Category: Students Page 27 of 42

In the Land of Fantasy, Inequality is Benign

On March 7, 2016

In Behavior/Psychology, Guest Post, Students

Cinderella went from scrubbing floors in tattered clothes to marrying her prince in a royal wedding.

Off they go to a hard day in the mines, whistling and smiling. (Except for Grumpy, but what do you expect?)

Off they go to a hard day in the mines, whistling and smiling. (Except for Grumpy, of course.)

Snow White’s seven dwarfs head off to the mines each day with a spring in their step and a song on their lips.

In Cars, an anthropomorphic Porsche named Sally finds her job as a lawyer too stressful so she moves to a working-class town where she finds an easier life.

Sally chucked it all, but she's still got a Porsche.

Sally chucked it all, but she’s still drives a Porsche.

These and other wildly popular movies that enchant children with magical tales of love, royalty, riches and happiness portray social class inequality in potentially harmful ways, a new Duke University study finds.

Sociologist Jessi Streib and two undergraduate students, Miryea Ayala and Colleen Wixted, watched all 36 G-rated movies that have grossed more than $100 million as of January 1, 2014, studying the characters in each to see what social class they represent and whether they scale the social ladder or fall off it. Many were Disney or Pixar movies from the last decade or so, while a few, like Mary Poppins and The Sound of Music, are considered generational classics.

The study found that the movies presented a less-than-nuanced view of social class, often focusing on up-from-the-bootstraps characters who reap huge social and economic rewards largely from hard work, moral fortitude, and playing by the rules.

Jessi Streib is an assistant professor of sociology.

“The big theme is that inequality is benign,” said Streib, an assistant professor of sociology. “Being poor isn’t a big deal. Being working class makes you happy. Anyone who wants to get ahead, and is ambitious and is a good person, can do so. And the rich happily provide for everyone else. Obviously, that’s not exactly how the world works.”

The study was published last month in the Journal of Poverty.

The study found a series of children’s characters who were economically top heavy. Of 67 main characters, 38 would be considered upper- or upper-middle class. Just 11 would be considered working class, and just three primary characters – or 4 percent of the total, would be considered poor by contemporary standards.

To compare, roughly 25 percent of American children live in poverty. And in real life, less than one-tenth of people in the lowest economic bracket rise to the top.

“In Disney movies, of course,” Streib noted, “They all do.”

The study also found that movies often minimize economic hardships. One example noted is Aladdin, the story of a young, homeless boy who befriends a princess named Jasmine. The two trade ‘horror’ stories, suggesting that Aladdin’s life on the streets is roughly equivalent to Jasmine’s struggles because servants tell her “where to go and how to dress.”

Streib’s paper excerpted this bit of Aladdin dialogue:

Aladdin: “The palace looks pretty amazing, huh?”
Jasmine, disappointed, responding about the palace where she lives: “It’s wonderful.”
Aladdin: “I wonder what it’d be like to live there, and have servants and valets.”
Jasmine: “Oh, sure. People who tell you where to go and how to dress.”
Aladdin: “That’s better than here. You’re always scraping for food and ducking the guards.”
Jasmine: “You’re not free to make your own choices.”
Aladdin: “Sometimes you feel so …”
Jasmine: “You’re just …”
Aladdin and Jasmine, simultaneously: “Trapped.”

Though these movies are fictional, their popularity does raise concerns about perpetuating myths related to inequality and the struggles lower-class people have climbing the ladder, Streib said.

“But would people really want to watch an honest movie?” she concedes? “Probably not.”

Guest Post by Eric Ferreri, News and Communications

"Debugging the Gender Gap" in Tech

By Olivia Zhu

On March 4, 2016

In Behavior/Psychology, Computers/Technology, Engineering, Science Communication & Education, Students

Lenna “Why isn’t Lenna wearing any clothes?” I implored my friend, shocked at seeing the shoulders-up nude photo of a woman on a mundane Monday in the Duke library. I had been going through a MATLAB tutorial on computer vision, and the sample image was, surprisingly, a naked lady. Apparently, when the USC developers behind a computer vision algorithm needed a sample face in 1973, someone just happened to walk into the lab with a Playboy magazine. The face of the woman on the centerfold, Lenna, has since become the default data for computer vision classes around the world. Because, of course, it’s totally normal to walk into an academic setting waving around a copy of Playboy, which would naturally be the first place one would go looking for a face.

