Vidyalakshmi Chandramohan, associate professor in neurosurgery and pathology, and member of the Duke Cancer Institute. Credit: Duke Department of Neurosurgery
Duke professor Vidyalakshmi Chandramohan is a pioneering neuro-oncologist whose work is redefining the future of glioblastoma (GBM) treatment. As a researcher in the Department of Neurosurgery at Duke, she is driven by a profound commitment to improving patient outcomes and providing new hope for those battling one of the most aggressive forms of brain cancer.
Her journey into science began with an interest in immunology and oncology, which led her to earn a Ph.D. and conduct postdoctoral research focused on the complex relationship between cancer and immune responses. Her fascination with GBM stemmed from the urgent need to develop innovative treatments for a disease with limited therapeutic options. Today, her groundbreaking research offers new avenues for fighting GBM and improving patient survival.
PET scan showing glioblastoma brain cancer. Credit: Wikimedia Commons.
Chandramohan’s work is centered on immunotherapy, particularly the development of D2C7-IT, a dual-specific immunotoxin currently in Phase I clinical trials for recurrent GBM patients. This precision medicine approach targets tumors with remarkable specificity, minimizing damage to healthy tissue. Her ongoing research aims to enhance the efficacy of D2C7-IT and expand its potential as a viable alternative to traditional treatments.
For Chandramohan, translating her research into tangible solutions is essential. “Developing a therapy is one thing, but making sure it works in the real world is another,” she says. She is exploring ways to combine D2C7-IT with other therapies to improve treatment outcomes and minimize side effects, pushing the boundaries of what is possible in GBM care.
A critical aspect of her research involves identifying biomarkers that predict patient responses to treatment, enabling personalized therapies. “Personalized medicine is the future,” she believes. “Tailoring treatment to each patient’s unique response will improve survival rates and outcomes.”
Collaboration is at the heart of Chandramohan’s work. She fosters an interdisciplinary environment where scientists, clinicians, and engineers work together toward a shared goal. “No one person can do it all,” she emphasizes. “It takes a community of experts to make breakthroughs happen.”
Despite the challenges of translating research into clinical practice, Chandramohan remains unwavering in her determination. “When our work leads to better treatment options, it reminds us why we do this every day,” she says. Her dedication to improving patient care fuels her optimism for the future of GBM treatment.
Looking ahead, Chandramohan is hopeful that the integration of immunotherapy, precision medicine, and innovative technologies will revolutionize the field of neuro-oncology. “We’re just scratching the surface,” she says, confident in the potential to improve outcomes for GBM patients.
Through her relentless pursuit of excellence, Chandramohan is not only advancing the science of glioblastoma treatment but also inspiring the next generation of researchers to push the boundaries of what is possible in the fight against cancer.
Meet a trailblazer in the realm of neurocritical care and emergency medicine: Dr. Katharine Rose Colton, MD. Balancing roles as a clinician, researcher, and educator, Colton serves as an Assistant Professor of Neurology and Neurosurgery at Duke University. Her dedication to understanding and treating traumatic brain injury (TBI) exemplifies her commitment to improving the lives of patients facing severe neurological challenges.
TBI is a significant public health issue, often resulting from falls, motor vehicle accidents, or sports injuries. It can range from mild concussions to severe brain trauma, leaving patients in comas or with long-term disabilities. While treatments for TBI have evolved, many gaps remain in understanding how to optimize recovery and outcomes. Colton’s work bridges this divide, combining cutting-edge research with compassionate patient care.
Colton’s journey into medicine wasn’t linear. A Canadian native, she initially pursued an eclectic range of interests, including ethnobotany and anthropology, during her undergraduate studies. She pivoted to medicine, taking the MCAT on a whim and earning her M.D. from Duke University School of Medicine.
Her first exposure to TBI occurred during a research year at the University of Maryland’s Shock Trauma Center. A project initially focused on trauma surgery shifted to neurocritical care, igniting her passion for studying brain injuries. “I loved it,” she recalls. “It was a completely different way of looking at medicine.”
Colton’s clinical path led her to a residency in Emergency Medicine at Northwestern University and a fellowship in Neurocritical Care. While she enjoyed the fast-paced decision-making of emergency medicine, she found herself drawn to the intricate details of critical care. “I struggled with letting patients go and handing them off to others,” she says. “I wanted to stay involved and see the whole story unfold.”
Now focused primarily on neurocritical care, Colton dedicates a third of her time to research, primarily on clinical trials targeting severe TBI. She has worked on large-scale, multi-site studies investigating drug therapies and monitoring systems to optimize treatment for comatose patients.
