The Rice Thresher, Vol. 97, No. 11, Ed. 1 Friday, November 6, 2009 Page: 3 of 20
twenty pages : ill. ; page 19 x 15 in.View a full description of this newspaper.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
' ppf |
Op-Ed
Rice-BCM merger to promote research
In light of recent discussions
of the proposed Rice-Baylor Col-
lege of Medicine merger, we would
like to remind students, faculty
and staff of the beneficial side of
this proposition.
Jennifer West and
Richard Smith
In the first place, if the merger
happens, there will likely be a signifi-
cant increase in research collabora-
tions between the two institutions.
At present, most academic research
expenditures in the United States are
dedicated to biomedical, rather than
basic, research. With BCM on board,
Rice would immediately gain a lead-
ership position among its peer insti-
tutions in biomedical research.
Rice would have access to re-
search on the cutting edge of the
medical and scientific community.
Among the programs at BCM ranked
at the top or near the top in terms of
funding by the National Institutes of
Health are Pediatrics, Genetics and
Cell Biology. BCM also has extremely
strong programs in many other basic
science departments (Biochemis-
try and Neuroscience) and centers
(Breast Cancer, Genome and Gene
Therapy). Many authorities believe
that the combined strength of the
Human Genome Sequencing Center,
the Department of Molecular and
Human Genetics and the Center for
Cell and Gene Therapy would be un-
rivaled anywhere in the world. As a
result, the senior scientists at BCM
are confident that a Rice-BCM merger
would instantly provide Rice with a
high national ranking among medi-
cal schools, and potentially place us
among the top 10, if not the top five,
medical schools in the country.
The Rice community may not be
familiar with BCM's research funding.
The current NIH annual funding for
BCM is $2/j2 million. In terms of NIH
stimulus funding, which represents
a current assessment of the competi-
tiveness of BCM, Baylor received $39.9
million, while MD Anderson received
$32.8 million, the University of Texas-
Houston received $26.8 million and
the University of Texas-Southwestern
received $26.3 million as the next high
est ranking institutions in Texas. Cur-
rently BCM ranks 13th in NIH funding
among U.S. medical schools, while
Southwestern, the next highest
ranked Texas medical school, is only
in the 20s.
It is likely that Rice will gain bio-
medical research funding, as in the
case of the new Cancer Prevention
and Research Institute of Texas pro-
gram. (For more information, visit
http://www.cprit.state.tx.usf). By itself
Rice has limited prospects for CPRIT
funding, but a Rice-BCM entity could
rank as high as number two in all of
Texas for this sort of support. Indeed,
the new entity could reasonably
expect CPRIT funding to attain the
level of National Cancer Institute
funding, which presently is roughly
$50 million at BCM, about $179 mil-
lion at MD Anderson and approxi-
mately $26.6 million at Southwestern.
The Methodist Hospital, incidentally,
obtains about $1.9 million in NCI
funding, and Rice currently receives
only $2.6 million from NCI.
Finally, we believe that there will
be a substantial increase in Rice-di-
rected philanthropy as donors are
attracted by the prospects of the
newly merged institution. In the
merger, Rice will have control over
the future direction of BCM, includ-
ing a voice in the selection of a new
leader for the medical school. Rice
will also help determine research
priorities to further its Vision for
the Second Century, and make deci-
sions about what new departments
to form, what hospitals to affiliate
with and what priorities to set.
In short, we believe that a merger of
the sort proposed will bring substantial
benefits to Rice, not least in terms of
even greater prestige, and we are con-
fident that the Rice administration and
the Rice board will ultimately make a
decision based on Rice's best financial
and academic interests, regardless of
what that decision might be.
Richard J. Smith is a History
professor and Jennifer West is a
Bioengineering and Chemical
Engineering professor. Professors
Vivian Ho, John T. McDevitt, Rebecca
R. Richards-Kortum, and Jing Zhou
contributed to this column.
Mature themes still sneak into kids' movies
Have you ever watched a chil-
dren's movie and found yourself
saying, "This movie is not for kids"?
Such thoughts ran through my head
last week as I took in Disney's The
Hunchback of Notre Dame, a film
that made me wonder which morbid
visionary decided the tragic story of
a deformed bell-ringer would make a
good children's classic.
Ellen Kim
Before continuing, I will say that
the movie itself was amazing. I had
not seen Hunchback before last week,
and 1 was impressed by its thematic
breadth, dynamic composition and
array of good and evil. But this was
the appreciation of an 18-year-old. I
doubt it would have the same signifi-
cance for a child 10 years younger.
The dark themes underlying the
plot are stark and unavoidable. Jux-
taposed with tolerance, love, hon-
esty and righteousness are preju-
dice, hatred, hypocrisy and sin. The
gypsies are despised and scorned
as thieves and vagabonds, yet ex-
pected to provide the town with
lively entertainment. The adminis-
trator of justice, Claude Frollo, is a
sadistic man with distorted morals.
