PotentialThesisWords
The Science Writing Thesis begins next semester.... 40 pages of beautiful science.
I'm not sure what I want to write about yet -- and I don't have to be -- but here are some ideas I'm toying with... in the form of an un-edited, unsolicited proposal that I'd submitted to my advisor, Ann Finkbeiner.
Feel free to take a peek! Again, all ramblings and ideas, at this point.
In general, I’m very interested in topics that are highly integrative… between science and law for example, or science and business. I realize that with thorough research and exploration, any topic (ie: Thesis Idea #1, below) becomes integrative.
However, I did think it might be gangbusters to pursue a thesis (ie: Thesis Idea #2, also below) that was integrative and controversial right from the get-go.
So I have two ideas. The first one – work with Dr. Ryugo, otolaryngologist at Hopkins Med School - is straightforward:
--Thesis Idea #1--
I’m looking into three new angles of his research with cochlear implants. Ryugo’s excited:
(1) embedding cochlear implants with chemicals. The "Big Pharma"/ biotech connection. Steroids, growth factors, etc.
(2) bilateral cochlear implants, and how they could be used to help better decipher sounds from within "noisy" backgrounds. “Anyone can pick an airhorn out of a gymnasium? We want to know how the brain tones down all the extra crap and picks a piccolo out of a symphony,” Ryugo said. This entails position, location, and spectrum analysis of sound. Refining hearing with 2, versus 1, implant.
This becomes relevant in cases where deaf people in rooms with overwhelming background noise become depressed because they cannot distinguish sounds. Ryugo wants to make cochlear implants more “brain-like,” so that they can do this, and distinguish sound signals on a more refined level.
(3) developmental stages of the endbulb. If Ryugo can track these – if he can define them in humans – they’ll know exactly how long physicians can wait to insert implants in children, and still see a benefit. It’s been done in rats, mice, and cats already…
Of a thesis based on his work, Ryugo said: “The 3 topics would all be interesting--each would require a broad introduction to your topic involving themes such as (1) neurotrophic and growth factors as well as steriods; (2) the idea of auditory streams, signal extraction from noise, and sound localization; (3) development, deafness, and animal models.”
--Thesis Idea #2--
Intersection of Science and Law:
Faulty science in courtroom presentation of science-based medical evidence & expertise.
I have a Gettysburg College connection here – a forensics investigator, biology major, and Gburg grad (1972) named Linda Jankowski, now working as the head of The Central Laboratory of the New Jersey State Police Forensic Science Bureau in Trenton.
Issues/Concerns
+ Difficulty qualifing “expert” scientific witnesses
+ Divergence between legal uses and interpretations of science-based medical evidence and the uses and interpretation of that evidence by
a) the medical and health care researchers who produce it.
b) the practitioners and health plans that use it in making clinical decisions and policies.
Background:
The courts have long had difficulty knowing how to deal with scientific evidence, because judges (and lawyers) are not trained to evaluate its validity. That has led to some cases where verdicts have been reached that are considered by the scientific community to be based on faulty science.
So the Supreme Court (and other courts) have tried to establish standards for determining when scientific evidence is admissible. The Supreme Court has heard at least two cases on the issue that try to come up with approaches to improve the quality of evidence admitted as scientific. The consensus remains though: scientists don’t see the problem is solved.
One case of interest: the Woodward case. It’s famous because doctors testified to entirely different conclusions about the meaning of the medical evidence involved. The AMA, out of embarrassment, convened some sort of panel to try to determine how that could happen. Looking into this…
And there are many examples of problematic cases: cases where juries accepted the idea that a person's cancer was caused by things that the scientific community doesn't believe cause cancer, cases where forensic evidence was admitted that the scientific community would consider unreliable (including eyewitness testimony, fiber and hair analysis, some kinds of fingerprints evidence, silicon breasts, etc.), and so forth.
I have to choose an area to concentrate on, some sort of scientific evidence that I’m particularly interested in. At first, though, as Michele Cotton advised, I’d need to get a sample of what’s out there.
So far, I’ve talked to two sources about this idea, which is in its egg stages. And Jankowski would be a third. Here I could have the beginnings of a Hopkins angle (Ryugo), a legal angle (Michele Cotton), and a lab angle (Linda Jankowski).
1) David Ryugo – yes, the cochlear implant chap! – said that he’d be glad to discuss this topic with me and that “it is potentially treacherous (wooohoooo! Get out the bullshit detector!) because there are ‘professional’ medical witnesses who claim to be experts and sell their expertise to law firms. It is a very lucrative past time and Hopkins docs are restricted in how much they can do.”
I would be interested – as one angle of this work - in talking to the “Hopkins docs” to learn about what evidence they feel justifies their practice and treatment decisions. And how this has changed over time.
