In loving memory of Christopher Elvin (RC ‘26), we dedicate this edition of Osmosis Magazine to our lost peer and to all who loved him.
Donate to Chris’s Family link to the GoFundMe:
Writers:
Alex Robertson
Bezawit Mulatu
Isabel DiLandro
Andrew Watts
Paxton Mills
Aiden Hills
Jeff Tsai
Editors:
Isabel DiLandro
Andrew Watts
Paxton Mills
Avery Rothstein
Alex Robertson
Designers: Israa Draz
Yifei Qi
Editor in Chief,
Osmosis Science Magazine
Dear Reader,
Thank you for opening Osmosis Magazine. We are excited to bring you more accessible, intriguing stories in science and technology spanning the disciplines of chemistry, environmental science, psychology, and mathematics. In addition to this edition’s science articles, we are excited to introduce faculty interviews, which chronicle select faculty members’ journeys into science and some of their passions outside of it. Our goal as a magazine is to share the joy of science with the UR community in an accessible and entertaining fashion. We hope that you enjoy reading this Fall edition of Osmosis Magazine.
Human Health through Long-Distance Space Travel
By Alex Robertson
Curiosity of the Cat
Since the dawn of time, humans have been enthralled by the secrets of space. From the sheer vastness of our night sky to the precise clockwork these celestial bodies follow, the universe has opened our minds beyond the comparatively concrete world we call home. Over centuries, ancient scientists and civilizations around the world have carefully mapped the patterns of our universe in great detail, diving deeper and questioning more as technologies have improved. In typical human fashion, it wasn’t long before we became bored with what we had, so we decided to venture out ourselves. Pictures could no longer do.
Humans in Space
Throughout the second half of the 20th century, the USA and Soviet Union spearheaded humanity’s push into space, driven partly by curiosity and mostly by political ego. The Space Race saw humanity’s first space-bound launches take place, sending out satellites equipped with payloads containing everything from scientific instruments to monkeys and dogs. The countries then began testing their spacecraft with humans, sending astronauts out into orbit and beyond, until finally, the USA became the first to successfully land humans on the moon in 1969. So where are we now?
Since then, countries from around the world have launched a plethora of satellites, space probes, moon rovers, and more. One of the most significant advancements for humans in space was the development of the International Space Station (ISS), a multi-national project launched at the end of the 20th century to act as a vessel for scientific research in microgravity. As we approach the middle of the 21st century, government and private agencies alike have bigger dreams involving longdistance space travel to planets like Mars and beyond, creating a need for more research on space travel’s long-term effects on human health. A variety of projects investigating these hazards have taken place both on Earth and the ISS, revealing more than expected about how we respond to space travel. For simplicity's sake, these hazards can be broken down into three classes: isolation effects, gravitation effects, and radiation effects.
Nothing to Something
Isolation, arguably, is the most dangerous product of space travel. It is a double-edged sword: not only does isolation pose a threat within a small crew traveling for years at a time in cramped quarters thousands of miles away from Earth, but it also poses a threat in communication and emergent scenarios between the crew and Earth. The mental health of astronauts is rigorously screened before, during, and after space travel, and many mindfulness-focused, stress-relieving exercises are actively employed by space agencies. To paint a better picture,
NASA describes future deep-space missions to involve a team of astronauts in a space smaller than a studio apartment spanning over two and a half years. In these missions, researchers envision robust maintenance programs that may even use artificial intelligence to check in on astronauts, screen them for early signs of mental health concerns, and treat them through positive visual programs or telepsychiatry. Once the hurdle of isolation is surpassed, astronauts must battle the most obvious challenge: gravity, or rather, the lack thereof.
You can FLY!
Organisms on Earth have evolved for millions of years to thrive under gravity’s constant 9.8 m/s² tug. Humans rely heavily on its ability to keep fluid circulating, which helps us orient and position, see clearly, and perfuse tissue in perfect balance. Throwing our strongly-adapted bodies into an environment with less or no gravity wreaks havoc on these systems. Common issues include decreased lung volume, muscle and bone atrophy, chronic motion sickness, compromised immunological function, decreased vision clarity, increased risk of gastrointestinal complications, and more due to a variety of cascading effects caused by the lack of sufficient gravity. Ongoing research shows that pre-flight check-ups, colonoscopies, medications targeted against bone resorption in-flight, and novel immune boosting protocols positively affect astronauts’ health outcomes both during and after short or long-term space flight. Even so, many
other ailments experienced in space lack proper research and treatment, which will continue to pose problems as we venture past the record of 437 days spent consecutively in space. However, as we continue to discover more about humans’ abilities in low gravity environments, a silent killer pierces through the fabric of space.
