13 Comments
Stressbusters? More like gravitybusters
Name, School, Major, Hometown: Dan Garisto, Columbia College, Physics, Bellport, NY
Claim to fame: I spent a fair amount of time at Spec working in the opinion section on fun stuff like this and starting up science and research coverage on fun stuff like this, I ran for CCSC’s executive board with a party composed entirely of Daniel(le)s, and once somebody took an unflattering photo of me when I was Stressbuster and looked grumpy (I promise I wasn’t).
Where are you going? Back to Long Island to catch a few z’s and apply to all of the places in pursuit of a job in science journalism.
What are 3 things you learned at Columbia and would like to share with the Class of 2020?
1) You have amazing access. I’m not just talking about where you can swipe in and out, or getting onto the Mudd Roof, I’m talking about who will reply to you because you have an @columbia.edu email address, or give you the time of day because you’re a Columbia student. It’s not just your professors, it’s pretty much all professors, some administrators, and every other student on campus. For example: I once read an article by John McWhorter (whom I’ve never had as a prof) and had a question. Within about an hour after emailing him, he responded to me. As a student journalist on campus, I’ve gotten speak with an amazing number of people—including Nobel Prize winners—who I guarantee will talk to you too. There’s other types of access—the Rare Books and Manuscripts Library has amazing resources about Columbia’s history. There’s a Chrome extension that allows you to get access to everything you would have under Columbia’s Wi-Fi. Want to visit Lamont-Doherty? Just hop on the shuttle and take a look around. (Helps if you email who you want to talk to beforehand.) Did you know that your CUID will let you into most buildings at CUMC? Generally, all it takes at Columbia is a little initiative on your part. Yes, there are issues with transparency that abound, but the biggest hurdle is not realizing that you have access. So get out there and make good use of your status as a student.
2) Explore and appreciate the city. I don’t have specific advice for you—everyone does it differently, but it’s really important that you don’t get trapped in the Columbia bubble. (I’m personally a big fan of nighttime bike rides down Riverside Park.) And I don’t just mean the area between 110th and 120th, I mean a mentality that forgets to appreciate the city around you. Whether it’s clubbing, or visiting museums, or just people-watching on the subway, make sure you take the time to take some of it in. You’re here for four years, and that’s a pretty short time to take in what New York is all about, so make sure to get started early.
3) Don’t forget the person. It’s easier now than ever to have online arguments where you can scream at someone safely from behind your screen without ever having to worry about meeting them in person, or having a real conversation. Even then, in person, it can be easy to succumb to annoyance and frustration and seethe at someone’s stupid questions during class. But before you do, pause. Take a moment and remember that they’re a student here like you. Or a stressed adjunct prof. who forgot her notes at home. Or even an administrator who—perhaps surprisingly—is also only human.
And yes, sometimes the right answer is to call someone out for the stupid thing they’ve done (especially admins). That’s why I’m not saying that we should all be exceedingly, excruciatingly nice, or even that we should assume good intent. What I am saying is that it’s important to take a second and try some empathy, and remember that it’s a person, not just a Facebook profile you’re addressing, before you resort to a biting critique.
“Back in my day…” Back in my day… some things were different, but most things were the same. I’m not saying that time is a flat circle at Columbia or denying progress, but even as I’ve seen changes happen, I’ve realized that change is less prominent than people think—especially as it regards student organizations which all have their ups and downs.
It’s hard to get a real sense of any general trajectory when you have only four years. The most accurate thing I can say is that back in my day, I was quite a bit younger and more foolish—just like every other student who passes through here.
Justify your existence in 30 words or fewer. Once, while playing indoor kickball, I kicked the ball into the ceiling, which it bounced off of and slammed down into my head as I ran to first base.
What was your favorite class at Columbia? That’s a toss-up. I’ll talk about two that I really enjoyed: Freedom of Speech and Press with (Professor) Bollinger and Music Humanities with Mahir Cetiz.
Lots of people mention Freedom of Speech and Press as their favorite class. I think it’s up there for me simply because it forces you to work and think differently—all of your arguments have to be couched in case law, and “I feel this way” doesn’t really count. Bollinger isn’t nearly as scary as you’d think when he calls on people, and the class isn’t too hard if you do the readings. The best part of the course is probably the class he sets aside to talk about affirmative action. Don’t miss that one. Regardless of how you feel about Bollinger or his impact on Columbia, the class is worth taking.