He is convinced, however, that he
is a devout Catholic, utterly impec-
cable in manner and ways.
But there is none further from
piety. The uncompassionate Frollo
persecutes and tortures with un-
paralleled violence. He inculcates
his adopted hunchback son, Quasi-
modo, with the so-called wickedness
of society, one afraid of disfigura-
tion. Frollo is quickly proven correct,
when, at the Festival of Fools, the
townspeople bind Quasimodo with
rope and pummel him with tomatoes,
jeering at his ugliness. The scene it-
self was incredibly distressing, with
Frollo coolly ignoring Quasimodo's
pleas for help.
Another unavoidable edge to
the story is Frollo's obsession with
the beautiful gypsy dancer Esmer-
alda. This was perhaps the most
disturbing aspect of the movie. In
fact, I literally spat out a mouthful
of water when Frollo began inhal-
ing Esmeralda's hair in one scene.
Besides the fact that he is prob
ably twice her age and looks like
he could be her grandfather, Frollo
clearly vocalizes his impure desires
for her. His lustful attraction to Es-
meralda is an eerie indicator of a
lack of sexual intimacy in his life.
Now, I happened to find Frollo's
internal conflicts fascinating. The
depiction of his ambivalence his
desire for Esmeralda and fear of sin
ning shows his inability to control
human nature. But for a children's
movie, the themes were anything if
not bizarre. Those behind the film
choose not to dilute these PG-13
elements at all. Children may not
fully be aware of the nuances, but
their parents will certainly notice.
And sooner rather than later, moth-
ers and fathers will be anticipating
some subtle, subconscious changes
in their little ones that they might
attribute to the "corruptive" movie.
Many people are quick to criti-
cize parents for not checking up on
movies before taking their children
out to see them. After all, parents
are the most vocal about movies
with "deceptive" posters, titles and
trailers. I agree that parents should
probably make sure that the content
of the movie is appropriate, or at the
very least, what they approve of. But
that's not always easy.
Studios promote movies to an
audience by publicizing what they
deem most appealing. That's just
common sense. For young mov-
iegoers, the commercials will be
overflowing with talking rodents
and exciting, colorful animations
maybe even in 3-D. Can we hon
estly expect parents to perform
background checks on these mov-
ies to make sure that the computer-
animated hamsters won't be mur-
dering one another with pocket
knives? They will look at the G rat-
ing and be content with that.
As for parents' angry or disap-
pointed reactions to these chil-
dren's-movies-gone-awry, it is com-
pletely understandable. They go
out with their sons and daughters
to enjoy a sweet, happy movie; the
last thing they want to do is drive
home, trying to explain why that
old man was chasing the pretty girl
with the goat, or worse, pretending
that nothing happened.
I remember when I went to see
the Cat in the Hat with my friend
and our younger siblings. Our little
sisters wanted to know why people
laughed when Cat called the hoe a
"dirty hoe." My mom didn't under-
stand the joke because she didn't
know the ins and outs of American
slang, but she would have been
very surprised if she had. This bit
of crude humor was not necessary
to the plot in any form and was
completely wasted on the intend-
ed audience: elementary school
children. Those who did laugh, in-
cluding the unsuspecting parents
caught off guard, most likely found
themselves besieged with similar,
awkward questions. By that point,
the joke would not be funny at all.
It would be nice if children's mov-
ies wouldn't package dirty puns in
cute boxes with dancing gargoyles or
larger-than-life kitty cats on the front.
If the movie-makers want to tackle a
darker subject and use hidden un-
dertones to expose the ugly side of
life, then by all means, they should
make the movie. But they should do
it for an audience that is more likely
to appreciate those qualities.
Ellen Kim is a
Sid Richardson College freshman.
Academic communication
format ineffective, outdated
In less than two months, I will
graduate with a bachelor's degree in
ecology. Shortly thereafter, if gradu-
ate school applications go as well
as I hope, you'll find me in a Ph.D.-
track program for conservation biol-
ogy or environmental science. Like
most seniors around this time, I'm
as excited as I am nervous.
Margie Diddams
However, I have a secret. It's not
much of a secret for those who know
me, but considering you probably
don't, and in light of what I've just
told you, this may come as some-
thing of a surprise.
I am not a fan of academia.
I yearn to change the world. If my
life doesn't impact the way humans in-
teract with the environment, help elimi-
nate discrimination, war or poverty, or
improve the treatment of animals or the
distribution of resources, I fear I'll have
spent a lifetime in vain. Perhaps this
seems romantic or naive. I'm okay with
that; it's my truth.
Sometimes I get fed up with aca-
demia for its inability to meet those
goals. How, I've wondered, can I ever
change the world if I'm too busy study-
ing steric hindrance and the coefficient
of conversion efficiency? And yet I'm
attending an elite academic institu-
tion, with plans for continued educa-
tion. You can see the contradiction.