Cosmic Elephant’s Foot
Under the beautiful blue skies and soft, fluffy clouds of Earth, we live a highly sheltered life, free of some of the most dangerous forms of radiation beamed towards our planet from all angles. Emerging from the protective blanket of our atmosphere, astronauts and their respective vessels face the invisible challenge of protecting themselves from ionizing radiation. There are five types of ionizing radiation threats: alpha particles, beta particles, positrons, gamma rays, and xrays. Milli-Sieverts (mSv) are units used to measure radiation levels, where one mSv absorbed by the body is equivalent to about three chest x-rays. NASA reports astronauts in space to be exposed to doses ranging from 50 to 2,000 mSv, the equivalent of 150 to 6,000 chest xrays at once. Long-term, this increased exposure can negatively affect astronauts’ immune systems and bone remodeling as well as increase their risk of developing cancer. While much is unknown about radiation’s difference in effect from individual to individual, it does seem that the presence of signature protooncogenes (i.e. BRCA1, a gene implicated in various cancers when mutated) and unique DNA methylation
patterns can confer unique susceptibility during space travel. Research is needed to further elucidate these differences and how physicians can not only screen for high-risk individuals but also help protect space travelers over time. From an external perspective, spacecraft shielding remains a challenging balance for engineers, where prioritizing lighter payloads for takeoff, using high-density shielding materials, and ensuring the stability of said materials conflict. New research shows promise in various polymers and advanced fabrics that would provide protection to crew in both spacecraft and spacesuits, though more investigation needs to occur over longer periods of time.
Shoot for the Stars!
Vice President Kamala Harris once said, “Space – it affects us all, and it connects us all.” Our infatuation with space will never die and will continue to grow strongly as our technologies advance, our reach extends, and our discoveries multiply. We have barely addressed the tip of the iceberg, having only focused on adults’ relatively short stints in orbit, but what does human health look like across generations born in space? How do treatment plans and homeostatic markers change in these extraterrestrial environments? As humans continue to race outwards, it is important for scientists and physicians to tackle the physiological dangers associated with our, rather toxic, universal relationship.
ZERO & INFINITY
TWO DIVERGING CONCEPTS CONVERRGING AT NOTHING
by Aiden Hills
The concepts of zero and infinity have perplexed mathematicians, philosophers, and scientists since the very beginning of civilization These abstract ideas challenged existing paradigms in arithmetic and geometry, paving the way for groundbreaking advances in fields ranging from quantum mechanics to cosmology. Let us examine the resistance and eventual acceptance of zero and infinity, highlighting their indispensable roles in modern science and technology.
When we consider numbers, we typically think of them as concrete identifiers of quantity, not abstract mathematical categories such as “natural,” “rational,” or “integer.” Take, for instance, an ancient Sumerian sheep farmer Every morning, as the sun broke over the horizon, he counted his flock. Whether he had 1, 2, 3, or perhaps as many as 50 sheep, each number had a specific, tangible meaning a direct correlation to the grazing animals before him This farmer's reality was rooted in the physical; numbers were tools for
measuring and managing his worldly goods Yet within this numeric landscape, there loomed two elusive concepts utterly foreign to his daily life: the ideas of zero and infinity The notion of having zero sheep was meaningless to our farmer; for his concern lay in the sheep he could touch and see To him, the absence of sheep would simply be a cause for concern, not a number to count or record. And the idea of possessing an infinite flock? Such a thought was beyond imagination. His fields had boundaries, his days had hours, and his resources had limits These two extremes zero and infinity were absent from the Sumerian farmer's practical number system. They represent the polar opposites of the mathematical spectrum, embodying nothingness and the unfathomable concept of boundlessness. While modern mathematics embraces these extremes, our Sumerian sheep farmer had no need for them. Numbers, to him, were as real and finite as the woolly backs grazing in his pasture
ZERO AND INFINITY IN MODERN SCIENCE
In the vast expanses of cosmology, zero and infinity are not just mathematical abstractions but real concepts with observable consequences. The singularity at the heart of a black hole, where the laws of physics as we know them break down, epitomizes infinity: it's a point where mass is thought to be compressed into an infinitely small space, effectively a 'zero' in volume with infinite density. This singularity points to the limits of our understanding, where infinity becomes a physical reality rather than a mathematical oddity. The Casimir effect, a quantum mechanical phenomenon, demonstrates that even 'empty' space, or a vacuum, isn't truly empty. When two uncharged, closely-spaced metal plates are placed in a vacuum, they unexpectedly attract each other. This attraction is due to quantum fluctuations tiny, spontaneous changes in energy. These fluctuations mean that a vacuum isn't a 'zero' of energy but is instead filled with invisible energy that can have observable effects, revealing a surprising aspect of the quantum world where 'nothing' can produce something quite tangible. These effects underscore the profound impact that the concepts of zero and infinity have in explaining our universe, from the fabric of spacetime to the mysteries of quantum mechanics, cementing their significance far beyond their mathematical origins.
