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.



Saturday, October 17, 2015

合适的伴侣

十星男人:德才兼备型。由于这种男人具备的是大智慧,不是小聪明,有时甚至会显得迂腐。幸运的会取得与才能匹配的成就,举世瞩目。不幸的因为不屑与环境同流合污,混的未必如意。外表通常比较谦虚和善,但内心其实是很有主见甚至固执的人。最适合的伴侣不一定是要和他一样高水平的,但一定要懂得欣赏他。切忌找个市侩的女子,整天数落他没用,要他转行挣钱。

九星:勤劳顾家型。有能力的会让家人过上很舒适的生活,没有能力的也不怕吃苦,反正不会亏了家里人。通常很喜欢孩子,也不在乎做下家务什么的。这种男人合适的伴侣范围相当广。既能辅佐女强人,又能养家庭主妇;女人一同持家也好,把钱拿来乱花他好像也不太在乎。

八星:咸鱼翻身型。具有极强的意志力,很多白手起家成为富翁的都是这种类型。他们和十星很大的区别是,虽然尽量守法,但道德不是压倒一切的,在关键地方如果必须干一点儿不太体面的事才会成功,也会干。这种男人因为很符合传统文化对男子汉的定义,合适的伴侣范围也相当广,但最适合小鸟依人类,没有事业可以和他走南闯北的。

七星:健谈幽默型。知识面广博,也总有很多意见要表达,很多笑话可讲。和十星一样,找个也健谈,或者能欣赏他的伴侣,会很快乐。但市侩的女人会觉得他不务正业,整天数落他,结果是搞得他更不着家。

六星:豪爽义气型。去到哪儿都能立马扎堆,即使跟其他国家的人都能建立友谊。朋友对他们很重要,结了婚也不能少了应酬,朋友要帮忙更是不在话下,出钱出力。有时会干一些诸如老婆还没出月子就在别人家吃喝太晚忘了回家做饭被数落的事。适合的伴侣是贤良淑惠通情达理的,不能斤斤计较。

五星:自强自尊型。这种男人有些在逆境中是比较能吃苦的,天性也不坏,就是别人的无心之言很容易当真。若是受了歧视更是几十年都不忘的。适合的伴侣是无论才情和经济能力都不如他的女子,对他崇拜的五体投地,才能一起过的开心。否则的话和他在一起会觉得很累。

四星:粗口难改型。自己也知道不好听,但改不了说话带脏字。有时甚至不是生气,而是用来加强语气。适合的伴侣是两个极端:要不就脾气好极怎么都温柔不生气的,要不就母老虎一个能反过来把他骂个底儿朝天的。

三星:喜新厌旧型。婚姻本是有苦有乐的,这种人只能享受最初的激动和喜悦。一旦浪漫期过了,马上变得事事都无兴趣,到了寻找新刺激的时候了。适合的伴侣吗,应该说没有适合的,最好谈一辈子恋爱。非要选一种出来,那就是不很在乎他,即使结婚了也让他觉得摸不着吃不准的,才有可能一直吊着他胃口。最不适合的就是死心眼苦恋的,给甩的最快又给伤的最深。

二星:狠占便宜型。吝啬节省只是个人习惯而已,如果为了自己利益根本不在乎别人损失了多少就不好了。人家教会组织国际学生摘樱桃,不用给钱。你进去摘点儿意思意思就行了。结果不单疯狂采摘,连树枝都给掰断了扔地下。最适合的伴侣是和他一样人生观的女子。

一星:倒插豪门型。这类人外貌不错,而且也知道自己的优势。他们通常较有风度,绝对不会说脏话,说也只是在心里说。有女人在场时,即使囊中羞涩出手也不会吝啬,但又不是死缠烂打献殷勤,进退把握的很好。注意,很多男生都会在美女面前扮阔绰,虚荣心而已。但这类人对丑女也不会忽视,因为他们深知丑女自己或背后可能更有资源。他们本质上是不好色的,或者说好色的那面绝对可以被功利的那面战胜。这类人最理想的伴侣就是大官或富商的女儿。如果岳父能保证一辈子不失势的话,他们会是很好的女婿和老公。既浪漫体贴,又不会花心(因为为了女色失去辛苦得来的一切,不值)。



Tuesday, September 29, 2015

Tie It, or Let Go

"If you want to live a happy life, tie it to a goal, not to people or things." ~ Albert Einstein


I learned about this quote only two years ago, yet it has kept popping up in my mind. I used to think there could be a hundred reasons for people to live a happy or miserable life, but now I've started to believe there is only one. 

