HARVARD SCIENCE REVIEW
Writer’s Guide
Fall 2013
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction and Contact Info ……………………. 3
Writing Opportunities/Types of Articles ……………………. 4-5
Helpful Links for Getting Started ……………………. 6
How to Conduct Faculty Interviews ……………………. 7
Writing Tips ……………………. 8
Focus Topic for Fall 2013 ……………………. 9
Guide to Proposals ……………………. 10-11
HSR Fall 2013 Calendar ……………………. 12
Sample Articles ……………………. 13-22
Proposal Form ……………………. 23
Sample Proposal ……………………. 24
2
INTRODUCTION
Welcome to the Harvard Science Review, the longest running undergraduate publication on
campus! Since its inception, the Harvard Science Review has sought to bring cutting-edge
research, central debates, and controversial, new implications of scientific ideas to a wide
community of scientists and non-scientists alike.
HSR’S NO COMP POLICY
The Harvard Science Review does not institute a “comp.” If you write a compelling article based
on an approved topic outline, we will gladly publish it.
CONTACT INFORMATION
http://www.hcs.harvard.edu/~hsr/ harvard.sci.review@gmail.com
Thank you for your interest in writing for the Harvard Science Review (HSR)!
PRESIDENTS
Vivian Ling ‘14 –
vivianling@college.harvard.edu
Alexandra Rojek ’15 –
arojek@college.harvard.edu
EDITORS-IN-CHIEF
Roxanna Haghighat ’15 –
rhaghighat@college.harvard.edu
Alison Liou ’14 –
alisonliou@college.harvard.edu
3
WRITING OPPORTUNITIES
Each printed issue includes three major sections: News & Views, Feature
Articles, and General Articles. Writers have three available options for our
printed magazine:
 1 Feature article,
 1 General Article, or
 1 Report or Commentary plus 1 News Brief.
Feel free to propose additional content (e.g., one article and one report,
one article and a news brief, etc.)! Writers can also contribute to our online
blog.
1. News & Views: Submissions in this section come in three flavors: reports,
commentaries, and news briefs.
 Reports: Reports are one-page pieces that provide a unique angle on
a narrow topic related to science (e.g. a recent discovery that is
particularly important, a spotlight on a specific subfield in a scientific
discipline, a discussion of a professor’s accomplishments). Topics
related to Harvard are preferred but not required.
 Commentary: Commentaries are about a page in length and take a
clear, definite stance on a current issue in science. Commentaries are
not rants; issues and opinions are presented fully and fairly.
 News Briefs: News Briefs are short (one-third of a page or less) and
report a recent and significant scientific finding. Briefs involving
Harvard researchers are preferred.
2. Feature Articles: This section is the heart of each issue, drawing a
majority of the selected submissions. Articles are 3-4 pages, single-spaced.
While topics should be covered in scientific depth, the presentation (i.e.
language and tone) must remain accessible to a general audience. Articles
tend to be divided into 1-2 introductory paragraphs, followed by 3-5
sections focusing on different aspects of the topic. The first section often
gives background, and the last gives an outlook on the future of the topic.
Remember that your article should be written such that all readers—
regardless of concentration—can enjoy it. Our magazine is not meant to be
a technical review of the primary literature. Think Scientific American for
the proper approach to the topic of your article. Please visit our website
(http://www.hcs.harvard.edu/~hsr/) to read articles from past issues.
4
3. General Articles: Approximately half of the articles in this issue will be on
topics not related to the focus topic. These articles present groundbreaking
research in any field on any subject of interest to the writer. For ideas, we
suggest scanning through recent issues of major scientific journals and
publications. Note that General Articles are not historical accounts or
literature reviews; we expect timely research- and discovery-driven
analysis.
4. Online Blogpost: As an alternative or addition to contributing to our
printed magazine, you may choose to write a short article for our online
blog. Note that this will be online content only. These are short 250-500
word reviews of current (within three months) articles in leading scientific
journals. They do not need to be related to the focus topic. They should
include not only a brief summary but also some relevant background in the
field and further analysis. This is a great way to get involved with HSR and
with scientific writing, and to get practice for writing articles for future
issues of HSR. If you are interested in contributing to the blog, please
contact one of the Editors-in-Chief. You may contribute as many times as
you would like, and your articles will be published online after editing and
approval.
5
HELPFUL LINKS FOR GETTING STARTED
International Science Journals
Science News: www.news.sciencemag.org
Nature News: www.nature.com/news/index
Harvard Department Websites
Biology: www.mcb.harvard.edu, www.oeb.harvard.edu,
www.heb.harvard.edu, www.neuro.med.harvard.edu
Chemistry: www.chem.harvard.edu
Physics: www.physics.harvard.edu
Psychology: www.harvard.edu/psych
SEAS: www.seas.harvard.edu
Harvard Science Portal: www.harvardscience.harvard.edu
IQSS: www.iq.harvard.edu/news
Harvard Stem Cell Institute: www.hsci.harvard.edu
The Harvard Gazette: www.hno.harvard.edu/gazette
News Magazines
Scientific American: www.scientificamerican.com
Scientific American Mind: www.sciammind.com
Popular Science: www.popsci.com
American Scientist: www.americanscientist.org
The New York Times Science: www.nytimes.com/pages/science/index
6
HOW TO CONDUCT FACULTY INTERVIEWS
1. Always send a polite email first reaching out to your faculty member. Introduce
yourself as a member of the Harvard Science Review and feel free to link him/her to
our website, so they get a sense of what our journal provides to the community.
Explain what you are writing about and why you want to interview them, being as
specific as possible.
If he/she doesn’t respond to your email immediately, don’t be discouraged! We all
know how busy professors can get, particularly those with higher rank. If, however,
they don’t respond to initial emails, try calling them (www.directory.harvard.edu) or
go to their office hours (usually listed on their website). More often than not,
professors will be very eager to share some time to discuss their research since they
love what they do.