Her approach to research is pragmatic: “I’m a clinician first. I want to know how the things we do today will benefit the patient tomorrow.” For instance, her current trials explore the potential of older, cost-effective drugs previously overlooked by pharmaceutical companies to improve outcomes in TBI patients. These trials adopt adaptive designs, allowing for real-time adjustments based on early results to maximize impact.
Colton is also a strong advocate for personalizing TBI treatment. “TBI is an incredibly heterogeneous condition,” she explains. “We can’t treat a 20-year-old in a car accident the same as a 70-year-old who fell. They have completely different recovery pathways.” Her work aims to identify biomarkers and refine classifications of TBI to develop more targeted interventions.
One of the most memorable cases from Colton’s career underscores her dedication to patient care. A young woman struck by a car in Chicago arrived at the ICU in a deep coma, with little hope of recovery. Months later, to Colton’s astonishment, the patient returned to work and resumed her life. “You just don’t know,” she reflects. “That case taught me the importance of patience and persistence in medicine.”
Colton’s role extends beyond the ICU, often involving interactions with patients’ families during some of their most vulnerable moments. “Families often show incredible grace, even in tragedy,” she says. “It’s humbling to see their resilience and willingness to contribute to research, even when it might not help their loved one directly.”
Despite the challenges of long, emotionally taxing weeks in the ICU, Colton finds fulfillment in both the technical and human aspects of her work. “There’s something beautiful about the physiology — adjusting treatments and seeing how the body responds,” she explains. Yet, she never loses sight of the bigger picture: the patient. “Numbers on a screen don’t matter if we’re not improving their lives.”
Outside of work, Colton enjoys paddleboarding, camping, and spending time with her two young children. Her background in ethnobotany and love for snowboarding reflect her multifaceted personality, blending curiosity, determination, and a deep appreciation for life.
Dr. Katharine Colton is shaping the future of TBI care through her dedication to research, her patients, and the families she serves. Her journey is a testament to the impact of resilience, curiosity, and compassion in medicine.
“The beauty of research is freedom,” says assistant professor of pharmacology and cancer biology Zhao Zhang, when asked what drove him to research transposons and circular DNA at Duke.
Zhao Zhang, an assistant professor of pharmacology and cancer biology at the Duke University School of Medicine.
Though he is now a prominent researcher, Zhang reveals that he didn’t develop an interest in the research field until his senior year of college. It was when he was running his first PCR, a technique used to amplify small segments of DNA, nervously but excitedly waiting for the results, that he became “hooked” on research. He then pursued a master’s degree in China that further cemented his passion for biology.
He continued his education abroad and soon earned his Ph.D. from the University of Massachusetts Medical School. He then decided to forgo the traditional post-doctoral training period and instead established his research group at the Carnegie Institution for Science, where he stayed for nearly five years earning accolades like the NIH Director’s Early Independence Award and the Larry Sandler Award from the Genetics Society of America.
At Carnegie, Zhang conducted research on how Drosophila, or fruit flies, can lay eggs while suppressing transposons. Jumping genes, or transposons, comprise around half of our genome and get their name from jumping from one genomic location to another. They can cause genomic instability and oncogenesis, or the formation of cancer.
One day by “pure serendipity,” the focus of their research was completely transformed when they learned that these transposons can form circular DNA. While trying to figure out why this occurred, Zhang discovered that there wasn’t much that researchers knew about circular DNA. He says it was like stumbling onto a “golden mountain” of unexplored research topics and decided to switch his research focus from germline biology to cancer biology.
This switch coincided with Zhang’s move to Duke, where he asks people to call him ZZ. Currently, his lab studies both transposons and circular DNA. One major goal of Zhang’s lab is to understand transposon-mediated immunity and use this to create cancer vaccines.
Dr. Zhang in his lab at Duke University
Another major focus of the ZZ lab is circular DNA, which can reintegrate into the genome. According to Zhang, circular DNA may also amplify cancer genes since “30% of cancer patients have circular DNA but for really aggressive cancers like glioblastoma (a brain cancer), 60% of patients have circular DNA.” His lab aims to use their research on circular DNA to develop drugs for cancer therapy.
His lab is currently waiting on results that have the potential to be instrumental in bringing new therapies for the treatment of cancer, including more aggressive types and those with lower rates of survival.
However, there is a possibility that the results will be unfavorable and he and his team will have to go back and tweak the system and re-optimize conditions before testing again.