We have seen rich people whose lives are meaningful and gratifying, as well as people who do all sorts of silly things just to confirm they have money. The difference is, the former has a goal, whether it is to make more money or to assist college students. The latter might have had a goal some time ago, but made the mistake by announcing that they had ultimately realized their dream, leaving the rest of their lives a ship sailing without a course. Some say, people need to have jobs to keep their spirit up. That's true only when the job is something they care about, not a treadmill they have to tolerate in order to receive paychecks. 

Approaching forty, I finally understood that one cannot put one's happiness in other people's hands. We shall work hard for our goals. Although achieving a goal isn't completely independent of luck, generally speaking, we have a fairly good control of our progress and performance. Successful or not, we often find the result coming with a good reason. We need this type of "logic", as well as a somewhat objective judgment on how well we have been doing. When working towards a goal, we are grounded. We may be exhausted by hard work, but we sleep soundly at night.

In contrast, "people and things" are less predictable. One day we may think we have them, the next they are gone. Clinging to something like that will make us vulnerable, although there might be a period of time in which we have the illusion that they belong to us through and through. It's good that they are here. Treat our family and friends as pleasant surprises, not something granted. Appreciate their presence, but keep in mind that they, as well as a lot of other things---money, health, social status---might be taken away from us one day. Try to take it easy when we have to let go. Pessimistic people are often too affected by uncertainties and ephermeralness, so afraid of losing something they have been attached to that they may even choose not to have it in the first place.

Boiling down to the essentials, it all has something to do with our limited lifespan, with the death we are inevitably heading towards. Goals provide us with opportunities to prove our values and leave behind evidence that we once existed. Deadlines make us finish things. Death is the deadline for us to achieve our goals; it stimulates action. What we have truly accomplished is our most powerful weapon in defying mortality. And that's often the only thing for people in the future to associate with our names.


Wednesday, September 23, 2015

Interview with Dr. Xi Yin

                                          By Fiona Rawsontile, Sept 2015

This interview was inspired by an earlier interview of Dr. Yin I saw on the Internet, which made me think that we can’t expect someone who normally writes for entertainment to understand a physicist. To “provoke” a scientist, we need another scientist. So I volunteered (to myself) and sent an invitation to Dr. Yin, who was recently promoted to Professor in Physics at Harvard University at the age of 31. It is a great pleasure for me to share with you his experience and wisdom. 


Fiona: As a faculty member at Harvard, you must have met many outstanding students and researchers. When you recruit students into your lab, what personal traits or qualification do you particularly look for? What type of students is an absolute NO? Can you talk about your mentoring style?

Dr. Yin: Indeed, I have interacted with numerous spectacular talents at Harvard: students, postdoctoral fellows, faculties. It’s one of the best things about being at Harvard.

I should clarify a few things. First of all, I’m a theoretical physicist and I work with pens, papers, chalks, and computers. Sometimes I work with the Harvard supercomputing cluster, but I do not have a lab, nor would I need one. 

Fiona commented: You reminded me of a joke I read. “I’m a mathematician. All I need is paper and a trash basket.” “Too bad you are not a philosopher; then you wouldn’t need the basket.”

Dr Yin: Second of all, unlike many other institutes, in the physics department at Harvard each faculty does not recruit students directly from colleges. Each year an admission committee consisting of around ten professors handle the applicants to our PhD program, with a loose quota in each subfield. The admitted students will choose their thesis advisors and/or labs later on. Typically, experimental physicists require more students to run their labs. We theorists do not depend on or need students as much. Our students are more independent in their research. While I’m perfectly happy to collaborate with my students, they are also free to work on their own projects and publish on their own, if they wish to.

Initially, students that are interested in working with me will come to talk to me, often towards the end of their first year or during their second year in graduate school, and ask for research problems/projects. I would hand them a number of papers to study, and ask them to come back and report on what they have learned. If they make progress, we will discuss and they read more, and at some point we arrive at a concrete and interesting problem to develop and work on. In a way this is also a selection process. About half of the students who talk to me will not end up working with me. I rarely turn away a student. The students would turn away on their own if they do not find it productive to be working with me.

(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 commented: Well, your model sounds like a classic Socrates-type mentorship. I run a biomedical lab, and have to spend a lot of energy in money raising and management, including motivating or firing employees.