2. Set up a time and place for the interview, and let your AE know when it’s
happening.
3. Confirm and remind your interviewee the day before the interview with the time
an d place. It’s easy to forget when they have such busy schedules!
4. Arrive to the interview at least 5 minutes early. It’s imperative that you be
respectful to the faculty member, which also means doing your research beforehand!
Know what their research focuses on.
5. Dress in business casual. Bring a tape recorder (or record on your iPhone), but
ALWAYS ask before recording. It’s a good idea to take down notes in any case.
6. Use your prepared questions as a guide for the interview, but let the discussion
flow naturally. If something interesting and new pops up, feel free to probe more
into it. Don’t feel constrained by your prepared questions; you may end up with an
even more exciting article than you anticipated!
7. At the end of the interview, ask your faculty member if you can ask additional
questions by email, as they may arise when you’re writing your draft.
8. After your interview, send a follow-up thank you email by the end of the day.
7
SOME WRITING TIPS
1. Start writing the article as soon as your proposal is approved. Don’t wait until the
last minute! You will meet with your AE before the first draft is due, and he/she will
send you reminder emails to check in with you.
2. Make sure your introduction is catchy but not gimmicky. Exclamation points and
questions aren’t always the best approach, but think about what would make you
want to read more.
3. Within the first few paragraphs, your readers should have a sense of what your
topic is, why it’s important, and why they should keep reading.
4. Have a clear structure with good transitions between sections and paragraphs.
5. For longer articles like Features, use subheadings to divide the article into sections.
6. Think of a clever title.
7. Be clear and concise.
8. Never misquote a faculty member whom you’ve interviewed. If you’re even slightly
concerned about misinterpreting them, confirm via email or phone call.
9. Use a variety of sources.
10. Paraphrase rather than overpopulate your article with direct quotes. An exception
is if your interview with a faculty member provided excellent lines or an interesting
analogy that you cannot take credit for.
11. Cite all your sources properly.
12. Keep your tone neutral and include as many sides of an issue as you can or
seems appropriate.
8
FOCUS TOPIC
Focus Topic: Taboo Science
The following are some suggestions of topics that would be appropriate for a
Features article, which centers on the focus topic. These are just examples, so please
feel free to think outside the box and write a proposal on an issue pertaining to the
focus topic that is not mentioned here (or even in another scientific field!). All articles
should include a thorough overview of the current knowledge in the field and also
pose questions to be answered in the future. If you are uncertain as to whether a
topic you are interested in would be appropriate, contact one of the Editors-in-Chief
for feedback.
Article Topic Ideas:
 Biology of addiction
 Cloning/”eugenics”
 Chemical warfare/weapons development
 Artificial intelligence research
 Infectious disease research (ex. controversial avian flu research)
 Alternative medicine
 Social taboos – where do they come from?
 Extension of life research
 Bioengineering (ex. synthetic meat)
 Stories from failed attempts to illegally synthesize drugs
 Decision science/economic perspective on greed vs. altruism
 Scientific misconduct
o Historical review (ex. Tuskegee experiment vs. now)
o Misconduct in recruiting test subjects
o Publication fraud
9
PROPOSALS
For your proposal, begin by indicating which of the three options you are interested
in. Proposals for general/feature articles will differ somewhat from proposals for
reports or commentaries. If your proposal does not follow the guidelines or does not
include enough information, we may ask you to resubmit or reject your proposal.
1) General/Feature Article Proposal:
A. Introductory Paragraph or two introducing your topic in a manner that grabs
the reader’s attention. It often helps to tie your subject to a prominent issue
(e.g. congestion of roads and airways for an article on maglev trains) or an
astonishing fact (e.g. the number of people who need but don’t receive organ
transplants for an article on xenotransplantation).
B. An outline covering the sections and details that you plan to cover in your
article. The outline should be divided into Roman numerals for the sections
(e.g. I. Introduction, II. What are Stem Cells?, ...) and capital letters under
each Roman numeral for the specific points that you plan to include in that
section. In general, you don't have to go into much detail about what you will
include in each section so long as it's enough for us to get a feel for what you
plan to do.
C. A preliminary reference list including about 5-7 sources. For your proposal, we
advise you to use sources readily accessible via the internet (newspapers,
science magazines, and journals accessible via Hollis). Please do not use
websites unless they include material from a reputable source (e.g. The
National Cancer Institute as opposed to Mary’s Breast Cancer page). Your
actual article will incorporate more sources than included on this initial list.
2) Report or Commentary Proposal:
A. A brief introductory paragraph that frames the topic of the one-page report or
provides background on the scientific debate that you will be weighing in on.
No proposal is needed for news briefs, but you should feel free to mention
possible events/happenings you might like to discuss.
B. An outline of your report or commentary. Because you will only have a page,
you can just list the details/points you plan to discuss in the order in which
you expect to bring them up.
C. A reference list. Since this is only a preliminary list and you will only be writing
a page, you only need to include 3-5 sources.
10
Please submit your proposal using the HSR Proposal Submission Sheet at the end of
this document and email it to the harvard.sci.review@gmail.com. You will be
notified within a few days whether your proposal was accepted as is, accepted with
suggested revisions, or rejected. If your article proposal is accepted, you will be
paired one-on-one with an associate editor and design board member for the
remainder of the writing process. Decisions will be emailed to individual writers
shortly after.
11
HSR CALENDAR – FALL 2013
September 22, 2013 – Article proposal deadline. Submit using the “Proposal
Submissions Sheet” (at the end of this document) to harvard.sci.review@gmail.com
by 11:59 PM.