2) Michele Cotton, formerly a poverty lawyer in NY. Left Harvard Expository Writing Program last year to teach here at Hopkins, where she is now.
3) Linda Jankowski, heads the DNA lab for the New Jersey State Police. Recently (last spring) profiled in the Gburg Alumni Magazine for a case in which the New Jersey state prosecutor had a problem: two different suspects in two separate rape cases were about to go to trial, and yet the modus operandi of both appeared to be the same. There was question as to whether only one of the suspects had committed the two crimes, and whether one defendant was innocent.
Jankowski headed this investigation. Undoubtedly, both suspects could have gone to trial (but they didn’t, based on her analysis of the evidence). Also, if the victims had identified the suspects, they most likely would have been found guilty and sent to prison. But with DNA testing in Jankowski’s lab, a different scenario unfolded...
The prosecutor asked for a DNA analysis. The evidence established that only one individual was responsible for both rapes – annnnnd, it was neither of the two men who’d been held supsect.
This is a typical tale, but I’d be interested in going to her lab, and asking Jankowski about the complications she encounters in evaluating evidence.
Not all evidence in her lab relates to DNA. They conduct analyses in four different areas - drugs, toxicology, criminalistics, and DNA. They work on evidence related to determining the identity of seized drugs, or measuring blood alcohol levels… scientific technicians sift through trace evidence like hairs, fibers, and paint chips. Criminalistics also includes identifying blood or semen, which is then sent on to the DNA lab.
Other Institutions to consult:
+ IOM: Institutue of Medicine
+ AHRQ: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
Buzzwords/Issues to Address:
+ evidence-based medicine (EBM) … what kind of evidence?
Hair fibers, DNA, testimony from doctors, from psychologists, etc
+ what type of evidence is most flawed?/least reliable?
+ judicial practices that increase familiarity with, and therefore promote greater reliance on, the use of science-based medical evidence by the courts.
+ judicial rulings on and interpretations of scientific evidence and expert testimony
+ policy issues relating to the application of evidence-based medical findings
+ impact of recent Supreme Court decisions regarding the role of the judge in qualifying expert witnesses.
+ impact of recent Supreme Court decisions regarding the role of the judge in screening scientific and technical evidence for presentation to juries.
+ determining what physicians take to be evidence that justifies their practices and treatment decisions. (How has this changed over time?)
+ How can those involved in developing the evidence base for medical practice most effectively present this information in legal settings?
+ credibility of evidence from: population studies and controlled clinical trials.
.MGW.
I'm not sure what I want to write about yet -- and I don't have to be -- but here are some ideas I'm toying with... in the form of an un-edited, unsolicited proposal that I'd submitted to my advisor, Ann Finkbeiner.
Feel free to take a peek! Again, all ramblings and ideas, at this point.
In general, I’m very interested in topics that are highly integrative… between science and law for example, or science and business. I realize that with thorough research and exploration, any topic (ie: Thesis Idea #1, below) becomes integrative.
However, I did think it might be gangbusters to pursue a thesis (ie: Thesis Idea #2, also below) that was integrative and controversial right from the get-go.
So I have two ideas. The first one – work with Dr. Ryugo, otolaryngologist at Hopkins Med School - is straightforward:
--Thesis Idea #1--
I’m looking into three new angles of his research with cochlear implants. Ryugo’s excited:
(1) embedding cochlear implants with chemicals. The "Big Pharma"/ biotech connection. Steroids, growth factors, etc.
(2) bilateral cochlear implants, and how they could be used to help better decipher sounds from within "noisy" backgrounds. “Anyone can pick an airhorn out of a gymnasium? We want to know how the brain tones down all the extra crap and picks a piccolo out of a symphony,” Ryugo said. This entails position, location, and spectrum analysis of sound. Refining hearing with 2, versus 1, implant.
This becomes relevant in cases where deaf people in rooms with overwhelming background noise become depressed because they cannot distinguish sounds. Ryugo wants to make cochlear implants more “brain-like,” so that they can do this, and distinguish sound signals on a more refined level.
(3) developmental stages of the endbulb. If Ryugo can track these – if he can define them in humans – they’ll know exactly how long physicians can wait to insert implants in children, and still see a benefit. It’s been done in rats, mice, and cats already…
Of a thesis based on his work, Ryugo said: “The 3 topics would all be interesting--each would require a broad introduction to your topic involving themes such as (1) neurotrophic and growth factors as well as steriods; (2) the idea of auditory streams, signal extraction from noise, and sound localization; (3) development, deafness, and animal models.”
--Thesis Idea #2--
Intersection of Science and Law:
Faulty science in courtroom presentation of science-based medical evidence & expertise.
I have a Gettysburg College connection here – a forensics investigator, biology major, and Gburg grad (1972) named Linda Jankowski, now working as the head of The Central Laboratory of the New Jersey State Police Forensic Science Bureau in Trenton.
