News

Election Transforms Washington

BU IN DC

Congress may have been out of session, but BU faculty and staff had plenty of reasons to come to Washington, D.C., since the last edition of Beltway BUzz. Here are just a few, stay tuned for more next week.

Jennifer Bender of the College of Arts & Sciences attended the Our Ocean conference hosted by the U.S. Department of State on September 15 and 16.

Cheryl Constantine of the School of Law met with Congressional staff as part of the National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators advocacy day on October 4.

Judith Jones of the Goldman School of Dental Medicine participated in a Congressional briefing on oral health on October 4.

Arturo Vegas of the College of Arts & Sciences gave a presentation to Congressional staff on Type 1 diabetes research on October 5.

Michael Meurer of the School of Law spoke about patent trolls at a National Press Club event hosted by the American Antitrust Institute and the Computer & Communications Industry Association event on October 6.

Andrew Bacevich of the College of Arts & Sciences and the Pardee School of Global Studies spoke at a conference on terrorism policy in the next Administration hosted by the New America Foundation on October 19.

 

ELECTION TRANSFORMS WASHINGTON

On Tuesday, Donald J. Trump was elected as the next President of the United States, upsetting Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton. The focus in Washington will now shift to who the President-elect plans to appoint to his cabinet and other key positions. While higher education and research issues were not a significant focus of his campaign, Trump has highlighted college affordability as a concern, suggested requiring colleges use endowment funds to lower costs, and indicated an interest in reducing regulations impacting higher education. 

Republicans will also retain control of both chambers of Congress and the leadership of pivotal Congressional committees. Senator Lamar Alexander (R-TN) and Representative Virginia Foxx (R-VA) are expected to lead their chambers' education committees; both are advocates for reducing regulatory burden on colleges. Many champions of scientific research won their respective campaigns and will be returning to Congress to advocate for increased research funding in a tight budgetary environment.

BU Federal Relations will continue to monitor developments as the new Administration and Congress make key appointments and governing decisions in the weeks ahead.

Read an analysis

 

BUZZ BITS...

 

EVENT NEWS YOU CAN USE

BU Research will host its next Research on Tap on November 15. Shaping the New Human-Technology Frontier will convene scholars from across BU who develop technology that impacts human health and function, who study technology's impact on behavior and social organizations, and who consider the implications of new technologies on privacy and security. Following a series of 3-minute microtalks by the presenters, a networking reception will enable attendees to meet potential research collaborators.

Register today

Bucking Trends, BU Outside Funding Continues to Rise

Team behind the scenes keeps the money coming in

h_butoday_16-10464-eyetrack-026

Amy Lieberman, an SED assistant professor of deaf studies, says BU “made it clear that my research was going to be valued and supported here. It’s a big part of the reason I came.” Photo by Cydney Scott.

The chart of United States R&D funding, as a percent of the federal budget, looks like the electrocardiogram of a dying person. There’s a big peak in 1966—a gasp, if you will—then a plunge into the 1980s, then a flat, flat line. It ain’t pretty. Small wonder that when researchers talk about funding their work, the conversation can veer into cynicism and gloom.

But in fiscal year 2016, Boston University faculty, defying the odds, secured $368.9 million in new research funding, an overall increase of 13 percent over the previous year. Grants to the School of Public Health, the School of Medicine, and the College of Engineering  went up significantly—21 percent, 19 percent, and 15 percent, respectively. Of the 200 new grants that came in, 70 went to assistant professors—the young up-and-comers who represent BU’s future.

“It was pretty great,” says Diane Baldwin, associate vice president for sponsored programs. “A lot of institutions are struggling just to stay steady-state, given the declines in federal funding.”

How is BU bucking the trend? The arrows lead to the office of Gloria Waters, vice president and associate provost for research, who many credit with stoking the University’s research fires. “Gloria is laser-focused,” says Jennifer Grodsky, vice president for federal relations, who works closely with Waters. “She says, here is a problem, and here’s how we’re going to fix it. She’s not an engineer, but she approaches problems with an engineering mind-set.”

Waters’ challenge: help faculty find their way through the funding thicket, so they can get down to the business of curing Parkinson’s, hunting neutrinos, and investigating ancient civilizations. “We don’t want the faculty to think that all we’re focused on is the dollars,” she says. “We want to focus on some of the great things that this money is going to let us do.”

Her office has helped bulk up four areas of research support across the University: streamlining the grant application and fulfillment process; helping scientists create collaborative, interdisciplinary research teams; aiding partnerships with industry; and helping faculty navigate—and even steer—the murky funding world of Washington, D.C.

“We’ve made significant progress, but there’s still a lot to do across all areas of research administration, from simplifying processes to improving faculty satisfaction with the help they receive,” says Waters. “It’s a work in progress but we are chipping away at making things more efficient.”

Streamlining the process

Amy Lieberman, a School of Education assistant professor of deaf studies, joined the faculty in August 2015. “The support started before I was even here,” she says. “When I came to BU to interview for the position, I met with the dean and several associate deans, as well as the senior grants administrator, and they made it clear that my research was going to be valued and supported here. It’s a big part of the reason I came.”

In early 2016, Lieberman received a five-year, $2 million grant from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to study how deaf children acquire words through American Sign Language (ASL). She will use an automated eye-tracking system to investigate how deaf children alternate their attention between objects and ASL signs, both of which they must perceive visually. Although the money from the NIH grant wasn’t available until June 1, 2016, SED senior grants administrator Marianne Taylor worked with Sponsored Programs (OSP) to make money available earlier. “I was able to get the equipment in March, and set up and be ready to go for when the grant came in June,” says Lieberman. “That was a huge help.”

h_butoday_budget-550x413United States R&D funding, as a percent of the federal budget. “A lot of institutions are struggling just to stay steady-state, given the declines in federal funding,” says Diane Baldwin, BU’s associate vice president for sponsored programs.