“With science, you always learn something,” ZZ says. “Maybe it’s not what you wanted, but it is always a foundation to build the next stage of learning.”
Guest post by Sindhu Paladugu, North Carolina School of Science and Math, Class of 2025
How do you motivate faculty, external colleagues, and curious undergraduates alike to brave the frigid cold to attend an 8:30am symposium?
Short answer: biscotti and coffee.
Of course, the breakfast delicacies are only a supplement to the strong, irresistible offerings of the annual Aging Center Research and Education Showcase, held Dec. 6 at the Trent Semans Center. As a first-semester undergraduate, I can attest to the captivating, inspiring nature of the speakers’ presentations; the research projects were interdisciplinary, comprehensive, and thought-provoking. What’s even more impressive is the intellectually stimulating questions prompted by the seasoned researchers in the audience. What an honor it was to listen to and learn from the legendary Dr. Harvey Cohen, Duke’s very own father of geriatrics, as he offered his advice to various presenters!
Excited attendees at the exposition of the Aging Center Research and Education Showcase!
If I were to continue heaping praise on the symposium and narrate every detail of the 4-hour-long event, you would be bored to death. Instead, allow me to focus on the most impressive research undertakings (in my humble perspective): the PRISM Comparative Effectiveness Trial co-led by Dr. Cathleen Colon-Emeric, division chief of geriatrics, and the AI-driven clinical guidance project led by Dr. Juliessa Pavon.
The PRISM trial presentation from Colon-Emeric was the second talk listed in the symposium agenda, the first after the welcoming remarks from Dr. Heather Whitson, director of the aging center. And its headline placement was justified from the get-go: data on the prevalence of fall-related injuries is astonishing and concerning. For instance, did you know that two deaths occur from falls every hour in America? How about the fact that fractures are a more potent cause of death than breast or prostate cancers?
Having established the basis for her research, Colon-Emeric soon transitioned to her focus on post-acute care and the avenue by which she is investigating injury prevention mechanisms. Given that 90% of fracture patients take fall risk-increasing medications, with many taking up to three such medications simultaneously, Colon-Emeric and her co-investigators sought to design a randomized cluster crossover trial measuring injurious fall rates under three conditions. By assigning 3,780 patients in the study to deprescribing dangerous medications, treating osteoporosis, and both deprescription and treatment groups, the researchers hope to discern which model performs the best in preventing fall injuries.
After a few more invigorating lectures, the audience welcomed Dr. Juliessa Pavon for her remarks on her research on leveraging AI to personalize medication deprescribing for older adults. While Pavon’s project similarly aims to confront the issue of polypharmacy in seniors, especially the use of multiple central nervous system (CNS) acting drugs, she focuses on the process of deprescribing and how to improve decision-making. Noting that the current deprescribing tools such as STOPP and START are limited by their “one size fits all” nature, Pavon proposed that AI, the driving force behind individualized treatment rules (ITRs), could be used as a better alternative.
Beyond the complexity of models and algorithms used for this machine learning product and the behemoth dataset (containing information from 278,000 individuals) involved, I found Pavon’s explanation for the benefits of ITRs to be the most engrossing. Contrary to popular belief, ITRs don’t improve treatment outcomes for all patients, as portrayed in the depiction below. However, the strength of ITRs arises from their ability to achieve better outcomes for many patients beyond the baseline level, which is more desirable on a population level than applying the average treatment regimen. This realization was key for me to understand the rest of Pavon’s presentation.
Graphic showing the effect of applying individualized treatment rules (ITRs) on a patient population
Of course, I must address the other fascinating talks and poster presentations before I conclude. Dr. Cara McDermott’s seminar on improving medication and safety for rural residents featured another exciting research project; the selected data on the costs and difficulties surrounding dementia care was enlightening and underscores the grave realities confronting the support networks of dementia patients. Additionally, Dr. Maria Marquine’s address on research education in the Aging Center featured much celebratory applause as the audience congratulated undergraduate, graduate, and postgraduate scholars affiliated with the Aging Center’s various initiatives. Marquine’s passion and dedication to cultivating the next generation of aging and geriatric physician-leaders are evidenced by her involvement in all levels of the Aging Center’s education model, which warrants acclamation from the population at large. Lastly, I must mention the innovative research project spearheaded by Dr. Darina Petrovsky, assistant professor of nursing, examining the effect of music-based intervention for dementia patients. Her work, combined with her unique educational background of music studies and nursing, illustrates the multidisciplinary nature of medicine and how all skillsets could be applied to improving human health. Pre-med students: take this to heart!
