed a new collaboration—testing whether it was truly changing attitudes and behaviors.

“Often diversity interventions are not evaluated,” Pietri says. “You could do a diversity training, and it could have worse effects or just no effect, and you’ve wasted all these resources.”

The filmmakers behind Picture a Scientist worked with ��Ҵ�ý�ƽ�� researcher Eva Pietra to study whether the film's approach to addressing bias in STEM was truly changing attitudes and behaviors. (Photo: Uprising Production)

So Pietri and her team designed a study to measure the documentary’s impact. They found that Picture a Scientist was prompting real-world action, not just raising awareness.

“One of the most consistent findings we saw was with information seeking. The more people felt transported, the more they engaged emotionally with the film, the more likely they were to want to learn more about gender bias,” she explains.

Likewise, the study showed that this information-seeking behavior often persists after the initial screening.

“One really positive finding is that people who watch the film are motivated to continue looking up these issues and figuring out how they can make their workplace more equitable. They’re putting themselves in a position to keep gaining knowledge,” Pietri says.

Indeed, participants surveyed a month or more after watching the film reported stronger effects than those who answered immediately, suggesting that the film’s impact is long-lasting.

Pietri believes its entertainment value is partly responsible.

“I mean, this documentary is created by filmmakers, right? They’re not just academics. They know how to create something that’s really entertaining,” she says. “That’s why it was streaming on Netflix, because people, even outside their institutions, are just excited to watch it.”

Of course, stories don’t just educate. They also inspire.

Traditional bias training often focuses on the barriers marginalized groups face, which, while important, can leave viewers feeling hopeless rather than empowered. But when Picture a Scientist viewers see women overcoming challenges, it creates something valuable: role models.

“The film doesn’t just show bias,” Pietri says; “it also highlights these incredible women in STEM. And for students, especially female students of color, that representation is powerful.”

Limiting objections and creating change

Research shows that when people feel forced into a training session, they often react defensively, resisting the very ideas the program promotes. But storytelling doesn’t elicit the same pushback. Instead of feeling lectured, viewers become immersed in a story where they can process difficult topics with less resistance.

"One really positive finding is that people who watch the film are motivated to continue looking up these issues and figuring out how they can make their workplace more equitable. They’re putting themselves in a position to keep gaining knowledge"

That’s one reason Pietri believes storytelling and creative interventions will play an important role in the future of diversity training in STEM.

“This story-based approach addresses some of the limitations of traditional diversity workshops. Aside from people maybe being actually excited to see it and participate, it’s also very scalable,” Pietri says.

“We can show it without having to train facilitators or fly people out to host a panel or host multiple live sessions over Zoom. It’s really easy to scale and it’s not super expensive,” she adds.

Training alone won’t eliminate STEM’s gender-bias problem. However, Pietri’s work suggests that the right intervention can make a difference.

“I think one danger with anything that talks about bias is that it might dishearten people,” she says. “But storytelling, when done right, can motivate people to do something about it.”

Perhaps the most important lesson is that when building a more inclusive STEM community, in a field that thrives on innovation, a good story can be just as efficacious as the right experiment.

“If we can use the small windows for change opened by stories like this to make progress in reducing inequality and suffering, that would be a real win for current and future generations,” Pietri says.

Did you enjoy this article? Subscribe to our newsletter. Passionate about psychology and neuroscience? Show your support.

��Ҵ�ý�ƽ�� researcher Eva Pietri studies how stories can help address gender bias and create inclusivity.

Traditional

White

That iconic flag-raising on Iwo Jima? CU prof, then a Marine, saw it happen

Rachel Sauer — Fri, 21 Feb 2025 14:30:00 +0000

That iconic flag-raising on Iwo Jima? CU prof, then a Marine, saw it happen Rachel Sauer Fri, 02/21/2025 - 07:30

Bradley Worrell

��Ҵ�ý�ƽ�� distinguished professor and Marine veteran Richard Jessor reflects on what the planting of the U.S. flag on Mount Suribachi Feb. 23, 1945, meant for the country and for him personally

Eighty years later, Richard Jessor vividly recalls hitting the beach on Iwo Jima on Feb. 19, 1945.

“The island had been under severe bombardment from U.S. aircraft and our Navy ships offshore,” says Jessor. “Both types of bombardment had been going on for quite some time, and the sense was that Iwo Jima could be taken in three or four days because nothing could have survived such a massive bombardment from American forces.”

The first three waves of Marines landed on the beach without taking enemy fire.

Richard Jessor, a ��Ҵ�ý�ƽ�� distinguished professor emeritus of behavioral science, was a 20-year-old Marine fighting World War II on Iwo Jima in February 1945.

“By the time we in the fourth wave hit the beach, the Japanese—who were concealed, waiting for us—pulled their artillery out of the caves and had every inch of the beach registered, so when our tractor hit the beach, we were under severe fire,” recalls Jessor, then a 20-year-old Marine. “Our tractor got stuck at the beach edge and could not move us up, so we jumped out of the tractor into the water.