“Diane Baldwin in Sponsored Programs has done a great job of supporting the faculty when they’re submitting their proposals, but then also, when they get an award, ensuring that the account gets set up quickly so that they can start spending the money,” says Waters. “That’s an area where we’ve made great progress.”

Baldwin, whose office submitted 2,159 grant proposals in 2015, says that the OSP—in the past, sometimes seen as more hurdle than help—is making an effort to be more responsive to faculty. “We were viewed as a black hole,” says Baldwin. “A lot of faculty think we just sit here and press the submit button. We really want to take some of that mystery out of the process.”

To that end, Baldwin and Waters are actively marketing the OSP to faculty, explaining their value in, say, explaining the differences between a consultant and a subcontract, a gift or a grant. Baldwin is also working to engage more regularly with research administrators across BU, eliminate redundant processes, and also make the inner workings of the OSP more transparent to faculty. “We’ve really tried to transform how we do that here by just really taking a look at our systems,” she says. “We’re trying to make sure we’re holding ourselves accountable so that we can say to faculty, ‘You can expect this done in approximately x days,’ or ‘You’re next in the queue.’ We’re trying to really up our game.”

Fostering collaboration

Lieberman also credits Boston University for fostering collaboration among different departments, noting that she often interacts with colleagues from the College of Health & Rehabilitation Sciences: Sargent College and the College of Arts & Sciences psychological and brain sciences department. Collaboration also enables the work of Christopher Chen, an ENG biomedical engineering professor and director of the newly formed Biological Design Center, who won seven new grants in FY16, following five in FY15.

“We’re trying to take cells in a dish and coax them to assemble into, say, heart tissue,” says Chen. “Understanding the design rules for making tissues will allow us to make test models for human disease and perhaps even show us how to induce tissue regeneration.” He notes that the work requires experts from biology, medicine, chemistry, materials science, and engineering.

“Research is becoming more interdisciplinary and, as a result, you need to put together these teams. The questions are complicated and the challenges are big, and so you need people from a variety of different fields.”

—Gloria Waters

The growing emphasis on interdisciplinary collaboration has sometimes steered Waters into the role of scientific matchmaker. One major initiative: quarterly Research on Tap presentations, which gather researchers from across the University who work on the same topic from different perspectives. In October 2016, for instance, 15 researchers gave three-minute presentations on microbiome systems, which ran the gamut from CAS biogeochemist Wally Fulweiler discussing the role of nitrogen in the marine microbiome to CAS physicist Pankaj Mehta proposing computational tools to investigate microbial ecology.

The matches don’t always hit pay dirt, notes Waters. Recently, Kevin Outterson, the School of Law professor of law who is leading the $350 million CARB-X initiative to combat antibiotic resistance, asked Waters to connect him with faculty studying social media. “So I connected him up with Jim Katz, College of Communication Feld Professor of Emerging Media, and then they got together with Dylan Walker, a Questrom School of Business assistant professor of information systems, and they submitted a proposal that I helped support,” says Waters. “It didn’t get funded, but it has started a collaboration between Kevin and COM that never would have existed before.”

Waters also points to the work of Katya Ravid, a MED professor of medicine and biochemistry and director of BU’s Evans Center for Interdisciplinary Biomedical Research. In 2009, Ravid created a new platform—Affinity Research Collaboratives, or ARCs—to facilitate team science and interdisciplinary research. With Ravid’s input, through the above center and the newly founded Interdisciplinary Biomedical Research Office, faculty assemble into ARC research groups bound by common interests, like Alzheimer’s disease or metabolic syndrome, to encourage discovery, more co-grant applications, and more co-PI publications. This is critical, says Ravid, given the NIH’s encouragement of collaborative research. And it works. Of the 272 coinvestigator grant proposals that the Evans Center submitted between 2009 and 2015, 148 (54 percent) have been funded. “This is very significant compared to the average NIH funding line, which hovers around 6 to 11 percent,” she says.

Ravid says that while not all collaborations hit the mark, the majority do. She’s been extremely pleased by the faculty’s innovative ideas for collaboration. “A faculty member from mechanical engineering studying the physical properties of bubbles wanted to see if his research might connect with the formation of bubbles in the brain post-trauma,” she says. “That type of connection would never come about without facilitation.”

Building partnerships with industry

Another type of connection that’s increasing: faculty partnerships with the for-profit business world. “We’re seeing faculty getting incredibly creative in finding different funding sources, and lots of increased interest in industry, which is terrific, but it’s adding some complexity,” says Baldwin, who notes that the demands of corporations can sometimes clash with academic freedom and scientists’ need to publish their work. “Industry can be a lot more demanding, from an intellectual property perspective,” says Baldwin.

“The faculty want their work to be used. They don’t want to discover something and just have it sit on the shelf. They want to get it out there.”

—Gloria Waters

Although marriages of academia and business can be fraught, BU has already spawned several successes. For instance, Avrum Spira (ENG’02), a MED professor of medicine, of pathology and laboratory medicine, and of bioinformatics, is partnering with Janssen Research & Development (part of Johnson & Johnson) and its Disease Interception Accelerator group to develop early diagnostics for lung disease; Edward Damiano, an ENG professor of biomedical engineering, established a public benefit corporation, Beta Bionics, to bring his bionic pancreas to market; Tim Gardner, a CAS associate professor of biology, and postdoctoral fellow Tim Otchy, are working with GlaxoSmithKline to develop miniature implants that can read and modulate the signal patterns of individual nerves to treat chronic diseases like rheumatoid arthritis, hypertension, and sleep apnea.

