The Mental Health Crisis of STEM Graduate Students: How Advisor Restructuring and Evidence-based Policy Can Help
By Carol Garcia
The mental health of academics across the country in recent decades has been in decline. From undergraduate students to early career researchers, concern is being expressed about the heavy toll that academic pressures put on mental health. In a study about the prevalence of anxiety and depression amongst graduate students, it was found that 20-50% of graduate students report symptoms during their training. Attending graduate school in any field is stressful, but due to the nature of STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) research, mental health issues can be particularly prevalent among graduate students in the sciences. Across the country, many seek solutions from their own institutions and come to understand that often, these very institutions do not have the resources necessary to handle a mental health crisis.
Read moreby Skyler Berardi
This is the third post in our series on the consequences of outside influences on the performance and communication of science.
This November, National Geographic uploaded a post on Instagram titled, “Climate change could impact where we live. Are these cities ready?” I had already been researching public attitudes towards climate change for this article, so I was curious to see what discourse was happening in the comments section. I scrolled and found an all-too-familiar debate. A handful of folks were posting in support of climate change action, including one person who penned, “to protect Earth is a burning topic and must be focused upon.” Then, there were the dissenters:
Read moreby Gabriel Iván Vega Bellido
This is the second post in our series on the consequences of outside influences on the performance and communication of science.
Medical research has a history going back to when the Egyptians started documenting the medicinal properties of plants, but it has drastically changed in the context of the industrial revolution and capitalism. Though these changes have undoubtedly contributed to medical advancements and an increase in longevity, the interests of industry can often be in tension with optimal human health. Some notable examples of this include the enormous fast and processed food industries' contributions to the current obesity epidemic, and the continued promotion of fossil fuels by large oil companies despite having knowledge of their environmental impact for at least 50 years. Given the multibillion dollar size of the medical research industry, there is ample room for such conflicts of interest. This blog will examine how the external interests of industry and politics have recently shaped medicine of the pharmaceutical and psychedelic kind.
Read moreby Clara Raithel
This is the first post in our series on the consequences of outside influences on the performance and communication of science.
More than fifty years after the criminalization of psychedelic drugs, psychedelic research is experiencing what many call a “renaissance” [1,2]. Researchers across the world conduct clinical trials testing the efficacy of psychedelic drugs, such as ecstasy (MDMA), mescaline, lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD), and psilocybin, as a form of treatment against various mental diseases, with some pointing towards therapeutic potential [3,4]. This increase in scientific interest is not a first: in the 1950s and 1960s, researchers first got their hands on psychedelics and saw great potential in these compounds to allow for a breakthrough in mental health science. However, instead of describing a breakthrough, psychedelic drugs gained a bad reputation and were effectively banned in 1970 when the US government initiated its “war on drugs”. How did the perception of psychedelic drugs change so drastically? Contemporary psychedelic scientists often put the blame on counterculture figures. The most prominent scapegoat is Dr. Timothy Leary, a Harvard psychologist who lightheartedly shared the drug at parties, evoking a bulk of negative press surrounding LSD that ultimately justified the “war on drugs” in the public eye. But explaining the bad reputation of past psychedelic research takes more than just pointing fingers at “bad scientists”.
Read moreBy Gabriel Iván Vega Bellido
This is the ninth post in our series about how science is communicated and the consequences thereof.
Most people don’t interact with professional scientists on a regular basis. Therefore, the depictions of scientists in popular media play a significant role in influencing the general public’s expectations, trust, and understanding of the scientific community. If you were to ask your friends and family who aren't in scientific fields about their understanding of a scientist, their responses would likely be shaped by a mix of both real-life and fictionalized portrayals encountered through various media. This post aims to contemplate how some of the most popular depictions of scientists in English-speaking media, including various works of fiction, have reflected and influenced the public’s perception of science and scientists.
Read moreBy David Sidibe
This is the eighth post in our series about how science is communicated and the consequences thereof.
Mistrust in the scientific and medical community is reaching a boiling point. You don’t have to look too far to find evidence of this fact, with the politicization of medicine and vaccines during the Covid-19 pandemic. While I would like to say that there is one cause of this mistrust, the reality is that this mistrust is multi-faceted and rooted in a history of careless and, quite frankly, horrific treatment of patients. The impact of mistrust of the medical community among people of color and people from underrepresented minority (URM) backgrounds is of particular concern. Ethnic, racial, and gender health disparities are prevalent in communities throughout the US. Current and historical events (see Tuskegee Syphilis Study, HeLa cells, and the AIDS epidemic for examples) have only further amplified the mistrust within URM communities.
Read moreBy Kay Labella
For Pride Month, the PSPDG blog is collaborating with students from LTBGS and Lambda Grads for a series of posts highlighting the LGBTQ+ community and related matters at Penn and beyond.