“As I hit the beach, I looked over and there was a Marine lying on his back, a bubble of blood coming out of his mouth. He died there, and that was my first exposure to combat.”

Jessor was hit in the back by shrapnel during the first day ashore but was able to continue fighting. After four days of fighting, he and his company were pulled back from the front line and told they could write one letter.

He wrote a letter to his parents, thanking them for everything they had done for him. He also said his goodbyes, “because I didn’t think anyone was going to get off the island alive,” he says, explaining, “there was carnage all of the time, every day, and you felt every day that it was going to be your last day.

“We were constantly being fired upon by the Japanese, who would come to the openings of their caves and fire, and then withdraw, so we didn’t see the enemy, and that was a huge source of frustration,” he adds. As it turned out, the Japanese had heavily fortified the island and had a dense network of tunnels from which they could launch attacks.

The flag raised atop Mount Suribachi

Back on the line the morning of the fifth day, Jessor looked at the opposite end of the island to see something in the distance atop Mount Suribachi, the dominant geographical feature on Iwo Jima.

“As I looked, I suddenly saw the American flag flying. I couldn’t see anything else that was that far away, but I saw the flag flying and I started shouting, ‘The flag is up! The flag is up!’” he says. “The other Marines around me began turning around to look. Seeing that made us realize that our rear was now being covered, because we had been under attack from behind as well as in front.

“For me, it was a moment of being able to say to myself, ‘Maybe I will get out of this alive,’” he adds. “In that sense, it was transformative for me, and I remember it well.”

Richard Jessor (second from right) and his buddies taking a break behind the line while serving in World War II. (Photo: Richard Jessor)

The flag raising lifted the spirits of the Marines on the island, and later it did the same for a war-weary American public at home, when the image of Marines raising the flag was captured by Associated Press photographer Joe Rosenthal. Rosenthal won the 1945 Pulitzer Prize for photography, and the photo is one of the most recognizable images of World War II.

Jessor says the photo symbolized the Marines’ perseverance in the face of one of the bloodiest battles of the war, and it helped shape the public’s sentiment that victory in the Pacific was at hand. However, it also may have inadvertently created a false impression among the public, he says.

“Some people may think that when the flag went up the island was secure—and that was absolutely not the case,” Jessor explains. “When the flag went up, on day five, we still had 31 more days of fighting—and most of the casualties took place after the flag raising. Close to 7,000 Marines were killed in the 36-day battle.”

Meanwhile, as the Marines advanced, they sometimes came across the bodies of dead Japanese soldiers, whom they searched for souvenirs. Marines were particularly interested in Japanese “good luck flags,” which bore well wishes from friends and family and which were often tied around soldier’s waist.

“One morning, when I looked out my foxhole, I saw a dead Japanese soldier. I walked over to him to see whether he had a flag under his shirt, and as I bent over, I saw he had letters in his shirt pocket,” presumably from his family, he says. “Well, I had letters from family in my pocket—and suddenly I was struck by the fact that in so many ways we shared the same humanity. I couldn’t blame him any more than I could blame myself for being in the same situation. It gave me pause about how stupid it was to be engaged in this kind of activity (war).”

An epiphany amidst combat

Jessor called that moment an epiphany. He made two vows then and there: that he would never go to war again and that he would go on to do something meaningful with his life.

First, though, he had to get off the island alive.

His next challenge came a few days later, when he was ordered to take a Japanese soldier captured at the front lines under his guard to the beach, where interpreters could question the prisoner about the placement of weapons facing the Marines.

Richard Jessor (holding the Japanese "good luck flag") and buddies from the 4th Marine Division during the battle of Iwo Jima. (Photo: Richard Jessor)

“As I said, there was a great deal of frustration that we could not see the enemy we were fighting, so I anticipated there could be some attempts on my prisoner as I started walking him back through the rear lines,” Jessor recalls. “As we got through the rear of the lines, where our artillery was, a Marine jumped up, running toward me and my prisoner, saying, ‘I’m going to kill that son-of-a-bitch.’

“I had to point my rifle at his head and say, ‘I have orders to shoot anybody who touches my prisoner,’ and so he stopped and finally backed off. And the same thing happened a second time before I got the prisoner to the beach and turned him over to command headquarters,” he says.

“As I’ve ruminated these 80 years, I’m not sure whether I would have shot that fellow Marine if he had not desisted from his threat, and it worries me that I might have done that.”

Finally, the objective is achieved

After 36 days, the Marines secured Iwo Jima. A short time later, U.S. aircraft were able to use its runway, which—combined with the island’s proximity to the Japanese mainland—made it a strategic military objective.

“Capturing Iwo Jima had immediate consequences for the approach to Japan,” Jessor says. “What was happening was that our bombers were leaving from Saipan or Tinian, and some of those bombers would get hit over Japan and not be able to make it back, so they would have to ditch in the sea, and many were lost. So, the fact Iwo Jima had a landing strip on it was important for that reason, as well as serving as a base for the projected attack on Tokyo.”

