Posts tagged students
Leading quantitative conservation biologist named CU’s first Colorado Chair in Environmental Studies
Oct 1st
The University of Colorado Boulder has hired its first Colorado Chair in Environmental Studies, an endowed chair awarded to Daniel Doak, a conservation biologist known for his quantitative analysis of how different government policies could affect the populations of species ranging from sea otters, California condors, corals and rare plants.
The endowed chair in environmental studies was made possible by $4 million in gifts made anonymously in 2009 and 2010 toward the chair.
Dr. Daniel Doak
Sharon Collinge, professor and director of the CU-Boulder Environmental Studies Program, called Doak a perfect match. “He epitomizes what we’re looking for,” she said.
Doak is especially skilled in interdisciplinary research, she said. He brings expertise in policy to his analyses of risks of energy development, for example. And he is widely cited for his research in quantitative conservation biology, which combines sophisticated computer modeling with varying policy scenarios to project changes in populations of rare species.
For instance, the Proceedings of the National Academies of Science recently published a study co-authored by Doak concluding that the California condor is chronically endangered by lead exposure from hunters’ spent ammunition.
While the free-flying condor population has risen in the last three decades, that increase has been achieved through captive breeding, monitoring and veterinary care, the study found. Meanwhile, the primary threat to the endangered bird — lead poisoning from bullets and shotgun shells lodged in carrion — has gone largely unmitigated, the study said.
Doak and his fellow researchers found no evidence that California’s 2008 partial ban on lead ammunition yielded any decrease in lead exposure and poisoning in condors.
Since 2007, Doak has served as a professor of zoology and physiology at the University of Wyoming. Previously, he was a faculty member at the University of California, Santa Cruz. His research has been funded by the National Science Foundation, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Forest Service, California Department of Fish and Game and the U.S. Bureau of Land Management. Scholarly papers have cited his work more than 3,000 times since 1998.
Doak said he was drawn to CU-Boulder’s Environmental Studies Program because of its breadth, spanning disciplines ranging from biogeochemistry to political science to philosophy. This interdisciplinary focus is necessary to confront some of the world’s most intractable problems, Doak and Collinge said.
“That’s the only way we can really address and resolve some of the major environmental challenges that we face,” Collinge said.
Working with experts from a wide range of disciplines, Doak added, provides a motivation and opportunity “not once a year but every day to confront your own ignorance and thus to appreciate and learn new ideas and approaches.”
It is not that interdisciplinary work is always best, he added. “We need to train ourselves and our students to determine when the problem we are confronting requires an interdisciplinary approach. If you want to build a bridge that won’t fall down, you don’t need an interdisciplinary team. You need a good engineer.”
The critical question, he said, is the following: “Is this problem a nail that requires a hammer, or is this a problem that requires a lot of tools? And most environmental problems require an entire chest of tools and the different people who know how to use them.”
Collinge said students sometimes grasp this distinction better than professors do. “Students who are interested in the environment understand very deeply that they have to know something about politics and policies and how we make choices and why we make choices,” she said. “They’ve essentially pushed us, encouraged us to provide that broad and deep training for them.”
Of the donor’s gift, Collinge said, “This was incredibly generous. And we are really grateful.
“For me, it validates or speaks to the importance of what we’re doing,” she said. “With more than 1,000 undergraduate majors in environmental studies and 50 graduate students, enthusiasm was abundant even before the gift that enabled the endowed chair.”
CU’s biotechnology building earns LEED platinum rating
Oct 1st
Oct. 1, 2012
The University of Colorado Boulder’s Jennie Smoly Caruthers Biotechnology building has received a Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design, or LEED, platinum rating — the highest possible evaluation — from the United States Green Building Council.
The 336,800-square-foot research and teaching facility opened in April on the university’s east campus. More than 60 faculty and 500 researchers, staff and students work inside, tackling a wide swath of challenges from cancer and heart disease to the development of new biofuels. LEED certification is a national benchmark for sustainable design, construction, operation and maintenance.
The building posed intense energy and water needs as well as complex safety requirements. “Earning a LEED platinum rating for such a large research building highlights the engineering challenges of providing safe and practical research space while ensuring the highest level of sustainability,” said Moe Tabrizi, director of campus sustainability.