While the weather outside was frightful, the fire of research and discovery inside the Trent Great Hall was surely delightful. As we celebrate another year of remarkable research progress at Duke Medicine and the Aging Center, let us congratulate our in-house experts on their work and together look forward to their exciting work in the coming year!
In Hanjie the rules are simple. In this game of logic and creativity, the players, often working on medium-sized grids of 225 squares, use numbers on the rows and columns as clues to determine which boxes to shade. At first, the prospect of seeing a beautiful picture seems almost unfathomable. However, through patience and collaboration from every corner of the page, these small seemingly random squares gradually come together to reveal a masterpiece—one square at a time.
In a sense the efforts of Duke’s Climate Commitment are no different. The issue of climate change has proven to be a multifaceted one. One in which many parties play a role. However, with initiatives such as Duke’s Forever Learning Institute, the probability of tackling these issues becomes much clearer.
The logo of Duke’s Forever Learning Institute retrieved from their website.
Recently Duke’s Forever Learning Institute, an interdisciplinary educational program for Duke alumni, hosted Professors Norbert Wilson and Maiken Mikkelson for a compelling session on the impact of climate change on food and agriculture. Wilson, an agricultural economist and the Director of the World Food Policy Center at Duke, specializes in addressing critical issues related to food access, nutrition, and food security. Mikkelsen, a distinguished expert in physics, electrical, and computer engineering, explores the potential of nanomaterials to revolutionize agricultural processes, paving the way for innovative solutions in the field. Together, they explained how advancements in nanomaterials can improve food security and sustainability.
Throughout the session, Wilson emphasized the concept of food security. He began by clarifying the difference between “food loss” and “food waste.” Food loss occurs at the agricultural level. It refers to food that is produced but never reaches consumers, often due to challenges such as poor harvesting seasons, labor shortages for harvesting, or other natural factors. He describes the ways in which loss occurs across the board but disproportionately affects less developed countries. Wilson also explained how food waste occurs at the consumer level. He details how it goes beyond the waste of a product but is also a waste of the resources used to create that product.
Wilson illustrated the significance of these issues by drawing out the larger issue of food insecurity. Food insecurity describes an inability to access food or concerns about accessing food. In the United States 13.5 percent of citizens struggle with accessing food. This can lead to a number of negative health outcomes such as cardiovascular issues and diabetes. Food insecurity can also lead to behavioral and performance issues, particularly in young children.
Infographic about food insecurity retrieved from ECOMERGE.
This is where Mikkelson comes in. She described a term known as Precision Agriculture. In this, researchers observe and measure agriculture fields and extra data to see what resources such as water, and fertilizer is needed at each part. In this, they hope to retrieve good information through wavelengths as a means of getting a spectral fingerprint that supplies information about the crops. Mikkelsen describes her interest in leveraging nanomaterials to create lightweight, cost-effective hyperspectral cameras capable of capturing detailed spectral fingerprints of crops. She hopes that these materials can be employed around the world, and low resource settings to increase crop yields. The greatest roadblock in this would be the price and issues with widespread application. However, once applied it would hold the ability to detect key characteristics such as nutrient deficiencies, water stress, or disease presence.
Our world is wildly affected by climate change. Climate change and agricultural production hold a very dependent relationship and fixing one side holds the ability to correct the other. This is what makes the work and research of those such as Wilson and Mikelson all the more important. Their efforts show how we can utilize technology to not only enact social change but also reverse our climate issues. Their research highlights not only the urgency of addressing food security and agricultural sustainability but also the transformative potential of interdisciplinary approaches.
Just as the game of Hanjie reveals its masterpiece one square at a time, tackling climate change requires collective effort and patience. Each initiative, whether through advanced nanotechnology or policy-driven solutions, brings us closer to a sustainable future. Duke’s Forever Learning Institute serves as a platform to connect these ideas, inspiring action and innovation that can shape a better tomorrow—one step at a time.
Amid the constant drumbeat of campus events, much of the conversation turned toward the challenges we face in energy policy, security and transitions during Duke’s annual Energy Week, held Nov. 11-15.
On the second day, the Innovation Showcase featured not only startups making their pitches for clean energy and sustainable tech products, but students doing so as well.
Currently in its second year, Duke Design Climate is a new initiative between the Pratt School of Engineering and the Nicholas School of the Environment. It functions as a two-course sequence, in which students form groups to prototype and promote climate solutions after conducting market research.