“The faculty want their work to be used. They don’t want to discover something and just have it sit on the shelf. They want to get it out there,” says Waters. “But in the past, we really haven’t had a focus on developing relationships with industry for sponsored research.” So in 2015, she formed a Task Force on University Collaboration with Industry to look at opportunities and challenges in this area. Her goal, she says, is to create an umbrella organization at BU that connects industry partners with researchers and paves the way for successful relationships. “We’re trying to think about how we can organize ourselves around interacting with industry in a better way,” she says.

Navigating Washington

Despite the discouraging budget environment, federal grants from the National Science Foundation (NSF), the NIH, the Department of Defense (DOD), the National Endowment for the Humanities, and other organizations are still there, still desirable, and still coming to BU. Grodsky sees her job as twofold. First, she keeps her nose to the ground, sniffing out current and future funding opportunities, matching them with BU researchers, and arranging events and seminars that help scientists navigate the byzantine grant application process. She also encourages researchers to think beyond what they’ve done in the past, branching further than the NIH, for instance, to apply for grants at the DOD, or thinking creatively about federal grants.

Malika Jeffries-EL, a CAS associate professor of chemistry, who investigates organic polymers for next-generation semiconductors and LEDs, has already benefited from such creative thinking. She recently secured three supplemental NSF grants totaling $73,000. The supplemental grants can be added to existing grants for certain specific costs, like equipment, minority student support, or international travel. They are difficult to ferret out without University assistance, and Jeffries-EL would like to see more help in this regard. But it’s worth some digging, she says: the supplemental grants have a less-onerous application process and a higher success rate. And, she adds, they provide critical seed money that can lead to bigger grants down the road.

h_butoday_16-9914-malika-038-550x400Malika Jeffries-EL, a CAS associate professor of chemistry, recently received three supplemental grants from the NSF totaling $73,000. Jeffries-EL says that supplemental grants provide critical seed money that can lead to bigger grants down the road. Photo by Cydney Scott.

“It’s almost impossible to get a big grant without some existing data,” says Jeffries-EL, who will use one of the supplemental grants to establish a collaboration with a scientist in Israel and investigate new nanomaterials for LEDs. “We’ll make some materials here, and bring them there, and hopefully get enough pilot data to seed some new grant submissions.”

In addition to connecting researchers to federal grants, Grodsky also puts BU scientists on Washington’s radar. “We want BU to help shape the future of funding,” she says. To that end, she encourages sometimes-reluctant researchers to comment on pending legislation, and serve on advisory committees when asked. She points out that Kenneth Lutchen, ENG dean and professor, serves on the NSF’s Engineering Advisory Committee and both Anthony Janetos, director of BU’s Frederick S. Pardee Center for the Study of the Longer-Range Future, and Daniel Segrè, a CAS professor of biology and ENG professor of bioinformatics and biomedical engineering, are on the Department of Energy Biological and Environmental Research Advisory Committee.

Funders, says Grodsky, are “hungry for information” from scientists—“they want to know what’s happening in their field,” she says. That’s why she also arranges speaking opportunities for BU researchers in Washington. These range from the formal, like an October 2016 Smart Cities event featuring Azer Bestavros, a CAS professor of computer science and founding director of the Rafik B. Hariri Institute for Computing and Computational Science & Engineering, to the less formal, like bringing Thomas Bifano, an ENG professor of mechanical engineering and director of the Photonics Center, to talk to program directors at the NSF and the Pentagon. “Tom talked to them about the future of photonics—not just about his research, but where the whole field is going,” says Grodsky. “That was tremendously helpful.”

Ultimately, she says, her job is to shine a light on the expertise that BU researchers have to offer. “In addition to senior people, we have an exciting crop of junior faculty coming up,” she says, noting that an impressive number of BU researchers have won early-career grants from the NIH, the NSF, and DARPA.

“Our faculty are increasingly competitive in terms of getting funding, and hopefully the resources and infrastructure we’re putting in place are helping them to get these grants,” adds Waters. “But, of course, it’s all up to the faculty and their ideas. That’s what will determine whether or not we’ll get the funding.”

Author, Barbara Moran can be reached at bmoran@bu.edu.

Comm Ave Remake Kicks Off

$20.4M project will improve bike safety,
T stops

h_butoday_Cv4L8lbUMAApf1H.jpg-largeFrom left, Boston Mayor Martin J. Walsh, President Robert A. Brown, Governor Charlie Baker, and Thomas J. Tinlin, MassDOT highway administrator, at the groundbreaking ceremony for Phase II of the Commonwealth Avenue Improvement Project. Photo by Dennis Carlberg.

BU President Robert A. Brown broke ground last Friday on Phase II of the Commonwealth Avenue Improvement Project, a $20.4 million state undertaking that will transform the stretch of the avenue from the BU Bridge to Packard’s Corner.

For many at BU, the key improvement will be a safety upgrade for bicyclists, with separate bicycle tracks between parked cars and sidewalks, away from the traffic on one of the busiest stretches of pavement in Boston.

Brown lifted symbolic shovelfuls of dirt at Turnpike Park, near the College of Fine Arts, accompanied by Governor Charlie Baker, Boston Mayor Martin J. Walsh, Stephanie Pollack, state secretary of transportation and Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT) CEO, Jeff McEwen, administrator of the Federal Highway Administration, Massachusetts Division, and Thomas J. Tinlin, MassDOT highway administrator.

“Boston University is a great institution in the heart of a great city,” Brown says. “We’re pleased to partner with the City and the Commonwealth to make our west campus — the home of over 4,100 students and a growing number of academic programs — more attractive and safer for the thousands of people who pass through it daily. ”

In June, MassDOT gave the official green light for the project, which is expected to take three years to complete, finishing in summer 2019. Crews have already begun prepping utility infrastructure that will need to be moved or reconstructed before major work begins in the spring, says Robert Donahue, BU vice president for government and community affairs.