Unfortunately, seeing female objectification in professional programming environments isn’t exactly an isolated incident. With the advent of the “brogrammer” culture, women have reported being exposed to workplaces in which male programmers share porn over open communication channels, according to CODE: Debugging the Gender Gap. When they’ve asked their male coworkers to stop, they were told, “Stop being such a girl.”

A showing of CODE was put on by RENCI, the Renaissance Computing Institute, and the

The percentage of women earning degrees in computer science has been decreasing, rather than increasing, since the 1980s.

Carolina Women’s Center, on February 29 at UNC. RENCI, while addressing issues of staffing diversity within its own organization, was inspired to bring the issue to light in the greater UNC community. By 2020, we expect to see more than one million unfilled software engineering jobs. As of now, only 23% of technical jobs nationwide are filled by women, leaving a huge gap to fill in this important workspace.

The response of the largely female audience to the film was overwhelmingly positive. Lilly, a first-year math student at UNC, noted that the issues the film addressed were “obvious,” both in academic settings and in the online blogosphere. She appreciated the positive messages, such as in this GoldieBlox superbowl ad, that counter expectations of young girls to study more “social” subjects and encourage them to pursue science, technology, engineering and math. Addy, a first-year computer science student, noted that a supportive group of women in her CS401 class at UNC makes the dearth of women less noticeable.

Olivia, Tabatha, and Addy with a collage of "Why We Love Tech"

Olivia, Tabatha, and Megan with a collage of “Why We Love Tech”

Tabatha, a first-year computer science student at UNC, said that she feels intimidated in introductory computer science classes, where male students often have years of background knowledge that she doesn’t. She hesitates to show men her code until it is perfect, since she feels that as a woman, she has to prove that she is just as good as a man. This additional pressure and worry, CODE observed, often causes women to perform worse in quantitative classes. Tabatha, Megan, and Olivia attended the screening as part of a Women’s Studies class. Megan echoed Tabatha’s sentiment, relating that as a beginning programmer, she felt behind during HackNC, where most men already knew how to build apps.

Clearly, issues of female representation in tech persist into the university and industry level. However, CODE insists that we must remedy the problem during childhood, when girls receive societal messages that deter them from studying science and tech subjects.

If we’re going to be “changing/saving the world,” “making a better version of you,” and deciding how to “do the right thing,” (all rhetoric from the tech industry), we should probably have all genders and races represented in those responsible for effecting the change that will supposedly impact all of humanity.

For more information on CODE, check out shescoding.org.

By Olivia Zhu

One Small Worm, One Duke Senior, and One Big Conference

By Kara Manke

On February 18, 2016

In Animals, Biology, Genetics/Genomics, Students

Duke senior Grace Lim isn’t grossed out by the innards of the tiny worm C. elegans. In fact, she finds them beautiful.

As a researcher in the David Sherwood Lab, she peers inside the transparent 1-millimeter creature under a microscope, watching for “cell invasion” — a process that occurs when one type of cell literally bursts into an area occupied by another type of cell.

Grace Lim presenting the results of her research at the AAAS Annual Meeting on Saturday.

Last weekend, the aspiring developmental biologist had the opportunity to take her work to the national stage when she presented at the Student Poster Competition as part of the annual AAAS meeting in Washington, D.C.

“It’s been really exciting,” said Lim. “The researchers here are experts and it is great to learn about their projects. At the same time, I’ve met scientists from all different fields who have asked questions and provided insights that I didn’t expect.”

Cell invasion plays a key role in organism growth and development, Lim said. For example, a fertilized egg will use cell invasion to implant itself into the uterine wall. However, cell invasion can also occur in less desirable processes, like cancer and other diseases.

In her work, Lim created C. elegans mutants that lacked specific genes related to cell invasion. She then observed whether uterine cells in the growing mutants could still invade tissue in the vulva — a key milestone in the growth of the developing larva.