Zero and infinity, emerging from the abyss of non-existence, have carved their niches in the edifice of science and mathematics. They challenged ancient doctrines, reshaped philosophical thought, and became catalysts for technological advancements From creating mathematical paradoxes to being instrumental in understanding the universe’s fabric, they prove that everything and anything, indeed, can come from nothing. The convergence of zero and infinity doesn't just represent mathematical concepts but epitomizes the limitless potential of human cognition and innovation.
This exploration of zero and infinity draws substantial inspiration from Charles Seife's "Zero: The Biography of a Dangerous Idea " Seife's book is a profound journey into the history and impact of zero, shaping our understanding of mathematics and the universe
Seife, Charles. Zero: The Biography of a Dangerous Idea. Souvenir Press, 2019.
Ozempic: A Potential GameChanger for Type 2 Diabetes or a Misused Celebrity Weight Loss Trend?
By Bezawit Mulatu
Inthe ever-evolving landscape of medical innovation, a new player has emerged, captivating the attention of healthcare professionals and the public alike. Ozempic, a medication initially designed to combat Type 2 diabetes, has garnered widespread interest due to its unexpected association with celebrity weight loss trends. This article delves into the multifaceted narrative of
Ozempic, exploring its pivotal role in diabetes management, its unanticipated link to weight loss, and the controversies that have ensued.
Unveiling Ozempic: A Medical Marvel
Ozempic, a prescription medication classified as a glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist, has been hailed as a breakthrough in the realm of Type 2 diabetes treatment. It stimulates insulin release and inhibits the production of glucagon, thereby aiding in the regulation of blood sugar levels in adults grappling with this chronic condition. The use of Ozempic (semaglutide) has been associated with potential effects on insulin sensitivity. A study published in The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism found that semaglutide treatment was associated with increased insulin sensitivity while inhibiting the liver from releasing glucagon, and restoring pancreatic function, offering promising prospects for the reversal of Type 2 diabetes. Another randomized, doubleblind, placebo-controlled trial discussed in a National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) article highlighted that semaglutide improved beta-cell function and glycemic control in participants with Type 2 diabetes. The study found that semaglutide significantly increased first-phase and second-phase insulin responses, suggesting improved insulin sensitivity. Additionally, the study observed that semaglutide treatment led to reduced fasting, postprandial, and overall glucose and glucagon responses and increased maximal insulin secretory capacity.
Ozempic's Triumph: Redefining Type 2 Diabetes Management
As the medical community continues its quest for effective diabetes management, Ozempic emerges as a formidable ally. When part of a holistic approach with diet and exercise, Ozempic lowers blood sugar, mitigates cardiovascular risks, aids weight management, and reduces reliance on multiple daily insulin injections. Its potential to enhance glycemic control and mitigate the perils of uncontrolled diabetes positions it as a beacon of hope for countless individuals.
The narrative of Ozempic, however, takes an intriguing turn with reports of notable weight loss among its users, sparking a debate over its potential offlabel use for weight management. This unexpected effect has piqued interest and controversy, as it suggests a dual utility that extends beyond its primary indication.
The drug's popularity in celebrity circles for its weight loss benefits has ignited a firestorm of debate, prompting scrutiny over its appropriate use and the ethical considerations of its non-prescribed applications. The intersection of its diabetes treatment role and its impact on weight complicates its position in the healthcare landscape.
To clarify Ozempic's place among diabetes treatments, the medical community is evaluating its effectiveness, safety, and overall contribution to diabetes care. This
assessment is crucial to understanding Ozempic's unique attributes and how it compare to other available therapies. The story of Ozempic is underscored by a strong emphasis on responsible use. Patients are urged to follow prescribed dosages, adhere to dietary recommendations, monitor blood sugar vigilantly, and be aware of potential side effects. Responsible use is integral to maximizing the benefits of Ozempic in diabetes management.
Navigating the complexities of diabetes treatment options, including Ozempic, underscores the importance of consulting healthcare professionals. Patients considering Ozempic are advised to seek expert advice to ensure a tailored approach to their treatment, based on a thorough evaluation of their health needs. This consultation is essential for optimizing diabetes management and maximizing the benefits of Ozempic therapy.
As we conclude our examination, Ozempic stands as a tale of both promise and contention. Its value in the diabetes treatment arsenal is clear, yet the debate over its role in weight loss persists. The medical community continues to wrestle with Ozempic's dual narrative, advocating for responsible use and informed decision-making, as patients and physicians alike navigate its potential with caution and insight. The story of Ozempic, straddling the line between a diabetes game-changer and a controversial weight loss trend, remains an unfolding chapter in the annals of medical science.
