Tuesday, November 24, 2015

Interview with Dr. Tom Yin


I’m very excited to have Dr. Yin here, not only because he is my former postdoc adviser, but because during the four years I worked with him, when he was overburdened with administrative duties, we never had a conversation as long as this one.

Fiona: Your independent research began at University of Wisconsin Madison 38 years ago. Over the years, what was the biggest change you have observed in the way people conduct research?

Dr. Yin: I think the biggest difference is that faculty now spend much more time writing grant proposals than I did. Of course the reason for that is the present prolonged period of tight funding compared to when I started out. Funding has usually been rather cyclical with up and down cycles but the present 5-10 year severe depression is very worrisome, especially as there is no end in sight. During most of my research career, one expected to get funded when applying to NIH. Nowadays, it seems like the hope is not to be triaged! As a consequence I only wrote about 10 grant proposals during that 38 year period. Nowadays, PIs are writing that many proposals in 2 or 3 years!! I couldn’t possibly come up so many ideas for grants.

Fiona: As a young investigator, I totally agree. If the overall funding situation remains, could you think of strategies the government may adopt to ease up the competition?

Dr. Yin: One of the irritating aspects of present NIH funding is that there are quite a few very large laboratories that have multiple NIH grants. I personally know several labs with 8 and 9 R01 grants. I believe NIH is now implementing a policy to prevent this from happening, but I would strongly recommend that some reasonable cap (two or three) be implemented on the number of NIH grants to any given P.I. Obviously some policy on collaborative grants needs to be included in such a rule.

Fiona: Your lab is stuffed with equipment my age. Are there advantages of using primitive electronics over the fancy ones made more recently?

Dr. Yin: No, I just have a difficult time throwing anything away so the old equipment stays in the lab.

Fiona: Really? I thought there were old-equipment magic. At the moment, what is the biggest obstacle in the auditory research that hinders further advancement of the field? In other words, what existing problem would you like to be solved first?

Dr. Yin: I think the biggest problem in brain research, not just auditory, is to understand how the nervous system integrates information from individual neurons to produce perception, action, decisions, and other higher order functions. We now know a lot about how individual neurons respond to different stimuli or to produce different actions, and under different behavioral conditions but we understand very little about how the responses of many neurons are integrated to generate behavior. In visual research this is often referred to as the binding problem: how does the CNS take information about the shape, color, orientation, 3D form, etc. of an object which appears to be encoded by different visual areas and put it all together to give us a percept of a person running, for example.

Fiona: When a large department with a long history recruits new faculty, what are the major considerations people tend to have?

Dr. Yin: There are a number of important considerations that departments generally have when looking to hire new faculty. Among them are the following: the faculty member has a history of productive research as judged by publications during the graduate and post-doctoral years, that he/she is doing interesting and important research that has a high likelihood of getting funded in the future, sometimes departments are looking for faculty working in specific areas, indications that the faculty member will be a good colleague within the department and school with interest in collaboration with existing labs, and the faculty member will be a good mentor and teacher.

Fiona: You’ve trained more than a dozen graduate students and postdocs. Despite the escalating competition, all but two successfully landed jobs in academia. Did you only recruit students who were willing to make a commitment, or was there a secret in how you mentored them?

Dr. Yin: No, I don’t think I ever asked a student if they were interested in an academic career, at least not when they applied to work in the lab so this was not a way to screen potential students. I think I was lucky to find students and postdocs who were really talented and hardworking and also really liked doing science and just wanted that to be their career. Having a productive graduate and postgraduate experience also helps.

Fiona: I still think there has to be something more than luck. Would you like to offer some advice to young researchers in their earlier careers?

Dr. Yin: I always tell students who are considering a research career that the most important thing to me is that you be excited about doing research. It’s unlikely that you will become rich or famous in academia, so what has to drive you during the inevitable hard times when experiments aren’t working or funding is tight or reviewers are obstinate is the love of the science. So if you aren’t excited about coming into the lab in the morning, then try to work on a problem that will get you excited.