But the victory came at a tremendous cost to the Marines.

“We were destroyed. As I said, almost 7,000 Marines were killed on that island,” Jessor says. The scale of the loss was on display when Jessor and fellow Marines retraced their steps to the landing beach, which was arrayed with crosses where Marines were temporarily buried after falling in combat.

The Marines were shipped back to their training grounds in Maui for their next mission—the planned invasion of Japan.

They spent their days practicing landing craft invasions. At night, Jessor says he and a few of his fellow Iwo Jima veterans would gather in their tent to relive details of the battle, which he believes had a cathartic effect.

Jessor also recalls being on Maui when the United States dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

“When the bomb dropped, we all thought it was a great thing,” he recalls. “We were saying to each other, ‘No more war! We get to go home!’”

Among Richard Jessor's mementos from Iwo Jima are a deactivated Japanese hand grenade he took home from the battle and a jar containing black sand from the beach where he landed. (Photo: Glenn Asakawa/��Ҵ�ý�ƽ��)

However, in retrospect, as the scale of the death and destruction in those cities became known, Jessor says he reevaluated his opinion about that fateful decision. At the same time, Jessor says he developed a deep disdain for politicians who were so easily willing to put American troops in combat.

“They talk about it like it’s a game,” he says. “They haven’t the slightest sense of what combat is like and what it does to people and the destruction it causes. Even for the many people who survive the experience, their lives are changed forever.”

After the war

After he was discharged, Jessor made good on his promise to himself to make a difference for the better. After earning his doctorate, in 1951 he accepted a position as an assistant professor of psychology at ��Ҵ�ý�ƽ��.

During his ensuing 70 years at ��Ҵ�ý�ƽ��, he co-founded and later directed the Institute of Behavioral Science (its building was recently renamed in his honor); wrote an influential report in January 1970 critiquing the lack of diversity on campus and making suggestions for positive changes; wrote a report in the 1960s that took the CU Board of Regents to task for being unresponsive to students and faculty, which earned him the ire of former Regent Joe Coors; and wrote 10 books. He retired as a distinguished professor in 2021, which makes him the university’s longest-serving professor.

Like many World War II veterans, Jessor rarely spoke of his experiences during the war, even to close friends and his own family. That changed for him after he saw the World War II movie Saving Private Ryan, which opens with a scene of American soldiers storming the beaches of Normandy, France, under intense fire from German soldiers.

“As a trained clinical psychologist, I didn’t want to share my experiences with others, so I didn’t talk much about having been a Marine,” he says. “And then one day, my wife, Jane, and I were in Aspen. It was raining, so we couldn’t go hiking, so instead we went to the movies and saw Saving Private Ryan.

“The Steven Spielberg-directed movie was the real thing,” he says. “When the invasion scenes start at the beginning, I was sobbing, and the tears were running down my face. And while that was happening, I’m saying to myself, ‘You’re a psychologist and you didn’t know that you still had this inside you?’ And obviously, I didn’t.

“The movie brought it all back to me, and so I began talking about it from that point on.”

“I don’t ever want to forget that experience, because it strengthened me in many ways. Sometimes I would say to myself, ‘If I can get through Iwo Jima, I can get through anything.’ But in other ways, it reminds me what war is all about and what has to be done so they don’t happen anymore.”

Jessor had hoped to return to Iwo Jima last year. The National World War II Museum in New Orleans offered to cover all expenses for him and his wife to attend a Pacific war theater travel lecture tour series it offers to patrons, which was to include a visit to Iwo Jima. However, the island is open to visitors only one day a year, and volcanic activity on the island at the time resulted in the tour being cancelled. Noting his age—he is 100—Jessor says he’s unsure he will ever have the opportunity to return to the island, despite his strong desire to do so.

Reflecting on the past

These days, Jessor keeps some mementos on his work desk to remind him of his time on Iwo Jima: a deactivated Japanese hand grenade he took home from the battle and a jar containing black sand from the beach where he landed. The jar of sand was given to him by a friend who visited the island in 2002.

“Sometimes I’m barely aware they are there, and then other times I’ll look over and see the grenade or the vial of sand and it all comes back to me. It’s a reminder that I value a great deal,” he says.

“I don’t ever want to forget that experience, because it strengthened me in many ways. Sometimes I would say to myself, ‘If I can get through Iwo Jima, I can get through anything.’ But in other ways, it reminds me what war is all about and what has to be done so they don’t happen anymore.”

Did you enjoy this article? Subscribe to our newsletter. Passionate about behavioral science? Show your support.

Traditional

White

Top photo: Joe Rosenthal/Associated Press

Biochemist named to National Academy of Inventors

Rachel Sauer — Thu, 13 Feb 2025 18:31:57 +0000

Biochemist named to National Academy of Inventors Rachel Sauer Thu, 02/13/2025 - 11:31

Xuedong Liu of ��Ҵ�ý�ƽ�� is one of 170 ‘exceptional inventors’ who are helping to ‘propel us into the future,’ academy says

Xuedong Liu, a University of Colorado Boulder professor of biochemistry, has been named a member of the 2024 Class of Fellows by the National Academy of Inventors (NAI), the group recently announced.