“This is a tremendously important design improvement for the city of Boston,” Baker says, “and a reflection of the commonwealth’s dedication to putting people first and better balancing various modes of transit, including walking, driving, cycling, and public transportation.”

About 35,000 vehicles, 30,000 pedestrians, 27,000 MBTA Green Line T riders, and 3,000 cyclists use this section of Comm Ave daily, according to state authorities. Tinlin says the stretch of roadway has “had an inordinate amount of bicycle crashes,” including one in 2012 that resulted in the death of BU student Christopher Weigl (COM’13). More than 75 percent of the 121 bike accidents that the BU Police Department responded to from 2010 to 2015 occurred on Comm Ave.

“Commonwealth Avenue is full of families and students,” says Walsh. “It’s home to many local businesses. It’s a beautiful roadway that’s steeped in history. It’s one of the gateway boulevards in our city. And unfortunately, we’ve seen far too many crashes, injuries, and deaths in this busy area. It has a crash rate about twice the statewide average. This trend has hit the cycling community particularly hard.”

A diagram of the redesigned Commonwealth Avenue. Courtesy of the city of Boston

Innovative components of the new design should help change that. The overhaul will do away with the current bike lanes between parked cars and traffic lanes. The new bike tracks on both sides of Comm Ave will be separated from traffic by a row of parked cars and by three-foot-wide raised buffers between the parked cars and the cyclists, a design similar to that used on some Manhattan streets. After years of debate about how to make Comm Ave safer for cyclists and pedestrians, in 2013 a joint BU-city working group recommended more warning signs, better bike lane markings, and highway reflectors. The city first unveiled the cycle track plan in March 2015.

Since 2007, the first year bicycle use was measured on Comm Ave, bicycle use along the avenue has grown by 47 percent during the morning traffic peak and by 135 percent during the afternoon traffic peak. Currently, between 500 and 600 bicyclists per hour use the bicycle lanes during the peak commuting periods.

The project will also bring changes to the Green Line, eliminating the BU West and Pleasant Street/Harry Agganis Way stops and enhancing platform areas for the St. Paul Street and Babcock Street stops. The outbound side of the street, which currently has three lanes, will lose a driving lane, bringing it down to two lanes. The inbound side of the street will keep its current two-lane configuration.

The project will also include water filtration to prevent pollutants from reaching the Charles River, more accessible sidewalks and islands, and new traffic signals that will give transit vehicles preference at stoplights. The cycle tracks will be slightly sloped to prevent the puddling of water.

The University has agreed to chip in $2.4 million to fund Phase II design, upping its contribution from $1.54 million as the design period was extended by the decision to add the cycle tracks and other changes.

With a great many stakeholders, says Donahue, planning was complicated, but the common goal was to make Comm Ave safer. “We needed to meld the transportation needs of drivers, transit users, pedestrians, and bikers into a better and coherent street plan that worked for everyone, and in the end, we succeeded,” he says. “We were gifted to work with many great public officials, from Mayors Tom Menino and Marty Walsh to Congressman Mike Capuano, the town of Brookline, and State Representatives Michael Moran and Kevin Honan. The insistence of the bike community, and especially the members of BU Bikes and the advocacy group Livable Streets Alliance, ensured that the concerns of the biking community were heard.”

The $13 million Phase I of the Commonwealth Avenue Improvement Project, completed in 2010, transformed the streetscape from Kenmore Square to the BU Bridge. The University contributed $3.1 million to that project, which beautified the campus with new trees, shrubs, plantings, lighting, street furniture, raised planters, and sidewalk pavement treatments. Similar amenities will be part of Phase II.

BU officials will be in frequent communication with MassDOT and the MBTA during Phase II, attempting to mitigate impacts on the community and disseminate information about possible disruptions, says Michael Donovan, vice president for real estate and facility services.

Another upgrade coming to the area in summers 2017 and 2018 is the $81.8 million replacement of the Commonwealth Avenue deck over the Mass Turnpike.

Author, Joel Brown can be reached at jbnbpt@bu.edu.

CAS Launches New Minor in Holocaust and Genocide Studies

Focus on 20th- and 21st-century atrocities, and prevention

v_butoday_17075393609_cbc298beff_oIn launching a new minor in Holocaust and genocide studies at the College of Arts & Sciences, faculty hope that BU students won’t just learn history, but learn from history. Students will study how the 20th century’s most horrific state-sponsored mass murders, from the Nazi Holocaust to Pol Pot’s wholesale slaughter in Cambodia to Rwanda’s deadly rampage against its Tutsis, evolved. As well, the new minor will offer historical context and teach humane vigilance, says Nancy Harrowitz, a CAS associate professor of Italian, who is teaching the minor’s required course, History of the Holocaust. The minor is being offered through the Elie Wiesel Center for Jewish Studies.

Photos of Nazi Holocaust victims at the US Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, D.C. Study of the atrocities perpetrated by the Nazis are part of a new CAS minor in Holocaust and genocide studies. Photo (left) by Flickr contributor Pete Speers.

Instead of viewing these atrocities as distant in time and place, an emphasis is being placed on studying them as a mirror to present-day conflicts and simmering hatreds. The multimedia coursework also answers the more urgent question, could it happen again? The answer is yes—in fact, as the coursework illuminates, attempts at genocide could likely rise from many simmering ethnic, religious, and political conflicts in the world today.

Through study of world genocide in the 20th and current centuries, “we are protecting memory,” says Harrowitz. “How do you sustain these memories in the face of deniers?” she asks. “My argument has been: if we are not able to prevent future genocides per se, in the long term we can begin to illuminate the emotional aspects of hate through education.”

Hate is a learned emotion, says Simon Payaslian, the Charles K. and Elizabeth M. Kenosian Professor of Armenian History and Literature. “We’re not born with it. It can be unlearned. Genocide can happen anywhere.”