I finally read something that
helped me swallow this quandary:
a new book by Randy Olson entitled
Don't Be Such a Scientist. His basic
argument is just as it sounds: Scien-
tists — academics in general, really
have such a hard time communi-
cating their ideas that the public
can't relate, and the vast majority of
intellectually useful information goes
unheard. He draws a distinction be-
tween substance and style: Brainiacs
have got the substance, but they often
fall flat on their style of delivery.
After finishing the book, I realized
that I agreed. Academia and I are, by
and large, working toward the same
goals. Academics have the substance,
but they too often lack the style. I'm
sure every Rice student can relate on
some level. Be honest, students (even
faculty, as you were students once,
too): How many times have you fallen
asleep during class? Let your mind
wander? Thought about food, sex,
sleep — anything more relevant to
your daily life?
But if you take out the mumbo
jumbo — the jargon and the big
words, the complex theories that
lead to frantic late nights in Fondren
— academia is all about the big is-
sues: Why are we here? Where did
we come from and who are we? How,
through science and art, can we im-
prove ourselves, our society and our
surroundings? What could be more
relevant to our daily lives?
So the substance and the con-
tent are certainly there. (I dare you
to identify any topic the institution-
ally recognized "thinkers" of the
world aren't bouncing around their
grey matter.) But the style with
which those "thinkers" communi-
cate is obviously flawed — or else
students would not have to mental-
ly leave the classroom to find issues
that resonate with them.
The first semester of my freshman
year at Rice, I committed an aca-
demic faux pas. I was taking a course
on postmodern literature. We'd just
finished reading some spectacular
book — probably by Toni Morrison,
my postmodern queen — and I'd come
to class ready to rave. When I com-
mented that the book touched me
deeply and made me sob, the response
was not as I'd expected. My classmates
and professor didn't disagree so much
as stare at me. I had interrupted a per-
fectly good, intellectual discussion of
the book's complex symbolism and
erratic organization. Of what intellec-
tual value were my tears?
Books, like scientific inventions,
psychological theories and politi-
cal ramblings, are intended for the
public. If a book makes you cry, or
if lots of people in society put scien-
tific inventions, psychological theo-
ries or political ramblings to good
use, then why can't we call that
book, product or theory a success?
And if that's the case, if the public's
response to academic work deter-
mines, at least in part, the value
of that work, shouldn't we strive to
make academia more accessible?
Life, as I see it, is pretty simple.
Much as we try to pretend other-
wise, humans are animals: We eat,
sleep and reproduce, and some-
how we've got to get along in the
process. Everything else in society,
like our advanced technology and
extensive infrastructure, is second-
ary, and represents attempts to im-
prove our efficiency or enjoyment
of the basics. Nonetheless, centu-
ries of intellectuals have produce i
a whole repertoire of convoluted
terms and esoteric hypotheses from
such straightforward concepts.
A memo to stressed orgo stu-
dents: Atoms don't experience steric
hindrance. They run into each other.
Kah-bam. Like a fly to the windshield.
And populations don't express a coef-
ficient of conversion efficiency. Preda-
tors digest their prey, and it takes time.
Every field has a list — oh, so long —
of comparable examples, basic ideas
made unnecessarily complex.
Today's generation of scholars
is not necessarily to blame for this
phenomenon. Academia is a con-
servative craft. Scientific and artistic
ideas exist in the modern intellectual
consciousness because countless
individuals over thousands of years
have fought for their inclusion. To
stray too far from the accepted body
of knowledge is to imply that you
know more than all those smart dead
dudes combined. So if you're going to
suggest something novel, you better
do it in the least shocking way pos-
sible: Use the same terms, the same
format, the same framework.
But what if the terms, format and
framework for our thoughts were
outdated? If these tools of commu-
nication can't keep today's students
awake, how are they ever going to rat-
tle non-academic sectors of society?
How can we expect migrant workers,
homemakers, even the president, for
goodness sake, to listen, let alone do
something about what we're saying?
How can our studies benefit society
if we're not sharing our thoughts in
a useful way?
My frustration with academia and
my interest in academics are not, I've
finally realized, necessarily in con-
flict. Research and analysis may gen-
erate solutions to the problems of the
world, but only if we find an effective
way to communicate those solutions.
We must talk in a way that convinces
Joe Shmoe that our words have mean-
ing and our ideas are relevant.
Because if we don't, we're nothing
more than an isolated group of mon-
keys talking a funnv language only
we can understand.
Margie Diddams is a
Lovett College senior.
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This issue can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Newspaper.
Michel, Casey. The Rice Thresher, Vol. 97, No. 11, Ed. 1 Friday, November 6, 2009, newspaper, November 6, 2009; Houston, Texas. (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth443152/m1/3/: accessed July 18, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu.; crediting Rice University Woodson Research Center.