WAS
8332
Volume 106
Number 3
Fall 2020
Journal of the
WASHINGTON
ACADEMY OF SCIENCES
Rapin WntN ae PURER NORD EE SSS EE ACU CTT Clo oe oa ac ck ccc escesasstcbased edsbsousnvech sxcodasadesisbdsceshucsevies ii
Bae M OMNES IMEI CUENUNE SG CRU L ONS pe coo oe ace cess cts cancetvnn bbws baavcduocknnntnebdndassdutadesvevsesdnsesbeesansencens ili
oe RISA D/A TSS GG LTC cea seat en ob, SOW nt on iv
BEAM MET ROR SLC RGR te Re See occa enced avdsak sf secvns jenn Seivad Vas dasdshdacassenesesaas Vv
SN ENTRIES ESS SSRet crn ee a oe 0, ssbb dace, td na daidscivnssscebsisavonte i
Are 201s, 2019, anid 2020 Congruient? M_ COMeM. ...........ias.s.sossssscsesscaesnesnesnsesvesesavssasssssorssecens 44
Pentamorphic, Octamorphic, and Nonamorphic.M. Cohen .n...ccccccccccsssesssesssesseesseeseenseenseens 21
Innovation in Regulatory Science A. Moghissi et Ol .......cceccecsessesssessssssssessesseeseesesseeseeseeseseneeneens 29
ean Na a cha hago eh wach es Roa ss rad coche Sv ean SSuesb onda Naas vadskd bs Mevtnnussadaesonnvedes
REGIE a EN GOV. eS ee eee
ERMAN ALG@CL SOGCI@UIES ANIC DIGIC AERS, 6.55 csuccasccssastssecdvedsostsasrastovagecasanconesssnncenseussansnsosserosinesbeendenssnsees
ISSN 0043-0439 Issued Quarterly at Washington DC
Washington Academy of Sciences
Founded in 1898
BOARD OF MANAGERS
Elected Officers
President
Mina Izadjoo
President Elect
Ram Sriram
Treasurer
Ronald Hietala
Secretary
Mala Ramaiah
Vice President, Administration
Joanne Horn
Vice President, Membership
Mahesh Mani
Vice President, Junior Academy
Paul Arveson
Vice President, Affiliated Societies
Gene Williams
Members at Large
Michael Cohen
David Torain
Poorva Dharkar
Parvis Izadjoo
Lisa Frehill
Parisa Meisami
Past President
Judy Staveley
AFFILIATED SOCIETY DELEGATES
Shown on back cover
Editor of the Journal
Sethanne Howard
Journal of the Washington Academy of
Sciences (ISSN 0043-0439)
Published by the Washington Academy of
Sciences
email: wasjournal@washacadsci.org
website: www.washacadsci.org
The Journal of the Washington Academy
of Sciences
The Journal is the official organ of the
Academy. It publishes articles on science
policy, the history of science, critical reviews,
original science research, proceedings of
scholarly meetings of its Affiliated Societies,
and other items of interest to its members. It
is published quarterly. The last issue of the
year contains a directory of the current
membership of the Academy.
Subscription Rates
Members, fellows, and life members in good
standing receive the Journal free of charge.
Subscriptions are available on a calendar year
basis, payable in advance. Payment must be
made in US currency at the following rates.
US and Canada $30.00
Other Countries $35.00
Single Copies (when available) $15.00
Claims for Missing Issues
Claims must be received within 65 days of
mailing. Claims will not be allowed if non-
delivery was the result of failure to notify the
Academy of a change of address.
Notification of Change of Address
Address changes should be sent promptly to
the Academy Office. Notification should
contain both old and new addresses and zip
codes.
Postmaster:
Send address changes to WAS, Rm GL117,
1200 New York Ave. NW
Washington, DC 20005
Academy Office
Washington Academy of Sciences
Room GL117
1200 New York Ave. NW
Washington, DC 20005
Phone: (202) 326-8975
Volume 106
Number 3
Fall 2020
Journal of the
WASHINGTON
ACADEMY OF SCIENCES
Editor's Comments S. Howard
sforigelite; glo) tao) [1 (oul sta || | gee nae entation Come ae ea ae ER DEE ONE eR iil
jullie) L290) 2]e) | Cac C0 ]) Baap Sant de eS Ra toe es Eee Meee Cee CO Sem neny fetta iv
DOSER ONT EC TREN 9.2 07s ha hadnt vate acu ca cnc iat edlias Reh cca oar eaonce rome ceraries Vv
eM RE TRE CEN LUN CNOLIULOINN S oscids ch ti tees Maes tomate best asiedinn vi draws sesteens aaceos teen neh aera ee nem GES vi
Proposed Miami Inpact:Crater A. Parisiet Gli. cnc cinottnntisitiadnihneitresitvnees 1
Are 2018..2019), arid 2020. CONGIUENE? 1]. COME. ccscsisscrsisssdertonecdsestdincts aetoceeinivrssontioseeaseccss 17
Pentamorphic, Octamorphic, and Nonamorphic.M. Cohen .u....c.ccceccecccessessessesseesteseeseennes 21
Infievation in Regulatory Science A) MOG/HISSI Cb Gl .......ccsssseressessseresvscsvssstevsnreapvciepionseceersitus 29
Sef (lp rele] [1 See ORE Ae OA ee Se eR ey eRe ae 7 Me I Chee | cue na ee 5
PAUP DAY UNAS) ¢ 5 [1 can, CR EC Tt OEE ny eee ARE RMR TA Cent cre eae PAAR. os 57
SCI aire ors ntsc evn rice oe aad Metis itis as renatictaatunne Bei onci acho ina wasdearennb stele ening eer
Affiliated) SOCIGEES AIC DOTS ACCS ais. 2il sc. oi ie-cncve gles encssscales sscticophibooehsaestipsteh tbestonrsntonrstdsioioas.
ISSN 0043-0439 Issued Quarterly at Washington DC
Fall 2020
EDITOR’S COMMENTS
Presenting the 2020 fall issue of the Journal of the Washington Academy of
Sciences.
There are four papers in this issue plus one interesting Science Bite.
First up is a paper on an impact crater (made by meteorites striking the
Earth). To follow are two fun studies of math questions. Finally there is a
student paper on various examples for rejecting a peer reviewed paper.
At the end are the bios of the 2020 WAS awardees and two speeches:
one by the outgoing WAS President; and one by the incoming WAS
President. Our 2020 annual meeting and awards banquet was a virtual event.
Please consider submitting short (typically one page) papers on an
interesting tidbit in science. There are a lot of interesting tidbits out there.
Every science field has them. They sit in your brain ready to share. We all
want to learn about things in fields other than our own. So pile them up and
send them in.
The Journal is the official organ of the Academy. Please consider
sending in technical papers, review studies, announcements, SciBites, and
book reviews. Send manuscripts to wasjournal@washacadsci.org. If you are
interested in being a reviewer for the Journal, please send your name, email
address, and specialty to the same address. Each manuscript is peer
reviewed, and there are no page charges. As you can tell from this issue we
cover a wide range of the sciences.
I encourage people to write letters to the editor. Please send by email
(wasjournal@washacadsci.org) comments on papers, suggestions for
articles, and ideas for what you would like to see in the Journal. I also
encourage student papers and will help the student learn about writing a
scientific paper.
I hope everyone remains safe and healthy in this time of pandemic.
Sethanne Howard
Washington Academy of Sciences
ill
Journal of the Washington Academy of Sciences
Editor Sethanne Howard showard@washacadscli.org
Board of Discipline Editors
The Journal of the Washington Academy of Sciences has a twelve member
Board of Discipline Editors representing many scientific and technical
fields. The members of the Board of Discipline Editors are affiliated with a
variety of scientific institutions in the Washington area and beyond —
government agencies such as the National Institute of Standards and
Technology (NIST); universities such as Georgetown; and professional
associations such as the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers
(IEEE).
Anthropology Emanuela Appetiti eappetiti@hotmail.com
Astronomy Sethanne Howard sethanneh@msn.com
Behavioral and Social
Sciences Carlos Sluzki esluzki@gmu.edu
Biology Poorva Dharkar poorvadharkar@gmail.com
Botany Mark Holland maholland@salisbury.edu_
Chemistry Deana Jaber djaber@marymount.edu_
Environmental Natural
Sciences Terrell Erickson terrell.erickson] @wdc.nsda.gov_
Health Robin Stombler rstombler@auburnstrat.com_
History of Medicine Alain Touwaide atouwaide@hotmail.com
Operations Research Michael Katehakis mnk@rei.rutgers.edu
Science Education Jim Egenrieder jim@deepwater.org_
Systems Science Elizabeth Corona elizabethcorona@gmail.com
Fall 2020
Washington Academy of Sciences
1200 New York Avenue
Rm G119
Washington, DC 20005
Please fill in the blanks and send your application to the address above. We will
contact you as soon as your application has been reviewed by the Membership
Committee. Thank you for your interest in the Washington Academy of Sciences.
(Dr. Mrs. Mr. Ms)_
Business Address
Home Address
Email
Phone
Cell Phone
preferred mailing address Type of membership
Business Home Regular Student
Schools of Higher Education attended
Present Occupation or Professional Position
Please list memberships in scientific societies — include office held
Washington Academy of Sciences
Nw
oS)
et ON Ye ok
ae
Instructions to Authors
Deadlines for quarterly submissions are:
Spring — February | Fall — August |
Summer — May | Winter — November |
Draft Manuscripts using a word processing program (such as
MSWord), not PDF. We do not accept PDF manuscripts.
Papers should be 6,000 words or fewer. If there are seven or more
graphics, reduce the number of words by 500 for each graphic.
Include an abstract of 150-200 words.
Use Times New Roman, font size 12.
Include two to three sentence bios of the authors.
Graphics must be easily resizable by the editor to fit the Journal’s page
size. Reference the graphic in the text.
Use endnotes or footnotes. The bibliography may be in a style
considered standard for the discipline or professional field represented
by the paper.
Submit papers as email attachments to the editor or to
wasjournal(@washacadscl.org .
Include the author’s name, affiliation, and contact information —
including postal address. Membership in an Academy-affiliated society
may also be noted. It is not required.
. Manuscripts are peer reviewed and become the property of the
Washington Academy of Sciences.
. There are no page charges.
Fall 2020
vl
Washington Academy of Sciences
Affiliated Institutions
National Institute for Standards & Technology (NIST)
Meadowlark Botanical Gardens
The John W. Kluge Center of the Library of Congress
Potomac Overlook Regional Park
Koshland Science Museum
American Registry of Pathology
Living Oceans Foundation
National Rural Electric Cooperative Association (NRECA)
Washington Academy of Sciences
PROPOSED MIAMI IMPACT CRATER IDENTIFIED
AS A SOLUTIONAL DOLINE OF OOLICTIC
LIMESTONE
Antonio Paris, Ryan Robertson, & Skye Schwartz
Planetary Sciences, Inc.
ABSTRACT
This investigation addresses the discovery of a proposed impact crater
located off the coast of Miami, FL under the North Atlantic Ocean. A
preliminary analysis of bathymetry data obtained from the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) implied a morphology
consistent with a complex crater produced by a hypervelocity impact event
of extraterrestrial origin. The proposed impact crater’s features include a
central peak, concentric rings, and an ejecta field to the northwest. Analysis
of geological data from the US Geological Survey (USGS) places the strata
overlying the proposed impact site as Miami Limestone (Pleistocene),
accumulated during Marine Isotope Stage Se, thereby placing the maximum
age of the proposed impact crater at ~80 ka to ~130 ka. Three other
competing hypotheses for the formation of the structure, namely a
controlled maritime explosion, radial lava flow from volcano, or a
depressed bioherm, doline, or karst (1.e., solutional depression) were
explored throughout the investigation. To confirm the proposed structure as
an impact crater, an in-situ underwater expedition was organized by
Planetary Sciences, Inc. specifically to ascertain whether planar formations,
shatter cones, and shock metamorphic and/or other meteoritic properties
were present. After analyzing the geological samples collected at the
proposed impact crater, examining the morphology of analogous geologic
structures, and evaluating competing hypotheses, we conclude that the
structure is a solutional doline formed by the uneven dissolution of the
Miami Limestone, and, accordingly, do not recommend that the structure
be indexed in the Earth Impact Database.
INTRODUCTION
THIS INVESTIGATION FOCUSES ON AN IMPACT CRATER initially proposed
by Cory Boehne in 2012. The impact crater is located 8 m under the North
Atlantic Ocean at 25° 44’ 59.31” N and 80° 7’ 21.78” W. It is 1.20 km
southeast of the entrance of Government Cut—a manmade shipping channel
between Miami Beach and Fisher Island, FL (Figure |). Although an initial
inquiry was completed by Charles O’ Dale in 2012,' the identification of the
Fall 2020
ie)
structure remained unresolved and, as a result, it was not indexed in the
official Earth Impact Database.’
«ney
cit
¢ ire
Proposed . ‘
p —~> fm}.
impact Site —
Figure 1: Location of the proposed impact crater (Source: NOAA Chart | 1468)
DATA COLLECTION
The geological data used throughout this investigation was obtained
from the USGS, ArcGIS and the Association of American State Geologists
(AASG).? Indices checks in the National Geologic Map Database
(NGMDB) provided supplementary data, such as a remote sensing inventory
of the proposed impact site and scholarly sources of information focused on
the geologic history of southern Florida. The geologic maps and data
contributed to the NGMDB have been standardized in accordance with the
Geologic Mapping Act of 1992, section 31f(b), and they are widely accepted
standards.
The bathymetry data used to analyze the proposed impact site was
available through the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA), which collects and archives multibeam and hydrographic lidar
data from the earliest commercial installations. Indices checks for metadata
through the NOAA’s Bathymetric Data Viewer (BDV) provided a Shallow
Water Multibeam Hydrographic and Side Scan Sonar Survey (Registry No.
H11898) of the proposed impact site.* The purpose of the survey was to
provide the NOAA with modern, accurate hydrographic survey data to
update the nautical charts of the North Atlantic Ocean east of Key Biscayne,
FL.° Two hundred percent side scan sonar (SSS) coverage, along with
concurrent shallow water multibeam echo sounder (SWMB) coverage were
Washington Academy of Sciences
Lo
acquired with set line spacing to water depths of 20 m or shallower.°
According to the NOAA, all equipment was installed, calibrated, and
operated in accordance with the requirements set forth in its Data
Acquisition and Processing Reports procedures.
