What we can say definitively about objects is that they take up space and, if experiencing forces, can move. To that extent, it may seem obvious the way that a ball will behave if dropped from the Eiffel Tower. What happens if there are strong winds? You might reply, of course, the ball will move in the direction of the wind. But more challenging questions persist. Is wind on a snowy hill enough to cause an avalanche? How does the heroin market take shape in cities? The answers to those questions – avalanche, heroin markets– can be answered through computer simulations. Inherent in patterns of movement are variations, complications, nuances which make stagnant models and sets of statistics inadequate for understanding the inner workings of complicated events. The advent of visualization technology in the recent years not only illuminates the workings of dynamic items but serves an aesthetic, artistic purpose that simplifies itself for those outside the field.

          While it is widely accepted germline stem continuously regenerate sperm populations in mammalian males, the existence of ovarian stem cells (OSCs), or lack thereof, was long viewed as a closed book within the world of mammalian research. Since 1951, the prevailing dogma, set by Dr. Solly Zuckerman, has asserted that neo-oogenesis (egg formation) in mammals occurs neither postnatally beyond a few days nor after damage to the existing egg population. [1] That is to say, women are born with a set number of germline cells that will only decline over their lifetimes. Indeed, this data would be corroborated by later studies showing that DNA synthesis does not occur in adult ovaries. [2] However, this dogma was seriously challenged for the first time in 2004, when Tilly’s group published a paper blatantly refuting previous claims, arguing that oocyte regeneration occurs in mice. This controversial study marked the beginning a new, promising line of research surrounding female germline regeneration and reproductive health. 

by Holly Zheng, '22

When we are talking to a friend at a noisy cocktail party, we usually are able to identify the voice of the friend and keep track of what they are saying despite the chattering in the background. This task seems effortless for the human brain, but for computer-user interacting devices such as Alexa and Google Home, “cocktail party” scenes induce a complicated process through which the device has to filter the background voices and pinpoint the target one. Recently, researchers at Google and the Idiap Research Institute in Switzerland proposed a new approach to the training of similar devices on the voice filtering process. ​

​The blurry lines between our conceptions of the human mind and the biological systems within the brain appeal to a range of intellectuals, from neurobiologists to physicians to philosophers, yet it is difficult to piece together our conceptions of the mind and the ways that may biological systems work together in the human brain. Over recent decades, progress in biological imaging and research methods have fundamentally improved our understanding of the brain. However, neurological research still has a way to go before scientists reach any sort of consensus on the workings of the human mind.