“C. elegans is a good system to study because it is transparent, so you can watch these biological processes happening under a microscope,” she said.

The tiny transparent C. elegans. Photo courtesy of the National Human Genome Research Institute

Her experiments uncovered four new genes that appear to regulate cell invasion in C. elegans. In addition to presenting at the conference, Lim will also be writing up these results as an honors thesis.

Lim, who wants to pursue a graduate degree in biology after finishing up at Duke, says her favorite part of working in the Sherwood lab has been interacting with the graduate students. “We work together to come up with creative ways to solve problems, which is something you don’t always get to do in class,” she said.

And her favorite part of working with C. elegans?

“They have this amazing ability to control their metabolism,” she said. “We grow these worms in petri dishes, and when the plate fills up and they run of out food, they just stop growing. But if you take a few and put them on a new plate they grow again, as if nothing had happened.”

Post by Kara Manke

Kara J. Manke, PhD

An Adventure Abroad in Brain-Machine Interfaces

By Olivia Zhu

On February 11, 2016

In Biomedical Engineering, Computers/Technology, Neuroscience, Students

11080630_10205422939006642_2749326952690554776_o copy Matthew McCann, Pratt ’16, spent his summer translating thoughts into movements.

A biomedical engineering and mathematics major, the Duke senior contributed to work in the field of prosthetics by creating a brain-machine interface that senses different brain waves of a subject and converts them into movements of a mechanical hand.

McCann, who had never traveled to Europe, let alone lived there for three months, took his foreign adventure one step further and pursued cutting-edge research in Rand Almajidy’s biomedical engineering lab in Germany. McCann was paired with the University of Freiburg for a Research Internship in Science and Engineering by the German Academic Exchange Service.

McCann combined two prominent biomedical techniques, tri-polar concentric electroencephalograms (tEEG) and near-infrared spectroscopy (NIRS), to pick up the brain activity of his subjects. EEGs are the typical devices one pictures when imagining recording brain activity: electrodes stuck all over a subject’s skull to pick up neuron firing when particular brain regions are active.

NIRS is a novel way of measuring brain activity. A common application of NIRS is in the pulse oximeter, or the plastic clip-like contraption doctors place on your finger to measure pulse and blood oxygenation. McCann used NIRS to measure the blood flow in different regions of the subject’s scalp. Different patterns of blood flow indicated dynamic brain activity.

Based on data obtained from these two techniques, McCann categorized brain activity into three specific intentions: thinking about moving the right hand, thinking about moving the left hand, and thinking about moving the feet. Each different intention to move was then connected with moving one finger of a mechanical hand. An example of the hand moving in response to different intentions is shown below (at 8x speed):

McCann’s major challenges in the project were processing complicated EEG signals and removing noise from these signals in order to correctly classify each of the movement intentions. He worked with vast amounts of training data from subjects who had practiced focusing acutely on each of the movements.

He ultimately isolated the specific frequency bands whose power was modulated most drastically during the three movement intentions he was targeting. These frequency bands served as the basis for his machine-learning algorithm, which matched known data the subjects had been trained to produce with unknown thoughts about movement.

After developing his algorithm, McCann tested it on unknown data, in which subjects thought about moving their right hand, their left hand, and their feet in some arbitrary sequence. McCann’s algorithm ultimately obtained impressive accuracy of up to 80% when categorizing unknown thoughts about movements.

Through his research, McCann demonstrated the feasibility of rapidly creating functional prosthetics from simple materials and only open-source software. His prosthetic hand proves promising to medical innovation, as it represents a non-invasive, functional brain-machine interface. Ultimately, his success sheds optimism on the future of prosthetics.

Learn more about McCann and his projects on his website.

by Olivia Zhu

2016 Going on 2030: The Madagascar Winter Forum

By Devin Nieusma

On January 21, 2016

In Environment/Sustainability, Lemurs, Students

For two and a half cold days in January, 91 Duke students and I had the opportunity to immerse ourselves in Malagasy culture—without the warmth of its sub-tropical climate.

We were participants in Duke’s 2016 Winter Forum: ‘Madagascar 2030: Sustainable Development Innovation Challenge’. The goal was to design solutions to help the country meet its Sustainable Development goals by the year 2030.