Dr. Yin: I do not require any specific quality of a student, as long as they have the basic integrity and are capable of getting the job done. One type of students I definitely do NOT work with are those who pretend to understand what they don’t know. It’s perfectly okay to be ignorant about a subject, but it’s not okay to pretend that you know something and you really don’t.

I think in reality my selection process puts fairly high demands on the students. All the students I ended up working with have been terrific. I work quite closely with my students, we discuss our work nearly daily, and I try to keep all of my students informed on all topics I’m interested in, even if they are not actively working on it. I believe the students should not confine their knowledge into a tiny area of their own research, but rather they should learn broadly and keep their eyes open on all subjects of interest.

Fiona: The next question is related to your view of the scientific environment in China. What do you think is the critical advantage researchers have in top Chinese institutions, such as funding opportunities, student availability/quality, or the tenure system? On the other hand, what is the biggest issue that hinders the progress of their research or prevents them from being recognized internationally?

Dr. Yin: I’m not as familiar with the scientific environment in China as I should. I believe there is plenty of funding opportunities at top institutes in China for fundamental research. A key disadvantage, however, is that it is difficult for a top institute in China to attract high quality foreign researchers, especially postdoctoral fellows who contribute in an essential way to the research in my field. It’s no secret that many of the top talents in Chinese colleges apply to graduate schools in the United States, leaving a somewhat weak talent pool for graduate schools in China. I am not familiar with the tenure system in China. 

I have observed that there is a huge disparity between faculty members of different levels in China, in terms of privilege as well as salary. I believe this is deeply unhealthy and hinders the scientific progress tremendously. I strongly favor the Israeli academic system (which in my opinion is better than that of the US), where all faculties have a flat base salary, with bonus each year based on their productivity and the quality of their works. Such a system stimulates a collaborative atmosphere and curbs unhealthy competitions. Professors should never have to worry about their salaries and administrative duties. They should be able to focus entirely on research and teaching.

Fiona: A flat base salary model may be difficult to implement in the US because of the huge variation of living costs in different areas of the country, but hopefully there are other ways of promoting equity. Anyway, as a physicist, what would you say is the most important personality for your success, such as curiosity, vision, imagination, or persistence? (You don’t have to choose from the list.) Do you have a life-long goal you’d like to achieve, such as solving a long-existing problem, establishing a new area, or educating the public? 

Dr. Yin: I would say the one personality of mine that benefits my scientific work is that tendency of being obsessive. When I’m onto a problem, I can skip meals and sleep and work tireless until I’m satisfied. I would have a hard time going to sleep, say, when I know that there is a mistake in my work and I haven’t been able to identify it.

Fiona: Obsessive. You reminded me of what Oscar Wilde said, “Moderation is a fatal thing. Nothing succeeds like excess.”

Dr. Yin: I do have a few long standing problems in my mind, that I contemplate from time to time. However, my experience in research is that, more often than not, ground breaking work originates from attempts of patching up a tiny hole. I spend most of my time patching up tiny gaps in our knowledge here and there. It often happens that progress in these little problems leads to major breakthroughs.

My style of research is probably more known for problem solving than for establishing a new area of research. I wouldn’t mind doing the latter, but I don’t seem to be particularly good at it. What I really like to do is to solve a problem that many people have looked at and thought about but could not solve. If I happen to invent a new method and open up a new direction of research while doing so, it would be icing on the cake.

Fiona: So you like String Theory. I’m a biomedical engineer. Could you give me a reason why I should care about it? About gravity, Einstein said it’s space-time curvature; quantum mechanics says it’s executed by gravitons (correct me if I’m wrong). How do you reconcile the two interpretations?

Dr. Yin: Don’t you want to know what is the tiniest, most fundamental building block of our universe? What lies beyond the standard model of particle physics? Are quarks and leptons truly fundamental particles or do they have internal structures?

