Psychologist Anne Fishel prepares dinner. Credit: Ginger Chappell

It’s Saturday evening and the smell of roast turkey fills Anne Fishel’s kitchen. Her husband Chris removes the turkey from the oven while Fishel prepares the traditional Passover matzoh ball soup. She dips her hand in water and then places it in a bowl with the sticky matzoh dough. She takes a handful of dough, molds it into the shape of ping pong balls, then boils them in chicken broth. Finally, Fishel serves her family, gathered around the dining room table.

Dinners are more than a Saturday family gathering for Fishel, a clinical psychologist, professor and director of the Family and Couples Therapy Program at Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH). She studies how family dinners contribute to children’s cognitive and personal development, as well as how they strengthen the bond between children and parents. As dinner is typically a daily routine, Fishel can observe a family’s dynamic and propose solutions tailored to their needs. “Dr. Fishel’s work outlines how the family dinner can serve as an invaluable tool in the assessment and treatment of families in any school of family therapy,” says David Rubin, a psychiatrist at Cornell Medical Center in New York.

For the past 25 years, Fishel has been treating couples and families as a clinical psychologist at her office in Newton Highlands, Massachusetts. She recently began taking a close look at dinner rituals, because meals are family routines that help a therapist understand important aspects of families and make interventions easier. “Patients feel more comfortable answering questions about their dinner than about their sex life or the family roles,” she says.

“Food experiences function not only as a means of physically nourishing a child, but also as a form of emotional nourishment,” says Laura Weisberg, a psychologist at Duke Medical Center in Durham, North Carolina and an expert in eating disorders. Family dinners, according to several psychological studies, show fascinating positive behavioral impacts on children of all ages. Lower rates of substance abuse, depression, pregnancy, alcoholism and eating disorders are just some examples of the long list of positive effects of family dinners. For vulnerable children, not having family meals on a regular basis “makes it easier to begin a pattern of skipping meals, or eating in unhealthy ways, which can then get out of control before the family has an opportunity to recognize it,” says Weisberg. This body of research is so impressive that Fishel almost wants to tell her patients, “Don’t waste your time in therapy-go home right now and cook a meal and eat it together. Here are some recipes, now go!”

Research about the impact of family meals to children’s language and literacy development also caught Fishel’s attention. Although both parents and pediatricians believe that reading is the best way to teach children new vocabulary words, a new study by Catherine Snow of the Harvard Education School in Cambridge, Massachusetts, shows that the best way to build a child’s vocabulary is through regular family meals. “The use of relatively sophisticated vocabulary at family mealtimes predicted children’s later vocabulary knowledge better than in other settings -book reading, toy play, or story telling,” says Snow, an expert on children’s language and literacy development.

To keep children at the table, Fishel proposes maximizing the pleasure of dinner time. Parents can engage younger kids by playing word games or guessing what ingredients are in a meal. In dealing with teenagers, Fishel suggests avoiding discussions that would bring conflict to dinner. Instead she encourages parents to discuss their daily experiences in an honest and self-disclosing way, inviting children to participate in the conversation. After all, dinners are family rituals, whose purpose is to “create a feeling of warm connection among its members,” Fishel says.

Fishel’s family meals are a synonym of joy and creativity, “something that connects everybody up,” she says. Her two college age sons are very demanding eaters, but “I like the way they push me to be creative and adventurous,” she says. Her favorite meals to prepare are those made with a lot of ingredients cooked together in a pot. She loves making soups, such as squash-apple-onion or swordfish stew with pine nuts, tomatoes and raisins. “These foods are very cozy and connected; the flavors are distinct like the different members of the family.” But, both the ingredients in the soup and the members of the family “are made better by being together,” she adds.

To read the full story by Staff Writer Aspasia Daskalopoulou, visit the Contributions page.

Psychologist Anne Fishel prepares dinner. Credit: Ginger Chappell

- by Aspasia Daskalopoulou

It’s Saturday evening and the smell of roast turkey fills Anne Fishel’s kitchen. Her husband Chris removes the turkey from the oven while Fishel prepares the traditional Passover matzoh ball soup. She dips her hand in water and then places it in a bowl with sticky matzoh dough. She takes a handful of dough, moulds it into the shape of ping pong balls and boils them in chicken broth. Fishel serves her family that is gathered around the big dining table, except for Bella, an eight-year-old golden retriever that lies under the table patiently waiting for the leftovers.