Liu is one of an elected group of 170 “exceptional inventors” honored in 2024.

The 2024 cohort of fellows exemplifies the academy’s belief that groundbreaking innovation knows no bounds and inventors can be found everywhere, the NAI said, adding that the honorees represent 39 U.S. states and 12 countries.

Xuedong Liu, a ��Ҵ�ý�ƽ�� professor of biochemistry, has been named a member of the 2024 Class of Fellows by the National Academy of Inventors.

“This year’s class of NAI Fellows represents a truly impressive caliber of inventors. Each of these individuals are tackling real-world issues and creating solutions that propel us into the future. Through their work, they are making significant contributions to science, creating lasting societal impact and growing the economy,” said Paul Sanberg, NIA president.

He added: “NAI Fellows as a whole are a driving force of innovation, generating crucial advancements across scientific disciplines and creating tangible impacts as they move their technologies from lab to marketplace.”

Liu’s laboratory works to understand the fundamental mechanisms underlying cell-cell communication. Aberrations of normal signaling networks can lead to human diseases such as cancer. The Liu laboratory is developing novel therapeutic solutions for treating cancer and neurodegenerative diseases.

Liu is co-founder of OnKure Therapeutics (Nasdaq: OKUR) and founder of Vesicle Therapeutics. His lab discovered and patented a profile-specific histone deacetylase inhibitor, which has entered phase II clinical trials, and a new type of drug delivery system.

He received his PhD in genetics from the University of Wisconsin-Madison in 1994 and was a National Institutes of Health and Department of Defense postdoctoral fellow at the Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research at Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Liu joined the ��Ҵ�ý�ƽ�� faculty in 2000 and won the university’s Inventor of the Year Award in 2013.

"I am deeply honored to receive this recognition,” Liu said. “This accolade not only validates the impact of our team's work but also highlights the indispensable contributions of my trainees, collaborators, colleagues and co-founders over the years. More than a personal milestone, it is a testament to the collective effort and dedication that have driven our innovations in tackling challenging problems. Additionally, this accomplishment reflects the entrepreneurial spirit cultivated by Venture Partners at our university, whose support has been essential.”

The 2024 Class of Fellows will be honored and presented their medals by a senior official of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) at the NAI 14th Annual Meeting on June 26 in Atlanta.

The NAI Fellows Program was established to highlight academic inventors who have demonstrated a prolific spirit of innovation in creating or facilitating outstanding inventions that have made a tangible impact on quality of life, economic development and the welfare of society.

The NAI Fellows Program has 2,068 fellows worldwide, representing more than 300 universities and governmental and nonprofit research institutes. Collectively, the Fellows hold more than 68,000 issued U.S. patents, which have generated more than 20,000 licensed technologies, 4,000 companies and created more than 1.2 million jobs. In addition, more than $3.2 trillion in revenue has been generated based on NAI Fellow discoveries, the academy said.

Among all NAI Fellows, there are more than 170 presidents and senior leaders of research universities, governmental and nonprofit research institutes; about 755 members of the National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine; about 63 inductees of the National Inventors Hall of Fame; 70 recipients of the U.S. National Medal of Technology and Innovation and U.S. National Medal of Science; and 57 Nobel Laureates.

The NAI Fellowship is the highest professional distinction awarded solely to academic inventors. The full list of 2024 Fellows can be found here.

Did you enjoy this article? Subscribe to our newsletter. Passionate about biochemistry? Show your support.

Xuedong Liu of ��Ҵ�ý�ƽ�� is one of 170 ‘exceptional inventors’ who are helping to ‘propel us into the future,’ academy says.

Traditional

White

It hits Earth like a bolt of lightning

Rachel Sauer — Mon, 10 Feb 2025 22:48:36 +0000

It hits Earth like a bolt of lightning Rachel Sauer Mon, 02/10/2025 - 15:48

Lauren Blum

Lightning strikes link weather on Earth and weather in space

There are trillions of charged particles—protons and electrons, the basic building blocks of matter—whizzing around above your head at any given time. These high-energy particles, which can travel at close to the speed of light, typically remain thousands of kilometers away from Earth, trapped there by the shape of Earth’s magnetic field.

Occasionally, though, an event happens that can jostle them out of place, sending electrons raining down into Earth’s atmosphere. These high-energy particles in space make up what are known as the Van Allen radiation belts, and their discovery was one of the first of the space age. A new study from my research team has found that electromagnetic waves generated by lightning can trigger these electron showers.

A brief history lesson

At the start of the space race in the 1950s, professor James Van Allen and his research team at the University of Iowa were tasked with building an experiment to fly on the United States’ very first satellite, Explorer 1. They designed sensors to study cosmic radiation, which is caused by high-energy particles originating from the Sun, the Milky Way galaxy, or beyond.