Music Hum. is probably the single most enjoyable class I took, in no small part because of my instructor. Mahir, like many of the people who teach Music Hum., is an enormously talented musician who brings that talent to bear in class. There’s nothing like having your professor show you the difference between major and minor key by having him transpose a piece from one to another and playing it right in front of you. So yeah, get Mahir if you can, but just try to appreciate Music Hum. in general. It’s a lovely class, and I ended up learning much more than I thought.
Would you rather give up oral sex or cheese? The difference between oral sex and cheese is that one of them is the product of weeks—or months—of hard work, careful timing, and the exact climate conditions (including the lighting), and the other one is cheese.
Also, there’s no way in hell I’m actually going to answer this question because I have a vegan mother and a girlfriend who is scary when she’s mad.
One thing to do before graduating: Find a good book, find a good spot (the area between Low and Uris is nice), sit down for a few hours to read and watch the world go by. (Bonus: Leave your cell phone back in the dorms.)
Any regrets? More than I can count. I can’t imagine going through Columbia and not having regrets—there are simply too many things to miss out on and too many things to possibly mess up. But the biggest regrets I have are not doing the readings (seriously, everyone says this, but do try and do them) and losing touch with good friends because I was too busy.
Making up for his grumpy Stressbusters pic via Dan Garisto
Loading …
13 Comments
@litle boi made it through cu and his fav class is prezbo’s………
that’s just sad
@Grist-O The sheer amount of BS opinions you had to sift through was probably enough to turn a sane man into an unfeeling stoic. Thanks for keeping the discourse trash fire well-fed. The day that dies, Columbia dies.
@Anonymous The science articles you edit have some many errors that they’re laughable to read. Good luck failing upwards and turning it into a career.
@Dan Legitimately curious what kind of errors you’re referring to, given that we run the articles by the professors/grad students who are the experts after the articles are published. If you can let me know what kind of scientific inaccuracies there are, I’d be happy to correct them.
@an example see the schizophrenia-mouse-model article
“a long overlooked part of the hippocampus…may hold the answers to how disorders like schizophrenia come about.” No, the study didn’t say anything about how schizophrenia develops, nor could it even explain the social deficit they saw in those mice. And even in the same mice most of the research has not been on CA2. They have massive deficits in HC-PFC synchrony, for example. For a recent paper on the development, see something like http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v530/n7589/full/nature16549.html.
“used genetically engineered mice prone to schizophrenia” No, the mice aren’t prone to schizophrenia. They have a deletion of chromosome 16 that mimics a common 22q11 deletion that makes humans prone to schizophrenia.
“recent studies have linked to the formation of social memories.” that study in the hyperlink doesn’t say anything about the formation of social memories only that the region is necessary
“inhibitory neurons, which control impulses” No, this is completely false
“These changes to the CA2 area could explain the mechanism behind the social symptoms of schizophrenia” No, even the paper couldn’t explain the social defects they saw in the mice since they saw contradictory effects (a decrease in inhibition and membrane hyperpolarization of the pyramidal neurons) let alone that of humans. Nor did they look in vivo to see what the consequences of these changes were
“a genetic deletion similar to one shown to cause schizophrenia in some humans” The 22q11 deletion is a strong genetic risk factor, but it doesn’t cause schizophrenia. It increases the risk 20 to 30-fold, but still only accounts for about one percent of cases of schizophrenia.
“The inhibitory neurons are responsible for relaying signals across parts of the hippocampus.” Not true. If anything they do they opposite since they normally suppress these signals (via feed-forward inhibition)
@Dan “a long overlooked part of the hippocampus…may hold the answers to how disorders like schizophrenia come about.”
Understanding what changes occur to the CA2 region _could_ very well lead to a better understanding of schizophrenia, the effects it has, and how it develops.
“used genetically engineered mice prone to schizophrenia” You’re right that this is a simplification in the nutgraf. There was probably a better way around that. However, it is later clarified in a paragraph that you quoted:
“genetically engineered mice—designed to have a genetic deletion similar to one shown to cause schizophrenia in some humans—to a control group of normal mice.”