Cited resources
1. Ahrén, B., Masmiquel, L., Kumar, H., Sargin, M., Karsbøl, J. D., Jacobsen, S. H., ... & Buse, J. B. (2017). Efficacy and safety of onceweekly semaglutide versus once-daily sitagliptin as an add-on to metformin, thiazolidinediones, or both, in patients with type 2 diabetes (SUSTAIN 2): a 56week, double-blind, phase 3a, randomized trial. The Lancet, 389(10069), 1499-1509.
2. Effects of semaglutide on beta cell function and glycaemic control in participants with type 2 diabetes: a randomized, double-blind, placebocontrolled trial. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5491 562/
3. Heise T, Mari A, DeVries JH, Urva S, Li J, Pratt EJ, Coskun T, Thomas MK, Mather KJ, Haupt A, Milicevic Z. Effects of subcutaneous tirzepatide versus placebo or semaglutide on pancreatic islet function and insulin sensitivity in adults with type 2 diabetes: a multicentre, randomized, double-blind, parallel-arm, phase 1 clinical trial. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2022 Jun;10(6):418-429. doi: 10.1016/S2213-8587(22)00085-7. Epub 2022 Apr 22. PMID: 35468322.
4. NBC News. (2021). A new weight loss drug could help millions. But it's not a magic pill. Retrieved from https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/newweight-loss-drug-could-help-millions-it-s-notn1270455
5. Pratley, R. E., Aroda, V. R., Lingvay, I., Lüdemann, J., Andreassen, C., Navarria, A., ... & Buse, J. B. (2018). Semaglutide versus dulaglutide once weekly in patients with type 2 diabetes (SUSTAIN 7): a randomized, open-label, phase 3b trial. The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology, 6(4), 275-286.
6. Tuttle, K. R., Lakshmanan, M. C., Rayner, B., Busch, R. S., Zimmermann, A. G., Woodward, D. B., ... & Davies, M. J. (2020). Dulaglutide versus insulin glargine in patients with type 2 diabetes and moderate-to-severe chronic kidney disease (AWARD-7): a multicentre, open-label, randomized trial. The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology, 8(8), 637-646.
Meet the Pollock Lab: Understanding Breast Cancer and Disease Development
By Jeff Tsai
In October 2023, I was eagerly looking for my lab home, as most Gottwald students would refer to the process. I had the pleasure of talking with Dr. Julie Pollock about her significant research in breast cancer. A great part of the reason why I enjoy learning about proteins and their functions is because of my mother’s history of battling stage II breast cancer. During my time taking care of her and eventually taking a class at the University of Richmond studying gene
regulation and protein functions, I gained a greater appreciation for the work that biochemists do in breaking on cancer development and relevant treatments. ground on cancer development and relevant treatments.
Dr. Pollock touched upon the role of Lysine-specific demethylase 1 (LSD1), a critical protein, in estrogen receptors for breast cancer growth. Her pioneering work in breast cancer research resonated with my own journey.
Through our conversation, Dr. Pollock graciously shared her motivations, ongoing projects, and invaluable advice for aspiring researchers, offering a glimpse into the dynamic realm of biochemistry and molecular biology.
The Desire to Connect
Dr. Pollock’s journey into breast cancer research was shaped by a desire to engage with undergraduate students in a meaningful way. Initially drawn to organic synthesis, her path shifted as she immersed herself in a lab environment exploring the biological applications of her work. The discovery of LSD1's pivotal role in breast cancer ignited her passion for unraveling the complexities of this disease. “We're always going to have to do cancer research because it's constantly evolving and changing,” she said. Reflecting on the ever-evolving nature of cancer research, Dr. Pollock highlighted the continuous quest for understanding and addressing the aberrations within our cells.
In discovering the function of LSD1, Dr. Pollock shed light on its role as a histone demethylase, intricately involved in the regulation of transcription. Beyond its interaction with estrogen receptors, LSD1 exerts multifaceted effects on breast cancer growth, emphasizing the complexity of disease mechanisms. This foundational understanding serves as a catalyst for her lab's diverse array of projects aimed at unraveling the mysteries of cancer and antibiotic resistance.
The Pollock Lab's multifaceted approach to research incorporates projects spanning from investigating the protein MEMO’s interactions in cancer cells to developing novel rutheniumbased anticancer drugs. Collaborative efforts with colleagues across disciplines underscore the interdisciplinary nature of their work, emphasizing the importance of forging connections between fields.
Bridging Minds
Dr. Pollock's commitment to undergraduate education is about fostering a supportive environment where students can cultivate their scientific curiosity.