But dinners are more than just a Saturday family gathering for Fishel, a clinical psychologist, professor and director of the Family and Couples Therapy Program at Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH). She studies how family dinners contribute to children’s cognitive and personal development, as well as how they strengthen the bond between children and parents. As dinner is typically a daily family routine, Fishel can consistently observe a family’s dynamic and propose solutions tailored to their needs. “Dr. Fishel’s work outlines how the family dinner can serve as an invaluable tool in the assessment and treatment of families in any school of family therapy,” says David Rubin, a psychiatrist at Cornell Medical Center in New York.

For Fishel, 52, studying psychology and becoming a family therapist looking at dinner rituals was a story of many small steps and not one decisive moment. She grew up in a traditional Jewish family on the Upper East Side of Manhattan. “We had dinner every night, at seven o’clock,” Fishel recalls. “I remember that as being a wonderful part of the day, something that I looked forward to,” she says. Fishel majored in social studies at Harvard University, but it was not until she travelled to the South to assist female labor leaders that she realized that “getting to know these women and helping them tell their stories” was what she really liked. As a result, in 1978 she began doctoral work in psychology at the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill.

In 1988, after giving birth to her first son and reading Janine Roberts’ book, Rituals in Families and Family Therapy, she got inspired to pursue her present research. At the moment Fishel is writing her second book, Home for Dinner, where she discusses the psychology around family meals. “Experiences with food have played a central role in my life as clinician, teacher and parent, and they constitute the raw ingredients for this book,” she writes in her book’s introduction. “Dr. Fishel’s upcoming book will undoubtedly be a useful and creative contribution to the scholarship of family therapy,” says Rubin.

For the past 25 years Fishel has been treating couples and families as a clinical psychologist at her office in Newton Highlands, Massachusetts. For the last four years she is looking more closely at dinner rituals, because meals are family routines that help a therapist understand important aspects of families and make interventions easier. “Patients feel more comfortable answering questions about their dinner than about their sex life or the family roles,” she says.

How therapists communicate with their patients is as important as what they say, argues Robert Althoff, a psychiatrist at the University of Vermont in Burlington. As a former student of Fishel, Althoff has also observed her in the therapist’s role. “Annie has a real art of being able to speak to people in a way that changes their thought process without being overly confrontational or dramatic,” he says.

Fishel, an eight times winner of the MGH Teacher of the Year award, has trained residents, interns and hospital staff in family and couple’s therapy for the last 23 years. “It is a bit like being trained by a Jedi Master in Star Wars,” Althoff says. During class she asks her students to pair up and describe their family dinners to each other. “It is a very powerful moment because even though they know each other quite well,in five minutes they find out things they never knew,” she says.

Althoff, who has participated in Fishel’s family member role play exercises, describes their impact. “I was assigned as the oppositional teenage boy. Annie was the therapist. By the end of the exercise not only were we all cracking up laughing, but I was feeling the need to call my parents and apologize for my own adolescence,” he says.

“Food experiences function not only as a means of physically nourishing a child, but also as a form of emotional nourishment,” says Laura Weisberg, a psychologist at Duke Medical Center in Durham, North Carolina and an expert in eating disorders. Family dinners, according to several psychological studies, show fascinating positive behavioral impacts on children of all ages. Lower rates of substance abuse, depression, pregnancy, alcoholism and eating disorders are just some examples of the long list of positive effects of family dinners. For vulnerable children, not having family meals on a regular basis “makes it easier to begin a pattern of skipping meals, or eating in unhealthy ways, which can then get out of control before the family has an opportunity to recognize it,” says Weisberg. This body of research is so impressive that Fishel almost wants to tell her patients, “Don’t waste your time in therapy-go home right now and cook a meal and eat it together. Here are some recipes, now go!”

Research about the impact of family meals to children’s language and literacy development also caught Fishel’s attention. Although both parents and pediatricians believe that reading is the best way to teach children new vocabulary words, a new study by Catherine Snow of the Harvard Education School in Cambridge, Massachusetts, shows that the best way to build a child’s vocabulary is through regular family meals. “The use of relatively sophisticated vocabulary at family mealtimes predicted children’s later vocabulary knowledge better than in other settings -book reading, toy play, or story telling,” says Snow, an expert on children’s language and literacy development.