As I made my rounds to the teams, I met a mix of graduate students and undergraduates with academic backgrounds ranging from engineering to economics to environmental science. The ideas they have aren’t purely theoretical: all are looking for sponsors or partners to help implement their solutions into real-world use. Here were some of the highlights:
Team ReefCycle is building from plants: Our first stop is named after the company whose product they intend to scale up. Initially, Mary Lempres founded ReefCycle to develop sustainable material for artificial reefs. Regular industrial production for cement requires intensive heating– burning of fossil fuels–releasing tons of carbon dioxide. ReefCycle sought to reduce this climate impact with a different method: their cement is plant-based and enzymatic, meaning it’s essentially grown using enzymes from beans. Testing in the New York Harbor yielded some promise: the cement appeared to resist corrosion, while becoming home for some oysters. The Design Climate team is now trying to bring it to more widespread use on land, while targeting up to a 90% reduction in carbon emissions across all scopes.
Team Enfield is uplifting a local community: Design Climate, evidently, is by no means limited to science. Instead, these team members intend to address an environmental justice issue close to home: energy inequality. Around 30-35% of Enfield residents live below the poverty line, and yet suffer from some of the highest energy bills in the larger area. Located a ninety minute drive east of Durham, this rural town is one of the poorest in North Carolina. Historic redlining and unfavorable urban planning are responsible for its lack of development, but now this team aims to bring back commerce to the area through microfinance. Once enough funding is gathered from investors and grants, the team hopes to provide microloans and financial literacy to spur and empower businesses.
UNC Libraries Commons
Team Methamatic promotes a pragmatic e-methane solution: This team is harnessing the power of sunlight to drive fuel production. Synthetic methane, commonly referred to as e-methane, is produced by reacting green hydrogen and carbon dioxide. “Currently, the power-to-gas process can be carbon neutral,” said team member Eesha Yaqub, a senior. “Sourcing the recycled carbon dioxide from a carbon capture facility essentially cancels out the emissions from burning methane.” However, this power-to-gas (P2G) process is an intensive one requiring high heat, energy, and pressure–hoops that might not have to be jumped through if an alternative process could break through the market. Professor Jie Liu and the Department of Chemistry have been working on developing a reactor that would conduct this same reaction without those obstacles. “[Utilizing] the energy from ultraviolet light, which is absorbed by a catalyst …makes the process less energy intensive,” Yaqub said.
Right now, the team has a small prototype, but one used for commercial generation would appear much larger and cost between $15,000 to $20,000. Their intended customers? Oil and gas companies under pressure to shift away from fossil fuels. If successfully scaled up, they predict this process would produce e-methane at a price of $5 per kilogram.
The size of the prototypeThe size needed
Analyzing living shorelines through Team Coastal Connect: If “Coastal Connect” sounds more like an app than a project name, that’s because it is one. This group is designing what one member dubbed a “fitbit for shorelines”: a monitoring system that brings data from ocean buoys to the phones of local landowners. While measurements in salinity and water level aren’t always telling for the average person, the app would contextualize these into more useful phrases. Is it currently safe to swim? It’ll let you know.
Moreover, it would also allow for the long-term monitoring of living shorelines. While we know this nature-based solution offers resilience to natural disasters and presents erosion, short-term fixes like seawalls are often built instead to continue allowing development up to the edge of beaches. The team hopes that ideally, providing concrete data on living shorelines would allow us to demonstrate their benefits and promote their implementation.
“Our technology is tailored towards scanning animals. In fact, we can run scans on entire organisms!”
Image from the Photoacoustic Imaging Lab that made it onto the front page of Science: glassfrog transparency!
Excitedly, Soon-Woo Cho, a postdoctoral associate in the Photoacoustic Imaging Lab, referred me to the standing poster at the Nov. 20 Invented at Duke showcase. While I stood puzzled looking intensely at the articulate images, I suddenly realized that the jumble of blue and red outlined the shape of a frog!
As one could imagine, this technology, the masterpiece invention of biomedical engineering professor Junjie Yao and his team, is too advanced for a first-semester undergraduate to understand.
Soon-Woo Cho, postdoctoral fellow with the Photoacoustic Imaging Lab.
Nonetheless, Cho patiently explained its basic mechanisms to me in simpler terms. One of the technology’s key attributes was its speed; while traditional imaging counterparts were known for their long processing times, Yao’s team was able to reduce that time to mere seconds.
Another accomplishment is the product’s versatility and widespread application. Not only can the system distinguish between arteries and veins, coloring them as red and blue respectively, it can also play an important role in diagnosing cancer cells, as these malignant cells are known for inducing abnormal growth of surrounding blood vessels.