“Research can be frustrating, and realizing that sometimes things are going to fail. And it's okay that things fail, right? It's important for students to be open and communicate with me about everything, you know, the good things, the bad things, the ugly things, whatever it might be. [...] There's no one-size-fitsall approach to success in my lab.”
Through personalized mentorship, she empowers students to take ownership of their projects, nurturing their growth as independent researchers. She emphasizes resilience and open communication to cultivate a culture of collaboration within the lab.
As we delved into her experiences with undergraduate researchers, Dr. Pollock illuminated the transformative journey from classroom learning to hands-on discovery. Through shared
experiences and ongoing dialogue, students grow into confident contributors to the science they’re passionate about exploring. When I asked her to reflect on the qualities that define successful research students, Dr. Pollock underscores the importance of enthusiasm, resilience, and effective communication.
Follow the Science
In sharing her insights with Osmosis, Dr. Pollock highlighted the recent participation of her students in the Southeastern Regional Meeting of the American Chemical Society (SERMACS). This collaborative endeavor not only showcased their research findings but also showcased the vibrant scientific community fostered within the Pollock Lab. As they navigate the complexities of their projects, Dr. Pollock's students embody the spirit of inquiry and resilience, poised to make meaningful contributions to the scientific community.
As our conversation drew to a close, Dr. Pollock offered advice for aspiring undergraduate researchers, urging them to immerse themselves in the scientific community and remain open to new opportunities. “Attend the biology and chemistry department seminars, listen to what your friends or colleagues are doing in their research labs, take the opportunity to be able to go to conferences, or talk to other people. Keep learning whenever you can.” Following one’s scientific curiosity can
be transformative in the pursuit of knowledge.
She closed her advice with the line: “Follow the science or where you want it to take you.”
UNPACKING THE OF OUR
by Isabel Dilandro
UNREALIABILITY
MEMORY
Our memories are precious to us They are a representation of individuality, unable to be separated from us. The only ones who can access them are ourselves, making them private, intimate, and personal. But what happens to our lives, or rather our understanding of our lives, when these memories are not as reliable as they seem? False memories are real, and we are much more susceptible to them than we may at first think possible
When horrible situations happen to us, many of us like to think – optimistically – that we will be prepared for them whenever they come. After all, we’ve all thought a little about how we would survive a zombie apocalypse, right? Only, it’s not that simple. Disaster can strike in seconds, a majority of the time when we least expect it In these cases, our brains can find it difficult to process information quickly in a rapidly changing environment. It is for this same reason that we can feel like things are moving in slow motion when overstimulated, or we overestimate the time it takes for us to experience something traumatic from start to finish Our brain is forced to slow down and try to process something that it cannot fully grasp.
Now imagine a high stakes scenario that requires you to use your memory to recount what happened in a moment of chaos. You are walking down the street, and it is a perfect, sunny day. Perhaps you are somewhere familiar, like your neighborhood, where your guard would be lowered even further. All of a sudden, there is a car accident to your left. The impact is startlingly loud, and the next thing you know vehicles are damaged, people are frozen in place, you’re not sure what has become of either driver – would you be able to retell this incident exactly as it happened?
The real answer, whatever you may believe, is likely not, and this was demonstrated in a famous experiment by Elizabeth Loftus in 1974 In a study examining the intricacies of eyewitness testimony, subjects were asked to watch videos of a car crash and then answer a series of questions related to what they had just observed (Loftus and Palmer, 1974). Results found that there was a higher number of individuals who reported broken glass following the crash even though there was none if the word ‘smash’ was used in context of the accident over the word ‘hit’ Those same individuals in the ‘smash’ group also reported estimations that the cars were traveling at higher speeds than in reality. The leading word ‘smash’ may have caused people to create a memory of an “accident that was more severe than it in fact was” and therefore “commensurate [broken glass] with a severe accident” (Loftus and Palmer, 1974). Many may think this was a fairly simple detail, yet with the power of one word the experimenters were able to create deception.