Winning team Mamboly

After being divided into teams of four or five, we were all given a task to solve through the creation of a social venture. The forum was steeped in the spirit of entrepreneurship, with lessons and guidance being given by Duke faculty members, notably Deb Johnson and Matthew Nash from the I&E Center, and social entrepreneurs in Madagascar.

The forum began with a trip to the Duke Lemur Center, followed by lectures about Madagascar at Fuqua School of Business from faculty and guest speakers.

After spending a day learning about the island nation’s wonderful history and biodiversity, as well as its challenges, we were ready to work on our pitch. Each team was given about 36 hours to help solve one of the country’s most pressing problems: poverty, food insecurity, environment, and health.

Team YOgLO presenting their pitch for locust harvesting as fare for food-insecure regions.

So my team and I had a day and a half to help solve hunger in Madagascar.

Some hours and many headaches later, we created a model of a scalable non-profit social venture using innovative aquaponic farming technology. And, after overcoming a disaster featuring spilled orange juice, a laptop, and unsaved changes, we were ready to pitch.

I was blown away by the wide range of creative solutions that were offered by my peers. From an agricultural research framework, to a locust-farming business, each team made an effective argument for how they could help mitigate food insecurity in Madagascar.

Team Mamboly, won with a pitch for a scholarship program in sustainable agricultur. Team Medex, was the people’s choice for their proposal to use drones to deliver much-needed medicines to isolated communities.

One of my favorite takeaways from the forum.

The forum taught me the importance of research in entrepreneurship, social and otherwise (and I’m not just saying that because I happen to write for the Duke Research Blog). Most of the time we spent on our pitch was gathering information about food insecurity in southwest Madagascar and how our idea can be designed with the local area in mind.

I also learned that well-meaning ventures often fail because the do-gooder didn’t use human-centered design in their product or service, or didn’t do enough research into the current competition, the culture of the area, or how they might scale their product.

My teammate Elena Lie “learned to never leave drinks close to my laptop, to always save presentations on the cloud, and to always keep calm when the unexpected things happen.” And William Ding “learned a lot about Madagascar and the issues it faces from experts on the field, both in-person and over Skype.”

Until next year.

2015-09-03 17.36.37 Post by Devin Nieusma, Duke 2019

Middle Schoolers Ask: What's it Like to be a Scientist?

By Robin Smith

On December 16, 2015

In Animals, Behavior/Psychology, Biology, Chemistry, Environment/Sustainability, Physics, Science Communication & Education, Students

When a group of local middle schoolers asked four Duke postdocs what it’s like to be a scientist, the answers they got surprised them.

For toxicologist Laura Maurer, it means finding out if the tiny silver particles used to keep socks and running shirts from getting smelly might be harmful to your health.

For physics researcher Andres Aragoneses, it means using lasers to stop hackers and make telecommunications more secure.

And for evolutionary anthropologist Noah Snyder-Mackler, it means handling a lot of monkey poop.

The end result is a series of short video interviews filmed and edited by 5th-8th graders in Durham, North Carolina. Read more about the project and the people behind it at http://sites.duke.edu/pdocs/, or watch the videos below:

Seeing the Research for the Trees

By Karl Bates

On December 9, 2015

In Biology, Climate/Global Change, Environment/Sustainability, Field Research, Students

The Duke Forest is more than just a place to run the trails or harvest timber. It’s also an important living laboratory for Duke’s research community.

On Dec. 4, we joined the annual tour of research sites in the 7,000-acre forest, led by forest Director Sara Childs and Operations Manager Jenna Schreiber. Nearly two dozen of us learned about water and bugs, climate change and nanoparticle pollution.

Maggie Zimmer opened up the equipment box for her show and tell of the hydrology experiment.

At the first stop, in the Edeburn Division south of Hillsborough, Nicholas School graduate student Maggie Zimmer showed us a densely instrumented watershed for studying how a raindrop reaches a stream. A little valley of 130 hectares is studded with wells and dammed by a weir that measures every drop flowing out of the watershed. Zimmer and her thesis advisor Brian McGlynn are trying to get a handle on how a drop of water falling on a leaf or the ground eventually makes its way through several feet of soil and clay, in and around chunks of old rock, to the stream.