After hearing this inspirational work, I traveled a few steps to another booth. While both research projects take place within the biomedical engineering department, their focus could not be more different. Ruth Verrinder, a current PhD student working in Jonathan Viventi’s lab, explained to me how the flexible electrode strips on display are part of an effort to address a significant medical need.
Ruth Verrinder, PhD student and member of the Viventi Lab.
Today, many surgeries to treat epilepsy are disappointingly unsuccessful. Even after a lengthy medical process including diagnosis and highly intensive treatment and procedures, such failures are simply too much to bear for many patients and families. The Viventi Lab believes that through improving the quality and quantity of data collected by medical electrodes, more surgical successes would naturally follow.
Their current product is already in use at Duke, and the team has ambitious plans for further developing the product. The top priority is to build implantable electrodes so brain signals could be tracked for weeks to months before prospective surgeries, better informing surgeons and medical professionals on the specific patient’s conditions.
While the booths hosting major inventions attracted the most fanfare, many other organizations were also present. One can hardly avoid the history exhibition: the bending, wave-like wall of “A Century of Innovation at Duke” greeted every visitor as they walked in the Penn Pavilion doors. On the other side of the wall, a history table curated by the Rubenstein Library displayed remarkable patents from Blue Devils across time, not to mention the popular button-making station that touted designs like “I love patents!”
Although the acclaimed Dr. Robert Califf, director of the Food and Drug Administration, did not make it to the event, the occasion was nonetheless an overwhelming success. As a biomedical engineering student, I got to witness some of the most advanced research occurring in my field of study and meet prominent faculty. In the crowd of attendees, many students, regardless of undergraduate or graduate, studying humanities or the sciences, huddled around posters while inquisitively listening to inventors. Even academics from other institutions came to attend the sixth annual Invented at Duke: while I was learning more about the Viventi Lab’s research, a scholar from the University of Georgia joined the huddle and posed questions.
Even as all attendees, including myself, were astounded by the ingenious discoveries presented, I think there is a deeper takeaway than simply being “wowed” by incredibly advanced brain electrodes or imaging systems.
As stressed by the Office of Translation and Commercialization, Office of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, and Nucleate, a student-led organization focused on biotechnology innovation, groundbreaking development is feasible and not a feat to be done alone. For those with bold ideas, there are innumerable resources on campus to help bring those visions into reality.
For those interested in innovation but do not have the “sparks,” there are countless ways to get involved with existing projects and find one that suits your passions. Above all, those whose interest lies beyond biomedical sciences should not be discouraged: if there are current initiatives aimed at improving satellite images, there are surely many other non-biomedical endeavors for you to explore!
Let us not only celebrate what’s invented, but also the thriving spirit of invention here at Duke. Onwards!
The Web of Science ranking of the world’s most highly-cited scientists was released this morning, telling us who makes up the top 1 percent of the world’s scientists. These are the authors of influential papers that other scientists point to when making their arguments.
EDITOR’S NOTE! — Web of Science shared last year’s data! We apologize. List below is now corrected, changes to copy in bold. We’re so sorry.
Twenty-three of the citation laureates are Duke scholars or had a Duke affiliation when the landmark works were created over the last decade.
A couple of these Duke people disappeared from this year’s list, but we’re still proud of them.
Dan Scolnic of Physics returns as our lone entry in Space Science, which just makes Duke sound cooler all around, don’t you think?
This is a big deal for the named faculty and an impressive line on their CVs. But the selection process weeds out “hyper-authorship, excessive self-citation and anomalous citation patterns,” so don’t even think about gaming it.
Fifty-nine nations are represented by the 6,636 individual researchers on this year’s list. About half of the citation champions are in specific fields and half in ‘cross-field’ — where interdisciplinary Duke typically dominates. The U.S. is still the most-cited nation with 36 percent of the world’s share, but shrinking slightly. Mainland China continues to rise, claiming second place with 20 percent of the cohort, up 2.5 percent from just last year. Then, in order, the UK, Germany and Australia round out the top five.
In fact, five Duke NUS faculty made this year’s list: Antonio Bertoletti, Derek Hausenloy and Jenny Guek-Hong Low for cross-field; Carolyn S. P. Lam for clinical medicine, and the world famous “Bat Man,” Lin-Fa Wang, for microbiology.
Through three compelling anecdotes, Emanuel showed us how environmental science and environmental justice can be viewed as a bidirectional relationship.