To keep children at the table, Fishel proposes maximizing the pleasure of dinner time. Parents can engage younger kids by playing word games or guessing what ingredients are in a meal. In dealing with teenagers, Fishel suggests avoiding discussions that would bring conflict to dinner. Instead she encourages parents to discuss their daily experiences in an honest and self-disclosing way, inviting children to participate in the conversation. After all, dinners are family rituals, whose purpose is to “create a feeling of warm connection among its members,” Fishel says.

Fishel’s family meals are a synonym of joy and creativity, “something that connects everybody up,” she says. Her two college age sons are very demanding eaters, but “I like the way they push me to be creative and adventurous,” she says. Her favorite meals to prepare are those made with a lot of ingredients cooked together in a pot. She loves making soups, such as squash-apple-onion or swordfish stew with pine nuts, tomatoes and raisins. “These foods are very cozy and connected; the flavors are distinct like the different members of the family.” But, both the ingredients in the soup and the members of the family “are made better by being together,” she adds.

(7/7/08)

Millions of tiny black beetles attack the greenhouse vegetables of a Greek farm each spring. They suck the stems of the lettuce; they bore into the tomatoes and leave the cucumbers bleeding. They transmit viruses, and leave the fruit vulnerable to fungi.

Immediate action is needed. The farmer, Theofanis Kapelos, arrives with his van, unloads five plastic bottles and heads toward the greenhouse. He dons a pair of thick plastic gloves, opens the first bottle and pours its contents –a grainy white substance– on the leaves and fruits.

Five days later, the black beetles have disappeared. However, neither dead insect bodies, nor repellent smells linger in the greenhouse. The vegetables slowly recover from their wounds-but now thousands of white wasps are hovering over them. This cure is not the result of a chemical pesticide, but an organic one. The plastic bottles contained minute white eggs of wasps that hatched from their eggshells, ate the beetles and rescued Kapelos’ organic crop.

For Kapelos and other organic farmers, this is the future: a farming method that produces healthy and safe food without use of chemical pesticides and fertilizers. Can this type of farming sustain the world’s expanding population? Kapelos hesitates to answer. Even for governments and academics this is a point of contention.

Organic farming has been around since the beginning of the 20th century, when environmentally friendly ways of farming rose in Northern Europe. However, it was not until the 1980s that organic produce hit the world market as a response to consumers’ demands for healthy and pure nutritional products. Organic farming, which currently occupies only 0.3 percent of global agricultural land, is a system that excludes the use of chemicals in addition to preserving soil nutrients and water supplies for future generations. This type of farming also preserves the natural reproductive cycles, in contrast to conventional agriculture which accelerates the natural pace of plant growth using hormones.

Organic farming was originally formulated as an ideology, but today’s global problems –such as climate change and population growth– require agricultural pragmatism and flexibility, not ideology, argued Anthony Trewavas, a professor of plant biology at the University of Edinburgh, in a 2001 Nature commentary. “Conventional agriculture is a diverse set of technologies using the best available knowledge, whose ultimate goal is the safe efficient provision of foods in abundance and at lower price,” Trewavas wrote.

However, according to organic farming advocates, “only a global conversion [to this alternative system] would serve as a solution to environmental pollution and soil depletion,” says Barbara Haumann, a press secretary at the Organic Trade Association, in Greenfield, Massachusetts.

The debate over whether organic farming could sustain the world’s rapidly growing population is heating up. The United Nations estimates that the world population will increase from 6.6 billion in 2008 to 9.2 billion by 2050, demanding farming methods that produce high yields in a short period of time. These farming methods, usually applied in conventional and genetically engineered crops, deplete soil nutrients and pollute groundwater aquifers.

“Agrochemical inputs [used in conventional farming] have had very negative impacts on the environment, but also on the health of people and rural communities,” says Ivette Perfecto, a professor of field ecology at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor. Although some critics raise human health concerns –mostly related to hormone and pesticide use– no human health effects have been scientifically documented.

Nevertheless, those health concerns, in addition to global environmental problems such as poor air quality, acid rain and rising temperatures, are now pushing society towards more sustainable agricultural systems that will not burden the already fragile environment.

But can organic farming really feed the world?

Even the definition of what constitutes organic farming is under debate. Each country has set its own regulations for how soil, water, plants and animals should be treated. However, the International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements–an organization established in 1972 to unite the organic movement and promote the worldwide adoption of organic farming– has set down four main principles of organic agriculture: health, ecology, fairness and care.