��Ҵ�ý�ƽ�� scientist Lauren Blum and her research team has found that electromagnetic waves generated by lightning can trigger electron showers in Earth's atmosphere.

After Explorer 1 launched, though, they noticed that their instrument was detecting significantly higher levels of radiation than expected. Rather than measuring a distant source of radiation beyond our solar system, they appeared to be measuring a local and extremely intense source.

This measurement led to the discovery of the Van Allen radiation belts, two doughnut-shaped regions of high-energy electrons and ions encircling the planet.

Scientists believe that the inner radiation belt, peaking about 621 miles (1000 kilometers) from Earth, is composed of electrons and high-energy protons and is relatively stable over time.

The outer radiation belt, about three times farther away, is made up of high-energy electrons. This belt can be highly dynamic. Its location, density and energy content may vary significantly by the hour in response to solar activity.

The discovery of these high-radiation regions is not only an interesting story about the early days of the space race; it also serves as a reminder that many scientific discoveries have come about by happy accident.

It is a lesson for experimental scientists, myself included, to keep an open mind when analyzing and evaluating data. If the data doesn’t match our theories or expectations, those theories may need to be revisited.

Our curious observations

While I teach the history of the space race in a space policy course at the University of Colorado, Boulder, I rarely connect it to my own experience as a scientist researching Earth’s radiation belts. Or, at least, I didn’t until recently.

In a study led by Max Feinland, an undergraduate student in my research group, we stumbled upon some of our own unexpected observations of Earth’s radiation belts. Our findings have made us rethink our understanding of Earth’s inner radiation belt and the processes affecting it.

Originally, we set out to look for very rapid—sub-second—bursts of high-energy electrons entering the atmosphere from the outer radiation belt, where they are typically observed.

Lightning can generate electromagnetic waves known as lightning-generated whistlers, which can travel through the atmosphere and out into space. (Photo: iStock)

Many scientists believe that a type of electromagnetic wave known as “chorus” can knock these electrons out of position and send them toward the atmosphere. They’re called chorus waves due to their distinct chirping sound when listened to on a radio receiver.

Feinland developed an algorithm to search for these events in decades of measurements from the SAMPEX satellite. When he showed me a plot with the location of all the events he’d detected, we noticed a number of them were not where we expected. Some events mapped to the inner radiation belt rather than the outer belt.

This finding was curious for two reasons. For one, chorus waves aren’t prevalent in this region, so something else had to be shaking these electrons loose.

The other surprise was finding electrons this energetic in the inner radiation belt at all. Measurements from NASA’s Van Allen Probes mission prompted renewed interest in the inner radiation belt. Observations from the Van Allen Probes suggested that high-energy electrons are often not present in this inner radiation belt, at least not during the first few years of that mission, from 2012 to 2014.

Our observations now showed that, in fact, there are times that the inner belt contains high-energy electrons. How often this is true and under what conditions remain open questions to explore. These high-energy particles can damage spacecraft and harm humans in space, so researchers need to know when and where in space they are present to better design spacecraft.

Determining the culprit

One of the ways to disturb electrons in the inner radiation belt and kick them into Earth’s atmosphere actually begins in the atmosphere itself.

Lightning, the large electromagnetic discharges that light up the sky during thunderstorms, can actually generate electromagnetic waves known as lightning-generated whistlers.

��Ҵ�ý�ƽ�� researcher Lauren Blum and her colleagues discovered that a combination of weather on Earth and weather in space produces unique electron signatures. (Photo: Pixabay)

These waves can then travel through the atmosphere out into space, where they interact with electrons in the inner radiation belt—much as chorus waves interact with electrons in the outer radiation belt.

To test whether lightning was behind our inner radiation belt detections, we looked back at the electron bursts and compared them with thunderstorm data. Some lightning activity seemed correlated with our electron events, but much of it was not.

Specifically, only lightning that occurred right after so-called geomagnetic storms resulted in the bursts of electrons we detected.

Geomagnetic storms are disturbances in the near-Earth space environment often caused by large eruptions on the Sun’s surface. This solar activity, if directed toward Earth, can produce what researchers term space weather. Space weather can result in stunning auroras, but it can also disrupt satellite and power grid operations.

We discovered that a combination of weather on Earth and weather in space produces the unique electron signatures we observed in our study. The solar activity disturbs Earth’s radiation belts and populates the inner belt with very high-energy electrons, then the lightning interacts with these electrons and creates the rapid bursts that we observed.

These results provide a nice reminder of the interconnected nature of Earth and space. They were also a welcome reminder to me of the often nonlinear process of scientific discovery.

Lauren Blum is an assistant professor in the Department of Astrophysical and Planetary Sciences.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Lightning strikes link weather on Earth and weather in space.

Traditional

White

No, it’s not Darwinism if you get hurt while doing something dumb

Rachel Sauer — Mon, 10 Feb 2025 18:13:30 +0000

No, it’s not Darwinism if you get hurt while doing something dumb Rachel Sauer Mon, 02/10/2025 - 11:13

Bradley Worrell

In honor of Darwin Day Feb. 12, ��Ҵ�ý�ƽ�� evolutionary biologist Daniel Medeiros explains what we get right and wrong about Darwinism

For evolutionary biologists, the big day is imminent.