To complement this investigation, an underwater expedition
comprised of a SCUBA diving team was conducted in situ. The dive plan
involved taking measurements of the prominent features of the proposed
impact crater (e.g., the central peak, concentric rings, and the ejecta field),
underwater photography, and the collection of geological samples for planar
formation, shatter cone, and shock metamorphic analysis. These features are
uniquely characteristic of the intense shock of a large meteorite impact.
Volcanic explosions do not generate such shocks and these features. Aerial
imagery, moreover, was acquired through the use of a crewless aerial vehicle
(UAV) operated over the proposed impact site. The UAV offered a powerful
camera on a 3-axis stabilized gimbal that recorded video at 4k resolution up
to 60 frames per second and featured real-glass optics that captured aerial
imagery at 12 megapixels from an altitude of up to 800 m and a range of up
to 7 km.’
GEOLOGY OF THE IMPACT SITE
Geologically, the overlying strata at the impact site is Miami
Limestone (formally known as Miami Odlite), and it covers a large portion
of the southern tip of Florida, at or near the surface, along the Atlantic
Coastal Ridge (Figure 2).* The formation was deposited during the
Sangamonian interglacial and Wisconsin glacial stages, when the proposed
impact site was under a shallow sea, as a narrow band of oolitic carbonate
in a north-south trending barrier bar system along the eastern portion of
present day Miami-Dade and Broward counties.’ Falling sea levels
eventually exposed the formation to air and rain, and rainwater percolating
through the deposits replaced aragonite with calcite (CaCO3) and formed an
indurated rock.'” Presently, the Miami Limestone consists of two separate
units—the odlitic facies (upper unit) and the bryozoan facies (lower unit)."'!
The oGlitic facies consists of white to orangish gray, poorly to moderately
indurated, sandy limestone (grainstone) with scattered concentrations of
fossils. The bryozoan facies consist of white to orangish gray, poorly to well
indurated, sandy, fossiliferous limestone (grainstone and packstone).'* The
underlying strata is Fort Thompson Formation (Pleistocene) and is
Fall 2020
comprised of alternating freshwater and marine marls and limestones.'? The
Fort Thompson formation in the Miami area attains a maximum thickness
of 25 m and constitutes the major part of the Biscayne aquifer."
The Sangamonian Stage, which was the last interglacial period, 1s
equivalent to Marine Isotope Stage 5e (MIS 5e), therefore placing the
maximum age of the proposed impact crater at ~80 ka to ~130 ka.'? Marine
isotope stages are interchanging palaeotemperature maxima and minima,
inferred from oxygen isotope data reflecting changes in the planet’s
temperature derived from data obtained through deep sea core samples.'° In
1965, moreover, researchers used uranium-series dating and confirmed the
age of Miami Limestone at ~130 ka.'’
Miami Limestone
| Florida
|
Figure 2: Geological map of South Florida (Source: ArcGIS, USGS, and Planetary Sciences, Inc.)
AREA OF INVESTIGATION BATHYMETRY
An examination of NOAA bathymetry data (Report H11898)
revealed an underwater structure illustrating morphology consistent with an
impact crater produced by a hypervelocity event of extraterrestrial origin
(Figure 3). The proposed impact crater has a diameter of ~650 m, has a
circumference of ~2.04 km, and occupies a surface area of ~0.33 km*. The
prominent features, which appear more consistent with a complex crater,
include a central peak and at least six outward-radiating curved ridges. The
debris field ~350 m to the northwest, according to earlier research, is a
proposed ejecta field associated with the impact hypothesis.
Washington Academy of Sciences
Figure 3: Bathymetry data of proposed impact site (Source: NOAA)
IN-SITU UNDERWATER EXPEDITION
On 27 June 2020 a team of SCUBA divers surveyed the proposed
impact crater. The purpose of the underwater survey was to investigate,
photograph, and collect geological samples at 30 locations spread
throughout the structure, which included the central peak, the northeast,
southwest, northwest rings, and the proposed ejecta field (Figure 4). The
underwater surveys were specifically planned for high tide at or near solar
noon. Conducting the survey at or near solar noon (when the Sun is directly
overhead) allowed the surface area of the proposed impact site to be lit up
by the sun as much as possible.
Fall 2020
" 47 |
. - e
" vs
le
Survey 1
Central Peak [ah
Figure 4: Underwater survey and dive plan (prepared by Planetary Sciences, Inc.)
Through the use of a computerized depth gauge, the dive team
logged the proposed central peak at a depth of 8.2 m, the northeast ring at
5.79 m, the southwest ring at 6 m, and the northwest ring at 5.65 m. The
recorded depths, therefore, imply that the underwater structure 1s a bowl-
shaped depression. Furthermore, to establish whether planar formations,
shatter cones, and shock metamorphic and/or other meteoritic properties
were present, the dive team collected a total of 30 geological samples for
analysis (Figure 5).
- 2 a4 u - t —
/ gh NE ee Structure ae
Po
Figure 5: Gederncet survey noe centtal peak, NE and SW ring structure, Pag: ejecta field
Washington Academy of Sciences
ANALYSIS & INTERPRETATION
This investigation considered all possibilities for the formation of the
proposed impact crater. The four competing hypotheses that could explain how the
structure was formed included a controlled maritime explosion, radial lava flow
from a volcano, a hypervelocity impact event of extraterrestrial origin, or a
bioherm, doline, or karst formation. After investigating and analyzing all
competing hypotheses, we interpret the proposed impact crater as solutional doline
originating from the overlying Miami Limestone.
Hypothesis 1: Controlled Maritime Explosion
Although various simulations of wave and debris associated with
underwater explosions provided a strong argument to discredit an impact
hypothesis, a central peak is not characteristic of a controlled underwater
explosion.'* Additionally, indices checks of NOAA, US Army Corps of Engineers
(Jacksonville District), and US Coast Guard records returned no information
regarding a controlled maritime explosion in the vicinity of 25° 44’ 55.95” N and
80° 07° 12.95” W. Moreover, an examination of local historical archives dating
back to at least 1903, when the dredging of Government Cut commenced, likewise
rule out a controlled maritime explosion as the source for the formation of the
proposed impact structure.
Hypothesis 2: Radial Lava Flow
The USGS National Map and Volcano Hazards Program confirmed there
are no known active, inactive, or ancient volcanos in the vicinity of 25° 44’ 55.95”
N and 80° 07’ 12.95” W.'? The Miami Limestone and Fort Thompson Formation
are young geological formations and entirely non-volcanic. The geology to support
a young volcano in the area, consequently, is not there. While it is probable that
igneous rocks formed during the early phases of geological activity in the past (e.g.,
Precambrian) they are deeply buried under kilometers of sediment.~°
Hypothesis 3: Impact Event
There is no physical evidence to support the assertion that the proposed
impact crater is the result of an impact event of extraterrestrial origin (i.e., a
meteor). This confirmation is based on data gathered and analyzed during our
investigation, such as the geomorphology of impact cratering on terrestrial bodies,
the history of water at the impact site during the Sangamonian Stage, archival data
from NASA, NOAA, and USGS, and physical evidence surveyed, recovered, and
analyzed from the proposed impact site.
The formation of complex craters differs from bowl-shaped craters.
Complex craters have uplifted centers, such as the proposed impact crater, but they
Fall 2020
also develop shallow floors with terraced walls. The diameters of complex craters
where central peaks form, moreover, typically form in craters greater than ~3-5 km
in diameter or larger.”' Furthermore, complex-crater morphology on terrestrial
planets appears to follow a consistent sequence with increasing size: small complex
craters with a central peak; intermediate-sized peak ring craters, in which the central
peak is replaced by a ring of peaks; and the largest craters, which encompass
multiple concentric rings, known as multi-ringed basins.” This sequence of
features is a sequence of increasing size of the crater, that of the meteorite and speed
of impact (Figure 6, B-E). Geologically, therefore, there are no known small central
peak craters with multiple rings—as is the case with the proposed impact crater.
Second, the Miami Limestone was deposited during the interglacial Sangamon
Stage, when the impact site was ~7 m above present sea level.*> When an small
impactor hits water, such as where the Miami Crater rests, the debris (ejecta) thrown
out from the impact creates a unique pattern resembling a splash or mudflow—
forming what is known as a rampart crater (Figure 6, F).°* The outer edge of the
debris, which usually displays lobes, is upraised. This feature gives the name
“rampart” to this type of crater. While many rampart craters exist on Mars, the
N6rdlinger Ries impact structure in Germany 1s the only confirmed rampart crater
on Earth.”°
Peak Ring Crater ~ . Multi-Ring Basin a Rampart Crater
é Cat ms at” a an : az . *
Figure 6: A comparison of the proposed impact crater (Image A) and the relation between crater sizes a
complexity (Images B-F). Source: NOAA (Image A) and NASA (Images B-F)
Not to Scale
Washington Academy of Sciences
Furthermore, earlier researchers inferred that the “outflow of
sediments running east-north-east” from the crater could be associated with
the impact.' Bathymetric data and nautical charts from NOAA, however,
indicate that the proposed impact crater rests on a designated spoilage area
(dumping ground) 1.20 km south of Government Cut (Figure 7). We argue,
therefore, that these sediments are not associated with an impact event, but
rather material that was transported and redeposited from the dredging of
Government Cut.
1
Fi
{ Government Cut (Port of Miami) ]
9" is «| Matera from Government cut |
ee
¥
:
4
' Spoil Area (Dumping Grounds)
Pay ar %,
Proposed Crater | *
Figure 7: Spoilage area (dumping ground) for Government Cut (Source: NOAA)
Hypothesis 4: Solutional Doline of the Underlying Limestone
An examination of comparable basinal-shaped depressions, as well
as analysis of geological samples recovered in situ, identified the proposed
impact crater as a doline formed by the uneven dissolution of the overlaying
Miami Limestone. Macroscopic inspection of the 30 geological samples
collected in situ (Figure 8 A-D) identified the samples as white to orangish
gray karst limestone composed mainly of ooids, quartz sand, calcite,
macroalgae and small fossils of Modulus m., Vermicularia sp., Polychaete,
and Cerithium litteratum (Figure 9 A and 9B).’ Most of the aragonitic ooids
have been replaced by calcite and with depth these have become increasingly
embedded in a matrix of crystalline calcite.2° During examination of the
samples, we found no evidence of planar formation, shatter cone, or shock
Fall 2020
10
metamorphic features in the sampling. Moreover, no meteoritic specimens
were found at the proposed ejecta field.
Nl
Klein the ein
- ears
i
sotblagrntepectes a seta eth Het ee
Figure 8: Samples collected at the proposed impact site.
(A) central peak, (B) NE ring, (C) NW ring, and (D) ejecta field (Source: Planetary
Sciences. Inc.)
Furthermore, karstification is a long-term and continuous dissolution
process of water acting over carbonate rocks such as limestone and, after
time, developing geological structures such as dolines.”’ Solutional dolines
are known to produce broad, saucer-like depressions, particularly in a
geological setting where the overlying strata is limestone.** Unlike a
collapsed sinkhole (or doline), which is formed by gravitational collapse due
to an underlying cavity (7.e., cave), solutional dolines can form multiple
inward-dipping depressions with diameters larger than collapsed sinkholes
or dolines. These multiple inward-dipping depressions, when observed from
a position of elevation, appear as concentric outward-radiating rings
analogous to complex crater morphology (Figure 10a and 10b).?°
Washington Academy of Sciences
Figure 9: Macroscopic (A) and microscopic (B) images on sample collected at NW ring of
Moreover, in a geological setting where the underlying strata is
primarily limestone (i.e., Florida), dolines and sinkholes naturally form
contiguously to each other. For illustration, further scrutiny of NOAA
bathymetric data identified an additional doline ~400 m northeast of the
proposed impact crater (Figure 11). This second doline exhibits morphology
analogous to the proposed impact crater, which includes multiple concentric,
outward-radiating rings.
sos :
e a: uve ry >
Figure 10: Analogous doline depressions with underlying limestone similar to
the proposed Miami impact crater.
(A) Le Parc, France and (B) Kanab, Utah
CONCLUSIONS
An analysis of bathymetry data, analogous topographic depressions
with concentric rings with overlying limestone, and geological samples
collected in situ has identified the proposed Miami impact crater as a
solutional doline of the overlying Miami Limestone. Additionally, other
competing hypotheses for the formation of the structure, such as a controlled
maritime explosion or radial lava flow from volcano, were also ruled out
during our investigation. Accordingly, we do not recommend that the
structure be indexed in the Earth Impact Database. Furthermore, we advise
Fall 2020
2
Google to update its maps and remove the current designation—The Miami
Meteorite Crater.
‘| ConcentricRings |.
ae Tat’
Po
. 4 , +: .
_| No Central Peak :
Figure 11: Similar doline with concentric rings northeast of proposed impact crater (Source: NOAA)
BIO
Antonio Paris, the Principal Investigator (PI) for this study, is the Chief
Scientist at Planetary Sciences, Inc., a former Assistant Professor of
Astronomy and Astrophysics at St. Petersburg College, FL, and a graduate
of the NASA Mars Education Program at the Mars Space Flight Center,
Arizona State University. He is the author of Mars: Your Personal 3D
Journey to the Red Planet. His latest peer-reviewed publication 1s
“Prospective Lava Tubes at Hellas Planitia’—an investigation into
leveraging lava tubes on Mars to provide crewed missions protection from
cosmic radiation. Prof. Paris is a professional member of the Washington
Academy of Sciences, a member of the American Astronomical Society, and
a trained SCUBA Instructor and Divemaster with the Professional
Association of Divers International.
Washington Academy of Sciences
FIELD RESEARCH CONTRIBUTERS
Ryan Robertson is the Manager of Commercial Space at Space Florida.
Working in conjunction with NASA’s Kennedy Space Center and the US
Air Force, Ryan manages a variety of facilities spanning the State of Florida
for aerospace companies to research, develop, and launch business ventures.