Fiona: And if we fail in the end, at least we’ve had some wonderful time. That might be too permissive. Let me put it the other way: if we are excited about what we do, we have a better chance of getting the reviewers excited. Okay, thank you so much, my mentor! I wish you a happy retirement (with still more teaching responsibilities, of course)!


Sunday, November 22, 2015

Interview with Dr. Yitang (Tom) Zhang


I recently had a phone interview with Dr. Zhang, Professor of Mathematics at University of New Hampshire. Although brief, our conversation left me with the impression that he is a humble and dedicated scientist who does not cease taking new journeys in the area of Number Theory after the receipt of the 2014 MacArthur Award.

Fiona: You once disputed the view of mathematicians as geeks who have few connections with the real world. Do you ever feel the need to discuss your projects with your peers?

Dr. Zhang:  I used to spend many hours thinking about mathematics without communicating with other people. To me, the initial exploration of a new problem involves a lot of intuition. You may have some feeling about the possible strategies that could work or the direction it’s heading toward, but articulating your thoughts to others can be difficult. The nature of my research determines that I’m not in a business that invites teamwork or benefits from collaborations. A mathematician needs to endure solitude, and I have been avoiding activity that’s unlikely to yield a meaningful outcome.

Fiona: That’s interesting. What you have described sounds almost like artistic creation. What got you interested in the study of twin primes conjecture? How would you summarize its impact?

Dr. Zhang: I have known this conjecture for many years. It is interesting to many people, not only to me. I think it’s possible that more hypotheses in this area may stem from my work, but that could take a while and, for now, it’s not clear.

Fiona: You once said there are other on-going projects you are proud of, but wouldn’t want to throw them out yet?

Dr. Zhang: Yes, but it is not easy to describe them right now. All I can say is that they don’t quite belong to the same category of the problem I have just solved. And I can’t map out a timeline when they might be finished. It could happen one day unexpectedly, just like the last time.

Fiona: How does your mind engage in different research topics?

Dr. Zhang: I used to concentrate on one problem, but also try to know what happened to others. To me, there is no boundary that separates work from the rest of my life. When I’m working on a problem, it lingers in my mind all the time.

Fiona: In physics, a law doesn’t have to be unconditional or universal to be valuable. People constantly bring up new theories that overwrite an old principle or exceed its limit. Is being right or wrong more absolute in mathematics? Do you agree with what Michio Kaku said about God being a mathematician?

Dr. Zhang:  In mathematics the situation might be different. For example, it was Euclid who first proved that there are infinitely many prime numbers. Today we can only say this is true. Although sometimes I do marvel at the exquisite structure of math and its power to explain the physical world, generally I’m not a philosophical person who likes to dwell on the origin or purpose of life.

Fiona: If you were given a chance to go back in time and rebuild your career, would you have done anything differently? Did you remain optimistic during the days when things didn’t work out?

Dr. Zhang: I might have done something differently, as I have learned many lessons from my academic career. For example, at the beginning, I should have listed all possible methods that could apply to my problem; once I ignored some of them, I wasted time. But I used to be optimistic, as I regarded the difficult time was just the start of a new road.

(插入作者高妹/Fiona的话:向大家推荐我正在连载的玄幻---武打---佛道---言情故事《魅羽活佛》,晋江链接:http://www.jjwxc.net/onebook.php?novelid=4880087  故事简介:鬼道中的魇荒门,七个师姐妹都以绝世美颜著称。然而这次的任务中,二弟子魅羽却要化作一个中年油腻肥秃僧,卷入佛国、道门,和修罗界的斗争. 还要让咱们古往今来文采武功都称霸天下的帅哥活佛,对她一见倾心,矢志不渝。)

 晋江文学城链接《魅羽活佛》

Fiona: You mentioned you don’t like the distractions of a large team. Do you plan to recruit students in the near future?