No, not Valentine’s Day.

For many scientists, educators, historians and humanists, the upcoming event of note is Darwin Day, which supporters say is a time to reflect and act on the principles of intellectual bravery, perpetual curiosity, scientific thinking and a hunger for truth, as embodied by Charles Darwin.

Daniel Medeiros, a ��Ҵ�ý�ƽ�� professor of ecology and evolutionary biology, notes that while Charles Darwin didn't originate the idea of evolution, "I think he did the best, most comprehensive way of presenting things."

The noted British naturalist and biologist is widely recognized for his book On the Origin of Species, which is considered the foundation of modern evolutionary biology. Darwin Day is celebrated internationally every Feb. 12, the anniversary of Darwin’s birth on Feb. 12, 1809, outside of London.

Scientists say it’s hard to quantify the impact Darwin had on evolutionary theory. At the same time, a lot of misconceptions have arisen regarding his theories, and some propagandists have used his scientific theories to support a variety of ideas he never endorsed and, in some cases, would likely be appalled by.

Recently, Professor Daniel Medeiros with the ��Ҵ�ý�ƽ�� Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology talked with Colorado Arts and Sciences Magazine about some of the mistaken ideas associated with Darwin while also delineating why some of his scientific concepts can be so difficult to grasp. His responses have been lightly edited for style and condensed for space.

Question: One idea about Darwin is that he originated the idea of evolution. True or false?

Medeiros: False. I actually had a colleague, Ned Friedman, a plant evolutionary biologist, who taught a whole course on evolutionary thinking before Darwin. And in fact, Darwin’s own grandfather, Erasmus Darwin, had some pretty clear evolutionary thoughts and logic. I think Darwin collected the most data and articulated the best case for evolution by natural selection, but he didn’t come up with it out of whole cloth.

That’s how things happen in evolution—there’s ‘convergence.’ Similar solutions can occur in different lineages around the same time or given the same environmental pressures. That’s the idea of evolution by natural selection; I think several scientists came to that conclusion simultaneously. So, it wasn’t all Darwin, but I think he did the best, most comprehensive way of presenting things.

Question: What about the idea that Darwin’s theory on evolution encompasses the origins of life?

Medeiros: I think he may have hypothesized on the origin of the living creature from a primordial soup of chemicals, but I don’t think he knew enough about chemistry or cell biology to go beyond that. I don’t know how he would have even begun to hypothesize about cellular evolution.

Question: What about the idea that Darwin believed humans are descended from apes?

Medeiros: That’s kind of a tough one, even for some of my students in my upper division class. The proper way to think about evolution is as a family tree. The idea that humans evolved from a chimp or humans evolved from a monkey; specifically, what you think of a modern monkey, is incorrect. It’s easy to conceive given that those modern species are clearly related to us, but we are not descended from them.

Now, our last common ancestor looked something like a chimp and would definitely be classified as a “great ape”. We also had an ancestor who looked something like a monkey, but technically, ‘we came from a monkey’ is not how you would describe it in evolutionary biology terms. We evolved from species that were chimp-like, but we’re not chimps and we did not come from modern monkeys.

During his visit to the Galapagos Islands, Charles Darwin observed that different finch species had varying beak lengths, which supported his theory that species evolve to exploit their food sources and habitats. (Illustration: from Journal of Researches by Charles Darwin)

Any species that’s alive today is a successful modern species, as much as we are. If it’s around today, it’s a survivor. It’s a successful species that has its own set of innovations. If it’s living today, it’s its own success story.

Question: What about the idea some attribute to Darwinism that modern humans aren’t evolving?

Medeiros: That’s incorrect. That’s a property of all living things—that they are always changing. It’s not something you can stop. DNA is always accumulating mutations. There’s always genetic variation, and that variation responds to the environment. In the short window of time we have been around, it’s hard to see, but it’s true.

I’m not sure how we’re evolving, but there’s no organism that’s not evolving. So, we’re changing for sure, in some way, but I don’t know how. It will be interesting to see.

Question: There’s also this idea associated with Darwinism that animals are deliberately attempting to adapt to their environments. Accurate or not?

Medeiros: That’s a misconception. The word ‘evolution’ means unfolding, originally, which implies that you have some truth or something that’s unfolded or revealed. But it’s actually much more chaotic and there’s a huge random factor.

From the organism’s perspective, they’re just throwing out babies with variations. And hopefully, one of them sticks. And if one sticks, your lineage hangs around and has another chance for more mutation. So, it’s random and it’s chaotic.

Andthere are limitations. Species go extinct all the time. Maybe their environment changed too quickly, and they were unable to adapt. Maybe they just didn’t hit upon the right mutations, or there could be constraints to their development or their genome that wouldn’t allow adaptive traits to evolve and they go extinct. That’s common.

