With only two hours to convey seven lives over a twenty-one year span, Doctors’ Diaries only gives a glance of the sleepless nights and rigorous classes to get through med school, the intense hands-on residencies, and the life each doctor forges out of their training. Observing the three women and four men at Harvard and beyond as they struggle with large workloads, classes that involve human corpses, attempts to have intimate relationships and interests outside the medical world, life in busy hospitals; all while coming of age. This is truly a look at an evolution and a non-linear, sometimes out of balance, path to a life they all dreamed of. And that path never seems to stop winding, as each doctor narrows down their field interests, have families, and become teachers and role models to the next generation of doctors.

The word doctor originates from a word that meant teacher, scholar, religious teacher, or someone respected because of their knowledge. Today, doctors are some of the most educated people and their knowledge of our bodies is invaluable. While their ability to teach us about living healthy is important and evident to most- Doctors' Diaries points out another lesson we can learn from doctors that is not often appreciated. In the current economic climate where headlines only seem to tell of corporate greed and selfishness, the enormous amount of sacrifice all seven doctors go through to get to where they are today- six are practicing medicine and one is in the non-profit world- is refreshing. Besides the six plus years of medical school and residencies, the doctors of this film have accepted a life of working long hours- and their personal lives, interests and sometimes health suffer. Their sacrifices are proof that there are people who have a desire, or a calling, to help those around them by using their talents for the benefits of others. It is a nice reminder that there are still people in our country who are concerned with the quality of life for everyone.

Doctors' Diaries will air on PBS Tuesday April 7th and Tuesday April 14th, 2009.

Levine acquires acromegaly, a syndrome resulting from excess growth hormone or in this case a tumor on the pituitary gland. The delayed diagnosis, life changes and corrective surgery result in an upgrade from Emily 2.0 to Emily 3.0. She experiences her own personal paradigm shift- a physics term denoting phase transitions that Levine adopts. From a life of levity, Levine’s acromegaly is a harsh gravitational pull downward as she experiences fatigue, loss of memory and wit, and extreme tissue swelling in her hands, feet and head. Her extremities literally weigh her down until she no longer resembled the person she once was.

Whether it was the reminder that no matter what the human mind has accomplished, it is still subject to what happens to our bodies, or maybe it was the cosmology and physics books she read while bedridden- Levine has come up with some big ideas about the interconnectivity of our lives, society and the laws that govern our physical planet. Our education system tends to separate psychology and chemistry and physics and sociology, so it's a rather complicated challenge to try to draw connections between them. Levine takes on that challenge with enthusiasm and humor, whether it’s relating the Bush era to the Law of Contradiction- you are either with us or against us- to describing her own health problems with the first theory of quantum physics, know as the butterfly effect and the notion of disorder giving rise to order. She relates her body’s overgrowth to our nation’s cycle of consuming and growing in the context of the closed loop in physics- a closed system impermeable to new matter.

It's clear Levine's experience with acromegaly led her to the edge of chaos, a place where she is able to intimately connect with her audience, seamlessly mixing scientific jargon and personal disclosure. Her unique perspective and clever use of science delivers some very human experiences in a fresh and approachable way.

Emily on the Edge of Chaos will be running through April 11th at the Ensemble Studio Theater.

The night appeared to be an uncommon partnership between scientists and musicians, but how unlikely is the pairing actually? Performers had varying opinions on the roles science and music plays in their lives. Coles Whalen, a singer songwriter with a powerful voice, opened the night with praise for her scientist mother who had always supported her musical ambitions. Whalen seemed to appreciate the rare occasion for her talents to be able to support her mothers.

David Rand, bassist of Pardis Sabeti's alternative rock group Thousand Days finds an aesthetic satisfaction with both writing a good scientific paper and writing a good song. As a Harvard biology grad student, Rand uses his PhD work to help with material for his solo music. Does music then help him with the science? Indirectly, according to Rand, since it balances out his life. Thousand Days drummer and scientist Bob Katsiaficas drew parallels in the process of working out a scientific problem and writing music. He put it simply- "They both use a lot of trial and error."