Dr. Ben A. Barres (MD/PhD) was born September 13, 1954, in West Orange, New Jersey. After graduating from Massachusetts Institute of Technology with a B.S. in Biology, he went on to obtain his medical degree from Dartmouth Medical School in 1979. While in his neurology residency at Weill Cornell Medicine, Barres found himself intrigued by neurodegeneration and glial cell function; he subsequently resigned his residency to pursue a PhD in neurobiology at Harvard Medical School so that he might pursue research into these subjects. In his time as a postdoc and later heading his own lab at Stanford University, Barres remained at the forefront of scientific discovery. His lab published numerous critical studies expanding upon our understanding of the role of astrocytes, microglia, and the blood-brain barrier, as well as how synapses form within the brain, among other topics. As a PI, he was well-loved and dedicated to the success of his trainees.
Read moreBy Stefan Peterson
For Pride Month, the PSPDG blog is collaborating with students from LTBGS and Lambda Grads for a series of posts highlighting the LGBTQ+ community and related matters at Penn and beyond.
Members of the LGBTQ+ community in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) deal with many challenges beyond those of their non-LGBTQ+ peers. Scientists worldwide share experiences of fear of coming out to colleagues, which is reasonable when considering that harassment is 30% more likely for LGBTQ+ individuals in STEM than their non-LGBTQ+ peers. Harassment and discrimination against LGBTQ+ people in STEM result in higher rates of queer students dropping out of STEM majors and of LGBTQ+ scientists planning to leave their careers. Nations and institutions around the world urgently need to address these issues to support the STEM LGBTQ+ community. Over the past two years, one team of early career scientists has been working to address these issues in the United States and the United Kingdom through science diplomacy.
Read moreBy Maxwell Pisciotta
For Pride Month, the PSPDG blog is collaborating with students from LTBGS and Lambda Grads for a series of posts highlighting the LGBTQ+ community and related matters at Penn and beyond.
It is no secret that if you’re looking for a gender-neutral restroom on the University of Pennsylvania campus, they are often difficult to find. The difficulty, of course, depends on your department, the buildings which you occupy, the age of those buildings, and the school that owns those buildings. Ultimately, this is to say, that yes, there are gender-inclusive restrooms throughout campus, but if you happen to be in a building that does not already have one, you may have to go as far as two or three buildings over to locate one. For faculty, staff, and students who do not have to leave their “home” building often or who spend hours in lab, this can pose a substantial inconvenience.
Read moreBy Kay Labella
For Pride Month, the PSPDG blog is collaborating with students from LTBGS and Lambda Grads for a series of posts highlighting the LGBTQ+ community and related matters at Penn and beyond.
Founded in 2022 by Dr. José Bauermeister, the Eidos LGBTQ+ Health Initiative was created to address persistent health disparities facing LGBTQ+ communities. PSPDG, in collaboration with LTBGS, was fortunate enough to interview Kevin Schott, Eidos’ Director of Engagement, about this fantastic partnership that aims to streamline turning academic research into social impact.
Read moreBy Maya Hale
This is the seventh post in our series about how science is communicated and the consequences thereof.
Academia requires publications for success. They can be a condition to defend a PhD thesis (or dissertation), a part of a tenure application, or guidance for research and education.
Lack of access to primary literature isn’t just restrictive to academics. It also acts as a barrier for aspiring students to break into science. Students submitting papers to the Journal of Emerging Investigators (JEI), a volunteer-run scientific journal for middle and high school students, are often unable to explore certain questions or even make reviewer edits to their submissions because they do not have access to publications on their research topic or the statistical analysis needed to improve publication quality.
Read moreBy Alexandra Ramirez
This is the sixth post in our series about how science is communicated and the consequences thereof.
Communicating science takes many forms and is practiced by those in all stages of their scientific career. Likely the most common and most recognizable type of science communication is publishing research articles in scientific journals. These articles can be accessed by audiences around the world, both in and outside of the scientific field (though all are not always available through open-access sources). Publications are also increasingly becoming the currency needed for career growth and success in academic research. However, going from project conception to publication of a research article takes years. For those just starting out in research, publishing is a goal that is highly sought after but cannot be immediately accomplished.
Read moreBy Zeenat Diwan
This is the fifth post in our series about how science is communicated and the consequences thereof.
“Science has the potential to address some of the most important problems in society and for that to happen, scientists have to be trusted by society and they have to be able to trust each others' work. If we are seen as just another special interest group that are doing whatever it takes to advance our careers and that the work is not necessarily reliable, it's tremendously damaging for all of society because we need to be able to rely on science.”
—Ferric Fang quoted by Jha (2012)
Read moreBy Amanda N. Weiss
This is the fourth post in our series about how science is communicated and the consequences thereof.
Peer-reviewed manuscripts often serve as the primary way to disseminate information within academia. People trust that the information they’re reading is reliable and rigorous, as other experts in the field have already vetted the paper to make sure that it’s of high quality. However, peer review can be a slow process, preventing valuable information from reaching audiences in a timely manner. This can be a barrier in fields that are rapidly advancing, and is especially problematic when information is needed as quickly as possible, as is the case during public health emergencies.