Payaslian, who teaches courses in genocide prevention, notes in his course descriptions that the subject of genocide warrants rigorous study because genocidal acts and atrocities persist despite the 1948 United Nations adoption of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. The convention, criminalizing genocide in the realm of international law, was institutionalized in 1951, and yet it has failed to prevent the string of genocides that has occurred since then.

“Societies are always changing,” says Payaslian. “The question that’s absolutely essential is, what kind of leaders do you have? One of my classes covers the internment of Japanese Americans in the wake of Pearl Harbor. You can imagine how one more executive order could have put the Japanese against a wall and shot them.”

According to its description on the Elie Wiesel Center for Jewish Studies website, the minor in Holocaust and genocide studies offers students “an opportunity to acquire basic academic tools of description and analysis of the various factors that contribute to the emergence of ultranationalist regimes and their genocidal policies.” The minor is also designed to help students “develop an awareness of the value of pluralism and an acceptance of diversity, as well as to explore the dangers of remaining silent, apathetic, and indifferent to the vilification and oppression of others.”

h_butoday_7010830625_278b982908_o-550x367

Images of the Khmer Rouge genocide in Cambodia hang in the Tuol Sleng Genocide Museum, Phnom Penh. Photo by Flickr contributor ohirtenfelder.

Although genocides large and small have been perpetrated throughout human history, the courses will focus on historical events since 1900. These include the Armenian genocide of 1915, when the Turkish-led Ottoman Empire had rounded up and deported or executed 1.5 million Armenians living there, most of them Ottoman citizens, by 1922; the Nazi Holocaust, from 1933 until the Allied liberation of the death camps in 1945, which claimed the lives of six million Jews and five million Slavs, Roma, disabled people, Jehovah’s Witnesses, homosexuals, and political and religious dissidents from the European countries occupied by Germany; the Cambodian genocide, from 1975 to 1979, when the Maoist Khmer Rouge led by Pol Pot slaughtered an estimated three million; the Serbs’ “ethnic cleansing” of Bosnians in the wake of the 1992 collapse of the former Yugoslavia, killing 100,000; the 1994 Hutu-led killing rampage in Rwanda, which targeted Tutsis and moderate Hutus and slaughtered more than 800,000 over 100 days; and most recently, this century’s Sudan state-sanctioned murder of at least 300,000 Darfurian civilians in what is now South Sudan.

Harrowitz’s class includes writings by Holocaust survivors Primo Levi and Nobel Laureate Elie Wiesel (Hon.’74), BU’s Andrew W. Mellon Professor Emeritus in the Humanities and a CAS professor emeritus of philosophy and religion, who died in July, and Hannah Arendt, author of the seminal book Eichmann in Jerusalem.

“I’ve been interested in the Holocaust since I was very young, when I read about Anne Frank in fourth grade,” says film and television major Nadia Cross (COM’17), one of the first two students who signed up for the minor. She says she “was really struck by the injustices of our world, so I’ve been interested for a long time, and the minor is a gateway to learning more.”

One of the eternally relevant aspects of the coursework is its focus on bystander complicity and the notion that to do nothing in the face of lethal injustice is nearly as bad as perpetrating it. “It’s definitely something I’ve learned a lot about, something I can apply to my life,” Cross says.“We have to defend people who don’t have a voice.” Her ideal job would be to work at the United States Memorial Holocaust Museum in Washington, D.C.

Students minoring in Holocaust and genocide studies must complete six four-credit courses, two required and four open electives. Among the courses are The Armenian Genocide, European Fascism, Prevention of Genocide, History of International Human Rights, and Jewish Bioethics and Holocaust Studies.

The program, which launched in September, had a celebratory kickoff in October with a preview screening of the feature film Denial, based on Deborah E. Lipstadt’s book History on Trial: My Day in Court with a Holocaust Denier, starring Rachel Weisz as the author. Lipstadt, an Emory University professor of modern Jewish history and Holocaust studies, attended the screening at the Coolidge Corner Cinema and spoke at the reception that followed at the Elie Wiesel Center for Jewish Studies.

Author, Susan Seligson can be reached at sueselig@bu.edu.

A Historian’s View of American Politics, Circa 2016

Well-paid consultants, anti-party candidates, mass media–driven campaigns—they all go back to the turn of the last century

v2_research_16-10466-BRUCE-034The tumultuous 2016 Presidential campaign, shaped by unorthodox candidates, relentless media coverage, and hugely divided political parties, is often characterized by pundits as unprecedented. But according to Boston University historian Bruce J. Schulman, Americans experienced similar cultural and political transformations a century ago. The period from 1896 to 1929 brought the rise of cities and the arrival of more than 20 million immigrants from Europe, Asia, Mexico, and the Caribbean. The birth of radio, film, newspaper chains, and advertising campaigns for brand-name products—Quaker Oats, Heinz Ketchup, Coca-Cola—also changed the country, unifying and nationalizing the American experience.

Bruce Schulman has won a National Endowment for the Humanities Public Scholar Award for his forthcoming book on how the US remade itself between 1896 and 1929. Photo (above) by Cydney Scott.

“What it is to be America, and to be an American, relative to institutions and the larger world, is very different in 1929 than it would have been at the beginning of this period,” says Schulman, the William E. Huntington Professor of History in the BU College of Arts & Sciences. “A fundamental conflict of the early 20th century was people wrestling with the question of what are we going to do with all these immigrants? That is something that still resonates today.”

Schulman recently won a National Endowment for the Humanities Public Scholar Award for his forthcoming book, a volume of the Oxford History of the United States covering the years from 1896 to 1929. He is the author of three previous books on modern American history, including From Cotton Belt to Sunbelt, Lyndon B. Johnson and American Liberalism, and The Seventies: The Great Shift in American Culture, Society, and Politics, which the New York Times named one of its Notable Books of the Year for 2001.