“recent studies have linked to the formation of social memories.” As I understand that study, messing with the CA2 region prevented mice from being able to process (and consequently form) social memories.
“inhibitory neurons, which control impulses” Would you have preferred “action potential” instead of impulse? I think it’s a fair simplification.
“These changes to the CA2 area could explain the mechanism behind the social symptoms of schizophrenia” This says nothing about the study itself. It says everything about the changes to the actual region.
“”a genetic deletion similar to one shown to cause schizophrenia in some humans” _some_. Apologies for not putting in the exact statistics.
“The inhibitory neurons are responsible for relaying signals across parts of the hippocampus.” You literally could have read the next sentence, which clarifies:
“Without inhibitory feedback from the neurons in the CA2 region, the study reported disrupted activity from nearby areas of the hippocampus.”
I’m not saying we’re perfect—we’re untrained undergraduate students often writing about things well outside our major (see: physics). But I’m willing to bet you’ll find more inaccuracies in articles by professional science journalists than you do in most of ours. And hey, if you’re just another salty undergrad, they could really use your help since I’m graduating.
@Anonymous That first one is still a stretch and incorrect in my opinion without mentioning anything about the social aspects of SCZ. It’s even a stretch in the paper to connect the social memory impairment they saw with the various social deficits seen in SCZ.
The later paragraph you quote is better, but while it’s the strongest genetic variant and risk factor, it’s still inaccurate to say the 22q11 deletion causes SCZ. The problem was saying it’s causal, not the lack of stats. The mouse model can help see how this deletion contributes to the development of SCZ. A previous study in 2010 with this mouse examined some of the cognitive working memory deficits from disrupted HC-PFC synchrony that I mentioned.
I’d say that CA2 is necessary or crucial for social memory, but the previous study didn’t show anything about formation since it permanently and irreversibly inhibited the region. The problem might not be with memory formation, but one of recall.
No, the inhibitory neuron thing is still wrong. For one, it’s unclear whether impulses refer to electrical impulses or a behavioral compulsion. Even if you meant the former, that’s incorrect. Interneurons are classified based on the neurotransmitter they release. In the cortex they’re primarily local, release GABA, and you have to evaluate the consequences of their effect on the postsynaptic cell (typically they cause IPSPs). For example the PV cells in this study normally receive input from CA3 and suppress CA2 causing CA3 to be unable to drive CA2 with much efficacy. With a loss of inhibition, you might expect that CA3 would then be able to excite CA2 with more ease, but the study shows that this is in fact not the case since CA2 PNs become hyperpolarize. Likewise, that’s why the “the study reported disrupted activity from nearby areas of the hippocampus” is wrong. The activity in CA3 isn’t disrupted; the ability of CA3 to cause action potentials in CA2 is disrupted, but it is disrupted as a consequence of the membrane hyperpolarization from the increase in TREK current in CA2 PNs, which is the opposite effect that you would expect from a loss of inhibition. Moreover, it’s not inhibitory feedback, but feed-forward inhibition. Shortly, an increase or decrease in inhibition could make downstream cells more or less likely to fire (e.g. disynaptic inhibition ~= excitation). See http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Interneurons for me info. The spinal interneuron article makes some of the same mistakes.
I would help, but I’m also graduating. I know I’m being pedantic here, and I do very much appreciate the fact that you wrote about these studies! Some of these differences in wording are very subtle, but I do think drastically change the meanings in ways that are both tricky to explain, especially to scientists outside the field. And I do think you have done better than most. See this nice tweet: https://twitter.com/JoyceCarolOates/status/729380907279228928
@Dan “…I do very much appreciate the fact that you wrote about these studies!”
Thanks. It’s just a little bit at odds with: “The science articles you edit have some many errors that they’re laughable to read. Good luck failing upwards and turning it into a career.”
“Some of these differences in wording are very subtle,”
I agree. That’s why we try to be as precise and accurate _as possible_. It is not always possible to be as precise as you or anyone else would like.
“but I do think drastically change the meanings”
To whom? Our audience is the average Columbia undergraduate. Not even necessarily a science major. I care about precision, but not including the simplification about mice in the nutgraf would have not misled non-experts or experts (who understood it was a simplification).