Read moreBy Clara Raithel
This is the third post in our series about how science is communicated and the consequences thereof.
Whether it is an application for research funding, or a manuscript sent to a scholarly journal for publication, writing is an essential aspect of scientific work. The majority of the resulting output is evaluated by other scientists, in a process referred to as peer review. The ultimate purpose of this evaluation is to ensure the originality, importance, and quality of the academic work before it is executed, or made publicly available. In other words, grants are awarded, and manuscripts are published only when scientific standards are met. As such, peer review represents a critical gatekeeping moment that can define the outcome of entire scientific careers - simply because so much in science depends on the amount of financial resources available, and the number of papers published. However, its consequences reach far beyond an individual’s career: peer review impacts the knowledge produced and shared with the rest of the world – thereby potentially affecting the lives of millions of people.
Read moreThis is the second post in our series about how scientific findings are communicated and the consequences thereof.
“Do your own research.” It sounds harmless, even admirable. But dig a little deeper, and you’ll find that this philosophy is a major antagonist in the fight against scientific misinformation. Anti-vaxxers “did their own research” when they found a Lancet paper (later retracted) that claimed a link between the MMR vaccine and the onset of autism. Despite the paper’s retraction and its claims having no scientific basis, a nationally representative survey conducted in 2019 found that 18% of respondents believed vaccines cause autism. Ivermectin, an anti-parasitic drug most commonly used in veterinary practice, received attention after a few early studies suggested it might prevent and treat COVID-19 infection. It couldn’t have helped when Joe Rogan, currently the most popular podcast host on Spotify, shared “his own research” and personal belief in ivermectin’s efficacy. The research on ivermectin was later retracted by the author or subject to criticism. Still, due to the initial hyperbolic attention, the CDC reported a 24-fold increase in ivermectin prescriptions in August of 2021 compared to the pre-pandemic baseline. This sharp rise in prescriptions was associated with concern from Poison Centers and the FDA about the number of individuals reporting medical complications and hospitalizations following inappropriate ivermectin use.
Read moreThis is the first post in our series about how scientific findings are communicated and the consequences thereof.
“Abortion bans are on the ballot this year, and they are going by the name Doug Mastriano.”
So began a get-out-the-vote advertisement that I, based in Philadelphia, saw multiple times on YouTube in the weeks before the 2022 midterm elections. Similar ads centered on the anti-abortion stances of other Republican candidates for office. Abortion rights loomed large on the ballot last November, following the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization barely five months earlier to overturn Roe v. Wade. The Roe decision had limited the ability of state governments to regulate abortion in the first two trimesters, interpreting the 14th Amendment of the Constitution as conferring a right to privacy in such cases. Now, the Dobbs decision declared that the Constitution does not protect the right to an abortion at all, and restricting abortion at any stage of pregnancy is up to the states.
Read moreBy Sanjana Hemdev & Sonia Roberts
This is the fifth post in a series about artificial intelligence, along with its uses and social/political implications.
“Artificial intelligence” (AI) is ubiquitous in today’s world. From Amazon’s Alexa to Five Nights at Freddy’s, from weather prediction systems to vaccine development, AI is a constant source of both wonder and trepidation in the popular imagination. As development in the field of AI continues at breakneck speeds, we are invited to consider not only how AI can change the physical world, but also how it can change our understanding of what it means to be “intelligent.” Can AI systems truly be considered intelligent in the same way that humans are? If so, by whose definition – if any? In search of answers to these questions, we spoke with Dr. Lisa Miracchi Titus, a Professor of Philosophy and seasoned artificial intelligence expert here at Penn. Dr. Miracchi Titus is affiliated with the GRASP Lab, one of the oldest and most well known robotics labs in the country. “This is a beautiful time to be asking all of these questions,” Dr. Miracchi Titus says. “The technological progress that we’ve made both enables us and requires us to take a step back at this moment of time and ask some pretty foundational questions.”
Read moreBy Hersh Sanghvi
This is the fourth post in a series about artificial intelligence, along with its uses and social/political implications.
For a long time, Machine Learning (ML) and Artificial Intelligence (AI) have remained firmly in the domain of research applications and science fiction. This is changing thanks to the emergence of a huge variety of AI devices, from smartphones and wearables to robots and autonomous drones. Many companies are working on AI hardware and software as a way to help businesses and organizations create better, smarter solutions, like personal assistants and self-driving cars. As it advances, AI has begun to have an impact on everyday life. We are starting to see more people using AI-powered devices to help their daily lives. The question is: will it help or hurt us?
The previous paragraph, except the first sentence, was written entirely by a special kind of ML model called a “language model”… Despite recent progress, current AI still has many limitations that can make its widespread use dangerous. In light of this, it’s important to understand what these limitations are and ultimately how we as a society should take action. In particular, we’ll look at two exciting, consumer-facing applications of AI: CV and NLP. To get more insight into this topic, I interviewed Dr. CJ Taylor, professor of Computer and Information Science here at UPenn, whose research focuses on computer vision and robotics.
Read more