Issues/Concerns
+ Difficulty qualifing “expert” scientific witnesses
+ Divergence between legal uses and interpretations of science-based medical evidence and the uses and interpretation of that evidence by
a) the medical and health care researchers who produce it.
b) the practitioners and health plans that use it in making clinical decisions and policies.
Background:
The courts have long had difficulty knowing how to deal with scientific evidence, because judges (and lawyers) are not trained to evaluate its validity. That has led to some cases where verdicts have been reached that are considered by the scientific community to be based on faulty science.
So the Supreme Court (and other courts) have tried to establish standards for determining when scientific evidence is admissible. The Supreme Court has heard at least two cases on the issue that try to come up with approaches to improve the quality of evidence admitted as scientific. The consensus remains though: scientists don’t see the problem is solved.
One case of interest: the Woodward case. It’s famous because doctors testified to entirely different conclusions about the meaning of the medical evidence involved. The AMA, out of embarrassment, convened some sort of panel to try to determine how that could happen. Looking into this…
And there are many examples of problematic cases: cases where juries accepted the idea that a person's cancer was caused by things that the scientific community doesn't believe cause cancer, cases where forensic evidence was admitted that the scientific community would consider unreliable (including eyewitness testimony, fiber and hair analysis, some kinds of fingerprints evidence, silicon breasts, etc.), and so forth.
I have to choose an area to concentrate on, some sort of scientific evidence that I’m particularly interested in. At first, though, as Michele Cotton advised, I’d need to get a sample of what’s out there.
So far, I’ve talked to two sources about this idea, which is in its egg stages. And Jankowski would be a third. Here I could have the beginnings of a Hopkins angle (Ryugo), a legal angle (Michele Cotton), and a lab angle (Linda Jankowski).
1) David Ryugo – yes, the cochlear implant chap! – said that he’d be glad to discuss this topic with me and that “it is potentially treacherous (wooohoooo! Get out the bullshit detector!) because there are ‘professional’ medical witnesses who claim to be experts and sell their expertise to law firms. It is a very lucrative past time and Hopkins docs are restricted in how much they can do.”
I would be interested – as one angle of this work - in talking to the “Hopkins docs” to learn about what evidence they feel justifies their practice and treatment decisions. And how this has changed over time.
2) Michele Cotton, formerly a poverty lawyer in NY. Left Harvard Expository Writing Program last year to teach here at Hopkins, where she is now.
3) Linda Jankowski, heads the DNA lab for the New Jersey State Police. Recently (last spring) profiled in the Gburg Alumni Magazine for a case in which the New Jersey state prosecutor had a problem: two different suspects in two separate rape cases were about to go to trial, and yet the modus operandi of both appeared to be the same. There was question as to whether only one of the suspects had committed the two crimes, and whether one defendant was innocent.
Jankowski headed this investigation. Undoubtedly, both suspects could have gone to trial (but they didn’t, based on her analysis of the evidence). Also, if the victims had identified the suspects, they most likely would have been found guilty and sent to prison. But with DNA testing in Jankowski’s lab, a different scenario unfolded...
The prosecutor asked for a DNA analysis. The evidence established that only one individual was responsible for both rapes – annnnnd, it was neither of the two men who’d been held supsect.
This is a typical tale, but I’d be interested in going to her lab, and asking Jankowski about the complications she encounters in evaluating evidence.
Not all evidence in her lab relates to DNA. They conduct analyses in four different areas - drugs, toxicology, criminalistics, and DNA. They work on evidence related to determining the identity of seized drugs, or measuring blood alcohol levels… scientific technicians sift through trace evidence like hairs, fibers, and paint chips. Criminalistics also includes identifying blood or semen, which is then sent on to the DNA lab.
Other Institutions to consult:
+ IOM: Institutue of Medicine
+ AHRQ: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
Buzzwords/Issues to Address:
+ evidence-based medicine (EBM) … what kind of evidence?
Hair fibers, DNA, testimony from doctors, from psychologists, etc
+ what type of evidence is most flawed?/least reliable?
+ judicial practices that increase familiarity with, and therefore promote greater reliance on, the use of science-based medical evidence by the courts.
+ judicial rulings on and interpretations of scientific evidence and expert testimony
+ policy issues relating to the application of evidence-based medical findings
+ impact of recent Supreme Court decisions regarding the role of the judge in qualifying expert witnesses.
+ impact of recent Supreme Court decisions regarding the role of the judge in screening scientific and technical evidence for presentation to juries.
+ determining what physicians take to be evidence that justifies their practices and treatment decisions. (How has this changed over time?)
+ How can those involved in developing the evidence base for medical practice most effectively present this information in legal settings?
+ credibility of evidence from: population studies and controlled clinical trials.
.MGW.
posted by Meagan G at
3:27 PM
<< Home