BU Research sat down with Schulman in his office, which is decorated with historic Presidential campaign posters and a bust of Lyndon Johnson, to talk about how the turn-of-the-century changes he is studying connect to today’s politics.

BU Research: How is the outsider candidacy of Donald Trump reflected in the period you’re studying?

Schulman: The central problem in the last century of American political history is how we get from the era of the politics of the party and the machine to the era of the consultant, interest groups, and the mass media–mediated campaign. It’s a shift from a time when parties structured every aspect of political, social, and cultural life—and local party organizations formed the principal intermediaries between politicians and ordinary citizens—to an era when politicians communicate with and mobilize voters primarily through mass media. It’s a transition to today, when even though partisan attachments are strong, parties are not very strong. Donald Trump is Exhibit A in that change.

What are some of the key developments you’re writing about?

Think first about just the practice of voting. We have an idea that even though the technology is different, voting was pretty much the same 100, 120 years ago as it is today, that you had a secret ballot in which you could choose between and among rival candidates for office. But these aspects of voting are products of the 1890s, when the Australian, or secret, ballot, which originated in Australia, was adopted. Before that, either the party organizations or the newspapers, which were mainly partisan institutions, printed ballots. You’d walk up to your polling place, you’d find your party’s precinct captain, he’d hand you a ballot, and you’d stuff it in the ballot box. Maybe you’d try to stuff three or four in the ballot box.

You mean before the Australian ballot, you wouldn’t fill out a ballot and choose a candidate?

No. The ballot was called the ticket—because it looked like a railroad ticket — and what we call ticket splitting was all but impossible. You had to be literate in English, and remember, there were lots of immigrants, not all of whom were literate in English. You’d have to have a pen or a pencil to cross out a name and write in a name in full view of all the people who were there. That didn’t happen. Politics wasn’t about trying to convince people to vote for your candidate. It was about mobilizing voters. Affiliation was defined largely by things like race, ethnicity, region, religion. People were pretty much born a Republican or Democrat.

To continue reading, a version of this article originally appeared on  BU Research.

Author, Sara Rimer can be reached at srimer@bu.edu.

The Cities of Tomorrow: How Research and Innovation Can Help Address the U.S. Infrastructure Crises

Making Research Real Template

Information Technology & Innovation Foundation (ITIF) and Boston University
co-hosted a discussion of the future of federal policies for smart cities and the cutting edge research and innovation that makes these advances possible.

Thursday, October 27, 2016, 12:00 p.m. – 1:30 p.m
Information Technology and Innovation Foundation
1101 K Street NW, Suite 610A
Washington, DC 20005

Speakers:

Watch the event video

Click here for pictures

Read the BU Today story

CAS Political Scholar Decries Horse-Race Election Coverage

 

Offers insights on how this presidential contest is, and isn’t, different

h_butoday_BUDS_Day_07152

Dino Christenson, a CAS professor of political science and an expert on American political behavior, worries about the media trend to cover the presidential election as a horse race without focusing on issues and context. Photo by Dave Green.

Few people have watched this year’s presidential election with more interest than Dino Christenson. A College of Arts & Sciences associate professor of political science, Christenson studies American electoral behavior, presidential campaigns and how the media covers them, survey research design, and data science. He has been using the Donald Trump–Hillary Clinton face-off, with all its rancor, as a teaching tool in his classes on US media and politics this semester. Every election is different, he says, but much about the current election, unhinged as it seems, conforms to what he has discovered in past presidential elections. That said, he notes that there are some aspects of this year’s contest that make it unique.

A faculty affilliate at the Rafik B. Hariri Institute for Computing and Computational Science & Engineering, Christenson has published numerous studies in journals, including American Political Science Review, American Journal of Political Science, and Political Behavior. He is working on two books, The Visible Primary: How Modern Presidential Nominations Remake Candidates, Insiders, and Mass Coalitions, and with CAS colleague Douglas Kriner, Informal Constraint: Public Opinion and Unilateral Presidential Action.

BU Today spoke with Christenson about how this year’s presidential race is—and isn’t—the same as previous ones, the efficacy of polls, and the influence fact-checking has on the electorate.

BU Today: In terms of mass political psychology and the shaping of public opinion, is this election unusual, and if so, in what ways?

Christenson: Obviously, every election is different from the ones before it, but I don’t see the factors shaping public opinion or political behavior as having changed.

Has Donald Trump’s campaign blown up the conventional political model, in the sense that he uses free media as effectively as paid—if not more so?

Perhaps you could make an argument for this in the primary election, but it is a harder sell in the general election. Trump is dominating free media and there are a lot more pro-Clinton ads out there at this point, but the situation is unusual not because the Trump team is eschewing advertising, which they are not, but because conservative outside groups have not put out ads for him to the same degree as they did for Romney in 2012.

We read a numbing amount of poll data. How much, and in what ways, do these numbers influence potential voters?

There is some evidence of bandwagon effects in the literature, where individuals switch to the side they think will win. My sense is that these effects are pretty small, since some people don’t follow polls, many don’t completely trust them, they change over the course of the election, and in close elections you can find polls pointing in either direction.

In your opinion, how malleable are American voters?

Not very. Party identification is consistently one of the strongest predictors of vote choice: about 90 percent of the voting public leans to one party or the other, and this attachment is fairly stable. This doesn’t mean that campaigns and candidates don’t matter, since for one thing, there have been some changes in mass party identification over time, and candidates may have motivated them. Also, swing state independents could potentially be crucial in a tight election—though they are small in number and much less likely to turn out than partisans. Note that the lack of malleability is reflected in the activity of campaigns insofar as much of their ground game is concerned with getting voters who support their candidate registered and to the polls. Thus, persuading potential voters to vote can be more important than persuading them to prefer a candidate, since the latter has already been decided for most.