It’s not as simple as you think, says Zimmer, who has hand-augured 35 test wells in the study area and spent many dark, wet nights tending to her delicate equipment. For example, the rain gauge measures .01 millimeters at a time!

Across the road from the hydrology lab, we visited a global warming forest built by Jim Clark’s research team and overseen by lab manager Jordan Siminitz.

Jordan Siminitz showed us inside one of the warming forest test chambers.

There are 24 plastic enclosures for studying how temperature increases in the soil might affect the growth of young trees. The warming scenarios were produced by a network of propane-heated pipes under the soil in each enclosure. The funding that built the site and operated it for four years has stopped, but the trees are still there and the team is hopeful they can restart the experiment.

Here and in Harvard Forest, the team was looking at soil temperature increases of 3 degrees or 5 degrees Celsius. The surprising finding out of four years of data was that southern tree species seemed to be more adversely affected by the temperature increase than northern species.

“Long term research like this is really hard to get funding for,” Childs said. But without long term studies, we won’t know much about what to expect from climate change. Incidentally, NC State was conducting a parallel study of ants and warmer soils in the same experimental booths, but they’ll be shutting down this year as well.

Duke Forest Director Sara Childs checked out a pickled Southern Pine Beetle.

At the next stop, we found nattily uniformed NC Forest Service ranger Philip Ramsey standing next to an elaborate plastic contraption like 10 black funnels in a series leading down to a reservoir of antifreeze at the bottom. It’s a pheromone trap for the Southern Pine Beetle and its predator, the Clerid beetle. All is well with those bugs for now, but the devastating enemy of ash trees, the Emerald Ash Borer, is on the march and due to arrive any month now, Ramsey said, passing around pickled specimens of the bugs for our inspection.

Our last stop was an update on the nanotechnology test site called the mesocosm facility – 30 boxes filled with water, silt and plant life. They’re meant to mimic a tiny slice of a shoreline ecosystem to see how various nanoparticle materials are taken up by plant and animal life.

Steve Anderson (at right) explained the mesocosm test chambers to the tour group.

Research analyst Steve Anderson from Emily Bernhardt’s lab explained the latest experiments on what happens to all the poisonous stuff infused into anti-bacterial socks and pressure-treated lumber. The good news so far is that nanoparticies don’t seem to get taken up by ecosystems as readily as some had feared.

This isn’t really forest research per se, but where else are you going to put 30 big bunkers of mud, surrounded by an electrified raccoon fence, a super-fine frog fence and a Quonset hut enclosure for the cooler months?

Duke Forest houses 71 research projects at the moment, 16 of them started in just the last year. We’ll look forward to more fun discoveries on next year’s tour!

Follow Duke Forest on Facebook or subscribe to their updates to catch this and other tours.

Post by Karl Leif Bates

HTC Vive: A New Dimension of Creativity

By Olivia Zhu

On November 12, 2015

In Computers/Technology, Engineering, Students, Visualization

“I just threw eggs at the robot!” grad student Keaton Armentrout said to Amitha Gade, a fellow biomedical engineering master’s student.

“He just said, ‘Thank you for the egg, human. Give me another one.’ It was really fun.”

In what world does one throw eggs at grateful robots? In the virtual world of the HTC Vive, a 360 degree room-size virtual reality experience created by Steam and HTC that is now offering demos on the Duke campus from November 9 – 13. There is a noticeable buzz about Vive throughout campus.

I stepped in to the atrium of Fitzpatrick CIEMAS expecting a straightforward demonstration of how to pick up objects and look around in virtual reality. Instead, I found myself standing on the bow of a realistic ship, face to face with a full-size blue whale.

A Tiltbrush drawing I created with HTC Vive during my internship at Google. (Tiltbrush was acquired by Google/Alphabet).

Peering over the side of the shipwreck into a deep ravine, I seriously pondered what would happen if I jumped over the railing –even though both my feet were planted firmly on the ground of CIEMAS.