September 24, 2013 – Decisions on proposals announced. Associate editors will
meet with you to discuss writing process (September 25 – September 29).
October 6, 2013 – Rough draft deadline. Submit to associate editors by 11:59 PM.
Associate Editors will meet with you to discuss edits (October 8 – October 11).
 At this point, you should also have chosen the graphics that you would like to
include with your article. If you would like to design your own graphics, a
member of the design board will be able to help you with that.
 Include in-text citations with a numbered reference list at the end (see citation
guidelines
from
Science:
http://www.sciencemag.org/site/feature/contribinfo/prep/res/refs.xhtml).
October 20, 2013 – Final draft deadline. Submit to associate editors by 11:59 PM.
 Your final draft should include a title, finalized text, graphics with captions and
citations (if necessary), subheadings, a complete list of references in the
proper format, and a one line biography about yourself.
 In your email, you will also include figures or images you wish the design team
to place with your article. Save these files as “Figure 1,” “Figure 2,” etc. and
include short captions at the end of your final draft that correspond to each
figure. At the end of each caption note the source of your image. You cannot
use copyright images, so please use images from Wikimedia Commons or a
government website (to limit results in Google images, type: keyword
site:.gov). If you are ambitious, you can create your own figures.
We are all excited by the prospect of working with you on our upcoming issue and
hope that you will decide to contribute to HSR. Feel free to address any questions
you may have to HSR board members listed at the top of this handout.
12
SAMPLE ARTICLES
1. Report: Nature’s Laboratory: Research at the Harvard Forest
Among the diverse array of laboratories at Harvard, one of them stands unique from
the rest. Unlike the fume hoods and pipettes that characterize some of the more standard
laboratory instruments, the Harvard Forest is the university’s own ecological laboratory
where nature is observed at an ecosystem level.
The Harvard Forest is an area of over 3000 acres located in Petersham,
Massachusetts utilized for research, education, and conservation (1). The Forest was created
in 1907, only four years after a department of forestry was instituted. For the first thirty
years of its existence, silviculture and sustainable tree farming was one of the main goals of
the Forest. However, a category 3 hurricane in 1938 inflicted significant damage to over half
of the Forest, after which silviculture was largely abandoned and the Forest was devoted
more to fieldwork studies. From 1937 to 1988, research at the Forest was supported mainly
from a gift from the Cabot Foundation. Since 1988, the Forest has been designated a
National Science Foundation Long-Term Ecological Site, where researchers from a myriad of
institutions cooperate on studies (2).
What kind of research is being done at the forest? Allowed to regenerate on its own
over the last hundred or more years in a process called ecological succession, the forest has
been untouched by commercialization of other disruptive human factors. As a result, many
long-term experiments examining biodiversity, atmospheric changes, invasive species, and
other ecological fields can be conducted.
One example of the long-term research conducted is the study of climate change on
arthropod populations. In a study published in May 2011, Shannon Pelini and colleagues
observed the effects of warming on ant populations at two locations: a northern site at the
Harvard Forest and a southern site at the Duke Forest (3). By passively heating or cooling
chambers 1 meter by 1 meter in size placed in the forests, the authors altered conditions on
the ground and then noted changes in ant population dynamics and behavior. The scientists
noticed that at the northern site, changes were not very significant in either species by
dynamics or behavior. On the other hand, at the southern site at the Duke Forest, the most
abundant ant species became even more dominant as warming increased. In addition, at the
southern site, increases in temperature appeared to reduce ant behaviors such as foraging.
These observations are important in understanding how temperature increases might affect
the viability of ant species that survive limited temperature ranges. Furthermore, by
comparing the experiment results between the Harvard Forest and the Duke Forest, the
scientists can better understand the potential effects of warming based on climate and
location latitude (3).
At the larger ecosystem level, scientists at the Harvard Forest are also studying the
effect of the removal of a foundation species from an ecosystem. Forest foundation species
are a dominant tree species that can largely influence and define the ecological dynamics
and characteristics of the forest (4). Understanding how the loss of foundation species may
alter the ecosystem is particularly relevant in the context of the current spread of invasive
species that can cause widespread harm to important species. Here at the Harvard Forest,
scientists are studying the Eastern hemlock, a foundation tree species in the New England
forests (5). This is especially important as the hemlock woolly adelgid, an exotic introduced
species, is currently invading North American forests and killing hemlock trees. By simulating
13
conditions for a number of situations such as adelgid infestation and logging, scientists are
able to conduct a controlled, long-term experiment. Such experiments are remarkable in the
field of ecology, where controlling for variables can be difficult on large scales as ecosystems,
especially in comparison to the easily controlled microliter test tubes in sciences such as
molecular biology.
These two studies are just a small sampling of the hundreds of studies that are in the
process of being completed at the Harvard Forest. The fieldwork is extensive, and the results
are important. By understanding the dynamics of the natural world around us, we can better
understand how to preserve our natural surroundings through conservation and land
management policies.
- XXXX’14 is a XXXX concentrator in XXXX House
Sources: XXXX
2. Commentary: Thoughts on Women-in-Science Organizations
It is no news that there is a predominance of men in the fields of science, technology,
engineering, and math (STEM). Not only have studies shown this to be true, but a quick
glance around a roomful of students in a STEM class can easily confirm this fact. In fact, a
study at Yale University published in late 2012 revealed that unconscious biases lead STEM
faculty to give females a lower rating than males when they have identical credentials (1). In
response, organizations with missions to empower and attract more women into STEM fields
have been on the rise. While these groups have worthy goals of raising awareness about our
unconscious biases towards women in STEM so that we can do our best to avoid them, there
are a few potential problems to consider.