The principle of ecology, for example, requires the application of mild techniques, such as leaving the soil uncultivated for a few seasons so that its nutrients can recover. Although organic farming that applies such practices protects soil’s fertility and conserves natural resources, it also “requires larger tracts of land in order to produce the same yields,” says Christina Giourga, a professor of environmental agriculture at the University of the Aegean in Mytilene, Greece. Norman Borlaug, an agronomist and winner of the Nobel peace prize for fighting world hunger, said in an interview with Reason magazine in April 2000: “If all agriculture were organic, people would have to increase cropland area dramatically, spreading out into marginal areas and cutting down millions of acres of forests.”

While organic farming may require more land to produce the same amount of produce as conventional agriculture, Indur Goklany, an environmental policy analyst based in Washington D.C., sees this as a positive factor. In a 2002 letter to Science, Goklany wrote that using more land to yield the same amount of product as conventional agriculture secures a non-intensive organic farming that maintains the cropped land’s fertility and biodiversity for longer time. Michael Bomford, director of sustainable vegetable production research at the Kentucky State University in Frankfort, argues that “we worry about how we can feed the human population and we are not thinking about whether the planet can support us.” He explains that people are not separate from the other million species of the planet; if they use all the natural resources, all species including humans will be in danger of extinction. Bomford argues that organic agriculture is an attempt to create a sustainable system that can persist for the long term.

However, under pressure to produce high yields, some countries disregard the principle of ecology and do not apply these practices. Instead, organic farming in these countries often means simply avoiding the use of chemicals in the fields. The result is that organic farming can produce yields equal to conventional farming, according to Catherine Badgley, a geology researcher at the University of Michigan. Similarly, Joshua Posner and his co-workers at the University of Wisconsin in Madison agree in a 2008 Agronomy Journal article that organic crops produce 90 percent as much product as conventional ones.

Thanasis Kizos, a lecturer of rural geography at the University of the Aegean, claims that this type of intensive organic farming can feed the world as well as conventional agriculture does, but at the same time it generates environmental problems and disturbs the agro-ecosystem’s balance.

Assessing whether organic farming can feed the world requires more than a mere calculation. Simply dividing the total food supplies by the world’s population is not enough to ensure that everyone will have equal access to these food supplies.

The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (F.A.O.) reports on its website: “Food security is not only a question of the ability to produce food, but also of the ability to access it.” Current world food supplies are more than sufficient to provide the entire global population with the recommended minimum of 1,900 calories a day, according to Mathew Tyler, a campaigner for the Organic Consumers Association in Finland, Minnesota. However, more than 850 million people worldwide are undernourished, according to the F.A.O. Perfecto agrees that “it is not an issue of how much food is being produced, but it is an issue of the distribution of that food.”

A recent report by the United Nations International Fund for Agricultural Development (I.F.A.D.) concludes that organic farming can reduce poverty and hunger in developing countries because organic products grow without high-priced chemical pesticides and fertilizers. I.F.A.D. also argues that organic farmers will not be as dependent upon agro-industries as farmers of conventional crops are.

However, Craig Meisner, a professor of soil management at Cornell University in Ithaca, New York, says “we cannot assume that organic manures are cheap and available to all.” Meisner argues that compost, a natural fertilizer made from plant biomass and cow dung, is not always available in developing countries. People need these natural resources for other purposes, such as cattle feed and cooking fuel. Borlaug agrees: “Even if you could use all the organic material that you have –animal manures, human waste and plant residues–and get them back on the soil, you couldn’t feed more than four billion people.” Because of the shortage of organic material, says Kizos, “developing countries’ dependence upon agro-industries will not cease.”

Similar to developing countries, low-income communities of developed countries sometimes lack adequate access to food. According to Nikolaos Beopoulos, a professor of rural sociology at the University of Athens in Greece, organic food is more expensive than conventional one because it costs more to produce, is more labor intensive and carries a higher risk of crop failure. One solution could be to cut transportation and handling costs by locally distributing organic products. “A closer relationship between farmers and consumers can push organic food prices down,” Beopoulos adds.