He is currently a graduate student at American Public University studying
planetary science, is a certified SCUBA diver, and has previously assisted
Planetary Sciences, Inc. with research focused on Solar System bodies.
Skye Schwartz is currently an undergraduate student studying Biology at
Arizona State University and the Operations Manager/Educator at Space
Trek. Accepted into the NASA Solar System Ambassador program back in
2016, Skye has hosted events at schools, conferences, and NASA centers
around the United States.
REFERENCES
'O’Dale, C. (2012). The Miami, Florida structure (crater). Crater Explorer.
http://craterexplorer.ca/miami-florida-structure/
? University of New Brunswick. (2018). Earth impact database [Data set]. Planetary and
Space Science Centre, University of New Brunswick.
http://www.passc.net/EarthImpactDatabase/New%20website_05-2018/World.html
> Brooks, H. K. (1981). Geologic map of Florida [Data set]. National Geologic Map
Database, US Geological Survey.
https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/Prodesc/proddesc_16530.htm
+ National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. (n.d.). Bathymetric data viewer.
https://maps.ngdc.noaa.gov/viewers/bathymetry/
> National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (n.d.). Report No. H11898. Office of
Coast Survey. https://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/nos/H10001-H12000/H11898.htm|]
® National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. (n.d.). Shallow water multibeam
hydrographic and side scan sonar survey, Field No. OPR-H328-OS-08-C Registry
No. H11898 [Data set].
https://data.ngdc.noaa.gov/platforms/ocean/nos/coast/H 10001 -
H12000/H11898/DR/H11898.pdf
7 Autel Drones. (n.d.). EVO drone product sheet. https://auteldrones.com/products/evo
8 Brooks, H. K. (1981). Geologic map of Florida: Institute of Food and Agricultural
Sciences Service, University of Florida. https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/ngm-
bin/pdp/zui_viewer.pl?id=145 16
° Halley, R. B., & Evans, C. C. (1983). The Miami Limestone: A guide to selected
outcrops and their interpretation. Miami Geological Society.
Fall 2020
http://www.geosciences.fau.edu/events/virtual-field-trips/miami-
limestone/index.php
'” Randazzo, A. F., & Jones, D. S. (1997). The geology of Florida. University of Florida
Press. http://www.geosciences.fau.edu/events/virtual-field-trips/miami-
limestone/index.php
'! Hoffmeister, J. E. (1967). The Miami Limestone of Florida and its recent Bahamian
counterpart. Geological Society of America Bulletin, 75(2), 175—190.
https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/gsa/gsabulletin/article-
abstract/78/2/175/6171/Miami-Limestone-of-Florida-and-Its-Recent-
Bahamian?redirectedFrom=fulltext
'2 US Geological Survey. (n.d.). Mineral resources: Online spatial data, Miami Limestone
[Data set]. https://mrdata.usgs.gov/geology/state/state.php?state=FL
'5 US Geological Survey. (n.d.). Pleistocene deposits: South Florida information access
(SOPHIA).
https://archive.usgs.gov/archive/sites/sofia.usgs.gov/publications/circular/3 14/pleisto
cene.html
'4 Parker, G. G. (1951). Geologic and hydrologic factors in the perennial yield of the
Biscayne Aquifer. Journal of the American Water Works Association, 43(10), 817—
834.
'S Wright, J. D. (2000). Global climate change in marine stable isotope records,
quaternary geochronology: Methods and applications. American Geophysical
Union.
'6 Medley, S. E. (2011). High resolution climate variability from marine isotope Stage 5:
A multi-proxy record from the Cariaco Basin, Venezuela. University of California.
'7 Osmond, J. K., Carpenter, J. R., & Windom, L. (1965). 230Th/234U age of the
Pleistocene corals and oolites of Florida. Journal of Geophysical Research, 70, 55-
56.
'8 Safiyari, O. R. (2017). SPH simulation of waves associated with underwater explosion.
International Journal of Coastal and Offshore Engineering, 1(1), 49-50.
http://1jcoe.org/article-1-25-en.pdf
' US Geological Survey. (n.d.). National map. https://viewer.nationalmap.gov/advanced-
viewer/
°° Volcano Café. (n.d.). Lurking in the swamp: The Florida volcano.
https://www.volcanocafe.org/lurking-in-the-swamp-the-florida-volcano/
21 Bray, V. J., Ohman, T., & Hargitai, H. (2014). Central Peak Crater. In: A. N. EDITOR
(Ed.), Encyclopedia of planetary landforms (pp. 44). Springer.
?2 Sumner, T. (2016). How a ring of mountains forms inside a crater.
https://tgraph.10o/How-a-ring-of-mountains-forms-inside-a-crater- | |-25
°3 Halley, R. (1982). The Miami Limestone, A Guide to Selected Outcrops and Their
Interpretation. Miami Geological Society
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Robert_Halley/publication/308927646 The M
iami_Limestone_a_field_guide/links/57f7cabeO8ae9 | deaa6065 19/The-Miami-
Limestone-a-field-guide.pdf
** University of Arizona. (n.d.). Rampart craters. Mars Space Flight Facility, School of
Earth and Space Exploration, University of Arizona.
https://marsed.asu.edu/mep/craters/rampart-craters
* Sturm, S., Wulf, G., Jung, D., & Kenkmann, T. (2013). The Ries Impact, a double-layer
rampart crater on Earth. Geology, 41(5): 531-534.
Washington Academy of Sciences
26 D’ Antonio, H. M. (2012). Mollusks of the Late Pleistocene Oolitic Facies of the Miami
Limestone in the Miami Dade County, South Florida, Florida Atlantic University.
https://fau.digital.flve.org/islandora/object/fau%3A3849/datastream/OBJ/view/Moll
usks_of the late Pleistocene 0 olitic facies of the Miami Limestone in the_
Miami-Dade County South Florida.pdf
“7 Moreno-Gomez, M. (2019). New GIS-based model for karst dolines mapping using
LIDAR: Application of a multidepth threshold approach in the Yucatan Karst,
Mexico. Department of Hydrosciences, Technische Universitat Dresden.
https://u1.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019RemsS...11.1147M/abstract
** British Geological Survey. (n.d.). Quarrying and the environment.
https://www.bgs.ac.uk/mendips/caveskarst/Karst_3.htm
>” Spencer, J. E. (2015). Partial database for Breccia pipes and collapse features on the
Colorado Plateau, Northwestern Arizona |Data set]. Arizona Geological Survey.
http://repository.azgs.az.gov/uri_ gin/azgs/dlio/1634
Fall 2020
Washington Academy of Sciences
Are 2018, 2019, and 2020 Congruent?
Michael P. Cohen
Statistical Consulting, LLC, Washington DC
Abstract
Congruent numbers are defined and some background information
reported. We then investigate whether 2018, 2019, and 2020 are congruent.
Congruent Numbers
A POSITIVE INTEGER NUMBER 7 is said to be congruent if it is the area of a
right triangle whose three sides are all rational numbers (ratios of integers).
This usage of “congruent” should not be confused with other usages of the
word in mathematics. The congruent number problem is to determine if a
number 7 is congruent and, if so, to find one or more right triangles with
area ” and rational sides. This problem dates back to at least the tenth
century when it is described in an Arab manuscript of the period [1].
The congruent number one often thinks of first is 6 because the well-
known right triangle with sides 3, 4, and 5 has area 6. By the way, the right
triangle with sides 7/10, 120/7, and 1201/70 also has area 6.
Fermat showed in 1640 that 1 1s not congruent, and he invented a
whole new method of proof, called the method of descent, to show this [2].
This result is important because it shows that no perfect square k- can be
congruent. For if k° were the area of a right triangle with rational sides a, b,
and c, then the right triangle with sides a/k, b/k, and c/k would have area 1,
a contradiction.
It is natural for a lover of recreational mathematics to be curious
about whether recent years are congruent, so we investigate this.
2018
Is 2018 a congruent number? After much searching without success
for a right triangle with area 2018 and rational sides, we decided to see if
there were a way to show 2018 is not congruent. Note that 2018 = 2 x1009
where 2 and 1009 are prime. In particular, 2018 is square-free, that is, not
divisible by the square of any prime.
Fall 2020
To show 2018 is not congruent, an important result called Tunnell’s
theorem [2], [4] comes to our rescue. This theorem requires sophisticated
algebraic geometry to prove, but fortunately is not hard to apply. For a
square-free even number n, let h(n) be the number of integer triples x, y, Z
that satisfy x? + 4y’ + 8z” = n/2. Let k(n) be the number of integer triples x,
y, z that satisfy x* + 4)” + 32z?=n/2. Tunnell’s theorem tells us that if /(7)
¢ 2k(n), then n is not congruent. Computer calculations show that 4(2018)
= 56 and k(2018) = 20 so 2018 is not congruent.
2019
Now let’s ask, is 2019 a congruent number? As with 2018, we
searched in vain for a right triangle with area 2019 and rational sides. Now
2019 =3 x 673 where 3 and 673 are prime. So 2019 is square-free.
Tunnell’s theorem also covers this case. For a square-free odd
number n, let (m) be the number of integer triples x, y, z that satisfy x? + 2)
+ 8z?=n. Let g(n) be the number of integer triples x, y, z that satisfy x* +
2y? + 32z?=n. Tunnell’s theorem tells us that if (7) # 2g(n), then n is not
congruent. Computer calculations show that (2019) = 192 and g(2019) =
88 so 2019 is not congruent.
2020
Finally, let’s hope 2020 is congruent. We have 2020 = 27x5x101,
where 2, 5, and 101 are primes, so 2020 is not square-free but 505 (5x101)
is. We will search for a right triangle with rational sides a, b, and c and area
505. If we find one, then 2a, 2b, and 2c will be the rational sides of a right
triangle with area 2020. Eureka! After a computer search of all triples of
rational numbers where the shortest side is a multiple of 1/1000 and the
numbers form a right triangle with area 505 (see Appendix), we found a =
2020/99, b = 99/2, and c = 10601/198. The right triangle with sides 2a =
4040/99, 2b = 99, and 2c = 10601/99, therefore, has rational sides and area
2020. So 2020 is congruent!
Washington Academy of Sciences
Appendix
In this Appendix we discuss how to do a search that, if successful,
will determine that a number 7 is congruent.
Consider a right triangle with rational length sides and area n, a
positive integer. Let the sides have length a, b, c where a< b<c. Then the
triangle has arean =a x b/2so0b=2n/a. Also, because it is a right
triangle, c = (a? + b’)'’?. Note that b will be rational if a is, but c may not
be.
Because n=a x 6/2 >a’/2, we have a < (2n)!”, a fact that will
be used below.
In order to ensure that the process terminates, we restrict the
denominator of a (when written as a fraction in lowest terms) to be at most
dmax where dmax 1s a positive integer specified in advance.
The steps in the search are as follows:
Initialize d to 1. (d will be the denominator of a.)
Initialize ¢ to 1. (¢t will be the numerator of a.)
(*) Seta=t/dandb=2n/a.
Determine a common denominator D for a and b. Then we can write a = a
/ Dand
b = bi / D where a and 61 are integers.
Check to see if co = (ar + bi*)"” is an integer. If so, then c = co / D is the
rational length of the hypotenuse and x is congruent. (We may stop here.)
If not and a < (2n)'”, increase ¢ by | and go to (*).
Else if d= dmax, stop. (There is no solution subject to the restriction on the
size of the denominator of a.)
Otherwise, increase d by 1, set f to 1, and go to (*).
It should be emphasized that failure to find a solution for 7 does not prove
that n is not congruent. Stein [3], crediting Zagier, gives n = 157 as a
congruent number whose congruence cannot be verified by any simple
computer search in reasonable time.
Fall 2020
References
|. Chandrasekar, V. (1998), “The Congruent Number Problem,”
Resonance, 3(8), pp. 33-45.
2. Conrad, Keith (2008), “The Congruent Number Problem,” The
Harvard College Mathematics Review, 2(2), pp. 58-74.
3. Stein, William (2008), Elementary Number Theory: Primes,
Congruences, and Secrets. New York: Springer, pp. 142-143.
4. Tunnell, J. B. (1983), “A Classical Diophantine Problem and
Modular Forms of Weight 3/2,” /nventiones Mathematicae, 72, pp.
323-334.
Bio
Michael P. Cohen is a mathematical statistician. Dr. Cohen is a Fellow of
the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American
Educational Research Association, the American Statistical Association,
the Royal Statistical Society, and the Washington Academy of Sciences
(WAS); he is an Elected Member of the International Statistical Institute
and Sigma Xi. He is a former WAS President and serves on their Board of
Managers representing the Washington Statistical Society and the
Philosophical Society of Washington (PSW-Science).
Washington Academy of Sciences
Pentamorphic, Octamorphic, and Nonamorphic
Numbers Derive from Automorphic Numbers
Michael P. Cohen
Statistical Consulting, LLC, Washington DC
Abstract
Automorphic numbers are defined and their properties reviewed. We then
show that the pentamorphic, octamorphic, and nonamorphic numbers
studied by Trigg and more recently by Ashbacher are closely related to the
automorphic numbers.
Automorphic Numbers
IN [1] MADACHY INTRODUCES THE CONCEPT of an automorphic number. A
number is automorphic if its square ends in the digits of the number itself.
So, for example, 625 is automorphic because 625° = 390625. If a number 7
has d digits (in base 10), it is automorphic if
n=n> mod 104.
Much is now known about automorphic numbers. There are two
classes of them (greater than |): Those ending in the digit 5 and those ending
in the digit 6. Let us look at those ending in 5 first. They can be listed as
follows (from [2]):
3, 25, 625, 0625, 90623, S90625, 2590625, 12890625, 212890625,
$212890625,.5.
Notice that we treat 625 and 0625 as if they were distinct numbers.
With this convention, there is exactly one d-digit automorphic number in
this class for each positive integer d (see [4]). Moreover, for d > 1, the d-
digit automorphic number in the class has the same last d— | digits as the (d
— ])-digit number in the class. From [2] the d-digit automorphic numbers aa
ending in 5 are defined by
a,= 5” mod 10%.