One may say that such questions are endless and you could always try to divide things up further and it never ends. While this could have been the case in the world of particle physics without gravity, it cannot be so in the world of quantum AND gravity. Here is why. In the quantum world, it takes energy to probe short distances, or “divide stuff into small pieces”. The energy it takes is inversely proportional to the size. Roughly speaking, the energy it takes to probe a certain tiny distance scale is of order the Planck constant times the speed of light, divided by the distance scale of question. This is why to make tiny new particles we need huge particle accelerators, like the Large Hadron Collider. That is all fine, but in a world with gravity, a large amount of energy cannot stay confined in a tiny space. This is because energy is mass (according to the famous equation E=mc^2 you see on T-shirts), and mass gravitates, and when there is enough mass in a small volume of space, it makes a black hole. To the outside observer, a black hole is as big as its horizon, and the horizon size grows with the mass (or energy) of the black hole. Now you see, gravity does not want you to probe arbitrarily short distances. You might take this as a hint that perhaps there is a fundamental size after all, beyond which there is no structure. Well, to understand all of this, you need string theory. :)

Regarding your question of reconciling the classical description of gravity as spacetime curvature and the quantum nature of gravitons, it does not touch the essence of quantum gravity and is in fact well understood within the framework of quantum field theory. The question is not different in any essential way from reconciling the description of electromagnetic fields and photons. The answer is that the notion of “field” (or curvature of spacetime, in the context of gravity) may be viewed as a classical approximation of a certain type of quantum states, known as coherent states, that are superpositions of states involving many photons (or gravitons) in such a way that they exhibit semi-classical behavior.

Fiona: I still can’t perceive gravity in the same way of an electromagnetic field and photons. For example, if, for any bizarre reason, a heavy item is suddenly “born” at a particular point of space, the rest of the universe would not instantly know its existence, because gravitons have to travel at speed of light? That is, we cannot be “attracted” by something before we can “see” it?

Dr. Yin: Firstly, one has to be careful in asking hypothetical questions in physics, because the laws of physics do not leave much room for modifications. One could easily arrive at inconsistent and contradictory conclusions based on faulty assumptions. The conservation of energy and momentum is essential for a consistent theory of gravity, just as the conservation of charge is essential in electromagnetism.

It is true that, if the sun explodes for some reason, we would only perceive the resulting gravitational disturbance eight minutes later, the same amount of time it takes for light to travel the distance from the sun to the earth. In this perspective, gravity is not all that different from electromagnetism, if you substitute charge with mass.

One thing that makes gravity different, however, is that Einstein’s equations of gravity are nonlinear, whereas Maxwell’s equations of electromagnetism are linear. This nonlinearity makes the equations of gravity a whole lot more complicated. However, the nonlinearity of Einstein’s equations is important only in the presence of strong gravitational fields, and allows for all sorts of bizarre phenomena such as black holes.

Your question though is really about classical gravity, which to the first order approximation was understood by Einstein in 1915 (even though it took decades to verify experimentally various aspects of his theory). The questions string theorists are tackling are really about quantum gravity, and effects of quantum gravity are expected to be important only in the presence of extremely high energy and/or extremely strong gravitational fields.

Fiona: In our field, theorists often collaborate with experimenters. Does your study depend on such collaborations? Have you proposed any hypothesis that you really want to verify experimentally but are unable to do so due to technological infeasibilities?

Dr. Yin: The short answer is no, and we make up for the lack of experiments with mathematical rigor. 

Physics is the most mature among all subjects of natural science. We have come to understand the theory so well, to the point that the very logical and mathematical consistency of the theory itself leaves little room for adjustments. We are not talking about models of economics where you can adjust parameters here and there to fit experiments. The laws of physics are supposed to be absolute. If there is any small violation of the laws of physics by any experiment, the entire foundation of modern physics could be shattered and we would have to rethink everything. This has happened a few times in history, most notably the black body radiation and the constant speed of light, which shattered Newtonian physics and paved the way to quantum mechanics and relativity. 

Now just because we know the principles doesn’t mean we know what theory is exactly. For instance, the theory of quantum electrodynamics is based simply on the principle of quantum mechanics and relativity, but it took decades and works of thousands of brilliant physicists to understand how to calculate and make experimental predictions with this theory. Eventually, the theory was proven to be successful, perhaps more successful than any other theory in the history of mankind. For instance it successfully predicted the anomalous magnetic moment of the electron to eleven digits. As a layman’s analogy, that is better than predicting the exact number of human population on the earth, to the accuracy of a single person.

In modern theoretical physics, we don’t simply fit models with data or come up with new hypothesis. We try to understand what the theory is based on its own mathematical consistency, and its compatibility with basic principles that we believe to hold absolutely. We are driven not by the need to explain a certain piece of experimental data, but rather questions like “what is the cross section of graviton scattering at Planck energy?” and “what is the state of a black hole at the end of Hawking evaporation?” There are a number of deep theoretical puzzles that drive us to advance our understanding of the theory itself.