And this is not the only experiment that has found results like these A more recent study done on memory examines the possibility of creating false memories - and then reversing them. The participants of the study were asked to recollect four events from childhood in a memory interview, two of which were true and two of which were false - albeit plausible - such as “getting lost, running away, being involved in a car accident, injuries, being the perpetrator or victim of material damage” (Oeberst et al., 2021). From there, two reversal strategies were implemented. For the first, the participants were reminded “that memories may not always be based on people’s own experience but also on other sources” (Oeberst et al., 2021) like family members or photographs, a strategy called source sensitization The second strategy, false memory sensitization, involved informing participants that “repeatedly
cueing recollections involves some risk of inadvertently producing false memories” (Oeberst et al., 2021). The end goals were as follows: “to raise participants’ awareness of the possibility of false memories,... urge them to critically reflect on their recollections,... facilitate false memory identification by reducing the uncertainty the initial suggestion had elicited, strengthen participants’ trust in their own perspective, and through the new interviewer ... lower the social costs associated with memory retraction” (Oeberst et al., 2021). Two groups were tested, a minimally suggestive group in which the experimenter established basic rapport with the participant as well as confirmed that the parents had told them these stories about their childhood, and a massive suggestion interviewing condition in which these techniques were applied alongside additional leading influence from the experimenter in order to convince the participant The false memory scenarios included plausible childhood events such as getting lost or sustaining an injury. Using the two experimental groups previously described, false memories were elicited in 56% of participants participants that were both well asserted and gained additional details over time with the massive interviewing condition while less robust partial false memories were developed in 27% of participants with the minimal interviewing condition. When the attempt was made to reverse these false memories, only 21% of minimal suggestion and 42% of massive suggestion participants still reported false memories after source sensitization, and then only 15% and 23% of minimal suggestion and massive suggestion participants reported false memories after false memory sensitization, respectively. What can be concluded from this study is that while “false memories can both be induced under suitable conditions and reversed under other suitable conditions” (Oeberst et al., 2021), that does not mean it can be taken lightly. The finicky nature of memory remains an unreliable source that can have legitimate, devastating consequences.
Other studies have shown that when faced with high-stress situations, a witness’s internal timeline of events as well as spatial understanding leading up to and during the event are fallible (Dahl et al , 2018) Others still have proven that when asked to select the assailant in a mock assault scenario, two-thirds of those who chose incorrectly picked an innocent bystander who had also been present at the scene of the crime, with multiple replications from different researchers (Memon et al., 2008). Even worse, when presented with a line of potential offenders that did not actually include the wanted individual and explained that they must choose between them, participants were much more likely to pick the wrong individual than if the real offender was present (Memon et al., 2008).
To summarize, memories are liable to be manipulated when an individual is in a distressing situation, when they are faced with leading words or questions that lead the individual in a specific direction, when there are distractions from the main object of importance, and when individuals are given a choice between entirely incorrect outcomes. Every single one of these scenarios has and will continue to happen in places where eyewitness testimony is highly utilized. Whether someone witnessed events such as a robbery or a crash, whether they are being questioned by another person with less than honest motives, whether there are bystanders or multiple perpetrators, or even whether someone is asked to choose the perpetrator from a lineup of mock suspects, who are in actuality, innocent, eyewitness testimony is a popular solution to mystery. What is particularly dddddddd
frustrating is that science can not yet provide a concrete answer for most questions about why and how memory functions this way. And even if we try to perfect this technique with the little information we do have access to, human beings will always be victims to bias
There are potential solutions. For example, in the same experiment involving a lineup of offenders in which none were actually guilty, if participants were told they were not required to make a selection, the effect was mitigated and many abstained This is just one example of implementing regulations to reduce bias and making the practice of eyewitness testimony more reliable. Eyewitness testimony still certainly has its value, but more efforts should be made to eliminate external influences and better inform those who must rely on it when used in such dire legal proceedings.
An Investigation of Idaho Phragmites
By Paxton Mills
In fall 2022, the Idaho State Department of Agriculture reached out to the lab of Dr. Carrie Wu, Associate Professor of Biology at the University of Richmond, for assistance in determining the genetic lineage of a suspected invasive stand of Phragmites australis, a wetland reed which has proved to be particularly troublesome throughout its introduced range. Like most invasive species, Phragmites wreaks havoc by outcompeting native plants, which disrupts normal ecosystem operations. For clarity, the species Phragmites australis can be further classified across several sub-species, including americanus, which is native in North
America as well as australis, which is non-native and invasive in the same region. In this study, we used genetic analyses to identify the population as likely belonging to either the native or invasive sub-species. This branch of work can have wide-reaching implications, including guiding land management to protect native ecosystems.
Using molecular genetic techniques, I was able to lead the effort in providing a suggested identification for the Phragmites of interest in Bonners Ferry, a city along the Kootenai River in Idaho. After receiving tissue samples shipped from Idaho, I first completed total genomic DNA extraction, followed by PCR amplification with universal chloroplast primers to rapidly increase the number of copies of DNA available for analysis, targeting the chloroplast DNA of interest via a protocol from Dr. Kristin Saltonstall. Finally, I ran a restriction digest using an enzyme that would cut DNA fragments at a given position that is variable between invasive and native lineages. Because of this difference in their DNA sequences, DNA from an invasive plant has a recognition site specific to the enzyme used, meaning it would be cut and appear as two distinct bands via gel electrophoresis. Since a native plant lacks this recognition site, the enzyme would fail to cut and its DNA fragment
would remain fully intact, represented as one single band on the gel.