However, some agribusiness industries such as Monsanto Company -a major producer of genetically modified foods- are dismissive of organic farming. Vivian Browses, a spokesperson for Monsanto says that “consumers of organic food are paying for the idea” that organic food is superior. And Borlaug adds that “if people want to believe that the organic food has better nutritive value, it’s up to them to make that foolish decision.”

But, who can guarantee that organic farming is environmentally friendly and organic food is safe and healthy?

“There is very little science” in organic farming, according to a House of Lords Committee on European Communities’ report published in 1999. Scientist seem to agree that there is not enough research that shows that organic foods provide better nutrition. Beopoulos says that “organic farming methods are environmentally friendly, but we are not sure yet about its results.”

Nevertheless, the answer to whether organic products can feed the world might not be black or white, but different shades of grey. Adjustments that would allow chemical fertilizers when they are needed –for example when a pest is becoming resistant to organic methods-”should be considered with an open mind,” says Badgley. And she adds that “the main goal of farming is to feed people, rather than sticking to one particular production method.”

Even for Kapelos, a world sustained by organic farming may seem far in the future. However, he gets a glimpse of this world every time he helps his vegetables grow in a natural way, bringing this future closer to reality one small step at a time.

Many policymakers advocate biofuels as a renewable and environmentally friendly source of energy, but they may not be the best alternative to fossil fuels.

Biofuels such as biodiesel and ethanol are made from agricultural crops, wood and animal waste. Biofuels have attracted increasing attention since the beginning of 2000 when the “energy crisis” caused by the depletion of fossil fuels pushed industries and governments to search for alternative sources of energy. Biofuels, currently used instead of gasoline in automobiles, in chemical industries and for home heating, are promoted as a source of energy that respects the environment and reduces greenhouse gas emissions. However, biofuels are definitely not the right weapon to fight global warming.

The U.S. Congress is weighing a proposal to increase the total production of biofuels seven times by 2022. However, scientists around the world are warning governments that biofuels have negative environmental and social impacts.

Two weeks ago, for example, the European Commissioner for the Environment, Stavros Dimas, admitted to the BBC: “We have seen that the environmental problems caused by biofuels and also the social problems are bigger than we thought they were. So we have to move very carefully.” Dimas said that it is better for the European Union to miss its biofuel target than to cause irreversible global environmental problems and hunger by meeting it.

However, neither the E.U. nations nor other countries worldwide seem to be taking these concerns into consideration. Under the pressure of increasing oil depletion, the world annual market for biofuels is estimated to quadruple from $20.5 billion to $80 billion by 2016.

Advocates of biofuels argue that they are an environmentally-friendly source of energy. They insist that biofuels cut carbon dioxide emissions, the main contributor to global warming. They reason that burning biofuels only releases carbon dioxide that plants have already absorbed from the atmosphere, while burning fossil fuels releases carbon dioxide from carbon stored deep in the earth’s crust. Therefore, they claim that the use of fossil fuels increases the net amount of greenhouse gas emissions in the atmosphere, while biofuels balance the total carbon burden.

But a growing number of scientific studies show that such comparisons between fossil fuels and biofuels are too simplistic. Fertilizers that are used to grow plants emit more greenhouse gases than they save, according to a study published last January in Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics. For example, fertilizers used in rapeseed crops for biodiesel production emit up to 1.7 times more greenhouse gases than those that they absorbed. Biofuels do not cut carbon emissions because farming, processing and transporting crops requires large amounts of energy. Also the industrial production of pesticides and fertilizers, extensively used for the treatment of biofuel crops, consumes massive amounts of energy.

Even if one ignores the evidence that biofuels are not more climate-friendly than fossil fuels, several studies also show that they are not even energy efficient. According to a report published in Natural Resources Research in July 2005, growing corn for ethanol production requires 29 percent more energy than is provided by the resulting biofuel. The same is true for soybean crops used for biodiesel production, as 27 percent more energy is consumed than is produced.

If the changes in land use are taken into account, biofuels seem to be even more catastrophic for the environment, according to two studies published this month in Science. They concluded that converting native ecosystems to biofuel production results in large carbon debts. Biofuel crops are planted in the place of tropical rainforests, the world’s primary carbon reservoirs. In Brazil, farmers are burning large swaths of Amazonian rainforest and converting it to soybean crops for biodiesel production, which some environmentalists call “deforestation diesel.” Oil-palm plantations in Indonesia take the place of virgin jungles, releasing larger amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Several recent studies show that plants used for biofuel production absorb much less carbon dioxide from the atmosphere than rainforests. One acre of Indonesian oil-palm plantation land can store up to 25 tons of carbon in trunks and leaves, while one acre of natural forest can store up to 98 tons, according to an October 2002 review in Science China.