As for the star perspective, Rufus Wainwright started off his set with some science self-deprecation when he admitted that he failed every science course he took and once described himself as 5'12", instead of 6 feet. He seemed out of his element, weary of and unsure how to connect to his audience. With an interest in science being the common thread of the audience instead of a love for his music, it’s had to fault him for this. No one thought that failing every science class was a funny notion and it made for some awkward moments. As his set went on, both the audience and Wainwright warmed up to each other. Wainwright’s lullaby like voice and brooding lyrics were hard to resist. And Wainwright, longtime gay rights activist, found a way to relate when he declared that “scientists are the new oppressed people,” and that he will always fight for oppressed people.

The hope and joy in the science community birthed by those eight words on January 20th is evidence of how starved it has been by the politics of the previous administration. The Obama administration plans on using scientific and technological innovations to spur present and future economic growth. Stephen Colbert demands Mooney to “sell” science to him, to which Mooney asks if he cares about the future of the American economy. Colbert, with his trademark satirical wit, replies “as long as I’m alive,” displaying the shortsighted attitude that has been prominent in the past eight years. Thus far, Obama seems to have the foresight to put government funding into science research that will yield positive economic results in the present and the future. Colbert questions Mooney about what Obama will do differently, and in my favorite part of the interview, Mooney simply replies that he’s going to listen, even when it’s inconvenient.

With a BCI, it is possible to move a cursor, mind-type a word, or possibly move a mechanical arm. Brain signals are picked up from the scalp, the surface of the brain or inside the brain. The Wadsworth Center of the New York State Department of Health has developed a non-invasive BCI suitable for independent home use under the research of Dr. Jonathon Wolpaw. The Wadsworth BCI is non-invasive because it reads electroencephalography (EEG)- brain signals from the scalp. Non-invasive BCIs may increase accessibility to the technology because the need for surgery has been eliminated, dramatically reducing costs and making it suitable for the home. Currently beginning clinical trials, the home BCI is a nylon cap with eight electrodes placed on the head with an electro gel conductor. The system is hooked up to a computer and with minimal training most users could move a cursor, type, or use any Windows-based program without moving a muscle.

I learned about the training required for this system from Scott Hamel, a six-year veteran volunteer for the Wadsworth Center. Hamel, who had a spinal cord injury affecting the lower half of his body, started volunteering because of his interest in the technology and his desire to help others. Hamel began his time as a test subject in 2000, when the BCI was only capable of one-dimensional movement, the technology limited to moving a cursor up or down. To get Hamel started, the researchers at Wadsworth made some suggestions on what he should imagine so he could make the cursor move. To move the cursor up Hamel imagined curling the toes on his left foot. To move the cursor down, he would imagine his wife Cindy scraping her finger nails on the palm of his hand and it would move the cursor down. Like learning a task that involved muscle control, learning to use a BCI is an acquired skill that requires practice and observation of, and feedback for what works and what doesn’t work. Users get feedback for correct strategies when the cursor moves in the right direction or when it hits the target. Users use observation to make the appropriate adjustments, and on the other end, the BCI system is designed to adapt to the user. For word processing an onscreen keyboard lights up individual letters, modeled after a program called the P300. The computer records the test subject’s “aha” moment when the desired letter is highlighted. After flashing each letter in the alphabet a few times, the computer learns to recognize the user’s “aha” brain activity – and can discriminate and display the user’s choice. The BCI adjusts to the specific user’s brain signal and is eventually able to pick up on the desired letter the first time.

Hamel continued working with the Wadsworth Center as it moved past one-dimensional movement to two-dimensional in the mid-90s. Reaching two-dimensional capability surprised the scientific community and earned the research team an award and a grant from the Altran Foundation, a French philanthropist company that holds an annual international scientific competition for technological innovations that promotes human benefit. At the time most BCI systems were invasive, requiring surgery to place sensors in the brain or on the surface of the brain. It had been suggested by some that a non-invasive BCI would be similar to listening to a symphony from outside the concert hall. Achieving two-dimensional control made it clear that the Wadsworth BCI was a significant scientific achievement.