Dr. Zhang: I have been considering this problem, but no decision has been made. In the past few years, I have received several applications from prospective students, most of whom were Chinese. Because those were not full applications but Letters of Interest, with limited mentoring experience, I was uncertain how to judge the qualification of the applicant and whether a match existed.
            Of course, I want my students to eventually become masters of the field, not just qualified graduates who could find jobs. In the past summers, I was invited to spend time in the Chinese Academy of Sciences, where I saw clear talents in their students. I have been interacting with and advising a few of them, but a formal relationship is yet to be established.

Fiona: I hope something would work out soon. What is your favorite course to teach?

Dr. Zhang: It is hard to say. I love teaching various courses. Giving lectures in a classroom is different from mentoring graduate students. I have more experience with the former but little with the latter.

Fiona: Would you like to say something about the western academia and scientists in their early careers?

Dr. Zhang: What the academia here attracts me the most is the freedom to pursue topics we are interested in. I’d like to tell the young scientists: if you really love sciences, do not give up easily.



Wednesday, November 18, 2015

泛谈评估

  
我之前常去一个业余作家网站,那儿很多人都对AmazonCustom Review系统有意见。有些人说,在他们出的书的读者留言中,很明显有些是根本没有读过这本书而留了一星级的评估。还有些或许读过,但出于某种不明的恶意原因,指鹿为马,给他们的书写了完全不靠谱的差评。虽然每个review在提交时,都是会经过Amazon专门人员审查的,而且对即使已经通过审查发表了的review也可以举报abuse,但Amazon的原则是只能对谩骂侮辱啦,与本产品全不相关的评论,或者借机给别的产品打广告之类的review才会“删帖封人”。

然而经过讨论,多数人的意见是,对于那些恶意的差评,实在没有办法。因为你就算有足够证据证明这个顾客是没读过你的书的,那你对于下一个读了一半的呢?还有就是读了几页认为太差读不下去上来发火的呢?这你总不能说人家无理吧?总之,举报实行起来的难度就在于Where to draw the line? 到底哪些算是合理的negative review,哪些是应该被删除的,这是很难做客观判断的。尤其作为作者本人,你当然觉得自己写的好,可能大部分差评对你来说都是没有道理,或者有道理但太过火的。谁会觉得自己的孩子丑啊?如果由你来定,那差评就给删的差不多了,那这个评价系统整体也就失去了意义。还有的作家说,别光说差评了,有些书或产品一堆的五星,摆明就是虚假的,这又如何去举报?

所以说,It’s not a perfect system. 任何一个类似的系统,都会给人钻这样那样的空子。但总体来说,由用户来自由评论产品的优劣,既可以帮potential 买主做决定,又可以对产商和作者进行质量监督并提供具体的反馈,这是非常好的一种双赢政策。对卖主讲,刚收到差评时肯定不高兴,但过一阶段等心情平复了琢磨琢磨,通常都是有些道理。比如有人说我的书极欠景物描写,我一开始为自己辩护,心说《傲慢与偏见》里基本没有任何景物描写,也不妨碍它成为经典。但后来想想,在其他条件一定的情况下,当然还是生动的景物描写可以更好地把读者带入情节。

即使是对于完全不constructive的负面意见,也没有必要感到难过。不要说像Dan Brown这种因为写宗教题材而引起强烈争议的作家了,即使如Gone with the wind之类的经典,也有极少数的一星评论。而且很明显写评论的是读过这本书的,很理性的读者,有的读者甚至因为不能喜欢这本书而觉得痛心。也就是说,You can’t please everybody. 这点谁也不能做到。而且这也完全不影响其他读者尝试或者喜欢你的作品。恶意中伤的总是少数,不切实际的吹捧带来的反弹其实更糟。大众毕竟有大众的判断力。一个作家有一部分差评没有关系,如果都是差评没有好评,那就说明水平有一定问题,但也还不丢人。