Is polling as rigorous as it used to be, in terms of sample sizes, margin of error, and voter cohorts included? Has the primacy of cell phones damaged polling? Are shrinking media outlets more likely now to call surveys polls?

There are certainly a lot of polling organizations out there today. And different pollsters have different track records—that is, different histories of being more or less correct. Much of this depends on their sampling methodologies, which differ across pollsters, but should all have the objective of collecting a representative sample of respondents from the population of voters.

A number of issues have developed that make finding a representative sample difficult, especially falling response rates to survey requests. In addition, as you noted, the steady decline in land lines has in the past made certain demographic groups that rely exclusively on cell phones, like young voters, harder to contact, but recent advances in random digit dialing to include cell phone numbers mitigate some of these concerns.

I generally give a few recommendations to political observers about polls. First, try not to read too much into any one poll, but instead look at the average of multiple polls for a good understanding of the true value. Second, polls become better indicators as we get closer to the election, so don’t put a lot of trust in early polls. Third, be wary of election polls that don’t report a margin of error statistic or use probability sampling. Some internet polls, for example, rely on samples of opt-in or voluntary respondents that may not resemble the actual population.

What would you change about media coverage of the elections? What, in particular, about the coverage makes you cringe?

Oh, where to begin…? I teach a course on Media Politics, in which we spend a semester critiquing the media’s coverage of politics and campaigns, in particular. As my students can tell you, one of the things I enjoy pointing out is the media’s obsession with the horse race, who’s up and who’s down in the latest poll, or who won or lost the last debate, all at the expense of sophisticated discussions of the candidates’ policy proposals.

What do you think of the barrage of fact-checking, some of it in real time, in this presidential race? Is it valuable? Is it even-handed?

Fact-checking is one of the most important duties of the media, but one that frequently gets short shrift relative to more easily digestible and evocative event coverage.

Having said that, it is important to note that the abundance of scholarship suggests that learning we hold incorrect political information does not do much, if anything at all, to change our views. Once we have ascribed to a certain understanding about politics, we are reluctant to change our minds about it, even when exposed to evidence to the contrary. Indeed, some scholars have even found a backlash effect, where those exposed to facts contradicting their previously held understanding actually dig in deeper—believing their wrong information to be true even more strongly than before. As such, even if the facts can be checked, the political misinformation the public holds is extremely difficult to correct.

Moreover, in a diverse media environment where a number of political views are represented, we can seek out information in accord with our preexisting partisan and ideological preferences. That is, it is easy enough to avoid being confronted with views in the media that don’t match our own. Whenever possible we try to avoid cognitive dissonance; that is, we prefer to have information that reinforces our political preferences since it makes us uncomfortable to process information that is contrary to them. Thus we frequently get information that just reinforces our own preexisting beliefs.

In the end, with the Electoral College, a handful of states will determine the next president. Where should voters watch carefully on election night?

I’ve got my eyes on Florida, Ohio, Nevada, North Carolina, and Iowa. North Carolina should be particularly exciting since it is likely to hinge on get-out-the-vote efforts.

Author, Susan Seligson can be reached at sueselig@bu.edu.

Hospitals Cut Readmissions, But at What Cost?

Critics say Medicare program penalizes safety-net hospitals

h_research_iStock_63437087_XLARGE

Report says that safety-net hospitals should be compared to other safety-net hospitals, rather than put into one broad category. Photo by EunikaSopotnicka/iStock.

Safety-net hospitals, which serve large populations of low-income patients, have made significant progress in reducing patient readmissions under a federal penalty program, but adjustments to the program should be considered, says a new study led by a Boston University School of Public Health (SPH) researcher.

The study, published online by Health Affairs, looked at the effects of Medicare’s Hospital Readmission Reduction Program (HRRP), which penalizes hospitals for high 30-day readmission rates for patients discharged for pneumonia, heart attack, and heart failure. Critics of the program have argued that the program disproportionately penalizes safety-net hospitals because they serve many low-income patients who lack post-hospitalization resources, such as primary care and social support, and have a higher probability of being readmitted.

Led by Kathleen Carey, an SPH professor of health law, policy, and management, the study found that, in the first three years of the program, safety-net hospitals reduced readmissions for heart attacks by 2.86 percentage points, for heart failure by 2.78 percent, and for pneumonia by 1.77 percent. Those improvements, between 2013 and 2016, were greater than those achieved in other hospitals.

The disparity in readmission rates between hospitals serving large shares of low-income patients and those serving lower populations of poor patients also declined.

But the study also found that, when compared with other hospitals that had high readmission rates to begin with, safety-net hospitals had smaller reductions.

“This result may reflect the difficulties safety-net hospitals have in dealing with factors that influence readmission rates but are beyond the hospitals’ control, such as patient homelessness or lack of family support,” write Carey and her co-author, Meng-Yun Lin, a research data analyst at Boston Medical Center.

The authors urge modifications to the HRRP, saying, “Policy makers should bear in mind that a penalty program may not provide the best lever for incentivizing performance improvement in safety-net hospitals.”

They say their findings support a recommendation that the Medicare program be adjusted so that safety-net hospitals are evaluated against other safety-net hospitals, rather than put into one broad category.

“It will be important to continue to monitor the performance of safety-net hospitals under the HRRP,” the study concludes. “If these hospitals fail to respond to HRRP incentives in the future, [federal officials] might consider using different approaches to reducing the hospitals’ readmission rates, such as assessing the rates against the hospitals’ own historical record or exempting the hospitals from the HRRP altogether and focusing on quality-improvement initiatives for them instead.”

The study was funded, in part, by a grant from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

Author, Lisa Chedekel can be reached at chedekel@bu.edu.