Bringing together an all- or mostly-female community for women-in-STEM gatherings
may help empower women who are in these fields, but such an action inevitably separates
out women from the overall science community. Because STEM fields have been
predominantly male, it is important for both genders to become used to and comfortable
with mingling and working closely together in STEM settings. Doing so would certainly help
eliminate biases toward women in science when women perform well. Psychological
principles also support integration, as it has been shown that people tend to like and accept
something or someone more with increasing familiarity. This is known as the mere exposure
effect.
The second potential problem to consider is that these organizations could
unintentionally negatively color women’s perceptions when they enter STEM fields. When
women go into STEM fields with the mindset that there will be gender-related hurdles to
jump over, it becomes easy to over-analyze gestures as being gender discriminative when, in
reality, they often had no such intentions behind them. Such a mindset fosters oversensitivity
in situations, especially those involving constructive criticisms, which could negatively
influence work and relationships.
In attempts to attract more women into STEM fields, organizations can also easily
end up sending misleading, and even counterproductive, messages. A good but extreme
example is the European Commission’s controversial video for its “Girls in Science” campaign,
which featured models strutting around lab equipment with sunglasses, and various shots of
colorful make-up products (2). Not only does this type of advertising falsely represent STEM
fields, but it is also reinforces gender stereotypes, which does nothing to help alleviate
14
gender biases. Organizations may think that incorporating glamorous images attracts more
female attention, but these types of messages end up being counterproductive on the grand
scheme of things. Science may be beautiful or cool, but it is certainly not a glamorous
occupation due to the nature of the work. If we want to attract more women to STEM fields,
making science seem glamorous is not the way to do it – we would only be misleading them.
Women who want to enter STEM fields should also not be choosing to do so because of how
glamorous it appears to be.
The last problem to consider is more of a question of thought regarding equal
opportunity versus equal outcomes: while there should definitely be equal opportunity for
men and women in STEM, does this necessarily mean that it will lead to equal outcomes?
And if equal opportunity does not lead to equal outcomes, is that necessarily a bad thing especially if the reason for such an outcome is that women, as a group, just tend to be more
passionate about other fields? What is the best metric to use to determine whether or not
unconscious gender biases have been eliminated?
- XXXX’14 is a XXXX concentrator in XXXX House
Sources: XXXX
3. News Brief: Finding Common Ground Among Human Cultures
Every one of us is unique. Curiously enough, we are so unique it is difficult to
determine what we have in common. Scientists have found it surprisingly hard to find which
social traits are truly “human” and not the result of local cultural evolution within particular
regions of the planet. In a study recently published in Science, a group led by Dr. Kim Hill
and Professor Robert Walker of Arizona State University and the University of Missouri,
respectively, sought to discover the ancestral biological characteristics of our species history,
which eventually favored the acquisition of culture (1).
In collaboration with anthropologists from across the US, the authors obtained
demographic data from thirty-two present-day hunter-gatherer societies around the world.
Members of these societies likely live similarly to how all humans lived before developing
large-scale cultural systems (1), The authors focused on co-residence patterns and asked
questions like: What is the mean number of adult individuals who are closely related and live
together? How likely are siblings of the opposite to live together?
The findings suggest that cooperation I these societies occurs via extensive networks
of social interactions between unrelated individuals. Adult sisters and brother tend to live
together, but the majority of individuals who co-reside in a tribe are usually unrelated (1).
This is a rare trait among primates and points to large-scale non-kin sociability as a possible
explanation for why humans eventually evolved complex cultures (1).
A primitive “good neighbor” policy may indeed be the reason why societies arose, in
contrast to the archaic view of foraging cultures as purely patriarchic kin-based groups. The
data was collected from present-day populations and is thus only a proxy for ancestral
behaviors, which are hard to infer from archeological remains. Nevertheless, the evidence it
provides in favor of non-kin cooperation is strong and calls for new mathematical models to
explain the origin and evolution of human culture.
-XXXX ’14 is a XXXX concentrator in XXXX House.
Sources: XXXX
15
4. General Article: Lighting Up the Neuronal Network
One of the greatest challenges in neuroscience has been to find a way to precisely
and reliably detect the activity of individual action potentials, or the electrical signals, of
mammalian neurons (1). Until now, the traditional method for measuring electrical activity in
cells has been to stick an electrode in it and to measure the changes in voltage with a volt
meter (9). “The issue, however, was that you were only measuring the voltage at one point,
you weren’t seeing a spatial map of how signals propagate,” explained Adam Cohen in an
interview with the Harvard Gazette (9). The use of electrodes also kills cells rather quickly,
impeding studies that would take place over a period of time (9).
Adam Cohen is the John L. Loeb Associate Professor of the Natural Sciences at
Harvard University, and recently, under his leadership, scientists have devised a novel
method for detecting and quantifying cellular electrical signals by genetically modifying
neurons so that they fluoresce when they send out an electrical signal. In the words of Peter
Reuell, the author of an article about Cohen’s work in the Harvard Gazette, they have
“created genetically altered neurons that light up as they fire” (9). This groundbreaking work,
published online in Nature Methods in November 2011, has implications ranging from visually
observing how neuronal signals travel in a whole network of cells, to understanding how
growth and development affect neuronal pathways, to providing valuable information in drug
development and medical therapies (9).
Work on detection of neuronal signals leading up to Cohen’s breakthrough has
involved optical imaging techniques utilizing small molecule voltage indicators (2,3). For
example, an organic voltage-indicating dye has been used to successfully record action
potentials of mammalian neurons (4). Such a method, however, was problematic in that after
the injection of the dye into the cells, illumination could not last beyond two seconds without
subjecting the cells to phototoxicity (4). A genetically encoded voltage indicator as well as
calcium imaging have been tried, but none of these methods could yield “direct and sensitive
optical measurement[s]” of individual action potentials (1,5,6). As Cohen and colleagues
described in their Nature Methods article, “All approaches have one or more serious
limitations, including slow response, lack of sensitivity, difficulty in targeting, or phototoxicity.