My results were very unexpected. Based on anecdotal evidence by those who collected the tissue samples in Idaho, we expected the Phragmites to be invasive, but my gel clearly showed single bands across three distinct individuals from the population. The size of the experimental fragments showed digest patterns consistent with samples from individuals previously confirmed to belong to the native Phragmites lineage, rather than non-native Phragmites plants. Wondering if perhaps it was an experimental error, I repeated the analysis from the PCR step, yet it provided the same surprising result.
Puzzled, we pursued a complementary approach to see if it would yield consistent results. After doing some literature research, I obtained a different protocol from Dr. Doug Wendell that instead used nuclear DNA to differentiate the two lineages, and was ready to revisit the question of the origin of the Bonners Ferry Phragmites
This new nuclear DNA protocol was extremely similar to the chloroplast DNA one I first completed, with differences lying in the restriction enzyme used as well as the thermal cycle conditions for the PCR and restriction digest steps. The nuclear DNA protocol would result in a single band on the gel for invasive plants and two separate bands for native: the opposite of the chloroplast protocol. It is methodologically useful that the digest patterns are inverted across protocols for
comparison purposes. After carrying out the procedure, my final gel yielded double bands for all of the Bonners Ferry Phragmites samples I analyzed, which once again, aligned with known native controls.
With both of these pieces of evidence at hand, it seems unlikely that this particular stand of Phragmites is invasive. While it was not the expected result when the lab first received the request from across the country, it did make for a lively story which speaks to the power of molecular genetics in identifying populations for either protection or eradication.
Fostering Belief and Belonging: Catalysts for Success in STEM
By Andrew Watts
As an aspiring scientist, have you ever found yourself consumed by the suffocating pressure to be perfect? Does the weight of failure loom ominously over your endeavors, threatening to derail your aspirations? And in the quiet moments of introspection, do whispers of self-doubt emerge, casting shadows of uncertainty over your path forward in STEM? I know I certainly have. And so have many of the world’s most renowned scientists. In fact, these moments are crucial to success. As Nobel Laureate Rita Levi-Montalcini said “Above all, don’t fear difficult moments. The best comes from them.”
I explored this journey as a scientist in this article through the insights of esteemed academic Dr. Heather Russell, Associate Professor of Mathematics, and dedicated advocates like Jillian Yates, senior Biology major. I hope to elucidate the transformative power of fostering belief and belonging in the pursuit of academic excellence and inclusivity within STEM.
Normalization of Struggle and Academic Performance
Dr. Russell's perspective on the normalization of struggle within supportive peer groups resonates deeply
with Jillian Yates's experiences. Dr. Russell highlights that when students feel a part of a community where the journey of learning is celebrated, the fear of failure diminishes. Yates adds her voice to this sentiment, stating, "Being part of a supportive community allows us to normalize the idea of struggle. It's not about avoiding failure but rather embracing it as a stepping stone towards growth." This normalization fosters resilience and propels students to surpass their perceived limitations, ultimately enhancing their academic performance.
Renowned physicist Albert Einstein once remarked, "Success is stumbling from failure to failure with no loss of enthusiasm." His words echo the message championed by Dr. Russell and Yates, emphasizing the inherent value of perseverance and resilience in the face of adversity.
Role of Self-Belief in Pursuing STEM Fields
Being a student in STEM comes with a unique set of challenges. Primarily, the rigorous coursework which requires dedication and perseverance. Additionally, grappling with feelings of self-doubt about one's intelligence and suitability for STEM can create additional hurdles to overcome.
Yates elucidates the significance of self-belief in students' decision to pursue STEM fields, echoing Dr. Russell's advocacy for cultivating a growth mindset and resilience. "Believing in oneself is the first step
towards embarking on the journey of mastering challenging subjects," emphasizes Yates. Dr. Russell echoes this sentiment, expressing her hope that students believe they are capable of learning and mastering anything they desire. Both emphasize the importance of instilling confidence in students, especially those from underrepresented backgrounds, to pursue their passions in STEM.
Influence of Belonging on Self-Belief and Success
Drawing from her own experiences, Yates reflected on the transformative impact of belonging on self-belief and success. "Belonging to a community that celebrates diversity and inclusivity has been instrumental in shaping my confidence as a STEM student," she shares. Dr. Russell underscores the importance of fostering an environment where all students feel valued and supported, regardless of their backgrounds or identities. "Community disentangles one’s value as a human from one’s academic performance," Dr. Russell asserts, highlighting the profound effect of belonging on students' confidence and sense of worth.