(The word) ‘evolved,’ in terms of how people use it in common language, it’s like, ‘Oh, I evolved. I became better.’ It’s about this idea of better and more. But then extinction is evolution, too. It’s just change over time, however, that manifests itself.

A cool thing that I teach in my class is that a lot of animal evolution since the Cambrian or a little later—has been about loss; trimming down, getting rid of what you don’t need. I think that’s one thing that’s not really recognized too much, that evolution is not always—or even mostly—about gaining fancy new features. It’s not necessarily this march toward more and more sophistication. It’s a lot about use it or lose it—about losing features that are not adaptive anymore. A lot of evolutionary change, especially in animals, is loss.

Then you have these blockbuster new things, like feathers, which are a huge innovation, or a turtle shell, or the human brain, which is another huge innovation. But then, even more than that, what makes a lot of species different from each other is that they’ve lost different things.

Charles Darwin, seen here in an 1881 portrait, published his theory of evolution in his 1859 treatise On the Origin of Species. (Photo: Hulton Archive/Getty Images)

Question: Why do you think it seems so hard for people to grasp the idea of evolution?

Medeiros: Evolution is hard to understand because it’s inherently about processes beyond any individual’s experience. It’s about things happening on a scale of tens, hundreds, thousands and millions of years. That’s hard for us to fathom, and it’s not necessarily intuitive.

It’s kind of like the idea of the earth spinning around the sun. That’s not intuitive. If you look outside, that’s not what you see happening. You don’t feel like you’re spinning. The sun moves up over you. It defies your experience as a human.

So, it’s easy to have misconceptions and I don’t fault people for that. It’s a hard, hard concept just by itself, much less the implications where it could be perceived as taking human beings down several notches, as just another animal that evolved.

Question: There is an idea in some quarters that evolution and religion, whether it's Christianity or another faith, are incompatible. Any thoughts on the notion that if you believe in one of those ideas you can’t believe in the other?

Medeiros: I think that’s mostly on the religion side of things. It’s really up to you, whether you, as a religious person, can believe in evolution. That’s a great thing about religion: If you want to incorporate evolution into it, you could surely work it in, but if it somehow interferes with your beliefs, you won’t. You can shape your religion to exclude any kind of science, if you want.

In my education, I’ve had several biology teachers, evolutionary biologists and otherwise, who were quite religious people and (evolution) didn’t interfere with their belief.

As I understand it, Darwin himself was a religious person for most of his life, and finally ended up calling himself agnostic. You can see some of that in his writing. With some (discoveries) it was like, ‘OK, where does this place God? This evidence maybe puts the role of God in a different place than I was taught when I was younger.’ I think he used some language like that in his writing.

I’m not a historian, but I don’t think Darwin ever excluded a role for religion.

Question: It seems like not long after Darwin published The Origin of Species, people began using his work to promote their own political, religious or ideological agendas?

Medeiros: Yes, 100%. I couldn’t give you the exact timing on when that started to happen, but I think it was while he was still alive that people began to formulate ideas around his work. I think that’s not uncommon: You figure out some scientific truth and there will be people to exploit it for good and bad.

Evolution by natural selection and survival of the fittest—all of those touch phrases and concepts—in isolation have been used to justify some very horrible things.

Question: The Darwin Awards were created a few years back as a tongue-in-cheek honor bestowed on people who removed themselves from the gene pool by doing something really dumb. How far removed are those awards from anything associated with the actual British biologist?

Medeiros: I remember first hearing about them in graduate school. At the time, I thought it was humorous, but after I became a parent, the idea of people getting hurt and dying in weird ways was no longer so funny.

And really, that’s not how natural selection works. It’s not like, you’re an evolutionary loser, so you get attacked by a lion because you’re dim-witted.

Really, it’s all about the numbers at the margins. For example, with this particular adaptive allele, you have lineage that has 5% more offspring—and you do that over many generations and throw in some random environmental change—and they’re the fittest. But their fitness is just kind of at the margins and there’s a lot of luck involved, too.

So, it’s not as clear as, ‘Oh, this is person’s a ding-dong; they strapped themselves to a rocket' or whatever. That’s not an accurate representation of Darwin’s ideas.

Question: Will you be doing anything for Darwin Day this year?

Medeiros: In past years I’ve given a talk about Darwin, mentioning some things about the ‘modern synthesis’ concept, which includes things that Darwin was not aware of at the time—filling in some of the gaps he was unaware of—like DNA and genes.

That’s not to take anything away from Darwin. It’s fun to read Darwin because he’s so modern in how he thought and deduced things. I think a lot of biologists feel like, ‘Well, if I was back then, that’s how I would have figured things out, too.’

But to answer your question, nothing special planned, like reading from Origins. I might celebrate by going to my lab and writing a grant. Also, my youngest son has the same birthday as Darwin, so we will be focusing on that! I think Darwin would appreciate that … by all accounts he wasn’t just a great scientist, but a really devoted dad.

Did you enjoy this article? Subscribe to our newsletter. Passionate about ecology and evolutionary biology? Show your support.