The properties of the automorphic numbers ending in 6 are very
similar. From [3] they can be listed as:
Fall 2020
6, 76,. 376989376) 09376, 1093876) 7109376, BTIO9ST Ce G7 1093 76,
L787 WOOSTiGpes .
From [3] the d-digit automorphic numbers ba ending in 6 are defined
by
b, =16° mod 10%,
Pentamorphic Numbers
The pentagonal numbers are numbers of the form P(n) = n(3n — 1)/2
for positive integers n. These numbers are related to the pentagon as follows:
Forn=1, P(1)=1. For n =2, P(2) =5, corresponding to the number of dots
on the smaller pentagon in Figure |. For n = 3, P(3) = 12, corresponding to
the number of dots on both pentagons in Figure 1, and this pattern continues
for larger n.
Figure 1: Pentagonal Numbers
In [5] Charles W. Trigg defined pentamorphic numbers to be
pentagonal numbers whose digits end in the digits of n. For example, P(625)
= 625(3<625 — 1)/2 = 585625 so 585625 is pentamorphic. Recently, Charles
Ashbacher in [6] further studied these numbers. We will show that if P(7) is
pentamorphic, then 7 must be automorphic.
If P(n) is pentamorphic and 7 has d digits, then P(n) =n mod 10%,
SO
Washington Academy of Sciences
nN
eS)
n(3n - 1)/2=nmod 10%
n(3n - 1) =2n mod 10%,
3n? -n=2n mod 10%,
3n? = 3n mod 104,
n> =n mod 104%,
showing that 7 is automorphic. The last step above (dividing both sides of
the equation by 3) is justified because 3 and 10% are relatively prime
(coprime).
We have shown that if P(7) is pentamorphic, then n is automorphic,
but the converse may fail. The examples less than a million are P(6) = 51,
P(76) = 8626, P(376) = 211876, and P(109376) = 17944609376. Note that
in these examples P(n) fails to be pentamorphic by only one digit.
Octamorphic Numbers
The octagonal numbers are numbers of the form E(n) = n(3n — 2) for
positive integers n. These numbers are related to the octagon as follows: For
n= 1, E(1) =1. For n =2, E(2) = 8, corresponding to the number of dots on
the smaller octagon in Figure 2. For n = 3, E(3) = 21, corresponding to the
number of dots on both octagons in Figure 2, and this pattern continues for
larger n.
Figure 2: Octagonal Numbers
Fall 2020
In [7] Trigg defined octamorphic numbers to be octagonal numbers
whose digits end in the digits of n. For example, £(376) = 376(3*376 — 2) =
423376 so 423376 is octamorphic. Ashbacher in [8] further explored these
numbers. We will show that E(n) is octamorphic if and only if 7 is
automorphic.
If E(n) is octamorphic and 7 has d digits, then E(n) = n mod 107, So
n(3n -2)=nmod 10%,
3n? -2n=n mod 10%,
3n* = 3n mod 104,
n> =n mod 104,
showing that 1 is automorphic. The last step above (dividing both sides of
the equation by 3) is justified because 3 and 10“ are relatively prime. The
steps can be reversed to show that if m is automorphic, then E(n) is
octamorphic.
In response to questions posed in [8] there are infinitely many
octamorphic numbers because there are infinitely many automorphic
numbers. Moreover, because the octamorphic numbers E(n) have the same
trailing digits as n, they will have the same patterns of trailing digits as the
automorphic numbers.
Nonamorphic Numbers
The nonagonal numbers are numbers of the form M(n) = n(7n — 5)/2
for positive integers n. These numbers are related to the nonagon (nine-sided
polygon) as follows: Forn = 1, M1) =1. For =2, N(2) = 9, corresponding
to the number of dots on the smaller nonagon in Figure 3. For n = 3, N(3) =
24, corresponding to the number of dots on both nonagons in Figure 3, and
this pattern continues for larger n.
In [9] Trigg defined nonamorphic numbers to be nonagonal numbers
whose digits end in the digits of n. For example, N(625) = 625(7x625 — 5)/2
= 1365625 so 1365625 is nonamorphic. Ashbacher in [10] also investigated
these numbers. We will show that if M(7) is nonamorphic, then n must be
automorphic.
Washington Academy of Sciences
Figure 3: Nonagonal Numbers
If M(n) is nonamorphic and 7 has d digits, then M(n) =n mod 10%, so
n(7n -5)/2=nmod 10%,
Tn? - 5n=2n mod 10%,
Tn? = 7n mod 10%,
n’ =n mod 10%,
showing that ” is automorphic. The last step above (dividing both sides of
the equation by 7) is justified because 7 and 10“ are relatively prime.
We have shown that if M(”) is nonamorphic, then 7 is automorphic,
but the converse may fail. The examples less than a million are N(6) = 111,
N(76) = 20026, N(376) = 493876, and N(109376) = 41870609376. Notice
that in these examples N(n) fails to be nonamorphic by only one digit.
Furthermore, these are the same exceptional automorphic numbers 7 that we
had for pentamorphic numbers.
Fall 2020
many.
Remaining Questions
We have shown that E(n) is octamorphic if and only if 7 is
automorphic. Because we know much about automorphic numbers, this tells
us much about octamorphic ones. In particular we know there are infinitely
For pentamorphic and nonamorphic numbers, the situation is not so
clear. We know that n may be automorphic yet P(”) fail to be pentamorphic
and N(n) fail to be nonamorphic.
If m is an automorphic number ending in a 5, must P(n) be
pentamorphic and M(n) be nonamorphic? If 7 is an automorphic number
ending in a 6, is there a pattern for when P(7) is pentamorphic and M(n) is
nonamorphic?
References
Madachy, Joseph S. (1979). Madachy’s Mathematical Recreations.
Dover Publications, Inc., New York, pp. 175-176. (Originally
published in 1966 as Mathematics on Vacation, Charles Scribner’s
Sons, New York.)
The On-Line Encyclopedia of Integer Sequences (www .0e18.0rg)
(2020); sequence A007185.
The On-Line Encyclopedia of Integer Sequences (WWW .Oe1S.0rg
(2020); sequence A016090.
Fairbairn, R. A. (1969), “More on Automorphic Numbers,” Journal
of Recreational Mathematics, 2, pp. 170-174. Available at
OEIS.org./A003226/a003226_1.pdf.
Trigg, Charles W. (1987), “Pentamorphic Numbers,” Journal of
Recreational Mathematics, 16(1), pp 116-118.
Ashbacher, Charles (2016), “Pentamorphic Numbers Revisited,”
Topics in Recreational Mathematics, 3, pp.13-14.
. Trigg, Charles W. (1987), “Octamorphic Numbers,” Journal of
Recreational Mathematics, 19(2), pp. 116-118.
Ashbacher, Charles (2016), “Octamorphic Numbers Revisited,”
Topics in Recreational Mathematics, 3, pp.10-12.
Trigg, Charles W. (1988), “Nonamorphic Numbers,” Journal of
Recreational Mathematics, 20(2), pp. 97-98.
. Ashbacher, Charles (2016), “Nonamorphic Numbers Revisited,”
Topics in Recreational Mathematics, 3, pp. 8-9.
Washington Academy of Sciences
Bio
Michael P. Cohen is a mathematical statistician. Dr. Cohen is a Fellow of
the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American
Educational Research Association, the American Statistical Association, the
Royal Statistical Society, and the Washington Academy of Sciences (WAS);
he is an Elected Member of the International Statistical Institute and Sigma
Xi. He is a former WAS President and serves on their Board of Managers
representing the Washington Statistical Society and the Philosophical
Society of Washington (PS W-Science).
Fall 2020
28
Washington Academy of Sciences
Alan Moghissi '’, Richard A. Calderone!, Jean Pierre Auffret!’, Dennis
K. McBride’, David Harrison ? , John Campbell', Camille Estupigan',
INNOVATION IN REGULATORY SCIENCE
ASSESSMENT OF RETRACTIONS OF PUBLISHED
PAPERS
Maggie Fu', Rae Koch!, Catharine Leahy!, Hajer Mazagri!, Ogechi,
Nwaopara', Dania Shafei!, Sarah Sheppard!, Vanessa Vanderdys',
Mengdan Zhao', and Tomoko Y Steen!
l
2
3
. Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, D.C.
. Institute for Regulatory Science, Alexandria, VA
. George Mason University, Fairfax, VA
ABSTRACT
Peer review is a key element in the acceptability of a scientific claim.
However, as currently performed, certain shortcomings have led to
proposals for alternative to peer review. This paper examines cases of peer
review processes and the causes for retractions of papers published in
peer-reviewed journals. This study uses Metrics for Evaluation of
Regulatory Science Claims (MERSC) based on Best Available
Regulatory Science (BARS) principles to address the causes of
retractions. The study attributes the causes of retraction primarily to the
level of maturity of science as described in BARS/MERSC and to errors
from authors for manipulation of data, republication, plagiarism, biased
peer review, and violation of ethical rules. Furthermore, other causes of
retraction include revealed bias of the editors of the journals, poor review
processes, and the undisclosed business interests of journals to publish
papers, regardless of their quality. This paper provides examples of
retracted papers and their causes. This study also proposes the
establishment of an international review board with the working title,
International Peer Review Committee (IPRC), to set standards for the
editorial offices of scientific journals on how to identify and select
qualified reviewers.
Fall 2020.
29
INTRODUCTION
INDEPENDENT PEER REVIEW is a key element in the validation of scientific
claims, including regulatory science claims. Over the past several decades
many peer reviewed studies have shown to be unsatisfactory, not
reproducible, or false. Investigators, authors, editors, and members of the
media have pointed out retracted papers as evidence that the peer review
process can be flawed and should be improved before using to prove certain
scientific claims. An Internet search on February of 2020 identified over 17
million results for the phrase ‘advantages and disadvantages of peer review’,
and over 19 million results for the search term ‘shortcomings of peer
review’. There is a widespread view that peer review 1s flawed, even when
peer review is correctly performed. Widener (2018) describes problems of
currently performed peer review, McCook (2018) identified one publisher
who had more than 7,000 retractions, and Oransky (2018) provided a list of
countries with the highest rate of retractions in their publications. Richard
Smith, the former editor of British Medical Journal, claimed that peer
review is a flawed process (2006); Wager and Jefferson (2001) addressed
problems related to publications in biomedical journals; and Newton (2010)
discussed the key role of editors in scientific publishing.
Moghissi, et al. (2013) compared the peer review process to the jury
of peers practice common in the Anglo-American judicial system, which
requires individuals who are independent to judge the validity of claims
made by a prosecutor in a legal case. However, many cases decided by a jury
of peers have been proven wrong (Parker, et al. 2003).
Shortcomings in the publication process used by certain journals
provide a key reason for the retraction of published papers. Editors are
legally, ethically, and morally responsible for published materials in their
journal. Unfortunately. on occasion editors violate the ethical rules
governing the publication process resulting in retraction of published papers.
Traditionally, many journals have a list of reviewers and the list was
periodically updated. Meanwhile, the number of journals has skyrocketed
and currently many journals do not provide a list of reviewers. Frequently,
journals ask authors to identify peer reviewers for the manuscripts they have
submitted but this practice represents a conflict of interest, as authors are
unlikely to identify reviewers who do not agree with their approach or
vision. In other cases, critical comments and revision recommendations that
Washington Academy of Sciences
have been submitted by a reviewer may be ignored, as was the case with an
article by Gordon, et al. (1997). According to Moghissi, e¢ al. (2013), three
reviewers were asked to evaluate Gordon’s article. The reviewers provided
comments for revision, and all three reviewers recommended rejecting the
submission, as its publication would adversely impact the Endangered
Species Act (ESA). The editor asked the manuscript’s authors to consider
the comments of the reviewers and the journal eventually accepted and
published the paper. The publication of that paper resulted in significant
impact, including certain revisions of public law.
Kuroki and Ukawa (2018) used the power law, a statistical process
common to several branches of science, to evaluate the status of the
retraction of papers. Their methodology revealed that a small fraction of
authors are responsible for about 10% of annual retractions; after about five-
years, 3-5% of those authors are likely to incur additional retractions; and
after an additional five-years, that same subset is responsible for 26-37% of
overall retractions. Several cases demonstrate the validity of Kuroki and
Ukawa’s claim. For example, in 2018, the Journal of the American Medical
Association (JAMA) asked Cornell University to independently evaluate
several papers published by nutrition scientist, Brian Wansink, after
JAMA’s editor, Howard Bauchner, identified several problems with
Wansink’s research. As discussed in this paper, in the wake of this episode,
an evaluation of alternative methods to the current “independent” peer
review revealed several options for publishers to consider.
There has been debate on the acceptability of fees paid for
publications resulting from studies funded by the United States government.
Traditionally, publishers receive their income by subscriptions paid by
libraries and various private users, and to collect fees for reprints of
published papers. In contrast open-access publications provide these
services free of charge, thus substantially decreasing the necessity for
subscription fees. This debate was reflected in the Emerson Amendment, a
short addition to an Appropriation Act in 2001, which required the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) to develop a peer review process for
federal agencies. The details of the Emerson Amendment and its OMB-
related activities were published in 2003 and finalized in 2005. Eventually,
the OMB published a bulletin (2005) on peer review. The bulletin asked
federal agencies to either comply with its recommendations, or to develop
Fall 2020.
ie)
nN
their own process in compliance with the OMB bulletin. In anticipation of
this new peer review process, the National Institutes of Health (NIH)
director, Elias Zerhouni (2004), published an article suggesting that NIH-
funded research should be made available to the public. This
recommendation led to the NIH’s open access policy.
Meanwhile, the desirability of open-access publications has spread
globally, notably in Europe. The European Union (Science Europe, 2018)
has decided to provide free access to certain scientific publications to the
European community. The project, known as Plan S, is currently in progress.
The subject is rather complex and somewhat beyond the scope of this study.
One wonders, rhetorically, if Albert Einstein would have been able to
publish his papers including his paper on light while he was an employee at
the Swiss patent office in Bern, Switzerland (Einstein 2005).
One of the potential side effects of the open-access process is the
evolution of predatory journals whose primary objective is different than
serving the scientific community. As described by Richtig ef a/ (2018) the
subject is complex and should be addressed by the scientific community.