Ryan Emanuel (photo by Duke University)
Story one: After earning his degree in hydrology from Duke in the 90s, Emanuel pursued advanced studies in evaporation and carbon cycling. With an education, Emanuel began fieldwork — conducting studies and climbing tall towers (all the fun sciencey stuff). However, as a person from North Carolina’s Lumbee Tribe, he noticed the disconnect between his work and his community. He was acutely aware of a cultural emphasis on education –the expectation that you will use your education to give back to your community. He didn’t feel his work in hydrology was serving the Lumbee tribe’s interest, so he decided to change that.
Sean Jones from the Lumbee Tribe (photo by News & Record Final)
During his talk, Emanuel emphasized the significance of “accountability” and “motivation.”
“Examining our motivation can allow us to better understand who we are accountable to in our work… We are all accountable somehow, and we can be accountable in different ways to different groups.”
Understanding that his work had to be accountable for the Lumbee tribe, Emanuel became an ambassador for STEM in higher education. This new path enabled him to mentor youth with tribal backgrounds, prepare them for higher education, and even form strong relationships with them.
Story two:
The EPA says environmental justice is “fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people in environmental decision-making.”
Emanuel recognized that governments should be accountable for including the voices and opinions of marginalized groups — ‘all people’ — within their environmental decision-making. But Emanuel said there was a dissonance between these promises and reality. One example is the placement of Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) where livestock are raised in confinement for agricultural purposes.
CAFOs in North Carolina are disproportionately located in communities of minority groups. Many issues arise from this, such as the pollution produced from CAFOs (air and water).
I was shocked to see the many ways that smaller, marginalized communities are affected. These issues are often relatively hidden — not surprising given that mainstream media usually focuses on large (easily observable) community-based discrimination.
Map of locations of CAFOs in North Carolina (photo by Jiyoung Son)
Emanuel began to look at the interplay between environmental science (observation, analysis, testing) and environmental justice (lived experience, regulations, fairness). He let go of the previous idea that environmental science only seeks to provide data and support to drive change in environmental justice. He began to ask, “How can environmental justice improve environmental science?”
Story 3: Combining his accountability for the Lumbee tribe with his hypothesis about the bidirectional relationship of environmental science and environmental justice, Ryan Emanuel began looking into the observably negative impacts of the Atlantic Coast Pipeline (ACP). Spanning over 600 miles, this gas pipeline will provide many benefits for North Carolina communities, such as lower costs, new jobs, and less pollution, according to Duke Energy.
Emanuel saw that the pipeline route went right through Lumbee territory, which could mean devastating effects for the community, such as health impacts and declining property values.
Proposed Atlantic Coast Pipeline route (photo by SAS Blogs)
The crux of the issue lay in the negligence of project developers who failed to connect with the marginalized communities the pipeline would run through (such as the Lumbee). Tribal voices and input were completely ignored.
Emanuel helped prepare tribal leaders for meetings with corporate representatives and wrote a commentary on the need for the federal government to collaborate with the tribes they would be affecting.
Eventually, after years of lawsuits, the companies in charge of the project abandoned the ACP project. When I searched “Why was the Atlantic Coast Pipeline project canceled?” Duke Energy claimed the cancellation was because of “ongoing delays and increasing cost uncertainty, which threaten(ed) the economic viability of the project.” Other sources provide details on the legal challenges and criticism the project faced.
After the companies dropped the plan, they were quick to purchase forest land near the Lumbee tribe and begin the development of natural gas infrastructures that would allow for the storage of gas when the demand was low and the ability to release the gas when prices went up.
I found it quite impressive that Ryan was able to attend many meetings between the Lumbee Tribe and the company, without saying a word. The tribal council had asked him to only observe and not speak. During one meeting, a representative from the company that purchased the forest land said that they wanted to clarify that “pipelines are not disproportionately located in marginalized communities — they are everywhere.”
Emanuel began testing this hypothesis, eventually gathering enough evidence to statistically prove that there is a “spatial correlation between social vulnerability and pipeline density.” His findings gathered significant media attention and have even been expanded on to show the need for change and increased safety within pipeline communities.
Emanuel concluded by explaining that the principles of environmental justice can show us what questions we should be asking, who we should be asking them of, and who we should be keeping in mind when conducting research.
The statement Emanuel made that stuck with me the most was, “If we value examining problems from all angles, we have to pay attention to which perspectives are missing.”
Ryan Emanuel’s book (photo by The Magazine of the Sierra Club)
After Emanuel’s talk, I was surprised that I had never been introduced to this way of thinking before. It seems like common knowledge that focusing on justice and equity can improve how we investigate problems scientifically. However, it is not completely surprising that this information is not common sense, given the systematic issues within our country.