“This land use problem is not just a secondary effect – it was often just a footnote in prior [scientific] papers,” said Timothy Searchinger, lead author of a recent study in Science, as quoted in a New York Times article on February 8th. Replacing natural forests with biofuel crops also disturbs the balance of the ecosystem and threatens biodiversity. As a result, wild plants and animals face extinction. For example, orangutans, an endangered species, lose their natural habitats as biofuel crops replace the Indonesian jungles. Rare bird species, reptiles, fish and insects also lose their territories as corn crops take the place of Amazonian rainforests.

In addition to environmental concerns, biofuels have negative social impacts and raise ethical and moral issues. Land that is traditionally used for growing food is now being used to grow plants that will produce biofuel energy. As a result, food supplies are decreasing, pushing up prices. In the U.S. the price of corn increased by 78 percent and the worldwide price of sugar doubled during 2007. While consumers around the world burn potential food in their cars’ engines, 854 million people still go to sleep on empty stomachs according to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. As Jeffrey McNeely, chief scientist of the International World Conservation Union argued in a 2006 online article for BBC News, “the [corn] grain required to fill the petrol tank of a Range Rover with ethanol is sufficient to feed one person per year. Assuming the petrol tank is refilled every two weeks, the amount of grain required would feed a hungry African village for a year.”

While first-generation biofuels from food crops are now coming under increasing scrutiny, government and industry are promoting second and third generation biofuels such as cellulose and algae. The new twist on biofuel production may sound promising and more environmentally-friendly, but governments should be mindful to avoid the same old trap of easily foreseeable negative environmental and social impacts. The biofuel bandwagon is detracting attention from the real challenges posed by global warming such as the need to reduce energy use and cut greenhouse gas emissions. Governments should reconsider their biofuel targets and introduce sustainable renewable sources of energy like wind, solar and geothermal power.

(2/20/08)

Opinions

“Biofuels: An Alternative Source of Pollution” by Aspasia Daskalopoulou (2/20/08)

“The Semantics of Science” by Lauren Rugani (2/8/08)

“Straight from the Tap: Alcohol and Breastfeeding” by Natalia Mackenzie (2/20/08)

Features

“The 100-Mile Diet” by Nuño Dominguez (10/6/08)

“Can Organic Farming Feed the World?” by Aspasia Daskalopoulou (5/9/08)

“Farming Drugs: Playing with Pharmacrops” by Nuño Dominguez (4/26/08)

“Sounds of the City” by Jeff Meredith (6/2/08)

“The New Lunch Money: The Business of Biomentrics in Schools” by Jeff Meredith (4/26/08)

“The Promise (and Potential Perils) of Nanotechnolgy” by Lauren Rugani (4/26/08)

Profiles

“Psychologist Finds Therapeutic Role for Family Dinners” by Aspasia Daskalopoulou (7/7/08)

Videos

“Aging Young Rebel: A Boston Music Video” by Nuño Domínguez and Natalia Mackenzie (3/11/08)

“As Serious As Your Life: A Boston Music Video” by Lauren Rugani (3/11/08)

“Canon: A Boston Music Video” by Aspasia Daskalopoulou and Janet Stalker (3/11/08)

Finally, an online resource for ’science hobbyists’ in the Boston and Cambridge area. This site is for anyone who eventually flips to The Discovery Channel on a Sunday afternoon, chooses New Scientist over Vogue on the magazine stand, or just loves to learn about what makes their city a science metropolis.

This site began in January 2008 as a graduate student’s independent study of blogging, and now with the support of the Harold G. Buchbinder Entrepreneurial Media Studies Competition judges, is the first stop for Bostonians to learn about science-related events and news in their community.

Science Metropolis supports visitor interaction – both in the digital and physical world. While you’re here, check out the calendar of science events and links to resources in and around the area, join our book club or take part in one of several contests going on throughout the year.

This is also a place for writers. Imagine a community for businesses looking to attract customers to science-related activities, students inspired by their physics class and parents looking for ways to expose their kids to science, technology and engineering. If you would like to be a writer, know of an event I don’t, or would like to contribute in some way, e-mail Joseph at jcaputo@sciencemetropolis.com.