That is not to say we know for sure that string theory is correct. We would like to understand how quantum gravity works, and string theory is the only theory known to mankind that works, and it works beautifully. Over the last two decades we have learned that the mathematical structure of string theory is inevitable in the study of quantum field theories, and quantum field theory is our establish framework that explains all phenomena of particle physics to date. 

I personally think we don’t understand string theory well enough yet to even attempt a direct comparison with experiments in particle physics and astrophysics. On the other hand we are learning tremendous fundamental physics by studying string theory, and it gave us deep insights into other fields as well, such as nuclear physics, condensed matter physics, and even fluid dynamics.

That being said, I am interested (as a side project) in aspects of fluid dynamics that involves turbulence, and the possibility of applying quantum field theory to understand the universality of turbulence. In this case experimental data would be helpful, but really what we need is computer simulations (which could be called experiments by the theoretical physicists’ standard).

Fiona: Truth is objective, but the pursuing of it, which we call scientific activity, is imprinted with human characters. Is there someone who had a significant influence on your professional life, without whom you might have become a different individual?

Dr. Yin: There are a few people that have made significant impact on my research career. One of them is my PhD advisor Andy Strominger. He has the inimitable skill of reaching deep conclusions with the simplest possible calculation, and he has a terrific taste in telling the good physics from the bad ones. 

Another person that shaped my approach to research is Davide Gaiotto, with whom I had collaborated extensively while he was a postdoctoral fellow at Harvard. He is now a faculty at Perimeter Institute and one of the stars of my field. One thing I learned from him is that, when you don’t know where to start in trying to solve a problem, don’t look around. Go to the blackboard, start writing down equations. You are probably wrong initially, but little by little you will correct them, until when things click.

Fiona: The academic system in the U.S. is generally reasonable and functioning, albeit not perfect. What aspects would you like to see change, including, but not limited to, job recruitment, peer reviewing, tenure, etc.?

Dr. Yin: The academic system in the US is quite tough on the young people, partially due to the publish-or-perish culture. Junior researchers are often forced to work on topics in which they can be productive in terms of publications, and are discouraged from taking risks on truly original and unexplored research directions.

In my field there are extremely few faculty jobs compared to the number of PhDs awarded each year. (Fiona sighed. “Dare I say this is the case for a lot of majors now!”) Many tremendously talented physicists spend years working as postdocs, which is quite difficult for those who have families especially kids, due to the constant need for relocations. And still, in the end most of them are forced to leave academia due to the lack of faculty position openings.

I would say the peer reviewing system in my field is acceptable but very, very far from perfect. In certain fields such as mathematics, research papers are put to great scrutiny before publication. Proofs are checked line by line. This is possible only when people don’t write many papers. Physicists tend to write a lot more papers than mathematicians. It is difficult and impractical for every physics paper to be inspected and verified line by line before its publication. The peer review system does little more than filtering out crackpots. In my field, the quality of a research paper is not judged based on the journal on which it is published, but rather through a reputation that is built based on seminars, private discussions, and follow-up works. Most of the time, the truly important and original papers do become known to the community, and that’s what matters in the end.

I think I’ve made a number of complaints here, with no immediate solutions to offer. I enjoy working in the field of string theory, particularly because in our community people are open with sharing ideas (often before publication) and most of us value the progress in our field more than the assignment of credits on a piece of publication.

Fiona: Has your Chinese background (cultural, educational) influenced your career, in either positive or negative ways? Do you have particular advice for Asian scientists who strive in the Western academia?

Dr. Yin: I think my ethnic background has had zero influence on my career. I feel completely comfortable living and working in the US, as well as during my extended visits to India, Israel, and Japan. I never feel tied to a certain place. I think Asian students tend to focus too much on course work and do not spend enough time socializing and live a balanced life. I’m an introvert myself, but I can be social when I need to be. I see many successful Asian scientists in the US, and I don't think they need any advice from me. Go vote, that’s my only advice to Asians in this country.:)

Fiona: All right. Thank you so much, Dr. Yin, for taking the time to offer us your invaluable insights. Is there anything else you would like to share with us that hasn’t been covered by the above topics?

Dr. Yin: The other day I receive an email which was practically a dating/marriage proposal. While flattered, I would like to clarify that I have been happily married for 10 years and my daughter is 7 years old and she loves AC/DC. I enjoy rock climbing so if anyone goes to Rumney, NH I’d gladly join and partner up.

(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》