Promoting Diversity and Inclusion through Belonging
Yates aligns with Dr. Russell's advocacy for fostering belonging to promote diversity and inclusion in STEM. As a Science Belonging
Committee Ambassador, Yates actively champions initiatives aimed at creating inclusive spaces where every student feels a sense of belonging. "By prioritizing diversity and inclusivity in STEM, we can unlock the full potential of our student body and drive innovation forward," she states. Dr. Russell echoes this sentiment, emphasizing the importance of creating environments where underrepresented groups feel welcomed and supported.
Strategies for Encouraging Scientific Beliefs and Values
Both Dr. Russell and Yates highlight the importance of implementing tailored strategies to encourage scientific beliefs and values among students. They advocate for proactive engagement with student feedback and experiences to inform the development of programs that foster belonging and confidence in STEM. "It's about actively listening to students' needs and aspirations and empowering them to shape their academic journey," says Yates. Dr. Russell agrees, stressing the importance of personalized support and experimentation with initiatives to cultivate a sense of belonging in STEM.
Impact of Belonging on Critical Thinking and Engagement
In alignment with Dr. Russell's insights, Yates underscores the profound impact of belonging on critical thinking
and engagement in STEM. She emphasizes that inclusive environments that prioritize belonging empower students to fully engage in scientific discourse and critical inquiry. "When students feel a sense of belonging, they are more inclined to voice their ideas, challenge existing paradigms, and drive innovation forward," affirms Yates. Similarly, Dr. Russell cites the integral connection between a sense of safety, comfort, and belonging with the ability to innovate and thrive in STEM.
The perspectives shared by Dr. Heather Russell and Jillian Yates underscore the indispensable role of selfbelief and belonging in fostering success and diversity in STEM. By prioritizing initiatives that cultivate supportive communities and empower students to embrace challenges, institutions can nurture a generation of resilient, innovative, and inclusive STEM leaders.
One of my personal aspirations is to transform the way we think about the scientific process, especially for students – empowering them to embrace the journey in success and in failure, knowing that anyone is capable of a career in science as long as they believe in themselves.
Dr. Laura Knouse, Professor of Psychology and Faculty Director of the Richmond Scholars Program, came to the University of Richmond from Carlisle, Pennsylvania as an undergraduate student. At UR, she obtained a B.S. in psychology and went on to receive her PhD in clinical psychology at UNC Greensboro. Her studies then took her to Massachusetts General Hospital at Harvard Medical School for a clinical internship and her post-doc. After continuing her education up and down the east coast, Dr. Knouse gravitated back towards Richmond, where she now lives and works at the very university she attended. She was drawn back to campus by the possibility of designing and engaging in smaller, more creative research projects within her field of psychology, coupled with the appeal of potential crossover
Interview with Dr. Knouse
By Paxton Mills
collaborations with UR’s diversity of academic departments. Like many UR faculty, staff, and students, she continues to be impressed by the unparalleled internal support for student-based research, as well as the “delightfully nerdy” community members that UR tends to attract.
At UR, Dr. Knouse leads a team of student researchers in her lab in studying ADHD in adults. She was drawn to this particular area of research due to its interdisciplinary approach, where she can investigate the intersections between cognitive and social psychology with memory and attention. Additionally, this work has tangible implications for those living with ADHD, as it can help them to “improve self-regulation to meet goals that are meaningful to them.” Her lab’s
work has culminated in several scientific publications with undergraduate authors contributing, as well as many studentdriven presentations. Just last year, Dr. Knouse also contributed to a book published detailing treatment resources, entitled Thriving in College with ADHD. She has also experienced many interdepartmental collaborations during her time as faculty, such as her recent book, When Leaders Face Personal Crisis: The Human Side of Leadership, published in 2020 with Dr. Gill Robinson Hickman of the leadership studies program.
Outside of academics, Dr. Knouse keeps busy with her many hobbies, including singing in an all-faculty band called Sabbatical, a rather fitting pastime given her extensive experience in choir and chamber ensemble throughout both her childhood and college career. If she were working somewhere distinct from the realm of psychology, Dr. Knouse would find herself with a myriad of hobbies and jobs including being a game show host, homicide investigator, or musician.
As for what keeps Dr. Knouse engaged and showing up for her students, she says that “the moments of unfettered, unrestrained, and unencumbered curiosity…where they lose the anxiety about doing the right thing and are willing to go all in…when you see a student make progress with something they have struggled with” are the most meaningful. Dr. Knouse emphasizes the value of sharing these moments with her students, when she is lucky enough to finish a class period and think “I have the best job in the world.”
To those looking to get involved in oncampus research, Dr. Knouse suggests getting to know the faculty member running the lab well, in addition to hearing from former or current student members about their experiences to best see if the lab aligns with your goals.