In the News:

Boston Globe (5/18/08) Science blogger is putting his talents where his typing is by Marc Larocque

Staten Island Advance (6/8/08) Applause

BU Today (6/10/08) Creator of science web site wins award: COM alum finds $10K media studies competition

Who’s on the team?

Joseph Caputo – Editor/Writer

I am a 23 year old graduate of the science journalism program at Boston University. I am originally from New York City – Staten Island specifically. I attended Stuyvesant High School in Manhattan and went to college at Sarah Lawrence in Westchester. I enjoy newspapers and keep a virtual file of every science story I read.

My science writing heroes are Andrew Revkin, Carl Zimmer, Chris Mooney, Diana Kenney and Phil Hilts. My favorite magazines are SEED, Wired, Smithsonian and The New Yorker. My background is in biology, although I do dabble in the other subjects. I particularly like subjects that blur the lines between science,society and policy.  I am also a freelancer. For a list of clips, visit my portfolio.

Nuño Domínguez – Writer

I am a Spanish science journalist currently pursuing a master’s degree in science journalism at Boston University under a Fulbright scholarship. I am originally from Madrid, where I went to high school and later earned a degree in Journalism at Universidad Complutense. I have worked as a reporter for magazines, newspapers and news agencies, covering politics, education and science. I love to explore and write about biology, energy and the environment. While in Boston, I am a science correspondent of Publico, a Spanish daily based in Madrid, and an assistant producer of science documentaries. For a list of clips, visit my portfolio.

Roxane Palmer – Intern

I graduated from Brown University in 2008 with a bachelor’s in English (ask me about Herman Melville’s Civil War poetry! Really!), but also with a significant number of science classes under my belt. Now I’m a grad student in the Boston University science journalism program. My background is mostly in ecology and evolutionary biology, but I am interested in all areas of science. The magazines I read most regularly are the New Yorker, Scientific American, The Economist, and MAD magazine (but only for the articles). I’m also an amateur political cartoonist and illustrator. For a list of clips, visit my portfolio.

Jennifer Berglund – Intern

I’m a graduate student in the Science and Medical Journalism Program at Boston University. My love for science began with the outdoors. Growing up in Tennessee, I was surrounded with lovely landscapes and a level of biodiversity that exceeds any location in North America. Naturally, I developed an appreciation and a curiosity for the natural world that has remained with me throughout my life. As a science journalist, I want to make science tangible and fun for normal people because I feel like no one should have to be a scientist to love and understand it.

Whenever I have time to spare, I love going on adventures, indoor vegetable gardening, brewing beer, and watching jazz and bluegrass around Boston. I write for Science Metropolis because it’s pretty darn fun.  For a list of clips, visit my portfolio.

Julia Darcey – Writer

My name is Julia Darcey, and I am a graduate student in Boston University’s Science Journalism program. I grew up in Denver, Colorado, and got my B.S. in Biology from Cornell University, where I researched climate change. All I really want in life is to write about science as well as Stephen J. Gould.

I am interested in the environment, and though I enjoy writing about other subjects, my mission as a science journalist is to cover our degradation of the natural world. My goal is to never write an article about an environmental problem without also giving information about how that problem can be fixed. For a list of clips, visit my portfolio.

Rachel Blumenthal – Columnist

After growing up in Sharon, Massachusetts, I spent five years in Rochester, New York, first as a neuroscience major at the University of Rochester and then as an Alzheimer’s research lab technician for a year after graduation. Unhappy in research but still in love with science, I knew there was a different career path that would be a better fit for me.  Now I’m back in Boston, studying science journalism at Boston University.  When I’m not writing about science, I’m indulging in a few hobbies.  A lifelong musician, I enjoy learning any instrument I can get my hands on.  I’ve recently become a photography hobbyist; many of my photos are posted here.  I also write about my restaurant adventures around Boston at my food blog, Fork It Over, Boston! For a list of clips, visit my portfolio.

Melissa Barrett – Poetry Editor

Melissa Barrett is a writer and teacher from Ohio. She enjoys traveling, cooking, and spending time with amazing people. She advocates the vegetarian diet and Jeb Bush in 2008. Just kidding about that last one.

Barrett attended Wittenberg University for her undergraduate and recently earned an a M.F.A in poetry from Sarah Lawrence College. In her spare time, she sells vegan baked goods, volunteers and travels with her family.