BU Increases Its Target for Sustainable Food Sources

Food that’s better for you and for the planet

t_butoday_14-7696-REDS-123

BU has steadily increased its purchases of sustainable food, including from Red’s Best, a Boston seafood wholesaler that uses local, small-boat fishermen. Photo by Jackie Ricciardi.

When you beat your own expectations, what do you do?

You aim higher. BU’s Dining Services has upped its goal for procuring food from sustainable food sources and is now aiming to get 25 percent of its food from such sources by 2020.

The goal had been 20 percent by 2018, but BU hit that mark last year—three years early. The new goal was announced in the Dining Services annual sustainability report, which enumerates the ways the University enhanced its food sustainability in 2015.

The report says that in the last year, 23 percent, to be exact, of BU’s food came from sustainable sources, defined as locally or regionally produced (within a 250-mile radius) or else certified by a third party as meeting ecological, animal-humane, or fair-trade standards. The University uses criteria established by the Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education.

“Our sustainability program is very mature,” says David Frank, Dining Services director of sustainability. “We are always adjusting menus, changing products, and analyzing trends.”

By next year, Dining Services aims to replace all pork from conventionally raised pigs with humane and crate-free animals raised in Maine, the report says. The following year, it plans on purchasing all seafood from sustainable sources. It is “transitioning to all USDA, organic, cage-free liquid eggs” and turkey breast from cage-free local birds, Frank says.

“We have the greenest food court in the nation,” according to the international nonprofit Green Restaurant Association, he adds.

As outlined in the report, the purchasing practices that helped BU hit the 23 percent mark last year can be measured by the ton:

  • 21 tons of beef—all the ground beef, hamburgers, and all-beef hot dogs served—came from a Maine family farm that raises grass-fed cows;
  • 49 tons of turkey (almost all turkey used on campus) came from farms certified by the American Humane Association;
  • 22 tons of chicken—all the whole chickens and chicken thighs used—came from humane-certified farms in New York and Pennsylvania;
  • 19 tons of skipjack and albacore tuna used on campus were raised sustainably;
  • 9 tons of tofu were from Massachusetts and Vermont organic farms; and
  • 7 tons of oats were from an organic farm in Maine.

“We are progressively and aggressively challenging the norm and driving local purchasing at BU,” Frank says.

Author, Rich Barlow can be reached at barlowr@bu.edu.

Navy Awards $7.5 Million to BU-Led Neuroscientists

Hasselmo to oversee multi-center effort on rule learning in the brain

h_10-3064-HASSELMO-004

Michael Hasselmo, director of BU’s Center for Systems Neuroscience, is principal investigator on the DOD grant. “How do brain circuits mediate learning rules of different types?” he asks. “To me, this is a central question of brain research.”

Learning new rules is a part of life. The rules may be simple, like learning to stop at a red light. Or they might be a bit more complex. Sometimes, for instance, you can turn right at a red light, unless there’s a sign saying you can’t, but only in certain states, and not when a pedestrian is crossing the street. Most human brains learn complex rules like these, and their myriad exceptions, with seeming ease. But how they do this has puzzled neuroscientists for decades.

“So much of human behavior is guided by rules,” says Michael Hasselmo, a Boston University College of Arts & Sciences (CAS) professor of psychological and brain sciences and director of BU’s Center for Systems Neuroscience. “But how do brain circuits mediate learning rules of different types? To me, this is a central question of brain research.”

Hasselmo is the principal investigator on a five-year, $7.5 million Office of Naval Research (ONR) grant to investigate, broadly, the question of exactly how human brains learn rules, and how this might be translated into computer programs, especially for autonomous systems. “If we understand this, it could massively enhance the capability of computers,” says Hasselmo.

The grant was awarded as part of the ONR’s Multidisciplinary University Research Initiative program, or MURI, which supports team research involving more than one traditional scientific discipline, according to the Department of Defense (DOD). Most of the program’s efforts involve researchers from multiple academic institutions and academic departments. Hasselmo will oversee a team that includes BU’s Marc Howard and Chantal Stern, both CAS professors of psychological and brain sciences, as well as researchers from Brown University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. The award provides $4.5 million over the first three years, with the option to renew for an additional two years.

“One of the most exciting things about the MURI awards is the opportunity to work with exceptionally talented researchers across different universities,” writes Stern in an email. “For the current MURI, I am excited to be collaborating with MIT researcher Earl Miller and Brown University researcher David Badre.”

The research will focus on two areas of the brain associated with learning: the prefontal cortex, known to be critical for working memory, and for “gating” memories in and out of the rest of the cerebral cortex; and the basal ganglia, which most people associate with movement and motor function. The scientists will investigate how the basal ganglia performs the “mental action” of loading working memories into the correct part of the brain, says Hasselmo.

Hasselmo will oversee the development of computational models of neural circuits used in learning, while Badre and Stern will use functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to study the brain in humans as they learn. Badre will examine how the brain learns tasks using rules involving matching of letters and symbols, while Stern will study how people learn new rules and changes in rules by trial and error. Stern will use BU’s newly acquired MRI scanner, the centerpiece of a new Center for Cognitive Neuroimaging, to be housed in BU’s Center for Integrated Life Sciences & Engineering (CILSE), scheduled to open in spring 2017.

Stern notes that the NSF award for the MRI system arrived the same week as the MURI award notice, “which was a great start to the academic year,” she says.

For Hasselmo, the MURI award, coupled with the new neuroimaging facilities, will help open new windows onto the deepest mysteries of the brain. “To me, it’s just fascinating to try to figure this out,” says Hasselmo. “Neurons are single cells with no individual cognitive ability, yet their interactions underlie every single action we take, every single belief we have. It’s fascinating to investigate how it comes together.”

Author, Barbara Moran can be reached at bmoran@bu.edu.