It’s worth considering that science journalism is not and should not be reporting the science itself, but the science in a communicable way. The fact that you are an expert in your field does not necessarily make you an expert in communicating your field to someone else.
Also, while we’re on the subject of advice: an ounce of not being an asshole helps if you want journalists to do better reporting on your field. Good luck not failing to you as well.
@Anonymous It seems to me like you’re backtracking here. First, you claimed that there were not any errors in the pieces that you’ve published (because presumably no one had pointed them out to you). I have tried to patiently point out, using this article as an example, how there are very substantial errors here, mostly from subtle changes in wording that convey very striking differences in meaning. Moreover, these are not just over-simplifications, but also basic errors stemming from the fact that you do not understand the science (e.g. basic about inhibitory interneurons), nor understand what you don’t know about the science that is admittedly outside your field. Now, you claim that these inaccuracies do not matter as long as you still communicate the science to the public. It is a challenging job to be precise, accurate, and accessible, and I wish you the best of luck.
You’re right that scientific journalism should communicate the science—and also contextualize and potentially criticize, neither of which you do—but to do that you need to understand it first. If anything, the press release from Columbia on this study (http://zuckermaninstitute(DOT)columbia(DOT)edu/news/loss-cells-brains-memory-center-linked-schizophrenia) does a better job of this. It also looks like your writer may have borrowed a little too heavily from this link: Cf. “postmortem examinations of people with schizophrenia have revealed a marked decrease in the number of CA2 inhibitory neurons,” with “Postmortem examinations of humans with schizophrenia have revealed abnormalities in the CA2 region of the hippocampus”
I don’t mean to harp on this article too much. The Chalfie article was untimely, and a revisionist history that minimized the contributions of Douglas Prasher and Roger Tsien. Chalfie is extremely modest but has also said “They could’ve easily given the prize to Douglas and the other two and left me out.” Or, in the Rabies virus article (http://columbiaspectator(DOT)com/news/2016/02/19/columbia-researchers-use-rabies-virus-map-pathways-brain) the graphic at the top reverses the two strains so it gets the main findings completely wrong (check Figure 2 in the paper to see). And this article is also misleading since it makes it seem like researchers are using toxic virulent strains of rabies when in fact it’s pseudotyped to only infect cells expressing an exogenous avian receptor (added in a genetically defined way) and replication deficient by deleting the viral G coat protein (so it can’t infect or spread in mice or humans).
I was intentionally provocative, as internet commenters often are, but do think these articles and inaccuracies warrant a second look.
@third party Don’t know Dan, or the anonymous commenter obviously, but wanted to chime in. Says Anonymous:
“I was intentionally provocative, as internet commenters often are, but do think these articles and inaccuracies warrant a second look.”
No, you were being an asshole. Don’t use a cute euphemism and the disrespect of other anonymous commenters to convince yourself otherwise. The substance of the criticisms are fair game, but that initial comment was totally uncalled for.
@Dan Not really interested in further hashing this out over Bwog comments, but I would be interested in discussing it in person despite your general tone. Shoot me an email (I’m sure you can find it in one of the articles) and I’ll be happy to meet before graduation.
One final note: You’re putting words in my mouth by saying that I claimed there were no inaccuracies—I said no such thing. What I said was that I was curious what kinds of errors you were referring to, and would have been surprised if they were substantial (which you and I have a very different definition of) given that we run them by the experts. Precision is hard, isn’t it?
@Anonymous No thanks. I’m also done with this as I’ve already made my criticisms clear, and given you the relevant background information, comparisons for closely-worded text, references to the original figures to help explain mistakes in your graphics, and explanations to demonstrate some of their inaccuracies. We disagree about the consequences of some phrasings, but I do think they are problematic as they convey knowledge and abilities that science and scientists do not possess. We don’t know the causes for complicated neuropsychiatric disorders like schizophrenia that are extremely difficult to model accurately in rodents, and it is misleading to suggest there is a consensus when much more research is needed. A more interesting story is perhaps why the Df(16)A+/− mouse hasn’t been made available to more researchers outside of Columbia, but I digress.
And you’re right. Sorry for misspeaking there.
@congrats grist-o