Armentrout observed that the Vive differentiates itself from other VR devices like Oculus by allowing a full range of motion of the head: “I could actually bend down and look at the floorboards of the ship.”

In Valve’s Aperture Science demo, based on their game Portal, I attempted to repair a broken robot so real it was terrifying. I was nearly blown to bits by my robot overseer when I failed at my task. In total, I progressed through four modules, including the shipwreck, robot repair, a cooking lesson, and Tiltbrush, a three-dimensional drawing experience.

Game developers naturally are pursuing in virtual reality, but technologies like HTC Vive have implications far beyond the gaming realm. One of the applications of the Vive, explained one of the Vive representatives, could be virtual surgeries in medical schools. Medical schools could conserve cadavers by assigning medical students to learn operations on virtual bodies instead of human bodies. The virtual bodies would ideally provide the same experience as the operating room itself, revolutionizing the teaching of hands-on surgical skills.

Gade brainstormed further potential applications, such as using robots controlled by virtual reality to navigate search-and-rescue situations after a crisis, reducing danger to rescue crews.

The first time I tried the HTC Vive was not at Duke; it was at a Tiltbrush art show in San Francisco.

HTC Vive Tiltbrush masterpiece displayed at the San Francisco Tiltbrush art show

On the stage, an artist was moving her limbs in grand arcs as she painted the leaves of trees and brushing the ground to create a sparkling river. A large screen projected her virtual 3-D masterpiece for the audience.

Gilded frames on stands emphasized the interactive Vive devices, each of which housed a Tiltbrush masterpiece created by a local artist trained in the technique. Well-dressed attendees marvelled at seemingly invisible waterfalls and starry skies in the virtual reality paintings. Clearly, the Vive, by opening another dimension of artistic creation, is changing our notions of space and pushing the bounds of creativity.

By Olivia Zhu

Moving Beyond #DistractinglySexy

By Olivia Zhu

On October 26, 2015

In Behavior/Psychology, Faculty, Students

Let’s not talk about Tim Hunt.

(Okay, a little: He’s the Nobel laureate who told the World Conference of Science Journalists, “Let me tell you about my trouble with girls. Three things happen when they are in the lab: you fall in love with them, they fall in love with you, and when you criticize them, they cry.”)

Instead, let’s talk about the invisible sexism and gender inequality pervasive in graduate school and industry, emphasized the panelists for the Graduate Women in Science’s Fall Career Development Panel, and let’s figure out how to effect meaningful change in the workplace.

Dr. Bruce, Dr. Reiskind, and Dr. Bickford, from left to right

On October 20, Dr. Donna Bickford, Associate Director of the Office of Undergraduate Research at UNC, Dr. Katherine Bruce, Assistant Professor at Salem College, and Dr. Martha Reiskind, Research Assistant Professor at NC State, hosted an honest conversation about microaggressions, social gender norms, and general advice for dealing with a hostile work environment.

Though the panelists and the attending graduate students were loath to talk about one individual’s aggression, they looked incredibly favorably upon the social media movement, #DistractinglySexy, which resulted from Hunt’s comments.

The hashtag movement declares that, “You can be feminine, and you can be a scientist,” said Dr. Bruce, a sociologist. It breaks from reactionary notions that women must adopt masculine behavior in order to excel in their professions, as well as fosters a larger support community for women who may often feel isolated as the only female in their lab.

The biggest disappointment of the #DistractinglySexy campaign though, was the lack of genuine conversation that followed. Dr. Bickford, an English professor, said that many men agreed with the sentiment of the movement but dismissed further concerns of daily sexism in the workplace, citing men like Hunt as anomalies and the sole perpetrators: “There are a few dinosaurs, but they’re dying.”

The panelists addressed the difficult question of how a woman ought to stand up to offending men in the workplace. “You’re damned if you do and damned if you don’t… How do you blow the whistle without being betrayed?” asked Dr. Reiskind, who addresses issues of sexism in her lab. Especially in situations where the perpetrator is in a position of power, calling out sexist behavior carries the risk of being perceived as a “baying witch,” while remaining silent condemns one to perpetual harassment.