In honor of Darwin Day Feb. 12, ��Ҵ�ý�ƽ�� evolutionary biologist Daniel Medeiros explains what we get right and wrong about Darwinism.

Traditional

White

Top illustration: Khawar Sohail Siddiqui/ArtStation

Katharine Suding named a 2025 Franklin Institute Bower Award winner

Rachel Sauer — Mon, 10 Feb 2025 16:17:16 +0000

Katharine Suding named a 2025 Franklin Institute Bower Award winner Rachel Sauer Mon, 02/10/2025 - 09:17

��Ҵ�ý�ƽ�� distinguished professor recognized for ‘transformative contributions to restoration ecology’

Katharine Suding, a University of Colorado Boulder distinguished professor of ecology and evolutionary biology, has won The Franklin Institute’s 2025 Bower Award and Prize for Achievement in Science and been named a Franklin Institute Laureate.

Suding is recognized for making “transformative contributions to restoration ecology by increasing our understanding of degraded ecosystems and their recovery dynamics. Her work addresses urgent environmental and societal challenges, and guides policies and practices of ecological restoration, biodiversity conservation and sustainable ecosystem management,” notes The Franklin Institute.

The Bower Awards honor extraordinary excellence in science, technology and business. Suding and her eight colleagues in the 2025 Franklin Institute Laureate cohort are cited as “true visionaries, pushing the boundaries of innovation to find solutions to some of the world’s most pressing challenges—and their achievements are transformative.”

"I could not have done this work if not for amazing collaborations with students, postdocs and colleagues, as well as indispensable partnerships with restoration practitioners," says ��Ҵ�ý�ƽ�� researcher Katharine Suding (second from left, blue baseball cap). (Photo: Katharine Suding)

“I am incredibly honored to receive The Franklin Institute’s Bower Award for Achievement in Science,” Suding said. “Ecosystem restoration is tasked with solving complex environmental challenges facing the world today, a discipline that well represents Benjamin Franklin’s spirit of innovation and application. I could not have done this work if not for amazing collaborations with students, postdocs and colleagues, as well as indispensable partnerships with restoration practitioners. This award is for them, for the field and for everyone working to bring back nature.”

Suding is a plant community ecologist who works at the nexus of ecosystem, landscape and population biology. Her research aims to apply cutting-edge “usable” science to the challenges of restoration, species invasion and environmental change. She and her research group work with a range of conservation groups, government agencies and land managers to provide evidence-based solutions that take into account biodiversity, human well-being and management opportunities.

They employ a combination of long-term monitoring, modeling and experimental approaches in settings that range from alpine tundra to oak woodlands to grasslands. Common themes of their work include plant-soil feedbacks, functional traits, species effects on ecosystem processes and non-linear and threshold dynamics.

Founded in 1824, The Franklin Institute of Philadelphia strives to honor the legacy of Benjamin Franklin by presenting awards for outstanding achievements in science, engineering and industry. As the oldest comprehensive science and technology awards program in the United States, The Franklin Institute Awards Program has recognized more than 2,000 of the most pioneering scientists, engineers, inventors and innovators from around the world.

Previous laureates include Nikola Tesla, Thomas Edison, Pierre and Marie Curie, Max Planck, Orville Wright, Albert Einstein, Edwin Hubble, Frank Lloyd Wright, Ruth Patrick, Jacques Cousteau, Stephen Hawking, Martin Rees, Gordon Moore, Shuji Nakamura, Jane Goodall, Elizabeth Blackburn, Bill Gates, Jim West and Gerhard Sessler, Cornelia Bargmann, John Goodenough, Jim Allison and Frances Arnold.

Suding and the other members of her laureate cohort will be honored in Philadelphia the week of April 28–May 2. Awards will be bestowed during a ceremony at The Franklin Institute on May 1 hosted by Chief Astronomer Derrick Pitts.

Did you enjoy this article? Subscribe to our newsletter. Passionate about ecology and evolutionary biology? Show your support.

��Ҵ�ý�ƽ�� distinguished professor recognized for ‘transformative contributions to restoration ecology.'

Traditional

White

Katharine Suding (second from right, blue jacket) and colleagues work in a greenhouse. (Photo: Matt Tallarico)

Division of Natural Sciences

Who has the influence to curb gender bias in STEM?

Related Articles

Discovering Boulder County’s tiniest residents

Related Articles

An ultrafast microscope makes movies one femtosecond at a time

Related Articles

Communities working together for better air

Communities know what needs regulation

How is air quality protected?

Air toxics and health

Related Articles

Storytelling, not statistics, can make STEM more inclusive

Related Articles

That iconic flag-raising on Iwo Jima? CU prof, then a Marine, saw it happen

Related Articles

Biochemist named to National Academy of Inventors

Related Articles

It hits Earth like a bolt of lightning

Related Articles

No, it’s not Darwinism if you get hurt while doing something dumb

Related Articles

Katharine Suding named a 2025 Franklin Institute Bower Award winner

Related Articles