There is an increasing number of journals that claim to have high Impact
Factors or convey other false claims. It is imperative to recognize the
difference between legitimate open-access journals and predatory journals.
Several studies question the value of the peer review process and
provide potential alternatives steps. In this paper we summarize three
options:
1. The first option which is commonly used is to publish all papers
when they are submitted, by assessing the reliability of scientific
claims according to the reputation of the researchers and/or
organizations that conduct the studies. The advantage of this
approach might be both economical and reduce the publication time.
This process has been common in continental Europe up to the mid-
twentieth century. The disadvantage of this method is that it is
virtually impossible for young and lesser known investigators to
publish their papers, regardless of how innovative and important
their work may be, also known as the Matthew Effect (Merton 1968).
2. The second option establishes the validity of the results of the study
by reproducibility, which is consistent with the historic scientific
Washington Academy of Sciences
method as outlined by Sir Robert Boyle in the 17'" century (Boyle
1661). In this method a paper is published once the claims of its
authors have been independently reproduced and verified. The
shortcoming of this process is that it requires contemporary interest
and funding from an independent organization to reproduce a
scientific claim made by another organization. To this end several
attempts have been made to ask authors or interested parties to fund
the reproduction of a study. For example, the Validation Science
Exchange has promoted its Reproducibility Initiative best practices
for over half a decade to guide investigators in the reproduction of
study results. However, the Validation Science Exchange concedes
that funding must be provided by the original study author(s), or by
another source. Unfortunately, the total number of scientific papers
published annually is so large that it is impractical to attempt to
reproduce all of them. Many publications lack reproducibility even
after they have been peer reviewed. Baker (2016) published the
results of 1,576 researchers who were surveyed about their views on
the reproducibility of published papers. Almost 90% of the
respondents agreed that there was a significant (52%) or slight (38%)
“crisis” in the reproducibility of scientific studies. Although
Goodman & Greenland (2007) questioned the Ioannidis’s statistical
analysis, Ioannidis (2005) provided statistical evidence that “most
published research findings (in medical journals) are false”.
Goodman and Greenland considered only those studies that
evaluated association versus causation, which poses problems with
their methodology, because a significant number of studies
performed across scientific disciplines are, in fact, reproducible.
3. Although there are several versions of the third option, virtually all
versions embrace the idea of publishing every paper by submitting it
on the World Wide Web, to be openly accessed by everyone.
Proponents of this approach claim that once authors make their paper
available, their disciplinary peers will provide relevant comments,
which will allow the larger scientific community to judge the validity
of the paper’s claims.
A description of details of peer review in scientific publishing is
beyond the scope of this paper. The book by Moghissi er a/. (2013) provides
Fall 2020.
34
relevant information. In addition, there have been significant improvements
in peer review by funding agencies, such as the National Science Foundation
(2019) and the National Institutes of Health (2019). It is recognized that the
peer review process continues to evolve, and the process used by these and
certain other agencies are periodically updated.
This paper represents a continuation of previous studies performed
by graduate students who participated in a regulatory science course at
Georgetown University. In a previous study Moghissi, ef al. (2015)
identified the role of review criteria in an overview of shortcomings in the
peer review process. The students were asked to identify categories of
retracted papers and to reference evidence of at least one retracted paper in
each category. This study was not intended to provide a comprehensive
accounting of all retractions, withdrawal, or similar actions. Instead, the
research team identified specific retracted papers, determined the causes of
the retractions, and then referenced the reasons stated by the journal for
issuing the retraction.
ASSESSMENT PROCESS
The assessment process in this study consists of the Best Available
Regulatory Science (BARS) best practice and the Metrics for Evaluation of
Regulatory Science Claims (MERSC) that are developed from BARS
(Moghissi, ef al., 2017), a process used in several publications. In order to
facilitate the application of BARS/MERSC BARS its details are briefly
described. BARS consists of five principles and MERSC includes three
pillars derived from BARS principles. Figure | provides an overview of the
BARS/MERSC system.
Summary of five BARS Principles
1. Principles on Open mindedness and (2) Skepticism imply that the
scientific community must be open minded and consider a scientific
claim. However, those who make a claim must provide sufficient
evidence supporting their claim.
2. The Scientific Rules Principle is well known and its description
beyond the scope of tis paper. However, violation of this principle is
one of the primary causes of retractions.
3. The Ethical Rules Principle requires truthfulness, communicability,
transparency, and standards of morality. According to this principle
Washington Academy of Sciences
those who make a claim must describe any assumption and judgment
as well as if they have included any default data in their claim. They
must be also truthful and must follow morality requirements
The Reproducibility Principle implies that the ultimate objective of
a scientific claim is reproducibility. In effect this principle requires
that anyone with relevant knowledge, needed equipment, and
necessary facilities could reproduce the claim.
Summary of three MERSC Pillars
by
The Classification of Regulatory Science pillar provides a
framework to determine the level of maturity of science starts with
scientific laws and their proper applications. The next two groups in
this pillar (Evolving and Judgement) are most often applied in
regulatory science applications. The level of scientific maturity of
each class in these two groups decrease from Reproducible to
Speculation. Arguably, when an investigator makes a poor judgment
or unfounded speculations on a project, it is not only possible, but
likely that another investigator may reach a different conclusion.
The pillar on Reliability of regulatory science provides several
categories of scientific claim ranging from personal opinion to
consensus processed regulatory science. Due to the repeated
occurrence of withdrawal of peer-reviewed papers it 1s desirable to
require verification of studies that will be used in the regulatory
process. The level reliability of a scientific claim starts with personal
opinions, which is formalized in a report commonly known as gray
literature. The first and a key step is independent peer review. The
verification of a claim is increasingly recognized as key element in
regulatory science claims. Consensus Process, the last step in the
reliability process is a key element of regulatory science as it
provides the likelihood of acceptability of a scientific claim used in
the regulatory process.
Areas outside the Purview of Science (OPS) pillar include ideology,
religious objectives, policy goals, and other societal considerations or
traditions that may influence the formation of a scientific conclusion.
A case included in this pillar, for example, is publication of a paper
that may be associated with the financial interests of the publisher, the
Fall 2020.
36
need to satisfy minimum article counts to meet publication deadlines,
or other non-scientific reasons.
Pe Best Available Regulatory Science
BARS Principles
Open Mindedness Scientific Rules
Reproducibility
Metrics for Evaluation of
Regulatory Science Claims
Skepticism Ethical Rules
Reliability Classification Areas Outside
of of the Purview
Science Science of Science
Consensus Proven
Processed
Scientific Laws
Application of Laws
Verification Virtually Proven
Processed
volvin
Peer Reviewed Evolving
Reproducible
Partially Reproducible
Gray Literature Association Based
F Hypothesized
Personal Opinions
Borderline
Judgement
Speculation
Figure |. Best Available Regulatory Science and Metrics for
Evaluation of Regulatory Science Claims
RESULTS
Several attempts were made to categorize the causes for the retraction
of published papers. The final categorization of retracted papers led to the
identification of four categories: (1) the role of the editor, (2) the role of the
authors, and (3) the role of reviewers and 4) other unclassifiable problems.
Washington Academy of Sciences
1. The Role of the Editor
As described in this paper, the editor is legally, ethically, and morally
responsible for accepting, rejecting, or asking for revision of a submitted
manuscript. There is evidence that in certain cases, an editor’s decision is
based on non-scientific reasons, such as bias, ideology, financial interest,
meeting the publication schedule, or other reasons. Examples are referenced
in this category to demonstrate the point.
A most unfortunate case of apparent editorial bias is the publication
of a paper published in the Lancet, a well-known medical journal. The paper
by Wakefield, ef a/. (1998) claimed that the vaccination of measles, mumps,
and rubella (MMR) caused autism in vaccinated children. As described by
Moghissi, ef al. (2013) the Wakefield publication was not only scientifically
flawed, it had also significant adverse consequences to society and the
medical community, because many parents used that paper as evidence to
avoid vaccinating their children. There were several letters to the Lancet’s
editor disputing Wakefield’s claims, and the authors eventually conceded
that they could not find a correlation between the MMR vaccine and autism.
In 2004, Horton, the editor of the Lancet published a book describing the
reason for having published those papers, which led to their subsequent
retraction in 2010. Eventually, the paper was retracted and there were
adverse professional consequences for the senior author, as well as others
who referenced the paper in support of their anti-vaccination claims.
Conflict of Interest: Business interests of the journal: Acharya, ef ai.
(2008) published a paper that was withdrawn because the business interest
of the authors was inadequately considered.
Error in the Acceptance of Submissions: A paper submitted by Palma and
Ferreira (2013) was retracted because the Editor in Chief accidentally
accepted it while the reviewers recommended to reject it
2. Retraction Caused by Errors of Authors:
A large fraction of retracted papers was caused by errors or
fabrications made by the authors, examples follow:
Fabrication of Coauthors: Deng ef al. (2014) identified fabricated
identities and impersonation of individuals, which subsequently caused the
Fall 2020.
38
papers to be retracted. Similarly, Blanco et al. (2006) were accused by
adding a co-author (Grande) who did not participate in the study.
False Peer Review: There are many scientific papers that have been
withdrawn because they used fake peer review. For example, Canning and
Bayness (2015) reported that 64 articles in a journal published by Springer
Verlag were withdrawn because of fake peer reviews. Similarly, Kumar ef
al (2016) published a paper that was withdrawn because of the accusation of
fake peer review in related papers by the same authors. As another example,
a paper by Yan et al (2015) was retracted because of false peer review.
Faulty Methodology Lopez-Medrano et a/ (2016) published a paper that
included faulty methodology. Peer review should have detected the error,
but it was not identified until much later. In addition, a research article on
SARS-CoV-2 by Wang et al (2020) was published after a hasty acceptance
by the journal and was retracted after whistleblowers flagged the article's
faulty methodology. A study conducted by Liu et al (2019) was discovered
to have used unreliable methods.
Manipulation of Data: A paper by Dunoyer etal. (2004) on RNA silencing
was retracted because the authors admitted to inappropriate manipulation of
images used. Furthermore, Darinskas ef a/ (2017) published a study that was
retracted when an investigation indicated that patients and data of the study
could not be located or verified. Similarly, a paper on the neurological
impact of flavors (Geraedts and Munger, 2013) was retracted because of data
fabrication and manipulation.
Misconduct: A well-known case was the publications by Paolo Macchirini,
a surgeon who was employed at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm. As
described by Abbott (2018), six articles co-authored by Macchirini were
withdrawn because of distorted descriptions of the patients participating in
the studies. The descriptions were the foundation of the published articles.
Additionally, Niitsu et a/ (2010) provides another example of misconduct
from a conducted research study analyzing 314 lymphoma patients being
treated with chemotherapy. An investigation by Niitsu ef a/ indicated no
consent from the patients and lack of approval by the Institutional Review
Board. Another example is Wang ef a/ (2012) that was retracted due to
inadequate oversight and fabrication of data.
Washington Academy of Sciences
39
Plagiarism: A relevant example is the case study of Dasinger, who
submitted a paper to the Annals of Internal Medicine for review and that
manuscript was rejected. Subsequently, Finelli e¢ a/. (2016) published a
slightly modified version of the same article that was published and then
eventually retracted. Another case consisted of a review article by Ali ef al
(2018) that was published and retracted for plagiarism of a similar article.
What was unique about this retraction was that journal’s plagiarism check
software was unable to detect the duplications in the paper (Cureus, 2019).
Republication: A slightly modified version of a paper published by Arun
(2013) was coauthored by Katiyar (2013) and submitted to other journals.
Ling et al. (2019) published a paper originally published in Chinese leading
to the retraction of the republished paper. In a similar case Ling eft al (2018)
published a paper in Biomolecules that was withdrawn after it was
discovered that the paper was published by the same authors in Chinese. As
a final point towards retractions caused by republication, a distinguished
psychology researcher, Robert J. Sternberg has been criticized for reusing
his own content verbatim in multiple publications. As a result, his research
article (Sternberg, 2010) was withdrawn albeit the scientific content of the
article was legitimate. The current process considers republication to be
unethical regardless if the republication is in the original or a different
language. It is desirable to make a distinction between publishing the same
paper with the objective to increase the number of published papers and
translating a paper to make its content available to a larger audience.
Violation of Ethical Rules: La Sala ef a/ (2015) published a paper claiming
that the study was conducted with the appropriate ethical oversight.
Subsequent investigation indicated that it was not. Lavhale et al (2009)
published a research article involving tumor sizes in mice. This paper was
later withdrawn because of violation of ethical rules (The PLOS ONE
Editors, 2020). In another example, a paper by Kantevari ef a/ (2011) was
retracted due to a violation of the EUCheMS Ethical Guidelines for
Publication in Journals and Re-views. Graham C. R. Ellis-Davies, a co-
author of the paper, published the report without the consent of other co-
authors; (Chemistry Europe, 2011).
Multiple withdrawals: One of the most unusual cases is the withdrawal of
multiple papers from one or several authors. For example, based on the
evaluation of the Office of Research Integrity (2020), there are seven papers
Fall 2020.
40
by Dr. Shin Hee Kim, an assistant professor at the University of Maryland
that were withdrawn. The accusation used by peer review was that the
professor knowingly and intentionally used falsified evidence or fabricated
materials within the paper.
3. The Role of the Reviewers
Reviewers play a key role in providing the editor with the advice on
the acceptability of a study and identifying shortcomings of the study
published in a paper. As described in many books and instructions (e.g,
Moghissi et.a/. 2013), they must be qualified to evaluate the validity of the
results of the study based on the details presented in the paper. They must
be independent implying that they have no conflict of interest. Instructions
for reviewers are typically included in journal websites and may or may not
be comprehendible to reviewers. Similarly, in many cases, it is likely that
qualified peer reviewers are unavailable to journals or the reviewers are not
held accountable to be in compliance to the exact standard criteria that are
required of a content expert who conducts an anonymous peer review
evaluation.
4. Retraction for Reasons that were not Detectable
Arguably, the most well-known example of this category is a
publication by Fleischmann and Pons (1989), who claimed to have achieved
cold fusion of deuterium (an isotope of hydrogen) atoms at slightly above
the room temperature. The paper provided details of the experiment
performed by the authors. Given the enormous consequences of the study as
described by Huizenga (1993), several investigators attempted to reproduce
the claim and found it to be unsupported or categorically incorrect.