真正丢人的,是少数作家对于差评不能handle而丧失理性。举两个例子,一个女作家写了几本erotica的书,可以说把erotica这个题材里最关键的那个字,orgasm,写成了organism,可想而知读者会留下什么样的评论了。当然除了这点她还有其它问题,比如被查出注册不同账号给自己写好评。关键是这个作家在很多Amazon读者review的下面留下了comment和读者进行争吵,这其实是她最不明智的举动,比有错别字难看多了。另一个女作家把即将出版的新书寄给一个书评博客评审,也是被发现很多错别字。其实我看了那人的评论,都算是很礼貌很客观的了,估计换成真的读者肯定比这糟。结果这个作家就在网上公开骂人家,有些观众看不下去回了帖,也被她骂。当时她的劣行被大量传播,一时“声名大噪”,甚至有人预言她的书会热卖,因为可能有人就是想看看到底差到什么地步。

所以我一直很欣赏Raymond Chandler的一段话:I have made three rules of writing for myself that are absolutes: Never take advice. Never show or discuss work in progress. Never answer a critic. 你可以说这段话透着高傲,但却不是没有道理。作为一个政治家,回答公众的问题是必须的。作为一个艺术家,最好就是对任何评论置之不理。在短期内这样看来是很吃亏,尤其是人家曲解你的时候,但从长远来看,是非常明智的一种姿态。就像台上的演员不应该和台下观众拌嘴一样。你以你对于艺术的理解,选择自己的方式来诠释,摆出来给人看就行了。别人如何评论不是你应该操心和试图改变的。

这里岔开来说一下采纳群众建议的问题。上面的quote里说的Never take advice. 看起来高傲,仔细分析来这个问题很复杂。除了前面提到的众口难调,你实在无法让所有人都满意之外,还牵扯到一个作家为何要写作的基本问题。你写作的目的是要说出大家都想听到的话呢,还是说你自己最想说的?表面看来,前者更容易卖钱。你或者可以说,这是基本的商业准则,哪里有市场,就去那里发展,干嘛要制造谁都不需要的呢?不过艺术创作毕竟和产品制作不同。严格来说,只有如鲠在喉,不吐不快的话,才是有必要说出来的,无论你的观点是让人舒服还是难受。先去揣摩大众想听什么,然后假装这就是自己的想法,自是空洞无比。看看哪种故事卖的最好,就去模仿来写,肯定全无新意。一个人做的最出色的事,只能是发自内心,而且最enjoy的事。这才是Never take advice的本意。

啰嗦了这么多,其实是因为最近在考虑有关教学评估的问题。我想任何接受过期末匿名评估的老师,肯定都见过完全相反的评论和建议,这时候通常会苦笑一声,你看看,这我可就没办法了,我怎么做都有人不满意是吧?松也不对,严也不对。就像我上学期期中自己搞了个非正式评估(第一次教课先探探水吧),每个多项选择都是有选完全相反的选项的,比如有人认为下半学期的课应该减少topic但增大深度,就必有人选择希望减少深度。但奇怪的是,让他们自由发挥提意见的时候,大部分人提的却惊人的相似,让你无法不当回事儿。

Amazon的书评系统一样,匿名评估也是不完美而且可以被利用的。隔壁贴有人提到过,曾见到极具侮辱歧视性质的评论,可惜不知道是谁写的。也有老师说,几乎有把握确定是谁写的。其实这样费神没有多少意义。如果有少许恶意评论,大部分人都很positive,又有谁会在意那些明显与事实不符的评论?(要相信“领导们的英明”,呵呵。)读到有用的建议,记下来争取改进;没用的,笑笑放过就当没看见。如果为了揪出那少许几个人,破坏了这么好的反馈系统,实在是得不偿失。