The result is a building that is 30 percent more energy and water efficient than recently built buildings with a similar function. One tactic used by designers was to group labs with similar functions near each other in the building to centralize common lab equipment and maximize the efficiency of energy use, ventilation and heat recovery. The building’s mechanical and electrical systems incorporate significant energy savings and resource recovery.
The facility will have an array of large-scale, ground-mounted solar panels to help fulfill its energy needs. It also features evaporative cooling, which is the most energy-efficient cooling method in Colorado’s dry climate; daylight harvesting, lighting controls and LED technology; energy-efficient freezer compressors and lab exhaust fume hoods; low-flow plumbing and additional features.
The new building, which is prominent when accessing campus from Colorado Avenue and Foothills Parkway, also matches CU-Boulder’s distinct architectural look.
“This project demonstrates that we can achieve a high-performing, technically complex facility that blends our Tuscan Vernacular — or rural Italian — style with the demands of cutting-edge, 21st century world-class research,” said Paul Leef, campus architect.
The design team and campus engineers undertook a meticulous engineering process that combined best practices in green building, LEED requirements, and recommendations from Labs21, a program of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Department of Energy that is dedicated to improving the environmental performance of laboratories.
CU-Boulder is a sustainability leader in higher education. The campus currently has five LEED platinum rated buildings, eight gold rated buildings and one silver. The university is committed to earning gold ratings or higher for all new construction and renovations on campus.
CU -R U an explanation “foe” or “fiend” when shopping?
Sep 19th
Consumers differ in desire for explanation,
says new CU-Brown University study
says new CU-Brown University study
The depth of explanation about novel products influences consumer preferences and willingness to pay, according to a study led by the University of Colorado Boulder and Brown University.
When it comes to descriptions about the functions of new and unusual goods — such as a self-watering plant system, special gloves for touchscreens or an eraser for wall scratches — some people prefer minimal details. Dubbed “explanation foes” in the study, they gain a strong sense of understanding and desire for products through shallow explanations.
In contrast, other people — dubbed “explanation fiends” in the study — derive desire for products from deep and detailed explanations.
“There are these two different types of consumers,” said lead author Phil Fernbach, assistant professor of marketing at CU-Boulder’s Leeds School of Business. “On these two sides, consumers differ in the amount of detail that makes them feel like they understand and — because of that feeling of understanding — the amount of detail that will make them prefer a 
product.”
A paper on the subject was published online today in the Journal of Consumer Research.
Researchers say the study results can help consumers make better decisions.
“We’re not making a value judgment on whether it’s better to be an ‘explanation foe’ or ‘fiend,’ ” said Fernbach. “You don’t have to want to know how stuff works, but make sure that your intuition about whether you understand a product is based on objective information and not just a feeling.”
In one part of the study, participants were given varying explanations of a new tinted food wrapper product. “Explanation foes” highly rated their understanding and preference for the item when they read a simple description of how its “white coloring protects food from light that causes it to spoil, thereby keeping food fresh for longer.”
“Explanation fiends” highly rated their understanding and preference for the food wrapper when they read a more detailed description of how “atoms in the tinting agent oscillate when hit by light waves causing them to absorb the energy and reflect it back rather than reaching food, where it would break the bonds holding amino acids together, thereby keeping food fresh for longer.”
The study also found that “explanation foes,” who are more common, tend to have an inflated sense of understanding about novel products. Their heightened perception disappears and their willingness to pay decreases when they attempt to explain how a product works.
Conversely, “explanation fiends” tend to have a more conservative sense of understanding about novel products. For them, attempting to explain how a product works does not have a negative effect on their sense of understanding and their opinion of the product stays the same or increases, according to the study.
Attitudes toward explanation were predicted by a cognitive reflection test that measures how much people naturally engage in deliberative thinking. Each test question elicits an intuitive but incorrect answer and participants who impulsively respond tend to err. These participants are the “explanation foes” who prefer less explanation.
In contrast, those who inhibit their initial responses to the cognitive reflection test and think more deeply tend to correctly answer. These participants are the “explanation fiends” who prefer more in-depth descriptions.
While the study can help consumers with better decision-making, it also yields advice for marketers.
“Marketers should target these different consumer groups with different types of explanations,” said Steven Sloman, a study co-author and professor of cognitive, linguistic and psychological sciences at Brown University.
Robert St. Louis and Julia Shube also were co-authors of the study. They were undergraduate students at Brown during the research. Unilever, a consumer goods company, supported the study.