DISCUSSION
Peer review is the foundation for validating scientific claims.
Unfortunately, there are many shortcomings in the way some publications
practice peer review. These shortcomings include inclusion of non-scientific
subjects, such as policy goals, ideology, religious motives, and business-
based decisions. There are numerous examples of publications that have
caused public health and other harms.
The BARS/MERSC process provides a framework for identifying
the potential reasons for a lack of reproducibility, as is expected in scientific
Washington Academy of Sciences
4]
methodology. Often the level of maturity of science facilitates and may also
limit experimental/empirical reproducibility. In contrast studies that attempt
to apply scientific laws or incorporate the principles of Reproducible
Evolving Science are more likely to be reproducible.
Based on the studies evaluated in this paper, it is likely that only a
small fraction of publications containing issues of data integrity, process, or
results are retracted. This study has identified and exemplified three major
categories of reasons for manuscript retraction.
The first and primary reason for a retraction is caused by the editors
of scientific journals. As said before editors are legally, morally, and
ethically responsible for the accuracy of papers entrusted to them for
publication under their ultimate approval. As described in this paper, many
retractions are traceable to the performance of editors. However, there are
several reasons that some poor-quality papers might be published that are
beyond the control of the editor. As described above, the impact of an
editor’s societal objectives can be demonstrated by Wakefield, et al. (1998)
paper.
Another key reason for the lack of reproducibility of a scientific
claim is the level of maturity of science used in the paper, as described in
Figure | on BARS/MERSC. For example if the conclusion of a paper
engages a subject area that can be classified as Borderline Science, then it
can likely to be disputed, which accounts for Ioannidis’ (2005) claim that
most published papers are invalid (2005). Ioannidis used the BARS/MERSC
Association-Based Evolving Science framework to evaluate publications; he
recognized that an association to an outcome does not imply direct
causation. Even the most stringent peer review process cannot determine the
validity of some claims. The examples included in this paper demonstrate
how properly performed peer review could have prevented the retraction of
most published papers. As described in BARS/MERSC, the recognition of
the level of maturity of the applied underlying science, and compliance with
the Ethical Rules Principle notably the exclusion of societal objectives could
have reduced the number of publications that were retracted as unacceptable
papers.
The evolution of open-access journals is highly desirable as many
more investigators can access published information. The open- access
process has caused changes in financial systems of publishers as often they
Fall 2020.
42
depend upon the number of published papers. For obvious reasons an open
access journal is more likely than conventional journals to accept a paper
with questionable content if the author pays the required publication cost.
Open access journals have recognized the problem and have undertaken
efforts to ensure the reliability of submitted content.
CONCLUSIONS
The results of this study demonstrate that sometimes peer review
sometimes fails and therefore there is a need for creation of a peer-based
international organization that supports peer review of scientific journals.
The entire scientific community would greatly benefit if all the scientific
journals had access to qualified reviewers. A reasonable option would be to
establish an international organization with the working title, /nfernational
Peer Review Committee (IPRC), to provide access to qualified peer
reviewers. While certain journals and other organizations maintain databases
of reviewers, it is highly desirable to ensure cooperation among these
organizations and the proposed IPRC to make available a pool of qualified
reviewers, thereby enabling the reduction for the number of retractions. The
formation of an IPRC should reduce the problem of retractions in scientific
publications.
Another process would consist of evaluating the reproducibility of a
study before it is submitted to a journal. For example, the funding
organizations including government agencies could require such an
approach resulting in significant reduction of retracted papers.
Finally, it is imperative that the scientific community recognizes the
consequences of publishing flawed papers. Important distinctions should be
made between a paper that is withdrawn because it contains previously
published material and a paper that contains flawed information. Although
both violate ethical rules, the latter category is not due to errors of honest
oversight. It is a quality control problem that can and must be managed by
rigorous peer review.
Washington Academy of Sciences
REFERENCES
Abbott A. Disgraced trachea surgeon—and six co-authors—found
responsible for misconduct: Studies co-authored by Paolo Macchiarini
misrepresented patients’ conditions, according to the Karolinska
Institute. Nature. June 27, 2018.
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-05565-4. Accessed May
2020.
Achary CR et al. Gene expression signatures, clinicopathological features,
and individualized therapy in breast cancer. Journal of the American
Medical Association. 299:1574-1587; 2008.
DOI:10.1001/jama.299.13.1574. Retraction notice:
https ://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18387932. Accessed May 2020.
Ali A, Sayyed Z, Ameer M, ef a/. Systemic Lupus Erythematosus: An
Overview of the Disease Pathology and Its Management. Cureus 10(9):
e3288; 2018. doi:10.7759/cureus.3288. Retraction notice:
https://www.cureus.com/articles/14683-systemic-lupus-erythematosus-
an-overview-of-the-disease-pathology-and-its-management/retraction.
Accessed July 2020.
Arun PV. An intelligent approach towards automatic shape modelling and
object extraction from satellite images using cellular automata-based
algorithms. Geocarto International. 29: 628-638; 2013.
Arun PV and Katiyar SK. An intelligent approach towards automatic
shape modelling and object extraction from satellite images using
cellular automata-based algorithms. G/Science & Remote Sensing. 50:
337-348; 2013. Retraction notice:
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10. 1080/10106049.2014.9994 11.
Accessed May 2020.
Baker M. 1,500 scientists lift the lid on reproducibility. Nature. 533: 452-
454; 2016.
Bauchner H. Expression of concern: Wansink B, Cheney MM. Super
Bowls: Serving Bowl Size and Food Consumption. Journal of the
American Medical Association. 293: 1727-1728; 2005.
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2678649. Accessed
May 2020.
Fall 2020.
44
Bauchner H. Notice of retraction: Wansink B, Cheney MM. Super Bowls:
Serving Bowl Size and Food Consumption. Journal of the American
Medical Association. 293(14):1727-1728: 2005.
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2703449. Accessed
May 2020.
Blanco, G., Lemus, J. A., & Grande, J. Faecal bacteria associated with
different diets of wintering red kites: Influence of livestock carcass
dumps in microflora alteration and pathogen acquisition. Journal of
Applied Ecology, 43(5), 990-998; 2006. doi:10.1111/j.1365-
2664.2006.01200.x. Retraction notice:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S00 13935 109000127
?via%3Dihub. Accessed July 2020.
Boyle, Robert. The Sceptical Chymist. Published in 1661 Available from
Amazon.com.
Canning S, and Baynes G. Retraction of articles from Springer journals.
2015. https://www.springer.com/us/about-
springer/media/statements/retraction-of-articles-from-springer-
Journals/735218. Accessed October 28, 2018.
Darinskas, A., Paskevicius, M., Apanavicius, G., Vilkevicius, G.,
Labanauskas, L., Ichim, T. E., & Rimdeika, R. Stromal vascular
fraction cells for the treatment of critical limb ischemia: A pilot study.
Journal of Translational Medicine, 15;1-7: 2017. doi:10.1186/s12967-
017-1243-3. Retraction notice: https://translational-
medicine.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12967-020-02266-3.
Accessed July 2020.
Deng W, Zhao H, Li Z, and Zou L. A vibration signal process method
based on wavelet packet and approximate entropy. Journal of Process
Mechanical Engineering. 229: 333-333; 2014; DOI:
10.1177/0954408914559739. Retraction notice:
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0954408914559739.
Accessed May 2020.
Dunoyer, P., Lecellier, C.H., Parizotto, E.A., Himber, C., and Voinnet, O.
Probing the microRNA and small interfering RNA pathways with
virus-encoded suppressors of RNA silencing. The Plant Cell
Washington Academy of Sciences
45
16:1235-1250; 2004. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1105/tpc.020719.
Retraction notice: www.plantcell.org/cgi/doi/10.1105/tpe.15.00407
Einstein A. Uber einen die Erzeugung und Verwandlung des Lichtes
betreffenden heuritishen Gesichtspukt (On a heuristic viewpoint
concerning the production and transportation of light). Anal. Phys.17:
1323 1905,
Finelli C, Crispino P, Gioia S, La Sala N, D’amico L, La Grotta M, Miro
O, and Colarusso, D. The improvement of large High-Density
Lipoprotein (HDL) particle levels, and presumably HDL metabolism,
depend on effects of low-carbohydrate diet and weight loss. EXCLI
Journal. 15:166—176; 2016. http://doi.org/10.17179/excli2015-642.
Retraction notice: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27103896/
Accessed May 2020.
Fleischmann M, and Pons S. Electrochemically induced fusion of
deuterium. Journal of Electroanalytical Chemistry and Interfacial
Electrochemistry. 261: 301-308; 1989
Ge F, Wang DD, Li L, Lin PP, Shuman MA. Enhanced detection and
phenotypic and karyotypic in situ characterization of circulating tumor
cells. The American Journal of Pathology. 185: 597; 2014.
DOI:10.1016/j.ajpath.2014.08.023. Retraction notice:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002 944014005367.
Accessed May 2020.
Geraedts, M. C., & Munger, S. D. Gustatory Stimuli Representing
Different Perceptual Qualities Elicit Distinct Patterns of Neuropeptide
Secretion from Taste Buds. Journal of Neuroscience, 33(17), 7559-
7564; 2013. doi:10.1523/jneurosci.0372-13.2013. Retraction notice:
https://www.jneurosci.org/content/35/24/9248. Accessed July 2020.
Goodman S, and Greenland S. Assessing the unreliability of the medical
literature: a response to “Why most published research findings are
false.” Johns Hopkins University, Department of Biostatistics Working
Papers. Working Paper 135. February 2007.
https://biostats. bepress.com/jhubiostat/paper135/. Accessed May
2020.
Fall 2020.
46
Gordon, R.E., Lacy, J.K., and Streeter, J.R. Conservation under the
Endangered Species Act. Environment International. 23: 359-419;
1997.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016041209700035X
. Accessed May 2020.
Horton R. MMR science and fiction: Exploring the vaccine crisis. London,
Granata Books 2004
Huizenga J. Cold fusion: The scientific fiasco of the century. New York.
University of Rochester Press, 1993
Joannidis JPA. Why most published research findings are false. PLoS
Medicine. 2: 0696-0701; 2005.
Kantevari, S., Makara, J. K., Losonczy, A., Fellin, T., Haydon, P. G.,
Magee, J. C., & Ellis-Davies, G. C. Retraction: Development of
Anionically Decorated 2-(ortho-Nitrophenyl)-Propyl-Caged
Neurotransmitters for Photolysis in vitro and in vivo. ChemBioChem,
12(3), 346-346; 2011. doi:10.1002/cbic.201000254. Retraction notice:
https://chemistry-
europe.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/cbic.201000254.
Accessed July 2020.
Kumar, S.N., Aravind, S.R., Jacob, J., Gopinath, G., Lankalapalli, R.S.,
Sreelekha, T.T., and Kumar, B.S.D. Pseudopyronine B: a potent
antimicrobial and anticancer molecule isolated from a Pseudomonas
mosselii. Frontiers in Microbiology. 7: 1307; 2016.
http://do1.org/10.3389/fmicb.2016.01307. Retraction notice:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmce/articles/PMC56992 | 2/pdf/fmicb-
08-02363.pdf
Kuroki T and Ukawa A. Repeating probability of authors with retracted
publications. Accountability in Research 25(4):212-219; 2018.
https ://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10. 1080/08 98962 1.2018.144965 1
?journalCode=gacr20. Accessed May 2020.
La Sala GB, Nicoli A, Fornaciari E, Falbo A, Rondini I, Morini D, Valli B,
Villani MT, and Palomba S. Intracytoplasmic morphologically
selected sperm injection versus conventional intracytoplasmic sperm
injection: a randomized controlled trial. Reproductive Biology and
Washington Academy of Sciences
47
Endocrinology. 7: 13:97; 2015. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12958-015-
0096-y. Retraction notice:
https ://rbej. biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12958-017-0279-9.
Accessed May 2020.
Lavhale, M. S., Kumar, S., Mishra, S. H., & Sitasawad, S. L. A Novel
Triterpenoid Isolated from the Root Bark of Ailanthus excelsa Roxb
(Tree of Heaven), AECHL-1 as a Potential Anti-Cancer Agent. PLoS
ONE, 4(4); 2009. do1:10.1371/journal.pone.0005365. Retraction notice:
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.023 |
249#. Accessed July 2020.
Ling, W., Li, S., Zhang, X., Xu. Y., Gao, Y., Du, Q., Bian, J. Evaluation of
Anti-Obesity Activity, Acute Toxicity, and Subacute Toxicity of
Probiotic Dark Tea. Biomolecules, 8(4), 99; 2018.
doi: 10.3390/biom8040099.
Ling W, et al Evaluation of Anti-obesity, acute toxicity, and subacute
toxicity of probiotic dark tea. Biomolecules 8; 99: 2018 Retraction
published in Biomolecules 9; 85: 2019ed
Liu, D., Li, J., Zhang, M., & Wang, D. A study on the association between
biomass types and magnesium oxide pretreatment. Bioresource
Technology, 293, 122035; 2019. doi:10.1016/j.biortech.2019.122035.
Retraction notice:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/p11/S09608524193 12659
_Accessed July 2020.
Lopez-Medrano R, Guerra-Laso JM, Lopez-Fidalgo E, Diez-Tascon C,
Garcia-Garcia S, Blanco-Conde S, and Rivero-Lezcano OM. Plasma
contributes to the antimicrobial activity of whole blood against
Mycobacterium tuberculosis. Innate Immunity 22(7):557-566 2016.
DOI:10.1177/1753425916663311. Retraction notice:
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1753425917734438.
Accessed May 2020.
Merton R. The Matthew Effect in science. Science 159: 56-63; 1968.
Moghissi AA, Straja SR, Love BR. Peer review and scientific
assessment: a handbook for funding organizations, regulatory
Fall 2020.
48
agencies, and editors. Alexandria, VA: Institute for Regulatory
Selence. 201s;
Moghissi, A.A., et al. The critical role of review criteria in independent
peer review. Technology and Innovation 17: 127-133; 2015.