No genetically encoded voltage indicator has had adequate sensitivity and speed to reliably
identify action potentials from mammalian neurons on a single-trial basis” (1).
Cohen’s team responded to these limitations by developing “a fast and sensitive
voltage indicator based on green-absorbing proteorhodopsin”, a photoactive protein in
marine microorganisms (1,7). They called this voltage indicator a proteorhodopsin optical
proton sensor (PROPS) and tested its ability to indicate electric signals in prokaryotic and
eukaryotic cells (1). While PROPS could be used to detect electrical activity in the prokaryotic
model organism Escherichia coli, the method failed to work in eukaryotic cells as it could not
localize to the plasma membrane, the site of action potentials (1). PROPS, therefore, would
not be able to detect neuronal signals as neurons are eukaryotic. PROPS was modified with
targeting and localization sequences in an attempt to resolve this issue, but to no avail (1).
The team proceeded to look for other microbial rhodopsins that could serve as
reliable voltage detectors and have the ability to localize to eukaryotic plasma membranes.
They found their answer in the microorganism Halorubrum sodomense, a species that lives in
the Dead Sea, that contains a gene expressing the protein Archaerhodopsin 3 (Arch), which
when subjected to neuronal fire, lights up (1). Normally, Arch’s role is to absorb sunlight and
convert it into electrical energy (8,10). Cohen’s team, however, wanted to find out if Arch
16
could be used for the reverse process: to detect electrical energy and convert it into a visual
signal in the form of light (10). They inserted the gene encoding for Arch into a virus that
was then used to infect cell cultures of rat hippocampal neurons so that the neurons could
manufacture their own Arch that would then localize to the plasma membrane (1,9). When
visualized under a microscope, what they saw were neurons lighting up in response to action
potentials (9).
“The way a neuron works is it has a membrane around the whole cell, sort of like a
wire and insulation, except in a neuron the membrane is an active substance. Normally, the
inside of the cell is negatively charged relative to the outside,” explained Cohen in an
interview (9). “When the neuron fires, the voltage reverses for a very short time, about oneone thousandth of a second. This brief spike in voltage travels down the neuron and then
activates other neurons downstream. [Arch3] is sitting in the membrane of the neurons, so
as that pulse washes over the proteins, they light up, giving us an image of the neurons as
they fire” (9).
Using this method, the researchers could record neuronal activity at sub-millisecond
time scales and at subcellular resolutions with high signal-to-noise ratios and little harm to
the cells (1). This is “an approximately tenfold improvement in sensitivity and speed over
existing protein-based voltage indicators, with a roughly linear twofold increase in
brightness” (1). Propagation of electrical signals in neurons in an entire network can now be
traced visually using microscopes.
Applications of this method of visualizing the neuronal network will allow us to
analyze how growth and development affect neurons and how signals are affected by
different activities, such as learning (9). Being able to map out how signals are propagated
will also benefit drug development (9). Many drugs, for instance, target ion channels which
play important roles in regulating activity in the brain and heart (9). A drug can be designed
to activate or inactivate an ion channel, and using Arch’s fluorescing ability will allow us to
very efficiently test the drug’s efficacy (9). Such efficiency would, in turn, expedite the
process of drug testing. The alternative would be to culture cells, make baseline
measurements with an electrode, treat the cells with a drug, and take measurements again
to see if the drugs worked—a process that takes one to two hours for each data point,
according to Cohen, as opposed to seconds (9).
Although Cohen’s team has met with great success in making progress in visualizing
the neuronal network, their method is not yet perfect and the Arch proteins are not ready for
widespread use at the moment (10). The fluorescence currently emitted by the proteins are
infrared, which means that they are not visible by the naked eye (10). In order to see the
fluorescence, Cohen’s team had to create specialized microscopes for the purpose (10). Such
equipment will take time for other labs to set up (10).
Moving forward, the team would like to use Arch to track neuronal activity in
zebrafish and C. elegans (11).
- XXXX’14 is a XXXX concentrator in XXXX House
Sources:
1. Kralj JM, Douglass AD, Hochbaum DR, Maclaurin D, Cohen AE. 2012. Optical recording of
action potentials in mammalian neurons using a microbial rhodopsin. Nature Methods 9: 9095.
2. Homma R et al. 2009. Wide-field and two-photon imaging of brain activity with voltageand calcium-sensitive dyes. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B. Biol. Sci. 364: 2453-2467.
17
3. Jiang J & Yuste R. 2008. Second-harmonic generation imaging of membrane potential with
photon counting. Microsc. Microanal. 14: 526-531.
4. Popovic MA, Foust AJ, McCormick DA, & Zecevic D. 2011. The spatio-temporal
characteristics of action potential initiation in layer 5 pyramidal neurons: a voltage imaging
study. J. Physiol. (Lond.) 589: 4167-4187.
5. Akemann W, Mutoh H, Perron A, Rossier J & Knopfel T. 2010. Imaging brain electric
singals with genetically targeted voltage-sensitive fluorescent proteins. Nature Methods 7:
643-649.
6. Tian L et al. 2009. Imaging neural activity in worms, flies and mice with improved GCaMP
calcium indicators. Nature Methods 6: 875-881.
7. Kralj JM, Hochbaum DR, Douglass AD, Cohen AE. 2011. Electrical spiking in Escherichia
coli probed with a fluorescent voltage indicating protein. Science 333: 345-348.
8. Ihara K et al. 1999. Evolution of the archaeal rhodopsins: evolution rate changes by gene
duplication and functional differentiation. J. Mol. Bio. 285: 163-174.
9. Reuell, Peter. 2011. Harvard researcher creates neurons that illuminate as they fire.
Harvard Gazette.