另外,开头还说了个问题就是Where do you draw the line? 有些话看来很过分,很出格,但其实算是legitimate的评论。比如有学生说,你水平非常差,根本不配当一个老师。听到这话自然是伤心加生气了,尤其是其他学生都认为你是个好老师的时候。但从另一个方面讲,如果这个学生就是这么认为的,无论是否有根据,这就是他的看法,还是应该让人家说话(当然只能在该说的时候说,写在卷子上就不对了)。这里牵扯到的一个问题就是,错误的评论是否是合法的评论?每个人在发表意见的时候,都是基于他已有的经历,价值观,处世哲学。他的评论是受他个人水平和境界局限的。即使妄下评论的人,也是因为性格使然。而且对错毕竟是很主观的东西,很多时候就像前面说的书评,不是非黑即白的。

当然了,就像Amazon也是有基本审批一样,有些恶意攻击还是可以明确定性的。比如如果一个学生说我是idiot,  中国猪,女人就别出来工作了,这种话就是明显的违规。我觉得判断标准是不是可以这样,就是他的评论,无论对错,是relevant,还是irrelevant。配不配做一个老师,毕竟是与教学相关的,但上面举出的例子,就超出了他应该进行评估的范围了。

说完教学评估,再扯高一点儿。西方提倡的言论自由,就是一个类似的,不完美的体系。谁想说什么都行,自然会给心术不正,或者水平有限的人给滥用了。但总的来说,利是大于弊的。防民之口甚于防川。如果他们说的不对,群众还是有判断力的,不是那么容易给糊弄的。如果给他们戳到痛处,就证明自己确实有问题。在这种情况下,堵着不给说,后果只能更严重。


Sunday, November 15, 2015

Interview with Dr. Cecil Thomas

 By Fiona Rawsontile, Nov 2015

Dr. Thomas is special to me, because he founded the Biomedical Engineering Department at Saint Louis University (SLU), without which I might have left academia by now. He is also special, compared with other interviewees who mostly focus on research, in that he has tremendous experience in building academic programs, designing curricula, exploring novel teaching techniques, and helping underdeveloped countries.

Fiona: You worked in industry before you became a faculty member at Case Western Reserve, and again in North Coast Engineering as the President before you founded SLU’s BME department. There seems to exist a “force” that always drives you back to academic.

Dr. Thomas: North Coast Engineering was my consulting group while I was a professor at CWRU. Graduate students and I used NCE to work on a few contracts outside of CWRU. The main effect was funding for graduate students.

Fiona: That was nice.

After my MS degree, I worked with Martin Marietta in Orlando. MM was a defense contractor, and I worked in a research division where we investigated new ideas and new techniques that could lead to new products. On at least a dozen occasions, I was temporarily assigned to a short-term project that was a kind of emergency for MM or for DOD. In each case, I joined a small group of engineers in an assignment that could be characterized by here are the data from some situation, what does it mean, and what should MM do. While all those projects were classified, the engineering content was great, and I had a chance to work with others whose expertise differed from mine. All those projects provided great engineering experience, and a few ventured into physics and chemistry.

My division directors at MM encouraged me to pursue a PhD degree. I recall that family members thought I was crazy to quit a really good job in order to go back to school. I moved for two reasons. As much as I enjoyed the engineering work at MM, I wanted to learn about a new field called bionics which was absorbed into biomedical engineering. I also wanted to work in an area that focuses more directly on benefits to humans.

As a PhD student, I was recruited by CWRU after experience in teaching and a few research projects. I did consider an industrial position, but for reasons that are not totally clear, I thought a university environment was a better fit for me.

Fiona: Well, sometimes our subconsciousness makes the best decisions for us. What aspect of Higher Education attracts you the most?

Dr. Thomas: Being a university professor and being an engineer in the MM research division were not all that different. In both cases I worked on projects that could be funded and projects that I found interesting. In university, I had more control over my project selection and research directions, and that independence was attractive. As a PhD student, I taught a course, and I found that experience to be enjoyable and challenging. As a result, I was attracted by the opportunity to teach and work with graduate students.