Moghissi AA, Calderone RA, McBride DK, and Jaeger L. Innovation in
regulatory science: metrics for evaluation of regulatory science claims
based on best available regulatory science. Journal of Regulatory
Science 50-59; 2017.
Moghissi AA, Keim M, McBride DK, and Swetnam MS. Wakefield
Effect. Synesis 4: 15-23; 2013.
National Institutes of Health. Peer review
http://grants.nih.gov/grants/peer-review.htm Accessed May 2020.
National Science Foundation. Merit review.
www.nsf. gov/bfa/dias/policy/merit_review. Accessed June 2019.
Newton, D. Quality and peer review of research: an adjudicating role of
editors. Accountability in Research. 17: 130-145; 2010.
Nuitsu, N., Hagiwara, Y., Tanae, K., Kohri, M., & Takahashi, N.
Prospective Analysis of Hepatitis B Virus Reactivation in Patients with
Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma After Rituximab Combination
Chemotherapy. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 28(34), 5097-5100;
2010. doi:10.1200/jco.2010.29.7531. Retraction notice:
https://chemistry-
europe.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/cbic.201000254.
Accessed July 2020.
Office of Management and Budget. Final information quality bulletin for
peer review. Federal Register 70: 2664-3677; 2005
Office of Research Integrity. Case Summary: Kim.Shin-Hee.
Ori.hhs.gov/content/case.summary-kim-shin-ho. Accessed May 2020
Oransky I. Volunteer watchdogs pushed a small country up the ratings.
Science 362: 395; 2018
Palma W, and Ferreira G. Regression estimation with locally stationary
long-memory errors. Journal of Multivariate Analysis. 116: 14-24;
2013. Retraction notice:
Washington Academy of Sciences
49
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0047259X 13000523.
Accessed May 2020.
Parker, K.F., DeWees, M.A., and Radelet, M.L. Race, the death penalty,
and wrongful convictions. Criminal Justice Magazine 18 :49; 2003.
Reproducibility Initiative. Various pages.
www. validation.scienceexchange.com/#/reproducibility-initiative.
Accessed May 2020.
Richtig G, Berger M, Lange-Asschenfelt, Aberer W and Richtig E.
Problems and challenges of predatory journals. Journal of European
Academy of Dermatology and Venereology 32; 1441-1449: 2018
Science Europe. Plan S: Accelerating the transition to full and immediate
open access to scientific publications.
http://www.scienceeurope.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/plan_S.pdf
Smith R. Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and
journals. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine. 99(4):178-182;
2006.
Sternberg, R. J. The Nature of Creativity. Creativity Research Journal,
18(1), 87-98; 2006. doi:10.1207/s15326934crj1801_ 10. Retraction
notice:
https://www.tandfonline.com/do1/full/10.1080/10400419.2019.164769
0. Accessed July 2020.
Toan NV and Hanh TT. Improved treatment of Asthma by using natural
sources of antioxidants. Springerplus. 26; 278; 2013.
DOI:10.1186/2193-1801-2-278. Retraction notice:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0047259X 13000523.
Accessed May 2020.
Wager, E. and Jefferson, T. Shortcomings of peer review in biomedical
research. Learned Publishing 14: 257-263; 2001.
Wakefield AJ et al. Ileal lymphoid Hyperplasia and pervasive development
disorder in children. Lancet 351: 637-641: 1998
Wang, L., Son, Y., Ding, S., Wang, X., Hitron, J. A., Budhraja, A., . . . Shi,
X. Ethanol Enhances Tumor Angiogenesis In Vitro Induced by Low-
Dose Arsenic in Colon Cancer Cells Through Hypoxia-Inducible
Fall 2020.
2012. doi:10.1093/toxsci/kfs242. Retraction notice:
https://academic.oup.com/toxsci/article/175/1/146/5762812. Accessed
July 2020.
Wang, X.; Xu, W., Hu; G., XiaS., Suny Z., Liup Zs Lu, L.-SARS-=Coy -2
infects T lymphocytes through its spike protein-mediated membrane
fusion. Cellular & Molecular Immunology. 2020. doi:10.1038/s41423-
020-0424-9. Retraction notice:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s4 1423-020-0424-9#citeas. Accessed
July 2020.
Wiedener A. Shedding light on peer review. Chemical and Engineering
News. (November26) 26-32; 2018
Yan, Z., Yan, G., & Miyamoto, I. Fixed point theorems and explicit
estimates for convergence rates of continuous time Markov chains.
Fixed Point Theory and Applications, 2015:197; 2015.
doi:10.1186/s13663-015-0443-x. Retraction notice:
https://fixedpointtheoryandapplications.springeropen.com/articles/10. 1
186/s13663-020-00672-2 Accessed July 2020.
Yang X, Uddin A. Effect of thermal annealing on P3HT: PCBM bulk-
heterojunction organic solar cells: A critical review. Renewable and
Sustainable Energy Reviews. 30: 324-336; 2014.
DOI:10.1016/j.rser.2013.10.025. Retraction notice:
https ://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S 1364032 113007247
. Accessed May 2020.
Zerhouni EA. NIH public access policy. Science. 306:1895; 2004. DOT:
10.1126/science. 1106929
Washington Academy of Sciences
5]
A. Alan Moghissi is currently president of the Institute for Regulatory
Science, an adjunct Professor in School of Medicine at Georgetown
University, Previously, he was Associate Vice President for Environmental
Health and Safety at Temple University in Philadelphia, PA and Assistant
Vice President for Environmental Health and Safety at the University of
Maryland at Baltimore. As a charter member of the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), he served in several capacities, including
Principal Science Advisor for Radiation and Hazardous Materials and
Manager of the Health and Environmental Risk Analysis Program. He was
a visiting professor at Georgia Tech, University of Virginia, and a professor
of Medicine at the University of Maryland. He has been credited for the
establishment of regulatory science discipline while at the EPA leading to
the establishment of the Institute for Regulatory Science in 1985. He has
published over 400 papers, 25 books, and was the editor-in- chief of three
major scientific journals. He is the recipient of the EPA distinguished carrier
award, an honorary member of the National Council on Radiation Protection
and Measurements, an Academic Councilor of the Russian Academy of
Engineering, and a fellow of American Society of Mechanical Engineers.
He was appointed by the Secretary of State as a Commissioner of the United
States UNESCO Commission. He received his education at the University
of Zurich and federal Institute of Technology, Switzerland, and Karlsruhe
Institute of Technology in Germany, where he received a doctorate degree
in physical chemistry.
Richard Calderone has spent the past 45 years at the Georgetown
University Medical Center (GUMC). Currently, he is the Chair of the
Department of Microbiology & Immunology and continue to teach MS,
PhD, and Medical Students. He and his research lab PhD and post-
doctoral students have published over 140 scientific papers, chapters
and books on fungal infections with special emphasis on research
focusing upon the molecular biology of fungal pathogens including
Candida species. Research in the lab has changed significantly in regard
to approaches. Early on, because of a lack of molecular biology
techniques, we characterized some of the biochemical factors that
influence virulence of this human pathogen. His current research
focuses upon using molecular biology and bioinformatics to identify
gene targets that suggest an application to antifungal drug discovery. He
has served as an editor/reviewer of numerous journal submissions and
Fall 2020.
a2
served two four-year terms on research study sections at the NIH as
well as a number of ad hoc research review groups. He has been a
member of the American Society for Microbiology & Immunology, as a
President of the Medical Mycology Section Division F, and he is a
member of The American Academy of Microbiology and served as a past
president of the Medical Mycology Society Association. He was one of
the founders of Conferences on Candida and Candidiasis. He developed
an MS degree Program in Biomedical Science Policy and Advocacy that
has graduated over 100 students. In this capacity he has been lucky
enough to collaborate with faculty to publish several papers related to
“Regulatory Science.”
Jean-Pierre Auffret is co-founder and president of the International
Academy of CIO, an NGO headquartered in Tokyo, Japan with the
objectives of fostering the exchange and adoption of best practices on CIO
and IT executive leadership; and government IT institutions and
organizations. He is also director, Center for Assurance Research and
Engineering (CARE) in the Volgenau School of Engineering and director,
Research Partnerships in the School of Business at George Mason
University and a visiting lecturer in the Duke University Center for
International Development. His work and research span a range of applied
technology fields including on CIO and ICT leadership and governance and
cybersecurity and including with APEC, NSF, IBM and World Bank. He
has served on several Commonwealth of Virginia commissions including
the Commonwealth of Virginia Health Information Technology Advisory
Commission. He has 30 years of technology industry and academic
experience including executive positions with MCI and its joint venture with
British Telecom, Concert and academic positions with George Mason, Duke
and American University. He earned a B.S. degree from Duke University
where he was an A.B. Duke Scholar, an M.B.A. from the University of
Virginia and a Ph.D. in Physics from American University.
Dennis McBride received the Ph.D. from the University of Georgia, in
experimental psychology, with concentration in the mathematical modeling
of the acquisition perceptuomotor skill in H. sapiens. He graduated post-
doctorally from the Naval Aerospace Medical Institute and served a twenty
year career as a Naval Aerospace Experimental Psychologist, with tours in
five highly advanced R&D laboratories, and three national research
Washington Academy of Sciences
oS
agencies, including the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. He
earned post-doctoral master's degrees from the Viterbi School of
Engineering - University of Southern California, Troy State University, and
completed M.Phil. studies at the London School of Economics. He served
as professor, with dual appointments in departments of engineering and
psychology at the University of Central Florida where he was also Director
of the Institute for Simulation and Training. He subsequently served for ten
years as president of the Potomac Institute for Policy Studies (now president
emeritus), and currently as Vice President of the Institute of Regulatory
Science, adjunct professor at Georgetown University Medical School and
Public Policy Institute, Vice President for Innovation at Source America,
and Chief Strategy Officer / Senior Scientist at NeuroRx Pharma, a small
molecule, clinical phase development company.
Fall 2020.
54
Washington Academy of Sciences
55
Science Bite: Citizen Science and an Asteroid
Citizen science is scientific research conducted, in whole or in part, by
amateur (or nonprofessional) scientists. Zooniverse
(https://www.zooniverse.org/) is a popular site for citizen participation in
scientific research.
In Hmedabad, India two fourteen year old girls recently discovered a
previously unknown Earth-bound asteroid. They had poured through
images from a University of Hawaii telescope (the Pan-STARRS telescope
— the Panoramic Survey Telescope and Rapid Response System). The two
girls attend SPACE India, a private institute. The SPACE India Institute is
one of the few private space education initiatives in India.
The two girls, who come from the western city of Surat, discovered the
asteroid as part of an asteroid search campaign conducted by SPACE India
along with the International Astronomical Search Collaboration (IASC), a
NASA-affiliated citizen scientist group. IASC Director J. Patrick Miller
confirmed the discovery.
The girls used specialized software to analyze the images snapped by the
Pan-STARRS telescope at the Haleakala High Altitude Observatory Site,
located on the island of Maui in Hawaii, and made the discovery in June.
The asteroid is presently near Mars. Its orbit is expected to cross that of
Earth in about one million years’ time.
“T look forward to... when we will get a chance to name the asteroid,” said
Vaidehi Vekariya, who added that she wants to become an astronaut when
she is older. The person or people who discover(s) an asteroid can submit a
name for it to the International Astronomical Union (IAU). The IAU is the
body responsible for authorizing names for celestial objects. The asteroid’s
temporary name is HLV2514.
Radhika Lakhani, the other student, said she was working hard on her
education. “I don’t even have a TV at home, so that I can concentrate on my
studies.”
Asteroids pose a potential threat to Earth. In 2013, for example, an asteroid
heavier than the Eiffel Tower exploded over central Russia, leaving more
than 1,000 people injured from its shockwave.
Fall 2020
56
Washington Academy of Sciences
af
News Release
Washington Academy of Sciences Announces 2020 Awards
The Washington Academy of Sciences is pleased to announce its 2020
awards to recognize work of merit and distinction of scientists and leaders
in the greater Washington area. We had some outstanding nominations and
pleased to point out that we have the largest number of women awardees for
the year in the history of the academy. These awards will be presented at
our Annual Awards Banquet Ceremony, the details of which will be posted
on our website. The 2020 award recipients are:
Teaching Science in College - Leo Schubert Award
Sita Ramamurti, Ph.D., Trinity Washington University
Citation: For years of dedication, passion, and creativity in teaching
mathematics for college students.
Sita Ramamurti is currently the Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences at
Trinity Washington University in DC. In her 25 plus years of teaching
collegiate mathematics, she has passionately engaged her students in active
learning by integrating content-specific technology, designing and teaching
quantitative literacy, reasoning, and interdisciplinary seminar courses. She
also has a strong interest in reform and policy initiatives in K-12 education.
As a research scholar her areas of focus are mathematical modeling and
dynamical systems. Sita received both her B.Sc. and M.Sc. in Mathematics
from India and earned her Ph.D. in Mathematics from George Washington
University.
Fall 2020
58
Excellence in Research in Applied Mathematics
Michael Donahue, Ph.D., National Institute of Standards and Technology
Citation: For excellence in applied mathematics, leading to new tools for
modeling and simulation which have transformed research into nanoscale
magnetic films, structures and devices.
Michael Donahue is leader of the Mathematical Software Group in the
Information Technology Laboratory at the National Institute of Standards
and Technology, and heads development of the OOMMEF micromagnetics
package. OOMMEF, a critical piece of infrastructure for nanomagnetics
research, is the most widely used micromagnetics simulation tool
worldwide, sporting over 3000 citations. Before joining NIST in 1994, he
was an industrial postdoctoral research associate at the University of
Minnesota, working with Siemens Corporate Research on artificial neural
networks and computer vision. Michael Donahue has authored over 50
journal publications, and holds Ph.D.s in mathematics and engineering from
The Ohio State University.
Washington Academy of Sciences
59
Excellence in Research in Computer Science
Elham Tabassi, M.S., National Institute of Standards and Technology
Citation: For outstanding contributions and leadership in computer vision,
fingerprint image analysis, facial recognition algorithms, artificial
intelligence, and machine learning.