Currently the Wadsworth BCI is capable of three-dimensional control and is placed in a small number of homes of people who are almost completely paralyzed and have lost the ability to communicate in conventional manners. The goal is to be able to place the technology in homes of the many who cannot easily communicate to give them more independence and connect them again to their loved ones and the world. The three-dimensional control is also being used to explore the possibility of EEG controlled prosthetic limbs and wheelchairs, though this is still in the exploratory level.

Could this technology be used for a less noble cause? Will this lead to something worse than wire-tapping phones- EEG-tapping brains? According to Hamel, this is unlikely since you are trained to control your EEG consistently and imagine motor skills like leaning on the right or left foot. The system then responds to those established controls, it cannot interpret thoughts or desires. BCI is simply a computer, working only with a user inputting information and a technician giving feedback on how to best send that information. However, only time can really tell how technology will be used in the future. For now, we can be happy that some unique and inspiring voices that otherwise may have been lost will be heard.

Source: Wadsworthcenter.org

Sam Cohen, a Brooklyn native, was deployed during WWII to Los Alamos, New Mexico to work on and witness the first detonation of an atomic bomb at the White Sands Missile Range. After the war, Cohen remained in Los Alamos to work on weaponry at the RAND Corporation think tank. He recruited his friend and fellow scientist Herman Kahn to work with him. The friends' views on the future of national security started to diverge as Cohen pushed for use of the neutron bomb he had developed and believed was a moral weapon. Cohen's neutron bomb had the capacity to kill every person in a one-mile radius without affecting buildings or structures. Cohen believed that with more work, the radius could be cut down and the bomb could be detonated at the top of a building, killing everyone inside but no one else. Described as delivering death like a needle because of its precision, Cohen believed this would significantly reduce civilian casualties and eliminate the destruction of infrastructure. Kahn went a different direction, believing that global nuclear war was unavoidable and that it was not possible for the US to build too many nuclear weapons as this would create either the fear needed to prevent the war or the ability to win the war. This laid the groundwork for the Mutually Assured Destruction doctrine, which would dominate the arms race of the Cold War.

Cohen believed that the neutron bomb would be militarily effective and avoid the use of annihilating nuclear weapons. Cohen continued advocating for use of the neutron bomb through the Vietnam War, proclaiming that it would save American lives, but he was largely ignored. Kahn was highly regarded in the military defense world for his policy recommendations that claimed other countries have the nuclear bomb and are ready to strike. When Cohen investigates Kahn's work, he finds that the recommendations for military action aren't based in reality, rather are mostly speculative and guess work. Cohen confronts his long time friend and cries out, "We're scientists!" to which Kahn replies, "We're analysts." Daisey pauses at this moment, letting the subtle distinction between those positions sink in. Scientists hypothesize and discover; analysts take the results and decide what should be done. The order in which the process is done is essential, the final outcome cannot decide what the supporting evidence will be, and rather it is the evidence that must decide the outcome. In 1969, Cohen is ultimately fired and rumors have Kahn as the force behind it. The two never speak again.

Daisey's performance, with perfect timing and full use of his wide vocal range, saunters between being chilling and amusing. He likens our current defense strategy to his vacation to Rome, where he was pick-pocketed within the first six hours of arriving. He does not see any city sights despite physically visiting them. All he can see are people everywhere, ready to take his new, empty wallet. He warns that a standing army will always find something to do and that the outsourcing of thinking to think tanks and fighting to contract soldiers will eventually lead to an outsourced democracy.

The portion of the performance dedicated to current defense policies is somewhat redundant; he discusses the absurdity of the post 9/11 color-coded Homeland Security Advisory System that lacked any criteria and never went below orange, the second highest level. Most people are aware that the advisory system was flashing red on the color-coded Fear-Tactic Advisory System. Daisey really shines when compassionately telling Sam Cohen's unique story that puts you back to a time when the end of the world was almost tangible. Daisey, with his lonely, bizarre childhood obsession with nuclear weapons, personally related to Cohen, who was a lonely and abused child. He recounts Cohen's admittance in his memoirs that his childhood anger could have seeped into his desires and driven him to build nuclear bombs; displaying a self-awareness and humanity in the controversial scientist.

Kahn's methodology of policy-driven science is risky and un-scientific. With a new administration moving in, we the citizens need to decide where we want science to lead us, because as Daisey reminds us, governments do not easily give up power.