Emanuel’s book, “On the Swamp: Fighting for Indigenous Environmental Justice,” dives deeper into these concepts about the relationship between environmental justice and environmental science. I believe this book would bring nuance to our world today, where there is a clear need for change and the uplifting of voices that have been quieted for so long.
In an increasingly polarizing world, the discussion surrounding human rights remains at the forefront of all that we do as a society. People are becoming more aware, as, these days, violations are displayed right before our eyes. With a click of a button or a swipe of the thumb, people are able to see travesties occurring throughout all parts of the world. Developments in technology help us remain knowledgeable about such issues, but what about the offenses that we don’t see—the silent killers that we chalk up to poor fate, to chance? What about the violations in which we ourselves play a major role? These are urgent questions that researchers at the Duke School of Medicine are working to answer, with a specific focus on the deadly impacts of climate change.
In times of crisis, the most disadvantaged communities bear the greatest burden. The researchers recognize that climate change is no different and have strategized ways to reverse these effects. They presented their research in a recent talk, titled Climate Change and Human Health: Creating a Strategic Plan for Duke’s School of Medicine. Associate Professor and lung disease expert Dr. Robert Tighe led the conversation.
A photo of Dr. Robert Tighe. Courtesy of Duke’s Department of Medicine Website.
While presenting his research, Tighe identified a major shift in sea surface temperature trends, noting that the trend has deviated greatly from the statistical norm. Although the reasons behind this shift are not fully understood, it is believed to have serious implications, as excess heat poses risks to human health. According to the Centers for Disease Control, increasing temperatures and carbon dioxide have the potential to impact water quality, air pollution, allergens, and severe weather conditions. These conditions, in turn, bring forth respiratory allergies, cholera, malnutrition, and cardiovascular disease, to name a few. Tighe’s research goes beyond the general effects of these issues; it delves into how they disproportionately impact the most vulnerable members of society: children, the elderly, low-income communities, and communities of color.
A chart containing information about the most vulnerable parts of population to the effects of climate change. Courtesy of Biological Science.
On a local scale, Tighe highlights that many in these vulnerable positions often lack access to the healthcare necessary to mitigate these impacts. For instance, low-income citizens are often unable to afford the costs associated with repairing the physical damage climate change inflicts on their homes, leaving them exposed to pollutants and the effects of environmental toxins. The elderly also find themselves in similarly precarious scenarios, as many of these situations require evacuation—something not always feasible for those in fragile health. Consequently, they too are left exposed to pollutants and dietary challenges exacerbated by climate change.
On a global scale, these issues heavily impact countries in vulnerable positions. The United States, China, India, the European Union, and Russia are among the largest contributors to carbon emissions. However, the consequences of this burden fall disproportionately on countries like Bangladesh, Haiti, Mozambique, small island nations, and others. Due to their geographic locations, climate change brings far more than just hotter days—it brings devastating hurricanes, tsunamis, cyclones, and widespread malnutrition. The limited financial resources in these nations make rebuilding and mitigating these impacts extraordinarily challenging, especially as many climate effects are recurring. This disparity is particularly frustrating, as these countries contribute only a fraction of the world’s carbon emissions.
A map of the global climate risks. Courtesy of the New York Times.
This is precisely what Tighe’s work aims to address. He is working to connect the science on climate change effects, researched by those in the School of Medicine, with that of the Nicholas School of the Environment. Referring to this as an interdisciplinary issue, Tighe believes that the place to begin is within the community. He emphasizes the importance of starting with the people of Durham: What do they need? How can we best help them? How does this affect our own backyard? He stresses the importance of outreach, educating the community on how climate has long-term impacts on their health. Tighe also underscores the need to view this as an opportunity to combine diverse strengths to address the crisis from every angle.
In the face of a climate crisis that goes beyond borders and affects the most vulnerable among us, Tighe’s and his fellow researchers’ work is a call to action. By fostering collaboration between scientific fields and engaging directly with local communities, he develops an approach that is both comprehensive and compassionate. His work reminds us that addressing climate change isn’t just a scientific or political issue—it’s a deeply human one, demanding a united effort for the wellbeing of all under the sun.
based and enzymatic, meaning it’s essentially grown using enzymes from beans. Testing in the New York Harbor yielded some promise: the cement appeared to resist corrosion, while becoming home for some oysters. The Design Climate team is now trying to bring it to more widespread use on land, while targeting up to a 90% reduction in carbon emissions 