Elham Tabassi is the Chief of Staff inthe Information Technology
Laboratory at NIST and leads NIST AI program. As a scientist she has been
working on various computer vision research projects with applications in
biometrics evaluation and standards since 1999. She designed and
developed NIST Fingerprint Image Quality (NFIQ) standard which is now
an international standard for measuring fingerprint image quality and has
been deployed in many large scale biometric applications worldwide. She
received several awards, including the Women in Biometrics Award in
2016. Elham has a B.S.E.E. from Sharif University of Technology, and an
M.S. from Santa Clara University.
Fall 2020
60
Excellence in Research in Physical Science
John Villarrubia, Ph.D., National Institute of Standards and Technology
Citation: For elucidating the physics of probe-sample interactions in
scanning electron and atomic force microscopes for enabling accurate
metrology of nanostructures to meet nanoelectronics manufacturing
demands.
John Villarrubia is a physicist and project leader in the Microsystems and
Nanotechnology Division of the Physical Measurement Laboratory at the
National Institute of Standards and Technology. Notable accomplishments
include the use of mathematical morphology to invent a blind tip
reconstruction method for scanning probe microscopy and applications of
the physics of electron-solid interactions to dimensional measurements
using secondary electron images. He is the recipient of three best paper
awards, a Nanotech Briefs Nano50 Technology award, and Dept. of
Commerce Gold and Silver medals. John has a B.S. in physics from
Louisiana State University, an M.S. and a Ph.D. from Cornell University.
Washington Academy of Sciences
Leadership in Biological Sciences
Susan Gregurick, Ph.D., National Institutes of Health
Citation: For extraordinary leadership in advancing computational
methods in the biological sciences and leading the development and
implementation of the first NIH Strategic Plan for Data Science
Susan K. Gregurick is Associate Director for Data Science and Director of
the Office of Data Science Strategy (ODSS) at the National Institutes of
Health. Under her leadership, the ODSS leads the implementation of the
NIH Strategic Plan for Data Science through scientific, technical, and
operational collaboration with the institutes, centers, and offices that
comprise NIH. Before beginning a career of government service, Susan was
a professor of computational chemistry at the University of Maryland,
Baltimore County. Susan Gregurick received her B.S. in chemistry and
mathematics from the University of Michigan and her Ph.D. in physical
chemistry from the University of Maryland.
Fall 2020
Leadership in Engineering
Dawn Tilbury, Ph.D., National Science Foundation
Citation: For leadership in advancing engineering research and for
exceptional mentoring of engineering students
Dawn M. Tilbury has been a professor of Mechanical Engineering at the
University of Michigan since 1995. Her research interests lie broadly in the
area of control systems, including applications to robotics and
manufacturing systems. Since 2017, she has been the Assistant Director for
Engineering at the National Science Foundation, where she oversees a
federal budget of nearly $1 billion annually. She is a Fellow of both IEEE
and ASME, and a Life Member of SWE. Dawn received the B.S. degree in
Electrical Engineering, summa cum laude, from the University of
Minnesota, and the M.S. and Ph.D. degrees in Electrical Engineering and
Computer Sciences from the University of California, Berkeley.
Washington Academy of Sciences
Leadership in Healthcare
Anuradha Reddy, MD, Past President, Baltimore City Medical Society
Citation: For leadership in healthcare and for serving the underprivileged
community of Baltimore.
Anuradha Reddy is a primary care physician and rheumatologist in
Baltimore City, Maryland. She currently serves on MedChi’s Board of
Trustees and Legislative Council. Anuradha was the 107th President and
seventh woman President of Baltimore City Medical Society, which was
initially formed in 1805. Anuradha also served in other leadership positions,
including as a president of the American Association of Physicians of Indian
Origin, Maryland Chapter. Anuradha Reddy is a Fellow of the American
College of Physicians. She did her residency in primary care in Muhlenberg
Regional Medical Center, NJ and her Fellowship in Rheumatology from
Cabrini Medical Center, NY.
Fall 2020
64
Leadership in IT Standards for Industry
Lisa Carnahan, M.S., National Institute of Standards and Technology
Citation: For national and international leadership in IT research
and development for cybersecurity, privacy, health care testing
infrastructure, standards, and conformance testing
Lisa J. Carnahan is the Associate Director for IT Standardization in the
Information Technology Laboratory at the National Institute of Standards
and Technology. She is responsible for developing programmatic strategies
for standards engagement, understanding potential standards opportunities
in emerging technologies, and promoting the benefits of standards adoption
in the federal government and industry. Lisa is the lead on conformity
assessment aspects of the NIST Cybersecurity Framework and Privacy
Framework and convenes the US Interagency International Cybersecurity
Standardization Working Group. Lisa received a B.S. in Computer
Applications and Information Systems from Clarion University, PA and
received an M.S. in Computer Science from Johns Hopkins University,
Maryland.
Washington Academy of Sciences
65
Distinguished Career in Computer Science
Ming Lin, Ph.D., University of Maryland
Citation: For seminal contributions to computer graphics, virtual reality,
robotics, and intelligent systems.
Ming Lin is a Distinguished University Professor and holds the Elizabeth
Stevinson Iribe Chair of Computer Science at the University of Maryland at
College Park. She is also the John R. & Louise S. Parker Distinguished
Professor Emerita at University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Ming has
received several honors and awards, including an NSF Young Faculty
Career Award, the UNC Hettleman Award for Scholarly Achievements, the
Beverly W. Long Distinguished Term Professorship, the IEEE VGTC VR
Technical Achievement Award and several best paper awards. She is a
Fellow of ACM, IEEE, Eurographics, and SIGGRAPH Academy. Ming C.
Lin received her B.S., M.S., Ph.D. in EECS from University of California,
Berkeley.
Fall 2020
66
Distinguished Career in Computer Science
Hanan Samet, Ph.D., University of Maryland
Citation: For pioneering contributions to developing multidimensional
spatial data structures and indexing for applications in graphics, GIS,
vision, and databases
Hanan Samet is a Distinguished University Professor of Computer Science
at the University of Maryland. He wrote "Foundations of Multidimensional
and Metric Data Structures," and the field's first two texts "The Design and
Analysis of Spatial Data Structures" and "Applications of Spatial Data
Structures: Computer Graphics, Image Processing and GIS". Hanan Samet
is a Fellow of ACM, IEEE, IAPR, AAAS, UCGIS, and SIGGRAPH
Academy, and received ACM's Paris Kanellakis Theory and Practice
Award, IEEE Computer Society's Wallace McDowell Award, Founding
chair of ACM SIGSPATIAL, Founding EIC ACM TSAS, and best paper
awards in SIGMOD and SIGSPATIAL in 2008. Hanan Samet has a Ph.D.
from Stanford University.
Washington Academy of Sciences
67
Distinguished Career in Engineering
Appajosula S. Rao, Ph.D., Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Citation: For exceptional contributions to materials engineering research.
Appajosula Srinivasa Rao is a Material Engineer and Program Manager at
the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (USNRC) in Washington, DC.
Appajosula S. Rao’s expertise is in Nuclear Materials, Physical Metallurgy,
Corrosion, Finite Element and Neural Network Analysis. He has published
nearly 250 papers in Journals, and Govt. Technical Reports and presented
nearly 250 lectures all around the world. He received 4 patents and 35
awards and special citations. Appajosula S. Rao received M.Sc. Physical
Chemistry, Ph.D. Applied Chemistry, from India, a second Ph.D. in
Metallurgy and Materials Engineering, from England and M.S. in
Engineering Management from George Washington University.
Fall 2020
Distinguished Career in Physical Science
David Shifler, Ph.D., Office of Naval Research
Citation: For distinguished and sustained contributions to corrosion
science and for service to scientific communities
David Shifler (Dave) has over 45 years’ experience in the areas of materials
and materials characterizations. He is a S&T program officer at the Office
of Naval Research for high temperature propulsion materials and cellular
materials. His responsibilities include recognizing emerging scientific and
technological concepts and evaluate their feasibility and applicability to
DoN missions. Dave is a Fellow of NACE International, the Institute of
Corrosion in the UK, and ASM International, a registered professional
engineer, and has received several awards. Dave received his BA in
Chemistry from Western Maryland College, and his M.S.E. and Ph.D. from
Johns Hopkins University in Materials Science and Engineering.
Washington Academy of Sciences
69
Outgoing President: Judy Staveley
Reflections of the Past Year as your outgoing President of the
Washington Academy of Sciences
Good evening members and awardees of the Washington Academy of
Sciences.
As your outgoing president, I want to thank each one of you for the
privilege of allowing me to represent you this past year as being the
President of the Washington Academy of Sciences. As the President of the
academy you get the opportunity to express your ideas and your passion
for the academy. I have tried to be that voice this past year.
As I step down and pass the role over to Dr. Mina Izadjoo, I have no doubt
she will be a wonderful loyal president to our members. Obviously we as
presidents don’t do all the work by ourselves, we need to thank our board
members and loyal supporters who are behind the academy that keeps it
going.
This past year has changed my life as I am sure it has changed yours.
Incoming President, Mina Izadjoo
Good Evening Everyone,
It is a great pleasure to welcome you to the Washington Academy of
Sciences’ Annual Meeting and Award Ceremony via zoom.
I would like to thank you for joining us tonight and recognize this year’s
Award recipients for their contribution to science.
My appreciation and gratitude go to the Board Members who
selflessly volunteered their time to serve the Academy and established new
collaborations with other organizations.
The Academy brings together local scientists, encourages collaboration,
and creates an enabling environment for the youth through its Junior
Academy.
Fall 2020
70
We need you, your passion for science and positive energy in helping us
continue with our mission of promoting scientific interest not only for this
generation but also for the next generation.
I do not want to take too much of your time but wanted to emphasize that
you can work with us. Contact me or other Board Members at any time.
At this time, I would like to ask Dr. Ram Sriram to introduce himself and
tonight’s great speaker.
So, a very warm welcome to each one of you.
Washington Academy of Sciences
71
Fall 2020
Delegates to the Washington Academy of Sciences
Representing Affiliated Scientific Societies
Acoustical Society of America
American/International Association of Dental Research
American Assoc. of Physics Teachers, Chesapeake
Section
American Astronomical Society
American Fisheries Society
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
American Institute of Mining, Metallurgy & Exploration
American Meteorological Society
American Nuclear Society
American Phytopathological Society
American Society for Cybernetics
American Society for Microbiology
American Society of Civil Engineers
American Society of Mechanical Engineers
American Society of Plant Physiology
Anthropological Society of Washington
ASM International
Association for Women in Science
Association for Computing Machinery
Association for Science, Technology, and Innovation
Association of Information Technology Professionals
Biological Society of Washington
Botanical Society of Washington
Capital Area Food Protection Association
Chemical Society of Washington
District of Columbia Institute of Chemists
Eastern Sociological Society
Electrochemical Society
Entomological Society of Washington
Geological Society of Washington
Historical Society of Washington DC
Human Factors and Ergonomics Society
(continued on next page)
Washington Academy of Sciences
Paul Arveson
J. Terrell Hoffeld
Frank R. Haig, S. J.
Sethanne Howard
Lee Benaka
David W. Brandt
E. Lee Bray
Vacant
Charles Martin
Vacant
Stuart Umpleby
Vacant
Vacant
Daniel J. Vavrick
Vacant
Vacant
Toni Marechaux
Jodi Wesemann
Vacant
F. Douglas
Witherspoon
Vacant
Vacant
Chris Puttock
Keith Lempel
Vacant
Vacant
Ronald W.
Mandersheid
Vacant
Vacant
Jurate Landwehr
Vacant
Gerald Krueger
Delegates to the Washington Academy of Sciences
Representing Affiliated Scientific Societies
(continued from previous page)
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Washington
Section
Institute of Food Technologies, Washington DC Section
Institute of Industrial Engineers, National Capital Chapter
International Association for Dental Research, American
Section
International Society for the Systems Sciences
International Society of Automation, Baltimore Washington
Section
Instrument Society of America
Marine Technology Society
Maryland Native Plant Society
Mathematical Association of America, Maryland-District of
Columbia- Virginia Section
Medical Society of the District of Columbia
National Capital Area Skeptics
National Capital Astronomers
National Geographic Society
Optical Society of America, National Capital Section
Pest Science Society of America
Philosophical Society of Washington
Society for Experimental Biology and Medicine
Society of American Foresters, National Capital Society
Society of American Military Engineers, Washington DC
Post
Society of Manufacturing Engineers, Washington DC
Chapter
Society of Mining, Metallurgy, and Exploration, Inc.,
Washington DC Section
Soil and Water Conservation Society, National Capital
Chapter
Technology Transfer Society, Washington Area Chapter
Virginia Native Plant Society, Potowmack Chapter
Washington DC Chapter of the Institute for Operations
Research and the Management Sciences (WINFORMS)
Washington Evolutionary Systems Society
Washington History of Science Club
Washington Paint Technology Group
Washington Society of Engineers
Washington Society for the History of Medicine
Washington Statistical Society
World Future Society, National Capital Region Chapter
Richard Hill
Taylor Wallace
Neal F. Schmeidler
Christopher Fox
Vacant
Richard
Sommerfield
Hank Hegner
Jake Sobin
Vacant
John Hamman
Julian Craig
Vacant
Jay H. Miller
Vacant
Jim Heaney
Vacant
Larry S. Millstein
Vacant
Marilyn Buford
Vacant
Vacant
E. Lee Bray
Erika Larsen
Richard Leshuk
Alan Ford
Meagan Pitluck-
Schmitt
Vacant
Albert G. Gluckman
Vacant
Alvin Reiner
Alain Touwaide
Michael P. Cohen
Jim Honig
Washington Academy of Sciences NONPROFIT ORG
US POSTAGE PAID
Room GL117 , MERRIFIELD VA 22081
1200 New York Ave. NW PERMIT# 888
Washington, DC 20005
Return Postage Guaranteed
UU ppelyfete]PPadeg[Epyp Hepa hyp PEE [feted fectocapfef[ pp tyre
Btgreteeette 4 Ogheaaatennnemeneenl ITOMIXED ADC 207
HARVARD LAW S LIB ERSMCZ
1545 MASSACHUSETTS AVE
LANGDELL HALL 152
CAMBRIDGE, MA 02138-2903