10. O’Donnell, Erin. 2012. Light-up neurons. Harvard Magazine.
11. Boyle, Rebecca. 2011. A Dead Sea microbe’s fluorescent protein sheds light on brain
activity. Popular Science.
5. Feature Article: Modern Architecture: How Choice Architecture Is Shaping Our Food Choices
Anyone who has ever gone to a Mexican restaurant where waiters give you a basket of
fresh tortilla chips and a bowl of salsa while you wait for your food can understand the power
of environment and our brain’s automatic system on our choices. Despite the fact that you
were excited to eat the enchilada you ordered, you were hungry and talking and suddenly
you have overdosed on chips. You have been making this mistake since you were a kid with
your parents warning “Don’t fill up on bread!” Despite your rationality and self-control, some
mindless reaction took over, combined with the fact that everyone else was eating the chips,
and now you are full before dinner has even arrived.
Situations like this, and dozens of others that people encounter on a daily basis, illustrate
the way that choice architecture can shape our decisions. Choice architecture is the
structured “context in which people make decisions,” or the way the design and layout of
options and information shape human behavior (1). Take the visit to the Mexican restaurant
as an example – small details such as the layout of the menu, the availability of free chips,
and the size of the dishes all can affect the food the customer chooses and the amount of
food he or she eats. The term “choice architecture” was first defined by behavioral economist
Richard Thaler and legal scholar Cass Sunstein in their book Nudge, in which they outlined
how choices can be designed to help people make better decisions to improve their wellbeing. Thaler and Sunstein explain that the use of choice architecture to “nudge” people with
environmental cues is part of their political theory of “libertarian paternalism.” People’s
choices are guided through choice architecture, but people still have the freedom to choose
to ignore that guidance, and the applications are wide-ranging: from the design of
retirement plans to cell phone settings and dining hall layouts (1,2).
At a time when obesity rates continue to increase in the United States despite news
stories and education campaigns urging individuals eat better and exercise more, the idea of
choice architecture offers some exciting public health possibilities. Policy makers and public
health officials are becoming more concerned with the environmental factors contributing to
18
American’s growing weight. Issues such as the lack of sidewalks or bike lanes in residential
issues, the accessibility of soft drinks in schools, or “food deserts” in cities are being seen as
pathways through which the poor health habits of citizens can be addressed, and greater
study is going into the ways in which the structure of our surroundings affects our choices as
individuals. Following this line of thought, choice architecture has emerged as a potentially
powerful tool for addressing Americans’ problematic diets.
The discussion of obesity often becomes tied up with views of individual responsibility
and willpower. As the argument goes, if people know what food is unhealthy and continue to
eat that food they are responsible for their actions and health. This contention is behind the
view of humans as “homo economicus,” or beings ruled by rationality and self-interest,
making the decisions that provide the greatest benefits to them. Choice architecture,
however, builds off studies in behavioral economics and social psychology that explain why
human behavior so often fails to follow this model (1,2). The description of the brain’s
functions that many psychologists and neuroscientists use today categorizes thinking into
two types: Reflective and Automatic. The Reflective System is the system associated with
controlled, “reflective, goal-oriented” thinking, the sort of thinking that we typically mean
when we say we “are thinking” (1,2). By contrast, the Automatic System is the thoughts that
require “little or no cognitive engagement,” or the reactions triggered by environmental cues
and immediate feelings – the sort of thinking we would call instinctive (1,2).
As a result of our dual-system thought process, our reflective thoughts are constantly
shaped or biased by our automatic thoughts in ways we often may not realize. Rules of
thumb, for example, or principles we hold that have broad application but aren’t necessarily
accurate for specific situations, are helpful and often necessary for making quick decisions in
life, but they can lead to systematic biases because of how automatic and reflective thoughts
function as we try to reason in situations with limited information. We start with what we
know and use assumptions based on previous knowledge to reason our way to an answer
that feels right, a process that relies heavily on our automatic thoughts to guide our
reasoning. People are also optimistic to a fault, especially when estimating personal immunity
from harm. Our aversion to loss gives us a strong desire to stick with what we know,
regardless of whether that may be doing us more harm than good, and we tend to stick with
the status quo leading to what is called the “status quo bias.” We are also incredibly
susceptible to how the framing of a question can determine the answer we choose. As Thaler
and Sunstein explain, the “Reflective System does not do the work that would be required to
check and see whether reframing the questions would produce a different answer”(1).
Consequently, busy people make thousands of choices daily without relying on the Reflective
System alone. Even if they could, the immense number of factors to consider -- from
personal rules of thumb to loss aversion and status quo bias – would freeze our action while
we tried different permutations to come to a rational decision.
Additionally, even when we do know how we should act, studies suggest self-control
is a more complex mental process than one might think. Research in neuroeconomics has
found that self-control also can be understood as the result of a two-system process with
each person containing a “Planner” and a “Doer.” The Planner works towards long-term
welfare, but the Doer reacts to instant temptations, which can be will-bendingly strong (1).
When a temptation occurs we try to assess the situation to determine how to react to the
temptation, which requires the thought process molded by the Automatic and Reflective
thoughts and subject to all the biases listed above. In short, each decision is a mess of
interactions between long-term goals, short-term temptations, reasoning based on limited
knowledge, and instant reactions and biases.
19
Taking these complex thought processes into account, people can implement choice
architecture to guide the decision-making process and, ideally, help the individual make the
decision in their best interests. This can be done by:
1. Creating the path of least resistance through helpful default settings. Even if the
individual should forget or not know how to act the default will give them the
option that is probably in line with their long-term goals and reflective thoughts.
For example, if the default free appetizer at the Mexican restaurant was a small
plate of fruit unless the customer requested a basket of chips.