On the question of inaction from women, Dr. Reiskind described the utter disbelief, echoed by the other panelists, that often strikes when assault or harassment has occurred– the bizarre nature of the situation may prevent women from speaking up in the immediate moment where action may be conducive to behavior remediation.

Ultimately, this panel set out to solve problems. While no legislation was passed or cases resolved, holding honest, open conversations to more deeply understand issues is the first step in creating gender-equal workplaces.

By Olivia Zhu, Duke 2016

What I wish first-year-me knew about Duke Research

By Yunchu Huang

On October 22, 2015

In Science Communication & Education, Students

When I arrived at Duke, I thought research was all serious business. It was publications with titles so complicated you couldn’t understand, content meant to make geniuses scratch their heads, and test tubes performing operations nobody quite had time to explain to me.

I thought it was near impossible for an undergrad to get into social science research, and contemplated applying for a lab just to “get research experience.” I signed up for a research mentor, who graciously met me at the steps of Marketplace, but whose spectacular background and accolades intimidated me.

First-year me was confused about Duke Research and directions to the Duke Gardens. Here pictured with my good friend Matthew Lide, Duke 2016.

First-year me was puzzled about Duke Research and directions to the Sarah P. Duke Gardens. Here pictured with my good friend Matthew Lide, Duke 2016.

Back then, research was a grand, intangible, and formidable concept to me. It was one of those things you were supposed get involved with, and have some sort of not-quite-defined penchant for, but I didn’t know how to go about getting plugged in.

Research was Professor Lefkowitz getting recognized in front of thousands for his Nobel Prize. It was the overwhelming catalog of faculty research interests on each departmental web site. Research was cleaning test tubes, transferring liquids with pipettes, looking through a microscope — none of which I was fundamentally interested in.

Second-year me perfected the art of awkward hand gestures while conversing with Joel Kaplan, Vice President for Public Policy at Facebook, after a Duke American Grand Strategy Program luncheon. Photo Credit: Duke Photography

But I’m here to tell you that I was wrong. You see, over these three years, while I’ve enjoyed engaging in research in formal settings, research has also manifested itself in very personal, very approachable ways, and I’d like to share what Duke Research has come to mean to me.

Research is the enthusiastic dash from one white board to another in the midst of a discussion on model selection so passionate you want to spring off the edge of your seat. It’s the long conversation with your roommate about the state of things that goes into the wee hours of the night.

Research is feeling comfortable to share fresh, under-developed ideas with your mentors. It’s texting your professor that wacky analogy you just made up about a theory you learned. Research is the diversity and breadth of guest lectures, seminars, and symposiums open to all.

Third-year me enjoyed free doughnut breaks as part of research. From left: Kyle Casey, who studies modular forms, TJ Ciesla, who experiments with synthetic biology, and Paul Hoard, who's always down to finance.

Third-year me enjoyed free donut breaks as part of research. Here pictured with Kyle Casey, who studies modular forms, TJ Ciesla, who experiments with synthetic biology, and Paul Hoard, who’s always down to finance.

Research is forwarding your friends an email, an article or event about a concept you think would pique their interest. It’s connecting friends who turn out to be intellectual soul-mates.

Research is pondering over a question someone threw at you during thesis seminar that you don’t quite have the answer for yet. Research is a good game of “Explain (blank*) to a five-year-old,” one of my favorite activities with my best friend. (*So far, we’ve done Excel, the Maximum Likelihood Estimator, and Prime numbers.)

Duke’s research is big, but it can be manifested in so many small, beautiful ways. It advances every time we ask a speaker a question or linger in the Gross Chemistry Hall to give that research poster a second glance. Even though these small steps aren’t formalized, they inadvertently make our research community richer, make us richer.

Fourth-year research is sitting next to your chewbacca-esque friend, trying to sit still while sharing thoughts on his parking optimization thesis. Grant Kelly, Duke 2016.

To quote my boss, it’s not just about the glossy publications or the number of citations; it’s also about the people, the process, the ever-renewing excitement.

TL;DR You don’t have to be published in a top journal to contribute to the richness of the Duke research community–just strike up a conversation with a similarly curious soul!

By YunChu Huang, Duke 2016