Fiona: What challenges or advantages you think are unique to faculty in Engineering compared with other disciplines?

Dr. Thomas: Engineering differs from other disciplines, but those differences are not huge, and the differences often make work more interesting. At CWRU, I was in engineering, but I also had an appointment in Experimental Psychology, specifically in a Perception Lab that focused on vision. In that Lab, my engineering expertise complemented the visual science and psychophysics expertise of my colleagues. Of course, engineers build things in hardware or software. In order to investigate brief visual phenomena, I built a video based system that opened some new avenues for research. We frequently talked about our different approaches, but our differences were always viewed as a strength in the Lab, and the differences enriched the experience of the graduate student.

Fiona: Biomedical engineering is a relatively new a discipline. When you tried to build the BME program at SLU with limited resource, what were the difficulties you had to face? Have you envisioned it to be what we have today or something rather different?

Dr. Thomas: I wanted to start the department with a PhD program first, and then expand to an undergraduate program. The SLU administration vetoed that approach, and we compromised to an approach of undergraduate degree first, and later a graduate program. At the beginning, that compromise was not totally comfortable, but after 6 years or so, the result was effectively the same. The department today is really what I wanted, thanks for you and the other great young faculty.

Fiona: I’m glad to hear that. Do you have advice for educators in the future who want to build new programs?

Dr. Thomas: In terms of starting a new program, I see two ways to start. With sufficient university commitment, a totally new department can emerge, i.e., Civil Engineering at SLU. The second approach is to build a specialty using faculty from multiple departments. For example, your Neuroscience program did not start as a department, but you had a group of faculty with similar interests who could work together to build something new. Both approaches are valid and appropriate. Which you use depends on the area and the faculty. The non-department start-up may be more appropriate when the focus is on graduate research.

Fiona: Do you have opinions about the general BME curriculum in the United States? Do you think students, upon graduation, are ready for jobs in industry? What aspects could have been strengthened?

Dr. Thomas: I recall when biomedical engineering programs were in two categories. The large majority was more engineering, i.e., more like the traditional engineering majors. The minority moved more in the direction of the biological sciences. In the past 20 years or so, those two populations have merged. There are still differences among universities, mostly due to different faculty expertise, but the differences are not that important.

I took my first job, after my MS degree, and I had doubts about my abilities. I found myself in a division where I was the new kid on the block; the next youngest was about 12 years older that I. The age difference quickly disappeared. I found that I had a few skills that could be useful to my group, and I found that others had engineering experience that I did not have. It was a teaching-learning situation.

BME graduates today seem to face similar situations. Even when they join a well-established group, our graduates have unique, and sometimes more up to date, skills that make them valuable employees.

While we might talk about minor changes in the curriculum, the main principle is to make the curriculum match the faculty. Secondly, graduates will give valuable feedback. Graduates tell us that they had the skills to be immediately productive, even while they learn new lab techniques. Faculty from other universities tell me that our graduates are prepared to be productive on day one.

Overall, maintain a curriculum that matches the faculty, listen to graduates in their new positions, and listen to faculty and employers who hire our graduates. Be willing to make minor corrections in the curriculum, and trust your judgment on what changes need to be made.

Fiona: As a junior faculty, I am yet to develop a practical strategy to help me get tenure. Do you have advice for non-tenured faculty in terms of self-planning for their career and surviving academic politics?

Dr. Thomas: My usual advice is to pursue you own interests and do the things you like to do. I think that is good, but it omits a lot of details.

Preparing for tenure and promotion varies with the area and the person. But generally, I suggest two things. First, the preparation should be the same as If you anticipate going to a new institution. Again, that may or may not be helpful. Secondly, create a track record and paper trail. The track record will build naturally, with pubs and grants and students. The paper train may be equally important. Record every act of research, teaching, or service. Even the simplest of items should be included, like giving a guest lecture in someone’s course, collaborating with colleagues in a start-up, serving on a committee, visiting a local school, and other event that you may consider to be minor.