2. Anticipating individuals’ errors, such as how Gmail will notice if you have typed
the word “attached” in your email but forgotten to attach the document.
3. Giving feedback that helps guide decisions as well as incentives for making certain
choices.
4. Structuring complex choices, keeping in mind the power of framing in shaping the
answer to a question or the outcome of a choice (3).
In public health, health research, and public policy, choice architecture is increasingly
being studied and implemented to help people make healthier choices in a simple, low-cost,
and legislation-free way without reducing the options for individuals. A study done in
Jerusalem found that the position of food choices on a menu influences the meals people
chose. The researchers tested first in a hypothetical situation, with 240 Hebrew University
students selecting dishes from four different menu versions. Each student chose one item
from each of four categories on one menu– appetizer, entrée, drink, and dessert – and each
category had a different number of options. The researchers found that regardless of the
popularity of an individual item overall, it was chosen more often when it was placed at the
beginning or end of its category. The researchers then conducted a similar test in a real café
in which customers were given one of two different menus and meals chosen were recorded
with respect to where the option was placed on the menu the customer used. In both the
hypothetical and the real situation studies, the researchers found that the menu items at the
beginning or end of the category increased in popularity by 20 percent regardless of the size
or kind of food in the category (4). Although the researchers do not yet have an explanation
for these results, the information can be implemented to guide people to healthier food
options. One organization in Worchester, Massachusetts has begun doing just that.
WooFood, a nonprofit started by three medical students at the University of Massachusetts in
Worcester in 2010, offers certification in “Culinary Choice Architecture,” which they describe
“brings restaurants through a rigorous but business-friendly process to make the healthful
choice the easy choice” (5).
Another study conducted in a larger hospital dining hall assessed whether using
choice architecture to restructure the layout and labeling of food and beverage options could
increase the sales of healthy options. A joint study by the Harvard Business School and
Harvard School of Public Health implemented two phases of changes in a large hospital
cafeteria. For the first three months options were labeled red, yellow, or green indicating
whether the food or drink was unhealthy, neutral, or healthy, respectively. In the following
three months the colored labels were kept and the cafeteria layout was redesigned to
increase the visibility and convenience of some of the green items. In the first phase, the
sale of unhealthy beverages decreased 16.5 percent, and then another 11.4 percent with the
20
redesigning of the cafeteria. The sale of healthy beverages, conversely, increased 9.6%
percent then an additional 4percent after the redesign (6). Further studies are currently
underway, many through the Behavior and Health Research Unit at the University of
Cambridge Institute of Public Health. One research project is looking at “altering choice
architecture to change population behavior to improve outcomes” and another addresses the
“acceptability to the public of intervention to change behavior” (7).
The latter study brings up an important concern with the efficacy of choice
architecture. According to the researchers’ synopsis, it will address how the acceptability of
public health interventions varies between the policy-makers and the public , as well as how
successful the intervention are, partially as a result of public acceptance (7). As other
researchers have highlighted, only a few choice architecture public health interventions have
been evaluated for effectiveness in changing behavior, or for their ability to achieve and
sustain long-term behavior change, which is what is needed to improve and maintain health
(2). This is in part due to the small number of studies so far, and to the fact that the
conducted studies have not yet been evaluated over a long time period. The idea of
influencing people’s choices in ways that may not be aware of can make people
uncomfortable. In response, Thaler and Sunstein argue that people are always influenced by
the design of choices, whether or not intentionally. Design is never neutral (1). Additionally,
they argue, choice architecture does not limit people’s freedom to choose, unlike a public
ban on soft drinks, for instance (1). Should they desire, people can always ignore the green
labels or make the trek to the inconveniently placed cookies. Ignass Devisch, a professor of
ethics, philosophy and medical philosophy at Ghent University in Belgium, argues that, if
used properly, implementing choice architecture instead of legislation and regulation can
preserve an individual’s freedom to choose while also organizing our environment in a way
that makes healthy behavior more likely (8).
On the other hand, some public health experts fear that choice architecture could
have unintended consequences on health and weight-gain. Labeling food as healthy could
make people ignore the calories, as they may assume healthy is a justification for larger
portions (2). Focusing on choice architecture could also divert attention from stricter public
health measures that could be more effective. For example, pricing interventions and the
regulation of food labeling and marketing to children have been shown to be likely to create
the largest health gains in the shortest amount of time. Additionally, choice architecture may
not create diet changes on the scale needed to truly have an impact on obesity rates (2).
Viewing choice architecture as a replacement to public health regulations could slow or hurt
the overall goal of combating obesity and poor nutrition.
Nevertheless, given the results that choice architecture has already shown in menu
compositions and dining hall restructurings, it is likely that it will increasingly be used in
public health interventions to address the issue of individual food choices and obesity.
Certainly, though, its efficacy in relation to public acceptance and supplementing or replacing
public health regulations does need to be studied further if it is to be the powerful health tool
many researchers believe it could be.
- XXXX’14 is a XXXX concentrator in XXXX House
Sources:
1. R.H. Thaler and C.R. Sunstein. Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and
Happiness. (Yale University Press, New Haven, 2008).
21
2. T.M. Marteau, D. Ogilvie, M. Roland, M. Suhrcke, M.P. Kelly, Judging nudging: can
nudging improve population health? British Medical Journal 342, 228 (Jan 25, 2011).
3. R.H. Thaler, C.R. Sunstein, J.P. Balz, Choice Architecture. (University of Pennsylvania,
2010).
4. E. Dayan, M. Bar-Hillel, Nudge to nobesity: Menu positions influence food choice.
Judgment and Decision Making, 6, 4 (Jun, 2011).
5. WooFood website. (WooFood, 2012).
6. A.N. Thorndike, L. Sonnenberg, J. Riis, S. Barraclough, and D.E. Levy, “A 2-phase labeling
and choice architecture intervention to improve healthy food and beverage choices.”