Lauren Rugani – Writer

I am a science journalism graduate student at Boston University and a recent graduate of Syracuse University, where I majored in Physics. I spent a year and a half writing for Photonics Spectra and Biophotonics International, which are trade magazines in the photonics (light-based technologies) industry. I like to write about emerging technologies and “future science,” especially things that are relatively unknown to the general public. I am also a published poet, and so I help Joe with each month’s science Rap-Up. My favorite science magazines are Wired, New Scientist and Scientific American.

Aspasia Daskalopoulou – Writer/Photographer

My love for science documentaries, radio and art “drove” me from Greece -my home country- to Boston in 2007, where I study science journalism at Boston University. There, I discovered the magic and power of writing. I never expected it to become my second love. Having a background in environmental science, my goal is to communicate science, specifically environmental issues, to audiences in an informative and entertaining way.

Eva Zadeh - Videographer

Originally from Paris, France, I arrived in Boston in 2006 to study journalism at Boston University. During my Master’s program, I took a radio class, and since then, I’ve decided to start producing audio science stories.

I also have a master’s degree in Physics, Chemistry and Environmental Sciences; but I’d rather produce stories about the human brain. I particularly like subjects that deal with memory and consciousness. My favorite science magazines are SEED and New Scientist. And my favorite science radio show is RadioLab.

Dr. Natalia Mackenzie – Contributing writer

Jeff Meredith – Contributing writer

A Very Special Thanks to: Michael Balter, Brian Cohen, Douglas Starr, Ellen Rupel Shell and Jodi Turek.

(Credit: Aspasia Daskalopoulou)

– Story by Lauren Rugani

Statistically, Derek Jeter is the worst defensive shortstop in major league baseball, giving Red Sox fans every right to shout, “Overrated!” when he takes the field at Fenway Park. Ironically, Yankee management parked one of the (statistically) best shortstops in the league, A-Rod, at third base.

A panel of researchers at February’s AAAS meeting in Boston discussed these two sub-fields of baseball statistics – fielding and managerial decision-making – and how mathematics can be applied to analyze and predict performance. This adds to the growing field of “sabrmetrics,” the quantitative and objective study of baseball performance. The term stems from the acronym for the Society for American Baseball Research, and, “adding ‘metrics’ to the end of anything just makes it sound smarter,” joked panelist Shane T. Jensen of the University of Pennsylvania.

Analyzing baseball is anything but a joke, however. Straightforward stats like batting average, on-base percentage and pitchers’ earned run averages are seen everywhere from the back of baseball cards to on-screen graphics during televised baseball games. Since baseball is a less interactive sport than say, football or basketball, much of a player’s stats are largely determined by his own performance. Now, statisticians are including parameters that account for interdependent performance on the field. If Derek Jeter fails to field a ground ball that results in the hitter getting on base, is it because of his poor fielding skills or because he was playing closer to second base than he normally does?

Researchers like Jensen, along with fellow speakers David Pinto and Steve C. Wang of Swarthmore College in Pennsylvania, dig deeper to determine whether stats are really a good measure of performance. For example, if Manny Ramirez goes 4-4 (padding his batting average) but none of his hits result in a run and the team loses, is he really worth that multi-million dollar contract?

Jensen’s research goes so far as to include the handedness of both pitcher and batter, the size of the park and the range of the outfielders to determine whether each play should have resulted in an out, based on similar plays from the past. Wang analyzes various managerial tactics such as deciding when to take pitchers out of the game or choosing to steal or bunt.

So does any of this actually matter to anyone other than stat-hungry fans? The researchers say yes. Baseball players make a lot of money, and some of them might not deserve it. Recognitions like the Cy Young Award and the Gold Glove are awarded primarily through subjective voting, and the winners often do not reflect the numbers.
Furthermore, analyzing not only a player’s individual performance but predicting his potential interaction with the rest of the team will help determine whether a player would be a beneficial addition. Compiling stats at the minor league level will help scouts make better decisions if they happen to catch a player on one of his worse days.

However, the researchers don’t see managers trading in chew tobacco for number crunching machines. Baseball involves a lot of gut feelings (like keeping J.D. Drew) that computers can’t provide, especially given that one game, one month, or even one season are extremely small sample sizes for measuring a player’s capabilities.