Fiona: I know you have been constantly trying new teaching techniques. What is the key in being an effective teacher, in your opinion? Are there useful principles or tricks you would like to share with us?

Dr. Thomas: Tough question. I started using personal computers in lab and in courses, starting with the Apple II and a TRS80 (from Radio Shack). I did it because I wanted to use the computers. In hindsight, the computing aspect made courses more interesting and more challenging for students. The introduction of computers into courses was not well planned; it just happened. There was a lot of trial and error, and a lot of good advice and feedback and assistance from students.

Different faculty have different talents. A few can entertain students with a performance. Most of us in engineering do not have those entertainment skills, at least not for more than a few minutes.

I have used a course website for many years, and that was another experiment at the time. With or without a good textbook, students benefit from class notes, videos, or other references. The videos are especially interesting. The current undergraduates will be very attentive for any video, even a low-quality video. During a video may be the only time, other than exams, when I have their undivided attention. In ten years, the students and teaching tools will be different, but for now videos work, just as a personal computer worked in the 1980s.

From my own experience as a student and as a professor, I think the primary element for success it to like the material you present in courses. Students will recognize when a professor has enthusiasm for the course material or if the professor is just going through the motions. I have always been fortunate to teach courses that I really liked, and that made teaching fun for me. When it is fun for me, that enthusiasm transfers to students.

Fiona: You just mentioned the curriculum should match the faculty’s expertise, and I think it helps bring up the enthusiasm of the faculty teaching courses relevant to their research. Thank you so much for the invaluable advice, Dr. Thomas! Before we end, I’d like to hear about your exciting project in Haiti. Could you talk about the progress you made when you last visited there with the 13 SLU students? What is your goal next year?

Dr. Thomas: The 13 SLU students and I traveled to the northern region of Haiti in June 2015. We were accompanied by a Haitian student who expects to study Business in St Louis. The 15 of us tutored students in the small town of Plaine-du-Nord, where the SLU students spent three days with more than 160 Haitian students.  We spend a day at the factory of Meds & Food for Kids where they make a peanut-based food bar for undernourished children and pregnant women. The SLU students saw the process from growing peanuts to producing the final food products, and the infrastructure of the factory that includes producing its own electricity and potable water. On a day at a new campus of the University of Haiti, we met with the university administration about potential collaborations. Aside from those three main items, we made several short trips, including a day at the most popular tourist site in Milot, mass at the Cathedral in Cap-Haitian, and a morning at a beach. The trip was a wonderful experience for all of us, and we continue to meet and recall our Haiti experience.

Some current projects really started when we were in Haiti. There is so much to do in Haiti, its hard to know what to do first. We are addressing the lack of electricity and a new approach to reforestation. The goal is to provide solar power to families, starting with basic cooking and lighting. I want to have a few units of a prototype that can be tested by Haitian families, starting in February or March. Fortunately, several BME students are very excited about working on these projects, and of course, they contribute their own ideas.

Fiona commented: I guess seeing their knowledge being applied to help people was more rewarding than getting a good grade in class.

Dr. Thomas: We are also working on some specific plans for collaborative projects with the University of Haiti in Limonade. The university has a nice new campus, but it suffers from a lack of faculty. Many courses do not have teachers, and students cannot complete their degree requirements. We are looking at ways that we might use graduate students or postdocs to go to Haiti for 1-2 semesters to teach courses. That could relieve the current crisis and maybe allow the University to reach its potential.

Fiona: If you were a junior faculty like me, I might look at the outreach as a preparation toward NSF funding or tenure. But for someone who has just retired, it shows how a scientist and engineer is tied to the human society. What you have been doing matters, Dr. Thomas, and I’m proud of you as a colleague.