American Journal of Public Health, 102, 3 (Mar, 2012).
7. Behavior and Health Research Unit website. (BHRU, University of Cambridge, Institute of
Public Health, 2012).
8. I. Devisch, Progress in medicine: autonomy, oughtonomy and nudging. Journal of
Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 17, 5 (Jul 28, 2011).
22
HARVARD SCIENCE REVIEW
PROPOSAL SUBMISSION SHEET
Please complete and email to Harvard.sci.review@gmail.com by
Sunday, September 22, 2013 by 11:59 PM.
Name:
Class Year:
Concentration:
Cell Phone:
Dorm/Room Number:
1. Have you written for HSR or any other science publication before? If so, which
ones/what type of article?
2. Please list THREE other topics/ideas you would be willing to write about besides
your proposed topic, in order of preference:
Please attach your proposal to this submission sheet.
23
SAMPLE PROPOSAL
Introductory paragraph:
While humans are fascinating in many respects, each one of us represents a compelling paradox.
We possess features with incredibly high energetic expenses. Our uniquely large brain tissue
demands (dd) of our basal metabolic rate, regardless of cognitive effort. This high degree of
encephalization (brain: body size ratio) carries further metabolic costs. Large, complex brains
require a long time to grow, resulting in extended gestation, lactation, and juvenile periods, during
which a mother must provide not only for herself, but also for the hungry brain (and body) of her
offspring. Yet, despite these costs, humans are profligate energy spenders. Interbirth intervals tend
to be short, saddling mothers with the metabolic burdens of multiple dependents; meanwhile, our
high calorie needs necessitate considerable effort to be spent on obtaining food. So, how did our
ancestors not only survive, but thrive into the populous species Homo sapiens of today? According
to scientists such as Harvard University’s Richard Wrangham, the answers to these questions may
lie at the hearth.
Outline:
I. Introduction: The Human Paradox
A. Human morphology and life history patterns are notably energetically expensive.
i. Morphology
- Highly encephalized (large brain: body size ratio, bigger than predicted for
primate of our size)
ii. Life history patterns
- Long, costly gestation period (9 mos, internal)
- Extended post-natal dependence: lactation, juvenile period
B. But humans retain a high rate of reproduction, with overlapping offspring.
iii. Even higher energetic demands!
C. How did we surmount these energetic barriers?
D. Segue into cooking: something like “The answers to this question in human history
may lie at the hearth.”
II. Brief review of early views/scientific route to cooking hypothesis
A. “Man the Hunter” Hypothesis
i. Did observed, energetically costly increases in brain size, female body result
simply from increased consumption of animal products?
ii. Support: stone (hunting) tools, energy density of meat/marrow
iii. Criticism: riskiness of hunting (seen w/chimpanzees and hunter gatherers),
chewing/digestive effort required, etc.
B. Wrangham and Laden – Were USOs the answer?
i. USOs (underground storage organs; i.e., tubers) as fallback food
- Supported by evolutionary changes in dental morphology
ii. Suggest increase in diet quality(energy density) may have come “artificially”
by processing food
- Non-thermal (pounding, grinding, etc.) vs. thermal processing (cooking)
III. An in-depth look at the “Cooking Hypothesis”
24
A. How does cooking change food?
i. Starch: gelatinization
ii. Meat: protein denaturation, hydrolysis of collagen matrix
B. Do these changes translate into increased energetic gains?
i. Disparity between nutritional conventions (calculated by bomb calorimetry)
and actual/net gains – how do/should we define calories biologically?
ii. Observational studies suggest yes
Koebnick et al.
raw foodists struggle to maintain body weight, show signs of energy
deficiency (e.g., amenorrhea)
iii. Recent work – highlight Carmody and Wrangham’s work, esp. with mice
- Starch results
- Meat results
C. Evolutionary plausibility: archaeological evidence
i. Controversy over taming of fire/when cooking truly began
- Gesher Benot Ya’aqov, Wonderwork are strong evidence for taming of fire,
but associated leaps in brain size, etc. pre-date them
- Difficulty of finding evidence/judging when fire began
D. Dental evidence
i.Changes in tooth morphology
ii. Changes in mandibular/jaw robusticity
IV. Conclusion
A. Summary of Cooking Hypothesis and challenges
B. Importance to present as well as past
i. How many calories do we actually ingest (vs. reported, USDA values)?
ii. Using knowledge of energetic consequences of cooking/food processing for
public health issues
- Obesity and malnutrition: could we manipulate degree of processing to
design optimal diets for each state?
Iii. Final sentence: something about how cooking offers/may not only aid us in
understanding our evolutionary past, but help us improve our future.
Preliminary reference list:
Aiello LC & Wheeler P. The expensive tissue hypothesis: The brain and the digestive
system in human and primate evolution. Curr. Anthropology, 36, 199-221.
Babbitt et al. (2011). Genomic signatures of diet-related shifts during human origins. P.
Roy. Soc. Lond., B278, 961-969.
Carmody, RN. (2012). Energetic consequences of thermal and non- thermal food
processing. Doctoral dissertation, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.
Carmody RN & Wrangham RW. The energetic significance of cooking. J. Human Evol.,
57, 379-391.
25
Koebnick, C., Strassner, C., Hoffmann, I., & Leitzmann, C. (1999). Consequences of a longterm raw
food diet on body weight and menstruation: results of a questionnaire survey. Annals of Nutrition
and Metabolism, 43, 69-79.
Laden G & Wrangham R. 2005. The rise of the hominids as an adaptive shift in fallback
foods:plant underground storage organs (USOs) and australopith origins. J. Hum. Evol.,
49, 482-498.
Wrangham, R. (2009). Catching fire: How cooking made us human. New York: Basic
Books.
26